博物馆与弱势群体

fiona

What are the purposes of places such as museums and how should they be funded?

          In recent decades, an increasing number of museums and galleries have been built in my country, most of which are equipped with latest technologies and advanced facilities. What is the function of such places and who should be responsible for financing such places?

          It is apparent that these museums firstly serve as places to shed light on the history and cultures that have been created by our brilliant forefathers over a span of thousands of years. For example, visitors to the Palace Museum can be impressed with the magnificence of the artistic works created by the ancient Chinese people and those to China Science and Technology Museum can never lose sight of the technical achievements done both historically and currently. All of these experiences will result in a clearer understanding of how things once were and where society is, which is especially beneficial to those young minds who will be most likely to be interested and inspired to explore the unknown world.

              From the above discussion, we can see that the main purposes of a museum had never involved a profit orientation so I find myself in agreement with those claims that such places should be funded by governments. The reasons are highly evident in that they may run out of funds for the daily maintenance and their personnel since they are not profit- making companies and therefore fail to serve the purposes mentioned above.

             Of course, some people may argue that a government has a rather finite budget and a lot more essential tasks to carry out, such as education or healthcare of the general public, especially those in poor areas. I fully understand such concerns but still firmly believe that government has a major role to play in financing museums—at the very least, there should be reasonable governmental subsidies. Besides, some other practical approaches should be explored. For example, companies should be encouraged to sponsor various museums or some other kinds of donations from individuals can also serve an indispensable part.

弱势群体的范文一篇

         Today, a range of technology available increases the gap between the rich and poor. Some people think it produces the opposite effects. Discuss these views.

          A variety of modern technologies, such as computers, mobiles , are hailed as great inventions to create a brand new world, where all the members would have equal opportunities to live happily.

        With a tendency to hold that the economical advantages are deeply rooted in the privilege of accessing information, the advocates of this opinion claim that in this Information Age, everyone has been granted a better opportunity to have easier access to information than ever before, and the availability of useful information would then largely guarantee a better prospect for all the people. I think this argument is too idealistic and over-simplistic. In fact, those who can benefit most from this Information Age and make most money out of the so-called “knowledge explosion” are by and large those who are already technically rich and therefore economically advantaged.

        On the other hand, those currently impoverished people are correspondingly being put at a disadvantaged by the swelling of modern technologies, because few of them can afford the expenses of technological equipment. For example, farmers in the remote rural areas, who are mainly concerned about daily necessities, cannot buy mobiles or computers easily. Even though they have some fantasies about a technically modern life, they are more likely to be disadvantaged by their poor education background, for most of the poor, from farmers to city workers, only have had a basic education.

      In conclude, it is possible that the poor may improve their living standard, which I surely do not deny, but it is also predictable that the disparity between the rich and the poor is doomed to enlarge. No efforts to improve the life quality of the poor should be spared by governments and some relevant bodies—it is clear that technology has no such more responsibilities.