题目内容
Text 4The first mention of slavery in the statutes of the English colonies of North America does not occur until after 1660 -- some forty years after the importation of the first Black people. Lest we think that slavery existed in fact before it did in law, Oscar and Mary Handlin assure us that the status of Black people down to the 1660’s was that of servants. A critique of the Handlins’ interpretation of why legal slavery did not appear until the 1660’s suggests that assumptions about the relation between slavery and racial prejudice should be reexamined, and that explanations for the different treatment of Black slaves in North and South America should be expanded.The Handlins explain the appearance of legal slavery by arguing that, during the 1660’s, the position of White servants was improving relative to that of Black servants. Thus, the Handlins contend, Black and White servants, heretofore treated Mike, each attained a different status. There are, however, important objections to this argument. First, the Handlins cannot adequately demonstrate that the White servant’s position was improving during and after the 1660’s; several acts of the Maryland and Virginia legislatures indicate otherwise. Another flaw in the Handlins’ interpretation is their assumption that prior to the establishment of legal slavery there was no discrimination against Black people. It is true that before the 1660’s Black people were rarely called slaves. But this should not overshadow evidence from the 1630’s on that point to racial discrimination without using the term slavery. Such discrimination sometimes stopped short of lifetime servitude or inherited status -- the two attributes of true slavery, yet in other cases it included both. The Handlins’argument excludes the real possibility that Black people in the English colonies were never treated as the equals of White people.The possibility has important ramifications. If from the outset Black people were discriminated against, then legal slavery should be viewed as a reflection and an extension of racial prejudice rather than, as many historians including the Handlins have argued, the cause of prejudice. In addition, the existence of discrimination before the advent of legal slavery offers a further explanation for the harsher treatment of Black slaves in North than in South America. Freyre and Tannenbaum have rightly argued that the lack of certain traditions in North America -- such as a Roman conception of slavery and a Roman Catholic emphasis on equality -- explains why the treatment of Black slaves was more severe there than in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies of South America, But this cannot be the whole explanation since it is merely negative, based only on a lack of something. A more compelling explanation is that the early and sometimes extreme racial discrimination in the English colonies helped determine the particular nature of the slavery that followed. The effects of "several acts of the Maryland and Virginia legislatures" passed during and after the 1660's were that they（）
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
下列商标，哪个不可以经申请注册而受到法律保护( )
Text 2Britain’s richest people have experienced the biggest-ever rise in their wealth, according to the Sunday Times Rich List. Driven by the new economy of Internet and computer entrepreneurs, the wealth of those at the top of the financial tree has increased at an unprecedented rate. The 12th annual Rich List will show that the collective worth of the country’s richest 1,000 people reached nearly 146 billion by January, the cut-off point for the survey. They represented an increase of 31 billion, or 27%, in just 12 months. Since the survey was compiled, Britain’s richest have added billions more to their wealth, thanks to the continuing boom in technology shares on the stock market. This has pushed up the total value of the wealth of the richest 1,000 to a probable 160 billion according to Dr. Philip Beresford, Britain’s acknowledged expert on personal wealth who compiles the Sunday Times Rich List.The millennium boom exceeds anything in Britain’s economic history, including the railway boom of the 1840s and the South Sea bubble of 1720. "It has made Margaret Thatcher’s boom seem as sluggish as Edward Heath’s three-day week," said Beresford. "We are seeing billions being added to the national wealth every week." William Rubinstein, professor of modem history at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, confirmed that the growth in wealth was unprecedented. "Almost all of today’s wealth has been created since the industrial revolution, but even by those heady standards the current boom is extraordinary," he said. "There is no large-scale cultural opposition or guilt about making money. In many ways British business attitudes can now challenge the United States."Although the Britain’s richest are experiencing the sharpest surge in wealth, the rest of the population has also benefited from the stock market boom and rising house prices. Last year wealth rose by 16% to a record 4,267 billion, according to calculation by the investment bank Salomon Smith Barney. In real terms, wealth has increased by more than a third since the late 1980s.Much of the wealth of the richest is held in shares in start-up companies. Some of these paper fortunes, analysts agree, could easily be wiped out, although the wealth-generating effects of the interest revolution seem to be here to stay.A Sunday Times Young Rich List confirms that people are becoming wealthier younger. It includes the 60 richest millionaires aged 30 or under. At the top, on 600m, is the "old money" Earl of Iveagh, 30, head of the Guinness brewing family. In second place is Charles Nasser, also 30, who launched the Clara-NET Internet provider four years ago and is worth 300m. The remaining eight in the top 10 young millionaires made their money from computing and the Internet. How have the business attitudes changed in Britain（）
Text 4The first mention of slavery in the statutes of the English colonies of North America does not occur until after 1660 -- some forty years after the importation of the first Black people. Lest we think that slavery existed in fact before it did in law, Oscar and Mary Handlin assure us that the status of Black people down to the 1660’s was that of servants. A critique of the Handlins’ interpretation of why legal slavery did not appear until the 1660’s suggests that assumptions about the relation between slavery and racial prejudice should be reexamined, and that explanations for the different treatment of Black slaves in North and South America should be expanded.The Handlins explain the appearance of legal slavery by arguing that, during the 1660’s, the position of White servants was improving relative to that of Black servants. Thus, the Handlins contend, Black and White servants, heretofore treated Mike, each attained a different status. There are, however, important objections to this argument. First, the Handlins cannot adequately demonstrate that the White servant’s position was improving during and after the 1660’s; several acts of the Maryland and Virginia legislatures indicate otherwise. Another flaw in the Handlins’ interpretation is their assumption that prior to the establishment of legal slavery there was no discrimination against Black people. It is true that before the 1660’s Black people were rarely called slaves. But this should not overshadow evidence from the 1630’s on that point to racial discrimination without using the term slavery. Such discrimination sometimes stopped short of lifetime servitude or inherited status -- the two attributes of true slavery, yet in other cases it included both. The Handlins’argument excludes the real possibility that Black people in the English colonies were never treated as the equals of White people.The possibility has important ramifications. If from the outset Black people were discriminated against, then legal slavery should be viewed as a reflection and an extension of racial prejudice rather than, as many historians including the Handlins have argued, the cause of prejudice. In addition, the existence of discrimination before the advent of legal slavery offers a further explanation for the harsher treatment of Black slaves in North than in South America. Freyre and Tannenbaum have rightly argued that the lack of certain traditions in North America -- such as a Roman conception of slavery and a Roman Catholic emphasis on equality -- explains why the treatment of Black slaves was more severe there than in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies of South America, But this cannot be the whole explanation since it is merely negative, based only on a lack of something. A more compelling explanation is that the early and sometimes extreme racial discrimination in the English colonies helped determine the particular nature of the slavery that followed. Regarding the reason for the introduction of legal slavery, the author might agree that the introduction is more likely to be explained by reference to（）
Text 3In the angry debate over how much of IQ comes from the genes that children inherit from parents and how much comes from experiences, one little fact gets overlooked: no one has identified any genes (other than those in the case of retardation) that affect intelligence. So researchers led by Robert Plomin of London’s Institute of Psychiatry decided to look for some.Plomin’s colleagues drew blood from two groups of 51 children each. They are all White living in six counties around Cleveland. In one group, the average IQ is 136. In the other group, the average IQ is 103. Isolating the blood cells, the researchers then examined each child’s chromosome 6 ( One of 23 human chromosomes along which genes made of DNA). Of the 37 landmarks on chromo- some 6 that the researchers looked for, one jumped out: a form of gene called IGF2R occurred in twice as many children in high-IQ group as in the average group -- 32 percent versus 16 percent. The survey concludes that it is this form of the IGF2R gene, called allele 5, that contributes to intelligence.Plomin cautions that "this is not a genius gene. h is one of many." ( About half the differences in intelligence between one person and another are thought to reflect different genes, and half reflect different life experiences. ) The gene accounts for no more than four extra IQ points. And it is neither necessary nor sufficient for high IQ: 23 percent of the average-IQ kids did have it, but 54 percent of genius kids did not.The smart gene is known by the interesting name "insulinlike growth factor 2 receptor" (IGF2R to its fun). It lets hormones like one similar to insulin dock with cells. Although a gene involved with insulin is not the most obvious candidate for an IQ gene, new evidence suggests it might indeed play the role. Sometimes when a hormone docks with the cell, it makes the cell grow; sometimes it makes the cell commit suicide. Both responses could organize the development of the brain. Scientists at the National Institutes of Health find that insulin can stimulate nerves to grow. And in rat brains, regions involved in learning and memory are chock full of insulin receptors.Even though this supports the idea that IGF2R can affect the brain and hence intelligence, some geneticists see major problem with the IQ-gene study. One is the possibility that Plomin’s group fell for what’s called the chopsticks fallacy. Geneticists might think they’ve found a gene for chopsticks skill, but all they’ve really found is a gene more common in Asian than, say, Africans. Similarly, Plomin’s IQ gene might simply be one that is more common in groups that emphasize academic achievement. "What if the gene they’ve found reflects ethnic differences" asks geneticist Andrew Feinberg of Johns Hopkins University. "I would take these findings with a whole box of salt." As for how much of IQ comes from genes and how much comes from experiences,（）
微信支付 
支付宝支付