如果 Donald Trump 当选美国总统，是不是代表美国人内心更赞同种族主义和政治不正确？ 第1页

把川普这些争议问题放到中国看一看问题就很明白了。第一，把广州等地那些非法移民清出中国。第二，在云南等省边境建一座新的长城，并且让外国付钱，堵住毒品和走私来源。第三，工作给中国人民为先，杜绝崇洋媚外，防止外国人靠刷脸上位，严查凭旅游签证在中国工作。第四，中东等穆斯林国家旅客进行严格的背景审查，防止“东突”份子混入。第五，上厕所分男女。

这几条放在中国恐怕没多少人会反对吧？为什么在美国就成了种族歧视了呢？政治不正确的说一句，这是一些民族的民族劣根性造成的。防止种族歧视最应该的就是弱化种族问题，一出事就喊种族歧视的人才是真的自我种族歧视。

美国如果继续走政治正确和矫枉过正，那么看看南非吧，前车之鉴。

简言之 是的 有相当一部分美国人确实内心更赞同种族主义和政治不正确

下面 我转载并翻译一段来自一位亚裔美国人今天发布的状态

他的Facebook公共主页是

The Love Life of an Asian Guy

White people are TERRIFIED of Donald Trump and his plan to build a wall along the Mexican-American border.

白人被川普和他的美墨隔离墙吓尿了。

Me? I ain't scared.

我？我一点儿都不害怕。

Truth is, white America has a tradition of building walls LOOOOONGGG before Donald Trump was even a glimmer in his grandfather's silver spoon.

事实是，美国白人一直有建墙的传统，远远远远早于当川普还是液体的时候。

White America murdered Indigenous families, then zoned them within reservation walls.

美国白人屠杀美洲原住民，然后把他们放在保留地里墙起来。

White America created economic walls to prevent Black Americans from buying houses or attending schools in white neighborhoods.

美国白人制造经济隔离墙，阻止美国黑人在白人社区买房和上学。

White America imprisoned Japanese-Americans in internment camps during WW2 and placed them behind barbed wire fences.

美国白人在二战期间把日裔美国人关在集中营铁丝围墙里。

White America created walls within the legal system to make it harder for Latinos to immigrate into the country and gain citizenship, but will grant European immigrants a smooth, seamless transition.

美国白人在法律系统里制造围墙，使得拉丁裔人口移民和成为公民困难百倍，同时几乎无条件接收欧洲移民。

White America has corporate walls to stop ethnic people and women of color from ever advancing into upper management.

美国白人一起制造围墙禁止少数民族和女性进入高层管理。

WHITE AMERICA KNOWS WHAT THE FUCK IT'S DOING.

白色美国清楚地知道他们他妈了逼的在搞些什么。

So to answer your question: FUCK NO, I am NOT scared of Donald Trump's wall because that orange MF ain't doing a DAMN THING that our country hasn't done before.

所以这就是我对你的问题的回答：一点儿都鸡巴不怕，我不怕川普的隔离墙，因为那个橙色的SB做得每一件逼事这个国家以前都做过。

Next question.

下一题。

一条热门评论

别忘了排华法案 这个第一个（也是唯一）立法禁止某一族裔移民美国的法案

它延续执行了51年

这就是真实的美国人的心声

真实的亚裔美国人的想法

如果你认为某些美国人是被左派逼成这样才去支持川普的

你错了 真相是这些人一贯如此

在政治正确下不敢显露

而在此时此刻原形毕露而已

许多人认为美国现在的种族共存状态是一直如此 理所当然的

一边享受民权运动奋斗的成果

一边指责政治正确是错误的

是典型的温室花朵 忘记了大自然的风霜雨雪

别忘了把日裔美国人关入集中营仅仅是64年前的事

废除排华法案仅仅73年前的事

就排华法案向华裔道歉是2011年的事 没错 5年前才道歉

政治正确直接保证了少数民族和女性不被歧视 不被排挤

保证了你作为一个少数人在多数人的世界里可以有尊严地活下去

而不是被强行矫正 无论是左撇子还是同性恋

任何人都有权利听自己喜爱音乐的权利 而不是被强迫去听小苹果

现在的政治正确确实矫枉过正

产生了不少针对亚裔和白人的逆向种族歧视

马丁路德金当年争取的是不以肤色区分人
包括了不以肤色歧视人 当然也包括不以肤色照顾某些人

但是我们需要的是批评和矫正

而不是反对和废除政治正确

历史不能开倒车

为什么在现在 无论左派还是右派当权 亚裔都不好过

是因为亚裔不关心政治 不表达态度 总想闷声发大财

结果导致了白人不把亚裔当自己人 因为亚裔是有色人种

黑人 西裔等少数民族也不把亚裔当自己人 因为亚裔富有

总之是里外不是人

另外一个原因就是两极分化 而且不团结

那些过得好的亚裔忘记了自己不是白人的事实

有个做科研当程序员这样的苦活 混到中产阶级就觉得可以了

别忘了你永远都当不了领导 永远只能当干苦活的小喽啰

如果这样你就满足了 反过来把自己意淫成和白人站在一起

歧视黑人西裔 认为政治正确不对

别忘了你今天能到到这种程度 而不是当华工修铁路

就是民权运动等等平权运动自下而上的努力结果

也是政治正确自上而下的正确政策的结果

如果你想真正的任人唯贤

而不是任何组织公司的老板领导都是一个白人大老爷的话

我们的斗争还没有停止 不要选错阵地

当然你觉得现状不错 虽然被白人老爷骑在脚下

还不是有黑人西裔垫底吗

所以你看到黑人西裔积极努力争取权利

使得政策向他们倾斜 你就妒忌眼红了

所以反对政治正确了

你站错阵营了

你的白人老爷分分钟把你打回华工

你不想着如何爬上去

却先想着如何把靠自己努力爬上去的别人拉下来

亚裔需要做的团结一心 为自己争取权利

而不是分散成左派右派 互相争吵窝里斗

如果以这样的状态 无论加入哪一方都会被瞧不起的

仇视政治正确的人 最大的一部分就是庸人

因为他们如此的平庸 以至于在任何情景都是属于大多数

他们没有过 因为自己属于小众 属于异类 被歧视被排挤的经历

奇怪的是 难道你在各个方面都如此平庸吗

从来没有与众不同过？没有不合群过？

如果那样 真的是很可怜

而这些人就是所谓的多数人的暴政的元凶

只有当你身处一次成为少数人而被多数人歧视的情景

你才明白政治正确的正确和意义

一个国家的进步体现在对其少数群体 弱势群体的关爱和尊重

在这一点 从中美两个国家的人对政治正确的看法上

看出了这两个国家都一部分人的素质是欠缺的 比例应该不同

川普这样的人有如此多的簇拥

证明了美国在这么多年的变革后 仍然有那么多种族歧视者

这个结果对所有的在美国生活的所有少数民族和受过高等教育的白人来说

都是可怕的

虽然今天的民主党也是漏洞很多 政策失调

但是如果川普当上了总统标志着历史开倒车

所有为少数人生存下去的努力和斗争将付之一炬

最近我看到许多有识之士 发表

“Voting is much easier than moving to Canada”的观点

我相信美国还没有到令人失望的地步

历史不能重演

不能倒退

图上的中国人前边挂着牌子写着 “妇女儿童的毁灭者”

听着耳熟吗 “墨西哥人都是强奸犯” “中国在强奸美国”

历史从未走远

而且时刻寻机复辟

在一定程度上，“政治正确”早已脱离了它原有的意义，成为一个带有讽刺意味的词汇了。现在很多人口中的“政治正确”，指的是“过度的政治正确”。（我手头有一些关于政治正确的论文、报道等资料，不过大部分比较乏味；这里写一写比较有趣、易懂的部分吧。）

其实有很多白左是支持“政治正确”的，理由大家估计都知道。我来讲讲一些人对“政治正确”的调侃和反对吧。

一、什么算是“政治不正确”呢？

这样的笑话当然是政治不正确的。

What is a nigger on a bike？Thief

What do nigger kids get for Christmas? Your bike

在Philip Roth的小说The Human Stain中，教授

Coleman Silk无意中用了"spook"一词，也被认为是政治不正确的。

举个例子，如果你想给张三介绍Tom，而Tom是屋子里唯一的黑人，但你不能提到Tom的肤色，而是要形容他“穿着蓝T恤”（虽然屋子里穿着蓝T恤的也许有四五个人）。如果提到了Tom的肤色，那么就是政治不正确的。

【Chris Rock summed it up well in December when he announced he would no longer play colleges because the students are too PC. Rock said that because of the way kids are raised today, you can't even mention race: "You can't say 'The black kid over there.' No, it's 'The guy with the red shoes.' "】

除了种族问题，涉及性别、性取向等的话题也是容易触碰“政治正确”禁忌的高危话题。有的时候说话选词，容易让人左右为难。

比如说：

everyone pick up his book——歧视女性

everyone pick up his or her book——听着别扭

everyone pick up their book——语法错误

二、人们对于政治正确的调侃

比如，常用词的政治正确用法（有的的确在使用，有的是在调侃）

Alive ——Temporarily metabolically abled

Bald ——Follicularly challenged

Body Odour——Non discretionary fragrance

Broken Home——Dysfunctional family

Caretaker——Site Engineer

Clumsy——Uniquely coordinated

Criminal——Behaviourally challenged

Dead——Living impaired

Dishonest——Ethically disoriented

Drunk——Chemically inconvenienced

Dustman——Sanitation Engineer

Fail——Achieve a deficiency

Fairy——Petite airborne humanoid with mystical powers

Fat——Horizontally challenged

Foreign Food——Ethnic cuisine

Ghetto——Economically disadvantaged area

Girlfriend——Unpaid sex worker

Gossip——Speedy transmission of near-factual information

Housewife——Domestic Engineer

Ignorant——Knowledge-based non-possessor

Illegal Aliens——Undocumented Immigrants

Jailer——Custodial Artist

Jungle——Rain Forest

Late——Rescheduled arrival time

Lazy——Motivationally deficient

Lumberjack——Tree Murderer

Natural Disaster——Global Warming occurrence

Prostitute——Sex worker

Sex change——Gender reassignment

Short——Vertically challenged

Shy——Conversationally selective

Spendthrift——Negative saver

Talkative——Abundantly verbal

Tall——Vertically enhanced

Trailer Park——Mobile Home community

Tramp——Homeless person

Ugly——Cosmetically different

Unemployed——Involuntarily leisured

Vagrant——Nonspecifically destinationed individual

White Trash——White Trash

Worst——Least best

Wrong——Differently logical

《南方公园》时常调侃“政治正确”，比如，在第四季，有着这样的台词：

JUDGE TO CARTMAN: ‘I am making an example of you, to send a message out to people everywhere: that if you want to hurt another human being, you’d better make damn sure they’re the same color as you are!"

——Cartman’s Silly Hate Crime

当然，最会玩的，要属James Finn Garner，他写了一本 Politically Correct Bedtime Stories来调侃政治正确。下面是“政治正确”版的小红帽的故事。

The Politically Correct Little Red Riding Hood

There once was a young person named Little Red Riding Hood who lived on the edge of a large forest full of endangered owls and rare plants that would probably provide a cure for cancer if only someone took the time to study them.

Red Riding Hood lived with a nurture giver whom she sometimes referred to as "mother", although she didn't mean to imply by this term that she would have thought less of the person if a close biological link did not in fact exist.

Nor did she intend to denigrate the equal value of non traditional households, although she was sorry if this was the impression conveyed.

One day her mother asked her to take a basket of organically grown fruit and mineral water to her grandmother's house.

"But mother, won't this be stealing work from the unionised people who have struggled for years to earn the right to carry all packages between various people in the woods?"

Red Riding Hood's mother assured her that she had called the union boss and gotten a special compassionate mission exemption form.

"But mother, aren't you oppressing me by ordering me to do this?"

Red Riding Hood's mother pointed out that it was impossible for womyn to oppress each other, since all womyn were equally oppressed until all womyn were free.

"But mother, then shouldn't you have my brother carry the basket, since he's an oppressor, and should learn what it's like to be oppressed?"

And Red Riding Hood's mother explained that her brother was attending a special rally for animal rights, and besides, this wasn't stereotypical womyn's work, but an empowering deed that would help engender a feeling of community.

"But won't I be oppressing Grandma, by implying that she's sick and hence unable to independently further her own selfhood?"

But Red Riding Hood's mother explained that her grandmother wasn't actually sick or incapacitated or mentally handicapped in any way, although that was not to imply that any of these conditions were inferior to what some people called "health".

Thus Red Riding Hood felt that she could get behind the idea of delivering the basket to her grandmother, and so she set off.

Many people believed that the forest was a foreboding and dangerous place, but Red Riding Hood knew that this was an irrational fear based on cultural paradigms instilled by a patriarchal society that regarded the natural world as an exploitable resource, and hence believed that natural predators were in fact intolerable competitors.

Other people avoided the woods for fear of thieves and deviants, but Red Riding Hood felt that in a truly classless society all marginalized peoples would be able to "come out" of the woods and be accepted as valid lifestyle role models.

On her way to Grandma's house, Red Riding Hood passed a woodchopper, and wandered off the path, in order to examine some flowers.

She was startled to find herself standing before a Wolf, who asked her what was in her basket.

Red Riding Hood's teacher had warned her never to talk to strangers, but she was confident in taking control of her own budding sexuality, and chose to dialogue with the Wolf.

She replied, "I am taking my Grandmother some healthful snacks in a gesture of solidarity."

The Wolf said, "You know, my dear, it isn't safe for a little girl to walk through these woods alone."

Red Riding Hood said, "I find your sexist remark offensive in the extreme, but I will ignore it because of your traditional status as an outcast from society, the stress of which has caused you to develop an alternative and yet entirely valid worldview. Now, if you'll excuse me, I would prefer to be on my way."

Red Riding Hood returned to the main path, and proceeded towards her Grandmother's house.

But because his status outside society had freed him from slavish adherence to linear, Western-style thought, the Wolf knew of a quicker route to Grandma's house.

He burst into the house and ate Grandma, a course of action affirmative of his nature as a predator.

Then, unhampered by rigid, traditionalist gender role notions, he put on Grandma's nightclothes, crawled under the bedclothes, and awaited developments.

Red Riding Hood entered the cottage and said,

"Grandma, I have brought you some cruelty free snacks to salute you in your role of wise and nurturing matriarch."

The Wolf said softly "Come closer, child, so that I might see you."

Red Riding Hood said, "Goddess! Grandma, what big eyes you have!"

"You forget that I am optically challenged."

"And Grandma, what an enormous, what a fine nose you have."

"Naturally, I could have had it fixed to help my acting career, but I didn't give in to such societal pressures, my child."

"And Grandma, what very big, sharp teeth you have!"

The Wolf could not take any more of these specist slurs, and, in a reaction appropriate for his accustomed milieu, he leaped out of bed, grabbed Little Red Riding Hood, and opened his jaws so wide that she could see her poor Grandmother cowering in his belly.

"Aren't you forgetting something?" Red Riding Hood bravely shouted. "You must request my permission before proceeding to a new level of intimacy!"

The Wolf was so startled by this statement that he loosened his grasp on her.

At the same time, the woodchopper burst into the cottage, brandishing an axe.

"Hands off!" cried the woodchopper.

"And what do you think you're doing?" cried Little Red Riding Hood. "If I let you help me now, I would be expressing a lack of confidence in my own abilities, which would lead to poor self esteem and lower achievement scores on college entrance exams."

"Last chance, sister! Get your hands off that endangered species! This is an FBI sting!" screamed the woodchopper, and when Little Red Riding Hood nonetheless made a sudden motion, he sliced off her head.

"Thank goodness you got here in time," said the Wolf. "The brat and her grandmother lured me in here. I thought I was a goner."

"No, I think I'm the real victim, here," said the woodchopper. "I've been dealing with my anger ever since I saw her picking those protected flowers earlier. And now I'm going to have such a trauma. Do you have any aspirin?"

"Sure," said the Wolf.

"Thanks."

"I feel your pain," said the Wolf, and he patted the woodchopper on his firm, well padded back, gave a little belch, and said "Do you have any Maalox?"

三、“政治正确”是怎么被演化出讽刺意味的？

How ‘politically correct’ went from compliment to insult

The phrase has become inescapable — again. In campaign speeches, media headlines and your Twitter feed: “politically correct.”

But what does it actually mean? Depends what year it is, and whom you’re asking.

These days, for GOP candidates, it’s a catch-all synonym for liberal cowardice or caution — whatever it is that’s keeping America from being great, or something. But “politically correct” is a linguistic weapon that has changed hands many times.

It’s been a literal term. An ironic joke. A snide insult. To some, the term has even represented a positive ideal, a righteous label worn proudly.

1932: “We looked over the program, but are sure that few farmers would ever understand it. Of course, it is politically ‘correct’ to the last letter.”

— Harrison George, a leader of the U.S. Communist Party, on its support for the United Farmers League in the Communist newspaper

The phrase began to circulate in American communist circles in the 1930s and ’40s, at first as a straightforward term meaning “the proper language to use, or the proper position, for a member of the U.S. Communist Party to take on a particular issue,” says L.D. Burnett, an adjunct professor of history at Collin College in Texas. “It was used primarily to demand political orthodoxy.” Until some people within the party began to snicker about it, she adds: “It was also used jokingly — kind of in an eye-rolling, tongue-in-cheek fashion — to refer to those doctrinaire sticks in the mud.”

1934: “All journalists must have a permit to function and such permits are granted only to pure ‘Aryans’ whose opinions are politically correct. Even after that they must watch their step.”

— The New York Times, describing a clampdown in Nazi Germany

Already, the phrase was taking on shades of irony — here used to describe the rigid orthodoxy of a fascist government. Obviously, the Times reporter didn’t consider those Nazi-approved views to be the “correct” ones.

1964: “I’m here to tell you that we are going to do those things which need to be done, not because they are politically correct, but because they are right.”

— President Lyndon B. Johnson at the convention of the United Auto Workers

In the ’60s, the phrase reappeared in left-leaning political and activist circles. Here, Johnson’s use is fairly literal, describing government actions that he saw as not only politically advisable — passing a civil rights bill and a medical-assistance plan for the elderly — but also morally justified.

1979: “In America among many political lesbians, bisexuality is regarded as a betrayal
. . . [therefore] the politically correct thing is to define oneself as a lesbian.”

— Anthropologist Deborah Goleman Wolf in her book, “The Lesbian Community”

By the dawning of the feminist “sex wars” of the ’60s and ’70s, the phrase was applied in a variety of ways — sometimes as a fairly neutral term to describe another group’s orthodoxy or vulnerability to political pressure, and sometimes with a tiny hint of judgment, as in this quote. But it became a blatant insult only as the feminist debate over sexuality escalated, hitting a fever pitch in . . .

1982: “Politically Correct/Politically Incorrect Sexuality”

— The title of a controversial panel discussion at the Barnard College Conference on Sexuality

This conference marked a pivotal point in that debate, Burnett says. Feminists who opposed pornography and certain sexual behaviors were labeled “politically correct” by their “pro-sex” counterparts in the movement — a term meant as a sneer, suggesting that those women were succumbing to patriarchal influence.

1985: “If both Democrats and Republicans believe the deficit is the key issue for the 1986 elections, then voting for a balanced budget is the politically correct thing to do.”

— The New York Times

Even into the 1980s, you still saw the phrase being used almost literally, though hints of cynicism were creeping in. Here, the writer suggests that cutting federal spending was very much in vogue.

1986: “ ‘The Cosby Show’ is, to use a hideously canting phrase, ‘politically correct.’ ”

— Terry Teachout in National Review magazine

By the mid-’80s, “politically correct” was being leveled by some conservative critics with heavy doses of irony against what they viewed as feel-good liberal pieties. In a disdainful review, Teachout scolded the sitcom for glossing over the complexities of race relations.

1986: “It’s delicious . . . and even more important, it’s politically correct.”

— A waitress quoted in a Washington Post article about fair-trade Nicaraguan coffee

And yet! There were still the liberal activists who wholeheartedly embraced the term, such as at a restaurant in the ever-earnest Maryland enclave of Takoma Park.

1988: “It was politically correct not to go in there.”

— A community preservation society leader quoted in the New York Times

This guy also used the phrase proudly to explain why locals in the staunchly left-wing Haight-Ashbury neighborhood in San Francisco boycotted a chain restaurant.

1989: “P.C. and Proud”

— A slogan and general attitude assumed by certain campus activist groups in the late ’80s and early ’90s

Melanie Huff and her friends adopted the phrase during their years as AIDS advocates in graduate school. “We were into the idea of using inclusive language,” says Huff, now an associate dean at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. “There was nothing at all negative about trying to attain language usage that was non-offensive.” Still, the phrase was hardly mainstream, until . . .

1991: “The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land. And although the movement arises from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and hatred, it replaces old prejudice with new ones.”

— George H.W. Bush, in a commencement address at the University of Michigan

By the early ’90s, more people were growing outraged by “political correctness” in higher education, and fewer activists were flying the “P.C.” banner as a glorified ideal. When the first President Bush declared that free speech was under siege by P.C. culture, “mainstream America [began] to latch onto this term,” Burnett says. “That’s when ‘political correctness’ appeared on the nightly news.”

More than 25 years later, you can still find it there. But instead of describing a culture clash within academia, it’s now a broad-brush insult directed against any ideological opponent.

As someone who has spoken the phrase with pride, Huff now thinks it’s not salvageable, even for those who once used it in what they hoped was a spirit of inclusiveness and open-mindedness.

“It’s such a term of ridicule,” she says. “Even those of us who would still want to strive to that as a conceptual goal wouldn’t use that term.”

四、“政治正确”对言论自由的危害

Raymond V. Raehn 在 The Historical Roots of "Political Correctness"中写道：

America is today dominated by an alien system of beliefs, attitudes and values that we have come to know as “Political Correctness.” Political Correctness seeks to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior on all Americans and is therefore totalitarian in nature.

Political Correctness is not at all about “being nice,” unless one thinks gulags are nice places. Political Correctness is Marxism, with all that implies: loss of freedom of expression, thought control, inversion of the traditional social order and, ultimately, a totalitarian state.

Monty Python’s John Cleese: Too Much Political Correctness Makes Us Like 1984

“The term "political correctness" has always appalled me, reminding me of Orwell's "Thought Police" and fascist regimes.”

― Helmut Newton

五、有关“过度的政治正确”的十九个例子

The following are 19 shocking examples of how political correctness is destroying America…

#1 The Missouri State Fair has permanently banned a rodeo clown from performing just because he wore an Obama mask, and now all of the other rodeo clowns are being required to take “sensitivity training“…

But the state commission went further, saying it will require that before the Rodeo Cowboy Association can take part in any future state fair, “they must provide evidence to the director of the Missouri State Fair that they have proof that all officials and subcontractors of the MRCA have successfully participated in sensitivity training.”

#2 Government workers in Seattle have been told that they should no longer use the words “citizen” and “brown bag” because they are potentially offensive.

#3 A Florida police officer recently lost his job for calling Trayvon Martin a “thug” on Facebook.

#4 “Climate change deniers” are definitely not wanted at the U.S. Department of the Interior. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell was recently quoted as making the following statement: “I hope there are no climate-change deniers in the Department of Interior”.

#5 A professor at Ball State University was recently banned from even mentioning the concept of intelligent design because it would supposedly “violate the academic integrity” of the course that he was teaching.

#6 The mayor of Washington D.C. recently asked singer Donnie McClurkin not to attend his own concert because of his views on homosexuality.

#7 U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer is calling on athletes marching in the opening ceremonies at the Winter Olympics in Sochi next year to “embarrass” Russian President Vladimir Putin by protesting for gay rights.

#8 Chaplains in the U.S. military are being forced to perform gay marriages, even if it goes against their personal religious beliefs. The few chaplains that have refused to follow orders know that it means the end of their careers.

#9 The governor of California has signed a bill into law which will allow transgendered students to use whatever bathrooms and gym facilities that they would like…

Transgendered students in California will now have the right to use whichever bathrooms they prefer and join either the boys’ or girls’ sports teams, thanks to landmark legislation signed by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown on Monday.

The law amends the state’s education code, and stipulates that each student will have access to facilities, sports teams, and programs that are “consistent with his or her gender identity,” rather than the student’s actual biological composition. A male student who self-identifies as female could therefore use the girls’ bathroom, even if he is anatomically male.

#10 In San Francisco, authorities have installed small plastic “privacy screens” on library computers so that perverts can continue to exercise their “right” to watch pornography at the library without children being directly exposed to it.

#11 In America today, there are many groups that are absolutely obsessed with eradicating every mention of God out of the public sphere. For example, an elementary school in North Carolina ordered a little six-year-old girl to remove the word “God” from a poem that she wrote to honor her two grandfathers that had served in the Vietnam War.

#12 A high school track team was disqualified earlier this year because one of the runners “made a gesture thanking God” once he had crossed the finish line.

#13 Earlier this year, a Florida Atlantic University student that refused to stomp on the name of Jesus was banned from class.

#14 A student at Sonoma State University was ordered to take off a cross that she was wearing because someone “could be offended“.

#15 A teacher in New Jersey was fired for giving his own Bible to a student that did not own one.

#16 Volunteer chaplains for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department have been banned from using the name of Jesus on government property.

#17 According to a new Army manual, U.S. soldiers will now be instructed to avoid “any criticism of pedophilia” and to avoid criticizing “anything related to Islam”. The following is from a Judicial Watch article…

The draft leaked to the newspaper offers a list of “taboo conversation topics” that soldiers should avoid, including “making derogatory comments about the Taliban,” “advocating women’s rights,” “any criticism of pedophilia,” “directing any criticism towards Afghans,” “mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct” or “anything related to Islam.”

#18 The Obama administration has banned all U.S. government agencies from producing any training materials that link Islam with terrorism. In fact, the FBI has gone back and purged references to Islam and terrorism from hundreds of old documents.

#19 According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, it is illegal for employers to discriminate against criminals because it has a “disproportionate” impact on minorities.

It would be hard to overstate the power that all of this relentless “thought training” has on all of us.

And young people are particularly susceptible to the power of suggestion.

If you doubt this, just check out this video of a little boy praying to Barack Obama as if he was a deity…

It would be a huge mistake to underestimate the power of the mainstream media in America today.

As I mentioned the other day, Americans watch an average of about 153 hours of television a month.

When Americans go to work or go to school, the conversations that they have with others are mostly based on content that the media feeds them.

And about 90 percent of what we watch on television is controlled by just six gigantic corporations.

But the media is not the only source that is telling us what to think.

The truth is that the messaging that comes from all of our major institutions (the government, the media, the education system, etc.) is remarkably consistent.

The establishment wants to control what we say and how we think, and they have a relentless propaganda machine that never stops working.

The way that we all see the world has been greatly shaped by the thousands of hours of “thought training” that we have all received over the years. Understanding what is being done to us is the first step toward breaking free.

六、以上已经是很有趣的资料了，无聊的资料长这样。看，这足以说明上面的资料是多么有趣！

₍₍ ( ◞꒪່౪̮꒪່)◞ ⁾⁾ ₍₍ ( ◞꒪່౪̮꒪່)◞ ⁾⁾

The origins of the term are now rather hazy, but it is clear that, whatever the original meaning of the term, it is now used in a pejorative sense. In terms of the origins of the term, writer Richard Feldstein [1997] agrees with the view that:

“... the phrase political correctness was not coined by right-wing rhetoricians or left- wing ironists, as has been claimed ... Instead, the phrase was employed to mock those who unthinkingly took the official party line without considering the consequences of their actions.” (p4) (italics his)

However, as Teresa Brennan points out in her introduction to Richard Feldstein’s book:

“In an entirely conscious decision, at one of its numerous think tank meetings, the Right adopted this term and used it in an Orwellian series of misrepresentations that have left the liberal center, and for that matter, the Left itself, seriously bewildered. Because the Right used the term for affirmative action policies, the Left, in trying to defend those policies, has somehow felt obliged to defend the phantom of political correctness.” [Brennan, 1997, px] (italics hers)

Much of the detailed analysis of “political correctness” – and how it is being used in the war against liberal education - has been carried out in the US; for example, a very useful summary can be found in John Annette’s “The culture wars on the American campus” [Annette, 1994], where he highlights the main issues from both ‘sides’, and includes the main points raised by the two key critics of liberal/radical education, Dinesh D’Souza [1991] and Kimball [1991].

Many of the arguments used by writers such as D’Souza and Kimball are strongly refuted by John Wilson [1995]: Wilson looks at issues such as "sexual correctness” and “date rape”1, “reverse discrimination”, and speech codes - he concludes:

“despite all the complaints about conservatives being censored by intolerant minorities, the average female, black, Hispanic, gay, or lesbian student is far more likely to face harassment and abuse than the average white male conservative. Despite all the complaints about ‘political correctness’, the truth is that radical students and faculty face much more discrimination and oppression on campus.” (p164)

It is clear that the term, “political correctness”, has now firmly entered the UK vocabulary; for example, here are two random quotations found whilst this Paper was being written (the first possibly ironic, the second not!):

“‘Materialistic Gal’ treads dangerous territory. How politically correct is ‘Gettin’ Freaky With It’ a shot of a tight-tight batty rider on a lithe fit body?” [Khesumaba, 1999].

“... the absolutely vital thing is that the human capital of the people who are displaced is used in a way that helps the economy move forward ... To say that is not to make some politically-correct point about the need for a caring society. It is simple economics.” [McRae, 2000]

and viewers of “Have I got news for you” [2000] will have heard panellist Angela Rippon asking to be called “Chairman” of the English National Ballet, and referring to “political correctness” as “tosh”!

我问一句，何以见得Trump是种族主义者？

如果Trump当选，只能说明大家认为现有的政治正确根本无法解决所谓的种族歧视问题。

事实上就是这样，情况在变糟糕，而不是变得更好。

满大街的Black lives matter只说明了两件事情：

1、黑人还要抱团散步什么的来争取权益。

2、他们的诉求和手法比以前更low了。

如果说Trump歧视谁，Trump明确表示歧视的只有非法移民和偷渡者。

所以Trump不是什么种族主义者，Trump是法治主义者。

只是一个想法，不一定对。

没啥干货。

我觉得，民主党的种族政策加剧了种族之间的仇视和分裂。

忽然想举个小例子。

当年读书时，我们高中强制高三学生住校，美其名曰封闭教学。

校长明确地在入学第一天开始就提醒全部学生：强制住校，不设清真灶。

你是回民怎么办？好办，你可以选择不读咱们学校；可以选择高三转学；也可以选择自己带饭。

高三住校，大家和乐融融。

有回族小伙伴（不多），不说废话，自己去打不含猪肉的菜或者自己在教室里煮方便面。

大家一点矛盾都没有，她自己不提民族的事儿；别人也不在乎这个事儿，反正高三，大家一起看书上课考试，成绩说话。

我们也有满族朝鲜族和其他少数民族的小伙伴，除了填表的时候大家都根本不知道民族什么的事儿。

所以，在一个没有人强调种族、大家遵守相同规则的小环境里，大家相处的非常非常融洽。少数民族根本没有成为一个矛盾，也没有人认为它是问题。

但是假设一下，

如果学校设置了清真灶，不准汉族小朋友进去吃饭，汉族小朋友会不会有点不开心？

如果学校设置了清真灶，导致大家的餐费一起增加，不需要清真灶的小朋友会不会有点不开心？

如果老师天天强调学生的民族，说“我们要让着少数民族的小朋友，让他们有优先权”，汉族小朋友们会不会也有点不开心？

如果老师天天把民族挂在嘴边，提问时说“今天我们要问问朝鲜族的同学怎么看”，考完试说“哎呀你们这些满族（无恶意只是举个例子）的怎么这么笨连个数学题都不会做”，小朋友们会不会觉得自己因为民族而被分成了小群体，导致民族成了相互隔阂的原因？

所以我想说的是，越强调种族，种族之间的分裂、隔阂就会越发明显。

而到底什么是种族平等呢？

再回到我们高中的那个小例子，大家不提种族的事儿，一起学习，一起考试，考完试按分数排名，谁考得高谁就第一名，请问这不平等吗？

学校也有对贫困生的资助计划，大家不提种族的事儿，按家庭收入说话，谁家庭收入低谁就可以拿贫困补助，这不平等吗？

在一个淡化了种族身份的小社会里，当机会平等，种族就可以不成为问题。

但是假设我们学校采取了民主党的种族政策呢？

今天提出“回族小朋友就餐计划”，明天提出“满族小朋友数学补习计划”，后天再来一个“朝鲜族贫困家庭补助计划”。。。。

这到底是解决种族矛盾，还是制造种族矛盾？

假设你是一个汉族小朋友，你数学不好，但你学校的数学补习计划只给满族小朋友。你高兴吗？

你是一个满族小朋友，你家境贫困，但补助计划只给朝鲜族小朋友。你高兴吗？

然后呢，高考也开始采取民主党的种族政策，开始按民族比例上大学！你是满族小朋友，于是你忽然发现在大学录取中满族只占5%的比例！你恨不恨占了70%比例的汉族小朋友？你是汉族小朋友，于是你忽然发现锡伯族（继续无歧视只是举例）小朋友四百分就能上北大，但是因为你是汉族你就要考六百分，你恨不恨锡伯族小朋友？

为什么人们会因为种族而互相歧视互相憎恨？这真的只是因为偏见？

之所以忽然想写下这个想法，原因是，前不久看到了一个高学历民主党支持者写：她支持民主党，是因为种族的原因。她认为传统白人对外来族裔有着很浓厚的偏见和憎恨，而川普上台会加剧这种憎恨。她认为民主党的种族政策对于她这样的少数族裔是利好的。

当时我就觉得……恩好像有哪里不太对。

强调种族，就对少数民族利好了？

后来，想到我们高中时各民族小朋友和乐融融的景象，我忽然意识到了原因。

一个真正种族平等的社会，是大家都忘记了种族存在的社会。是一个大家不靠种族身份而具有相同机会的社会，是一个大家抛弃了身上种族标签的社会。

是一个与白左的政治正确背道而驰的社会。

政治正确，特别是Trump口中的“政治正确”是一个伪概念。它的使用，是为了模糊正确和错误。是为了制造一种暗示：一个政策之所以被拒绝，是因为政策制定者害怕冒犯某些“弱势群体”。而在“反对政治正确”这顶大帽子下面，他们兜售的正是那些政治正确运动所想避免的思潮：种族主义、性别歧视、同性恋恐惧，伊斯兰恐惧；和很多人所认为的相反，“反对政治正确”所做的，恰恰是迎合刻板印象，阻止对真正问题的讨论。让我们从检视“反政治正确”所要解决的问题谈起吧。

在很多人眼里今天的美国问题缠身：工资滞胀，最富有人群却工资猛增；全球化带来大量外包；失业问题很多。于是Trump的“反政治正确”的政策来了，他说，“我们没时间政治正确”。潜台词在于，正是由于对弱势群体的照顾，由于对意识形态的担忧，美国的经济才会落成今天这个地步。于是“美国白人劳动人民终于忍无可忍了”。

可是让我们看看在“反对政治正确”的大旗下，Trump提出了什么样子的政策吧：为了“保障劳动人民的利益，他要减低税率；为了缩减赤字，他要增加对中国和墨西哥的关税；他要大规模的驱逐非法移民；他要在墨西哥边境修建长城，并且让墨西哥人付钱；他要取消环保部和教育部；他要禁止大多数穆斯林入境；他要对穆斯林加以跟踪。

问题在于，这些政策是错误的。不仅仅是因为它们赤裸裸的宣扬贸易战、种族主义、宗教歧视，而且因为这些政策压根就不解决问题。

举例来说，他的关税政策相当于给美国增加相当于国民生产总值1.5%的税收；他的政策会影响美国自己组装的福特汽车的竞争力，因为它们的引擎来自墨西哥。（Forbes Welcome）。实际上，奥巴马在第一任的任期之内尝试过对中国的轮胎征收重税，结果如何？轮胎制造工人的数量增长了1200，占总工人数量的2.3%。创造了大约4800万美元的购买力。听上去不错?可是关税导致美国消费者为轮胎多付了11亿美元（http://www.iie.com/publications/pb/pb12-9.pdf, http://time.com/money/4282166/donald-trump-tariff-plan-cost）。更何况，由于中国的报复，美国对中国的鸡肉出口缩减了90%，损失了另外10亿美元。最关键的是，2010-2012年，美国的近半的贸易赤字来源于原油进口（Implications of Reduced Oil Imports for the U.S. Trade Deficit），把目标对准中国和墨西哥，是在错误的时间，跟错误的对手，发起一场注定要输的战争。

Trump“惠及中产阶级”的减税政策将会给他们带来5%的税后收入增加，而同时，最富有的0.1%人口的税后收入将会增加19%(Donald Trump's big tax cuts come at a big cost)。增加12万亿美元的财政赤字。为了支付利息，美国将需要把社会保障、医疗保险、国防和利息以外的所有财政支出削减到0。而且这还不够。这也包括边境检查、FBI监视、国土安全部的全部资金。

再来看Trump的移民政策。类似的，没有足够证据表明移民本身对美国的经济造成威胁。事实上，NPR报道称（Q&A: Illegal Immigrants and the U.S. Economy : NPR）非法移民对美国工资和就业率的影响微乎其微，因为他们根本不跟大多数美国人竞争同类的岗位。更重要的是，非法移民本身就会创造需求，减低的劳动力成本也会带来物价的下降。综合来看，非法移民对经济的影响，和全球化与制造业自动化相比的影响微不足道。

合法移民呢? 实际上，合法移民对工资和就业率的影响更多是正面的。理由很类似——移民会创造新的需求，和本地居民并不在同样的劳动力市场竞争，充裕的劳动力，帮助缓解用工荒，乃至促进了现有经济体的扩大。增加的竞争也促进了现有的低技能少数族裔向高技能高薪工作的转型（Facts About Immigration and the U.S. Economy: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions )。这不正是保守派所笃信的自由市场基本原理吗？

顺带一提，由于墨西哥和中美洲的老龄化，向外移民的大潮也在减少，事实上，非法移民潮在最近处于历史低位。而如前所述，驱逐非法移民，将导致美国失去1100万劳动力，导致劳动力成本增加，同时让社保资金损失120亿美元（http://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-18/here-s-what-the-u-s-economy-would-look-like-if-trump-deported-undocumented-immigrants）。

更重要的是，Trump的移民计划几乎不具有可行性。为了修建长城，他计划通过阻止移民把工资汇回墨西哥来让墨西哥付钱，然而这部分款项不超过墨西哥GDP的1%。而且很可能违反30项以上的环保法律（Donald Trump's Mexican Wall Is a Tough Promise to Keep）。增加的边境巡查还可能会阻止非法移民回到他们自己的国家的意愿(The surprising reason Donald Trump’s wall would be a waste of money)。

禁止穆斯林入境? 你要知道，今天和ISIS作战的主力是库尔德人，而他们从任何角度来看，都是穆斯林。而Trump将会把这些人拒之门外。加强监视穆斯林？纽约的实践已经表明这根本无效（http://bustle.com/articles/149908-heres-why-ted-cruzs-muslim-patrolling-plan-would-never-ever-work）。事实上，自911以来，美国国土上的伊斯兰极端主义者恐怖袭击大约有10起，造成45人死亡，而极右翼组织造成了大约48人死亡（Homegrown Extremism: Deadly Attacks Since 9/11）。禁止难民入境？大多数的极端主义者是本土培养的（Anti-immigrant activists more prone to terrorism than refugees）。驱逐所有的美国穆斯林? 他们是美国宗教群体中教育水平第二高的，他们的性别平等程度超过所有的美国宗教群体；他们对信仰的固执程度和基督徒相近（The truth about Muslims in America）。

具有讽刺意义的是，Trump在第二修正案的问题上一直非常“政治正确”，哪怕9/11以来的枪支造成的死亡人数超过全球恐怖主义造成的美国人伤亡的100倍（American deaths in terrorism vs. gun violence）。可见，他所谓反对的政治正确，只不过是“自由派的意识形态”而已。

所以Trump的政策问题不仅是政治不正确。很多人反对这些政策，不仅仅是由于这冒犯少数群体，而且是因为这根本是南辕北辙。今天美国的根本问题，是全球化和科技浪潮带来的美国产业转型，自然导致本土传统产业工人生活水平下降。这是一个纯粹的经济问题。但是很多民众不愿意承认这一点，在他们看来，就是合法和非法移民抢走了他们的工作，就是穆斯林影响了美国的安全。而“反对政治正确”这样一个大标题，正好迎合了这一群体的偏见。在今天的声势，说明持有这些偏见的人，在美国乃至中国不占少数。

==============================================================

回过头来看什么是政治正确，根据Wikipedia，政治正确是指“用以描述避免冒犯少数群体或使其不利的语言、政策、或行为”。让我们问，为什么“避免使少数群体不利或者冒犯”一定是一件错误，或者邪恶的事呢？

不一定吧。拿知乎上常常被攻击的“政治正确”的例子来说；学校根据种族乃至地区划分名额，不仅是因为要考虑到弱势群体，也是为了促进校园文化的多样化，增加学生的眼界乃至学习效率（https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alberto_Cabrera3/publication/261699964_Racial_and_Ethnic_Diversity_Does_It_Promote_Student_Learning/links/0a85e53508517d732f000000.pdf）。而所谓的“反向种族歧视”，很大程度上也来源于误解（https://workinprogress.oowsection.org/2013/05/22/storytelling-and-the-myth-of-reverse-discrimination/）。

最近，美国计划用Harrit Tubman，一位女性黑人废奴主义者替换二十元纸币上的安德鲁·杰克逊，一位白人总统。当然了，Trump声明这件事是“纯粹的政治正确”，杰克逊是这件事的受害者。可是如果你审视一下杰克逊的任期：他驱逐印第安人，一手缔造了“哭泣之路”（trail of tears）。他是一个白人至上主义者，支持奴隶制，自己就蓄养有300个奴隶。他取缔了第二银行，让国家在商业进程上显著倒退。把这样一个美国最具争议的从纸币上移除，真的那么没有道理吗？

“政治正确“可不可能过于极端？可能。但这是具体案例具体分析的事情，据此认为所有的“政治正确”都不应存在，那就是以意识形态来反对意识形态了。难道避免“阿三”，“棒子”这类蔑视性称呼，我们就不能讨论问题吗？难道不去质疑他人的种族、出生地、或者生殖器大小，我们就不能区分出谁是更合适的总统吗？难道用“Happy Holidays”来代替”Merry Christmas”，不是会更加强调圣诞文化的包容氛围吗？在一个以多元化为核心价值的国家里，提倡用正确的、尊重他人方式讲话，到底哪里伤害了表达的权利呢？

可惜，没人想真正讨论这些到底是正确还是错误，把它们一概称为“政治正确”，然后加以嘲讽就好。

不是这个问题，而是西方媒体的虚伪问题，两面性的问题，左手打右脸的问题。

我希望西方媒体不管出于什么主张，至少在主张的时候不能自相矛盾，不能自己打自己脸。

比如说种族主义和政治正确的问题，我们都知道在美国有所谓的平权法案，对于黑人等群体进行政策性的倾斜，尤其是在考大学这个问题上。

我们都知道西方媒体更多的使用援助来帮助非洲国家，而中国采用市场经济和非洲进行公平的贸易的时候，他们指责中国是新殖民主义。

大家发现没有，这些西方国家的媒体们都是在某些方面采取“社会主义”以及“国家宏观调控”的方式来运作。

但是他们转过脸来对中国说，中国不够开放，中国不够市场经济。

尼玛的这就滑稽了，知道么？

他们告诉我们，一方面，只有市场经济才能繁荣社会繁荣国家，只有经历市场经济的企业才能造就强大的企业，伟大的企业，痛斥我国国有企业。

另外一方面，他们无视前面一个结论，执意非要搞对某一方，比如说黑人，LGBT的倾斜政策。

我就问一句，既然如此，既然给黑人们那么多保护，怎么可能造就强大的黑人呢？

这不原理一样么？非洲也是如此啊。

我不知道哪一个是正确的，但是我知道你说的肯定是胡扯。

我现在不想去谈论到底哪一种正确，但是至少你给我一个统一的声音，别特么一边这边搞社会主义，国家调控，那边就是市场经济，自由竞争。

两面派的手法很好玩是吧？

中国高考竞争之所以如此激烈，并不是因为中国的高等教育多么优秀，而是因为中国的教育资源过于稀缺，不够千千万万的考生瓜分的。

也正因此，中国拥有一套全世界最残酷的筛选制度。

而通过高考进入清华北大，除了说明这些学生比起其他学生更加适应这场筛选，别的什么也说明不了。

也正因此，越来越多的人选择避开竞争最激烈的战场，用金钱换取国外的优质教育资源。

见到很多像题主这样的人，想不明白为什么在国内连个像样的大学都考不上，到了国外却轻松能进名校。有的甚至产生了浓浓的优越感，陶醉于中国强大的基础教育，并觉得海龟也不过如此。

然而我感到的，却是浓浓的悲哀。国内只能读二流，到了国外却能读名校，正说明，在中国，有千千万万的学生，他们的智力，才学和付出的汗水，分明配得上世界名校的教育资源，却只能在国内接受二流的教育。的确有极少数人摆脱了环境的限制，脱颖而出。然而大多数人，却随波逐流，过着平庸的生活；而他们，或许本能够成为社会的精英，成为推动社会前进的那群人。

我就读于一所国内算一流的大学，我的一位高中同学成绩远不如我，高考末流一本水平，去了UIUC的CS，

他本科期间有大量的机会接触到学校顶尖的实验室，也通过在实验室和教授做科研，要到了牛推，拿到UCB的phd offer.

而我，大二大三曾频繁去找过我们实验室的老师，希望混点科研经历，却无奈地发现他们的生活就是接外包，接国家项目，给底下研究生做，再象征性地发给学生一点工资。学生有活的时候赶项目，没活干的时候每天划水。我真的没什么机会接触到科研相关的实质内容。

而我们那几届出国情况也都惨不忍睹，我最后也只是去了所综排很高学校名气挺大但是专业水平很差的ms ad.

我知道，清北的情况兴许会好很多，但是我的高考成绩当年距离清北只有仅仅几分只差，获得的资源却已经拉开了差距。

毕竟，在中国，清华北大这样的学校，太少了啊。

（图片来源见水印）

中国能花费在高等教育上的经费是有限的，因此只能重点扶植清北交浙等少数学校。2015年，清华大学的科研经费43亿RMB，居中国首位，看起来不少了，然而跟美国排名稍微靠前的一些学校比起来，真是连零头都赶不上。

哈佛大学的校友基金超过360亿美金。

最近几年，中国大陆的高校，尤其是清华北大进步突飞猛进，论文数蹭蹭蹭地飞涨，排名水涨船高。而这很大程度上是建立在压榨一线科研人员的基础之上的。

诚然，中国的高校在经费有限的情况下，取得如此成就实属不易，可喜可贺。

但是，要跻身世界一流大学，比肩哈佛耶鲁之流，依旧任重而道远。各国高校之间的比拼，拼到最后，很大程度上取决于国力的较量，也就是赤裸裸的经费的比拼。

高考前，如果我要准备出国，按照我们高中的历届情况，我毛估估能进个UCB吧，研究生也不至于只能读个水校ad了。要问我后不后悔，多少是有一点的吧，然而也不能说在国内读书完全没有优点

——至少，我当年给家里实打实地省下了200万。

——————

1月28日更新

一夜之间多了很多赞，答主诚惶诚恐。

也被一些人质疑答非所问。

在这里贴一张图。

图片来源：

http://www. zhihu.com/question/3189 4603/answer/54520465

二本学校就不是学校了吗？

简而言之：那些高考一本二本都上不了的，在参加高考人群中也处于前50%，而且中考已经分流掉一大半人了，这些考不进一本二本的学生，在中国学生中我们暂且认为处于30%，及以下。

中国没有那么多的教育资源给他们就读，国外有，而且有些学校认为人群中的前30%可以接受，何况他们愿意付出金钱。美国的教育资源当然也稀缺，但是最难进的藤校众每年录取率在将近在10%，比清北录取率高多多多多多了，换言之，国外高等教育当然也是稀缺资源，但也比国内丰富多了。

——————

1.1日更新

答主之前写答案仓促，有几处瑕疵，多谢评论区指正，在此先致个歉。

1. 的确不应该拿清北的录取率和藤校的录取率直接比较，更何况这个近10%的入学率对中国学生不适用;

然而，美国人读藤校的概率远大于中国学生上清北的概率，足以说明教育资源上的差距。

那我举另一个例子，

日本人出国留学意愿极低，日本人上东京大学的难度基本等同于中国人考上华五的难度。（数据来源

@Summer Clover

）可以说是远低于中国学生读清北的难度。而且同样是考试入学，不参考家庭背景，拿日本和中国比较可能更具有说服力。

日本的教育资源甚至可以用过剩来形容，近年来一些私立学校因招不到学生而纷纷合并整改或者倒闭。

同时日本人对本国教育的自信，也降低了他们本国人出国留学的意愿。

也许有人会不服，凭什么拿中国既和欧美比，又和日本这些发达国家比，而不和印度比，不和巴布亚新几内亚去比…但是我觉得，在很多国人心里，中国的对手永远只有一个，那就是——外国。

祝祖国越来越好。

2. 不应该直接拿哈佛校友基金直接和清北科研基金直接比较，应该拿哈佛校友基金每年科研拨款和清北科研基金作比较。

在此感谢

@Zichen Zheng

提供的更加详实的数据

operating revenues increased 5.6% to $4.78 billion, and expenses were up 5.3% to $4.70 billion

http:// finance.harvard.edu/fil es/fad/files/harvard_ar_11_12016_final.pdf

哈佛科研经费前几名的学院，每年经费加起来就已经超过200多亿RMB了，已经远超清北。

---

  ganeid-ding 网友的相关建议: 
      

...

2016年2月21日更新：

感谢点赞的各位和评论区的汉子们！正好这两天我家那位把他的三角铁拿回来了，于是就拍张照在这里作为补充吧。他的主项并不是交响乐，比他装备NB的人还是大有人在的。

这里面大概分为三个部分：三角铁、槌和夹子。

三角铁有两个，分别为4 inch和6 inch的。其实一般交响乐用6 inch的就够了，4 inch的用在一些现代音乐作品中。这俩三角铁都是纯手工制作的，你可以看到表面那些不光滑的部分，都是一锤子一锤子砸出来的坑，所以每一个不同位置的音色都不一样。

槌有十几根，有金色有银色有粗有细形状各异的那端是用来敲击的，按乐曲的情绪和强弱记号来选择不同的槌演奏，声音也不尽相同。

那俩夹子是自己搞来的，用钓鱼线将三角铁挂在夹子上进行演奏。夹子的好处有两个：其一是手持演奏时减少对绳子的控制，从而尽量避免对三角铁震动的干扰；其二是可以将三角铁夹在谱台或者别的什么上面，从而可以双手进行演奏，在快速乐章中可以更好的保证效果。

---------------------------------------

以下为原答案：

看到还没人具体回答这个问题，我来说说我所知道的好了。以下基本适用于大部分正规编制的交响乐团（主要是美国），越好的团越难越严苛。

信息来源：美国一线音乐学院教师以及他们的盆友口述（很多乐手都兼任教职啊）

1. 背景知识

在交响乐团中，广义的打击乐其实是分为定音鼓和打击乐，这两者其实大致可以看作不同的声部，不管是编制、招聘，甚至是在演员表名字的写法和位置，都相对独立。

定音鼓：顶级乐团中的定音鼓是不兼任其他任何打击乐的。也就是说，这个人，每首曲子都演奏且只演奏定音鼓。当然，混迹学生乐团多年的我，表示啥跟啥没一起打过啊 =3=

打击乐：其他的都算在这里。每个人每首曲子的分工都可能不同，一首曲子同时演奏数种乐器是常见的，分工一般由打击乐首席决定。善良的作曲家会把可以由一个人演奏的声部放在一张分谱上。

打击乐大致可以分两类——

旋律类：木琴，钢片琴，管钟，马林巴，颤音琴 （后两种为非常重要的打击乐器，但不常使用在交响乐作品中，故列在最后）

非旋律类：小鼓，大鼓，镲，三角铁，铃鼓，音树，沙锤，响板/棒，还有各种千奇百怪的玩意

大概情况就是如此，如大家所说，其实并没有所谓“专门敲三角铁”的人，但要是因为你三角铁敲得好，老让你敲，那就另说了。由于打击乐声部一人身兼多职，排练演出还是挺忙的！_(:3」∠)_

2. 顶级乐团面试

因为三角铁的演奏者属于打击乐声部，所以其实就是讲讲顶级乐团中打击乐声部的面试吧。当乐团有空缺时，通过各种渠道贴出招聘。招聘启示与其他工作无异，只是多出来一个repertoire list，也就是交响乐片断列表，一般涵盖所有常用乐器。

招聘流程：跟普通工作一样，求职者们将简历连同录有演奏指定交响乐片断的录像（DVD或其它形式）提交至应聘乐团，乐团进行审核和考量后决定final list进行实地面试（Audition），一般4人，最后择优录取。录取人数一般为0~1人。

面试（Audition）内容：上文说到了要考交响乐片断，组成一般是小鼓，大鼓，镲，三角铁，铃鼓，键盘类木琴和钢片琴至少有一个。曲目选择范围很广，比较经典的有肖七，肖十的小鼓，火鸟的木琴，罗密欧与朱丽叶以及柴四的镲，勃拉姆斯四的三角铁，狂欢节序曲的铃鼓等等。

除去交响乐片断，有些交响乐团会有一个键盘乐器solo的曲目要求，一般为马林巴，曲目难度较低（相比独奏，但打好也不那么容易），通常是巴赫（大无或者小无）。

另外，一些基本功也可能是考量内容，例如小鼓渐强渐弱长滚奏、各种乐器的视奏等。

需要一提的是，寄录像阶段的片断和最后面试的片断可能会是两个list，面试的list通常一种乐器有好几个片断，供评委选择，录像的list更为简短（毕竟要看好几百份）。

谁是评委：一个职位，寄来的录像带成百上千，假如你实力运气都非常爆棚的成功进入了最终实地面试的final four，你会面对谁呢？评委一般5人左右，其中三人是基本固定的：乐团指挥、乐团首席（小提琴）以及打击乐首席。另外两人可能在打击乐副首席、定音鼓、木管首席、铜管首席等人之间产生。也就是说，评委里面真正的行家只有2人左右。

评审及结果：什么样才能面试成功？这个问题我跟别人讨论过无数次都没有确切的答案。在其他工作的求职过程中，我们常说，最重要的是适合。放在这里，我觉得也是非常正确的。

相信我，顶级乐团的招聘到了final four，演奏水平上基本都是神级，那挑的是什么呢？大概就是合适二字。面试其它工作是，这个合适可能体现在性格谈吐、沟通技巧、价格观、甚至是眼缘上面，在交响乐团面试里，可能就体现在音乐处理、用槌的方式和偏好、甚至音色、速度、音量上面。评委中的大部分人，由于对打击乐的技术不是非常了解，评判的也多半是“此人是不是适合在我们乐团中演奏”这个问题。而这个问题的答案，跟乐团的风格以及个人的偏好关系太大，实在无法一言以蔽之。

为了达到这个“合适”，通常的做法是去找你要面试的团的首席上小课。除去提前认识认识扯扯家常这些隐性的好处，最重要的是让你了解你要面试的这家乐团的风格，从而对症下药。

至于结果，我上面提到过录取人数为0~1人——没错，很多时候招聘进行了几个月，最后一个人都不会录取。为啥呢？没找到完全合适的呗。说到这个，必须得提一提顶级乐团的待遇：高薪（100K+）、稳定（混到拿tenure之后无法被炒）、轻松（每周工作20~25小时左右，每年8周以上带薪年假）。这直接导致了两个问题：招人的时候无比谨慎，非最好最适合的绝对不要，并且绝对不会同时出现两个以上的打击乐空缺。至于空缺，少一个打击乐是要紧事吗？并不是。大量浪漫时期以前的交响乐作品，只有定音鼓，甚至连定音鼓都没有。虽然美国乐团喜欢演浪漫时期之后的作品以及现代音乐，但是在选曲上面做做功课，抵消少一个打击乐的影响，撑个一年半载甚至更久根本不是问题。

3. 一名致力于投身交响乐团打击乐声部的年轻人的生存及升迁之路

作为一名打击乐手，可选择的道路有很多，进交响乐团是其中的一条。这条路的理想路径是：专攻交响乐的打击乐演奏硕士甚至是博士毕业 ——〉小乐团打击乐手 ——〉二线交响乐团（如SF，Honolulu）打击乐手 ——〉五大团打击乐手。能跳过任意一环都是生命的奇迹，可以买彩票！

乐团之间的跳槽，纯靠投简历寄录像去面试成功的，大概只占很小的一部分，很多都是靠推荐，或是一些其它的机会。这就是一个靠关系的世界啊，到哪儿都一样！顶级团的指挥（其实一般也是乐团的music director），也会跑去看其他团的演出，发掘一些好的乐手，推荐到自己的团来面试。这种情况下，通常可以保证你进入到实地面试环节，能不能拿下还是要真刀真枪的干掉你的对手，打服对面的评委。

混进了团里，就一个字——熬！熬够了年资拿到tenure，不用担心丢工作。想要团内晋升，只有等待。等啥？你前面那个人的退休或者跳槽，这件事，等个几年十几年甚至几十年都常有。

我好像跑题跑得有点远…… 马上就回来！

4. 三角铁也有春天

如果你要问，看来三角铁一点也不重要，那三角铁到底能不能成就大师？我要响亮干脆地回答一声：能！

Alan Abel —— 打击乐演奏家，教育家，乐器制造家。曾任美国五大团之一的费城交响乐团打击乐副首席，执教于Temple University，于1998年入选打击乐名人堂(PAS Hall of Fame)。他所制造的三角铁已经成为他的标志，纯净、清亮的音色让他的三角铁成为了专业领域里最受欢迎的产品。他的学生基本上都走得是进交响乐团这条路，并且有种自带光环之感。

这里引用他入选名人堂时候的一句评语吧：

Many percussionists have a connection to Abel through one of their instruments: the triangle.

然后，在现代音乐大行其道的今天，三角铁也不只是一种交响乐团中的色彩乐器了。各种你能或者不能欣赏的作品中，三角铁的用处已经超越了三角铁本来的范畴。有个作品叫Three Angels， 是由三名演奏者，每人三个不同尺寸的三角铁，一共九个三角铁来演奏的。好不好听我就不评价了，毕竟作曲家是个可爱的老头，长相和穿着都像圣诞老人~ ƪ(‾ε‾“)ʃƪ(‾ε‾“)ʃƪ(‾ε‾“)ʃ

说到底，三角铁这件事，没那么玄乎，也没那么简单。不知不觉写了这么多，能看完的我敬你是条汉子！

...

---

  ban-bei-33 网友的相关建议: 
      

妹妹你大胆地往前走 往前走 莫回呀头

通天的大路 九千九百 九千九百九呀

妹妹你大胆地往前走呀 往前走 莫回呀头

通天的大路 九千九百 九千九百九呀

妹妹你大胆地往前走呀 往前走 莫回呀头

从此后 你 搭起那红绣楼呀

抛洒着红绣球呀 正打中我的头呀

与你喝一壶呀 红红的高梁酒呀

红红的高梁酒呀嘿 妹妹你大胆地往前走呀

往前走 莫回呀头 通天的大路 九千九百

九千九百九呀 妹妹你大胆地往前走呀

往前走 莫回呀头 从此后

你 搭起那红绣楼呀 抛洒着红绣球呀

正打中我的头呀 与你喝一壶呀

红红的高梁酒呀 红红的高梁酒呀嘿

妹妹你大胆地往前走呀 往前走 莫回呀头

---