题干

阅读下列材料:

统一,是中国历史的主流。结束国家分裂,实现国家统一,是中华民族的根本利益所在,是中华民族为之奋斗、为之讴歌的伟大事业。阅读下列材料,回答问题:

材料一:中国作为一个多民族的统一的大国,……在世界历史中,特别是与其他古国相比,是一个十分罕见的现象。这其中有地理的、经济的、思想文化的等多方面原因。除此之外,中国几千年来的政治制度,也是这个多民族的千年古国得以始终维持统一的重要原因。

——张岂之《中国历史十五讲》

材料二:“苍天苍天泪如雨,倭人竟割台湾去。”台湾同胞怀着悲愤的心情奔走相告,“哭声达于四野”。

材料三:列强的步步紧逼使曾经统一富强的中国山河破碎,不甘的不仅仅是台湾民众,三元里抗英、左宗棠收复新疆、义和团运动……我们看到了中华儿女的英勇、血性,然而反动卖国的清政府却签订了这样的条约内容“严禁中国人参加反帝斗争……拆除北京至大沽口沿线炮台……”

材料四:“起来,不愿做奴隶的人们,用我们的血肉筑成我们新的长城,中华民族到了最危险的时候,……我们万众一心,冒着敌人的炮火,前进、前进、前进进!”

——《义勇军进行曲》

上一题 下一题 0.0难度 选择题 更新时间:2016-01-20 05:47:57

答案(点此获取答案解析)

同类题5

阅读理解

    Only two countries in the advanced world provide no guarantee for paid leave from work to care for a newborn child. Last spring one of the two, Australia, gave up the bad distinction by setting up paid family leave starting in 2011. I wasn't surprised when this didn't make the news here in the United States — we're now the only wealthy country without such a policy.

    The United States does have one explicit family policy, the Family and Medical Leave Act, passed in 1993. It entitles workers to as much as 12 weeks' unpaid leave for care of a newborn or dealing with a family medical problem. Despite the modesty of the benefit, the Chamber of Commerce and other business groups fought it bitterly, describing it as “government-run personnel management” and a “dangerous precedent (先例).” In fact, every step of the way, as (usually) Democratic leaders have tried to introduce work-family balance measures into the law, business groups have been strongly opposed.

    As Yale law professor Anne Alstott argues, justifying parental support depends on defining(定义) the family as a social good that, in some sense, society must pay for. Parents are burdened in many ways in their lives: there is “no exit” when it comes to children. Society expects — and needs — parents to provide their children with continuity of care. And society expects — and needs — parents to persist in their roles for 18 years, or longer if needed.

    While most parents do this out of love, there are public punishments for not providing care. What parents do, in other words, is of deep concern to the state, for the obvious reason that caring for children is not only morally urgent but important to the future of society. To classify parenting as a personal choice for which there is no collective responsibility is not merely to ignore the social benefits of good parenting; really, it is to steal those benefits because they accrue (累积) to the whole of society as today's children become tomorrow's citizens. In fact, by some estimates, the value of parental investments in children, investments of time and money, is equal to 20-30% of GDP. If these investments bring huge social benefits — as they clearly do — the benefits of providing more social support for the family should be that much clearer.