Kimberly77
Great explanation [url=https://gmatclub.com:443/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&un=GMATNinja%5D%5Bb%5DGMATNinja%5B/b%5D%5B/url%5D
One question regarding below line, last sentence in the paragraph stated he called on them to “return fighting” from the war. Isn't this response to 1918 strategy as a result of discrimination? So not sure how it led to the end of 1918 strategy? Could you help clarify? Thanks
So, Du Bois definitely didn't come up with his 1918 strategy in response to discrimination. This discrimination actually led to the END of the 1918 strategy.
Good question! You're right.
But the line you referenced at the end of the last paragraph isn't what we're asked about in Q5. The question refers to the stance Du Bois expressed in his 1918 editorial, namely, "to stop agitating for equality and to
proclaim their solidarity with White Americans for the duration of the First World War." So in the editorial, he's advocating solidarity.
In the last paragraph, we get the line "Du Bois’s accommodationism
did not last, however." So this appears to be an evolution in his thinking that occurred sometime after the editorial. Put another way, he was an advocate of accommodation in his editorial, but
later, after hearing about all the discrimination Black soldier endured in the wary, he changed his position. Because we're asked specifically about his position in the
editorial, this change isn't relevant in the question.
All to say: you're right about the sequence of events. They just don't impact the answer to this question.
I hope that clears things up!
Thanks for your clarification [url=https://gmatclub.com:443/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&un=GMATNinja%5D%5Bb%5DGMATNinja%5B/b%5D%5B/url%5D
To clarify my understanding, so first Du Bois advocating solidarity but upon learning discrimination on AA, he changed his position and asked AA to return fighting?
This is a very tough and tricky question indeed.