Model answer. The three documents explore the connection between football and Englishness by showing that the national team has become a powerful symbol through which England can imagine, question and redefine itself. Football does not merely entertain supporters: it gives concrete form to debates about national belonging, multiculturalism and racism.

First, the documents present football as a strong generator of national unity. In document A, the image of the whole England team singing the national anthem suggests a shared emotional experience. The players, despite their different ethnic backgrounds, appear to embrace a common national identity. This collective moment matters because Englishness has often been difficult to define, especially since many civic institutions refer to Britain rather than England. Document B develops this idea by explaining that the men’s national football team plays a central role in English identity. The Euro 1996 tournament, the Saint George’s cross and the song Three Lions all helped supporters express a specifically English feeling. Document C also suggests unity, but in a different way: the mural of Marcus Rashford becomes a public place where people leave messages of support after racist abuse.

However, the documents do not describe a traditional or narrow form of Englishness. They insist on the emergence of a more inclusive national identity. Document A underlines the multiracial nature of the team and presents it as “distinctively English”. This is important because it challenges the idea that Englishness should be white, nostalgic or exclusive. In document B, Gareth Southgate is associated with a modern identity that people can connect with. The players are not only athletes; some of them, such as Marcus Rashford and Raheem Sterling, are also public figures who speak about racism and social issues. Football therefore becomes a stage on which a multicultural England can be seen and recognised.

Yet the documents also reveal that this inclusive identity remains contested. Document A reminds us that football has often been a focus of racism and division. Document B mentions the booing of players who took the knee, proving that anti-racist gestures can still divide supporters. Document C is the most striking example of this tension: after England’s defeat, Rashford, Sancho and Saka were targeted with racist abuse, and Rashford’s mural was vandalised. The support displayed afterwards is moving, but it also proves that racism has not disappeared.

To conclude, football both reflects and transforms Englishness. It can bring people together around a shared national story, but it also exposes unresolved conflicts. The England team embodies a more diverse and inclusive version of the nation, while the reactions it provokes show that the meaning of Englishness is still being negotiated.

Model answer. The three documents show that tourism can play a major role in South Africa’s reconstruction and development, but only if it is inclusive, respectful and sustainable. Tourism is not presented as a simple leisure industry. It is connected with nation-building, economic opportunities, cultural recognition and environmental preservation.

To begin with, tourism appears as a powerful tool for economic development. In document A, Nelson Mandela describes tourism as one of the possible corner-stones of sustained economic growth, which is essential to the building of the new South African nation after apartheid. His speech is optimistic and political: he wants South Africa to be recognised internationally for its coastlines, landscapes, biodiversity and cultural richness. Document B confirms this economic potential at a local level. In Sekhukhune, residents believe that rural heritage tourism could create jobs, reduce poverty and support small businesses. The article also stresses the importance of vocational training, especially because the local population is young and unemployment remains high.

Tourism is also presented as a means of valuing South Africa’s heritage. In Mandela’s speech, natural beauty is not enough: the country’s most valuable asset is its people. Cultural diversity, once exploited by apartheid to divide people, can become a source of strength. Document B develops the same idea by insisting on oral histories, traditional crafts, bead work, jewellery, hikes and camps. Tourism may therefore revitalise traditions and encourage respect for local cultures. Document C gives a concrete example with Bo-Kaap, a famous Cape Town neighbourhood known for its colourful houses and its history as one of the few non-white enclaves that survived forced removals.

However, the documents also underline the dangers of tourism when it is not controlled by local communities. Document B explains that tourism in Sekhukhune struggles because infrastructure is inadequate: transport, digital networks, energy, clean water and waste management are necessary. More importantly, communities must be involved because they are the custodians of cultural heritage. Document C is even more critical. Residents protest against unregulated tour buses and denounce tourism as extractive. They do not reject visitors, but they demand respect and want local people to guide tourists and earn a sustainable income.

In conclusion, tourism can contribute to South Africa’s reconstruction by creating jobs, attracting international attention and transforming cultural diversity into a national strength. Yet the dossier makes clear that tourism must not reproduce inequalities. For it to support real development, local communities must be involved, respected and economically rewarded.