题目内容
TEXT C Some recent historians have argued that life in the British colonies in America from approximately 1763 to 1789 was marked by internal conflicts among colonists. Inheritors of some of the viewpoins of early twentieth century Progressive historians such as Beard and Becker, these recent historians have put forward arguments that deserve evaluation. The kind of conflict most emphasized by these historians is class conflict. Yet with the Revolutionary War dominating these years, how does one distinguish class conflict within that larger conflict Certainly not by the side a person supported. Although many of these historians have accepted the earlier assumption the Loyalists represented an upper class, new evidence indicates that Loyalists, like rebels, were drawn from all socioeconomic class. (It is nonetheless probably true that a larger percentage of the well-to-de joined the Loyalists than joined the rebels.) Looking at the rebels side, we find little evidence for the contention that lower-class rebels were in conflict with upper-class rebels. Indeed, the war effort against Britain tended to suppress class conflicts. Where it did not, the disputing rebels of one or another class usually became Loyalists. Loyalism thus operated as a safety valve to remove socioeconomic discontent that existed among the rebels. Disputes occurred, of course, among those who remained on the rebel side, but the extraordinary social mobility of eighteenth-century American society (with the obvious exception of slaves) usually prevented such disputes from hardening along class lines. Social structure was in fact so fluid thought recent statistics suggest a narrowing of economic opportunity as the latter half of the century progressed -- that to talk about social classes at all requires the use of loose economic categories such as rich, poor, and middle class, or eighteenth-century designations like "the better sort". Despite these vague categories one should not claim unequivocally that hostility between recognizable classes cannot be legitimately observed. Outside of New York, however, there were very few instances of openly expressed class antagonism. Having said this, however, one must add that there is much evidence to support the further claim of recent historians that sectional conflicts were common between 1763 and 1789. The "Paxton Boys" incident and the Regulator movement arc representative examples the widespread, and justified, discontent of western settlers against colonial or state governments dominated by eastern interests. Although undertones of class conflict existed beneath such hostility, the opposition was primarily geographical. Sectional conflict -- which also existed between North and South -- deserves further investigation. In summary, historians must be careful about the kind of conflict they emphasize in eighteenth-century America. Yet those who stress the achievement of a general consensus among the colonists cannot fully understand the consensus without understanding the conflicts that had to be overcome or repressed in order to reach it. According to the passage, which of the following is a true statement about sectional conflicts in America between 1763 and 1789
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
TEXT A Bermard Bailyn has recently reinterpreted the early history of the United States by applying new social research findings on the experiences of European migrants. In his reinterpretation, migration becomes the organizing principle for rewriting the history of preindustrial North America. His approach rests on four separate propositions. The first of these asserts that residents of early modern England moved regularly about their countryside; migrating to the New World was simply a "natural spillover". Although at first the colonies held little positive attraction for the English -- they would rather have stayed home -- by the eighteenth century people increasingly migrated to America because they regarded it as the land of opportunity. Secondly, Bailyn holds that, contrary to the notion that used to flourish in American history textbooks, there was never a typical New World community. For example, the economic and demographic character of early New England towns varied considerably. Bailyn’s third proposition suggests two general patterns prevailing among the many thousand migrants: one group came as indentured servants, another came to acquire land. Surprisingly, Bailyn suggests that those who recruited indentured servants were the driving forces of transatlantic migration. These colonial entrepreneurs helped determine the social character of people who came to preindustrial North America. At first, thousands of unskilled laborers were recruited; by the 1730’s, however, American employers demanded skilled artisans. Finally, Bailyn argues that the colonies were a haft-civilized hinterland of the European culture system. He is undoubtedly correct to insist that the colonies were part of an Anglo-American empire. But to divide the empire into English core and colonial perphery, as Bailyn does, devalues the achievements of colonial culture, as Bailyn claims, that high culture in the colonies never matched that in England. But what of seventeenth-century New England, where the settlers created effective laws, built a distinguished university, and published books Bailyn might respond that New England was exceptional. However, the ideas and institutions developed by New England Puritans had powerful effects on North American culture. Although Bailyn goes on to apply his approach to some thousands of indentured servants who migrated just prior to the revolution, he fails to link their experience with the political development of the United States. Evidence presented in his work suggests how we might make such a connection. These indentured servants were treated as slaves for the period during which they had sold their time to American employers. It is not surprising that as soon as they served their time they passed up good wages in the cities and headed west to ensure their personal independence by acquiring land. Thus, it is in the west that a peculiarly American political culture began, among colonists who were suspicious of authority and intensely antiaristocrafic. The author of the passage is primarily concened with ______.
TEXT C Some recent historians have argued that life in the British colonies in America from approximately 1763 to 1789 was marked by internal conflicts among colonists. Inheritors of some of the viewpoins of early twentieth century Progressive historians such as Beard and Becker, these recent historians have put forward arguments that deserve evaluation. The kind of conflict most emphasized by these historians is class conflict. Yet with the Revolutionary War dominating these years, how does one distinguish class conflict within that larger conflict Certainly not by the side a person supported. Although many of these historians have accepted the earlier assumption the Loyalists represented an upper class, new evidence indicates that Loyalists, like rebels, were drawn from all socioeconomic class. (It is nonetheless probably true that a larger percentage of the well-to-de joined the Loyalists than joined the rebels.) Looking at the rebels side, we find little evidence for the contention that lower-class rebels were in conflict with upper-class rebels. Indeed, the war effort against Britain tended to suppress class conflicts. Where it did not, the disputing rebels of one or another class usually became Loyalists. Loyalism thus operated as a safety valve to remove socioeconomic discontent that existed among the rebels. Disputes occurred, of course, among those who remained on the rebel side, but the extraordinary social mobility of eighteenth-century American society (with the obvious exception of slaves) usually prevented such disputes from hardening along class lines. Social structure was in fact so fluid thought recent statistics suggest a narrowing of economic opportunity as the latter half of the century progressed -- that to talk about social classes at all requires the use of loose economic categories such as rich, poor, and middle class, or eighteenth-century designations like "the better sort". Despite these vague categories one should not claim unequivocally that hostility between recognizable classes cannot be legitimately observed. Outside of New York, however, there were very few instances of openly expressed class antagonism. Having said this, however, one must add that there is much evidence to support the further claim of recent historians that sectional conflicts were common between 1763 and 1789. The "Paxton Boys" incident and the Regulator movement arc representative examples the widespread, and justified, discontent of western settlers against colonial or state governments dominated by eastern interests. Although undertones of class conflict existed beneath such hostility, the opposition was primarily geographical. Sectional conflict -- which also existed between North and South -- deserves further investigation. In summary, historians must be careful about the kind of conflict they emphasize in eighteenth-century America. Yet those who stress the achievement of a general consensus among the colonists cannot fully understand the consensus without understanding the conflicts that had to be overcome or repressed in order to reach it. The passage suggests that the author would be likely to agree with which of the following statements about the social structure of eighteenth-century. American society Ⅰ. It allowed greater economic opportunity than it did social mobility. Ⅱ. It permitted greater economic opportunity prior to 1750 than after 1750. Ⅲ. It did not contain rigidly defined socioeconomic divisions. Ⅳ. It prevented economic disputes from arising among members of the society.
TEXT B There is a great concern in Europe and North America about declining standards of literacy in schools. In Britain, the fact that 30 percent of 16 year old have a reading age of 14 or less has helped to prompt massive educational changes. The development of literacy has far-reaching effects on general intellectual development and thus anything which impedes the development of literacy is a serious mather for us all. So the hunt is on for the cause of the decline in literacy. The search so far has forced on socioeconomic factors, or the effectiveness of "traditional" versus "modern" teaching techniques The fruitless search for the cause of the increase in illiteracy is a tragic example of file saying "They can’t see the wood for the trees". When teachers use picture books, they are simply continuing a long-established tradition that is accepted without question. And for the past two decades, illustrations in reading primers have become increasingly detailed and obtrusive, while language has become impoverished -- sometimes to the point of extinction. Amazingly, there is virtually no empirical evidence to support the use of illustrations in teaching reading. On the contrary, a great deal of empirical evidence shows that pictures interfere in a damaging way with all aspects of learning to read. Despite this, from North America to the Antipodes, the first books that many school children receive are totally without text. A teacher’s main concern is to help young beginning readers to develop not only the ability to recognize words, but the skills necessary to understand what these words mean. Even if a child is able to read aloud fluently, he or she may not be able to undersdand much of it: this is called "barking at text". The teacher’s task of improving comprehension is made harder by influences outisde the classroom. But the adverse effects of such things as television, video games, or limited language experiences at home, can be offset by experiencing "rich" language at school. Instead, it is not unusual for a book of 30 or more pages to have only one sentence full of repetitive phrases. The artwork is often marvellous, but the pictures make the language redundant, and the children have no need to imagine anything when they read such books. Looking at a picture actively prevents children younger than nine from creating a mental image, and can make it difficult for older children. In order to learn how to comprehend, they need to practise making their own meaning in response to text. They need to have their innate powers of imagination trained. As they grow older, many children turn aside from books without pictures, and it is a situation made more serious as our culture becomes more visual. It is hard to wean children off picture books when pictures have played a major part throughout their formative reading experiences, and when there is competition for their attention from so many other sources of entertainment. The least intelligent are most vulnerable, but tests show that even intelligent children are being affected. The response of educators has been to extend use of pictures in books and to simplify the language, even at senior levels. The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge recently held joint conferences to discuss the noticeably rapid decline in literacy among their undergraduates. Pictures are also used to help motivate children to read bacause they are beautiful and eyecatching. But motivation to read should be provided by listening to stories well read, where children imagine in response to the story. Then, as they start to read, they have this experience to help them understand the language. If we present pictures to save children the trouble of developing these creative skills, then I think we are making a great mistake. Academic journals ranging from educational research, psychology, language learning, psycholinguistics, and so on cite experiments which demonstrate how detrimental pictures are for beginner readers. Here is a brief selection: The research results of the Canadian educationalist Dalt Willows were clear and consistent pictures affected speed and accuracy and the closer the pictures were to the Words. the slower and more inaccurate the child’s reading became. She claims that when children come to a word they already know, then the pictures are unnecessary and distracting. If they do now know a word and look to the pictures which are not closely related to the meaning of the word they are trying to understand. Jay Samuels, an American psychologist, found that poor readers given no pictures learnt significantly more words than those learning to read with books with pictures. He examined the work of other researchers who reported problems with the use of pictures and who had found that a word without a picture was superior to a word plus a picture. When children were given words and pictures, those who seemed to ignore the pictures and pointed at the words than children who pointed at the pictures, but they still learnt fewer words than the children who had no illustrated stimuli at all. The text suggests that ______.
He was a Canadian, an attorney, he said, still practicing in Winnipeg. But he’d been spending April in Gatlinburg for almost 50 years. He and his wife would come with their son and daughter and explore the mountains on horseback, getting to know every scenic vantage point of Mount Le Conte, every turn in the bumbling Little Pigeon River. After the son Rad died and after the daughter was grown, Mr. B and his wife had kept up their visits. And he still continued to make the annual trek even though his wife had died three years ago. The mountains and the valley were touchstones for him, sites of pleasant memories that were revived with each visit. "I’ve had a love of my own", he said, his eyes misting. He asked detailed questions about our wedding and told us in detail of his own, some 60 year earlier. During brief periods when a conversational lapse threatened, he softly hummed "Hello, Young Lovers", the song from The King and Ⅰ. That night he sat alone during dinner, careful, he later told us, not to "get in love’s way". But he glanced often in our direction, and we knew he was not alone; he was deep in reverie, dining with his own true love.
微信支付 
支付宝支付