This article was originally published in the Student 24/01/15. The online version can be accessed here.
“Classist gimp”, and “prejudiced wazzock”. Such are the insults levelled by James Blunt at MP Chris Bryant, for daring to suggest that the entertainment industry is disproportionately dominated by people from wealthier backgrounds. In his letter, Blunt frantically denies that he has been the beneficiary of social privilege; instead, he insists, his background worked against his success. To clarify, James Blunt attended Harrow. How we all pity him.
In Britain seven per cent of children are privately educated, with around one per cent attending boarding school. And yet with Tom Hiddleston, Eddie Redmayne, Harry Lloyd, Damian Lewis and Frank Turner all Eton alumni, and hundreds of celebrities from Lily Allen to Leona Lewis likewise attendees of prestigious private schools, you’d be forgiven for assuming that education in the UK resembles a bizarre amalgamation of Harry Potter, Downton Abbey and Glee.
So why is it that so many of the successful come from so narrow a sector of society? The bitter reality is that our elitist entertainment industry simply reflects a wider problem: modern Britain is far from meritocratic. Blunt’s wail of “classist” is therefore a particularly poignant moment of irony. While correct to point out the existence of reverse snobbery, Blunt’s claim that being mocked as “too posh” is somehow comparable to the fierce struggle faced by those without the building blocks of wealth and opportunity, which he takes for granted, is wildly out of touch. If Blunt of all people cannot recognise that he, having attended a £30,000 per year boarding school, is privileged, then there is no hope for any of us.
Blunt’s illogical stance is indicative of a pervasive, wilful refusal to admit the existence of any form of privilege due to the mistaken assumption that this would entail the denial of individual effort and achievement. Far from it. Blunt, and his fellows mentioned above, are fantastically talented and highly deserving of success. However, it is foolish to pretend that socio-economic background doesn’t have vast influence on who will succeed, when, in an entertainment industry glutted with talent from all walks of life, it is individuals from wealthy families who achieve such statistically disproportionate fame.
“Privilege” is simply a label for the fact that some begin life further forward on the starting block than others, and that this head start helps sustain them throughout their careers.
In fact, according to the Equality Trust, lack of social mobility is the only indicator of social inequality among Western nations in which Britain out-performs (or rather under-performs) even the United States. Particularly in the competitive creative industries the benefits of having attended wealthy institutions, which facilitate both academic excellence and social connections, become of increasing importance.
No-one should be made to feel ashamed of their wealthy background, but neither is it acceptable for the wealthy to blindly assume their success is down to natural talent alone. It is vital that we all take a moment to step back and gain perspective on our lives, and acknowledge that we may well be benefiting from some form of privilege, whether in terms of wealth, race, sexuality or gender. There are many out there, like Blunt, who are living in an illusionary bubble of meritocracy. It’s about time they snapped out of it.
This article was published in the Student online 18/12/14. The original can be accessed here.
The violent revolutions and military upheavals which have forged the modern constitutions of many of our European neighbours are things which Britain as a nation is extremely fortunate not to have experienced. But our gradual acquisition of democracy has also allowed us to maintain vestiges of an old parliamentary system which ought to have been abolished years ago; therefore, Ed Miliband’s election promise to replace the House of Lords with an elected chamber is both welcome and long overdue.
Miliband is right to point out how parliament reinforces London’s black-hole pull on the country’s economy; 13 per cent of Britain’s population reside in the capitol, and yet government spending on infrastructure in London is equal to that for the rest of England combined. By replacing the Lords with elected senators, regional figures both accountable to the public and able to stand up for the interests of their local communities would be placed at the heart of government.
Unfortunately, the broad experience so crucial to approving effective policy is frequently lacking in the Lords, where old career politicians never saw much of ‘the rest’ of Britain outside of their one track journey from PPE at Christchurch to their first appointment at Westminster. In contrast, by electing doctors, eminent scientists, local business people and representatives from the arts to the Lords, a range of specialist expertise could be drawn upon to ensure policy is both current and practical. The House of Lords is not only ripe for reform, but would be a far more constructive area for reform to take place than other current proposals to diffuse London’s dominance – HS2, anyone?
However, the second chamber suffers from a much broader diversity crisis than just the London Question, and to suggest that it is in any way representative or accountable in its current format is entirely laughable. We should be shocked that 92 hereditary peers (of whom 90 are male) continue to owe their seats not to ability, but to aristocratic ancestry. Conservative peers in Lords significantly outnumber those of all other parties combined, and similarly, the 26 Church of England bishops in Lords disproportionately represent a dwindling minority in an increasingly agnostic, and multi-religious population. As for the overall male to female ratio? It is a measly 6 to 1.
This is entirely unacceptable. That the majority of the Lords are extremely well educated and intelligent is not in doubt, but how can we call ourselves a democracy when our highest political offices remain dominated by an oligarchy of white, wealthy, conservative males? The House of ‘Lords’ may no longer be that of Victorian Empire, but it most certainly does not represent modern Britain. An elected senate would allow a much broader swathe of the British population to have their interests represented in the heart of legislature, and the suggestion that this is somehow too radical seems ignorant and faint-hearted in the face of the many nations with a successful elected senate.
However, after Labour’s opposition the 2010 Lib Dem attempts to reform Lords, scepticism of Miliband’s election promise comes naturally. The tuition fee fiasco in particular is still fresh in the minds of most young voters. And yet despite this, history shows that major policy reorientations are neither rare nor necessarily fraudulent. Certainly, since the Scottish referendum, nationwide calls for devolution and increased local representation have been gaining traction in parliament.
However, if in 2015 this promise does prove to be just hot air, Miliband can rest assured that today’s youngest generation of voters will feel ever more justified in their general dislike of the two major parties, and broader political apathy.
Originally published in ‘The Student’ 11/11/14. An online version can be accessed here.
888,246 is the number ceramic poppies filling the moat of the Tower of London in a new Remembrance Day art exhibition; Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red contains a flower for every British soldier who lost their life in WW1. And yet this striking tribute to the fallen has been lambasted by Jonathan Jones of the Guardian as ‘meaningless,’, ‘fake,’ and ‘UKIP style’ memorial.
It seems the meaning of the memorial has sailed merrily over Mr Jones’ head. A century may seem like an awfully long time to us, but is only just beyond living memory, and among the 20 000 British who died on the first day of the Somme were the grandfathers and even fathers of people who are still alive today. However, Jones assumes that the memorial stands only for the dead of WW1, failing to surmise that the display memorialises all our nation’s military dead since that date; a particularly impressive oversight since this is the stated purpose of the Poppy Appeal itself. Jones also suggests that the memorial is ‘inward looking’ for only memorialising the death of British citizens, likewise failing to notice that the poppy is an international symbol and thus also represents the fallen remembered by nations across the globe every Remembrance or Poppy Day.
Jones also complains of the memorial’s ‘fake nobility’, as though allowing fallen soldiers some dignity is tantamount to glorifying acts of war. Every year, soldiers give their lives to protect us. We may actively disagree with the motives behind wars such as Iraq or Afghanistan, but this belies the fact that the motives behind all wars, including WW1, are always dubious. Whether or not a war is justified does not negate the insurmountable sacrifice made by those who are prepared to lay down their lives regardless, and it is thus ignorant and insensitive to dismiss this sacrifice, even if one believes strongly in pacifism.
The vastly popular London display has caused a huge influx of visitors to the Tower itself, and is even the source of major Tube delays in the area. Yet heaven forbid that the UK should be allowed to show any semblance of national pride: Mr Jones randomly equates national unity through mourning as an example of ‘UKIP style’ sentiments. His reference to the controversial right-wing party is a ridiculous and offensive non-sequitur; while Jones no doubt means to suggest that any appearance of national consciousness will somehow send Britain spiralling down a dark path towards fascism, this conclusion is entirely impossible to sustain.
Jones is furthermore remarkably unobservant to suggest that the memorial does not represent the horrors of war. Firstly, the poppy symbolises death itself, with the entire display highly reminiscent of a river of blood, as its title unsubtly indicates. Overall, the vulnerability of the poppies reflects the vulnerability of soldiers, with their almost identical multitude showing the thoughtless brutality with which lives are swept away in war.
While using a flower as a symbol for remembering the war dead may be euphemistic, this is necessary in order to memorialise the fallen in a way which remains solemn yet is not so grotesque as to be inaccessible. The poppy thus continues to be a poignant and vital symbol of respect, which pays tribute to those who have died without glorifying their actions or war itself; the memorial perfectly captures both the importance and tragedy of this sacrifice. The fact that war is always difficult to justify only makes it all the more vital that we continue to remember those who lose their lives in the name of defending our country.
The original article was published in The Student Online on the 28/10/2014 and can be accessed here.
It’s deadly, it’s on the rise, and we’re all at risk. I’m talking about a health crisis that’s posing a much greater threat to the UK than Ebola: obesity. That the government is scurrying with studied haste to address the former while continuing to sideline the latter is laughable now, but will have dire consequences for Britain’s long term future.
Over a quarter of the adult UK population are classed as obese, which as well as having a significant impact on personal health, places vast financial strain on the NHS and the economy as a whole. But it’s not a question of smugly telling people to eat less. Biological factors can influence obesity, but another far more important factor places the fight against obesity squarely in government’s ball court: socio-economic inequality.
Widely published studies display the direct link between people’s incomes and their waistlines. Furthermore, those who shrug off the suggestion that healthy food is more affordable now have an international Harvard led study to contend with, which shows that families seeking to shop more healthily pay around £360 more per person per year. Supermarkets know that customers from higher-income backgrounds are prepared to pay more for healthy food, and adjust their prices accordingly, which reinforces the vicious cycle of unhealthy diets among those who cannot afford raised prices.
Despite much political blustering, obesity has only been addressed by the government in piecemeal fashion, which is simply unacceptable. If it is society’s collective responsibility to account for inequality, then the government has a key role to play. Firstly, education about obesity’s effects ought to be part of the school curriculum, along with a greater impetus towards enjoyable physical exercise. Secondly, universal access to affordable healthy food ought to be made a government prerogative. But how to effect this? Legislation forcing suppliers to fully display the dietary contents of products and the subsidisation of healthy food production are unlikely to have much impact. Likewise, restricting the dietary options of different demographic groups in accordance with obesity risk can be immediately dismissed as both unworkable and unpleasantly authoritarian.
Unfortunately, lowering food prices is likewise not a viable solution. Within the European Union prices are already unrealistically low; supermarket competition pushes down prices while continuing to demand such a high percentage of profit that for smaller scale farmers it is often a struggle to sell for more than the cost of production. And thus the solution to these structural issues comes back to the crux of a familiar, yet unaddressed problem: making the minimum wage a living wage.
Emphasising the structural factors is not to deny the onus of individual responsibility in maintaining a healthy weight; while biological factors should not be disregarded, by blaming all our problems on genetics we risk disempowering those whose real inability to stop overeating stems from lack of psychological support. For many obese people, addiction, depression, and other psychological issues are the fundamental causes of overeating, and thus increased government funding for counselling and support groups would also have a positive impact.
Nobody is attempting to undermine the severity of Ebola. But government assistance should be going to the people who actually need it, and whereas obesity is now a factor in over ten per cent of deaths in the UK, the likelihood of an Ebola outbreak on British shores is negligible. Thus if the actions our government are taking are in order protect the health of people in Britain, then David Cameron is barking up entirely the wrong tree.
This article was originally published in ‘The Student’ on 07/10/2014.
It can also be viewed here.
Exhibit B: a satirical human zoo featuring caged, chained and mutilated actors in scenes of silent and unmoving degradation. Intended to draw attention to black oppression, this art installation of Brett Bailey was closed last week by its hosting gallery, the Barbican, in response to a picket line of two hundred protestors and a one-thousand strong petition arguing that it furthered rather than challenged racist attitudes. Both news sources and the Barbican itself are complaining that the protestors missed the point. However, while the issue of Exhibit B’s racism itself is not clear cut, the positive example of successful peaceful public intervention is.
Featuring scenes of torture, imprisonment and sexual slavery, Exhibit B is both harrowing and horrifying. This is of course Bailey’s intention, yet prominent protestor Simon Woolley points out that while Exhibit B ‘induces white guilt, it does nothing to promote black empowerment.’ As a white Afrikaner who grew up comfortably in the Apartheid regime Brady arguably has a unique perspective on racism; however, his past also lends connotations of imperialism to the Exhibit. As the satire of the exhibit was entirely implied there was nothing to prevent a particularly twisted audience from actually enjoying the fetishisation of slavery.
If Bailey’s motives are pure then he could have challenged racism more progressively, for example by lending the actors he employed active rather than entirely passive roles. Approaching the topic of race from a more sensitive angle would certainly have been the more artistically difficult, and arguably braver option. As it stood, the gratuitous depravity of Exhibit B suggests that neither Bailey nor the Barbican had given much consideration to black audiences of the installation. It is convenient to claim a veneer of progressivity while simultaneously staging an exhibition with such blatant shock and media value; while art should be challenging, both gallery and artist ought to have noticed how Exhibit B rather oversteps this mark.
Despite complaints to the contrary, artistic freedom of expression does equate to a license to be wantonly insensitive. Galleries have the right to stage any exhibition they choose, but it is unnecessary and distasteful to promote artwork which does more to harm than promote equality. When the thorny issue of which category Exhibit B falls into began to cause protest, the choice whether or not to respond fell upon the Barbican. Perhaps the most progressive aspect of the entire situation is that they did.
Unfortunately, the Barbican has since made it clear that they did so not out of honest respect but because they felt the situation had become too unpredictable. This is offensive to the protesters themselves, who were both peaceful and entirely legal in their actions. In fact it was not even their intent to silence Bailey’s artistic creation, simply to make public their disapproval. It is the Barbican itself which chose, unnecessarily, to close Exhibit B entirely. This was neither some act of censorship by the establishment, nor a case of an angry mob oppressing a voice of dissension. This was simply a peaceful protest by local activists against something which overstepped the values of their community; a peaceful protest which met, however bizarrely, with an unexpected success.
There is therefore one undeniably positive outcome of this awkward situation. Art is intended first and foremost to be interpreted by its audience, and in this case when the audience spoke they actually had their views acknowledged. Therefore whatever our personal interpretations of Exhibit B, we should be gratified that it has demonstrated the power of peaceful, democratic action to affect societal issues.
This article was originally published in Edinburgh University’s ‘The Student’ on the 30/09/2014. It can also be accessed online here.
Climate change. We all know the risks of doing nothing, and yet we are all guilty of doing too little. After all, having heard the global warming story a thousand times before, you wouldn’t be alone in assuming the public had lost interest. And then, from this atmosphere of apparent apathy, this weekend witnessed the largest climate change protest march in history.
In Edinburgh, thousands of local activists flooded the city centre for the People’s Climate March, in order to put pressure on delegates attending the UN Climate summit in New York this week. Parallel marches in over 150 countries worldwide saw countless protestors getting involved; well over 300,000 people took to the streets of Manhattan alone, figures which put the Occupy movement into the shade. Proving once and for all that the global public are no longer prepared to let politicians sidestep environmental issues, this is clearly a climatic moment for grassroots action on climate change.
Reflecting this, the pledges made at the New York summit do give grounds for cautious hope. Suffering acutely from pollution, China has for the first time pledged to take action on global warming, although Obama still struggles with an unwilling Congress. Yet as shown by the spectacular failure of the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit, protest marches in isolation have little impact on political wrangling. Vocal organisations such as Greenpeace and innumerable studies have made it clear for years that the public support for climate action is already there. Rather, it is the recent increase in extreme weather events such as Typhoon Haiyan and Hurricane Sandy, with their devastating economic and humanitarian consequences, which finally has leaders waking up to the reality of failing to act.
Yet we simply cannot afford to wait for the rising sea levels and drought to have arrived on our doorsteps before our leaders are galvanised into action. Therefore, in order to enact reform, the public will to have to start pushing for it harder and faster than ever before. When world leaders renege on their promises, we need to keep mass campaigns like the People’s Climate March going to show them that the public will not stop demanding change.
Fortunately, the People’s Climate March is by no means the only environmental action currently making headlines. Across the world, the campaign for fossil fuels divestment – the withdrawal of funds from fossil fuels investments – is picking up speed. In a striking and symbolic move, the heirs to the Rockefeller oil fortune divested from fossil fuels this week. In Britain, Oxfordshire County Council and the British Medical Association are leading the way. The University of Glasgow may soon follow suit; however, despite pressure from student action groups, the University of Edinburgh is hesitating on the brink of action. Stalling such as this from institutions everywhere is why we cannot let the momentum of the moment slide.
Protest marches do a crucial job in raising awareness, and proving to politicians that climate change is still very much on the minds of voters is arguably half the battle. However, the unfortunate truth is that governments remain too self-interested to take action on climate change until the consequences become too real, and too painful, to ignore. Politicians may finally be waking up to reality, but we need grassroots action to keep them on their toes until actual change, and not just the will to change, is visible through genuine action throughout the establishment.
Published in The Student Online 20/09/2014. It can also be read here.
Since the death of Ian Paisley last Friday, the former First Minister of Northern Ireland, he has had his political record lauded across the establishment, including by David Cameron. Yet this has perhaps painted the monolith of Unionist politics in a more magnanimous light than he deserves. After all, the tangled history of Northern Ireland is undeniably one of atrocities committed on both sides, and we should not forget how Paisley helped prolong the conflict, despite his eventual move to heal those wounds. As founder and leader of the dominant Democratic Unionist Party, Paisley was an instrumental figure during the Troubles, with his hard-line stance standing in the way of democratic progress. His campaign against the peaceful partnership proposed by the Sunningdale Agreement of 1973 arguably provoked one of the bloodiest attacks of the conflict, and this is merely a single case where his pigheadedness reinforced the brutal deadlock suffered by Northern Ireland for decades. As a strong advocate of both religious intolerance and the criminalisation of homosexuality, Paisley also held many personal opinions entirely anathema to the values of the United Kingdom today. Yet on the wake of his death both his bigotry and his political failings are being brushed under the carpet, in what initially appears an unreasonably rose-tinted move.
However, Paisley’s shortcomings are overshadowed by a startling turnaround towards the end of his career, that constituted a significant contribution to securing a peaceful future for Northern Ireland. In 2005 Paisley’s DUP entered a coalition with Sinn Féin, allowing the second largest party into government for the first time. This was both a difficult and morally ambiguous decision due to Sinn Féin’s close links with the IRA, the republican terrorist organisation responsible for much bloodshed. But by co-operating with Sinn Féin Paisley was instrumental in creating what a century of conflict had failed to achieve – a Northern Ireland where both unionist and republican views are respected in politics. Paisley’s Sinn Féin coalition proved that the obstinate and prejudiced establishment had finally conceded that however morally indefensible the actions of the opposition, it would be foolish, dangerous and undemocratic to continue to ignore the voice of republicanism.
We should be grateful that even a man as militant and unreasonable as Paisley had the moral courage, at the crucial moment, to put his beliefs behind him in order to secure peace and stability for his country. After so many decades of violence, his decision was undoubtedly for the greater good. Paisley may have been small-minded, but whereas his bigoted beliefs belong to a different era, it is his legacy to Northern Ireland which matters today. Neither side involved in the Troubles is guiltless, but it took one man to concede to compromise in order to put those troubles behind. It was thus correct of Cameron to laud the achievements of Paisley’s career without dragging up his earlier failings. A generation on from the Troubles, we can only regret that both sides did not lay down their weapons sooner. Northern Ireland today is by no means a politically united country, but it is a stable and relatively peaceful one. And for that, we have Paisley’s legacy to be thankful for.
Published in University of Edinburgh’s ‘The Student’ on 15/10/2013
Take a minute to imagine something: Chris Brown grinding against a wall while wearing only his underwear; Olly Murs rolling on the floor, in a see-through spangled leotard; Flo Rida, slut dropping and slapping his ‘big booty’. These make utterly bizarre and inappropriate images – and yet for women in the music industry, this sort of behaviour is all par for the course. Fortunately however, this issue is at last getting the attention it deserves.
In response to Miley Cyrus’ infamous hammer-licking video for Wrecking Ball, Sinead O’Connor last week urged the young singer not to let herself be ‘prostituted’ by the music industry. Claiming to do so out of concern, O’Connor also acknowledged Miley’ talent, but her advice was not taken gladly and Miley justly lost much public sympathy after mocking O’Connor’s former mental health struggles on twitter. Coupled with her controversial VMA performance last month, this has secured Miley’s place as the current focus of debate about the sexual objectification of women in the music industry.
There can be no doubt that the sexually explicit performances of Miley and other artists not only reinforce the vicious cycle of exploitation within the industry, but encourage the objectification and degradation of women in everyday life by teaching young adults that a girl’s sex appeal is more valuable than her personality. Yet Miley’s staunch defence of her behaviour suggests that perhaps surprisingly, she is no victim of a management determined, as O’Connor’s says, to ‘pimp out’ their fresh new talent. Presumably in full control of the provocative material she produces, her goal is clearly both to gain as much media coverage as possible and to distance herself from her squeaky-clean past as Hannah Montana, by portraying herself as an ‘adult’.
So why have Miley’s attempts to ‘own’ her sexuality provoked so much outrage, when Rihanna, Britney and others are similarly provocative without comment? On the surface, it seems down to the fact that Miley’s overt determination to be outrageous comes across as obnoxious, but there’s also something more sinister at work here – the virgin-whore complex still displayed by parts of society. This is essentially the misogynistic categorisation of women who express their sexuality in any way as ‘whores’ or ‘sluts’. It’s interesting to note that while Miley’s self-degrading performances are promoting the cycle of internalised misogyny, so too are her critics by slut-shaming women who express their sexualities in ways they don’t like. Many of the attacks on Miley stem from objection to her transition from the ‘good’, virginal Disney star into the ‘bad’ sexually active performance artist. This is of course ridiculous; Cyrus is a grown woman with the right to control her own body. But it doesn’t change the fact that the way she chooses to demonstrate her control has crossed a line, to the point where she’s paradoxically promoting the very attitude she’s trying to transcend.
It’s depressing that stripping off and twerking is what female artists believe will bring them popularity and respect, but we must consider who it is that has taught them this lesson. As the consumers of pop culture, our attitude is a major part of the problem. The more the public welcomes artists whose ‘talent’ is clearly down to how much flesh they put on display rather than the quality of their voice, the more the industry will provide them.
If we want the exploitation of women in the music industry to end, then we’re going to have to stop listening, and start doing the talking. In an ideal society, the public wouldn’t judge Miley Cyrus for choosing what to do with her body. But more importantly, in an ideal society, Miley Cyrus wouldn’t need to be sexually provocative with her body in order to get attention in the first place.
Before I read this book, I knew literally nothing of China’s history. And by nothing, I mean ‘Er, there were some emporers, a dude called Mao who killed a whole bunch of peasants, and a couple of hundred pandas’.
So yeah, pretty much nothing.
I decided it was high time I attempted to fill this hilarious gap in my knowledge, since the people of this fascinating land constitute, oh, only about 1/5 of the entire world population.
Despite the fact that this book was staggeringly long, (though really, for a history of such a huge country it was ridiculously short) it had me absolutely gripped from start to finish. It was incredible. Part of this down to the fact that Keay’s analysis fantastically brought the history to life. Most of it was due to the history itself being utterly edge of your seat gripping. The murders at court, the political intrigues, the flowering culture, the epic battles on insane scales – China’s history is nothing if not exciting.
At the start of the book, John Keay goes straight in there with the mythbusting. Why is it that historians always insist on shattering my childhood illusions?
List of Lies:
1) You can see the Great Wall from space? Don’t make me laugh. We have Ripley’s Curi-oddities to thank for that ridiculous urban myth (and I used to believe those books and everything!).
2) On the subject of the Great Wall, it’s not unbroken either. Neither is it, or has it ever been, a boundary of China. All those big stone bits? They’ve been rebuilt just for you to look at. Most of it’s kinda falling down…
3) The Long Canal… is not one canal. It’s lots of canals. Sorry if you were going to try and kayak the whole thing.
4) You may have heard of Mao’s Long March as a triumph of Mao’s awesomeness – in true Moses like style he led his Communist followers to salvation halfway across China, all the while under heavy fire from the Nationalists. What a hero!
Actually, they should rename it Mao’s ‘I Was Carried On a Litter the Entire Way and Was So Bad at Navigating That We All Got Lost Multiple Times so it took us a Whole Year and No there Weren’t any Nationalists Firing At Us, Sorry I Lied, but Who Cares, because All of China is MINE!’
5) This isn’t a myth bust… but guess how much it costs to lease out a panda for a year. Just one panda… for one year.
2 MILLION DOLLARS!
Sorry if you wanted to start a zoo.
History to the Chinese
I was not entirely surprised to discover that Chinese history books have themselves had four entire rewrites in the past century alone. I was, however, astonished to discover how highly the Chinese value their history.
Whenever new dynasties or ideas came to hold power, they would do so not by claiming to be heralding a new age, but by using the past as a legitimiser. Instead of wanting to look forward, and be original, in China it was crucial to look back to the past, and attempt to emulate the incredible deeds and noble regimes to be found there. As far as the Chinese were concerned, things were only going downhill from here, and the better you wanted to be, the more you had to act like they did in olden times.
History is appreciated in China as an incredibly powerful tool, and at any particular time needs to be presented in different ways to make the ruling powers look as good as possible. This means that many historical events and characters often flip between good and bad in their official representation.
In legend for example, there is a story of a girl called Meng Jiangnu who stood up to the first emporer, and brought down the Great Wall with her tears. She is normally considered a popular hero. However, under Mao’s rule, Meng was likened to counter-revolutionaries who wished to topple the communist regime, and she was cast in culture as repulsive, the story attacked and deemed invalid. Confucianism also became under attack from the Communist Party in 1974 because Confucius’ reactionary teachings were being associated with the politician Lin Biao who they were toppling from favour.
History in China has always been of utterly vital importance, and they’ve been recording their own history for millenia. Old Chinese histories have been poured over through the centuries with the same reverance as for religious texts. There have been huge beuracracies in place under Chinese emporers with officials court historians writing down every little detail pretty much ever since the Chinese have had emporers. And that’s been 2000 years.
This seems to me incredibly bizarre, coming from a country infamous during the Dark Ages for where apart from a couple of monks, no-one wrote down a single blasted thing. ‘History?’ thought the battling Picts, the Saxon peasants and the angry Viking invaders, ‘Pah! History is for wimps… and historians’, and with that they all got back to stabbing eachother. Meanwhile, in China, everyone was practising calligraphy and painting pictures of bamboo shoots.
So, you’d think that this wealth of Chinese history would be great, because we can find out all about China, since they’ve helpfully been writing it down for ever. Right?
There’s just one problem.
In the past 100 years or so, more and more archaelogical evidence has been coming to light – evidence which often utterly conflicts with what used to be the standard, accepted view of Chinese history. This is the idea that China has been a single civilisation under fairly autonomous and continuous rule for over 3000 years, and that as a civilisation it and its culture expanded outwards over the years from the central northern plain. Evidence from the ground suggests that this is not the case – rather, different cultures and communities developed and evolved in different regions, some very far from the traditional Chinese heartland. The bronze age dynasties written about by history such as the Xia, if they did actually exist, would only have ruled over a small area – and it might not even have been the ‘right’ area.
For many years the Chinese government weren’t happy about this at all, because the traditional view is that Empire= Good, Random Little Countries= Bad. They even went so far as to hiding or ignoring discoveries which discredited traditional ideas (which I find pretty shocking). More recently, however, these newer ideas (which unsurprisingly were often touted by foreigners) have become more widely accepted.
Some people have even started to question whether empire should even be considered a good thing, which had never even occured to me. Arguably, culture flourishes better under regional rule, and without a neurotic central power attempting to control everything , people may have led better lives. Personally, I can’t imagine that humans in general will ever stop seeing ancient empires as the more impressive historical alternative; I think it’s part of human nature to see huge regimes bringing shared ideals and autonomy as something glorious to be aspired to.
Unless of course the empire is Persian and you’re watching 300.
However, the finds don’t always disagree with the writings. Take the terracotta army for example – this almost unbelievable find had been written about by China’s grand historian Sima Qian of the 1st Century BC. This has led some historians to be more believing of some of the claims Sima made which have previously seemed more than a little outlandish: for example that the First Emporer’s tomb contains flowing rivers of mercury, and that once coming across a hill in his path, he had it stripped bare and painted red – a sign of criminality. What I believe is that if the man was capable of burying an army of clay men, then why not of painting a whole hill too?
This still leaves the impossible question: How to reconcile the written histories of China with the newer archaeological evidence? It doesn’t seem like anything you’d ever be able to do to me until we have exhausted all possible sources of evidence – maybe China will just have to have two separate histories written about it from now on. John Keay goes a little way towards addressing this problem, suggesting for example that discovered communities of Longshan may be tenously equated to the mystical Xia dynasty.
As it is however, it is impossible to distinguish how long ‘China’ has infact been ‘China’. Some historians would claim that 3/4 of Chinese recorded history has been continuous and coherent – well really, it’s all to easy to slash that number to 1/4 and less. There have been large periods of general battling in Chinese history – most famously the ancient Warring States and Spring and Autumn periods in about 500-200BC, which ended with the first establishment of the first Empire, the Three Kingdoms period after the collapse of the Eastern Han dynasty in 220AD, and the 5 Dynasties and 10 Kingdoms period after the collaps of the Tang dynasty in about 900AD. Can you count these bits as part of the continuous timeline? Do you count in the large periods where dynastic control, though still officially ‘there’, was waning and barely tangible? Where do you start and end your timeline? And which ethnic groups do you even count as Chinese, for heaven’s sake?
I had no idea it would all be so confusing.
Despite this, it is true that (unlike what I’m used to reading about in European history where empires are constantly crumbling) in a sense, the Chinese empire never actually truly falls…until, of course, it does, in 1912.
Oh yes, dynasties fall, over and over again, and parts of the empire are always being overrun by rebels and Mongols and declaring themselves separate empires… but this idea of ‘China’ in some ways never actually ceases to exist. When one dynasty crumbled, the Heavenly Mandate – ie, the bumper sticker declaring ‘I Am the Official Dynasty’ – was simply transefered to the next ruling family. Or at least the one that appeared to be ruling more of China than everyone else… even when that family was headed by Mongols (and it happened more than once). Thus the empire continued. It may have continued in an extremely jumbled, heavily contested fashion… but I guess you could then argue that at least it did continue.
And who decided, often after they’d all ended which dynasties had in fact been the legitimate ones?
Ah well, that’d be the historians of course. 😉
Tangent Alert: Bonus Red Cliff Review
In 208 AD, during the fall of the Han dynasty, the three warring kingdoms of Shu, Wu and Wei battled it out for control of the Chinese empire. Shu and Wu (and their respective leaders Liu Bei and Sun Quan) formed an alliance against Cao Cao’s Wei in the North (stereotypically portrayed as a baddie in the movie). The battle of Red Cliff which followed went down as one of the pivotal moments in Chinese history.
I figured I’d now actually have enough contextual knowledge to understand and appreciate these awesome events in movie form, and decided to reward myself by watching John Woo’s *historical* epic Red Cliff.
Of course, it was also a thinly veiled excuse to watch a load of attractive Asian men beat the crap out of eachother.
Although it didn’t stop me from loving the film, at first I thought my Western brain was going to drown under the multitudes of Chinese characters. Frequent referal to the plot synopsis on Wikipedia kept me on top of the storyline, but even then I gave up trying to classify secondary characters as anything more than ‘good’, ‘evil’ or ‘irritating love interest’.
Guess which category she falls into.
In fact, it proved far more fun to interpret everything as a tragic love triangle between Sun Quan and the viceroy Zhou Yu who were clearly vying for the attentions of Liu Bei’s lead strategist Zhuge Liang. This wasn’t difficult, as they kept exchanging heavy, intense gazes to the strains of suspiciously romantic sounding music. Not to mention the ten minute scene where they do nothing other than play zithers and stare longingly at eachother in the candlelight. 😉
Unrequited sexual tension…
As far as seriously epic fight scenes go, this film is a must – it was pretty awe-inspiring. As well as a gutsy heroine for me to cheer on, there was even an ancient chinese equivalent of Gimli, ie. short, hairy, growls a lot and kicks arse.
It still only counts as one!
All the men in the film seemed to possess god like powers of awesomeness. There’s this one scene where a dude goes full on Bruce Lee and takes out a whole contingent of soldiers with this one pole, all the while with a new born baby strapped to his back. On top of this, they all have these brilliant top knots which stay absolutely perfectly coiffed no matter how many bloody battle scenes they power through.
Oh, and though she doesn’t appear in this film, guess who else is supposed to have been riding around China kicking butt at this point in history?
Have you ever thought that instead of having a scheduled re-election, we should just execute David Cameron? Ever daydreamed about Michael Gove rehauling the education system and modelling it after the Spartans? Think that imprisoned criminals who place a strain on the resources of society should simply be rounded up and publicly fed to lions?
Well it’s your lucky day, because this is the perfect book for you!
The front cover shows a gladiator trampling the bodies of a load of dead chavs. They say don’t judge a book by its cover, but hey, this cover is pretty much a bang on representation of the book’s contents. In fact, after reading the book, I can’t help wonder if the particular scenario detailed on the front isn’t a treasured fantasy of the authour Peter Jones himself.
Vote for Caeser is essentially an utterly unabashed and highly transparent excuse for Mr Jones to rant on about everything he thinks is wrong with modern day Britain. While it’s very entertaining, I did think the book could have done with a little more focus on the history, and comparisons with modern day, and a little less angry…angrying.
Then again, who am I to diss someone for letting off steam in their writing? 😉 It’s not like the book is serious anyway. (Sorry, Peter. I know your opinions are very serious.)
In essence, Mr Jones would like to persuade you all that if we only followed the examples of the ancient greeks and romans, we could easily fix many of the problems which bug our society today – family breakdown, rising criminality, tax evasion, etc etc.
The ancient Athenians didn’t pay taxes – instead they expected the rich to pay for their festivals and warships. Imagine if we could get the rich in our society to fund the public sector (thus making it the private sector…er…) instead of us all paying, and them evading? The Greeeks and Romans also were entirely religiously tolerant – who made their gods any better than anyone elses? And, in the words of Cicero, if you start waging Holy War in defence of your religion – thus suggesting that your gods need protection from you – doesn’t that mean you’re basically admitting that your gods are a little bit crap? (Terrorists, take note.)
However, while many of the points Jones made were extremely good ones, I did get the impression that he was looking at classical civilisation through ever so slightly rose tinted goggles. Because frankly, much as I love it, I really don’t think the ancient world had all the answers.
Take foreign diplomacy, for example.
For one of his main points, Jones argues that for all we like to think that our country is a democracy, its really little better than an oligarchy. My first thought was a slightly defensive ‘Hey!’ My second thought was ‘Oh…right.’
You can absolutely understand where he’s coming from. The very meaning of democracy – power kratos to the people demos – would only effectively be put into action if every single government decision was decided on by referendum. Which it obviously isn’t. Our electoral system means that the parties the plebiscate vote for are not actually the ones that end up in power (alternative vote, anyone?). Furthermore, the vast majority of politicians in Commons (and lets not even mention the House of Lords) do not exactly represent all swathes of society do they (sorry, Dave). Not forgetting of course all the deep seated corruption between the politicians, the media, and probably a whole load of bankers. How many people in the UK feel represented by the people that really hold the power in this country? Not many, Jones is willing to bet, and I must say I agree.
So far, so good. Now, if we want true democracy, says Jones, we should be looking at ancient Athens. There, every single decision was decided on by a vote by all the citizens. I don’t think it’s ever going to happen to the 21st century UK but I can agree that a democracy in this style would in many ways be much fairer and more, well, democratic. That was how to run a state! Imagine how much purer and simpler British politics would be if when politicians no longer had a popular mandate, they were ostracised! If only we all lived 2500 years ago, where everyone had a say in government!
Everyone… as long as you weren’t a slave… or a freed slave… or a woman…. or a child… or a resident alien… and you owned property… and you had had military training.
Which means less than 20% of the population.
To be fair to Jones, he argues that we cannot judge Athenian democracy by modern standards – to them all of the non-citizens frankly did not count as equal human beings anyway, so the idea that they would be allowed a say in government was a moot point. Everyone considered a real ‘person’ was allowed a say, the collective ‘people’ had utter and total control over their city, and thus it was a pure democracy. The people did not simply obey the law, they were the law.
However I disagree with Jones – if the rule of law is entirely subject to the will of the people, is that really a good thing? I believe that the law should transcend society, but in a pure democracy, the rules of society could be turned on its head at any time. Elements of law that I at least would equate with basic morality – don’t murder, don’t steal, etc – would be at the whim of an angry mob. Perhaps such a democracy would in fact run itself into destruction.
Secondly, for his argument about the citizens. You could say that before the 1918 Representation of the People Act, the UK was just as much a true democracy as ancient Athens. Similarly, everyone considered a real ‘person’ by society was allowed a say in government, because poor people and women didn’t count. But no-one goes round trumpeting how wonderful 19th century UK democracy was (or no-one I’ve met at least) because the very fact that vast majority of the population was not allowed to vote … just like ancient Athens… makes it far less democratic.
If we judge our democracy by the standards of a *genuine* democracy (just as Jones does when he pronounces the UK an oligarchy), why should Athens, also a highly ‘civilised’ people with a distinct culture, be treated any differently? Neither, in my opinion, were ‘pure’ democracies at all.
Now I’m not trying to be a ‘Whiggish’ historian who thinks that today’s UK is the epitome of awesome, and that everything has been building up to this moment of glory *snorts of hilarity*. But neither do I think that the problems Jones addresses anywhere near outweigh the vast, vast leaps forwards our country has made.
I mean, in Rome, they crucified Christians and fed prisoners to wild animals for fun – how is that better than what we’ve got now? The abolisment of slavery, the emancipation of women, free education, and the NHS to name but a few, are things which I am unashamedly proud of in the UK today.
(Mittens Romneyshambles, please take note of that NHS one.)
Jones makes a fascinating point when he remarks that Rome and Athens did a lot of things far more efficiently than we do. However, I think that the things that we have right, right now, are the things that actually matter… things I reckon we should be grateful for next time we want to moan about the benefit system or the failure of public spending.
Maybe I’m just a patriot. Maybe I’m too young and am ignoring all our faults. But the way I see it, the things we actually do have right are fundamental, and a whole lot more important than Bread and Circuses.
What Maddy Thought Next 