postcolonial novels : Border-crossing
Postcolonial novels : Border-crossing
The statement asserts that books from the Indian Ocean and mainstream English-language fiction are distinct and take place in different universes.
Option B supports the passage’s assertion—if true, it highlights the contrast by showing that mainstream English-language novels have historically privileged the Christian, white, male experience of travel and adventure.
If accurate, none of the other statements strengthen the passage’s argument.
If the Orientalist perception of Africa’s cultural coarseness drives the majority of Indian Ocean novels’ depictions of the continent, then Option C undermines the passage’s assertion by aligning these works with mainstream fiction.
According to the text, American and European metropolitan centers have historically served as the backdrop for most mainstream English-language books. Option D, if accurate, undermines the contrast drawn by the passage.
The passage claims that the portrayal of Africa in Indian Ocean novels is not idealized. Option A, if true, does not support the passage’s distinction.
Therefore, the correct option is (B): most mainstream English-language novels have historically privileged the Christian, white, male experience of travel and adventure.
The chapter makes no mention of or suggests anything about the migration networks that linked the global north and south over the Indian Ocean region. It is not true that Option D is incorrect.
Option C is accurate. Because it was easier to travel by sea than by land for a large portion of history, port cities located far apart were frequently more easily connected to one another than they were to much closer interior communities.
Option A is also true. As stated in the paragraph, the Indian Ocean world refers to a distinct set of histories and geographical areas compared to those commonly seen in English-language fiction, which “assume a background of Christianity and whiteness, and cite places like Paris and New York.” A predominantly Islamic space can be found in the networked cities of the global south.
Option D is accurate as well. “Migration is often a matter of force; travel is portrayed as abandonment rather than adventure, freedoms are kept from women, and slavery is rife,” the paragraph says in reference to migration in the Indian Ocean region.
Therefore, Option D is the correct response.
The passage refers to the "Indian Ocean world" as the interconnected oceanic region of the global south, which includes East Africa, the coasts of the Arab world, South and East Asia, and other regions. These linkages are long-lasting and are made possible by maritime traffic in the Indian Ocean.
According to the passage, white Europeans were not the only ones involved in early international trade and commerce; the global south was also the first hub of globalization: "historical and archaeological evidence suggests that what we now call globalisation first appeared in the Indian Ocean".
The passage also critiques common global imaginaries: "Those [commonly found ones] are mostly centered in Europe or the US, assume a background of Christianity and whiteness, and mention places like Paris and New York."
Instead, the novels referenced in the book highlight a fundamentally Islamic space. Thus, Options A, C, and D are accurate.
Option B is incorrect as it contradicts the message conveyed in the passage.


When people who are talking don’t share the same culture, knowledge, values, and assumptions, mutual understanding can be especially difficult. Such understanding is possible through the negotiation of meaning. To negotiate meaning with someone, you have to become aware of and respect both the differences in your backgrounds and when these differences are important. You need enough diversity of cultural and personal experience to be aware that divergent world views exist and what they might be like. You also need the flexibility in world view, and a generous tolerance for mistakes, as well as a talent for finding the right metaphor to communicate the relevant parts of unshared experiences or to highlight the shared experiences while demphasizing the others. Metaphorical imagination is a crucial skill in creating rapport and in communicating the nature of unshared experience. This skill consists, in large measure, of the ability to bend your world view and adjust the way you categorize your experiences. Problems of mutual understanding are not exotic; they arise in all extended conversations where understanding is important.
When it really counts, meaning is almost never communicated according to the CONDUIT metaphor, that is, where one person transmits a fixed, clear proposition to another by means of expressions in a common language, where both parties have all the relevant common knowledge, assumptions, values, etc. When the chips are down, meaning is negotiated: you slowly figure out what you have in common, what it is safe to talk about, how you can communicate unshared experience or create a shared vision. With enough flexibility in bending your world view and with luck and charity, you may achieve some mutual understanding.
Communication theories based on the CONDUIT metaphor turn from the pathetic to the evil when they are applied indiscriminately on a large scale, say, in government surveillance or computerized files. There, what is most crucial for real understanding is almost never included, and it is assumed that the words in the file have meaning in themselves—disembodied, objective, understandable meaning. When a society lives by the CONDUITmetaphor on a large scale, misunderstanding, persecution, and much worse are the likely products.
Later, I realized that reviewing the history of nuclear physics served another purpose as well: It gave the lie to the naive belief that the physicists could have come together when nuclear fission was discovered (in Nazi Germany!) and agreed to keep the discovery a secret, thereby sparing humanity such a burden. No. Given the development of nuclear physics up to 1938, development that physicists throughout the world pursued in all innocence of any intention of finding the engine of a new weapon of mass destruction—only one of them, the remarkable Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard, took that possibility seriously—the discovery of nuclear fission was inevitable. To stop it, you would have had to stop physics. If German scientists hadn’t made the discovery when they did, French, American, Russian, Italian, or Danish scientists would have done so, almost certainly within days or weeks. They were all working at the same cutting edge, trying to understand the strange results of a simple experiment bombarding uranium with neutrons. Here was no Faustian bargain, as movie directors and other naifs still find it intellectually challenging to imagine. Here was no evil machinery that the noble scientists might hide from the problems and the generals. To the contrary, there was a high insight into how the world works, an energetic reaction, older than the earth, that science had finally devised the instruments and arrangements to coart forth. “Make it seem inevitable,” Louis Pasteur used to advise his students when they prepared to write up their discoveries. But it was. To wish that it might have been ignored or suppressed is barbarous. “Knowledge,” Niels Bohr once noted, “is itself the basis for civilization.” You cannot have the one without the other; the one depends upon the other. Nor can you have only benevolent knowledge; the scientific method doesn’t filter for benevolence. Knowledge has consequences, not always intended, not always comfortable, but always welcome. The earth revolves around the sun, not the sun around the earth. “It is a profound and necessary truth,” Robert Oppenheimer would say, “that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them.”
...Bohr proposed once that the goal of science is not universal truth. Rather, he argued, the modest but relentless goal of science is “the gradual removal of prejudices.” The discovery that the earth revolves around the sun has gradually removed the prejudice that the earth is the center of the universe. The discovery of microbes is gradually removing the prejudice that disease is a punishment from God. The discovery of evolution is gradually removing the prejudice that Homo sapiens is a separate and special creation.
For any natural number $k$, let $a_k = 3^k$. The smallest natural number $m$ for which \[ (a_1)^1 \times (a_2)^2 \times \dots \times (a_{20})^{20} \;<\; a_{21} \times a_{22} \times \dots \times a_{20+m} \] is: