The U.S.-China High-Level Strategic Dialogue concluded in Alaska on March 18-19, and the topic has been unfolding. It has even begun to spread from the main negotiations** to the translators of both China and the United States. Some people accuse the US side of its arrogant attitude and even send a translator with "dyed purple hair", which not only looks very unprofessional, but also lacks basic diplomatic etiquette and respect for the guests.
After that, more people began to question the ability of "purple hair" to translate. After comparing the original text of Blinken's speech with the American translator's translation, many people believe that the translator's translation has the meaning of "adding fuel to the fire" and "carrying private goods", which is more offensive than Blinken's original text. It is even said that even the Americans can't stand it.
But for this sudden change in the direction of the wind, and the ulterior purpose behind it, we really can't stand it.
First of all, after seeing the comparison between the original text and the translated text, we do feel that the translation level of "Purple Hair" is not high, and there is a big problem with the coherence of the translated content. It is precisely because the translation lacks coherence that it is easy to be taken out of context, and it will lead to wrong knowledge and understanding. This is what is known as being more aggressive.
But we can't help but ask: isn't Blinken's original text offensive?Should he have so blatantly interfered in China's internal affairs?Is his opinion and argument valid?We must not go back to the old days of history and think that "red face is a curse", and a red face with purple hair is even more evil!
Don't forget that Blinken started the dispute first, and don't forget that Blinken's original text is full of aggression, and the "purple hair" mistake is just not corrected, and because the Chinese rhetoric is not good, it just causes mistakes on top of mistakes.
Therefore, we want to say that the culprit is still Blinken, and shifting the cause of the contradiction to the American translator is a conspiracy to turn a big thing into a small one, and it is also a kind of bitter wine of self-comfort, thinking that Blinken is not as bad as imagined, and everyone can become good friends.
We can ask again: since Blinken and Sullivan are both recognized China experts, do they not know about the subtle differences in word choice and sentence formation in Chinese?For the obvious translation mistakes of the translators on their side, the milk system will cause great misunderstanding and even anger on our side, are these two experts short-circuited at the same time?
We can only think that this is the result of their deliberate indulgence, and we want to make them more aggressive in their speech. This is clearly a deliberate attempt to stir up our anger, and a gaffe to show in front of the world. This is very insidious and vicious.
Fortunately, our diplomats, after expressing their strong indignation, did not continue the bad mood, but let the situation get out of control and fell into the hands of the Americans. Moreover, due to the intelligence and wisdom of our translator Zhang Jun, the very awkward atmosphere was broken, and the first exchange was allowed to continue without stopping.
Here, on the one hand, we expose the conspiracy of the US side, and we do not want to underestimate the aggression and hostility of the US side to us because of the quality problems of the US translators. We think it's appropriate to describe Bricken and Sullivan as Smiling Tigers, and we shouldn't underestimate Biden's destructiveness to U.S.-China relations.
If during the Trump administration, the hostility of the United States towards us was only superficial, then the hatred of important members of Biden has long been deep in the bone marrow, because they think they know us well and are more confident that their preaching can confuse many of us.
During the Trump administration, did anyone around you and me dare to openly support Trump's China policy?If it wasn't then, it is now, because we're seeing that the intellectuals are starting to move and follow suit, and they're using the money transferred through Bitcoin to erode our bodies internally.
History has proven that the Republican Party in the United States is better to deal with than the Democratic Party.