fidji45
Oui
Je sais bien tout ça ... :)
(prof d'anglais !)
A bientôt :surtout pense à bien définir spaces , ok? et à le rappeler de temps en temps . Ce qui compte avant tout c'est la qualité de l'anglais donc pas trop de soucis sur la notion (à moins d'un véritable hors sujet)
:)
Physichi
Bonjour,je suis actuellement en Terminale S.Les oraux d'anglais se rapprochant à grand pas, je voudrais savoir si cela ne vous dérange pas de corriger ma notion.Je vous previens mon niveau en anglais est faible .Cependant je mettrais toute ma volonté pour apprendre de mes erreurs !
Voici la notion :
I'm going to talk about the notion of Places and forms of power and I have therefore chosen to explain the south Africa's stories. First, I would like to give a definition of the notion: Power is the ability to influence people's behavior. In order to live together members of community need to accept rules and laws. This helps to create social cohesion but can also lead to conflicts and tensions. Even when authority seems absolute, there are always counter-powers. However, without it, the legal right of a community is corrupting.
I'm going to answer the question how liberty has been bringing in South Africa. Firstly, I will talk about the living condition during Apartheid. My argument will be supported with a newspaper which represent the Soweto uprising. Secondly, we will see how people feel after the end of apartheid.
The first document deals with legal repression. It all began in 1948 when the National part was elected in South Africa. This government enforced Apartheid, discrimination, segregation against black's people. Indeed, black and white people, didn't have the same right since apartheid was based on four unequal principles. For example, the population was divided into 4 racial groups (Whites/Colored/Indians/Africans)
This document embodies violence and inequality with unfair laws. In particular black people couldn't vote because they didn't have the risk to. They were second class citizens, that's why they want to protest against this system, they want to be free. They have organized few demonstrations in particular in 1976 the Soweto uprising, the police opened fire on the demonstrators and schoolboys were shot dead, including the 12 years old Hector Peterson (we can see him on the picture). There was unfortunately a lot of violence. This massacre became a turning point in a history of apartheid. A lot of sanctions were taken against South Africa and its governments to make the situation change. With a lot of sanction against South Africa and figure like Mandela who fight against apartheid, the government was obliged to establish a fair and equal system. Apartheid ended in 1991
The second document which best illustrates the notion is the TRC means the truth and reconciliation commission. After the end of Apartheid, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was established by Nelson Mandela and chaired by Desmond Tutu to consolidate democracy, to reduce inequalities, to forget the division of the past and to live in peace, to change the preconceived ideas and to create a Rainbow Nation. The goal was to bring out the truth about what happened during apartheid. The ideas were to enable South African people to move forward. Thanks to the commission, the situation improved, for the first time a Black presidents Nelson Mandela was elected and there was recognition of black people 's rights. Today there's still inequalities On the one hand, the country is healing since the political changes have been successful. But on the other hand, the country still faces economic and social inequalities. We saw in a video that there was a lot of poverty, people living in hard condition, they were out of the society. Black South Africans still suffer from unemployment, homelessness, violence and have problems in education and in heath.
In conclusion the country is still on its way towards democracy and reconciliation. It is true that there have been major advances and that politics is no longer the preserve of the whites. However economic power is still unequally distributed
fidji45
Bonsoir
Je vous propose de vous aidez à corriger les fautes les plus importantes : il vous faut cependant TROIS documents :deux étudiés en classe et un personnel -si vous êtes scolarisé OU trois personnels si vous êtes en candidat libre.
C'est la même chose pour la LV2 .
J'attends donc que vous complétiez votre travail .
Physichi
Bonjour Fidji et merci de m'avoir répondu.
Voici je le pense le travail complet.(J'ai séparé la dernière partie en deux partie pour introduire mon document personnel.Je me dis à la fois que c'est trop court mais je pense que je tient déjà plus de 5 min.Pouvez vous me dire ce que vous en pensez ?)
I'm going to talk about the notion of Places and forms of power and I have therefore chosen to explain the south Africa's stories. First, I would like to give a definition of the notion: Power is the ability to influence people's behavior. In order to live together members of community need to accept rules and laws. This helps to create social cohesion but can also lead to conflicts and tensions. Even when authority seems absolute, there are always counter-powers. However, without it, the legal right of a community is corrupting.
I'm going to answer the question how liberty has been bringing in South Africa. Firstly, I will talk about the living condition during Apartheid. My argument will be supported with a newspaper which represent the Soweto uprising. Secondly, we will see how people feel after the end of apartheid. Finally we will talk about the inequalities that persist in South Africa
The first document deals with legal repression. It all began in 1948 when the National part was elected in South Africa. This government enforced Apartheid, discrimination, segregation against black's people. Indeed, black and white people, didn't have the same right since apartheid was based on four unequal principles. For example, the population was divided into 4 racial groups (Whites/Colored/Indians/Africans)
This document embodies violence and inequality with unfair laws. In particular black people couldn't vote because they didn't have the risk to. They were second class citizens, that's why they want to protest against this system, they want to be free. They have organized few demonstrations in particular in 1976 the Soweto uprising, the police opened fire on the demonstrators and schoolboys were shot dead, including the 12 years old Hector Peterson (we can see him on the picture). There was unfortunately a lot of violence. This massacre became a turning point in a history of apartheid. A lot of sanctions were taken against South Africa and its governments to make the situation change. With a lot of sanction against South Africa and figure like Mandela who fight against apartheid, the government was obliged to establish a fair and equal system. Apartheid ended in 1991
The second document which best illustrates the notion is the TRC means the truth and reconciliation commission. After the end of Apartheid, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was established by Nelson Mandela and chaired by Desmond Tutu to consolidate democracy, to reduce inequalities, to forget the division of the past and to live in peace, to change the preconceived ideas and to create a Rainbow Nation. The goal was to bring out the truth about what happened during apartheid. The ideas were to enable South African people to move forward. Thanks to the commission, the situation improved, for the first time a Black presidents Nelson Mandela was elected and there was recognition of black people 's rights.
My last document shows that today there's still inequalities. On the one hand, the country is healing since the political changes have been successful. But on the other hand, the country still faces economic and social inequalities. We saw in a video that there was a lot of poverty, people living in hard condition, they were out of the society. Black South Africans still suffer from unemployment, homelessness, violence and have problems in education and in heath. We can see in particular on that picture a child walking into a slum. He's wearing torn clothes.That shows the extremely poverty in the country.
In conclusion the country is still on its way towards democracy and reconciliation. It is true that there have been major advances and that politics is no longer the preserve of the whites. However economic power is still unequally distributed.
fidji45
bonsoir
Voici les corrections que je te propose
Bonjour Fidji et merci de m'avoir répondu.
Voici je le pense le travail complet.(J'ai séparé la dernière partie en deux partie pour introduire mon document personnel.Je me dis à la fois que c'est trop court mais je pense que je tient déjà plus de 5 min.Pouvez vous me dire ce que vous en pensez ?
OK je corrige les erreurs et je te dis si l'ensemble est cohérent.
I'm going to talk about the notion of Places and Forms of power and I have therefore chosen to explain
the South Africa's HISTORY. First, I would like to give a definition of the notion: Power is the ability to influence people's behavior. In order to live together members of Acommunity need to accept rules and laws. This helps to create social cohesion but can also lead to conflicts and tensions. Even when authority seems absolute, there are always counter-powers. However, without it, the
legalLAWS of a community CAN BE corruptED.
I'm going to answer the question" how has FREEDOM BECOME PART OF THE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES IN South Africa?".
Firstly, I will talk about the living condition during apartheid. My argument will be supported with a newspaper which representS the Soweto uprising. Secondly, we will see how people feLT after the end of apartheid. Finally we will talk about the inequalities that persist in South Africa.
The first document deals with legal repression.(peux-tu donner tes références exactes) It all began in 1948 when the National partY was elected in South Africa. This government enforced apartheid, discrimination, segregation against black people. Indeed, black and white people, didn't have the same rightS since apartheid was based on four unequal principles. For example, the population was divided into four racial groups (Whites/Colored/Indians/Africans) (je pense que tu peux t'en tenir au terme "apartheid" qui est spécifique à l'Afrique du Sud :segregation est utlisée pour les Etats -Unis )
This document embodies(non un document ne prend pas "corps" ) SHOWS / UNDERLINES violence and inequality with unfair laws. In particular AGAINST black people: THEY couldn't vote because they didn't have the riGHT to. They were second class citizens, that's why they wantED to protest against this system, they wantED to be free. They organized demonstrations in particular in 1976, the Soweto uprising,AND the police opened fire on the demonstrators andSOME schoolboys were shot dead. (phrases trop longues)We can see 12 year -old Hector Peterson on the picture. There was unfortunately a lot of violence. This massacre became a turning point in THE history of apartheid. A lot of sanctions were taken against South Africa(PAR QUI ? CONTRE QUI) and its government were asked to make the situation change. With a lot of sanctionS against South Africa and STRONG EXAMPLES like Mandela who fOUGHT against apartheid, the government was obliged to establish a fair and equal system. Apartheid ended in 1991
The second document illustrates the notion OF the TRC (meaning the truth and reconciliation commission). After the end of apartheid, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was established by Nelson Mandela and chaired by Desmond Tutu(dire qui il était ) to consolidate democracy, to reduce inequalities, to forget the division of the past and to live in peaceIT WAS ALSO MEANT to change the preconceived ideas and to create a Rainbow Nation (encore une fois j'ai dû couper ta phrase. Il faut que tu saches expliquer "rainbow nation") The goal was to bring out the truth about whatHAD happened during apartheid WITH NO IDEA OF REVENGE. The ideaWAS to enable South African people to move forward. Thanks to the Commission,(on dit plus Commitee) the situation improved, for the first time a Black president Nelson Mandela was elected, HE RECEIVED THE NOBEL PRIZE and there was recognition of THE black people 's rights.
My last document shows that today there ARE still inequalities. On the one hand, the country is healing since the political changes have been successful. But on the other hand, the country still faces economic and social inequalities. We saw in a video (citer les sources)that there was a lot of poverty. BLACK PEOPLE livED in hard conditionS, they were BANNED FROM society. Black South Africans still suffer from unemployment, homelessness, violence and have problems in education and in heath. We can see in particular on that picture a child walking in
to a slum. He's wearing torn clothes.That shows the extreme poverty in the country OF A PART OF THE BLACK POPULATION;
(là je ne suis pas vraiment d'accord qu'il y ait eu "Healing in society) car les Blancs minoritaires sont toujours aux commandes=d'où la pauvreté de nombreux Noirs) Il n'y a pas eu de confrontation directe=là est la grande victoire de Mandela , mais en effet les problèmes et la racisme demeurent.
In conclusion the country is still on its way towards democracy and reconciliation. It is true that there have been major advances and that politics is no longerDETAINED SOLELY BY WHITE PEOPLE . HoweverMONEY? INTERESTING JOBS AND PROFITS STILL LARGELY BENFIT TO THE WHITE PEOPLE;
oK DONC REVOIS DEUX TROIS POINTS/QUAND TU CITES UNE PERSONNE TU DOIS SAVOIR QUI CEST (DESMOND TUT
;)
Physichi
Bonjour,
Mise à part les deux trois points à revoir, la notion vous semble correct ?
Je tiens à vous remercier pleinement pour votre correction.Les personnes comme vous nous donnent la motivation pour réussir .Un grand merci.
fidji45
Bonsoir
Oui cela me semble bien et cohérent!
N'oubliez pas de citer vous sources (et merci pour votre gentille appréciation) :cool:
Je jette un coup d'œil à Myths and heroes dés que je le peux
Lucie5656
Bonjour, cette année en terminale je passe mon oral et j'aimerai que vous puissiez vérifiez les erreurs qu'il y aurais ma notion de lieux et forme de pouvoir la voici, merci beaucoup d'avance..
We studied the notion of places and power. Nowadays we observe in the USA an improvement for the living conditions of Afro-american compared in 100 years ago. The power is synonym of might. He can be exerted by Justice, the media, political authorities. We may wonder “Who embodies power in the USA? Today and yesterday”. To answer this question, in the fist part we will see by whom the power embodies in the 1930 and by whom power embodies today.
First, I will tell you about the power embodies in the 1930, because in these years the Afro-Americans know abominable living conditions. The people embody the power in USA. The people make known the horror of the Afro-American. They have the power on them. For that, the first document I have chosen is a photograph entitled « Necktie Party » in Marion in Indiana in 1930. When we saw this image for the first time in class it was not complete, we could think of a crowd is attending some of festive show. The people wear their best clothes such as ties, white shirts and dresses. But, in the background we could see that legs may be those of a musician. However, when we saw the whole picture we realized the legs belonged to hanged man, there were 2 Afro-Americans. And the other people were smilling and laughting. Yet the victimes must have been tortured and endured sufferings. In the face of people we can see a total absence of guilt. The purpose of this photograph is to show the power of horreur without mercy, the power of the white mans on black mans.
"I will tell you about the power today, by the police. Talking about recent violence in the United States, another act of power by guns. The power of the police. In addition to a famous tragic video, we saw in class, which shocked all of America. Because we saw a black man strangled by the police. So the man is Eric Garner, because he was suspected of illegally selling cigarettes. In this video there are 11 times"I can not breathe" Eric Garner but the police do not react. Then they call the hospital. He was not armed. The medical examination concluded that Garner was killed by"neck compression". It is easier to directly rape the New York police than to passjudgementt. It's a bad image of the police. In the space of a few minutes, he lost his life. I am offended by that.
Finally, a young man was shot dead by police on March 18 in Sacramento, United States. He was 22 years old. He was unarmed and he shot at him. At this moment he was in his grandmother's garden. So, this act is filmed by a policeman. This video shocked a lot of people. In this video, we see the police chase the man in his garden and shoot him. The police explained that it is a report of a suspect, so he has a smartphone in his hand.
The American people were very shocked because of social media and the media, including an awareness.
Following this, we have many events of events, gatherings and demonstrations. The demonstrations with the sentence "I can't breathe". Everyone is marked.
In conclusion the notion of places and power in the USA, is difficult because we observe an improvement in their living condition of life and Afro-Americans so their always have persecution for the police-man for example. The violence against African Americans today is less present than before."
Je suis en ES, ma notion doit duré 5minutes. Merci beaucoup
zizou911
Bonjour, nouvellement inscrite sur le forum, je viens solliciter votre aide sur une de mes notion d'anglais en effet j'y ai rencontrée beaucoup de difficultés et j'en suis peu satisfaite.
I'm going to talk about the notion of places and forms of power. First, I am going to define the notion. Power is the ability to influence or to control the behavior of others. It can be a political or social authority exerciced by a government or an institution. But some groups like lobbies can act abusevely with their power or use IT to PUT pressure on the government of a given country. In order to illustrate this notion, I have chosen to talk about gun control in the USA and I will focus on this key question : Did the Second Amendement on gun still have legitimity for all American citizens?
To illustrate our issue,I am going to focus on why guns are still legitim today for a part of the population and then why guns are more and more questionned today for a part of american.
Since the Second Amendement to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms was adopted on December 15, 1791, all the American population is thus legally authorized to possess a gun. Then since this amendement
gun became part of life of american indeed we saw a video in class that show us a bank who give a free gun to anyone that opened a count on this bank. We can see how much gun is normalized in US. We saw in a document that despite some politics to relax the law with mesures such as gun-free zones, american are still holding among the Second Amendement. Indeed Republicans are against «gun-free zones». they also defend their rights to protect themselves
We can even talk about what hapenned more recently when Seventeen people were killed after a shooting on Parkling high school and instead of proposing to more control gun use, Donald Trump proposed to arms teacher. That show us how much for some american guns are still a solution today,indeed, many American feel safer with guns
Moreover, it’s that Republicans who suport some lobbies that making pressure on politicians to prevent them to set measures. It is the case of the NRA (National Rifle Association), an American nonprofit organization which advocates for gun rights Indeed we saw in a document that few days after Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston, the leader of the NRA made a big pro-gun rally. He said that nobody would stop him from carrying a gun and expressing his opinion. Despite the mourning, he has managed to rally many people.
Then today guns today are still having value an legitimity thanks to lobbies which put forward their rigths and the Second Amendment.
Now I will move on to my second part. I am going to show that everybody does not accept firearms. Indeed for a part of American guns represent a danger and this feeling grows increasingly with all the shooting that hapenned. We can talk here about the famous shooting of columbine high school which occurred April 20th, two students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, killed twelve students and a teacher. We also studied a shooting at Freeman High School that could degenerate but thankfully a janitor succeed to stop the gunman
Then with the rise of shooting, more an more americans are questionning guns law and demand more controll an restriction on gun ; We can see in the article of Rob Clymer that he is proposing some fondamental restriction to use a gun like to have the knowledge and skills to use it safely or to use it for legitimate pupose only…
The Democrats tend to be in favour of tighter gun restriction we saw in a document that for the democrat Bernie Sanders guns shouldn’t be autorized for people who had criminal background or was involevd in domestic abuse situations.
then Stricter laws to the carrying of weapons would be necessary.
To conclude we have seen that on the one hand many people are killed every year in the USA and that most american people are afraid so they are questioning guns legitimity and proposing more control. But on the other hand to carry a gun is an important right for Americans since the Second Amendement. If the power of the gun lobby, the NRA wasn't strong there woukd be less pressure and therefore less deaths .I
The new A merican President Donald trumphas the support of the gun lobby so things are not going to change for the coming years and violence will go on
fidji45
Pour Lucie 5656
Notion of Places and Power
Bonsoir je vous propose les corrections suivantes (et je n'oublie pas zizou)
We studied the notion of places and power. Nowadays we CAN observe in the USA an improvement IN the living conditions of Afro-american compared TO A HUNDRED YEARS AGO . Power is synonym of might.IT can be exerted by Justice, the media, political authorities. We may wonder “Who embodies today and EMBODIED yesterday the notion of power in the USA? ”. To answer this question, in the fiRSt part we will see by whom the power WAS embodied in the 1930 and by whom embodies power today.
First, I will tell you about the power embodieD in the 1930, because in thOse years , Afro-Americans knowHAD HORRIBLE living conditions. The people(trop vague!!) embody the power in USA. The people (???) alerted on the horror of the Afro-American. They have the power on them. For that, the first document I have chosen is a photograph entitled « Necktie Party » in Marion in Indiana in 1930. When we saw this image for the first time in class it was not complete, we could think IT WAS a crowd attending some SORT of festive show. People wORE their best clothes such as ties, white shirts and dresses. But, in the background we could see a PAIR OF legs maybe those of a musician. However, when we saw the whole picture we realized that two black men were hanged :they had been tortured and endured sufferings. In the face of people we could see a total absence of guilt.(pourquoi? des Blancs? Des Noirs?) . ON THE CONTRARY the other(QUI?)people were smiling and laughing! THIS PICTURE EXPLICITLY showS the power of horrOr without mercy, the power of the white mansMEN OVER black mans.MEN
I WILL NOW TALK ABOUT power today, by the police. Talking about THE recent violenceS in the United States, another act of power by guns. The power of the police. In addition to a famous tragic video, we saw in class, which shocked all of America.Vous êtes sure:Even White Supremacists?) We saw a black man strangled by the police: Eric Garner, because heWHO WAS was suspected of illegally selling cigarettes. In this video ERIC GARNER SAYS ELEVEN TIMES "I can not breathe" but the police do not reactKEPT HIM FIERCELY HEAD ON THE GROUND. Then they callED the hospital.ERIC GARNER was not armed. The medical examination concluded that Garner was killed by"neck compression". It is easier to directly rape(????, pouvez m'expliquer ce que vous voulez dire ??rape:violer) the New York police than to passjudgementtHOLD A TRIAL (mais contre qui , la police, mais vous êtes consciente du coup d'une procédure?). It's a bad image of the police. In the space of a few minutes, he lost his life. I am offended by that.Je réorganise vos idées car vous parlez de Garner , puis d'un éventuel jugement, puis de la police encore ....In the documentary Garner died in a couple of minutes , helpless, alone, on the Streets, and I am profoundly offended .
Finally, a young man was shot dead by THE police on March 18th in Sacramento, United States. He was 22 years old. He was unarmed and heWAS shot DEAD. At this momentJUST BEFORE he was in his grandmother's garden. So, this act WAS filmed by a policeman. This video shocked a lot of people. In this video, we see the police chase the man in his garden and shoot him. The police explained that it is a report of a suspect(je ne comprends pas : la police a dit que c'était(selon) un rapport d'un suspect...mais qui ,où ..), so he has a smartphone in his hand.non!!! Vous mélangez les sujets dans une même phrase....THE POLICE TRIED TO JUSTIFY THEIR MURDER BUT THE YOUNG MAN HAD NO GUN IN HIS HANDS ONLY A CELL PHONE.
The American people were very shocked because of social media and the media, including an awarenesFOLLOWED BY THE MEDIA WHO HIGHLIGHTED THIS CASE .Following this, we have MANY events of events
In conclusion the notion of places and power in the USA, is difficult ????)
EVEN IF AFRO AMERICANS HAVE OBTAINED RIGHTS THEY ARE STILL TARGETS. PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE BUT THERE IS STILL A LONG WAY TO GO.( because we observe an improvement in their living condition of life and Afro-Americans so their always have persecution for the police-man for example. The violence against African Americans today is less present than before.") Ce qui est entre parenthèse est à supprimer , je viens de la dire de façon plus percutante et il est très important de finir de façon "punchy"
Conseils: faites très attention aux temps . précisez bien votre pensée : si vous n'y arrivez pas , gardez l'essentiel car après on "se perd" dans des hypothèses et l'ensemble est très très flou(et de toute façon tenez vous en aux faits car vous n'avez guère le temps de tout développer ou encore une fois de faire des hypothèses extrêment floues (et pardon:incompréhensibles).Attention aux répétitions.
Good Luck on your exam ;)
Correction suivante : Zizou 911 (merci aux autres élèves de ne pas mettre un autre texte et d'avoir la patience que j'aie le temps de corriger la notion de l'élève avant vous)
Pour Zizou 911
Notion of places and forms of power
I'm going to talk about the notion of places and forms of power. First, I am going to define theSE notionS. Power is the ability to influence or to control the behavior of others. It can be a political or social authority exerciced by a government or an institution. But some groups like lobbies can act abusevely OF their power or use IT to PUT pressure on the government of a given country. In order to illustrate this notion, I have chosen to talk about gun control in the USA and I will focus on this key question : DOES the Second Amendement OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION on guns still have legitimity for all American citizens?
To illustrate this issue,I am going to focus on why guns are still legitimATE today for a part of the population and then why guns are more and more questionned today for SOME OTHER AmericanS.
Since the Second Amendement to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms was adopted on December 15, 1791, all the American population is thus legally authorized to possess a gun. THANKS TO THIS amendement
gun became part of THE liVES of AmericanS . We WATCHED a video in class that showED us a bank who gAve a free gun to anyone that opened aN ACcount in this bank. We can see how much gun is normalized inTHE US. We saw in a document that despite the EFFORTS OF SOME POLITICIANS to GIVE MORE LIMITS TO the law with meAsures such as gun-free zones, AmericanS are still holding ON TO the Second Amendement. Indeed Republicans are against «gun-free zones». they also defend their rights to protect themselves.
We can even talk about what hapenned more recently when seventeen people were killed after a shooting IN Parkling high school and instead of proposing more control gun use, Donald Trump proposed to arm teacherS. That showS us how much for some AmericanS guns are still a solution today,(no: that shows that Trump has no intention to diminish the use of guns ) Many Americans feel safer with guns .
Moreover, the Republicans supports the major lobby (trouve le nom du lobby des armes qui a financé une grande partie de la campagne de Trump)HIS STRONG LOBBY PUTS pressure on politicians to prevent them FROM TAKING measures. It is the case of the NRA (National Rifle Association)(voilà!!!), an American GUN LOBBY which advocates for gun rights Indeed we saw in a document that a few days after THE Columbine shooting,(date?) Charlton Heston, the leader of the NRA made a big pro-gun rally. He said that nobody would stop him from carrying a gun and expressing his opinion. Despite the mourning, he has managed to rally many people.
Then today guns today are still SEEN NOT ONLY AS LEGAL BUT NECESSARY AND THE SECOND AMENDEMENT IS REGULARLY PUT FORWARD .
Now I will move on to my second part. I am going to show that everybody does not accept arms. Indeed for another part of THE American POPULATION ,guns represent a danger and this feeling grows increasingly with all the shootingS that ARE BECOMING AN EVERY DAY THREAT. We can talk here about the famous shooting of Columbine high school which occurred ON April 20th, ((year?)two students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, killed twelve students and a teacher. We also studied a shooting at Freeman High School that couldHAVE CAUSED A MASSACRE but thankfully a janitor succeedED to stop the gunman
Then with the rise of shooting, more anD more Americans are questionning gun lawS and demand(qui veut dire non pas demander mais exiger) more control on gunS ; We can see in the article of Rob Clymer that he is proposing some fondamental restrictionS to use a gun like : havING the knowledge and skills to use it safely or to use it for legitimate pupose only.
The Democrats tend to be in favour of tighter gun restriction :we saw in a document that for the democrat Bernie Sanders guns shouldn’t be autorized for people who have criminal backgroundS or WHO HAVE BEEN involevd in domestic abuse situations.
To conclude we have seen that on the one hand many people are killed every year in the USA and that most American people are afraid so they are questioning guns legitimity and proposing more control. But on the other hand to carry a gun is an important right for Americans since the Second Amendement. If the power of the gun lobby, the NRA wasn't strong there would be less pressure and therefore less deaths .
The new American President Donald AS WE HAVE SEEN OWS HIS VICTOTY TO THE MONEY BROUGHT BY the gun lobby so things are not going to change for the coming years and violence will go on.
Conseils: demande toi ce qui a pu justifier le port d'armes au début au moment de la constitution américaine (The country was dangerous and unknown , guns were used for hunting..
J'ai supprimé certaines parties redondantes pour rendre le message plus clair , j'espère que cela te convient.Tu cites deux fois Columbine : dés la première fois où tu en parles je pense qu'il serait bien de situer cette tragédie dans le temps (date) et espace (Etat)
Tu peux peut-être dire qu'Obama lui voulait resteindre le port d'armes mais (he wanted to restrain the use of guns but he wasn't followed by Congress so it was unfortunately a failure) C'est peut-être moins "fataliste" que de dire que les armes vont continuer à se propager ....
;)
zizou911
Merci beaucoup fidji45 pour votre correction et vos conseils que je vais appliquer à la lettre.
meramria23
Bonjour, je viens solliciter votre aide sur ma notion d'anglais LIEUX ET FORMES DE POUVOIRS que je trouve très difficile à faire. Par ailleurs je n'arrive pas à trouver de conclusion. Pouvez-vous m'aider ?
Today, I am going to talk about Places and forms of power and I am going to focus about power of words.
But first of all, I will define this notion: the power is the ability to control others, events, or resources, to succeed in doing what you want to do in spite of obstacles, resistance or opposition. Power can be held but can also quickly taken away test or stolen. There is usually conflict between those with power and those without. Power is also associated with authority and influence and some places can be associated with the authority for example the White House and the President of the USA, 10 Downing Street and the British Prime Ministers.
How do the words can have an impact on international scene ?
To my mind, the documents that seem to best illustrate this notion are:
• Championship Public speaking by Mohammed Qahtani
• Trump speech’s about discriminated people based on their religions
• And Bob Dylan song’s called “Masters of war”
First of all I am going to talk about Mohammed Qahtani. As a contestant in the world championship of Public speaking, he speaks about the power of words. In this Championship he try to make people change the mind of the public at the introduction and then he take several examples.. To demonstrate his point, he uses as first the argument of smoking and its dangers to prove that words can alter someone’s belief’s ! But also the examples of his son, Global Warming and try to make a father proud. One can destroy someone’s happiness or can have the power to turn someone into a successful person. With those examples he said that words, when said and articulated in the right way, can change someone’s mind and that words have power, words are power, words could be your power.
Secondly, we are going to see what Trump answers to this question about the discrimination based on the religions. Isn’t it un-American and wrong to discriminate people based on their religion ? He answered to this by a simple sentence “I’m for it”, but then he started to skirt the issue, and talked about the “problem” which he didn’t develop more, but repeat it a several time.
His answer contains only simples words, with about 170 on 220 words of only two syllables. Moreover, Trump finished most of his sentences with violent and strong words, as bedlam, injured, die… Those are the ones that people will remember and memorize. He is very witty but can’t call him smart.
As Napoleon and Julius Cesar did it before him, Trump talk also about himself at the 3rd person.
To conclude with Trumps speech, we can retain that as a salesman, he is using a very simple language understandable by everyone, without complex sentences as should have done another politician.
Last but not least, we can remark that the song background is write in a conflict period, that Dylan didn’t support the nation involvement in the cold war against the soviet union, and that he is one of the 1st to stand out his voice and opinion against politicians and war profiteers. The song was a bold direct protest to the Cold War.
At the 1st Stanza we understand that people prepare everything to lead to death and they just have to watch what they made the other do.
It looks like a kind of war, but they won’t be concerned about this.
In the 2nd Stanza those people thread a new trend of fear: the fear to make children in this savage word, with the possibility of being killed. They don’t want this life for their children.
In conclusion of this song, there is a straight forward and grim ending, he show his genuine hatred for the leaders whom are making corrupt decision.
PS: je passe un bac s
fidji45
Hello!
Donc tu as peu de temps : pourrais-tu essayer d'enlever ce qui n'est pas ton sujet premier ?
Je corrigerai après: là c'est bien trop long .
;)
meramria23
Bonjour,
Je n'est pas compris votre requête. Pouvez-vous m'expliquer ce que vous voulez dire par ça ?
Merci d'avance :)
fidji45
oui
Tu as 5 minutes pour présenter au moins deux textes :ce que tu as fait est trop long ;
Today, I am going to talk about Places and forms of power and I am going to focus about power of words.
But first of all, I will define this notion: the power is the ability to control others, events, or resources., to succeed in doing what you want to do in spite of obstacles, resistance or opposition. Power can be held but can also quickly taken away test or stolen. There is usually conflict between those with power and those without. Power is also associated with authority and influence and some places can be associated with the authority for example the White House and the President of the USA, 10 Downing Street and the British Prime Ministers.
How do the words can have an impact on international scene ?
Voici une exemple concret pour les trois premières lignes : j'ai simplifié (tu peux te contenter de donner une définition simple et axée sur ton sujet )
On te demande aussi de citer tes sources (textes et dates)
;)
smokky4
Bojour, besoin d'une correction pour ma notion svp
'm going to talk about the notion of places and forms of power. First, I am going to define these notions. Power is the ability to influence or to control the behavior of others. It can be a political or social authority exerciced by a government or an institution. But some groups like lobbies can act abusevely of their power or use it to put pressure on the government of a given country. In order to illustrate this notion, I have chosen to talk about gun control in the USA and I will focus on this key question : Is the Second Amendement of the American constitution still revelant for all American citizens?
To illustrate this issue,I am going to focus first on why guns are current today for a part of the population and then why guns are more and more questionned today for some other Americans.
First of all guns are seen as common and normal. Indeed we saw in class that Since the Second Amendement to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms was adopted on December, 1791, all the American population is thus legally authorized to possess a gun. Thanks to this amendement guns became part of the lives of Americans.
Beside, despite the efforts of some politicians to give more limits to the law with measures such as gun-free zones, Americans are still holding on to the Second Amendement. Indeed speaking on CNN Rick Perry, a republican said that gun free zone were a bad idea. Republicans defend their rights to protect themselves.
Moreover, the Republicans supports the major lobby the NRA who financed a big part of the campaign of Trump. The NRA (National Rifle Association), is an American gun lobby which advocates for gun rights. Indeed we saw in a documentary that a few days after the Columbine shooting which occured April 1999, Charlton Heston, the leader of the NRA made a big pro-gun rally. He said that nobody would stop him from carrying a gun and expressing his opinion. Despite the mourning, he has managed to rally many people.
Then today guns are still seen not only as legal but necessary and the Second Amendement is regulary put forward.
Now I will move on to my second part. I am going to show that everybody does not accept arms. Indeed for another part of the America population, guns represent a danger and this feeling grows increasingly with all the shootings that are becoming an every day threat. We can also talk here about the famous shooting of Columbine high school, two students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, killed twelve students and a teache
Then with the rise of shooting, more and more Americans are questionning gun laws and demand more control on guns. In his movie Bowling for Colombine Michael Moore denouces a bank who gives away free gun to anyone that opens an account in this bank with only a backgroundcheck. Then he is critisizing the easyness to get a gun including criminal.
Beside, It's here the Democrats that tend to be in favour of tighter gun restriction indeed democrat Bernie Sanders said on NBC's Meet the press that guns shouldn’t be autorized for people who have criminal backgrounds or who have been involevd in domestic abuse situations. So Hopefully, some American today are questioning guns legitimacy and ask more conroll.
To conclude we have seen that on the one hand many people are killed every year in the USA and that most American people are afraid so they are questioning the revelance of guns and proposing more control. But on the other hand to carry a gun is an important right for Americans since the Second Amendement. If the power of the gun lobby, the NRA wasn't strong there would be less pressure and therefore less deaths .
The new American President Donald as we have seen ows his victory to the money brought by the gun lobby so things are not going to change for the coming years and violence will go on.
fidji45
Bonjour
Cet exposé est bien formulé en anglais dans sa globalité.
Par contre ,bien que tu mettes en avant le "we saw in class that" il ne faut pas perdre e vue que l'on te demande trois textes (si tu es en L) et au moins deux (pour les autres sections)
ll faut ainsi voir apparaître trois paragraphes (ou deux) avec des références pour tes documents : sources, dates , etc...Or, tu as tendance à ajouter des éléments (non référencés) et à te répéter .
Je serai bien plus mitigée pour la conclusion : Oui Trump est soutenu par le puissant lobby des armes mais l'opinion américaine qui est fatiguée des exécutions arbitraires dans les rues (surtout bien sûr contre les Noirs) , du danger élevé dans les écoles , cette opinion est à plus de 60% contre les armes à feu .
Pour écarter ces critiques Trump fait son spectacle en réinventant ce qui s'est passé au Bataclan (comme si les djihadistes avaient massacré les gens les uns après les autres pff...)(il construit les fameuses "fake news" qu'il a dit dénoncer) et il s'en est également pris à l'Angleterre.
Les Américains supportent ce discours de moins en moins : et l'on connaît la puissance des mouvements de rue aux Etats Unis.
Obama n'a pu ajuster le contrôle des armes car le Congrès lui était défavorable. Depuis les tueries plus ou moins spectaculaires se précipitent ....
Il ne faut pas "fermer le sujet " mais montrer que l'opinion a vraiment évolué....
Donc
Reste bien dans ton sujet (l'ensemble est décousu et redondant)
Appuie toi sur les textes :une idée: un document avec dates, sources...EX Tu parles de Bernie Sanders : Est-ce dans le document ? Si la réponse est non, tu n'en parles pas maintenant ,il faut garder des connaissances pour la deuxième partie de ton oral (en interactivité)
Ne reprends pas en conclusion tout ce que tu as déjà dit : il faut donc refaire ta conclusion (elle doit être assez courte et répondre à ton sujet . Par ex: si Trump est soutenu par le lobby des armes, il n'est pas soutenu par la majorités des Américains. Voyant qu'il perd pied , il redit comme il a été "formidablement " élu et se permet des mimes déplacés (le bataclan) sans remettre en cause les massacres aux Etats Unis.
Crée une ouverture : Trump pense ceci mais plus de 60 % des Américains ne pensent pas comme lui.
Fais correspondre ton introduction (les Américains qui sont de plus en plus contre cet amendement) avec ta conclusion.
Pas UN mot sur ce qui se passe chez lui .Mais les Américains eux dans leur vaste majorité
smokky4
Merci pour vos conseils, je vous ai donc écoutée et refait ma conclusion:
To conclude we have seen that many people are killed every year in the USA and that most American people are afraid so they are questioning the revelance of guns and proposing more control. And if Trump is supported by the major gun lobby, he's not supported by the majorities of the Americans, indeed more than 60% of Americans are against gun.
In response to the rise of challenges on the second amendment, Trump allows mimesmoved on the Bataclan without calling into question the massacres to the United States.
Toute fois en ce qui concerne les parties a se supprimer je ne vois vraiment pas quoi en effet j'ai déjà supprimé beaucoup de chose et puis d'un regard extérieur je n'arrive vraiment a voir quelles parties sont redondantes et décousu. Cela est difficile pour moi car notre professeur a été beaucoup absent et nous avons eu aucun conseil méthodologique de sa part.
fidji45
Ok Smokky4
Je regarde tout ça dés demain :vous êtes dans quelle section et c'est pour votre LVA ou LVI seule ?
A bientôt!
smokky4
Bonjour, donc je suis en LV1 anglais. Bonne soirée
