-
patanjali.purpose
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 784
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:51 am
- Thanked: 114 times
- Followed by:12 members
Joseph Glatthaar's Forged in Battle is not the first excellent study of Black soldiers and their White officers in the Civil War, but it uses more soldiers' letters and diaries-including rare material from Black soldiers-and concentrates more intensely on Black-White relations in Black regiments than do any of its predecessors. Glatthaar's title expresses his thesis: loyalty, friendship, and respect among White officers and Black soldiers were fostered by the mutual dangers they faced in combat.
Glatthaar accurately describes the government's discriminatory treatment of Black soldiers in pay, promotion, medical care, and job assignments, appropriately emphasizing the campaign by Black soldiers and their officers to get the opportunity to fight. That chance remained limited throughout the war by army policies that kept most Black units serving in rear-echelon assignments and working in labor battalions. Thus, while their combat death rate was only one-third that of White units, their mortality rate from disease, a major killer in his war, was twice as great. Despite these obstacles, the courage and effectiveness of several Black units in combat won increasing respect from initially skeptical or hostile White soldiers. As one White officer put it, "they have fought their way into the respect of all the army."
In trying to demonstrate the magnitude of this attitudinal change, however, Glatthaar seems to exaggerate the prewar racism of the White men who became officers in Black regiments. "Prior to the war," he writes of these men, "virtually all of them held powerful racial prejudices." While perhaps true of those officers who joined Black units for promotion or other self-serving motives, this statement misrepresents the attitudes of the many abolitionists who became officers in Black regiments. Having spent years fighting against the race prejudice endemic in American society, they participated eagerly in this military experiment, which they hoped would help African Americans achieve freedom and postwar civil equality. By current standards of racial egalitarianism, these men's paternalism toward African Americans was racist. But to call their feelings "powerful racial prejudices" is to indulge in generational chauvinism-to judge past eras by present standards.
1) The author of the passage quotes the White officer in lines 23-24 (LOOK AT FIRST BOLD)primarily in order to provide evidence to support the contention that
(A) virtually all White officers initially had hostile attitudes toward Black soldiers
(B) Black soldiers were often forced to defend themselves from physical attacks initiated by soldiers from White units
(C) the combat performance of Black units changed the attitudes of White soldiers toward Black soldiers
(D) White units paid especially careful attention to the performance of Black units in battle
(E) respect in the army as a whole was accorded only to those units, whether Black or White, that performed well in battle
2) Which of the following best describes the kind of error attributed to Glatthaar in lines 25-28 (2ND BOLD PART)?
(A) Insisting on an unwarranted distinction between two groups of individuals in order to render an argument concerning them internally consistent
(B) Supporting an argument in favor of a given interpretation of a situation with evidence that is not particularly relevant to the situation
(C) Presenting a distorted view of the motives of certain individuals in order to provide grounds for a negative evaluation of their actions
(D) Describing the conditions prevailing before a given event in such a way that the contrast with those prevailing after the event appears more striking than it actually is
(E) Asserting that a given event is caused by another event merely because the other event occurred before the given event occurred
OA after some discussion.
Pls share your choice, reason and approach.
Thanks
Patanjali
Glatthaar accurately describes the government's discriminatory treatment of Black soldiers in pay, promotion, medical care, and job assignments, appropriately emphasizing the campaign by Black soldiers and their officers to get the opportunity to fight. That chance remained limited throughout the war by army policies that kept most Black units serving in rear-echelon assignments and working in labor battalions. Thus, while their combat death rate was only one-third that of White units, their mortality rate from disease, a major killer in his war, was twice as great. Despite these obstacles, the courage and effectiveness of several Black units in combat won increasing respect from initially skeptical or hostile White soldiers. As one White officer put it, "they have fought their way into the respect of all the army."
In trying to demonstrate the magnitude of this attitudinal change, however, Glatthaar seems to exaggerate the prewar racism of the White men who became officers in Black regiments. "Prior to the war," he writes of these men, "virtually all of them held powerful racial prejudices." While perhaps true of those officers who joined Black units for promotion or other self-serving motives, this statement misrepresents the attitudes of the many abolitionists who became officers in Black regiments. Having spent years fighting against the race prejudice endemic in American society, they participated eagerly in this military experiment, which they hoped would help African Americans achieve freedom and postwar civil equality. By current standards of racial egalitarianism, these men's paternalism toward African Americans was racist. But to call their feelings "powerful racial prejudices" is to indulge in generational chauvinism-to judge past eras by present standards.
1) The author of the passage quotes the White officer in lines 23-24 (LOOK AT FIRST BOLD)primarily in order to provide evidence to support the contention that
(A) virtually all White officers initially had hostile attitudes toward Black soldiers
(B) Black soldiers were often forced to defend themselves from physical attacks initiated by soldiers from White units
(C) the combat performance of Black units changed the attitudes of White soldiers toward Black soldiers
(D) White units paid especially careful attention to the performance of Black units in battle
(E) respect in the army as a whole was accorded only to those units, whether Black or White, that performed well in battle
2) Which of the following best describes the kind of error attributed to Glatthaar in lines 25-28 (2ND BOLD PART)?
(A) Insisting on an unwarranted distinction between two groups of individuals in order to render an argument concerning them internally consistent
(B) Supporting an argument in favor of a given interpretation of a situation with evidence that is not particularly relevant to the situation
(C) Presenting a distorted view of the motives of certain individuals in order to provide grounds for a negative evaluation of their actions
(D) Describing the conditions prevailing before a given event in such a way that the contrast with those prevailing after the event appears more striking than it actually is
(E) Asserting that a given event is caused by another event merely because the other event occurred before the given event occurred
OA after some discussion.
Pls share your choice, reason and approach.
Thanks
Patanjali
