个人资料
正文

移民会摧毁美国吗?

(2023-09-10 17:27:15) 下一个

很多人都有疑问:移民会摧毁美国吗?

发布:2023年09月10日 14:42来源:沉思的托克维尔

移民会摧毁美国吗?很多中国人、美国人都有这样的疑问,亨廷顿在《谁是美国人》中担忧移民会解构美国主流的盎格鲁新教文化,让美国陷入分裂和崩溃。《华盛顿邮报》在2020年一系列的事件后,更是将头版副标题改为“民主在黑暗中死亡”,担忧种族冲突和政治极化会葬送美国的民主。

国内一些学者对于美国也不看好,金灿荣,张维为,都认为移民和种族歧视会撕裂美国,一些自由派也在2020大选中对美国的现状感到失望,认为美国正丧失最初的美德,沦为了一个被白左腐蚀的国家。

对于移民对美国的影响,我也思考了很久,并一度认为亨廷顿的担忧是正确的,但是随着这些年阅读的加深,我对这一观点产生了怀疑。

很多媒体人,知识分子会将美国和罗马相比,除了将美国现状类比罗马共和国末期外,还会将美国种族多元化的现状和罗马帝国末期相对比,认为美国军队中存在着大量异族人,主流的白人不愿生育,少数族裔正占据主导,而白人不生育的后果就是和罗马一样被异族夺舍。

这一观点非常流行,但很遗憾说这些话的人既不了解美国,也不了解罗马帝国,最新的史学研究已经表明,罗马公民身份从来都是一个法律概念,而非一个血统概念,罗马人代表着一种生活方式和价值观。罗马人早在共和国时期就不断吸纳异族,到帝国鼎盛时期,军队和皇帝中已经以非意大利人为主。

美国人也不是一个血统概念,从一开始美国人的血统就很杂,国内所谓的盎撒匪帮是无稽之谈,英格兰裔在美国白人中的占比仅为12%,白人中最多是德国裔和爱尔兰裔,美国人也是一个法律和政治认同的概念。

罗马人成功同化了帝国境内的人口,到公元4世纪,高卢行省的地方精英完全视自己为罗马人,并且能熟练的使用拉丁语,《罗马帝国的陨落》中就摘取了一段史料,一个罗马城的元老院贵族叙马库斯到高卢向一位高卢文法学家奥索尼乌斯请教拉丁语,他完全将后者当作罗马人,并愿意当他的学生,在4世纪,罗马境内的地方精英早已一体化。

这和今天美国的状况完全一致,不同族裔的精英属于一个圈子,奥巴马和白人精英的相似度远大于他和黑人同胞的相似度,精英同享一种文化和价值观。

真正让罗马帝国走向解体的是公元4世纪末哥特人成建制的进入罗马帝国境内,他们拥有独立武装,并受自己的首领和律法管辖,而不接受罗马的法律和总督,他们成为帝国境内的孤岛,完全不受周围环境影响,这种孤岛式移民团体的增加让帝国开始土崩瓦解。

在以前,罗马人都是征服了异族,并吸纳地方精英进入统治阶层,罗马人还会将一些被征服的蛮族打散分散到帝国各地居住,虽然那时罗马人就广泛吸纳异族人参军,但他们要接受罗马长官的领导,要遵守罗马法,原蛮族首领往往失去权力,为罗马效命的异族往往会在服役期满后获得公民身份。

由于没有成建制的力量,异族被罗马人迅速的同化,在罗马帝国鼎盛时(2世纪),30万罗马军队中至少有一半多都是异族人,2世纪五位皇帝4位都来自意大利之外的行省,但是这并没有导致罗马帝国的灭亡,反而到了4世纪,曾经的高卢人,迦太基人都认为自己是罗马人。

(3世纪危机中拯救罗马的奥勒良就是行省居民,五贤帝中的图拉真则是西班牙伊比利亚人)

(美军中的非白人越来越多,但这些非白人似乎比白人更加爱美国)

4世纪末最关键的变化就是罗马军队被蛮族彻底击败,蛮族可以携带武器,在保留原有法律,原有建制的情况下进入罗马帝国,他们仍然受部落首领领导,不需要按罗马的法律行事,没有被纳入罗马的政治体制,这使得他们完全成为了帝国的破坏力量。

而帝国因为财政和军事力量的衰弱,完全无法控制这些移民,到5世纪,蛮族已经到了劫掠城市,封疆裂土的程度,而罗马帝国只能被迫承认帝国内出现一个个蛮族王国。

今天的美国完全不存在这样的问题,现代国家的管制能力远强于古代,今天欧美发生的难民危机,如果发生在罗马帝国时期,这些难民一定会携带武器,如果运气好说不定会消灭帝国军队,最后鸠占鹊巢,代替既有的秩序。

但今天,无论是逃难到欧洲的中东难民,还是进入美国的墨西哥难民,他们都不能携带武器,也绝无可能击败欧美国家的军队,他们进入国境后仍然要接受当地政府的管理,他们或许能在社区内自治,但这种自治必须在遵守当地法律的前提下,移民的精英也会通过既有的民主制度参政议政。

我们观察到,大量的拉美移民适应了美国的政治制度,他们社区的精英积极参加普选,并成为州议会中的议员,其中的佼佼者继续竞选联邦议员,甚至总统,这些精英往往能熟练的运用英语,并且对美国的历史、法律了如指掌,这表明移民精英已经完全体制化了,他们被纳入了旧有的统治秩序,他们是秩序的拱卫者而非破坏者。

(被视为白人右翼代表的共和党,如今有大量少数族裔面孔,在刚过去的共和党初选辩论中,有一个黑人和两个印度裔,侧面彰显了美国的同化能力和政治认同的特点)

新来的移民,除了抢占老居民的工作机会,并造成一些治安问题,对于美国主流的政治秩序没有任何冲击,其中一些少数族裔,如黑人,亚裔,更是均匀的分布在美国社会各处,成为社会有机体的一部分,这样的移民方式更加没有威胁,这和2世纪时的罗马帝国并无不同。

无论黑人群体如何零元购,无论拉美裔如何挤压红脖子的生存空间,对华盛顿都没有任何影响,移民们没有带来新秩序,反而被被旧秩序同化了。

相对于美国,欧洲的穆斯林群体保留了原有的思想和文化,而且一些精英还很极端,甚至提出恢复沙利亚法,就这个角度看,欧洲的情况要比美国严重,因为移民带来了一种和旧秩序完全相悖的新秩序,但这些移民目前仍没有武力上的优势,即使是夺舍,也只能靠生育率的此消彼长,这个过程会极为缓慢,而且不排除穆斯林二代三代会逐步被同化。

总之,现代国家与古代帝国存在根本性的不同,他的管制能力和同化能力都太强大了,像古代那样一小撮武装的暴民就可以颠覆一个国家的情况再也不会发生。

现代国家还有一项古代帝国不具备的利器,就是生产力和财政工具的强大,4世纪末,之所以哥特难民会失控,最初的起因是罗马人无法筹集到足够的资金和粮食安置难民,导致难民在饥饿之下铤而走险,但现代国家完全不缺少物资,而且财政工具的多样化让他们也可以喂养移民,用面包平息他们的愤怒。

欧洲缺乏一技之长的难民,美国内部大量游手好闲的黑人群体,如果在古代,这些群体会成为暴乱之源,大概率会发动武装起义,但在今天的福利制度下,他们只会在奶头乐中消磨自己的斗志。

我们最后总结下,什么情况下,移民会摧毁一个国家。

良性的移民:

1、均匀分布在国家各处,成为社会有机体的一部分

2、接受当地的法律和当地官员的管辖。

3、精英按照当地的制度参与政治,能够熟练地使用国家语言,成为所在国精英圈子的一部分。

恶性的移民:

1、聚居在一部分地区,组成与外界隔绝的孤岛。

2、保留自己的法律,接受自己精英的治理,不愿意接受所在国的法律和官员。

3、精英没有融入所在国的精英圈子,不愿意按照所在国的规则参与政治。

目前看,美国仍属于第一种情况而非后者。

现在,很多人喜欢刻舟求剑似的类比古代,但他们忘了现代社会和古代社会在技术、管制能力、信息传播上完全不可同日而语,忽略了这一点,就会得出完全错误的结论,今天的美国和当年的罗马有相似,但更多的是不同,今天的美国政府,比罗马帝国要强大太多,对于一个历史上没有过的国家,我们还需要实事求是,与时俱进的看待问题。

The Washington Post’s new slogan turns out to be an old saying

By   February 24, 2017

It may be the most widely debated and commented upon newspaper slogan since . . . well, has there ever been a widely debated newspaper slogan?

The Washington Post added a new phrase beneath its online masthead this week — "Democracy Dies in Darkness" — and the commentary flowed immediately. The slogan quickly trended on Twitter, drawing tweets even from the People's Daily newspaper in China. It was fodder for a few late-night cracks from Stephen Colbert, who suggested some of the rejected phrases included "No, You Shut Up," "Come at Me, Bro" and "We Took Down Nixon — Who Wants Next?"

 

Others called it "ominous," "awesome," and "heavy-handed." Slate offered an alternative list: "15 Metal Albums Whose Titles Are Less Dark Than The Washington Post's New Motto."

 

The addition of the dramatic and alliterative phrase was generally misinterpreted as an indirect reply to President Trump's phrasemaking about the news media ("dishonest," "the enemy of the American people," etc.). But that's not the case.

The Post decided to come up with a slogan nearly a year ago, long before Trump was the Republican presidential nominee, senior executives said. The paper hasn’t had an official slogan in its 140-year existence, although it did get some mileage with a long-running advertising tag­line, “If you don’t get it, you don’t get it.”

The Washington Post airs its first Super Bowl ad, voiced by Tom Hanks

The paper's owner, Amazon.com founder Jeffrey P. Bezos, used the phrase in an interview with The Post's executive editor, Martin Baron, at a tech forum at The Post last May. "I think a lot of us believe this, that democracy dies in darkness, that certain institutions have a very important role in making sure that there is light," he said at the time, speaking of his reasons for buying the paper.

Bezos apparently heard the phrase from legendary investigative reporter Bob Woodward, a Post associate editor. Woodward said he referenced it during a presentation at a conference that Bezos attended in 2015 in which Woodward talked about "The Last of the President's Men," his most recent book about the Watergate scandal.

But Woodward, who has used the phrase in reference to President Nixon for years, said he didn’t coin it; he read it some years earlier in a judicial opinion in a First Amendment case. He couldn’t recall the specifics of the case or the name of the judge who wrote the opinion.

“It goes way back,” he said. “It’s definitely not directed at Trump. It’s about the dangers of secrecy in government, which is what I worry about most. The judge who said it got it right.”

Woodward's source appears to be Judge Damon J. Keith, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, who ruled in a pre-Watergate era case that the government couldn't wiretap individuals without a warrant. In his decision, Keith apparently coined a variation on The Post's motto, writing that "Democracy dies in the dark."

 

In any case, the phrase was at the center of discussions when a small group of Post employees, including Baron and Publisher Fred Ryan, began meeting last year to develop a slogan. One planning document for the group suggested finding a “positive” variation on the early contender “Democracy Dies in Darkness.”

The goal of the paper’s slogan, the document said, would be to communicate that The Post “has a long-standing reputation for providing news and information with unparalleled analysis and insight. . . . Our position must be conveyed ‘disruptively’ so we can shake consumers out of their news-as-commodity mindset.”

 

It added that any slogan “must be memorable and may be slightly uncomfortable for us at first.” It also had to be “lofty, positive [and] not bossy” and pithy enough to fit on a T-shirt.

 

The group brainstormed more than 500 would-be slogans. The choices ranged from the heroic (“Dauntless Defenders of the Truth”) to the clunky (“American democracy lives down the street. No one keeps closer watch.”) to the Zen-like (“Yes. Know.”).

The group ultimately ended up where it started — with “Democracy Dies in Darkness.”

Which means that the slogan, which will be added to print copies of the paper next week, could be among the most famous four words that Woodward has ever contributed to The Post. In time, the phrase might even rival "All the President's Men," the memorable title of the bestseller Woodward wrote with Carl Bernstein about Nixon's fall.

“Well,” Woodward said, “it’s better than ‘Follow the money,’ ” the famous movie line that Woodward’s character got from his anonymous Watergate source, Deep Throat.

[ 打印 ]
阅读 ()评论 (0)
评论
目前还没有任何评论
登录后才可评论.