Middle- and Upper-Middle-Class Parent Action for Urban Public Schools_ Promise or Paradox_
Middle- and Upper-Middle-Class Parent Action for Urban Public Schools: Promise or Paradox?
LINN POSEY
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Background/Context:Recent trends suggest that middle-class parents may be a growing con-stituency in urban public schools and districts. Within the burgeoning literature on the mid-dle class in urban public schools, most scholars have focused on parents’ goals and orientations and/or the consequences of parental involvement in classroom and school set-tings. This article broadens the literature’s scope through a focus on middle- and upper-mid-dle-class parents’ “out-of-school,” neighborhood-based engagement. Examining the place-based organizing of a middle- and upper-middle-class neighborhood parents’ group, this article highlights the significant influence that parents’ work outside classrooms and PTA meetings can have on a local school.
Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study:The study examines the ways in which middle- and upper-middle-class parent group investments in urban public schooling may mitigate and/or exacerbate existing patterns of inequality in public education. Specifically, the research focuses on the efforts of a predominantly White neighborhood par-ent group in a Northern California city to increase neighborhood support for and enrollment in their predominantly African American, Title I local public school.
Research Design:An ethnographic case study research design was utilized, with data obtained from the following sources: participant observation in school and neighborhood meetings and events; semi-structured interviews with parents, teachers, staff, and commu-nity members; a prospective parent survey; and school and neighborhood parent group arti-facts.
Findings/Results:The data reveal that neighborhood parent group members catalyzed com-munity support for their local public school, attracting other middle- and upper-middle-class parents. The community support that the members engendered, however, ultimately threat-ened the diversity that many desired in a school for their child and contributed to patterns of inequality in district enrollment linked to race, class, and residence.
Teachers College Record Volume 114, 010305, January 2012, 43 pages
Copyright ? by Teachers College, Columbia University
0161-4681
TCR, 114, 010305 Parent Investments
Conclusions/Recommendations:The research findings suggest that middle- and upper-mid-dle-class parents are in many instances key actors in processes of school and neighborhood change. The efforts of middle- and upper-middle-class parents to invest in urban public schools, regardless of their intentions, may ultimately exacerbate race and class inequalities in public education. The study findings highlight the need for future educational research to examine the role that middle-class parent groups play in urban school reform and the equity implications of their actions.
Middle-class parents are a key interest group in many large cities across the country, with strategic partnerships forged between several districts, city officials, and business leaders in an effort to create “mixed-income”and/or largely middle- and upper-middle-class neighborhoods and schools (Cucchiara, 2008; Lipman, 2008; Smith & Stovall, 2008). The assumption behind these efforts is that middle-class parents in city neigh-borhoods and public schools will improve the quality of local schooling as well as help to revitalize city spaces (Kahlenberg, 2001; Varady & Raffel, 1995). A growing body of evidence demonstrates, however, that efforts to increase the enrollment and engagement of middle- and upper-middle-class families in economically-mixed and predominantly low-income public schools often exacerbates rather than counters patterns of inequality in public education. These works suggest that policies and practices framed as benefiting low-income families often end up favoring middle-class students and facilitating new patterns of inequality across city neighborhoods and schools (Cucchiara, 2008; Lipman, 2008; Lipman & Haines, 2007).
Much of the emergent research on the relationship between urban revitalization and school reform is focused on the impact of civic and educational policies designed to attract and retain professionals with chil-dren in city neighborhoods and public schools (Cucchiara, 2008; Lipman, 2008; Lipman & Hursh, 2007). Less is known, however, about the role that middle-class parents themselves play as drivers of neighbor-hood and school change. Studying this issue is timely and relevant, as a number of predominantly middle- and upper-middle-class parent groups across the nation are working to increase parent and community support for urban public schools (Campbell, 2008; Grim, 2006; Jan, 2006; Smith, 2009). Parents in these groups are not only investing their time and money in economically-mixed or predominantly low-income city schools but are also enrolling their children. Through marketing, volunteerism, and place-based social networks, these groups are playing an influential and yet underexamined role in urban education.
This article examines the ways in which middle- and upper-middle-class
Teachers College Record, 114, 010305 (2012)
parent group investments in urban public schooling may mitigate and/or exacerbate existing educational inequalities linked to race, class, and res-idence. The research focuses on the Glenbrook Parents’ Group (GPG), a predominantly White middle- and upper-middle-class neighborhood par-ent group located in a large Northern California city.1The case study examines the group’s efforts to increase neighborhood support for and enrollment in the predominantly African American, working-class local public school. In focusing on the GPG, a group that has inspired the work of other parent groups in this city, the research examines the follow-ing: (a) the historic relationship between middle- and upper-middle-class parents in the neighborhood and their local school, (b) the strategies the GPG used to increase the enrollment of neighborhood families in the school, (c) key factors that shaped middle- and upper-middle-class neigh-borhood parents’ decision-making regarding where to send their child, and (d) the implications of the group’s efforts in relation to issues of enrollment and equity in the local school and district context. Ultimately, the findings outlined in this article suggest that middle-class parents are not simply taking advantage of a restructuring of “the urban” driven by urban and education policy but in many instances are actually key actors in processes of school and neighborhood change.
RESEARCH BACKGROUND
Over the last two decades, numerous studies have documented a positive link between parent involvement in school and children’s developmental and educational outcomes (Eccles & Harold, 1993; Epstein & Dauber, 1991; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995; Muller & Kerbow, 1993; Sui-Chu & Willms, 1996). Proponents of mixed-income or majority middle-class schools assert that middle-class parents, in particular, are important com-ponents of urban school reform given their resources and potential to support schools through their involvement. Studies have suggested, for example, that middle-class parents are more likely to be involved, and involved in different ways, than working-class and poor families (Davies, 1993; Dornbusch & Wood, 1989; McGrath & Kuriloff, 1999; Muller, 1993; Lareau, 2000, 2003). Middle-class parents have the potential to boost PTA budgets, volunteer hours to the school, and utilize their political and social capital to garner critical resources for schools (Kahlenberg, 2001; Varady & Raffel, 1995). The disproportionately low enrollment of White students, in particular, in urban schools has been a concern for propo-nents of racial desegregation policies given research showing that schools with a majority of students of color tend to also be high-poverty schools, and high-poverty schools tend to have fewer qualified teachers, fewer
TCR, 114, 010305 Parent Investments
material resources, and lower levels of academic achievement (Orfield & Lee, 2005).
Yet in contrast to dominant demographic patterns in housing and school choice, new research points to a growing number of young profes-sionals in central city areas who seek to maintain an “urban” lifestyle while raising a family (Butler, 2003; Butler & Robson, 2003; Cucchiara, 2008; Hankins, 2007; Karsten, 2003; Reay et al., 2007, 2008). Similarly, recent trends suggest that growing economic pressures are compelling a greater number of parents to consider their local public schools (Jan, 2006; Rogers, 2009; Smith, 2009). These parents, referred to by Karsten (2003) as “yupps” (young urban professional parents), are seen by many local leaders and policymakers as critical components in the quest to cre-ate healthy neighborhoods and quality schools in central city areas. As Richard Kahlenberg (2001), a leading advocate for economic integra-tion, argues:
Educated middle-class parents are more likely to be involved in
their children’s schools, to insist on high standards, to rid the
school of bad teachers, and to ensure adequate resources (both
public and private)—in effect to promote effective schools for
their children. (p. 62)
Similarly, the use of neighborhood services, institutions, and spaces by middle-class parents is viewed by mixed-income advocates as having potential for greater racial and socioeconomic integration and resource-sharing in neighborhoods, as child-related services (e.g., playgrounds, libraries) can serve as a hub for greater social connections among resi-dents of varying backgrounds.
The growing literature on middle-class families in urban neighbor-hoods and schools, however, has illuminated the ways in which the move-ment of the middle- and upper-middle-class into central city areas may not automatically mean improvements in the quality of life for low-income and working-class students and their families. Studies have demonstrated that middle-class residents simply living next to poor and working-class residents does not automatically mean that the middle class will develop social relationships with the other residents, or be willing to contribute resources outside that which directly benefits their own fam-ily. Research has shown that middle-class parents with children in central cities maintain segregated social networks despite the parents’ spatial proximity to those of other race and class backgrounds (Butler & Robson, 2003; Hankins, 2007; Karsten, 2003; Reay et al., 2008; Sieber, 1982). These studies, examining almost all White middle-class parents,
Teachers College Record, 114, 010305 (2012)
point out that although these parents are choosing to reside in central cities rather than flee to the suburbs, the families’ relationships are almost entirely with families of similar educational, class, and race back-grounds. They are forming “essentially White settlements in the inner city” (Butler & Robson, 2003) and choosing “circuits of schooling” (Ball, Bowe, & Gerwirtz, 1995) that reproduce patterns of exclusivity despite stated desires for diversity.
Within the emergent literature on middle-class parents in urban neigh-borhoods and schools, several studies have focused on the consequences of middle-class parental engagement in economically integrated or pre-dominantly low-income city public schools (Cucchiara, 2008; Cucchiara & Horvat, 2009; Sieber, 1982). Most middle-class parents in these studies pursued self-interested and individualistic strategies of engagement that ultimately did little to counter race and class inequalities in local school and district contexts. Although the enrollment and involvement of mid-dle-class parents brought increased resources to schools serving high numbers of low-income students, in most cases these resources came with significant costs to equity and inclusion. In a comparative case study analysis of middle-class parental engagement in two urban elementary schools, for example, Cucchiara and Horvat found that “middle-class par-ents’ efforts can contribute to increasing inequality in the very same schools their actions sometimes benefit” (2009, p. 25).
Complicating conceptions of middle-class parental involvement that are either uncritically optimistic or too narrowly focused on the behavior of individuals, Cucchiara and Horvat (2009) found that the extent to which parents’ involvement benefited all students at a school was medi-ated by parents’ goals and perspectives and the broader social context. The authors found that parent involvement could best be characterized in the two schools studied as taking on either an individualistic or collec-tive approach. In contrast to the findings of most studies of middle-class parental involvement, parents in one school took on a collective approach to engagement characterized by commitments to diversity, social justice, and the benefit of all children at the school. This collective approach, the authors argued, is more sustainable over time and has greater potential to benefit all children at a school rather than simply those of the middle and upper-middle class.
Drawing from Bourdieuan conceptions of social class and social and cultural capital in education (Bourdieu, 1986; Lareau, 2000, 2003; Lareau & Horvat, 1999), this study makes two central contributions to the limited but growing work on middle-class parental engagement in
TCR, 114, 010305 Parent Investments
urban public schools. First, this study complicates the existing literature by showing that even parents with a collective orientation and desire for diversity may play a role in processes of exclusion based upon the broader policy context within which the parents are operating. Although previous studies acknowledge the influence of broader social contexts on parents’ actions, there is little analysis of the ways in which middle-class parental engagement shapes and is shaped by district enrollment policies and processes of neighborhood change. This study thus contributes to the existing literature by illuminating the ways in which middle-class parental engagement relates to school enrollment trends and demo-graphic changes occurring in schools and surrounding neighborhoods. Second, the research presented herein broadens the literature’s scope through its focus on middle- and upper-middle-class parents’ “out-of-school,” neighborhood-based engagement. Examining the place-based organizing of a middle- and upper-middle-class neighborhood parents’group, this article highlights the significant influence that parents’ work outside classrooms and PTA meetings can have on a local school.
SIGNIFICANCE OF RESEARCH
Studying middle-class parental engagement in urban public schooling is timely, as a number of local and national groups of middle- and upper-middle-class parents have emerged in the last decade seeking to invest in public education in many central city areas.2Recent trends suggest that as more families face economic instability, greater interest in the local public schools may be garnered (Jan, 2006; Rogers, 2009; Smith, 2009). In addition to economic forces that serve as a push factor, many of these parents are drawn by social and cultural attributes of urban settings, including a more diverse population.
Yet little is known about the goals, strategies, and impact of these mid-dle- and upper-middle-class parent groups. What role do these groups play in the disruption and/or reproduction of inequalities linked to race, class, and residence in education? Whether intentionally or not, the efforts of middle- and upper-middle-class parent groups to support and improve urban public schools may work against the diversity that many of these groups cite as a school asset. This is the potential paradox: by s upporting and investing in urban public schools, these parent groups, particularly those connected to specific neighborhoods, may ultimately serve as catalysts of gentrification and greater exclusion in urban public schooling.
Teachers College Record, 114, 010305 (2012)
TCR, 114, 010305 Parent Investments
Teachers College Record, 114, 010305 (2012)
TCR, 114, 010305 Parent Investments
with teachers and school staff in informal settings such as parent volun-teer days and in more formal settings such as parent-teacher organization meetings and events for prospective parents. In observations for this por-tion of the larger research project, I paid specific attention to parents’efforts to support and/or improve the school through social networks and participation in neighborhood and school-based parent groups. In a typical 1–2 hour observation period, I recorded field notes by hand in a small notebook, using quotation marks when applicable to differentiate between my summary of what was talked about and the verbatim state-ments of participants. I expanded upon the field notes and typed them up later in the day or evening after leaving the research site. Throughout the period of research, I collected relevant documents and artifacts such as school brochures, meeting notes and agendas, and parent postings about the school on the neighborhood parent group and parent-teacher organization electronic mailing lists (listservs). School and district statis-tics as well as neighborhood and city-level census data were also included in the study to assess the demographic changes over time.
DATA ANALYSIS
Data analysis began in the data collection stage of the research and was ongoing throughout the project. I coded interview transcripts, field notes, and artifacts using a grounded theory strategy, and later recoded them as clear categories emerged (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). As my analy-sis progressed, I moved from descriptive to analytical categories (Miles & Huberman, 1994), coding for emic concepts and categories (e.g., a criti-cal mass of parents) as well as those concepts that derived from my theo-retical framework (e.g., social and cultural capital). I coded secondary data sources such as listserv postings and school documents by hand, whereas I coded interviews and field notes using qualitative data software (Hyperresearch). I compiled and tabulate prospective survey results by hand, and responses were not disaggregated given the small sample size (n= 29) and relative racial and socioeconomic homogeneity of the sur-vey population.
To address issues of validity, I recorded and transcribed interviews, and typed up handwritten field notes the day they were taken. I used triangu-lation in the interpretation and analysis of the data, making comparisons between multiple sources of data (e.g., interviews, field notes, artifacts/documents) related to the same phenomenon (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1986). In analyzing the data related to GPG strategies for increasing neighborhood student enrollment, for example, I made com-parisons between coded interview transcripts and coded field notes, GPG
Teachers College Record, 114, 010305 (2012)
fliers, and postings on the group’s listserv. Appendix B includes an exam-ple of the transcription and field note coding process.5
The data analysis for this project was informed by other educational ethnographies that highlight the importance of examining the interplay of race and class in the lives of individuals, rather than treating them as distinct and separate variables (Horvat, 2003; Lareau, 2003; Lareau & Horvat, 1999). Drawing from the work of Collins (1991), Horvat argues that there is a need to examine “the both/and nature of race and class,”or “the layered or overlapping effect of these two important variables” in educational research (2003, p. 1). In the study described herein, the small size and relatively homogeneous composition of the GPG sample did not allow for a robust comparison of group members across racial groups. It was thus difficult to completely disentangle the influence of race and class on GPG members’ goals, orientations, and particular forms of engagement. As shown above in Table 3, however, the broader interview sample included a more racially diverse group of middle- and upper-middle-class parents. Although these non-GPG parents do not rep-resent a comparison group per se, data about their preferences, orienta-tions, and actions provided insight into the ways in which race and class intersected in middle- and upper-middle-class parents’ school choices and engagement. The relationship between race and class in the data is further illustrated in the results section. To address threats to analytic and theoretical validity, I regularly conversed with colleagues about my emergent findings, and earlier iterations of my arguments underwent multiple rounds of peer review.
BACKGROUND/CONTEXT
Morningside Elementary School is located in the Northern California city of Woodbury, a large urban area with a population that has become increasingly racially and ethnically diverse over the past two decades. Woodbury Unified School District, of which Morningside is a part, is a large K–12 district composed of more than 60 different elementary schools. The district is informally bifurcated into eastern and western schools, with schools located in the more affluent and predominantly White western part of the city generally having larger PTA budgets, higher test scores, and greater material resources than those in the east-ern half. With a few exceptions, those elementary schools in the east with a majority of low-income students of color are challenged with issues such as teacher and administrative turnover, limited resources for enrichment programs and curricular offerings such as art and music, and school buildings in need of repair. In contrast, those schools in the affluent and
TCR, 114, 010305 Parent Investments
predominantly White western neighborhoods of the city have less teacher turnover and limited student mobility. In large part due to the schools’sizeable PTA budgets, these schools are able to provide students with a range of enrichment programs and activities and have upgraded physical plants with modern equipment. Whereas many schools in the west face a high demand for enrollment from parents inside and outside the neigh-borhood, many schools in the east have been reconstituted or threatened with closure in the last few years due to low test scores and low enroll-ment.
During the time of the study, the district had an open enrollment stu-dent assignment policy, where elementary school parents were encour-aged to learn about the various schools in the district and then list schools for their child in order of preference. Similar to most enrollment policies of its kind, the idea behind the program is to provide parents with the opportunity to select from a range of schools rather than simply those in their immediate neighborhood. In Woodbury Unified, those families living in a school’s neighborhood zone, however, end up getting preference in enrollment. In light of this, it is common for parents who can afford to do so to purposely move into the western school zones so that their child is assured a spot in the parents’ preferred district school. Those parents who live out of zone, who do not already have older chil-dren at a particular school, and who cannot afford to move into a west-ern neighborhood with a high-performing public school thus have limited options within the enrollment system.
Morningside Elementary is geographically and demographically situ-ated on the border between the distinct educational landscapes of east and west. The school draws from two neighborhoods separated by a major thoroughfare, with slightly different demographics. The Glenbrook neighborhood, in which the school is physically located, com-prises the western part of the student catchment area. White homeown-ers make up the majority of neighborhood residents, with slightly higher numbers of Asians and lower numbers of Latinos and African Americans compared to the eastern part of the zone.
Across a major thoroughfare from the school lies the eastern part of the school zone, where African Americans and Whites constitute the largest racial groups. Although the neighborhood would qualify as solidly middle class given the rates of home ownership and household income, home values and the median household income are lower when com-pared to the western part of the zone. In both the eastern and western parts of the student catchment area, the number of African American res-idents has declined over the last three decades, reflecting an overall trend occurring in the city of Woodbury. As area homeowners pass away
Teachers College Record, 114, 010305 (2012)
TCR, 114, 010305 Parent Investments
experienced administrative and staff turnover in the past, by the early 2000s there was a stable and strong administrative presence at the school, a cadre of veteran teachers, and a small but active parent-teacher organi-zation.
THE GLENBROOK PARENTS’ GROUP
As mothers of young toddlers and middle-class individuals committed to public education, the founding members of the Glenbrook Parents’Group were concerned about the social and demographic disconnect that existed between their neighborhood and their local public school in the early 2000s. Specifically, they were concerned that many middle- and upper-middle-class residents with school-age children in the neighbor-hood sent them to private schools or other public schools, or moved out of the Glenbrook neighborhood entirely. At the time, Morningside Elementary faced annual enrollment challenges due to the lack of neigh-borhood student enrollment.
To strengthen neighborhood parents’ connection to the school, the GPG founders engaged in door-to-door leafleting in the neighborhood and spoke with parents in local parks and other neighborhood settings. As a result of their efforts, more than 50 parents showed up at the first meeting organized by the group’s founders. That initial meeting was the start of a grassroots campaign led by a small group of middle- and upper-middle-class parents in the neighborhood to increase community sup-port for Morningside as well as foster a greater sense of community in Woodbury’s Glenbrook neighborhood. In addition to these explicit group goals, individual parents sought to explore the possibility of send-ing their children to Morningside, a local public school that had been historically undersubscribed by neighborhood families.
Through the group’s activities and outreach, the GPG helped to put Morningside on the radar of families in the neighborhood as well those residing in other parts of the city. In large part due to the efforts of the GPG, the number of neighborhood families enrolled at Morningside has increased greatly since the early 2000s. By 2006, for example, there was such an interest in the school from neighborhood families that non-neighborhood students without siblings already enrolled would not have been able to enroll their child if the principal had not created a third kindergarten class.
By 2006, a greater number of parents from the surrounding middle-and upper-middle-class neighborhood were making investments in their local public school: rather than fleeing to private schools or the suburbs, many are enrolling their children at Morningside and investing their
Teachers College Record, 114, 010305 (2012)
time and money to promote the school’s success. Highlighted in several newspaper articles for the group’s work, the GPG was at the forefront of what one local newspaper called “a grassroots movement” of middle-class parents in the city. Indeed, several parents in other neighborhoods of the city turned to GPG leaders for advice and lessons learned when seeking to organize their own neighborhood groups.
Whereas much of the work of the GPG was focused on increasing the enrollment of the middle- and upper-middle-class families residing in Morningside’s immediate neighborhood, African American (and small numbers of White) parents from a range of class backgrounds residing in the school’s enrollment zone or just outside it had strong historical con-nections to the school. Some of these parents were alumni themselves, or had older children or family members who had attended the school at some time. The school had a reputation among many African American parents (and a small group of White parents) in the district for being a quality school long before its recent popularity. Parents living outside the student catchment area were easily able to enroll their children in the small public school. However, as the African American population began to decline in the city and broader region, and as greater numbers of par-ents from the predominantly White and middle-class neighborhood sur-rounding the school sought to enroll their children, the demographics and the accessibility of the school began to shift.
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Three key factors shaped the school choice decision-making of GPG par-ents who had other potential schooling options for their child: (a) par-ents’ perceptions of Morningside and of the broader district; (b) the desire for a critical mass of like-minded, socially responsible parents; and (c) the recommendations, enrollment decisions, and outreach efforts of other middle- and upper-middle-class parents. Each factor is outlined in detail in the following section. The strategies that GPG members used to increase neighborhood support for and student enrollment in their local public school are also discussed.
CLASS, RACE, AND PERCEPTIONS OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS
As stated earlier, the demographics of Morningside’s student population before the GPG’s founding in the early 2000s did not match the demo-graphics of the predominantly White middle- and upper-middle-class neighborhood that surrounded the school. Many parents chose to move out, transfer to another public school, or enroll their child in a private
TCR, 114, 010305 Parent Investments
school once their child was of school age. As one local Realtor stated, the neighborhood “had a revolving door for young couples . . . they’d be sell-ing their house and moving out because they would not be putting their kids in the public schools in Woodbury.” The data suggest, however, that this migration away from Morningside Elementary and other Woodbury public schools was in large part tied to race, class, and residence. In con-trast to many middle- and upper-middle-class families in the Glenbrook neighborhood, parents residing in the less affluent areas to the east of the school zone and in other areas of the city actually sought out Morningside as a promising alternative to their own low-performing neighborhood schools. For example, Cheryl, an African American mother who lived just a few blocks east of the school’s catchment area, described her elation upon learning that her child was able to enroll in Morningside. As she stated, “The universe was kind to us.” Whereas few Glenbrook middle- and upper-middle-class parents considered Morningside an option in the late ’90s and early 2000s, parents like Cheryl who could not afford to move or pay private school tuition, and/or parents who were alumni or had family members who went to the school, saw Morningside as a positive option compared to many other schools in the district.
Studies of race and school choice have shown that although parents of all races express support for racially and socioeconomically mixed schools, White middle- and upper-income parents tend to choose schools that are wealthier and Whiter (Holme, 2002; Saporito, 2003; Saporito & Lareau, 1999). Race, in particular, plays a salient role in school choice, as studies have indicated that White families tend to avoid schools with higher percentages of non-White students even when these schools have substantial numbers of affluent, academically successful students (Saporito, 2003; Saporito & Lareau 1999). In a study comparing the school choices of White and Black parents, for example, Saporito and Lareau (1999) found that White parents eliminated Black schools from consideration even when these schools had higher test scores and safety records and lower rates of poverty than White schools. African American parents, in contrast, did not have the same sensitivity to the racial com-position of the student body and tended to select schools with lower poverty rates.
The findings in this study suggest that the socioeconomic and racial demographics of Morningside’s population played a role in the low enrollment of White middle- and upper-middle-class Glenbrook families. The year the GPG was formed, Morningside was a predominantly African American school that qualified for Title I funds based upon the number of students enrolled in the free/reduced lunch program. The percentage
Teachers College Record, 114, 010305 (2012)
of students qualifying for free/reduced lunch, however, was close to 10% below the district average. Similarly, African American students at Morningside scored higher on state tests compared to most other schools in the district and state with similar racial demographics.7 Yet some parents formed what one long-time White member of the GPG called “drive-by” impressions of the school based on the race of the students on the playground and the school’s physical appearance. When asked why neighborhood parents were not sending their kids to Morningside, she explained:
It was race issues. I mean people would drive by and see that it
was mostly Black kids in the yard, and they made assumptions
about the school. And I have to say that, being fair, it’s not sur-
prising that people did that based partly on the news you read in
the media about public schools, but also about what statistics will
tell you is, you know schools with mostly African American pop-
ulations tend to be the low-income schools that tend to have less
qualified teachers. And so they looked at African American kids
in the yard, and they had those assumptions that “oh, they must
not have qualified teachers, et cetera et cetera.” So I think that
was a large part of it.
As this parent suggested, race, class, and school quality were conflated in the minds of many Glenbrook parents, as a school with a predomi-nantly African American population was associated with poverty, which in turn was connected to a less-rigorous academic program. This conflation was in large part influenced by national trends, however, as most predom-inantly African American schools tend to have higher rates of poverty, lower test scores, and less qualified teachers than racially diverse or pre-dominantly White schools (Orfield & Lee, 2005). Based on this broader context, and coupled with negative portrayals of the district in the local media, the likelihood that neighborhood parents with other options and no social connections to the school would move beyond their “drive-by impressions” of Morningside was slim. Many middle- and upper-middle-class neighborhood parents saw a majority of Black students and, as another GPG parent said, saw “weeds growing out of the asphalt,” and assumed that their child would not be challenged academically at Morningside.
In addition to the conflation of race, class, and school quality, several White neighborhood parents described in interviews the misgivings they had about Morningside’s social climate and student body. For Christina Johnson, a White upper-middle-class parent who lived a short walk from
TCR, 114, 010305 Parent Investments
the school and had attended several GPG functions, race played a role in her decision to send her child to a private school rather than to Morningside. Although she felt that that year’s kindergarten class was “a nice mix” compared to previous years, she was concerned with what she saw as a lack of diversity in the upper grades and the fact that Whites were in the minority:
C: If I had a rough-and-tumble, outgoing kid, then I might put
him in a situation where he was the [racial] minority because I
would feel like he could handle it. But just to be totally frank, I
walk by Morningside . . . and I feel like the way the kids talk to
each other would be totally foreign to him. And it would be
something that, you know, maybe if he was a really adaptable out-
there kid, he would just sort of get in there and figure it out, but
I think he would be very intimidated.
I: By the non-White kids?
C: Yeah, the non-White kids. It’s very different than how we talk
at home, and I think that would be very hard for him. But I mean
I see the changes [in demographics], but I don’t know if they’re
going to continue up the upper grades as well.
Christina Johnson and several other White parents interviewed who ultimately chose other schooling options were concerned that their chil-dren would not be able to adapt to being a racial minority in the school context.
Although other studies have shown that negative peer influences are a concern shared by both African American and White middle-class par-ents when considering public schools (Lareau, 2003; McGhee Hassrick & Schneider, 2009), for Christina Johnson this concern was linked not only to class but also to race. When sharing her concerns about her son fitting in with kids who talk “different than we talk at home,” she spoke specifi-cally about the race of the students rather than their class background. In the interview, she mentioned that she liked the racial mix of students in Morningside’s lower grades but was concerned that parents such as her-self would leave once their children reached the upper grades. Thus, for Christina Johnson, it was not simply about having other middle- and upper-middle-class students at the school, but other White students of sim-ilar backgrounds who would provide her son with a level of familiarity and comfort.
In interviews, parents like Christina Johnson who did not choose to
Teachers College Record, 114, 010305 (2012)
enroll their children at Morningside stated their support for public schooling but felt that Morningside was not a good fit for their individual child. As members of a professional class, they were better able to exer-cise their power of choice and send their children to private schools, and as the interview data suggest, Morningside’s student population played a significant role in the parents’ decision. In addition, as White parents, they were able to find many high-quality schools in the area in which their child would not be a racial minority, whereas middle- and upper-middle-class African American and Latino parents did not have the same range of options. For those African American and Latino parents who had the economic, social, and cultural capital to get their child into a high-performing private, charter, or public school in the city, in most instances their child would be a racial minority in this setting.
Seeking to allay parents’ fears and build a network of parents inter-ested in Morningside, the founders of the GPG brought neighborhood parents with young children together to talk about their local public school. In the initial meeting, held outside the school in a local commu-nity space, a group of White and Asian American neighborhood parents discussed their fears and hopes related to Morningside. Following the meeting, a smaller group of parents from the GPG met with the school district superintendent to get more information about district reforms as well as to discuss their concerns associated with the large urban district. They also met with Morningside’s principal, seeking to learn more about the school as well as identify areas where they could lend their support.
In addition to planning activities aimed at supporting the school directly such as the annual neighborhood Book Drive and fundraiser, the leaders of the GPG organized social activities to build a sense of connec-tion among families with young children in the neighborhood. Age-spe-cific playgroups played a key role in fostering these connections, as parents were able to build friendships with other families who had chil-dren entering kindergarten in the same year. Holiday activities for chil-dren in the local park and monthly neighborhood brunches held at members’ houses were other ways the group worked to foster a sense of community.
The GPG also sought to facilitate greater communication among neighborhood families through the creation of an electronic mailing list (listserv) and discussion forum. Although a small core group of neigh-borhood parents regularly organized and participated in GPG events, many parents stayed connected to the group through the listserv. Parents were able to post or receive information about community events and resources, play groups, and Morningside Elementary. By 2007 the listserv had more than 350 subscribers, including families living outside the
TCR, 114, 010305 Parent Investments
immediate neighborhood but who nevertheless sough to access the infor-mation the electronic mailing list provided. Members of the GPG cited this listserv as a key component of their efforts to increase connections among neighborhood families and build support for Morningside. During the 2006–2007 school year, for example, GPG parents who had children at Morningside often solicited neighborhood support for the school through the listserv. In addition to disseminating information about upcoming school events and volunteer opportunities, parents used the listserv to share “insider information” on topics such as how to best navigate the district enrollment process.
Through social events, children’s playgroups, electronic mailing lists, and discussion forums, the GPG facilitated the development of a web of place-based social connections. These social networks were the means through which parents fostered a greater sense of community within the neighborhood through regular interaction with families similar to their own. In building these networks, GPG parents worked to counter the negative perceptions that many middle-class parents had of their local school while at the same time develop a cadre of parents who could draw from various forms of capital to support and improve Morningside.
In interviews, several teachers and non-GPG parents recounted their initial skepticism of the group and fear that, as one long-time active mem-ber of the parent-teacher organization stated, “the yuppies were going to come in and take over the school.” In particular, they questioned the need for a group that was separate from the Morningside Parent-Teacher Organization (MPTO) that already existed. The founding members of the GPG, however, felt that a separate group was needed for neighbor-hood parents to feel comfortable talking about their educational choices as well as build a sense of community among neighborhood families. As one of the GPG founding members explained:
The neighbors weren’t ready to come to the MPTO meetings
because if you come to the MPTO meetings, then it looks like
“I’m sure I’m going to go to this school.” Or you’re afraid peo-
ple are going to look at you like you’re a hypocrite if—and that’s
one of the things I think we did that was smart too . . . there was
not going to be any casting of blame or there’s no signing on the
dotted line, or if you don’t go to the school you’re a bad guy. So
part of the attitude was trying to be “oh if you don’t go to this
school, then all the more reason why you should be involved in
your neighborhood so you know people.”
Although the GPG was to remain a separate entity, the founding GPG
浅谈世界数学中心的变迁
浅谈世界数学中心的变迁 社体1102 2010160149 周付勤 数学也是一种文化，要想读懂数学，那先让我们了解数学中心的变迁。 一古希腊曾是最早的数学中心。欧几里得的《几何原本》是古代数学的最大成就，他是用公理方法建立起演绎的数学体系的杰出代表。他把逻辑推理引入了数学，使数学理论构成了严密的体系。阿波罗纪奥斯著《圆锥曲线论》8卷，探讨了抛物线、椭圆、双曲线的一般性质，已见利用坐标的端倪，为圆锥曲线的研究奠定了基础。阿基米得在几何学上研究一些形状复杂的面积和体积的计算方法，接近于积分计算的思想。这在科学史上有重大的意义，毕达哥拉斯学派为数论研究奠定了基础。 二中世纪数学中心从希腊转移到中国。秦九韶的《数学九章》在高次方程的数值揭发和一次同余式组的解法方面取得了卓越成就。李冶的《测圆海镜》和《益古演段》采用文字符号代表未知数，借以列方程（即天元术），为代数学向更高阶段的发展准备了条件。杨辉的《详解九章算术》则发展了实用数学，对各种问题提出了简捷算法，朱世杰的《算法启蒙》成为当时的一部很好的算学启教科书，他的《四元玉鉴》对解高次方程组，高次等差级数求和以及高次内插法有精辟论述，令我国古代数学处于世界领先地位，它主要成就就是算术和代数学，没有形成公理化的几何体系。 三、文艺复兴时代，意大利是当之无愧的数学中心。达·芬奇、伽里略等继承和发展了古代希腊科学，分别在力学、天文学和物理学方面奠定了近代科学的基础，意大利又成为当之无愧的数学中心。1563年佛罗伦萨建立了设计院，后成为数学研究中心。意大利塔塔利亚获得了三次方程的代数解法，接着费拉里又获得了四次方程的代数解法。意大利数学家把三角学作为完整独立的数学分支。 四、17世纪英国成为数学中心--微积分发源地之一662年英国成立了皇家学会，对英国的科学研究起到了推动作用，在皇家学会中云集了一大批科学家，有牛顿、虎克、波义耳，有天文学家哈雷和J·布拉德莱，有数学家约翰·活利斯哈克和马克劳林（等，这样，数学中心由意大利转移到英国。 五、18世纪法国数学家取代英国雄踞欧洲之首。法国数学的主要成就首先是进一步发展了数学分析，克来罗（Clsiraut,Alexis-Claude,1713-1765）、欧拉研究曲线和曲面的力学问题和光学。拉格朗日和贝努利兄弟研究力学和天体运行，建立了变分法和常微分方程理论；达朗贝尔、拉普拉斯、拉格朗日研究弦振动、弹性力学和万有引力，建立偏微分方程理论（主要是一阶的）；欧拉、柯西建立了严格的极限理论作为微积分的基础。对流体力学的研究促进了复变函数论的产生；伽罗瓦解高次方程，引进“伽罗瓦群”的概念，揭开了近世代数的序幕。 六、19世纪德国数学的崛起。在欧洲各国自然科学进步的条件下著名的德国古典哲学（黑格尔、康德、费尔巴哈）也发展起来，他们以思辨原则为基础，提出了颇有系统的关于自然界全貌的理论，特别是康德强调在一切自然科学中应用数学的重要性，他把数学和自然科学紧密地联系在一起，这就推动了德国数学的发展，使德国成为世界数学大国。 七、20世纪美国成为数学的大国。数学家维钠与生物学家、工程技术人员合作，于1984年创建了《控制论》新学科。数学家申农在贝尔电话研究所工作时创建了《信息论》新学科，50年代以来，埃·霍夫曼和马霍尔等人研究《组合数学》取得很大进展，并且广泛应用于试验设计、规划理论、网络原理、信息编码等方面。1953年基费等人提出了优选法。1957年贝尔曼创立动态规划理论。1958年美国一个计算机协会小组创立了算法语言，用于电子计算机程序自动化。数学家罗宾逊运用数理逻辑的方法，是无穷小量获得新生，于1960年提出了非标准分析，著有《非标准分析》一书。1965年美国数学家扎的创建了模糊数学新学科。
欧洲中世纪历史简述
欧洲中世纪历史简述 概述 中世纪，传统的概念是指公元476年后至公元1453年止，是从西罗马帝国的覆灭直到文艺复兴时期的开始。在整个欧洲历史发展过程中，中世纪其实是一个较为普通的过渡时期，它是从有罗马帝国统治的古典时代到文艺复兴时期的一个过渡，而整个欧洲历史向来是依靠封建统治的发展作为主线，所以中世纪也可以看作是欧洲封建阶级建立统治地位直到资本主义思想觉醒的一段时期。又因为在圣经中曾把这一时期指做过世界的末日，因此一些神学论者也把这一段特殊时期的历史称作“中世纪黑暗时代”。而在文艺复兴时期，随着科学文化的进步，一些人文主义学者也把这一时期称作“黑暗时期”。例如文艺复兴时期的学者彼特拉克把当时的欧洲历史分为两个时期，一是古罗马与古希腊时期，二是黑暗时期，即中世纪。因为人文主义者相信古罗马帝国终有一天会卷土重来，复苏早期纯洁的古典时代，因此这种称为在笔者看来也带有一定的主观色彩。 历史 自西罗马帝国被日耳曼人攻破以后，欧洲大陆上兴起了很多新兴的蛮族王国，例如：法兰克，盎格鲁萨克逊等。他们总体上都是日耳曼人的分支，再后来的世界历史中，这些民族在不断的战争和历史变迁中最终形成了现在已有的欧洲人种分支。 在中世纪欧洲历史中最先繁盛起来的是有法兰克人克洛维建立起来的墨洛温王朝，468年这支日耳曼民族的分支军队战胜了高卢人，占领了罗马帝国在高卢的全部领土，偶来法兰克王国不断的向外扩张，到了6世纪中叶已经成为欧洲最大的国家。同时在大不列颠岛上，日耳曼人的另外一支，盎格鲁人，撒克逊人和朱特人在6世纪末七世纪初分别建立了七个国家，史称“七国时代”并在后来的历史变迁中首先形成了“议会君主制”。与此同时西法
中世纪全面战争系列城市中英文对照表(Medieval Total War series English city table)
中世纪2全面战争系列城市中英文对照表（Medieval 2 Total War series English city table） ？由罗马战役编辑生成的区域名称 { }北美洲north_america { Miccosukee }密科苏基 { }因弗内斯地区inverness_province { }因弗内斯因弗内斯 { }奥斯陆地区oslo_province {奥斯陆}奥斯陆 { }斯德哥尔摩地区stockholm_province {斯德哥尔摩}斯德哥尔摩 { }赫尔辛基地区helsinki_province {赫尔辛基}赫尔辛基 { }诺夫哥罗德地区novgorod_province {诺夫哥罗德}诺夫哥罗德 { }莫斯科地区moscow_province
{莫斯科}莫斯科 { volga-bulgar_province }伏尔加-保加尔地区{ }保加尔保加利亚 { }里加地区riga_province {里加}里加 { }奥尔胡斯地区arhus_province { }奥尔胡斯奥胡斯 { }爱丁堡地区edinburgh_province {爱丁堡}爱丁堡 { }维尔纽斯地区vilnius_province {维尔纽斯}维尔纽斯 { }斯摩棱斯克地区smolensk_province {斯摩棱斯克}斯摩棱斯克 { }都柏林地区dublin_province { }都柏林都柏林 { }约克地区york_province
{克}约克 { }加勒比地区caribbean_isles { }加勒比加勒比 { }梁赞地区ryazan_province {梁赞}梁赞 { }卡那封地区caernarvon_province { }卡那封卡那封 { }索恩地区thorn_province {刺}索恩 { }诺丁汉地区nottingham_province {诺丁汉}诺丁汉 { }斯德丁地区stettin_province { }斯德丁什切青 { }汉堡地区hamburg_province {汉堡}汉堡
欧洲中世纪黑暗吗从三个方面澄清中世纪
欧洲中世纪黑暗吗？ ——从三个方面澄清中世纪欧洲中世纪黑暗吗？——从三个方面澄清中世纪王恩引言对“黑暗中世纪”的误解和扭曲一直影响着人们的常识观 念，直至18 世纪历史主义的兴起以来，西方学界才对此重 新做出辨析。但在新教的教会历史观中黑暗”仍是主流观点， 对教会历史观的误解就会导致对中世纪上帝护理教会的误解，甚 至出现基督徒因为被世俗作家写的中世纪历史而洗脑而羞于启齿 这段历史，不会主动了解中世纪教会的模式，更不会效法中世纪 西方教会的优秀遗产。本文旨在澄清黑暗的中世纪，为中世纪教 会正名，重新认识中世纪历史和中世纪 的西方教会。 学术界对“黑暗”中世纪的几点辨析和澄清 1.1 对“黑暗”中世纪的概念的澄清 田薇教授探究了“中世纪”一词的出处，学术界公认的是意大 利人文主义历史学家比昂多首次使用了该词，来指西罗马帝纪的文艺复兴，意大利的被誉为“人文主义之父”的比特拉克首先使用了“黑暗时代”这个曾经极为流行，并至今仍为一些人所使用的术语。比特拉克把人类历史划分为两部分：基督教成为国教之前的时代称为古代，此后直到他自己的时代为 国灭亡到比昂多自己生活的时代。中世纪后，随着15-16 世近代”。只有古代、特别是罗马时代才是光明的时代，值得
大力赞扬，而“近代”则是野蛮的、黑暗的，不值得一提。此后，人文主义的思想家们面对东方的阿拉伯文化和拜占庭文化，特别是面对重新发现的古代希腊罗马文化，对公元6 世纪以来中世纪古典文化 的衰落极为不满，把占居统治地位的基督教文化，特别是它的粗陋的语言风格和僵化的逻辑形式斥为“野蛮的”，使他们把中世纪视为一片黑暗，因此就十分崇尚典雅富丽的古典文风，把古人奉为权威，崇拜得五体投地。然而，人文主义者的思想尚缺乏深刻的理性批判精神， 正如罗素所说，他们只不过是“用古代人的威信替代教会的威 信。”不过，文艺复兴时期人文主义者过分抬高古人，贬斥中世纪的思想倾向，在后来却进一步得到了肯定和发展。伴随 着启蒙主义运动对理性的高扬，对科学和民主的提倡，信仰 主义的中世纪更加被斥为“野蛮的”、“专制的”、未开化的”、愚昧的”、“黑暗时代”，而文艺复兴则被看作是将人类从一个罪恶痛苦的深渊解放出来，带进一个科学自由的光明世界的伟大时代，从此开始了现代文明。[1]20 世纪以前，这种观点一直是学者们所奉行的主导观念。特别是在瑞士的布克哈特《意大利文艺复兴时期的文化》这一权威著作的影响下，这种观点更加成为广泛流传的成见。在18 世纪英国著名历史学家、理性主义史学的代表吉本在其巨著《罗马帝国衰亡史》、19世纪末英国历史学家约翰?西蒙兹在自己的著作《意大利文艺复兴史》、20 世纪美国学者弗里曼特勒在自己 的著 作《信仰的时代》都认为文艺复兴前的时代，西欧的蛮族陷于愚昧无知的黑暗深渊中、人类的理智出于昏睡状态、“宗教信仰时代”的中世纪是一个“黑暗的时期”等论调和言辞。在我国，由于对欧洲中世纪文明更加缺乏研究，近代以来，打开国门后直接继承了文艺复兴影响后的历史观，因此，把中世纪看作是一个“黑暗时代”，把文艺复兴看作是和中世纪决裂的“光明时代”的观点。但文艺复兴这种断裂式的历史观认为 光明时代”好像是从地底下突然冒出来的。然而史学家们认识到中世纪欧洲具有巨大的创造力，约在1500 年左右，中世纪时代临近结束时，欧洲的技术与政治和经济的结构，已在世界上所有其他文明中
中世纪2及4Mod所有城市名称
波尔多Bordeaux 图卢兹 Toulouse 第戎Dijon 马塞 Marseille 梅斯Metz 奥尔胡斯Arhus 汉堡 Hamburg 法兰克福Frankfurt 马格德堡Magdeburg 纽伦堡Nuremburg 霍亨斯道芬 Hohenstauffen 伯尔尼Bern 米 兰Milan 热那亚Genoa 阿雅克修Ajaccio 卡利亚里Cagliari 巴勒莫Palermo 因斯布鲁克 Innsbruck 威尼斯Venice 博洛 尼亚Bologna 佛罗伦萨 Florence 罗马Rome 那不勒斯Naples 斯德丁 Stetti n 布拉 格Prague 维也纳Vienna 一，全面战争 英伦三岛 都柏林 Dublin 因弗内斯 Inverness 爱丁堡 Edinburgh 约克York 诺 丁汉 Nottingham 伦敦 London 卡那封 Caernarvon 欧洲 弗莱 昂Leon 潘普洛纳 Pamplona 里斯本Lisbon 托莱多Toleda 科尔多瓦Cordoba 萨拉戈萨 Zaragoza 瓦伦西亚Valencia 格兰纳达Granada 卡昂Caen 布鲁 日 Bruges 安特卫普 Antwerp 雷恩Rennes 昂 热An gers 巴黎Paris 兰斯Rheims
萨格勒布Zagreb 布莱斯劳Breslau 克拉科夫Krakow 布达佩斯Budapest 拉古萨Ragusa 都拉佐Durazzo 科林斯Corinth 索恩Thorn 加利奇Halych 布朗Bran 索非亚Sofia 萨瑟洛尼亚Thessalonica 赫尔辛基Helsinki 里加Riga 维尔纽斯Vilnius 基辅Kiev 雅西Iasi 布加勒斯特Bucharest 诺夫哥罗德Novgorod 斯摩棱斯克Smolensk 卡法Coffa 君士坦丁堡Constantinople 奥斯陆Oslo 斯德哥尔摩Stockholm 莫斯科Moscow 梁赞Ryazan 保加尔Bulgar 萨克尔Sarkell 欧亚交接三岛伊拉克里翁Iraklion 罗德Rhodes 尼科西亚Nicosia 北非及西亚马拉喀什Marrakesh 阿尔及尔Algiers 突尼斯Tunis 的黎波里Tripoli 阿尔金Arguin 延巴克图Timbuktu 尼西亚Nicaea 士麦那Smyrna 西泽禾U亚Caesarea 伊康Iconium 阿达纳Adana 特拉比松Trebizond 第比利斯Tbilisi 埃里温Yerevan 埃德萨Edessa 摩苏尔Mosul 安条克Antioch 阿勒颇Aleppo 巴格达Baghdad
东西方文化对数学发展的影响——大连理工大学数学文化大作业
东西方文化对数学发展的影响 摘要 本文以欧洲中世纪、文艺复兴及我国明清时期为时间节点，分析了造成东西方数学发展速度此消彼长的文化领域原因。提出文化的发展繁荣一定伴随着数学的发展繁荣，文化思想的解放一定预示着数学重大成就的来临。相反，对于思想的束缚，对于知识分子个性的压制一定会导致数学发展的受挫。 第一章：概述 说到东西方数学发展，我们自然会联想到课本中一个又一个西方人的面孔，作为东方文明代表的中国，难道在数学发展上毫无建树吗？下面是一组数据： 公元前6世纪以前：数学重大成就，世界5项．中国2项。 公元前600公元1年：数学重大成就，世界15项，中国3项。 公元1—400年：教学重大成就，世界10项，中国4项， 公元400一1000年：数学重大成就．世界9项．中国6项， 公元1000一1500年：数学重大成就．世界15项，中国9项。 公元1501—1900年：数学重大成就．世界100项．中国0项。[1] 从以上数据表明在1500年以前．中国数学在世界占据重要地位．在整体上处于领先水平。特别是在公元401～1000年和公元1000～1500年期间．中国数学重大成就占世界数学重大成就的50％以上。但在1500～1900年期间，中国数学则一落千丈。在400年中竟没有一项数学重大成就。 那么究竟是什么原因造成了这样的不同呢？我认为正是东西方经济文化的发展改变了这一切。值得的注意两个重要的时间节点，第一：中世纪（Middle Ages）始于约公元476年西罗马帝国灭亡。第二：文艺复兴，始于14世纪中叶。第三：明朝建立公元1368，推行八股文，科举只考四书五经。 综上，提出以下观点，文化的发展繁荣一定伴随着数学的发展繁荣，文化思想的解放一定预示着数学重大成就的来临。相反对于思想的束缚，对于知识分子个性的压制一定会导致数学发展的受挫。 第二章：中世纪对欧洲数学发展的影响 中世纪（Middle Ages）（约公元476年~公元1453年），是欧洲历史上的一个时代（主要是西欧），自西罗马帝国灭亡（公元476年）到东罗马帝国灭亡（公元1453年）的这段时期。这个时期的欧洲没有一个强有力的政权来统治。封建割据带来频繁的战争，造成科技和生产力发展停滞，人民生活在毫无希望的痛苦中，所以中世纪或者中世纪早期在欧美普遍被称作“黑暗时代”，传统上认为这是欧洲文明史上发展比较缓慢的时期。 这一时期欧洲社会受到教廷的控制，普通市民识字率极低，哥白尼的日心学说从提出开始就受到教廷的迫害，直到哥白尼去世才肯将他的著作公诸于众，而这还是发生在14世纪末文艺复兴已经兴起的时代，试想如果哥白尼早出生几百年，他甚至可能都不识字。我们认
中世纪各个时代的欧洲地图
中世纪各个时代的欧洲地图 公元1年的欧洲地图 经过长期的无数的战争，古老的地中海世界诸国，接连被新兴的罗马灭亡，整个地中海，空前绝后地成为一个统一国家的内湖 ========================================
由于地中海气候的恶劣，农业耕种的错误，地力的过度消耗，罗马国力的衰弱，政局的混乱，帝国西部出现了普遍的衰退，公民权的贬值，对雇佣军的依赖，也在缓慢腐蚀着帝国，在戴克里先时代甚至更早，帝国的中心已经悄然向东迁移，那里依然富裕，戴克里先同时对基督徒和共和制的残余进行残酷的打压，基督徒遭到严重迫害，元老院权利进一步被架空，皇帝的地位进一步提高，但皇帝的努力并未完全成功，元老院虽然一蹶不振，但基督徒仍在发展壮大，到君士坦丁时期，基督徒横跨罗马所有阶级，不断从东向西扩散，最终君士坦丁宣布基督教合法，并宣布基督教为罗马国教，君士坦丁大帝，另一有巨大影响的行动，就是在拜占庭的城址上，建立第二罗马，也就是后来的君士坦丁堡。 ============================================
分崩离析的帝国，终于于395年正式分LIE，此时西部帝国已经逐渐崩溃，不具备抵抗蛮族的能力，大土地主和基督教早已毁掉了罗马的财政，公民权的贬值，元老院地位的下降，也已经毁掉了罗马过去引以为傲的精神，教义争端毁掉了罗马的团结，长期腐化的生活，对雇佣军的依赖，也在毁掉罗马的军事力量，阿德里安防御体系最终终于崩溃，法兰克占领了北部高卢，西哥特人占领了西班牙和阿奎丹，汪达尔人占领了北非，罗马城也惨遭劫掠，西部帝国在蛮族的入侵下风雨飘摇，不过，影响后世至今的将宗教和世界帝国结合起来的世界社会学说也已建立。 得益于东部对君主制的适应，得益于东部气候条件的优越，得益于东部的富裕，东罗马帝国得以维持繁荣，尽管同样也受到萨珊波斯和蛮族的一定冲击。 =============================================== 西罗马终究灭亡了，权柄又交回东罗马皇帝的手里，意大利被东哥特人占据，东哥特在意大利维持着温和的统治，但由于宗教和民族的关系，并没有得到当地权贵的充分支持，法兰克人皈依了基督教，并接受罗马的册封，哥特人和汪达尔人仍旧信仰阿利乌斯教派，507年，法兰克人夙愿得偿，通过战争，击败西哥特，获得了阿奎丹地区，东罗马帝国则在抵御波斯的入侵，并为收复失地作准备。 ======================================= 罗马再次复兴，在查士丁尼统治时期，贝里撒留率领罗马军队，在击败入侵的波斯后，远征北非灭亡了汪达尔王国，收复了迦太基，随后又从西哥特统治下的西班牙那里，收复了南部地区，在此之后，经过漫长的战斗，终于灭亡了意大利的
数学的发展历史知识讲解
数学的发展历史 数学是一门伟大的科学，数学作为一门科学具有悠久的历史，与自然科学相比，数学更是积累性科学，它是经过上千年的演化发展才逐渐兴盛起来。同时数学也反映着每个时代的特征，美国数学史家克莱因曾经说过:"一个时代的总的特征在很大程度上与这个时代的数学活动密切相关。这种关系在我们这个时代尤为明显"。"数学不仅是一种方法、一门艺术或一种语言，数学更主要是一门有着丰富内容的知识体系，其内容对自然科学家、社会科学家、哲学家、逻辑学家和艺术家十分有用，同时影响着政治家和神学家的学说"。数学已经广泛地影响着人类的生活和思想，是形成现代文化的主要力量。而数学的历史更从另一个侧面反映了数学的发展。但有一点值得注意的是，人是这一方面的创造者，因此人本身的作用起着举足轻重的作用，首先表现为是否爱数学，是否愿为数学贡献毕生的精力。正是这主导着数学。 数学史是研究数学发展历史的学科，是数学的一个分支，和所有的自然科学史一样，数学史也是自然科学和历史科学之间的交叉学科。数学史和数学研究的各个分支，和社会史与文化史的各个方面都有着密切的联系，这表明数学史具有多学科交叉与综合性强的性质。 数学出现于包含著数量、结构、空间及变化等困难问题内。一开始，出现于贸易、土地测量及之后的天文学；今日，所有的科学都存在着值得数学家研究的问题，且数学本身亦存在了许多的问题。而这一切都源于数学的历史。 数学的演进大约可以看成是抽象化的持续发展，或是题材的延展。从历史时代的一开始，数学内的主要原理是为了做测量等相关计算，为了了解数字间的关系，为了测量土地，以及为了预测天文事件而形成的。这些需要可以简单地被概括为数学对数量、结构方面的研究。数学从古至今便一直不断地延展，且与科学有丰富的相互作用，并使两者都得到好处。数学在历史上有着许多的发现，并且直至今日都还不断地发现中。 数学发展具有阶段性，因此根据一定的原则把数学史分成若干时期。目前通常将数学发展划分为以下五个时期： 1．数学萌芽期（公元前600年以前）； 2．初等数学时期（公元前600年至17世纪中叶）； 3．变量数学时期（17世纪中叶至19世纪20年代）； 4．近代数学时期（19世纪20年代至第二次世界大战）； 5．现代数学时期（20世纪40年代以来）
读书笔记：《欧洲中世纪史》
读书笔记：《欧洲中世纪史》 欧洲中世纪是从罗马帝国覆灭到现代民族国家兴起 的中间1000年，这本书提供了一个很好的视角，即从更大的范围、而不是局限于民族国家的层面来看现代欧洲的形成，因为现代民族国家仅有几百年的历史，而在这片土地上更长的时间内是没有明确国家的，教皇国、英法之间的烂账、南法和意大利北部、神圣罗马帝国的糊涂账。 因此这本书站在了更高的全局的角度，虽然在历史脉络上按照中世纪早期、中世纪中期和中世纪晚期来分别阐述，但是依然着墨了诸多核心线索，天主教与东正教、西欧与拜占庭的分合、教皇与世俗国家的权力争夺、教会的内部变革、欧洲的社会性变革等等。400多页描绘了1000年的历史，信息量大却又不显松散。 初探中世纪，大部分人会想到的第一个词是“黑暗”，正如我们想到国民政府的第一个词会是“反动”一样。“黑暗”并不是中世纪的正确概念，或者说漫长1000 年中，在整个欧洲大陆上，人们所想象的黑暗只是很小、很短的一部分。中世纪有战乱的纷争、有相对和平的时代、有
宗教黑暗但是孕育了繁盛的时代。 一般而言，我们会认为欧洲文化的复兴来自于16世纪后的文艺复兴，称霸全球前年的中华帝国跟欧洲在16世纪文艺复兴开始逐步拉开差距。但种子的萌芽在中世纪早已经种下。在1100年时，欧洲已经有非常多的学生和教师，1200年时第一批重点学习医药、哲学和法律的大学已经在欧洲各地发展起来：这批大规模的教育普及运动造就了大量的地方学校、教会学校和大学。而在中世纪晚期，伴随着地方语言的发展基础教育也开始繁荣。说到教育，这也是我看好越南市场的原因，越南的人均GDP相当于20年前的中国，但是其成人识字率相当于9年前的中国。经济未动，教育先行。 历史的发展有着必然性，但是也充满着偶然。英国首创君主立宪的政体成为民主的标杆，离不开征服者威廉在每次获得一片土地的时候都会分给他的领主们，因此每个领主最终得到的土地都散落于全英各处，迫使每个领主都从全国的角度来考虑自己的利益，这决定了英国未来的贵族议政的政治形态。 从更高的层面看，欧洲缺乏大一统的稳定性。一方面，有教皇权力制约世俗权力，1122年沃尔姆斯宗教协定标志着教权和君权在俗世授职方面的妥协，腓力四世后来抓捕卜尼
中世纪2-各要素对应简介
中世纪2-各要素对应简介 游侠会员:asherhoa 建筑和兵种的对应关系: WALLS——骑兵单位 Castles—— 骑士单位 City barracks（城市兵营）——民兵和火枪兵种 Castle barracks(城堡兵营)——步兵单位 Ranges—— 投射单位（弓箭、弓弩） Stables——骑兵单位 Sieges——攻城武器 Gunsmiths（军械工厂）——加农炮 Military academy（军事学院）——某些高级兵种 Horse racing——骑兵单位 Plaza del toro（TORO广场） ——骑兵单位 Knights Templar（圣殿武士堂）——圣殿武士 Hospitaller Knights ——医院骑士（罗得骑士团、圣约翰骑士团） Teutonic Knights ——条顿骑士 Knights of Santiago ——圣地亚哥骑士 Hashashim’s guild （著名的伊斯兰暗杀组织，哈桑?阿萨辛派，首领即所谓的“山中老人”霍山）——特殊步兵单位 Woodsmen’s guild（樵夫行会）——特殊远程兵种 Mason’s guild（泥瓦匠行会）——特殊民兵单位 Merchant’s guild（商人行会）——特殊骑兵单位 Church/Masjid（教堂／清真寺）——教士／伊玛目 Inns（旅馆）——间谍、刺客 Markets（市场）——商人 Town halls（城镇大厅）——外交官 Academy (研究院，城堡建筑)——间谍、外交官、刺客 派系特殊建筑：（可招募该派系特殊单位） 神圣罗马帝国：高级城镇大厅（high level town hall） 米兰、威尼斯、土耳其、俄国：城镇大厅（town hall） 匈牙利：刺客行会、旅馆 丹麦：教堂。 建筑物与升级装备的对应关系： 注意，中世纪2与上一代的罗马不同，升级攻击防御不再是造一座blacksmith就可以大小通吃了。
古今中外数学名人介绍(国内部分)
古今中外数学名人介绍(国内部分） |刘徽|贾宪|秦九韶|李冶|朱世杰|祖冲之|祖暅|杨辉|赵爽|华罗庚|陈景润| 刘徽 刘徽（生于公元250年左右），是中国数学史上一个非常伟大的数学家，在世界数学史上，也占有杰出的地位．他的杰作《九章算术注》和《海岛算经》，是我国最宝贵的数学遗产． 《九章算术》约成书于东汉之初，共有246个问题的解法．在许多方面：如解联立方程，分数四则运算，正负数运算，几何图形的体积面积计算等，都属于世界先进之列，但因解法比较原始，缺乏必要的证明，而刘徽则对此均作了补充证明．在这些证明中，显示了他在多方面的创造性的贡献．他是世界上最早提出十进小数概念的人，并用十进小数来表示无理数的立方根．在代数方面，他正确地提出了正负数的概念及其加减运算的法则；改进了线性方程组的解法．在几何方面，提出了"割圆术"，即将圆周用内接或外切正多边形穷竭的一种求圆面积和圆周长的方法．他利用割圆术科学地求出了圆周率π=3.14的结果．刘徽在割圆术中提出的"割之弥细，所失弥少，割之又割以至于不可割，则与圆合体而无所失矣"，这可视为中国古代极限观念的佳作． 《海岛算经》一书中，刘徽精心选编了九个测量问题，这些题目的创造性、复杂性和富有代表性，都在当时为西方所瞩目． 刘徽思想敏捷，方法灵活，既提倡推理又主张直观．他是我国最早明确主张用逻辑推理的方式来论证数学命题的人． 刘徽的一生是为数学刻苦探求的一生．他虽然地位低下，但人格高尚．他不是沽名钓誉的庸人，而是学而不厌的伟人，他给我们中华民族留下了宝贵的财富． 贾宪 贾宪，中国古代北宋时期杰出的数学家。曾撰写的《黄帝九章算法细草》（九卷）和《算法斆古集》（二卷）（斆xiào，意：数导）均已失传。 他的主要贡献是创造了"贾宪三角"和增乘开方法，增乘开方法即求高次幂的正根法。目前中学数学中的混合除法，其原理和程序均与此相仿，增乘开方法比传统的方法整齐简捷、又更程序化，所以在开高次方时，尤其显出它的优越性，这个方法的提出要比欧洲数学家霍纳的结论早七百多年。 秦九韶 秦九韶（约1202--1261），字道古，四川安岳人。先后在湖北，安徽，江苏，浙江等地做官，1261年左右被贬至梅州，（今广东梅县），不久死于任所。他与李冶，杨辉，朱世杰并称宋元数学四大家。早年在杭州“访习于太史，又尝从隐君子受数学”，1247年写成著名的《数书九章》。《数书九章》全书凡18卷，81题，分为九大类。其最重要的数学成就----“大衍总数术”（一次同余组解法）与“正负开方术"(高次方程数值解法），使这部宋代算经在中世纪世界数学史上占有突出的地位。 李冶
中世纪2城市与城堡区别
中世纪2-城市与城堡区别 城市(c i t y)的好处在于可以明显提?商业利润和??规模，为你的派系带来更多的财富。 城市的优点在于： ： A,?由调节该地区税率的能?。 B，可修建?种特有的商业建筑。 C，修建?级宗教建筑。 D，修建相应建筑召募间谍、商?、刺客、外交官。 E，可修建召募民兵与攻城器的建筑。 F，可?由招募某些民兵单位。 城市的缺陷： A，公共秩序偏低，容易导致骚动甚?叛乱。、 B，富裕的环境容易导致驻守将领腐化堕落。 C，缺乏召募骑兵、?箭兵的建筑 D，城市防御?薄弱。 城市升级条件： 规模??要求城墙条件 村庄 城镇400?栅栏(w o o d e n p a l i s a d e) ?城镇2000?墙(w o o d e n w a l l) 城市6000s t o n e w a l l ?城市12000l a r g e s t o n e w a l l 巨型城市24000h u g e s t o n e w a l l 城堡： 城堡是军事性的领地，拥有优良的防御?，同时税率不可调。它是?个理想的训练强?军事单位的场所，满??定条件后城堡可逐渐升级直?最?的c i t a d e l(?本营)。 优点：
A，理所当然的拥有较?的公共秩序(不容易叛乱) B，优越的防御?，升级后可建造复合城墙(城市只有单城墙) C，可招募某些强?兵种。 缺点： 不能?由调整税率。 缺乏增加商业贸易的建筑 不能招募间谍刺客等?? 缺乏某些科技建筑。 城堡升级条件： 规模??城防条件 M o t t e&b a i l e y Wo o d e n c a s t l e?墙 C a s t l e1?墙 F o r t r e s s(要塞)45002?墙 C i t a d e l(?本营)90003?墙 逗游?——中国2亿游戏?户?致选择的”?站式“游戏服务平台
中世纪欧洲
中世纪欧洲 一、基督教的兴起 1.基督教基本常识 时间：公元一世纪 地点：巴勒斯坦地区 创始人：耶稣 主要信徒:贫苦的穷人 教义：耶稣就是救世主，教人忍受苦难，死后可以升入天堂。 2.经典：《圣经》 包含旧约和新约两大部分，乃基督教唯一的宝典，为信徒信仰和生活行为的准则。 3.教会的发展 越来越多的富人加入教会，并把持了教会的领导权，使基督教原有的反抗精神逐渐消失，日愈成为罗马帝国维护其统治的思想工具。 二、法兰克王国 1.国家建立 建立时间：481年 建立者：克洛维。 关键措施： （1）克洛维饭依了基督教，承认罗马教会在欧洲的重要地位； （2）在征服罗马帝国的过程中，他没收了2/3的土地，并分封给自己的亲兵、廷臣和主教。 2.封君与封臣 8世纪前期，法兰克王国对土地的分封形式进行了改革。 （1）废除了无条件分赠土地的制度，推行采邑制。把从叛乱贵族那里没收来的土地和一些教会的土地分赠给贵族,但他们必须要为国王服兵役,要履行臣民的义务，宣誓效忠。 （2）采邑的赐予者也有义务保护忠心效力的受领者，使其不受他人的侵害。（3）规定采邑不得世袭，只限终身，而且如果受封者不履行义务或者死亡，赐于者有权收回采邑，终止封授关系，要是继续以前的关系。则必须重新分封。
□封臣对封君的义务 无害，即不能加害封君的身体； 安全，保证封君安全，不能疏忽于防卫，不能背弃责任； 忠诚，尊敬、正直，不能在司法审判上做有害封君名誉的事情； 服军役，身为封臣应该随时应召军事任务，其核心任务主要是防卫性的工作，一直应该维持到敌人退却； 提供金钱，这一内容广泛，比如封君情况紧急时给予金钱支持（也就是赎金），封君儿女授骑士礼、出嫁的排场费用，以及封君出行时的费用。 劝告，提出种种意见，使封君作出最合理的判断，而且事无巨细得一一过问。□封君对封臣的义务 封君不能任意侵害封臣的荣誉、人身和财产安全； 当封臣受到外来攻击时，封君必须提供保护。 □特点： 封君与封臣的关系有着严格的等级性，以土地为纽带；层层分封； 而且权利、义务交织在一起，带有一定的契约意义。 □影响 由于封建等级制度是因土地的层层分封而形成的，各级封君与封臣之间都互有义务。所以,封臣即附庸只承认自己直接受封的领主为封君，而对自己封君的封君却没有臣属关系。所以，中世纪的西欧出现了“我的附庸的附庸不是我的附庸”的现象。这种复杂的关系，在封建主之间造成一团乱麻的权利和义务，使封建主之间不断发生争夺和混战。 三、法兰克王国的扩张 1.背景： 8世纪，查理成为法兰克王位，四处征伐，进行扩张。 800年前后，法兰克王国的版图扩展到今天的意大利北部、西班牙北部和德国西部的广大地区，与原来西罗马帝国的欧洲部分基本相当，成为当时西欧最大的王国。 2.加冕为帝 世俗政权与教会的结合是查理曼政权的重要特征。 加强与教会的结盟，是查理曼成功的重要原因之一。 查理曼以教会保护人的姿态,极力维护和提高罗马教会的权益。 他每征服一地都强化基督教势力，强迫他们皈依基督教，要求人民缴纳“什一税”同时还极力维护罗马教皇的统治地位。
世界中世纪史名词解释
世界中世纪史名词解释 封建庄园制中古西欧封建主剥削农奴的基本组织,在其他地区和国家，也曾在 一定时期不同程度地存在过这种组织。在西欧，封建化过程完成后，国王、教会和封建主的庄园分布各地。他们大多先侵占公有地，后逐户蚕食，直到吞掉一个或几个农村公社，所以形成的庄园大小不等。大庄园有一个或几个村庄，小的只有一个村庄的一部分。庄园完全是自给自足的自然经济。手工业尚未与农业分离。农民生产是为满足自己家庭生活的需要和为封建主提供消费资料，不是为了交换。封建主还有审判和惩罚农奴的权力。农奴虽然受到沉重的剥削，但毕竟有自己的独立经济，比奴隶有更多的劳动兴趣，有利于生产力的发展。12、13世纪以后，西欧城市大批兴起，商品货币关系渗入农村，农奴改纳货币地租并逐渐取得人身自由，领主自营地消失，庄园解体。 采邑制是中世纪在西欧实施的一种土地占有制度。查理·马特时期改革土 地制度，分给贵族、骑士、教会的土地称采邑；领地不能世袭，死后归还国家；受封采邑者要为国王服兵役。采邑制的实行，建立了以土地关系为纽带的领主和附庸之间的臣属关系，以及以中小封建主为基础的骑兵制度。以后大封建主纷纷效仿国王，加强了农民对封建主的依附，促进了自由农民农奴化，加速了封建等级制度形成。 圣像破坏运动8～9世纪在拜占廷帝国发生的破坏基督教会供奉圣像、圣物的 运动，其实质是反对正统教会统治势力和教会修道院占有土地的政治斗争。基督教内长期存在圣像崇拜，而反对圣像崇拜的社会力量也在拜占廷帝国境内发展。7世纪以后，正统教会和修道院则兼并土地，聚敛钱财，成为社会各阶层怨恨的目标。利奥三世于726年发布禁止崇拜圣像的诏令，凡抗拒者其财产充公，是为圣像破坏运动之始。君士坦丁五世采取严厉措施对付圣像崇拜派。787年，尼西亚会议，宣布恢复圣像崇拜。813利奥五世即位，反圣像派重新得势。843年，皇帝迈克尔三世的皇太后狄奥多拉摄政时，再次宣布恢复圣像供奉，大批圣像破坏者以异端罪被处死。圣像破坏运动从此结束。 索贡巡行罗斯大公以武力征服邻近地区。除了掠夺财物和奴隶外，还强迫被 征服的部落称臣纳贡。每至秋末冬初，罗斯大公便率大队亲兵到各地征收贡物，收取毛皮。蜂蜜、蜂蜡及粮食和奴隶，史称“索贡巡行”。这种制度构成罗斯国家早期对内统治的主要特征。 《罗斯法典》基辅罗斯及封建割据时期古罗斯的法令汇编。来源于东斯拉夫 人习惯法、罗斯王公法令和法院判例，约在11～12世纪编成。法典明文规定：破坏田界、偷盗牲畜、纵火焚烧庄园或打谷场、杀害王公贵族及官员者，都要处以重罚；将债农、奴仆、斯美尔德（农民），置于封建依附地位，农民死后无嗣，其财产归主人所有；废除血族复仇习俗，代之以罚付“血款”，即杀人者偿付被害者家属40格里夫那，杀死领主等显贵，加倍偿付，封建主杀死一个农民则只付5个格里夫那的偿金。它们是在不同时期形成的各具特点的法律文献。
中世纪2及4Mod所有城市名称
一,全面战争 英伦三岛 都柏林 Dublin 因弗内斯 Inverness 爱丁堡 Edinburgh 约克 York 诺丁汉 Nottingham 伦敦 London 卡那封 Caernarvon 欧洲 弗莱昂 Leon 潘普洛纳 Pamplona 里斯本 Lisbon 托莱多 Toleda 科尔多瓦 Cordoba 萨拉戈萨 Zaragoza 瓦伦西亚 Valencia 格兰纳达 Granada 卡昂 Caen 布鲁日 Bruges 安特卫普 Antwerp 雷恩 Rennes 昂热 Angers 巴黎 Paris 兰斯 Rheims 波尔多 Bordeaux 图卢兹 Toulouse 第戎 Dijon 马塞 Marseille 梅斯 Metz 奥尔胡斯 Arhus 汉堡 Hamburg 法兰克福 Frankfurt 马格德堡 Magdeburg 纽伦堡 Nuremburg 霍亨斯道芬 Hohenstauffen 伯尔尼 Bern 米兰 Milan 热那亚 Genoa 阿雅克修 Ajaccio 卡利亚里 Cagliari 巴勒莫 Palermo 因斯布鲁克 Innsbruck 威尼斯 Venice 博洛尼亚 Bologna 佛罗伦萨 Florence 罗马 Rome 那不勒斯 Naples 斯德丁 Stettin 布拉格 Prague 维也纳 Vienna 萨格勒布 Zagreb 布莱斯劳 Breslau 克拉科夫 Krakow 布达佩斯 Budapest 拉古萨 Ragusa 都拉佐 Durazzo 科林斯 Corinth 索恩 Thorn 加利奇 Halych 布朗 Bran 索非亚 Sofia 萨瑟洛尼亚 Thessalonica 赫尔辛基 Helsinki 里加 Riga 维尔纽斯 Vilnius 基辅 Kiev 雅西 Iasi 布加勒斯特 Bucharest 诺夫哥罗德 Novgorod 斯摩棱斯克 Smolensk 卡法 Coffa 君士坦丁堡 Constantinople 奥斯陆 Oslo 斯德哥尔摩 Stockholm 莫斯科 Moscow 梁赞 Ryazan 保加尔 Bulgar 萨克尔 Sarkell 欧亚交接三岛 伊拉克里翁 Iraklion 罗德 Rhodes 尼科西亚 Nicosia 北非及西亚 马拉喀什 Marrakesh 阿尔及尔 Algiers 突尼斯 Tunis 的黎波里 Tripoli 阿尔金 Arguin 延巴克图 Timbuktu 尼西亚 Nicaea 士麦那 Smyrna 西泽利亚 Caesarea 伊康 Iconium 阿达纳 Adana 特拉比松 Trebizond 第比利斯 Tbilisi 埃里温 Yerevan 埃德萨 Edessa 摩苏尔 Mosul 安条克 Antioch 阿勒颇 Aleppo 巴格达 Baghdad
《欧洲中世纪史》读后感
[《欧洲中世纪史》读后感]《欧洲中世纪史》读后感 一位当代的智者说，对于传统人们至少应该怀有一种温情的敬意，《欧洲中世纪史》读后感。在我看来，由朱迪斯·m·本内特和c·沃伦·霍里斯特所著的《欧洲中世纪史》就是这样的一本书。作者在书中对历史尽可能地做到客观公正的评价，但对中世纪的喜爱之情还是跃然于纸上的。这固然和作者对中世纪过于正面的评价有关--虽然作者也不时提中世纪的缺陷--更因为道德的原因，以及作者对历史宽容的态度，使读者在书中很容易领会到作者对历史抱有的那种温情的敬意。尽管作者对中世纪的一些评价我不以为然，但作者对历史的这一态度让我感动。现代人总是太自以为是，这使我们很容易蔑视我们的过去，失去了起码的尊重。而这样的一本书，教给我们的不只是一些历史的知识和视角，更重要的正是这种对传统的敬意之情，让我们明白历史的进程不是跳跃式，我们和古人并不是完全割裂的，我们和他们之间存在着一根纽带。当我们明白文明的传承是怎样顺着这根纽带缓慢前行的时候，对传统怀有一种温情的敬意，这话就不再是一句空洞的口号，还成为了我们精神上的慰藉，让我们不再是漂泊的浪子，不再孤独徘徊。西语说，忘记自己历史的民族是没有未来的民族。在我看来，之所以没有未来，不正是因为现实的迷惘吗?而历史，正是治疗这种病症的良药。 比如书中谈到欧洲的统一之难，自古罗马一分为二后，欧洲就不再统一过，最多只存在名义上的统一，而实际上是一个国家内众多小的公国并列。即使是在一个小地方比如如今的法国境内，统一也是短暂的，更多的时候是公国之间的战争。他们虽然承认国王的存在，自己只是国王的臣子，但国王对他们的约束很小很小，有时候他们甚至想取而代之。国王只是一个大点的领主，或者基于血缘的关系而被承认而已，在大多数时候它都不是一个政权的首领。读到这些，我自然想到我们的中国。小小的欧洲(不包括现在的东欧和苏联)统一尚且如此之难，地质差异十分明显的大中国的统一该是多么困难啊。但中国做到了，在很早的时候就做到了，这绝对是个奇迹。当然中西差别也就突显出来了。一方面，一种文官的治理代替了领土分封、科举考试代替了世袭、职业分工代替等级之别;另一方面，皇权得到了加强，而在欧洲只有少数时候国王才具有这样的权威，能让全国政令通行，而一旦这位强人去世，国家又将恢复到各自为政的局面中。 下一个问题就是战争的差别。欧洲是连绵不断领主或贵族之间的战争，而在中国是反复的改朝换代的战争，谁更让人难以忍受一点呢?同时欧洲存在一个骑士阶层，他们是为战争而生的人，他们只听命于自己的主人，因为他们不用工作而靠自己的领主养活，其责任就是保护他们和为他们打仗，读后感《《欧洲中世纪史》读后感》。柏拉图在理想国中对阶级划分的设想在中世纪得以实现。在治人者(国王和贵族)和治于人者(劳动者)中间，另外还有一个战士阶层，他们的美德是忠心和勇敢。而在中国，战士听令于国王而不是贵族、他们的任务是保卫国家而不是保卫自己领主的土地、它也不是个阶层而只是个职业。中世纪的骑士不用耕种土地，农民和农奴不仅要养活国王和贵族，还要养活骑士。而在中国当国家不需要那么多军队的时候，一部分战士就离开军队谋求另一种职业。在很久以前我读到柏杨的书说中国战争之多，以至于中国人养成不会笑的传统，因为中国人始终生活在苦难之中。但当我读到这本书的时候，我想欧洲的战争只怕比中国有过之而无不及。领主和领主之间的战争，公国和公国的战争，国家和国家之间的战争，再加上后来宗教组织发动战争，只怕欧洲人比中国人更少享有和平的机会。 提到宗教，不能不谈，中世纪也离不开宗教，没有基督教会就没有中世纪。《欧洲中世纪史》谈到了宗教的影响，包括哲学、艺术、建筑、文学等等方面直到人的精神层面。作者对教会作用的肯定，如前面提到，不单因为它承接着现代西方文明，也因为道德的原因。关于前者，作者也毫不掩饰提到中世纪未期伊斯兰文化对西方的启蒙，包括哲学、科学、医学、天文等等方面，但教会人士自己对伊斯兰文明的吸收和发挥也是至关重要的。而关于后者，也是我