Text analysis 1/aide
Cours gratuits > Forum > Forum anglais: Questions sur l'anglais || En basText analysis 1/aide
Message de strapunk posté le 01-12-2014 à 18:35:35 (S | E | F)
Bonjour !
Je suis en Prépa lettres et j'ai un texte d'anglais à commenter. Il doit faire 12 pages manuscrites et j'ai donc peur d'avoir fait des fautes... Est-ce que quelqu'un pourrait m'aider à corriger ? Je n'ai pas encore fait de conclusion et il n'est pas totalement terminé (puisque pour l'instant j'en suis à l'équivalent de 7-8 pages
) mais je ne veux pas vous submerger trop vite et ce serait sympa d'avoir un premier aperçu.
C'est un commentaire du texte "Did Custer Die for Whites' Sins ?" de 1876. Je ne peux poster que la première partie pour l'instant comme le nombre de caractères est limité !
Merci d'avance !
In 1876, the newspaper 'Harpers Weekly' published an article about the general George Armstrong Custer, nearly two months after he lost his life in the Battle of Little Bighorn. He was killed by Indians, led by Crazy Horse and Chief Gall, at a time when a lot of battles and slaughters between Whites and Indians were taking place in America. Thomas A. Baily and Trinity Partners reedited this text in 1991 with the title "Did Custer Die for the Whites' Sins ?". Such a title looks strange when you know that Americans wanted to help Indian people into a process of "civilization". But that is the point. Why can we level a criticism at the role of the Americans to "civilize" Indian people ? Custer was considered as a hero, and maybe the truth is not exactly that. But his death leads to think about the demeanour of Americans towards Indians over years.
The Custer's image (figure?) was conflictual after his death.
Firstly, public opinion had been "deeply touched" (l.2) by it : he died on the battlefield, killed by a "savage Indian", during the Blackhills War, on the place of Little Bighorn ; this image shows a glorious man died for his courage. The place of the battle is even called "Custer's Last Stand" by the Americans. This name is not insignificant : it assumes that even if he lost, Custer resisted, and it until he died. His wife entertained the myth of a hero. She came to Frederick Whittaker with a view to publishing a biography of Custer. He wrote Complete Life of George Armstrong Custer, using compliments and eulogies
of him. Bill Cody made a show in New York, First Scalp for Custer, which partook of the myth of a hero died as a martyr. So it surely helped to build an image of "brave and gallant" man. In the public thoughts, he fought for the American progress. Actually, America was convinced of its role of expansion "imposed by God" of civilization on his territory, idea expressed in the Manifest Destiny as John O'Sullivan, an American columnist, called it in 1845. Americans thought then it included the Indians, and so for them Custer was just one of the numerous men who partook of this mission.
But it seems for the author that people were wrong : "public [...] sees only a fearless soldier leading a charge against an ambushed [lurking] foe, and falling at the head of his men and in the thick of the fray" (l.2-7). The image which comes to our minds with this sentence is the one of which we spoke earlier ; but it is to notice that the author uses the adverb "only" (l.3), which means that reality is maybe different. Indeed, Custer is known for his hatred for Indians, and the Little Bighorn Battle took place because he wanted to attack a Sioux, Iakota and Cheyennes village by surprise. The author respects Custer, but does not deny that he was not completely this innocent man attacked by dangerous Indians.
Moreover, the author thinks that we should learn from his death. Actually, this event is just part of a long list of slaughters between Whites and Indians. For the author, "a truer monument, more enduring than brass or marble, would be an Indian policy intelligent, moral and efficient" (l.9 to 13). It means that a policy elaborated carefully may be more powerful than any material, and people should realize it to avoid new battles and new deaths. He came back to this idea at the end of the text : "a thorough consideration of the subject [...] would tend to spare us the constant repetition of such sorrowful events" (l.100-106). So he is convinced these deaths are avoidable.
-------------------
Modifié par lucile83 le 01-12-2014 19:05
Message de strapunk posté le 01-12-2014 à 18:35:35 (S | E | F)
Bonjour !
Je suis en Prépa lettres et j'ai un texte d'anglais à commenter. Il doit faire 12 pages manuscrites et j'ai donc peur d'avoir fait des fautes... Est-ce que quelqu'un pourrait m'aider à corriger ? Je n'ai pas encore fait de conclusion et il n'est pas totalement terminé (puisque pour l'instant j'en suis à l'équivalent de 7-8 pages
) mais je ne veux pas vous submerger trop vite et ce serait sympa d'avoir un premier aperçu. C'est un commentaire du texte "Did Custer Die for Whites' Sins ?" de 1876. Je ne peux poster que la première partie pour l'instant comme le nombre de caractères est limité !
Merci d'avance !
In 1876, the newspaper 'Harpers Weekly' published an article about the general George Armstrong Custer, nearly two months after he lost his life in the Battle of Little Bighorn. He was killed by Indians, led by Crazy Horse and Chief Gall, at a time when a lot of battles and slaughters between Whites and Indians were taking place in America. Thomas A. Baily and Trinity Partners reedited this text in 1991 with the title "Did Custer Die for the Whites' Sins ?". Such a title looks strange when you know that Americans wanted to help Indian people into a process of "civilization". But that is the point. Why can we level a criticism at the role of the Americans to "civilize" Indian people ? Custer was considered as a hero, and maybe the truth is not exactly that. But his death leads to think about the demeanour of Americans towards Indians over years.
The Custer's image (figure?) was conflictual after his death.
Firstly, public opinion had been "deeply touched" (l.2) by it : he died on the battlefield, killed by a "savage Indian", during the Blackhills War, on the place of Little Bighorn ; this image shows a glorious man died for his courage. The place of the battle is even called "Custer's Last Stand" by the Americans. This name is not insignificant : it assumes that even if he lost, Custer resisted, and it until he died. His wife entertained the myth of a hero. She came to Frederick Whittaker with a view to publishing a biography of Custer. He wrote Complete Life of George Armstrong Custer, using compliments and eulogies
of him. Bill Cody made a show in New York, First Scalp for Custer, which partook of the myth of a hero died as a martyr. So it surely helped to build an image of "brave and gallant" man. In the public thoughts, he fought for the American progress. Actually, America was convinced of its role of expansion "imposed by God" of civilization on his territory, idea expressed in the Manifest Destiny as John O'Sullivan, an American columnist, called it in 1845. Americans thought then it included the Indians, and so for them Custer was just one of the numerous men who partook of this mission.But it seems for the author that people were wrong : "public [...] sees only a fearless soldier leading a charge against an ambushed [lurking] foe, and falling at the head of his men and in the thick of the fray" (l.2-7). The image which comes to our minds with this sentence is the one of which we spoke earlier ; but it is to notice that the author uses the adverb "only" (l.3), which means that reality is maybe different. Indeed, Custer is known for his hatred for Indians, and the Little Bighorn Battle took place because he wanted to attack a Sioux, Iakota and Cheyennes
village by surprise. The author respects Custer, but does not deny that he was not completely this innocent man attacked by dangerous Indians.Moreover, the author thinks that we should learn from his death. Actually, this event is just part of a long list of slaughters between Whites and Indians. For the author, "a truer monument, more enduring than brass or marble, would be an Indian policy intelligent, moral and efficient" (l.9 to 13). It means that a policy elaborated carefully may be more powerful than any material, and people should realize it to avoid new battles and new deaths. He came back to this idea at the end of the text : "a thorough consideration of the subject [...] would tend to spare us the constant repetition of such sorrowful events" (l.100-106). So he is convinced these deaths are avoidable.
-------------------
Modifié par lucile83 le 01-12-2014 19:05
Réponse: Text analysis 1/aide de violet91, postée le 01-12-2014 à 20:45:39 (S | E)
Hello ,
Very well done already . It looks obvious you practise good English and work with logics and quite accurate reasoning . I'll come back a little later with copying and pasting ( dinner time ) . Thank you for being patient ; I won't be long .
Réponse: Text analysis 1/aide de gerondif, postée le 01-12-2014 à 22:18:24 (S | E)
Hello,
vous savez sans doute que votre sujet rappelle un titre de livre:
Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto, is a 1969, non-fiction book by the lawyer, professor and writer Vine Deloria, Jr.(Wikipedia)
Le magazine National Gergraphic avait même publié un article où l'on analysait toutes les balles retrouvées sur place, de quelles armes elles provenaient, quelles armes étaient passées des mains des soldats aux mains des indiens....
Réponse: Text analysis 1/aide de violet91, postée le 01-12-2014 à 22:32:22 (S | E)
In 1876, the newspaper 'Harpers Weekly' published an article about the ( zero)general George Armstrong Custer, nearly two months after he lost his life in the Battle of Little Bighorn. He was killed by Indians, led by Crazy Horse and Chief Gall, at a time when a lot of + littér.)battles and slaughters between Whites and Indians were taking place in America. Thomas A. Baily and Trinity Partners reedited this text in 1991 with the title "Did Custer Die for the Whites' Sins ?". Such a title looks strange when you know that Americans wanted to help Indian people into a process of "civilization". But that is the point. Why can we level a ( abstract)criticism at the role of the Americans to "civilize" Indian people ? Custer was considered as a hero, and maybe the truth is not exactly thatclause to be turned in another way : modal /eventuality). But( another linking word ?) his death leads to think about the demeanour ( your choice ?)of Americans towards Indians over years.
The Custer's image () was ( to become/appear ?) conflictual after his death.Firstly, public opinion had been "deeply touched" (l.2) by it : he died on the battlefield, killed by a "savage Indian", during the Blackhills War, on the place ( location )of Little Bighorn ; this image shows a glorious man died for his courage (synonym)and for .... The place of the battle is even called "Custer's Last Stand" by the Americans. This name is not insignificant : it assumes(imply) that even if he lost,( to be severely defeated) Custer (aux.past perfect)resisted, and it until he died( until his very...). His wife entertained( foster) the myth of a hero. She came ( go and visit)to Frederick Whittaker with a view ( to plan -ing)to publishing a biography of Custer ( Saxon genitive , rather). He wrote '? Complete Life of George Armstrong Custer, using compliments and eulogies( right) of him. Bill Cody made a show in New York, First Scalp( punctuation) for Custer, which partook of ( contribute x)the myth of a hero died(past participle) as a martyr. So it surely helped ( modal/probabilité, certitude)to build an( definite) image of X(indefinite) "brave and gallant" man. In the public thoughts, he fought for the American progress. Actually, America was convinced of its role of expansion "imposed by God" of civilization on his( whose) territory,X( indefinite ) idea expressed in the Manifest Destiny( quote, punctuation) as John O'Sullivan, an American columnist, called it in 1845. Americans thought then ( place ?)it included the Indians, and so for them(comma) Custer was just one of the numerous men who partook of this ( wrong, pejorative: remplir ?))mission.
But it seems for the author that people were wrong : "public [...] sees only a fearless soldier leading a charge against an ambushed [lurking] foe, and falling at the head of his men and in the thick of the fray" (l.2-7). The image which comes to our minds with this sentence is the one of which we spoke earlier ; but it is to notice that the author uses the adverb "only" (l.3), which means that reality is maybe different( a modal, again). Indeed( better?), Custer is known for his hatred for Indians, and the Little Bighorn Battle took place because he wanted to attack a Sioux, Iakota and Cheyenne s(adj) village by surprise. The author respects (to have...) Custer, but does not deny that he was not completely this(the other one) innocent man attacked by dangerous Indians.
Moreover, the author thinks that we should learn from his death. Actually, this event is just part of a long list of slaughters between Whites and Indians. For the author, "a truer monument, more enduring than brass or marble, would be an Indian policy intelligent, moral and efficient" (l.9 to 13). It means that a policy elaborated carefully may be more powerful than any material, and people should realize it to avoid new battles and new deaths. He came back to this idea at the end of the text : "a thorough consideration of the subject [...] would tend to spare us the constant repetition of such sorrowful events" (l.100-106). So he is convinced these deaths ( past and present , I would say)are avoidable.
I am not sure about your use of 'the' or not before Americans ( all of them ? General? Or Those of that time?) , thoughts , public decision...)
what I just cannot imagine from you !blue colour for wrong or to be changed,improved.
- Italics : you can do better.
That is all for tonight. Hope this helps.
Cours gratuits > Forum > Forum anglais: Questions sur l'anglais
