The Pacific island nation of Nauru used to be a beautiful place. Now it is an ecological disaster area. Nauru's heartbreaking story could have one good consequence—other countries might learn from its mistakes.
For thousands of years, Polynesian people lived on the remote island of Nauru, far from western civilization. The first European to arrive was John Fearn in 1798. He was the British captain of the Hunter, a whaling ship. He called the island Pleasant Island.
However, because it was very remote, Nauru had little communication with Europeans at first. Then whaling ships and other traders began to visit, bringing guns and alcohol. These elements destroyed the social balance of the twelve family groups on the island. A ten-year civil war started, which reduced the population from l, 400 to 900.
Nauru's real troubles began in 1899 when a British mining company discovered phosphate(磷酸盐) on the island. In fact, it found that the island of Nauru was nearly all phosphate, which is a very important fertilizer for farming. The company began mining the phosphate.
A phosphate mine is not a hole in the ground; it is a strip mine(露天矿). When a company strip-mines, it removes the top layer of soil. Then it takes away the material it wants. Strip-mining totally destroys the land. Gradually, the lovely island of Nauru started to look like the moon.
In 1968, Nauru became one of the richest countries in the world. Every year the government received millions and millions of dollars for its phosphate.
Unfortunately, the leaders invested the money unwisely and lost millions of dollars. In addition, they used millions more dollars for personal expenses. Soon people realized that they had a terrible problem—their phosphate was running out. Ninety percent of their island was destroyed and they had nothing. By 2000, Nauru was almost financially ruined. Experts say that it would take approximately $433,600,000 and more than 20 years to repair the island. This will probably never happen.
Over the centuries the French have lost a number of famous battles with the British. However, they've always felt superior in the kitchen. France has for centuries had a reputation for cooking excellence, and Britain for some of the worst cooking in the world. But according to a recent survey, that reputation may no longer reflect reality.
In the survey, 71% of the Britons said they cook at home every day, while only 59% of the French said they cook daily. British home cooks spend more time cooking each week and also produce a greater variety of dishes than French home cooks.
The reaction in London was predictably enthusiastic. British food has greatly improved since the 1990s. Once upon a time, the menu for many family meals would have been roast beef, potatoes and over-cooked vegetables, but not now. Home cooks are experimenting with the huge range of ingredients now available in British supermarkets and are preparing all kinds of new dishes, using the cookbooks that sell millions of copies every year. As a result, there's much more diversity in British food now, compared to French food, which tends to be very traditional.
Some French people say that the survey did not show the whole picture. They agree that during the week French women don't cook as much as they used to because most of them work and don't have much time. They tend to buy ready-made or frozen dishes, but many of them make up for it on the weekend. There's also a difference between Paris and the countryside. It's true that people in Paris don't cook much, but elsewhere, cooking is still at the heart of daily life.
For many French people, opinions about British food have not changed. When Bernard Blier, the food editor at a magazine, was asked about British food, he replied: "I don't go out of my way to try it. It is not very refined. You can say that I'm not a fan at all."
Few Americans stay in one place for a lifetime. We 1 from the city to the suburbs，from high school to college in a different state, from a job in one region to a better job 2, from the home where we 3 our children to the home where we plan to live in 4. With each move we are 5 making new friends, who become part of our new life.
For many of us the summer is a special time for forming new 6. Today, millions of Americans go on vocation 7, and they go not only to see new sights but also — in those places where they do not feel too 8 — with the hope of meeting new people. No one really 9 a vacation trip to produce a close friend, but the beginning of a friendship is possible. Surely in every country people 10 friendship？
The word "friend" to American people can be 11 to a wide range of relationships — to someone one has known for a few weeks in a new place, to a close business companion, to a childhood playmate, to a man or woman, to a 12 colleague. There are real 13 among these relations for Americans — a friendship may be 14, casual, situational or deep and lasting. But to a European, who sees only our surface behavior, the differences are not clear.
As Europeans see it, all kinds of "friends" flow 15 of Americans' homes with little ceremony. They may be parents of the children's friends, house guests of neighbors, members of a committee, business associates from another town or even another country. 16 as a guest into an American home, the European visitor finds no 17 differences. The atmosphere is 18. Most people, old and young, are called 19 first names. Americans' characteristic openness to different styles of relationship makes it possible for us to find new friends abroad with whom we feel 20.
