Virtual Classroom

Obama’s victory style – his speech analyzed

2009-12-30T08:14:00.001-08:00

Sunday, 9 November 2008

On Obama's victory style

A correspondent - from the Sunday Times, no less - writes to ask what I thought of the Barack Obama speech, stylistically. A selection of my off-the-cuff remarks is printed in today's ST. Here are some on-the-cuff reflections.

Speaking as a stylistician - as opposed to a human being (if you'll allow me the distinction), as excited as anyone about this event - it blew me away. As the speech started, I turned to my wife and said, 'He'll never do it!' What was I noticing? It was the opening if-clause, a 41-word cliff-hanger with three who-clause embeddings. Starting a major speech with a subordinate clause? And one of such length and syntactic complexity? I thought he would be lucky if he was able to round it off neatly after the first comma. Try it for yourself: get a sense of the strain on your memory by starting a sentence with a 19-word if-clause, and see what it feels like. But he didn't stop at 19 words. The first who-clause is followed by a second. Then a third. It was real daring. It's difficult for listeners to hold all that in mind. But it worked. And then the short 4-word punch-clause. And deserved applause.

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

How did it work? How can you get people to process 41 words easily? By following some basic rules of rhetoric. One is to structure your utterance, where possible, into groups of three.

who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible,
who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time,
who still questions the power of our democracy

The other is to make sure that none of these chunks exceed what is easy to process in working memory. Psycholinguists once worked out a 'magic rule of seven, plus or minus two' - that most people find seven 'bits' of information the most they can handle at a time. Get someone to repeat after you a sequence of random digits:

3
8, 6
9, 5, 7
4, 2, 7, 5
9, 3, 6, 8, 2
8, 4, 6, 9, 2, 7
2, 5, 3, 8, 6, 9, 4

People start sensing a difficulty when the sequence reaches five. Some can't get beyond this. Most of us get into trouble if we try to remember more than seven, though some people can handle up to nine without a problem. (The psycholinguistic issues aren't as simple as this, but the basic idea is illuminating.)

Here are those three who-clauses with the main information-carrying words in bold and tallied:

who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, 7
who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, 6
who still questions the power of our democracy 4

As the sentence progresses, note how the demands on our memory get shorter. In fact the demands are even less than the numbers suggest because of the structural parallelism: who still doubts... still wonders... still questions.... With still set up as part of the pattern, we do not need to devote any processing energy to it, and can concentrate on the following verb.

The rhetorical 'rule of three' is an important feature of the speech. It's something that all famous speech-makers use. Churchill was brilliant at it. But all public speakers know that they can get a round of applause if they use a triptych with structural parallelism:

I was with you yesterday
I am with you today
And I shall be with you tomorrow!

You have to put it across right, of course, with an appropriate prosodic climax. Obama is brilliant at that too.

What you mustn't do is overdo it. For Obama to follow this first paragraph immediately with another triptych wouldn't work. A different stylistic technique is needed to provide variety and maintain pace. He switches to a 'pairs' structure - and pairs within pairs. The 'lines' vs 'people' contrast is itself a pair - but it contains paired noun phrases:

lines that stretched around schools and churches...
people who waited three hours and four hours...

Note how, strictly speaking, the pairing is unnecessary. He could have said simply:

lines that stretched around buildings...
people who waited hours...

but the pairing is more effective. A triptych is unwise here, for the underlying meaning is banale, and to keep it going would be to produce a sense of padding:

people who waited three hours and four hours and five hours...

He rounds the paragraph off with another pairing:

they believed
that this time must be different,
that their voices could be that difference.

And then he produces what, to my mind, is stylistically the most daring piece in the whole text: a list entirely consisting of pairs. From a content point of view, lists are dangerous, as they prompt people to notice who might have been left out. But that evening, I don't think anyone was counting. Yet it's worth noting that he respects the 'rule of seven' - there are just seven groups mentioned (or six, if you put the ethnic groups together):

young and old
rich and poor
Democrat and Republican
black, white,
Hispanic, Asian, Native American
gay, straight
disabled and not disabled

Why omit the ands in the middle group? Precisely because the omission of and reduces the force of the contrast and allows the suggestion that the list can be extended. Unlike 'young and old' and the others, the list of ethnic groups is open-ended. Maybe the same open-endedness applies also to 'gay, straight' - I'm not sure.

This first section of the speech ends with more pairs within pairs:

we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states
We are, and always will be, the United States of America.

Having devoted so much rhetorical energy to pairs, it's not surprising to see him round off this first section with more triples:

cynical and fearful and doubtful...
on this date, in this election, at this defining moment...

And we should also notice that the whole of this first section is structured as a triptych. Each of the paragraphs after the first begins in the same way:

It's the answer told...
It's the answer spoken...
It's the answer that led...

And the paragraph lengths are almost the same: 52 words, 53 words, 48 words. So we have threes within balanced threes. Elegant.

When you go in for rhetorical structures, you have to know when to use them and when not to use them. Obama's second section is a series of acknowledgments and thanks. This is a more personal sequence, and this kind of sincerity needs to be expressed in a more loosely structured language. No climactic rhetoric wanted here. Sentences are shorter, the vocabulary is more private and down-to-earth, and the only hint of elaborate structuring is a single triptych in honour of his wife:

the rock of our family, the love of my life, the nation's next first lady

The rhetorical contrast with the rousing first section is striking.

One of the things actors know is that, in a long speech, they have to leave themselves somewhere else to go. This is something I've learned from actor son Ben. If you put all your energy into the opening lines of a soliloquy, you'll find it trailing away into nothing before the end. Rather, start low and steadily build up. Or, divide the speech up into sections and introduce peaks and troughs. Or, divide it into sections and treat each section in a different way. Obama's speech goes for this last option. It has several sections, each very different in content, and it is the switch of content which motivates a switch of style and renews the audience's motivation to listen. Each section ends with a short audience-rousing statement:

An opening section:
We are, and always will be, the United States of America.

A 'thanks' section:
It belongs to you.

An 'origins' section ('I was never the likeliest candidate for this office...')
This is your victory.

A 'scale of the problem' section ('And I know you didn't do this just to win an election...')
I promise you, we as a people will get there.

A 'challenges' section ('There will be setbacks and false starts...')
And I will be your president too.

A 'story' section ('This election had many firsts...')
Yes we can.

Note what happens after the rhetorical 'lull' in the 'thanks' section. He returns to the rule of three, pounding steadily away:

It began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Chicago and the front porches of Charleston.
...to give $5 and $10 and $20 to the cause.
...Americans who volunteered and organized and proved...
...a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
...two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century.
...how they'll make the mortgage or pay their doctors' bills or save enough for their child's college education.
...new energy to harness, new jobs to be created, new schools to build...
...block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.
...a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice ... a new spirit of patriotism.
...partisanship and pettiness and immaturity...
...self-reliance and individual liberty and national unity.
To those who would tear the world down... To those who seek peace and security... And to all those who have wondered...

When he reached the end of his 'challenges' section, I thought the speech was about to end. It used two time-honoured ending motifs. First there is a sequence of four rather than three:

the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope.

And then an appeal to the future:

What we've already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

He could have stopped there. But then there was an electrifying change, as he moved from the general ('America can change') to the particular ('Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old').

It was a risky strategy. The end of the speech was not far off. He had just produced several hundred words of highly crafted rhetoric, with many vivid and climactic images - 'from parliaments and palaces', 'America's beacon still burns as bright', 'the true genius of America'. The audience is being brought to the boil. To tell a quiet, intimate story now could have produced an anticlimax. But it didn't. Why?

Because the speech-writers had a trick up their sleeve. The Cooper story starts quietly:

She was born just a generation past slavery...

but within a few words she is part of a new rhetorical build-up, first with a pair:

...a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky...

and then a stunning triptych, with each element containing a pair:

I think about all that she's seen throughout her century in America -
the heartache and the hope;
the struggle and the progress;
the times we were told that we can't, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.

There's the trick that gets the speech out of any possible trouble. The audience has already shouted 'Yes we can', three times, at an earlier point. It has become a catch-phrase, used throughout the campaign. The real climax of the speech is going to build on that.

But an audience has to be taught what to do, by way of reaction. People won't intervene en masse in the middle of a story. They have to be invited. And Obama uses the rule of three to teach them.

...with that American creed. Yes we can. [no noticeable response]
... and reach for the ballot. Yes we can. [no noticeable response]
... a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can. [audience: Yes we can.]

From then on, he's home and dry. Every 'Yes we can' trigger is going to get a response. The triptych rhetoric continues to flow:

She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma...
A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected...
to put our people back to work... to restore prosperity... to reclaim the American dream...

And there, with 'dream', he ends as he began. 'Dream' is a powerful word in American political rhetoric, thanks to Martin Luther King. King is not mentioned in the speech, but he is there in spirit, from the beginning to the end. Obama's opening words link dreams to questions. His closing words link dreams to answers. The speech is a Martin Luther King sandwich, and it went down very very well indeed.

I still don't know how he did it. Was he reading from some teleprompter somehow? Was it memorized? Was it partly prompted and memorized? But however he did it, it will rank as one of the great political speeches of our time. It won't rank with the very best, without editing, because the 'thank-you' section particularizes and personalizes too much. The thanks to campaign managers and the like has no permanent resonance. But there are sections here which are as fine as anything I've ever heard in a speech. And if the role of style is to get one's content across as effectively as possible, then Obama and his speech-makers have proved themselves to be stylists second to none.

Source:

http://david-crystal.blogspot.com/

Narayan A Horse and two Goats

2009-11-28T02:52:00.000-08:00

Unterrichtsinhalte GK 12 und 12

2009-10-26T08:16:00.001-07:00

1.British traditions and visions: British history

From Empire to Commonwealth, monarchy and modern democracy

The UK and Europe

2.Post-colonialism and migration:

From Empire to Commonwealth, multicultural society, post-colonial experience in India, Indian and Pakistani communities in Britain

3.Shakespeare – a literary ‘giant’ in the 21st century

4.Globalization - global challenges

Economic and ecological issues

International peace-keeping at the turn of the century: the role of the UN and the USA

5. The USA – the American Dream then and now

The American Dream – concept, history and current issues

Cultural diversity in the USA – migration

6.Utopia and dystopia – exploring alternative worlds

Science and ethics: genetic engineering

Science fiction, fantasy and utopia

Und hier die verpflichtenden literarischen Vorgaben

Roman:

Don DeLillo: Falling Man (GK)

Drama:

Tennessee Williams: A Streetcar Named Desire oder Lorraine Hansberry: A Raisin in the Sun (GK)

Lyrik:

Social Criticism in modern poetry and songs (GK)

Spielfilm:

Sam Mendes: American Beauty oder J. Clyton/F.F. Coppola: The Great Gatsby

Postcolonialism - Films

2009-10-22T04:13:00.000-07:00

Es gibt eine Reihe von Filmen - mal von "Bollywood"- Produktionen abgesehen , die sich mit dem Thema "mixed voices of a colonial past" befassen.
Dies soll nur ein kleiner Appetitanreger sein. Vielleicht hat der Eine oder die Andere Lust auf mehr:

1. My beautiful laundrette

2. Brick Lane

3. East is East

4. Bhaji on the beach

5. Bride and prejudice

6. Bend it like Beckham

7. Lagaan

8. My son the fanatic

9. Just a kiss

10. My big fat Indian wedding

11. Harold and Kumar go to White Castle

The Empire strikes back - Great Britain and immigration

2009-10-22T03:18:00.000-07:00

Hier ein interessanter BBC- Artikel zum Umgang der Briten mit ihrer kolonialen Vergangenheit
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3889537.stm

Zusammenfassungen und Interpretationen

2009-10-22T02:43:00.000-07:00

Auf der Seite von BOOK RAGS gibt es zu allen fiktionalen Texten Zusammenfassungen, Charakterisierungen und Interpretationen.
Hier ein Beispiel zu Joseph Conrads Short story " An Outpost of Progress"
http://www.bookrags.com/Outpost_of_Progress

“Progress was calling to Kayerts from the river. Progress and civilisation and all the virtues. Society was calling to its accomplished child to come, to be taken care of, to be instructed, to be judged, to be condemned…”

Shooting an Elephant

2009-10-22T02:26:00.001-07:00

Hier die short story online
http://orwell.ru/library/articles/elephant/english/e_eleph

An Outpost of Progress

2009-10-22T02:21:00.000-07:00

Hier die short story online
http://www.classicreader.com/book/305/1/

Conrad - an outpost of progress

2009-10-19T23:29:00.000-07:00

Hier ein interessanter link zum Hintergrund der short story:
http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/SchoolofEnglish/imperial/africa/Colonial-hero.htm

Orwell - Shooting an elephant

2009-10-19T23:18:00.001-07:00

We're sorry, your browser doesn't support IFrames. You can still <a href="http://www.yudu.com/item/details/2812/Shooting-an-Elephant--by-George-Orwell">visit this item.</a>, however.

My son the fanatic

2009-10-17T02:17:00.000-07:00

The Evil Empire - the truth about Great Britain

2009-10-16T08:29:00.001-07:00

The Evil Empire

2009-10-16T08:23:00.000-07:00

Immigration after WWII

2009-10-12T09:44:00.001-07:00

Orwell - Shooting an elephant

2009-10-12T06:24:00.000-07:00

Trailer - My son the fanatic

2009-10-12T06:19:00.001-07:00

Kipling - The white man's burden

2009-10-12T06:14:00.000-07:00

Rudyard Kipling, The White Man's Burden (1899)

Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke (1) your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel, (2)
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!

Narayan - A horse and two goats

2009-10-12T06:01:00.001-07:00

Hier die Verfilmung der short story:

The alternative national anthem - God save the Queen

2009-10-02T06:51:00.001-07:00

Listen to the SEX PISTOLS performing their version of the anthem

National Anthem - GOD SAVE THE QUEEN

2009-10-02T06:45:00.000-07:00

The official national anthems - karaoke version (lyrics)

2009-09-29T08:54:00.001-07:00

BBC report " BRITISHNESS" part 1

2009-09-24T09:33:00.000-07:00

BBC report " BRITISHNESS" part 2

2009-09-24T09:32:00.002-07:00

BBC report " BRITISHNESS" part 3

2009-09-24T09:32:00.000-07:00

Stylistic devices and their functions

2009-09-19T23:38:00.000-07:00

Stylistic Devices / Literary Terms

Alliteration (Alliteration, Stabreim)

Repetition of consonant sounds at the beginning of neighbouring words

Example: O wild west wind, …;

Full fathoms five thy father lies, ..

Effect: sound device, musical effect

Allusion (Anspielung)

A reference to a famous person or event; may be literary, historical, biblical, …

Example:

Effect: emphasis, to give credibility, to show off one´s education

Anaphora (Anapher)

The same word or expression is repeated at the beginning of 2 or more lines or sentences

Example: Did he smile his work to see?

Did he who made the lamb make thee?

Effect: emphasis

Anticlimax

Often surprising descent from the important to the unimportant, normally in a series of statements

Example: He pawned his life, his watch and his word.

Effect: surprise, humour

Antithesis (Gegenüberstellung zweier Gedanken)

Contrasting statements are balanced against each other.

Example: To err is human, to forgive divine.

Effect: to create emphasis

Assonance (Gleichklang)

The repetition of the same or similar vowel sounds within stressed syllables or neighbouring words

Example: fate and lake

Effect: musical

Asyndeton (unverbundene Reihung von Satzgliedern)

Words are not linked by conjunctions; they are separated only by commas

Example: .. another poster, torn at one corner, flapped fitfully in the wind, … covering…

Effect: staccato-like

Chiasm (Überkreuzung)

The syntactic structure is criss-crossed; inversion in second phrase of order in first phrase

Example: to stop too fearful, and too faint to go

Effect: emphasis

Climax

Words are arranged according to the value of their importance; the most important word is the climax.

Example: We strive for the good, aim for the better, and seize the best.

Effect: to increase tension, emphasize importance

Enjambment (Zeilensprung)

A sentence runs across 2 lines

Example: I wandered lonely as a cloud

That floats on high oér vales and hills

Effect: fluent, flowing

Epipher

Repetition of one or more words at the end of two or more lines or sentences

Example: Whirl your pointed pines,

Splash your great pines

Effect: emphasis (front and end positions are always emphasized)

Euphemism (Euphemismus)

A direct, unpleasant statement is replaced by an indirect, more pleasant one to avoid bluntness.

Example: to put an animal to sleep, instead of: to kill it because it is ill

Effect: to avoid bluntness, to be polite

Hyperbole / exaggeration (Übertreibung)

Example: Sue is extremely rich. She is rolling in money.

I haven´t seen you for ages!

Effect: used for exaggeration; to attract the reader´s attention; to emphasize statements

Inversion (Umstellung von SPO)

Example: away they fly; up go the windows, out run the people, …

Effect: to emphasize or dramatize an event

Irony

A meaning is expressed that is the opposite of the intended one.

Example: the noble Brutus

Effect: ridicule; often didactic

Litotes

Understatement, often ironical, expressing an affirmative by the negative of its contrary

Example: she is not stupid (= she is quite clever)

Effect: emphasis

Metaphor

A figure of speech that implies more of a comparison than a direct impression (Without “as” or “like”!!)

Example: You are the wind beneath my wings.

Effect: emphasis; appeals to our imagination; creates a vivid picture in the reader´s mind

Metonymy

A word is substituted by another with which it is associated.

Example: crown stands for monarchy

Effect: visual effect

Onomatopoeia (Lautmalerei)

Word whose sound tries to imitate its meaning

Example: hum, buzz, crash, swish, cuckoo

Effect: sound device, creates an especially vivid impression

Oxymoron (scheinbarer Widerspruch)

Two contradictory terms are used together in a phrase.

Example: sweet death; wise fool; cruel love

Effect: provokes thoughts; emphasis

Paradox

A statement which is obviously absurd or contradictory, but has a deeper meaning

Example: The King is dead! Long live the King!

So fair and foul a day I have not seen.

Effect: thought-provoking

Parallelism

Arrangement of phrases, sentences or paragraphs, so that structure and/or meaning are similar; a form of repetition

Example: Cannon to the right of them,

Cannon to the left of them,

Cannon behind them

Volleyed and thundered.

Effect: impresses the reader

Personification (Vermenschlichung)

Attributes a human quality to animals or inanimate things

Example: Justice is blind; dancing daffodils

Effect: to emphasize similarity

Portmanteau word (Kontamination)

Two words are used to form a new one.

Example: breakfast + lunch = brunch

Pun (Wortspiel)

A humorous play on words that sound similar, but have different meanings

Example: These sausages are unidentified frying objects.

Is life worth living? That depends on the liver.

Effect: humour, fun

Repetition (Wiederholung)

Words or phrases are repeated.

Example: water, water everywhere

Effect: to emphasize; can seem monotonous

Rhetorical question

Asked for rhetorical effect, not expecting an answer

Example: A simple child, … What should it know of death?

Effect: emphasis

Rhyme

Similarity or identity of vowels (several types: end-rhyme, cross-rhyme, embracing rhyme)

Example: In the drinking-well

Which the plumber built her

Aunt Eliza fell,

We must buy a filter.

Effect: musical

Simile (Vergleich mit „like“ oder „as“)

Example: He runs like the wind.

Effect: conveys a vivid picture to the mind by linking up unrelated objects

Syllepsis (Zeugma)

One word modifies or governs others although it fits with only one.

Example: He took leave and his hat.

Effect: comical

Synaesthesia

Words describing different sensations (e.g. colour, smell, vision)

Example: murmuring light; cold colour

Effect: poetic; provokes thoughts; strikes as unusual

Synecdoche

Uses a part of something to refer to the whole

Example: He was sent behind bars (= prison)

Effect: vivid impression

Tautology (synonyme Wortwiederholung)

Superfluous repetition of words that does not clarify a statement

Example: to divide into four quarters

Effect: for emphasis

Stylistic Devices – Functions

– arouse the reader’s interest / catch the r.’s attention: titles

– make the reader think: paradox (Don’t overuse!)“

– create vivid/graphic mental images: metaphors, personifications

– emphasize certain aspects: repetition, parallelism, alliteration

– amuse/entertain the reader: euphemism, similes, metaphors

– criticize/satirize: hyperbole

– evoke (funny) associations

The British Empire

2009-09-19T23:36:00.000-07:00

THE BRITISH EMPIRE
The British empire was one of the most important developments in world history. The empire was huge, it lasted a long time and it brought tremendous changes to many parts of the world. For millions of people the world today is the way it is because of the impact of the British empire.
At its height the British empire was the largest in world history. It covered around 25% of the world's land surface. Large areas of North America, Australia, Africa and Asia were all part of the British empire at one time or other. Other areas, especially in South America, were closely linked to the British empire by trade.
There is a lot of disagreement about when the empire began. Some historians say it was as early as the 12th century, when the Normans moved into Ireland. Others say the start date should be the 1490s, while other historians date the empire from the early 1600s. The end of the empire came in the years after World War 2, with most of Britain's colonies ruling themselves independently by the late 1960s.
There is no doubt that Britain was powerful. It used its wealth, its armies and its navy to defeat rival European countries and to conquer local peoples to establish its empire. However, the empire did not just rely on force. In most of the empire Britain relied heavily on local people to make it work. The empire was a very sophisticated network of nations and peoples, linked by trade, by political systems and sometimes held together by force.
The British empire brought many changes to many people and many countries. Some of these changes involved innovations in medical care, education and railways. The British empire fought to abolish slavery in the 1800s, but it profited from slavery in the 1700s. For many peoples the British empire meant loss of lands, discrimination and prejudice.
The empire changed throughout its history. In the 19th century, some parts of the empire became Dominions. These were states that were still part of the empire, but ruled themselves. In most cases this happened peacefully, although there was serious violence in Ireland.
The First and Second World Wars left Britain weakened and less interested in its empire. Also many parts of the empire contributed troops and resources to the war effort and took an increasingly independent view. This led to a steady decline of the empire after 1945. In the Asian and African colonies, nationalist movements used a range of methods to end British rule. By the late 1960s, most of Britain's territories had become independent countries.
The British empire has had a huge impact on the world. The majority of former colonies still keep their ties with Britain through the Commonwealth. Today, North America and Australia are very similar to Europe in a lot of ways. Many countries around the world now have multi-cultural populations. Parliamentary democracy, the English language and the Christian religion can be found in many countries. These are just a few of the ways in which the British empire has had a lasting effect on world history.
Sort the following statements (and the statements of the text) into a Pros and Cons table
During the 18th century, Britain became a dominant force and became the first western nation to industrialise. Trade flourished between Britain and its network of colonies. As a result, many merchants became wealthy.
Britain became the largest and most efficient carrier of slaves in the New World Military power was used to crush any internal resistance in countries like India. Self-governance was not an option.
British Imperialism has stirred up hate and resentment towards the British in some former colonies. The triangular trade supplied Atlantic colonies with labour to work on the plantations.
Rapid population growth between 1770 and 1815. Total population reached 12 million as people felt optimistic about the future. The suffering of the slaves is incalculable.
Trade and Empire gave a boost to financial services such as banks which was a considerable benefit to the British economy.
Christianisation took place in the colonies as the British suppressed other religions and religious practises Suppression of identity and culture by the British in the colonies took place.
Empire forged links between Britain and countries overseas that still exist today eg. Australia and India.

Probeklausur British traditions and values

2009-09-14T07:29:00.000-07:00

Grundkurs Englisch 12/1 Klausur 1 (Britain- traditions and visions)
1. Text
Antony Jay
“A ‘United’ Kingdom: The Role of the Monarchy”

Why do we need a hereditary monarch? Most states manage with an appointed or elected President, and a President could open and dissolve parliament, sign its acts, welcome visiting Heads of State and perform all the other legal and ceremonial functions fulfilled by the Queen and the members of the Royal Family.
The truth is that if that was all the monarchy was for, we would not need a Royal Family. But the British system of government is built on the recognition that a state is more than a collection of individuals, a system of laws and an area of land. It is also a focus of the emotions of a people; it expresses our sense of nationhood, and it engages our pride, our patriotism and our loyalty. When British teams do well in international championships and when British athletes win Gold Medals at the Olympics, we all walk a bit taller. And that emotional involvement in our country, that national pride, is as much a part of the totality of Britain as our legal and political system. That pride and patriotism find their expression, their focus and their symbol in the person of theQueen, just as our disagreements about how to run schools and hospitals, how much to raise in taxes and how to spend it, find their focus and expression in the conflict between the political parties in Parliament. The two together balance each other neatly: Parliament portrays public life as a battlefield, the monarchy portrays it as a family circle.
It is difficult for an elected President to represent all the nation. At times, he will be almost unknown to most of the people. At others, he will be a party politician identified with one party, and will have been regularly voted against by getting on for half the electorate. By contrast, a hereditary monarch will have been known to all the nation from birth, will be politically neutral, and will have spent all his or her life before Coronation apprenticed to the job. Certainly it is hard to think of a less democratic system than hereditary monarchy; on the other hand, the office gives very little power, though much influence and status. Democracy has to be balanced against continuity.
The British system of government recognizes that there are not one but two roles to be performed by the Head of State: one is the formal, constitutional, ceremonial role of presiding over and authorizing the activities of the government; the other is the personal, emotional role of being Head of the Nation, the focus of the people’s pride and loyalty and affection, the embodiment of their sense of nationhood. When these two roles are combined in a single institution, a single family and a single office, then people are simultaneously focusing these emotions on the constitutional state; they are confirming and supporting the legitimacy of the legal, political and economic system which regulates their daily lives.
Because of this, the monarchy is an important force for unity in Britain - perhaps the single most important force. We have been lucky enough to maintain that national unity for centuries, which makes it easy to take it for granted. But we only have to look at the former Soviet Union[…]
How long will the British monarchy last? It has been with us a thousand years, but it could be abolished tomorrow: it is Parliament, not the Queen, which is sovereign. The monarchy’s roots are not in long-gone centuries but in the hearts of the people, and in the end it is the will of the British people that will determine its fate. Perhaps it is not that undemocratic after all.

2.Assignments:
I. Comprehension
Summarize the arguments the author mentions in support of monarchy.
II. Analysis
Examine the features that characterize the text as a personal comment supporting monarchy.
III. Comment / Evaluation (you have a choice here)
a.In the last line of the text Anthony Jay concludes that “it (monarchy) is not that undemocratic at all”.
On the basis of your knowledge about the political systems of Germany and Great Britain comment on the author’s conclusion. What do you personally think about “monarchy”?

b. Write a letter to Antony Jay telling him why it is better (worse) to live in a state where monarchy has been abolished.(i.e. Germany- the president’s name is Mr Köhler)

T6 What is Britishness?

2009-09-14T07:28:00.000-07:00

What is Britishness? Tories dream while Labour defines
Blair will today deliver a speech on an issue that most divides the parties
Hugo Young ,The Guardian, Tuesday 28 March 2000
For Conservatives, Britishness has the delicacy of a Fabergé egg or, better, a Wedgwood figurine. It's an infinitely precious thing, of which they are the only reliable custodians. They polish it, place it behind glass, check it daily for violations. As a party, they've lived off their unique stewardship of this display-piece for many decades: the party of crown, constitution, nation and Union Jack, ranged against the party of the people, the international and the Red Flag.
Though this always was a false antithesis, these are recognisable party silhouettes. From Attlee to Thatcher, that was how things were seen to be. But the obvious cliché contained a latent paradox, which has burst unanswerably to the surface in the time of William Hague. On the one hand, he says, the British are uniquely strong, their history especially to be admired, their political system a wonder of the world, their national character proof against the alien hordes. On the other hand, apparently, their national identity is so fragile that it faces imminent destruction at the hands of foreigners and Scotsmen, abetted by Tony Blair.
Today, Mr Blair knifes this charge, in a speech that has been prepared for weeks and leaked for days. Several colleagues are billed to follow, in an important pre-election campaign that's supposed to reclaim Britishness for Labour. It's another epic moment in Labour's long march through the centre ground of politics. What's most striking about it, however, is that the message has become irrefutable. The campaign is all but redundant. Mr Hague may have lost his last issue.
The Hague view of Britishness is dominated by enemies and nostalgia. He gave a speech about it a year ago, which was incorrigibly narrow and defensive, glorying above all in the need to resist every European advance. The sacred exhibit, national identity, could never be moved. Labour's entire constitutional programme was cracking the Wedgwood. The third way was not the British way. Devolution and Lords reform were violating the very heart of Britain. The country itself, set in the silver sea, could not be relied on to survive.
Mr Hague is not alone. Vapourings about the future of Britishness have produced speeches and books on a prodigious scale in the past few years. What has mostly characterised those from the right is not inquiry but anxiety. With the absorption of Indians and the separation of Scots, is Britain not already dead? Though Hague has moved on from the ideal of ethnic homogeneity, his version of Britishness is marked with the vulgar untruth espoused by Enoch Powell and Margaret Thatcher: that "Britain" lives only by the unchanging nature of its political arrangements.
When Mr Blair came to power, he didn't have a worked-out idea about "Britain". It's been a persistent argument against his constitutional programme that there was, in fact, no programme, merely a set of ill-connected initiatives answering different political demands. But what he has done so far is the opposite of a threat to Britain.
Take devolution. Yes, the early days of the Scottish and Welsh assemblies have been difficult. They challenge the pattern of politics we have come to know as British. Sometimes they've been quite a mess. The entire political formation of all concerned, the men in Downing Street as much as those outside, has received a nasty assault which few of them were ready for. The psychology as well as the politics of centralism takes a lot of shifting.
But to talk about this as the end of Britain is the hyperbolic nonsense of desperate minds. It's merely a new, confederal kind of Britain, stumbling towards a model that arises by popular regional demand, and provides the possibility of Britain reconciling the power of global economic forces with the desire to preserve identity. Devolved institutions, when they've had time to bed down and be understood as normal, will say that Britain flourishes as a land of multiple identities. While Hagueism stands for an inward exclusiveness, Blairism feels its way to the world of porous truths.
It has more to do, if Britain is not to wither. Britain can't survive if England remains the centralised and dominant sub-state. Whether English devolution is driven through via local government or regional government will be a serious debate. But the reactionaries who would destroy Britain had better prepare for a painful discussion. Likewise, that other Hagueite icon, the House of Lords. Whatever may or may not happen to the membership of the second chamber, the notion that "Britain" can exist only if the ranks and titles of lordship are sustained for another century would be the grossest trivialising of national identity.
In a Downing Street lecture not long ago, the historian Linda Colley proposed an end to these debates about identity. They had got us nowhere, she said. Instead, she advised her audience of the great and good to address what they could do something about: citizenship. Let people stop worrying about such neuralgic questions as losing British identity or buying into European identity. All these identities could co-exist: would, indeed, be largely dependent on the image of themselves that individual citizens preferred to have. What politicians could affect was how their citizenship was made real.
Professor Colley urged that we should know, whichever patch of the islands we came from, what defines us as a citizen and what our rights are. She wasn't in favour of a republic, but suggested a monarchy that swore a solemn oath of service to the people - rather than being either bound in anachronistic pomp or reduced to riding bicycles. As well as diffusion of power from the centre, a citizen's Britain would do more to engage its ethnic minorities as well and truly British - as being, indeed, the salient proof that, unlike Englishness, Welshness or Scottishness, Britishness is a concept "with no necessary ethnic or cultural overtones".
Finally, she suggested the British should know more history. If they did so, they would discover not only that Britain had much to be proud of that did not entail the brutalities of imperialism, but that it co-existed with social and political change. When India achieved independence there were many Tories who believed that Britain, having begun to surrender its empire, had undermined its own raison d' être. It should now be clear that they misread history in the same way the terrified anti-reformers of modern Conservatism, invoking their static view of what nation means, have elicited from Mr Blair the speech he is making today.
I hope he, in his turn, is not defensive. He has plenty to do to make the political mechanics of the new devolved and European Britain work better. But the reinventions he has begun have reversed the roles history once assigned to these two parties. Now it is Conservatism for dreams, Labour for reality.

The British Empire in Colour part 5

2009-09-12T01:06:00.000-07:00

The British Empire in Colour part 4

2009-09-12T01:05:00.000-07:00

The British Empire in Colour part 3

2009-09-12T01:04:00.002-07:00

The British Empire in Colour part 2

2009-09-12T01:04:00.001-07:00

The British Empire in colour

2009-09-12T01:00:00.000-07:00

Diese Dokumentation stellt das Thema "Post-colonialism and migration" in seinen historischen Kontext.

The Kinks - Mr Churchill says...

2009-09-12T00:56:00.001-07:00

How to write a comment

2009-09-11T07:18:00.001-07:00

The writing of comments

In a personal comment you add your own views of a problem. You do not discuss all the pros and cons of a subject, but you simply state at the very beginning what you think and to which conclusion you have come. Therefore, you normally begin with phrases like I believe that ... or In my opinion ... . Then you argue in order to defend your opinion and gain the support of your reader.

How to proceed in writing a comment

1. Read the question intensively and ask yourself whether you have understood the question (This is the normal case in examinations). Or choose a subject you are able to talk about.
2. Note down your main thoughts and collect possible facts to back your arguments.
3. The progressive paragraph is a suitable form:
• begin with a well-constructed topic sentence to whet your reader´s appetite,
• satisfy him with plenty of details and
• finish with a convincing statement referring back to the topic sentence.
4. Check whether you have been sticking to the subject.

Useful phrases:

How to begin...
I first want to make clear ....
In my opinion ...
The first point to mention ....
I object to ......

develop ....
With reference to what has been said ...
on the one hand ....., on the other hand ....
I would like to refer to further facts .....
In contrast to ....
I would like to compare this with ....
With regard to .....

to finish ...
When all´s said and done ....
In consequence of ......
I have come to the conclusion .....
In conclusion ......
I conclude ......
I am uncertain how to decide ........
Consequently .......

Read your text again and look for mistakes that normally occur in your exams.
Read your text at least twice, better three times to find all the important mistakes.

How to analyse argumentative texts

2009-09-11T07:15:00.000-07:00

How to analyse or write argumentative texts

Argumentative texts are leading article, comments, letters to the editor, political speeches or essays. Their aim is to convince, to persuade or even manipulate the reader or listener.

An argumentative texts normally consists of 3 parts: the introduction, the development and the conclusion but the structure can vary depending on the author’s use of structural and stylistic/rhetorical devices.

Structure

introduction

· author’s opinion is given, background or purpose for writing the text is given

· in speeches the speaker attracts the audience’s attention

progressive structure

using a clearly defined starting point, developing in a cause-to effect or problem-solution arrangement

® clarity through unity, logical coherence

antithetical structure

contrasting and juxtaposing of facts, ideas and arguments

® clarity and emphasis through comparison and contrast

development

arguments and evidence that support the author’s view are presented backed up by facts, examples or personal experience

the order is from the least or less important to the more and most important arguments

development I

arguments that oppose the author’s view are presented.

development II

arguments and evidence that support the author’s view are presented backed up by facts, examples or personal experience

conclusion

· mostly the last paragraph: the author’s opinion is repeated, often the most important reasons that have led to the opinion are summed up.

· in speeches the speaker often asks the audience to support his view or ideas and gives briefly an outlook

rhetorical devices

Some rhetorical devices often used in argumentative texts:

1. choice of words

The author uses/employs empathic, metaphorical, formal, colloquial or emotive language. Emotive language is often used to raise and maintain the reader/listeners attention. Strong adjectives or adverbs are used to reinforce the speakers/author’s opinion/determination.

Emphatic language is often used to reinforce the argumentation. Metaphorical language is employed to convey a vivid/lively/graphic impression/ picture and to enrich the language. It therefore conveys not only a meaning but also feelings etc. “Pictures say more than a thousand words”.

2. stylistic devices

The following devices are often used in argumentative texts:

· alliteration

· repetition

· anaphora

· metaphor

· symbol

· contrasts /antithesis

· comparison/ simile

· enumeration / listing

· exaggeration / hyperbole / understatement

· allusion

· analogy

· irony

· criticism

· The author alludes to/ suggests that

· He/she draws a comparison/ an analogy between

· He/she compares/contrasts A with B

· The speaker uses images/examples/metaphors/personification … to convey …

· He/she illustrates his/her argumentation by …

· He/she repeats … /uses repetition/ alliteration/ analogies to underline/ stress/ emphasise/ underscore that …

· He/she criticises (sth in an ironical way)/ attacks sb… . His/her criticism/ irony is directed against/ attacks …

When structuring a text do not forget to use linking words that express

· reason: therefore, that is why, because, as …

· condition: if, unless …

· concession: although, even though, despite the fact that, …

· result: consequently, thus, as a result, …

To enrich or improve your language you should use:

· gerunds / infinitive-constructions

· participle constructions

· passive

Links to important documents

2009-09-01T08:20:00.000-07:00

Magna Carta

http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/index.html

Habeas Corpus Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus_Act_1679

Bill of rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

The unwritten British Constitution

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/british_constitution1.htm

The British Empire

2009-09-01T08:19:00.000-07:00

T 7 Cartoons: What is Britishness?

2009-09-01T08:17:00.000-07:00

T 6 Tony Blair's Britain speech

2009-09-01T08:16:00.000-07:00

Tony Blair's Britain speechguardian.co.uk,
Tuesday 28 March 2000 10.08
My argument today is this.
• Britain is stronger together, than separated apart.
• True Britishness lies in our values not unchanging institutions.
• The Constitutional changes we have made and a new attitude of engagement with Europe are not a threat to British identity but on the contrary are the means of strengthening it for today's world.
My manifesto for the leadership of the Labour Party in 1994 was called change and national renewal. A lot has changed since then. But those words remain central to my vision of what politics in this country must be about.
We have to recognise the huge changes we are living through and the challenges they present to this country. But also the opportunities for renewal that they offer.
Standing up for our country means standing up for what we believe in. It means standing up for our values and having the strength to realise them in the modern world. It means standing up for the core British values of fair play, creativity, tolerance and an outward-looking approach to the world. It does not mean an unthinking resistance to change. It does not mean railing against the outside world.
Modernisation is the key. It has driven everything this government has done - whether in our constitutional reforms or our reforms of the health service or the education system or the system of criminal justice or our relations with Europe.
To fail to modernise would be fundamentally to fail Britain. But we modernise according to our core values as a country. And we do so on the basis of one key belief. That the United Kingdom is stronger together than apart; all the constituent elements of the Union: its great cities, regions and nations are stronger united than separate, stronger together than the sum of their parts.
Our national identity is not some remote and abstract issue.
National success is not a matter of pushing buttons and pulling levers. Long-term growth and prosperity and stability depend on a clear sense of shared objectives and shared responsibilities.
Our failure in the post-war period to generate a clear sense of national purpose has hindered us.
It left space for a culture to develop in which sectional social and economic interests have fought to secure rights for themselves without a corresponding sense of their obligations to work for the wider public interest as well.
Indeed, I believe that the origins of one of the greatest failings of the economy in the post-war period - short-termism - can be located in our lack of a clear national purpose.
Throughout the post-war period, in the absence of a shared long-term vision of where we were going, successive governments often succumbed to the temptations of boom-and-bust, successive generations of managers often focused on their own pay awards instead of the long-term performance of their companies and successive generations of workers often sought pay increases unjustified by productivity increases.
We are living through a period of unprecedented change. The exponential growth of information and communication technologies is transforming the world's economies and making them increasingly interdependent. The breakup of the postwar international order and globalisation are calling into question systems constructed around the nation state. New ideologies of personal liberation and opportunities for self-fulfillment, made possible by social and economic change, are transforming traditional social structures and turning some inwards to themselves rather than looking outward to the nation and the state.
In this new world, it has become increasingly fashionable to predict the death of the nation-state. A world in which capital crosses national frontiers at the push of a key, where air travel has made the outside world personally familiar to millions, where television has brought it into the homes of millions more, a world where supra-national organisations like the EU and WTO play an increasingly important role is a world where questions are inevitably going to arise about the continuing significance of national identity.
What is the answer to such a challenge? Not to retreat into the past or cling to the status quo, even if it cannot sensibly be justified; but to rediscover from first principles what it is that makes us British and to develop that identity in a way in tune with the modern world.
What makes Britain and Britishness important, valid, as necessary today as ever is a powerful combination of shared values and mutual self-interest. We are stronger together, economically and politically with the nations of the UK able to maximise their collective will and authority. In defence, foreign policy, economic weight, we are better off and stronger together.
But, more important, our identity is not threatened by change. Our identity lies in our shared values not in unchanging institutions.
It is when our values fail to be reflected in the institutions that govern us that Britain and British identity is under threat. When we came to office, the Party of no change - the Conservatives - were left without any seats in Scotland or Wales. Forces for change were left with no alternative but status quo or separatism. Devolution at long last offered a sensible modernisation of the partnership in the UK. Let Scotland and Wales do what they do best locally. Let the UK do what it is right to do together.
The Conservative Party, in the Tory policy document on five guarantees for Britain, proposes "English votes for English laws". While rejecting a proposal to set up a wholly separate English parliament and now today re-affirming that they support devolution, they propose to exclude the Scots, Welsh and Irish from any discussion of laws defined as "English". The rest of Britain's MPs would, in effect, become second class citizens in the UK Parliament - voting on some issues but not on all of them - and the make-up of the executive would have to reflect the possibility of defeat on English issues even if a majority was available for British issues.
But what their proposal reflects is a complete misunderstanding of reality.
The measures needed to protect a minority are not always the same as the measures needed to protect a majority. England can if it chooses outvote Scotland, Ireland and Wales at any point. English MPs are in an overwhelming majority in voting through the money for Wales and Scotland. It is the recognition of this that makes devolution a fairer settlement for the future.
The growing pressure for regional change in England - decentralisation in London, the first steps to better local government in our cities - are a logical consequence of the policy of modernisation.
In Northern Ireland - if, as I do, we value the Union - we had to make progress on fairness and a recognition of nationalist aspirations. What we then are left with is an identity not shaped by institutional rigidity, but by values and common purpose. That purpose is a Britain that is stronger, fairer, modernised to be fit for the new world we live in. That is a constant recurrent theme in all the Government does: modernisation based on values. The NHS is not just a necessary part of a civilised society where need not wealth should determine health care. It is a unifying force. It is a true British service. It represents the best of British values in action. But it has to be updated and reformed to take account of the new opportunities and challenges of today.
On Europe, standing up for Britain does not mean being anti-Europe. It is not pro-British to be anti-Europe. The EU is part of the modern world. Britain is part of the EU. Standing up for Britain means fighting for British values, getting the best for Britain, whether it is economic reform, moving Europe closer to the USA or protecting the British rebate.
Likewise, at a time when individuals have been becoming increasingly empowered in their personal lives and increasingly aspire - and rightly so - to the prerogatives of citizenship, how could a healthy body politic defend the political privileges of hereditary peers and deny the right to freedom of information and to the protection in British courts of the European Convention on Human Rights ?
I believe few would disagree with the qualities that go towards that British identity: qualities of creativity built on tolerance, openness and adaptability, work and self-improvement, strong communities and families and fair play, rights and responsibilities and an outward looking approach to the world that all flow from our unique island geography and history.
If these values are what makes us British, rather than unchanging institutions, the devolution is a necessary part of keeping Britain together; more regional decentralisation in England makes sense, City mayors with real power have their place; hereditary peers in the House of Lords don't; and a constructive engaged attitude to Europe reflects the best of British values of openness and leadership in the world.
Of course, there will always be those who argue the consequences of change will always be worse than the consequences of sustaining the status quo.
But, I think this is as much a cast of mind as a political analysis. And this criticism usually falls into one of two broad categories - both of which play essentially on atavistic fears of the future.
The first category of criticism is a traditional Tory one - based on the claim that the pre-devolution, pre-reformed House of Lords, political institutions have been a uniquely important part of British national identity. Changing them, in this view, destroys something quintessentially 'British'.
Of course they have been historically significant, but they have never been anything more than a reflection of the needs of the British people at any one time. They are not eternal expressions of the British character. To change them does not mean that something quintessentially British has been destroyed, that a part of 'Britain has gone.
On the contrary, it is quintessentially British, it is one of our distinguishing characteristics as a people, that we have always been willing to adapt our institutions to changing circumstances. In the 19th century, in response to tumultuous economic and social change, we reformed the suffrage not once but three times.
This first critique amounts to little more than sentimental nostalgia.
The second critique is more argued: that somehow a process has been unshackled which will not run its course until the Union has disintegrated - that the institutional recognition of complex and enriching plural allegiances will somehow lead - inevitably - to their replacement with simpler and more excluding identities.
And, of course, there are those, like the SNP, who argue that this would be positively desirable and that the Union has had its day and the sooner it is unravelled, the better.
Of course, the great currents in our national life which have produced the climate in which such radical constitutional reform became necessary and was implemented will not suddenly cease. Of course they will continue to flow.
But this does not dictate a retreat from an inclusive British identity to more exclusive identities, rooted in 19th century conceptions of territory and blood? It is actually just not possible to construct any practical and meaningful national identity on such a basis. Why should we want to?
20 per cent of the population of Wales was born in England 7 per cent of the population of Scotland was born in England
745,000 people born in Scotland live in England: equivalent to 15% of the Scottish population.
Why should anyone want to say to all these people that they should suddenly become foreigners in the land they live in ?

This nation has been formed by a particularly rich complex of experiences: successive waves of invasion and immigration and trading partnerships, a potent mix of cultures and traditions which have flowed together to make us what we are today.
Blood alone does not define our national identity. How can we separate out the Celtic, the Roman, the Saxon, the Norman, the Huguenot, the Jewish,- the Asian and the Caribbean and all the other nations that have come and settled here ? Why should we want to ? It is precisely this rich mix that has made all of us what we are today.
Both current critiques of our constitutional reforms, I believe, are rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between a democratic people and the institutions they consent to have rule over them. New institutions do not necessarily create new feelings. They can just give longheld feelings new - and often better - expression.
'This government's progressive programme of constitutional reform is now moving us from a centralised Britain, where power flowed top-down, to a devolved and plural state. A new Britain is emerging with a revitalised conception of citizenship, as the House of Lords finally is reformed to remove the democratic anomaly of the hereditary peers, as the European Convention of Human Rights is incorporated into British law and as we bring in, for the first time, rights to Freedom of Information.
This is a complex journey towards a revived sense of ourselves, applying to modern life historic British values and qualities.
I entered politics to fight for the changes I believe are necessary to modernise this country. I believe in the importance of preserving our British identity and I will fight to strengthen the Union. I will fight against all those who would weaken the Union, whether those forces of conservatism who oppose change on principle or those separatist nationalists who wish to see Britain die.'
Our vision is of a Britain that thrives on optimism, on shaping its own destiny not cowering before the might of the global economy.
For us Britain succeeds when we ally our courage to our imagination. The courage that won wars. The imagination that built the NHS.
Ours is a vision of Britain where pride comes from a strong economy that can compete in the world, and rising living standards that benefits all.
A Britain where pride comes from a modern constitution that strengthens the nations of the United Kingdom.
Where pride comes from strengthening British values - creativity helping us build a knowledge economy, fairness guiding our fight against child poverty, reward for hard work helping us return to full employment, rights matched by responsibilities guiding us in the fight against crime and the reform of welfare.
Ours is an outward looking vision that believes in Britain's place in Europe, but believes Britain will always be much more than that. A "pivotal" nation - a bridge between East and West between the United States and the EU.
In this new world, a new modern patriotism is needed. That is what we offer.
See Britain as it is seen from abroad today. An economy gaining in strength. A society seeking to combine enterprise with investment in public services that bind the nation together. A politics that from relations within the UK, to pursuing peace in Northern Ireland, to engaging with Europe, is prepared to change to overcome the problems of the past and rise to the challenges of a changing world.
We can have confidence in our future. Britain is no longer in decline. We are rediscovering our strength and values. We are uniting those values to a common purpose: modernising the nation for the 21st Century. If we succeed, Britain will be stronger and fairer, on the road to providing opportunity and security for all.

T 5 Brown's British vision

2009-09-01T08:14:00.002-07:00

Brown's British visionThe Guardian, Tuesday 25 September 2007
Yesterday Gordon Brown spoke for Britain, or at least about his vision of a nation that must improve itself through common endeavour. Respecting effort, opportunity and a collective sense of what is right, he addressed his party as a social democratic patriot, optimistic about the possibilities of progress achieved together and scornful of individual doubt or inaction. "If you liked school, you'll love work", as Mr Brown's fellow Scot Irvine Welsh puts it.More tour d'horizon than tour de force, it lacked both the illuminating drama of Tony Blair's former confrontational conference speeches and the thumping rhetoric of Mr Brown's own past appearances. Instead it offered an authentic picture of someone as bold in his aspirations as he is cautious about the manner in which he intends to achieve them.The prime minister linked his own character and life story to that of his country, presenting himself - the clever, hard-working boy from Kirkcaldy - as an embodiment of British determination. Whether in an ambitious age those values still thrive is uncertain. Mr Brown showed no doubt. Quoting "this island story" he insisted that Britain's better nature would prevail. He used the experiences of his first three months as leader - terror attacks, floods and foot and mouth - to show it.Rooted in a progressive nationalism that led him to mention Britain and the British at every turn, the speech tried to occupy conservative ground for the forces of change. Raising his vision above that of other parties (never mentioned) and excitement about a possible election (not mentioned either), Mr Brown turned to religion to define social justice underpinned by duty. Things work best when people are not merely out for themselves, he insisted. His championing of the underdog was heartfelt.Sometimes he fell well short of this ambition. In turn boastful, punitive and opportunistic, he lapsed into language that, were it to be used next week by David Cameron, would see him accused of a lurch to the right. He described a society in which those who do not behave as they should will suffer for it. Many will agree with that, but Mr Brown needs to be careful that his definition of Britain's collective destiny does not replace democratic discussion. Labour's big tent is open only to those who share his purpose. Those outside stand apart not just from his party but from his definition of the British way.
There was little discussion of civil liberties, or localism, or choice, or of the balance between collective action and individual freedom. He was short, too, on new policy, though his promise to be a good European was a welcome defiance of the Sun newspaper. He offered to personalise public services but did not explain how this is to be achieved. He failed to accept that past reforms and investment had sometimes not worked. Nor did he discuss how better services are to be paid for in a time of restricted spending growth and economic uncertainty; he only promised that economic stability would be sustained. He lapsed into a pedestrian, tick-box list of references to issues - Darfur, climate change, Northern Ireland - that went nowhere. His praise for Mr Blair sounded more like a necessary duty than a pleasure.
There can be no doubt, after yesterday, about Mr Brown's genuine and commendable ambitions for his country. No other contemporary politician has such a strong sense of purpose:a belief in equality and the possibilities that should be available to every citizen. But the foundations of this meritocratic ideal lie in a top-down sense of command that places too little importance on freedom and choice. This is a debate that should lie at the heart of the coming general election. Mr Brown's journey to a better Britain has begun. But he has not silenced doubt about whether he can reach his destination.

T 4 What is Britishness?

2009-09-01T08:14:00.001-07:00

T3 The British monarchy is here to stay

2009-09-01T08:13:00.000-07:00

The British monarchy is here to stay
The real question, therefore, is how it should be reformed to retain its appeal to 21st century Britain
Sunder Katwala , guardian.co.uk,
The Queen's 80th birthday will bring many tributes to her dedication and service to Britain. It should also herald a new public debate about how the monarchy should adapt so as to remain part of the common glue which binds 21st Britain together.
The Queen will never abdicate. She believes she made an oath to God at the coronation which makes that impossible. Her sense of duty would not permit her to break it. Buckingham Palace has signalled that there will be a greater sharing of formal duties with her heir.
The next coronation, for example, should be a rather different occasion from that of 1953, to symbolise a monarchy for a rather different Britain. It will be equal in splendour but should be a multi-faith and multi-ethnic occasion for a Britain united in all its diversity, symbolising Charles' desire to be 'defender of faith'. The Coronation Oath should be different too, not just to give future monarchs the right to retire if they wish but because the basis of modern monarchy should be a vow to serve the people and our democratic institutions, rather than the sovereign's anointment by God.
It is strange that the only debate tends to be about whether to retain the monarchy or not, even though that is not seriously in question. For all the monarchy's troubles in the 25 years since Charles and Diana's fairytale wedding support for a republic has barely changed, remaining consistently just under one in five. (And half of those turn out to prefer 'reform' to abolition when polls add that choice as well as keeping the monarchy as it is or abolishing it).
The monarchy will be with us in 50 years time. But to survive and thrive it will require the instinct for pragmatic adaptation which Elizabeth II has shown. That tradition is too often overlooked by the institution's supporters - the "Ming Vase Monarchists" who fear the institution is so fragile that any change will endanger it. It is strange that those who claim to care most about the monarchy seem to betray a lack of confidence in it.
To succeed, reform should be preceded by extensive public debate, rather than the back of an envelope Royal and governmental improvisation that was needed at the time of the Princess of Wales' funeral. By definition, such a debates must begin well in advance. It is impossible and inappropriate to wait until the death of a monarch, however many years hence, when the succession must be instantly proclaimed as a period of national mourning begins.
Successful reform would benefit from more public engagement than in the past. Yet our political system seems unable to have a serious discussion about royal reform which can avoid making it an issue of party political controversy. Politicians feel it would be discourteous to discuss the monarchy. Yet this deference is misplaced when the royals themselves can not lead on this, as on any issue of public controversy. We risk turning this significant national institution into the "Bermuda Triangle" of the British constitution. And it is the monarchy which suffers from this politics of "benign neglect" where even the most modest but important symbolic reforms seem impossible.
Who in Britain today would oppose changing the royal succession rules, which offensively would see a first-born daughter of Prince William lose out in the succession stakes to a son born after her? The government back in 1998, promised to reform this (pressed by Jeffrey Archer of all people). Buckingham Palace has made it as clear as is constitutionally proper that it wants change; William himself is said to see it as symbolically important. Lord Dubs and former Leader of the House Ann Taylor have tried to remind the government to act by sponsoring private members' bills to reform the succession rules, not least because it would be invidious to make this change after it would affect the individuals first and second in line.
Yet Lord Chancellor Charles Falconer stonewalls, declaring that the government "abhors gender discrimination" in any form but has no plans to remove it. "Equal rights for royal princesses" may not be an equality cause to bring thousands to march in Whitehall. But how did a Labour government find itself outflanked on gender equality, not (yet) by David Cameron, but by the House of Windsor? And of course, it is the monarchy, not government, which will take the flak if nothing is done before it is too late.
A renewed 21st century monarchy could contribute much to important contemporary debates - shaping a positive definition of Britishness, reshaping the public role of religion in a society of many faiths and none, and celebrating the broader ethos of public service for which the Queen at 80 is justly feted.

Constitutional landmarks

2009-09-01T08:11:00.000-07:00

The United Kingdom - Constitutional Landmarks
1215 Magna Carta: King John accepts that his will is bound by the law. Counsel of “archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls and greater barons” is summoned.
1265 First Parliament summoned to advise the king; distant forerunner of representative parliament.
Ca. 1350 Parliament divided into House of Lords and House of Commons.
1628 Petition of Rights: King acknowledges ancient rights of his subjects, such as the citi-zen's right not to be taxed without parliamentary con¬sent or not to be imprisoned arbitrarily.
1679 Habeas Corpus Act: Legal order requiring somebody who holds somebody else prisoner to bring this person before a court, together with grounds for his or her deten-tion, so that the court can test the legality of the detention.
1689 Bill of Rights: After the “Glorious Revolution” William of Orange had to sign this document, which established Britain’s constitutional monarchy. The monarch reigned not by the grace of God but by the grace of Parliament.
1707 Act of Union with Scotland: Created a United Kingdom of Great Britain uniting England and Scotland and establishing a new UK Parliament.
1832 Great Reform Bill: The necessary consequence of the Industrial Revolution. As home-based and agricultural trades gave way to factory-based industries, the population was redistributed and the old system of representation in disorder. This first Reform Bill removed representation from a large number of depopulated (“rotten") boroughs and gave it to important towns such as Manchester and Birmingham. It also identified the right to vote with economic achievement, as it gave the vote to householders and shopkeepers who paid more than £ 10 a year in rent.
1867 Second Reform Bill: Franchise extended to working classes in towns.
1884 Third Reform Bill: Household suffrage extended to voters in the counties; about 630/0 of the adult male population now had the right to vote.
1911 Parliament Act: Consent of House of Lords t6 money bills no longer necessary.
1918 Fourth Reform Bill: Franchise to all men over 21 and to all women over 30 years of age; plural voting - the right of shop owners, factory owners etc. to cast more than one vote - restricted.
1928 Equal Franchise Act: Voting age for women reduced from 30 to 21 years.
1948 Representation of the People Act: Established the principle "one man one vote" by abolishing the extra votes belonging to owners of shops, factories etc., and by abolishing the university seats in the House of Commons.
1949 Parliament Act: Asserted the primacy of the House of Commons in the event of conflict with the House of Lords.
1969 Representation of the People Act: Voting age lowered to 18.
1972 European Community Act: Made Britain a member of the Common Market.
1976 Race Relations Act: Recognized legal rights of racial minorities, established the Commission for Racial Equality.

Britain - traditions and visions

2009-09-01T08:10:00.000-07:00

Here is Text 1

UK - The political system
The United Kingdom is a Constitutional monarchy. This means that it has a monarch (a king or a queen) as its Head of State. The monarch has very little power and can only reign with the support of Parliament. Parliament consists of two chambers known as the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Parliament and the monarch have different roles in the government of the country, and they only meet together on symbolic occasions such as the coronation of a new monarch or the opening of Parliament. In reality, the House of Commons is the only one of the three which has true power. It is here that new bills are introduced and debated. If the majority of the members are in favour of a bill it goes to the House of Lords to be debated and finally to the monarch to be signed. Only then does it become law. Although a bill must be supported by all three bodies, the House of Lords only has limited powers, and the monarch has not refused to sign one since the modern political system began over 200 years ago.
The House of Commonsand the electoral system
The House of Commons is made up of 650 elected members, known as Members of Parliament (abbreviated to MPs), each of whom represents an area (or constituency) of the United Kingdom. They are elected either at a general election, or at a by-election following the death or retirement of an MP. The election campaign usually lasts about three weeks. Everyone over the age of 18 can vote in an election, which is decided on a simple majority - the candidate with the most votes wins. Under this system, an MP who wins by a small number of votes may have more votes against him (that is, for the other candidates) than for him. This is a very simple system, but many people think that it is unfair because the wishes of those who voted for the unsuccessful candidates are not represented at all. Parliamentary elections must be held every five years at the latest, but the Prime Minister can decide on the exact date within those five years.
The party system
The British democratic system depends on political parties, and there has been a party system of some kind since the 17th century. The political parties choose candidates in elections (there are sometimes independent candidates, but they are rarely elected). The Party which wins the majority of seats forms the Government and its leader usually becomes Prime Minister. The largest minority party becomes the Opposition. In doing so it accepts the right of the majority party to run the country, while the majority party accepts the right of the minority party to criticize it. Without this agreement between the political parties, the British Parliamentary system would break down.
The Prime Minister chooses about twenty MPs from his or her party to become Cabinet Ministers. Each minister is responsible for a particular area of government, and for a Civil Service department. For example, the Minister of Defence is responsible for defence policy and the armed forces, the Chancellor of the Exchequer for financial Policy, and the Home Secretary for, among other things, law and order and immigration. Their Civil Service departments are called the Ministry of Defence, the Treasury and the Home Office respectively. They are staffed by civil servants who are politically neutral and who therefore do not change if the Government changes. The leader of the Opposition also chooses MPs to take responsibility for opposing the Government in these areas. They are known as the 'Shadow Cabinet'.
The parliamentary parties
The Conservative and Liberal parties are the oldest, and until the last years of the 19th century they were the only parties elected to the House of Commons. Once working-class men were given the vote, however, Socialist MPs were elected, but it was not until 1945 that Britain had its first Labour Government. At this election, the number of Liberal MPs was greatly reduced and since then Governments have been formed by either the Labour or the Conservative party. Usually they have had clear majorities - that is, one party has had more MPs than all the others combined.
The Conservative Party can broadly be described as the party of the middle and upper classes although it does receive some working-class support. Most of its voters live in rural areas, small towns and the suburbs of large cities. Much of its financial support comes from large industrial companies. The Labour Party, on the other hand, has always had strong links with the trade unions and receives financial support from them. While many Labour voters are middle-class or intellectuals, the traditional Labour Party support is still strongest in industrial areas.
Today there are a number of other political parties represented in Parliament. Presently the representation is as follows (646 in all)

Labour Party 356, Conservative Party 198, Liberal Democrats 62, Democratic Unionist Party 9, Scottish National Party 6, Plaid Cymru 3, Sinn Fein 5, Ulster Unionists 1, Social Democratic 3, Independent 1, and others
The House of Lords
The House of Lords is the second house of the Parlament of the United Kingdom and is also and is also commonly referred to as "the Lords". Membership of the House of Lords was once a right of birth to hereditary peers, but following a series of reforms the House now consists almost entirely of appointed members. As of January 2009 the House of Lords has 743 members, 97 more than the 646 The power of the Lords to reject a bill passed by the House of Commons is severely restricted by the Parliament Acts. The House of Lords cannot delay a money bill (a bill that concerns national taxation) for more than one month. Other public bills cannot be delayed by the House of Lords for more than one calendar year. The judicial functions of the House of Lords are exercised not by the "Law Lords".The jurisdiction of the House of Lords extends, in civil and in criminal cases, to appeals from the courts of England and Wales, and of Northern Ireland.

The British Parliament Today,

by David Frost and Anthony Jay

From far and wide and every land they come to gaze in awe upon it ‑ the seat of liberty, the throne of conscience, the cradle of democracy, the Mother of Parliaments. Here, beside the sweet Thames, if nowhere else in the world, a man can breathe the very air of freedom. Here, they are told, in this great Parliament, the people of England maintain to this day the right they established centuries ago to control their own destinies. This is the powerhouse; the very centre of events, the model for constitutions.
The visitor, suitably pious and humble, enters and mounts to the Strangers' Gallery. And what does he see? A few half‑ asleep Members of Parliament listening to one half‑awake Member of Parliament making a speech, pausing every now and again for some piece of incomprehensible ritual as people in breeches, ruffles and wigs strut in and out carrying symbolic sticks and baubles.
It is one of those English institutions ‑ Trooping the Colour, Changing the Guard, the Lord Mayor's Show etc. ‑ in which the form remains enshrined in ceremony long after most of the substance has departed. There was real substance once. Parliament, after all, was the place where those who were going to be asked to pay taxes were summoned to make representations and give their advice about what taxes would be accepted and how they should be collected.
There was even a time when it could refuse to allow the taxes. But once the political parties got Parliament sewn up a hundred years ago, with members having to submit to party discipline and party loyalty because it was party organization that got them into Parliament and kept them there, all power started to pass from Parliament to Government. And that is the way it has been moving ever since. Today most of the members are lobby fodder, rendered by the party system incapable of stopping, or even amending in any significant way, legislation of which they disapprove. Little wonder the more talented of their number begin to despair of the system. Proclaiming themselves in their campaign speeches as the people's watchdogs, they soon discover that they have no facility whatever ‑ no office, no secretary, no research teams ‑ to enable them to keep watch in any serious way on the executive.
All that is required of them as members of the country's sovereign assembly is that they shall vote as they are directed. A flicker of disobedience and they are hauled up to be ticked off by the whips; a serious sign of rebellion and the Prime Minister himself will lay into them with warnings that every dog is allowed one bite, but only one. At the second its licence is taken away; in other words the party withdraws its support.
They contract their muscles at Question time, and then when the division bell rings they must meekly swallow whatever feelings of power this exercise has given them, and troop away behind their leader through the appropriate lobby door. Their choice is not between a
sensible decision and a stupid decision, a good law or a bad one. It is between their party and the other party.
The parties have cleverly contrived a system whereby backbenchers cannot stop measures they do not like when proposed by their own government ‑ it is instantly a major issue of confidence, and instead of having to choose whether or not to let this one single measure become law, they have to choose whether to bring the whole government down, and perhaps precipitate a general election and let the other party in ‑ perhaps even lose their seats as well. The consequence is that this has never been done, in this century anyway; M.P.'s have sometimes got rid of their leader and replaced him by another, sometimes dissolved or formed coalitions, but bring down their own government and force a general election ‑ well, theoretically it could happen, just as, theoretically, the Queen could divorce Prince Philip (and marry John Smith).

Abitur 2011 neue Vorgaben

2009-01-10T07:38:00.000-08:00

Ein neuer Roman http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/review/Rich-t.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falling_Man_(novel)

Falling Man concerns a survivor of the 9/11 attacks and the effect his experiences on that day have on his life thereafter.

Ein neuer Film http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0169547/plotsummary

I guess I could be pretty pissed off about what happened to me. But it's hard to stay mad when there's so much beauty in the world. Sometimes I feel like I'm seeing it all at once... and it's too much. My heart fills up like a balloon that's about to burst. And then I remember... to relax, and not try to hold on to it. And then it flows through me like rain. And I can't feel anything but gratitude for every single moment of my stupid little life. You have no idea what I'm talking about, I'm sure. Don't worry... you will someday.

Hier das script zum Film
http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/a/american-beauty-screenplay-script-final.html

ergänzen die bekannten Vorgaben http://www.standardsicherung.schulministerium.nrw.de/abitur-gost/fach.php?fach=3

Hier der Trailer zum Film AMERICAN BEAUTY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q3ltyPJJMQ

Sonnets

2009-01-07T09:47:00.000-08:00

Eine gelungene Seite zur Gedichtsform "sonnet" mit dem Beispiel Sonnet 116 von W. Shakespeare. Have a look:

http://vccslitonline.cc.va.us/sonnet116/mainmenu.htm

Shakespeare - a literary giant

2009-01-06T04:19:00.000-08:00

Gute Seite mit viel Material. Die Schwerpunkte bilden die Sonnets und die Tragödie Macbeth.
Have a glimpse!
http://www.gho-englisch.de/Courses/2007-2008/En-13/Shakespeare/shakespeare.htm

East is east part 10

2008-11-28T08:53:00.001-08:00

East is east part 9

2008-11-28T08:51:00.001-08:00

East is east part 8

2008-11-28T08:50:00.001-08:00

East is east part 7

2008-11-28T08:49:00.001-08:00

East is east part 6

2008-11-28T08:48:00.000-08:00

East is east part 5

2008-11-28T08:47:00.002-08:00

East is east part 4

2008-11-28T08:47:00.001-08:00

East is east part 3

2008-11-28T08:45:00.000-08:00

East is East part2

2008-11-28T08:42:00.001-08:00

East is East part1

2008-11-28T08:42:00.000-08:00

A Raisin in the Sun - trailer

2008-11-16T01:23:00.000-08:00

East is east - Tasks

2008-11-16T00:43:00.000-08:00

The Themes of the Film
‘Oh East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.’
Rudyard Kipling

In the film East is East the 'twain' have met for a Moslem man from Pakistan has married a Catholic woman from Salford, near Manchester. They have had seven children, six boys and a girl, and are running a fish and chip shop near their home. The parents both have a very strong vision of themselves. The father, George, wants his children to be accepted by the Moslem community and live by its rules and customs. The woman, Ella, has agreed to this on her marriage but is still herself a Catholic and has influenced her children with her ideas.
The film considers the ideas and loyalties of the children. Are they Moslem or Catholic and how do they fit into the world of Salford in 1971?
The theme of East vs West is explored even further:
George has many connections with Bradford which is seen by him as a place where he would
find it easier to bring up his children in a more traditional way. He even looks for prospective
brides for his sons there. Bradford is in the east of northern England; Salford is in the west. George originally comes from Islamabad, which in 1971 is in East Pakistan. His first wife is
there and the country is at war with India. He keeps threatening to bring her to England.

East is East:
A film about racism
The family are in crisis. They do not fit into either the Pakistani community or the white community.
George is acutely aware of this and he is forcing his children against their will to conform. He sends them to Urdu classes, he has his youngest son circumcised because it has been overlooked and he arranges marriages for his children against his wife’s and his children’s wishes.
He is also worried about the war in his homeland and the rising tide of racism sparked off by Enoch Powell’s 'Rivers of Blood' speech. Powell was suggesting that unless people
were repatriated there would be a rising tide of violence. He ignored the fact that many people had been born in this country, were British citizens and were in their country of
birth. Because Powell was a well-known, influential politician his extreme views encouraged many people’s prejudices because they felt his speech gave them permission to act in
a racially prejudiced way.
The title of the film comes from a quotation by Rudyard Kipling, the late nineteenth century British writer, who had strong views about the British Empire and its position in the world, especially in relation to India.
This is the background to George’s fears for his family.

Task one
Racism - The irony in the film
Look at these situations and consider the irony of the situation.
George does not want his son to marry a white British woman
The man over the road is very racist and advertising Enoch Powell coming to talk in the city.
The man has two grandchildren. The little boy is called Ernest. How does he feel about the Khan
family? How does he speak to them? How does he feel about the youngest boy Sajid?
How does he feel about the girl, Meenah?
Ernest’s sister is called Stella. How does she feel about the Khan family?
When Mr Shah is coming with his wife and daughters to the house the youngest boy, Sajid,
cries out, 'The pakis are coming.'
George does not want his children to be like hippies. Who were the hippies and where did they
go to find spiritual enlightenment?
George makes a living selling fish and chips and his shop is called The English Chippy.
When Tariq goes to the local disco he calls himself Tony.
George asks the doctor, who has operated on his son, if he is Indian.
The family go to an Asian cinema even though they cannot understand the language.

Task Two
The Ironic Image
This irony is present not just in the subject matter of the film but in the imagery. Consider these
images. What is ironic about them?
The children are first seen carrying a crucifix and a statue of the Virgin Mary and child.
Sajid is scattering rose petals.
Meenah kicks a football through the window of the man opposite.
Saleem’s sculpture lands on the lap of Mrs Shah.
Nazeem brings the runaways back in a Rolls Royce.
The priest visits the fish and chip shop in clerical garb.
Meenah’s dance in the backyard.

Every picture tells a story

Task Three
Representation of Place
The main story is set in Salford in 1971. It is a very specific place with its red brick terrace houses,backyards and alleys.
I How is it filmed? Particularly look at the opening sequence with its aerial shots and odd angles.
What is the effect of:
1. The crane shot over the street and the alleys. What action is occurring to heighten this effect?
2. Static shots with the characters running through the frame.
3. Close-ups on the children with the camera moving with the characters.
4. Shots of the mum and dad standing together with the characters moving behind them.
5. How does the editing of this sequence affect the initial impression of the location?

The design of the film is very clever. Look at the mise en scène set inside the house. What
impression is given of how the family lives? Where do they all sleep? What do they do inside the
house? What do they do outside?
Much of the film is set inside the house. How does the look of the house contrast with:
- the fish shop
- the house in Bradford
- the wedding ceremony
- the hat shop
- the discotheque
How are these places filmed?

Task Four
The Representation of the Family
Look at the following statements:
'I’m not having my kids accused of bad manners.
People are quick to point the finger when they see
they are a bit foreign.' (Ella)
'They are only trouble because you don’t listen to
them.' (Ella)
'Pakistani sons show respect.' (George)
'Dad I’m not Pakistani. I was born here.' (Tariq)
'Dad’s coming…throw the bacon away.' (Meena)
'You and your bastard kids misses.' (George)

How does the family see itself? Is it at war with itself? Look at the changing factions and
allegiances in the film. Would they have been different if the family was not composed of two races and religions?
The central character is the father, George. How does the relationship between him and the rest
of the family change during the film? When is he very aggressive to his family? When is he very
affectionate?
How is Ella with her children, her sister and her husband? How does she behave when she goes
to Bradford and meets the other family’s mother?
What are the differences in the physical representations of the sons? Do they dress differently for different settings and occasions? Why does Nazeem call himself Mr Nigel in the hat shop?
What do the filmmakers do when we see things from Sajid’s point of view? How does this fit into his visual theme of seeing and hearing things through keyholes?
How does the representation of the children contrast with the other young people in the street,
Ernest, Stella and Peggy?

Task Five
Representing a Point in History
What disadvantages are there for filmmakers in representing a point in history that is only thirty
years ago? What advantages do the filmmakers have?
Consider the moments when the historic period is very accurate:
1. the television footage of Enoch Powell and the footage of the conflict between India and Pakistan
2. the children’s television programme
3. the discotheque
4. the representation of the hat shop
5. the space hopper
What did you know about the 1970s before you saw the film? How important is it to the film that it is set then? Would it have been a different film had it been set now?

Task Six
Images of Bollywood
When the family goes to the cinema they want to see a
specific film. As the cinema manager is their relation he
puts the film on for them.
What are the images from the film like? Why do the
family like them so much?
How do they tie in to the themes of the film?
Compare and contrast them with the real lives of the
family.

Task Seven

The Audience for the Film
What is its Genre?
East is East has been a very successful film. It was originally a play performed at the Royal Court
Theatre in London, a venue known for its championship of original bold writing.
Ayub Khan-Din wrote both the play and the screenplay and had a vision of how he wanted the film to be.
'I was influenced by the bitter-sweet northern films of the 1960s, like A Taste of Honey, Spring and
Port Wine and This Sporting Life. Although people try and marginalise films like East is East as
‘Asian’ for me it has always been a northern comedy in tradition. What is bittersweet about this film and is it in a northern comedy tradition?

A Raisin in the sun

2008-11-15T07:02:00.001-08:00

Linkliste zu A RAISIN IN THE SUN

Plot synopsis

Acts

Characters

essays

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/raisin

http://www.bookrags.com/notes/rai/

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/A-Raisin-in-the-Sun-About-the-Play-Introduction.id-150,pageNum-2.html

Narrator and point of view

2008-11-15T04:33:00.001-08:00

Narrator and Point of View

Narrator (Erzähler):
The "voice" that tells a story. Unless it is an autobiography, the narrator is not identical with the author/writer.

Point of view (Erzählperspektive): The perspective from which characters, events, etc. are presented in a fictional text. The chosen point of view has a strong effect on the reader; for example, we tend to respond (reagieren)
more sympathetically to a character whose mind we "enter", as we experience for ourselves what the character goes through. In the course of many stories the point of view changes to make reading more interesting.

First person narrator / limited point of view (Ich-Erzähler):
The narrator is a character in the story and uses the first person singular ("I"). This narrator may be either the protagonist (Hauptperson)
or a minor character, who is just a kind of observer (neutraler Beobachter). As first person narration presents the action through the eyes of only one character, the narrator has a limited point of view. The reader tends to identify with the narrator.

Interior monologue (innerer Monolog): A particular form of first person narration which presents a character's thoughts, associations and memories. Interior monologues often do not follow chronological order, since, when people think, their thoughts jump from one subject to another.

Third person narrator / limited point of view (personaler Erzähler/~s Erzählverhalten): The narrator stands outside the story and uses the third person ("he", "she" or "they") to refer to the characters but presents the events mainly from the perspective of only one character, i.e. he "limits" himself to the perspective of this character.

Third person narrator / unlimited point of view, often called
omniscient narrator [from Latin omnis: everything, scire: to know] (allwissender Erzähler):
The narrator can (at least theoretically) look into the minds of all characters and tell us about their thoughts and feelings. He can look into the past, tell about the present and also anticipate the future.

Reported thought (erlebte Rede): Thoughts, memories, associations, etc., are presented as reported speech (third person, past tense) but without common phrases like "she thought", "he wondered", "she asked herself" etc. This technique creates the illusion of intimate access to a character's mind.

Stream of consciousness (Bewusstseinstrom): An attempt to convey the continuous, often unstructured or even chaotic flow of thoughts and emotions in the human mind. Typical characteristics of this technique are incomplete sentences, sudden jumps or even complete lack of any traditional syntactical structure and punctuation.

Intrusive narrator (auktorialer Erzähler/~s Erzählverhalten): The narrator makes e.g. comments on the story, may reflect about the process of writing and may try to influence the reader. He sort of "intrudes" (stören, eindringen) on the reader and the reading process.

Unreliable narrator (unzuverlässiger Erzähler): The narrator e.g. contradicts himself and/or presents confusing information so that the reader must draw his own conclusions.

Mode of presentation (Art der Darstellung): The way a writer narrates events. The author can either tell the readers about events and their significance or show the reader what is happening. Most stories use a combination of both techniques.

Scenic presentation (szenische Erzählung): An event is presented in detail as it occured, i.e. a scene is described (= showing).

Panoramic presentation (berichtende Erzählung): The narrator tells the story as a condensed (verdichtet)
series of events, summarizing in a few sentences what happened over a longer period of time (= telling).

Metaphors - vocabulary

2008-11-15T04:31:00.001-08:00

Metaphors
(x=the metaphor)

At first glance one could think … (auf den ersten Blick)

On the literal
level … (wörtliche Ebene)

Normally "x" denotes ... (wörtlich bedeuten)

X evokes associations of ... (Assoziationen wecken)

X makes me think of …
(an etwas denken lassen)

X reminds me of … (erinnern an)

The use of "x" gives the impression that ... (den Eindruck erwecken)

X probably refers to ... (sich beziehen auf)

For me "x" implies that ... (andeuten, implizieren)

In my view x suggests / hints at ... (andeuten, denken lassen an)

Perhaps the writer has x in mind when ... (an etwas denken)

On the figurativelevel … (übertragene Ebene)

X might symbolize / be a symbol of ... (symbolisieren)

Maybe x stands for ... (stehen für)

This metaphor conveys a feeling of ... (vermitteln)

This metaphor could mean that ... (bedeuten)

This phrase is supposed to allude to ... (soll anspielen auf)

In my opinion this is an allusion to ... (Anspielung auf)

X connotes ... (suggerieren)

X has positive connotations. (Konnotationen)

an ambiguousmetaphor ... (zwei-, mehrdeutig)

One might infer/ conclude that … (schließen, folgern)

2008-11-15T04:28:00.001-08:00

Dystopian Fiction

Definition: A dystopia is a fictional society that is the opposite of utopia. It is usually characterized by an authoritarian or totalitarian form of government, or some other kind of oppressive social control.

Typical features of dystopian fiction

A background story of war, revolution, uprising, overpopulation, natural disaster or some other climactic event which resulted in dramatic changes to society.

A standard of living among the lower and middle class that is generally poorer than in contemporary society. This is not always the case, however, in Brave New World people enjoy much higher material living standards in exchange for the loss of other qualities in their lives, such as independent thought and emotional depth.

A protagonist who questions society, often feeling intuitively that something is terribly wrong.

As dystopian literature typically depicts events that take place in the future, it often features technology more advanced than that of contemporary society. Usually, this advanced technology is controlled exclusively by the group in power, while the oppressed population is limited to a rather primitive technology.

Dystopian fiction typically extrapolates current trends and developments into the future. It is not enough to show people living in an unpleasant society. The society must have similarities to today, of the reader's own experience. If the reader can identify the patterns or trends that would lead to the dystopia, it becomes a more involving and effective experience.

There is usually a group of people who are not under the complete control of the state, and in whom the hero of the novel usually puts his or her hope, although he or she still fails to change anything. In 1984 by George Orwell they are the "proles" (short for "proletariat"), in Brave New World by Aldous Huxley they are the people on the reservation, and in Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, they are the "book people" past the river and outside the city.

If destruction is not possible, escape may be, if the dystopia does not control the world. In Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, the main character succeeds in fleeing and finding people who have dedicated themselves to memorizing books to preserve them.

George Orwell 1984

The novel, published in 1948, takes place in 1984 and presents an imaginary future where a totalitarian state controls every aspect of life, even people's thoughts. The state is called Oceania and is ruled by a group known as the Party; its leader and dictator is Big Brother.

Winston Smith, the central character, is a thirty-nine year old man living in London. He secretly hates the Party and decides to rebel by starting a diary in which he reveals his rebellious thoughts. Through keeping a diary, Winston commits thoughtcrime and knows that one day he will be discovered by the Thought Police and probably killed.

Winston is fascinated by "proles," the lowest class in the social hierarchy of Oceania. They are the only group allowed to live pretty much as they like without heavy police surveillance. He befriends Mr. Charrington, the prole owner of a junk-shop, who shares his interest in the past and life before the rule of Big Brother.

At work, a dark-haired girl who works in another department approaches Winston in the corridor. She pretends to fall and hurt herself; when he helps her up she slips a piece of paper into his hand. It says "I love you." Winston is surprised and disturbed by this; any sexual relationship between Party members is strictly forbidden. Nevertheless, he is intrigued. They secretly arrange to meet in the country. He begins a love affair with the girl, who finally introduces herself as Julia. They have to be very cautious and meet in places that aren't watched: a clearing in the woods, an old church. Winston and Julia eventually rent the room above Mr. Charrington's junk-shop as a long-term private place for the two of them.

A member of the Inner Party, O'Brien, finds an excuse to give Winston his home address, an unusual event. Winston, noticeably excited, has always believed O'Brien may not be politically orthodox and could sympathize with his hatred of the Party. Winston and Julia go to see O'Brien and he enlists them into the Brotherhood, a secret organization dedicated to fighting Big Brother. He arranges to give Winston a copy of "The Book," a document that contains the truth about Big Brother and the development of the super-states. Winston and Julia go to their room above the junk-shop to read the book. The Thought Police burst in to arrest them and they discover that Mr. Charrington is a Thought Police agent. They are taken separately to the Ministry of Love. There, Winston learns that O'Brien is in fact an orthodox government agent and has deliberately tricked him. O'Brien takes charge of the process of "re-integrating" Winston, torturing and brainwashing him until he fully believes in the Party and its doctrines. As the final step of this process, Winston is forced to betray his love for Julia, and his feelings for her are destroyed.

Winston is released to live out his final days as a broken man. Soon, the Thought Police will execute him. Winston has submitted completely and loves Big Brother.

Aldous Huxley Brave New World

In the "brave new world" of 632 A. F. (After Ford), universal human happiness has almost been achieved. Control of reproduction, genetic engineering, conditioning - especially via repetitive messages delivered during sleep - and a perfect pleasure drug called "Soma" are the cornerstones of the new society. Reproduction has been removed from the womb and placed on the conveyor belt, where reproductive workers tinker with the embryos to produce various grades of human beings, ranging from the super-intelligent Alpha Pluses down to the dwarfed semi-moron Epsilons.

Each class is conditioned to love its type of work and its place in society; for example, Epsilons are supremely happy running elevators. Outside of their work, people spend their lives in constant pleasure. This involves consuming and continually buying new things, whether they need them or not, participating in elaborate sports, and free-floating sex. While uninhibited sex is universal and considered socially constructive, love, marriage, and parenthood are viewed as obscene.

The story is about Bernard, an alpha whose programming is a bit off – he is discontented and desires to spend time alone just thinking or looking at the stars. At one point he takes Lenina on a vacation to the savage reservation in New Mexico. There he discovers John (the "Savage"), son of Linda who had visited the reservation more than 20 years previously and was accidentally left behind. When she discovered she was pregnant (the ultimate humiliation!), she had to remain among the savages. John returns to the Brave New World where he is celebrated as the Visiting Savage. However, he cannot adapt to this totally alien society and, ultimately, he takes his own life.

Ray Bradbury Fahrenheit 451

Guy Montag is a fireman who lives in a society in which books are illegal. His job is not to extinguish fires, but to light them. He burns books, and all the firemen wear the number "451" on their uniforms because that is the temperature at which books burn.

But the role reversal of the firemen is not the only difference between present-day society and the world in which Montag lives. People of Montag's world take no interest in politics or world issues. The only point of life is pleasure. Montag's wife, Mildred, spends her time watching the televisions that take up three of the four walls in their parlor, or listening to the seashell radios that fit snugly in the ear. It isn't until Montag meets a young girl named Clarisse that he realizes that there might be more to life than the electronic entertainment that absorbs everyone. Clarisse makes him think about the world beyond the wall television and seashell radios; she makes him wonder about life.

This newfound curiosity gets Montag into trouble when he takes an interest in reading the books that he's supposed to burn. When Captain Beatty, the fire chief, realizes that Montag has changed sides, he forces Montag to burn his own home. To save himself, Montag kills the fire chief and escapes the city. A manhunt ensues on live television, but when Montag escapes the authorities, an innocent man is killed in his place to appease the audience.

Montag joings a group of educated, vagrant men who remember great novels so that when the world returns to an appreciation of literature, they will be ready to help out. As they are walking away from the city, a bomb destroys the place that was once Montag's home. Knowing they will be needed, the men turn back to the shattered city to help rebuild a society that has destroyed itself.

While the novel is most often classified as a work of science fiction, it is first and foremost a social criticism warning against the danger of censorship. It uses the genre of science fiction, which enjoyed immense popularity at the time of the book's publication, as a vehicle for his message that unchecked oppressive government irreparably damages society by limiting the creativity and freedom of its people. In particular, the "dystopia" motif popular in science fiction - a futuristic technocratic and totalitarian society that demands order and harmony at the expense of individual rights - serves the novel well.

Developed in the years following World War II, the book condemns not only the anti-intellectualism of the defeated Nazi party in Germany, but more immediately the intellectually oppressive political climate of the early 1950's - the heyday of McCarthyism. That such influential fictional social criticisms such as Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984 were published just a few short years prior to Fahrenheit 451 is not coincidental. These works reveal a very real apprehension of the danger of the US evolving into an oppressive, authoritarian society in the post-WWII period.

How to structure your texts

2008-11-15T04:19:00.001-08:00

Introduction	Einleitung
It is often claimed that …	Es wird oft behauptet, dass …
It is a commonplace that …	Es ist eine Binsenweisheit, dass …
… So the question arises whether …	Deshalb stellt sich die Frage, ob …
It is a well-known fact that …	Es ist allgemein bekannt, dass …
It would hardly be an exaggeration to say that …	Man kann ohne große Übertreibung sagen, dass …
According to the latest statistics …	Laut der neuesten Statistiken …
Main part	Hauptteil
Structuring Arguments	Argumente strukturieren
Firstly ... secondly ... finally ...	Erstens ... zweitens ... schließlich
First of all / To begin with I would like to ...	Zunächst einmal
In addition / Moreover / Besides / Furthermore ...	Darüberhinaus
Another significant advantage is ...	Ein weitere(r)
This brings us to the question whether ...	Daraus ergibt sich die Frage, ob
But above all one must not forget that ...	Aber vor allem
Personal opinion	Persönliche Meinung
In my opinion / To my mind you can say that ...	Meiner Meinung nach
It seems to me that this is not the solution to ...	Es scheint mir, dass
The way I see it / In my view we should keep in mind that …	Meiner Ansicht nach
I am (absolutely) convinced that ...	Ich bin (völlig) überzeugt
I maintain that ...	Ich bleibe dabei, dass
Personal attitude	Eigene Einstellung
Obviously / Doubtless it is wrong to say that ...	Offensichtlich / Zweifellos
Funnily enough / Strangely a lot of people think that ...	Komischer- / Seltsamerweise
Fortunately / Luckily this is not the only argument against ...	Glücklicherweise
Unfortunately / Regrettably he fails to acknowledge that ...	Leider
Frankly / Generally speaking his proposals are stupid.	Offen / Allgemein gesagt
Comparisons	Vergleiche
Compared with the situation ten years ago …	Verglichen mit
In comparison with the US …	Im Vergleich mit
There is a fundamental difference between … and …	wesentlicher Unterschied
On the one hand ... on the other hand …	Auf der einen … anderen Seite
Expressing contrast	Gegensatz ausdrücken
We must not forget, however, that ...	jedoch
All the same / Nevertheless, it is wrong to say that ...	Trotzdem
In spite of / Despite all those arguments ...	Trotz
Contrary to / In contrast to / Unlike the writer I think ...	Im Gegensatz zu
It is true that ... but it is definitely wrong to say that ...	Zwar ... aber
Giving an example	Beispiel geben
Let us consider, for instance, …	zum Beispiel
… is a striking example of …	ausgezeichnetes Beispiel für
This incident serves to illustrate …	veranschaulicht
Expressing doubt	Zweifel ausdrücken
It is doubtful / questionable whether …	Es ist zweifelhaft / fraglich, ob …
It remains to be seen whether …	Es bleibt abzuwarten, ob …
I have a few reservations about the book.	ein paar Vorbehalte gegenüber
It is by no means certain that …	Es ist keinesfalls sicher, dass …
Disagreeing	Widerspruch einlegen
I find it hard to believe that …	Ich kann nur schwer glauben, dass
Her claim lacks credibility.	ist unglaubwürdig
I remain unconvinced by his statement.	überzeugt mich nicht
It is completely / totally / absolutely wrong to believe that ...	völlig / ganz und gar
He is thoroughly / entirely wrong when he claims ...	völlig
The author is terribly / greatly mistaken when he says that …	sich gewaltig irren
His theory is totally inaccurate.	vollkommen falsch
Logical consequence	Logische Folge
So / Therefore / That is why we cannot simply assume that ...	Deshalb
From all this it follows that ...	Aus all dem folgt, dass …
The logical conclusion from all this is that …	die logische Schlussfolgerung
Conclusion	Schluss
To conclude / In conclusion you can safely say that ...	Zusammenfassend
All in all I therefore reject the view that ...	Alles in allem
To sum up I am seriously opposed to the writer's position that ...	Zusammenfassend
Weighing the pros and cons one comes to the conclusion that ...	Wenn man das Für und Wider abwägt …

Could Shakespeare survive in Hollywood?

2008-11-14T11:29:00.001-08:00

Ein interessanter Artikel, der versucht, diese Frage zu beantworten und der zu einem erstaunlichen Resultat kommt.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6492156

Text of Obama's victory speech

2008-11-05T10:20:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama's US Election victory speech

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.
It's the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen; by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the very first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different; that their voice could be that difference.

It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled - Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America.

It's the answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.

It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.

I just received a very gracious call from Senator McCain. He fought long and hard in this campaign, and he's fought even longer and harder for the country he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine, and we are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader. I congratulate him and Governor Palin for all they have achieved, and I look forward to working with them to renew this nation's promise in the months ahead.

I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart and spoke for the men and women he grew up with on the streets of Scranton and rode with on that train home to Delaware, the Vice President-elect of the United States, Joe Biden.

I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last sixteen years, the rock of our family and the love of my life, our nation's next First Lady, Michelle Obama. Sasha and Malia, I love you both so much, and you have earned the new puppy that's coming with us to the White House. And while she's no longer with us, I know my grandmother is watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight, and know that my debt to them is beyond measure.

To my campaign manager David Plouffe, my chief strategist David Axelrod, and the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics - you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what you've sacrificed to get it done.

But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to - it belongs to you.

I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn't start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington - it began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston.

It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give five dollars and ten dollars and twenty dollars to this cause. It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation's apathy; who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep; from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on the doors of perfect strangers; from the millions of Americans who volunteered, and organized, and proved that more than two centuries later, a government of the people, by the people and for the people has not perished from this Earth. This is your victory.

I know you didn't do this just to win an election and I know you didn't do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime - two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us. There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after their children fall asleep and wonder how they'll make the mortgage, or pay their doctor's bills, or save enough for college. There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to repair.

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you - we as a people will get there.

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it's been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years - block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.

What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek - it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers - in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people.

Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House - a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, "We are not enemies, but friends...though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection." And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn - I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too.

And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world - our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear this world down - we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security - we support you. And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright - tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.

For that is the true genius of America - that America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that's on my mind tonight is about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She's a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing - Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.

She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn't vote for two reasons - because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.

And tonight, I think about all that she's seen throughout her century in America - the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can't, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.

At a time when women's voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can.

When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs and a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.

When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.

She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that "We Shall Overcome." Yes we can.

A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination. And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change. Yes we can.

America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves - if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?

This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time - to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth - that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people:

Yes We Can. Thank you, God bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.