L’ABBE PIERRE : CHAMPION OF THE HOMELESS.

1- L'abbé Pierre : champion of the homeless Commentaire d'un article publié dans "Newsweek" en 1995 Thème : les Sans-Logis	TERMINALES
2- Alcatraz Reclaimed Commentaire d'un texte publié dans "Open Access" [Terms] Thème : Les Amérindiens	TERMINALES
3- The Towers of Paradise Commentaire d'un texte publié dans "Open Access" [Terms] Thèmes : The American Dream, Ellis Island	TERMINALES
4- Straight Life Commentaire d'un texte publié dans "Open Access" [Terms] Thèmes : La musique et la drogue	TERMINALES
5- The Yoplait Cowboy Commentaire d'une Publicité publié dans "Open Access" [Terms]	Toutes Classes
6- The Infernal Visit Commentaire d'un texte publié dans "Open Access" [Terms] Thèmes : Le couple-la famille	TERMINALES
7- GANDHI on the way to Pretoria Commentaire d'un texte publié dans "Open Access" [Terms] Thème : Le racisme	TERMINALES

INTRODUCTION : This article, taken from the American newsmagazine Newsweek and published in 1995, draws the portrait of one of the most popular men in the French society : l’Abbé Pierre. According to opinion polls and surveys, he is the man most French people look up to and regard as a living saint as he has devoted his life to helping the poor and the homeless. To begin with, we’ll see who he is, then try to explain why he is so popular, and why politicians listen to him. Of course, l’Abbé Pierre’s whole life is a fight for social justice and equality, and I’ll give you my opinion about these key political, social and economic issues.

L' Abbé Pierre today is a very popular old man whose physical appearance - his long white beard, his spectacles, his black beret and cape - are well known by the vast majority of the French population. Though he is 82 years old, a bent and frail figure, most people are fascinated by his strength and determination. The paradox is that this unimpressive figure " makes politicians listen ", compels political leaders to act for the poor and the underprivileged. Since 1954, he has used the media to sensitize public opinion to the plight of the poor, the homeless and the underprivileged at large. A film " Un Hiver 54 " made L’Abbé Pierre even more popular, as it portrayed a man whose only purpose is to help the needy, a SAINT.

In addition to being a saint, he also is a war HERO as he repeatedly risked his life to save Jews and other families from the Nazis. He also is A MAN of ACTION : after the war, he was elected MP. Indeed, he must have thought at the time that politicians could tackle the problems of poverty and homelessness, but he must have soon realized that there was no use in sitting in the National Assembly. He decided to get down to work and act to the best of his abilities to alleviate the suffering of the poor and the " excluded "

This man can actually be regarded as a saint in this time of widespread religious disbelief. First, he has devoted his own life to God and his fellow human beings. While most people -especially elderly people- withdraw from public life to make the most of the remainder of their lives, l’Abbé Pierre has kept on fighting against the authorities, against conventional politicians, to lessen the pain and the suffering of the have-nots.

Therefore, a large proportion of the French population - and the American journalist who wrote this article- admire him for his total abnegation, his unselfishness, his lack of concern for his own desires and wishes, his self-denial. Unlike many, l’Abbé Pierre not only preaches that poverty and homelessness are scourges, but he has sacrificed his own life to help the poor, the " excluded ", the thousands who live on the fringes of society. Whereas most political figures are seemingly greedy for money, power or honours, he practices what he preaches, he preaches by example.

L’Abbé Pierre is, according to public opinion polls, more popular than Cousteau or J.P Belmondo, because few people have the guts, the courage to do what he has been consistently doing since 1954. L’Abbé Pierre is regarded as a hero, because he is leading a blameless and risky life. Many consider that L’Abbé Pierre is an idealist, sincerely convinced that human rights issues should and must be given precedence over economic considerations. L’Abbe Pierre refuses to consider the war on poverty as a losing battle. He is bent on fighting against injustice and homelessness until this twin scourge has been eradicated, until he dies.

On the other hand, chances are that L’Abbe Pierre's admirable conduct allows some people to ease their conscience. Thanks to l’Abbe Pierre, these people help the poor by proxy, without actually doing anything. Thanks to l’Abbé Pierre, people no longer have a guilty conscience and can go about their business without remorse.

C- WHY DOES L’ABBE PIERRE MAKE POLITICIANS LISTEN? L’ABBE PIERRE’S LATEST BATTLE.

Though he no longer is a politician himself, l’Abbe Pierre exerts strong pressure on politicians who cannot afford not to listen to him. L’Abbe Pierre , as of 1954, understood that the media could play a key role in the war against poverty. Therefore, ever since 1954; L’Abbe Pierre has used the radio and television to sound the alarm, and sensitize public opinion to homelessness. He has repeatedly exposed the politicians’ failings and lack of genuine concern for the poor. L’Abbe Pierre’s latest battle was intentionally waged a few weeks before the French Presidential elections. Indeed, L’Abbe Pierre’s admonitions are all the more likely to be heard in times of elections as all contenders need as many votes as they can to win the election. They can ill afford to alienate French public opinion as it is increasingly sensitive to the plight of the homelessness, and increasingly blame politicians for their inability to tackle this problem.

L’Abbe Pierre, as well as associations , such as " Droit au Logement " are incensed by the fact that, while hundreds of apartments are vacant in Paris, as in most large French cities, thousands of families do not have decent living conditions : either they are on the streets or live in unsanitary living conditions. L’ Abbe Pierre then left his retreat in Normandy, and went to Paris to requisition an empty building in Rue Du Dragon. Jacques Chirac, who has been Paris’s mayor was compelled to react, as was Balladur, the French Prime Minister. Both had to bow to the pressure exerted by l’Abbe Pierre because they realized it would have been politically suicidal not to answer positively to L’Abbe Pierre’s requests. Thus, Chirac promised to requisition empty buildings in accordance with a 1945 law : L’Abbe made Chirac and Balladur listen to him.

This extract, which first appeared in 1970, is the text of the proclamation issued by the protesting Indians, who in late 1969 forcibly occupied the small island of Alcatraz, located in San Francisco Bay, to protest against their living conditions and their inferior status in the USA

This proclamation, drawn up (worded) like the numerous treaties that the Whites used to sign in the 18th and 19th centuries - and that were never respected -, is teeming with ironical undertones. We'll see how and why the Indians used irony and satire as weapons to shed light on their plight.

We'll first summarize and account for the events which took place in 1969, and explain their symbolical value. Secondly, we'll analyze the numerous ironical and satirical gibes in this most interesting text.

In the 1960s, American Indians rebelled, after decades of bitter resignation and impotent rage. They followed the example set by the American Blacks (The Blacks Civil Rights Movement) who in the 1960s fought for their civil rights and their human dignity. The Indians not only reasserted their rights to the lands taken in violation of treaty agreements, but also meant to publicize their plight. They resorted to violence, and one of the most spectacular acts of defiance took place in 1969 when a group of Indians occupied the old prison site of Alcatraz, in the bay of San Francisco.

Why Alcatraz ? Alcatraz Island is world-famous for its prison, today disused, and its location. Numerous dangerous prisoners were jailed at Alcatraz as it was virtually escape-proof (no prisoner successfully escaped from this jail). Thus, the Indians chose to occupy Alcatraz Island, as they knew that this unusual form of protest would focus national -and international attention- on the Indians or Native Americans. The Indians could no longer put up with decades of injustice and contempt, of theft and robbery. Alcatraz Island for them, symbolized the Whites' oppression and their own lack of freedom. As stated in "Article 10", the Indians have always been held as prisoners in a country that once was theirs alone. Alcatraz Island, a freedomless microcosm, stands for the American macrocosm.

Thanks to Alcatraz Island, the Indians publicly debunked the myth of the USA as the land of freedom for all, symbolized by another island, Liberty Island, and another harbor, New York. They drove home the message that the Indians had always been the victims of the Whites' greed and oppression, and that they would do everything in their power to transform things.

The Indians meant Alcatraz Island to symbolize three hundred years of exploitation and humiliation: "This tiny island would be a symbol of the great lands once ruled by free and noble Indians". (Note the antithesis "Tiny" and "great)

Alcatraz Island also symbolizes Indian reservations, in which many Indians suffer from diseases, alcoholism, unemployment and intense poverty. But the Indians are not degenerates, diseased barbarians : indeed, the Whites are the only ones to blame. Alcatraz Island closely resembles a standard Indian reservation as it is cut off from the outside world, it has no running water, its soil is unproductive, and chances of finding a job there are non-existent. The Indians, though they were granted U.S citizenship in 1924 are still underprivileged Americans : the text debunks another myth most Americans believe in : the USA is not the land of opportunity. The Native Americans make up America's long-forgotten and impoverished minority, but they are determined to fight for their dignity, their mental and physical well-being.

The Indians' scathing irony is obvious at a single glance: they plagiarize -and scoff at- the hundreds of treaties signed by the Whites. Unfortunately, it is well-known that no treaty was ever respected and that, as a result, the Indians were slowly and definitely cheated out of most of their lands. In the 1870s they controlled 135 million acres , in 1934 they had only 48 million acres left, today they own 52 million acres; most lands were either stolen or bought for a few dollars.

Here, the Indians expose the Whites' lack of moral scruples and hypocrisy, offering to buy Alcatraz 24 dollars, the price paid for New York, three hundred years ago. Furthermore, the Indians suggest they use beads and red cloth to purchase Alcatraz. The Indians refer to two separate historical events : the purchase of Manhattan for a few trinkets, and the ludicrously low amount of money offered by the White government to the Californian Indians, which suggests that hardly any thing has changed.

The Indians address "the Great White Father", the leader of a so-called "Caucasian people". But it is plain that such phrases refer to the Whites and the American President. They mock the whole-hearted contempt in which the Whites held the Indians. Actually, most Whites were sincerely convinced that the Indians were barbarians and heathens, whom the Whites were duty bound to civilize and convert, failing which the Indians were bound to be unhappy. The American president can't be their father, as his "children" are maltreated, penned in reservations, denied their most basic rights. No "father" would dare treat his "children like this. Therefore, this satirical gibe strongly suggests that, actually, the Whites and their "father" ARE ruthless savages. They make it plain that it is high time the Whites were taught the values treasured so highly by the Indians, the legitimate owners of the American continent. The Indians are the only Native Americans, and their rights must be restored as swiftly as possible. Fortunately, the Indians have not given in to despair, and fight for a better future.

CONCLUSION: The occupation of Alcatraz island made the headlines for a great many months. It was an excellent publicity stunt, and Indian leaders became famous overnight. Fortunately, national attention was focused on Alcatraz Island for several months, and things have slightly got better since that time. But progress has been slow and much remains to be done. Meanwhile, the Indians carry on fighting - in a more subdued way for their rights. Indeed, there still is a long way to go before the Indians are recognized as full-fledged citizens.

This text is extracted from ( an excerpt from) "Americans", a book published in 1978 by Desmond Wilcox. The author is head of BBC Television's General Features Department from which came the television series TEN WHO DARED and "AMERICANS", his new personal documentary series. Wilcox's purpose was to answer a daunting question : what is an American? Both the TV series and book were made with a view to shedding light on a most enigmatic character, the American citizen.

To reach his purpose, D.Wilcox interviewed dozens of American citizens from all walks of life, such as trade-union leaders, businessmen, ( Voir "THE COMPANY PRESIDENT P 33), ordinary citizens......

In "The Towers of Paradise", the interviewee is Leon Stein, a 66-year-old New Yorker whose parents emigrated to America at the turn of the century. (Leon Stein's parents must have been Polish or German Jews.)

The scene is set on ELLIS ISLAND, a small island in New York Bay, next to Liberty Island) on which a vast Immigration Center was built in 1895. This Center (The GREAT HALL in the text) was a huge immigration control center through which millions of new immigrants had to go before setting foot on the American soil.

Therefore, Leon Stein's interview obviously focusses on the issue of immigration as forty per cent of all Americans can look back to an ancestor who passed through Ellis island's doors. Most Americans are descended from uprooted people who came to America to satrt a from scatch. As John Kennedy once stated, the USA is " A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS", a country whose whole history and ideology were - and still are - shaped by immigrants.

My commentary will fall into three parts: the first part will be devoted to Leon Stein ( his life and career, his personal history, his experience and feelings). In the second part , I shall try to find out the reasons why America was - and to a certain extent, still is - a magnet for millions of hopeful immigrants. Last but not least, I shall attempt to relate what happened in the Great Hall, on Ellis Island, before immigrants were ushered into the New World, after the long perilous journey which had taken them to the shores of the Promised Land, the shores of Paradise.

He is a fully-fledged American citizen, born and bred in New York. He is aged 66 and must have lived in N.Y all his life . Leon Stein could be depicted as a self-made man as, although his origins were very humble, he has achieved material and social success.In other words, as his parents were extremely poor, he had - and managed to - work his way up the social ladder. He eventually made it to the top as he now is a trade union leader, a newspaper editor and a writer.

Leon Stein, to a certain extent, embodies the AMERICAN DREAM. ( His - and his parents' dreams- have come true in America, the land of opportunnty and wealth)

Although ( Because) Leon Stein is fully integrated into the American society - "an all-American family man" - he can't help but look back upon his - his parents', his country's - PAST. We may go as far as to say that Leon Stein is obsessed with his past, and his country's past history- epitomized, in his view, by ELLIS ISLAND. For more than 40 years, Ellis Island has been Stein's favorite topic for discussion. It is the reason why Stein -and Wilcox- deliberately picked Ellis Island as the place- the backdrop - for the interview.

Leon Stein finds it very difficult to distance himself from his past as New York is still teeming with immigrants from over 100 different nationalities, races or creeds. One might go as far as to say that New York looks like a Tower of Babel whose inhabitants speak various languages, share different sets of values. The paradox is that they all consider themselves as American citizens, and are frequently proud of their recently acquired American citizenship.

To put it in a nutshell, it should always be borne in mind that the American psyche has been - and still is - shaped by immigration.

From 1892 to 1922, sixteen million immigrants made the journey to America and passed through the doors of Ellis Island. This text enables to better understand the resons which impelled "the tired, and the poor" to leave their native countries and risk their lives to start anew in America, "THE PROMISED LAND"

To begin with, most immigrants arrived knowing little about America. At most, perhaps they had read about the New World in a letter from a friend or a brother who had preceded them. But they made the journey anyway because they knew too much about the old world: too much hunger, too much tyranny. Most immigrants sought a new beginning in America, or as Leon Stein puts it, they left their native countries for a new homeland "to be born again". Most newcomers dreamed of starting a new life in the New World which they regarded as "the Promised land", "a land of milk and honey". When they reached New York and saw skyscrapers on the horizon, they believed they were catching sight of "THE TOWERS OF PARADISE" (ironically unaware that they were actually looking at the East Side Ghetto, one of the slum districts of New York.)

Thus, millions of immigrants sailed across the Atlantic Ocean to start a new life in America, because their living conditions in The Old World were appalling: most fled poverty and hunger ( The IRISH,for example). Leon Stein illustrates his point by telling the amusing "HERRING" anecdote: his father "fell in love with a herring" on the boat bound for New York

Leon Stein's father could eat his fill for the first time ever in his life. This "extraordinary" event was a harbinger of a bright future in America. Ever since that memorable day, Leon's father knew he had reached the land of wealth and prosperity he had dreamed of for so long. Leon's father, like millions of immigrants- was convinced he could "make it", "strike it rich" in America - provided ,of course, he worked hard to succeed.

Dismal economic conditions do not suffice to acount for such massive migrations. Immigrants also fled tyranny, political or religious persecution and most of them "yearned to breathe free". When they caught sight of the Statue of Liberty - "their first real sight of the New World"- they knew that their dream had come true as they were about to enter the Land of Freedom and Wealth.

THE STATUE OF LIBERTY, which was given by the French and erected in 1886 on Liberty Island, in New York Bay, has come to symbolize the world over the irrepressible human yearning for freedom. It is probably one of the most potent symbols all over the world ( A few years ago, Chinese students and demonstrators built a replica of the Statue of Liberty to symbolize - and protest against- their struggle against the oppressive Communist regime)

When they saw the Statue, "the lady of Hope", one can easily imagine how relieved and happy immigrants were as their prilous journey had come to a successful conclusion. But most were torn between happiness and anxiety as, first new immigrants had to face ELLIS ISLAND. Their expectations were so high that most immigrants came to America, dreading being deported back to the Old World.

III- ELLIS ISLAND ( You are expected to tell the examiner what immigrants had to go through in Ellis Island)

In conclusion, Leon’s journey to Ellis Island reminds the reader of the key part Ellis island played in American history. This vast immigration center came to symbolize for millions of Americans their past history, their dreams, which unfortunately did not always come true. Today, Ellis Island has been converted into a museum that is visited by millions of tourists every year.

In 1956, the famous Jazz musician, Art Pepper was interviewed by a disc jockey about the tragic role that drugs played in his life. This interview was taped and transcribed to be eventualy published in a Jazz magazine, called Down Beat.

Art Pepper's obvious purpose is to warn young people, and especially young Jazz musicians, against drugs, which far from boosting their creative powers, are bound to make a mess of their lives.

My commentary will fall into three parts : the first part will be focussed on Art Pepper's nighmarish life since he started using drugs, in order to understand why the advice he gives is worth listening to. In the second part, I shall try to understand why people start using drugs (even though they are fully aware of the potential dangers of drugs). Last but not least I shall suggest a few solutions in order to come to grips with the scourge of drug. (Needless to say that I personally have not found any miracle cure for this disease !)

Art Pepper is a world-famous Jazz musician whose life was sheer hell after falling victim to the plague of drug. Had he not succumbed to the temptation of drugs, A.Pepper would not have lived a miserable life Being unable to work steadily, he turned into a (petty) criminal, which led to his eventual arrest in 1953. He was subsequently jailed for 15 months (for unspecified reasons) and after his release was hospitalized in Fort Worth with a view to detoxifying him.

Therefore, Art Pepper in 1956 is a former drug-addict whose testimony is worth considering. Art Pepper's testimony is an alarm signal : far from glamorizing or trivializing the use of drugs, the musician stresses the fact that an addict's life is a nightmare, which he describes in graphic detail.

First and foremost, drug-addicts have no freedom whatsoever; they are enslaved by drugs. Their lives revolve round a constant obsession, drug, which they need in ever-increasing quantitiy.

No sooner did Art Pepper fix than his life came to a grinding halt. Every human feeling was superseded by an irresistible yearning for dope. Thus, Art Pepper shows that most drug-addicts, especially if they are hooked on hard drugs, hardly behave like human beings. They behave like zombies whose lives and minds are taken up by a single obsession, by a fixed idea. Art Pepper's depiction of a junkie's life is utterly frightening. Drug-users go through such terrible ordeals that they soon turn into selfish, terrified creatures who live in constant fear and suspicion. As they are unable to trust or love anyone, they are desperately alone, and eventually take their own lives.

Indeed, a drug-addict's life is hardly worth living. It is ruled by one obsession: getting drugs. Their lives are devoid of meaning and purpose (meaningless and purposeless) as their one and only aim is to fix.

Art Pepper's message is targetted at all young people and jazz musicians in particular. Indeed, drugs in the 1950s were causing irreparable damage to the musical world , and were taking a heavy toll on talented musicians. Countless artists, such as Charlie Parker, were notorious junkies, and scores of younger artists seemed bent on emulating their elders. Art Pepper, as a former junkie, feels he now has a mission and a duty : he is duty bound to raise the alarm as he knows from personal experience that his own life and career were blighted by drug.

His aim is to turn people away from the the plague of drug. Therefore, he debunks the romantic myth that drugs can boost an artist's creative powers. Drugs, he says, is like a cancer eating away at an artist's soul and mind. In no way should artists expect drugs to have anything but a negative influence on their art and creativity : his judgement is final: "There is no creation at all".

Had Art Pepper not taken to drugs, not only would he have had a brilliant career, but he would not have turned to crime to feed his habit. Indded, as he was unable to work steadily, and therefore moneyless, he had to use illegal means to buy drugs. In 1953, he was arrested because he must have become a drug-dealer, a thief or a pimp. He was eventually sentenced to a fifteen-month jail sentence. He was subsequently hospitalized to cleanse his body of drug. However difficult it must have been (as there was no proper treatment), it probably was for him a golden opportunity to start a new life . He was detoxified and could at last resume his musical career.

In 1956, Art Pepper at last led a straight life. Released from his inner jail, he could look back upon his past and talk his blood-brothers out of drugs.

But one question remains unanswered, and it is up to us to provide answers: Why do people start using drugs? One can also wonder what should be done to eradicate this scourge which ruins and destroys thousands of lives all over the world

III- CONCLUSION Art Pepper argues that drug-addicts are sick and should be treated as such. Do you agree or not? Why? Why not?

This document is an ad (an advert, an advertisement) for a French product: Yoplait, the yoghurt of France. This French company has decided to tap the American market and sell its products to American consumers. This advertisement must be part of an advertising campaign aimed at boosting sales of Yoplait's products.

This ad must have been published in a magazine since it is a colour photo, and these are more frequent in magazines than in dailies where ads are usually in black and white.

Besides since there is so much to read I suppose this kind of ad was not on a hoarding or a bill-board in the street where passers-by don't have enough time to read as they walk past too quickly.

The fact a cow-bou occupies most of the ad makes me think that the target is the American consumer, who is more likely to identify with a wrangler than an English customer. I don't believe a cow-boy would appeal much to English people, even though most European countries are fascinated by American " culture". After all there is no information about this ad.

However, I'd like to point out that the yoghurt is "low-fat", and everybody knows how concerned American people are as regards their diet, even if, or because some of them are obese, quite fat.

I can see a close shot of a man who is wearing a "checkered shirt", and a "cow-boy hat". The focal point of the document is the yoghurt the cowboy is holding in his left hand. The man uses a spoon to eat "the scruptious, hearty Breakfast Yoghurt". A lot of French words are printed in heavy type describing the photo. These words are translated into English just below as Yoplait's purpose allegedly is to teach French to the reader. Of course, it is a mere gimmick to promote Yoplait in the USA. The reader's attention, when reading through the magazine, is bound to be attracted by this unusual advert ising ploy. There is also a big caption in the bottom part of the ad which tells the reader "Let Yoplait teach you French"

If we are to believe this ad, this yoghurt is "good for you" since it contains "luscious fruits, nuts and wheat grains", and it is a "nutritious snack, too". In fact it is so delicious, so mouth-watering that it makes the man smile. He's got such "twinkling eyes" that any woman is bound to be attracted to this Frenchie, this "Latin lover" most Anglo-saxon women are supposed to fall for.

The rosy yoghurt makes his shirt, and the green background makes you feel in a peaceful environment quite different from the scorching plains of the West.

If we have a closer look at the cowboy, we realize he looks quite clean: there is not a speck of dust on his clothes, a drop of sweat on his forehead. He is wearing a cowboy hat re is a very smart yellow and brown ribbon around it. His face is closely shaven : he seems to have stepped out of his bathroom, a few seconds before the photo sessions started. Actually the cowboy is a little too "civilized" to be a genuine American cowboy. The Marlboro cowboy, the he-man macho - the embodiment of strength and adventure- who usually advertises cigarettes or beer, has been changed into someone who is now well-bred. Apparently Yoplait taught him French and good manners as well. This yoghurt seems to have worked a miracle.

Obviously the adman must have thought of the prestige of French cuisine - and the French lover- in the USA when he designed this advert. It explains why he uses French words. (They must look and sound very exotic to most Americans, as they usually have a very faint and picturesque idea of what France and the French look like.) This ad must have certaily have aroused some curiosity, but I wonder if it really was effective. Most Americans must have thought the image of the man was a bit too soft, and therefore they could not identify with such a pseudo cowboy, who looks like an Italian or Greek top model.

I have not got the faintest idea whether this ad enticed American consumers to buy Yoplait's products, but it certainly attracted their attention. I suppose that many American teenagers found this man very handsome and attractive, even sexy.

This page from an American magazine advertises a French product. How can Yoplait possibly manage to make Americans eat French yoghurt? Part of the answer lies in the slogan : by teaching them French. How?

With the traditional method which consists in learning lists of words. The words describe the products but they also describe the man, thus making a link between what is to be read and what is to be looked at in the advert.

The point, of course is to make Americans buy the product, to boost the sales of French dairy products on the American market. The well-known trick of identification consumer/image presented to the viewer is used to an interesting extent here. Cowboys usually advertise "strong" products such as cigarets, whisky, jeans. They usually embody strength, physical courage, freedom and virility, as they lead a life dominated by the fight against natural products

(But it should be said that most of the cowboys seen in adverts bear very little resemblence to "real" cowboys who were rugged, dirty and violent creatures) For many Americans, the West's Conquest was a Golden Age and many Americans still tend to identify with this mythical hero, THE COWBOY.

This mythical hero is commonly used in adverts. His image has been transformed because of the characteristics of the product. While Yoghurt is usually advertised by half-naked women, or sweet-looking kids.

We do see the close-up of a cowboy here, who is wearing the traditional stetson hat and a checkered shirt, but his shirt is pink and stainless, the man's face is clean,and he is close shaven. he is probably relishing his yoghurt in the open air, in a green landscape, far away from wid open spaces of the West

This image has been borrowed but transformed to suit the qualities of the product. This is a "Frenchified" cowboy likely to surprise the reader of the magazine and hence to make him or her stop at the page and remember the name of the product

- Part III : Lisa's portrait. Why she turned down an unusual proposition? Aunt Magda's portrait. Why she finally agreed.

LISA, a young Austrian music teacher, living with her elderly aunt, MAGDA, must entertain her brother and sister-in-law , George and Natalie MORRIS for a few days. George, unlike his sister, emigrated to America (probably just before or after the Second World War) to seek and find a better life in America.

George and Natalie came back to Vienna with a precise objective in mind. After their own children had "gone from the nest", it occurred to them that Lisa and Aunt Magda would agree to come back to the USA with them.

While Lisa turns down her brother's offer, Magada resignedly agrees to her nephew's offer. He finally talks her into emigrating to America, however painful a decision it may be.

Lisa's portrait of her brother and sister-in-law she addreses to Victor is certainly not unbiassed. Actually it is bitterly sarcastic, even cruel.

Both George and Natalie are "grey-haired" upper-middle class people (Lisa suggests they look older than they actually are). They are vulgar and ill-mannered (Natalie flaunts her wealth by showing off her mink coat). They are so madly in love with their new homeland that they could wave the Stars and Stripes about, wherever they are. Lisa stereotypes them as flag-waving, jingoistic people who have blind faith in the American Way, as it enabled both of them to find freedom and wealth. George must have left Europe after the Second World War to start anew. In all likelihood he was poor and could hardly speak English. Now George has worked his way the social ladder : he now i a senior executive in oe of the Big Threes ( The 3 major American motor companies : Ford, Chrysler and General Motors) They both love America and American values as they enabled them to make their dreams come true. George somehow embodies the American Dream; he is a self-made who is inordinately proud of his success.

They are uneducated : their range of interests is very small : George craves for baseball results; milkshakes, baseball. They have never learnt to speak English properly and seem to have very limited horizons.

Like most Americans, they are obsessed by hygiene, and live in fear of catching some deadly contagious disease, as if Austria and Western Europe, as a whole, was like Third World countries unable to meet basic sanitation standards.

In conclusion, Lisa's letter to Victor evidences the chasm existing between both Lisa and George. They belong to 2 different worlds (The Old World, and the New World). there is so wide a gap between them that Lisa likens this visit to a hellish nightmare. She is so depressed that even Dante's inferno is fun to read , and cheers her up by reading Dante's masterpiece, which is bitterly ironical. (All the more ironical as George and Natalie are unaware of Lisa's profound scorn and contempt). Dante's Inferno is small change compared to the ordeal she is going through.

(On the other hand, Lisa's scorn conceals an ill-disguised anxiety : she is fully aware that, should Goerge get his way, her personal life is a shambles)

- George and his wife are childishly self-centered. As their own children "have gone from the nest", they probably dread having to face each other. They seemingly need someone or something - anyone, anything!- to pamper and to lavish attention on. Actually, the reason why they came back to Europe is suffused with immature selfishness. Lisa, by the way, is fully aware ofher brother's real - maybe unconconscious motives- . She writes to Victor that he needs Magda "as an exotic pet in the house", "as an expensive "objet d'art", as a curiosity. In addtion, as Lisa puts it :"George is looking for his mama". Lisa has seen through the mask: George is psychologically immature : the senior executive is actually a love-crazed child. She derides her brother's regressive tendencies which impel him to behave like a child.

In conclusion, Lisa draws a vitriolic portrait of her guests, a typical (?) American couple. Indeed, a great many US citizens are uneducated and set little store by cultural and intellectual values.(They are first and foremost pragmatists). they often behave like spoiled brats, showing off their wealth, convinced that money can anything, even happiness, that America is a God- chosen paradise...

One should bear in mind that Lisa 's vision of her brother and sister-in-law is biassed and partly inspired by dread and anxiety about her own future. But the fact is that Lisa and G. are poles apart. ("They occupy different landscapes") The first time she saw her brother, she could not kiss as he was a total stranger to her, and soon she wonders : "How did we come ... womb(Line 16) She bitterly resents her brother's proposition that she regards as an insult: how could he expect her to renounce her independent life, her freedom? She can't bear him reegarding her as a pet, as an expensive objet d'art.

Lisa may be a middle-aged single woman, a few years older than her brother. She is a spinster and supports herself and Magda by teaching music. To some extent, her own life revolves round Aunt Magda, an old woman leading the life of a recluse. As they live in a tiny, dingy apartment, we can gather that she merely ekes out a living teaching young Viennese kids how to play the piano or sing a few songs.

From a psychological point of view, Lisa strikes me as a proud, mature, clear-minded, clear-sighted, level-headed, high- principled woman. Indeed, no sooner had she understood what her brother was up to than her mind was made up: emigrating to America was out of the question ( no matter how tempting the proposition may have been).

When she saw Magda set out for America, Lisa could not help but feel some anxiety and grief, as she was losing her only companion. Yet, through George and Natalie had condemned her to a life of unbearable solitude, she stuck by her decision and said nothing.

The novelist, D.M. Thomas, doesn't bother with an exhaustive portrait of Magda as Lisa is the main focus of interest. But the reasons why she agrees to her nephew's proposition are worth considering.

Magda's feelings toward George were bound to differ: "To her ..... Yury(Line 19)

It is hardy surprising that Magda should have accepted G's proposition. First, George may have been her beloved nephew a few decades ago, and she may always have been partial to him. Secondly, when Magda was shown the mink coat, told about the grand piano, she must have been impressed by his wealth and social success. Thirdly,, being physically crippled, she didn't really care where she lived. Fourthly, most of her friends and relatives were either dead or far away. Last but not least, she was fully aware that she was a burden on Lisa as she had no means of support. She was then in no position to turn down G'S offer, as she was dependent on her niece whose own financial resources were bound to dwindle as years went by.

Yet, hers was no easy decision to take. It took Magda two weeks, many "tearful discussions", "many tears" to make a decision, to make up her mind to come back to America with George and Natalie.

As in good caricatures, there is an element of truth in this portrait of an American couple. D.M Thomas has deftly illustrated the gap, the chasm between the Old and the New World, the American obsession with money, irrational fear of solitude, and intellectual shallowness. but it IS a caricature

On the other hand, the author does not set Lisa as an example to look up to, as she has her own shortcomings and limitations.

This text is illustrated by a black-and-white photograph showing Gandhi at his loom, spinning cotton by hand. As he got older, G. actually devoted more nad more energy promoting hand-spinning, which he regarded as the mainstay of Indian society, as a most potent symbol of traditional values.

Gandhi is squatting on the floor, on a small mat probably, holding the cotton thread in his hand and looking at the loom. He is dressed in a loin cloth, and embodies the traditional images Europeans may have of Hindhu gurus. He is a skinny man, a skeleton-like figure, who fasted quite regularly to cleanse his body of all impurity.

This vision of Gandhi is universally known, especially since a film was made about his life and philosophy of NON-VIOLENCE, which was to inspire the famous American civil-rights leader, Martin Luther KING.

Unfortunately this photo can hardly be used as a key to understand the text. Indeed, in this text, Gandhi is a young graduate from a London University. He first practised law in India until 1893 when he left for South Africa. GANDHI ON THE WAY TO PRETORIA narrates GANDHI'S very first contact with the harsh realities of South Africa, and racism.

This text is an extract from Gandhi's autobiography ( not written, originally in English but translated from the original Gujarati

( One of the numerous languages spoken in India) by Mahadev Desai, a famous Indian novelist) It was written in 1925, and deals mainly with Gandhi's youth and fundamental principles: a belief in NON-VIOLENCE and TRUTH.

Gandhi's aim in writing this autobiography : "An autobiography or The Story of My Experiments with Truth" was to give an acount of his spiritual progress towards Truth. Absolute Truth is Gandhi's sovereign principle, and non-violence the method of pursuing it. In politics, it meant freedom from foreign domination; within Hindu Society,it was the breaking-down of barriers raised by caste and custom; in society, it was living close to Nature. ( Please refer to the PROLOGUE)

First, we shall narrate - and comment on- the incident that was to be indelelibly printed on G's memory. Not only was he confronted to racism, but he managed to keep his self-control, and oppose a NON-VIOLENT, PASSIVE resistance to VIOLENCE. Secondly, we shall analyse the short and long-term consequences of this episode. Last but not least, we'll discuss the CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES OF NON-VIOLENCE, and RACISM.

In this text, Gandhi relates an incident which occurred in the early days of his South-African stay. (It must be borne in mind that in the Twenties, South Africa and India were both parts of the British Empire

The scene of the incident is a train bound for Pretoria, the administrative capital of the Republic of South Africa. Gandhi, a young lawyer ( a defense attorney) was on his way to Pretoria to plead for one of his clients, one of those exploited workers of Indian descent in South Africa. Later on, Gandhi will derisively be known as a "coolie barrister" because, as a man of Indian extraction, he pleaded for Indian underclass citizens, his bloodbrothers.

THE INCIDENT : Gandhi had got on the train in Durban late in the evening. A first-class ticket had been booked for him by his friends, and initially no one seemed to object to a Colored Man travelling first-class. ( But the ticket had not been bought Gandhi himself, but by one of his friends. The train reached Mariztburg, the capital of Natal at about 9 P.M and stopped for a few minutes to let in new passengers and also to supply beddings (blankets) to those who needed them. Indeed, the scene takes place in winter, and" winter in the higher regions of South Africa is severely cold". A white passenger came into G's compartment, looked him up and down and sent for officials to have G. evicted and sent to the van compartment. For a few minutes, they tried to talk G. into giving up his seat but failed. Indeed, as G. knew that he was within his rights, that his ticket entitled him to travel first-class, he flatly refused to comply. One official threatened to call the police to "push him out", but G. wouldn't budge: he remained unimpressed, and consistently remained polite and non-aggressive. A constable eventually pushed G. out of the train and G. was left stranded in Maritzburg, cut off from his friends, in a hostile town, in the dead of night and winter.( He was freezing as his luggage was stil on the train which had steamed away.)

Strangely enough, however shocking, humiliating the whole incident may have been, G. never lost his temper and always managed to keep his self-control. His philosophy is NON-VIOLENCE; in other words, he is opposed to violent means to gain objectives.

Gandhi's style skilfully conveys G's philosophy : most sentences are short ones with no adverbs or adjectives. Everyday facts are stated without comments (G. tells the plain TRUTH) Throughout the last paragraph, he repeatedly uses "SHOULD" (4 times) to show that he deliberately CHOSE a course of action, that it was not imposed on him.

G. was alone in Maritzburg, and he DID wonder what course of action he had better take. This incident, which gave him the opportunity to ponder over his life, future career and philosophy of life, was to have incalculable consequences.

As a barrister, he knew that his duty was to go to Pretoria to plead his case. But, as he had been severely traumatized by this incident (" LINE 30: He shivered not only with cold but, probably too, with terror and fear). Therefore, he considered going back to India after pleading his case. Yet, after much mulling over, he reached the conclusion that he could not shy away from his responsibility and shirk his duty ( Repetition of "SHOULD)". He then made up his mind (resolved) not only to resume his journey and go to Pretoria, but also to devote his whole life to defending his brothers.

- SHORT AND LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES : First, G. felt humiliated and was psychologically wounded by this incident. For the first time, he suffered the stinging pain of contempt and scorn, of injustice and racial prejudice, in his own flesh. As a well-off lawyer, he had been relatively safe.

After this incident, racial prejudice was no longer an abstract notion or feeling. He realized that South Africans were racially prejudiced, that no matter how educated he was, a coloured man was a second-class citizen, a piece of luggagge, an object of scorn and contempt.

Essentially Gandhi realized that he had a DUTY, a MISSION. He realized that he was morally bound to defend his human brethen, no matter the price he would have to pay. He knew that racial prejudice was deeply rooted in human nature. Racism or colour prejudice is a "deep disease", and G's duty is to "root out" this cancer which is eroding away human minds and feelings: apart from Gandhi himself, the other characters are "empty" figures, mere figureheads of authority.

Above all, he devised a strategy to combat violence : passive resistance and NON-VIOLENCE. He proved throughout this episode that violence was counter-productive and demeaning. He became fully aware that human beings were dehumanized by violence and that NON-VIOLENCE was the only course of action a fully-fledged human being could take.

Soon, Gandhi's philosophy of NON-VIOLENCE was to be known all over the world and G. himself soon became a very popular figure, whose philosophy inspired whole generations of people. Gandhi's most famous disciple is probably Martin LUTHER KING. ( Voir à M.L King)

After reading this incident, one can't help remembering the ROSA PARKS incident in the USA, which initiated the movement of Black Protest in the USA ( VOIR Page 51)

Thanks to Gandhi, India became an independent state in 1947. The caste system was abolished, and all Indians enjoy equal rights. But we are bound to say that India still has a long way to go before racial equality is achieved. Racism and ethnic violence are still rampant diseases all over the world. Many countries are still torn by racial and ethnic conflicts. Just think of Yugoslavia where ethnic cleansing has been widespread for the last 2 or three years.