中国少年儿童百科全书：历史百科（彩图注音版） 在线下载 pdf mobi 2025 epub 电子版

暂无相关简介，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关目录，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关内容，正在全力查找中

暂无出版社相关信息，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关书籍摘录，正在全力查找中！

在线阅读地址：中国少年儿童百科全书：历史百科（彩图注音版）在线阅读

在线听书地址：中国少年儿童百科全书：历史百科（彩图注音版）在线收听

在线购买地址：中国少年儿童百科全书：历史百科（彩图注音版）在线购买

暂无原文赏析，正在全力查找中！

暂无其它内容！

• 作者：武者小路 发布时间：2018-03-05 18:41:51

  数学果然还是一种自洽的直觉啊！

• 作者：k 发布时间：2019-06-02 00:55:53

  太中产了 从头到尾他们都生活在温暖安逸的小世界里 即使偶尔被战争敲碎了一条小小的裂纹 很快又能弥合回去 而除他们之外 别人的世界天翻地覆

• 作者：博铭汉 发布时间：2015-09-05 23:12:09

  [最近看了这本书II] 风水是相宅之术，其本质的运用，是通过建筑布局、空间分割、方位调整、色彩运用、图案选择等隐喻和象征手段，来实现身心合一的环境追求。这本书坦诚地说我只看了其中一部分，没看之前感觉自己学到的欧洲设计思维还算是自由随性，看了之后整个人都感觉不大好[偷笑]，什么前后门不能统一在一条直线否则属＂穿心煞＂，什么楼梯要避免正对大门，要设置在犄角，后则会带走运势之类的说辞，不过很多部分的说法与今天的物理环境气象之类的常识是不谋而合的

• 作者：大壮他爹 发布时间：2023-04-02 12:07:58

  单看数据的话，气候变暖和飓风之间也许可以发现相关性，但无法确认因果性，这和吸烟导致肺癌已经确定的因果性目前没办法比较，这不是放2张相似的照片就可以改变的，推广环保没有问题，严谨的论据论证更是重要

• 作者：婉菁 发布时间：2018-03-09 15:55:09

  1907年的丘吉尔 比较有趣的是思考能否变成“白人非洲”——不能 知道了杂交的羊和牛 都是用欧洲带过去的纯种混非洲当地的种 抵抗能力更好 肉质皮毛更优 一声枪响 惊动了几百条隐藏在尼罗河瀑布边上丛林中的鳄鱼 它们在等待急流中的动物死尸和河马 土著被白人影响了 表演时候 最厉害的勇士使用的长矛都不够了 要凑数——文化交融渗透的能力还是很彪悍的 虽然土著们依然保持裸体和佩戴饰品和脸上身上涂抹特别意义的色彩 图案 300多头大象 不忌惮人群 而丘吉尔认为可以杀光 当时规定每个白人长官每年只能射杀一头—— 想想今天非洲大象都濒临灭绝了 时间多快

• 作者：这个世界会好吗 发布时间：2011-01-10 11:55:05

  可与《资治通鉴》参照读

• Book Review: E.P.Thompson, The Making of English Working Class(NYRB/HNET)

  作者：by 发布时间：2011-10-19 11:15:32

  此书蒙多年前湘姐推荐，稍有接触。但生性懒散，迟迟未毕。近日幸为作业所迫，得以阅毕。间有不解，复览而明。

  想我国朝新时代之工人阶级渐次形成，蚁族工蜂、白领蓝翔，不绝于耳；血泪呼号，不减英伦。二十年目睹之怪现状，不禁掩卷为之恻然耳。

  公元两千零一十一年十月夜，记于合众国圣路易。

  公元两千零一十二年秋改毕。

  E. P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class. New York: Pantheon Books, 1963. 848. Pp.

  “Nevertheless, when every caution has been made, the outstanding fact of the period between 1790 and 1830 is the formation of ‘the working class.’ This is revealed, first, in the growth of class-consciousness,” and “second, in the growth of corresponding forms of political and industrial organization” (p.194). E.P. Thompson’s book tells us about how the English working class coalesced in the period from the 1790s to the 1830s. Thompson provides us with abundant details about the varieties of lived experience of the English workers at that time to show how they could come to regard themselves as sharing a common “experience.” He sketches a scene of the struggles of these workers, revealing their screams, their cries, and their history, which was full of blood and tears. Based on the focus of “traditional” cultural issues and class-consciousness, the author makes a case for class as a historical relationship in a way that departs from “orthodox” Marxism.

  The book begins with “The Liberty Tree,” the culturally available resources left by British history. These include the tradition of Dissent, which included dominations such as the Independents, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Quakers, and Baptists (modified by Methodist revival), which could “combine political quietism with a kind of slumbering Radicalism” (p.30); the traditional notions of the “birth-right” of Englishmen; and the ambiguous tradition of the eighteenth-century “Mob” (pp.24-25). Riots, the mob, and popular notions of “free-born” rights are viewed as “sub-political” traditions (p.59). Thompson finds that the London crowd should not be simply identified as ruffians or a part of criminal element, but he also emphasizes that we can observe the crowd well from concrete issues. For example, the Gordon Riots of 1780 clearly showed the three phases that popular agitation would pass through (p.71). Beside the agitated institution, the obscure feeling of defending rights is also crucial. In this section, the influential views of Thomas Paine play a key role: “We can almost say that Paine established a new framework within which Radicalism was confined for nearly 100 years, as clear and as well defined as the constitutionalism which it replaced” (p.94). However, with the suppression of the revolutionary Jacobins, the disorganized and persecuted working people struggled to hold their organization, thus societies such as Sheffield, including their rights-claiming etc. are discussed in the book.

  Part Two, “The Curse of Adam,” examines some personal/private experiences (living standards: goods, homes, life, childhood) of different kinds and groups of workers. Their achievements and their painful lives reflect new kinds of working disciplines and working characteristics. Unlike the Dissenting sects, the Methodists “contribute” to the formation of the working class in a special way: In addition to the forms of popular meetings they provided, Methodist practices included the “collection of penny subscriptions and the ‘tickets,’ so frequently borrowed by radical and trade union organizations, but also an experience of efficient centralised organization” (pp.43-44).

  The third part, “The Working-class Presence,” covers the varieties of riots and movements, relating to the people who engaged in them: Chartists, Owenites, Radical Westminster Committee, Edward Despard, Informers (turncoats or mercenary volunteers, nit an organized group though), Croppers, Stockingers, etc. Thompson finds that the secret political tradition, suffering from its weakness in propaganda (secretive and small-scale) and suspicious environment, could not survive unless it joined with the secret industrial tradition (p.494). And of course the Luddite movement should be highly noticed as this kind of joint character, given its organization. The sources of Thompson’s narrate are appealing: it is based on an abundant source base of pamphlets, archives, public and governmental records, periodicals, etc., and a theoretical perspective expanding the classical Marxism theory. The interpretive framework of the book, with the depiction of details which were supported by the documents and resources, becomes very powerful.

  In what follows, I would like to analyze three aspects of Thompson’s book. First, from a theoretical perspective, Thompson’s revision of Marxist theory (or the context of Marxist doctrine), which innovates on the historical phenomenon and the outcome of experience away from an economic-determined explanation, should be deeply affirmed. It could be viewed as an alternative way of analyzing social transformation. Many scholars find that Thompson abandons the economic determinism of traditional Marxism, in favor of what could be called a kind of cultural Marxism. I would argue that even cultural and political determinisms are rejected by Thompson. The historically-conditioned relationships that inform experience and the formation of class consciousness are of crucial importance for Thompson. William H. Sewell, Jr. points out that Thompson adopts a much looser theoretical model of the relationship of economic conditions to social experience and consciousness. (“How Classes Are Made: Critical Reflections on E. P. Thompson’s Theory of Working-Class Formation,” in Harvey J. Kaye and Keith McClelland eds. E. P. Thompson: Critical Perspectives. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press, 1990, pp.50-77.) Sewell, however, also finds that Thompson fails to face the productive relations in which the working class actually existed. In so doing, Thompson implicitly affirms what he wants to deny: the class, which is economically structured, is independent from the workers’ consciousness. As a way of moving past the problem of the class struggle and productive relations, I would like to argue that class could be regarded as a kind of personal identity, which is not fully generated by productive relations. The common experiences of workers, as Thompson argues, will lead them to “feel and articulate the identity of their interests as between themselves.” (p.9) While Raymond Williams defines culture as a whole way of life, Thompson views it as a struggle of different ways of living. It is in this meaning that the common experience and identity of workers are formed.

  Second, by highlighting this kind of identity and daily life, Thompson actually keeps on inaugurating a new kind of historical writing, which would later become known as the “New Cultural history.” (Lynn Hunt ed., The New Cultural History. University of California Press, 1989.) The influence of Thompson’s work on the development of the new cultural history is significant. On the one hand, in the wake of scholars such as Richard H. Tawney, “history from below” had become a pursuit for British historians. On the other hand, cultural history borrows from the older tradition of German historiography known as “Kulturgeschichte.” Jacob Burckhardt’s The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy shows various lives in the Italian cities during the Renaissance. Johan Huizinga’s The Waning of the Middle Ages had already shown the importance of cultural mentality in an age. The study of collective memory was on its way to prominence (and was largely developed by the French scholars). At this point, the work of Thompson leads and enhances the trend toward the study of daily lives, memory and popular culture.

  The studies about construction of custom, culture, mentality, crowd, and class were raised in the next several decades following the publication of Thompson’s work. Thompson’s work also has had a deep influence on German scholars’ interest in the cultural dimensions of the daily lives of historical subjects (e.g. class relations) by cultural perspective (e.g., H. Medick, A. Lüdtke, D. Sabean, G. Sider). The 1960s were a period dominated by structuralism, but Thompson tries to save the stockingers, croppers, weavers, and artisans from an unfair historical ideology by depicting specific activities of the workers who assembled to criticize the Bible in the factory, to discuss politics in the pub, to form their own organizations, etc. Sewell finds that Thompson actually uses synchronic depictions broadly but that he disguises them within an explicitly diachronic approach. It could be argued, however, that Thompson actually finds structure to exist in the historical progress. His insistence of explicating diachrony should be viewed as a rebellion against the form of structuralism popular at that time, rather than an approach that he really ignores or rejects.

  Third, the evidence Thompson supplies lends considerable support to his overall framework. Thompson reveals the relative poverty of workers during the “Industrial Revolution,” for instance, even the cotton-spinners in 1818 Manchester, who, after their payments were deducted, were only left with 18s. 4d. (pp.243-244). Beginning with the miserable story of Thomas Hardy, the author rescues the working class status from what he calls the “condescension of posterity” (p.12). As Chengdan Qian has noted, the discourses of Fabianism and liberalism influenced the pessimistic historical views towards the English working class in the industrial process. (“From Weber to Thompson,” History of the World 6, 1984) Liberal historians would even contend that the Tory government appealed to the illusory threat of “violent revolution” in order to justify to the suppression of the political reforms.

  In fact, Thompson compels us to notice two different kinds of the eighteenth-century riots in Britain: “spontaneous popular direct action” and “the deliberate use of the crowd as an instrument of pressure, by persons ‘above’ or apart from the crowd.” (pp.62-63). “Traditional” Marxists, for their part, tend to ignore the role of British traditions. Against whom is Thompson arguing? It is obviously that the New Left tries to reinterpret the experience of social development in England. The Whigs’ clichés that lower people and the riots are meaningless should be abandoned. The focus on the working-class movement supplied by Fabianist historians and liberal historians’ sympathy toward workers’ resistance (against economic exploitation and political oppression) are inherited by Thompson. At the same time, he quarrels with the trend of obscuring the agency of workers and their contributions: “There is the Fabian orthodoxy, in which the great majority of working people are seen as passive victims of laissez faire, with the exception of a handful of far-sighted organizers” (p.12). In addition, “there is the orthodoxy of the empirical economic historians, in which working people are seen as a labour force, as migrants, or as the data for statistical series” (p.12). Thompson also resists what he regards as the error of reading history “in the light of subsequent preoccupations”: “There is the ‘Pilgrim’s Progress’ orthodoxy, in which the period is ransacked for forerunners” (p.12). Or, from another perspective, when “the Industrial Revolution was encountering the problems of ‘take-off’,” “the generations of workers between 1790 and 1840 sacrificed some, or all, of their prospects of increased consumption to the future” (p.204). We cannot sacrifice the experience of the individual workers in the interest of “improvement” or “progress” based on economic developments at that time. Nor can we obscure differences out of regard for the welfare state or the happiness of “majorities.”

  In addition to the classified analysis, Thompson is also concerned with showing how the religious or spiritual concerns affected class consciousness and class formation. What role did Methodism play in the “making” of the working class? Thompson denies that at first “Methodism was no more than a nursing-ground for Radical and trade union organizers” (p.41). But at another level, “Methodism was indirectly responsible for a growth in the self-confidence and capacity for organization of working people,” as Sauthey indicated in 1820. Thompson goes on to argue that “throughout the early history of Methodism we can see a shaping democratic spirit which struggled against the doctrines and organizational forms which Wesley imposed” (p.42). Organizational function seems to be crucial in distinguishing Methodism from other religious sects, given “the temporary permeation of Methodism by some of the self-governing traditions of Dissent, and the transmission to working-class societies of forms of organization peculiar to the Methodist Connexion” (p.43). Even if the function of Methodism in shaping the working class is obvious, Thompson still does not attribute all the efficacies of class forming to Methodism. He cites Sauthey to reveal that the Methodists made of religion “a thing of sensation and passion, craving perceptually for sympathy and stimulants.” Of course, he argues that compared to other religious, Methodist theology “was better suited than any other to serve as the religion of a proletariat … to feel themselves to be ‘elected’” (p.362). From the case of Methodism, we can see Thompson in fact shows the procedures that “make” class by both organizational manipulation and spiritual foundation. These two parts show both economic and cultural influences; Thompson’s “making” theory is therefore not just a simple “determination” or “cultural Marxism.”

  Thompson’s narrative abounds with individuals full of emotion and unique experience, real men and women, and concrete daily lives. He punctuates his narrative with dramatic plots. Dissatisfied with the fact that “nearly all the classic accounts by contemporaries of conditions in the Industrial Revolution are based on the cotton industry,” (p.192) Thompson, with the ambition of “seeking to rescue the poor stockinger, the Luddite cropper, the ‘obsolete’ hand-loom weaver, the ‘Utopian’ artisan, and even the deluded follower of Joanna Southcott” from “the enormous condescension of posterity,” (p.12) seeks to discuss these kinds of workers one by one. Yet, only the weaver and the artisan are discussed specifically, thereby leaving the stockinger and the cropper in relative obscurity, even though he argues for their historical significance. The categories of workers surely influence the organization of their movements and their political tendencies. As Thompson observes, “Jacobinism…struck root most deeply among artisans. Luddism was the work of skilled men in small workshops. From 1817 onwards to Chartism, the outworkers in the north and the Midlands were as prominent in every radical agitation as the factory hands” (p.193). It is therefore crucial to distinguish between those categories. It is also curious that Thompson does not explore the division found in the master-servant relationship that he established before. Categories of servants included farm servants (hired by the year or the quarter), regular labour-force (more or less fully employed the year round), casual labour (paid by day-rate or piece-rate) and more or less skilled specialists (might contract to job) (p.215). Although this would make Thompson’s task much more difficult, describing these hinds of workers one-by-one would produce a more convincing result, whether from a statistics standpoint or from a more qualitative perspective.

  Thompson argues that “collective self-consciousness was indeed the great spiritual gain of the Industrial Revolution” (p. 830). Hence, the Chartists, never forgetting to get the vote, served as the key points of political power or social control. So I insist on the useful conception of “experience,” which indicates the way of understanding the rise of the working class’s self-consciousness. Collective experience is not the only factor in deciding the formation of class, but it is nevertheless a basic factor. Why did workers view themselves as a new class? The benefits, the ways of life, the degree of education, and broad connections (and if there were political organization things will be better) could propel a “class” from “experience” (social being) to “consciousness” (social consciousness). Thompson’s work indicates a “conscious” realm and an implied “agency” by emphasizing the feeling and identity of workers and their activities/practices. He mentions in many places to express his opinions of those kinds of feelings: “When we speak of ‘imagery’ we mean much more than figures of speech in which ulterior motives were ‘clothed.’ …The imagery is itself evidence of powerful subjective motivations, fully as ‘real’ as the objective, fully as effective, as we see repeatedly in the history of Puritanism, in their historical agency.”…“It’s the sign of how men felt and hoped, loved and hated, and of how they preserved certain values in the very texture of their language” (p.49). He uncovers workers’ voices by engaging the concrete experience of ordinary people. Radicals, journalists, workers, and Owenites all vividly wrote and read, from newspapers to pamphlets, to handbills. That is the reason why small groups or communities could finally become a real class. That is the difference between Thompson and Louis Althusser. Only based on the confidence of “agency,” we can find, as the workers themselves announced: “That the number of our Members be unlimited” (p.21).

  Boyi Chen(Department of History,Wash U)

• 谁能拒绝一个豁达又阳光的直球小可爱呢

  作者：呜哒哒. 发布时间：2021-11-24 09:43:28

  

  可可爱爱的小混血

  六岁的宋煜在一个暴雨的夜晚，迎来了他无法拒绝也不愿摆脱的过敏源——乐知时。这是一个软软糯糯的小团子，因为父母的意外逝世来到了他家，从此宋煜身边多了一个黏人精，更让小小的宋煜知道了责任感。

  是最让人崇拜的哥哥

  在小小的乐知时眼里，成绩优异、冷静的哥哥是最让人崇拜的，能和哥哥在一起，便是最快乐的时候，就像无论遇到什么困难，有哥哥就能迎刃而解。

  “他们不是朋友，我们也不是兄弟。”

  随着时间的增长，宋煜对于乐知时的感情慢慢变的复杂，他开始意识到自己的不同，会因为乐知时的懵懂而患得患失，也会因为乐知时偶尔的直球表达感到快乐；比起懵懵懂懂的乐知时，宋煜属于开窍更快的那一方，但也更因为如此，顾虑会更多。当乐知时看到另外一对副cp的相处感到疑惑时，不知道宋煜当时的内心是如何想的。

  

  宋煜对乐知时是有着很深的责任感的，因为一次喂食乐知时蛋糕，让小时候的乐知时严重过敏险些丧命，这让宋煜意识到了原来对于自己来说美味的蛋糕可能会让弟弟丧命。所以在明白自己对乐知时的感情后，他并没有放任自己的喜欢，而是藏在心底，用哥哥的身份去保护乐知时成长，教会他正确的三观和面对问题时的处理方式。

  最让我印象深刻的是，乐知时因为别人的一句话而打架（以前他从不打架）后，宋煜并没有去责骂乐知时，而是理解他并用自己的方法去引导他、保护他（谁不想要一个这样的哥哥呢，真的安全感十足），也让乐知时明白了事情并不是非黑即白，

  现实生活里鲜少存在无往不胜的主角，也很难见到十恶不赦的反派，他们都是别扭的小孩，会因为冲动做出并非本意的事，有的可以一笑而过，有的或许越陷越深，最后被各种情绪裹挟着偏离最初。

  谁能拒绝一个豁达又阳光的直球小可爱呢

  如果说宋煜是一个优秀的哥哥，那乐知时真的是一个直球小可爱，直白的可爱，也软萌的可爱，也许是因为从小失去父母的原因，所以他有着自己的一套处世观，懂得珍惜身边的朋友、家人，对很多事情有着别样的豁达，而且是一个善良却不圣母的可爱宝宝。

  整体来说这是一个很温馨治愈的故事，作者稚楚用美好的文笔描述出了两人缠绕不止的生命线，乐知时让宋煜成长，而宋煜带领着乐知时成长，两个人都是彼此生命里的过敏源，是彼此骤雨过后的彩虹。