#25 - Global Reference, Must Be True, Author's Perspective

[ct325]

I understand why (B) is correct, I just don't understand why (A) is wrong or how to know to eliminate it, especially given the final paragraph and the final sentence: "...the writing of the history of a people scattered by force and circumstance, a history that began in Africa." Could somebody help explain this please?

[Adam Tyson]

Sure thing, ct325! The simplest answer is that Africa is not a country, but a continent full of countries. While these historians posit a diasporic community that began on the African continent, there is nothing to suggest that all the African people in that diaspora were from a single country.

Going a little further, the passage isn't broad enough to tell us about all diasporic communities, but only deals with African Americans. Answer A attempts to go further and establish a general rule for all such communities, and is thus not supported by the passage.

[tug59567]

Hello,

I am confused as to why B is correct. Where is "nation building" mentioned in the passage? The passage undoubtly focuses on nationality and its intersection with African American historiography, but nationality and "nation building" (emphasis on building) are very different things. Am I interpreting "nation building" too literally? When I think of nation building I think of constructing a new state/country/nation.

Thank you for the help!

Jason

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Jason,

"Nation building" is actually mentioned in the first sentence of the last paragraph: "for all their distrust of U.S. nationalism, most early black historians were themselves engaged in a sort of nation building." In that paragraph, the author goes on to say that "one might argue that black historians’ internationalism was a manifestation of a kind of nationalism that posits a diasporic community, which, while lacking a sovereign territory or official language, possesses a single culture, however mythical, with singular historical roots." Since these historians were engaged in nation building, while lacking a sovereign territory, it's reasonable to infer the author would agree that territorial sovereignty is not a prerequisite for nation building.

Does that help? Hopefully so!