单选题
Until 1847 the federal postal system had operated without stamps. To claim a letter, the recipient, rather than the sender, paid its postage. Stamps promised to flip this tradition on its head by shifting responsibility for paying postage from the recipient to the letter writer. Early reluctance to use stamps actually relied on something more mysterious but no less important. A stamped or prepaid letter was sometimes seen as a way to insult the recipient because prepaying a letter suggested that he was too poor to pay for it himself.
Given the cost involved, this was not as odd as it now seems. Says Michael Laurence, editor of Linn"s Stamp News, "Paying for a letter was like receiving a collect call from China." In 1845 a congressman calculated that a letter sent from the East or South to the Northwest cost the value of a bushel of wheat—or a days"s labor. Meg Austrian, the historian of the U.S. Postal Service, says that in the 1830s one angered individual harassed an enemy by sending him letters stuffed with blank pages.
Excessive costs probably kept some Americans from communicating through the mails. Many people who did receive mail simply refused to pay, rejecting the letter outright, which meant big headaches for the Post Office in mountains of dead letters. These had to be returned to the sender at government expense; the Post Office wound up paying for two deliveries with nothing in return.
Some historians credit one Rowland Hill, a British reformer and educator, with the idea of sticking a stamp on a letter before sending it. It seems to have struck him one day as he watched a housemaid receive a letter. She carefully scanned the envelope, tried to understand a coded message from her lover, then refused to accept the mail. Postage was too expensive, Hill realized, and paid for by the wrong person. Prepaid stamps were the answer to both problems.
单选题
What does the phrase "to flip this tradition on its head" most probably mean?