(Note: In the Chinese version of this essay the term hua ren 華人 does not merely mean overseas ethnic Chinese with non-Chinese citizenships, a narrow meaning that has come to be popular in Mainland China in recent years, but instead means all ethnic Chinese both inside and outside China, a broader concept which is also the original meaning of the term.)

When I was young I used to really agonize over why China had to be so poor, so weak, and so backward compared to the West？ Surely that didn’t mean that Chinese, i.e. Chinese like me, were inherently inferior to the whites?

Growing up as a eleven year old during the sixties in North America, my self-esteem was repeatedly battered by popular culture. It was bad enough that Asians were portrayed either as vicious communist “Red Chinese” or Vietcong “gooks,” or as utterly helpless though good “Hop Sing’s,” who couldn’t fend for themselves and had to depend completely on Americans, i.e. white people, for protection. What’s worse, however, was that the TV shows that I had come to love, their (white) heroes that I had come to admire, and movies that were all the rage among my (white) friends and classmates, viciously, though perhaps unintentionally, put down Asians, mainly Chinese.

Every week I would look forward to such shows as “Gunsmoke,” “Have Gun, Will Travel,” or “The Untouchables,” and then one day they would have an episode where the heroes fought evil Chinese, who were all absolutely useless—why, just one of the white heroes, with whom, alas, I had earlier identified, would dispose of ten top-notch kungfu masters simultaneously without even breaking a sweat! And all the prettiest and classiest Chinese women swooned at the first sight of the white heroes, abandoning hapless though very elite and patrician Chinese lovers to throw themselves at mere plebian whites.

And Cold War spy movies! Cold War spies, whom everyone I knew loved, everyone, that was, unless you were Chinese like me, did the same to top elite Chinese men and women except on a much grander and fancier scale. I remembered watching my first Cold War spy movie in sixth grade and getting very angry but very choked up, with a big lump in my throat and tears starting to come into my eyes, one part of me feeling totally ashamed of being Chinese—we were so inferior—but another part of me shouting in a rage, “The creeps! They are lying; they are making all this up! Chinese aren’t such barbaric, evil weaklings!”

I knew, because I was no weakling, at least not in spirit; I could stand up to any bully in our small town grades K through 12 school where we were the only Chinese family, though he might be years older and two to three times heavier—I had been taught to fight back against any bully, no matter how big or strong, because even if you “lost” physically you always won morally and strategically, and the frightened bully who had never expected any fighting back would never touch you again. After a fight or two no one cared to bully me. Anyone who dared to taunt me with “Chinky, Chinky Chinaman!” I would curse back with an English version of some Hong Kong street vitriol, “Die, boy! Die, boy! So many people die, why don’t you die!” Seeing the anger on my face, nobody wanted to fight me, and soon no one taunted me.

As for being barbaric and evil, hadn’t my Dad always taught me that true Chinese were honest and kind, and that China was the Land of Courtesy and Integrity?

So the part in me that said the screen was lying always won over the part in me that was ashamed of being Chinese, and I would finish the show absolutely furious, but unbowed.

The townspeople were, on the whole, absolutely wonderful to us, and my (white) friends and classmates I loved dearly, but because of the TV shows and how my friends all gushed about the Cold War spy James Bond I always felt I was a bit different. By the time I was a teenager in search of my identity, I knew I couldn’t identify with white society; no, I had to search elsewhere for my true identity.

Finding my identity meant that I had to be true to myself, to be authentic, and that meant I had to be authentically Chinese. Did being authentically Chinese, however, mean being authentically inferior? If Chinese weren’t inferior to whites, then why was China so poor, weak, and backward, in a word, so inferior?

Hoping to find an answer, I went to the library and read book after book.

Well, one response from some authors I had read back then was that China’s poverty, weakness, and backwardness weren’t bad things and didn’t mean that China was inferior; it just meant that we valued “non-materialistic” things while the “spiritually inferior, greedy” West valued “materialistic” things. We were “spiritually superior”; we don't need to and we shouldn't learn how to "value material things" like the West. I couldn’t buy that; it sounded too much like the ostrich burying its head in the sand. I thought to myself, “Why, sirs, you mean all that infant mortality, all that malnutrition, all that illiteracy, all that ignorance and deprivation, those aren't bad things; those are all OK?” No, I couldn’t accept it; only callous members of a rich elite from a poor country could stand up and say that it was OK that their country was poor, to say that it was just that their country was not as “materialistic” as the West. “Sure, you rich gentlemen are fine; there are lots of servants to pamper your kids and protect them from child mortality and the sequelae of disease, and lots of expensive elite schools to teach your kids literacy, English even—I am talking about the ordinary folk! Yes, the ones who barely get 1,200 calories a day and yet have to toil while you rich gentlemen get 2,400 and yet live in leisure!” Thought I. No, for me the response that the material level of living was unimportant didn’t hold water.

So I had to accept as fact that China had been and was still, poor, weak, backward, and inferior.

Then another response, from another set of authors, was that China wasn’t poor and backward to begin with—no, it was rich; it became poor and backward only because of Western aggression and exploitation. Such authors pointed to the fact that China had to pay hundreds of millions of ounces of silver and gold as reparations for losing all the wars inflicted by Western powers during the nineteenth century. But, I asked, before those wars why hadn’t China developed the guns, ships, and modern weaponry? Indeed, when Western Europe was still in a state of barbarism, China had already long been civilized, so why hadn’t China industrialized long before the West? Why hadn't China invented and made into widespread use such things as the steam engine, trains, airplanes, anatomy, chemistry, and microbiology? Without such things but still with periodic large famines that starve innumerable people to death, how can a place like that be called rich? When I looked into and read about the matter, I had to accept that China was poor, weak, backward and inferior compared to the West even before the West invaded.

In fact, I came to realize, Chinese and people from the rest of the world should be grateful to the whites and the West for having developed all this technology, which had lifted all mankind to a much higher level of civilization, knowledge, and health. What was more, the West was still leading and pioneering the continuous advance in science and technology, and was still continuing to do most of the work of uplifting mankind more and more.

The young me had to swallow hard and accept that what China had was, taken as a whole, poor, backward and inferior, that is, Chinese tradition and culture had bad things that had made China poor, backward and inferior compared to the West. China had to change and Chinese tradition and culture had to change. If being authentically Chinese meant sticking to the entire established and overall inferior Chinese tradition and culture, then being authentically Chinese would be a bad thing. Well, could being authentically Chinese mean something else; could it mean a good thing?

Well, yes. After I have gotten older, I have come to know what is in Chinese tradition and culture that is good and absolutely applicable today. The Chinese heritage has the theme of the supremacy of the relationship-defined obligations, and this theme is applicable today and good for living happily and successfully in the modern world. So there is something good to being authentically Chinese after all: there is a good part to the Chinese heritage that is useful for today, that even the West and indeed the whole world should adopt (please click to see my essay The Traditional Chinese Supremacy of Relationship-Defined Obligations vs. The West's Supremacy of Love ). Thus half of our puzzle is solved: for being authentically Chinese to mean something good, one must study and inherit that good and superior part of the Chinese heritage, the culture and tradition of the supremacy of the relationship-defined obligations.

Furthermore, now that I have grown older, I have come to know what has kept China in such a backward state all these centuries. It is none other than excessive government: since the Qin Dynasty of 221 B.C.E., the Chinese government has always strictly controlled commerce, regulated agriculture , monopolized waterworks and irrigation, monopolized the metal mines, monopolized salt production and trade. Moreover, other than private tutors for the elementary teaching of children, schools and higher centers of learning have all been government institutions, the curriculum has been controlled by the government, and the realm of study of intellectuals has been defined by the Imperial Exams. For a technologically backward society, the reach of traditional China’s government has been amazingly pervasive. It is none other than this excessive government, though well-intentioned, that has repeatedly suffocated innovation and economic development over the ages.

Coming to know that has been very liberating: now I know for sure that Chinese, including Chinese like me, aren’t inherently inferior to the whites. I also know that China must, China can, and China will catch up to and maybe surpass the most advanced countries of the world. In doing so, the Chinese must purge that which has kept China backward from Chinese tradition and culture, i.e. excessive government, and to adopt or invent new, good things to replace the purged. Such new, good things will be things that can propel China to a higher level of wealth and progress, a level that is on a par with or surpasses the advanced countries today.

Now what is it that the West has had that has enabled it to advance so far ahead of the rest of the world as early as the 1500’s, the time when famine becomes unknown in England and Holland, though still recurring in China? It is none other than the free market. And the free market is the exact opposite of China’s excessive government. Now many who don’t understand what the free market really is will protest at this point that the free market is barbaric and a free-for-all where the law of the jungle rules, so how can civilized China stoop so low as to adopt this barbarism? No, that’s all wrong; the free market is not barbaric or where the law of the jungle rules; the free market is one of the highest attainments of human civilization and is where mutual help, not mutual harm, rules. Indeed the market is nothing but a vast arena for people to help each other. Honesty, integrity, and the highest moral and ethical standards, all things that traditional Chinese culture has emphasized and traditional Chinese aspire to, are the inevitable outcomes of a proper, truly free, free market. Of course, the market as it exists in the West is not perfect, and is not even very free, and China can make the market even better, freer, and more conducive to innovation and economic development, in a word, more conducive to humans helping each other.

Another thing that the West has possessed that other cultures haven’t is the highest esteem for investigation and the natural sciences. Many traditional cultures think of all truth, including truth about the natural world, as being either handed down by authority or discoverable by “geniuses” thinking hard and debating among themselves. The West, however, has practiced in a grand way the concept that the truth about the natural world is discoverable by anyone who conducts scientific investigation. And in the West there has been a tradition of fanatic and brutal adherence to scientific principles: for example, around the year 1600 without giving it a second thought Kepler abandoned years and years of theoretical work on planetary motion to embark on a new direction after discovering that his original work led to a minute but detectable discrepancy of 2/60 of a degree of arc between his predicted and the observed trajectory of Mars. The strictest respect for investigation and the right of anyone, not just the ordained or the exalted, to investigate the world for truth has been a Western one.

Besides the free market and the natural sciences, there must be other very important things that will propel a society to the head of human progress, that need to be discovered and invented. Hopefully, Chinese will discover and invent them. It’s high time, isn’t it, that Chinese do a bigger share of the work of uplifting mankind?

So Chinese culture needs to one, keep the good, that is, the culture of the supremacy of the relationship-defined obligations, two, discard the bad, that is, the culture of excessive government, three, adopt good things from other cultures, that is, the culture of the free market and the natural sciences, improve on them, and four, discover or invent new, good things that are not yet in existence. That is what we’ll have to take as authentic Chinese culture. What is authentically Chinese now becomes a question of what should be, not what is.

Of course, even the best tradition in Chinese culture needs to be modified and re-stated in light of the modern world. For example, the doctrine of the Five Cardinal Relationships (五倫) should be modified to include a sixth Cardinal Relationship (六倫) of the buyer and the seller (買賣). Some of the relationship-defined obligations binding the Cardinal Relationships need to be restated in light of modern conditions. For example, the relationship between the ruler and the subject (君臣) needs to be restated as the relationship between the government and the citizens. All that is good in tradition and thought need to be updated; nothing should stay as is.

So the question, “What kind of culture is Chinese?” should become the question, “First, what is good from the past that should be updated and kept, second, what is good that Chinese culture doesn’t have yet that should be adopted, and third, what is good that no culture in the world has yet that need to be discovered or invented?” Being authentically Chinese then just means being true to the good things in the Chinese heritage, taking part in the adoption from other cultures of good things that Chinese culture doesn't yet have, and taking part in the discovery or invention of new, good things. So it means that the culture that should be Chinese really should be a new, hybrid culture that includes something of what has been Chinese previously and is still good and great (the relationship-defined obligations), plus something good and great that hasn’t been Chinese but has been present elsewhere in the world (the free market and the natural sciences), plus perhaps something new that hasn’t yet appeared anywhere in the world thus far but needs to be discovered or invented. Then being authentically Chinese just means to embrace these good things; that's all.

Well then, I’ve come full circle: it’s not necessary to worry too much about being “authentically Chinese”; all that is needed is to embrace what is good, and embracing what is good automatically includes embracing some things that are Chinese, some things that have not been Chinese, and in the future, some things that do not yet exist but will hopefully be Chinese.

（注：這裡“華人”一詞的用法，不是僅指外籍華裔這個近年來流行於大陸的狹窄意義，而是指國內及海外所有中國血統人士這個原來的廣泛意義。）

小的時候曾經有一個問題令我極度痛苦：為甚麼比起西方中國這麼窮、這麼弱、這麼落後呢？不會是因為華人，即好像我的那些華人，本質上是比起白人低等的吧？

作為在北美洲六十年代成長的十一歲孩子，我的自尊心一次又一次被流行文化打擊。亞洲人被描繪為凶狠的共產“紅色中國人”或越共“殘渣（gooks）”，或被描繪為儘管是好人但完全沒有獨立自助能力，要徹底依靠美國人即白人保護的“合勝（Hop Sing）”華傭，這已經夠壞了，但更嚴重的是，我所愛上了的電視劇片，劇片裡我所仰慕的（白人）英雄，和令我的（白人）朋友和同學們瘋狂的電影，都惡毒地，儘管也許是無意地，貶低亞洲人，主要是華人。

每個星期我都渴望著等待觀看“槍煙”，“有槍可以旅行”或“不可觸動的人”，然後一天，劇片就會演出一場劇片英雄打邪惡華人的戲，而華人們都絕對是飯桶：哼，一個我不幸認同的白人英雄，能夠單獨干掉十個功夫高手，而且一滴汗水也不流！最漂亮、最高貴的女華人們，見到白人英雄便都神魂顛倒，都把倒霉的、雖然是很精英、很顯貴的男華人愛人拋棄，向不過是粗俗的白人懷抱裡把自己投擲。

還有冷戰間諜電影！所有人（除了例如我的那些華人）都熱愛的冷戰間諜，對最高等級的男女華人精英也干同樣的事情，但是他們干的規模更大、更精彩。我記得，小學六年級我第一次看冷戰間諜電影，變成很憤怒但哽得很厲害，有個大腫塊塞在咽喉裡，眼淚開始流出來，有一部分的我，則以身為華人覺得極端羞恥（我們實在太低等了！），但另一部分的我，就狂怒地喊叫，“壞蛋們！他們在撒謊！所有這些都是捏造出來的！華人不是這麼野蠻、邪惡的弱者！”

我确信那一點，因為我不是弱者，最少精神上不是；在我居住小鎮裡的那所幼稚園至高中六年級的學校裡，我們是唯一的華人家庭，但我可以跟任何惡霸對抗，儘管他比我大好幾歲或重兩三倍。我被教導，要對任何欺負我的惡霸還手攻擊，無論他多大或多強，因為就算你肉體上“輸了”你道義上和戰略上會贏了，從來不意料到會遭遇反抗的惡霸，會被你嚇壞了，永遠不會再觸動你。打了一兩次架之後，沒有人樂意欺負我了。有人敢用“清記，清記，支那人！”來侮辱我，我就反過來用香港街上惡毒言語的英語版本罵他，“死仔，死仔，咁多人死，又唔見你死！”見到我臉上的怒氣，沒有人想跟我打架，很快就沒有人侮辱我了。

至於野蠻和邪惡，我爸爸不是一向都教導我，華人遵守信和仁，而中國是禮義之邦嗎？

所以，說銀幕撒謊的我那部分，每次都擊敗感覺做華人羞恥的那部分，我把戲看完後會非常憤怒，但是不屈。

小鎮的人們整體來說對我們非常非常好，而我熱愛我的（白人）朋友和同學，但是，因為電視劇片和因為我的朋友都把冷戰間諜詹姆斯·邦德嘆賞為絕妙，我總是覺得我跟他們是有點不同的。當我成為了一個要尋找自己個體的少年時，我知道我不能跟白人社會認同，不，我要在別的地方尋找我真正的自己個體。

尋找我自己的個體意味我要對自己真誠，要真正，而這就意味要做個真正的華人。但是，做真正的華人，是不是意味做低等的人呢？如果華人不比白人低等，那麼為甚麼中國這麼窮、弱和落後，一句話，這麼低等呢？

我走進圖書館裡，把一本又一本書閱讀，希望能夠找到答案。

我所閱讀的一些作者說，中國的窮、弱和落後，並不是壞的東西，並不等於中國低等，只不過我們珍惜“非物質”的東西，而“精神上低等、貪枉”的西方則珍惜“物質”的東西；我們“精神上是高等的”，不需要也不應該學西方那樣珍惜“物質”的東西。但我不能相信這個論點，太像鴕鳥把頭放進沙裡面了。我對自己想，“甚麼，先生們，你們是說，所有那些嬰兒夭折，所有那些營養不良，所有那些文盲，所有那些無知和匱乏，所有這些都不是壞事，都是毫無問題的嗎？”不，我不能接受這個論點，只有從窮國家來的麻木不仁的一些精英成員才可以站起來說，他們國家的窮困是毫無問題的，只不過是他們國家不像西方那樣“追求物質”。我想，“當然啦，富有的紳士們，你們毫無問題，你們有很多僕人來嬌寵你們的孩子，來保護他們，讓他們不會遇到夭折和病殘，更有很多昂貴的精英學校來教你們的孩子認字，甚至認英語呢！我所關懷的是普通人啊！對，那些幾乎一天1200卡熱能食物也拿不到但是仍然要勤勞工作的人，不像紳士你們，一天吃了2400卡熱能卻閒暇無事！”不，對我來說，物質生活程度並不重要這個論點不能成立。

所以我便需要接受中國曾經是和仍然是窮、弱、落後和低等這個事實。

另外一個論點，是另一群作者寫的，說中國本來並非貧窮落後，不，中國原本是富有的，變成貧窮只不過是因為西方的侵略和剝削。這些作者指出，中國付出了億萬兩黃金和白銀，來賠償輸掉了的、西方列強們強加於中國的戰爭。但是，我問，這些戰爭發生之前，為甚麼中國沒有能夠製造出大炮、戰艦和現代武器的科技呢？其實，西歐還處於野蠻時代的時候，中國就老早已經文明瞭，為甚麼中國沒有老早在西方之前工業化呢？為甚麼中國沒有在宋朝時代即公元1000年代就發明和普及了蒸汽機、火車、飛機、解剖學、化學、微生物學等東西呢？沒有這些東西，還週期性地發生餓死無數人口的大飢荒，能算得上甚麼富有呢？我研究了這個問題和閱讀了有關的書本之後，我就需要接受這個事實：西方侵略中國之前，中國已經是比起西方窮、弱、落後和低等了。

同時我發現了，事實上，華人和全世界的其他人都應該對白人和西方感激，感謝他們發展了所有這些科技，把人類提升到高很多的文明、知識和健康水平。還有，西方仍然在領導和開墾科學和科技的繼續進步，西方也仍然在負擔最大部分的繼續提升人類水平的工作。

少年的我，要使勁地咽一下，接受事實：中國所擁有的，整體上來說是貧窮、落後和低等的，那就是說，中華傳統和文化有些壞的東西，使到中國比西方貧窮、落後和低等。中國需要變，中華傳統和中華文化要變。如果做個真正的華人意味死守整個現成的、整體上是低等的中華傳統和文化，那麼做個真正的華人便會是件壞事了。哎，做個真正的華人能夠意味另外的東西，能夠是件好事嗎？

是的，是能夠的。我長大一點後，我發覺了中華傳統和文化中有甚麼東西是好的和絕對合適今天世界的。中華傳統有人倫至上這個主題，而人倫至上這個主題合適現代和有利於在現代社會快樂地和成功地生活。啊，做個真正的華人的確可以得到一些好的東西，中華傳統有個好的部分，在今天仍然有用，全世界連西方也應該採用（請點擊見我的中華傳統的人倫至上對西方的愛至上文章）。那麼，我們的難題有一半解答了：要使做個真正的華人成為好事，就一定要學習和繼承中華傳統好的和優越的那一部分，就要學習和繼承人倫至上的文化和傳統。

另外，現在我年紀大了一點，我也發現了甚麼使到中國這麼多世紀以來還這麼落後。不是別的東西，是政府過分的統治。自從公元前221年的秦朝以來，中國政府一向都嚴格地控制貿易，管制農業（例如禁止宰牛吃肉，因為政府“明智地”決定了，牛是應該留下來耕種的），壟斷水利和灌溉，壟斷金屬礦場，壟斷造鹽和賣鹽，更把學校和高等學院都納入地方和中央政府機構，課程也是政府控制的，知識分子的研究範圍亦被科舉考試所指定。作為一個科技落後的社會，傳統中國的政府，干涉範圍驚奇地廣泛和深入。正是中國政府這種過分的統治，儘管是出於好意的，曾經在漫長歲月裡，把創新和科學及經濟發展再三窒息。

知道了這個道理，授予我很大的解放，我知道了華人，包括我在內，不是本質上比白人低等。我也知道了中國一定要，中國能夠，和中國將會追上和也許超越世界最先進的國家。要這樣做，華人們一定要把令到中國落後的東西，即政府过分的统治，從中華傳統和文化清除掉，採用或發明新的、好的東西來代替清除掉的東西。這些新的、好的東西將會把中國推進到新的財富和進步水平，一個跟今日的先進國家相等或超越的水平。

那麼，西方有的是甚麼，讓西方早在1500年代，即英國和荷蘭不復再出現大規模飢荒的年代，就超越全世界的呢？不是別的，是自由市場。自由市場恰恰是中國政府過分統治的相反。到這裡，很多不明白自由市場是甚麼的人會抗議，說自由市場是野蠻的，是個叢林規格統治的、每一個人跟每一個人爭奪的搏鬥場，中國怎能夠把自己降得這麼低，採用這種野蠻東西？不，這都是錯誤，自由市場並不是野蠻，也不是叢林規格統治的場所，而是人類文明最高尚的成就之一，是被互相幫助而不是被互相傷害所統治的地方。其實，市場不外是讓人們互相幫助的一個龐大場所。誠信、正直、最高尚的道義和品德准則，這些都是傳統中華文化所強調和仰慕的東西，都將會是正當的、真正自由的市場的必然產品。當然，西方的市場並不完美，也不是很自由，中國可以使市場更好、更自由、更有利於創新和經濟發展，一句話，更有利於人們互相幫助。

另外一樣西方擁有而其他文化沒有的，是對調查和自然科學最恭謹的崇敬。很多傳統文化把所有真理，包括關於自然世界的真理，看作是權威傳遞下來的或者是由“天才們”使勁思量和互相辯論而得出來的。西方則不然，西方巨大規模地實踐了這個概念：只要進行科學調查，關於自然世界的真理是任何人都可以發現出來的。而且，在西方有一個狂熱地和狠心地遵守科學原則的傳統。例如，1600年左右，開普勒想也不想，就狠心地把自己多年的關於星球運行的理論工作拋棄，改向新方面探索，因為發現了原來的理論工作，使到他對火星軌道所作出的計算跟觀察而得到的真正軌道，具有一個微少的但是可以測量到的、僅僅2/60度弧線的差異。對調查的忠誠和崇敬是西方那裡出來的。另外，任何人而不僅只是被聖明委任的人或地位崇高的人，都有權去調查世界，尋找真理，這也是西方那裡出來的。

除了自由市場和自然科學外，一定還有尚待發現或發明的、能夠把一個社會推動到人類發展最前位的，重要事物。希望華人們會發現、發明和運用這些事物。華人們負擔起更大一部分提升人類水平的工作，應該是時候了，難道不是嗎？

所以中華文化需要一、保留好的東西，那就是人倫至上的文化，二、清除壞的東西，那就是政府過分統治的文化，三、採用其他文化的好東西，那就是自由市場和自然科學的文化，把它們更進一步改良，和四、發現或發明新的、好的、還未存在的東西。這就是我們需要接受為真正的中華文化。那麼，真正的中華文化是我們應有的文化，而不是我們現有的文化。

當然，中華最好的傳統文化也需要按照現代社會的情況來修改和用新的方式來陳述。例如，五倫的信條就應該修改，變為包括買者和賣者關係的六倫。有些人倫關係則需要按照現代情況來用新的方式陳述。例如，統治者和被統治者（君臣）之間的關係就需要重新陳述為政府和人民之間的關係。所有傳統好的都需要更新，沒有東西應該一成不變。

所以，“甚麼文化才是中華的？”這個問題，應該改為：“第一，甚麼文化是以前就是中華的、是好的，應該更新和保留的？第二，甚麼文化是好的但是中華文化本來沒有的，應該從其他文化引進和採用的？第三，甚麼文化是好的但全世界文化都未曾擁有的、而是尚待發現和發明的？”做個真正華人就只不過等於：忠於中華傳統的好東西，參加採用、引進中華文化尚未有而其他文化卻擁有的好東西，和參加發現或發明新的、人類尚未有的好東西。那麼，這就意味中華應有的文化其實是一個新的、混合的文化，包括了一些一向是中華的而現在仍然是好的和偉大的東西，即人倫至上思想，加上一些好的和偉大的但不曾是中華的而是其他地方的東西，即自由市場和自然科學，也可能再加上一些全世界都沒有出現過的而是尚待發現或發明的東西。這樣一來，做個真正的華人就不過等於擁抱這些好東西。

啊，我走了一個大圈子：其實不需要太緊張做個“真正的華人”，只需要擁抱好的東西就行了。而擁抱好的東西，就自然包括擁抱一些曾經屬於中華的東西、一些曾經不屬於中華的東西，和一些尚未存在但希望將會是屬於中華的東西。