Was kann ich an dieser "cartoon analysis" noch verbessern?
Ich habe gerade als Übung für mein Englisch Abitur eine "Cartoon Analysis" geschrieben, und würde mich freuen wenn ihr mir ein paar Verbesserungstipps geben könntet.
Trump Commiserates With Angela Merkel:
By Patrick Chappatte, published on Tuesday, October 30, 2018
The cartoon "Trump Commiserates With Angela Merkel", was published on Tuesday, October 30, 2018 in the New York Times, and deals with US-president Donald Trumps immigration policy, specifically his plan of building a wall between Mexico and the US, in order to keep undocumented immigrants out of the country. The cartoonists name is Patrick Chapette.
In the foreground of the cartoon, you can recognize Trump by his typical suit with a red tie, his uniquely styled blond hair and the "okay" sign that he is doing. In a chair across from him, sits the German chancellor Angela Merkel, who can be identified by her facial features and her haircut. Trump has a speech bubble above his head, which reads "YOU GUYS IN BERLIN HAD A TERRIFIC WALL". In the backround behind Trumps chair on the left side, there is a US-flag, and behind Angela Merkel, there is a German one.
In the cartoon, Trump states that the Berlin Wall was "terrific", even though by society at large it is generally seen as a symbol of opression. Clearly, the cartoonist is trying to imply, that the Berlin Wall and the wall that Trump wants to built on the US-Mexican border are similar. Because the cartoonist is drawing that comparisson, it is to be assumed that Patrick Chappette is very critical towards Trumps plan.
In my opinion, Patrick Chapettes point comes across fairly well trough the cartoon, because the Berlin Wall is very well known, and almost universally seen as negative. Although the comparison is hampered a little by the fact, that the Berlin Wall was built to keep citizens in East Berlin from LEAVING the GDR, unlike the wall that Trump wants to built, which is supposed to keep foreigneers from ENTERING the US. Nevertheless, there are also a lot of similarities, like the brutal methods that Trump wants to use, to make sure that the border is protected, going so far as to shoot people before they can cross it. (Whitch is comparable to the methods the GDRs government used.) Furthermore, I think the cartoon is easy to understand, because the politicians that are portrayed, are made very recognizable by of the characteristics that I have listed in my discription of the cartoon. Finally, I agree with the opinion of the author regarding Trumps immigration policy. To my mind, it is inhumane and xenophobic. If people are willing to risk their lifes to cross a border, be it too escape a country of to enter another, the government should focus on improving the situation in those countrys, that have unbearable living conditions. They should give refugees shelter instead of hindering them from crossing the border by all means necessary
4 Antworten
Ich finde deine Analyse inhaltlich sehr gut gelungen. Das Mauerprojekt an der mexikanischen Grenze erinnert sehr an Berliner Mauer. Das einzige worauf ich achten würde, sind Grammatikfehler. Ansonsten stellst du sehr gut dar, welche Rolle Mauer aktuell und in Vergangenheit in der Geschichte dieser beiden Länder spielen.
Das ist mir spontan aufgefallen, bin aber auch kein Englisch-Profi, bitte nochmals nachkontrollieren :-)
Inhaltlich finde ich es gut und treffend beschrieben wie auch interpretiert.
---------------
The cartoonists (cartoonist's) name is Patrick Chapette. (In der Einleitung hast du ihn anders geschrieben?)
the "okay" sign (OK gesture?)
behind Trumps (Trump's) chair
is drawing that comparisson (comparison)
fairly well trough (through) the cartoon,
(Whitch (which) is comparable to the methods
in my discription (description) of the cartoon.
If people are willing to risk their lifes (lives)
Eine kleine Verbesserung wäre der Berühmte Genitiv-Apostroph in Zeile 4 bei "Trump's" - oh, ich merke gerade, das setzt sich fort, letzte Zeile des dritten Absatzes! Also schau da nochmals drüber!!
Ansonsten, inhaltich, finde ich, erfasst du die Sache sehr gut und stellst auch die beabsichtigten Widersprüchlichkeiten - Zwecke der beiden Mauern- sehr gut dar!
bin mir nicht ganz sicher aber muss man bei der analyse nicht immer die ing-form verwenden also wenn man was im cartoon beschreibt? also z.b. trump is stating anstatt states