In contrast to the mainstream of U.S. historiography during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, African American historians of the period, such as George Washington Williams and W. E. B. DuBois, adopted a transnational perspective. This was true for several reasons, not the least of which was the necessity of doing so if certain aspects of the history of African Americans in the United States were to be treated honestly.
First, there was the problem of citizenship. Even after the adoption in 1868 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which defined citizenship, the question of citizenship for African Americans had not been genuinely resolved. Because of this, emigrationist sentiment was a central issue in black political discourse, and both issues were critical topics for investigation. The implications for historical scholarship and national identity were enormous. While some black leaders insisted on their right to U.S. citizenship, others called on black people to emigrate and find a homeland of their own. Most African Americans were certainly not willing to relinquish their claims to the benefits of U.S. citizenship, but many had reached a point of profound pessimism and had begun to question their allegiance to the United States.
Mainstream U.S. historiography was firmly rooted in a nationalist approach during this period; the glorification of the nation and a focus on the nation‑state as a historical force were dominant. The expanding spheres of influence of Europe and the United States prompted the creation of new genealogies of nations, new myths about the inevitability of nations, their “temperaments,” their destinies. African American intellectuals who confronted the nationalist approach to historiography were troubled by its implications. Some argued that imperialism was a natural outgrowth of nationalism and its view that a state’s strength is measured by the extension of its political power over colonial territory; the scramble for colonial empires was a distinct aspect of nationalism in the latter part of the nineteenth century.
Yet, for all their distrust of U.S. nationalism, most early black historians were themselves engaged in a sort of nation-building. Deliberately or not, they contributed to the formation of a collective identity, reconstructing a glorious African past for the purposes of overturning degrading representations of blackness and establishing a firm cultural basis for a shared identity. Thus, 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. Many members of this diaspora saw themselves as an oppressed “nation” without a homeland, or they imagined Africa as home. Hence, these historians understood their task to be the writing of the history of a people scattered by force and circumstance, a history that began in Africa.

1. Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main idea of the passage?

In contrast to the mainstream of U.S. historiography during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, African American historians of the period, such as George Washington Williams and W. E. B. DuBois, adopted a transnational perspective. This was true for several reasons, not the least of which was the necessity of doing so if certain aspects of the history of African Americans in the United States were to be treated honestly.

First, there was the problem of citizenship. Even after the adoption in 1868 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which defined citizenship, the question of citizenship for African Americans had not been genuinely resolved. Because of this, emigrationist sentiment was a central issue in black political discourse, and both issues were critical topics for investigation. The implications for historical scholarship and national identity were enormous. While some black leaders insisted on their right to U.S. citizenship, others called on black people to emigrate and find a homeland of their own. Most African Americans were certainly not willing to relinquish their claims to the benefits of U.S. citizenship, but many had reached a point of profound pessimism and had begun to question their allegiance to the United States.

Mainstream U.S. historiography was firmly rooted in a nationalist approach during this period; the glorification of the nation and a focus on the nation‑state as a historical force were dominant. The expanding spheres of influence of Europe and the United States prompted the creation of new genealogies of nations, new myths about the inevitability of nations, their “temperaments,” their destinies. African American intellectuals who confronted the nationalist approach to historiography were troubled by its implications. Some argued that imperialism was a natural outgrowth of nationalism and its view that a state’s strength is measured by the extension of its political power over colonial territory; the scramble for colonial empires was a distinct aspect of nationalism in the latter part of the nineteenth century.

Yet, for all their distrust of U.S. nationalism, most early black historians were themselves engaged in a sort of nation-building. Deliberately or not, they contributed to the formation of a collective identity, (47) reconstructing a glorious African past for the purposes of overturning degrading representations of blackness and establishing a firm cultural basis for a shared identity. Thus, 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. Many members of this diaspora saw themselves as an oppressed “nation” without a homeland, or they imagined Africa as home. Hence, these historians understood their task to be the writing of the history of a people scattered by force and circumstance, a history that began in Africa.

2. Which one of the following phrases most accurately conveys the sense of the word “reconstructing” as it is used in line 47?

In contrast to the mainstream of U.S. historiography during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, African American historians of the period, such as George Washington Williams and W. E. B. DuBois, adopted a transnational perspective. This was true for several reasons, not the least of which was the necessity of doing so if certain aspects of the history of African Americans in the United States were to be treated honestly.
First, there was the problem of citizenship. Even after the adoption in 1868 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which defined citizenship, the question of citizenship for African Americans had not been genuinely resolved. Because of this, emigrationist sentiment was a central issue in black political discourse, and both issues were critical topics for investigation. The implications for historical scholarship and national identity were enormous. While some black leaders insisted on their right to U.S. citizenship, others called on black people to emigrate and find a homeland of their own. Most African Americans were certainly not willing to relinquish their claims to the benefits of U.S. citizenship, but many had reached a point of profound pessimism and had begun to question their allegiance to the United States.
Mainstream U.S. historiography was firmly rooted in a nationalist approach during this period; the glorification of the nation and a focus on the nation‑state as a historical force were dominant. The expanding spheres of influence of Europe and the United States prompted the creation of new genealogies of nations, new myths about the inevitability of nations, their “temperaments,” their destinies. African American intellectuals who confronted the nationalist approach to historiography were troubled by its implications. Some argued that imperialism was a natural outgrowth of nationalism and its view that a state’s strength is measured by the extension of its political power over colonial territory; the scramble for colonial empires was a distinct aspect of nationalism in the latter part of the nineteenth century.
Yet, for all their distrust of U.S. nationalism, most early black historians were themselves engaged in a sort of nation-building. Deliberately or not, they contributed to the formation of a collective identity, reconstructing a glorious African past for the purposes of overturning degrading representations of blackness and establishing a firm cultural basis for a shared identity. Thus, 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. Many members of this diaspora saw themselves as an oppressed “nation” without a homeland, or they imagined Africa as home. Hence, these historians understood their task to be the writing of the history of a people scattered by force and circumstance, a history that began in Africa.

3. Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the passage?

In contrast to the mainstream of U.S. historiography during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, African American historians of the period, such as George Washington Williams and W. E. B. DuBois, adopted a transnational perspective. This was true for several reasons, not the least of which was the necessity of doing so if certain aspects of the history of African Americans in the United States were to be treated honestly.
First, there was the problem of citizenship. Even after the adoption in 1868 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which defined citizenship, the question of citizenship for African Americans had not been genuinely resolved. Because of this, emigrationist sentiment was a central issue in black political discourse, and both issues were critical topics for investigation. The implications for historical scholarship and national identity were enormous. While some black leaders insisted on their right to U.S. citizenship, others called on black people to emigrate and find a homeland of their own. Most African Americans were certainly not willing to relinquish their claims to the benefits of U.S. citizenship, but many had reached a point of profound pessimism and had begun to question their allegiance to the United States.
Mainstream U.S. historiography was firmly rooted in a nationalist approach during this period; the glorification of the nation and a focus on the nation‑state as a historical force were dominant. The expanding spheres of influence of Europe and the United States prompted the creation of new genealogies of nations, new myths about the inevitability of nations, their “temperaments,” their destinies. African American intellectuals who confronted the nationalist approach to historiography were troubled by its implications. Some argued that imperialism was a natural outgrowth of nationalism and its view that a state’s strength is measured by the extension of its political power over colonial territory; the scramble for colonial empires was a distinct aspect of nationalism in the latter part of the nineteenth century.
Yet, for all their distrust of U.S. nationalism, most early black historians were themselves engaged in a sort of nation-building. Deliberately or not, they contributed to the formation of a collective identity, reconstructing a glorious African past for the purposes of overturning degrading representations of blackness and establishing a firm cultural basis for a shared identity. Thus, 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. Many members of this diaspora saw themselves as an oppressed “nation” without a homeland, or they imagined Africa as home. Hence, these historians understood their task to be the writing of the history of a people scattered by force and circumstance, a history that began in Africa.

4. As it is described in the passage, the transnational approach employed by African American historians working in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries would be best exemplified by a historical study that

In contrast to the mainstream of U.S. historiography during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, African American historians of the period, such as George Washington Williams and W. E. B. DuBois, adopted a transnational perspective. This was true for several reasons, not the least of which was the necessity of doing so if certain aspects of the history of African Americans in the United States were to be treated honestly.
First, there was the problem of citizenship. Even after the adoption in 1868 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which defined citizenship, the question of citizenship for African Americans had not been genuinely resolved. Because of this, emigrationist sentiment was a central issue in black political discourse, and both issues were critical topics for investigation. The implications for historical scholarship and national identity were enormous. While some black leaders insisted on their right to U.S. citizenship, others called on black people to emigrate and find a homeland of their own. Most African Americans were certainly not willing to relinquish their claims to the benefits of U.S. citizenship, but many had reached a point of profound pessimism and had begun to question their allegiance to the United States.
Mainstream U.S. historiography was firmly rooted in a nationalist approach during this period; the glorification of the nation and a focus on the nation‑state as a historical force were dominant. The expanding spheres of influence of Europe and the United States prompted the creation of new genealogies of nations, new myths about the inevitability of nations, their “temperaments,” their destinies. African American intellectuals who confronted the nationalist approach to historiography were troubled by its implications. Some argued that imperialism was a natural outgrowth of nationalism and its view that a state’s strength is measured by the extension of its political power over colonial territory; the scramble for colonial empires was a distinct aspect of nationalism in the latter part of the nineteenth century.
Yet, for all their distrust of U.S. nationalism, most early black historians were themselves engaged in a sort of nation-building. Deliberately or not, they contributed to the formation of a collective identity, reconstructing a glorious African past for the purposes of overturning degrading representations of blackness and establishing a firm cultural basis for a shared identity. Thus, 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. Many members of this diaspora saw themselves as an oppressed “nation” without a homeland, or they imagined Africa as home. Hence, these historians understood their task to be the writing of the history of a people scattered by force and circumstance, a history that began in Africa.

5. The passage provides information sufficient to answer which one of the following questions?

In contrast to the mainstream of U.S. historiography during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, African American historians of the period, such as George Washington Williams and W. E. B. DuBois, adopted a transnational perspective. This was true for several reasons, not the least of which was the necessity of doing so if certain aspects of the history of African Americans in the United States were to be treated honestly.
First, there was the problem of citizenship. Even after the adoption in 1868 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which defined citizenship, the question of citizenship for African Americans had not been genuinely resolved. Because of this, emigrationist sentiment was a central issue in black political discourse, and both issues were critical topics for investigation. The implications for historical scholarship and national identity were enormous. While some black leaders insisted on their right to U.S. citizenship, others called on black people to emigrate and find a homeland of their own. Most African Americans were certainly not willing to relinquish their claims to the benefits of U.S. citizenship, but many had reached a point of profound pessimism and had begun to question their allegiance to the United States.
Mainstream U.S. historiography was firmly rooted in a nationalist approach during this period; the glorification of the nation and a focus on the nation‑state as a historical force were dominant. The expanding spheres of influence of Europe and the United States prompted the creation of new genealogies of nations, new myths about the inevitability of nations, their “temperaments,” their destinies. African American intellectuals who confronted the nationalist approach to historiography were troubled by its implications. Some argued that imperialism was a natural outgrowth of nationalism and its view that a state’s strength is measured by the extension of its political power over colonial territory; the scramble for colonial empires was a distinct aspect of nationalism in the latter part of the nineteenth century.
Yet, for all their distrust of U.S. nationalism, most early black historians were themselves engaged in a sort of nation-building. Deliberately or not, they contributed to the formation of a collective identity, reconstructing a glorious African past for the purposes of overturning degrading representations of blackness and establishing a firm cultural basis for a shared identity. Thus, 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. Many members of this diaspora saw themselves as an oppressed “nation” without a homeland, or they imagined Africa as home. Hence, these historians understood their task to be the writing of the history of a people scattered by force and circumstance, a history that began in Africa.

6. The author of the passage would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements?

In contrast to the mainstream of U.S. historiography during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, African American historians of the period, such as George Washington Williams and W. E. B. DuBois, adopted a transnational perspective. This was true for several reasons, not the least of which was the necessity of doing so if certain aspects of the history of African Americans in the United States were to be treated honestly.
First, there was the problem of citizenship. Even after the adoption in 1868 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which defined citizenship, the question of citizenship for African Americans had not been genuinely resolved. Because of this, emigrationist sentiment was a central issue in black political discourse, and both issues were critical topics for investigation. The implications for historical scholarship and national identity were enormous. While some black leaders insisted on their right to U.S. citizenship, others called on black people to emigrate and find a homeland of their own. Most African Americans were certainly not willing to relinquish their claims to the benefits of U.S. citizenship, but many had reached a point of profound pessimism and had begun to question their allegiance to the United States.
Mainstream U.S. historiography was firmly rooted in a nationalist approach during this period; the glorification of the nation and a focus on the nation‑state as a historical force were dominant. The expanding spheres of influence of Europe and the United States prompted the creation of new genealogies of nations, new myths about the inevitability of nations, their “temperaments,” their destinies. African American intellectuals who confronted the nationalist approach to historiography were troubled by its implications. Some argued that imperialism was a natural outgrowth of nationalism and its view that a state’s strength is measured by the extension of its political power over colonial territory; the scramble for colonial empires was a distinct aspect of nationalism in the latter part of the nineteenth century.
Yet, for all their distrust of U.S. nationalism, most early black historians were themselves engaged in a sort of nation-building. Deliberately or not, they contributed to the formation of a collective identity, reconstructing a glorious African past for the purposes of overturning degrading representations of blackness and establishing a firm cultural basis for a shared identity. Thus, 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. Many members of this diaspora saw themselves as an oppressed “nation” without a homeland, or they imagined Africa as home. Hence, these historians understood their task to be the writing of the history of a people scattered by force and circumstance, a history that began in Africa.

7. The main purpose of the second paragraph of the passage is to

In contrast to the mainstream of U.S. historiography during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, African American historians of the period, such as George Washington Williams and W. E. B. DuBois, adopted a transnational perspective. This was true for several reasons, not the least of which was the necessity of doing so if certain aspects of the history of African Americans in the United States were to be treated honestly.
First, there was the problem of citizenship. Even after the adoption in 1868 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which defined citizenship, the question of citizenship for African Americans had not been genuinely resolved. Because of this, emigrationist sentiment was a central issue in black political discourse, and both issues were critical topics for investigation. The implications for historical scholarship and national identity were enormous. While some black leaders insisted on their right to U.S. citizenship, others called on black people to emigrate and find a homeland of their own. Most African Americans were certainly not willing to relinquish their claims to the benefits of U.S. citizenship, but many had reached a point of profound pessimism and had begun to question their allegiance to the United States.
Mainstream U.S. historiography was firmly rooted in a nationalist approach during this period; the glorification of the nation and a focus on the nation‑state as a historical force were dominant. The expanding spheres of influence of Europe and the United States prompted the creation of new genealogies of nations, new myths about the inevitability of nations, their “temperaments,” their destinies. African American intellectuals who confronted the nationalist approach to historiography were troubled by its implications. Some argued that imperialism was a natural outgrowth of nationalism and its view that a state’s strength is measured by the extension of its political power over colonial territory; the scramble for colonial empires was a distinct aspect of nationalism in the latter part of the nineteenth century.
Yet, for all their distrust of U.S. nationalism, most early black historians were themselves engaged in a sort of nation-building. Deliberately or not, they contributed to the formation of a collective identity, reconstructing a glorious African past for the purposes of overturning degrading representations of blackness and establishing a firm cultural basis for a shared identity. Thus, 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. Many members of this diaspora saw themselves as an oppressed “nation” without a homeland, or they imagined Africa as home. Hence, these historians understood their task to be the writing of the history of a people scattered by force and circumstance, a history that began in Africa.

8. As it is presented in the passage, the approach to history taken by mainstream U.S. historians of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is most similar to the approach exemplified in which one of the following?