China and the United States are two major countries in the world, each occupying a very important position on the world stage. However, due to some reasons, many Chinese people's remarks about the United States are often unfair. For example, a girl from Peking University more than 20 years ago was labeled an "anti-American fighter" because she questioned US President Clinton, and then was criticized for marrying an American. Now more than 20 years have passed, how is she doing? How about that?

The thing is like this. Since Nixon’s visit to China in 1972, China and the United States have gradually entered a relatively friendly relationship. After 1980, the United States was gradually accepted by the Chinese, and therefore "anti-American" became a not very mainstream label. In June 1998, US President Clinton came to Peking University to give a speech. To a certain extent, this was both a speech and a civilized confrontation.

Sure enough, during the speech on June 29, a female student named Ma Nan, grade 94 of the Chinese Department of Peking University, put forward her different views on Clinton’s speech. The reason is this. In order to draw closer relations with the Chinese, Clinton first quoted the famous sayings of a "master" in modern China. Hu Shi, a master during the Republic of China, once wrote in his article "Introducing My Own Thoughts": Now someone is saying to you: 'Sacrifice your personal freedom to seek the freedom of the country! 'I say to you: 'Fighting for your personal freedom is fighting for freedom for the country! Fighting for your own personality is fighting for the country's personality! A country of freedom and equality cannot be built by a group of slaves! ?

Corresponding to Hu Shi’s words, Clinton gave his own explanation. He said: ?Struggle for personal freedom is to fight for the freedom of the country. To fight for individuality is to fight for national character. We Americans think Hu Shi was right. ?The discussions about "freedom" and "individuality" were extremely heated at that time, but the vast majority of Chinese people did not understand the specific meaning of these words introduced from foreign countries.

At this time, Ma Nan, the best debater among Peking University freshmen at the time, put forward his own opinion: Mr. Cai Yuanpei, the former president, also said this: Tao runs in parallel without contradicting each other, and all things thrive together without harming each other. I don’t think there is any conflict between the country’s freedom and our own freedom. Doesn’t it mean that the latter must be sacrificed for the former? China’s current prosperity and development is the result of our people’s free choice and active contribution of their strength? Only Only those who truly understand freedom will respect the freedom of others more. Thanks. ?

In fact, we can see from this passage that, first of all, Ma Nan does not know much about Chinese culture, because it is obvious that the Tao runs in parallel without contradicting each other, and that all things thrive together without harming each other. This is This sentence is not original to Cai Yuanpei, but comes from "The Doctrine of the Mean" in the Four Books. Secondly, Ma Nan does not oppose freedom, nor does he oppose Western universal values. He just opposes the opposition between personal freedom and national freedom.

So let’s put it figuratively, that is, Ma Nan actually dances her own dance among American values. She doesn’t think there is anything wrong with American-style freedom, but she just doesn’t like to compare personal freedom with It's just a matter of national freedom antagonizing each other. However, her words were soon over-interpreted by reporters as an "anti-American fighter", and they even exaggerated and said directly: she denounced the poor human rights situation in the United States in person.

This is obviously unfair. Ma Nan neither pointed out the real problems with human rights in the United States, nor did she really oppose the United States ideologically. She just expressed her unwillingness in a small way. It just pits individual freedom against the freedom of the country. If we interpret Clinton's remarks with true Chinese thought, it is obviously inconsistent with China's traditional culture.

The "Tao Te Ching" says: "Therefore, if you value your body as a person, you can send it to the world; if you love your body, if it can be sent to the world, it can be trusted by the world." ?In the hearts of the Chinese people, if we want to realize a happy life for all people in the world, it will definitely require the superhuman efforts of some great heroes. In order to control floods, Dayu even wore off the hair on his calves; Huo Qubing died at a young age in order to fight against foreign enemies; the founding of New China was based on the blood of countless heroes.

There is no doubt that these people have abandoned part or all of their own freedom and happiness to realize the freedom and happiness of everyone in the world.

Imagine that Dayu was free to play golf every day when he was controlling floods, and Huo Qubing escaped from the war in order to live a free life? Is there still a China like ours today with a vast territory and a prosperous people? So Clinton said that fighting for personal freedom is fighting for the freedom of the country? It is completely wrong according to the inference of Chinese culture.

Without the sacrifice of the freedom of individuals and minorities, how can we get the freedom of the country? What's more, China has not regarded absolute freedom as its goal since ancient times. We are bound by both law and morality. The ancients were also bound by the gods of heaven and earth, and they were always preventing themselves from doing things that were not in compliance with the rules. Being able to be absolutely free to do whatever you want? Talking about this topic from the ground of China is essentially looking for healthy people to sell prosthetics, which is the wrong place.

And Ma Nan just believes that personal freedom should not be opposed to the freedom of the country. It is simply an innocuous counterattack against Clinton. But because of this, her fate was very unlucky. Later, I don't know whether it was because of her sincerity or a strange combination of circumstances, and she married a foreigner again. What we can know is that foreigners don't like her very much, and she may not have much affection for that foreigner. Soon after, she was abandoned by the American, which seemed to punish her for her "anti-American" crime. Now She lives alone and is relatively pitiful.

Actually, these are all products of the times. Is it important whether we are anti-American or not? As many netizens said: We don’t care what the United States is like; we just want our country to be prosperous and strong. Whether the United States goes to heaven or to earth is up to it. ?