Read the passage from Sugar Changed the World.A fire was lit in a giant iron cauldron, and the certificates of 2,300 Indians were tossed into the flames—the first major act of Satyagraha. "I am not property," the Indians were showing. "I am not your victim," they were demonstrating. "I have the power of my conscience," they were proving. The quiet strength of the Indian community shook the South African government. And by June 1914 it gave in; the Black Act was taken off the books. The Indians had insisted that they were not mere workers but were citizens—and finally the government could not resist.
Which pieces of evidence are most likely empirical? Select two options.
What is an author's claim?
Which question should a reader ask to identify an author's purpose?
Read the passage from Sugar Changed the World.The arkatis (recruiters) who were hired by shipping companies were Indians themselves; they knew villagers would not want to cross the water. But they also knew where there were hungry, desperate people. So they fanned out to the countryside and began to look for strong men. Bharath, who was about to leave for Trinidad, later explained how that happened. His version of English is hard to understand, but it is how the Indians began to speak on the islands. "E no tell e I go chinedad you know . . . e no tell e no come back, e no greet mumma fadder again." ("He did not tell me I was going to Trinidad, you know. He didn't tell me I would never come back, or never see my mother and father again.")
Which type of evidence would most likely include a testimonial?
Read the passage from Sugar Changed the World.A fire was lit in a giant iron cauldron, and the certificates of 2,300 Indians were tossed into the flames—the first major act of Satyagraha. "I am not property," the Indians were showing. "I am not your victim," they were demonstrating. "I have the power of my conscience," they were proving. The quiet strength of the Indian community shook the South African government. And by June 1914 it gave in; the Black Act was taken off the books. The Indians had insisted that they were not mere workers but were citizens—and finally the government could not resist.
Read the passage from Sugar Changed the World.Underneath the clash over rights, laws, and work rules, there was a deeper truth that the planters were sensing: The Age of Sugar was ending. On the one hand, the work on the plantations was now guided by a web of laws and rules that even an Indian coolie like Bechu could use to challenge the owners. Workers were individuals, not property. On the other hand, world sugar prices were plummeting. Owners no longer had the economic clout of being a mainstay of the economy. Instead, smaller plantations were going bankrupt. The old ways were simply not working anymore. Why were sugar prices falling? Because of competition from another part of the world.
Read the passage from Sugar Changed the World.Sugar turned human beings into property, yet sugar led people to reject the idea that any person could be owned by another. Sugar murdered millions, and yet it gave the voiceless a way to speak. Sugar crushed people, and yet it was because of sugar that Gandhi began his experiment in truth—so that every individual could free him- or herself. Only sugar—the sweetness we all crave—could drive people to be so cruel, and to combat all forms of cruelty. The craving for sugar took us from that ancient time when people were defined by the work of their ancestors to our modern world—the one Gandhi led us to see, in which each individual is valued as human. Though terrible conditions for sugar workers still exist in places such as the Dominican Republic, and cane sugar has been replaced by other sweeteners invented in the Age of Science, this one substance forever marked our history.
Read the passage from Sugar Changed the World.The Indian coolies and the ex-slaves, who resented these newcomers flooding into the colonies and driving down wages, were instant rivals. This was convenient for the planters—who were skilled at the game of divide and rule. The planters lumped their workers into two distinct but equally nasty stereotypes: Former slaves were described as lazy, whereas Indians were called meek, docile children. "You may have work and plenty of it for a black man and a coloured man, and they will not do it,” claimed planter W. Alleyne Ireland. He conveniently ignored the fact that the ex-slaves wanted to work their own land, not labor for their former owners. The overseers praised the Indians' meekness but also held them in contempt. The Indian, one overseer claimed, "possesses the low, cringing and abject habit common to his nationality."
Did you find these answers helpful?