PrepTest 145

Topic: Social Science

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Late 19th- and early 20th-century African American historians’ perspective (transnational, necessary to treat history honestly) contrasted with mainstream historiography
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Comparison, according to the author:
    • Late 19th- and early 20th-century African American historians like George Washington Williams and W.E.B. DuBois adopted a transnational perspective, unlike the mainstream (first sentence)
  • Author's view:
    • The African American historians adopted a transnational perspective for several reasons, including the need to do so to honestly treat African American history (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "necessity of doing ... were to be treated honestly" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Reason for one transnational perspective (Citizenship not genuinely resolved, some argued for emigration)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Cause-and-effect-relationship, according to the author:
    • One reason to adopt a transnational perspective was that the issue of African American citizenship was not resolved by the 14th Amendment, which made emigrationist sentiment popular in African American political discourse (first through third sentences)
  • Comparison, according to the author:
    • Some African American leaders insisted on their right to U.S. citizenship (and few wanted to relinquish citizenship's benefits), others questioned their allegiance to the U.S. and looked to emigrate to form their own nation (fifth and last sentences)
  • Author's attitude: "problem of citizenship" (first sentence); "had not been genuinely resolved" (second sentence); "central issue" (third sentence); "critical topics for investigation" (third sentence); "enormous" (fourth sentence); "certainly not willing to relinquish their claims" (last sentence); "profound pessimism" (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Mainstream approach (nationalist) and African American historian criticism (could lead to imperialism)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Comparison, according to the author:
    • In contrast to the transnational perspective, the mainstream perspective was rooted in nationalism, which called for the glorification of nation-state (first sentence)
  • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to the author:
    • Europe and the U.S.'s expanding influence caused the creation of new myths about nations (second sentence)
  • African American historians's view:
    • Nationalism leads to imperialism as states attempt to expand their power by taking over territories (third and last sentences)
  • Author's attitude: "firmly rooted" (first sentence); "dominant" (first sentence); "myths" (second sentence); "their 'temperments'" (second sentence); "distinct aspect" (last sentence)

Paragraph 4

• Paragraph note
  • The author's view on African American historians (they promoted their own kind of nation based on a shared identity and culture)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Comparison, according to the author:
    • Even though African American historians distrusted nationalism, they engaged in nation-building based on a positive Black identity, creating a "nation" without land (first through last sentences)
  • Author's attitude: "were themselves engaged in a sort of nation building" (first sentence); "contributed to the formation of a collective identity" (second sentence); "for the purposes" (second sentence); "degrading representations" (second sentence); one might argue" (third sentence); "possesses a single culture, however mythical, with singular historical roots" (third sentence)

Main Point: Early African American historians promoted a transnational approach rather than a nationalist one, but this approach reflected a different type of nation-building that built a diasporic community based on common culture and history.

Resolving a Debate: This passage best fits a Resolving a Debate Meta-Structure.* In such a passage, the author typically describes two sides of a debate before taking a side or attempting to reconcile the two sides. In this passage, the author describes a debate between the perspective taken by late 19th- and early 20th-century historians. One side, the mainstream historian took a nationalist perspective, which glorified and promoted the nation-state. On the other side, African American historians took a transnational perspective, debating whether they should emigrate and form their own nation-state outside the U.S. Ultimately, the author resolves the debate by showing that African American historians' transnational perspective wasn't all that different from the nationalist perspective — they were promoting their own nation-state!

In a Resolving a Debate passage, the main point is generally the author’s mediation/reconciliation of the debate. The author mediates the debate in the fourth paragraph, so we summarized that paragraph to formulate our main point.

*That said, you could certainly call this an Old Approach/New Approach passage, provided that you recognized that the author ultimately concludes that African American historians' "new" transnational approach wasn't all that different from the "old" national approach. Remember, there's no one correct answer to the Meta-Structure question — usually, more than one Meta-Structure will do a good job describing the passage's structure and helping you articulate the main point.

Comparison: The author spends a lot of time comparing the national and transnational perspectives, which makes the comparison the most prominent minor Meta-Structures in this passage. If it's not too burdensome, we should try to memorize a few differences (nation-building vs. emigration) and similarities (both ultimately promote a nation). This can help us quickly assess the answer choices to the inevitable questions about the two approaches. Failing that, having the similarities and differences highlighted can help us quickly locate the necessary information.

Note that the author doesn’t cast a positive or negative opinion towards either approach to history — the nationalist or transnational approach. The author presents the negative view of African American historians towards the nationalist approach in that they believed it trended towards imperialism (P3, S4), but there’s no indication that the author believes this to be the case. And while "Yet” (P4, S1) can have a negative connotation — a pivot to criticism — that’s not what we get here. The author does say that the early African American historians were engaged in a form of nationalism, and they distrusted it, but the author never says or implies that the author distrusts it. In fact, in the last paragraph, the author speaks to the benefits of this type of nation-building (P4, S2-S5), suggesting that the author may have a positive view of the work of the early African American historians in their distinct form of nationalism.