ThE MESSENGER - Franco-American School of New York

6
U.S. & World
Le Mexique: Plus Qu’un Burrito!
Par Iona Sobral ’15
Tout le monde a probablement
déjà entendu parler, vu ou mangé un
burrito dans sa vie. C’est un plat, soidisant
le plus connu du Mexique, qui
est composé d’une tortilla (crêpe de
maïs) et de viandes, salades, riz, etc…
mélangés à l’intérieur.
Pour ma part, je viens de passer
cinq ans au Mexique, profitant du
soleil, de la plage, de la jungle, des
pyramides, du soleil, de l’humidité et
des moustiques (si, si !) sans jamais entendre
parler de « burrito ».
Nous avons pourtant, ma
gourmandise et moi, profité (peut être
trop ) de tous les plats typiques possibles
et imaginables… Plongée, donc,
en plein dans ce mystère, je me suis
mise à farfouiller sur internet. J’ai fini
par découvrir la seule, l’unique vérité.
Laissez-moi vous raconter l’histoire…
Au nord du Mexique, près de
la frontière avec les Etats-Unis, vivait
Juan Mendez. Ce méxicain était un
fervent adepte de cuisine typique de
son pays et tenait un petit restaurant
où il vendait sa spécialité : le « tacos »,
en fait une tortilla garnie de viande,
souvent accompagnée de riz, de salade
et de purée d’haricots noirs (aussi nommée
« frijoles »). Or ce mets devenait
de plus en plus populaire, notamment
parmi les voisins du Mexique, dans
le Texas. Juan, soucieux de répondre
aux demandes des deux pays, acheta
un petit âne -ou « burrito », en espagnol
- pour traverser la frontière et,
pour garder la nourriture chaude lors
Ma rc h 2013
du voyage, il mit toute la nourriture
dans la tortilla et l’entoura de papier.
Les clients, ravis de cette nouvelle
idée, décidèrent de nommer
cette nouvelle recette « burrito » en
l’honneur du petit âne qui transportait
la nourriture sur son dos. Le
burrito était né !
C’est sans doute cet échange
qui initia le développement d’une
nourriture mi mexicaine mi américaine,
connue aujourd’hui dans le
monde entier sous le nom de Tex-Mex
(pour raccourcir Texas-Mexique).
Mais le burrito n’est pas le
seul cliché que l’on trouve à propos
du Mexique, et je me dois de vous
mettre dans le vrai. NON, les mexicains
ne se baladent pas à dos d’âne
dans la rue (ou alors dans les petits
pueblos). NON, personne ne fait la
sieste allongé sur un cactus avec un
immense chapeau. Je tiens d’ailleurs à
signaler que les cactus ont des épines
très piquantes, et que personne de sensé
n’irait se planter volontairement des
épines dans le dos.
Mais OUI on peut encore rencontrer
trois mariachis sous leur sombrero
dans les rues de Mexico prêts
à vous pousser la chansonnette pour
30 ou 50 pesos et OUI à chaque coin
de rue on peut s’offrir une délicieuse
tortilla de maïs blanc ou bleu fourrée
de fleurs de courgettes ou encore du
délicieux fromage de Oaxaca. Le Mexique
est un pays avec une culture, une
histoire et une nature incroyables que
je vous invite à visiter, sans sortir des
sentiers battus, bien sûr !
Freedom of Speech More Complicated Than It Seems
By Josephine Kehm ’15
Watch what you say, even if you’re allowed to
say it. You never know who is listening.
Freedom of speech is a right given to most
people in the world and in the case of the United
States it is protected under the Constitution. This
right is fairly basic and seems innocent, but what
many don’t realize is that it can also be dangerous.
Restrictions have been put in place to ensure
maximum security. The First Amendment does not
protect citizens’ rights to certain kinds of speech such
as: that which poses a “clear and present danger” (will
this speech present a dangerous situation), “fighting
words” (will this speech spoken face to face inflame
a certain danger), and “obscenity.” The decision that
“obscene” material is not protected under the First
Amendment is just one of many examples of how complicated
the issue is. Who defines what is obscene
These restrictions to the First Amendment
have not stopped the continuous debate over whether
or not the freedom to speak should be limited or even
if this right is dangerous in the first place.
Some of you may remember that in 2010 the
American Reverend Terry Jones threatened to burn
the Koran, proclaiming that Islam is heretical. Saying
this obviously provoked the Islamic community. Some
also claimed that his statements endangered troops
in Afghanistan and other countries where American
forces were based. Reverend Jones defended himself
by saying that his First Amendment rights protected
him. This is technically true but what he was saying
was provoking a danger to numerous lives and
was inflaming a possible conflict between the Unites
States and other Islamic countries, his critics claimed.
This man has the right to believe what he wanted, as
radical as it may seem, but creating danger for others
is not the same right.
On September 11th, 2012, Christopher Stevens,
the United States ambassador in Libya, and
three others were murdered. The attack has since been
deemed an act of terrorism, but initially the motivation
for the murders was believed to be revenge for
an inflammatory video uploaded in the United States
that portrayed the Muslim prophet Mohammed as
an evil person causing great suffering.
How was Ambassador Stevens implicated in
this Of course he had nothing to do with the video.
He was just the American representative in an Islamic
country. At the time, though, it was believed that he
received the brutal treatment from Muslims who were
offended by the video. And while those killers were of
course condemned for their actions, many still turned
to this video and sought to vilify its creator.
It should be noted and reemphasized that
the Muslim community did not want Stevens dead;
it was in fact Libyans who found him still breathing
and attempted to save his life. After the murder,
demonstrators in Libya held signs that read, “Chris
Stevens was a friend to All Libyans,” “Thugs are killers
/ don’t represent Benghazi /nor Islam,” and “Sorry
people of America this is not the behavior of our Islam
or Prophet.”
This is just one example, though. The problem
with freedom of speech is that one can post
something provocative in a flash and someone’s life
can also be taken in a flash. But citizens’ rights are
crucial and should not be restricted without very
careful thought.
Freedom of speech should be limited when it is provocative
and might possibly cause an eruption of war
between two countries. Stevens’ murderers deserve to
face consequences, but many also claimed that, in the
first place, the murderers were provoked on purpose
by someone in the US, in which case should this person
face consequences as well for creating this whole
mess On the one hand, it would seem fair if they
did, because someone has to pay for Stevens’ death
for the sake of his family. On the other hand, did the
creator of the video really create this whole mess
The restrictions to certain freedoms of speech
are generally a good idea, and their boundaries can
be augmented. Each case that will arise involving this
intricate topic will have its own particulars, and, depending
on the court, a different consequence. Overall
freedom of speech is not something people should
take advantage of because our ancestors have fought
long and hard for us to acquire this right but not with
the intention of abusing its power.