In this episode I talk about an article I’ve written (in English) in response to The Sunday Times’ remark that seems to condone, approve and trivialise Prince Philip’s racist “gaffes”. 

哈喽,大家好,我是Kaycee。

上周,英国《星期日泰晤士报》发表了一个头版新闻,为了纪念已故的菲利普亲王。不幸的是,因为报道这篇新闻的首席驻地记者写了一句非常具有争议性的这样一句话,就把公众的注意力从对菲利普亲王的哀悼转移到了对亚洲人的种族歧视上。

Christina Lamb 在关于菲利普亲王的封面故事的第三段中写道:”菲利普亲王是英国历史上任职时间最长的王室成员–他常常是个老顽固的形象,用狭长的眼睛这样的口误冒犯他人,即便在暗地里我们还是相当喜欢这些口误的。“

“狭长的眼睛 “是指1986年的一个事件,当时菲利普亲王对一个在中国学习的英国学生说了了蛮有争议的这样一句话,他说:”如果你在这里待久了,你会带着狭长的眼睛回家的。”

菲利普亲王在1986年说的这一句话,我相信大家都同意,是有种族歧视的含义的。但是过去那么久了,也不必刻意的去追究这句话。相反,正是Christina Lamb在2021年说到的“即便在暗地里我们还是相当喜欢这些口误的”这句话,怎么读都让人感觉不舒服。我对于这句话,以及《星期日泰晤士报》其他员工(包括其总编辑)的回应,进行了一些语言分析,也提出了一些问题和顾虑。已经发表在我的网站上了,在Blog那一栏下面。因为是分析英国报纸用英文写的新闻,我就直接用英语分析了。在这儿就不重新都翻译一遍了,就高度概括一下我写的内容吧。

首先,先说一下我写这篇文章的意图吧。

我写这篇文章的主要目的是想试图促进新闻界的问责制度,也让大家可以从一个批判性的思维方式来看这一事件。

那就简要的说一下我的一些困惑吧:

  • Christina Lamb能写出这样的话,Emma Tucker,作为编辑,对这篇新闻文章的认可,以及《星期日泰晤士报》的其他员工试图淡化种族歧视的言论,这一切是否表明英国社会仍然存在制度性、结构性和系统性的种族主义呢?
  • Christina Lamb所提到的暗中喜欢这些口误的 “我们 “,到底是谁?
  • 暗中享受这些 口误难道不是在某种程度上对这些口误的认可吗?Christina Lamb把这种暗中喜欢带到台面上来,不就成了一种公开的认可了吗?
  • 《星期日泰晤士报》表示他们原来的意图并不是对这个言论的认可,那他们是否是在暗示有可能认可菲利普亲王在种族和社会经济方面的其他所谓的口误呢?
  • 《星期日泰晤士报》的回应中是否有指责受害者的成分?
  • 《星期日泰晤士报》,特别是Christina Lamb,是否是在表演反歧视的观点而并没有言行一致?

我试图用了一个问问题的方式来激发读者批判性的思维,而不只是一个劲儿的传播我自己的想法。

但是如果你问我:制度性、结构性和系统性的种族主义存在吗?我可以很肯定的告诉你,以我自己的亲生经历而言,我认为是存在的。从小到大,从我10岁,能听懂英文的时候开始,走在路上就有人冲着我喊各种歧视的口号或语言,那些chinky什么的话,不同版本的东西,都听过很多很多遍了,已经麻木了。

在英国,我感受到的是:一方面表示很欢迎移民、很欢迎外来人口,另一方面又总是有很多的间接性的歧视和偏见。就像这个新闻,她完全可以写成:”菲利普亲王是英国历史上任职时间最长的王室成员–他常常是个老顽固的形象,也时常出现口误的情况,但即便如此我们还是很欣赏、很尊重菲利普亲王。“ 但不,她非要举“狭长的眼睛“这个例子,还要补充一句她和其他人在暗地里都还“相当喜欢这些口误“。为什么呢?是吧?

不同的人都有自己的特点(包括长相,包括口音)所以为什么不能多一些包容和接受,少一些偏见、歧视和无聊的评论呢?

如果大家喜欢这篇英文文章,欢迎大家分享给周围的朋友或家人。当然,也欢迎大家表达自己的想法。

那好,那我们下期见。

Last week, British newspaper “The Sunday Times” published a front-page cover story to commemorate the late Prince Philip. Unfortunately, one sentence from the chief foreign correspondent covering the story has since distracted public attention from mourning for Prince Philip and towards racism against Asians.

Christina Lamb wrote, in the third paragraph of the cover story on Prince Philip, that “Prince Philip was the longest-serving royal consort in British history – an often crotchety figure, offending people with gaffes about slitty eyes, even if secretly we rather enjoyed them.” 

“Slitty eyes” was in reference to an incident in 1986 in which Prince Philip made the controversial comment to a British student studying in China saying, “If you stay here much longer, you’ll go home with slitty eyes.” (MyLondon).

It also comes at an unfortunate time in the sense that it seems to directly contradict certain aspects of the recent report from the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities (the Report), which significantly downplayed the impact of institutional racism in the UK. If there is any sign that institutional racism still exists, it is Christina Lamb’s authorship of the article, Emma Tucker (the editor)’s approval of the article and other employees of the Sunday Times that have tried to downplay the racist remark.

In this post, I wanted to express some of my concerns and questions, in an attempt to seek more accountability from the news industry in the future.

Executive summary of my questions:

  • Is Christina Lamb’s news story, along with Stephen Bleach’s response to a complaint and Emma Tucker’s statement, a sign that institutional, structural and systemic racism still exist in British society?
  • Who’s this “we” that secretly enjoyed the “gaffes”?
  • Is secret enjoyment of these “gaffes” not approval of these “gaffes” on some level? For Christina Lamb to bring this secret enjoyment to the surface, does that not become an open approval? 
  • The Sunday Times expressed that they didn’t want to suggest approval for that “particular remark”, are they implying that they may approve of Prince Philip’s other racially and socio-economically questionable “gaffes”? 
  • Is there an element of victim blaming in the Sunday Times’ responses?
  • Is there an element of performative anti-discrimination displayed by the Sunday Times and, specifically, Christina Lamb?

Breaking down language used in Christina Lamb’s original news article

Prince Philip’s initial comment aside, who’s this “we” that Christina Lamb referenced that secretly enjoyed these “gaffes”? It can’t be the entire UK or any country within the UK because one assumes that most, if not all, of the 393,141 people of Chinese ethnicity living in the UK (as at 2011) did not enjoy that particular comment made by Prince Philip. 

The “gaffes” that Christina Lamb mentioned also include other incidents, for example:

  • In 2003, when Prince Philip said to the President of Nigeria, who was in national dress: “You look like you’re ready for bed!” (MyLondon); and
  • When Prince Philip once asked a Romford schoolboy if he could write – despite the fact that he’d written a letter to the Queen and successfully invited her to visit the East London town (MyLondon).

One assumes the royal “we” (no puns intended) also do not include people of other ethnic minority or socio-economic backgrounds that may have found Prince Philip’s other “gaffes” offensive.  

So who’s this “we” that Christina Lamb is referring to? The 100% of racists (white or otherwise) that the Sunday Times deem to be their target audience? Is that how the Sunday Times want to market themselves?

Breaking down language used in Stephen Bleach’s response to a complaint

When people complained to the Sunday Times, one of the responses received was from Stephen Bleach, the Letters Editor.

Stephen Bleach wrote: “Thanks for getting in touch. The intention here was to reflect the affection in which Prince Philip was held by so many, despite his imperfections; it was absolutely not intended to suggest approval for that particular remark, and we very much regret that some readers have taken it as doing so. The phrase was removed from our digital edition but regrettably it was too late to remove it from the print edition.

I have made the senior editors aware of your comments. Their decisions are informed by the feedback we receive, so we’re grateful to you for raising this and will take your point on board when preparing future editions.”

Let’s have a look at the language used here, shall we? Or, rather, the lack thereof. Specifically, the lack of an apology. 

Stephen Bleach speaks of intention. The intention of whether something is offensive can be measured in the meaning of the language itself or the context in which it is used. 

Turning to the juxtaposition and the use of language itself first. If this suggested target group of “we” secretly enjoyed the supposed “gaffes”, is that not expressing approval on a ‘guilty pleasure’ level? Now that Christina Lamb has brought this secret enjoyment to the surface to be openly acknowledged, doesn’t that now become an open approval? And giving the Sunday Times the benefit of the doubt that they didn’t want to suggest approval for that “particular remark”, are they implying that they may approve of Prince Philip’s other “gaffes”, such as the ones said to the Nigerian president or the Romford schoolboy? 

Contextualism, on the other hand, is often used by those seeking to defend themselves, claiming they thought it was ‘funny’ or that they ‘didn’t mean it that way’. Stephen Bleach tried to appeal to this view when he claimed that the intention was to reflect the affection for Prince Philip and not the approval of that “particular remark”. He abdicates responsibility further by claiming it is some of the readers who had misunderstood this context, for which he “regrets”. Is there a subtle shift of blame onto the readers who have felt offended by Christina Lamb’s word choices? 

If a large number of people have felt that what Christina Lamb wrote is offensive (currently at over 60,000 on a relevant change.org petition), we cannot continue to whitewash (no puns intended) an unpleasant display of racism. 

If we really did not intend to condone or make light of his remarks, stopping at “offending people with gaffes” would honestly have been fine.

Breaking down language used in Emma Tucker’s statement

The editor, Emma Tucker, appealed to “personalism” within the contextualist ideology when she said that “Christina Lamb has spent her whole career reporting on discrimination and injustices against people in every part of the world and never intended to make light of his remark in any way.” (the Guardian). 

Personalism is the idea that beliefs, intentions, and qualities of a speaker are central to what gives words their meaning. According to Emma Tucker, Christina Lamb’s past reporting on discrimination and injustice against people seems to mean that she can’t possibly have meant what she decided to write. If that’s the case, there might be a bigger problem. 

How did someone who spent much of her career exposing discrimination and injustice end up writing something so controversial, if not distasteful? After all, she did deliberately choose to comment on Prince Philip’s “gaffes”, specifically identifying the incident regarding “slitty eyes”, and revealing that she and other people have secretly “rather enjoyed them”. How did she not recognise that the sentence she had drafted could be offensive? How could she report on discrimination and, at the same time, secretly find discrimination enjoyable? 

Is this performative allyship or is there a larger force at play here? Namely, institutional, structural and systemic racism (according to the definitions given in the Report) that’s distorting her judgment. 

If certain of our journalists and news editors, whose job is to use words to tell stories, cannot tell when certain words placed in a certain way can cause offense, is that good enough a reason to lose faith in those journalists and editors? 

Is that good enough a reason to believe that institutional, structural and systemic racism is still so ingrained in our society that even some of our journalists and editors cannot recognise, until pointed out to them, that the phrases they have chosen can be offensive? 

Is that good enough a reason to believe that more education is needed to eradicate such racism?

I should think so. 

As a society, I hope we can all recognise and have the courage to point it out when something is discriminatory (whether verbal or non-verbal, directly or indirectly). Only by speaking up can we slowly break the vicious cycle of institutional, structural and systemic racism that very much still exist in our modern society.

Finally, my thoughts are with the Queen and her family for their recent loss. Prince Philip, may he rest in peace.

Note:

∆ For the avoidance of doubt, “our” here is from a British national making a reference to people or situations in Great Britain.

Whilst you’re here, if you are a British national or British resident, please consider signing the petition calling for the UK government to fund additional support for victims of COVID-19 racism and anti-racism programmes.

Who do you think is China’s first female emperor? What if I told you there are actually three contenders? Let’s have a look. 👑

Buy Me Coffee code: buymeacoff.ee/kaycee

哈喽,大家好,我是Kaycee。

最近好像有一波新朋友,欢迎大家,希望大家喜欢这些内容也欢迎大家分享给周围的朋友。时不时的也有人想以金钱的方式支持我,我一直都在回绝, 毕竟之前是有工作的么。但是,很诚实的告诉大家,靠广告挣钱真的不容易,每个月平均也就£15左右吧,所以如果大家想要支持我的话,可以用Buy Me Coffee 这个平台。链接(buymeacoff.ee/kaycee)我会放在下面和我的网站上。目前Buy Me Coffee 的平台还不能分享音频,但是他们在筹备中,一旦可以了,如果效果不错的话,我以后也会在平台上分享没有广告版本的音频或者其他内容。那好,那我们就进入这一期的内容吧。

如果有人问你:中国的第一位女皇帝是谁?

大部分人肯定会回答:武则天。

但是,除了武则天以外,其实还有两个其他候选人。元姑娘和陈硕真。为什么这么说呢?我们回顾一下历史吧。我们就从元姑娘开始吧。

元姑娘:史上唯一一个女扮男装的皇帝,即位当天便被废除。

怎么回事儿呢?发生了什么?这个剧情还是很有戏剧性的,但是必须得从她的祖母开始,也就是胡太后。

据说啊,这个胡太后是个心狠手辣,淫乱放荡的女人。 本来她的儿子是当时的皇帝,也就是孝明帝,但是因为继位的时候年纪太小,胡太后就临朝称制。随着孝明帝日渐长大,胡太后不想放权归政。朝臣们,包括孝明帝,对胡太后的执政和私生活都很不满。母子关系本来就不好,在孝明帝把与胡太后私通的情人处死后,胡太后对儿子更是恨之入骨,母子之间的裂痕越来越深。

公元528年2月12日,孝明帝之妃潘滨生了一个女孩,就是元姑娘。胡太后假称潘妃生的是男孩,然后找了机会将其立为太子。

公元528年3月31日,胡太后将孝明帝毒死。

公元528年4月1日,孝明帝死了,身为“太子”的元姑娘顺理成章的继位了。

所以,虽然整个故事的前前后后都是一场闹剧,但是元姑娘其实是第一个登上皇帝宝座的女性。有很多学者建议将武则天的身份从“中国历史上唯一的女皇帝”修改为“中国历史上有作为的女皇帝”。

怎么样?元姑娘还有资格当第一位女皇帝吧?我们再来看看第二个竞争者。

陈硕真:第一位称帝的女皇帝

公元653年,陈硕真领导了一场大规模的农民起义。

背景是这样的:陈硕真生活在浙江一个物产十分丰富的地区,因此,朝廷在这儿征收的赋税也很多。即便发生了洪灾,村民们流离失所,连粮食都不够,朝廷依然照样征收各种赋税。陈硕真偷偷打开东家的粮仓救济灾民,结果被东家发现,捆绑起来,打得遍体鳞伤。众多乡亲自己组织起来,把陈硕真救了出来。陈硕真逃入三县交界处的覆船山,养伤。

在养伤期间,陈硕真觉得只有推翻朝廷,才能让大家过上好日子。陈硕真决定利用道教和秘密宗教(也就是当时正往南方渗透的摩尼教)来发展信众。她先是散布一些消息,说自己在深山遇到了太上老君,并被收为弟子,创立火凤社,称自己是九天玄女下凡,号称赤天圣母,并向大家展示她所学到的种种法术,因为乡民希望她成仙后能更多的为民造福,对陈硕真的说法深信不疑。

公元653年,陈硕真正式宣布起义,她仿照唐朝官制建立了政权,也称自己是“文佳皇帝”。起兵不久后就全军覆没了。毕竟她手下的人。虽然人数多但是没有经历过训练,没有打仗的经验。

所以呢,陈硕真是中国史上女性自称皇帝的第一人。有一些历史学家认为陈硕真才是中国第一个女皇帝。

然后就是武则天了:第一位正统女皇帝

武则天的故事太长了,我就压缩成几句话吧,给大家省点时间。

武则天起初是唐太宗李世民的才人,但并没有得到李世民的宠爱,做了十二年的才人。在李世民病重期间,武则天和太子李治建立了感情。

李治继承皇位之后,再次将武则天纳入宫中。武则天深受李治宠爱。李治风疾发作,头晕目眩,不能处理国家大事,就让武则天处理朝政。之后,立武则天为皇后。

李治驾崩后,李显继位,因为一些冲突,武则天将李显废黜为庐陵王,并立李旦为帝。武则天仍然临朝称制。

686年,武则天提议还政于李旦,但李旦知其实武则天并不愿意还政,所以便拒绝了。于是呢,武则天继续临朝称制,前后执政近半个世纪。

那好,元姑娘、陈硕真和武则天的故事大概都讲了一遍。很明显,这三个人都有资格,所以大家认为谁才是真正的第一位女皇帝呢?

如果大家想分享想法的话呢,还是一样,可以在网站上或者是Instagram上分享一些想法。那好,这一期我们就先到这儿,我们下期见。

In this episode, I briefly summarise the Xinjiang cotton issue and read a couple of news articles from China and a couple from the West to see how the issue was covered from different perspectives. 

哈喽,大家好,我是Kaycee。

最近看到了很多关于新疆棉花事件的报道。我先客观的介绍一下这个事件吧,然后我们来看看中国媒体和西方媒体的报道。我个人认为啊,媒体背后多多少少是有它们的政治立场的,从我近几年看到的新闻而言,我已经不相信新闻是中立的了。很多西方媒体公司自己是承认自己偏左或偏右,但是即便是个别企业称自己是中立的,仔细读下来的话其实并不然。中国媒体当然,大家也清楚。所以我总爱说的一句话是:the truth is somewhere in the middle。人间真真假假,各方媒体新闻内容肯定也是有煽情的部分,选择报道的角度也是考虑后决定的所以嗯,最好还是不要一切都盲目相信。

哦,对了,上一期的答案,我会在这一期结束的时候分享。

好,那新疆棉花事件到底是怎么回事呢?

据说,有人发掘一份文件,这份文件展示了采棉产业背后潜在的强迫劳动规模。

中国是世界最大棉花消费国、第二大棉花生产国。新疆是中国大陆棉花的主要产地,截至2020年,当地棉花产量已经占到中国全国产量的87%,世界棉花产量的20%。

2020年3月下旬,Better Cotton Initiative 良好棉花发展协会(BCI)宣布在即将到来的棉花季暂停在新疆地区的工作,暂停在新疆发放良好的棉花许可证,原因是持续存在关于该地区强迫劳动的报道和指控,10月21日,BCI决定停止在新疆的所有实地活动.

2020年9月16日,H&M宣布终止与中国大陆一间纱线供应商的关系,原因是该厂产品涉嫌用新疆少数族裔「强迫劳动」生产。在发布的声明中,H&M表示该公司对“新疆维吾尔自治区的强迫劳动和歧视少数民族”的相关报道“深表关切”,强调“不与位于新疆的任何服装制造工厂合作,也不从该地区采购产品或原材料”。

2020年12月17日,英国广播公司(BBC)以标题为《新疆采棉工:新证据揭露时尚产业背后的强迫劳动》一篇报道,展现了有几十万维吾尔族及其他人群在新疆有艰苦的体力劳动现象,而在围墙及铁丝网内的新疆再教育营设有几十家工厂和营地,形成一个大型工厂综合体。”

2021年3月22日,欧盟,英国,美国和加拿大宣布就新疆维吾尔族问题对中华人民共和国官员实施制裁,这是自1989年天安门事件欧盟对中国的首次制裁。英国,美国及加拿大随后发表联合声明指责中国当局在新疆侵犯法定证据确凿;欧洲【注:口误,应该是澳洲】及新西兰同日发表联合声明支持欧盟,加拿大,英国和美国采取了制裁措施。

有观点认为,H&M在2020年9月发布声明时没有被批评,是因中国政府不想影响当时的中欧全面投资协定谈判。然而,2021年3月份,这个新闻在中国爆发之后,中国很多明星和企业纷纷公布拒绝与H&M合作。

  • 原H&M大中华区代言人艺人宋茜、黄轩的工作室,表示已终止了与H&M的合作。
  • 淘宝、京东、拼多多等中国大陆地区的电商平台屏蔽了H&M的商店和相关商品
  • 百度地图、高德地图屏蔽“H&M”或“HM”,中国大陆多个Android应用市场将HM商城App下架。
  • 成都大悦城将H&M商标摘下,另外新疆乌鲁木齐汇嘉时代百货对H&M门店采取关店措施并发表声明,要求H&M对新疆人民道歉
  • 2021年3月31日,H&M首席执行官透露目前在中国已有20间门市关闭
  • 其他受牵连的品牌包括耐克、Zara、阿迪达斯、等200多个品牌。

中国要是行动起来,还是很快的。当然这跟中国政治结构和文化脱不了关系,政治之外,东方文化还是一个集体文化嘛,西方则是独立文化。

中西方新闻是如何阐述这个事件的?

我们看看两份中国报道和两份西方报道吧。我就直接从网页上念了哈

新华网(2月28日)写到

“近期,H&M、耐克等一些国外品牌公司声称新疆存在“强迫劳动”问题,拒绝使用新疆棉花产品的声明引起了全球舆论(Yúlùn)关注。而前段时间,记者也接到一些新疆棉企负责人的反映,说去年以来,已经签好的棉产品出口订单突然间全部被取消,企业经营出现了一定问题。除了工人们担心自己会失去工作,就连棉农也开始担心,自己种植的棉花会不会受到影响。那么,好好运营的企业为什么会突然面临如此的困境?“

他们之后对几个新疆棉花种植户进行了采访,种植户说:

“现在一亩地(产量)400公斤到450公斤,多劳动多挣钱就是,现在(养了)七八十个羊,二十个牛,现在羊圈里面,生活好得很现在。“

“我们平时上八个小时班,休息十六个小时,中间有两个小时午休时间,我们夫妻俩一个月的工资是九千元左右,我们的公司没有所谓的“强迫劳动”,我来公司后也没听过没见过这样的事。“

新疆国欣种业有限公司总经理:纯属都胡说八道,有强迫劳动吗?民族同志在我们这干得非常好,一个月有五千块钱的工资,而且我们这提供食宿,提供吃住,每天工作八个小时。我不知道他说这个话的目的是看到了还是听到了,还是胡言乱语,说这个话是不是有什么目的。今年招聘的时候,本来应该是八十多个人,来了将近一百六七十个人。我们要是强迫劳动,会来这么多人吗,会这么积极吗?

新华网继续写到:“瑞士良好棉花发展协会为什么会得出这样的结论?还要从近几年一些西方媒体炮制的谎言说起。” 之后新华网列出了这些打引号的谎言。

最后,新华网总结:“事实证明,所谓新疆“强迫劳动”的说法是彻头彻尾的世纪谎言,是美西方个别政客、非政府组织、媒体沆瀣(Hàngxiè)一气炮制的丑恶闹剧。他们表面上关心的是人权问题,实际却是打着人权的幌子反人权,企图剥夺新疆棉农和最普通劳动者的利益。他们以“强迫劳动”为由限制新疆产品出口,打压中国企业、破坏新疆稳定、抹黑中国治疆政策,甚至对中国内政粗暴干涉。中方对此坚决反对,也将继续采取一切必要举措,维护中国企业和劳动者的合法权益。“

http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2021-03/28/c_1127263687.htm

网易(3月25日),关于BCI(Better Cotton Initiative) 说:

“实际上它在2005年创立之初,创始人就包括了H&M、Adidas、IKEA、GAP等几家大公司。有分析就指出,这正是BCI这类环保认证组织最讽刺的地方:一方面宣称设立目的是监督大公司、督促大公司更环保;但另一方面却引入大公司作为会员,以供自己发展。这是又当裁判员,又当运动员的典型案例。“

“事实上,早就有调查记者制作纪录片对BCI的专业性提出质疑和批评了。法国的一部纪录片指出,在孟加拉国,有关企业不光使用童工在恶劣的条件下生产棉花,甚至还向调查记者坦承他们很多棉花更是从未经认证的乌兹别克斯坦方进口的。但因为他们向BCI缴纳了会费,BCI仍然会给他们的产品打上认证标志。“

“而BCI的背后金主,实际上是美国国际开发署(USAID)。美国国际开发署是一个按照美国国务院制定的外交政策、承担美国大部分对外非军事援助的联邦机构,可以说是美国对国外的“利益输送”组织,对美国的外交有着举足轻重的影响。表面上是BCI挑事,实际上是BCI受美国指使,通过打压新疆棉花,来打压中国。“

“而经济角度的原因,也有迹可循。有分析指出,中国在棉花领域已取代了美国的国际定价权,这让美国感到焦虑。“

https://www.163.com/dy/article/G5VIIBGH0514FGV8.html

然后我们看看西方新闻。我就直接用英语读了。

BBC(25 March):

“China likes to use its trading might and retail nationalism to pressure governments and multinationals – both at the same time preferably – to keep them quiet about its abuses.”

“Uighurs have been detained at camps where allegations of torture, forced labour and sexual abuse have emerged. China has denied these claims saying the camps are “re-education” facilities aimed at lifting Uighurs out of poverty”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-56519411

The Economist (27 March):

“FOR MORE than a year some big foreign apparel and technology companies have been walking a fine line on the human-rights abuses committed by China against Uyghurs”

“China’s government, increasingly keen to punish critics of their Xinjiang policies, is forcing foreign companies to make a choice they have been studiously trying to avoid: support China or get out of the Chinese market.”

“This time the campaign looks like part of a broader, more enduring counterattack against critics of the government’s policies in Xinjiang, where it incarcerated more than 1m Uyghurs in a gulag for their religious and cultural beliefs”

“Britain, Canada and the EU had previously joined America in sanctions on senior officials in Xinjiang, implicated in what the American government has called “crimes against humanity” and “genocide”.”

“Instead, it is Chinese authorities who are doing the bullying. On March 24th the Communist Youth League, a party affiliate, whipped up a nationalist online boycott of H&M, digging up a months-old statement on the Swedish garment-maker’s corporate website expressing concerns about reports of forced labour in Xinjiang.”

“For Western companies in China both paths, the principled and the pliant, carry risks. But so does the Communist Party’s nationalist indignation. If it does end up causing foreign firms to leave the Chinese market and reduce their dependence on Chinese supply chains, that could itself irritate many Chinese shoppers and hurt millions of Chinese workers. It would also give Western businesses more freedom to do something the party would itself love to avoid: criticise China in the open.”

https://www.economist.com/business/2021/03/27/china-boycotts-western-clothes-brands-over-xinjiang-cotton

中西方媒体用的语言就放这儿了,我也不用分别作出评价了。反正自从我十几岁开始稍微关注新闻的时候就发现,中西方新闻现在越来越是两极化的了。背后的问题也是极其复杂的,涉及到了政治、文化、经济、商业,各种方面。我觉得涉及到的国家都有自己的对错所在,也有很多灰色地带。反正我意见就是:the truth is somewhere in the middle.

那好,最后我们解答一下上一期的谜语、游戏吧。

从头开始:

  • “世界真不和平,瞧瞧你,去了战场,耳朵都炸飞了。” 这是“羞耻”的“耻”,对“停止”的“止”说的,因为“耻”是“止”加上一个耳字旁嘛,那耳朵炸飞了,就剩下“停止”的“止”了。
  • “不错啊,学会倒立了。” 这句话呢,是“自由”的“由”对“甲乙方”的“甲”所说的,因为“甲”正好是“自由”的“由”反过来的一个字嘛?
  • “你总算学会说话了,可为什么说的全都不对啊?”就是“吴”,姓氏的“吴”对“错误”的“误”所说的,因为它是言字旁,代表着说话,但是“错误”的“误”它本身和错误加起来就是错误,不对的意思。
  • “你啥时候把牙拔了?”就是“乌鸦”的“鸦”对“鸟”说的,因为“乌鸦”的“鸦”把它的牙字旁去掉,就只剩下鸟这个字了嘛。

所以这些是我觉得挺有趣的。

那好,我们到下一个环节。就是除了用“弄”这个字可以用什么其他的词语来代表吗?

  • “这个锅有点儿脏,你赶紧弄干净。”你可以说:“这个锅有点儿脏,你赶紧清洁干净”,或者“这个锅有点儿脏,你赶紧洗干净”,又或者“这个锅有点儿脏,你赶紧擦干净”。都可以。
  • “头发分叉了,下午去理发店弄一下。”:“头发分叉了,下午去理发店剪一下。”“头发分叉了,下午去理发店修一下。”
  • “电脑蓝屏了,弄了好久也没弄好。”:可以变成:“电脑蓝屏了,修了好久也没修好。“
  • “今天在家大扫除,弄一身灰。“: ”今天在家大扫除,扫一身灰。“或者更口语化的一个是:”今天在家大扫除整一身灰。“ 也可以哈。
  • ”心情有点不好,别惹我,不然弄你。“可以变成:”心情有点儿不好,别惹我,不然打你。“ ”心情有点不好,别惹我,不然骂你“之类的。都是有点粗暴。

还有最后那个“下雨天留客天留我不留“那句话。说有5个断句的方式嘛?我们可以来感受一下是不是从我说的,大家就能判断出这5种断句的方式。不然的话可以上我的网站上看一看,看一看标点符号放在了哪里。

  • 那好,第一个就是:“下雨,天留客;天留,我不留。”
  • 第二个是:“下雨天,留客?天留,我不留。”
  • 第三个是:“下雨天,留客天,留我不留?”
  • 第四个是:“下雨天,留客天,留?我不留!”
  • 第五个是:“下雨天,留客天,留我不?留。”

好,就是这5个哈。

所以,这些谜语和小游戏大家都回答正确了吗?希望大家答对的比答错的更多哈,也许大家觉得这些都是特别简单的,但不管怎样,希望大家在上一期还是有被娱乐到。

那好,那我们下期见。