tightening美国部分参考答案

2021年1月20日发(作者：sofa是什么意思)

Unit One
：
The Country
1.

How has climate affected the Southern way of life? Why are Southerners, in general,
so conservative?
Key Points:
The
South
has
mild
winters
and
hot
summers,
making
it
an
ideal
place
for
agricultural
industry.
For a long time, southern agriculture was characterized by plantation economy, controlled by
slave-owners
and
landed
gentry
class,
whose
vested
interest
in
plantation
economy
made
them
conservative virtually in every aspect, politically, economically and socially.
Historically, the South was hierarchical in its social structure, giving rise to a caste system
based on black salves and indentured servants, with big plantation owners sitting at the top.
The Southern slow-
paced agricultural life has produced what people there call ―the
Southern
way
of
life‖,
which
in
principle,
cherishes
rural
virtues,
emphasizes
community
life,
suspects
modernization, and rejects moral sins..

2.

Traditionally, New Englanders have always attached great importance to education.
Why is that and what are the implications?

Key Points:
Education is important to Puritans as a way of seeking truth from the Bible. It is true for both
clergymen and laymen.
Education
is
important
to
the
cultivation
of
republican
virtues
for
public-minded
New
Englanders, who launched the public school movement as early as the early 19
th
century.
Education is believed to be the best vehicle for common people to realize their potential and
ultimately their personal worth. Being a place that stresses equality and democracy (as reflected in
its
town
meeting
and
congregationalism),
New
England
has
always
led
the
nation
in
making
education available to all people across the board.
Education
has
developed
rapidly
in
the
area
at
all
levels,
from
elementary-
and
secondary-level
education
to
college
and
university
education,
and
from
public
to
private
education.


Unit Two: History
1.

Throughout
American
history
there
have
been
many
movements,
such
as
the
Temperance Movement, Anti- slavery Movement, Progressive Movement, Civil Rights Movement,
and Feminist Movement. Pick one of them and discuss its significance in U.S. history.
Key Points: (answers can be found on the Internet easily)
The Progressive Movement was an effort to cure many of the ills of American society that
had developed during the great spurt of industrial growth in the last quarter of the 19th century.
The
frontier
had
been
tamed,
great
cities
and
businesses
developed,
and
an
overseas
empire
established, but not all citizens shared in the new wealth, prestige, and optimism. Progressivism
was rooted in the belief, certainly not shared by all, that man was capable of improving the lot of
all within society. As such, it was a rejection of Social Darwinism position taken by many of the
rich
and
powerful
figures
of
the
day.
Progressivism
was
also
imbued
with
strong
political
overtones
and
rejected
the church
as
the driving
force
for
change. Specific
goals
included:
The
desire to remove corruption and undue influence from government through the taming of bosses
and political machines; the effort to include more people more directly in the political process; the
conviction
that
government
must
play
a
role
to
solve
social
problems
and
establish
fairness
in
economic matters.
The success of Progressivism owed much to publicity generated by the muckrakers writers
who detailed the horrors of poverty, urban slums, dangerous factory conditions, and child labor,
among a host of other ills. The successes were many, beginning with the Interstate Commerce Act
(1887)
and
the
Sherman
Antitrust
Act
(1890).
Progressives
never
spoke
with
one
mind
and
differed sharply over the most effective means to deal with the ills generated by the trusts; some
favored
an
activist
approach
to
trust- busting,
others
preferred
a
regulatory
approach.
The
Progressive spirit also was evident in new amendments added to the Constitution, which provided
for
a
new
means
to
elect
senators,
protect
society
through
prohibition
and
extend
suffrage
to
women. Urban problems were addressed by professional social workers who operated settlement
houses
as
a
means
to
protect
and
improve
the
prospects
of
the
poor.
However,
efforts
to
place
limitations on child labor were routinely thwarted by the courts. The needs of blacks s and Native
Americans
were
poorly
served
or
served
not
at
all
—

a
major
shortcoming
of
the
Progressive
Movement.

Progressive
reforms
were
carried
out
not
only
on
the
national
level,
but
in
the
states
and
municipalities of the country as well. Prominent governors devoted to change included Robert M.
LaFollette of Wisconsin and Hiram Johnson of California.

Such
reforms
as
the
direct
primary,
secret
ballot,
and
the
initiative
referendum,
and
recall
were
effected.
Local
governments
were
strengthened
by
the
widespread
use
of
trained
professionals,
particularly
with
the
city
manager
system
replacing
the
all-too-frequently
corrupt
mayoral system.


2.

Over
the
past
quarter
of
a
century,
the
United
States
is
said
to
be
engaged
in
a
“Culture
War”.
What
are
the
issues
this
war
is
about?
What
does
the
war
say
to
us
about
contemporary American society?
Key Points (answer can be easily found on the Internet)
The expression came into use in 1991 in the United States with the publication of
Culture
Wars: The Struggle to Define America
by James Davison Hunter, a sociologist at the University of
Virginia. In it, Hunter described what he saw as a dramatic realignment and polarization that had
transformed American politics and culture..
He
argued
that
on
an
increasing
number
of

defining
issues
—

abortion,
gun
politics, separation of church and state, privacy, recreational drug use, homosexuality, censorship
issues
—

there
had
come
to
be
two
definable
polarities.
Furthermore,
it
was
not
just
that
there
were a number of divisive issues, but that society had divided along essentially the same lines on
each
of
these
issues,
so
as
to
constitute
two
warring
groups,
defined
primarily
not
by
nominal
religion, ethnicity, social class, or even political affiliation, but rather by ideological world views..
Hunter characterized this polarity as stemming from opposite impulses, toward what he refers
to
as
Progressivism

and
Orthodoxy
.
The
dichotomy
has
been
adopted
with
varying
labels,
including,
for
example,
by
FOX
News
commentator
Bill
O‘Reilly
who
emphasizes
differences
between
In
1990
paleoconservative
commentator
Pat
Buchanan
mounted
a
campaign
for
the
Republican nomination for President of the United States against incumbent George H. W. Bush
in 1992. He received a prime time speech slot at the 1992 Republican National Convention, which
is sometimes dubbed the
'culture war' speech

During his speech, he said:
America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold
War itself.
public morality was a defining issue:
The
agenda
[Bill]
Clinton
and
[Hillary]
Clinton
would
impose
on
America
—

abortion
on
demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious
schools,
women
in
combat
—

that's
change,
all
right. But
it
is not
the
kind
of change America
wants. It is not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can tolerate
in a nation that we still call God's country.
A
month
later,
Buchanan
elaborated
that
this
conflict
was
about
power
over
society's
definition of right and wrong. He named abortion, sexual orientation and popular culture as major
fronts
–

and
mentioned
other
controversies,
including
clashes
over
the
Confederate
Flag,
Christmas and taxpayer-funded art. He also said that the negative attention his talk of a culture
war received was itself evidence of America‘s polarization.

When Buchanan ran for President in 1996, he promised to fight for the conservative side of
the culture war:
I
will
use
the
bully
pulpit
of
the
Presidency
of
the
United
States,
to
the
full
extent
of
my
power and ability, to defend American traditions and the values of faith, family, and country, from
any
and
all
directions.
And,
together,
we
will
chase
the
purveyors
of
sex
and
violence
back
beneath the rocks whence they came.
In a 2004 column, Pat

Buchanan said the culture war had reignited and that Americans no
longer inhabited the same moral universe. He gave such examples as gay civil unions, the
of
the
MTV
crowd,
and
the
controversy
surrounding
Mel
Gilbson‘s
film,
The
Passion
of
the
Christ.

The
culture
war
demonstrates
that
over
such
issues
as
abortion,
sexual
orientation,
gun
control,
privacy,
affirmative
action,
separation
of
church
and
sate,
censorship,
and
drug
abuse
there
are
two
cultural-value-based
groups
pitting
one
against
the
other.
One
represents
the
traditional
value
system,
especially
WASP
culture,
the
other,
more
liberal
value
system,
particularly multiculturalism.



Unit Three: The America Identity
1.
As
a
way
of
interpreting
American
identity,
people
often
liken
American
society
to
a
“melting pot”, a “salad bowl” or a “pizza”. Of these three metaphors, which one do you think
captures the essence of American national character best?
Key Points (answer can be found on the Internet)
Amalgamation
of
materials
is
the
process
by
which
metals
are
exposed
to
extremely
high
heat until they meld into a new compound. With people, this metaphor of a melting pot has long
been applied to cultural integration, especially in the case in forming the American nation. A look
into
the
background
of
this
social
theory
will
help
us
orient
ourselves
in
this
debate.
The
foundation
of
this
theory
was
perhaps
first
explained
in
1782
by
a
French
immigrant
named
J.
Hector
de
Crevecoeur,
who
envisioned
America
becoming
a
nation
comprised
of
a
completely
new race that would eventually affect changes to the world scene through its labour force and its
subsequent
posterity.
The
metaphor
was
specifically
popularized
in
a
play
by
Israel
Zangwill,
entitled

Melting
Pot,
which
opened
in
Washington
in
1908,
a
time
when
American
immigration
was
booming
from
North-western
Europe
(Booth).
This
theory
later
appropriately
came under fire when it became apparent that the mainstream public had no intention of
with
certain

races
and
cultures.
Subsequently,
American
immigration
policies
became
restrictive
based
on
race,
an
example
of
state
sponsored
racism
intended
towards
reducing
the
diversity of the melting pot. Much has been written about the so-called
theory (Frey; Booth). However, the metaphor has persisted and epitomizes what some Americans
see as an ideal model for this country.



The
melting
pot
theory,
also
referred
to
as
cultural
assimilation,
revolves
around
the
analogy that
as
to
lose
their
discrete
identities
and
yield
a
final
product
of
uniform
consistency
and
flavor,
which
is
quite
different
from
the
original
inputs
(
Pot
This
idea
differs
from
other
analogies, particularly the salad bowl analogy where the ingredients are encouraged to retain their
cultural
identities,
thus
retaining
their

and
flavor
while
contributing
to
a
tasty
and
nutritious salad (
a level of compromise between integration and cultural distinctiveness.



What
these
food
analogies
have
in
common
is
an
appreciation
that
each
of
these
ethnicities
has
something
to
contribute
to
the
society
as
a
whole.
By
comparing
ethnic/cultural
groups to ingredients in a recipe, we start with the assumption that each ingredient is important
and the final product would not be the same if some distinct ingredient were missing. However, in
the melting pot analogy, this premise is the least apparent and can be criticized for its dismissively
simplistic social theories. This is one appropriate evaluation of the weaknesses of the melting pot
and the tossed salad analogies:
In the case of the melting pot the aim is that all cultures become reflected in one common
culture, however this is generally
the culture of the dominant group
-
I thought this was
mixed
vegetable soup but I can only taste tomato. In the case of the salad bowl, cultural groups should
exist
separately
and
maintain
their
practices
and
institutions,
however,
Where
is
the
dressing
to
cover it all?
This
criticism
that
the
melting
pot
produces
a
society
that
primarily
reflects
the
dominant
culture
instead
of
fusing
into
a
completely
new
entity
is
reiterated
by
other
sociologists,
anthropologists,
and
cultural
geographers
as

This
type
of
assimilation
was
seen as working like a one-way street and it was viewed as something that depended primarily on
the cooperativeness of immigrants to be reoriented towards the dominant culture. The idea that the
dominant
culture
would
be
infused
with
new
energy
through
the
influences
of
ethnic
groups
retaining their distinctive cultural attributes and thereby forging a new, stronger America due to
their divergent cultural contributions was not given much weight by early researchers.
It should be noted in this discussion that earlier in American sociology history, some of these
terms took on distinctly different flavours. This ambiguity of terminology contributes to confusion
in the current discourse. For instance, in 1901, Sarah Simons is quoted as making this conclusion
with regards to assimilation:
In brief, the function of assimilation is the establishment of homogeneity within the group; but this
does not mean that all variation shall be crushed out. In vital matters, such as language, ideals of
government,
law,
and
education,
uniformity
shall
prevail;
in
personal
matters
of
religion
and
habits of life, however, individuality shall be allowed free play. Thus, the spread of
of kind
Furthermore, according to Peter Kivisto's interpretation of Chicago School sociologist Robert
E. Park's writings on the subject, theories on assimilation originally differed from the melting pot
fusion
theory
in
that
assimilation

the
proliferation
of
diversity.
Rather
than
enforced
conformity,
it
makes
possible
a
greater
degree
of
individual
autonomy
and
creates

cultural
climate that is predicated by pluralism
coexist
with
assimilation
The
idea
that
a
multiethnic
society
could
attain
an
interdependent
cohesion based on national solidarity while maintaining distinct cultural histories not dependent
on like- minded homogeneity was thus proposed back in the early 1900's.
However, it is vital to recognize that coercive assimilation theorists often do not support the
idea
that
immigrants
should
maintain
distinct
cultural
attributes.
In
the
modern-day
discussion,
coercive assimilation theories often take on a decidedly racist overtone, with many assimilation
proponents
urging
Americentric
policies
such
as
English-only
education,
strict
immigration
policies,
stipulations
of
nationalistic
criteria
for
citizenship,
and
eliminating
programs
aimed
at
helping minorities (Booth; Hayworth). This issue over terminology and social metaphors is vitally
important
because
America
stands
at
a
critical
ideological
turning
point.
Cultural
geographers
describe our current society as experiencing a
immigration
legislation
and
ethnic
studies
and
possibly
lead
us
towards
a
more
restrictive
and
intolerant nation (Mitchell 641). The current discourse about cultural assimilation seeks to relegate
incongruent
cultural
attributes
to
the
private
arena
so
as
not
to
disturb
the
dominant
society
(Mitchell
642),
and
instead
of
promoting
a
tolerance
of
diversity,
we
see
the
modern-day
assimilation proponents urging strict deportation and increasingly restrictive immigration policies
in order to protect so-called American values.
Some proponents, such as Arizona Congressman J.D. Hayworth, are calling for a return of
the
same
type
of
assimilation
policies
that
others
refer
to
as
the

Americanization
programs of the 1910's and 1920's
national
concern,
namely
WWI
and
the
subsequent

Scare,
where
coercive
education
and
employment
policies
were
enacted
that
compelled
immigrants
to
assimilate.
This
assimilation
process was structured to produce citizens that conformed, not just to American democratic ideals,
but
also
to
Americanized
private
habits,
American
English,
and
basic
political
and
social
ideologies intended to create a pliable work force and ensure certain political leanings During the
war, immigrants experienced oppression, xenophobia, and propaganda designed to strip them of
their native cultures and loyalties. The public school system
in
home
to
their
families.
Meanwhile,
ethnic
presses
were
scrutinized
and
inspected
by
the
U.S.
government and higher financial burdens were place upon them from the U.S. Postal Service, who
demanded
to
analyze
translations,
effectively
limiting
their
freedom
of
speech
and
eventually
resulting in many presses closing.
After the war, the leftover social strains and extreme patriotism gave vent for new obsessions,
including
the
Red
Scare
over
suspected
communists,
resurgence
in
the
white
supremacist
organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan, religiously based fundamentalism, labor strikes, and the
prohibition of alcohol. Certainly, civil liberties were being cast aside, and minority groups bore the
brunt of this assault under the guise of becoming more
seeing
a
similar
leaning
towards
coercive
assimilation
spreading
across
America
due
to
the
heightened concern over terrorism and the cultural/religious differences that are perceived to be
behind that ideological discord. If this assimilation thinking proceeds toward its logical conclusion,
America
will
move
backwards
socially
and
become
a
truly
bland
melted
pot
of
cultures
that
is
willing to sacrifice everything under a misplaced paradigm of patriotism.
The stance of many coercive assimilation proponents smacks of racist overtones and is based
on
apprehension
of

and
exclusionary
thinking
more
than
it
is
based
on
preservation
of
core values. For example, in the case of the political debate over designating English as America's
official language, Thomas Ricento makes this point:
The English language has often been used as a marker of one's
of non-English languages as a marker to one's
limiting
their
access
to
public
services,
voting
and
education
is
illogical,
for
it
would
further
stigmatize non-English speakers, rather than help them acquire the language. . . Restricting access
of citizens and non-citizens alike because of a language barrier is not only bad public policy, but
an
insult
and
a
calculated
provocation,
the
initial
step
would
certainly
be
a
pro- tracted
conflict
between English and non- English speakers.
The implications of this type of proposed legislation drives fear into minority groups seeking
to
preserve
their
cultural
heritage
against
a
tide
of
Americentric
propaganda.
Ultimately,
those
seeking
to
enact
coercive
assimilation
policies
threaten
to
fracture
the
common
ground
of
the
American
dream
that
they
claim
to
be
focused
on
protecting.
Minority
groups
are nearing
such
numbers in this country that it is projected that the word
Enacting
exclusionary
policies
will
only
fracture
an
already
delicate
social
framework
and
potentially further disenfranchise the very groups America needs for inclusive unity.
On
the
other
hand,
multiculturalism
has
its
own
set
of
weak
points
that
need
further
evaluation
and
revision.
The
melting
pot
and
the
tossed
salad
metaphors
are
both
inherently
flawed, at least sofar in their practical application. On this, there are many social theorists who are
writing about a compromise between the melting pot approach and the tossed salad analogy. One
such new theory is the aforementioned
an analogy can help bridge the gap between the two concepts to create
goulash where the pieces of different kinds of meat still keep their solid structure.
sort of compromise between full assimilation and multiculturalism will be necessary to retain our
multiethnic flavour while building a cohesive society.
The bottom line is that people are people, not food. Despite the variety of food metaphors at
our
disposal,
the
power
of
this
rhetoric
is
limited
and
wears
thin
during
pragmatic
application.
Food metaphors can be useful, but we do not need more vague metaphors that lead to interpretive
disparities.
What
we
need
is
an
entirely
new
dialogue
on
the
subject,
one
that
completely
and
clearly redefines America's objective for a multiethnic society that allows for diversity, not just in
the private realm, but also in the public sphere. We do not need a coercive assimilation program
that reverts back to outdated nationalistic paranoia. We need an inclusive working social theory
that
unites
the
disparate
enclaves
of
this
society
into
a
manageable
entity
moving
in
the
same
collective
direction.
Whether
Americans
will
ever
eventually
be
reformed
into
what
Israel
Zangwill called
needs
is
a
definitive
social
direction
that
leans
away
from
coercive
assimilation
dogma
and
towards a truly inclusive national identity. True American dreamers should not settle for anything
less.

2.
Americans are said to be more racial-conscious than class-conscious. Why is that? To
what extent can such a statement be justified?


Key Points
The
USA
is
a
multi-racial
and
multi-ethnic
nation,
with
people
from
all
over
the
world.
People are keenly aware of their own national identity, be they white, black, brown or yellow. In
such a diversified country, the ubiquitous presence of different colors and races constantly reminds
one
of
his/her
ethnic
identity,
enhancing
one‘s
racial
and
ethnic
consciousness
through
daily
encountering and personal experiences.

Moreover, the US is also a nation of associations, where people join organization of every
type,
including
racially-
and
ethnically-based
interest
groups,
thus
reinforcing
their
racial
and
ethnic affiliation. Through these racially or ethnically- based organizations, they manage to create a
community of their own, maintaining their language, customs, tradition, religion, and way of life.
By contrast, class as a political concept, has never taken deep roots in America. For one thing,
the availability of suffrage for all citizens (blacks, Indians and women all got their suffrage later
than white makes), the First Ten Amendments of Bill of Rights, and the social welfare programs,
have all made radical or revolutionary ideas difficult to exist, much less to spread and appeal to
the masses. For another, free labor system, relatively abundant social mobility, the constant supply
of
new
labor
force
by
immigrants,
easy
access
to
education,
and
emphasis
on
individualism,
equality
and
fair
competition,
have
made
individuals
rather
than
groups
(class)
responsible
for
success or failure, hence reducing the im
portance of class in one‘s achievements in life. For still
another, the US government and its ruling elite have spared no effort to preach bourgeois values
and capitalist doctrine to the American public, instilling them in the minds of American people.
Finally, the ruling class and its parties have never hesitated to crush radical movements whenever
they are perceived to be threatening to the fundamental interests of capitalism, be they socialist or
communist,
making it difficult, if not impossible, for radical political organizations to exist and
operate in the country.
Largely
due
to
the
above-mentioned
reasons,
race
is
accented
and
class
deemphasized,
causing Americans to be more racially conscious than class conscious.

Unit Four: Political Institutions
Key Points (answers can be found on the Internet)
1.

What is the significance of “judiciary review” in American politics?

Opponents
of
judicial
review
have
charged
that
the
Supreme
Court's
power
to
invalidate
Federal and state laws or actions has no counterpart in common or civil law, and has no textual
basis in the United States Constitution. The law of the United States derives in great part from the
common law traditions the colonies inherited from Britain, which arguably have vested the power
of judicial review in the people since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215.
Proponents of the doctrine argue that while it is true that judicial review is not mentioned in
the
Constitution,
it
is
likewise
true
that
the
Constitution
makes
no
explicit
mention
of
the
adversarial
system,
state
decisis,
or
virtually
any
other
specific
aspect
of
the common
law. The
argument
is
therefore
made
that
these
concepts
were
necessarily
implicit
in
what
the
Framers
understood
by
the
term

judicial
power,
and
therefore
should
govern
the
Constitution's
interpretation. There is an arguable case that while judicial review is not
explicitly
written into the
Constitution, it could be implied by the provision in Article Six: ―
This Constitution, and the Laws
of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof... shall be the supreme Law of the
Land...‖
which would imply that the laws of the United States which are not in pursuance to the
Constitution are not the supreme law of the land. The remainder of Article Six
―and the Ju
dges in
every
State
shall
be
bound
thereby,
any
Thing
in
the
Constitution
or
Laws
of
any
State
to
the
Contrary
notwithstanding‖
clearly
means
that
a
State
law
or
state
Constitutional
provision
in
contravention to Federal law (which is in pursuance to the Constitution of the United States) or to
the Constitution is invalid, and that the Constitution implies that judges are the proper authority to
find a provision unconstitutional, and this power could equally apply to a Federal law which is not
in pursuance to the Constitution.




In short, judiciary review establishes the US Supreme Court as the sole interpreter of the
validity/constitutionality of any laws in the country, local, state or federal, making the principle of
―checks and balances‖ actually opera
tional in American politics.


2.

Why has the turnout been so low in American general elections during the past few
decades?
Key Points (answer can be found on the Internet)
Over
the
last
40
years,
voter
turnout
has
been
steadily
declining
in
the
established
democracies,
especially
in
the
United
States.
It
has
been
a
matter
of
concern
and
controversy
among
political
scientists
for
several
decades.
During
this
same
period,
other
forms
of
political
participation
have
also
declined,
such
as
voluntary
participation
in
political
parties
and
the
attendance of observers at town meetings.
Before the late 19th century, suffrage
—
the right to vote
—
was so limited in most nations
that turnout figures have little relevance to today. One exception was the United States, which had
near universal white male suffrage by 1840. The U.S. saw a steady rise in voter turnout during the
century, reaching its peak in the years after the Civil War. Turnout declined from the 1890s until
the 1930s, then increased again until 1960 before beginning its current long decline.

Many
causes
have
been
proposed
for
this
decline;
a
combination
of
factors
is
most
likely.
When asked why they do not vote, many people report that they have too little free time. However,
over the last several decades, studies have consistently shown that the amount of leisure time has
not decreased. The perception that one is busier is common, and might be just as important as a
real decrease in leisure time. Geographic mobility has increased over the last few decades. There
are often barriers to voting in a district where one is a recent arrival, and a new arrival is likely to
know
little
about
the
local
candidate
and
local
issues.
The
average
age
of
first
marriage
has
increased,
and
divorce
rates
have
skyrocketed.
Single
people
are
generally
less
likely
to
vote.
Francis
Fukuyama
has
blamed
the
welfare
state,
arguing
that
the
decrease
in
turnout
has
come
shortly after the government became far more involved in people's lives. He argues in Trust: The
Social
Virtues
and
The
Creation
of
Prosperity
that
the
social
capital
essential
to
high
voter
turnouts
is
easily
dissipated
by
government
actions.
However,
on
an
international
level
those
states with the most extensive social programs tend to be the ones with the highest turnouts.