Task: Question Generation
Input (English):  Froudacity is split into four books, each addressing specific topics that Froude brings. Thomas begins the preface by attacking the overarching claims that Froude uses to argue against self-governance. Thomas ridicules Froude's assertion that if blacks in West Indian countries were given the right to vote, they would elect a candidate that would strip away the rights of whites due to racial animosity. He also attacks the notion that West Indian blacks harbor animosity against whites by pointing out that as many blacks owned slaves as whites, and that most people who were alive during slavery have since died.
In Book I Thomas addresses Froude's claims in the early portions of The English in the West Indies. Froude's tendency to state incorrect assumptions as fact is roundly assaulted. Thomas criticizes Froude for making sweeping generalizations about the condition of blacks on multiple islands without ever talking or interacting with the people he was writing about. Thomas points out that Froude comments extensively on the lifestyles of the natives of Grenada when his only experience among the natives was peering into their houses as he rode past in a carriage. Thomas attacks many other different factual inaccuracies in Froude's work.
In Book II Thomas begins to directly address Froude's criticism of giving colonies self-rule. When Froude claims that leaders of the reform movements "did not complain that their affairs had been ill-managed" Thomas spends over two dozen pages detailing the gross abuses of power and corruption that many of the appointed governors of Trinidad have participated in. Thomas also debunks Froude's claim that the reformers pushed for reform in the hope that they would be elected and allowed to draw a handsome government salary. Thomas also points out that contrary to Froude's claims the reform movement has been active for decades. Thomas finishes the second book by refuting Froude's assertion that West Indian blacks were incredibly well taken care off by "the beneficent despotism of the English Government"
The 3rd book takes up half of Froudacity. It begins with Froude alleging that there are few black intellectuals. Thomas responds by accusing the West Indian governments of suppressing blacks and noting that many black intellectuals sprang up in America shortly after Emancipation because they were integrated into society. Thomas uses the examples of Fredrick Douglass and Chief Justice William Conrad Reeves extensively in his arguments about race and intelligence. Both men are black and highly successful. Thomas uses these men as examples of successful black intellectuals, who succeeded despite racism. Thomas convincingly counters Froude's cheerful view of slavery. Thomas continues to contest Froude's multiple accusations about the results of black ruling over whites and what the ideal governance situation is for the West Indies. When Froude brings up the old stereotypes of blacks being lazy, or being cannibals or devil-worshipers, Thomas quickly counters all of the accusations. Thomas goes on to note the rising prominence of Christianity among blacks, and engages in a discussion on the limits of science and religion.
In the final 4th book, Thomas discusses the history of blacks instead of analyzing The English in the West Indies. Thomas discusses the history of the development slavery in America and in the West Indies. Thomas details how slave owners in the West Indies became god-parents to their slaves through the Catholic Church, and through this process developed personal relationships with slaves devoid of cruelty. The institutions of slavery developed very differently in America and the West Indies. Thomas lists the great accomplishments achieved by the "Negro Race", predicting that these accomplishments will continue growing. Thomas encourages "African descendants now dispersed in various countries of the Western Hemisphere ... at sufficient peace to begin occupying themselves about matters of racial importance".
Output (English): Whom as a habbit of stating incorrect assumptions as fact?