I'm applying for History and Politics @ Oxford.
For number 1 a), I also talked about how the author approves of the "political commitment" - in other words, a sense of moral responsibility. Yet he seems to be somewhat puzzled (in a slightly disturbed tone) of the reason why the influence of political commitment has decreased over the years.
b) I identified the challenge as "nation-state scope" in which environmental history is being analyzed under. Although this way of analysis may provide sufficient information, it tends to generalize individual cases. The author proposes to shift the scope to a more individual level where each cases could be analyzed in depth; also, he argues that, above all, humans should respect the environment as one of the many species living in this world.
#2 -> I wrote about American independence and identified the short-term (Declaration of Independence and Revolutionary War), medium-term (British maltreatment of colonies ex) stamp act, tea act), and long-term (geographical distance, sense of distinctiveness compared to mainland Britain which eventually evolved into patriotism). Then I concluded that long-term was the most important because the sense of distinctiveness evolved into patriotism, which then evolved into a more aggressive form of nationalism and resistance against British maltreatment. I liked this question as well- thought it was generally straightforward.
#3-> Generally ok, although I feel like I fell somewhat short on analyzing the context of Code Noir. I talked about the unfairness of the relationship itself - every aspect of slaves' lives was controlled, including economic activities & freedom of assembly. Yet, I pointed out that under religion, masters and slaves were "rather" fair- masters were subject to stricter punishment if religion was involved (failure to convert, etc). I criticized the source heavily though. Although this is a royal decree, I noted that the geographical distance between Caribbean and mainland France may have weakened the authority/power of this document. In addition, I pointed out that "officials" referred to in this document had considerable flexibility, and this may have benefited the masters. Although they talk about "personal liberty," even freed slaves needed to "respect" former masters and law wasn't fair to everyone. I ended by saying that the relationship between slaves and masters may have been more unfair than shown in this document.
I'm wondering about the pass mark- is there anything as such?
Fill in our short survey for Amazon vouchers!