2023年秋 实验班提优训练+大考卷 语文人教数学北师大英语PEP人教六年级上册 全套6册 pdf mobi txt 2024 电子版 下载

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：2023年秋 实验班提优训练+大考卷 语文人教数学北师大英语PEP人教六年级上册 全套6册在线阅读

在线听书地址：2023年秋 实验班提优训练+大考卷 语文人教数学北师大英语PEP人教六年级上册 全套6册在线收听

在线购买地址：2023年秋 实验班提优训练+大考卷 语文人教数学北师大英语PEP人教六年级上册 全套6册在线购买

暂无原文赏析，正在全力查找中！

暂无其它内容！

• 作者：小空 发布时间：2011-11-22 13:14:58

  字密密麻麻，如果不是考試實在懶得讀。

• 作者：月舞于星渊 发布时间：2012-05-14 18:17:58

  虽然是精装本的，但和那本平装本的没有任何区别。注释太简单了，好在有译文，但是没有图，印刷质量特别好。中华书局在古籍出版上还是比较靠谱的。

• 作者：浊克斯 发布时间：2015-10-01 22:26:47

  有人介绍，但不喜这种湾湾某三某的风格

• 作者：toto 发布时间：2010-12-05 00:11:23

  奋斗。

• 作者：妙伴Bella 发布时间：2022-09-24 00:30:18

  适合入门的教科书。结合剧集电影案例，便于理解。

• 作者：爸爸 发布时间：2023-01-17 22:43:29

  我错了~分型图画得太可爱必须加分，药物机制的部份还参了历史，非常好玩儿~推荐《The Bipolar Disorder Survival Guide》，某些作用机制在生酮、运动之类的书上都有提，也可以看看

• 转载一篇国外学者的书评的书评

  作者：benshuier 发布时间：2011-04-23 23:15:28

  原文网址

  http://www.froginawell.net/china/2006/04/review-of-timothy-brooks-collaboration/

  我没得到作者授权就私自拿来了...如果要引用的话请多加注意

  Review of Timothy Brook’s Collaboration

  Filed under: Books China-Japan English War— K. M. Lawson @ 7:33 pm Print

  In the most recent issue of The Journal of Asian Studies there is a review of Timothy Brook‘s new work Collaboration: Japanese Agents and Local Elites in Wartime China written by Susan Glosser. I was very disappointed with this review which, except for a few conciliatory lines in the beginning of the review, was very critical of Brook’s work. While I agree with Glosser on one or two points, I found her to be far too harsh, sometimes irrelevant (she complains that he does not offer a glossary with the Chinese names of all the organizations mentioned, but they can be found under the index entry for every organization) and in several instances clearly wrong in her assessment of the book, which I believe is a truly excellent contribution to the scholarship on Chinese collaboration during the occupation.

  Timothy Brook’s work is a careful look at the issues surrounding Chinese wartime collaboration through a close examination of a number of case studies from the Yangtze delta. With the exception of some work I have read in Japanese and some coming out of Taiwan, this is the most detailed source based research I have seen of this kind to date.

  Here I just want to contest three points in Glosser’s critique of Brook’s work that I think particularly unfair. She argues that 1) Brook doesn’t discuss the “problem of generalizing from one city to another.” 2) She complains about Brook’s allegedly unproblematized use of the word “pacification” (such as in referring to Japan’s “pacification teams.”) 3) Glosser spends almost a third of the review critiquing Brook’s “desire to avoid moral judgments” and his allegedly “neutral stance” on issue of Chinese collaboration.

  On the first count, Glosser is certainly correct in worrying about the generalization involved, but I think Brook is also well aware of the dangers and admirably avoids them in many places more adventurous scholars would not. He has already focused his study on only one area of occupied China, the Yangtze delta, and laments, in some detail, the paucity of available sources. He goes into considerable length to describe his sources and the various problems which accompany them in his opening chapter, even showing specific examples of the kinds of contradictions present and strategies he used. He works with Japanese sources (writings of the pacification team members), Chinese sources (such as memoirs), and Western sources (witnesses in Nanjing, for example) depending on their availability.

  I am more than satisfied by his explanation that, “I chose seven cities and counties across the Yangtze Delta for intensive study. This selection was not based on whether the sites were typical or unique (some would prove to be one, some the other, and some both), but only on whether the documentation was sufficiently dense to allow for a more than superficial portrait of what local people did in the face of military occupation…After the case studies were written, I chose to include in the book five that were sufficiently distinct in terms of the themes that the sources allowed me to explore…”1 and did not find any of his major claims to be based solely on individual findings in any one city or place. On the contrary, I imagine the accusation of generalization would be particularly offensive to Brook since he has urged the reader to try to overcome some of the stereotypes and classic images we have of the wartime collaborators and allow for the many different forms and levels of cooperation with the occupying forces, their varying motivations, costs, and ultimately levels of moral responsibility.

  Glosser for some reason takes issue with the fact that Brook uses the term “pacification teams” which is a direct translation of the Japanese term. She seems so concerned that we maintain a sufficiently condemnatory tone in our work on Japan’s activities in occupied China that this direct translation doesn’t seem to be sufficiently insidious. I find no issue with the fact that he calls these teams by the best English translation available (“pacification” is originally 宣撫, which in one of its two related definitions in Japanese specifically means to pacify a people in an occupied territory), especially since he does not, by this, ever try to hide the fact that the Japanese were guilty of horrible atrocities.

  She says that he uses the word “pacification” for “his own description of events (p. 134)” but I can’t find any use of that word on the page, for any purpose. Instead, page 134 makes use of another term which we are all familiar with, when he discusses Japanese “counterinsurgency operations” in Nanjing. It is on the same page where he notes Japanese military promises to offer “care for disarmed Chinese soldiers” even as they carried out a policy of executing captured soldiers in Nanjing and, at the bottom of that page tells of the summary execution of fifty policemen which had just been promised permission to operate after negotiations with Nanjing’s International Committee.

  Finally, Glosser seems to think that Brook has a “neutral stance” with respect to collaboration and wants to “avoid moral judgments.” I’m afraid this kind of comment shows that she has completely misread Brook’s careful argument. Perhaps she missed Brook’s simple request in his introduction that, “All I ask of the reader is to suspend judgment as to who is guilty for having worked with the Japanese until after we have seen them at work.”2 Brook wants to point out that the costs and consequences of collaboration, its form, and the motivations are all very much tied up in the contingencies of specific situations. Also, he reminds us that, “Ambiguity of intention is only half the problem. There is also the ambiguity of unknowable consequences.”3 He is “neutral” to collaboration in one important respect: the word “collaboration” is already a morally loaded word, and I think he would argue that without some special care, this can get in the way of any interesting and productive look at the interactions between Chinese and Japanese during the war.

  I think Glosser fundamentally misunderstands Brook when she protests his claim that “history does not fashion moral subjects, nor produce moral knowledge.” I completely agree with her when she says that, “All histories [are] embedded in an ethical view of the world.”4 However, I’m not sure how Brook is to be understood as denying this. Brook admits how his own “ethical view of the world” has affected his description of some of the historical figures he describes in the book. On the very same page as his comment about moral knowledge, he has this to say, “Without question, many of [the choices of collaborators] were venal in inspiration and destructive in impact, and the historian is not disqualified from documenting that venality or tracking the damage these choices led to and declaring them to be damaging. I have found it impossible to suspend my personal distaste for some of the characters who appear in this book, and it would be facetious to suggest that the reader should, particularly when the consequences of collaboration were as stark as they were in a place like Nanjing.” I think what Brook, who it might be noted collected and edited the important Documents on the Rape of Nanking (1999), wants to argue for is a more careful consideration of some of the “inconvenient facts” that produce a more complex picture – a complexity that we must face if we are to have any chance at understanding the kinds of choices faced by individuals every day in extreme times. It is because of some of these ambiguities that we cannot “deduce the causes that prompted people to act from the moral claims we impose, nor evaluate their actions solely in relation to consequences the actors could not anticipate.”5 This is as true for collaborators with the Japanese occupation regime as it is with anyone who collaborated with Chinese Communist regime in its most violent hour, and as it is for the daily choices of policemen, soldiers and government officials of an occupied Iraq today. An analytic calculus of atrocity and the clarity of hindsight does not help us in the least in understanding the people thrust into extreme positions during times such as war, occupation, imperial domination, or under highly repressive governments — or for that matter the choices they faced.

  1. Timothy Brook Collaboration: Japanese Agents and Local Elites in Wartime China (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005), 26-27.

  2. ibid. 13.

  3. ibid. 241.

  4. Susan Glossar review of Brook’s book in Journal of Asian Studies vol. 65 no. 1, 149

• 事关少年情绪

  作者：饭思葱 发布时间：2006-03-22 14:05:58

  我还记得在高中时代的某个晚上，熄了灯，大家都躺在床上，听宿舍里的一个女孩子讲自己的事。她那段现在看来稚嫩的，令人痛苦的恋情，她认真的背诵了《简·爱》里面的一段：“你以为，因为我穷、低微、不美、矮小，我就没有灵魂没有心么？你想错了！——我的灵魂跟你的一样，我的心也跟你的完全一样！要是上帝赐予我一点美和一点财富，我就要让你感到难以离开我，就像我现在难以离开你一样。我现在跟你说话，并不是通过习俗、惯例，甚至不是通过凡人的肉体，——而是我的精神在同你的精神谈话；就像两个都经过了坟墓，我们站在上帝脚跟前是平等的，——因为我们是平等的！”现在想来，这段话无论与她当时的情况多么不相称、乃至虚张声势，她之后又怎样与生活妥协而放弃挣扎，《简·爱》这本书在这个女孩子经历感情困扰时的意义总是不容抹煞的。

  显然这不是一本讲爱情的书，虽然时常被拿来当作爱情教育的启蒙读物使用。讲授《外国文学》的潘一禾先生曾经笑言这是一本女孩必读书，因为它记录了一个女孩的成长，必须学会的选择，和坚强。当然，现下我这个年纪读起来，与十四五岁的人读又是不同的感受。书中最触动我的部分是简爱叙述的幼年：一个敏感，倔强又带有一些独立意识的女孩子，在成熟之前，总会遇到种种难以想象的苦恼和困扰。那种困扰并非如今畅销书写手们捏造出的虚张声势的苦难，而是一种隐隐约约的酸涩，永远也不够美丽的困扰，不屑身边的人，却又为得不到他们的认同而耿耿于怀。年纪过去，这些隐约的苦涩就被有意无意的遗忘掉。再没有人去回忆，去写一个女孩在成年之前心灵的蜕变。没有人会回忆年少时身边那个仅仅因为美丽而得到一切宠爱的“敌人”，那些自我加冕的虚无缥缈的优越感，那些为得到别人认同所做出的努力和失望，或者是一双不合时宜的高跟鞋。这也是一个女孩的成长必经历程，正如同爱情的洗礼。现在想来，如果那个时候读过这本书，起码可以明白这一点，而不至于那样手足无措而卑微的度过了那段年纪。

  至于书里的爱情，不好评论。潘先生曾经说，“有这么一个人，冥冥之中，你听见了他的声音，人海里你看见那双眼睛，你知道你的话只有他能听懂……”说的相当煽情而蛊惑。“以我当时的年纪，对此深信不疑。”如果现在潘先生再开一次这门课，她再讲这篇文章的时候，我一定会站起来告诉她，不是这样的，后来，我听见很多声音，看见很多眼睛，发现能听懂我的话的人绝不止一个……

  所以，一本书的意义永远在于唤醒一些尘封的过往，对曾经难以面对的困扰的释然，而不是先知性的指导读者去做一些什么事情。每个人的价值观总有微小的差别，而经历毕竟不能面面俱到，强加的观念一旦变成行为，结果就难以预料。以前常常听说一句话，诸如某本书改变了谁的一生。窃以为，这并不算是一件好事。