Why History?

We seem to have an extraordinary obsession with history in the UK. We as a nation have an insatiable penchant for historical pulp fiction novels and costume-dramas on TV. Companies such as the National Trust and English Heritage turn over hundreds of millions of pounds each year and own large tracts of land all over the country. Whether or not this phenomenon is apparent in Europe or elsewhere abroad I am not sure, but certainly the British seem to enjoy examining the past.
Some historians are critical of this amateur love for history, and are aggrieved at the way in which the ‘dumbing down’ of history depreciates its true value. This is undoubtedly true for those who see history as a purely academic subject or who wish to keep history locked away in dusty libraries and archive rooms in museums. And, indeed, this method of studying history in an academic and ‘true’ way, following outlined precepts and principles should not be derided. Exclusive and inflexible it may be, but it nevertheless produces the main of our academic history, which is the base of all historical knowledge.
However, history is not an exclusive and academic subject, for which one must go to university in order to study it simply because it is not important that students of the discipline follow rigid guidelines of learning, unlike students of mathematics or psychology. Whilst basic skills must be understood to comprehend history, such as chronology and basing assertions of fact rather than fancy, much of the learning comes from experiencing rather than reading or being taught history. Thankfully educational institutions were the first to recognise this, although not without facing much hostility, and many history courses are becoming more and more interactive and personalised, with emphasis placed upon individual learning rather than theory teaching.
As well as a change in attitude towards conventional historical study i.e. degrees and PhDs there has been a there has been a massive rise in the number of genealogy and ancestry courses and literature available either on-line or as local groups. Many newsagents stock up to as many as 10 different history or genealogy related magazines (although this figure is put to shame by the number of magazines available featuring cars or even angling!).
The reasons for this national obsession are manifold. Firstly, as a European nation we have a lot of historical evidence to examine and study. Unlike American and African nations, what Europeans left behind has lasted and is well documented. Only Asian civilisations have achieved the same or even better levels of historical remains. Buildings, cities and writings that survive are of immense value to historians, and make the job or writing or studying history so much easier. The fact that African and North American nations tended to be migratory, and also that many African and American civilisations were simply wiped out or made subservient to white Imperialists in the 17^th, 18^th and 19^th centuries has meant that little documented evidence of their cultures and customs remains.
Secondly, British history is a fascinating and, for the most part, glorious tale of a nation that has many clearly visible ways of how the past has shaped its present and future. Henry VIII’s break with Rome, Charles I’s execution, William of Orange’s ‘Glorious Revolution’, the Act o0f the Union between England and Scotland and Cook’s claiming of Australia for Britain are all examples of how British history has direct implications upon British nationhood today, and how our future as a country will pan out. Very few countries have the ability to look at the past with such clarity and assess each piece of history with such accuracy.
Finally, British history is interesting. Undoubtedly the French have a fascinating historical story to tell, but the variety and vibrancy of British history must surely steal the show. Events such as 1066 and William the Conqueror, the Wars of the Roses, the Civil War and the British Empire have such a multiplicity of stories and characters that make the events seem so much more worthwhile to study. This may appear to be a narrow-minded viewpoint, and there will be many who disagree. Indeed, studying history would be worthless without an examination of the American War of Independence, the French Revolution, Communist Russia and Nazi Germany, as these are undeniably key points on which much of the world’s history hinges. Nevertheless, I still maintain that Britain is fortunate to have such a wide ranging and varied history as make any study of it seem so much more worthwhile, and this is surely why so many people seem to have an affinity and fascination with our history.

This essay is designed to show how De Bernieres masterfully creates the setting of the island of Cephallonia in the book Captain Corelli’s Mandolin. The Greek islands have never been better described by an outsider, in my opinion, than by De Bernieres. He encapsulates island life brilliantly, with all its quirks and peculiarities.
The first impression De Bernieres gives of Cephallonia is mixed, although the majority of the reader’s feelings for the island are swayed largely towards the positive. De Bernieres does this by not describing the island, rather the inhabitants of the island.
Our first encounter with Dr Iannis and the description of his daily work suggests that at the present time all is well with the island, and that it is a peaceful idyll where little of significance occurs and the island and villages have become timeless. We are given this impression mostly through the description of the doctor’s rounds, which include a ‘relatively easy calving, lanced one abscess…’. Even the dosing of ‘one lady of easy virtue with Slavarsan’ suggests that although the inhabitants have their illicit practices, this does not rise beyond a certain rustic sense of immorality, rather than a mass indulgence.
The timelessness comes from the sense that the villagers are seemingly unaware of the world beyond their own lives, and only the doctor appears to have received any proper education or knowledge. Nevertheless, these people are not portrayed as ignorant, rather they are simply unconcerned with the outside world and choose to devote their energies to what matters most to them and their lives.
This image of sleepiness and agelessness is further compounded by the doctor’s histories. Although they are describing the history of the island and how it has been ravaged by one administration and ruler to the next, the whimsical nature of religion etc., there is still a sense that the island has not been affected by this mistreatment or randomness, in that life still continues to sustain itself. This image is further expanded through the doctor’s capricious and sweeping way of detailing events, suggesting that although historically significant, they have little import upon the lives of the Cephallonians.
Finally, we arrive at a sense of agelessness and sleepiness through the way in which the De Bernieres switches from the magnificent to the mundane in a matter of sentences, choosing to mesh the two together rather than treat them separately.
For example, we are given the history of Cephallonia through the eyes and words of the doctor, and De Bernieres uses excessive and complex language and themes, such as ‘It is completely virgin. It produces overwhelming clarity of focus, it has heroic strength and brilliance.’ in order to describe the light of Cephallonia. The following paragraph contains a description of the doctor urinating on the plants and the goat eating the doctor’s work.
This intermeshing suggests that, whilst Cephallonia has its place and importance in history, and contains many brilliant and amazing qualities, it is, nevertheless, a place where ordinary people go about their live and urinate on the plants.

Attitudes to Climate Change - A Drip-Feed Approach?

The question posed by many environmentalists today is what it will take for us, as a human race, to be jolted out of our complacency towards the environment and what will be required before we are prepared to make sacrifices for the planet. There is certainly a large enough scientific consensus that climate change is not only occurring, but is a problem, if not a threat. Yet, we now seem to be stuck in a rut as to what the best policy is towards reducing carbon-emissions. In fact, some even argue that we need not reduce our emissions provided we can offset that pollution by planting trees to absorb carbon etc. although the people who hold this opinion tend to be in the minority.
Campaigners such as Al Gore, with his documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth' and others are certainly contributing to a changing of attitudes towards climate change. Unfortunately these documentaries and campaigns, however effective or informative they are, are still failing to provide the dramatic changes to spending and consumption patterns that are needed to tackle this problem. Raising awareness is obviously a key to this issue, but as of yet it seems to be doing precious little to alter our lifestyles.
So what do we need to do? What needs to happen in order to produce the dramatic turnaround that we are told so often that we need. One obvious of guaranteeing success would be a policy of tax-rises for CO2 emitting products, with tax-breaks for low-emissions or carbon-neutral products such as cars or generating power. The biggest factor in any individuals calculations is the relative costs involved, and price is a massive factor in any transaction. Look at the lengths many superstores go to to ensure that their products are cheaper than others, and the success of value-stores over those that cannot offer either quality or price. As Henry Ford said in his famous maxim:
'There is one rule for the industrialist; make the best quality of goods possible, at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.'
In fact, cost seems to be the most highly regarded of these three principles; the others being largely disregarded by some firms.
If so much emphasis is put upon costs, therefore, it would seem obvious that one way to tackle CO2 emissions would be to implement policies of charging the polluters for the damage they cause, and rewarding those who lower or annul their emissions. Nevertheless, this policy seems to be a political hot-potato, particularly in the UK. Politicians are extremely reluctant to promote any policies that present any tax-rises, regardless of the benefits that this would accrue to the global community, presumably because of the considerable risk of alienating a substantial portion of the electorate. Furthermore, any minute legislation or guidelines that would begin to change habits towards consumption in this country, such as proposals for large reductions in the numbers of cars on the roads in 2030, for example, would also be avoided like the plague, presumably for the same reasons.
Therefore, politicians must gain the political will to step in, or the public must gain the motivation to act of their own accord. Given the present ease of buying cars, appliances, personal computers and the ability to travel relatively cheaply, it seems unlikely that the majority are prepared to give up these practices. The luxury of being able to spend in such an extravagant way has become so ingrained in our culture that not only do we enjoy living such lifestyles, we get withdrawal symptoms every time these privileges are denied to us. Think of the pandemonium that would occur if we found suddenly that only one car was allowed per household.
Consequently, because we have little political or personal will to act on such matters, it does seem to be the case that a gradual acceptance of the damage we are doing to our planet, and a drip-feed of documentaries, books and reports is perhaps the most effective way of communicating to the majority the best ways that we can tackle the problems that threaten our planet, rather than attempting to convince the world into committing themselves to decisive action, despite the fact that that could be what is most needed in order to save our world.

James Baldwin the essayist and social commentator wrote that: 'People are trapped in history,
and history is trapped in them.'
This statement is undoubtedly true, as any perusal of the plethora of historical books or
films will show. I am inspired to study history to understand why history is 'trapped inside
us' and to know why we need history, at least on an amateur level. Furthermore, history is
enormously relevant for analysing the present and projecting the future, and is also the
subject most likely to raise debate or controversy. I also want to broaden my knowledge of the
past, particularly political history, in order to understand why and how things are the way
they are, and how we can hope to understand the future in that historical context.
Consequently, I would very much like to study HistoryPolitics at University
Aside from doing an A-Level in History, I am also entering the AEA for History, for which I am
required to do a significant amount of reading, particularly regarding historiography and the
interpretation of history. This additional reading has enabled me to broaden my understanding
of historical events and the study of history as an academic subject.
This autumn I shall be entering the Great Debate, a competition organised by the Historical
Association. The subject this year is the most important scientific achievement since 1906,
for which I have chosen to argue for Rutherford's splitting of the atom in 1907. This event
will enable me to deploy my historical knowledge in a new of method, using appropriate
presentational techniques.
I am a subscriber to the History Today magazine, which I find very useful in providing
academic articles on a variety of historical topics that I would not otherwise read. I also
read the BBC History, which is less scholarly, but presented in a much more accessible and
interactive fashion. I also take an active interest in local history, assisting at the local
museum in a number of capacities, such as cataloguing old photographs, creating displays etc.
In addition I am interested in current affairs and read Prospect magazine, which styles itself
the magazine of 'Politics, Essays and Argument'. This magazine is fascinating and provides an
unusual mix of current affairs and debate about a wide range of topics. This magazine provides
a much more detailed picture of debates, with many different and conflicting points of view
considered, which serves to broaden my understanding on these topics
I am also a keen reader of fiction, although my favourite fictional authors tend to be
historical novelists! Thomas Hardy and Charles Dickens are my favourite authors, not least
because they are outstanding storytellers, but also because of their trenchant and insightful
assessment of the ongoing social upheaval. A more contemporary author I enjoy is Sebastian
Faulks, who has an excellent talent for telling history through the eyes of ordinary people.
My extra curricular activities involve completing my Gold Duke of Edinburgh and taking part in
practice walks. Fortunately I have always been a good hiker. During the summer of 2006 myself
and my family completed the Tour de Mont Blanc, a 120-mile round hike in the Alps over 7 days.
I also do a lot of walking on nearby Dartmoor. I also keep fit by rowing in the local gig club
every week and take part in the fitness training sessions.
A significant amount of my time is spent on a project established by the Kenyan Government
called Digital Village, which aims to set up computer schools and Internet access to all
villages in Kenya. As part of this project myself and a team of people are travelling to Kenya
in October and working in a handful of villages setting up computers and providing basic ICT
lessons. Hopefully we will be able to expand this project in the future. At the moment I am
raising awareness and funds for this project and am keen to maintain my involvement with this
project.

Book Review - Captain Corelli's Mandolin

My summer holiday book this was a book I have been meaning to read for many years, having heard many rave reviews from both magazines and friends. Captain Correlli's Mandolin was the book recommended and, as suggested, I thoroughly enjoyed the book. There are parts of the book I did not particularly enjoyed, and also parts where I thought the author, Louis De Bernieres, could have done better. Nevertheless, Captain Correlli's Mandolin is certainly a 'must-read' for anyone who enjoys a nail-biting and believable plot.
One of the primary reasons why I enjoyed this book is the intertwining of both a personal storyline and a historical narrative. The personal aspect of the book is told through the wonderful variety of characters, the long-suffering Pelagia, secretive Carlo, enigmatic Mandras, who all have a part in the narrative. De Bernieres uses these characters and their stories to develop the plethora of ideas he is analysing and confronting.
For example, Mandras' story is harrowing account, full of injustice and horror, and how war affects even the best of us, turning men into monsters. This challenging idea, not just of how deeply war affects people, but also how so few are either villain or hero, and are often capable of atrocity and humanity. However, De Bernieres also uses the story of Mandras as a corner-stone of the plot, as well as being an interesting story from a purely literary standpoint.
Furthermore, this area of the book is used by De Bernieres to examine the historical events of the time in Greece, particularly the civil war, and rivalry with Communists and Monarchists. From academic historical perspective, this narrative is not instructive, as De Bernieres, although accurate in abroad sense with regard to history, has undoubtedly taken some historical licence and developed his own twists and turns. Nevertheless, the history that can be gained from a lay-man's perspective is profound. In addition, De Bernieres is effective at communicating not just the historical tangibles, such as numbers of deaths, buildings destroyed etc., but more importantly the emotions and passions that are created by war, and also the suffering and privations.
De Bernieres is so talented at conveying emotions because his ability to adapt his writing style, specifically the language he uses, to different situations within the plot is unparalleled. For example, when the plot is focused on the superfluous and educated Dr Iannis De Bernieres's choice of words become much more eloquent, not just in the speech of Dr Iannis, but in the narrative also. However, when the plot is focused on characters whose mannerisms are much coarser, the language and descriptions change to reflect the milieu. Whether this is an unconscious change, or whether De Bernieres intentionally adapts his writing style, it is impossible to say for certain. However, it is certain that this change in style is very effective and sits comfortably with the situation in the plot.
De Bernieres's story is also wonderfully varied and unexpected, particullarly the conclusion. The ending of the whole book is a wonderful mix of emotions, both happiness and sadness, and throughout the novel De Bernieres contrasts humour, horror etc. with wonderful effect. The side chapters of Mussolini's rants are wonderfully comic, yet also have a darker side as they show how vain and arrogant he was. By doing this, De Bernieres creates a very interesting mix of emotion and feelings in the reader.
However, if there is anything that can be criticised in De Bernieres novel it would be the swiftness and almost cursory way in which the passage of time from 1950 to the present day is dealt with. I felt that there was a lot left out of the storyline that De Bernieres could have focused on, and not swept through at a very fast pace. Consequently, the reader arrives at the stage of Pelagia's old-age without feeling that there was an intermediate stage of her life. Furthermore, Corelli, a central character, simply falls off the stage. In the early and middle phases of the book the story was told from many different viewpoints. However, as Pelagia enters old age we no longer receive such a variety of viewpoints. This is partly due to the fact that many of the characters are no longer relevant. However, i felt that the story would have been enriched if we had had an account of Corelli's experiences as well as Pelagia's.
Nevertheless, this criticism is slight and insignificant, for the book remains a brilliant read, full of emotion, controversy and excitement, which grips the reader and hold you spellbound, and unable to put the book down.

Education under Tony Blair

During his election campaign Tony Blair famously said that his three priorities were 'Education, Education, Education.' In this essay I shall examine the success of the Labour Government in tackling this issues, and whether they have met their targets. A cursory examination of the progress of education by perusing newspapers and magazines would suggest that Labour and Tony Blair have failed to deliver on schools and education. The majority of stories and articles regarding education suggest that, despite students achieving better exam results, funding and equipment for schools has dropped, teaching standards are lower, and there is a growing gulf between children those who do well at school and those who are under-achieving It would, however, be untrue to say that funding for schools has dropped in the past 10 years. In 1996 the education budget was £70m per annum, compared with a projected £10.2bn in 2011. (source: The Independent) The equivalent amount in today's terms would be slightly under £100m. This increase in funding is a massive leap and shows an increased financial commitment, if nothing else, to education within the UK. This investment also suggests an increase in the spending on equipment such as laboratory tools and books. However, many questions have been raised over how this money has been spent, and whether the extra funding has helped schools that need it the most. A considerable percentage of this funding has been and will be spent on establishing City Academies, a highly controversial Labour proposal. Many claim that, rather than spending money on establishing a new system of education, the money should be spent on raising standards in existing schools. Another criticism of Labour educational policy is an increasing interference from the Government in dictating the role of teachers. National Curriculum guidelines have been tightened, Ofsted inspections have become more frequent and more rigorous, and the implementations placed upon teachers regarding attaining goals in children is intense. This interference is regarded as unnecessary by many, who view the experts as the teachers themselves. And indeed such a level of interference almost certainly constrains teachers to boundaries and prevents them from giving their whole attention to teaching in a way that seems appropriate for them and for the students.
Nevertheless, the Government is aware of the need to maintain standards in schools across the board, and ensure that children are not disadvantaged as much as possible. By laying down guidelines for teachers to follow, the Government is just as likely to be helping by improving the quality of teaching and standards for children who would otherwise be left by the way-side, than disadvantaging those children that have the potential to be stretched. In an ideal world we would should be able to do both, to support the less-able and underprivileged as well as push the high-achievers. However, we can only do so much, and it is far better for the Government to create a level playing-field than maintain a system where some children are pushed and others not supported.
Also, the Government is acutely aware of the need to be seen to be taking action, both because it promised to do so in its manifesto, but also to present a break from the apathy of previous governments and parties. Therefore, a high level of Government involvement suggests that those with power are aware and are working to solve problems within the educational system.
In higher education the government also has a chequered track-record. The cost of university fees has dramatically increased, with over 50% of students paying in excess of £3,000 each year. The amount of available grants has, however, increased, with over 50,000 students receiving grants. Anyone who's family income is below £60,000 is entitled to a half-grant, amounting to up to £1,750. Families who's income is under £25,000 are entitled to a full grant for their university tuition fees, and also receive bursaries for maintenance costs. Therefore, to say that the Government has been successful with regards to university education would be untrue, but it would also be unjustified to claim that, because the cost of university study has gone up, students are worse off.
Overall, therefore, the Government has had a mixture failure and success in its educational policies. However, no-one would expect any Government to have unmitigated success in any area of policy, as one cannot simply please everyone. However, Tony Blair was unfortunate in that, as he promised such sweeping reforms in the education system, such as a move towards much less academic selection, he has not delivered. His focus on education has, predictably, led to many pundits focusing on Labour's educational policy, and consequently, its failures. Overall, therefore, Labour has had mixed success, but its choice to focus on education as a cornerstone of its policy has led to much criticism and derision.

Iraq War

If there is one event that will define the years that Tony Blair was in power, it will undoubtedly be the invasion of Iraq and the pretext of searching for Weapons of Mass Destruction. This event will stand out certainly because of the negative criticism he has received for the decision, also because of the loss of life, but also because many regard it as epitomising the attitude of British politicians towards the United States of America.
One of the major condemnations of the Iraq conflict for Tony Blair is the inability to find any WMDs in Iraq, suggesting that the claim that Saddam Hussein was able to launch nuclear missiles against the UK was a fabrication. Obviously, if this is the case, Blair would deserve the criticism he receives as deliberately misleading the public, especially over a matter of conflict involving potential loss of life, is serious indeed. And British public opinion seems decisively against the decision to invade; with 55% of people believing the decision to invade Iraq was wrong as of 7th June 2007. (Figure from YouGov.com)
Nevertheless, it is hard to understand why politicians around the globe would fabricate evidence such as this in order to invade. Despite their being a case to suggest that American foreign policy was directed towards securing Middle-Eastern oilfields, it hardly seems credible that such a big piece of evidence should be fictitious.
One reason for this notion is that, although Russia, Germany and France opposed the war, they did not claim that Iraq was not in the process of producing, or had at the time, any WMDs. Rather, their claim was that they were not credible threats to their countries or the world. Therefore, it is the nature of the weapons that it questioned, not the existence of the weapons.
Secondly, it seems odd that politicians should fabricate such a big piece of evidence in order to be allowed to invade Iraq. They would have been aware that nay of invasion would place them under an obligation to find these WMDs. If their existence was faked, it would become apparent after the invasion that they never existed. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that Iraq did not have WMDs. However, it is certainly the case that the American-led forces have been unable to find these weapons, suggesting that they were either destroyed, removed to Syria etc. or that they never existed.
Overall, therefore, the case for the existence of WMDs is strong, but it is the fundamental nature of the weapons, and their disappearance that causes questions to be raised as to the credibility of evidence cited by the Government. Thus, politicians who sued this argument to justify the invasion, such as Tony Blair, have found themselves on loose ground.
Many people find fault with the Iraq war because of the apparent complicit nature of Tony Blair and his government to the foreign policy of the USA. Indeed, it would seem that far from being independent of America, Britain, like many states in the world, have become tools for implementing America’s ideological and political ideas. However, American influence cannot be said to stretch as far as to totally influence the actions of the British government, but it can be seen where the UK was attempting to keep in step with the USA’s tune, something many opponents see as a major falling point for Tony Blair.
It must be stressed, however, that it was not only Labour politicians who voted for the war, far from it. Many voters against the war were Labour MPs, and many supporters of the war were Conservative politicians. The decision to go to war was not a executive decision, but a legislative one, done so because a majority of MPs voted for the war. In short, the war is as politically legitimate (provided no deception took place) as any bill enacted by Parliament concerning theft or murder.
Another major problem for Tony Blair in justifying the Iraq war was the inevitable loss of civilian life in Iraq, and the loss of soldier’s lives. Human rights groups, the church, and indeed, many ordinary citizens have been rightly angered by the appearance of arrogance and callousness on the part of the leaders for how their action will affect people in the Middle East. It would be impossible to consider the decision to invade Iraq as humanitarian towards its civilians in terms of the deaths that would occur.
Nevertheless, the most compelling argument for the Iraq war I have heard is to challenge the legitimacy of Saddam Hussein’s rule. People argue that, as Saddam Hussein was installed as the effective ruler of Iraq after the Gulf War in 1990, he is considered a legitimate ruler by many of the participant countries of the 1st and 2nd invasion of Iraq, particularly America and Britain.
Despite this, it is my personal opinion that Saddam Hussein was a despot. His subjects had no right to habeas corpus in law, no right to an elected, uncorrupt Government, no right to free speech or religion, or even to expect fair treatment by the police, army or judiciary. In short, 18 of the fundamental articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights out of 30 were breached by Saddam Hussein or his government. In my view, anyone who denies these rights to it citizens is not worthy of governing his country. I believe that no-one or country is exempt from these principles, especially the USA. Therefore, I advocate the removal of any dictators, totalitarian rulers etc. If George Bush, or any leader, is complicit in any breaching any of these declarations, he is not fit to govern. The removal of leaders should firstly be by imposing sanctions and international pressure. If however, these methods fail, I do not believe that military action should not be considered.
However, it is easy to see why people oppose the war in Iraq, given the circumstances surrounding the war, the apparent following of American foreign policy, the potential loss of civilian life and the ulterior motives of many of the leaders who advocated the war. Because of this, the war in Iraq should be considered as one of Tony Blair’s failures, even if some regard it as a moral and ideological triumph of democracy over totalitarianism and oppression.