丘吉尔演讲稿

TAG:

"BLOOD, SWEAT AND TEARS"

Winston Churchill (May 13, 1940 )

On Friday evening last I received from His Majesty the mission to form a new administration.

It was the evident will of Parliament and the nation that this should be conceived on the broadest possible basis and that it should include all parties.

I have already completed the most important part of this task. A war cabinet has been formed of five members, representing, with the Labor, Opposition and Liberals, the unity of the nation.

It was necessary that this should be done in one single day on account of the extreme urgency and rigor of events. Other key positions were filled yesterday. I am submitting a further list to the King tonight. I hope to complete the appointment of principal Ministers during tomorrow.

The appointment of other Ministers usually takes a little longer. I trust when Parliament meets again this part of my task will be completed and that the administration will be complete in all respects.

I considered it in the public interest to suggest to the Speaker that the House should be summoned today. At the end of today's proceedings, the adjournment of the House will be proposed until May 2l with provision for earlier meeting if need be. Business for that will be notified to M. P. 's at the earliest opportunity.

I now invite the House by a resolution to record its approval of the steps taken and declare its confidence in the new government. The resolution:

"That this House welcomes the formation of a government representing the united and inflexible resolve of the nation to prosecute the war with Germany to a victorious conclusion."

To form an administration of this scale and complexity is a serious undertaking in itself. But we are in the preliminary Phase of one of the greatest battles in history. We are in action at any other points-in Norway and in Holland-and we have to be prepared in the Mediterranean. The air battle is continuing, and many preparations have to be made here at home.

In this crisis I think I may be pardoned if I do not address the House at any length today, and I hope that any of my friends and colleagues or for mer colleagues who are affected by the political reconstruction will make all allowances for any lack of ceremony with which it has been necessary to act.

I say to the House as I said to Ministers who have joined this government, I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many months of struggle and suffering.

You ask, what is our policy? I say it is to wage war by land, sea and air. War with all our might and with all the strength God has given us, and to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word, It is victory. Victory at all costs-victory in spite of all terrors-victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.

Let that be realized. No survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge, the impulse of the ages, that mankind shall move forward toward his goal.

I take up my task in buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men.

I feel entitled at this juncture, at this time, to claim the aid of all and to say, "Come then, let us go forward together with our united strength."

第二篇：丘吉尔的演讲

(温斯顿丘吉尔的演讲)

Winston Churchill (May 13, 1940 ) On Friday evening last I received from His Majesty the mission to form a new administration.

It was the evident will of Parliament and the nation that this should be conceived on the broadest possible basis and that it should include all parties.

I have already completed the most important part of this task. A war cabinet has been formed of five members, representing, with the Labor, Opposition and Liberals, the unity of the nation.

I now invite the House by a resolution to record its approval of the steps taken and declare its confidence in the new government. The resolution:

"That this House welcomes the formation of a government representing the united and inflexible resolve of the nation to prosecute the war with Germany to a victorious conclusion."

Mediterranean. The air battle is continuing, and many preparations have to be made here at home.

I take up my task in buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men.

I feel entitled at this juncture, at this time, to claim the aid of all and to say, "Come then, let us go forward together with our united strength."

Winston Churchill - May 13, 1940

“热血、汗水和眼泪”

温斯顿?丘吉尔 (19xx年5月13日 )

上星期五晚上，我奉陛下之命，组织新的一届政府。

按国会和国民的意愿，新政府显然应该考虑建立在尽可能广泛的基础上，应该兼容所有的党派。

我已经完成了这项任务的最主要的部分。战时内阁已由五人组成，包括工党、反对党和自由党，这体现了举国团结一致。

由于事态的极端紧急和严峻，新阁政府须于一天之内组成，其他的关键岗位也于昨日安排就绪。今晚还要向国王呈报一份名单。我希望明天就能完成几位主要大臣的任命。

其余大臣们的任命照例得晚一些。我相信，在国会下一次召开时，任命将告完成，臻于完善。

为公众利益着想，我建议议长今天就召开国会。今天的议程结束时，建议休会到5月21日，并准备在必要时提前开会。有关事项当会及早通知各位议员。

现在我请求国会作出决议，批准我所采取的各项步骤，启示记录在案，并且声明信任新政府。决议如下：

“本国会欢迎新政府的组成，她体现了举国一致的坚定不移的决心：对德作战，直到最后胜利。”

组织如此规模和如此复杂的政府原本是一项重大的任务。但是我们正处于历史上罕见的一场大战的初始阶段。我们在其他许多地点作战——在挪威，在荷兰，我们还必须在地中海做好准备。空战正在继续，而且在本土也必须做好许多准备工作。

值此危急关头，我想，即使我今天向国会的报告过于简略，也当能见谅。我还希望所有在这次改组中受到影响的朋友、同僚和旧日的同僚们对必要的礼仪方面的任何不周之处能毫不介意。

我向国会表明，一如我向入阁的大臣们所表明的，我所能奉献的唯有热血、辛劳、眼泪和汗水我们所面临的将是一场极其严酷的考验，将是旷日持久的斗争和苦难。

若问我们的政策是什么？我的回答是：在陆上、海上、空中作战。尽我们的全力，尽上帝赋予我们的全部力量去作战，对人类黑暗、可悲的罪恶史上空前凶残的暴政作战。这就是我们的政策。

若问我们的目标是什么？我可以用一个词来回答，那就是胜利。不惜一切代价，去夺取胜利——不惧一切恐怖，去夺取胜利——不论前路如何漫长、如何艰苦，去夺取胜利。因为没有胜利就不能生存。

我们务必认识到，没有胜利就不复有大英帝国，没有胜利就不复有大英帝国所象征的一切，没有胜利就不复有多少世纪以来的强烈要求和冲动：人类应当向自己的目标迈进。我精神振奋、满怀信心地承担起我的任务。我确信，大家联合起来，我们的事业就不会遭到挫败。

在此时此刻的危急关头，我觉得我有权要求各方面的支持。我要说：“来吧，让我们群策群力，并肩前进！”

温斯顿·丘吉尔在俄国遭到入侵时发表的广播演说

Winston Churchill BROADCAST ON RUSSIA BEING INVADED June 22 ， 1941

Winston Churchill

BROADCAST ON RUSSIA BEING INVADED

June 22，1941

At 4 o'clock this morning Hitler attacked and invaded Russia.Suddenly，without

declaration of war，without even an ultimatum，the German bombs rained down from the sky upon the Russian cities； the German troops violated the Russian frontiers and an hour later the German Ambassador，who till the night before was lavishing his assurances of friendship，almost of alliance，upon the Russians，called upon the Russian Foreign Minister to tell him that a state of war existed be- teen Germany and Russia.

Hitler is a monster of wickedness，insatiable in his lust for blood and plunder.The Nazi regimes devoid of all theme and principle except appetite and racial domination.It excels

in all forms of human wickedness，in the efficiency of its cruelty and ferocious

aggression.No one has been a more consistent opponent of Communism than I have for the last twenty-five years.I will unsay no words that I?ve spoken about it.But all this fades away before the spectacle which is now unfolding.

The past， with its crimes，its follies and its tragedies，flashes away.I see the Russian soldiers standing on the threshold of their native land， guarding the fields which their fathers have tilled from time immemorial.I see them guarding their homes，their mothers and wives pray，ah，yes，for there are times when all pray for the safety of their loved ones，for the return of the breadwinner，of the champion，of their protectors.

I see the 10，000 villages of Russia，where the means of existence was wrung so hardly from the soil，but where there are still primordial human joys，where maidens laugh and children play.I see advancing upon all this，in hideous onslaught，the Nazi war machine，with its clanking，heel-clicking，dandified Prussian officers，its crafty expert agents，fresh from the cowing and tying down of a dozen countries.I see also the dull，drilled， docile，brutish masses of the Hun soldiery，plod-ding on like a swarm of crawling locusts.I see the German bombers and fighters in the sky，still smarting from many a British whipping，so delightful to find what they believe is an easier and a safer prey.And behind all this glare，behind all this storm，I see that small group of villainous men who planned，organized and launched this cataract of horrors upon mankind.

And then my mind goes back across the years to the days when the Russian armies were our Al- lies against the same deadly foe，when they fought with so much valor and constancy and helped to gain a victory，from all share in which，alas，they were，through no fault of ours，utterly cut off.

I have lived through all this and you will par-don me if I express my feelings and me stir of old memories.But now I have to declare the decision of His Majesty's Government，and I feel sure it is decision in which the great Dominions will，in due course，concur.And

that we must speak of now，at once，without a day's delay.I have to make the declaration but，can you doubt what our policy will be？

We have but one aim and one single irrevocable purpose.We are resolved to destroy Hitler and every vestige of the Nazi regime.From this nothing will turn us.Nothing.We will never parley； we will never negotiate with Hitler or any of his gang.We shall fight him by land； we shall fight him by sea； we shall fight him in the air，until，with God's help we have rid the earth of his shadow and liberated its people from his yoke.

Any man or State who fights against Nazism will have our aid.Any man or State who marches with Hitler is our foe.This applies not only to organized States but to all

representatives of that vile race of Quislings who make themselves the tools and agents of the Nazi regime against their fellow countrymen and against the lands of their

births.These Quislings，like the Nazi leaders themselves，if not disposed of by their fellow countrymen，which would save trouble，will be delivered by us on the morrow of victory to the justice of the Al- lied tribunals.That is our policy and that is our declaration.

Hitler's invasion of Russia is no more than a prelude to an attempted invasion of the British Isles.He hopes，no doubt，that all this may be ac-accomplished before the Winter comes and that he can overwhelm Great Britain before the fleets and air power of the United States will intervene.He hopes that he may once again repeat upon a greater scale than ever before that process of destroying his enemies one by one，by which he has so long thrived and prospered，and that then the scene will be clear for the final act，without which all his conquests would be in vain，namely，the subjugation of the Western Hemisphere to his will and to his system.

The Russian danger is therefore our danger and the danger of the United States just as the cause of any Russian fighting for his hearth and home is the cause of free men and free peoples in every quarter of the globe.

Let us learn the lessons already taught by such cruel experience.Let us redouble our exertions and strike with united strength while life and power remain.

温斯顿·丘吉尔

在俄国遭到入侵时发表的广播演说

19xx年6月22日

今天凌晨4时，希特勒已进攻并侵入俄国。没有宣战，甚至没有最后通牒，德国炸弹突然在俄国城市的上空雨点般地落下，德国军队侵犯俄国边境。一小时后，德国大使拜见俄国外交部长，称两国已处于战争状态。而正是这位大使，昨夜还在喋喋不休地向俄国人保证友谊，几乎要保证结盟。

希特勒是个伤天害理，屠杀掠夺成性的魔鬼；而纳粹制度除了欲望和种族统治外，毫无宗旨和原则。它凶恶残忍的侵略所造成的后果，为人类一切形式的罪恶行径所不及。在过去25年里，没有人比我反对共产主义更始终如一的了。我不想收回我对此所说过的话。但是，所有这一切在目前展现的情景面前都黯然失色了。

过去的一切，连同它的罪恶，它的愚蠢和悲剧，正在飞驰而去。我看见俄国士兵站在其祖国的大门口，守卫着自古以来他们的祖先就已耕作的土地。我看见他们在守卫家园，他们的母亲和妻子在祈祷——呵，是的，因为这个时候人人都要为所爱之人的平安而祈祷，为他们的赡养者、战斗者和保护者的归来而祈祷。

我看见数以万计的俄罗斯村庄，那儿的人们正在艰辛地从土地中获取生活资料，但那儿依然有着人类的基本乐趣，少女在欢笑，儿童在玩耍。我看见纳粹的战争机器连同立正起来喀嚓一声，全身叮当作响的花花公子似的普鲁士军官，以及刚刚威吓、压制过十多个国家的、奸诈无比的特工高手，向这一切碾压过去，展开了骇人听闻的袭击。我看见大批愚笨迟钝，受过训练，唯命是从，凶残暴戾的德国士兵，像一大群爬行的蝗虫正在沉重缓慢地前进。我看见因英国人的多次惩罚仍心有余悸的德国轰炸机和战斗机在天空盘旋，为找到一个自以为唾手可得的猎物而得意忘形。在这种嚣张气焰的背后，在这场突然袭击的背后，我看到了那一小撮策划、组织并向人类发动这场恐怖战争的恶棍。于是，我的思绪回到了若干年前。那时，俄国军队是我们抗击同一不共戴天的仇敌的盟军，他们坚韧不拔，英勇善战，帮助我们赢得了胜利，但后来，唉，他们却完全同这一切隔开了——虽然这并非我们的过错。

我亲身经历了所有这一切。如果我直抒胸臆，感怀旧事，你们是会原谅我的。但是，我现在必须宣布国王陛下政府的决定，我确信伟大的自治领在适当时候会一致同意这项决定的。而我们必须在现在，必须立即宣布这项决定，一天也不能耽搁。我必须发表这项声明，我相信，你们绝不会怀疑我们将要采取的政策。

我们只有一个目标，一个唯一的、不可变更的目标。我们决心要消灭希特勒，清除纳粹制度的一切痕迹。什么也不能使我们改变这个决心。什么也不能！我们决不谈判；我们决不同希特勒或他的任何党羽进行谈判。我们将在陆地同他作战；我们将在海洋同他作战；我们将在天空同他作战，直到在上帝的帮助下，在地球上清除他的阴影，并把地球上的人民从他的枷锁下解放出来。

任何一个同纳粹主义作斗争的人或国家，都将得到我们的援助。任何一个与希特勒同流合污的人或国家，都是我们的敌人。这一点不仅适用于国家组织，而且适用于那些卑劣的、吉斯林之流的代表人物，他们充当了纳粹制度的工具和代理人，反对自己的同胞，反对自己的故土。这些吉斯林们，就像纳粹头目本身一样，如果没有被自己的同胞干掉（干掉就会省去很多麻烦），就将在胜利的翌日被我们送交同盟国法庭审判。这就是我们的政策，这就是我们的声明。

希特勒侵略俄国不过是企图侵略不列颠诸岛的前奏。毫无疑问，他指望在冬季到来之前结束这一切，并在美国海军和空军进行干涉之前击溃大不列颠。他指望更大规模地重演故伎：把敌人各个击破。他一直是凭借这种伎俩得逞的。那时，他就可以为最后的行动扫清障碍了，也就是说，他就要迫使西半球屈服干他的意志和制度了，而如果做不到这一点，他的一切征服都将落空。

因此，俄国的危险就是我国的危险，就是美国的危险；为保卫家园而战的俄国人民的事业，就是世界各地自由人民和自由民族的事业。

让我们从如此残酷的经验中吸取教训吧！乘此生命尚存，力量还在之际，让我们加倍努力，合力奋战吧！

温斯顿·丘吉尔 “他们最光辉的时刻”

Winston Churchill “ THEIR FINEST HOUR ” June 18 ， 1940

Winston Churchill

“THEIR FINEST HOUR”

June 18，1940

I spoke the other day of the colossal military disas- ter which occurred when the

French High Com- mand failed to withdraw the northern armies fromBelgium at a moment when they knew that the French front was decisively broken at Sedan and onthe Meuse. This delay entailed the loss of fifteen or six- teen French divisions and threw out of action thewhole of the British Expeditionary Force.

Our army were indeed rescued by the BritishNavy from Dunkirk，but only with the loss of alltheir cannon，vehicles and modern equipment.

This loss inevitably took some weeks to repair，and in the first two of these weeks the Battle ofFrance had been lost.

Now I put all this aside.I put it on the shelffrom which the historians may select their docu- ments in order to tell their story.We have to thinkof the future and not of the past. There are many who wish to hold an inquest upon the conduct of the government and of Parlia- ment during the years which led up to this catas-trophe.They wish to indict those who were re- sponsible for the guidance of our affairs.

This also would be a foolish and perniciousprocess.There are too many in it.Let each mansearch his conscience and search his speeches，as Ifrequently search mine.Of this I am quite sure，that if we open a quarrel between the past and thepresent we shall find that we have lost the future.

The military events which have happened inFrance during the last fortnight have not come tome with any sense of surprise； indeed，I indicateda fortnight ago as clearly as I could to the House，that the worst possibilities were open and I made itperfectly clear that whatever happened in France，it would make no difference to the resolve ofBritain and the British Empire to fight on，if neces-sary for years，and if necessary alone.

We have under arms at the present time in thisisland over 1，250，000 men.Behind these we havethe local defense volunteers，numbering 500，000，only a portion of whom，however，are armed withrifles or other firearms.

We have incorporated into our defense force amass of weapons and we expect very large addi-tions to these weapons in the near future.Inpreparation，we intend to call up，drill and train，further large numbers at once.

We also have the Dominion armies here.TheCanadians had actually landed in

France，but havenow been safely withdrawn much disappointed andare here with all their artillery and equipment.These very high-class forces from the dominionswill now take part in the defense of their mothercountry.

Thus，the invasion of Great Britain at thistime would require the transport across the seas ofhostile armies on a very large scale and after theyhad been so transported，they would have to becontinually maintained with all the immense massof munitions and supplies which are required forcontinuous battle，as continuous battle it wouldbe.

Now here is where we come to the navy.Af- ter all，we have a navy； some people seem to for- get it.We must remind them.For more than thir-ty years I have been concerned in discussions aboutthe possibility of an overseas invasion and I tookthe

responsibility on behalf of the Admiralty at thebeginning of the last war of allowing all the regulartroops to be sent out of the country although ourTerritorials had only just been called up and werequite untried.

It seems to me that as far as sea-borne inva-sion on a great scale is concerned，we are far morecapable of meeting it than we were at many periodsin the last war and during the early months of thiswar before our troops were trained and while theBritish

Expeditionary Force was abroad.

We have also a great system of mine fields，recently reinforced，through which we alone knowthe channel.If the enemy tries to sweep a channelthrough these mine fields，it will be the task of thenavy to destroy these mine-sweepers and any otherforce employed to protect them.There ought to beno difficulty about this，owing to our superiority atsea. Some people will ask why it was that theBritish Navy was not able to prevent the movementof a large army from Germany into Norway acrossthe Skagerrak.But conditions in the Channel andin the North Sea are in no way like those whichprevail in the

Skagerrak.In the Skagerrak，be- cause of the distance，we could give no air supportto our surface ships and consequently，lying as wedid close to the enemy's main air power in Norwe-gian waters，we were compelled to use only oursubmarines.

This brings me naturally to the great questionof invasion from the air and the impending strugglebetween the British and German Air Forces.

It seems quite clear that no invasion on a scalebeyond the capacity of our ground forces to crushspeedily is likely to take place from the air untilour air force has been definitely overpowered.Inthe meantime，there may be raids by parachutetroops and

attempted descents by air-borne soldiers.We ought to be able to give those gentrya warm reception，both in the air and if they reachthe ground in any condition to continue their dis- pute.（The great question is，can we break Hitler'sair weapon？）

Now，of course，it is a very great pity that wehave not got an air force at least equal to that of the most powerful enemy within reach of our shores，but we have a very powerful air force，which has proved itself far superior in quality bothin men and in many types of machines to what wehave met so far in the numerous fierce air battleswhich have been fought.

There remains the danger of the bombing at- tacks，which will certainly be made very soon uponus by the bomber forces of the enemy.It is quitetrue that these forces are

superior in number toours，but we have a very large bombing force alsowhich we shall use to strike at the military targetsin Germany without intermission.

I do not at all underrate the severity of the or-deal which lies before us，but I believe that ourcountrymen will show themselves capable of stand-ing up to it and carrying on in spite of it at least aswell as any other people in the world.

It will depend upon themselves，and everyman and woman will have the chance of showingthe finest qualities of their race and of renderingthe highest service to their cause. For all of us，whatever our sphere or station，it will be a help to remember the famous lines：He nothing common did，or mean Upon that memorable scene.

I have thought it right on this occasion to givethe House and the country some

indication of thesolid，practical grounds upon which we are basingour invincible resolve to continue the war，and I can assure them that our professional advisers ofthe three services unitedly advise that we should doit，and that there are good and reasonable hopes offinal victory.

We have fully informed all the self-governingdominions and we have received from all PrimeMinisters messages couched in the most movingterms，in which they endorse our decision and de- clare themselves ready to share our fortunes andpersevere to the end. We may now ask ourselves in what way hasour position worsened since the

beginning of thewar.It is worsened by the fact that the Germanshave conquered a large part of the coast of the Al- lies in Western Europe，and many small and countrieshave beed overrun by them.This aggravates thepossibility of air attack and adds to our naval pre-occupation，but it in no way diminishes，but on thecontrary definitely increases，the power of ourlong-distance blockade.

Should military resistance come to an end inFrance—which is not yet，though it will in anycase be greatly diminished—the Germans can con-centrate their forces both military and industrial upon us.But for the reason given to the House thiswill not be easy to apply. If invasion becomes more imminent，we havebeen relieved from the task of

maintaining a largearmy in France and we have a far larger and moreefficient force here to meet it.

If Hitler can bring under despotic control theindustries of the countries he has

conquered，thiswill add grestly to his already vast armament out-put.On the other hand，this will not happen im-mediately and we are now assured of immense con-tinued and increasing support in munitions of allkinds from the United States，and especially of

air-planes and pilots from across the ocean.They willcome from regions beyond the reach of enemybombers.I do not see how any of these factors can oper-ate to our detriment，on balance，before the Win-ter comes，and the Winter will impose a strain up-on the Nazi regime，with half Europe writhing andstarving under its heel，which，for all their ruth-lessness，will run them very hard.

Therefore in casting up this dread balancesheet and contemplating our dangers with a disillu-sioned eye，I see great reasons for intense exertionand vigilance，but none whatever for panic or de- spair.During the first four months of the last warthe Allies

experienced nothing but disaster and dis- appointment，and yet at the end their morale washigher than that of the Germans，who had movedfrom one aggressive triumph to another.

During that war we repeatedly asked ourselvesthe question，“How are we going to win？”and noone was ever able to answer it with much preci-sion，until at the end，quite suddenly and unex- pectedly，our terrible foe collapsed before us andwe were so glutted with victory that in our folly wecast it away.

We do not yet know what will happen inFrance or whether the French resistance will beprolonged both in France and in the French Empireoverseas.The French Government

will be throw- ing away great opportunities and casting away theirfuture if they do not continue the war in accordancewith their treaty obligations，from which we havenot felt able to release them.

The House will have read the historic declara-tion in which.at the desire of many Frenchmenand of our own hearts，we have proclaimed ourwillingness to conclude at the darkest hour inFrench history a union of common citizenship intheir struggle.

However matters may go in France or with theFrench Government，or another French Govern-ment，we in this island and in the British Empirewill never lose our sense of comradeship with theFrench people.

If we are now called upon to endure what theyhave suffered，we shall emulate their courage，andif final victory rewards our toils they shall sharethe gain—aye，freedom shall be restored to all.We abate nothing of our just demands.Czechs，Poles，Norwegians，Dutch and Belgians，who havejoined their causes with our own，all shall be re- stored. What General Weygand called the Battle ofFrance is over.The Battle of Britain is about tobegin.On this battle depends the survival ofChristian civilization.

Upon it depends our own British life and thelong continuity of our institutions and our empire.The whole fury and might of the enemy must verysoon be turned upon us.Hitler knows he will haveto break us in this island or lose the war.

If we can stand up to him all Europe may befreed and the life of the world may move forwardinto broad sunlit uplands； but if we fail，the wholeworld，including the United States and all that wehave known and cared for，will sink into the abyssof a new dark age made more sinister and perhapsmore prolonged by the lights of a perverted sci- ence. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our dutyand so bear ourselves that if the British Common- wealth and Empire last for a thousand years，menwill still say“This was their finest hour.”

温斯顿·丘吉尔

“他们最光辉的时刻”

19xx年6月18日

前些时我曾经谈到这场非常的军事灾难：法军最高统帅部在获悉法国前线在色当和马斯河一线肯定已经被突破时，没有能及时将北面的部队从比利时撤出。

这一延误使法军丧失了十五六个师，而且使整个英国远征军完全失去作用。

我们的陆军诚然被海军从敦刻尔克营救出来，但已经损失了全部的大炮、车辆和其他现代化装备。这些损失不得不花好几个星期去休整。然而休整刚刚开始两个星期，法国就溃败了。

这一切现在都不必多谈了，不妨束之高阁，待历史学家们去翻档案讲故事吧。我们要思考的是将来而不是过去。

有不少人希望进行一次调查，查一查在把我们导向这场悲剧的这些年里政府和国会的所作所为。他们希望起诉那些对国务负有领导责任的人。

这也是一种愚蠢有害的做法。涉及的人太多了。让每个人去扪心自问，去反省一下自己的言论吧，就像我经常反省自己那样。我敢肯定，如果我们在过去和现在之间展开一场争吵，我们日后会发现，我们已经失去了将来。

过去两个星期里法国发生的军事情况并未使我感到吃惊。其实两星期以前我已经尽可能清楚地向下院说明，最坏的可能性已见端倪。我说得非常明确，无论法国出现什么情况，决不会影响英国和英帝国继续作战，必要时可以长期作战，必要时也可以单独作战。

眼下，本岛有125万部队处于战备状态。此外还有地方防卫志愿军50万，不过他们之中只有一部分装备有步枪或其他火器。

我们的国防部队已经集中了大量的武器，不久的将来还有望获得极大量的补充。我们正在准备立即再征集、训练大量兵员。

我们这里还有各自治领的部队。加拿大部队其实已在法国登陆，他们大失所望，不过现在已经安全地携带全部大炮和装备撤到我们这里。这些从自治领来的高水平的部队将参加保卫他们的母国。

因此，现在想侵犯大不列颠，敌军就必须极大规模地越海运输部队，而部队运输之后又必须持续供应持久战所必需的大量军火和给养，因为战争必将是持久的。

现在该谈谈海军了。毕竟我们还有一支海军，有些人似乎忘了，我们必须提醒他们。30多年来我一直关注着关于海上入侵的可能性的讨论。上次大战开始时我曾代表海军部负责运送所有的正规部队出国，虽然那时我们的本土防卫队刚刚征集，尚待考验。

我觉得，就海上大规模入侵的问题而言，比起上次大战中很多时候以及这次大战中头几个月我们的部队未及训练而英国远征军又在国外的情况来，我们现在对付他们的能力要强得多。

我们还有一个大面积的水雷区，最近它又得到了加强。只有我们自己知道水雷区的航道。如果敌人试图在水雷区清扫出一条航道，我们海军的任务就是摧毁他们的扫雷舰以及为扫雷舰护航的其他部队。由于我们的海上优势，这一点应该是没有困难的。

有些人会问，为什么英国海军没能阻止一支大部队从德国越过斯卡格拉克海峡进入挪威？应该说，英吉利海峡及北海的情况和斯卡格拉克海峡普遍存在的情况是完全不同的。在斯卡格拉克海峡，由于距离太远。我们无法为水面舰船提供空中支援，其结果是，为了避开敌军在挪威海面的空军主力，我们只好被迫使用潜艇。

这就自然而然地引出空中入侵和即将到来的英德空军之间较量的大问题。

事情似乎很清楚，在我们空军的实力决定性地被压倒之前，规模大到我们的地面部队无力迅速予以粉碎的空中入侵是不大会发生的。但同时降落伞部队的突然袭击或空降兵的试图降落倒是可能的。我们应该能给这些家伙以热情的接待，无论在空中或者在他们落地并继续顽抗的时候。

眼前，非常遗憾的当然是我们至少还没有一支可以在我国海岸地带与最强大的敌方空军相匹敌的空军，但是我们毕竟还是有一支强大的空军，在人员和多种机型这两方面的质量上远优于他们遭遇的对手，这一点已在迄今为止多次的空中恶战中得到证明。

此外，还有轰炸的危险。敌人的轰炸机部队肯定很快就会轰炸我们。千真万确，这些轰炸机部队在数量上是超过我们的。不过我们也有一支强大的轰炸机部队，我们将用以不间歇地打击德国的军事目标。

我丝毫也没有低估我们面临的考验的严峻性，但是我相信我们的同胞们会证明他们能顶得住并且百折不回地坚持下去，至少不输给世界上任何民族。

一切取决于自己，每一个男人和女人都有机会显示自己民族的优秀品质，为自己的事业作出最大的贡献。

对我们大家来说，无论什么身份、什么地位，记得这两行有名的诗总是有益的：对那令人怀念的事业，他作出了卓越的贡献。

我想应该在这个场合向下院和全国说明，我们无比坚定的继续作战的决心是有着坚实基础的。我敢向他们保证，我们三军的参谋们一致认为我们应该打下去，我们有充分的、合理的取得最后胜利的希望。

我们已经把一切告知所有的自治领，我们已经收到各位总理用最感人的言辞表达的信息，他们支持我们的决定，宣布他们已经准备好和我们共命运，并坚持到底。

现在我们可以自问，战争爆发以来我们的处境是如何每况愈下的？！那是由于德国人征服了西欧协约国的大部分海岸，许多小国被侵占，这就加大了空中攻击的可能性，也增加了对我们海军的牵制。但我们的海军决没有被削弱，相反肯定是加强了我们远距离封锁的能力。如果法国的军事抵抗告终——现在还没有，虽然不管怎么说是大大减弱了——德国人就能集中其军事力量和工业能力对付我们。不过按我向下院说过的理由，这决不是轻而易举的。即便入侵迫在眉睫，我们也已经从在法国维持庞大部队的重担下摆脱出来，并已经有了强大得多的兵力在本土作战。

如果希特勒能把占领国的工业专横地控制起来，就将大大加强他原已庞大的军需生产。但这也决不是一朝一夕之功。而我们现在则有把握从美国得到大量持续不断而且越来越多的各种各样武器的支援，特别是飞机和飞行员。他们越洋而来，来自敌人的轰炸机鞭长莫及的地方。

总起来说，在冬天到来之前，我看不出这些因素能起多少对我们不利的作用。而冬天会给纳粹政权加重负担，半个欧洲在他们的铁蹄下挣扎、挨饿。不管他们何等凶残，这一切都将使他们陷于困境。

因此在计算这张令人忧虑的资产负债表，并且清醒地反复思考我们的危险时，我认为有千万条理由要竭尽全力和时刻警惕，但绝无丝毫理由惊慌失措，丧失信心。上次大战的头9个月，协约国遭遇的只有灾难和失望，但最后，他们的士气比德国人要高，尽管德国人在侵略中也曾经一再得逞。

在那次战争中，我们曾一再问自己：“我们将如何赢得胜利？”但始终没有谁能准确地作出答复。直到最后，凶恶的敌人突如其来、出人意料地在我们面前崩溃了。可惜我们被胜利冲昏头脑，以致干了蠢事，又把胜利的果实丢了。

我们还不知道法国会出现什么情况，法国人的抵抗还能不能在法国和她的海外帝国继续下去。法国政府如果不按照条约的义务继续打下去——我们认为还不能免除他们的这些义务——那么他们必将丧失大好时机，葬送他们的前途。

下院将会看到一个历史性的声明，按许多法国人和我们自己内心的愿望，我们宣布了愿意在法兰西历史上最黑暗的时刻和他们结成一个在共同斗争中互通国籍的同盟。

不论法国、法国现政府或者别的法国政府何去何从，我们英国和英帝国永远不会舍弃和法国人民的同志之谊。

如果现在要我们去承受他们所蒙受过的苦难，我们将会学习他们的勇敢。如果我们的艰辛赢得最后胜利，他们将分享胜利的果实——当然，大家都将重获自由。我们决不降低我们的正义要求，捷克人、波兰人、挪威人、荷兰人、比利时人，凡是把他们的事业和我们的事业融为一体的，都将重获自由。

魏刚将军所说的法兰西之战已告终结，不列颠之战即将揭幕。基督教文明的生死存亡在此一战。

我们英国人、我们的制度和我们的帝国的存亡续绝也都在此一战。敌人全部的凶狂和强暴很快就会转向我们。希特勒懂得，必须把我们粉碎在这个岛上，否则他就输了这场战争。如果我们能顶得住，全欧洲都将获得解放，全世界的人民就能进入一个阳光普照的辽阔高地。但是，如果我们失败了，全世界，包括美国和所有我们熟悉和关怀的国家，都将堕入一个新的黑暗时代的深渊、一个由某种扭曲了的科学所造成的更加凶险或者可能更加漫长的黑暗时代的深渊。

那么就让我们振作精神，承担起自己的责任来，让我们干出名堂来——倘若英联邦和英帝国再生存一千年，到那时人们还会说“这是他们最光辉的时刻”。

温斯顿·丘吉尔写作的乐趣

Winston Churchill

THE JOYS OF WRITING

February 17，1908

The fortunate people in the world-the only reallyfortunate people in the world，in my mind，-arethose whose work is also their pleasure.The classis not a large one，not nearly so large as it is oftenrepresented to be；and authors are perhaps one ofthe most important elements in its composition.They enjoy in this respect at least a real harmonyof life.To my mind，to be able to make your workyour pleasure is the one class distinction in theworld worth striving for；and I do not wonder thatothers are inclined to envy those happy human be-ings who find their livelihood in the gay effusionsof their fancy，to whom every hour of labour is anhour of enjoyment，to whom repose-however nec－essary-is a tiresome interlude.and even a holidayis almost deprivation.Whether a man writes wellor ill，has much to say or little，if he cares aboutwriting at all，he will appreciate the pleasures ofcomposition.To sit at one's table on a sunny morning，with four clear hours of

uninterruptiblesecurity，plenty of nice white paper，and a Squeez-er pen-that is true happiness.The complete ab－sorption of the mind upon an agreeable occupa-tion-what more is there than that to desire？Whatdoes it matter what happens outside？The House ofCommons may do what it likes，and so may theHouse of Lords.The heathen may rage furiously inevery part of the globe.The bottom may beknocked clean out of the American market.Con－sols may fall and suffragettes may rise.Nevermind，for four hours，at any rate，we will with－draw ourselves from a common，ill-governed，and disorderly world，and with the key of fancyunlock that cupboard where all the good things ofthe infinite are put away.

And speaking of freedom，is not the authorfree，as few men are free？Is he not secure，as fewmen are secure？The tools of his industry are socommon and so cheap that they have almost ceasedto have commercial value.He needs no bulky pileof raw material，no elaborate apparatus，no serviceof men or animals.He is dependent for his occupa-tion upon no one but himself，and nothing outsidehim that matters.He is the sovereign of an em-pire，self-supporting，self-contained.No onecan sequestrate his estates.No one can deprivehim of his stock in trade；no one can force him toexercise his faculty against his will；no one canprevent him exercising it as he chooses.The pen isthe great liberator of men and nations.No chainscan bind，no poverty can choke，no tariff can re-strict the free play of his mind，and even the“Times” Book Club can only exert a moderatelydepressing influence upon his rewards.Whetherhis work is good or bad，so long as he does his besthe is happy.I often fortify myself amid the uncer-tainties and vexations of political life by believingthat I possess a line of retreat into a peaceful

andfertile country where no rascal can pursue andwhere one need never be dull or idle or even whollywithout power.It is then，indeed，that I feel de－voutly thankful to have been born foud of writing.It is then，indeed，that I feel grateful to all thebrave and generous spirits who，in every age and inevery land，have fought to establish the now un-questioned freedom of the pen.

And what a noble medium the English lan－guage is.It is not possible to write a page withoutexperiencing positive pleasure at the richness andvariety，the flexibility and the profoundness of ourmother-tongue.If an English writer cannot saywhat he has to say in English，and in simple Eng-lish，depend upon it it is probably not worth say-ing.What a pity it is that English is not more gen-erally studied.I am not going to attack classical

e-ducation.No one who has the slightest pretensionto literary tastes can be insensible to the attractionof Greece and Rome.But I confess our present ed－ucational system excites in my mind grave misgiv-ings.I cannot believe that a system is good，oreven reasonable，which thrusts upon reluctant anduncomprehending multitudes treasures which can only be appreciated by the privileged and giftedfew.To the vast majority of boys who attend ourpublic schools a classical education is from begin－ning to end one long useless，meaningless rigma-role.If I am told that classles are the best prepara－tion for the study of English，I reply that by farthe greater number of students finish their educa－tion while this preparatory stage is still incompleteand without deriving any of the benefits which arepromised as its result.

And even of those who，without being great scholars，attain a certain general

acquaintance withthe ancient writers，can it really be said that theyhave also obtained the mastery of English？How many young gentlemen there are from the universi－ties and public schools who can turn a Latin versewith a facility which would make the old Romanssquirm in their tombs.How few there are who canconstruct a few good

sentences，or still less a fewgood paragraphs of plain，correct，and straightfor－ward English.Now，I am a great admirer of theGreeks，although，of course，I have to depend up－on what others tell me about them，-and I wouldlike to see our educationists imitate in one respect，at least，the Greek example.How is it that theGreeks made their language the most graceful andcompendious mode of expression ever known a- mong men？Did they spend all their time studyingthe languages which had preceded theirs？ Did theyexplore with tireless persistency the ancient rootdialects of the vanished world？Not at

all.Theystudied Greek.They studied their own language.They loved it，they cherished it，they adorned it，they expanded it，and that is why it survives amodel and delight to all

posterity.Surely we，whose mother－tongue has already won for itselfsuch an unequalled empier over the modern world，can learn this lesson at least from the ancientGreeks and bestow a little care and some proper－tion of the years of education to the study of a language which is perhaps to play a predominant partin the future progress of mankind. Let us remember the author can always do hisbest.There is no excuse for him.The great crick－eter may be out of form.The general may on theday of decisive battle have a bad toothache or a badarmy.The admiral may be seasick—as a sufferer Ireflect with satisfaction upon that contingency.Caruso may be afflicted with catarrh，or

Hacken-schmidt with influenza.As for an orator，it is notenough for him to be able to think well and truly.He must think quickly.Speed is vital to him.Spontaneity is more than ever the hall－mark ofgood speaking.All these varied forces of activityrequire from the

performer the command of thebest that is in him at a particular moment whichmay be fixed by circumstances utterly beyond hiscontrol.It is not so with the author.He need nev－er appear in public until he is ready.He can alwaysrealise the best that is in him.He is not dependentupon his best moment in any one day.He maygroup together the best moments of twenty days.There is no excuse for him if he does not do hisbest.Great is his

opportunity；great also his re-sponsibility.Someone—I forget who—has said： “Words are the only things which last for ever.”That is，to my mind，always a wonderful thought.The most durable structures raised in stone by thestrength of man，the mightiest monuments of hispower，crumble into dust，while the words spokenwith fleeting breath，the passing expression of theunstable fancies of his mind，endure not as echoesof the past，not as mere archaeological curiositiesor venerable relics，but with a force and life as newand strong，and sometimes far stronger than whenthey were first spoken，and leaping across the gulfof three thousand years，they light the world forus to-day.

温斯顿·丘吉尔

写作的乐趣

19xx年2月17日

在我看来，世上幸运的人——世上唯一真正幸运的人，是那些以工作为乐的人。这个阶层的人并不多，还没有人们常说的那样多。也许，作家是其中最重要的组成部分之一。就幸运而言，他们至少享受着生活中真正的和谐美。依我看，能使工作成为乐趣，是世人值得为之奋斗的一种崇高的荣誉；而且，我毫不怀疑别人会羡慕这些幸福的人，因为他们在快乐地喷涌的幻想中找到了生计，对他们来说，每劳动一小时，就是享受一小时，而休息——无论多么有必要——是令人讨厌的插曲，甚至度假也几乎成了一种损失。无论写得好坏，写成多少，只要在意，就可尝到谋章布局的乐趣。在一个阳光明媚的早晨，临桌而坐，整整四个小时不受打扰，有足够数量的雪白稿纸，还有一支“挤压式”妙笔——那才叫真正的幸福。全心全意地投入一项令人愉快的职业——此愿足矣！外面发生什么事又有何妨？下院想干什么就干什么吧，上院也可如此。异教徙可以在全球各地大发作。美国市场可以彻底崩溃。证券可以下跌；女权运动可以兴起。没有关系，不管怎么说，我们有四个小时可以躲开这俗气的、治理不善的、杂乱无章的世界，并且用想象这把钥匙，去开启藏有大千世界一切宝物的小橱。说到自由，既然自由自在的人为数不多，难道作家还不算自由？既然获得安全感的人并不多，难道作家还不算安全？作家作业的工具极为平常，极为便宜，几乎不再有商业价值。他不需要成堆的原材料，不需要精密仪器，不需要有人效犬马之劳。他的职业不靠任何人，只靠自己；除了他自己以外，任何事都无关紧要。他就是一国之君，既自给，又自立。任何人都不能没收他的资产。任何人都不能剥夺他的从业资本；任何人都不能强迫他违心地施展才华；任何人都不能阻止他按自己的选择发挥天赋。他的笔就是人类和各民族的大救星。他的思想在自由驰骋，任何锁链束缚不住，任何贫困阻挡不住，任何关税限制不住，甚至“泰晤士”图书俱乐部也只能有节制地对他的收获泼一点冷水。无论作品是好是糟，只要已经尽力而为，他就会感到欢快。在变幻无常、扑朔迷离的政坛活动中，我每每以此信念自励：我有一条通向安逸富饶之地的退路，在那里，任何无赖都不能追踪，我永远不必垂头丧气或无可事事，即便没有一丁点权力。确实，在那时，我才为自己生来就爱好写作而真诚地感到欣慰不已；在那时，我才对各个时代、各个国家所有勇敢而慷慨的人充满感激之情，因为他们为确立如今无可争议的写作自由进行了斗争。

英语是多么崇高的工具！我们每写下一页，都不可能不对祖国语言的丰富多采、灵巧精深，产生一种实实在在的喜悦。如果一位英国作家不能用英语，不能用简单的英语说出他必须说的话，请诸位相信，那句话也许就不值得说。英语没有更广泛地得到学习是何等的憾事！

我不是要攻击古典教育。凡自命对文学有一丁点鉴赏力的人，都不可能对希腊罗马的吸引力无动于衷。但我承认，我国目前的教育制度却使我忧心忡忡。我无法相信这个制度是好的，甚至是合理的，因为它把唯有少数特权人物和天才人物才能欣赏的东西，一古脑儿摆在很不情愿又很不理解的人民大众面前。对公立学校的广大学童来说，古典教育从头至尾都是一些冗长的、毫无用处的和毫无意义的废话。如果有人告诉我，古典课程是学习英语的最好准备，那我就回答说，迄今为止，大批学生已完成了学业，而这个准备阶段却仍然很不完善，未能收到它所保证的任何好处。

即使那些无缘成为大学者、但对古代作家有所了解的人，难道可以说他们已经掌握了英语吗？究竟有多少从大学和公学毕业的年轻绅士，能够娴熟地写下一段拉丁诗文，使坟墓中的古罗马人闻之动情？能写出几行佳句的人何其少也！更不要说能用简单的、正确的和练达的英语写出几个精彩段落的人了。不过，我倒是极为仰慕古希腊人——当然我得仰仗别人把他们的情况告诉我——我想见到我们的教育专家至少能在一个方面效法古希腊人。古希腊人是如何使自己的语言，成为人类迄今所知最典雅、最简练的表达方式的呢？他们花毕生时间学习希腊语以前的语言了吗？他们无休无止地坚持探索已消失的世界的原始方言了吗？根本没有！他们只学习希腊语。他们学习自己的语言。他们热爱它，珍惜它，点缀它，发展它，因此，它才能延续下来，成为所有后代人的楷模和乐趣。毫无疑问，对我们来说，既然英语已经为自己在现代世界赢得了如此无与论比的疆域，我们至少能从古希腊人那里学到一条道理，在数年教育中稍微操点心并拨出一些时间，去学习一种也许将在人类未来进步中起到主导作用的语言。

让我们都记住，作家永远可以尽最大的努力，他没有任何借口不这样做。板球巨星也许会状态不佳。将军在决战之日也许会牙疼，或者他的部队很糟糕。舰队司令也许会晕船——我作为晕船者满意地想到了那种意外。卡鲁索也许会得黏膜炎，哈肯施米特也许会得流感。至于一位演说家，想得好和想得正确是不够的，他还需想得快。速度至关重要；随机应变越来越成为优秀演说家的标志。所有上述活动都需要行动者在一个特定的时刻倾其所能，而这一时刻也许决定于他完全无法控制的种种事态。作家的情况不一样。不到万事俱备，他永远不必出场。他永远可以发挥最大的能力。他并不依赖于自己在某一天的最佳一刻，他可以把20天的最佳时刻加起来。他没有理由不尽最大的努力。他的机会很多；他的责任也很重。某人说过——我忘了此君是谁——“话语乃唯一持久不灭之物”。依我看，这永远是绝妙的思

想。人类力量的最伟大的杰作，即人类用石块垒起的无比坚固的大厦，也会夷为废墟，而那脱口而出的话语，那思绪起伏时转瞬即逝的表达却延续了下来，但它不是过去的回响，不是纯粹的建筑奇迹或神圣的遗址，它力量依旧，生命依旧，有时候远比初说时更坚强有力，它越过了3000年时光的峡谷，为今天的我们照亮了世界。

英语演讲范文（丘吉尔） I am speaking not as a Briton, not as a European, not as a member of a western democracy, but as a human being, a member of the species Man, whose continued

existence is in doubt. The world is full of conflicts: Jews and Arabs; Indians and Pakistanis; white men and Negroes in Africa; and, overshadowing all minor conflicts, the titanic struggle between communism and anticommunism.

Almost everybody who is politically conscious has strong feelings about one or more of these issues; but I want you, if you can, to set aside such feelings for the moment and consider yourself only as a member of a biological species which has had a

remarkable history and whose disappearance none of us can desire. I shall try to say no single word which should appeal to one group rather than to another. All, equally, are in peril, and, if the peril is understood, there is hope that they may collectively avert it. We have to learn to think in a new way. We have to learn to ask ourselves not what steps can be taken to give military victory to whatever group we prefer, for there no longer are such steps. The question we have to ask ourselves is: What steps can be taken to prevent a military contest of which the issue must be disastrous to all sides?

The general public, and even many men in positions of authority, have not realized what would be involved in a war with hydrogen bombs. The general public still thinks in terms of the obliteration of cities. It is understood that the new bombs are more powerful than the old and that, while one atomic bomb could obliterate Hiroshima, one hydrogen bomb could obliterate the largest cities such as London, New York, and Moscow. No doubt in a hydrogen-bomb war great cities would be obliterated. But this is one of the minor disasters that would have to be faced. If everybody in London, New York, and Moscow were exterminated, the world might, in the course of a few centuries, recover from the blow. But we now know, especially since the Bikini test, that hydrogen bombs can gradually spread destruction over a much wider area than had been supposed. It is stated on very good authority that a bomb can now be manufactured which will be 25,000 times as powerful as that which destroyed Hiroshima. Such a bomb, if exploded near the ground or under water, sends radioactive particles into the upper air. They sink gradually and reach the surface of the earth in the form of a deadly dust or rain. It was this dust which

infected the Japanese fishermen and their catch of fish although they were outside what American experts believed to be the danger zone. No one knows how widely such lethal radioactive particles might be diffused, but the best authorities are unanimous in saying that a war with hydrogen bombs is quite likely to put an end to the human race. It is feared that if many hydrogen bombs are used there will be universal death - sudden only for a fortunate minority, but for the majority a slow torture of disease and disintegration...

Here, then, is the problem which I present to you, stark and dreadful and

inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race1 or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war. The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty. But what perhaps impedes understanding of the situation more than anything else is that the term 'mankind' feels vague and abstract. People scarcely realize in imagination that the danger is to themselves and their children and their grandchildren, and not only to a dimly

apprehended humanity' And so they hope that perhaps war may be allowed to continue provided modern weapons are prohibited. I am afraid this hope is illusory. Whatever agreements not to use hydrogen bombs had been reached in time of peace, they would no longer be considered binding in time of war, and both sides would set to work to

manufacture hydrogen bombs as soon as war broke out, for if one side manufactured the bombs and the other did not, the side that manufactured them would inevitably be victorious...

As geological time is reckoned, Man has so far existed only for a very short period one million years at the most. What he has achieved, especially during the last 6,000 years, is something utterly new in the history of the Cosmos, so far at least as we are acquainted with it. For countless ages the sun rose and set, the moon waxed and waned, the stars shone in the night, but it was only with the coming of Man that these things were

understood. In the great world of astronomy and in the little world of the atom, Man has unveiled secrets which might have been thought undiscoverable. In art and literature and religion, some men have shown a sublimity of feeling which makes the species worth preserving. Is all this to end in trivial horror because so few are able to think of Man rather than of this or that group of men? Is our race so destitute of wisdom, so incapable of

impartial love, so blind even to the simplest dictates of self-preservation, that the last proof of its silly cleverness is to be the extermination of all life on our planet? - for it will be not only men who will perish, but also the animals, whom no one can accuse of communism or anticommunism.

I cannot believe that this is to be the end. I would have men forget their quarrels for a moment and reflect that, if they will allow themselves to survive, there is every reason to expect the triumphs of the future to exceed immeasurably the triumphs of the past. There

lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? I appeal, as a human being to human beings: remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, nothing lies before you but universal death.

我们该选择死亡吗？（丘吉尔）

我不是作为一个英国人、一个欧洲人、一个西方民主国家的一员，而是作为一个人，作为不知是否还能继续生存下去的人类的一员在讲演。世界充满了争斗：犹太人和阿拉伯人；印度人和巴勒斯坦人；非洲的白人和黑人；以及使所有的小冲突都相形见绌的共产主义和反共产主义之间的大搏斗。

差不多每个有政治意识的人都对这类问题怀有强烈的感受；但是我希望你们，如果你们能够的话，把这份感受暂搁一边，并把自己只看作一种具有非凡历史、谁也不希望它灭亡的生物的一员。可能会迎合一群人而冷落另一群人的词语，我将努力一个字都不说。所有的人，不分彼此，都处在危险之中；如果大家都看到了这种危险，那么就有希望联合起来避开它。我们必须学习新的思想方法。我们必须学习不自问能采取什么措施来使我们所喜欢的人群获得军事上的胜利，因为不再有这样的措施。我们必须自问的问题是：能采取什么措施来避免必然会给各方造成灾难的军事竞赛？

普通群众，甚至许多当权人士，不清楚一场氢弹战所包含的会是什么。普通群众仍旧从城市的毁灭上思考问题。不言而喻，新炸弹比旧炸弹更具威力——一颗原弹能毁灭广岛，而一颗氢弹能毁灭像伦敦、纽约和菲斯科这样的大都市。毫无疑问，一场氢弹战将会毁灭大城市。但这只是世界必须面对的小灾难中的一个。假如化敦人、纽约人和莫斯科人都灭绝了，世界可能要经过几个世纪才能从这场灾难中恢复过来。而我们现在，尤其是从比基尼核试验以来很清楚：氢弹能够逐渐把破坏力扩散到一个比预料要广大得多的地区。据非常权威的人士说，现在能够制造出一种炸弹，其威力比毁灭广岛的炸弹大2.5万倍。这种炸弹如果在近地或水下爆炸，会把放射性微粒送入高层大气。这些微粒逐渐降落，呈有毒灰尘或毒雨的状态到达地球表面。正是这种灰尘使日本渔民和他们所捕获的鱼受到了感染，尽管他们并不在美国专家所确认的危险区之内。没有人知道这种致命的放射性微粒怎么会传播得这么广，但是这个领域的最高权威一致表示：一场氢弹战差不多就是灭绝人类的代名词。如果许多氢弹被使用，死神恐怕就会降临全球——只有少数幸运者才会突然死亡，大多数人却须忍受疾病和解体的慢性折磨……

这里，我要向你提起一个直率的、令人不快而又无法回避的问题：我们该消灭人类，还是人类该抛弃战争？人们不愿面对这个抉择，因为消灭战争太难了。消灭战争要求限制国家主权，这令人反感。然而“人类”这个专门名词给人们的感觉是模糊、抽象的，它可能比任何其他东西都更容易妨碍认识这种形势。人们几乎没有用自己的想象力去认识这种危险不仅指向他们所模模糊糊理解的人类，而且指向他们自己和他们的子子孙孙。于是他们相信只要

禁止使用现代武器，也许可以允许战争继续下去。恐怕这个愿望只是幻想。任何不使用氢弹的协定是在和平时期达成的，在战争时期这种协定就被认为是没有约束力的，一旦战争爆发，双方就会着手制造氢弹，因为如果一方制造氢弹而另一方不造的话，造氢弹的一方必然会取胜……

按照地质年代来计算，人类到目前为止只存在了一个极短的时期——最多100万年。在至少就我们所了解的宇宙而言，人类在特别是最近6000年里所达到的认识，在宇宙史上是一些全新的东西。太阳升升落落，月亮盈盈亏亏，夜空星光闪烁，无数岁月就这样过去了，只是到人类出现以后，这些才被理解。在天文学的宏观世界和原子的微观世界，人类揭示了原先可能认为无法提示的秘密。在艺术、文学和宗教领域里，一些人显示了一种崇高的感情，它使人们懂得人类是值得保全的。难道因为很少有人能考虑整个人类多于这个或那个人群，这一切就会在毫无价值的恐怖行动中结束吗？人类是否如此缺少智慧，如此缺少无私的爱，如此盲目，甚至连自我保存的最简单命令都听不见，以致要用灭绝地球上的所有生命来最后证明它那缺乏理智的小聪明？——因为不驻人会被消灭，而且动物也会被消灭，没有人能指责它们是共产主义或反共产主义。

我无法相信结局会是这样。人们如果想让自己生存下去，他们就应暂时忘掉争吵，进行反省，人们有千万条理由期待未来的成就极大地超过以往的成就，如果让我们选择，那么擂在我们面前的有幸福、知识和智慧的持续增长。我们能因为无法忘掉争吵而舍此去选择死亡吗？作为一个人，我向所有的人呼吁：记住你们的人性，忘掉其余的一切。如果你们能这样做，通向一个新的天堂的路就畅通无阻；如果你们做不到这一点，摆在你们面前的就只有全世界的毁灭。

丘吉尔二战圣三主日演讲

Be Ye Men of Valour

BBC, May 19, 1940

First Broadcast as Prime Minister to the British People

By May 14, the news from the front was uniformly bad. The Germans had broken through the French defences at Sedan, and everywhere the French forces were reeling under a devastating barrage from land and air. "At almost all points where the armies had come in contact," Churchill later wrote, "the weight and fury of the German attack was overwhelming." Holland fell on May 15, and Churchill flew to Paris on the same day to confer with the French leaders. It was evident that the military situation was near to

catastrophic, and that the military commanders and political leaders were resigned to overwhelming defeat. Churchill agreed to send ten fighter squadrons to France, thereby imperilling the situation in England, as a desperate attempt to restore the spirits of his Ally. On May 19, the Cabinet was informed that Lord Gort was "examining a possible

withdrawal towards Dunkirk." In these sombre circumstances, Churchill made this, his first broadcast as Prime Minister to the British people.

I speak to you for the first time as Prime Minister in a solemn hour for the life of our country, of our empire, of our allies, and, above all, of the cause of Freedom. A

tremendous battle is raging in France and Flanders. The Germans, by a remarkable combination of air bombing and heavily armored tanks, have broken through the French defenses north of the Maginot Line, and strong columns of their armored vehicles are ravaging the open country, which for the first day or two was without defenders. They have penetrated deeply and spread alarm and confusion in their track. Behind them there are now appearing infantry in lorries, and behind them, again, the large masses are

moving forward. The re-groupment of the French armies to make head against, and also to strike at, this intruding wedge has been proceeding for several days, largely assisted by the magnificent efforts of the Royal Air Force.

We must not allow ourselves to be intimidated by the presence of these armored vehicles in unexpected places behind our lines. If they are behind our Front, the French are also at many points fighting actively behind theirs. Both sides are therefore in an extremely dangerous position. And if the French Army, and our own Army, are well handled, as I believe they will be； if the French retain that genius for recovery and

counter-attack for which they have so long been famous； and if the British Army shows the dogged endurance and solid fighting power of which there have been so many examples in the past —— then a sudden transformation of the scene might spring into being.

It would be foolish, however, to disguise the gravity of the hour. It would be still more foolish to lose heart and courage or to suppose that well-trained, well-equipped armies

numbering three or four millions of men can be overcome in the space of a few weeks, or even months, by a scoop, or raid of mechanized vehicles, however formidable. We may look with confidence to the stabilization of the Front in France, and to the general engagement of the masses, which will enable the qualities of the French and British soldiers to be matched squarely against those of their adversaries. For myself, I have invincible confidence in the French Army and its leaders. Only a very small part of that splendid Army has yet been heavily engaged； and only a very small part of France has yet been invaded. There is a good evidence to show that practically the whole of the specialized and mechanized forces of the enemy have been already thrown into the battle； and we know that very heavy losses have been inflict upon them. No officer or man, no brigade or division, which grapples at close quarters with the enemy, wherever encountered, can fail to make a worthy contribution to the general result. the Armies must cast away the idea of resisting behind concrete lines or natural obstacles, and must realize that mastery can only be regained by furious and unrelenting assault. And this spirit must not only animate the High Command, but must inspire every fighting man. In the air —— often at serious odds, often at odds hitherto thought overwhelming —— we have been clawing down three or four to one of our enemies； and the relative balance of the British and German Air Forces is now considerably more favorable to us than at the beginning of the battle. In cutting down the German bombers, we are fighting our own battle as well as that of France. May confidence in our ability to fight it out to the finish with the German Air Force has been strengthened by the fierce encounters which have taken lace and are taking place. At the same time, our heavy bombers are striking nightly at the tap-root of German mechanized power, and have already inflicted serious damage upon the oil refineries on which the Nazi effort to dominate the world directly depends.

We must expect that as soon as stability is reached on the Western Front, the bulk of that hideous apparatus of aggression which gashed Holland into ruin and slavery in a few days will be turned upon us. I am sure I speak for all when I say we are ready to face it； to

ensure it； and to retaliate against it —— to any extent that the unwritten laws of war permit. There will be many men and many women in the Island who when the ordeal

comes upon them, as come it will, will feel comfort, and even a pride, that they are sharing the perils of our lads at the Front —— soldiers, sailors and airmen, God bless them —— and are drawing away from them a part at least of the onslaught they have to bear. Is not this the appointed time for all to make the utmost exertions in their power？ If the battle is to be won, we must provide our men with ever-increasing quantities of the weapons and ammunition they need. We must have, and have quickly, more aeroplanes, more tanks, more shells, more guns. there is imperious need for these vital munitions. They increase our strength against the powerfully armed enemy. They replace the wastage of the

obstinate struggle； and the knowledge that wastage will speedily be replaced enables us to draw more readily upon our reserves and throw them in now that everything counts so much.

Our task is not only to win the battle - but to win the war. After this battle in France abates its force, there will come the battle for our Island —— for all that Britain is, and all the Britain means. That will be the struggle. In that supreme emergency we shall not hesitate to take every step, even the most drastic, to call forth from our people the last ounce and the last inch of effort of which they are capable. The interests of property, the hours of labor, are nothing compared with the struggle of life and honor, for right and freedom, to which we have vowed ourselves.

I have received from the Chiefs of the French Republic,and in particular form its

indomitable Prime Minister, M. Reynaud, the most sacred pledges that whatever happens they will fight to the end, be it bitter or be it glorious. Nay, if we fight to the end, it can only be glorious.

Having received His Majesty's commission, I have formed an Administration of men and women of every Party and of almost every point of view. We have differed and

quarreled in the past； but now one bond unites us all —— to wage war until victory is won, and never to surrender ourselves to servitude and shame, whatever the cost and the

agony may be. this is one of the most awe-striking periods in the long history of France and Britain. It is also beyond doubt the most sublime. Side by side, unaided except by their kith and kin in the great Dominions and by the wide empires which rest beneath their shield - side by side, the British and French peoples have advanced to rescue not only Europe but mankind from the foulest and most soul-destroying tyranny which has ever darkened and stained the pages of history. Behind them - behind us- behind the Armies and Fleets of Britain and France - gather a group of shattered States and bludgeoned races： the Czechs, the Poles, the Norwegians, the Danes, the Dutch, the Belgians - upon all of whom the long night of barbarism will descend, unbroken even by a star of hope, unless we conquer, as conquer we must； as conquer we shall.

Today is Trinity Sunday. Centuries ago words were written to be a call and a spur to the faithful servants of Truth and Justice： "Arm yourselves, and be ye men of valour, and be in readiness for the conflict； for it is better for us to perish in battle than to look upon the outrage of our nation and our altar. As the Will of God is in Heaven, even so let it be."

希拉里竞选议员演讲

文章来源：博客英语网更新时间：2006-12-15 19:24:27

You know, you know, we started this great effort on a sunny July morning in Pinders

Corner on pat and Liz Monahan's beautiful farm and 62 counties, 16 months, 3 debates, 2 opponents, and 6 black pantsuits later, because of you, here we are.

You came out and said that issues and ideals matter. Jobs matter, downstate and upstate. Health care matters, education matters, the environment matters, Social Security matters, a woman's right to choose matters. It all matters and I just want to say from the bottom of my heart, thank you, New York！

Thank you for opening up your minds and your hearts, for seeing the possibility of what we could do together for our children and for our future here in this state and in our nation. I am profoundly grateful to all of you for giving me the chance to serve you.

I will—I will do everything I can to be worthy of your faith and trust and to honor the powerful example of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. I would like all of you and the countless new Yorkers and Americans watching to join me in honoring him for his incredible half century of service to New York and our nation. Senator Moynihan, on behalf of New York and America, thank you.

I promise you tonight that I will reach across party lines to bring progress for all of New York's families. Today we voted as democrats and republicans. Tomorrow we begin again as New Yorkers.

And how fortunate we are indeed to live in the most diverse, dynamic and beautiful state in the entire union. You know, from the south Bronx to the southern tier, from Brooklyn to buffalo, from Montauk to Massena, from the world's tallest skyscrapers to breathtaking mountain ranges, I've met people whose faces and stories I will never forget. Thousands of new Yorkers from all 62 counties welcomed me into you school, your local diners, your factory floors, your living rooms and front porches. You taught me, you tested me and you shared with me your challenges and concerns—about overcrowded or crumbling schools, about the struggle to care for growing children and aging parents, about the continuing challenge of providing equal opportunity for all and about children moving away from their home towns because good jobs are so hard to find in upstate New York. Now I've worked on issues like these for a long time, some of them for 30 year, and I am determined to make a difference for all of you.

You see, I believe our nation owes every responsible citizen and every responsible family the tools that they need to make the most of their own lives. That's the basic bargain. I'll do my best to honor in the United States Senate.

And to those of you who did not support me, o want you to know that I will work in the senate for you and for all new Yorkers. And to those of you who worked so hard and never lost faith even in the toughest times, I offer you my undying gratitude.

Hilary Clinton, Novemeber7,2000

希拉里在美宪法学会的演讲

文章来源：博客英语网更新时间：2006-12-15 19:24:35

It is exciting and very gratifying for me to stand here before this packed ballroom on behalf of the American Constitution Society annual conference. It is also a great treat to be introduced by someone whom I admire enormously who has blazed so many trails and has demonstrated a commitment in her own life and on behalf of her clients and her

country an absolute devotion to the underlying principles and values that everyone in this room believes is what distinguishes the great American experimental dream from all other in human history. Cheryl Mills is an exceptional human being and a great friend and I thank her for those kind words. But it also goes to show that if you want a good

introduction, have a friend do it. It's one of my rules of life. Write that down. And I want to thank Richa also for her continuing commitment to ACS and thank you for your leadership. I want to acknowledge and really recognize and applaud the people who have made this happen. Clearly Peter Ruben and the board of directors of ACS have carried forth on their vision of what this organization can become. And I am grateful to Peter and to all of you. And I want to thank Lisa Brown for her willingness to assume the helm of ACS and her very steady hand in guiding it and thank her for taking the time.

As I look across this crowd there are so many people whom I would like individually to acknowledge and thank, some of whom I haven't seen since the end of the Clinton

Administration. Which only goes to show you that we need to get together more often. And many others who have determined that the current direction of our country, the actions of this administration can no longer be observed from the sidelines and so you have been

called back into action and I thank you for it. But I want to especially thank two people who are here whom have meant a great deal to me personally and professionally. They happen to be married to each other. Ann O'Leary and Goodwin Liu. Goodwin has been my partner in the work I've done for the ACS and the speeches that I've given at

Georgetown and now today. We are losing him to Boalt University Law School at Berkeley. And we certainly wish him well. They are very lucky to have him on the faculty. And Ann O'Leary who has been my Legislative Director and played a major role in all of that legislation that Cheryl referred to, the sponsoring and the co-sponsoring. Of course it really is a little bit misleading to refer to that because when I first arrived in the Senate it was really like the talking dog syndrome and many people did come up and say, 鎛ell, gee won't you co-sponsor something with me.？ Sort of I guess to see whether I'd say yes. And of course I said yes. And so I had no idea what I have sponsored for the last two and a half years. The biggest problem I got into and Ann will remember this is Senator Wayne Allard a veterinarian from Colorado. A Republican senator colleague of mine

asked me early on if I would be the 51st senator in the new session two years ago now to co-sponsor his bill banning cockfights. And he gave me a brief description as a

veterinarian why this was such a horrible thing and we needed to stop these roosters from being transported back and forth across borders and just put an end to cockfights. I had never before had a position, contrary to what some of you might expect. And so I said, 鎛ell, sure that sounds like a thing that I can support. Why not？？Well then there were two problems with it. A number of my constituents who come from countries in the south, primarily the Caribbean and Latin America, really enjoy cockfighting. And even though it's illegal it is a big cultural event and so I ran into a little bit of lowback from some of my

constituents. But the bigger problem was the tabloids in New York City. All I did was say to Senator Allard 镓ure I'll co-sponsor that. I'll be the 51st co-sponsor.？Front page tabloids screaming headlines. Picture of me, picture of a cock. 蹝linton says no to cockfighting.？I told Senator Allard this is a little bit hard to understand how I can be the 51st senator and nobody else gets headlines where they come from because they signed onto legislation. So it's been in every way an adventure and I wish Ann and Goodwin Godspeed as they head out to the west coast.

I also want to reiterate Cheryl's point about my strong conviction of the importance particularly now of this organization. It has been clear for a number of years that there really is a vast right wing conspiracy. And my only regret was using the word conspiracy because there is absolutely nothing secret about it. It is a network with an agenda that truly is intent upon turning the clock back on much of what we have come to believe is the American journey that we signed on for that our founders basically laid down the planning for and that we have over more than 200 years come closer to realizing. And because of the extraordinary changes in American law, society, politics, and economy over the last 50 to 100 years, we have made giant strides toward a more perfect union. There is absolutely no doubt about it. And apparently that just rubs some people the wrong way. Whether it's New Deal legislation that gives people the right to organize and join unions or that says that they should be paid if they work overtime or that they should have certain levels of occupational health and safety requirements, or whether it is the advancement of human dignity and rights on every front, or whether it is trying to reign in uncontrolled economic power and actually worry about things like monopolies and antitrust which go back to the turn of the last century. There are just a lot of things that happened in the 20th century that some people apparently just couldn't get over. And so starting in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s and with greater acceleration and commitment in the 70s until the current time, there has been a commitment to trying to go back to some golden age and Walter Dellinger and I were talking about a panel that will be held tomorrow. They're trying to figure out what is that golden age that they want to go back to. Is it back to the 1950s white suburbs or family life, which I grew up in and write about in my book and am very grateful for but didn't exactly describe the universal experience in America. Is it back before Brown v. Board when people were told that in this country we should try to integrate our schools and provide equal opportunity in fact, not just in theory？ Is it back before the New Deal and many of the changes that actually saved capitalism in the eyes of many historians？ Is it back to before the progressive era when children were told that they could no longer work in factories and immigrants were being given the rights and tools to assume a role in American society？ Is it back to crony capitalism and the Robber Baron era？ I don't know. I think it's a combination of all of that. I used to say that the Bush administration

seemed to be intent upon undoing the Clinton administration, which look I confess I took it personally. But I understood it to some extent. It seemed as though the administration arrived not only committed to undoing the Clinton administration but the rules of arithmetic and the logic of evidence. And therefore created this evidence free zone that we're now inhabiting.

Even if it works, if Bill Clinton did it you have to undo it. Then I realized it wasn't just undoing the Clinton administration. They were rapidly heading to undo Franklin Roosevelt. And I think they're on their way to Teddy. So there's a lot at stake in your being here and in our understanding what the agenda and the mission of those who have a different view of American history and of our current prospects for the kind of future we wish to build together. And it is also the case that for many people this has only become recently

apparent. Because it seemed impossible to think that there would be a concerted effort to turn the clock back on so many fronts. But indeed that is what I see every day in the Senate. And I give tremendous credit to the current Republican administration and their allies in the Congress because they truly are mission driven. They know exactly what they want. And they are focused and relentless and absolutely undeterable. Therefore if you believe in politics that in physics that there has to be an action and a reaction we've been a little slow on the reaction part of it. And part of the challenge today is to figure out how we can best convey to the American public what's really happening, because if the

American public really understood much of this administration's agenda they would reject it. There's no doubt in my mind. It is far outside both the mainstream political, economic, and social thought. And it runs counter to the expectations that the majority of American's have about what America will look like and where their role and place will be in that future America. So we have our work cut out for us but part of the underlying political reality as I see American history is that optimism about our prospects and commitment through political action to obtain them will be successful. I really really believe that. But in the absence of an organized effort not just through electoral politics but equally if not more important in what you're doing here today and what others are beginning to do, we will not be successful. So as I lay that sort of grounding as to how I see what our challenges, I

want to talk just for a few minutes on the issues surrounding the President's nominations to the judiciary. And I do so with the awareness that many in this audience have been following this and understand what's at stake. You realize that as of last night I think we have confirmed 145 of the administration's nominees. And there have only been a handful who raised such serious questions about their fitness to assume these lifetime positions that the Democrats have been united in opposing them. I don't know that judges,

nominees, the judicial process, and the judiciary committee, what happens on the floor of the Senate is of great concern to the majority of Americans. I don't know that it makes any difference in the voting patterns of the vast majority of voters. I've never seen that. But I think what the administration has set out to do is not only to reward its far right by nominating people who are sure to provoke a reaction by the Democrats. But picking those who they wish to provoke that reaction to try and create other questions as well. That perhaps Democrats aren't sympathetic to women or to Hispanics or others. And as part of that strategy to really drive sort of nitch politics, lots of media and outreach to

certain communities to say 闒ook you know here's this one nominee that Democrats are standing in the way of？and in some sense try to use it as a proxy for a much larger debate. And of course it is part and parcel of the larger mission of transforming the American judiciary to control the executive and legislative branches as well as the third branch of government. And to use the opportunity to appoint relatively young activist, conservative judges and lawyers who will be on the bench for decades so that the

excesses as they see it on the right of the Warren court forward can be undone. Federalist Society speaks openly of the constitution in exile. Apparently it went into exile when the Brown v. Board education decision was decided which was surprising to me since I

pledged to support it and I'd like to know where it is if it's missing and in exile. I'd certainly do everything I can to bring it home. But of course it's a metaphor that really does express the larger mission that this administration and its allies have undertaken. Now last night the Senate was to have held a cloture vote on President Bush's nomination of California's superior court judge Carolyn Kuhl to serve on the United States Court of Appeals of the 9th circuit. Now the vote didn't take place because that's what happens when you have a meltdown as we've had in the last 48 hours in the Senate where the right hand didn't know

what the far right hand was doing. It was organized enough to figure out are we going to vote Bush through this really terrible energy bill that would undermine any future

prospects to become energy self sufficient. Or are we going to do this sort of cultural, political show on the floor of the cloture votes of our nominees. It became really quite an entertaining spectacle for those who can afford to watch it without worrying about the consequences. But that would have been the fourth cloture vote on a judicial nomination this week. On Tuesday, the Senate voted on the nomination of Texas state Supreme Court justice, Priscilla Owen to serve on the 5th circuit. On Wednesday the vote was on the nomination of Miguel Estrada to serve on the D.C. circuit. Yesterday morning's vote was on the nomination of Alabama Attorney General William H. Pryor Jr. to serve on the 11th circuit. And almost all of my Democratic colleagues and I voted against cloture and all three of the cloture motions failed. But I think that that is just the beginning of the story and part of what I hope ACS can do in your collective as well as individual capacities is to speak out about this current nominations process and more broadly about the direction the administration wants to take the federal judiciary and American law. Now last month after the Supreme Court concluded its most recent term, advocates of equality and civil rights breathed a collective sigh of relief as the court turned in a truly remarkable set of decisions, sustaining the act of ability of the Family and Medical Leave Act, upholding affirmative action in higher education admission, and striking down anti sodomy laws of the frontal liberty and dignity of gay and lesbian Americans. So there was much to breathe a collective sigh of relief over in this term. And I think that for many who feared that these cases would not turn out the way they did, that has been a very welcome development. But I think these decisions should be put into a more sober and long term perspective. We cannot allow these recent decisions to lull us into complacency with the overall direction of American law. There remains much to be concerned about and let me offer three observations to explain what I mean.

First although the trio of decisions that I mentioned are remarkable for occurring all within the same term, each outcome taken individually can hardly be characterized as remarkable or unexpected, even from this court. The Family and Medical Leave Act

supported by broad bipartisan majorities is common sense legislation intended to put working women and men on equal footing in the eyes of employers when it comes to

caring for a sick child, or family member, or new baby. To exempt states from this statute, would have been tantamount to ignoring the many ways in which state laws historically affirm that in the past a women's place is in the home and therefore denied women

meaningful choices to participate in the workforce and then chart their own destinies. The affirmative action decision likewise met the predictions of many court watchers. Now of course the viability of the future of affirmative action was not a forgone conclusion as this case was being litigated. But in the end it would have been exceptional for this court or any court to contradict the shared views of the nation's most highly respected public and private universities, Fortune 500 companies, even highly decorated military leaders all at once. And finally the Texas decision was in the eyes of many long overdue based on widely held notions of personal freedom and human dignity. The power to criminalize

private conduct occurring within the confines of one's own home is not a power consistent with our understanding of what it means to be an American or our legal tradition so the result in 2003 was not terribly surprising even though the language of the opinion was quite powerful.

Second, any fair accounting with the direction of any Supreme Court cannot be made on the basis of a single term. The favorable decisions of these recent months should not obscure the torrent of aggressively activist and legally dubious decisions from terms past. Remember that this term's court is the same court that invalidated a federal law prohibiting gun possession within 1000 feet of a school, the same court that struck down the federal, civil remedy for victims of rape or sexual assault in the Violence Against Women Act； the same court that eliminated private losses to challenge recipients of federal funding whose programs and policies have racially discriminatory effects； the same court that

dramatically curtailed plaintiff's rights for attorney fees in successful civil rights cases； the same court that all but neutralized the course of section 1983, a time honored tool for enforcing statutory civil rights； the same court that immunized states from the reach of federal lawsuits alleging discrimination on the basis of age or disability； the same court

that allowed large corporations to compel job applicants to surrender their right to judicial enforcement of civil rights laws in favor or finding arbitration； the same court that limited states' ability to sensibly regulate tobacco advertising. And it is almost too obvious to mention, the same court that gave us Bush v. Gore, which made a mockery of one of our most cherished constitutional rights, the right to vote. So this term not withstanding the current court remains a very activist, quite radically conservative court. And when I say conservative I don't mean conservative from the standpoint of judicial methodology. Far from it. I mean politically conservative. Generally hostile towards civil rights； selectively protective of state prerogatives； and unabashedly devoted to economic freedom in a way that we haven't seen for decades. Now there are exceptions as we clearly saw but the trend is quite clear and we will have to follow this very closely going forward. I think it's unlikely that these trio of decisions I refer to are going to herald any kind of significant change in this court because I think the administration and this is my third observation has committed itself to nominating judges who boldly and unabashedly exemplify the politically I would argue radically conservative orthodoxy of the Rehnquist court majority. Even as we might take some comfort from the Family Medical Leave Act or affirmative action or the gay rights decision, let us not forget that President Bush has held up Justices Scalia and Thomas as his ideal Supreme Court justices and these two of course are the only two to vote against the majority in all three of those cases. They are the most extreme elements on the current court. Yet the President has promised to nominate judges who fit their mold. And in fact from what I see the President intends to keep that promise.

Let me just say a few words about these very controversial nominees whose records or lack of records provide no confidence that they will consistently bring to their decision making the requisite temperament, judicial restraint, or commitment to the rule of law. Now no one denies that Miguel Estrada, President Bush's nominee for the D.C. circuit, has a compelling life story. But his personal story has provided no insight into what kind of judge he would be. Indeed he has made it especially difficult for the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty to advise and consent because to this day we continue to have almost no information about his approach to law or legal reasoning. Remarkably in his

confirmation hearing he could not name any decisions of the Supreme Court that he disagreed with or any he admired. Of course I don't think it's 鎍ould？I think it's 霢ould not.？Chief Justice Rehnquist has said and I quote 镓ince most justices come to this bench no earlier than their middle years it would be unusual that they had not by that time formulated at least some tentative notion that would influence them in their interpretation of the sweeping clauses of the Constitution and their interaction with one another. It would be not nearly unusual but extraordinary if they had not at least given opinions as to

constitutional issues in their previous legal careers. I rarely agree with Justice Rehnquist but on this point I could not agree more. And I cannot support Mr. Estrada's nomination. It defies common sense to believe that a lawyer as learned and accomplished as his record suggests would have no views on how he might approach the law as a judge. In fact I think he basically is following orders from the Federalist Society not to answer these questions since the Federalist Society has been delegated the authority by this White House to vet all nominations and we know for a fact that they do it with quite a vengeance and so for whatever reasons Mr. Estrada has been told to say as little as possible. Now as troubling as his nomination is because of what we do not know about his views, the others are equally troubling because of what we do know. Take the 5th circuit nomination of Priscilla Owen, which the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected last year after careful consideration and this year President Bush made the unprecedented decision to

re-nominate Justice Owen even though the committee had given her a full hearing once before. Now what had changed？ Well, obviously the leadership of the judiciary

committee had changed. But a glance at her writings leaves little doubt of her commitment to an anti-consumer, anti-employee, anti-choice agenda. In case after case she has even drawn criticism from her colleagues, conservative Republican colleagues on the Texas Supreme Court for how she has gone so far to inject her own political opinions into her work. Her colleagues have accused her of taking positions even more extreme than those argued by the litigants, of inserting inflammatory rhetoric into her writing, and of ignoring the plain meaning of an unambiguous statute. And of course White House Counsel

Alberto Gonzalez described her position in a case invalidating parental notification laws as 鎙n unconscionable act of judicial activism.？By any measure, Justice Owen does not

satisfy President Bush's own stated criteria that a judge must interpret the law, not

legislate from the bench. And then there's the legal judgment of Carolyn Kuhl, a 9th circuit nominee that I and my colleagues believe really disqualifies her from consideration for the federal bench. She has taken positions during the Reagan administration arguing in favor of reversing the long standing IRS policy of denying tax exempt status to private

institutions practicing racial discrimination, including Bob Jones University； a position that was repudiated by the Supreme Court 8 to 1. She certainly has taken a very staunch advocacy position against Roe v. Wade and written an amicus brief for the Thornberg case and yet at her confirmation hearing she refused to say whether she now believes that she could follow Roe. And if you look at her record as a California Superior Court judge, she dismissed a patently submitted complaint of invasion of privacy although

inviting a unanimous reversal by the California Court of Appeals that relied on precedents going back as far as 1881.

But finally of all the nominations, the nomination of Alabama Attorney General William Pryor of the 11th circuit is probably the most troubling of all. And again, put this into context for your colleagues, your clients, the American people. We're talking about four nominations that we have serious questions about and are exercising our constitutional duty to advise and consent versus 145 that we have confirmed. And many of those

nominees are clearly not ones that I would have chosen or preferred but they didn't rise to the level of such profound concerns as the four I am discussing. Now if you look at nearly any issue concerning current law and issues that will come before the courts, Attorney General Pryor has a record of extremism. He is one of the most avid supporters of the Federalist Society and thereby promotes the view that states rights versus federal rights should be the appropriate means of regulating our lives, whether we're talking about choice or federalism or racial equality or separation of church and state. He has both made statements, submitted briefs, and has advocated in his official position as Attorney General to reverse settled law on many many of these matters. When you look at Attorney General Pryor I think too there is a very serious political battle that his nomination has exemplified and I want to focus on his separation of church and state position. He has said

雘he Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States are rooted in a Christian perspective in the nature of government and the nature of man. The challenge of the next millennium will be to preserve the American experiment by restoring its Christian perspective.？That is certainly a legitimate position for a person, a lawyer, a political figure to hold. And if that were all that one could point to there would not be the explosion that has occurred over this nominee. But instead on the judiciary committee, the Republican members sought successfully and unfortunately to inject religion into the debate over this nomination. I commend to you the Congressional Record of July 30th and I think it would be very important for as many of you as possible to read these exchanges. On the one hand Senator Leahy is the ranking member of the judiciary

committee who has been an extraordinarily thoughtful and effective leader of the judiciary committee and who has tried very hard to prevent the emotions and feelings around these nominees to explode beyond appropriate boundaries and it has been a tremendous feat of self restraint on the part of Senator Leahy. Also Senator Durbin who many of you may have seen the exchange between Senator Durbin and some of his Republican colleagues over the spearless charge that for some reason the questioning of the views and positions of Mr. Pryor arose to the level of questioning religious beliefs and in some leap of logic, therefore leading to a charge of being anti-Catholic. This debate was escalated a few days ago when some of the closest advisors to the current President and other Republican leaders raised money to run an ad, which appeared in major newspapers with the sign posted on the closed door of a courthouse saying that no Catholics need apply. This is an extremely dangerous ground that some of my colleagues of the other side of the aisle seem intent upon following. And one only has to read the comments and exchanges

among them, Chairman Hatch, Senator Sessions, and Senator Santorum to get a flavor of what I am referring to. I think this is a critically important issue and I hope that many will speak out about it. So far there has been no repudiation of those ads by any of my

Republican colleagues by the administration or by, maybe someone has said something I haven't found in any kind of research, or by anyone in the Republican Party. As my

colleague who serves on the judiciary committee, Senator Feinstein from California asked on the floor of the Senate. She called on the committee to disavow those ads. She called

on the administration to disavow those ads. And she very poignantly goes on to say that there was a time in our history when the phrase 蹝atholics need not apply？was used to keep countless qualified Americans from pursuing the American dream. The same can be said for 醨o Jews need apply？and 醨o Irish need apply.？And much like Justice Sandra Day O'Connor when she first looked for her first job and I first looked for my first job really, 鎛omen need not apply.？These were dark times in American history and many of us in this body remember those times, that every one of us should be absolutely committed to preventing those days from ever occurring. And if you look at Senator Durbin's eloquent speech as a Catholic, raising the issues that this unfortunate politicization of religion has thrust into the Senate and into the public forum, he makes it very clear that he and I and others have not been raised to believe or in any way imagining that we would reach a point where a nominee for the federal bench appearing before the judiciary committee would be asked his religion as a way to create a wedge issue, as a way to provoke an advertising campaign, as a way to be divisive politically. Senator Durbin says that 鄾r. President？in referring to the presiding officer in the Senate 鎲or those of us who have been given this great honor to serve in the Senate, there is a moment where we are asked to take the oath of office. In taking that oath of office we swear to uphold one document. We may put our hand on our bible, if that is how we believe. But we swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. We are not asked our religion, nor our belief in our religion. We are only asked that we take an oath to uphold the Constitution. And we take that oath very seriously.？Senator Durbin goes on to talk about the whole religious test in the Constitution, about his own faith, and about his opposition to Attorney General Pryor, and he makes this point because of course once again this debate is being driven by the incredibly profound religious personal differences over the question of choice. And therefore despite many of the other problems in Mr. Pryor's record concerning his

advocacy against federal laws for AIDS discrimination or disability and many other things. He is somehow being turned into a victim because it is claimed that his religion dictates his position on this issue. Of course Senator Durbin, a lifelong Catholic goes onto say 轋 guess I was raised in a little different branch of the Catholic Church. Maybe a branch that believes there ought to be a little more humility in religious belief. What I believe is this.

Within the Catholic Church there are many differences of opinion. Even within the church members who serve in this Congress. And there are many of us who believe that it is about a lot of different positions on issues. It is about for example the death penalty.

Where the church has been clear on its position and yet that is not an issue that is being used for political purposes.？I raise this and commend to you the entire debate because I think it as much as anything points out the urgency of the task before us and it is also clear that the Federalist Society has had quite a head start and Senator Durbin points out that as a very active member of the Federalist Society, Mr. Pryor believes that it is the job of a federal judge to carry out the political agenda of the President. He was very actively

avowed in Bush v. Gore, wrote amicus brief for example. And he has been very outspoken that the only hope for federalism as he defines it is the agenda of this President. He has said frequently that he agrees with the following statement from the Federalist Society Mission, 鄻aw schools and the legal profession are currently strongly dominated by a form of orthodox, liberal ideology which advocate a centralized and uniform society.？Well, I have to say that looking out at this crowd that certainly doesn't seem to be the case but that is their view and that is their mission. So part of the challenge for those of us in the Senate is to stand together as best we can against the nominees of this President whose agenda is to take over the federal judiciary and turn the clock back. And part of the

mission I hope of you individually and through this organization is to not only come up with the argumentation, the idea of creation, the advocacy that will inspire, not just lawyers and law students, and judges, and those related to the legal profession, but Americans to realize that there truly is a profound struggle occurring over the future direction of our country. It is occurring on many different levels, in many different venues, but one of the hardest thought of all of these struggles is over the future of the judiciary. So I thank you for recognizing that if we care about the continuing journey that America's been on, our effort to create conditions where people have the tools of opportunity and the supporting legal and economic atmosphere in which to pursue their own degree, that we recognize in this complex, global marketplace that it is very hard to understand how individual states can make the decisions that will govern the lives of citizens versus being an American citizen in a state in our future together then I think we can make a very strong stand and I

commend you for understanding that and for being here and I look forward to working with you over the years to come. Thank you very much.

给草根阶层的话

文章来源：博客英语网更新时间：2006-12-15 19:24:38

Malcolm X： "Message To The Grass Roots"

……And during the few moments that we have left, we want to have just an

off-the-cuff chat between you and me —— us. We want to talk right down to earth in a language that everybody here can easily understand. We all agree tonight, all of the speakers have agreed, that America has a very serious problem. Not only does America have a very serious problem, but our people have a very serious problem. America's

problem is us. We're her problem. The only reason she has a problem is she doesn't want us here. And every time you look at yourself, be you black, brown, red, or yellow —— a so-called Negro —— you represent a person who poses such a serious problem for America because you're not wanted. Once you face this as a fact, then you can start plotting a course that will make you appear intelligent, instead of unintelligent.

What you and I need to do is learn to forget our differences. When we come together, we don't come together as Baptists or Methodists. You don't catch hell 'cause you're a Baptist, and you don't catch hell 'cause you're a Methodist. You don't catch hell 'cause you're a Methodist or Baptist. You don't catch hell because you're a Democrat or a

Republican. You don't catch hell because you're a Mason or an Elk. And you sure don't catch hell 'cause you're an American； 'cause if you was an American, you wouldn't catch no hell. You catch hell 'cause you're a black man. You catch hell, all of us catch hell, for the same reason.

So we are all black people, so-called Negroes, second-class citizens, ex-slaves. You are nothing but a [sic] ex-slave. You don't like to be told that. But what else are you？ You are ex-slaves. You didn't come here on the "Mayflower." You came here on a slave ship —— in chains, like a horse, or a cow, or a chicken. And you were brought here by the people who came here on the "Mayflower." You were brought here by the so-called Pilgrims, or Founding Fathers. They were the ones who brought you here.

We have a common enemy. We have this in common： We have a common

oppressor, a common exploiter, and a common discriminator. But once we all realize that we have this common enemy, then we unite on the basis of what we have in common. And what we have foremost in common is that enemy —— the white man. He's an enemy to all of us. I know some of you all think that some of them aren't enemies. Time will tell. In Bandung back in, I think, 1954, was the first unity meeting in centuries of black people. And once you study what happened at the Bandung conference, and the results of the Bandung conference, it actually serves as a model for the same procedure you and I can use to get our problems solved. At Bandung all the nations came together. Their were dark nations from Africa and Asia. Some of them were Buddhists. Some of them were Muslim. Some of them were Christians. Some of them were Confucianists； some were atheists. Despite their religious differences, they came together. Some were

communists； some were socialists； some were capitalists. Despite their economic and political differences, they came together. All of them were black, brown, red, or yellow. The number-one thing that was not allowed to attend the Bandung conference was the white man. He couldn't come. Once they excluded the white man, they found that they could get together. Once they kept him out, everybody else fell right in and fell in line. This is the thing that you and I have to understand. And these people who came together didn't have nuclear weapons； they didn't have jet planes； they didn't have all of the heavy armaments that the white man has. But they had unity.

They were able to submerge their little petty differences and agree on one thing： That though one African came from Kenya and was being colonized by the Englishman, and another African came from the Congo and was being colonized by the Belgian, and another African came from Guinea and was being colonized by the French, and another came from Angola and was being colonized by the Portuguese. When they came to the Bandung conference, they looked at the Portuguese, and at the Frenchman, and at the Englishman, and at the other —— Dutchman —— and learned or realized that the one thing that all of them had in common： they were all from Europe, they were all Europeans, blond, blue-eyed and white-skinned. They began to recognize who their enemy was. The same man that was colonizing our people in Kenya was colonizing our people in the Congo. The same one in the Congo was colonizing our people in South Africa, and in Southern Rhodesia, and in Burma, and in India, and in Afghanistan, and in Pakistan. They realized all over the world where the dark man was being oppressed, he was being oppressed by the white man； where the dark man was being exploited, he was being exploited by the white man. So they got together under this basis —— that they had a common enemy.

And when you and I here in Detroit and in Michigan and in America who have been awakened today look around us, we too realize here in America we all have a common enemy, whether he's in Georgia or Michigan, whether he's in California or New York. He's the same man： blue eyes and blond hair and pale skin —— same man. So what we have to do is what they did. They agreed to stop quarreling among themselves. Any little spat that they had, they'd settle it among themselves, go into a huddle —— don't let the enemy know that you got [sic] a disagreement.

Instead of us airing our differences in public, we have to realize we're all the same family. And when you have a family squabble, you don't get out on the sidewalk. If you do, everybody calls you uncouth, unrefined, uncivilized, savage. If you don't make it at home, you settle it at home； you get in the closet —— argue it out behind closed doors. And then when you come out on the street, you pose a common front, a united front. And this

is what we need to do in the community, and in the city, and in the state. We need to stop airing our differences in front of the white man. Put the white man out of our meetings, number one, and then sit down and talk shop with each other. [That's] all you gotta do. I would like to make a few comments concerning the difference between the black revolution and the Negro revolution. There's a difference. Are they both the same？ And if they're not, what is the difference？ What is the difference between a black revolution and a Negro revolution？ First, what is a revolution？ Sometimes I'm inclined to believe that many of our people are using this word "revolution" loosely, without taking careful

consideration [of] what this word actually means, and what its historic characteristics are. When you study the historic nature of revolutions, the motive of a revolution, the objective of a revolution, and the result of a revolution, and the methods used in a revolution, you may change words. You may devise another program. You may change your goal and you may change your mind.

Look at the American Revolution in 1776. That revolution was for what？ For land. Why did they want land？ Independence. How was it carried out？ Bloodshed. Number one, it was based on land, the basis of independence. And the only way they could get it was bloodshed. The French Revolution —— what was it based on？ The land-less against the landlord. What was it for？ Land. How did they get it？ Bloodshed. Was no love lost； was no compromise； was no negotiation. I'm telling you, you don't know what a revolution is. 'Cause when you find out what it is, you'll get back in the alley； you'll get out of the way. The Russian Revolution —— what was it based on？ Land. The land-less against the landlord. How did they bring it about？ Bloodshed. You haven't got a

revolution that doesn't involve bloodshed. And you're afraid to bleed. I said, you're afraid to bleed.

[As] long as the white man sent you to Korea, you bled. He sent you to Germany, you bled. He sent you to the South Pacific to fight the Japanese, you bled. You bleed for white people. But when it comes time to seeing your own churches being bombed and little black girls be murdered, you haven't got no blood. You bleed when the white man says

bleed； you bite when the white man says bite； and you bark when the white man says bark. I hate to say this about us, but it's true. How are you going to be nonviolent in Mississippi, as violent as you were in Korea？ How can you justify being nonviolent in Mississippi and Alabama, when your churches are being bombed, and your little girls are being murdered, and at the same time you're going to violent with Hitler, and Tojo, and somebody else that you don't even know？

If violence is wrong in America, violence is wrong abroad. If it's wrong to be violent defending black women and black children and black babies and black men, then it's wrong for America to draft us and make us violent abroad in defense of her. And if it is right for America to draft us, and teach us how to be violent in defense of her, then it is right for you and me to do whatever is necessary to defend our own people right here in this country.

The Chinese Revolution —— they wanted land. They threw the British out, along with the Uncle Tom Chinese. Yeah, they did. They set a good example. When I was in prison, I read an article —— don't be shocked when I say I was in prison. You're still in prison. That's what America means： prison. When I was in prison, I read an article in Life

magazine showing a little Chinese girl, nine years old； her father was on his hands and knees and she was pulling the trigger 'cause he was an Uncle Tom Chinaman, When they had the revolution over there, they took a whole generation of Uncle Toms —— just wiped them out. And within ten years that little girl become [sic] a full-grown woman. No more Toms in China. And today it's one of the toughest, roughest, most feared countries on this earth —— by the white man. 'Cause there are no Uncle Toms over there.

Of all our studies, history is best qualified to reward our research. And when you see that you've got problems, all you have to do is examine the historic method used all over the world by others who have problems similar to yours. And once you see how they got theirs straight, then you know how you can get yours straight. There's been a revolution, a black revolution, going on in Africa. In Kenya, the Mau Mau were revolutionaries； they were the ones who made the word "Uhuru" [Kenyan word for "freedom"]. They were the

ones who brought it to the fore. The Mau Mau, they were revolutionaries. They believed in scorched earth. They knocked everything aside that got in their way, and their revolution also was based on land, a desire for land. In Algeria, the northern part of Africa, a revolution took place. The Algerians were revolutionists； they wanted land. France

offered to let them be integrated into France. They told France： to hell with France. They wanted some land, not some France. And they engaged in a bloody battle.

So I cite these various revolutions, brothers and sisters, to show you —— you don't have a peaceful revolution. You don't have a turn-the-other-cheek revolution. There's no such thing as a nonviolent revolution. [The] only kind of revolution that's nonviolent is the Negro revolution. The only revolution based on loving your enemy is the Negro revolution. The only revolution in which the goal is a desegregated lunch counter, a desegregated theater, a desegregated park, and a desegregated public toilet； you can sit down next to white folks on the toilet. That's no revolution. Revolution is based on land. Land is the basis of all independence. Land is the basis of freedom, justice, and equality.

The white man knows what a revolution is. He knows that the black revolution is

world-wide in scope and in nature. The black revolution is sweeping Asia, sweeping Africa, is rearing its head in Latin America. The Cuban Revolution —— that's a revolution. They overturned the system. Revolution is in Asia. Revolution is in Africa. And the white man is screaming because he sees revolution in Latin America. How do you think he'll react to you when you learn what a real revolution is？ You don't know what a revolution is. If you did, you wouldn't use that word.

A revolution is bloody. Revolution is hostile. Revolution knows no compromise.

Revolution overturns and destroys everything that gets in its way. And you, sitting around here like a knot on the wall, saying, "I'm going to love these folks no matter how much they hate me." No, you need a revolution. Whoever heard of a revolution where they lock arms, as Reverend Cleage was pointing out beautifully, singing "We Shall Overcome"？ Just tell me. You don't do that in a revolution. You don't do any singing； you're too busy swinging. It's based on land. A revolutionary wants land so he can set up his own nation,

an independent nation. These Negroes aren't asking for no nation. They're trying to crawl back on the plantation.

When you want a nation, that's called nationalism. When the white man became involved in a revolution in this country against England, what was it for？ He wanted this land so he could set up another white nation. That's white nationalism. The American Revolution was white nationalism. The French Revolution was white nationalism. The Russian Revolution too —— yes, it was —— white nationalism. You don't think so？ Why

[do] you think Khrushchev and Mao can't get their heads together？ White nationalism. All the revolutions that's going on in Asia and Africa today are based on what？ Black nationalism. A revolutionary is a black nationalist. He wants a nation. I was reading some beautiful words by Reverend Cleage, pointing out why he couldn't get together with

someone else here in the city because all of them were afraid of being identified with black nationalism. If you're afraid of black nationalism, you're afraid of revolution. And if you love revolution, you love black nationalism.

To understand this, you have to go back to what [the] young brother here referred to as the house Negro and the field Negro —— back during slavery. There was two kinds of slaves. There was the house Negro and the field Negro. The house Negroes - they lived in the house with master, they dressed pretty good, they ate good 'cause they ate his food —— what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near the

master； and they loved their master more than the master loved himself. They would give their life to save the master's house quicker than the master would. The house Negro, if the master said, "We got a good house here," the house Negro would say, "Yeah, we got a good house here." Whenever the master said "we," he said "we." That's how you can tell a house Negro.

If the master's house caught on fire, the house Negro would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the master got sick, the house Negro would say,

"What's the matter, boss, we sick？" We sick！ He identified himself with his master more than his master identified with himself. And if you came to the house Negro and said,

"Let's run away, let's escape, let's separate," the house Negro would look at you and say, "Man, you crazy. What you mean, separate？ Where is there a better house than this？ Where can I wear better clothes than this？ Where can I eat better food than this？" That was that house Negro. In those days he was called a "house nigger." And that's what we call him today, because we've still got some house niggers running around here.

This modern house Negro loves his master. He wants to live near him. He'll pay three times as much as the house is worth just to live near his master, and then brag about "I'm the only Negro out here." "I'm the only one on my job." "I'm the only one in this school." You're nothing but a house Negro. And if someone comes to you right now and says, "Let's separate," you say the same thing that the house Negro said on the plantation. "What you mean, separate？ From America？ This good white man？ Where you going to get a better job than you get here？" I mean, this is what you say. "I ain't left nothing in Africa," that's what you say. Why, you left your mind in Africa.

On that same plantation, there was the field Negro. The field Negro —— those were the masses. There were always more Negroes in the field than there was Negroes in the house. The Negro in the field caught hell. He ate leftovers. In the house they ate high up on the hog. The Negro in the field didn't get nothing but what was left of the insides of the hog. They call 'em "chitt'lin'" nowadays. In those days they called them what they were： guts. That's what you were —— a gut-eater. And some of you all still gut-eaters.

The field Negro was beaten from morning to night. He lived in a shack, in a hut； He wore old, castoff clothes. He hated his master. I say he hated his master. He was

intelligent. That house Negro loved his master. But that field Negro —— remember, they were in the majority, and they hated the master. When the house caught on fire, he didn't try and put it out； that field Negro prayed for a wind, for a breeze. When the master got sick, the field Negro prayed that he'd die. If someone come [sic] to the field Negro and said, "Let's separate, let's run," he didn't say "Where we going？" He'd say, "Any place is better than here." You've got field Negroes in America today. I'm a field Negro. The masses are the field Negroes. When they see this man's house on fire, you don't hear

these little Negroes talking about "our government is in trouble." They say, "The

government is in trouble." Imagine a Negro： "Our government"！ I even heard one say "our astronauts." They won't even let him near the plant —— and "our astronauts"！ "Our Navy" —— that's a Negro that's out of his mind. That's a Negro that's out of his mind. Just as the slavemaster of that day used Tom, the house Negro, to keep the field Negroes in check, the same old slavemaster today has Negroes who are nothing but modern Uncle Toms, 20th century Uncle Toms, to keep you and me in check, keep us under control, keep us passive and peaceful and nonviolent. That's Tom making you nonviolent. It's like when you go to the dentist, and the man's going to take your tooth. You're going to fight him when he starts pulling. So he squirts some stuff in your jaw called novocaine, to make you think they're not doing anything to you. So you sit there and

'cause you've got all of that novocaine in your jaw, you suffer peacefully. Blood running all down your jaw, and you don't know what's happening. 'Cause someone has taught you to suffer —— peacefully.

The white man do the same thing to you in the street, when he want [sic] to put knots on your head and take advantage of you and don't have to be afraid of your fighting back. To keep you from fighting back, he gets these old religious Uncle Toms to teach you and me, just like novocaine, suffer peacefully. Don't stop suffering —— just suffer peacefully. As Reverend Cleage pointed out, "Let your blood flow In the streets." This is a shame. And you know he's a Christian preacher. If it's a shame to him, you know what it is to me. There's nothing in our book, the Quran —— you call it "Ko-ran" —— that teaches us to suffer peacefully. Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone； but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery. That's a good religion. In fact, that's that old-time religion. That's the one that Ma and Pa used to talk about： an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and a head for a head, and a life for a life： That's a good religion. And doesn't nobody resent that kind of religion being taught but a wolf, who intends to make you his meal.

This is the way it is with the white man in America. He's a wolf and you're sheep. Any time a shepherd, a pastor, teach [sic] you and me not to run from the white man and, at the same time, teach [sic] us not to fight the white man, he's a traitor to you and me. Don't lay down our life all by itself. No, preserve your life. it's the best thing you got. And if you got to give it up, let it be even-steven.

The slavemaster took Tom and dressed him well, and fed him well, and even gave him a little education —— a little education； gave him a long coat and a top hat and made all the other slaves look up to him. Then he used Tom to control them. The same strategy that was used in those days is used today, by the same white man. He takes a Negro, a so-called Negro, and make [sic] him prominent, build [sic] him up, publicize [sic] him, make [sic] him a celebrity. And then he becomes a spokesman for Negroes —— and a Negro leader.

I would like to just mention just one other thing else quickly, and that is the method that the white man uses, how the white man uses these "big guns," or Negro leaders, against the black revolution. They are not a part of the black revolution. They're used against the black revolution.

When Martin Luther King failed to desegregate Albany, Georgia, the civil-rights

struggle in America reached its low point. King became bankrupt almost, as a leader. Plus, even financially, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference was in financial trouble； plus it was in trouble, period, with the people when they failed to desegregate Albany, Georgia. Other Negro civil-rights leaders of so-called national stature became fallen idols. As they became fallen idols, began to lose their prestige and influence, local Negro leaders began to stir up the masses. In Cambridge, Maryland, Gloria Richardson； in Danville, Virginia, and other parts of the country, local leaders began to stir up our people at the grassroots level. This was never done by these Negroes, whom you recognize, of national stature. They controlled you, but they never incited you or excited you. They controlled you； they contained you； they kept you on the plantation.

As soon as King failed in Birmingham, Negroes took to the streets. King got out and went out to California to a big rally and raised about —— I don't know how many

thousands of dollars. [He] come [sic] to Detroit and had a march and raised some more thousands of dollars. And recall, right after that [Roy] Wilkins attacked King, accused King and the CORE [Congress Of Racial Equality] of starting trouble everywhere and then making the NAACP [National Association for the Advancement of Colored People] get them out of jail and spend a lot of money； and then they accused King and CORE of raising all the money and not paying it back. This happened； I've got it in documented evidence in the newspaper. Roy started attacking King, and King started attacking Roy, and Farmer started attacking both of them. And as these Negroes of national stature began to attack each other, they began to lose their control of the Negro masses.

And Negroes was [sic] out there in the streets. They was [sic] talking about [how] we was [sic] going to march on Washington. By the way, right at that time Birmingham had exploded, and the Negroes in Birmingham —— remember, they also exploded. They began to stab the crackers in the back and bust them up 'side their head —— yes, they did. That's when Kennedy sent in the troops, down in Birmingham. So, and right after that, Kennedy got on the television and said "this is a moral issue." That's when he said he was going to put out a civil-rights bill. And when he mentioned civil-rights bill and the Southern crackers started talking about [how] they were going to boycott or filibuster it, then the Negroes started talking —— about what？ We're going to march on Washington, march on the Senate, march on the White House, march on the Congress, and tie it up, bring it to a halt； don't let the government proceed. They even said they was [sic] going out to the airport and lay down on the runway and don't let no airplanes land. I'm telling you what they said. That was revolution. That was revolution. That was the black revolution. It was the grass roots out there in the street. [It] scared the white man to death,

scared the white power structure in Washington, D. C. to death； I was there. When they found out that this black steamroller was going to come down on the capital, they called in Wilkins； they called in Randolph； they called in these national Negro leaders that you

respect and told them, "Call it off." Kennedy said, "Look, you all letting this thing go too far." And Old Tom said, "Boss, I can't stop it, because I didn't start it." I'm telling you what they said. They said, "I'm not even in it, much less at the head of it." They said, "These Negroes are doing things on their own. They're running ahead of us." And that old shrewd fox, he said, "Well If you all aren't in it, I'll put you in it. I'll put you at the head of it. I'll endorse it. I'll welcome it. I'll help it. I'll join it."

A matter of hours went by. They had a meeting at the Carlyle Hotel in New York City. The Carlyle Hotel is owned by the Kennedy family； that's the hotel Kennedy spent the night at, two nights ago； [it] belongs to his family. A philanthropic society headed by a white man named Stephen Currier called all the top civil-rights leaders together at the Carlyle Hotel. And he told them that, "By you all fighting each other, you are destroying the civil-rights movement. And since you're fighting over money from white liberals, let us set up what is known as the Council for United Civil Rights Leadership. Let's form this council, and all the civil-rights organizations will belong to it, and we'll use it for fund-raising purposes." Let me show you how tricky the white man is. And as soon as they got it

formed, they elected Whitney Young as the chairman, and who [do] you think became the co-chairman？ Stephen Currier, the white man, a millionaire. Powell was talking about it down at the Cobo [Hall] today. This is what he was talking about. Powell knows it happened. Randolph knows it happened. Wilkins knows it happened. King knows it happened. Everyone of that so-called Big Six —— they know what happened.

Once they formed it, with the white man over it, he promised them and gave them $800,000 to split up between the Big Six； and told them that after the march was over they'd give them $700,000 more. A million and a half dollars —— split up between leaders that you've been following, going to jail for, crying crocodile tears for. And they're nothing but Frank James and Jesse James and the what-do-you-call-'em brothers.

[As] soon as they got the setup organized, the white man made available to them top public relations experts； opened the news media across the country at their disposal； and then they begin [sic] to project these Big Six as the leaders of the march. Originally,

they weren't even in the march. You was [sic ] talking this march talk on Hastings Street —— Is Hastings Street still here？ —— on Hasting Street. You was [sic] talking the

march talk on Lenox Avenue, and out on —— What you call it？ —— Fillmore Street, and Central Avenue, and 32nd Street and 63rd Street. That's where the march talk was being talked. But the white man put the Big Six [at the] head of it； made them the march. They became the march. They took it over. And the first move they made after they took it over, they invited Walter Reuther, a white man； they invited a priest, a rabbi, and an old white preacher. Yes, an old white preacher. The same white element that put Kennedy in power —— labor, the Catholics, the Jews, and liberal Protestants； [the] same clique that put Kennedy in power, joined the march on Washington.

It's just like when you've got some coffee that's too black, which means it's too strong. What you do？ You integrate it with cream； you make it weak. If you pour too much cream in, you won't even know you ever had coffee. It used to be hot, it becomes cool. It used to be strong, it becomes weak. It used to wake you up, now it'll put you to sleep. This is what they did with the march on Washington. They joined it. They didn't integrate it； they infiltrated it. They joined it, became a part of it, took it over. And as they took it over, it lost its militancy. They ceased to be angry. They ceased to be hot. They ceased to be uncompromising. Why, it even ceased to be a march. It became a picnic, a circus. Nothing but a circus, with clowns and all. You had one right here in Detroit —— I saw it on

television —— with clowns leading it, white clowns and black clowns. I know you don't like what I'm saying, but I'm going to tell you anyway. 'Cause I can prove what I'm saying. If you think I'm telling you wrong, you bring me Martin Luther King and A. Philip Randolph and James Farmer and those other three, and see if they'll deny it over a microphone. No, it was a sellout. It was a takeover. When James Baldwin came in from Paris, they wouldn't let him talk, 'cause they couldn't make him go by the script. Burt Lancaster read the speech that Baldwin was supposed to make； they wouldn't let Baldwin get up there, 'cause they know Baldwin's liable to say anything. They controlled it so tight —— they told those Negroes what time to hit town, how to come, where to stop, what signs to carry,

*what song to sing*, what speech they could make, and what speech they couldn't make； and then told them to get out town by sundown. And everyone of those Toms was out of town by sundown. Now I know you don't like my saying this. But I can back it up. It was a circus, a performance that beat anything Hollywood could ever do, the performance of the year. Reuther and those other three devils should get a Academy Award for the best

actors 'cause they acted like they really loved Negroes and fooled a whole lot of Negroes. And the six Negro leaders should get an award too, for the best supporting cast.

克林顿19xx年就职演说

INAUGURAL ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

January 20, 1997

My fellow citizens:

At this last presidential inauguration of the 20th century, let us lift our eyes toward the challenges that await us in the next century. It is our great good fortune that time and chance have put us not only at the edge of a new century, in a new millennium, but on the edge of a bright new prospect in human affairs -- a moment that will define our course, and our character, for decades to come. We must keep our old democracy forever young. Guided by the ancient vision of a promised land, let us set our sights upon a land of new promise.

The promise of America was born in the 18th century out of the bold conviction that we are all created equal. It was extended and preserved in the 19th century, when our nation spread across the continent, saved the union, and abolished the awful scourge of slavery.

Then, in turmoil and triumph, that promise exploded onto the world stage to make this the American Century. And what a century it has been. America became the world"s mightiest industrial power; saved the world from tyranny in two world wars and a long cold war; and time and again, reached out across the globe to millions who, like us, longed for the blessings of liberty.

Along the way, Americans produced a great middle class and security in old age; built unrivaled centers of learning and opened public schools to all; split the atom and explored the heavens; invented the computer and the microchip; and deepened the wellspring of justice by making a revolution in civil rights for African Americans and all minorities, and extending the circle of citizenship, opportunity and dignity to women.

Now, for the third time, a new century is upon us, and another time to choose. We began the 19th century with a choice, to spread our nation from coast to coast. We began the

20th century with a choice, to harness the Industrial Revolution to our values of free enterprise, conservation, and human decency. Those choices made all the difference. At the dawn of the 21st century a free people must now choose to shape the forces of the Information Age and the global society, to unleash the limitless potential of all our people, and, yes, to form a more perfect union.

When last we gathered, our march to this new future seemed less certain than it does today. We vowed then to set a clear course to renew our nation.

In these four years, we have been touched by tragedy, exhilarated by challenge, strengthened by achievement. America

stands alone as the world"s indispensable nation. Once again, our economy is the strongest on Earth. Once again, we are building stronger families, thriving communities, better educational opportunities, a cleaner environment. Problems that once seemed destined to deepen now bend to our efforts: our streets are safer and record numbers of our fellow citizens have moved from welfare to work.

And once again, we have resolved for our time a great debate over the role of government. Today we can declare: Government is not the problem, and government is not the solution. We -- the American people -- we are the solution. (Applause.) Our founders understood that well and gave us a democracy strong enough to endure for centuries, flexible enough to face our common challenges and advance our common dreams in each new day.

As times change, so government must change. We need a new government for a new century -- humble enough not to try to solve all our problems for us, but strong enough to give us the tools to solve our problems for ourselves; a government that is smaller, lives within its means, and does more with less. Yet where it can stand up for our values and interests in the world, and where it can give Americans the power to make a real difference in their everyday lives, government should do more, not less. The preeminent mission of our new government is to give all Americans an opportunity -- not a guarantee, but a real opportunity -- to build better lives. (Applause.)

Beyond that, my fellow citizens, the future is up to us. Our founders taught us that the preservation of our liberty and our union depends upon responsible citizenship. And we need a new sense of responsibility for a new century. There is work to do, work that government alone cannot do: teaching children to read; hiring people off welfare rolls;

coming out from behind locked doors and shuttered windows to help reclaim our streets from drugs and gangs and crime; taking time out of our own lives to serve others.

Each and every one of us, in our own way, must assume personal responsibility -- not only for ourselves and our families, but for our neighbors and our nation. (Applause.) Our greatest responsibility is to embrace a new spirit of community for a new century. For any one of us to succeed, we must succeed as one

America.

The challenge of our past remains the challenge of our future -- will we be one nation, one people, with one common destiny, or not? Will we all come together, or come apart?

The divide of race has been America"s constant curse. And each new wave of immigrants gives new targets to old prejudices. Prejudice and contempt, cloaked in the pretense of religious or political conviction are no different. (Applause.) These forces have nearly destroyed our nation in the past. They plague us still. They fuel the fanaticism of terror. And they torment the lives of millions in fractured nations all around the world.

These obsessions cripple both those who hate and, of course, those who are hated, robbing both of what they might become. We cannot, we will not, succumb to the dark impulses that lurk in the far regions of the soul everywhere. We shall overcome them. (Applause.) And we shall replace them with the generous spirit of a people who feel at home with one another. Our rich texture of racial, religious and political diversity will be a Godsend in the 21st century. Great rewards will come to those who can live together, learn together, work together, forge new ties that bind together.

As this new era approaches we can already see its broad outlines. Ten years ago, the Internet was the mystical province of physicists; today, it is a commonplace encyclopedia for millions of schoolchildren. Scientists now are decoding the blueprint of human life. Cures for our most feared illnesses seem close at hand.

The world is no longer divided into two hostile camps. Instead, now we are building bonds with nations that once were our adversaries. Growing connections of commerce and culture give us a chance to lift the fortunes and spirits of people the world over. And for the very first time in all of history, more people on this planet live under democracy than dictatorship. (Applause.)

My fellow Americans, as we look back at this remarkable century, we may ask, can we hope not just to follow, but even to surpass the achievements of the 20th century in America and to avoid the awful bloodshed that stained its legacy? To that question, every American here and every American in our land today must answer a resounding "Yes." (Applause.)

This is the heart of our task. With a new vision of government, a new sense of responsibility, a new spirit of community, we will sustain America"s journey. The promise we sought in a new land we will find again in a land of new promise. (Applause.)

In this new land, education will be every citizen"s most prized possession. Our schools will have the highest standards in the world, igniting the spark of possibility in the eyes of every girl and every boy. And the doors of higher education will be open to all. The knowledge and power of the Information Age will be within reach not just of the few, but of every classroom, every library, every child. Parents and children will have time not only to work, but to read and play together. And the plans they make at their kitchen table will be those of a better home, a better job, the certain chance to go to college.

Our streets will echo again with the laughter of our children, because no one will try to shoot them or sell them drugs anymore. Everyone who can work, will work, with today"s permanent under class part of tomorrow"s growing middle class. New miracles of medicine at last will reach not only those who can claim care now, but the children and hardworking families too long denied.

We will stand mighty for peace and freedom, and maintain a strong defense against terror and destruction. Our children will sleep free from the threat of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Ports and airports, farms and factories will thrive with trade and innovation and ideas. And the world"s greatest democracy will lead a whole world of democracies.

Our land of new promise will be a nation that meets its obligations -- a nation that balances its budget, but never loses the balance of its values. (Applause.) A nation where our grandparents have secure retirement and health care, and their grandchildren know we have made the reforms necessary to sustain those benefits for their time. (Applause.)

A nation that fortifies the world"s most productive economy even as it protects the great natural bounty of our water, air, and majestic land.

And in this land of new promise, we will have reformed our politics so that the voice of the people will always speak louder than the din of narrow interests -- regaining the participation and deserving the trust of all Americans. (Applause.)

Fellow citizens, let us build that America, a nation ever moving forward toward realizing the full potential of all its citizens. Prosperity and power -- yes, they are important, and we must maintain them. But let us never forget: The greatest progress we have made, and the greatest progress we have yet to make, is in the human heart. In the end, all the world"s wealth and a thousand armies are no match for the strength and decency of the human spirit. (Applause.)

Thirty-four years ago, the man whose life we celebrate today spoke to us down there, at the other end of this Mall, in words that moved the conscience of a nation. Like a prophet of old, he told of his dream that one day America would rise up and treat all its citizens as equals before the law and in the heart. Martin Luther King"s dream was the American Dream. His quest is our quest: the ceaseless striving to live out our true creed. Our history has been built on such dreams and labors. And by our dreams and labors

we will redeem the promise of America in the 21st century.

To that effort I pledge all my strength and every power of my office. I ask the members of Congress here to join in that pledge. The American people returned to office a President of one party and a Congress of another. Surely, they did not do this to advance the politics of petty bickering and extreme partisanship they plainly deplore. (Applause.) No, they call on us instead to be repairers of the breach, and to move on with America"s mission.

America demands and deserves big things from us -- and nothing big ever came from being small. (Applause.) Let us remember the timeless wisdom of Cardinal Bernardin, when facing the end of his own life. He said: "It is wrong to waste the precious gift of time, on acrimony and division."

Fellow citizens, we must not waste the precious gift of this time. For all of us are on that same journey of our lives, and our journey, too, will come to an end. But the journey of our America must go on.

And so, my fellow Americans, we must be strong, for there is much to dare. The demands of our time are great and they are different. Let us meet them with faith and courage, with patience and a grateful and happy heart. Let us shape the hope of this day into the noblest chapter in our history. Yes, let us build our bridge. (Applause.) A bridge wide enough and strong enough for every American to cross over to a blessed land of new promise.

May those generations whose faces we cannot yet see, whose names we may never know, say of us here that we led our beloved land into a new century with the American Dream alive for all her children; with the American promise of a more perfect union a reality for all her people; with America"s bright flame of freedom spreading throughout all the world.

From the height of this place and the summit of this century, let us go forth. May God strengthen our hands for the good work ahead -- and always, always bless our America. (Applause.)

罗斯福就珍珠港事件演讲

Pearl Harbor Address to the Nation

Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:

Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.

Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleagues delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

Yesterday, the Japanese government also launched an attack against Malaya.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Guam.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.

Last night, the Japanese attacked Wake Island.

And this morning, the Japanese attacked Midway Island.

Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.

As commander in chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense. But always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God.

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.

鹰

原载：中国诗歌翻译网

艾尔弗雷德·坦尼森

勾爪紧扣崖际，

贴近太阳，立身寂寥大地，

周遭蓝天一碧。

下面大海蠕动，皱纹四起，

巉岩上鹰眼犀利，

俯冲下去疾如闪电霹雳。

The Eagle AlfredTennyson

He clasps the crag with crooked hands, Close to the sun in lonely lands,

Ring' d with the azure world, he stands.

The wrinkled sea beneath him crawls; He watches from his mountain walls, And like a thunderbolt he falls.

相关推荐

丘吉尔演讲稿

第二篇：丘吉尔的演讲

专栏推荐