文化差异即是指因地区异同，各地区人们所特有的文化异同而产生的差异。霍夫斯坦特认为:文化是在一个环境中的人们共同的心理程序，不是一种个体特征，而是具有相同的教育和生活经验的许多人所共有的心理程序。下面就由小编给大家带来关于中美文化的不同英语作文，希望能够对大家有所帮助！

　　关于中美文化的不同英语作文篇一

　　文化差异何其大 美国为何难以理解中国

　　Do the events that led to the outbreak of the first world war carry lessons for the Sino-American relationship? A century ago it was the ascent of Germany under Kaiser Wilhelm I thatunsettled the world; today a rising China is roiling east Asia. Then, as now, domestic politicson both sides played a role; one that is too easily neglected.

　　导致一战爆发的事件对中美关系有什么启发意义吗?一个世纪以前，德国在威廉一世(Kaiser Wilhelm I)领导下的崛起让世界感到不安;如今，中国的崛起让东亚感到不安。当时和现在一样，对立双方的国内政治都发挥了作用——这是一个太容易被人们忽视的因素。

　　Why did Britain and Germany – linked by trade, dynastic ties, culture and religion – findthemselves at war in August 1914? In part, as historian Paul Kennedy has argued, it wasbecause London’s liberal ideology contributed to its perception of a growing German threat.

　　1914年8月，存在贸易、王朝纽带、文化和宗教联系的英国和德国为何开战?从某种程度上来说，正如历史学家保罗肯尼迪(Paul Kennedy)所指出的，那是因为伦敦的自由主义意识形态强化了其关于德国威胁日益加剧的认识。

　　Filtered through liberalism’s lens, Germany looked militarist, autocratic, mercantilist and statist– and contempt for the country’s political culture added to London’s disquiet. When the warbegan, it quickly came to be seen as a liberal crusade against “Prussianism”.

　　透过自由主义“棱镜”，德国给人看到的是军国主义、独裁、重商主义和计划经济——而对该国政治文化的鄙视也增加了伦敦的不安。当战争爆发时，人们立刻将之视为一场讨伐“普鲁士主义”的自由主义战争。

　　In this respect, today’s Sino-American rivalry resembles the pre-1914 Anglo-Germanantagonism. The speed of China’s growth worries US policy makers, as do the geopoliticalimplications of its economic transformation.

　　从这个方面来说，当今的中美对抗类似于1914年以前的英德对抗。中国的发展速度让美国政策制定者感到担忧，其经济改革对地缘政治的影响同样让美国不安。

　　Across the American political spectrum, China’s success is attributed to its failure to play bythe rules of free trade – for instance, its habit of manipulating the value of its currency andengaging in industrial espionage. Market-oriented liberalism is the dominant ideology in theUS and, as in pre-1914 Britain, it shapes policy makers’ image of their supposed adversary.

　　在美国政界上下看来，中国的成功得益于其没有遵守自由贸易规则，例如惯于操纵汇率，以及从事工业间谍活动。以市场为导向的自由主义是美国的主要意识形态，而正如1914年前的英国一样，它决定了政策制定者对他们所以为的对手的印象。

　　American leaders view China as a nation whose undemocratic political system raises doubtsabout both the scope of its foreign policy ambitions and its trustworthiness as a diplomaticpartner. Moreover, China’s combination of political authoritarianism and state-directedcapitalism causes unease because it challenges the supposed universality of the Americanmodel of liberal democracy and free-market capitalism.

　　在美国领导人的眼里，中国不民主的政治体制令人怀疑其外交政策雄心的范围，以及其作为外交合作伙伴的可信赖性。此外，中国政治威权主义与国家资本主义的结合令人不安，原因是它挑战了美国模式的自由主义民主和自由市场资本主义的所谓普适性。

　　Aaron Friedberg, a Princeton University professor, says that for Americans, “the success of amainland [Chinese] regime that blends authoritarian rule with market-driven economics is anaffront.” For members of the US foreign-policy elite, the Chinese threat is not so muchgeopolitical as ideological.

　　普林斯顿大学(Princeton University)的阿龙弗里德伯格(Aaron Friedberg)教授表示，在美国人看来，“中国大陆政权将威权统治和市场导向的经济学结合在一起所取得的成功是一种侮辱”。对美国上层外交政策制定者来说，中国威胁更多是意识形态层面的，而不是地缘政治上的。

　　Powerful external and domestic forces are putting the US and China on the road toconfrontation. China aspires to be the regional hegemon in east (and southeast) Asia. The US– the incumbent hegemon, having dominated the region since 1945 – is blocking its path.

　　各种强有力的内外因素正把美中推上对抗之路。中国渴望成为东亚(以及东南亚)地区的霸主，而自1945年以来主导该地区的现任霸主美国则拦在路上。

　　Yet America’s predominance in east Asia contributes little to the security of a nation whosegeography and unsurpassed military capabilities would anyway make it close to invulnerable.The US is the most secure great power in history – even more so if you factor in thedeterrent effect of nuclear weapons. The true cause of American insecurity is not animminent encroachment on its territory but the risk that US alliances – especially with Japan –will draw it into a regional conflict.

　　然而，在东亚地区的主导地位并不会让美国更安全——不管怎样，美国所处的地理位置和拥有的无可匹敌的军事能力让其处于一种近乎无懈可击的状态。美国是历史上最安全的大国——如果你考虑到核武器的威慑作用，就会更肯定这一点。美国真正的.不安全因素不是其疆域会遭到入侵，而是同盟关系——尤其是美日同盟——将其拖入地区冲突的风险。

　　The US wants to maintain its east Asian dominance to keep the region’s markets open toAmerican goods and its people open to liberal ideas. China threatens this openness, on whichAmerica’s security is wrongly believed to depend.

　　美国希望保持在东亚地区的主导地位，以让该地区的市场继续向美国商品开放，其民众继续接受自由主义思想的熏陶。中国威胁到了这种开放，而美国的安全被错误地以为依赖于这种开放。

　　The liberal assumptions embedded in American foreign policy put the US at odds with China,and also heighten Beijing’s mistrust of Washington’s intentions and ambitions. The spiral ofanimosity that threatens to culminate in a confrontation between the two countries is inlarge part a creation of American policy.

　　美国外交政策中蕴含的自由主义思想导致美国与中国立场不一致，也加深了北京方面对华盛顿意图和抱负的不信任感。这种不断增长的、有可能在两国对抗中达到顶峰的敌意，在很大程度上是美国政策导致的。

　　As China’s rises, Washington has a last clear chance to avoid the looming Sino-Americanconflict.

　　在中国的崛起过程中，美国有最后的避让机会，可以避免不断迫近眼前的中美冲突真正爆发。

　　This would entail making real concessions on Taiwan and on China’s territorial claims in the Eastand South China Seas. It would also involve a commitment that Washington would notinterfere in China’s internal affairs.

　　这需要美国在台湾xx以及中国涉及东中国海和南中国海的领土主张上做出真正的妥协。此外美国也需承诺不干预中国内部事务。

　　America’s political culture – based on exceptionalism, liberal ideology, and openness – is a bigobstacle to coming to terms with a resurgent China. So is the fact that the foreign-policy eliteremains wedded to American primacy, and refuses to accept that this will inevitably slip awaybecause of the relative decline of US power.

　　美国建立在例外主义、自由主义思想和开放观念等基础之上的政治文化，是影响美国接受复兴的中国的一大障碍。另一个障碍是，美国外交政策圈子中的精英们依然痴迷于“美国主导地位”，并拒绝接受这种地位随着美国实力相对衰落必将丧失的观点。

　　History is also a problem.

　　历史也是一个问题

　　US policy makers are quick to invoke what they take to be the lessons of the 1930s whileoverlooking the causes of the first world war. David Calleo, a professor at Johns Hopkins, hasobserved that what we should learn from the earlier conflict “is not so much the need forvigilance against aggressors, but the ruinous consequences of refusing reasonableaccommodation to upstarts”.

　　美国政策制定者迅速摆出他们从上世纪30年代事件中归纳的教训，却无视一战的起因。约翰斯-霍普金斯大学(Johns Hopkins University)的戴维卡莱奥(David Calleo)教授指出，我们应该从更早那场冲突中学到的主要教训，“不是必须警惕侵略者，而是拒绝合理包容新崛起者将带来破坏性后果”。

　　If the US wants to avoid a future conflict with China, it cannot allow liberal ideology toobstruct a reconciliation with an ever more powerful China. That is the real lesson of 1914.

　　如果美国想要避免未来与中国发生冲突，就不能让自由主义意识形态妨碍它与越来越强大的中国修好。这是1914年带给我们的真正教训。