作者：前自由亚洲记者 孙诚

编辑：张致君 责任编辑：李聪玲 校对：王滨 翻译：彭小梅

最近中共拍了一部电影，名叫《澎湖海战》，讲的是清朝康熙帝和将领施琅攻灭台湾郑氏政权的历史。明眼人都能看出，这是一部为习近平武统台湾舆论造势的宣传片。不过，这部片子却引发了巨大的舆论翻车，甚至不少粉红都因此大感不爽。

事情的起因，其实是：清朝崛起这段历史，实际上是一段北族入主中原的历史。中共和粉红天天拿“汉奸”的棒子打别人，结果拍了一部政宣片，却把“真汉奸”施琅当成“统一祖国”的正面人物，把“17世纪汉人的最后正统”郑氏政权当成反面人物。因此，事情就变得滑稽了起来：闹了半天，原来共产党自己才是大清和“真汉奸”的继承人——结合中共把马列奉为祖师爷来看，就更有喜剧效果了。

不过，一些信奉皇汉思想的粉红看待这段历史的时候，其实又颇有一种割裂感：他们一边反对清朝武统台湾，一边又支持中共武统台湾。在他们看来，郑家、中共都是“好人”，清朝、中华民国台湾都是“坏人”，因为郑家和中共都是“华夏正统”，清朝和中华民国台湾分别是“蛮夷”和“西方势力代言人”。

稍有历史常识的人都可以看出，粉红的这套认知，其实依然滑稽透顶。因为郑氏政权和中华民国台湾，无论怎么看，都更为相似：两者都在台湾，两者分别比清朝和中共更自由（郑氏政权的海洋贸易自由程度，是大搞沿海迁界、制造大量民众死亡的清初比不了的）。而中共和清朝，无论是控制范围，还是自由程度，也都更为相似（当然，就算在清朝专制程度顶峰的雍乾时期，民众的结社自由其实也是比中共时代多的）。

笔者还是有基本的常识，能看出来郑氏政权和中华民国台湾更像，中共和清朝更像，能看出无论是中共官方还是粉红，在《澎湖海战》这件事上各自的滑稽之处：

粉红认为明郑和中共更像，清朝和中华民国台湾更像，并支持明郑和中共，这当然很可笑。

中共官方认为郑氏政权和中华民国台湾更像，清朝和中共更像，并认为清朝和中共是所谓“正面”的一方，这当然也很滑稽。

实际上，用简单的常识就能看出，郑氏政权和中华民国台湾更像，中共和清朝更像，而清朝和中共当然是反面的一方。

因此，面对粉红vs中共官方在《澎湖海战》事件上的争论，只要有点常识的人就能看出，两者的观点都是伪概念，两者的争论都是一种伪争论，两者本质上大同小异，其实都是支持习近平武统台湾的，两者的观点都是可笑的。

这里还需要讲一点题外话：笔者不是“明粉”或“清粉”，也不是任何古代朝代的“粉丝”。笔者更是一直认为无论明朝还是清朝，还是秦汉晋隋唐宋元之类的朝代，本质上都没多大区别，都是僭主皇权朝代；至于这些朝代的制度不同，大体上也就是换着不同的花样虐待“草民”罢了——其中有的朝代有的时候大概虐待得轻点，那也依然是虐待。要说笔者真的喜欢什么时代，那一个是西周春秋，另一个是清末民国。至于笔者为什么喜欢，这个需要专文另说了。

The Farce of The Battle of Penghu:A Pseudo-Debate Between the “Little Pinks” and the Chinese Communist Party

Abstract:The Chinese Communist Party’s film The Battle of Penghu was produced to build public momentum for a military takeover of Taiwan. However, by portraying the Qing court and Shi Lang as positive figures, the film provoked dissatisfaction among “Little Pink” nationalists. Both the Little Pinks and the CCP distort history in their own ways, yet their positions share the same roots. Their dispute is a false debate, and both ultimately serve the narrative of armed unification.

Author: Former Radio Free Asia journalist Sun Cheng
Editor: Zhang Zhijun Managing Editor: Li Congling Proofreader: Wang Bin Translator: Peng Xiaomei

Recently, the Chinese Communist Party produced a film titled The Battle of Penghu, which depicts the historical episode in which the Qing emperor Kangxi and the general Shi Lang destroyed the Zheng family regime in Taiwan. Anyone with clear eyes can see that this is a propaganda film intended to shape public opinion in support of Xi Jinping’s plan to unify Taiwan by force. However, the film triggered a massive public backlash, with even many “Little Pinks” expressing strong displeasure.

The root of the issue is actually this: the rise of the Qing dynasty was, in essence, a history of a northern ethnic group conquering and ruling the Central Plains. The CCP and the Little Pinks routinely label others as “Han traitors,” yet in this propaganda film they portray the “real Han traitor” Shi Lang as a positive figure who “unified the motherland,” while casting the Zheng regime—“the last legitimate Han regime of the seventeenth century”—as the villain. As a result, the situation becomes absurd: after all the fuss, it turns out that the Communist Party itself is the true heir to the Qing dynasty and to the “real Han traitors.” When this is combined with the CCP’s reverence for Marxism–Leninism as its ancestral doctrine, the whole affair becomes even more comical.

However, when some Little Pinks who adhere to so-called “Imperial Han” ideology view this history, their position reveals a deep sense of internal contradiction. On the one hand, they oppose the Qing dynasty’s military conquest of Taiwan; on the other hand, they support the CCP’s military unification of Taiwan. In their view, the Zheng family and the CCP are both “good,” while the Qing dynasty and the Republic of China in Taiwan are both “bad,” because the Zheng family and the CCP are seen as “orthodox Huaxia,” whereas the Qing dynasty and the Republic of China in Taiwan are regarded respectively as “barbarians” and “agents of Western forces.”

Anyone with even a basic understanding of history can see that this worldview held by the Little Pinks is itself utterly ridiculous. The Zheng regime and the Republic of China in Taiwan are, by any reasonable comparison, far more similar to each other: both were based in Taiwan, and both were freer than the Qing dynasty and the CCP respectively. (The degree of freedom in maritime trade under the Zheng regime was something the early Qing—known for its coastal evacuation policies that caused massive civilian deaths—could never match.) Meanwhile, the CCP and the Qing dynasty are far more alike in both their scope of control and their level of repression. (Indeed, even at the height of Qing autocracy during the Yongzheng and Qianlong eras, people still enjoyed more freedom of association than under the CCP.)

The author at least possesses basic common sense and can see that the Zheng regime resembles the Republic of China in Taiwan, while the CCP resembles the Qing dynasty. The author can also recognize the respective absurdities displayed by both the CCP authorities and the Little Pinks in the Battle of Penghu controversy:

The Little Pinks believe that the Ming-Zheng regime resembles the CCP, that the Qing dynasty resembles the Republic of China in Taiwan, and they support the Ming-Zheng regime and the CCP. This is, of course, laughable.

The CCP authorities believe that the Zheng regime resembles the Republic of China in Taiwan, that the Qing dynasty resembles the CCP, and that the Qing dynasty and the CCP represent the so-called “positive” side. This is, of course, also laughable.

In reality, with the most basic common sense, one can see that the Zheng regime resembles the Republic of China in Taiwan, that the CCP resembles the Qing dynasty, and that the Qing dynasty and the CCP are obviously the negative side.

Therefore, when faced with the dispute between the Little Pinks and the CCP authorities over The Battle of Penghu, anyone with even a little common sense can see that both sides are built on false concepts, that their dispute is a false debate, and that at their core the two sides are essentially the same. Both support Xi Jinping’s military unification of Taiwan, and both of their positions are ridiculous.

At this point, a brief digression is necessary: the author is neither a “Ming fan” nor a “Qing fan,” nor a “fan” of any ancient dynasty. The author has long believed that whether it is the Ming dynasty, the Qing dynasty, or dynasties such as Qin, Han, Jin, Sui, Tang, Song, or Yuan, they are not fundamentally very different. They were all usurping imperial autocracies. As for the differences in their systems, they were largely just different ways of abusing the common people. Some dynasties may at times have abused people slightly less, but abuse they still were. If the author truly has any preference for historical periods, one would be the Western Zhou and Spring and Autumn period, and the other would be the late Qing and Republican era. As for why the author prefers these periods, that is a subject requiring a separate article.