(ZT)美华裔精英看不起中国新移民，这可怎么办

[New Person]

“百人会”（Committee of 100）会长吴华扬（Frank H. Wu）教授在《赫芬顿邮报》上发表了一篇题为《关于新移民——给美国亚裔活动家的一封私信》的文章，被海外华文媒体解读为批评中国新移民，引起了很大的争论。

“百人会”究竟是什么东东？据资料显示，“百人会”被认为是美国最有影响力的华人组织之一，社团中大约只有150人，但都是由美国业界的华裔精英和成功人士组成，如美国首位华裔州长及前商务部部长骆家辉、雅虎网站创办人杨致远、前谷歌全球副总裁及创新工场创始人李开复、台积电董事长张忠谋、诺贝尔物理奖或化学奖获得者杨振宁、丁肇中、李政道、李远哲等都是该组织成员；文化界精英则包括华人女作家张纯如、导演吴宇森、演员陈冲、刘玉玲等。这么多重量级人物云集的美国老华人社团，其会长出来指责来自中国的新移民，分量很重，听着还真可怕。

怀着对名人敬仰的心情我拜读了吴教授的文章，发现吴教授大约表达了如下几个意思：他们中国新移民素质低拖累了我们的名声、我们尝试教育新移民懂规矩但无法沟通、他们新移民与中国联系紧密所以无法融入美国文化、我们之间除了长相什么都不一样、他们新移民数量太多了，马上要把我们挤兑成小众了，我们的地位要尴尬了，美国主流文化要受冲击了，大家要重视啊。

瞧这一口一个“他们”、“我们”的，既然是新移民，那也已是自己的美国同胞了。把属同一国籍而且还是同民族人民粗暴地分为“他们”和“我们”，不知这位教授生活在美国这么多年，是如何理解美国精神之一的大熔炉理想的？美国连如此精英的人物都没有包容精神，难道美国的大熔炉是真的破产了，只是一碗民族大拼盘（salad bowl）而已？连同民族的人群都不愿包容，吴教授又是怎么做到真正地与白人和黑人们融合呢？

在满篇的“我们”和“他们”之中，隐藏着一个词：“你们”——这就是这篇文章的读者，美国的“主流社会”。“主流社会”读者们像高高在上铁面无私的老爷一样，看着阶下的管家哭诉，“他们这些外来人，长着跟我一样的脸，不守这里的规矩，还很高调地搞自己的圈子，不融入到您的势力圈，与您分庭抗礼，连累我的形象，我可是您势力圈里的人啊，这让我还怎么在您这里混，您可要为我评评理。”

这些让我想起了一个人物——奥斯卡获奖影片《被解救的姜戈》里的黑人老管家。当他看到自由黑人姜戈骑马而来（在当时的社会，黑人没有资格骑马）时表情是这样变化的：

感谢老戏骨萨缪尔在这里奉献的精彩绝伦的演技，让我看到了一个“精英”是如何敌视一个拥有自由身份的同胞。老管家在南方庄园中掌管一切事物，深受主人信任，在黑人同胞之中可谓“人上人”的成功精英。

他是一名黑人，却在蓄奴制中成为受益者，那么他维护蓄奴制甚至表现得比白人更积极也就好理解了。所以当他看到一个黑人居然挺直腰杆骑在马上，先是表现惊讶，之后转惊为怒，并上前与之怒怼，然后在主人面前告状和表达不满。这样类似的情况其实哪里都有，比如在中国，许多支持重男轻女传统的人，自己也是女人。可能吴教授并没有像黑人管家这么不堪，但道理类似，我这里只是打个比方而已。

这篇文章出自老华人社团的领袖，可见不仅很多美国“洋人”无法理解并接受中国的崛起，连融入美国文化的美国老华人们也无法理解。

其实，新移民是中国崛起的缩影和窗口，一些中国人素质低下，那是因为中国崛起得太快，以至于30年前还生活在低收入社会，没有经过良好的现代系统教育的人也变富了，在外就显露出了很多坏习惯，并随着发达的社交媒体坏事传万里；而受过良好教育的年轻一代中国人的素质就要好很多，北京的厕纸事件就说明了这点。

由于人口基数大，低素质的中国人数量绝对值也大，再加上一些人用放大镜审视和主观地扩大偏见，中国新移民就被挂上“素质低”这一标签了。其实如果按比例看，中国人的素质并不是美国各民族里最差的。退一步说，部分中国新移民素质低没错，但这并不是中国文化的问题，而是暂时的经济问题，要怪只能怪中国崛起得太快。而中国崛起得快是坏事吗？至少对中国人来说肯定不是，不知道对吴教授而言是不是。

中国新移民群体（尤其是21世纪出国的中国移民）与老移民相比，确实是有巨大的变化的。老移民因语言不通和没有技术，大多在美国从事苦力和低级劳动，经过几代人的努力拼搏终于培养出了全套西方文化的美国精英，这些精英融入美国社会，成为美国主流社会价值观和体制的受益人。但无论他们如何优秀，他们其实仍是美国体制的被动接受者而不是变革者。而中国新移民以及其身后的中国资本力量强势入驻美国，使得华人以一种崭新的面貌重新进入西方社会：不再像过去那样唯唯诺诺、低声下气地被动接受西方价值观和体制。

中国本土经济和文化的强势使得这些新移民一直都与中国有密切的联系（而不仅仅是吴教授认为的信息技术发达），许多新移民的谋生业务开始仰仗中国的公司和市场，因此中国新移民虽然英语水平很好，但从文化、价值观等方面一直主要受中国影响而不是西方国家，使得新移民们一点都不像西方人。即使他们持有的是西方护照，即使他们有很多西方国家的朋友同事，即使他们对西方规则、法律和文化了如指掌，他们仍然一点都不像西方人。

正如黑人管家无法接受随之而来的解放黑奴运动一样，吴教授也无法接受文化和经济自信的华人同胞，无法接受“身边骑马的黑人”越来越多。只能说吴教授是个保守派，而他的保守心态可能存在于任何旧时代的既得利益者身上。我只希望这样的保守人士真的只有一百来人而已，希望“百人会”并不是所有人都是保守派。

话又说回来，什么才是美国人最爱标榜的所谓“美国精神”？我觉得是自由。美国的所谓主流社会、价值观和文化，其实都是由其成员们自由地从世界各地迁徙而去，自由地住在一起自然而然形成的，很少有人敢跳出来说，这是我们美国的主流文化定式，新来的美国人必须遵守，不得改变。

其实，美国建国至今，其价值观和文化一直在改变，现在新时代的中国移民来了，自然也会有所改变。中国移民将在美国置业安家，将在美国占据重要的经济地位，将在美国参政议政乃至通过政治献金影响美国政治，中美之间规模庞大的贸易和交流将在文化和生活上影响美国。中国强势崛起，一年增长出一个俄罗斯，四年增长出一个日本，给世界带来巨大的变化，那么美国作为开放的国家，自然也会受这种变化的影响。如果美国哪天不变化了，才真的值得爱美国的吴教授担忧，因为这意味着美国闭关锁国，这是美国要落后挨打的先兆。

吴教授们也应该挺直腰杆，改改过去的老观念了，不要总想着被动地“融入”美国社会，华人移民越来越多，华人文化和经济也越来越强势，中美文化的“互相融入”才是最自然的。就好像你以前穷，去朋友家时拿不出什么礼物，现在有点钱了，去朋友家时给朋友带点伴手礼。朋友接受礼物，将礼物摆在自己家里，成为朋友家的一部分，这不是最自然的吗？

如果吴教授们不愿意改自己的老观念，那也没有关系，吴教授们即使伸出手来阻挡也会最终被无情地被历史车轮碾过，正如吴教授所预见的：“If we do not win them over or ally with them, they will overtake us numerically and render us politically irrelevant.”所以，吴教授也应该遵守美国标榜的另一个精神：民主。中国新移民将在数量上远远超过保守派，吴教授们还是少数服从多数吧。

 

[New Person]

吴教授原文:

A Note To Asian-American Activists About New Arrivals

To us, they are very Asian. To them, we are very American. But it need not be “us” versus “them.”
I write to you as my long-time friends, those who have fought not only for civil rights but also to include Asian Americans in all progressive causes. I know from working alongside you that it has not been easy to persuade African Americans, Latinos, Jews and others who have been dedicated to social justice that their principles extend to Asian immigrants and their American-born children and grandchildren. Some have been skeptical, others hostile.

Yet I send you a note now to express a different concern. It is as sensitive if not more so, but it also is even more serious a potential barrier to your bridge-building efforts. It could signal the end of the project altogether.

Here it is. The most recent set of newcomers from Asia, in particular those arriving from China, do not share our commitments. I implore you to reach out, to listen to them respectfully and to try to persuade them. That requires that you — and I — not assume they need educating by us, as if we were self-appointed teachers, they permanently students. They will have none of that. They have experienced it enough.

Everywhere I encounter them, whether in suburban Southern California; the “Avenues” of western San Francisco; Silicon Valley; on the East Coast; or in communities that have developed seemingly overnight where there once were virtually no Asian faces to be seen, they complain. They are frustrated. I am familiar with the source of that sentiment: the literal historic exclusion and the tangible ongoing denial of equality.

But here is what worries me. While I have hesitated to call out the problem, waiting makes it worse. They seem to be as angry about Asian Americans, those who call themselves by that name and who are more assimilated, as they are about whites and blacks. They tell me so.

We do not represent them. We are not sympathetic to them. We have betrayed them. We cannot even communicate in the language they deem ours. One of the common words for “Mandarin” in Mandarin itself translates as “the national language” ― though I am advised they’d prefer a dialect such as Toisan in any event.

The greatest ironies are always in the mirror image. To us, they are very Asian. To them, we are very American. We are not quite one another’s people. Waiting for the kids to grow up won’t work. (Yes, more than one of you has said that, only partly in jest.)

The truth is we are different. They come from an ascendent Asia. They can continue to maintain contacts with “the homeland,” thanks to technology. They identify, as our forebears did, not as “Asian” but by their ethnicity, clan, province, religion and circumstances. They are American on their own terms.

We are as foreign to them as they are to us, despite others telling us we all look alike. And they are aware of our condescension, even if we would deny it. As with other groups of every color and creed, those who settled, if only slightly earlier, invariably imply they are better than their country cousins. As much as the phrase is appropriated and ironic, even hip, there is a stigma to being “fresh off the boat.” The stereotype is repeated: too much bling, not enough lining up in an orderly manner; nose-picking, spitting, bad driving, passive-aggressive conduct and, let us hope, at least no dog-eating.

You have explained to me privately your concerns, with which I do not disagree. Some of our cousins, distant kin who have shown up here, are alarming. They are bigots who do not care about democracy. They believe themselves to be better than other people of color ― it hardly is worth pointing out since it is so obvious. They even suppose, not all that secretly, that they will surpass whites. They also might be corrupt albeit by our standards. There is no telling.

They are only starting to assert themselves. They do not claim disadvantage. Just the opposite. They attack, as Asians are not stereotyped for doing. On issue after issue, ranging from diversity in higher education to “illegal” immigration, LGBT rights, police brutality, corporal punishment and capital punishment, they are prepared to line up as a token Asian face on the other side of whatever protest you are organizing. Even on the environment, they feel persecuted for their taste for shark fin soup or exotic delicacies involving endangered species. And good for them. Their accent does not hold them back.

I have heard Asian Americans who have urged civic engagement lament that they find themselves surrounded by Asians who will stand up and speak out, albeit for themselves. They will be only more infuriated if you suggest they are pawns being used. They sense your embarrassment. They are self-serving for survival.

Be that as it may, I offer two reasons why we should embrace them. It need not be “us” versus “them,” especially since others cannot distinguish. The first reason is that it is important to sustain coalitions. We fought for a “seat at the table.” It would be wrong for us to be any less than wholeheartedly welcoming to those who look like us. We have to give them space too. We would be hypocrites otherwise. If we do not yield, we will be shoved aside. There is room for all, or so we ourselves proclaim.

The second reason is that there are more of them than there are of us. They keep coming. The majority of Asian Americans are foreign-born, not native-born. Immigration patterns ensure that this demographic balance of power will favor the former over the latter, at least for our lifetimes. If we do not win them over or ally with them, they will overtake us numerically and render us politically irrelevant.

If Asian Americans want the concept of “Asian American” to last another generation, we must figure out how to engage with all who belong to an artificial, fragile category. The failure of the movement will be on us. We must come together.

 

[xilihutu]

中文西文都忒长，扫了一眼。。。作为新移民一员虽然感觉不爽，但是不认为吴教授讲的就是冒犯新移民，我们关心的是，吴教授所言的来自亚洲新老移民差距（特别是来自大陆的）是不是事实嘛。。。应该讲，吴教授没有夸大，讲的基本是事实。

 

[beefpotato]

都是群神马东西哟，还写信摆谱

 

[PCSK]

这是作者写给活跃分子的私信，看吴教授原文，不觉得有”看不起”的意思，倒觉得他很焦急。这个不难理解，如果活跃分子都泄气放弃，那脆弱的亚裔联盟便会散架。在不争取便等于放弃的西方社会，是全输，大家受害。

文中提到新移民的问题，是作者表示明白大家处境，希望意见比较容易被接纳，并非行文重点。

中国人看到被人罗列诸多问题，当然不会舒服。但是，中国人也不是那些喜欢护短的人，知道谦虚自省的重要性，明白自大的结果。所以，如果文中讲的是事实，相信大家是不会介意的。

 

[RareEarth]

所谓百人会就是个笑话。吴会长积了一百多个名人签名而已。
这种ABC不中不西，除了自己，谁也代表不了