he put away his books ,doesn't he?这句话哪有问题Let me to ask her to speak Chinese what's the weather like in Beijing last year(同上)_百度作业帮
拍照搜题，秒出答案
he put away his books ,doesn't he?这句话哪有问题Let me to ask her to speak Chinese what's the weather like in Beijing last year(同上)
he put away his books ,doesn't he?这句话哪有问题Let me to ask her to speak Chinese what's the weather like in Beijing last year(同上)
注意句子时态.第一句,doesn't 是一般现在时,而前面主句put没有加s(主语是第三人称单数）,所以put是动词put的过去式,所以doesn't改为didn't第二个句子涉及到一格句型:let sb.do sth.人后面直接加动词原形第三句,由于时间状语是去年,所以be动词用was,不能用is
Let me to ask her to speak Chinese
what's the weather like in Beijing last year(同上)第三人称单数:
speak是什么意思，词典释义与在线翻译：
声明，演说，宣告
说话，发言
谈话，交谈
讲述，陈述，说出
使用（某种语言）说话，会说
与…（通话）联络
vt. & vi. 讲; 谈 talk
vt. & vi. 演说; 演讲 make a speech
提示：各行业词典APP中含有本词条的独家正版内容，在手机上可看到更多释义内容。
speak&:&说话, 发言 ...
在&&中查看更多...
"She talks a lot of nonsense"
"This depressed patient does not verbalize"
"We often talk business"
"Actions talk louder than words"
"the baby talks already"
"the prisoner won't speak"
"they speak a strange dialect"
"The chairman addressed the board of trustees"
make a characteris
"The drums spoke"
speak的用法和样例：
用作动词 (v.)
Does anyone speak English here?
这儿有人会说英语吗？
I'm quite capable of speaking for myself, thank you!
我还是有能力把话说清楚的，谢谢你吧。
The patient is too weak to speak.
病人太衰弱了，不能说话。
He will speak on the air this evening.
今晚他将在广播中演说。
The orator tried to speak,but the crowd simply laughed him down.
那个演说家要讲话，但是群众却用笑加以阻止。
Please speak to the subject under discussion.
请针对讨论的问题发言。
It is the first time that I speak in public.
这是我第一次在公共场合发言。
用作动词 (v.)
用作不及物动词
The child hasn't learnt to speak yet.
孩子还没有学会说话。
Children speak before they read.
孩子们先说话,后认字。
Is it very difficult to train the dumb to learn to speak?
训练哑巴学说话是很难吗?
He is due to speak this evening.
今晚该他讲演。
She was so frightened that she could not speak.
她吓得连话都说不出来。
Who's speaking?—This is Peter speaking.
你是谁?——我是彼得。
He spoke in front of a large audience.
他面对广大听众做了演说。
Who's going to speak at the meeting next Friday?
下星期五的会上谁做报告?
The President will speak tonight on television.
总统今天晚上要在电视上发表演说。
The big guns spoke thunderously.
大炮轰鸣。
The portrait speaks.
这幅画像栩栩如生。
Facts speak louder than words.
事实胜于雄辩。
用作及物动词
S+～+ n./pron.
How many languages do you speak?
你会讲几种语言?
He speaks English very fluently.
他说英语说得很流利。
She speaks a little French.
她会讲一点法语。
It's extraordinary that the American girl Jane speaks Chinese so fluently.
这位美国姑娘珍妮中文讲得如此流畅,实属超凡。
None of them can speak Spanish.
他们都不会说西班牙语。
He feels comfortable with those who speak the Shanghai dialect.
他和讲上海话的人谈话总感到很自在。
She speaks several languages.
她能讲几种语言。
He spoke only a few words.
他只讲了几句话。
He spoke a falsehood.
他撒了谎。
He always speaks the truth.
他一贯说实话。
He spoke words of praise.
他讲赞扬话。
In this passage the writer is speaking his own convictions.
在这段文章里,作者表达出他自己的坚定信心。
One little fact may speak volumes.
一件小事往往很可以说明问题。
When we asked the students what they thought of the new plan, they spoke their minds freely.
当我们征求学生们对新计划的意见时,他们都畅所欲言。
This poem speaks his optimism.
这首诗表明了他的乐观主义精神。
She spoke what was in her heart.
她说出了她心中所想的。
用于be ～ed结构
Is English spoken here?
这里讲英语吗?
用作动词 (v.)
speak about (v.+prep.)
提到… mention or talk openly about sth/sb
speak about sb/sth
We don't speak about that unfortunate period in our family history.我们不提我们家史中的那段不幸。
Nice people don't speak about such unpleasant matters.有教养的人不谈这种令人不愉快的事。
speak for (v.+prep.)
代表…讲话; 为…辩护 spea representHe says he will speak for us at the committee meeting.他说他要在委员会会议上代表我们发言。
Don't speak for your friend,speak for yourself.
不要代表你的朋友发言了,谈你自己的看法吧。
I can only speak for myself, others may have different views.
我只能谈我自己的意见,别人可以有不同看法。
Please speak for me to the director.
请为我向主任说说情。
Please speak for me to the principal.
请为我向校长辩护。
At the meeting John spoke for the change in the rules.
约翰在会议上为更改规则辩护。
预定〔要求〕得到… get the rig reserveThe teacher was giving away some books, students spoke for the same one.老师要送出一批书,几个学生都争要同一本。
The first 600 cars of this new model have already been spoken for.
首批600辆新型汽车已有买主。
I cannot let you have this clock, as it is spoken for, but I could get you another one like this.
这个钟已有了买主,所以不能给你了。不过,我可以给你弄到一个和这个相同的。
不言而喻 need no further explanation〔说明〕 speak for作此解时通常不用于进行体。
The facts speak for themselves.
事实显而易见。
There is no need for me to praise it, it speaks for itself.
无需我来称赞,那是显而易见的。
speak of (v.+prep.)
谈到,讲到 mention in speaking
speak of sth
She spoke of the government's plans for the unemployed.她提到了政府对失业者制定的计划。
I have never spoken of these things to anyone before.我过去从未和任何人提到过这些事。
In his lecture, he spoke of the increasing use of computers.他在讲演中谈及了计算机日益广泛的使用。
It is nothing to speak of.那不值得一提。
Whom have you been speaking of?你们在说谁呀?
That is the museum that I spoke of just now.那就是我刚说到的博物馆。
The lecturer spoke of many things relating to chemistry.讲师谈到了许多有关化学的问题。
We defy death,not to speak of hardships and difficulties.我们死都不怕,更不用说艰苦困难了。
speak out (v.+adv.)
大胆讲; 毫无保留地说出 speak boldly, freely, and plainly
We've been silent for too long, it's time to speak out.我们沉默得太久了,现在是大胆地发表意见的时候了。
Speak out—don't be afraid.大胆说吧,别害怕。
I was determined to speak out.我决心直言不讳。
speak out against sth
I am going to speak out against the committee's decision.我打算直言反对委员会的决定。
I expect you to speak out against tyranny when the time comes.我希望到时候你能大胆地讲几句反暴政的话。
He spoke out against the plan because he thought it was too costly.他认为那个计划费用太大,所以他大胆地表示反对。
speak to (v.+prep.)
对…讲; 和…说话 have conversation with sb
speak to sb/sth
Did you speak to him in English?你用英语对他说的吗?
Could you come and speak to our Literary Society?你愿来我们文学社作报告吗?
She was afraid to be seen speaking to me.她怕跟我讲话被别人看见。
Few noble persons ever spoke to those of humble origins but to give an order.贵人们除了发号施令以外很少跟出身卑贱的人说话。
speak sth to sb
He has spoken his mind to me.他已对我说明了他的心事。
I am angry and I want a chance to speak my mind to the director.我很气愤,我想找机会向主任坦率地谈谈自己的想法。
针对…讲,围绕…谈 direct one' talk about
speak to sb/sth
He did not speak to the subject.他没有说到本题。
We must speak to the topic under discussion.我们必须针对讨论的主题来讲。
He spoke to the question.他说得对题。
I can speak to his veracity.我可以证明他说的是实话。
He did not speak to the point.他的话不中肯。
责备〔提醒,请求〕 ask sb to do sth
speak to sb
it's time you spoke to that boy.那男孩今天又迟到了,你该说说他了。
I'll speak to him about his rudeness at the meeting.他在会上太不礼貌了,我非责备他不可。
The manager spoke to John about his slackness in work.经理责备约翰工作松懈。
speak up (v.+adv.)
大声讲 speak more loudly
The teacher asked the shy little girl to speak up.老师要求那个怕羞的小姑娘说话声音大点。
Would you please speak up, as we can't hear you?我们听不清楚,请大点声说行不行?
His talk is interesting but I do wish he'd speak up.他的报告很精彩,不过我真希望他能讲得大声一些。
用作动词 (v.)
讲四种语言
说想说的话
有共同语言
说得很中听
一往情深地说
直截了当地说
大胆地讲出来
断断续续地说
拐弯抹角地说
彬彬有礼地说
很坚定地说
毫不尊敬地说
富有感情地说
无拘无束地说
总体上说来
伶牙俐齿地说
说话语无伦次
用地道的语言说
说得清楚明白
从法律上来说
紧张不安地说
从哲学上来说
温和地说话
从技术上来说
不友好地说
以上司口吻对某人说话
大声讲,毫无顾虑地说出
发言反对这些弊病
说出心里话
把想法说出来
说大声点,把…说出来
对(某事)提意见
在一次大型集会上演讲
作为…的代言人
为自己辩护,发表个人意见
代表…向主任进言
为被告辩护
根据经验说话
用英语讲话
谈起昔日的校园生活
谈及这个作家的童年
谈论某个问题
讲这个题目
做广播讲话
通过译员讲话
针对…说话,与…谈话
对谁也不讲
对人群说话
讲话很吃力
私下和…谈话
眼泪汪汪地说
It was fair the speak of the place that happening early in April.
出自：L. G. Gibbon
The one who spoke had a broad Lancashire accent.
出自：J. Wain
William found her very weak and unable to speak distinctly.
出自：G. Battiscombe
No one spoke except about the weather.
出自：Encounter
He must speak to this woman.
出自：P. Fitzgerald
speak的详细讲解：
speak的基本意思是“讲”“谈”,指用声音表达意思,着重开口发声,而且着眼于个人的言语行为,可指自言自语,也可指支离破碎地交谈。其后常接语言、实话等词。speak还可作“发言,演说,作报告”解,指连贯、系统、正式的讲话。
speak还可表示用说话以外的方式“表明”“显示”“表达”,引申还可表示“用响声宣告”。
speak可用作及物动词,也可用作不及物动词。用作及物动词时,接名词或代词作宾语。
speak well〔ill〕 for, speak well〔ill〕 of
这两个短语都可表示“说好〔坏〕话”。其区别是：
1.speak well〔ill〕 for的意思是“证〔说〕明…好〔坏〕”; 而speak well〔ill〕 of的意思是“说…好〔坏〕话”。例如:
His generous gift speaks well for his willingness to help others.他慷慨的赠品说明了他助人的诚意。
I have never spoken ill of him.我从未说过他的坏话。
2.speak well〔ill〕 for的主语可用事态名词作主语,也可用无人称代词it作主语; 而speak well〔ill〕 of只能以人作主语。
3.speak of中间可用副词highly或 而speak for不可。例如:
I'd like to meet his daughter, everyone speaks very highly of her.我很想见见他的女儿,人人都称赞她。
speak to, speak with
这两个短语都可表示“和…谈话”。其区别是：
speak to强调一个人对另一个人讲话,有主动讲与被动听的意味; 而speak with则着重“相互交谈”的意味。例如:
I wish to speak to you in private.我希望私下和你谈谈。
I spoke with them for an hour.我和他们谈了一个小时。
另一方面英式英语中常用speak to,而美式英语中常用speak with。
speak to, talk to, tell off
这三个短语都可表示“责备”“斥责”。其区别是：
speak to是指某人做错了事,因此说说他,是温和地责备,轻微地申斥,含有规劝的意味; talk to的意思是“训斥”“劝诫”; tell off表示述说某人的坏行为。例如:
I'll see that he is spoken to about it.关于那件事我想我得找人和他谈谈。
I'll talk to him.我会训斥他的。
That fellow needs to be told off.那个家伙该挨一顿骂。
not to speak of, not to say
这两个短语的意思相近。其区别是：
前者的语气比后者重。试比较:
She speaks Greek, not to speak of English.
她会说希腊语,英语更不在话下。
She speaks Greek, not to say English.
且不说英语,希腊语她也会说。
speak, chat, converse, talk
这四个词都可表示“交谈”。其区别是：
speak含义较广,较正式,可指连贯、系统地发言、讲话,也可指支离破碎地交谈,还可指自言自语; converse常指在谈话中交换意见或想法,且表示在几个人之间的交谈; chat往往指以友好的态度,谈一些不重要的事情; talk强调“交谈”多半是指数人之间的交谈,包括严肃的讨论,也表示轻松的闲聊。例如:
The two friends sat in a corner and chatted about the weather.那两位朋友坐在一个旮旯里谈论天气。
I can converse with anyone about anything.我可以和任何人谈论任何事情。
He is talking to a friend.他在和一个朋友交谈。
speak, declaim, deliver, lecture
这组词都可表示“演讲”。其区别是：
speak一般指在公共场合讲话; declaim有慷慨激昂地演说、朗诵或以言辞攻击某人或某种观点的含义; deliver指讲道、陈述意见或讲授一门功课; lecture可指就某一专题演讲或强调教导性的演说。例如:
She was declaiming against the waste of the taxpayers' money.她慷慨陈词,猛烈抨击对纳税人金钱的浪费。
He is delivering a speech.他正在作演讲。
I wish you'd stop lecturing me.我希望你不要再教训我。
speak, say, talk, tell
这组词的共同含义是“说,告诉”。其区别是：
say指“说出”,着重指说出具体的内容,一般用作及物动词,后面的宾语是所说的话; speak指“说话,发言”,着重开口说话的动作,一般用作不及物动词,其宾语通常是表示某种语言名称的词; talk指“讲话,谈论”,意思与speak相近,在一些情况下可以通用,通常talk用作不及物动词; tell指“告诉”,是直接给对方讲或以间接的方式转诉某事,在多数情况下, tell的后面通常接双宾语,在少数情况下可用简单宾语。试体会下面这几个词的用法和含义:He had talked for a long time, but he spoke so fast that we couldn't catch what he said.他讲了很长时间,但他说得太快了,我们没听清他讲了些什么。
Mr. Green was invited to speak〔talk〕 to us on Greek philosophy.格林先生应邀给我们讲希腊哲学。
He told me the news.他告诉了我这个消息。
He told me that he was coming.他告诉我说他就来。
下列各组中的句子意思有区别:
Do you speak English?
你讲英语吗?
(问你操何种语言)
Can you speak English?
你会讲英语吗?
(问除了其他语种还能否讲英语)
He speaks English.
他讲英语。
(暗示“英语是他的母语”)
He speaks in English.
他用英语讲话。
(暗示“还能用别的语种讲话”)
He is speaking to her.
他正对她讲话。
He is speaking at her.
他正攻击她。
She didn't speak of the matter.
她没有谈及此事。
She didn't speak about the matter.
她没有谈有关此事的任何情况。
Let's practise speaking English.
咱们练习讲英语吧。
Let's practise spoken English.
咱们练习英语口语吧。
这些动词均有“说、讲”之意。
:say最普通常用词，指用语言表达思想，着重所说的内容。
:speak侧重于说话动作的本身，着重说话的能力而不在内容，比如能说某种语言。
:state较正式用词，通常指用明确的语言或文字着重地叙述事实，既强调内容又注重语气。
:talk普通用词，侧重指与人交谈时的连续说话，可指单方面较长谈话，和speak一样，着重说活动作而不侧重内容。
:tell指告诉或讲述。
:utter着重说话的行为，常指声音的使用，突出用噪子发声。
他没有说他住哪儿。
误 He didn't speak where he lived.
正 He didn't say where he lived.
析 speak不可以从句作宾语。
他英语说得很好。
误 He says English well.
正 He speaks English well.
析 当表示操某种语言时,要用speak,不可用say。
☆ 直接源自古英语的specan，意为说话。
speak的海词问答与网友补充：
speak的相关资料：
speak&:&谈话，交谈 ...
在&&中查看更多...
【同义词】
speak的相关缩略词，共有3条
自杀防治教育意识,为孩子们
精通英语测试组件(说话教育测试服务)
促进男女平等意识和知识的学生
speak:speak v. 说话, 谈话, 说明事实, 表示意见, 发言, 演讲, 操(某种语言) 英英解释:动词speak:1. express in speech同义词：talk, utter, mouth…
相关词典网站：您的位置： &>&&>&
打破沉寂 Beyond Vietnam -- A Time to Break Silence
来源：&&日期：&&阅读
次&&作者:Martin Luther King, Jr.&&&&&&&&
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Beyond Vietnam -- A Time to Break Silence
Delivered 4 April 1967, Riverside Church, New York City
演讲者简介：马丁&路德&金（英语：Martin Luther King, Jr.，日－日），美国牧师，行动主义者，美国民权运动领袖。因采用非暴力推动美国的民权进步而为世瞩目，并因此获得1964年诺贝尔和平奖。金也是当代美国自由主义的象征，通称金牧师。其后，他将目标重新设定在结束贫困和终止越南战争上。1968年，金在孟菲斯被白人优越主义者刺杀身亡。身后在1977年和2004年被追授总统自由勋章和国会金质奖章。1983年美国设立马丁&路德&金纪念日并定为联邦法定假日。
在美国在线于2005年举办的票选活动《最伟大的美国人》中，马丁&路德&金被选为美国最伟大的人物第三位。
本演讲发表于日，是马丁&路德&金在&忧世教士和俗人协会&的一个反越站的集会上的演讲，集会的地点是纽约著名的河边大教堂（Riverside Church）。
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:
I need not pause to say how very delighted I am to be here tonight, and how very delighted I am to see you expressing your concern about the issues that will be discussed tonight by turning out in such large numbers. I also want to say that I consider it a great honor to share this program with Dr. Bennett, Dr. Commager, and Rabbi Heschel, and some of the distinguished leaders and personalities of our nation. And of course it&s always good to come back to Riverside church. Over the last eight years, I have had the privilege of preaching here almost every year in that period, and it is always a rich and rewarding
to come to this great church and this great pulpit.
I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. I join you in this meeting because I'm in deepest
with the aims and work of the organization which has brought us together: Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam. The recent statements of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart, and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: &A time comes when silence is betrayal.& And that time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.
The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their 's , especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexing as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of being mesme but we must move on.
And some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation's history that a
number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us.
Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns this query has often loomed large and loud: &Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King?& &Why are you joining the voices of dissent?& &Peace and civil
don't mix,& they say. &Aren't you ing the cause of your people,& they ask? And when I hear them, though I often
of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my
or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live.
In the light of such tragic mising, I deem it of signal importance to try to state clearly, and I trust concisely, why I believe that the path from Dexter Avenue Baptist Church -- the church in Montgomery, Alabama, where I began my pastorate -- leads clearly to this sanctuary tonight.
I come to this platform tonight to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation. This speech is not addressed to Hanoi or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia. Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Neither is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they must play in the ful
of the problem. While they both may have justifiable reasons to be suspicious of the good faith of the United States, life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides.
Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the National Liberation Front, but rather to my fellow Americans.
Since I am a preacher by calling, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor -- both black and white -- through the
program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated, as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So, I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.
Perhaps a more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than
the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the . We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to
liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. And so we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. And so we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.
My third reason moves to an even deeper level of , for it grows out of my
in the ghettoes of the North over the last three years -- especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov s and rifles would not solve their . I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that
change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they ask -- and rightly so -- what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its , to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the ed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own . For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this , for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.
For those who ask the question, &Aren't you a civil
leader?& and thereby mean to exclude me from the movement for peace, I have this further answer. In 1957 when a group of us formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, we chose as our motto: &To save the soul of America.& We were d that we could not limit our vision to certain
for black people, but instead affirmed the conviction that America would never be free or saved from itself until the descendants of its slaves were loosed completely from the shackles they still wear. In a way we were agreeing with Langston Hughes, that black bard of Harlem, who had written earlier:
&&& O, yes,
&&& I say it plain,
&&& America never was America to me,
&&& And yet I swear this oath --
&&& America will be!
Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the
war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read: Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it s the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet deined that America will be -- are -- are led down the path of
and dissent, working for the health of our land.
As if the weight of such a
to the life and health of America were not enough, another burden of
was placed upon me in 19541; and I cannot forget that the Nobel Peace Prize was also a commission, a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for &the brotherhood of man.& This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances, but even if it were not
I would yet have to live with the meaning of my
to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I'm speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the good news was meant for all men -- for Communist and capitalist, for their children and ours, for black and for white, for revolutionary and conservative? Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the One who loved his enemies so fully that he died for them? What then can I say to the Vietcong or to Castro or to Mao as a faithful minister of this One? Can I threaten them with death or must I not share with them my life?
And finally, as I try to explain for you and for myself the road that leads from Montgomery to this place I would have offered all that was most valid if I simply said that I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be a son of the living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood, and because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned especially for his suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them.
This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation's self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation and for those it calls &enemy,& for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.
And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to
and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers of each side, not of the ideologies of the Liberation Front, not of the
in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries.
They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1954 -- in 1945 rather -- after a combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony. Our
felt then that the Vietnamese people were not ready for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international
for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary
seeking self-deination and a
that had been ed not by China -- for whom the Vietnamese have no great love -- but by clearly indigenous forces that included some communists. For the peasants this new
meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives.
For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive
to recolonize Vietnam. Before the end of the war we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of their reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and
supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization.
After the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come again through the Geneva Agreement. But instead there came the United States, deined that Ho should not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the most vicious modern dictators, our chosen man, Premier Diem. The peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords, and refused even to discuss reunification with the North. The peasants watched as all this was presided over by United States' influence and then by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was n they may have been happy, but the long line of
dictators seemed to offer no real change, especially in s of their need for land and peace.
The only change came from America, as we increased our troop s in support of s which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without
support. All the while the people read our leaflets and received the regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration
where minimal
needs are rarely met. They know they must move on or be ed by our bombs.
So they go, primarily women and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to
the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one Vietcong-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them, mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers.
What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any action into our many words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test out our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration
of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these voiceless ones?
We have ed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have ed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing -- in the crushing of the nation's only non-Communist revolutionary political force, the unified Buddhist Church. We have supported the enemies of the peasants of Saigon. We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men.
Now there is little left to build on, save bitterness. Soon, the only solid -- solid physical foundations remaining will be found at our
bases and in the concrete of the concentration
we call &fortified hamlets.& The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds as these. Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These, too, are our brothers.
Perhaps a more difficult but no less necessary task is to speak for those who have been designated as our enemies. What of the National Liberation Front, that strangely anonymous group we call &VC& or &communists&? What must they think of the United States of America when they realize that we ted the repression and cruelty of Diem, which helped to bring them into being as a resistance group in the South? What do they think of our condoning the violence which led to their own taking up of arms? How can they believe in our integrity when now we speak of &aggression from the North& as if there were nothing more essential to the war? How can they trust us when now we charge them with violence after the murderous reign of Diem and charge them with violence while we pour every new weapon of death into their land? Surely we must
their feelings, even if we do not condone their actions. Surely we must see that the men we supported pressed them to their violence. Surely we must see that our own computerized plans of destruction simply dwarf their greatest acts.
How do they judge us when our officials know that their membership is less than twenty-five percent communist, and yet insist on giving them the blanket name? What must they be thinking when they know that we are aware of their control of major sections of Vietnam, and yet we appear ready to allow national elections in which this highly organized political parallel
will not have a part? They ask how we can speak of free elections when the Saigon press is censored and controlled by the
. And they are surely right to wonder what kind of new
we plan to help form without them, the only party in real touch with the peasants. They question our political goals and they deny the reality of a peace settlement from which they will be excluded. Their questions are frighteningly relevant. Is our nation planning to build on political myth again, and then shore it up upon the power of new violence?
Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence, when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his
of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are , we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition.
So, too, with Hanoi. In the North, where our bombs now pummel the land, and our mines endanger the waterways, we are met by a deep but able mistrust. To speak for them is to explain this lack of confidence in Western words, and especially their distrust of American intentions now. In Hanoi are the men who led the nation to independence against the Japanese and the French, the men who sought membership in the French Commonwealth and were betrayed by the weakness of Paris and the willfulness of the colonial armies. It was they who led a second struggle against French domination at tremendous costs, and then were persuaded to give up the land they controlled between the thirteenth and seventeenth parallel as a temporary measure at Geneva. After 1954 they watched us conspire with Diem to prevent elections which could have surely brought Ho Chi Minh to power over a united Vietnam, and they realized they had been betrayed again. When we ask why they do not leap to negotiate, these things must be remembered.
Also, it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial
breach of the Geneva Agreement concerning
troops. They remind us that they did not begin to send troops in large numbers and even supplies into the South until American forces had moved into the tens of thousands.
Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how the president claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made. Ho Chi Minh has watched as America has spoken of peace and built up its forces, and now he has surely heard the increasing international rumors of American plans for an invasion of the North. He knows the bombing and shelling and mining we are doing are part of traditional pre-invasion strategy. Perhaps only his sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor, weak nation more than eight hundred -- rather, eight thousand miles away from its shores.
At this point I should make it clear that while I have tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless in Vietnam and to
the arguments of those who are called &enemy,& I am as deeply concerned about our own troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to . We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their
has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy, and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor.
Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being ed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak of the -- for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home, and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative the initiative to stop it must be ours.
This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words, and I quote:
&&& Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the heart of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who
so carefully on the possibilities of
victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism (unquote).
If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately, the world will be left with no other alter than to see this as some horrible, clumsy, and deadly game we have decided to play. The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our
ways. In order to atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war.
I would like to suggest five concrete things that our
should do [immediately] to begin the long and difficult process of extricating ourselves from this nightmarish conflict:
Number one: End all bombing in North and South Vietnam.
Number two: Declare a unilateral cease-fire in the hope that such action will create the
for negotiation.
Three: Take immediate steps to prevent other grounds in Southeast Asia by curtailing our
buildup in Thailand and our interference in Laos.
Four: Realistically accept the fact that the National Liberation Front has
support in South Vietnam and must thereby play a role in any meaningful negotiations and any future Vietnam .
Five: Set a date that we will remove all
troops from Vietnam in accordance with the 1954 Geneva Agreement.
Part of our ongoing -- Part of our ongoing
might well express itself in an offer to grant
to any Vietnamese who fears for his life under a new regime which included the Liberation Front. Then we must make what reparations we can for the damage we have done. We must provide the medical aid that is badly needed, making it available in this country, if necessary. Meanwhile -- Meanwhile, we in the churches and s have a continuing task while we urge our
to disengage itself from a disgraceful . We must continue to raise our voices and our lives if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam. We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative method of
As we counsel young men concerning
service, we must clarify for them our nation's role in Vietnam and challenge them with the alter of conscientious objection. I am pleased to say that this is a path now chosen by more than seventy students at my own alma mater, Morehouse College, and I recommend it to all who find the American course in Vietnam a able and unjust one. Moreover, I would encourage all ministers of draft age to give up their ministerial exemptions and seek status as conscientious objectors. These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane
must decide on the
that best suits his , but we must all .
Now there is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has become a
crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter that struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing.
The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality...and if we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves organizing &clergy and laymen concerned& committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala -- Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end, unless there is a
and profound change in American life and .
And so, such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.
In 1957, a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years, we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which has now justified the presence of U.S.
advisors in Venezuela. This need to maintain
for our investments accounts for the counterrevolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against s in Cambodia and why American napalm and Green Beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru.
It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, &Those who make peaceful revolution im will make violent revolution inevitable.& Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution im by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am d that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin...we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property , are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and
policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.
A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of
and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the
betent of the countries, and say, &This is not just.& It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, &This is not just.& The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.
A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, &This way of settling differences is not just.& This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody fields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on
defense than on programs of
uplift is approaching spiritual death.
America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.
This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against communism. War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear weapons. Let us not join those who shout war and, through their misguided passions, urge the United States to relinquish its participation in the United Nations. These are days which demand wise restraint and
reasonableness. We must not engage in a negative anticommunism, but rather in a positive thrust for democracy, realizing that our greatest defense against communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with positive action seek to remove those conditions of , insecurity, and injustice, which are the fertile soil in which the seed of communism grows and develops.
These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and ion, and out of the wounds of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. &The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light.&2 We in the West must support these revolutions.
It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch antirevolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has a revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to re the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to , racism, and militarism. With this powerful
we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores, and thereby speed the day when &every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain.&3
A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.
This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts ly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing -- embracing and
love for all mankind. This oft misunderstood, this oft misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and ly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the
of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am not speaking of that force which is just emotional bosh. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate -- ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: &Let us love one another, for love is God. And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love.& &If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us.&4 Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day.
We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. And history is cluttered with the
of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says:
&&& Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word (unquote).
We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this uning conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and dejected with a lost opportunity. The tide in the affairs of men does not remain at flood -- it ebbs. We may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is adamant to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached s and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words, &Too late.& There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. Omar Khayyam is right: &The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on.&
We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent coannihilation. We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world, a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.
Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter, but beautiful, struggle for a new world. This is the calling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message -- of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of
to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise, we must choose in this crucial moment of human history.
As that noble bard of yesterday, James Russell Lowell, eloquently stated:
Once to every man and nation comes a moment to decide,
In the strife of truth and Falsehood, for t
Some great cause, God&s new Messiah offering each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever &twixt that darkness and that light.
Though the cause of evil prosper, yet &tis truth alone is strong
Though her portions be the scaf, and upon the throne be wrong
Yet that scaf sways the future, and behind the dim unknown
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
And if we will only make the right choice, we will be able to transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of peace. If we will make the right choice, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. If we will but make the right choice, we will be able to speed up the day, all over America and all over the world, when &justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream.&
游客评论，只需填写验证码即可，也可以在“通行证”处填写昵称。
游客请勾选
24小时点击排行
最新听写列表
本周VOA标准：
本周VOA慢速：
其他每日更新资源：
版权所有：爱思英语学习网 未经授权禁止复制或建立镜像
copyright &
online services. all rights reserved.
爱思英语学习网是公益类学习网站，所有资料仅供学习者免费参考使用。