题目内容
In 1854 my great-grandfather, Morris Marable, was sold on an auction block in Georgia for $ 500. For his white slave master, the sale was just “business as usual. "But to Morris Marable and his heirs, slavery was a crime against our humanity. This pattern of human rights violations against enslaved African-Americans continued under racial segregation for nearly another century.The fundamental problem of American democracy in the 21st century is the problem of "structural racism": the deep patterns of socio-economic inequality and accumulated disadvantage that are coded by race, and constantly justified in public speeches by both racist stereotypes and white indifference. Do Americans have the capacity and vision to remove these structural barriers that deny democratic rights and opportunities to millions of their fellow citizensThis country has previously witnessed two great struggles to achieve a truly multicultural democracy.The First Reconstruction (1865 - 1877) ended Slavery and briefly gave black men voting rights, but gave no meaningful compensation for two centuries of unpaid, labor. The promise of "40 acres and a mule (骡子)" was for most blacks a dream deferred (尚未实现的).The Second Reconstruction (1954 - 1968), or the modern civil rights movement, ended legal segregation in public accommodations and gave blacks voting rights. But these successes paradoxically obscure the tremendous human costs of historically accumulated disadvantage that remain central to black Americans’ lives.The disproportionate wealth that most whites enjoy today was first constructed from centuries of unpaid black labor. Many white institutions, including some leading universities, insurance companies and banks, profited from slavery. This pattern of white privilege and black inequality continues today.Demanding reparations (赔偿) is not just about compensation for slavery and segregation. It is, more important, an educational campaign to highlight the contemporary reality of "racial deficits" of all kinds, the unequal conditions that impact blacks regardless of class. Structural racism’s barriers include "equity inequity," the absence of black capital formation that is a direct consequence of America’s history. One third of all black households actually have negative net wealth. In 1998 the typical black family’s net wealth was $16,400, less than one fifth that of white families. Black families are denied home loans at twice the rate of whites.Blacks remain the last hired and first fired during recessions. During the 1990 - 91 recession, African-Americans suffered disproportionately. At Coca-Cola, 42 percent of employees who lost their jobs were blacks. At Sears, 54 percent were black. Blacks have significantly shorter life spans, in part due to racism in the health establishment. Blacks are statistically less likely than whites to be referred for kidney transplants or early-stage cancer surgery. What problem remains unsolved in the two Reconstructions（）
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
He has （）to museums hundreds of his paintings as well as his entire personal collection of modern art.
There are good reasons to be troubled by the violence that spreads throughout the media. Movies, television and video games are full of gunplay and bloodshed, and one might reasonably ask what’s wrong with a society that presents videos of domestic violence as entertainment.Most researchers agree that the causes of real-world violence are complex. A 1993 study by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences listed "biological, individual, family, peer, school, and community factors" as all playing their parts.Viewing abnormally large amounts of violent television and video games may well contribute to violent behavior in certain individuals. The trouble comes when researchers downplay uncertainties in their studies or overstate the case for causality (因果关系). Skeptics were dismayed several years ago when a group of societies including the American Medical Association tried to end the debate by issuing a joint statement: "At this time, well over 1,000 studies.., point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children."Freedom-of-speech advocates accused the societies of catering to politicians, and even disputed the number of studies (most were review articles and essays, they said). When Jonathan Freedman, a social psychologist at the University of Toronto, reviewed the literature, he found only 200 or so studies of television-watching and aggression. And when he weeded out "the most doubtful measures of aggression", only 28 % supported a connection.The critical point here is causality. The alarmists say they have proved that violent media cause aggression. But the assumptions behind their observations need to be examined. When labeling games as violent or non-violent, should a hero eating a ghost really be counted as a violent event And when experimenters record the time it takes game players to read ’aggressive’ or ’non-aggressive’ words from a list, can we be sure what they are actually measuring The intent of the new Harvard Center on Media and Child Health to collect and standardize studies of media violence in order to compare their methodologies, assumptions and conclusions is an important step in the right direction.Another appropriate step would be to tone down the criticism until we know more. Several researchers write, speak and testify quite a lot on the threat posed by violence in the media. That is, of course, their privilege. But when doing so, they often come out with statements that the matter has now been settled, drawing criticism from colleagues. In response, the alarmists accuse critics and news reporters of being deceived by the entertainment industry. Such clashes help neither science nor society. What does the author think of the debate concerning the relationship between the media and violence（）
There are good reasons to be troubled by the violence that spreads throughout the media. Movies, television and video games are full of gunplay and bloodshed, and one might reasonably ask what’s wrong with a society that presents videos of domestic violence as entertainment.Most researchers agree that the causes of real-world violence are complex. A 1993 study by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences listed "biological, individual, family, peer, school, and community factors" as all playing their parts.Viewing abnormally large amounts of violent television and video games may well contribute to violent behavior in certain individuals. The trouble comes when researchers downplay uncertainties in their studies or overstate the case for causality (因果关系). Skeptics were dismayed several years ago when a group of societies including the American Medical Association tried to end the debate by issuing a joint statement: "At this time, well over 1,000 studies.., point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children."Freedom-of-speech advocates accused the societies of catering to politicians, and even disputed the number of studies (most were review articles and essays, they said). When Jonathan Freedman, a social psychologist at the University of Toronto, reviewed the literature, he found only 200 or so studies of television-watching and aggression. And when he weeded out "the most doubtful measures of aggression", only 28 % supported a connection.The critical point here is causality. The alarmists say they have proved that violent media cause aggression. But the assumptions behind their observations need to be examined. When labeling games as violent or non-violent, should a hero eating a ghost really be counted as a violent event And when experimenters record the time it takes game players to read ’aggressive’ or ’non-aggressive’ words from a list, can we be sure what they are actually measuring The intent of the new Harvard Center on Media and Child Health to collect and standardize studies of media violence in order to compare their methodologies, assumptions and conclusions is an important step in the right direction.Another appropriate step would be to tone down the criticism until we know more. Several researchers write, speak and testify quite a lot on the threat posed by violence in the media. That is, of course, their privilege. But when doing so, they often come out with statements that the matter has now been settled, drawing criticism from colleagues. In response, the alarmists accuse critics and news reporters of being deceived by the entertainment industry. Such clashes help neither science nor society. Why is there so much violence shown in movies, TV and video games（）
There are good reasons to be troubled by the violence that spreads throughout the media. Movies, television and video games are full of gunplay and bloodshed, and one might reasonably ask what’s wrong with a society that presents videos of domestic violence as entertainment.Most researchers agree that the causes of real-world violence are complex. A 1993 study by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences listed "biological, individual, family, peer, school, and community factors" as all playing their parts.Viewing abnormally large amounts of violent television and video games may well contribute to violent behavior in certain individuals. The trouble comes when researchers downplay uncertainties in their studies or overstate the case for causality (因果关系). Skeptics were dismayed several years ago when a group of societies including the American Medical Association tried to end the debate by issuing a joint statement: "At this time, well over 1,000 studies.., point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children."Freedom-of-speech advocates accused the societies of catering to politicians, and even disputed the number of studies (most were review articles and essays, they said). When Jonathan Freedman, a social psychologist at the University of Toronto, reviewed the literature, he found only 200 or so studies of television-watching and aggression. And when he weeded out "the most doubtful measures of aggression", only 28 % supported a connection.The critical point here is causality. The alarmists say they have proved that violent media cause aggression. But the assumptions behind their observations need to be examined. When labeling games as violent or non-violent, should a hero eating a ghost really be counted as a violent event And when experimenters record the time it takes game players to read ’aggressive’ or ’non-aggressive’ words from a list, can we be sure what they are actually measuring The intent of the new Harvard Center on Media and Child Health to collect and standardize studies of media violence in order to compare their methodologies, assumptions and conclusions is an important step in the right direction.Another appropriate step would be to tone down the criticism until we know more. Several researchers write, speak and testify quite a lot on the threat posed by violence in the media. That is, of course, their privilege. But when doing so, they often come out with statements that the matter has now been settled, drawing criticism from colleagues. In response, the alarmists accuse critics and news reporters of being deceived by the entertainment industry. Such clashes help neither science nor society. In refuting the alarmists, the author advances his argument by first challenging （）
微信支付 
支付宝支付