Some recent historians have argued that life in the British colonies in Ameri

游客2023-12-17  26

问题    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. [br] According to the passage, which of the following is a true statement about sectional conflicts in America between 1763 and 1789?

选项 A、There conflicts were instigated by eastern interests against western settlers.
B、These conflicts were the most serious kind of conflict in America.
C、The conflicts eventually led to openly expressed class antagonism.
D、These conflicts contained an element of class hostility.

答案 D

解析 该题问:根据本文,有关1763和1789年之间的美国地区冲突的陈述,下述哪一项是正确的?A项意为“这些冲突是由东部利益代表者反抗西部拓荒者引发的”。instigate意为to urge, provoke, or incite to some action or course。该动作发出者应具有主观恶意,而东部利益代表者并不是要成心挑起矛盾,只是其做法客观上引起西部移民不满而已。 B项意为“这些矛盾冲突是美国最严重的冲突”,说“最严重的”没有根据。C项意为“这些冲突将最终导致公开的阶级对抗”,本文中并没有提及。D项意为“这些冲突包含有阶级敌对的因素”,在本文的倒数第二段中有线索:Although undertones of class conflict existed beneath such hostility意为“尽管这些敌对情绪之下潜伏着阶级冲突”。因此可知 D项为正确选项。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3279974.html
最新回复(0)