Foram encontradas 492 questões.
Text
Pierre Englebert’s attempt to measure all of Africa using the yardstick of a single historical factor is highly problematic. In this regard, Englebert’s book suffers from four tendencies, the first two of which involve a dominant mode in current writing about Africa, and the third and fourth of which reflect the constraints of academic publishing, particularly in the United States of America. Current writing about Africa is characterised, firstly, by a remarkable tendency to generalise about the entire continent, which no author specialising in Asia, for example, would dare contemplate. This usually involves the extrapolation of a single empirical situation to the entire continent. In Englebert’s case, this clearly relates to his experience in the eastern Congo, which is made to serve as an example for all of sub-Saharan Africa. This tendency is associated, secondly, with an intensive search for a single factor that would explain the plight of Africa, a conceptual master key that can unlock the puzzle of the “African exception”. Englebert’s book is a typical example of this tendency to substitute historical explanations with a philosophy of history. He is not concerned with the identification of contingent factors which, through their myriad combinations and mutual (correlated) causal processes, have led to the emergence of the current complex situation on the African continent. Instead, he claims that the entire situation arose from a single historical moment — that of decolonisation — and evolved by necessity from this, and that this historical moment gave birth to a structure of post-coloniality, from which African states are fundamentally incapable of liberating themselves (while non-African post-colonies apparently are capable). Here, the argument becomes outright theological: The sovereignty accorded by outside actors represents the “original sin” of African statehood. As a consequence, and keeping in line with this theological mode of thinking, post-colonial Africa can be saved only by others.
T. Bierschenk. Book Review — Pierre Englebert (2009), Africa: unity, sovereignty, and sorrow. Internet: <http://journals.sub.uni-hamburg.de> (adapted.).
The statements below are about the ideas of text and the vocabulary used in it. Decide whether those statements are right or wrong.
The word “myriad” is synonymous with intricate.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Text
Pierre Englebert’s attempt to measure all of Africa using the yardstick of a single historical factor is highly problematic. In this regard, Englebert’s book suffers from four tendencies, the first two of which involve a dominant mode in current writing about Africa, and the third and fourth of which reflect the constraints of academic publishing, particularly in the United States of America. Current writing about Africa is characterised, firstly, by a remarkable tendency to generalise about the entire continent, which no author specialising in Asia, for example, would dare contemplate. This usually involves the extrapolation of a single empirical situation to the entire continent. In Englebert’s case, this clearly relates to his experience in the eastern Congo, which is made to serve as an example for all of sub-Saharan Africa. This tendency is associated, secondly, with an intensive search for a single factor that would explain the plight of Africa, a conceptual master key that can unlock the puzzle of the “African exception”. Englebert’s book is a typical example of this tendency to substitute historical explanations with a philosophy of history. He is not concerned with the identification of contingent factors which, through their myriad combinations and mutual (correlated) causal processes, have led to the emergence of the current complex situation on the African continent. Instead, he claims that the entire situation arose from a single historical moment — that of decolonisation — and evolved by necessity from this, and that this historical moment gave birth to a structure of post-coloniality, from which African states are fundamentally incapable of liberating themselves (while non-African post-colonies apparently are capable). Here, the argument becomes outright theological: The sovereignty accorded by outside actors represents the “original sin” of African statehood. As a consequence, and keeping in line with this theological mode of thinking, post-colonial Africa can be saved only by others.
T. Bierschenk. Book Review — Pierre Englebert (2009), Africa: unity, sovereignty, and sorrow. Internet: <http://journals.sub.uni-hamburg.de> (adapted.).
The statements below are about the ideas of text and the vocabulary used in it. Decide whether those statements are right or wrong.
The author of the review understands the problems of the African continent as a more complex issue.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Text
Pierre Englebert’s attempt to measure all of Africa using the yardstick of a single historical factor is highly problematic. In this regard, Englebert’s book suffers from four tendencies, the first two of which involve a dominant mode in current writing about Africa, and the third and fourth of which reflect the constraints of academic publishing, particularly in the United States of America. Current writing about Africa is characterised, firstly, by a remarkable tendency to generalise about the entire continent, which no author specialising in Asia, for example, would dare contemplate. This usually involves the extrapolation of a single empirical situation to the entire continent. In Englebert’s case, this clearly relates to his experience in the eastern Congo, which is made to serve as an example for all of sub-Saharan Africa. This tendency is associated, secondly, with an intensive search for a single factor that would explain the plight of Africa, a conceptual master key that can unlock the puzzle of the “African exception”. Englebert’s book is a typical example of this tendency to substitute historical explanations with a philosophy of history. He is not concerned with the identification of contingent factors which, through their myriad combinations and mutual (correlated) causal processes, have led to the emergence of the current complex situation on the African continent. Instead, he claims that the entire situation arose from a single historical moment — that of decolonisation — and evolved by necessity from this, and that this historical moment gave birth to a structure of post-coloniality, from which African states are fundamentally incapable of liberating themselves (while non-African post-colonies apparently are capable). Here, the argument becomes outright theological: The sovereignty accorded by outside actors represents the “original sin” of African statehood. As a consequence, and keeping in line with this theological mode of thinking, post-colonial Africa can be saved only by others.
T. Bierschenk. Book Review — Pierre Englebert (2009), Africa: unity, sovereignty, and sorrow. Internet: <http://journals.sub.uni-hamburg.de> (adapted.).
Decide whether the following statements, concerning the grammatical and semantic aspects of text, are right or wrong.
The author of the review blames the problems of Englebert’s book mostly on his search for a single answer for the issues concerning African countries.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Text
Pierre Englebert’s attempt to measure all of Africa using the yardstick of a single historical factor is highly problematic. In this regard, Englebert’s book suffers from four tendencies, the first two of which involve a dominant mode in current writing about Africa, and the third and fourth of which reflect the constraints of academic publishing, particularly in the United States of America. Current writing about Africa is characterised, firstly, by a remarkable tendency to generalise about the entire continent, which no author specialising in Asia, for example, would dare contemplate. This usually involves the extrapolation of a single empirical situation to the entire continent. In Englebert’s case, this clearly relates to his experience in the eastern Congo, which is made to serve as an example for all of sub-Saharan Africa. This tendency is associated, secondly, with an intensive search for a single factor that would explain the plight of Africa, a conceptual master key that can unlock the puzzle of the “African exception”. Englebert’s book is a typical example of this tendency to substitute historical explanations with a philosophy of history. He is not concerned with the identification of contingent factors which, through their myriad combinations and mutual (correlated) causal processes, have led to the emergence of the current complex situation on the African continent. Instead, he claims that the entire situation arose from a single historical moment — that of decolonisation — and evolved by necessity from this, and that this historical moment gave birth to a structure of post-coloniality, from which African states are fundamentally incapable of liberating themselves (while non-African post-colonies apparently are capable). Here, the argument becomes outright theological: The sovereignty accorded by outside actors represents the “original sin” of African statehood. As a consequence, and keeping in line with this theological mode of thinking, post-colonial Africa can be saved only by others.
T. Bierschenk. Book Review — Pierre Englebert (2009), Africa: unity, sovereignty, and sorrow. Internet: <http://journals.sub.uni-hamburg.de> (adapted.).
Decide whether the following statements, concerning the grammatical and semantic aspects of text, are right or wrong.
If “yardstick” is replaced by criterion in the text, it would be necessary to change the preposition following it — “of” — in order to maintain grammatical accuracy.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Text
Pierre Englebert’s attempt to measure all of Africa using the yardstick of a single historical factor is highly problematic. In this regard, Englebert’s book suffers from four tendencies, the first two of which involve a dominant mode in current writing about Africa, and the third and fourth of which reflect the constraints of academic publishing, particularly in the United States of America. Current writing about Africa is characterised, firstly, by a remarkable tendency to generalise about the entire continent, which no author specialising in Asia, for example, would dare contemplate. This usually involves the extrapolation of a single empirical situation to the entire continent. In Englebert’s case, this clearly relates to his experience in the eastern Congo, which is made to serve as an example for all of sub-Saharan Africa. This tendency is associated, secondly, with an intensive search for a single factor that would explain the plight of Africa, a conceptual master key that can unlock the puzzle of the “African exception”. Englebert’s book is a typical example of this tendency to substitute historical explanations with a philosophy of history. He is not concerned with the identification of contingent factors which, through their myriad combinations and mutual (correlated) causal processes, have led to the emergence of the current complex situation on the African continent. Instead, he claims that the entire situation arose from a single historical moment — that of decolonisation — and evolved by necessity from this, and that this historical moment gave birth to a structure of post-coloniality, from which African states are fundamentally incapable of liberating themselves (while non-African post-colonies apparently are capable). Here, the argument becomes outright theological: The sovereignty accorded by outside actors represents the “original sin” of African statehood. As a consequence, and keeping in line with this theological mode of thinking, post-colonial Africa can be saved only by others.
T. Bierschenk. Book Review — Pierre Englebert (2009), Africa: unity, sovereignty, and sorrow. Internet: <http://journals.sub.uni-hamburg.de> (adapted.).
Decide whether the following statements, concerning the grammatical and semantic aspects of text, are right or wrong.
Most publications tend to propose explanations for the situation of African and Asian countries in a generalised form.Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Text
Pierre Englebert’s attempt to measure all of Africa using the yardstick of a single historical factor is highly problematic. In this regard, Englebert’s book suffers from four tendencies, the first two of which involve a dominant mode in current writing about Africa, and the third and fourth of which reflect the constraints of academic publishing, particularly in the United States of America. Current writing about Africa is characterised, firstly, by a remarkable tendency to generalise about the entire continent, which no author specialising in Asia, for example, would dare contemplate. This usually involves the extrapolation of a single empirical situation to the entire continent. In Englebert’s case, this clearly relates to his experience in the eastern Congo, which is made to serve as an example for all of sub-Saharan Africa. This tendency is associated, secondly, with an intensive search for a single factor that would explain the plight of Africa, a conceptual master key that can unlock the puzzle of the “African exception”. Englebert’s book is a typical example of this tendency to substitute historical explanations with a philosophy of history. He is not concerned with the identification of contingent factors which, through their myriad combinations and mutual (correlated) causal processes, have led to the emergence of the current complex situation on the African continent. Instead, he claims that the entire situation arose from a single historical moment — that of decolonisation — and evolved by necessity from this, and that this historical moment gave birth to a structure of post-coloniality, from which African states are fundamentally incapable of liberating themselves (while non-African post-colonies apparently are capable). Here, the argument becomes outright theological: The sovereignty accorded by outside actors represents the “original sin” of African statehood. As a consequence, and keeping in line with this theological mode of thinking, post-colonial Africa can be saved only by others.
T. Bierschenk. Book Review — Pierre Englebert (2009), Africa: unity, sovereignty, and sorrow. Internet: <http://journals.sub.uni-hamburg.de> (adapted.).
Decide whether the following statements, concerning the grammatical and semantic aspects of text, are right or wrong.
Both the author of the book itself and the reviewer agree that African countries should not have had their independence determined by outside forces.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Text
The way, today, we tell any of the tales of “voyage of discovery”, is in terms of crossing and conquering space. Cortés voyaged across space, found Tenochtitlán, and took it. “Space”, in this way of telling things, is an expanse we travel across.
We know “globalisation” in its current form is not the result of a law of nature. It is a project. It is not a description of the world as it is so much as an image in which the world is being made.
This much is now well established in critiques of today’s globalisation. But it is perhaps less often made explicit that one of the crucial manoeuvres at work within it, to convince us of the ineluctability of this globalisation, is a sleight of hand in terms of the conceptualisation of space and time. And this has social and political effects. It says that Mozambique and Nicaragua are not really different from “us”. We are not to imagine them as having their own trajectories, their own particular histories, and the potential for their own, perhaps different, futures. They are not recognised as coeval others. They are merely at an earlier stage in the one and only narrative it is possible to tell. That cosmology of “only one narrative” obliterates the multiplicities, the contemporaneous heterogeneities of space. It reduces simultaneous coexistence to place in the historical queue. In the context of a world which is, indeed, increasingly interconnected, the notion of place has come to have totemic resonance.
D. Massey. For space. London: Sage Publications, 2005, p. 4-5 (adapted.).
Decide whether the statements below, concerning the ideas and the vocabulary of text, are right or wrong.
Globalisation, as a project, intends to respect and promote different futures and dynamics for different countries.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Text
The way, today, we tell any of the tales of “voyage of discovery”, is in terms of crossing and conquering space. Cortés voyaged across space, found Tenochtitlán, and took it. “Space”, in this way of telling things, is an expanse we travel across.
We know “globalisation” in its current form is not the result of a law of nature. It is a project. It is not a description of the world as it is so much as an image in which the world is being made.
This much is now well established in critiques of today’s globalisation. But it is perhaps less often made explicit that one of the crucial manoeuvres at work within it, to convince us of the ineluctability of this globalisation, is a sleight of hand in terms of the conceptualisation of space and time. And this has social and political effects. It says that Mozambique and Nicaragua are not really different from “us”. We are not to imagine them as having their own trajectories, their own particular histories, and the potential for their own, perhaps different, futures. They are not recognised as coeval others. They are merely at an earlier stage in the one and only narrative it is possible to tell. That cosmology of “only one narrative” obliterates the multiplicities, the contemporaneous heterogeneities of space. It reduces simultaneous coexistence to place in the historical queue. In the context of a world which is, indeed, increasingly interconnected, the notion of place has come to have totemic resonance.
D. Massey. For space. London: Sage Publications, 2005, p. 4-5 (adapted.).
Decide whether the statements below, concerning the ideas and the vocabulary of text, are right or wrong.
In the text, the adjective “totemic” is the same as emblematic.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Text
The way, today, we tell any of the tales of “voyage of discovery”, is in terms of crossing and conquering space. Cortés voyaged across space, found Tenochtitlán, and took it. “Space”, in this way of telling things, is an expanse we travel across.
We know “globalisation” in its current form is not the result of a law of nature. It is a project. It is not a description of the world as it is so much as an image in which the world is being made.
This much is now well established in critiques of today’s globalisation. But it is perhaps less often made explicit that one of the crucial manoeuvres at work within it, to convince us of the ineluctability of this globalisation, is a sleight of hand in terms of the conceptualisation of space and time. And this has social and political effects. It says that Mozambique and Nicaragua are not really different from “us”. We are not to imagine them as having their own trajectories, their own particular histories, and the potential for their own, perhaps different, futures. They are not recognised as coeval others. They are merely at an earlier stage in the one and only narrative it is possible to tell. That cosmology of “only one narrative” obliterates the multiplicities, the contemporaneous heterogeneities of space. It reduces simultaneous coexistence to place in the historical queue. In the context of a world which is, indeed, increasingly interconnected, the notion of place has come to have totemic resonance.
D. Massey. For space. London: Sage Publications, 2005, p. 4-5 (adapted.).
Considering the ideas and the vocabulary of text, decide whether the statements below are right or wrong .
The adjective “coeval” could be replaced by coetaneous without changing the meaning of the sentence.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Text
The way, today, we tell any of the tales of “voyage of discovery”, is in terms of crossing and conquering space. Cortés voyaged across space, found Tenochtitlán, and took it. “Space”, in this way of telling things, is an expanse we travel across.
We know “globalisation” in its current form is not the result of a law of nature. It is a project. It is not a description of the world as it is so much as an image in which the world is being made.
This much is now well established in critiques of today’s globalisation. But it is perhaps less often made explicit that one of the crucial manoeuvres at work within it, to convince us of the ineluctability of this globalisation, is a sleight of hand in terms of the conceptualisation of space and time. And this has social and political effects. It says that Mozambique and Nicaragua are not really different from “us”. We are not to imagine them as having their own trajectories, their own particular histories, and the potential for their own, perhaps different, futures. They are not recognised as coeval others. They are merely at an earlier stage in the one and only narrative it is possible to tell. That cosmology of “only one narrative” obliterates the multiplicities, the contemporaneous heterogeneities of space. It reduces simultaneous coexistence to place in the historical queue. In the context of a world which is, indeed, increasingly interconnected, the notion of place has come to have totemic resonance.
D. Massey. For space. London: Sage Publications, 2005, p. 4-5 (adapted.).
Considering the ideas and the vocabulary of text, decide whether the statements below are right or wrong .
The author asserts that, even though “space” is an extension to be travelled, it is nowadays intertwined with the notion of time.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Cadernos
Caderno Container