题目内容
We come in different colors: red, black, white, yellow and brown, have a variety of political systems, social systems, religious views or none at all; we are different intellectually, have different educational systems, different socio-economic classes; psychologically we are normal, abnormal, neurotic, psychotic, we speak different languages, and have different customs and costumes.
Studying human beings biologically and physiologically leads us to very different conclusions about how alike or different we are from each other. Very different indeed, every human being on the planet, all 5.3 billion of us, has the same number of bones, of the same type, serving the same purposes; each of us has 46 chromosomes, 23 from each parent, and these chromosomes, genes and the DNA and RNA of which they are integral parts, are in every single human being; every cell, every membrane, every tissue, and every organ is the same everywhere. We all have a heart, a circulatory system, 2 lungs, a liver, 2 kidneys, a brain and nervous system, a reproductive system, digestive and excretory systems, musculature, in short, we are the same biologically and our bodies perform. the same functions everywhere on the planet. And as we learned in Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, if you prick us, any of us, "do we not bleed"？ Of course we do, and we bleed red blood no matter what the color of our skin, or the language we speak, the clothing we wear, the gods we worship, or our geographical home. Man is of a piece biologically; all equally effective organisms whether Amazon Indian, Australian aborigine, Parisian artist, Greek sailor, Chinese student, American astronaut, Russian soldier, or Palestinian citizen.
Well then, you ask, how is that so many groups of people disparage other groups, persecute them, and claim superiority over them？ Why is it that some groups of people still hunt animals, wear little or no clothing, have little or no technology, while others are very sophisticated in their technology, industry, transportation, communication, food gathering and storage？ It is, of course, a matter of culture and the civilization that emerges and evolves from it. Though man is man everywhere, where he lives, when he lives there, with whom he lives there, all affect how he lives: that is, what he believes, what he wears, his customs, his gods, his rituals, his myths and literature, his language and his institutions. These are man-made artifacts that each group develops over time, living together, facing the same problems, needing and desiring the same things. They are his culture, his identity.
The interactions of two powerful forces in all human life: nature (biology) and nurture (culture and civilization), shape us. Each culture has its own distinctive ways of seeing, feeling, thinking, speaking, believing, and just as no two humans are identical in all respects, so no two cultures are identical in all respects. But, wherever humans have lived and live today, there is culture with all of its elements embedded in a civilization that expresses that core of thought and feeling in its language, its institutions and other social organizations. All civilizations and the cultures that nourish them have hierarchies, social institutions, language, art of all kinds, religion or a system of spiritual beliefs of some kind, laws, customs, rituals (other than religious) and ceremonies.
A study of anthropology and make it very clear that humans have created divisions and exacerbated superficial external difference for their own ulterior purposes whether political, social, economic or religious. The truth is that we are much more alike in very basic ways than we are different. If you wear one type of garment and I wear another, we both wear some kind of garment. Our culture demands it. If you speak one language and I another, we both speak so that others will understand us; we must communicate with each other. Nothing is gained
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher was forced to tell journalists "I think pretty
Cancun means "snakepit" in the local Mayan language, and it lived up to its name as the host of an important World Trade Organization meeting that began last week. Rather than tackling the problem of their high agricultural tariffs and lavish farm subsidies, which victimize farmers in poorer nations, a number of rich nations derailed the talks.
The failure by 146 trade delegates to reach an agreement in Mexico is a serious blow to the global economy. And contrary to the mindless cheering with which the breakdown was greeted by antiglobalization protesters at Cancun, the world's poorest and most vulnerable nations will suffer most. It is a bitter irony that the chief architects of this failure were nations like Japan, Korea and European Union members, themselves ads for the prosperity afforded by increased global trade.
The Cancun meeting came at the midpoint of the W.T.O.' s "development round", of trade liberalization talks, one that began two years ago with an eye toward extending the benefits of freer trade and markets to poorer countries. The principal demand of these developing nations, led at Cancun by Brazil, has been an end to high tariffs and agricultural subsidies in the developed world, and rightly so. Poor nations find it hard to compete against rich nations' farmers, who get more than $300 billion in government handouts each year.
The talks appeared to break down suddenly on the issue of whether the W.T.O. should extend its rule- making jurisdiction into such new areas as foreign investment. But in truth, there was nothing abrupt about the Cancan meltdown. The Japanese and Europeans had devised this demand for an unwieldy and unnecessary expansion of the W.T.O.' s mandate as a poison pill--to deflect any attempts to get them to turn their backs on their powerful farm lobbies. Their plan worked.
The American role at Cancun was disappointingly muted. The Bush administration had little interest in the proposal to expand the W.T.O.' s authority, but the American farm lobby is split between those who want to profit from greater access to foreign markets and less efficient sectors that demand continued coddling from Washington. That is one reason the United States made the unfortunate decision to side with the more protectionist Europeans in Cancun, a position that left American trade representatives playing defense on subsidies rather than taking a creative stance, alongside Brazil, on lowering trade barriers. This was an unfortunate subject on which to show some rare trans-Afiantic solidarity. The resulting "coalition of the unwilling" lent the talks an unfortunate north-versus-south cast.
Any hope that the United States would take the moral high ground at Cancun, and reclaim its historic leadership in pressing for freer trade, was further dashed by the disgraceful manner in which the American negotiators rebuffed the rightful demands of West African nations that the United States commit itself to a clear phasing out of its harmful cotton subsidies. American business and labor groups, not to mention taxpayers, should be enraged that the administration seems more solicitous of protecting the most indefensible segment of United States protectionism rather than of protecting the national interest by promoting economic growth through trade.
For struggling cotton farmers in sub-Saharan Africa, and for millions of others in the developing world whose lives would benefit from the further lowering of trade barriers, the failure of Cancun amounts to a crushing message from the developed world --one of callous indifference.
The author mentions that Cancun means "snakepit" in the local Mayan language. Snakepit possibly means ______.
SECTION C NEWS BROADCAST
Directions: In this section you will hear everything ONCE ONLY. Listen carefully and then answer the questions that follow. At the end of each news item, you will be given 10 seconds to answer the questions.
听力原文： Fresh terrorist horror was brought home to the UK yesterday as one Briton was killed and five seriously injured when a suspected woman suicide bomber detonated her explosives on a minibus packed with young holidaymakers in a popular Turkish seaside resort.
An unnamed British woman was one of five fatalities, including an Irish woman in her twenties, who died when the blast ripped through their vehicle as it took them to a popular beach in the Aegean resort town of Kusadasi, 45 miles south-east of the port of Izmir.
The bomb, which blew off the roof and sides of the vehicle carrying 14 holidaymakers travelling with UK tour company Thomas Cook, dramatically reinforced the sense of a concerted terrorist campaign against British targets worldwide, with increasing evidence pointing to al-Qaeda.
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw condemned this "repugnant act, saying it had ruined the lives of innocent people." He added: "Our thoughts and prayers are with all the victims and their families."
"As always we stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Turkey, in sympathy and in our refusal to allow terrorists to destroy our values and our liberty."
Coming 10 days after the suicide bombings in London, which have so far claimed 55 lives, the latest bombing in Turkey strongly suggests a carefully coordinated series of attacks against British interests, raising fears that further attacks may be in the pipeline.
The attack happened at about 10:45am local time (8:45am BST) as the bus made its way from the town bus station towards an area known as Kadinlar Denizi, or Ladies Beach. Some victims were rushed to nearby hospitals while others were taken to Izmir.
Where did this bomb attack happen？
People are rushing to buy savings bonds because ______.
微信支付 
支付宝支付