1
Winstanley College
History Magazine Easter 2014 Edition
1
2
Contents:
Page 3….Editorial
Page 4…Not For Turning: Why Mrs Thatcher was Exactly What Britain Needed Page 8….Western Intervention in the Arab Spring: A Question of Morality or Opportunism? Page 12….Why Was the First Crusade a Success? Page 16….Vesalius: Visionary or Larcenist? Page 18….British Integration in Europe: Was it Ever Meant to Be? Page 23….Was Britain Truly Alone in World War Two? Page 25…..Could Ordinary Germans be to Blame for the Holocaust? Page 28…..Is the USA the ‘New’ Ancient Rome? Page 31….Hellenized Jews and the Rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire Page 33…Should Britain Leave the European Union? Page 35….Stirling Castle During the Renaissance Era Page 37….I-Want-To-Be-In-Amer-i-ca…
Page 44…Did Mussolini Actually Have Control Over Italy? Page 46….The Rise and Fall of the US Mafia Page 49…..EXCLUSIVE Interview with Professor Kevern Verney Page 52….Who’s Who in the History Society? Page 53….History Society Events Please note that any views or opinions expressed in this magazine are the views of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Winstanley College, or its History Society 2
3
Editorial Since the beginning of 2014, and even within the last month, the world has been shaken by events that will undoubtedly go down in the history books. They say that ‘history never feels like history when you’re living through it’, but every so often it’s clear to see that the things we watch live on the news today, will be shown to future generations as ‘history’. No doubt someday, students will write essays about Russia’s controversial annexation of Crimea. Perhaps newsreel footage of the tragic loss of Flight MH370 will one day be shown in history classrooms. It’s strange to realise that the things we read and see on the news, will one day be footage on historical documentaries, or bullet points in history books.
comparison between the modernday United States of America and Ancient Rome. Also in this edition is an EXCLUSIVE interview with Professor Kevern Verney of Edge Hill University: he offers tips for research, revision, and studying history at degree level (see page 49). The Winstanley History Magazine is growing all the time, and it’s fabulous to have so many contributions on such a wide range of historical topics. As ever, articles for publication in the Winstanley History Magazine are always welcomed and can be on any history related topic - email your article to the History Society or speak to a member of the editorial team. Many thanks to those who have written for this edition.
This edition of the Winstanley College History Magazine provides an incredible selection of articles, ranging from a thoughtprovoking assessment of the underlying motivation for Western intervention in the Arab Spring (see page 8), to a fascinating
Enjoy! Phoebe McGibbon (Editor) Maddie McDonnagh & Sally Dickens (Trainee Editors)
3
4
Not For Turning: Why Mrs Thatcher Was Exactly What Britain Needed By Tom Davies & Phoebe McGibbon
No true judgement of a politician can ever justifiably be made without understanding of the context of the time in which they were in power. Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister in 1979, following a dreary period of intense economic decline, ever diminishing world reputation and social lethargy. When set in context, accurate analysis of Thatcher’s time as Prime Minister shows a brave and much needed move away from stifling consensus politics and the creeping socialism which had dominated British politics since the end of the Second World War. Thatcher replaced failing Keynesian economic policies with free market ideologies; she reduced the power of the state and gave greater independence to all; successfully curbed the power of the Trade Unions; made local government an-
swerable to the needs of the people and restored notions of social accountability. Described as ‘high noon for the new right’, although highly controversial, Thatcher’s time in office saw a drastic change in attitudes and restored British pride. The Thatcher years were a time of great and often difficult change, yet the end result was a stronger British economy; a renewed world status; a reverse in the growth of bureaucracy, dangerous union power, excessive taxation and inflation that had made Britain ‘the sick man of Europe’ throughout the 1960s and 1970s. Thatcher didn’t get absolutely everything right – no politician ever does! However, she had the bravery and conviction to make the crucial changes that her male predecessors had lacked the courage to make. Thatcher’s victories in 4
5
three consecutive elections are testimony to the success and necessity of what has come to be known as the ‘Thatcherite revolution’.
unprecedented in the years following the war and was even above our European counterparts. Moreover, her reforms were being executed at a time where the numbers of industrial workers was decreasing sharply anyway. In 1970, there had been 9 million such workers; this number had decreased by 2 million by 1980, and looked likely to decrease further regardless of Mrs Thatcher’s actions. We could no longer compete in a global market against developing countries that could provide goods much cheaper than the UK could. Furthermore, the future of many mines depended on the extraction of coal which would have required millions of pounds worth of funding just to drill deep enough to access it. The great irony of the battle between the government and the miners was that it was Arthur Scargill, the hard-left socialist who headed the NUM and used it for political purposes rather than to fight for improved pay or conditions, who ultimately secured the fate of the miners in the 1980s. Thatcher’s stern stance against the unions ensured that an industry which drained the UK economy would cease to function, and new industries, particularly in the lucrative financial sector, could flourish. Thatcher’s critics cite the many redundancies caused by mine closure. What they do not mention, is that by the time Mrs Thatcher left office, many of those who had lost their jobs in the mines had found more stable, and often better-paid jobs in areas such as retail, proving modernisation rather than decline.
Privatisation was at the heart of Thatcher’s economic plan. Industries owned by the state, she argued, lacked efficiency and there was no incentive to progress or compete because any failure was compensated by the taxpayer. The sale of Britain’s biggest industries therefore, can be seen as an attempt to take business back to its roots. Moreover, government revenue derived from the privatisation program totalled £10,000 million during Thatcher’s time in power. Without this cash injection, the British economy would have remained in the sluggish, stagnant state it had been left in by decades of poor economic performance. By the late 1980s, Thatcher had succeeded in achieving ‘an economic miracle’ (Sked). Privatisation meant that Thatcher also succeeded in her ‘crusade to franchise the many’: between 1979 and 1990, the number of shareholders in Britain increased from 3 million to 9 million. Also, the firm measures adopted by Thatcher’s government obliged British industry to increase productivity and become more efficient in order to entice these new shareholders. Wasteful practices and overstaffing were inefficient and these issues were addressed head-on. In fact, though many workers in the short term suffered redundancy as a result of cuts, manufacturing productivity grew at an annual rate of 4.2% - this was 5
6
Thatcher kept interest rates at a high level in order to deter irresponsible borrowing and keep the pound strong on the international financial market: the success of these measures is illustrated by the fall of inflation from 19% in 1979 to 5% in 1983. These tough economic policies resulted in a backlash by her opponents, accounting for riots in areas of London, Bristol, Manchester and Liverpool in 1981. However, these riots in no way detract from Thatcher’s success, and were in fact disturbances started by political troublemakers, irked by the move away from socialism and Thatcher’s tough approach to personal accountability.
trying to attack the government whilst at the same time appear patriotic and supportive of the service men who were fighting the war. The Falklands War was a success in terms of restoring pride in Britain and respect for Britain, and gaining Mrs Thatcher the personal popularity necessary to remain in office following the 1983 election. Mrs Thatcher also improved Britain’s position in Europe, defending Britain against disproportionately high payments to the EEC budgets. Her infamous 1984 negotiations with the EEC secured a rebate – paid annually to this day, unchallenged by even successive Labour governments and currently worth around £2.8bn a year – is a shining example of how her tenacity and unwavering conviction was very beneficial to Britain, both during her time as Prime Minister, and in the decades to follow. The antithesis of previous Prime Ministers, who were willing to conform to EEC policy however harmful they may be, Thatcher succeeded in securing authorisation of a reduction in Britain’s budget payments. Thatcher also developed Britain’s special relationship with the USA, sharing a ‘diplomatic love affair’ with President Reagan. Their mutual respect and liking helped to regain Britain’s world status, Reagan himself commenting ‘I agree with every word you say’. Another major success of Thatcher’s foreign policy was in helping to end the Cold War: her uncompromising attitude and staunch anti-Communist stance further rebuilt Britain’s reputation
Thatcher’s government also succeeded in restoring British national pride, and regaining Britain’s reputation as a world power. Since the Second World War, Britain’s foreign affairs had been, for the most part, humiliating: the Suez Crisis of 1956, being the ‘beggar at the European feast’, and continued loss of colonies signalled the end of Britain’s time as an imperial power. However, Thatcher’s period in office undeniably reversed this loss of power and prestige. The Falklands War of 1982 allowed Thatcher to reveal a facet of her character that would otherwise have remained hidden: she became an outstanding war leader, the ‘Falklands Factor’ carrying her to victory in the 1983 election. Adamant that Britain could act alone to restore its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, Thatcher restored British national pride and her international status. Moreover, the Labour opposition experienced a dip in popularity, 6
7
as a world power and influence.
sumer.
Although often criticised for the social impacts of its domestic policies, Mrs Thatcher’s government succeeded in giving the powerless the opportunity to regain control of their lives by loosening the grip of the state over them. The ‘Right to Buy’ scheme in 1980 gave council house tenants the right to buy the homes they were renting: this measure saw 2 million council tenants buy their council homes at generous discounts, promoting social mobility and creating a ‘property-owning democracy’. Bus companies were deregulated in order to encourage competition, providing a better service to customers, and spending on the NHS remained at a historically high level throughout Thatcher’s premiership, demonstrating her tactical pragmatism as a politician.
Thatcher remains a divisive a figure in death as she was in life; and it is certain that the debate over her policies and decisions will rage on for years to come. However, as the generations who lived to see her premiership grow older, and younger scholars are able to adopt a more objective perspective, we appreciate just what a difference she made. Lady Thatcher slayed the socialist dragon, transformed our economy in to the vibrant and lucrative entity it is today and laid the foundations for a society which relies not upon the state, but on its own independence of action, thrift and hard work. She is a rare example of a politician who, regardless of criticism, stood by her beliefs and pursued what she felt to be the right course of action. As she said herself, ‘‘if you set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing.'
Thatcher succeeded in reforming local government, through the Local Government Reforms of 1988. As system of SSAs was introduced, allowing the central government to control local government expenditure levels. Councils were also required to adopt ‘compulsory competitive tendering’, to contract out their services to the companies that could provide the best service at the lowest price: she successfully halted unnecessary bureaucracy in local government and made local councils directly answerable to tax payers. Thatcher also succeeded in making the ‘most significant education reforms since the 1994 Butler Act’ (Lynch), resulting in schools being more efficient and responsive to the needs of the con-
Without her, might we still have languid, inefficient, state-owned corporations providing us with poor services? Might we still condemn our children to a lifetime down the pits, just because their fathers had done just that? Might we still be paying far too much in to the EU, and getting so little in return? Perhaps millions of proud homeowners would never have got the chance to buy their houses in the first place. Speculation aside, one thing is certainly true: Margaret Thatcher was exactly what Britain needed.
7
8
Western Intervention in the Arab Spring: A Question of Morality or Opportunism?
riod America, supported by Western Europe, propped up a series of unpopular regimes such as Diem in South Vietnam and Batista in Cuba. This support was offered as these right wing leaders often supported a capitalist ideology, with the central aim being to prevent the growth of communism and the Soviet Union. Through this policy, many leftist governments were toppled, like the ruling communist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan, or through the prevention of a democratically elected Marxist candidate taking office in Chile through the planning of a military coup.
By Maddie McDonagh 17th June 2010, Mohamed Bouazizi, a Tunisian graduate, sets himself alight in desperation after his vegetable cart was seized by police. This act of defiance ignited a wave of anti government demonstrations, violent uprisings and in some cases all out civil war throughout the Middle East, with oppressed citizens demanding democratic government and freedom of speech. Throughout this ongoing turbulent period, the intervention of the West has been variable, with some countries receiving military aid and others being left to their own devices, which of course evokes the question of what differentiates one disquieted state from another.
With the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the gradual decline in communism, America and its Western allies have switched their focus from ideological warfare, to wars on poverty, drugs and
The answer of course is what can be gained from intervention. During the Cold War pe8
9
most importantly, terror.
the 20th century, the West tried to retain influence in these countries by supporting unpopular, authoritarian regimes which were loyal to them, such as the Iranian royal family, who were overthrown by the people in 1979, as were many other regimes. This meddling, along with frequently imposed economic sanctions, has created much animosity towards the West in the Middle East and North Africa, which coupled with extreme Islamic views, has lead to the revival of jihad through terrorism.
The concept of terrorism has experienced a revival since the 2001 attack on the World Trade Centre, with the entire Western world descending into a state of panic over the threat of Islamic extremism. From 2001 George Bush’s “crusade” against Al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations began, with the invasion of Afghanistan in an attempt to bring the elusive leader of Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, to trial for his crimes - a trial which took place in a heated gun battle in a Pakistani compound and resulted in a prison sentence at the bottom of the Arabian Sea. Further measures have included the introduction of restrictive anti terrorism laws, and an increase in drone strikes directed at areas of the Middle East.
The possibility of eradicating these extreme views has played a huge part in the varying degrees of intervention in the Arab Spring. In Egypt and Yemen, both led by allies of the USA and the West, other than diplomatic enquiries there was very little involvement by the Western powers despite mass protests against the governments and violence against the protestors. Libya, on the other hand, was led by Colonel Gadaffi, a Muslim leader who spoke in favour of jihad, and in the 1980s compared America to the “leaders of the modern Crusade offensive.” In similar circumstances, a coalition force of 19 states, the largest contingents being British, French and American, supporting Gadaffi’s opposition, implemented naval blockades and fired missiles over Gadaffi’s military bases until his execution.
To fully understand the tensions between the East and the West, it is essential to look back on the Crusades of the 11th and 12th centuries, where the Western Christian powers settling in the Middle East were seen as invaders, who had to be driven out by the concept of “jihad,” or Muslim holy war. The hero of this concept was Saladin, a devout Muslim general who led a jihadist movement against the Crusaders which oversaw the near extinction of Christian influence in the Middle East. This is relevant to the Arab Spring because today the situation between East and West is still very similar. As the Middle Eastern and North African countries such as Tunisia, Libya, Iran, Egypt and Syria began to emerge from Western colonial rule during
Leaders who have promoted jihad indirectly have also seen themselves targeted. A precursor to the Arab Spring was the Iraq war in 2003, where another Western coalition went to war with Iraqi dictator Saddam 9
10
Hussein, over hotly disputed possession of “weapons of mass destruction.” Whilst not similar to the Arab Spring in its aim of liberation, the method of toppling an offensive regime or dictator is synonymous to coalition action in Libya in executing regime change. Prior to 2003, Hussein had erected a huge mural of himself leading Iraqi tanks into battle alongside the aforementioned jihadist leader Saladin, with historian Jonathan Phillips saying that “Saddam has therefore identified himself as someone who, like Saladin, will defeat the Westerners and drive them from the Middle East,” an idea circulated by Hussein’s propaganda machine. Hussein was executed in 2006, and the US led coalition withdrew in 2011, leaving behind a crippled economy and a volatile political situation.
attributed to humanitarian reasons, the condemnation of blame has been immediately pointed towards Assad’s anti-Western regime despite atrocities on both sides and the serious lack of credible information on recent developments within Syria. There is, of course, another important motivator - oil. With the price of fuel now a huge issue in Western countries, rebellions in the oil rich Middle East are not only inconvenient but extremely costly for governments. Countries such as Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen, which have seen little intervention from the West in their uprisings, export only a minute percentage of the world’s oil, whereas Libya, the site of the West’s largest level of involvement, has the largest oil reserves in Africa, and the 5th largest in the world. A long-term civil war in Libya would have surely seen oil prices rise dramatically, a situation which all Western politicians live in fear of. Iraq is also world renowned for its vast oil reserves, which before the war were nationalised and closed to Western companies. Now, 10 years later, they are dominated by foreign firms like BP and Shell, which are based and do the majority of their business in the USA and Western Europe. As oil begins to run out and reliance upon it grows, power is becoming more and more concentrated among those who own the rigs, and with the concentration of oil in the Middle East massively outweighing that of the West, a whole new power struggle has been born.
Syria, a country currently being torn apart by civil war, is led by President Bashar alAssad, whose father was another admirer of Saladin. Assad erected a statue of a triumphant Saladin with defeated Crusaders trailing behind him, which Phillips claims is the ideal of “Saladin symbolically protecting Islam, while the West bows to him,” an idea which appealed massively to Assad, a known detester of colonialism, whose son is said to share his views. Whilst intervention in Syria has been blocked by Russia on many occasions, there have been increasing calls for military action against the Assad regime among Western politicians, especially since the introduction of chemical weapons into the conflict. Despite the need for intervention being constantly
As the 21st century develops, it is already possible to see the key themes which will 10
11
define us all: Islamic extremism, the struggle for resources and the inevitable rise of the East as a global power. The Arab Spring and the events leading up to it embody these themes perfectly, and the response of the West can only be viewed as opportunistic and self interested, with the occasional humanitarian message to camouflage the condescending imperial attitudes which still shelter in the shadows of Western foreign policy. With neither side willing to negotiate, a solution to the war between colonialism and Islamic extremism looks unlikely in the foreseeable future. The outcome? That will be one for the history books to decide.
11
12
Why Was the First Crusade a Success?
By Chloe Atherton There is great historical debate as to what was the main reason that the First Crusade was a success. The major factors usually counted as important in allowing the success of the endeavour include Muslim disunity; allied aid; religious experiences and spiritual motivation of the Crusaders; and military tactics. Whilst all these factors were undeniably important in contributing to the Crusade’s success, the main reason for the success of the First Crusade was allied aid, both from the Byzantines and the Italians.
Arslan had gone on a skirmish against the Damishmends, another Muslim division. As a result of this, the town of Nicaea was left undefended and open for attack from the Crusaders, making it an easy victory for them, as if the Muslims were united against the Crusaders, they may not have won the battle. This therefore was a cause of the success of the first Crusade. Another example of Muslim disunity was at the battle of Antioch, a town that was taken by the Muslims in 1085. The three key Muslim groups were from Mosul led by Kerbogha, Damascus led by Duqaq and finally Aleppo led by Ridwah. All of these leaders were divided and were arguing amongst themselves and would not unite in order to fight against the crusaders.
Muslim disunity was a minor factor as to why the Crusade was a success; however it did contribute to the victory. A main example of Muslim disunity was at the siege of Nicaea in 1097. Nicaea was a town that had previously belonged to the Byzantines, however was currently owned by the Seljuk Turk leader Kilij Arslan. This siege is an excellent example of Muslim disunity as Kilij
Each of these Muslim divisions attacked at different times making it far easier for the knights to defend themselves against the 12
13
small groups, whereas if they had united the Crusaders wouldn’t have had a chance of winning the battle as it would be a far larger fighting force. In addition to this, the Syrian troops, when faced with the army of the Crusaders retreated, proving that Kerbogha’s troops were not in fact allied. And so, the disunity of the Muslim troops, led by Kerbogha was a key reason as to why the first crusade was indeed a success. Asbridge states that ‘Kerbogha’s were bound by only the thinnest veneer of unity’ meaning that they were barely united as one at all resulting in them being far more vulnerable to an attack. He also says that the ‘Brutal shock of the crusaders indomitable resolve had exposed the fractures embedded within the Muslim army’. His opinion is that the mass numbers and skill of the Crusaders revealed the disunity within the Muslim army and the effect that this had was the Crusaders winning the crusade. Scott also agrees in saying that ‘If the Muslims had maintained the unity Muhammad had preached, no crusade could possibly have succeeded’.
the success of the battle such as the military tactics of the leaders. Henceforth, although the idea of Muslim disunity was important, it was not as significant as the religious experiences that occurred. Religious factors were a clear motivation from the very beginning, especially the idea of liberating Jerusalem from the hands of the Muslims. Although there were religious aspects in every battle that took place on the crusade, the most important ones were at Dorylaeum and Antioch. A key moment in the Crusade in which religious aspects allowed them to win was again at the battle of Antioch. A religious leader, Adhemar le puy believed that the reason for all of the deaths occurring was due to the great sins within the camp. In order to have these sins forgiven he ordered the crusaders to walk around the city barefoot whilst singing hymns and saying prayers. He also forced the women to camp elsewhere and as a result it increased the morale of the Crusaders whilst also focusing them and allowing them to unite against the common enemy. In doing this the crusaders believed they were regaining God’s favour and having their sins forgiven which would allow them to win the battle. A significant religious reason as to why the crusaders won their battle against the Muslims was the finding of the Holy lance.
Although this was the case, it could not have been a leading factor as the Muslims had been divided since the death of Malik Shah in 1092, therefore the Crusaders should have expected the divided attacks making it easier for them to defend themselves and retaliate. Also, at the battle of Jerusalem, the enemy had changed to the fatamids, who were Egyptians who were united. As they were united it is clear that other reasons must have been the cause of
Peter of Bartholomew had a vision of God telling him that Antioch was a site of an important relic. Upon having the vision he dug a hole and found the lance that is believed to be the one that pierced Christ’s 13
14
side and contained his blood. The knights saw this as a sign that God had blessed them, which again united them against his enemies and boosted the morale in the army. Asbridge states that the Holy lance ‘was not the overwhelming catalyst to action but rather it encouraged their shared sense of devotional mission.’ This suggests that the finding of the lance was not a turning point in the crusade; however it did give the crusaders the shared unity of the mission in hand. At Dorylaeum, morale was at an all-time low. The knights were surrounding the camp with their horses and women along with supplies in the centre, facing attacks from all sides. In order to boost the crusaders spirits, both priests and monks walked around the circle of knights encouraging them in their fight. They stated that it was their duty to God to fight in this crusade and that doing so would allow them salvation in heaven. On hearing this, the knights were more highly motivated, and with this new sense of unity and determination of salvation, made religion a far more likely reason as to why they won this battle and the First Crusade.
be divided. Raymond of Toulouse and his men were situated at Mount Zion, whereas Godfrey and his army were at the Quadrangular tower. The divided attack meant the people of the city had to defend two different regions as opposed to one, making their defence weaker. The Crusaders also built a siege tower that could be taken apart outside of the Quadrangular tower and they moved it to the Damascus gate in the night. As a result of this clever technique it meant that the people were defending the wrong area again making them have a weaker defence system, allowing the crusaders to win. When using the battering rams, once the walls were caved in, it was an easy victory due to their mass in numbers and the capability of the knights. Furthermore, Ascalon was a battle in which strategic methods were used and was the sole reason as to why the Crusaders were victorious. At Ascalon, a crusader scout finds a large number of cattle. Godfrey had the idea that they should take them with them in the desert conditions. On their way to the battle, North of Ascalon, the dust produced by the cattle hid the crusaders whilst also giving the impression that their army was vast in size, far larger than it actually was. This, along with the flanking technique and a surprise attack resulted in the fleeing of the fatamids and the ultimate victory for the crusaders. Without the ingenious ideas of Godfrey, the battle would have most likely been lost due to the large army of the Egyptians in comparison with
Although religious reasons were important, a far more significant factor as to why the crusaders won their battle is military tactics and the experience of the military leaders such as Bohemond and Godfrey, both at Jerusalem and Ascalon. To attack Jerusalem would be very difficult due to its location and how it is surrounded by a wall. In order to break into the city the army needed to 14
15
the small troops of the knights. Tyerman believes that it was the ‘effectiveness of armies, not necessarily of massive numerical superiority operating and dominating in fronts far from home.’ It the military skill of the trained knights that won the crusade not their numbers against the Muslims. Jotischky also states that ‘the crusaders showed themselves to be adaptable in countering the eastern tactics’.
addition to this, an Italian fleet consisting of six ships arrived with supplies and aid, including wood. The providing of the wood was crucial to the winning of the siege at Jerusalem, as the crusaders were lacking in these supplies. This wood enabled the crusaders to then go on to build battering rams and siege towers so that they could break into the city of Jerusalem and reclaim it for the Christians. Without these supplies the crusaders would have been unable to attack the city and so would not have succeeded in their holy oath to liberate the Holy City. This aid that was commonly given by both the Byzantines as well as the Italians was the true reason for the success of the First Crusade as without it the Crusader Knights would not have even got past the battle of Nicaea and would have surely died on the journey to Jerusalem as a result of their lack of food and water, making their numbers far smaller and their defence and attack far weaker.
Finally, the most important reason as to why the crusaders won was the allied aid they received from the Byzantines as well as Italian fleets. Tyerman argues that ‘pivotal to the success of the First Crusade was the role played in its inception and nurturing by the Byzantines’. The Byzantines military expertise and giving of supplies as the true reason as to why the First Crusade was a success. At the siege of Nicaea it was the intelligence of Alexius Comnenus (the Byzantine Emperor) that was the cause of the success. He, himself organised a surrender. He sent his men into Nicaea in order to negotiate surrender, meaning there was no fight the following morning, consequently saving lives and resources and ultimately taking the city for his own. Following this siege, Alexius provided supplies to the knights such as food and weaponry. However more vital was the giving of military advisors such as Tatikios, whose military manoeuvres allow the crusaders to be triumphant. There are also many other occasions as to where the Byzantines give supplies, being central to the survival of the knights and their families. In
The main reason as to why the Crusaders won the first Crusade was not due to the disunity amongst the Muslims but in fact the continuous aid they received whilst on their pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Without such assistance given to them by the Byzantines and the Italians, they would not have been able to defeat the enemy and would have most surely died on the long and tiresome journey to Jerusalem due to lack of essential provisions such as food, water and weapons. The aid received by them allowed them the tools to success.
15
16
Vesalius: Visionary or Larcenist?
By Rhiannon Maher Andreas Vesalius was born in 1514 to a family in Brussels; he gained reputation with his superiors and caused an upset among his professors during his early years as a medical student. He was a man undeterred by rules and law, and travelled to Padua to continue his studies and garner a greater reputation for his work, eventually amassing the reputation he has today for his anatomical findings and his revolutionary approach to traditional medicine.
It is 3am in a graveyard in South Padua and surrounded by both graves and corpses is a man stealing the body of a convict. The punishment for grave-robbing would see you into an early grave of your own, but that doesn’t deter him. He is moving the body with skill, there is an element of practise in the way he has wrapped the weaker joints in cloth and there is routine in the way he manoeuvring the body over the cemetery walls. This man is arguably one of the most influential figures in the history of medicine, his work is crucial, pivotal - and if he was caught, he would be executed.
In a time when the venerated work of the Greeks held dominance over the course of medicine and a time when new ideas were seen as heresy, Vesalius gained little support from his peers. Undeterred and determined to pull at the flaws in the Greek theories, he threw himself into his work; often performing dissections - something which 16
17
shocked and appalled the medical professionals of the time.
ered by his peers. It challenged the Aristotelian views of the time and was confrontational –forming direct opposition to the views of the Royal Medical Council who had political power in the medical field.
Due to the church’s iron control over science, the human body was seen through a smokescreen; ideas were regulated and the little knowledge they had about the human body was based on the dissections of animals. The basic idea of surgery or anatomy was almost irrelevant to any self-respecting professor and theories about the structure of the body seldom needed to be reinforced with evidence if they supported the political views of the church. The dissection of human bodies was socially forbidden, tabooed, and in some regions illegal, but once again Vesalius saw cause to blur the lines of the law and used his dissections to fuel one of his most pivotal manuscripts on the anatomy of the human body.
With fortitude and consistency Vesalius’ manuscript dared to challenge the concrete authority of the church and their control over medical censorship; his publications enlightened students on the importance of physiological evidence, observation of medical fact and the ideas he fostered form part of our basic understanding of the human body. As the forefather of our understanding of anatomy and a man not afraid to speak out, Vesalius is widely accepted as one of the most influential figures in the progress of medicine, and 450 years on he is relieved in part, of his stature as an illicit grave-robber. While 'De Humani Corporis Fabrica' remains an essential part of our understanding of the human body and has provided the foundation for the development of surgery, the question still remains; who was the man behind the infamous grave-snatching, and how far do we accept one man’s vision in the place of his crimes?
Funding his dissections with the stolen corpses from local graveyards- often the bodies of executed criminals or famed convicts- Vesalius managed to highlight many of the downfalls of the Galenic principals of the time. He proved that even Galen (the forefather of renaissance medicine) had made invalid conclusions about the human body and Vesalius went on to teach his findings, publishing them in 'De Humani Corporis Fabrica'. This manuscript made several revelations about the structure of the human body; Vesalius described the heart as having four chambers and the skeletal system as being the framework of the human body- something essential which had not been consid17
18
Britain in Europe: Britain & European Integration: Was It Ever Meant To Be? Was It Ever Meant To Be? By Phoebe McGibbon
Considering British integration in a European Community from a purely historical perspective, it is undeniably and notoriously difficult see where Britain fits into the European Union, and indeed whether it even should. The economic benefits are hotly debated. Eurosceptics cite a ‘democratic deficit’ within Europe itself. Even the Americans notice Europe’s faults: “The European nations' loss of sovereignty to the EU should be a warning to Americans” (Phylis Schlafly). Fascinatingly, neither the Conservative party nor the Labour party has been consistently pro-European since its very birth, as the European Economic Community (EEC). In order to examine Britain’s current position in Europe, it is illuminating to look back to the origins of Britain’s European journey.
In 1951, Britain’s apparent strength as a major world power was little more than a façade. In spite of having been glorious victors in war; being a crucial ally of the USA in the Cold War; and holding a position as one of just five permanent members on the UN Security Council, Britain was weak, emerging from war impoverished. In terms of military capabilities and economic strength Britain was unable to compete with the rising superpowers: the USA and the Soviet Union. Decolonisation, particularly the decision to withdraw from India in 1947, symbolised the realisation that Britain’s supposed world status was merely an illusion. The formation of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1950 and 1951 provided an opportune time for Britain to fundamentally reassess its position in 18
19
the world, and take a leading role in the building of a European Community. The opportunity was overlooked, Labour leader Clement Attlee expressing his intense mistrust of a united Europe: ‘The Common Market. The so-called Common Market of six nations. Know them all very well. Very recently, this country had to spend a great deal of blood and treasure rescuing four of ‘em from attacks by the other two.’ Attlee’s scepticism was echoed by anti-European politicians from all sides of the political spectrum. Although perhaps understandable, the decision to step back whilst the process that led to the formation of the EEC took place, Britain had, perhaps inadvertently, shaped the foundation of her relations with Europe for the coming decades.
In January 1957, the Treaty of Rome was signed. In a rather telling gesture, a British delegation on behalf of the Foreign Minister was present at the negotiations prior to the Treaty’s signing, to ‘observe and encourage but not to join’. Whilst ‘The Six’ enjoyed an economic upturn, Britain focused her foreign policy endeavours on developing the ‘special relationship’ with the USA. Very soon, however, British attitudes towards the EEC changed dramatically – the Suez fiasco having provided something of a wake-up call, shattering illusions of imperial power. By 1958, Britain had been painfully disillusioned with her own supposed power. Alone in the post-war world, Britain was simply unable to compete with the booming economies of continental Europe. In May 1960, Britain was a founding member of the EFTA (European Free Trade Association), which unfortunately failed as a workable alternative to EEC membership, unable to match the EEC’s influence and economic success. In 1961, Macmillan’s government applied to join the EEC.
Until 1957, Britain ignored the open door for British entry into the EEC. Interestingly, British politicians wholeheartedly supported the idea of a united Europe. The Schuman Plan, upon which the Coal and Steel Community was based, promised to lay the ground stones for economic co-operation across Western Europe. Britain approved entirely, as this economic reconstruction increased Europe’s security as the Cold War developed. Ultimately, Britain chose to encourage European integration from the side lines, opting to focus on relations with the USA and the Commonwealth. Unfortunately however, the days of imperial grandeur were over. And the open door for British entry into the EEC would soon be slammed shut.
Painful and lengthy negotiations followed the application, the difficulties of stipulating the terms of British entry intensified by Britain’s determination to maintain economic relations with the Commonwealth as well as with Europe. By 1963, it appeared that the negotiations had succeeded. Perhaps Britain’s interest in European affairs had not been ‘too little too late’. However, in a bombshell last minute move, French President Charles de Gaulle exercised the 19
20
French right of veto; blocking Britain’s application for entry. Britain was humiliated, and had no option but to wait until de Gaulle was no longer President. The beggar at the European feast, Britain had ‘applied to join the EEC out of fear, been rejected out of French pride, and revealed to itself and to the world how economically weak and diplomatically isolated it was’.
assuring them that they could ‘sort it out later’. Has it ever been fully ‘sorted out’? Even after gaining entry, the odds were still against Britain. In a cruel twist of fate, British entry to the EEC coincided with the onset of severe economic difficulties within Europe, leading to severe inflation (running at 16%) and a sharp drop in the value of sterling. And even after having gained entry, Britain herself remained unconvinced of the supposed virtues of the ‘common market’. In a controversial referendum in 1975, 68.7% of the electorate voted to remain in Europe, but opponents of the ‘yes’ vote claimed that the referendum had been a ‘betrayal of democracy’. Those who did vote to remain in the EEC voted ‘more out of fear of the consequences of leaving than out of enthusiasm for remaining in’ (Pugh). Whatever the case, it is clear that a considerable number of Britons remained Eurosceptic.
In 1967, economic issues at home led Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson to make Britain’s second application for EEC membership. Unusually, Britain’s formal request for application had the full support of the Conservative and Liberal parties, but was opposed by some 36 Labour MPs. However, Wilson fell victim to the same humiliation as Macmillan – the British application to join the EEC was once again vetoed by De Gaulle. Following De Gaulle’s retirement in 1969, Britain was invited to apply for EEC membership for a third time. Britain signed the treaty of accession in 1972 and became a full member of the EEC on January 1st 1973. However, due to economic difficulties of her own, rather than being a welcome guest, Britain was once again the beggar at the European feast, and had rushed to comply with the EEC’s terms of entry. Britain’s bargaining position was weak, and joining the EEC meant turning its back on all her old allies and partners – the USA, and the Commonwealth. But beggars can’t be choosers, and Edward Heath, the Conservative Prime Minister of the time, had told his officials to accept any terms,
When Mrs Thatcher took office in 1979, she was faced with the problem of Britain’s poor economic performance in the 1970s. In spite of initially claiming to be proEuropean, Thatcher later spoke out against inefficiency and bureaucracy at the heart of the EEC, and Britain’s disadvantaged position within the European community. Thatcher’s main qualms with Europe were the disparity between budget payments which seemed to rewards inefficient nations and penalise productive economies, and the outdated nature of the EEC’s protectionist principles. Thatcher felt that Europe ‘could easily become the prey of 20
21
creeping socialism’ as it was not subject to democratic control; an attitude previously expressed by radical philosopher Karl Marx: 'There is a spectre haunting Europe - the spectre of communism’. In spite of these fears, one of the greatest paradoxes of Thatcher’s time in office was her overseeing Britain’s deeper absorption into the heart of Europe. In 1986, Thatcher accepted the Single European Act, committing Britain to closer monetary and political union with Europe; accepting the principle of supra-nationality; and allowing the abolition of the right of member states to veto a majority decision.
interest levels from 10% to 15%, and sold off £30 billion of Britain’s foreign reserves in a final attempt to boost the value of sterling. The frantic attempts to reduce the pressure on the pound were in vain. On 16th September 1992, Major’s government was forced to withdraw from the ERM, weakening Britain’s case for being involved in European monetary union and thus strengthening the Eurosceptics’ argument against deeper integration with Europe. Major’s troubles over Europe were not yet at an end. Major had taken a momentous step in 1992 by signing the Maastricht Treaty, wishing to show that he was a ‘good European’. The main terms of the Treaty included full European integration; common European foreign and defence policies; a European Central Bank; and a single European currency, the euro, to be adopted in 1999 (Britain obtained an opt-out clause which it exercised in 1999). The Treaty was to come into effect in November 1993, and the EEC would become the European Union (EU). However, after Major had signed the Treaty, it had to be ratified by parliament before it could become binding on Britain. This was far more problematic than Major had perhaps anticipated. The ERM fiasco of 1992 had left a legacy of suspicion and antiEuropean feeling. Many Conservatives, and a large number of Labour MPs were concerned about the loss of sovereignty incurred by Maastricht and thus voted against the ratifying bills. In July 1993, an organised resistance by Eurorebels within Major’s own party defeated a key ratifying
Thatcher’s successor, Conservative Prime Minister John Major, faced crisis over British integration in Europe in the late summer of 1992. Previously, generally speaking the Conservative and Liberal parties had been in favour of British EEC membership and the Labour party had been split. Now, however, the problem of Europe was causing deep divisions within the Conservative party. A crisis developed over the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) which had been created as a means of curbing inflation through pegging Europe’s currencies to the value of the Deutschemark. For Britain, this was unrealistically high, causing British exports to be over-priced and thus uncompetitive. By September 1992, international bankers had sensed the overvaluation of the pound and began to speculate against it. Desperate times called for desperate measures, and Norman Lamont (then Chancellor of the Exchequer) raised 21
22
bill. Having already signed the Treaty, Major reintroduced the ratifying bill as part of a formal vote of confidence in the government, thus forcing it through. Major’s methods strengthened the claims by those within and outside parliament that Britain was being ‘railroaded into European integration’ and that pro-Europeans were ‘afraid of democracy’. Divisions over Europe split Major’s government and created lasting bitterness within the Cabinet even. The Labour opposition party, meanwhile, had in 1983 officially dropped its commitment to withdraw Britain from the EEC, and in the party reforms that led to its becoming ‘New Labour’, the party grew distinctly pro-European. By 1999, all other EU members with the exception of Denmark had adopted the single currency (Euro). Once again, Britain was unconvinced: Tony Blair’s Labour government declared that it would lay the foundations for entry but would make the final commitment if and only if it could be established that to join the Euro would be in Britain’s economic best interests. Had Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown not been more cautious than Prime Minister Tony Blair in his approach to further British integration in Europe, Britain may well have adopted the Euro.
complies. The French, in particular, ignore any restrictions they are not keen on: by 2004, France had over 400 outstanding complaints against it for its refusal to comply with directives. Perhaps Britain is simply too uptight, unable to handle the idea of disobeying the European authorities— ’British officials rush to carry out European directives in a way that amuses and bemuses their French counterparts’. It is entirely plausible, that had Britain shelved her nostalgic illusions of imperial grandeur sooner, and taken a leading role in the events that led to the formation of the EEC, Britain’s position in Europe today would be very different. Britain was a latecomer to European integration, showing an interest only after realising that to survive alone in the post-war world would be near enough impossible. The lack of consistent policy towards Europe within government, and indeed within political parties since the EEC’s creation, is reflected today in prominent Eurosceptic attitudes both within government and amongst the electorate. Looking back on the history of Britain’s integration in the post-war European Community, it is difficult to disagree with Nigel Farage’s perhaps rather bold statement that ‘When people stand up and talk about the great success that the EU has been, I'm not sure anybody saying it really believes it themselves anymore'.
In terms of Europe’s ‘democratic deficit’, the evidence is plainly visible. In 2006, the EU imposed over 3000 regulations and directives on Britain, none of which were even discussed in parliament. Whilst other member states often disregard EU legislation they find disagreeable, Britain dutifully 22
23
Was Britain Really Alone in World War Two?
By Cameron Fleming
the battle of Crete in May 1941.
It is often taken as a fact that Britain’s resolve as a determined little island, standing as lonely opposition against the Nazi war machine from June 1940 until June 1941 when operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the USSR, began. But is this presumption true?
Even so, during these campaigns Britain was not alone. Help from forces in exile was present even during the days of the battle of Britain; free polish, French and Czech forces works alongside British troops as the Greeks did in North Africa after the fall of their country.
Ostensibly, a quick glance of a European map after the fall of France gives the impression (geographically at least) that Britain was an isolated island in a sea of fascism as the last of the traditional western allies surviving the blitzkrieg saved by the stretch of water separating us from our European neighbours. However, many forget the “minor” belligerents that dominated the relatively small campaigns of 1940-41 like Greece and Yugoslavia culminating in
During the battle of Britain, Britain had two more key belligerents providing aid; the first being the “neutral” USA. Under the terms of the lend-lease agreement equipment was sent as well as volunteer pilots from the USA even before the USA formally entered the war on the side of the allies’ in December 1941 following pearl harbour. Further proof of Anglo-US negotiations comes in the form of Churchill’s foreign policy moves to impress the Americans. For 23
24
example Hastings argues that Greece was one such move.
Nepal, Burma, Egypt and Gibraltar to name just the tip of a gargantuan iceberg then its economic and military support becoming key to allied success in the “alone” year particularly in north Africa and Greece where ANZAC, Indian, Gibraltan, Maltese and South African troops served with distinction in the Mediterranean campaigns (not to mention Egypt) Imperial support meant that even if Britain was alone empire would have made up for it.
However the conclusion from that information that Britain was lonely or searching for allies simply doesn’t stand up but Britain did want a superpower for an ally. Germany was obviously out of the question and to Churchill, the anti-communist, the soviet union was just as bad (signing the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in 1939 presumed their stance to the rest of the country) The major powers in Europe were either occupied like France or held fascist governments like Italy and Spain. Japan for the time being was expansionist and hostile. The only sensible option was to attempt to gain aid from the USA a growing powerhouse springing from the great depression straight into rearmament and weapons development like the cutting edge Christie chassis for tanks that was also adopted by the soviets for the T-34 tanks. Initial fears of some American business like ford supporting fascist regimes in the 1930’s were put don as American foreign policy even before pearl harbour and regardless of isolationism were pushed towards the allied cause as the lend lease agreement showed.
In conclusion, Britain was not alone at all even when their traditional allies had been overrun although within Western Europe Britain was quite isolated and the use the term was useful as a propaganda technique to make the public believe that every person was needed to win the war as part of the “Dunkirk spirit” while gaining international support in smaller campaigns and mobilizing the behemoth which was the British empire.
The final HUGE help Britain received from outside the island was from its greatest asset; its empire (and commonwealth) At its height the British Empire covered a third of the earth and the empire was crucial to Britain’s survival throughout the war with military forces provided from Canada, India, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, 24
25
Could Ordinary Germans be to Blame for the Holocaust? mits, “It would be fitting for us Germans to remain silent in the face of what was the greatest crime in the history of mankind” yet he urges them to speak freely and expresses his desire for Germany to “face up to its past.”
By Amelia Price On Tuesday 25th of January 2005, the German chancellor Gerard Schröder used the 60 year commemoration of the liberation of Auschwitz to proclaim that ordinary Germans were, in fact, partially responsible for the Holocaust. He spoke out to an audience of German citizens and Auschwitz survivors, to whom he declared that the dreadful events that occurred in the camp could not be solely explained by and blamed on the “Demonic Hitler".
‘Who was to blame?’ is a question we all almost intrinsically ask when dealing with the retelling of human action and even more so when that action is something as sickening and hard to comprehend as the Holocaust. In fact, it appears that mankind shy away from the topic all to diffidently, leaving an intergenerational assumption that Hitler, and Hitler alone is to blame for the entirety of Nazi Germany. At the Nuremberg trials in the mid 1940s, several Nazi leaders were held accountable for their actions, but perhaps Hitler and his representatives aren’t the only ones we should
After the tragic events of the war, it was easy to blame the Nazi dictator. His influence, manipulation and seeming omnipotence over the German population unarguably led to the somewhat inevitable consequences of the Nazi regime. Mr Schröder's innovational admission as German chancellor came as a shock to the nation as he ad25
26
be pointing the finger at. It seems Schröder isn’t the only one possessing this view either; today’s historians back similar theologies and have drawn similar conclusions.
to the ‘demonic’ dictator himself. In certain aspects, this claim proves highly plausible. It seems fair to suggest that Hitler could not act alone; he could never have established what can only be described as a ‘Manifestation of absolute evil’ without the contribution of others.
In Fact, Daniel Goldhagen, defends this idea in his book ‘Hitler’s Willing Executioners’ in which he claims that German people allowed themselves to become indoctrinated with anti-Semitic ideology. There lies little sympathy in Goldhagen’s writing for the physiological manipulation of German people nor the economic hardship of the time.
The German population of the time appeared to lack the resistance that proved fundamental to the successful rise of Hitler and Nazi policies. Several roles in the day to day running of the camps relied on the participation of German Civilians. Consider the train drivers, they lead thousands to the camps and, in some respects, to their deaths. If such people were fully aware of the topicalities of places like Auschwitz, what would make them voluntarily enter into such professions?
"…German anti-Semitic beliefs about Jews were the central causal agent of the Holocaust… The conclusion of this book is that anti-Semitism moved many thousands of “ordinary” Germans – and would have moved millions more, had they been appropriately positioned – to slaughter Jews. Not economic hardship, not the coercive means of a totalitarian state, not the social psychological, not invariable psychological propensities, but ideas about Jews that were pervasive in Germany, and had been for decades, induced ordinary Germans to kill unarmed, defenseless Jewish men, women and children by the thousands, systematically and without pity..." (Goldhagen, 1996:9)
On the contrary, the physiological indoctrination of the nations population could equally be argued the cause for their participation in the holocaust. Christopher Browning in his book ‘Ordinary Men’ expresses the belief that that the "Germans were coerced into killing, followed orders blindly, succumbed to peer pressure, or simply were unaware of the ongoing genocide" and so the average German did not willingly participate in the killings.
The book appears to be conceived from an expression of moral outrage. Goldhagen is attempting highlight the idea that those who people see as victims of psychological manipulation, the ‘ordinary men’, were undisputedly acting with a similar mentality
Browning believes that the anti-Semitic propaganda started by the Nazi's in 1933 encouraged the hateful behavior displayed by the minority of Germans, explaining that examples like the train driver are but singular examples and were not professions in 26
27
which average Germans partook. It is hard to deny that propaganda designed by Goebbels to spread anti-Semitic values lead to the widespread hatred of the Jewish population across Germany and therefore the responsibility for the crimes lies with those who made the orders. But this leaves question as to whether propaganda was sufficient to motivate the massacres and ill treatment of a shocking number of Jews. However, there’s always the claim that perhaps it wasn’t that the Nazi propaganda that brainwashed the German population but instead they just added fuel to the hatred already among in German society.
it can’t be said that they carried them out with minimal brutality. Instead, they were reported to have made people perform antics before they were shot and beat countless prisoners to death without sufficient reason, sometimes with no specific orders. Suggesting the deep-rooted hatred may have been reality. More than 65 years later, it's seems somewhat irrelevant to point blame at Germans and hold them accountable for the lack of resistance that ultimately lead to the horrific actions. But with six million Jews dead and another estimated six million dead at the hands of the Nazis, someone has got to be found guilty. If there is one thing to be learned from this, though, it is that to stand by and watch a crime happen, or even more, allow it to happen it makes you just as accountable as the one ordering it.
Although it would be easy to suggest that post World War II Germany no longer posed any particular hatred the Jews and, in addition to this, made laws to protect them. Goldhagen is adamant that after the country adopted a democratic government, anti-Semitism was simply erased from the education system, meaning these values ‘grew out’ of society. To think that the Germans were ignorant of the ongoing genocide seems rather questionable. If they were unaware of the crimes, there would have been no reason for significant amount of Jews in the country to flee. It appears they were fully aware of their destiny as long as they remained in Germany. There would be no possible way to ignore the Jews being paraded through the city and loaded up in trains to never return, yet they did little to prevent it. Even if Germans were forced to commit these crimes against the Jews by the Nazi leaders, 27
28
Is the USA the ‘new’ Ancient Rome?
By Joe Gaffney
One cannot help but appreciate how the mighty pillars, domes and arches of Ancient Rome are echoed throughout Washington DC, though it is not only the architecture which has inspired this article. The similarities go much deeper, the patricians were a class in Rome who used politics to line their pockets, waged war to loot other countries and manipulated the entire republic to keep power away from the poor, the sick and the minorities, destroying democracy. This can appear to be rather satirical, comparing a corrupt political class of ancient Rome to the US system of government, that is until one looks further into the establishment and founding of American government which in itself established the inherent oligarchy over American politics. The Articles of Confederation which was
effected in 1781, after the formal ratification by all 13 states, established the United States of America as a confederation of sovereign states – it gave legitimacy to the Continental Congress, a single house which contained a body of delegates with each of the states having one vote, which could make decisions on issues which impacted on all of the states. Every decision required 9 of the 13 votes which pretty much guaranteed that no decisions would ever be made – this logically followed the fear of tyrannical government who would tax highly and quarter troops in their houses, which the Continental Congress was not allowed to do. The states attempted to source revenue to pay off post-war debts from tariffs on 28
29
goods, fiscally harsh policies and taxes – in Massachusetts, 1786 this inspired Shays’ Rebellion. Though this was quelled by the state militia it was a sign to many that urgent reform on the Articles government, which couldn’t deal with the uprising at all, was needed – many except Thomas Jefferson, who noted that “A little rebellion now and then is a good thing. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” To most of the elite, Shays’ rebellion corroborated the idea that too much democratic liberty amongst the lower classes could threaten their own property, and those with government bonds felt their returns would be diminished when the government itself made no tax revenue – something had to be done. The first attempt in Annapolis, Maryland, 1786 aimed at helping international trade, the 8 attending delegates agreed to meet again in Philadelphia in one year to revise the Articles of Confederation. Though, rather than tweak the Articles, they wrote a new charter of government, the Constitution which is still applied and exists as the fundamental law today. The framers themselves were far from ordinary, all were extremely wealthy, most were University educated, and some were decorated members of the military. They had hoped to reach a compromise not only between a unitary and confederate government; but a compromise between a government which wasn’t tyrannical and a government which wasn’t too democratic – which explains why the President is chosen
by the Electoral College. Such a system has never been copied by any other government and even where the Americans themselves try to export democracy, this process is not followed. The establishment of a weak federal government, and of a set of inalienable rights meant that those who were prosperous remained autonomous from government activity, minimal taxes and intervention. Thus it can be said that the Founders made a blatant and precise attempt to establish a system of government which would serve those at the top, at the same time as deceiving others into the belief that their views are represented and they are just as protected – as it does today. It has only been through the rulings of liberal ‘bold soul’ justices that the rights which have protected the white and the wealthy have been expanded to protect minorities – ie through rulings like Brown v. Board of Education, which desegregated schools and paved the way for huge civil rights reform, Lawrence v. Texas which decriminalised homosexual activity in all states. Though even these relied on the Supreme Court Justices acting against the wishes of those who appointed them (President nominates, House of Senate confirms), cases where the Justices did as would have been expected of them would include Korematsu v. United States, where Japanese Americans were placed into internment camps during the Second World War and property seized, despite the clarity of the IVth and Vth Amendments. Perhaps the most worrying similarity is the 29
30
use of politics to line one’s pockets. This does not concern the Politicians, but the availability of corporations to ‘buy’ them. Campaign finance allows large corporations or interest groups to pay politicians with the hope of a return in the way of political favours, this is seen as an investment with the possibility of great returns by many political commentators. Three alarming examples here would be that of Friends of Israel who donated in excess of $10M in the previous three elections, Obama received a $1M donation from the oil and gas industry in 2008 alone and in recent years, the Congress has received $180M in donations from oil and gas companies. This has caused concern for many, as the Capitol return favours in the form of tax-payerfunded subsidies and tax breaks for those at the top – indeed an investment with a return leaving the consumer voters unsatisfied and out of pocket, and the politicians and their corporation buddies happy. Though there have been several attempts to stop this though the Supreme Court have been quick to strike any attempt down, declaring them unconstitutional, convenient that several Justices themselves received up to $100,000 in donations from an interest group (Citizens United) supporting the rights of corporations in their generous giving to political campaigns. In closing, the corporations have been allowed to place a firm grip on American politics through campaign finance, a grip which is well supported by a layered system of government which is inherently cor-
rupt under a thin guise of being democratic.
30
31
Hellenized Jews and the Rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire
Roman world. Meeks estimates that within the diaspora, (where the Hellenized Jews were from, different from Palestinian Jews) there were between five and six million Hellenized Jews, clearly plenty to ensure conversion and growth.
By Elliot Mather Emancipated Jews were those who were marginalized by their religion in the midnineteenth century and so established the Reform movement, a sect coming out of Judaism. Had it not been for the years of persecution of Jews by Christians before this, perhaps they would have converted to Christianity to maintain their Jewish roots but resolve the issue of ethnicity they face. This is a well-documented historical event and Stark argues that this is exactly what happened centuries before to the Hellenized Jews. Contrary to popular opinion amongst scholars then it seems that perhaps the Jews did have quite the impact on Christianity’s growth.
Hellenized Jews do not seem to have been all that strict in religiosity and had little attachment to their fundamental roots. There is evidence that the Torah was translated into Greek to make worship easier and more convenient, suggesting they were not too attached to the Hebrew original. Hellenized Jews were business people who were recognised for their wealth, religion was not a priority for these people. There were also clear attempts to assimilate with the rest of the Greek community in that time, one passage from their translated To-
There was certainly a great enough number to fuel growth of the religion in the Greco31
32
rah (Exod. 22:28) reads 'you shall not revile the gods' which was an obvious gesture to their Pagan brothers in the community.
sive religion, ever striving to be in accord with the postulates of reason'. In the diaspora however Jews were Jews and the law did not differentiate between personal feelings towards religion and theology. The law separated all Jews from the rest of society as they were classed as an ethnic group (even though the Hellenized Jews had little ties with their original ethnicity and seem Greek in all but name) thus could not fully participate in civic life which held them back economically and socially, they were not offered the same protection of the law. There was then social marginality in both eras and, as Tcherikover states, there was a need for 'a compromise, a synthesis, which would permit a Jew to remain a Jew ' yet still enjoy and be a part of 'the elect society of the Greeks'. Hellenized Jews were torn between two cultures, that of their Jewish roots and the freedom enjoyed by the Greek culture that ensured economic stability - Christianity was the answer. The middle ground that ensured maintaining the religious side of their lives but freeing them from the bounds of an ethnicity. As Theissen argues, Pauline Christianity was 'accommodated Judaism’.
Further still these Jews adopted Greek names and did not shut themselves out in ghettos or separate communities. They adopted the Greek Enlightenment in the same way the Emancipated Jews accepted the Enlightenment of the nineteenth century. This religion was not based on cultural practices but the theology and divine Law therein. Philo's 'anticipations' of Christian doctrine are well quoted in scholarly literature however, it rings true that he disregarded customs and culture in favour of more reasoned conclusions which united his faith with the world as he found it. Frend makes the point that he interpreted teaching 'exclusively through the mirror of Greek philosophy'. The Emancipated Jews had a similar outlook; a view of theology over customs, they took liberal responses to divine Law arguing that when circumstances change so too must theology. Samuel Holdheim, rabbi of the first Reform congregation in Berlin, argued this point valiantly saying that the Laws 'shall be observed no longer because they can be observed no longer'. The Pittsburgh Platform also made a similar point which directly relates to the Hellenized Jews and Philo, they proclaimed that 'we hold that all such Mosaic and Rabbinical laws as regulate diet, priestly purity and dress originated in ages and under the influence of ideas altogether foreign to our present mental and spiritual state. We recognize Judaism as a progres-
In conclusion, evidence suggests that a significant number of Hellenized Jews converted to Christianity over successive generations in a cascade effect. Christianity offered a fresh start and allowed full participation in society whilst allowing the maintenance of theistic ideals.
32
33
Should Britain Leave the European Union? tionship, or can the UK break ties and go it alone?
By Isaac Tweedale In the past few years, in particular since the global economic crisis of 2008, the rise of Euroscepticism in the UK has been meteoric. UKIP, the most staunchly anti-EU political party in the UK, now has legitimate claim to being ‘the third party of Britain’ after Labour and the Conservatives, with the second highest number of MEP’s of any party, 214 local councillors and its leader, Nigel farage, becoming a more and more recognisable figure in the British media. Such are sentiments that David Cameron has promised the UK a nationwide referendum on EU membership in 2017, should the Conservatives win the general election in 2015. But are the issues that initially set up the European Community still enough for the UK to maintain their current rela-
One of the strongest factors pulling the UK into EU membership is that it is our main trading partner, and membership provides free trade and severely reduces trade barriers. Leaving this free trade area could irreversibly damage the British economy. However, Norway and Switzerland have remained outside and in maintaining separate free trade agreements, have not been disadvantaged from staying outside the Union. Evidence suggests that the EU would be keen to maintain the UK as a trading partner.
Free movement of labour and capital has been a founding, if controversial, principle of the European Community, contained in all treaties since the 1957 Treaty of Rome. 33
34
According to the European Commission, more than 15 million EU citizens have moved countries, with over 1.5 million students enjoying exchange programmes in another European country as part of the ERASMUS programme. However, Eurosceptics believe the UK’s relatively strong economy with respect to many Eastern European countries has led to mass uncontrollable immigration into the UK, creating a housing shortage and possible straining social security payments. Such people would like to see restrictions on such migration, either as a total figure per year or as a points-based system, like in Australia.
recent years, from £4.7 million (2009-10) to £7.6 million (2010-11). Proponents argue that this is easily offset by the favourable trade situation, lower consumer spending, and funding to reduce regional inequality. However, sceptics argue The EU is highly inefficient in its spending. Furthermore, the biggest EU subsidy is still the Common Agricultural Policy. Since the UK doesn’t have a large agricultural sector, its stands to gain little. In an increasingly international economy, it is impossible to face international issues alone. Fishing, agriculture, climate change and competition are all issues where Europe needs a coordinated strategy. Europhiles believe leaving the EU will leave the UK worse off with no say. Again however, the critics state the EU has become so large and cumbersome, it has become increasingly difficult for individual nations to have a meaningful say on important issues. The introduction of Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) over unanimity means nations may have to accept rules and regulations they don’t support or finding damaging to their economy.
In the post-war period, the EU performed well with consistent increases in GDP per capita and living standards. However, this is now the biggest weakness facing the EU. The adoption of the single currency failed to account for divergence in competitiveness, which has caused trade imbalances and lower domestic demand, whilst the European Central Bank prioritises low inflation and monetary stability over full employment. The UK, who opted out of the single currency, has avoided much of these problems, but would have reimburse the EU after its bailouts just the same as any other EU nation, which could adversely affect the nation’s recovery. Leaving the EU would allow the UK to escape such repayments, and could pave the way for other nations in the EU who didn’t adopt the single currency (currently Sweden and Denmark) to leave.
Whatever the outcome, one thing is for sure: Europe has changed British history and present irreversibly. They say that history never feels like history when you’re living through it: but in the case of Europe, it is sometimes easy to see that decisions we are living through will go down in the history books.
The net cost of EU membership has risen in 34
35
Should Britain Leave the Stirling Castle During the European Union? Renaissance Era
time the castle transformed from a fortification to a mythical castle similar to those in the myths of King Arthur. All of this change marked by the eventual birth of the never-to-be-King Henry.
By Zara Andrews The passage to Stirling Castle is guarded by Robert the Bruce, declared king of independent Scotland in 1324 with recognition by Pope John XXII. Gaining the castle in 1314, the ownership of Stirling Castle is fundamental to securing central Scotland; only the strongest of Scots have been able to secure the castle from the hands of the English. The statue of Robert the Bruce pays tribute to the thousand years fighting since for the independence of Scotland. Transferring into the medieval period, the importance of castle fluctuated, however by the Renaissance Era it became a pinnacle focus point once more. No longer in immediate threat, between 1473-1625 it transgressed into a focal of political intrigue and a home for monarchs. In this
James IV of Scotland was born in Stirling Castle on the 17th March 1473: already by this point Stirling castle was a well-fortified castle which had been occupied by the English at least six times between the periods of 1100 to 1347.This period was the last major attempt of invasion by the English. Originally there had been immense interest by monarchs in the defence; however, the gradual slack in attacks by the English granted Stirling Castle the possibility of expanding politically. The birth of James IV allowed this; as he grew up he sought to establish a European standing at court. 35
36
Most importantly, the introduction of alchemists into court encouraged researching within the castle grounds. One of the most famous was Caldwell who supposedly maintained a furnace containing the fifth mythological element, ‘quinta essencia’. Moreover, an Italian alchemist also resided in the walls, called John Damian. In 1509 he attempted he attempted human powered flight, which he was fortunate to not be killed in. John Damian was a particular favourite of James IV’s and was made Abbot of Tongland. The use of alchemists was to search for new discoveries which could be exploited in warfare and gain prestige.
twice the size of the towers standing there today. The height of the towers alongside the use of French military architecture presented the power of James IV against his opponents at the time. Similarly, the Great Hall it was also painted in the ‘King’s Gold’ to create a sense of lavish wealth. On the other hand, Stirling Castle was also James IV’s main residence throughout his reign, the King’s Old Building dates back to being a place of residence to before 1490s. This building was purposely built for James IV as his private residence in 1496; storerooms were constructed, one of them the ‘vessel house’ contained precious silver and gold plates. When in 1503 James IV married Margaret Tudor it was further expanded on to accommodate for her. Unfortunately, there is little evidence of this today due to the serious fire that burnt down a large area of the building in 1855. The reign of James IV was perhaps the most intense in modernizing Stirling Castle in the Renaissance Era, although more work was done, the changeover during this period underlined a change in direction for the future of Stirling Castle. This work assisted future monarchs in establishing their own changes and modifications.
Further evidence that James IV was trying to build a name for himself in Europe was that he gained approval from Pope Alexander VI in 1501 to establish a college of priests at Stirling Castle. The creation of the Great Hall in 1503 moreover instils this as it was painted in the ‘King’s Gold’ to seem majestic. Throughout the 1500s it was wellknown for presenting lavish banquets to visiting foreigners, along with the ability to double up as a staff dining room. The Great Hall was later used by generations such as James VI (James I of England) when he held a banquet for the birth of his first son, Henry, in August 1594. In Europe James IV was intrigued by the codes of chivalry and legends of King Arthur so French military architecture was replicated to be able to reflect these influences in the construction of the forework at Stirling Castle. In contrast with the castle that is standing today there were two more towers, both of which were
Unlike his father James V was not born at Stirling Castle, yet his coronation took place in the Royal Chapel on 21st September 1513, after his father’s death at the Battle of Flodden Field. Aged only one years old, he grew up under the guardianship of Lord Erkine in the castle. In 1515 it was besieged by his Regent Albany by 7,000 men in an 36
37
attempt to wrestle control of the young King from his mother. Due to this James V attempted to flee the castle by travelling in disguise under the name ‘Gudeman of Ballengeich’. The surname Ballenguich means windy pass in Gaelic, after the road running under the eastern wall. Fortunately, Albany was unable to gain control of the King and the King continued to live in the castle walls. Similar to his father, James V wanted to use Stirling Castle to gain honour and prestige, directing it towards his unruly barons. The Royal Palace was created to purposely elaborate, using bright and rich colours. It was completed in 1545 and was flaunted by James V and his wife, Mary of Guise to present themselves as wealthy, well-educated and sophisticated. It was created by Sir James Hamillton of Finnart, using masons from France to create carvings of heads in the ceilings. An example of some of the heads are Julius Caesar, Mark Anthony, Henry VIII and Mary of Guise. Under James V’s rule Stirling Castle was purposely used politically to pacify resistance against his rule as well as celebrate the Renaissance period.
Priory; on her journey to the priory she abducted by the Earl of Bothwell. Later on in 1548 Mary married the dauphine of France at the age of five, but the early death of her husband meant that she had to return in 1560 to an unstable Scotland. The political turmoil at the time, was the main reason why Mary was unable to successful make her stamp on Stirling Castle; if Mary had been able to rule successfully though, there might well have been development on areas such as the chapel to assist with spirituality, which was a major political setback at the time. Mary, Queen of Scots was compelled to abdicate due to the political turmoil in Scotland, allowing James VI to proceed onto the throne of Scotland. Although born at Edinburgh castle, Stirling Castle presided as his private residence. In his younger years he was taught within the walls by George Buchanan, a Scottish historian and humanist scholar. Similar to his mother and grandfather, he came to the throne extremely young; during his residence Stirling Castle was laid siege to by William Kirkcaldy of Grange in 1571, who was trying to gain power. The political instability inside Scotland meant that events such as Christmas banquets and the birth of his first son were highly propagandized. The first, Christmas 1566, was when Mary Queen of Scots hosted a three-day spectacle for her only child, the future James VI.
The reign of Mary, Queen of Scots was largely inactive in changing Stirling Castle, in fact very little of her reign can be of evidence here. Mary became Queen only 6 days after her birth on the 8th December 1542, the political climate which had been felt in James V’s reign has now reached its peak. Altogether, Mary spent of a small amount of time in the grounds of Stirling castle before leaving to go to Inchahome
The entertainment culminated in a banquet in the Great Hall in an attempt to solidify relations. The guests sat at a round 37
38
table, in imitation of King Arthur and his knights, and the food was brought in on a mobile stage drawn by satyrs and nymphs. A child dressed as an angel was lowered in a giant globe from the ceiling and gave a recitation. The banquet ended with a great fireworks display, the first ever witnessed in Scotland. The second celebration came in August 1594, when James VI celebrated the baptism of his firstborn, Prince Henry. The celebrations strengthened relations between Scottish barons and the King through imitating the influences of James IV (which could also strengthen their claim to the throne).
Another recurring problem at Stirling Castle is besiegement by Scottish barons; the fact that they are never able to seize control of the monarch suggests that Stirling Castle was still used for defensive purposes. Paradoxically, the creation of King’s Old Buildings meant that it was also a home to monarchs throughout the years, even though there is threat of besiegement. Overall, the positioning of Stirling Castle, allowed for it to play a central role in the politics of Scotland during the Renaissance period.
To conclude, the development of Stirling Castle in the Renaissance allowed most monarchs to try to politically gain and strengthen their claim to the throne. Originally James IV assesses a need to try develop politics with Europe, but progressively the claim to the throne is increasingly threatened by the need for regents, creating baronial discontent within Scotland. The threat of this causes the monarchs to react by extravagating Stirling Castle to show their wisdom and wealth. This is immensely weakened by Mary, Queen of Scots, as she lived in France and when she returned to Scotland she was unable to make any radical changes. Most interestingly, the fascination with King Arthur is recurring especially during the Renaissance as a way of bringing order, the use of this concept by James I ultimately allows him to be more diplomatic, therefore a more successful monarch than his predecessors. 38
39
I-Want-To-Be-In -Amer-i-ca… By Harry Griffiths
Washington in the early evening of Sunday 9th February. Many chose to visit the infamous ‘Wok ‘n’ Roll’ Chinese, just a stone’s throw from the hotel, with others opting for a simple pizza in bed! Whilst the majority got a lengthy, well-deserved rest that night, the same cannot be said for one of our very own from the History Department staff. Phil slept like a baby, unfortunately to the misfortune of his roommate – Matt. He suffered the consequence of Phil’s slumber: Phil’s snoring. It left Matt sleepless and stirred, seeing him resort to the bathroom in refuge at 3 a.m., only to be woke merely two hours later by Phil– sporting athletic attire – in preparation for his morning exercise.
A review of Winstanley College’s Recent Trip to Washington DC and New York… You’ve heard of the San Francisco 49-ers: well we had our own 49-ers in the form of the 49 Winstanley students visiting Washington DC & New York this February, but we were received with a frosty reception of snow and ice! A trip of both upper and lower sixth students from the History Department and the PLS Department, it was a great opportunity to see all the sights that the USA is renowned for that we see on TV, whether it be on ‘News At Ten’ or ‘Friends’. Having been up from dawn in the UK for our early departure from Manchester, an arduous first day of travelling concluded as we eventually set up camp at the hotel in
Poor Matt! After such palaver, a visit to the eminent Capitol Building was in order, and did not 39
40
disappoint: its terrific architecture and grandeur reminded every student why they’d done their best to survive the slog of jet lag and journeying of the previous day. After many-a-sleepish-snap from the cameras, it was off to Congress, where a guided tour reinvigorated the tourist, historian and politician amongst the group, followed by a flying visit to the café at the Supreme Court, as one does when in America!
condolences in place at the Pentagon as a tribute from Winstanley College. A quick hop back on the subway and we were on to Arlington Cemetery. The sheer vastness of the place is breath-taking. In all directions for about half a mile, all that meets the eye is a blanket of white gravestones. Whilst our purpose was primarily to see the Changing of the Guard and the grave of JFK, you could spend a shedload of time just trying to comprehend all the lives lost and remembered in this cemetery. The memorial set before the graves of the Kennedys has inscribed on it a series of touching verses which really encapsulate the sentiments aroused by the Cemetery, and provided a silent moment of united thought from all present, as did the graves of the Kennedys, and subsequently the Changing of the Guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Solider: again, something verging on incomprehensible.
Next challenge: Washington subway. With Elaine at the helm, the colossus descended on to the Washington subway to be whisked off to the Pentagon: the centre of US defence, which was memorably the second target of the 9/11 attacks. Having survived the subway one way or another, with none having been crumpled by the train doors, the Pentagon served to be a great source of interest for the entire group, not least due to the terrific tour guides that the Pentagon supplied. The guide for my particular group was an engaging young man of the US navy, whom appeared to be doing particularly well in his time in the navy, which we all believed to have been at least five years. His sterling attire however disguised a riveting fact: this guy was merely 19 – a fact that stunned the group! Having guided us skilfully through the various floors in the pentagon (including descending escalators backwards – yes, BACKWARDS), and informing us of his medical ambitions, he then escorted us to the chapel, built in memory of those lost in 9/11. A very moving memorial, Matt stepped up to honourably sign the book of
On our return to the hotel, a quick stop at the Lincoln Memorial was time well spent: again, of incredible magnitude and beauty, the sculpture of the man himself is spectacular, before passing the White House. And thus the first day ended. And yes, you think this review is going to go on and on and on. But fear not! That really was a packed first day! The morning of Tuesday 11th saw the group attend the Holocaust Museum. I promise there were exciting and happy visits on the trip to: the majority of the mourning was passed early in the week. 40
41
Again, to even begin to try and fathom the casualties of such a wave of persecution is near-on impossible. Aside from the horrors we further learnt of on the trip, there was much to take in historically regarding the Nazis and the war itself from a political perspective. The overriding feeling however, was one of dismay, shock and bereavement.
Rights, before visiting the house where Lincoln passed away, opposite the famous Ford’s Theatre. That night at the Theatre, we were all highly entertained by the ‘enlightening’ amateur production of ‘----‘, though probably for all the wrong reasons. Put it this way, the lead role was meant to be disfigured: not even a tad of make-up even embodied it – if it wasn’t for the programme, we wouldn’t have even known!
Consequently, everyone was ‘let loose’ to explore the many sights Washington had to offer in our final few hours of our stay in the city. Whilst some visited the Smithsonian museums, others returned to the hotel; others searched for food; whilst Phil, Toel and I went on an ambitious hike to traverse the many sights remaining to see. First stop: Martin Luther King Jnr’s memorial (right). Again, of vast stature, it is one that is well and truly reflective of his importance to the nation and to the world, with many quotes from him surrounding the prominent statue. One in particular struck me: ‘True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice’.
And so, New York, New York! Waving goodbye to Washington, a coach trip to remember was in store en route to New York. To feed the troops, we stopped at a Delaware service station. Once scrubbed and grubbed, we tried to get back on the bus. However, the bus driver had locked us all out of the coach accidentally! How this happened, I’ve no idea, but in the hour of need, who was to step up but Lewis. Having been hauled on top of the coach, surrounded by freezing students, Lewis, after some trial and tribulation, opened the emergency exit, lowered himself him into the coach Matrix-esque and the problem was solved. I think everyone’s hearts had stopped for a moment – though that may have just been due to the temperature – but we were soon back on the road. Fortunately, few more shenanigans occurred once in the Big Apple.
After posing for photos, we powered up to the Korean War Memorial (left), which inspired an ambiguous combination of emotion due to the haunting figures that line the memorial, captioned ‘Freedom is not free’. Finally, a last push saw us pass the expansive WWII Memorial & the George Washington Memorial on the route to the National Archives, where one of the three surviving original Magna Cartas resides, along with the Declaration and Bill of
Let loose in the city, the vast majority flocked to the shops where many a bargain was found. However, after such antics, there was no rest for the wicked: The Empire State Building awaited us! 41
42
Ascending almost one hundred storeys, we were indulged in the expansive views from such lofty heights of NYC in the darkness of the evening. The endless rows of lights created a mosaic-like effect to the views and the given perspective of the city’s sheer vastness is indescribable.
course, naturally, many took the chance of freedom with both hands and let loose on the shops of Fifth Avenue too! The evening saw some of the group visit various theatres to watch some fantastic stage shows, notably ‘The Phantom of The Opera’. And so into Friday: our final full day. Little did we know the risk of hypothermia awaited us!
We rose the next morning to a flurry of snow, and with the days flying by we were counting our lucky stars to see if we could get the majority of the remaining sights into the timeframe we had left. Whilst the snow appeared to have caused bedlam in Washington, we were relieved to discover the Big Apple was surviving and our trip wouldn’t be impeded too much.
With the adverse conditions in mind, we headed straight for the ferry to Liberty Island, passing Wall Street on the way. What lay in our path was not a fun experience! I’ve no doubt Phil & Matt will back me up in saying this, but I have never felt colder than on that day. Arriving at the ferry terminal with great expectations of Liberty & Ellis Island, we were welcomed by large queues. This was to be expected, with the latter being such prominent tourist destinations. What we did not expect was the majority of us spending almost two hours stood in temperatures which must have neared -10 degrees Celsius – and I’m not exaggerating. Shivering and dithering, like the humble tourists we were, we queued….and queued….and queued. The queuing system was shambolic: once the ferry actually arrived, many of us found ourselves beaten on to the ferry by people who were miles behind us in the initial queue. We humble British sometimes do not do ourselves any favours with our politeness.
Booted up, the troops trudged to Grand Central Station and witnessed a place where so many film scenes have been shot, from ‘Men In Black’ to ‘I Am Legend’, whilst some took the opportunity to check out the incredible ‘whispering gallery’. We then whisked off to our next destination: Central Park. Inundated with snow, Central Park was indeed a pretty scene: almost like a scene from a snow globe! Many took this opportunity to profit from the blizzard: many a person was soaked with snow, though all in good humour! Some chose to wander the park and persevere in spite of the adverse conditions, with others seeking refuge in the local museums such as the American Museum of Natural History, where exhibits ranged from recreations of dinosaur fossils to the indigenous people of the USA. Of
Upon finally arriving at Liberty Island, the vast majority flocked to the canteen for hot 42
43
drinks, before grabbing a few snaps of the New York horizon and the celebrated Statue of Liberty (truly breathtaking), before getting back on the ferry to hopefully return to somewhere warm such as….that’s right, you guessed it: shops.
And as if there hadn’t been enough stories, the staff at Manchester didn’t appear to want to relinquish our luggage from the place, and so the weary, tired faces of the Winstanley 49-ers were left waiting almost an hour in the terminal just to get their bags.
And then a moment of union, warmth and happiness was shared by all at the Hard Rock Café that evening, where thankfully we received at least 1000 calories each to make up for those lost shivering earlier in the day! The man of the hour, Lewis, our coach saviour, was honoured with a cap for his endeavours, to the rapturous applause of the Café.
And so through every trial and tribulation; every drama; every locking out of the coach; every shopping spree; every stressful subway trip; every mournful moment; every visit of wonder; we made it back safely and happily, with smiles and yawns all round!
And so, our last morning in New York saw even more last minute spending and the buying of last minute gifts for the families back home who anxiously scoured over the internet to make sure our flight was not affected by the weather. After a nervy boarding of the coach in a double-parked, lunchtime New York Avenue, we descended on the airport and said goodbye to the states. The airport of course was not without its dramas, with one student unfathomably detained for a short while as a security threat for no apparent reason and then the long wait for the plane which ended up nearing on an hour delayed due to the conditions. Once boarded, we faced another wait whilst the plane got showered to remove any snow, to all our annoyance, but eventually, eventually, we began the trip back to miserable Manchester. 43
44
Did Mussolini Actually Have Control Over Italy? By Anna Taylor
The argument regarding whether Mussolini ever had full control of Italy is fascinating. Compared with the likes of Adolf Hitler, Mussolini’s attempt at a dictatorial Fascist government seems at times to border on being laughable. Although outwardly powerful, there is considerable evidence to suggest that Mussolini did not have the support base to be able to have full control of Italy, and relied on the support of the Church and the political and social elite, thus having to accept their input in political decision making.
the policies that he wanted. He made ‘Press law’ in 1925, introducing censorship, which meant that Mussolini could control what the public read and therefore thought. Journalists had to also be registered in Mussolini’s Italy. Also in 1925 came the Legge Facistissime, which banned all opposition parties. Having the power over banning them meant that the people of Italy only had fascism as a party, this therefore meant Mussolini appeared to have total political dominion and control. In addition, the Special Tribunal Defence of the State came into force in 1926; which brought about the appearance of OVRA: a secret police who made arrests and ran the groups of informers (people who informed on another person to OVRA). Furthermore under this act of Defence, passports were taken off of people. This act
It could be argued Mussolini was in control simply due to the exhaustive legislation that he imposed. At first, in 1926, he had the power to rule by decree which meant he could make any law without the permission or acceptance of other people in parliament, giving him power to implement 44
45
gave Mussolini the chance to punish the people who didn't believe in Fascism.
and do what they wanted to do even though he was vying for control. Furthermore in 1938 Mussolini introduced a piece of anti- Semitic legislation, due to Adolf Hitler’s influence on his policy and law making. The church however criticized Mussolini’s’ anti- Semitic legislation, as many Italians as this point were very anti- German due to the aftermath of WW1: Italy hadn’t received what they had been promised (the mutilated victory). The church also persuaded Mussolini to introduce RE into education, making the promotion of birth control a criminal offence and dropping the Liberals’ plans to tax church property. This adds weight to the assertion that Mussolini was controlled by what people and groups like the church and the elite wanted. The elite, who were generally middle- class and business owners, supported Mussolini. They supported him as they wanted in return, protection from the Left and reduced rights of workers. Mussolini would receive in return a big support base in which he built his popularity on.
It also gave Mussolini control of peoples personal lives, as they wouldn’t be able to leave the country and therefore only knew the reality of the world through the censorship papers and radio for example. Furthermore, the Lateran Pact was made in 1929: the church was made a sovereign state, money & bonds where given and as part of the concordat, boundaries were set between the church and the state. Even though it looks like the pact was a move in the opposite direction for Mussolini, it actually made the church and the publics support him more than ever before. Evidence of this can be seen in 1929 which was considered to be the height of his reign. In addition Mussolini had control as he had survived the Matteotti crisis in 1924, showing that the elite supported him as they wanted protection from the left of the political spectrum - they were scared of communism after the 1917 revolution from Russia. Finally there was the fear that Mussolini evoked from people. Mussolini was a violent leader, willing to resort to methods of control and punishment such as OVRA, the death penalty. This shows Mussolini’s immense power and his rule by fear.
Overall, at Mussolini did have some control over Italy, as he was able to rule by decree, and implement laws without having to confer with parliament. However he was not in full control as the church and the social elite, which influenced his decisions in return for support for him. Therefore he did not have full control over the country as he was being influenced by others, and in spite of his threatening methods of government, his decisions were affected by other people and were not always his own.
On the other hand, there is an argument that Mussolini in fact didn't have control over Italy by 1929 and could not be considered a totalitarian leader at this stage, as the church was still happy to oppose him 45
46
Did Mussolini Actually Have The Rise Control Over and Fall Italy? of the US By Anna Taylor Mafia
period, Sicily was occupied by Arabian forces and the natives of the country were oppressed. This led to many of the natives seeking refuge from the Arabs causing many to hide in the hills of the island. This happened again when the Normans invaded in the 11th century, when the French invaded in the 12th century and when the Spanish invaded in the 13th century. Eventually, these refuges created a secret society that were supposed to be as close and connected as a family with a strong hierarchical system. The organisation only grew from there.
By Megan Owen In the twentieth century, the US Mafia became infamous for its affinity to violence and copious amounts of illegal dealings without being caught by law enforcement (or having enough connections to get out of jail if they were caught). This ring of crime was thought to be immortal in its prime but during the last forty years, this organised ‘family’ of criminals has become a shadow of its former self. This brings up the question: how did such a well organised crime ring fall so far? The Mafia was originally based in Italy but while its point of origin is easy to determine, how it began can only be theorised. One of the most popular theories dates the Mafia back to the 9th century. During this
By the nineteenth century, this small band of refuges had grown into a formidable crime ring. The Mafia became a fully fledged society, a family that you could never truly leave. They created their own 46
47
laws and followed no others. The most important of these were:
The code of silence (never tell anyone the secrets of the Mafia even if threatened with torture or death
Complete obedience to the Boss
Vengeance “An attack on one is an attack on all”
Avoid contact with the authorities
This was not a particularly popular amendment amongst the American people and this gave the Mafia the perfect opportunity to expand themselves. They began to bootleg alcohol across the country. This began the era of the Mafia. By the late 1920’s the Mob was flourishing and had begun to use other methods of crime to gain money and power such as prostitution, gambling and protection rackets (shop owners and such would pay the head of the Mafia family in that city a certain amount of money a week in exchange for their ‘protection’ against rivals and other members of the Mafia). This brought infamy to gangsters such as Al Capone and Charlie ‘Lucky’ Luciano who amassed a fortune in selling alcohol and women. Within a few years, there wasn’t a city in America without a Mob family in it, two of the most popular being Las Vegas as many of the casinos were either run by or paid for protection of supplies from the Mob and New York which had the largest populace of gangsters in the country and had become known as America’s organised crime capital.
These rules were set up to keep the members of the Mafia in line and protect them from being ‘ratted out’ by one another. To be an informant in that society was practically a death sentence. While the Mafia did originate from Italy, it seems to be more linked to the USA which is largely due to the amount of films and television programmes based around it; some of the most famous being The Godfather Trilogy and The Sopranos. The US Mafia was born around 1893 when Don Vito Cascio Ferro fled from Sicily to New York after the murder of a banker. From there, the Mafia family began to slowly trickle through until the 1920’s when Benito Mussolini began his war on crime and started to rid Italy of the Mafia. This led to a flood of Mafioso (as well as just regular Italians) coming into the USA to make a better life for themselves. They couldn’t have come at a better time.
While most crime rings in this position of power would have had some action taken against them by law enforcers, the Mafia’s surpassed this by excelling in its ability to bribe corrupt public officials and business leaders, along with witnesses and juries in court cases. As a matter of fact, Prior to the 1960s, some government leaders such as FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, were sceptical as to whether this network of organised
During the 1920’s, America had instituted the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which banned the sale, manufacture and transportation of alcoholic beverages. 47
48
crime even existed and went so far as to suggest that instead the crime gangs operated strictly on a local level. As a result, law enforcement agencies made few attempts to stop the Mafia’s rise during this period.
vengeance. This RICO act managed to cripple the world of organised crime but not completely destroy it. Many historians believe the reason for their survival was due to 9/11 shifting the Governments focus from crime rings to terrorism.
However, every society has its problems. The different cities meant different families of gangsters all of whom were rivals with each other. This led to power struggles, one of the most famous being the Castellammarese War which broke out between New York City’s two biggest Italian-American criminal gangs. In 1931, Salvatore Maranzano named himself ‘Capo di tutti capi’ or boss of all bosses. However, ‘Lucky’ Luciano disagreed with this claim of power and had him murdered that same year. Luciano then created a central organisation called the Commission. The Commission’s role was to ‘set policies and mediate disagreements among the families’. This managed to completely organise the Mob into the perfect society of crime.
The Mafia still exist to this day and work as loan sharks and keep up illegal gambling. While it may still be alive, the RICO laws make it almost impossible for it to resurrect itself to its former glory. However, the fact that the crime ring is still going after such an effective act speaks volumes as to how powerful the Mafia truly is. It may have fallen but it’s still there.
However, what goes up must eventually come down. In 1970, Congress passed the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act which allowed law officials to go after the Mob and any businesses they own (legal or illegal). Over the next twenty years, this law was used to bring down the most powerful gangster families across the country. Many members began to break their vow of silence to gain a shorter jail sentence as well as a protection scheme to prevent any Mafioso’s coming after them in 48
49
Exclusive Interview with Professor Kevern Verney... Professor Verney lectures at Edge Hill University, and has published numerous works on the African American Civil Rights Movement... What has your experience as a Professor of History at Edge Hill University been like?
view and this was less than five years after the invasion of the Falkland Islands. My training as a historian in understanding both sides of an argument in a historical dispute definitely helped. The work was also very interesting as it included writing briefings and drafting speeches for ministers where the Falklands was likely to be an issue and preparing answers to parliamentary questions.
Working at Edge Hill has been a great privilege. During my time here the university has gone through a period of unprecedented growth and expansion with more than ÂŁ180 million invested in the development of the campus in the last ten years alone. In the last five years student applications have increased by more than 60 per cent and the university has a growing number of internationally recognized and world leading researchers, including in History. A personal highlight was the visit by Jesse Jackson to the campus to give a public lecture in December 2008, just one month after the election of President Obama.
When did you begin to specialise in American Civil Rights History, and what influenced your decision? I first became interested in the civil rights struggle when studying for my MA and PhD at the Department of American Studies, University of Keele in the 1980s. A big influence on me was having an inspirational teacher, my PhD supervisor, Mary Ellison. A number of the leading civil rights historians of my generation, including Adam Fairclough and Peter Ling, studied for their PhD with Mary which is testimony to her contribution to the development of the subject.
What were your experiences working in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? I joined the FCO in 1986 where I worked as Assistant Desk Officer for Argentina. It was a particularly challenging role as my job was to represent the Argentine point of 49
50
Do you have any top tips for students who are hoping to study History at degree level?
with the idea of setting up what became an Arts and Humanities Research Council funded network on Obama which, since 2010, has brought together scholars from a range of disciplines – economics, history, international relations, politics, social sciences – to study the policies and developments of his presidency as they happened.
Find out all you can about the content of History courses at the universities you are interested in by looking at their websites and undergraduate prospectuses. Although many History degrees cover the same historical periods and themes they are often also distinctive, for example at Edge Hill the History Department specializes in British, European and World History since 1750. Best of all go to university open days where you will get a chance to talk with the staff who might be teaching you and see the facilities a University has to offer first hand. That may require a bit of time and effort particularly if it happens to be in the rain on a Saturday afternoon. But you will potentially be living and studying there for three years, so it’s important to do all you can to make sure that you make the right choice.
My own role in the network, as you would expect, has been to put things in historical context. For example, looking at why Obama succeeded in being elected as President in 2008 where had Jesse Jackson failed in 1984 and 1988, or comparing the fears of conservative republicans, like Pat Buchanan, over Mexican immigration today with the arguments put forward by campaigners for immigration restriction in the period 1880-1920. That involved researching primary and secondary sources on the two eras followed up by presenting my findings at academic conferences or network symposia events and incorporating ideas from audience discussion into a full length drafts for journal articles or essays. These then gets further refined by incorporating the suggestions of the peer reviewers used by journals and publishers before they appear in print. The arguments and points of view put forward in the resulting publications are still very much my own, but they are always enhanced by the knowledge and insights shared by other researchers in my subject area along the way.
Could you describe how you go about your writing process (researching a topic, and then writing and editing your own work)? The first thing is coming up with a good idea or source of inspiration. For example, my latest book, an essay collection, Barack Obama and the Myth of a Post-Racial America (Routledge, 2013), came about when my two co-editors, Inderjeet Parmar and Mark Ledwidge, and I took part in a panel discussion on Obama at a conference in New York in February 2009. We came up
Do you feel that black women’s contribu50
51
tions are overlooked in traditional Kingcentric studies of the Civil Rights Movement?
If you could spend a day with one historical figure, who would it be and why? Nelson Mandela, because of his remarkable life and achievements and the insights it would offer. He has probably been the most inspirational and influential world leader and statesman during my lifetime and it would be a fascinating opportunity to find out more about the real person behind the legend.
In respect to academic scholarship there has been a lot of work done in recent years to highlight the contribution made by women to the civil rights struggle, including by one of my former PhD students, Lee Sartain at the University of Portsmouth. In terms of public perception though I think that’s still a problem as most of the best known figures in the movement still tend to be male, and typically church ministers, like Martin Luther King, Ralph Abernathy and Jesse Jackson.
With the current debate about what should be taught in schools, why would you say that History is so essential? We cannot truly understand our own politics, culture and society without knowing how it has developed over time, in some cases many hundreds of years. Studying History helps us to understand who we really are, and in learning from the lessons of the past we are hopefully less likely to repeat them in the future. The recent high profile media coverage of the centenary of the start of the First World War is a good example.
Which character in the Civil Rights Movement do you personally find the most inspiring? Important as the contribution made by leading national figures, like Martin Luther King, was one of the things increasingly recognized by historians now is the vital role played by often unsung activists at local level. For example John LeFlore was the leading NAACP organizer and civil rights campaigner in Mobile, Alabama for more than fifty years, from the 1920s through to his death in 1976. But he barely gets a mention in most of the accounts of the civil rights struggle in the state. I’m currently working on a monograph on LeFlore which I’m hoping will help in getting him the public and scholarly recognition that he deserves.
51
52
Meet the History Society... President
Joe Gaffney
Vice President
Cameron Fleming
Magazine Editor
Phoebe McGibbon
Magazine Assistants
Holly Browett-Woolnough Isaac Tweedale Georgia Sampson Georgia Ascroft Megan Owen
Quiz organiser
James Knowles Lucy Weir
Debates coordinator
Lewis Williams Julia Taylor
External speakers researcher (work in collaboration with Elaine P) Guest Speakers & Museum Coordinator Internal speakers coordinator Social Media coordinator History Mentor coordinator Trip researcher (working with Matt)
Medieval Total War organiser Display coordinator
Rachel Burgess Robyn Yates
Robyn Yates Jack Lunt Harry Griffiths Joe Gaffney Lucy Weir Chris McLauchlan Connor Simms-Page David Farrimond Hannah Brady Amy Platt
Advertising overseer
Lucy Weir
Discussion group leader (films/articles‌)
Silvia Marques
Official photographer
Zara Andrews
Kayleigh Gibson
Follow us on Twitter: @WinHist Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WinstanleyHistory 52
53
History Society Events!
Trip to Washington DC and New York!
53
54
Featuring:
ALL NEW ‘Article of the Week!’
ACCESS resources for your courses!
HELPFUL HINTS for exams, and exam technique aid! KEEP UP-TO-DATE on History Society events & trips!
54
55
Baffled by the Crusades? Struggling with an essay? Meet Marc Morris!
Finding it difficult to manage revision?
Need some advice? Contact one of our email mentors, or come along to a mentoring session‌ Email mentors... Isaac Tweedale: V3004@winstanley.ac.uk Joe Gaffney: V2796@winstanley.ac.uk Robyn Yates: V2689@winstanley.ac.uk Bradley Renouf: V2636@winstanley.ac.uk Sophie Connelly: V2779@winstanley.ac.uk 55