Postagens
Welcome back to another post!
➧ PROVA DE LÍNGUA INGLESA: CESPE/CEBRASPE-2015-DIPLOMATA-CACD-WRITING EXAMINATION.
➧ BANCA/ORGANIZADOR: https://www.cebraspe.org.br/
➧ ESTRUTURA-WRITING EXAMINATION-2015:
➭ TRANSLATION (English/Portuguese) – 20 points.
- Text (3 parágrafos) – How to step down as an ambassador — with style. || The Daily Telegraph.
➭ VERSION (Portuguese/English) – 15 points.
- Text (2 parágrafos) – Raízes do Brasil. || Literatura.
➭ SUMMARY – 15 points.
-Text (07 parágrafos) – Humans have caused untold damage to the planet || The Guardian.
➭ COMPOSITION – [Length: 400 to 450 words] – 50 points.
- Assunto (geral) – You’ll never have a quiet world till you knock the patriotism out of the human race. || Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right and always successful, right or wrong.
- Tema (específico) – Do ponto de vista de um diplomata, comparar e discutir as visões de patriotismo.
➧ PROVA:
Translate into Portuguese the following excerpt adapted from Sir Christopher Meyer's article How to step down as an ambassador — with style.
[value: 20 marks]
It was once the custom for British ambassadors to write a valedictory despatch at the end of their posting. In contrast to the utilitarian style of daily diplomatic reporting, ambassadors were expected to spread their wings with candid comment on the country they were leaving, larded, where the wit was willing, with humorously pungent observations on the character of the locals. The best were distributed throughout the diplomatic service for the enlightenment and amusement of its ranks.
These were usually pretty sensitive and might be construed as a slight abroad were their contents divulged beyond the Ministry’s portals. Some missives were deemed so delicate that their circulation was restricted for fear of leaks. Bidding farewell Sir Ivor Roberts dared ask: "Can it be that in wading through the plethora of business plans, capability reviews, skills audits… we have forgotten what diplomacy is all about?"
Whether written with quill, typewriter or tablet, a key requirement has ever been the ability to render incisive judgment, with style and wit.
Christopher Meyer.
How to step down as an ambassador - with style.
The telegraph, August 7th 2015.
👉 Resposta (Inglês→português) Parte A :
Tradução 1(Guilherme Fernando Rennó Kisteumacher)(14,5/15):
Já foi o costume de os embaixadores britânicos escreverem um despacho de despedida ao final de seu exercício em um posto diplomático. Em contraste ao estilo utilitário das reportagens diplomáticas diárias, esperava-se que os embaixadores "abrissem suas asas" com comentários francos sobre o país que estavam deixando, recheados, onde a argúcia era devida, com observações humoristicamente pungentes sobre as características dos locais. Os melhores eram distribuídos por todo o serviço diplomático, para o esclarecimento e o divertimento de seus funcionários.
Esses comentários eram, geralmente, bastante sensíveis e podiam ser compreendidos como uma crítica depreciativa no exterior, caso seus conteúdos fossem divulgados além do âmbito do Ministério. Algumas missivas eram consideradas tão delicadas que sua circulação foi restringida, por medo de vazamentos. Despedindo-se, Sir Ivor Roberts ousou questionar: “Será possível que, ao atravessarmos a miríade de planos de negócios, revisões de capacidades, auditorias de habilidades... nós esquecemos o que é a essência da diplomacia?”.
Seja escrito em pena, máquina de escrever ou “tablet”, um requisito-chave sempre foi a habilidade de produzir um juízo incisivo, com estilo e perspicácia.
Esses comentários eram, geralmente, bastante sensíveis e podiam ser compreendidos como uma crítica depreciativa no exterior, caso seus conteúdos fossem divulgados além do âmbito do Ministério. Algumas missivas eram consideradas tão delicadas que sua circulação foi restringida, por medo de vazamentos. Despedindo-se, Sir Ivor Roberts ousou questionar: “Será possível que, ao atravessarmos a miríade de planos de negócios, revisões de capacidades, auditorias de habilidades... nós esquecemos o que é a essência da diplomacia?”.
Seja escrito em pena, máquina de escrever ou “tablet”, um requisito-chave sempre foi a habilidade de produzir um juízo incisivo, com estilo e perspicácia.
Translate into English the following excerpt adapted from Sérgio Buarque de Holanda’s Raízes do Brasil.
[value: 15 marks]
A empreitada de implantação da cultura europeia em extenso território, dotado de condições naturais, se não adversas, francamente antagônicas à sua cultura milenar, é, nas origens da sociedade brasileira, o fato dominante e mais rico em consequências. Trazendo de países distantes nossas formas de convívio, nossas instituições, nossas ideias, e timbrando em manter tudo isso em ambiente muitas vezes refratário e hostil, somos ainda hoje uns desterrados em nossa terra. Podemos enriquecer nossa humanidade de aspectos novos e imprevistos, aperfeiçoar o tipo de civilização que representamos, mas todo o fruto de nosso trabalho ou de nossa preguiça parece participar de um sistema de evolução próprio de outro clima e outra paisagem.É significativo termos recebido a herança proveniente de uma nação ibérica. Espanha e Portugal eram territórios-ponte pelos quais a Europa se comunicava com os outros mundos. Constituíam uma zona fronteiriça, de transição, menos carregada desse europeísmo que, não obstante, retinha como um patrimônio imprescindível.
Sérgio Buarque de Holanda.
Raízes do Brasil. 3.ª ed. Rio de Janeiro:
José Olympio, 1956, p. 15-16.
👉 Resposta (Português→Inglês) Parte B :
Versão 1(Camilla Corá)(12/15):
The dominant and most consequential fact in the origins of Brazilian society is the effort of implanting [-1,0] the [-0,5] European culture upon a large territory, doted [-1,0] with natural conditions that were, if not adverse, frankly antagonistic towardEurope's millenar [-0,5] culture. By bringing from distant countries our forms of socialization, our institutions, our ideas, and by insisting on maintaining all that in an environment that is often unfavorable and hostile, we remain, still, a people disconnected from our surroundings. Although we may enrich our humanity with new and unforeseen aspects and perfect the kind of civilization that we represent, all the product of either our work or our laziness seems to be a part of a system of evolution that belongs to another climate and another landscape.
It is significant that we received the heritage of an Iberic nation. Spain and Portugal were both passageways through which Europe communicated with the other worlds. They constituted an area of borders and of transition, less filled with this European influence which, nonetheless, they retained as an indispensable asset.
Versão 2(Wallace Medeiros de Melo Alves)(Alcançou 11 pontos)::
The undertaking of the establishment of the [-1,0] European culture in a large territory, endowed with natural conditions, which if not adverse, it is widely antagonist [-1,0] of [-1,0] its centuriesold culture, is, at the roots of Brazilian society, the richest and most dominant factor in its consequences. By bringing our ways of life, institutions and ideas from distant countries, as well as managing to conciliate all this in an environment that is hostile and opponent at times, we are still foreigners in our own land. We can enrich our humanity through new and unexpected aspects, improve the type of civilization we represent, but all the outcome from our work or laziness seems to take part in a system of evolution related to a different climate and landscape.
It is meaningful that we have received the heritage from an Iberian nation. Spain and Portugal were territories that served as a bridge, through which Europe communicated with other worlds. They were a transitional border zone, less [-1,0]
endowed with this European identity, although they kept it as a valuable asset.
Versão 3(Hudson Caldeira Brant Sandy):
In the origins of Brazilian society, the attempt to implant [-1,0] European culture in a vast territory with natural conditions that are - if not contrary [-1,0] - openly antagonistic towards Europe's millenar [-0,5] culture has been the dominant
fact, and the one richest in consequences. Having brought our models of community life, our institutions and our ideas from distant countries, and struggling to keep them all in an environment that rebuffs and is hostile to them, we are, even nowadays [-1,0], outcasts in our own land. We may enrich our humanity with new and unforseen aspects, we may paerfect the kind of civilization that we represent, but the fact remains that the entire product of our work or sloth seems to be a part of a specific evolution system, one from a different climate and a different landscape.
It is meaningful that the heritage we received stems from an Iberian nation. Spain and Portugal were bridge territories through which Europe could communicate with other worlds. They were a frontier zone, one of transition, less burdened with this Europeism [-1] that it kept, regardless, as an indispensible patrimony.
In the origins of Brazilian society, the attempt to implant [-1,0] European culture in a vast territory with natural conditions that are - if not contrary [-1,0] - openly antagonistic towards Europe's millenar [-0,5] culture has been the dominant
fact, and the one richest in consequences. Having brought our models of community life, our institutions and our ideas from distant countries, and struggling to keep them all in an environment that rebuffs and is hostile to them, we are, even nowadays [-1,0], outcasts in our own land. We may enrich our humanity with new and unforseen aspects, we may paerfect the kind of civilization that we represent, but the fact remains that the entire product of our work or sloth seems to be a part of a specific evolution system, one from a different climate and a different landscape.
It is meaningful that the heritage we received stems from an Iberian nation. Spain and Portugal were bridge territories through which Europe could communicate with other worlds. They were a frontier zone, one of transition, less burdened with this Europeism [-1] that it kept, regardless, as an indispensible patrimony.
Versão 4(NOTA ZERO):
The work of implementing the European culture in a vast territory, rich in natural conditions, if not adverse, frankly opposed to its millenar culture is, in the origins of the Brazilian society, the dominant fact and the richer one in consequences. Bringing from far away countries our ways of living, our institutions, our ideas, and carrying for keeping all that in an environment often closed and hostile, we are nowadays still some expatriates in our own land. We may enrichen our humanity with new and unexpected aspects, improve the kind of civilization that we represent, but all the outcomes of our work or of our lazyness seem to participate in an evolution system characteristic of another climate and another landscape.
It is significant that we had received the heritage from an Iberic nation. Spain and Portugal were bridge-territories through which Europe used to communicate with the other worlds. They used to constitute a bordering zone of transition, less charged of that europeism which, however, it retained as an essential property.
The times in which we live are epoch-making. Literally. Such is the scale of the changes humans have wrought of late that our world has been altered beyond anything experienced hitherto. Our planet is now crossing a geological boundary, and we are the change-makers.
Millions of years from now, a stripe in the accumulated layers of rock on Earth’s surface will reveal our human fingerprint, just as we can discern evidence of dinosaurs in rocks of the Jurassic, the explosion of life that marks the Cambrian or the glacial retreat scars of the Holocene. Our imprint will be revealed by species going extinct by the score, sharp changes in the oceans’ chemistry, depletion of forests and encroachment of deserts, shrinking of glaciers and the sinking of islands. Geologists of the far future will detect in fossil records a diminishing array of wild animals offset by an upsurge of domesticates, the baleful effects of detritus such as aluminium drink cans and plastic carrier bags, and the noxious smudge of mining projects laying waste the oil sands of north-western Canada, revolving 30 billion tonnes of earth each year — twice the amount of sediment discharged from all the rivers in the world.
In acknowledgement that humanity has become a geophysical force on a par with the earth-shattering asteroids and planet-cloaking volcanoes that defined past eras, geologists are dubbing this new epoch the Anthropocene. Earth now ranks as a human planet. We determine whether a forest stands or is razed, whether species survive or become extinct, how and whither a river flows, the temperature of the atmosphere, even. We have become the most manifold big animal on Earth, followed by those we breed to feed and serve us. Nearly half the planet’s land surface is now used to grow our food, and we control three-quarters of the world’s fresh water. Prodigious times, indeed. In the tropics, coral reefs dwindle, ice melts apace at the poles while the oceans are emptying of fish at our doing. Entire islands are submerging under rising seas, just as naked new land emerges in the Arctic.
It has become the business of science journalists to take special note of reports on how the biosphere is changing, and research is hardly in short supply. Study after study plot changes in butterfly migrations, glacier melt rates, ocean nitrogen levels, wildfire frequency... all linked by a common theme: the impact of humans. Scientists have described the multifarious ways humans are affecting the natural world. Climate scientists tracking global warming have forewarned of deadly droughts, heatwaves and gathering sea-level rise. Conservation biologists have envisaged biodiversity collapse to the point of mass extinction; marine biologists deplore “of plastic garbage” roaming the seas; space scientists debate the destiny of all the junk up there menacing our satellites; ecologists denounce deforestation of the last intact rainforests; agro-economists raise the alarm about deserts engulfing vast tracts of fertile soil. Every new study hammers home the extent to which our world is changing. Humanity is shaking it up. And people across the globe can hardly be in any doubt about the environmental crises we set in motion. All this is deeply troubling, if not overwhelming.
Dire predictions abound as to our future on Earth. At the same time, nonetheless, we should not disparage our triumphs, our inventions and discoveries — how scientists find novel ways to improve plants, stave off disease, transport electricity and forge new materials. We can be an incredible force of and for nature. Humans have the power to heat the planet further or to cool it down, to eliminate species and to engineer new ones, to re-sculpt the terrestrial surface and to fashion its biology. No part of this planet is untouched by human hand — we have transcended natural cycles, altering physical, chemical and biological processes. We can craft new life in a test tube, resurrect extinct species or grow replacement body parts. We have invented robots to be our drudges, computers to expand our brains, and a new ecosystem of communication networks. We have redrawn our own evolutionary pathway with medical advances that save those who would otherwise die in infancy. We are supernatural: we can fly without wings and dive without gills; we can survive killer diseases and be resuscitated after death.
The realisation that we wield such planetary power requires a major shift in perception, one that topples the scientific, cultural and religious philosophies that define our place in the world, in time and in relation to all other known life. Man was once framed at the centre of the Universe. Then came Copernicus in the 16th century, who put Earth in its place as just another planet revolving around the Sun. By the 19th century, Darwin had reduced man to just another species — a wee twig on the grand tree of life. The paradigm has swung round again, though: man is no longer just another species. We are the first to knowingly reshape the Earth’s biology and chemistry. We have become vital to the destiny of life on Earth. The Anthropocene throws up unprecedented challenges, as we have already begun to tilt global processes out of kilter. In some cases, minuscule further changes could spell disaster; in others, a fair degree of leeway remains before we face the consequences.
The self-awareness implicit in recognising our power requires us to question our new-found role. Are we just another part of nature, doing what nature does: reproducing to the limits of environmental capacity, subsequently to suffer a sudden demise? Or shall we prove the first species capable of curbing its natural urges, and modulating its impact on the environment, such that habitability on Earth can be maintained? Should we treat the rest of the biosphere as an exploitable resource to be plundered at will for our pleasures and needs, or does our new global power imbue us with a sense of responsibility over the rest of the natural world? The Anthropocene — and our very future — will be defined by how we reconcile these opposing, interwoven drives in the years to come.
The work of implementing the European culture in a vast territory, rich in natural conditions, if not adverse, frankly opposed to its millenar culture is, in the origins of the Brazilian society, the dominant fact and the richer one in consequences. Bringing from far away countries our ways of living, our institutions, our ideas, and carrying for keeping all that in an environment often closed and hostile, we are nowadays still some expatriates in our own land. We may enrichen our humanity with new and unexpected aspects, improve the kind of civilization that we represent, but all the outcomes of our work or of our lazyness seem to participate in an evolution system characteristic of another climate and another landscape.
It is significant that we had received the heritage from an Iberic nation. Spain and Portugal were bridge-territories through which Europe used to communicate with the other worlds. They used to constitute a bordering zone of transition, less charged of that europeism which, however, it retained as an essential property.
Write a summary, in your own words, of the following excerpt adapted from Gaia Vince’s Humans have caused untold damage to the planet. Your text should not exceed 200 words.
The times in which we live are epoch-making. Literally. Such is the scale of the changes humans have wrought of late that our world has been altered beyond anything experienced hitherto. Our planet is now crossing a geological boundary, and we are the change-makers.
Millions of years from now, a stripe in the accumulated layers of rock on Earth’s surface will reveal our human fingerprint, just as we can discern evidence of dinosaurs in rocks of the Jurassic, the explosion of life that marks the Cambrian or the glacial retreat scars of the Holocene. Our imprint will be revealed by species going extinct by the score, sharp changes in the oceans’ chemistry, depletion of forests and encroachment of deserts, shrinking of glaciers and the sinking of islands. Geologists of the far future will detect in fossil records a diminishing array of wild animals offset by an upsurge of domesticates, the baleful effects of detritus such as aluminium drink cans and plastic carrier bags, and the noxious smudge of mining projects laying waste the oil sands of north-western Canada, revolving 30 billion tonnes of earth each year — twice the amount of sediment discharged from all the rivers in the world.
In acknowledgement that humanity has become a geophysical force on a par with the earth-shattering asteroids and planet-cloaking volcanoes that defined past eras, geologists are dubbing this new epoch the Anthropocene. Earth now ranks as a human planet. We determine whether a forest stands or is razed, whether species survive or become extinct, how and whither a river flows, the temperature of the atmosphere, even. We have become the most manifold big animal on Earth, followed by those we breed to feed and serve us. Nearly half the planet’s land surface is now used to grow our food, and we control three-quarters of the world’s fresh water. Prodigious times, indeed. In the tropics, coral reefs dwindle, ice melts apace at the poles while the oceans are emptying of fish at our doing. Entire islands are submerging under rising seas, just as naked new land emerges in the Arctic.
It has become the business of science journalists to take special note of reports on how the biosphere is changing, and research is hardly in short supply. Study after study plot changes in butterfly migrations, glacier melt rates, ocean nitrogen levels, wildfire frequency... all linked by a common theme: the impact of humans. Scientists have described the multifarious ways humans are affecting the natural world. Climate scientists tracking global warming have forewarned of deadly droughts, heatwaves and gathering sea-level rise. Conservation biologists have envisaged biodiversity collapse to the point of mass extinction; marine biologists deplore “of plastic garbage” roaming the seas; space scientists debate the destiny of all the junk up there menacing our satellites; ecologists denounce deforestation of the last intact rainforests; agro-economists raise the alarm about deserts engulfing vast tracts of fertile soil. Every new study hammers home the extent to which our world is changing. Humanity is shaking it up. And people across the globe can hardly be in any doubt about the environmental crises we set in motion. All this is deeply troubling, if not overwhelming.
Dire predictions abound as to our future on Earth. At the same time, nonetheless, we should not disparage our triumphs, our inventions and discoveries — how scientists find novel ways to improve plants, stave off disease, transport electricity and forge new materials. We can be an incredible force of and for nature. Humans have the power to heat the planet further or to cool it down, to eliminate species and to engineer new ones, to re-sculpt the terrestrial surface and to fashion its biology. No part of this planet is untouched by human hand — we have transcended natural cycles, altering physical, chemical and biological processes. We can craft new life in a test tube, resurrect extinct species or grow replacement body parts. We have invented robots to be our drudges, computers to expand our brains, and a new ecosystem of communication networks. We have redrawn our own evolutionary pathway with medical advances that save those who would otherwise die in infancy. We are supernatural: we can fly without wings and dive without gills; we can survive killer diseases and be resuscitated after death.
The realisation that we wield such planetary power requires a major shift in perception, one that topples the scientific, cultural and religious philosophies that define our place in the world, in time and in relation to all other known life. Man was once framed at the centre of the Universe. Then came Copernicus in the 16th century, who put Earth in its place as just another planet revolving around the Sun. By the 19th century, Darwin had reduced man to just another species — a wee twig on the grand tree of life. The paradigm has swung round again, though: man is no longer just another species. We are the first to knowingly reshape the Earth’s biology and chemistry. We have become vital to the destiny of life on Earth. The Anthropocene throws up unprecedented challenges, as we have already begun to tilt global processes out of kilter. In some cases, minuscule further changes could spell disaster; in others, a fair degree of leeway remains before we face the consequences.
The self-awareness implicit in recognising our power requires us to question our new-found role. Are we just another part of nature, doing what nature does: reproducing to the limits of environmental capacity, subsequently to suffer a sudden demise? Or shall we prove the first species capable of curbing its natural urges, and modulating its impact on the environment, such that habitability on Earth can be maintained? Should we treat the rest of the biosphere as an exploitable resource to be plundered at will for our pleasures and needs, or does our new global power imbue us with a sense of responsibility over the rest of the natural world? The Anthropocene — and our very future — will be defined by how we reconcile these opposing, interwoven drives in the years to come.
Gaia Vince.
Humans have caused untold damage to the planet.
The Guardian. September 25th 2015. In: <www.theguardian.com>.
Millions of years in the future, fossils will present a record of humanity's impact on the planet: a long list of extinct animal species, deforestation, desertification, and raising sea levels.
Scientists and journalists have been researching and reporting these anthropogenic changes on climate, soils, and biodiversity. Hence, few people deny that humanity has caused these environmental crises taht are changing the world.
However, modern technological and scientific advancements can also be used to protect the environment. Therefore, humankind's impact on the Earth does not necessarily have to be a negative one.
Though the Scientific Revolution has put and end to the old anthropocentric conceptions, contemporary developments of humankind's capacity to alter the world mean that a new selfperception about humanity's place and powers must be formed.
Hence, humanity must make a decision about what it will do with its new perceived power: continue to make unrelentless use of nature's resources or act with greater responsibilities. The future depends on this choice.
Conversely, the progress of science cannot be disregarded, as we are now capable of controlling nature. Mankind needs to change its perception regarding the planet. Our position as the center of the Universe, toppled [1] by Copernicus and Darwin in the past, is once again real. Humanity is sure that the changes we are experiencing are a direct result of human action. As mankind becomes aware of its position as a great geological force, it needs to answer the prospects unveiled by scientists. We need to decide whether we will live according to the limits imposed by nature or we will adjust nature to our survival demands.
When the scientists of the future study the present period, just like we have found fossils of dinosaurs, they will find an array of elements that will show them how we changed our planet for the worse.
Human beings have become a force as strong as volcanoes and asteroids in our ability to definitely change the planet. We are affecting the climate, the oceans, the biodiversity and even the outer space.
However, the same power we use to destroy we can also use to construct. The improvements in medicine, biogenetics and technology in general prove human beings can work in favor of nature, not only against it.
In order to use our force in this positive way, however, we need to change our perspective. We have to assume our place in the world and acknowledge that, in the Anthropocene, we are not “a species”, we are “the species” that controls the destiny of the planet. With great power comes great responsibility, and this is why we must act carefully when we deal with our environment.
It has been of increasing concern to journalists, climate scientists and conservation biologists to keep track of the human-induced changes in the global environmental system. Even new study further corroborates such transformations and leaves no doubt that the environmental crisis are already set in motion.
Despite these predictions, humanity should place a great value on its capacity to innovate, adapt to the nature and enhance its living standards. Humans’ force for nature has transcended deterministic natural cycles. What is necessary is to reshape the anthropocentric perception, in which humanity defines the destiny of life on Earth. In this sense, humankind needs to perform a new-found role, considering the dilemmas between responsibility and unsustainable development, between to perish and reduce its impact upon the planet. Addressing these concerns is at the center of the Anthropocene debate.
Analysts have been taking note of these changes. They are engaging in predictions about our future, warning against disastrous consequences. Yet the same capacity humans have to destroy nature allows them to tame it, through technical progress. This puts us above nature and call for a change of perception as to our role on Earth. Whether we stand on the planet as any other animal or have differentiated responsibilities towards nature is what the future will tell.
👉 Resumo em Inglês Exemplo de resposta :
Modelo 1(Anônimo)
As a result of humankind's unprecedented capacity to alter the Earth's geophysical characteristics, geologists have named the current era as the Anthropocene. Humans have now significant control and can deeply affect nature.
Millions of years in the future, fossils will present a record of humanity's impact on the planet: a long list of extinct animal species, deforestation, desertification, and raising sea levels.
Scientists and journalists have been researching and reporting these anthropogenic changes on climate, soils, and biodiversity. Hence, few people deny that humanity has caused these environmental crises taht are changing the world.
However, modern technological and scientific advancements can also be used to protect the environment. Therefore, humankind's impact on the Earth does not necessarily have to be a negative one.
Though the Scientific Revolution has put and end to the old anthropocentric conceptions, contemporary developments of humankind's capacity to alter the world mean that a new selfperception about humanity's place and powers must be formed.
Hence, humanity must make a decision about what it will do with its new perceived power: continue to make unrelentless use of nature's resources or act with greater responsibilities. The future depends on this choice.
Modelo 2(Lucas Cortez Rufino Magalhães)
Human action has prompted deep changes on Earth, and has inaugurated a new geological era: the Anthropocene. In the future, the human fingerprint will be measured in terms of extinction of species, the composition of oceans, deforestation, desertification, the disappearance of islands and ice caps, garbage and climate change. Humanity has managed to control the resources from Earth, but it has also become a force comparable to asteroids and volcanoes. Science journalism foreshadows a dismal reality in the fields of biodiversity, sea-level, outer space and agriculture – all as a consequence of human action.
Conversely, the progress of science cannot be disregarded, as we are now capable of controlling nature. Mankind needs to change its perception regarding the planet. Our position as the center of the Universe, toppled [1] by Copernicus and Darwin in the past, is once again real. Humanity is sure that the changes we are experiencing are a direct result of human action. As mankind becomes aware of its position as a great geological force, it needs to answer the prospects unveiled by scientists. We need to decide whether we will live according to the limits imposed by nature or we will adjust nature to our survival demands.
Modelo 3( Alexandre de Paula Oliveira)
Human beings are changing the planet in a decisive way, and scientists are calling the current geological age the “Anthropocene”.
When the scientists of the future study the present period, just like we have found fossils of dinosaurs, they will find an array of elements that will show them how we changed our planet for the worse.
Human beings have become a force as strong as volcanoes and asteroids in our ability to definitely change the planet. We are affecting the climate, the oceans, the biodiversity and even the outer space.
However, the same power we use to destroy we can also use to construct. The improvements in medicine, biogenetics and technology in general prove human beings can work in favor of nature, not only against it.
In order to use our force in this positive way, however, we need to change our perspective. We have to assume our place in the world and acknowledge that, in the Anthropocene, we are not “a species”, we are “the species” that controls the destiny of the planet. With great power comes great responsibility, and this is why we must act carefully when we deal with our environment.
Modelo 4(extra)
Human activities have caused unprecedented changes in the world, which has led the planet to cross a geological boundary that menaces the survival of all species, including humanity. In the future, the human impact upon the environment will be measured by its fingerprint concerning the adverse consequences brought to the planet. Humankind’s geophysical force is comparable to that of the asteroids and volcanoes that dramatically changed life in Earth. This context paves the way for a new era of the Anthropocene, in which humanity plays a critical role in determining the course of natural events, such as species’ extinction and global temperature. Indeed, along with the prodigious use of the environmental resources, there is also the depletion of them.
It has been of increasing concern to journalists, climate scientists and conservation biologists to keep track of the human-induced changes in the global environmental system. Even new study further corroborates such transformations and leaves no doubt that the environmental crisis are already set in motion.
Despite these predictions, humanity should place a great value on its capacity to innovate, adapt to the nature and enhance its living standards. Humans’ force for nature has transcended deterministic natural cycles. What is necessary is to reshape the anthropocentric perception, in which humanity defines the destiny of life on Earth. In this sense, humankind needs to perform a new-found role, considering the dilemmas between responsibility and unsustainable development, between to perish and reduce its impact upon the planet. Addressing these concerns is at the center of the Anthropocene debate.
Modelo 4(NOTA 6)
Mankind has been considerably impacting the world’s environment as never before. Our marks will be left for future generations to see and assess, through an array of physical evidence. Such is the scale of human-produced change that it is comparable to natural forces that shaped the Earth. This is echoed in the omnipresence of humans across the globe, whose resources are either explored or otherwise used or modified by them in their immediate interest.
Analysts have been taking note of these changes. They are engaging in predictions about our future, warning against disastrous consequences. Yet the same capacity humans have to destroy nature allows them to tame it, through technical progress. This puts us above nature and call for a change of perception as to our role on Earth. Whether we stand on the planet as any other animal or have differentiated responsibilities towards nature is what the future will tell.
History consists of a corpus of ascertained facts. The facts are available to the historian in documents, inscriptions and so on, like fish on the fish monge’s slab. The historian collects them, takes them home, and cooks and serves them in whatever style appeals to him. Acton, whose culinary tastes were austere, wanted them served plain. In his letter of instructions to contributors to the first Cambridge Modern History, he announced the requirement “that our Waterloo must be one that satisfies French and English, German and Dutch alike”.
E. H. Carr. What is history?
2nd Harmondsworth:
Penguin, 1987, p. 9 (adapted).
Neeladri Bhattacharya, quoted in Willaim Dalrymple.
Trapped in the ruins. The Guardian. March 20th 2004.
(Length: 400 to 450 words)
History-making depends not only on the people who decide, but also on the circumstances in which they find themselves. That is also true for reporting the facts, which means that the opinions and values of historians play a great role in their work. When Edward Carr wrote that the historian collects the facts, “takes them home, and cooks and serves them in whatever style appeals to him”, he was referring to that. Denying it would mean refusing [4] that men and women are not factsreporting machines. Their feelings and preferences inevitably interfere.
Recognizing the role played by personal values does not mean nobody should try to distinguish true facts from false ones. People must be vigilant, for history can be used for undesirable political projects and sectarian conflicts. That is the opinion of Neeladri Bhattacharya, according to whom historians must firmly reject those attempts. In fact, that use of history is very frequent. The prime minister of Israel has recently declared that an Islamic leader, the mufti of Jerusalem, was responsible for influencing Hitler, when the latter decided to annihilate the Jewish people. Fortunately, many historians and political leaders have followed Bhattacharya’s advice, condemning Netanyahu’s declaration.
Behind the reaction to the Israeli leader’s words, there is a very important belief: historical knowledge should not be used for stirring confrontation. On the contrary, it must foster cooperation. It means historians and political leaders should work together, seeking peace and progress for all. In South America, the people of Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay have learnt it very well. Insted [5] of insisting on a version of the War of the Triple Alliance that highlighted good and evil players, historians have explained that conflict as the result of the creation of each state in the nineteenth century. That probably helped, when the four countries formed Mercosur in 1991.
The way something is defined reflects how people intend to use it. Consequently, describing history and the work of historians might be really beneficial to society. When facts are reported, people’s style and values cannot be eliminated. Nevertheless, history should not be a means for stimulating hatred and revenge.
Any interpretation of previous events, as much as the events themselves, happens at a certain point in time. The writings of Pangiá Calogeras on the political life of the newly-born Brazilian Republic were only concluded a few years after a coup in 1930 put an end to that first republican experience [2]. His version of that very fact – the coup – clearly bears the mark of a brain nurtured with ideals that ceased to exist in later generations of historians. Yet there is no denying that what Calogeras produced was true History, and his work remains a valuable source for the understanding of the period on which he wrote.
Accepting that judgments over narrated facts will always pervade historical writing impinges upon historians perhaps an unexpected role. Just as the past constitutes the subject-matter of History, so too the person of the historian becomes such a subject-matter. To understand the thought of political elites during the final years of the Brazilian Empire, the contributions of Joaquim Nabuco cannot pass unnoticed, notably his Um Estadista no Império. However far one may disagree with his romantic views, these are now themselves facts, which in turn shed increased light upon the facts on which they were based.
It would of course be too pretentious for someone to contend that his or her opinions on History represent the only truth. Could historian E.H. Carr be charged of doing that? As he admits that his work should be conceived so as not to displease certain groups, one sees clearly that his endeavour cannot be rid of some subjectivity. Surely how facts are construed result from personal choices. And although Carr, as any other historian, may escape criticism for not distorting facts or using them politically, his preference for a more or less nuanced stance in presenting those facts may not.
Perhaps the essence of any attempt to write History lies in the honesty of the writer. To accept and disclose one’s background as well as how one fits into History is the fundamental step for writing good History, since impartiality may not be something achievable at all.
👉 Redação em Inglês Exemplo de resposta :
Modelo 01:(João Soares Viana Neto)(39,5/50)
There is a common saying according to which history is a means of learning from the mistakes committed in the past in order to avoid them in the future. That definition might cause some problems, because it largely depends on the evaluation each one makes of the [1] facts, which could lead to cinicism [2]. However, it has the advantage of remembering [3] historians that their mission is a moral one. Moreover, the definition highlights something of the utmost importance: historical knowledge must make the present better.
History-making depends not only on the people who decide, but also on the circumstances in which they find themselves. That is also true for reporting the facts, which means that the opinions and values of historians play a great role in their work. When Edward Carr wrote that the historian collects the facts, “takes them home, and cooks and serves them in whatever style appeals to him”, he was referring to that. Denying it would mean refusing [4] that men and women are not factsreporting machines. Their feelings and preferences inevitably interfere.
Recognizing the role played by personal values does not mean nobody should try to distinguish true facts from false ones. People must be vigilant, for history can be used for undesirable political projects and sectarian conflicts. That is the opinion of Neeladri Bhattacharya, according to whom historians must firmly reject those attempts. In fact, that use of history is very frequent. The prime minister of Israel has recently declared that an Islamic leader, the mufti of Jerusalem, was responsible for influencing Hitler, when the latter decided to annihilate the Jewish people. Fortunately, many historians and political leaders have followed Bhattacharya’s advice, condemning Netanyahu’s declaration.
Behind the reaction to the Israeli leader’s words, there is a very important belief: historical knowledge should not be used for stirring confrontation. On the contrary, it must foster cooperation. It means historians and political leaders should work together, seeking peace and progress for all. In South America, the people of Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay have learnt it very well. Insted [5] of insisting on a version of the War of the Triple Alliance that highlighted good and evil players, historians have explained that conflict as the result of the creation of each state in the nineteenth century. That probably helped, when the four countries formed Mercosur in 1991.
The way something is defined reflects how people intend to use it. Consequently, describing history and the work of historians might be really beneficial to society. When facts are reported, people’s style and values cannot be eliminated. Nevertheless, history should not be a means for stimulating hatred and revenge.
Modelo 02:(João Soares Viana Neto)(39,5/50)
The idea that true History may only be constituted by [1] impartial accounts of past experiences seems to have acquired a sacred quality of sorts that few would dare challenge. Yet scepticism as regards the soundness of this idea can perhaps be found even among the most staunch advocates of an orthodox approach to History. The views expressed by Bhattacharya, according to whom any politically-oriented use of History should be abhorred, do not invalidate the scepticism, nor are they incompatible with it. That History must reveal accurate facts does not mean it must be descriptive.
Any interpretation of previous events, as much as the events themselves, happens at a certain point in time. The writings of Pangiá Calogeras on the political life of the newly-born Brazilian Republic were only concluded a few years after a coup in 1930 put an end to that first republican experience [2]. His version of that very fact – the coup – clearly bears the mark of a brain nurtured with ideals that ceased to exist in later generations of historians. Yet there is no denying that what Calogeras produced was true History, and his work remains a valuable source for the understanding of the period on which he wrote.
Accepting that judgments over narrated facts will always pervade historical writing impinges upon historians perhaps an unexpected role. Just as the past constitutes the subject-matter of History, so too the person of the historian becomes such a subject-matter. To understand the thought of political elites during the final years of the Brazilian Empire, the contributions of Joaquim Nabuco cannot pass unnoticed, notably his Um Estadista no Império. However far one may disagree with his romantic views, these are now themselves facts, which in turn shed increased light upon the facts on which they were based.
It would of course be too pretentious for someone to contend that his or her opinions on History represent the only truth. Could historian E.H. Carr be charged of doing that? As he admits that his work should be conceived so as not to displease certain groups, one sees clearly that his endeavour cannot be rid of some subjectivity. Surely how facts are construed result from personal choices. And although Carr, as any other historian, may escape criticism for not distorting facts or using them politically, his preference for a more or less nuanced stance in presenting those facts may not.
Perhaps the essence of any attempt to write History lies in the honesty of the writer. To accept and disclose one’s background as well as how one fits into History is the fundamental step for writing good History, since impartiality may not be something achievable at all.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário