Text 5 to answer questions.

“Were not those behavior patterns and collective selfimages really the cultural property of an elite, and a small one at that, superimposed on the majority of the population?

[...].

In the sense that the collective ways of seeing themselves, and the world beyond, that I have classified as habitually Dutch were not a spontaneous generation but a conscious invention, and that the inventors belonged by and large to the educated, propertied nation, the objection is valid. Van Beverwijk, Cats, Grotius and many of the other projectors of the national imagination were not, by any account, men of the common herd. And it was they who gave shape, perspective and meaning to the rush of historical experience with which the Netherlanders were beset. They were, in a sense, the inventors of patriotic inevitability: the notion that a peculiar Dutch destiny lay immanent, locked in the crust of European history, waiting for some preordained eruption to blow it free of its ancient and unnatural containment. This was potent mythology, to be sure. But it would have been ephemeral, had it been just the self-serving fancy of a few humanist intellectuals and grandees. Its robustness, in fact, lay in the spell of selfrecognition. To be free and to deserve godly succor, the Dutch were told, they had merely to be themselves and to remain true to themselves.

To a remarkable degree, for its time, Dutch culture was the property of all sorts and social conditions. An Avercamp winterscape with gentlefolk skating alongside rustics and sober burghers is an idyll, no doubt, but not so very far from the truth. It was certainly more than a
conspiracy of false consciousness, a series of social fables devised to legitimate a monopoly of social power by the possessing classes. Of course, it didn’t do them any harm, either. But in the acid test of allegiance and sacrifice in a murderous and terrifying war, in the burden of heavy taxes, and in the perennial alarms and anxieties that hung around Dutch diplomacy, their belief in themselves as a common
tribe held firm.”

SCHAMA, Simon. The embarrassment of riches: An interpretation of Dutch culture in the golden age. London: Fontana, 1988, p. 566-567, with adaptations.

Considering the ideas and the vocabulary presented in the text, mark the following item.

The text argues that the artistic expressions associated with Dutch culture would have been a transient phenomenon had it not been embraced by the non-elite Dutch people.

Text 5 to answer questions.

“Were not those behavior patterns and collective selfimages really the cultural property of an elite, and a small one at that, superimposed on the majority of the population?

[...].

In the sense that the collective ways of seeing themselves, and the world beyond, that I have classified as habitually Dutch were not a spontaneous generation but a conscious invention, and that the inventors belonged by and large to the educated, propertied nation, the objection is valid. Van Beverwijk, Cats, Grotius and many of the other projectors of the national imagination were not, by any account, men of the common herd. And it was they who gave shape, perspective and meaning to the rush of historical experience with which the Netherlanders were beset. They were, in a sense, the inventors of patriotic inevitability: the notion that a peculiar Dutch destiny lay immanent, locked in the crust of European history, waiting for some preordained eruption to blow it free of its ancient and unnatural containment. This was potent mythology, to be sure. But it would have been ephemeral, had it been just the self-serving fancy of a few humanist intellectuals and grandees. Its robustness, in fact, lay in the spell of selfrecognition. To be free and to deserve godly succor, the Dutch were told, they had merely to be themselves and to remain true to themselves.

To a remarkable degree, for its time, Dutch culture was the property of all sorts and social conditions. An Avercamp winterscape with gentlefolk skating alongside rustics and sober burghers is an idyll, no doubt, but not so very far from the truth. It was certainly more than a
conspiracy of false consciousness, a series of social fables devised to legitimate a monopoly of social power by the possessing classes. Of course, it didn’t do them any harm, either. But in the acid test of allegiance and sacrifice in a murderous and terrifying war, in the burden of heavy taxes, and in the perennial alarms and anxieties that hung around Dutch diplomacy, their belief in themselves as a common
tribe held firm.”

SCHAMA, Simon. The embarrassment of riches: An interpretation of Dutch culture in the golden age. London: Fontana, 1988, p. 566-567, with adaptations.

Considering the ideas and the vocabulary presented in the text, mark the following item.

The word “allegiance” could be replaced with loyalty without changing the meaning of the sentence.

Text 5 to answer questions.

“Were not those behavior patterns and collective selfimages really the cultural property of an elite, and a small one at that, superimposed on the majority of the population?

[...].

In the sense that the collective ways of seeing themselves, and the world beyond, that I have classified as habitually Dutch were not a spontaneous generation but a conscious invention, and that the inventors belonged by and large to the educated, propertied nation, the objection is valid. Van Beverwijk, Cats, Grotius and many of the other projectors of the national imagination were not, by any account, men of the common herd. And it was they who gave shape, perspective and meaning to the rush of historical experience with which the Netherlanders were beset. They were, in a sense, the inventors of patriotic inevitability: the notion that a peculiar Dutch destiny lay immanent, locked in the crust of European history, waiting for some preordained eruption to blow it free of its ancient and unnatural containment. This was potent mythology, to be sure. But it would have been ephemeral, had it been just the self-serving fancy of a few humanist intellectuals and grandees. Its robustness, in fact, lay in the spell of selfrecognition. To be free and to deserve godly succor, the Dutch were told, they had merely to be themselves and to remain true to themselves.

To a remarkable degree, for its time, Dutch culture was the property of all sorts and social conditions. An Avercamp winterscape with gentlefolk skating alongside rustics and sober burghers is an idyll, no doubt, but not so very far from the truth. It was certainly more than a
conspiracy of false consciousness, a series of social fables devised to legitimate a monopoly of social power by the possessing classes. Of course, it didn’t do them any harm, either. But in the acid test of allegiance and sacrifice in a murderous and terrifying war, in the burden of heavy taxes, and in the perennial alarms and anxieties that hung around Dutch diplomacy, their belief in themselves as a common
tribe held firm.”

SCHAMA, Simon. The embarrassment of riches: An interpretation of Dutch culture in the golden age. London: Fontana, 1988, p. 566-567, with adaptations.

Considering the ideas and the vocabulary presented in the text, mark the following item.

Dutch paintings depicting noble and common people alongside in the winter reflected the consciously invented vision of how the possessing classes wished life in the Netherlands to be.

Text 5 to answer questions.

“Were not those behavior patterns and collective selfimages really the cultural property of an elite, and a small one at that, superimposed on the majority of the population?

[...].

In the sense that the collective ways of seeing themselves, and the world beyond, that I have classified as habitually Dutch were not a spontaneous generation but a conscious invention, and that the inventors belonged by and large to the educated, propertied nation, the objection is valid. Van Beverwijk, Cats, Grotius and many of the other projectors of the national imagination were not, by any account, men of the common herd. And it was they who gave shape, perspective and meaning to the rush of historical experience with which the Netherlanders were beset. They were, in a sense, the inventors of patriotic inevitability: the notion that a peculiar Dutch destiny lay immanent, locked in the crust of European history, waiting for some preordained eruption to blow it free of its ancient and unnatural containment. This was potent mythology, to be sure. But it would have been ephemeral, had it been just the self-serving fancy of a few humanist intellectuals and grandees. Its robustness, in fact, lay in the spell of selfrecognition. To be free and to deserve godly succor, the Dutch were told, they had merely to be themselves and to remain true to themselves.

To a remarkable degree, for its time, Dutch culture was the property of all sorts and social conditions. An Avercamp winterscape with gentlefolk skating alongside rustics and sober burghers is an idyll, no doubt, but not so very far from the truth. It was certainly more than a
conspiracy of false consciousness, a series of social fables devised to legitimate a monopoly of social power by the possessing classes. Of course, it didn’t do them any harm, either. But in the acid test of allegiance and sacrifice in a murderous and terrifying war, in the burden of heavy taxes, and in the perennial alarms and anxieties that hung around Dutch diplomacy, their belief in themselves as a common
tribe held firm.”

SCHAMA, Simon. The embarrassment of riches: An interpretation of Dutch culture in the golden age. London: Fontana, 1988, p. 566-567, with adaptations.

Considering the ideas and the vocabulary presented in the text, mark the following item.

The word “fancy” could be replaced with whim without changing the meaning of the sentence.

Quanto às problemáticas da nacionalidade, de situação jurídica do estrangeiro e da apatridia, considerando o sistema jurídico brasileiro em sua completude, julgue o item a seguir.

Considerando a aquisição originária de nacionalidade, estabelecida no ordenamento jurídico brasileiro, são brasileiros natos os nascidos no estrangeiro, de pai brasileiro ou mãe brasileira, desde que ambos estejam a serviço da República Federativa do Brasil.

Quanto às problemáticas da nacionalidade, de situação jurídica do estrangeiro e da apatridia, considerando o sistema jurídico brasileiro em sua completude, julgue o item a seguir.

A política migratória brasileira, estabelecida pela Lei de Migração, rege-se por princípios e diretrizes, como os da universalidade, indivisibilidade e interdependência dos direitos humanos, da não criminalização da migração e da acolhida humanitária.

Quanto às problemáticas da nacionalidade, de situação jurídica do estrangeiro e da apatridia, considerando o sistema jurídico brasileiro em sua completude, julgue o item a seguir.

Em harmonia com o novo marco normativo das migrações no Brasil, inaugurado pela Lei de Migração, o visto temporário para acolhida humanitária poderá ser concedido ao apátrida ou ao nacional de qualquer país em situação de grave ou iminente instabilidade institucional, de conflito armado, de calamidade de grande proporção, de desastre ambiental ou de grave violação de direitos humanos ou de direito internacional humanitário, ou em outras hipóteses, na forma de regulamento.

Quanto às problemáticas da nacionalidade, de situação jurídica do estrangeiro e da apatridia, considerando o sistema jurídico brasileiro em sua completude, julgue o item a seguir.

De acordo com o ordenamento jurídico brasileiro, será declarada a perda da nacionalidade do brasileiro que adquirir outra nacionalidade, salvo nos casos de reconhecimento de nacionalidade originária pela lei estrangeira ou de imposição de naturalização, pela norma estrangeira, ao brasileiro residente em estado estrangeiro, como condição para permanência em seu território ou para o exercício de direitos civis.

Tendo em vista o estágio atual do direito internacional do mar na sociedade internacional, com o reconhecimento da atuação crescente de organizações e tribunais internacionais, respectivamente, na resolução de problemas globais e de controvérsias internacionais, julgue o item a seguir.

No caso Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v. United Kingdom), relativo ao estabelecimento de uma área marinha protegida pelo Reino Unido em torno do arquipélago de Chagos, tendo a Corte Permanente de Arbitragem servido apenas como registry, o Tribunal Arbitral, constituído em conformidade com o art. 287 e com o anexo VII da Convenção das Nações Unidas sobre o Direito do Mar CNUDM, concluiu que o Reino Unido tem a obrigação de pôr fim à administração do Arquipélago de Chagos o mais rapidamente possível e de que todos os Estados-membros devem cooperar com a Organização das Nações Unidas para completar a descolonização de Maurício.

Tendo em vista o estágio atual do direito internacional do mar na sociedade internacional, com o reconhecimento da atuação crescente de organizações e tribunais internacionais, respectivamente, na resolução de problemas globais e de controvérsias internacionais, julgue o item a seguir.

No caso nº 21, Opinião Consultiva Request for an Advisory Opinion submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC) (Request for Advisory Opinion submitted to the Tribunal), o Tribunal Internacional do Direito do Mar (TIDM) reconheceu que a União Europeia pode ser responsabilizada (liability), na qualidade de organização internacional e parte da CNUDM, pela violação da legislação pesqueira de um Estado costeiro, ocasionada por navio arvorando pavilhão ou bandeira de um de seus Estados-membros, titular de uma licença de pesca emitida no âmbito de um acordo de acesso à pesca, a depender de o respectivo acordo conter disposições específicas relativas à responsabilidade (liability) por tal violação.