Timeline 2022

TIMELINE

The Habs History department magazine Volume 13 | 2022 | Edited by Tom Oakland

TIMELINE 2022

TIMELINE 2022

1

TIMELINE 2022

Contents Editor’s Note

4

Ancient History Was Aztec architecture ahead of its time or simply a product of its surroundings?

By Tom Oakland Zionism and the History of Israel Why did Zionism as a political movement emerge towards the end of the 19th century in Europe?

By Harry Isaacs How far can Israel be considered a socialist nation between 1948-1969?

By Josh Heimann and Lucas Valladares Late Modern History Was the French Revolution a revolution of ideas?

By Aarush Mitra Work over Wealth: Disraeli’s 1852 experiment in Income Tax reform.

By Dr Ian St. John World War II They’ll always be missed.

By Aarav Rajput General History Twice Migrants: A rise to prominence.

By Rishi Patel The fight for superheroes.

By Aarav Rajput How accurate is literature as a commentary of social climate?

By Tom Oakland The Partitions of Poland and their reverberations in the modern-day.

By Adam Smith The English Civil War and Whig History.

By Aadam Hashmi Henry I: An underrated monarch.

By Abim Tayo Contemporary History How should a man react to the Sarah Everard Situation?

By Tom Oakland Causes of the 2008 Financial Crisis.

By Anant Pathak How one man united Modern India.

By Manav Mashru VAR Review: how fascist governments of the 1930s dismantled the romanticism of the football intellectuals and the coffee-house.

By Jared Onnie (Old Haberdasher) Book Reviews ‘Rights of Man’: Thomas Paine.

By Kellen Dubignon ‘The Adventure of English’: Melvyn Bragg.

By Isaac Halpern

5 11 14 18 23 25 28 33 35 40 43 46 50 54 58 61

65 69

2

TIMELINE 2022

Grossel Essay Competition Prize Winners Which President did the most to advance the civil rights of American citizens between 1945 and 1980?

By Dhilan Mehta Should Stalin be remembered as anything more than a murderous tyrant?

By Samadi Beligaswatte “It was the German elites who were most responsible for the accession of Hitler to power in January 1933.” Discuss.

By Slava Bulin Epilogue.

71 75 79

84

3

TIMELINE 2022

Foreword Welcome to this year’s publication of the Timeline magazine. Timeline is a Habs History department work, that aims to inspire anyone with an academic passion for history to share their expertise on a topic through the form of an article or creative piece. For me, reading all of the articles, editing many of them and adjudicating the Grossel Prize essay competition has been a pleasure. Having both learnt from these articles and been thoroughly interested by all of them, I can promise that this year’s edition of Timeline is sure to be a fascinating read.

Following in the footsteps of last year’s editor’s reinventing the magazine, we have once more tried to maintain Timeline’s promotion, encouraging even those who do not study the subject to write an article. Throughout the year, enthusiasm for History and awareness of the magazine has been growing but was sadly hindered by the existence of Covid-19. Though an enthralling read, this magazine is not as long as we would have hoped it to be, so I hope that by reading the magazine, people become even more inspired to write about a topic that they are interested in, no matter what that may be.

I strongly believe that one can only stand to gain by reading and writing these articles.

Not only can you put that you have written one on your CV, but they give you practice in essay-writing and helps practice for future essay competitions that you can enter through the school. Furthermore, it can of course also help your reputation with teachers! Above all, writing an article does not take a long time whatsoever, but the benefits are endless. If you are in Years 7 to 10 there is so much time available to write one of these articles, especially given the lack of time you will have in the coming years! And if you are in Years 11 to 13, there is still time to write an article, whether this is for this magazine or for a general competition. No matter what, they always help. If you ever find yourself being bored, sit down, and think about what you can write. There is never any harm in trying.

Enjoy Timeline and next year, if you haven’t, be sure to submit! Thank you for reading.

Editor-in-Chief: Tom Oakland Assistant Editor: Joshua Heimann Assistant Editor: Isaac Halpern Executive Editor: Dr Ian St. John

Front cover painting is Rembrandt’s ‘Storm on the Sea of Galilee’, painted from 1633

4

TIMELINE 2022

Ancient History

Tom Oakland, Senior School ‘Was Aztec architecture ahead of its time or simply a product of its surroundings?’

The Aztecs were a civilisation that were seen in the centre of Mexico between the years of 1300-1521.

Though their civilisation was shortlived, some of their architectural remains are national sites in Mexico and heavily influence modern architecture worldwide. At the centre of the empire was a city (or altepetl) called the Tenochtitlan, which held together the three main groups of A modern painting of the what the Aztecs: The Mexicas, the Acolhua and Tenochtitlan is said to have looked like. the Tepanecs. The Aztecs were known for using their limited resources and technology to produce grand, ornate structures, consolidating their title as master craftsmen. They helped to develop mathematics, the canoe, calendars, and multiple forms of medicine, just to add to the accolades of the Aztec society. Their architecture is hugely important in gaining an understanding of their religious rituals and the values that were held by the empire.

Influences on Aztec architecture The most notable influence on Aztec architecture was that of the Toltecs. The Toltec were a Mesoamerican civilisation who had resided in Mexico from 900 CE to 1168 CE. They were considered to be the peak of craftmanship and were considered by the Aztecs to be the height of culture, art, and design within Mesoamerica. The question has been raised as to whether the Aztecs are direct descendants of the 5

TIMELINE 2022

Toltecs since they even spoke the same language, being that of Nahuatl. The Aztecs developed the language into a written form which did not exist at the time of the Toltecs. The Aztec had a clear respect for the work of the Toltecs, assimilating the word “Toltec” into their lexicon with the meaning of “artisan”. Furthermore, the Mesoamerican influence of the Toltecs was vast. Their concept of building temples in the shape of pyramids was one that became integral to Aztec architecture and was one that was of great importance to the Aztecs since the temples (or Tocali) were referred to as “Houses of the Gods” and were somewhere that people worshipped and prayed to be kept strong and balanced. The Aztecs were already very advanced societally, already being familiar with the wheel in children’s toys due to technological inroads made by the Toltecs.

Symbolism Symbolism recurs throughout all Aztec architecture. There were four primary cardinal points that were used, each of which represented religious symbols and the four directions of the earth. They were religious figures that had colours, days and years assigned to them. The North was represented by the colour black and was ruled by Tezcatlipoca, the God of fate, destiny, and night. Within the Aztec civilisation, the region that it represented was called Mitclampa, which meant “The place of death”.

The South was represented by the colour blue and was ruled by Huitzilopochtli.

Huitzilopochtli was the solar God and a deity of war. The region that Huitzilopochtli represented was called Huitzlampa and its name means “the region of thorns”. The East and West differed from the North and South, in that they were represented by multiple Gods. The East had the colour red and was ruled by the sun God Tonatiuh (yes, Tonatiuh rules something different to Huitzilopochtli), Xipec Totec, the God of fertility and vegetation, and Camaxtli-Mixcoatl, the God of hunting. The two regions that it represented were called Tlapallan, meaning “the place of red colour” and Tlapcopa “the place of light”. The West was governed by the Quetzalcoatl, a feathered serpent who many Mesoamericans claimed to have descended from Quetzalcoatl, the God of wind, Venus, and wisdom. The colour of the West was white, and the region was called Cihuatlampa, which means “place of the women”.

Tezcatlipoca, Huitzilopochtli, Tonatiuh, Xipec Totec, Camaxtli-Mixcoatl and Quetzalcoatl were branded as responsible for fire, the sun, the water, earth, man, the place of the dead and time. Essentially, they were responsible for equilibrium on earth.

Due to the important symbolism of these Gods, the Aztecs dedicated the “great temple” (remains pictured below) also known as “Templo Mayor” to the Gods, placing it in the Ceremonial Precinct of the Tenochtitlan, as they believed that if the Gods were not appeased, the world would collapse as it did in the First to the Fourth Sun time periods (which were representative of the previous creations of the world).

This meant that they faced the Templo Mayor westward, since Quetzalcoatl was meant to be the first God to see the sun, since its temple faced eastward, following their projected path of the sun.

6

TIMELINE 2022

Other symbols included that of the eagle, which represented the sun and warriors, serpents which symbolized water, and the conch shell, which related to fertility and frogs, which were representative of Tlaloc symbols. Tlaloc was a member of the pantheon of Gods in the Mexica religion, as the supreme God of rain, earth fertility and water, and was widely worshipped Remains of the Templo Mayor. as being a life giver and a God of sustenance. He was also feared due to being able to send hail, thunder, and lightning, along with being the lord of one of the most powerful elements – water.

Different types of architecture: pyramids There were three main types of Pyramid-Temples. These were the Round Pyramids, Twin Stair Pyramids and Adoratorios (shrines). Each were built to accommodate the worldview of the Aztecs along with their religion.

Religious structures were at the forefront of Aztec architecture due to how imperative they were in upholding the beliefs of the Aztecs. They were all Staircase and patterned balustrades of a small sponsored by the community pyramid-temple. and created a sense of religiosity and power. They were formed as pyramids to represent mountains which were sources of water and fertility (so had a strong relation to the Tlaloc). They symbolised the aforementioned altepetl, which was meant to symbolise the heart of the city. They were the site of ritualistic celebrations and the burial grounds for important members of the civilisation. They represented the celestial order in which the cosmos was divided into 13 sections, each of which representing a different phenomenon. Most pyramid-temples consisted of a platform, a steep double staircase, balustrades (handrails) along the sides of the steps and sculpted stone blocks to decorate the platform and balustrades. The tops of pyramids had plateaus on which a sacrificial block or a temple was built. There was a back room that contained the idol to which the temple was dedicated. Inside they were ornamented with sculptures, paint, and carved stone.

7

TIMELINE 2022

Round Pyramids were predominantly found in Calixtlahuaca, which was dedicated to the God Quetzalcoatl. They were circular to allow for wind to flow unhindered, allowing for an easy access for the God of wind. Below is one of the temples from Calixtlahuaca, called the “Temple of Ehecatl-Quetzalcoatl”.

Twin Stair Pyramids were perhaps the most prominent of all Aztec structures with the most notable being the Templo Mayor of Tenochtitlan. At the summit of the pyramid was two temples and a double staircase, dedicated to Tlaloc and Huitzilopochtli, respectively. They were steep and high in altitude as it was believed that being at the summit of a pyramid was the closest that a person could get to being in contact with the Gods.

Adoratorios or shrines were important religious structures. Given their polytheism, Aztecs had different shrines to worship each God, with different shapes and designs (on the exterior) being representative of the differences in the Gods. Internally, most shrines were circular with a round table in the middle of the room that was used for offerings. There was usually a lack of space in the shrines for all of the offerings due to the The blue temple represents Tlaloc as he was fervent belief in religion that the the God of water. The red and white temple Aztecs had. These shrines were a represents Huitzilopochtli as he was the god hugely important aspect of the of war and sacrifice. daily life of the Aztec people, as they would make daily sacrifices.

Generally speaking, there was a heavy influence on the Aztec architecture from the Toltec people, especially when it came to temples. The classic Mesoamerican architecture that was derived from the Toltecs was one that had a very similar style of staircase pyramid. This was seen in conjunction with Puuc architecture which gave the Aztecs the ornate brickwork designs. The symbolism that was seen internally within the pyramids was very much unique to the Aztecs, however externally they were predominantly replicas of prior Mesoamerican structures.

8

TIMELINE 2022

Building materials and techniques The primary tools of usage were chisels, hard stones, and obsidian blades. Most materials used were the same as used by the Toltecs such as stone, rubble, rock, and fill.

However, since the Aztecs wanted to have structural integrity, they began to focus on the Conceptual drawing of the original aqueducts. solidity of buildings. As a result, a light, strong, volcanic stone called tezontle was used. It was easy to mould and was appealing colour-wise. It was mostly used in walls, rooves and as foundations. Metal was not used in construction apart from copper, so Cords and wedges cut stone. Building materials were traded for using food such as frogs, fish and algae and the loose stone was imported from coastal areas. The Aztecs were so good at carving stone that the Spanish and Indian artists combined to form a similar architectural style called tequitqui or mestizo art of Mexico.

Case Study – Chapultepec Aqueduct The Chapultepec aqueduct was built to provide drinking water to the Tenochtitlan.

The water was transported from the Chapultepec springs. Two aqueducts along this route were constructed by the Aztecs. The Aztecs constructed shallow wells 4-5 feet below the city, made out of mud and plant material. There were artificial platforms 34 metres apart with mounds on these islands for support, which had a hollowed-out trough line with compacted clay and hollowed logs to bridge gaps between the islands. Sadly, it could not withstand the weather and was eroded in a flood that shut down the Tenochtitlan for many weeks. These sophisticated hydraulics were some of the most impressive aspects of the Aztec technological prowess, but sadly none of the original aqueducts still exist today.

Conclusion Overall, when looking at the Aztec architecture there are undeniably strong influences that came from their Mesoamerican predecessors, chiefly the Toltecs and for intricacies, the Puucs. The main aspect of the Aztecs that separated them from other civilisations was not their architecture, as that was a culmination of previous developments. Rather, it was their engineering, medicinal and mathematical advancements that were of chief importance. The only unique aspect of their temples was the interior as they were based on a religious system that the other 9

TIMELINE 2022

cultures did not have, and so the colours of these temples that were also based on this religious belief (if you count that as architecture). Their methods of construction were broadly the same as their predecessors also, with the only development being the use of tezontle. The Aztecs very much were a product of their times when it came to architecture, but the bringing together of previous styles is what made it unique and left it as a hallmark of architecture that a lot of modern design is based upon.

10

TIMELINE 2022

Zionism and the History of Israel

Harry Isaacs, Senior School ‘Why did Zionism as a political movement emerge towards the end of the 19th century in Europe?’

Zionism is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organisation in 1897 under Theodor Herzl and was later led by Chaim Weizmann. This political identity explains why Jews are a nation and Judaism is the culture of that nation, framing the discussion for the Jewish people’s right to a homeland being comparable to that of French or Spanish people, rather than a Christian or Hindu state. This movement emerged towards the end of the 19th century in Europe, and I attribute this emergence to the growth of Jewish Emancipation and the fact that the Dreyfus Affair acted as a catalyst for the growth in Zionism.

Through looking at the growth of Jewish Emancipation towards the end of the 19th century in Europe, one can see why it exacerbated the need for clarification of the identity of the Jewish people. This is because it raised the modern dilemma: are the Jews a nation or religion. For example, in 1806 Napoleon convened a gathering of prominent Rabbinic scholars and Jewish leadership to clarify their political status in France. One thread in particular stands out regarding how they are both French and Jewish. The Jews told Napoleon “We are French by nationality, and Jewish by religion, which is essentially the model for most Jews living outside of Israel today”. This idea 11

TIMELINE 2022

of dual identity between French and Judaism troubled Napoleon as he asked, “Do the Jews born in France, and treated by the law as French citizens, acknowledge France as their country? Are they bound to defend it? Are they bound to obey the laws and follow the directions of the civil code?”. This case study of Napoleon challenging the French Jews over their identity shows how the need for Zionism was accelerated in the 19th century in Europe, as there was a greater need for the Jewish people to have a cemented identity which Zionism could provide. It was also accelerated as the growth in need for protection and unity of the Jewish people emerged. Moreover, the French Jews and Jewish people of today did, and continue to not see themselves as a separate national or political entity, but Napoleon and many leaders before and after him do. This lacuna between how the Jewish people view themselves and how they are perceived from the outside creates a greater need for Zionism and hence, this explains why the actions of Napoleon in the 19th century and Jewish Emancipation in the 19th century led to the emergence of Zionism as a political movement. An influential Zionist activist named Leon Pinsker wrote the book Auto Emancipation in 1882. In this book he diagnosed the problem for the Jews, which was that they would never be accepted into their host countries. He suggested a cure for them too, namely their own State and the development of a Jewish national consciousness. This concept set out by Pinsker explains why this consistent challenging of the Jewish identity in Europe lead to the emergence of Zionism and a political movement towards the end of the 19th century. Finally, the German-Jewish Philosopher Moses Hess provided a similar diagnosis to the one Pinsker provided, when tackling the growth in antisemitism across Europe due to the dual complexities of the Jewish identity. In his influential pamphlet “Rome and Jerusalem: The Last National Question”, he shows the way that Zionists viewed the Jews as a separate political and national group from the non-Jews that they lived amongst in European countries. In this pamphlet Hess writes: “The German hates the Jewish religion less than the race; he objects less to the Jews' peculiar beliefs than to their peculiar noses. Neither reform, nor conversion, nor emancipation throw open to the Jew the gates of social life, hence their anxiety to deny their racial descent. In reality, Judaism as a nationality has a natural basis which cannot be set aside by mere conversion to another faith, as is the case in other religions. A Jew belongs to his race and consequently also to Judaism, in spite of the fact that he or his ancestors have become apostates.”

The above extract once again explains why the works of influential Zionist activists such as Hess and Pinsker, gained so much traction towards the end of the 19th century in Europe as the consistent challenging of the Jewish identity exacerbated the need for Zionism, consequently allowing the political movement of Zionism to emerge towards the end of the 19th century in Europe.

12

TIMELINE 2022

Moreover, a shorter term, more direct cause of the emergence of Zionism towards the end of the 19th century in Europe was the Dreyfus affair. The Dreyfus affair was a political crisis, beginning in 1894 and continuing through 1906 in France during the Third Republic. The controversy centred on the question of the guilt or innocence of army captain Alfred Dreyfus, who had been convicted of treason for allegedly selling military secrets to the Germans in December 1894.

Much of the early publicity surrounding the case came from anti-Semitic groups, such as the newspaper La Libre Parole, to whom Dreyfus symbolised the supposed disloyalty of French Jews. Dreyfuss was a catalyst for Herzl. According to Herzl’s memory, the crowd was not yelling, “death to the traitor”, which was widely reported, but rather they were screaming, “death to the Jew!” This crowd reaction moved him to reinvigorate the nascent Zionist movement. If Napoleon’s promise of Jewish equality had been fulfilled, the Dreyfus affair should never have happened. Herzl’s campaign was the key turning point in the Zionist movement, showing how the Dreyfus Affair led to the emergence of the Zionist movement towards the end of the 19th century in Europe. Theodor Herzl took a movement that was decentralised and not so successful and coalesced the various parts into a dynamic Jewish nationalist movement to establish a state. While this idea excited world Jewish imagination, few saw Aliyah (Jewish migration from the diaspora to Israel) as a practicality. The economic displacement and violent antisemitism experienced by Jews of the Pale of Settlement (western region of the Russian Empire) pushed over 2.5 million of them to migrate westward to taste the “American” dream. By comparison to this western migration, only 80,000 or so moved to the Promised Land (Israel), but the growth of Zionism was vast in Europe due to the Herzl’s campaign that was inspired by the Dreyfus affair.

In conclusion, Zionism as a political movement emerged towards the end of the 19th century in Europe due to the longer-term themes of the growth of Jewish Emancipation towards the end of the 19th century in Europe, showing why it exacerbated the need for clarification of the identity of the Jewish people. This is best seen through looking at the works of Pinkser and Hess. Moreover, the shorter-term cause of the Dreyfus Affair acted as a catalyst for Theodor Herzl who is widely regarded as the father of Zionism, allowing Zionism to emerge as a political movement in Europe towards the end of the 19th century.

13

TIMELINE 2022

Josh Heimann and Lucas Valladares, Senior School ‘How far can Israel be considered a socialist nation between 1948-1969?’

In 1910, one of the most significant socialist communities of all time was established: the kibbutz of Degania. Stemming from the Hebrew word ‘‫'קבַ ץ‬ ָ (‘to gather, collect, assemble’), the term ‘kibbutz’ broadly refers to an Israeli, traditionally agricultural, collective community developed from a mixture of contemporary Zionist and socialist ideals. Despite a naturally tough beginning due to the harsh conditions of Degania, the philosophy of the first kibbutz spread surprisingly rapidly and the number of kibbutzim residents within Palestine increased by 185.7% between 1922 to 1927 (from 700 to 2000). By 1927, the first major organisation, the United Kibbutz Movement, to represent kibbutzim was founded, with the Socialist League of Palestine and The Kvutzot Association being subsequently developed in 1936 and 1928 respectively.

The socialist ideas prevalent in these communes did not just remain within them, rather they also influenced Israel’s founding as a whole and even endured in Israeli politics in the decades after its establishment. Therefore, the argument presented in this essay is that Israel was largely a socialist nation between 1948 and 1969.

It could seemingly be argued that Israel was established partially on the basis of communist movements and supported heavily by communist nations within the first two decades of the country’s history. Excluding internal sentiments and organisations, the Soviet Union and numerous other communist and socialist powers began to adopt a pro-Zionist policy from approximately 1944 onward; initially assuming that a new Israeli state would be socialist, the Soviet Union repeatedly offered support for the idea of a separate Jewish state and furthermore became the first country to provide Israel with de jure legal recognition. Although this can largely be attributed to a shared desire to minimize and expel British influence from the Middle East, the investment and political support provided offered immense aid to the fledgling nation. In some ways, the influence of Soviet support and investment can be reflected within the growth and dominance of Leftist parties in the Israeli parliament until the 1970s. The victory of socialist-Zionist parties Mapai and Mapam in the first state election, winning 46 and 19 seats out of the 120-seat Knesset in 1949, demonstrates the influence of socialist forces within early Israel and to some extent the warmth towards communist powers among Israelis. Moreover, the subsequent parliaments until 1977 were all led by coalitions between Mapai and the Alignment which conveys the sheer extent to which left-wing forces remained dominant. The volume of support from communist powers can be critically evidenced by the arms supplied by the Soviet bloc, specifically Czechoslovakia, during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, which were arguably crucial to Israeli success. Therefore, the involvement of communist powers within Israel meant that it could be perceived as a socialist nation in the years after its establishment.

It could further be argued that Israel was largely socialist because socialist perspectives on religion were prevalent across contemporary society, especially regarding the initial immigrant population. The early settlers of Israel, especially from 1870 onward, were often left-wing secular socialists aiming to create a land on a racial but not religious basis. This adhered to the Marxian theory of religion, whereby religion was by no means on par with the significance and problem of capitalist control of the means of production, but still an element of society that caused ‘suffering’ and should 14

TIMELINE 2022

not be pursued. As a result, cultural values like the speaking of Hebrew began to flourish whereas more religious aspects of Judaism would take longer to define Israeli society, expressing the desire of the early Jewish Israelis to form a secular state, or at least one with only a minimal religious component- which would ironically juxtapose the heavily religious Israel seen today. Although eventually more religious Zionists eclipsed the secular Zionist population, the early influence held can be evidenced via the successes of parties like Mapai which campaigned on a secular, non-religious platform and subsequently won the most seats in the first Knesset election. Therefore, it could be argued that early Israel was predominantly socialist due its secularism and socialist beliefs regarding religion expressed in its initial Jewish settlers and early elections.

In addition, it could similarly be argued that Israel was founded with significant social undertones because of the widespread presence of ‘Labor Zionism’, the broad leftwing aspect of the wider Zionist movement. Although this juxtaposed the ideas of ‘Political Zionism’, which suggested that Israel could be founded through appeal to other countries, Labor Zionists instead argued that a Jewish state could only be founded based on Jewish settlement and hard work within the Land of Israel. The growth of Zionism was associated with increased migration from Jewish labour movements in Eastern Europe and Russia, which led to the increased influence and size of the Labor Zionist movement to the extent that it surpassed the Political Zionist component by the 1930s. The domination of Labour Zionists in the Yishuv, the Haganah, and the Histadrut further evidences their immense influence. In order to discuss the extent to which Israel was socialist in regard to Labor Zionism, it is also crucial to investigate the ideology involved and therefore assess it on the key metrics of economic, social, and political ideals. One of the greatest sources would be the Jewish martyr Joseph Trumpeldor, who suggested “The pioneers should be workers but that is not all. We shall need people who will be “everything” - everything that the land of Israel needs”. This quote suggests that Labor Zionists perceived the most important aspect of contemporary Zionism as the existence of what Trumpeldor described as ‘Servants of Zion’, people who would be willing to work extremely hard to fulfil every role possible to create a successful society. Similarly, the earlier work of ‘Rome and Jerusalem: The Last National Question’ by Moss Hess (1862) portrayed the necessity of Jewish settlement in Palestine in order to The first building of Kibbutz Degania, conclusively answer the question of which was the first kibbutz in Jewish nationalism and thus has been Israel, 1910 cited as one of the most prominent early works of Labor Zionism. He explicitly requested the formation of an agrarian, socialist state through which Jewish people would be able to occupy every productive layer of society to combat his perception of European Jews as a merchant class which was inherently non-productive. The further development of Hess’ work by Borochov emphasised this, which argued that European Jews suffered from an ‘inverted pyramid’ society that could only be solved by Socialism; he suggested that Jewish society was shaped in a deformed manner due to antisemitism in the workplace and 15

TIMELINE 2022

therefore national health could only be restored by increased proportions of workers and peasants among Jewish society which Borochov argued was only possible within a Jewish state. Resultantly, it could be convincingly argued that Israel was founded and maintained highly socialist values between 1948-1969 because of the dominance of Labor Zionists within early Israeli society.

However, an important factor one must consider when looking at Israel’s history is its relationship with America and other capitalist nations, which can argue that Israel’s socialism was limited. As mentioned earlier, American-Israeli relations were not strong in the first several years after Israel’s creation, due to their involvement and support from the USSR, although they did still supply Israel with some economic aid and loans.

Britain on the other hand, also a capitalist state, was much better connected with Israel, joining in war through the Protocol of Sèvres during the Suez Crisis in 1956 in an attempt to topple General Nasser. Although France, a socialist country at the time under Mollet, was also significantly involved in this war, it’s motives to join were somewhat right wing, especially criticised by the Soviets for this, therefore any ideas that Israel could have been influenced by French socialism can be discredited. It is also significant to note that by then Russian support had dwindled, and there were even threats from Nikolai Bulganin, Premier of the USSR, of Soviet intervention against Britain, France and Israel. The USSR had also signed the Egyptian-Czechoslovakian arms deal in September 1955, giving weapons worth $83 million to Egypt. Therefore, by the Suez Crisis, although American support was still not explicit, communist support was now just as hidden, disproving the idea that Israel was socialist due to Russian influence.

However, American-Israeli relations began to prosper at the start of the 1960s.

Although it cannot be ignored that there were some minor disputes over Israeli nuclear material in 1963, Kennedy, and then Johnson, both supported Israel with state-of-theart military weapons, such as the Hawk anti-aircraft missile system, and started the ‘special relationship’ between the US and Israel, still present to this day, which also began the US foreign policy of giving Israel a ‘qualitative military edge’. Even when 34 crew members aboard the USS Liberty were killed by Israeli friendly fire during the Six-Day War in 1967, the US quickly accepted that this was a mistake, and even confirmed the sale of further jet fighters to Israel a year later, something rather unusual for a reactionary nation like the US. If there was even a small sign of socialism still prevalent in Israel’s policies in 1955, by the late 60s this had completely disappeared.

Throughout that decade Israel supplied America with information that they obtained on communist or socialist nations, for instance through the capture of a Soviet radar station in Egypt in 1969. Ultimately, in an era when the Cold War was at its peak, the strengthening and consolidation of friendly American-Israeli relations, as well as the complete decline in relations with the USSR, meant that Israel was not only influenced by capitalism, but also now globally considered a non-socialist nation if allied with the US, suppressing any ideas that socialist beliefs influenced Israel in her first decades.

As Martin Buber once said, Israeli kibbutzim were ‘the experiment that did not fail’.

This essay whole-heartedly agrees with this statement, as it is clear that the socialist ideologies that defined these kibbutzim successfully influenced early Israeli policy.

Through initial strong ties with the Soviet Union, as well as its secular community and popularity of ‘Labor Zionism’, Israel was founded on socialism ideals, and thereby remained socialist for the next few decades. However, it is still notable that Israel’s 16

TIMELINE 2022

increasingly amicable, or perhaps even allied, relationship with the US did limit socialism to a certain extent, which naturally led to the deterioration of friendly Russian-Israeli relations, but overall this was still outweighed by the left-wing principles that dominated this era of Israeli politics.

17

TIMELINE 2022

Late Modern History

Aarush Mitra, Middle School ‘Was the French Revolution a revolution of ideas?’

Introduction The French revolution occurred during one of the most tumultuous periods of French History. France had just funded The American War of Independence, and by doing so had rendered themselves bankrupt. In order to combat the lack of funds, King Louis XVI heavily taxed the Third Estate (which comprised of farmers and peasants, and the Second (the nobility) and First Estate (the clergy). For the commoners, life under the Ancien Régime (France before the revolution) was extremely difficult with infamous taxes such as the Salt Tax leading to most of their money going towards the upper two Estates. This increase in taxation coincided with massive hailstorms which led to a year’s worth of harvest going to waste, which only further increased tensions among the Estates. All these events set the stage for one of the bloodiest yet significant revolutions of all time.

However, it was the ideas set by this revolution that would be of more historic importance and magnitude. The ideas introduced in the revolution would be an inspiration for modern French democracy. While radical concepts such as anticlericalism and democracy would come later on in the uprising, the revolution was set on the ideas of fraternity, liberty, and equality. However, the revolution was stained with the blood from the Reign of Terror, in which around 40,000 people were killed.

Therefore, the question can be asked, was the French Revolution a Revolution of Ideas?

18

TIMELINE 2022

Idea 1: Liberté, égalité, fraternité The French Revolution was marked with slogans that helped people express themselves. Some famous examples are ‘Vive la révolution’ or ‘Liberté, égalité, fraternité’. This second phrase is the most important as it highlights the main ideals of the revolution: liberty, equality, and fraternity.

Liberté or liberty was essentially the idea that people were free. During the Ancien Régime, the Third Estate, had little to no power or freedom to do anything. The feudal system in place kept them under control and kept the power away from the commoners. This can especially be seen by the fact that peasants and farmers were forced to give their landlords rent for staying on the land. This happened even though the peasants were giving a payment related to their amount of annual production, and taxes on the use of the nobles’ mills, winepresses, and bakeries. This way the feudal system and the social hierarchy kept the peasants in check. However, there was not just a lack of liberty within the peasants; other members of the Third Estate and even the Second Estate were under the control of the King. The King used lettres de cachet in order to control those who were against him. These lettres de chachets were letters signed by the king and ministers that authorized the arrest of a person without a trial or due process. Members of the Second Estate were more affected by the letters as they had political power and could have posed a threat to the king. For example, Honore Mirabeau, a Second Estate noble who called for the abolition of the feudal system, was arrested on the charges of ‘dishonouring his family’, or the writer, Voltaire, who was arrested for ‘defamatory writings’. Many of those who were arrested with the authorisation of the letters were sent to the bastille a jail reserved for high-profile dissidents such as Voltaire) and so were subject to terrible conditions. However, the real power of the lettres de cachets came from the fact that there was no legal system in place to oppose these letters. This meant that your only hope of getting out of jail came from what the king believed to be justice. Therefore, power to reverse the letters and any chance of getting out came from the King's dispense. Another example of state oppression comes from the censorship practiced by the monarchy. Any form of dissent or published anti-monarchy writings were severely punished and were banned.

Egalite was key theme of the slogan. It meant that the people were equal. Equality could be argued to be the most essential idea of the French revolution. It was why the revolution started in the first place. Under the Ancien Régime, equality was something that was non-existent. France was separated into three Estates, with the upper two having all the power. The Third Estate suffered greatly under this lack of equality. Not only did the peasants have to pay rent and taxes to the nobles, but also to the government. These taxes included the Salt tax, the Window tax, the taille, and the head tax. All these taxes were designed to keep the Third Estate poor and to add insult to injury members of the second and First Estate rarely ever paid their own taxes, giving more strain to the Third Estate for France’s economy.

The Idea of Fraternity or fraternité could best be described as the idea of brotherhood.

This meant that everyone was to treat each other as their own brother. It was commonly seen in the slogan "liberty, equality, fraternity" (liberté, equalité, fraternité) and was designed to give the French people a feeling of union. However, this idea can 19

TIMELINE 2022

be said to be the most unrealistic, for, in a time of extreme strife and distrust, any sense of brotherhood would have been quickly lost.

While at first people tried to adhere to the ideology of fraternity, it quickly unravelled.

At the start of the revolution, the Third Estate banded together as they faced against the might of the first and Second Estate. Significant events such as the storming of the Bastille would not have been possible without the sense of brotherhood and unity, and it was this sense of brotherhood that also kept the Jacobin Club together at the start of the revolution when they were considered to be a radical political club.

In order to see whether the French revolution was a revolution of ideas, we need to see the success of these ideas. It can clearly be seen that the French people, by the end of the revolution, had given up their liberty and sense of brotherhood for absolute equality. While Liberty was initially gained, as the people were now free from an oppressive government, as Robespierre gained power and became more maniacal, any sense of freedom was quickly demolished. With the help of the Committee of Public Safety and the Committee of General Security, Robespierre tormented France for two long years, where people had little to no rights, and in which Robespierre killed indiscriminately. The liberty that was being preached was now replaced by oppression.

Censorship had taken a new life within the fear of Robespierre as he killed those who he believed did not agree with him. After 1794, the French people had had enough, executing Robespierre, the same way he killed so many others, on the 28th of July. At the end of the revolution, after Napoleon had overthrown the Directory, the French people had just replaced one monarchy for another, essentially forfeiting their liberty.

Similarly, while fraternity was at first gained, it quickly dies out. The fraternity among the revolutionaries can be felt within the Tennis Court Oath (The oath that the Third Estates, Estates-General delegates had taken for a constitution) in which they vowed to never to separate, and to reassemble wherever circumstances require until the constitution of the realm is established’. Without the initial sense of brotherhood, the revolution would never have taken place. And yet, during the Reign of Terror, fraternity was replaced with fear as people scrambled to survive. Eventually, brotherhood, by the end of the revolution only existed as an idea, practiced by no-one.

On the other hand, it can be said that the integration of equality into French society during the French revolution was a success. Equality was an idea that was integral to the revolution and can be seen within both the August Decrees and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. The August Decrees’ main goal was to abolish the feudal system, which it did successfully, leading to everyone being equal in the law.

Its 19 articles were created in order to create a more equal society. In the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, the first article itself states that ‘Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can be founded only on the common good’. While it can be argued that Robespierre, never implemented the constitution, later rules and governments such as the Directory and Napoleon did, meaning that in the end, the only idea that truly remained of the slogan ‘Liberté, égalité, fraternité’ ( a symbol of the revolution) was equality.

Idea 2: Anti-clericalism Anti-clericalism was one of the most radical ideas of the revolution. Religion, mainly Christianity, dominated life in Europe from the middles ages through to the 20th century. The Church had a say in almost everything, they had power over the king, the taxes, and the people. This was most obvious in France where the Church was the First Estate. This meant that they had the most power and the most control over the 20

TIMELINE 2022

state. During the Ancien Régime, the Church and the Clergy had been given extreme power and they used it in often greedy ways. They taxed the Third Estate for funds, which they then used to buy gold and buildings. In fact, the clergy were so greedy that many famous French philosophers started to speak out against the greediness of the Church. Writers such as Voltaire and Diderot said, ‘the distance between the throne and the altar can never be too great’. The church also forced many peasants to pay a dime, which was a tithe to the church. All in all, the church made around 150 million Livres (the French currency before the revolution) annually. Thus, in the Jacobin club, the idea of anti-clericalism was as important as any other.

All these reasons explain why the revolutionaries tried many times to undermine the church. For example, in 1792, the Legislative Assembly legalised divorce, directly contradicting the Catholic faith. At the same time, the State took control of the birth, death, and marriage registers away from the Church. The Legislative Assembly also passed many anti-church laws that allowed Church wealth and property to be stolen.

This was done mainly to help fund the current war effort, but it was still a direct insult to the Catholic Church. However, the worst crimes done to the Church were during the September Massacres. Under the direction of Jean-Baptiste Carrier, over 200 priests were killed for treason in a mass execution. Hundreds more priests and nuns were arrested and were held in jail. However, a majority of the Third Estate still feared God, and so never truly left the Catholic Church, which was why, in the end, the attempts to de-christianise France failed. Even attempts made by the most powerful of figures such as Robespierre, who created his own cult of religion, failed. Alas, France never truly dechristianized, and the only major gains made were in 1905 when France separated the Church and the State.

Popular Sovereignty After centuries of oppressive rule from the monarchy and the church, the French people were tired of being persecuted. And so, the idea that the Monarch should get his right to rule from the people, rather than the Church arose. Philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote about a social contract people the people and its government. In his book about the topic, he says that ‘ each person will enjoy the protection of the common force whilst remaining as free as they were in the state of nature’. However, this would only happen if the monarch of government came from the people and was approved by the people. This idea was a precursor of French democracy; however, it never came to fruition. France did not become a democracy until 1848, almost 50 years after the revolution. While the ideas of popular sovereignty were seen and implemented then, it was merely mentioned within the French revolution and was chucked aside for more brutal dictatorships, such as the Directory and Napoleon.

21

TIMELINE 2022

Conclusion In conclusion, the French revolution was not a revolution of ideas. It was one of the bloodiest revolutions of all time, and any meaningful reforms were never made. The only idea that was ever achieved was equality. Yet this equality came with a catch, that catch was a lack of freedom. The French people remained subjugated under dictatorships for nearly 50 more years when the effects of the revolution were dying out. So, not only did the revolution’s ideas fail but so did the revolution itself, leaving just utter bloodshed within France.

22

TIMELINE 2022

Dr Ian St. John, History Department ‘Work over Wealth: Disraeli’s 1852 Experiment in Income Tax reform’ When Joe Biden declared - in a recent speech justifying his administration’s proposals to expand infrastructure and welfare spending and pay for it by raising corporation tax - that ‘We’re going to reward work, not just wealth’ he was reprising an idea expressed in Benjamin Disraeli’s first budget as Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1852.

Disraeli hadn’t wanted to be Chancellor in Lord Stanley’s Conservative government and protested that he knew nothing of finance. To this Stanley replied: ‘You know as much as Canning did; they give you the figures’. His main problem, however, was not finance but politics. The Conservatives did not command a majority in the House of Commons, and this meant Disraeli’s budget might easily fail to pass. So, he needed allies – and for these Disraeli looked to the votes of Radical MPs, Liberal politicians of a more ‘progressive’ bent who might be persuaded to vote for a Tory budget if it contained policies they approved of. The main policy Disraeli developed to this end was a proposal to tax the income generated by work at a lower rate from income generated by assets. In the language of the time, this was to tax ‘precarious’ incomes from work at a lower rate than ‘permanent’ incomes generated by ownership of property. Radicals were keen on this idea. As supporters of the freemarket system, they wanted to reward meritocratic initiative and hard work over income that came to the idle rich often from no effort of their own – simply by collecting rental incomes for example. Disraeli was happy to oblige, and his budget proposed to keep the tax on property income at 7 pence in the pound but reduce that on earned income to 5.25 pence in the pound.

It was a nice play for Radical support. Only it had one fatal problem: Disraeli’s financial inexperience meant he had not realised that the existing tax schedules at the time contained no way of knowing what was earned and unearned income. Each income tax schedule contained both types of income. As a result, the proposal came under fierce attack from Gladstone, who mercilessly laid bare the ignorance underlying Disraeli’s proposals. As Disraeli’s budget unravelled, the Radicals had little reason to back him. On a stormy night in December 1852 the budget was rejected by 305 votes to 286. Disraeli had secured no allies. Lord Stanley resigned, the government was replaced by a coalition government of Whigs and Peelites, led by the Peelite Lord Aberdeen. Gladstone became Chancellor of the Exchequer. As one experiment in 23

TIMELINE 2022

differentiated taxation ended, another fiscal project was resumed, as Gladstone embarked upon a rigorous drive to free trade by cutting tariffs.

But Disraeli might, perhaps, take some solace from the fact that his words during that stormy debate have passed into British political folklore: ‘Yes! I know what I have to face. I have to face a Coalition! The combination may be successful. A Coalition has before this been successful. But Coalitions, although successful, have always found this, that their triumph has been brief. This too, I know, that England does not love Coalitions.’

Indeed, the new coalition government lasted just three years before it fell under the impact of the Crimean War. For more on Disraeli’s political career read: Disraeli and the art of Victorian Politics by Ian St John.

24

TIMELINE 2022

World War II

Aarav Rajput, Junior School ‘They’ll always be missed.’

They kept on coming hard, raining upon the nearby houses.

The bombs went off, Michael clambered out of bed, crawling around on his knees.

‘The air raid shelter is too far; my bed will have to do’ muttered Michael. ‘Anyway, the bombs never hit.’ The barrage balloon was above his house.

Michael eagerly though of his evacuation to a place in the countryside with his little sister Harriet. Then he wouldn’t have to constantly clamber out of the duvet to the cramped space under a bed. But there were so many other things, there would always be an extra potato or a little more butter in the food, he had heard that they weren’t strict with rationing up north. In south London, your plate would only ever be a quarter full, even the royals were no exception.

But at least he wasn’t dead…. Many of his friends had perished in the Blitz, and there were probably a few months left till the USA officially entered the war and would send many more troops and resources for us.

His parents had finally registered him and Harriet for evacuation. His mother’s tiring job as an ambulance driver and his father’s dangerous work of being an air raid warden meant he never saw them around much, they were working during the day, or he was at school, and so he wouldn’t feel very lonely without them. They knew that they were putting their children’s life at risk, and they had seen how thousands were dying at Hitler’s commands. He would return when the Blitz was over, London would be a safer place, a small number of bombings, the Germans would be too busy focusing on the wrath in the east.

25

TIMELINE 2022

Then it hit.

His ceiling cracked, and started crumbling, he clambered from his bed and ran to his sister’s room. She was biting her nails, crying, and crouched on the floor. Michael picked up Harriet and ran out of the front door, pulling his coat of the peg. They would need rush to the air raid shelter, he prayed it wasn’t full, or they would wait outside. Harriet was crying even louder; the fire was spreading. Michael was out of energy, even lumbering a few steps was a burden, yet he didn’t dare drop Harriet.

They finally made it, there was only a single bunker left. Michael rushed to it and lay Harriet down. She had been wounded with the flying rubble, there was a cut on her left cheek. A small amount of blood trickled down and she whimpered slightly.

Michael placed a plaster on her cheek; someone had one in their bag. Harriet wiped the tears from her eyes.

‘Good girl, you are so brave,’ Michael whispered to his sister.

‘Thank you,’ she murmured.

Michael slumped against the bed frame, the were safe, no bombs could get them, they would peacefully evacuate to the countryside tomorrow. He just hoped that his parents would be fine, it had been a bad night, barrage balloons were in flames when he came to the shelter, it would be a lot to put out. * The night passed with continuous thudding sounds, yet Michael and Harriet knew in their hearts that this constant terror of the war would eventually go, this fighting had its downfalls, but they would eventually find peace, the war couldn’t last for much longer. The Allies would push forward and end the war and they wouldn’t have to live in the mindset of death.

Their parents returned to the site of their home to find a pile of rubble. They had been there since the all-clear sign early in the morning.

‘Mum, Dad, I was hiding under the bed, when our house was hit, Harriet was in tears and we managed to run over and find space in the nearby shelter. I’m sorry that this had to happen, such a nice house we lived in.’

‘It’s alright son, this was inevitably going to happen,’ replied Michael’s dad.

They foraged through the rubble to find some belongings, all they found were photos of them as a family in cracked photo frames. They would have to walk to the train station empty handed, their dad in his air raid warden’s outfit and their mum in her clothes from the ambulance shift. Michael and Harriet were in their pyjamas with thick coats tied around their waists. Whilst it may have been the start of spring, the 26

TIMELINE 2022

vast number of fires everywhere meant that it felt like summer. They would be back to the normal seasons when evacuated, not an endless summer.

Walking to the train station was a journey itself, stepping over bricks and paving.

Harriet was shaken up from the previous night. The Germans were merciless and nearly everything had been reduced to a pile of mess. How would they ever be able to repair the country? Their family and friends in Hull had already lost their homes and had moved to a temporary home. It was much worse; London may have even been a little lucky.

.

27

TIMELINE 2022

General History

Rishi Patel, Junior School ‘Twice Migrants: A rise to prominence.’

‘Twice migrants’ is a term that was used for people of South Asian origin who migrated to the United Kingdom from countries other than those in South Asia. Typically, these migrants are descendants of people of Indian origin who were either Gujrat or Punjab and settled in British Colonies located in Africa. The first route taken by these people was to many countries in East Africa such as Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya and Malawi.

Slowly after moving to Africa the South Asians started to get jobs within British-run industries such as mining or they set up their own businesses. Between 1896‐1903 the number of South Asians living in East Africa shot up. One reason for this was the construction of railway lines being built to connect Kenya and Uganda, two of the main three countries giving homes to the migrants. The other country which saw a large increase in migrants was Tanzania. Asians tended to occupy a middle position in the colonial system in Africa, between the British colonial rulers at the top and the African indigenous majority at the bottom. By the 1940s a significant share of commercial trade in Kenya and Uganda was in the hands of the South Asian settlers.

During the 1960s a movement of independence emerged across East African countries. Each country adopted different policies towards their South Asian residents.

For example, following Kenya’s independence from Britain in 1963, Asians were given two years to acquire Kenyan citizenship to replace the British passports that most Asians held. However, the majority of Asians did not take up Kenyan citizenship. The “Africanization” policies of countries such as Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia and Malawi were intended to ensure that the African majority population acquired greater control 28

TIMELINE 2022

over key areas of the economy and the government. In contrast Asians living in Uganda had no choice but to leave as Idi Amin seized power.

Towards the last few years of the 1960s, many East African Asians chose to migrate across the world to countries such as Canada, the United States of America and the United Kingdom. Some even chose to return to India. Though many who chose to come to the United Kingdom held British passports, they were not always welcome here. As these Asians had previously migrated once from India to East Africa and then again from East Africa to other countries such as the United Kingdom, they were known as “Twice Migrants”.

The first route taken by the twice migrants.

The second route taken by the twice migrants.

My family’s experience come from both my grandparents who were Indian Gujaraties forced to leave East Africa and come to England.

My paternal grandpa was born in Tanzania where his father had a job in one of the many British owned diamond mines. The diamond mines were where hundreds of migrants went to earn money. When my Grandpa was old enough, he worked as head of security, from early in the morning to late in the evening. In 1967, a few years after East Africa got their independence, my Grandpa was pushed out of Tanzania. Thus, he went to England where he would have more opportunity than going back to Asia.

The main reason these people had to leave was not only that you had to be a national of the country but because once East Africa got their independence, the economic job system changed. This resulted in a process called “Africanisation”, whereby nationals were more likely to get a job than a migrant who originated from somewhere else in the world. Also, in Tanzania the nationalisation of banks and other financial institutions particularly affected the livelihoods of the Asian community who owned the vast majority of such businesses. Thousands of migrants left Africa to go to either England, America or back to India.

29

TIMELINE 2022

The WILLIAMSON diamond mine

Sparkling discoveries

Interview with Pushyant Patel, paternal grandpa.

Why did you come to England?

‘I came to England after Tanzania got their independence from the British the government in 1972. Prime minister, Rashidi Kawawa, changed the rules of the job system. This resulted in a national being more likely to get a job than me, an Asian. If you want to have had a life in Tanzania where you could get a job, you had to become a national which I did not want to do. Instead, I decided to come to England. I also came here as there would be much more opportunity to get a good education, get a job and make a living’.

What were your first memories in England? How did you feel when you arrived?

‘When I first came to England I was scared and nervous. I just wanted to go back to Africa where it was hot and sunny. England was very different to Tanzania it felt more systematic, and I was bewildered when it started snowing. I was wearing shirt and trousers‐ my hands were shivering. I remember buying a big coat from a charity shop and then going to stay and a friend’s house for the night. Some people were welcoming but many took an instant dislike to foreigners’.

My maternal grandpa was born in Uganda. When his parents moved there, they managed to quickly make a living in the bicycle industry. They owned one of the biggest bicycle companies in the country. My grandpa lived in a nice house with his family and was one of the few migrants in Uganda to get this. However, in the early 1970s the Asians had no choice but to leave. This was because of a man called Idi Amin who became president in 1971. On August 4th, 1972 he ordered all Asians to leave the country within 90 days. Thousands of Asians left Uganda with no property and only the permitted £55 cash in hand. About 27,000 Ugandan Asians came to the United Kingdom, while smaller numbers went to Canada or back to India and other parts of South Asia. While many Asians in Uganda already held British citizenship, there were others who were granted British citizenship after they lost Ugandan citizenship. My grandpa and his family lost everything including their business and the place they called home.

30

TIMELINE 2022

“The Butcher of Uganda.”

Idi Amin was a Ugandan military officer who served as the President of Uganda from 1971 to 1979. Popularly known as the "Butcher of Uganda", he is considered one of the most brutal despots in world history. Idi Amin was born in Koboko to a Kakwa father and Lug bara mother. During his time serving as President Idi Amin expelled over 50,000 Asians out of Uganda and slaughtered up to 500,000 people. Some say

he was like a cannibal.

Interview with Subohd Shah, my maternal grandpa How did you feel when told you had only 90 days to leave your home country?

‘I first heard the news on the radio, and when I did, I called my parents straight away.

My first feelings were just shock and panic, we could not believe we had been asked to leave so abruptly. My parents had to come up with a plan to get themselves, me, my brothers and my sisters out of the country within 90 days! The feelings were overwhelming grief, pain and despair. We had to leave everything behind. This separation was agonising’.

How did you and your family act/prepare in the given 90 days?

‘For the first few days everything was the same but after around a week we knew that we might as well start to think about leaving. The rules were very strict so each one of us took our most valuable possessions and that was it. Slowly all the Asians started to leave, and some people say because of how rough the times were in Uganda for Asians the fact that Idi Amin gave the Asians 3 months was nice. But in reality, 3 months is nothing’.

What was it like coming to England? How did you feel?

‘When coming to England I felt scared and sad knowing that I might never see my beautiful home in Uganda again. It was scary coming to England, but I also felt quite happy. This is because there would be much more opportunity in England. On the way to the airport my parents were stopped by Idi Amin’s men, and we had to give them money to let us go. My father had to throw the keys to his shop out the window and we had to leave our Mercedes behind to. But in England we were taken care of and were given shelter food and water’.

31

TIMELINE 2022

The story of the twice migrants is an important one for both Indian and British History.

The number of Asians now living in the UK exceeds 5,000,000 people. Many of these are here as a result of the migration from Africa. These migrants brought with them the benefits of an English‐language education. These advantages contributed to the economic success of East African Indians in Britain, especially in the retail businesses of Margaret Thatcher’s “enterprise economy”, for which they soon became known.

These Asians have made a huge economic and political contribution to today’s British society setting up businesses delivering thousands of jobs and holding positions of great influence within society. The migrants went through a lot and their determination to succeed is something embedded in today’s British Asian society.

32

TIMELINE 2022

Aarav Rajput, Lower School ‘The fight for superheroes.’

From 1938 – 1956 Comics were at their peak; this was known as the golden age. Two of the most well-known comic characters were ‘Superman’ and ‘Captain Marvel’. Both were the leading characters of different comics. Between these two characters was the most famous law case on comics that has ever happened.

The character of ‘Superman’ was created in 1938. After an instant hit, the rights to ‘Superman’ were sold to the sister company of Detective Comics (DC) which was renamed to Superman- for $130 at the time. DC wanted to keep ‘Superman’ at the top and threatened the comic characters of ‘Master Man’ and ‘Wonder Man’. ‘Master man’ was a Fawcett Publication. However, these two characters were stopped when DC threatened legal action.

‘Captain Marvel’ was another Fawcett Publication which was much more successful than ‘Master Man’. It was created in 1939 and had more sales than ‘Superman’ during its production. Superman and DC wrote to Fawcett Publications, but were ignored, as Captain Marvel was very successful, and was making a lot of money. In 1941 Superman and DC sued Fawcett for a copyright infringement of the character ‘Superman’. DC and Superman were trying to cease the publication of the comic strip and withhold the release of the upcoming movie by Republic Pictures. However, the movie was released in 1941 and the comic strip continued.

There was a lawsuit for seven years before a trial took place. By 1948, Superman and DC had joined to make National Comics. The case was now National Comics Publications, Inc. v. Fawcett Publications, Inc. and lasted for another six years.

Initial claims included that ‘Captain Marvel’s’ main powers, and his characteristics were drawn from ‘Superman’ including super-strength, super- speed, invulnerability, a skin-tight costume with a cape, and an alter-ego of a news reporter. In the first issue both characters were seen to be throwing the same car.

However, Fawcett argued that there was no proper copyright claim on ‘Superman’. Even though ‘Captain Marvel’ was a clone of 33

TIMELINE 2022

‘Superman’, no damages were owed. This is because there was a newspaper comic strip. This newspaper comic strip wasn’t copyrighted and used almost identical parts of the comic book in some strips. It was ruled that the copyright of Superman was forfeited. Fawcett didn’t have to pay any damages, yet Captain Marvel was a copy of Superman.

National Comics appealed to this decision, and it was decided that ‘Superman’ had a copyright, but to receive payment for damages, they would have to provide evidence for the parts in the ‘Superman’ comics which had been published at a later stage in the ‘Captain Marvel’ comics. This process took two years, and eventually, Fawcett had to cease production of the comics and paid National Comics $400,000 (which is equivalent to $4,000,000 today) for damages.

Many people believe that the reason Fawcett didn’t appeal for the result is because the Golden Age of comics was ending and there was very little money to be made from the sale of comics.

Without ‘Captain Marvel’, ‘Superman’ would be very different. He wouldn’t have the flying ability and his enemies may have been drastically alternate to what they are now. Whilst ‘Captain Marvel’ is a copy of ‘Superman’, National Comics took ideas from the ‘Captain Marvel’ comic strip.In 1968, Marvel, another comic strip company, bought the trademark of ‘Captain Marvel’ and created a completely new character. This meant that in 1972, when National Comics bought all characters from Fawcett Publications, they had to change the name of the original ‘Captain Marvel’, to ‘Shazam’, the word said for Billy Batson (‘Captain Marvel’s’ alter ego) to become a superhero.

34

TIMELINE 2022

Tom Oakland, Senior School ‘How accurate is literature as a commentary of social climate.’

As long as humans have been able to write, documents of human interaction have been created by many generations and passed down to be archived. When looking at literature pre-1900, there is often a degree of scepticism over the validity of using a fictional poem or book as a commentary on the current social climate. Due to this, there are varying manners in which books can be interpreted as merely fanciful or as genuine accreditable sources that accurately reflect society, leaving literature as a point of contention for many sociologists.

History and literature share considerable common ground as both were embedded in the process of social development. Literature does not ‘happen’ outside of history, but within it. This is K.N. Panikkar’s sweeping opinion on the strong link between literature and history, essentially demarcating literature as a segment of history and therefore as valuable. However, as Panikkar also states, there is a divergence between the two over the subject of how ‘social reality is embodied and represented’.

When looking at a literary representation of a text, there is a clear influence of imagination as a core function that defines the movement and shape of a text. This is different from historical literature in which there is an effectual governance by gathered evidence and usage of obtained facts, with the aim of having a heightened degree of accuracy within the text. Thus, as Georg Lukacs observes, literature has a blatantly obvious limitation: the ‘paradoxical’ manner in which the author ‘surrenders themselves to the work as though it is a presentation of reality’. Essentially, it is not a reality, rather a tailored form of reality that is either a macrocosmic representation of an authorial experience or purely a figment of the author’s imagination that draws reference to a social experience. Milton C. Albrecht rather theorises that ‘Literature is interpreted as reflecting norms and values’, much alike Plato’s concept of imitation.

Plato’s concept outlines that the “reflection theory” served to explain societal changes in the terms of social and historical works, rather than in “individual terms”.

Essentially, as Albrecht states, “it emphasized social and cultural determinism instead of personal inspiration”.

Looking with a wider lens however, literature at any point in time has been thought to reflect multiple matters ranging from economics to social classes to religion, even commenting on the normalities of social life. This multifaceted aspect of literature is one that can be surmised under the umbrella of being a “record of social experience”, which infers that literature also serves to represent all social customs, ideals, and religious beliefs. If literature were to truly represent a “collective unconscious”, Albrecht projects that it therefore presents a “manifest and latent content both derived from stresses in society and attributed symbolic meaning”. This portrayal of literature therefore serves as an interpretation upon excerpts of real life in an attempt to show the “fundamental reality” of a culture.

35

TIMELINE 2022

Whether these concepts are valid or not, they are largely attributed to one major philosophical school of thought, that of Hegelian philosophy. Hegel was fond of the concept of ideas as affecting the mentality of a class, meaning that literature, an embodiment of “ideas” was something that could strongly affect the class mentality and actions. However, this is strongly subject to interpretive difficulty. The accessibility and availability of texts, radical or not, has been instrumental in their popularity and the effect that they have on society. One such text is a poem by Percy Bysshe Shelley titled The Mask of Anarchy. Written on the occasion of the Peterloo Massacre, Manchester 1819, Shelley was defiantly berating the unjust authoritative measures taken by Lord Liverpool and his government. He was a radical attempting to stir the radical mindset that was being kindled within Britain: “Let a great assembly be, of the fearless, of the free”. He epitomised and therefore represented the radical mindset within this poem, speaking of the consequences that the guilt will hold for those soldiers who took part in the massacre. Furthermore, he exacerbates the unpopularity of Liverpool’s cabinet, representing Castlereagh (the foreign secretary) as wearing the mask of Murder. Sidmouth is presented as Hypocrisy and Lord Eldon (the Lord Chancellor) is shown to be Fraud. All of these different abhorrent apparitions are guided by Anarchy – Liverpool. They are attempting to dominate Britain and control its societies, but their attempts are curtailed by Hope – a cloaked maiden. The enmity that emanates from this poem is one that did indeed represent social climate and accurately so. Shelley as a poet is anomalous as compared to other texts that portray an individual facet of society. This is since Shelley was someone who commonly attempted to advocate for the radical movement in Britain and thus wrote as a governmental critic and a direct social commentator.

This radicalistic tendency is not seen in texts that more colloquially refer to societal customs and ideals such as Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice. Austen, being from Hampshire and having been educated at Reading Abbey Girls’ School was very much a member of the British landed gentry and so had a qualified view to speak upon customs that took place.

Austen used her novels to critique the landed gentry from which she was raised, taking a comedic stance on Mrs. Bennet’s desire to have her children all marry wealthy men. The novel plays on the concepts of marriage, ridiculing the poignancy of wealth as a factor determining marriage proposals. She also plays on the concept of class, as she does throughout many of her other novels such as Sense and Sensibility and Mansfield Park. Class is an underlying theme that she often attempts to portray as a ludicrous concept that has no sense to it, having the extravagant Mrs. Bennet stating that someone of a lower-class could cause their manor to become ‘polluted’.

Whenever marriage is proposed, such as by Darcy to Elizabeth, a consideration of both parties social and economic status is something that has to be overcome, no matter what the mutual feeling may have been. Though to a modern reader this may 36

TIMELINE 2022

seem absurd, to a contemporary reader this may not have been something that was at all bizarre. Therefore, by creating a character that is an inherent overplaying of everything that Austen thought was wrong with the landed gentry, she was able to push forward her views to the contemporary reader that the people at the top of the class system were outdated and needed to change, through use of her blunt irony and acute realism.

Another incredibly famous writer who commentated on the social climate through his work was Lord George Gordon Baron Byron (in short- Lord Byron). Byron was a British man who had grown up impoverished and with a clubfoot, so therefore was often subjected to probing, becoming severely self-conscious. He was a romantic poet but used his platform to critique reviews in a satirical manner. He was a creator of sensate literature, looking at what Albrecht refers to as ‘sensational and erotic, individualistic and sceptical’. He was infatuated with the concept of hedonism, and it permeated all of his work, creating a feeling of longing for many of those who read it.

The most famous of his works was called Don Juan, where he narrated the story of a young man who is lusted after by beautiful women, partaking in many erotic escapades. The story is powerful and enjoyable, yet underneath was another of his trademarked satirical social commentaries. He outlines the hypocrisy of sexual conventions and the gaudy, flamboyant lives that the poets and rulers of nations claimed to lead. The books are surprisingly autobiographical but are a manner in which he highlights the imperfections rife within humanity, mocking the disparity between the lives that people lead as compared to the idealistic lives that they narrate.

So, can they actually be used as a social commentary?

Well, partially. As Panikkar notes, ‘history is invariably the subject matter of literature as its universe is humanity’.

Similar to the concept of causality, history is the inspiration and direct source of literature.

Literature as a reflection of society is a popular theory amongst historical researchers as ‘such a potential is inherent in social change, which is the soul of history and an inevitable dimension of literature’. The convergence between literature and history is an integral part of deciding social processes as history is able to identify the forces which bring about changes, whilst literature defines the means by which the changes affected involved individuals through ‘the medium of inter-personal relations and emotional experiences’. Terry Eagleton was quoted as having said that ’Literary works are not mysteriously inspired, or explicable simply in terms of their authors’ psychology.

They are forms of perception, particular ways of seeing the world’. Eagleton’s view is one that is not uncommon. Nevertheless, it is not necessarily correct. All literature that is written has to consider the varying conceptions of the world that are presented. Thus, literature can be described as a manner in which there are isolated 37

TIMELINE 2022

and distinguished presentations of the viewpoints of the profligate. Literature therefore performs a large role in depicting the perpetuation of contemporary social relations. It is used as an instrument by many as a major representative of radicalisation within history, as seen through the aforementioned Shelley and Byron.

The success of these radical texts completely depended upon the accurate mirroring of the consciousness of those who were completely marginalised. This conception allows the manifestation and spreading of fears, especially in periods of mass social change such as the Industrial Revolution, a time in which both Byron and Shelley wrote. This was when society was disorganised and therefore their works were able to have an effect on changing the mindset of people who were recalcitrant towards the changes that a country was undertaking.

A far more Marxist view of literature would be one which heavily stresses the class struggle. Marx held the view that “art expresses the tendencies of a rising, and therefore revolutionary class”. Caudwell and Fox, looking at both the novel and poetry attempt to relate economic conditions and bourgeois ideas to the forms as well as the content of literature. This concept of classes however is wholly dependent upon society. Many of the most influential books and poems were written by those who had been properly educated. It does not apply to the current British society in which there is a high level of education. However, in the eras of Austen, Byron, and Shelley, as stated by Levin L. Schücking, the problem of how bourgeois writers and artists succeed in reflecting the ideas and aims of the proletarian class remains obscure. Rather than aligning with the latent Hegelian viewpoint, Marx’s concepts are far more dynamic and look socially rather than only at cultural and literary reflections of social facts such as vocational and divorce trends. Ruth Inglis discovered that popular fiction mirrors “certain ideals” that are pushed forward in a society, rather than the actual roles that people in society fulfilled. By centring on these norms and values that are pushed by societal interest, there is a disparate reality between the social norms presented in literature and the actual social norms that were seen in society. This undermines Marx’s idea that the ruling class are controlling all ideas and that statistics are not and cannot be reproduced in literary works, leaving his opinion that it is a “reflection of society” as a simple incongruity.

Rather, literature is something cultural, as outlined by Ruth Inglis, finding that ‘there is no evidence that popular literature “shapes” society’, rather that it was – as stated

by Marx - a manner of “perpetuating the status quo of the common man” whilst simultaneously reaffirming the ingrained power of the economic elite as a “higher” social class.

Whether literature can act as a commentator upon the topic of social change is dubious. Alternatively, as an instigator the effect of literature (though relatively rare) has been seen multiple times. This was initially seen with Uncle Tom’s Cabin in which Harriet Beecher-Stowe was able to rally an abolitionist mindset at a time where sectionalism was becoming increasingly prevalent. Latterly with The Jungle by Upton Sinclair which supposedly triggered the reform of packing houses in 1906.

Though there is no manner in which my claim can be verified, that they had an influence on society was undeniable.

38

TIMELINE 2022

Overall, literature as a commentary of social climate can have varying degrees of accuracy. Though it is able to push forward some of the ideals that a society wants to portray itself as containing, it does not portray the genuine class consciousness that was seen at the time.

It was successful in portraying smaller, marginalised class’s experiences as they were often represented by writers such as Shelley, Byron, or Sinclair. Only when writing of their own experiences are writers such as Austen’s views useful as an accurate portrayal of society, otherwise they are uninformed idealistic interpretations.

As stated by George Lundberg, rather than being commentary on society, literature forms what social relations are today, displaying ‘highly limited personal experiences, principles of nature and human relations’. Though this cannot be validated with current technology and research, literature is certainly more powerful as a method of influencing people than commenting on the actions that people take.

However, this conclusion is one that only alludes to a very select number of texts.

Thus, when looking at a culmination of a wide variety of texts, one is able to glean a large quantity of information which could provide an accurate depiction of society at the time. Due to the massively diverse experiences of many authors, there is the opportunity for a social commentary. This will have been harder in periods of time where education was scarce and neither reading nor writing were common, but is possible, nonetheless.

39

TIMELINE 2022

Adam Smith, Middle School ‘The Partitions of Poland and their reverberations in the modern day’ The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was a region of central Europe encompassing Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, and the current Baltic states, which existed between 15691795. Its decline was marked by a series of territory annexations by the Kingdom of Prussia, the Austrian Empire and the Russian Empire against the Commonwealth between the years 1772 and 1795.

Fig 1. Map showing the initial partitions of Poland from 1772.

These partitions have had a great effect on Polish and consequently Central European History. The map above [Figure 1] is not the final version of the partitions, given that after the Napoleonic wars (1803-1815) Russia annexed some of the Prussian and Austrian territory as shown in the map below [Figure 2]. Note the area around Królewiec was East Prussian territory.

40

TIMELINE 2022

Fig 2. Russian territorial expansion after the Napoleonic Wars

There were many reasons for the partitions of Poland, the most prominent being the inherent instability of the Polish state, as the Polish state was the most ‘democratic’ in Eastern Europe, being an elective monarchy with a parliamentary body (Sejm) that could elect the king. The Sejm, however, was the cause of its instability, as any member of the Sejm could veto a piece of legislation or force an end of the parliamentary session (liberum veto), meaning progress was painfully slow in rebuilding the country, after a series of wars, such as the War of the Polish Succession.

Many members of the Sejm were bribed to veto resolutions by foreign powers who wanted a weak Poland. This in turn made Poland very vulnerable to attack and internal conflicts, and eventually civil war did break out (1768–1772), with Ukrainians in Eastern Poland rebelling and the Polish King Stanislaw Poniatowski asking his lover, Catherine the Great of Russia, to help him. However, the Polish King did try to strengthen the Polish state, and even managed to remove the Sejm’s veto power for three years, and this did not sit well with the surrounding powers of Prussia, Austria, and Russia. After the 2nd partition in 1793, many of the Polish nobility and peasantry had enough, rising up in an event called the Kościuszko’s Uprising named after the Polish military leader Tadeusz Kościuszko. This unfortunately failed and paved the way for the third partition in 1795 which wiped Poland-Lithuania off the map.

What one might call the “4th partition” of Poland was the partition of the Second Polish Republic (formed ante bellum in 1918) between the German Reich and the Soviet Union in 1939, despite being nearly one and a half centuries after the 3rd partition.

Why should we know about these partitions? Well, they shaped European History greatly. If Poland had not been partitioned, there is a high chance that events such as the Napoleonic Wars or the World Wars would have followed drastically different paths, as Poland would have been a major player, and especially in the example of the Napoleonic wars, could have sided with the French Empire, to regain territory lost to Russia in the 17th century. Furthermore, the Partitions have completely shaped Poland’s politics and beliefs, meaning that without them Poland could have easily become a far-right agrarian society or a highly industrial and developed left wing society.

They have also left simmering resentment within many Polish nationalists, who seek to regain territory from Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic States, which may give rise to many diplomatic incidents in the future [Figure 3]. It is worth noting that Russian territorial ambitions have already been exercised in eastern Ukraine and Crimea.

41

TIMELINE 2022

In terms of politics and ideology, one can see the effects of the partitions in recent Polish voting maps (Figure 4), development, and general ideology, with the previously German territories being generally more developed, and more left wing due to the high levels of investment in infrastructure and production by the German Empire; the Russian part being more rural and right wing due to the Medieval-style serfdom that was prevalent in that region, and the Austrian part was Fig 3. The Polish-Lithuanian simply a mess due to ethnic tension and Commonwealth at its greatest extent, poverty, to such an extent providing the overlayed on present day boundaries. same effect as the Russian part. You can also almost see the borders of the Second Polish Republic, with slightly more development in Pomerania and Silesia which were annexed after WW2.

Fig 4. Polish election results in 2005 and 2010. Tusk and Komorowski were left leaning candidates; the Kaczyński twins right wing. Lech Kaczyński was famously killed in the Smolensk plane crash. The red lines show the partition after the Napoleonic wars.

42

TIMELINE 2022

Aadam Hashmi, Senior School ‘The English Civil War and Whig History.’

The Whig Interpretation of History was a term coined by one Herbert Butterfield in his book of the same title in 1931, though the concept is one that has been riddled in British political discourse for at least 250 years prior.

Broadly speaking, to take the Whig Interpretation of History is to view the course of history as a steady and inevitable progression towards greater freedom and liberty, starting from feudalistic, authoritarian societies and culminating in the democracy and constitutional monarchy we have today.

Despite its apparent simplicity, it is not difficult to see marks of its influence in mainstream British historical thought. There is a reason the Medieval period has been colloquially termed the “Dark Ages,” and the overthrow of James II in 1688 “The Glorious Revolution.” This article will analyse the English Civil War in relation to the Whig Interpretation in order to enable a greater understanding of the merits and limitations of Whig history as an historiographical approach.

The English Civil war, that bloody conflict that culminated in the death of Charles I, has been idolised by Whigs as a turning point in history and this is hardly an illogical assumption (initially). Indeed, the regicide was something novel and unique to Europe at the time and made other monarchs fearful of their own people in a way they had never been before. The English constitution regardless was an enigma to the absolute monarchies of Europe. In the mid-17th century England had a parliament and even then, the King’s prerogative was limited (e.g., the King could not levy taxes without the consent of parliament). The death of a King that did as he pleased, ignored the wants of his people and tolerated the “oppressive” Catholic faith was seen by Whigs as evidence of the inevitable progress of history towards our current point. The English Civil war perpetuated the idea of popular sovereignty, that the authority of the state came from the consent of its people, and it was the influence of this ideas’ adherents (e.g. the Levellers) that caused the regicide. Its significance to Whigs has been all too clear given the deep running animosity between the Whig party and the Tories who advocated the power of parliament and the King respectively.

The essential question that must be posed by the Whig historian is “Were these events inevitable?” And often the answer to this is no, since the assumption of inevitability in history is practically synonymous with the ignorance of the multitude of factors that cause an occurrence.

43

TIMELINE 2022

The inevitability of the regicide of 1649 is remarkedly questionable. Contrary to popular assumption Charles’s execution was not something initially pushed for, even by the staunchest of the parliamentary leadership. The King’s situation at the end of 1648 gave no impression that he would be dead in less than six months. Despite having refused all negotiation attempts and starting a second civil war, parliament was still very much in favour of continuing negotiations with him. It was Pride’s Purge of December 1648 and the formation of the Rump parliament that helped see the King off to his death, and even this was no certainty. We can attribute much of the Rump’s attitude to political radicalism seeping into parliamentary and army leadership. Ireton and Harrison were men influenced by Leveller and Fifth Monarchist ideologies respectively, and if not for the support of these radical groups, then the execution could certainly have never occurred. Furthermore, even during the trial of the King, his execution was far from assured, indeed had he displayed some form of remorse, he would have most likely been pardoned. The Newcastle propositions are evidence enough that even the most republican of men that opposed the King could barely fathom a kingless constitution and resultantly it is plain folly to see the King’s execution as some sort of unavoidable triumph of justice.

The Whig historian is also liable to the severe misinterpretation of historical events in the frantic attempt to connect the past to the present. The Whig historian does not so much seek causation as he does connection. The question he asks himself is “How has this led to the furthering of social liberty?” It is a hazardous predisposition to have for it will undoubtedly lead to a drastic historical misunderstanding. As Butterfield states, the Whig historian studies history to understand the present rather than to understand the past.

In the context of the English Civil War, there is a sense of connection between the Protectorate and the modern constitution of today amongst Whigs. This is a view formed simply off the basis that firstly, England was now governed by something other than a monarchy and secondly, there was a wider berth religious freedom that came with the Protectorate. Cromwell invited the Jews to return to England almost 400 years after their expulsion at the behest of Edward I, in England there was a somewhat amiable toleration of Catholicism which is surprising in itself given Cromwell’s somewhat zealous nature. It would be crass to associate Cromwell’s Protectorate with the modern English constitution because the two simply bear a few coincidental similarities but one, are otherwise wholeheartedly different and two, these similarities are not because of any sort of secularist Oliver Cromwell advancement thus making the juxtaposition of these two political entities incomparable.

44

TIMELINE 2022

The issue with this take is that it brushes off the details of Cromwell’s reign that ultimately bear more resemblance to previous more despotic forms of governance, certainly an unsavoury thought for the Whig historian. For example, Cromwell dissolved parliament on 20th April 1653, and ruled without them for the remainder of his reign not in a dissimilar fashion to the King he had helped depose. Cromwell was a King in all but name, as Lord Protector his authority was absolute. Simply because he was not named King does not make the Protectorate any less autocratic, and while Catholicism saw some form of toleration in England, Cromwell had no such predispositions when he sought to enforce order in Ireland. The massacres at Wexford and Drogheda are testament enough to enforce the disparity between the Protectorate and the democracy we have today.

The aim of this article was not intended so much as be a polemic, tearing apart Whig history as an ideology, but to enable one to recognise its limitations in a given context, this context being the English Civil War. Yes, the regicide was undoubtedly a political upheaval that was novel and perhaps it paved the road towards political progression, however applying the Whig Interpretation to the English Civil War will result in illogicality for two reasons. Firstly, the Whig assumption asserts that history is inevitable, and as explained above, the regicide was by no means inevitable. Secondly that the event in question bears similarities to modern day liberty and that these characteristics connect the past and present. Ultimately Cromwell’s protectoral England not only bears less resemblance to the modern-day democratic England and more to its predecessor, but that the Protectorate itself was an eventual failure, with a reversion to monarchical order soon to follow.

45

TIMELINE 2022

Abim Tayo, Senior School ‘Henry I: An underrated monarch’ Prior to writing this essay I thought: what makes something underrated? I concluded that for something to be underrated, it must be fairly obscure, and it could be valued as much as something well known (if not better).

Throughout the history of the English monarchy; there have been 40 monarchs.

After researching each monarch in depth, I made a list of more obscure monarchs and their notable achievements. After careful consideration, I believe that the most underrated monarch England. has had was Henry I. I have chosen him because he is Fig 1. Henry I somewhat unknown and has many notable achievements. In my essay I will further outline why he was, in fact, an underrated monarch.

Henry I was a good king for a number of reasons, one being his dedication to social reforms. To be a good king first and foremost, one has to be mindful of their people’s needs. After William II - Henry's brother - was killed (and Henry became king), he left England in a state of ruin. The people were unhappy due to over-taxation, his abuse of the use of Church courts, and how he sold many sacred items for his own personal gain. Henry clearly learnt where the reign of his brother went wrong because the people were angry with how he ran the country. To compensate for these heavy, resented, taxes Henry issued the Charter of Liberties, which is regarded by historians as the predecessor of the Magna Carta. With the Charter of Liberties in place, this meant that all the taxes his brother had put in place would be eradicated. As well as this, he made sure the Church courts were used for their intended purpose, all murders that were committed before his crowning were forgiven and he cancelled debts that were owed to his brother. Lastly, he enforced a sense of equality between his barons and the people, as even though William II treated all of his people badly his barons did have some perks and Henry got rid of these, so everyone was equally appreciated. For example, when William II was king, if a baron committed a crime they could just pay and get out of trouble, however this was unfair because barons were paid more than most people, therefore they wouldn’t be able to afford this luxury. Due to this inequality, Henry decided that everyone should have a trial if a crime had been committed, so no one received any ‘special treatment’, and it also implemented a sense of justice in England. This made the people of England very content with their new king, the fact that he cared so much about the happiness of and justice for his people shows how good of a leader he was.

46

TIMELINE 2022

Henry was also a good leader because of his commitment to the Church and Christianity in general, this made him very popular with the public. He knew that he needed the Church on his side in order to have the people behind him. This was because the Church was central to medieval life back then, the Church was where people went to christen their children, – or to be born again – get married and have communion. The Church was vital to Henry’s reign because of how popular Christianity was, as a whole. It is estimated that around 80-90% of the population was, in fact, Christian – this was at least 1.6 million people. Henry understood this and so he decided – as one of his first acts as king – to recall the Archbishop of Canterbury (St. Anselm) whom his brother had banished from England. He knew restoring, perhaps, one of the most important figures in Christianity – second to the Pope – would make the people jovial and therefore make them admire him. Another way Henry showed his dedication to the Church was by defeating Robert Curthouse’s army in 1106.

He did this because when he made an amicable settlement (giving him land to rule over in Normandy) with Robert, he would retract his claim to the throne. However, Robert was a terrible leader and lead Normandy into a state of ruin. Members of the church in Normandy rushed over to England to seek military assistance. After bribing Norman barons and making deals with neighbouring princes, he managed to capture Robert Curthouse and held him prisoner for life. He was seen as the hero of the Church, which gave people even more reason to back their king. This also demonstrated that he was a skilled fighter and he could defend his country, if need be. Along with this – as mentioned previously – Henry I put a few laws in place to make sure the Church couldn’t be abused, as it had been when William II was king.

Another reason why Henry I was such a good leader was because of how he mindful of ways to better his country.

In the Middle Ages, there was a lot tension between Scotland and England and they didn’t really get along. This is said to have derived from the Battle of Brunanburh in which Constantine (Scottish leader) allegedly broke a peace treaty and Athelstan (Anglo-Saxon ruler) – unopposed – invaded Scotland with the help of the Ireland. In the end England won, and ever since then, England and Scotland never really were the same, in terms of allegiance and comradery.

However, Henry recognised this was problem because Scotland and England shared a border and they would be important as allies. So, he kept his eye on – the married – Matilda of Scotland. However, after the death of his brother (Matilda’s husband) in 1100, Henry saw his chance and proposed to Matilda later on that year. Matilda’s brother

Fig. 2 Battle of Burnaburh

47

TIMELINE 2022

Edgar was also secure on the Scottish throne and this marriage offered better relations between Scotland and England. This was much needed, as they were now allies and this opened up the prospect of trade deals and international protection – in case they were to be attacked. This marriage was also good because even though she was Scottish she had Anglo-Saxon blood. This was something that the Norman bloodline mainly lacked. Matilda was also a good choice as queen because she reflected England’s Christian values. She was described as a woman of exceptional holiness, this was good because England being a majority Christian country needed both a king and queen who were Christian, otherwise the public would be outraged.

Matilda also did her part in England, whilst she was queen, by going on church projects to help the clergy. As well as this, she also took a role in government to help run the country while her husband was away fighting for and defending England. She even helped write some of the charters in the Charter of Liberties as well as sign them off. This made her very popular with the public.

In addition, Henry was a great leader due to his ability to make peace. This is an important trait for a king because the people – in most situations – would want to avoid war, due to the fatalities it leaves in its wake. So, when Henry knew the prospect of war was likely, he tried to stop this and make peace instead. This was made evident when Robert Curthose – prior to Henry’s coronation – tried to implement his claim to the English throne, which was a thorn in the side of Henry. So he decided, instead of fighting, to give Robert compensation in order for him to waiver his right/claim to the throne. This included the majority of his land in Normandy – part of his inheritance – as well as, a large sum of annual Fig. 3 Statue of Robert Curthose money to keep him satisfied. This, whilst being difficult for Henry, was a smart choice as being king – in the long run – brought him exponential amounts of wealth. The deal also worked in his favour because Robert Curthose – being irresponsible – led Normandy poorly and made it immensely unstable.

This was within the first four years of Robert’s ‘reign’ and therefore Henry did not lose as much money as anticipated and as well as this, he would be able to take back Normandy. Now, after this instability was evident, Norman churchmen fled to England in the hope that Henry would defeat Robert. However, even when he was presented with the opportunity to start a war, he decided he would secretly attack Robert instead. This meant bribing Norman barons to give him secret information and asking allies to help reroute Robert’s army to Tinchebrai – in southwestern Normandy – where he ultimately defeated Robert and held him prisoner for life. The 48

TIMELINE 2022

fact that he didn’t include the English people in the matter, shows how he cared about their safety.

Lastly, Henry was a distinguished king because of how tactical he was. This was clearly demonstrated throughout the latter part of his reign over England. During this time Henry was battling for the protection of England. This stemmed from the dilemma of choosing a new heir for Normandy – which he ruled over – which he presumed would be his son, William. However, some of the Normans had different ideas, they wanted William Clito. This new idea was backed by Louis VI of France, Count Fulk of Anjou and many Norman barons, who did not like Henry. It was inevitable that there would be a battle or war of some sort between Henry and these officials. This meant that Henry would be leaving the country frequently, to fight and gather reinforcements. Henry gathered that a country without its king present would eventually go into decline, so before he left for Normandy, he decided to create a way for the country to be run without him being there. The answer, a systematic form of government which led the country the same way he did, such as: sending out commissions, running court trials and collecting taxes. Therefore, his absence would not be as noticeable. Henry also made sure that he put people in charge that he could trust, this included: exchequers, loyal barons, his wife (Matilda of Scotland) and the Bishop of Salisbury. They would also update the people on matters involving the current war their king was fighting in Normandy, every so often. This government was very efficient and the state of England stayed the same - if not made better when Henry returned (post-victory) to lead his people once again.

In conclusion, Henry I was an excellent king due to his dedication to the people of England, showing how much he cared about them and the justice and care they received, his love of and dedication to the Church. As well as this, his leadership skills, the fact he was a peacemaker and because of how tactical he was. Each of which have been demonstrated and outlined throughout this essay. He is definitely the most underrated king from due to his unintelligible obscurity and how he made his country peaceful, successful and just. This is heavily accentuated by the fact that his predecessor was arguably one of the worst kings in that time period, but credit is still required for Henry I as he made a once ruinous England, into one that thrived and was much improved.

49

TIMELINE 2022

Contemporary History

Tom Oakland, Senior School ‘How should a man react to the Sarah Everard situation?’

An opinion piece.

‘Please Help our dear friend Sarah Everard’.

This is one sign amongst many that has been placed around the streets of almost every city in the world. A painfully morbid signal: a missing woman. Every day people walk past a sign posted by friends, family, lovers and more who are looking for someone they care deeply for, yet much of the time to no avail.

The death of Sarah Everard was one that shocked me and many others surrounding me, as we were awakened to the reality of the danger that so many women feel in many facets of day-to-day life. The disappearance of a woman is something that is scarily common, and sadly is something that has been hugely minimised in the media for a long time. However, now that it has come to light, it is a topic that should never be allowed to drop until the problem is solved. It made me realise that many women around me - no matter how strong or confident - have to cope with the fear that they could be the next victim, and this is something that we as a society should not have allowed to happen for so long. The complete unveiling of the trauma that many women have gone through from a young age simply due to their gender was something that I was, regretfully, almost totally oblivious to. However, now the issue has been raised and many women are speaking out on social media about their own experiences within the context of rape culture, sexual assault, and many other awful happenings. This has most recently been seen on an Instagram account called @everyonesinvited which has been allowing people to display the hundreds of traumatic experiences that

50

TIMELINE 2022

are the sobering reality of life as a woman in the UK and across the rest of the world. It became clear to me very soon after reading both the news and looking at @everyonesinvited that action needs to be taken, and it needs to be taken instantly.

The words of Cressida Dick following this event rang empty, stating that women may “be worried and may well be feeling scared”, but “for a woman to be abducted off the street is an incredibly rare event”.

Albeit statistically correct, there is a clear message conveyed that is incorrect on any level. If you speak to any woman in your family, or even one that you are friends with, the answer will be the same. They are scared, and with good reason. Of the 2075 female victims of the past decade, more than 9 out of 10 times the killer was male, with over 57% killed by someone they knew, most commonly a partner or ex, and 13% of the time a stranger. So, there is reason to feel unsafe, and that is what needs to change.

“A survey by UN Women UK, reported in The Guardian, found that 97% of women aged 18-24 said they had been sexually harassed and 80% of women of all ages said they had experienced sexual harassment in public spaces.”

From ages as young as 12, girls have been catcalled wearing school uniform and all.

Girls and women have to self-police by doing things such as moderating drinking, clothing, getting taxis everywhere, holding keys between fingers, and only sticking to well-lit areas. The list goes on for miles and is one that cannot simply be shrugged off.

The percentage of men who are conscious of all these things when out in public is infinitesimal.

Is it fair for a man to be able to walk in a carefree manner down the road at any time of night, not knowing that he could be scaring a passing woman? No, it is not. And these are questions that should have been asked a long time ago and should continue to be asked every single time a person goes out.

It is a fact that there needs to be an amendment in the way women are approached by men, and that is something that sadly cannot be changed instantly. However, change must be made on a far smaller level to ignite something higher up, and that is with the individual.

What can you do to make women feel safer?

1. When walking behind a woman cross the road.

One of the most important factors is space. No matter how late you are for a meeting or how much faster you want to meet a friend, prioritise others. If you are jogging at night or during the day, either cross the road or again, give them space.

51

TIMELINE 2022

2. Let a woman stay on her path.

It is commonplace for women to be consciously walking in the most well-lit areas and safest parts of a street. Thus, make sure that they can continue on that path. Even if it is accidental, do not make a woman who is a stranger walk next to a wall or another part of the pavement she feels uncomfortable on. It is easy to move, so do it.

3. Do not strike up random conversation.

No matter how obvious this may seem, people still do it. Do not strike up conversation with women you do not know whether it be on the street or in a train carriage. Many a time, women will feel obliged to respond out of fear of a man becoming aggressive.

4. Never touch someone you do not know.

If you are not already friendly with someone, or there is not a degree of trust between you: no matter who it is, do not touch them. Even if it is a friendly gesture intended to display amiability, do not do it. Make sure to be aware of physical boundaries at all time. Do not just assume they are okay with it.

5. Walk your friends home.

If you are friends with a woman, take every precaution to make sure that they get home safely. If you can, take that extra time to make sure that your friends and family are safe on their journey. Simply by being present, you can make her feel much safer on her journey home.

6. Make sure your face mask is off and that you do not stare at people (in public areas when 2m away from other individuals) This is so simple, yet some people do not do it. It can be intimidating if people cannot see your face but simply instead can feel your gaze burning into them. Not only is it common courtesy, but it also makes people feel a lot safer if you do not stare at them.

Be particularly mindful in places such as gyms, a place in which women may feel more vulnerable.

7. Do not be a passive bystander.

If you see a woman who is clearly uncomfortable due to the inappropriate behaviour of an individual: act. Never just assume that they are okay. Even if you think that it is their family or partner, you must always check to see if they are alright and cause the person who was making them feel uncomfortable to stop doing so.

Most importantly of all: educate yourself and those around you.

Do not sit and accept the recalcitrant few who ignorantly refute the fact that men need to change their behaviour by using hashtags on social media such as #notallmen.

The fact of the matter is, the aim of the movement to “reclaim these streets” and to make women feel safer is not to call all men perpetrators, but rather to allow people to learn how harmful the experience that women have on the street from such a young age can be. It is to educate, so that people can adapt to make everyone feel more comfortable and safer on the streets. A basic human right.

52

TIMELINE 2022

Do not be afraid to talk with your friends so that they can be aware of the precautions to take, whether it be late at night or during the day. It is something that must be improved upon as soon as possible to make women feel more comfortable. Make sure things on the smallest level do not pass either. Banter is not just banter; it can spiral into something worse. Things such as rape culture and the objectification of women under the guise of a joke cannot and should not be allowed to continue. If you find yourself making a joke in a sexual manner at the expense of a woman, or belittling the experience of a woman, stop. Similarly, if you hear a friend saying something along the same lines, stop them. Do not allow people to think that it is acceptable within any bubble to be bigoted and ignorant of the problems that others around them face daily.

Finally, have the conversation. Speak to a woman that you know. Such a large majority of women have an experience with sexual harassment of some form, or even worse in many cases. Talk to them, understand what makes them feel comfortable and uncomfortable. Take the time to listen. A large majority of men will have no understanding whatsoever of what women go through when they walk through the streets from a young age, therefore having a conversation with them to find out how you can adapt is invaluable. It is unacceptable that society has allowed the objectification and harassment of women to become this widespread, and so by listening to the stories of women who have been harassed and believing their experiences, we can strive for a positive change through action.

53

TIMELINE 2022

Anant Pathak, Senior School ‘Causes of the 2008 Financial Crisis’ 2007-2008 was a grave time for the financial market and most of the world. The crisis was detrimental to the economy; one of the worst economic crises since the Great Recession in 1929.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average, on 29th September, fell by a record-breaking 777.68 points. Moreover, many companies and banks went bankrupt and had to be bailed out by the government. The financial system, which at the time was the very backbone of society, failed and as a result plunged the whole world into a threatening slump. There were many causes for the disaster, which include the housing market bubble ‘bursting’ and regulators turning a blind eye to the indications of risk, to name a couple.

The primary causes of the 2008 financial revolve around the housing market bubble, and more significantly, the creation of sub-prime lending and the ignorance of rating agencies. Due to low interest rates and increases in the prices of houses, the attention of the bankers was fixated on real estate as a new profit venture. In the beginning of this new revenue opportunity, banks sold mortgages to people with good credit history and a stable income. As these borrowers had a good credit history, the chances that they would default (not pay their mortgage) would have been extremely low.

However, the first cracks in this new method started to appear when banks started to sell these mortgages to global investors and large companies whilst simultaneously securitizing (bundling) these mortgages into mortgage-backed securities, or MBS’s.

Investors felt this was ideal as even if the borrowers defaulted on their payments, then they could sell the house for even more money due to the inflating house prices.

In all fairness, MBS’s were not major in the downfall of the housing market. However, what led on from the securitization was a pivotal moment in the reliability of the real estate market. Investment banks were inclined to buy mortgages from banks as they could securitize them and sell the MBS’s to investors for a large sum, giving the investment banks large amounts of profit. These investment banks, realising the profit that could be made, asked for extensive sums of mortgages from the banks that made them. The problem that arose was that the banks had given the good loans to the people with good credit history, and therefore had no mortgages to give to the investment banks. However, banks liked the profit they generated from giving these mortgages to investment banks and decided to give low quality, sub-prime loans to people with bad credit history; those of which often brought across a higher possibility of defaults on their mortgage. Regardless, it was a risk that the banks were willing to take. The banks became increasingly desperate to make money that they even gave sub-prime mortgages to people without checking their credit history.

54

TIMELINE 2022

Banks sold thousands of sub-prime mortgages to investment banks who securitized these low-quality loans to create collateralized debt obligations, or CDO’s. The investment banks gave these CDO’s to rating agencies to evaluate.

Rating agencies gave ratings to mortgage related securities depending on their reliability and whether they were a good investment to make. As previously discussed, MBS’s were relatively safe investments to make and therefore obtained a triple A (AAA) rating from rating agencies- AAA ratings were the best rating that a security could have.

However, the downfall was stimulated when rating agencies evaluated these CDO’s, which were made up of sub-prime mortgages, as AAA, even though the sub-prime mortgages were given to borrowers without previously checking credit history. Some say that rating agencies could still call CDO’s safe by referring to historical data, whilst others, such as Warren Buffet, say that rating agencies involved in the financial crisis were “foolish or crooked”.

After these CDO’s were evaluated, they were sold to CDO investors who paid lots of commission to obtain the CDO’s. The cycle of banks giving sub-prime mortgages to investment banks, investment banks securitizing them into CDO’s and selling these unreliable CDO’s to investors carried on. An example of this detrimental cycle was the Countrywide Financial Corp and Ameriquest Mortgage company, where, between them both, they sold $177 billion worth of sub-prime mortgages to investors. This cycle is displayed in the diagram below. This diagram shows the traditional model of mortgage lending and buying against the sub-prime model. As seen, the traditional model is much simpler to follow than the sub-prime model, and therefore it is much harder to make mistakes.

The main problem was that investors of mortgages, especially CDO investors, did not know that the CDO’s contained mostly sub-prime mortgages. The investors thought they were putting their money into a reliable source, when in fact they were far from it. Between 2000-2007, investment banks generated millions of dollars’ worth of profits by solely selling the unreliable, 55

TIMELINE 2022

sub-prime-filled CDO’s to the investors. This mortgage related security was profitable to an extent, so that even credit rating agencies profited from it. An example of this was a rating agency called Moody’s which gained over four times more annual profit over the period of 2000-2007 than the last twenty years preceding the phenomenon.

As shown in the pie chart, by 2007, almost a quarter of the mortgage bond market was made of sub-prime loans, and in total, almost half of the mortgage bond market contained distressed debt, which was equally as unreliable. Also, there was no guarantee that the government backed securities were reliable; this may have been because the sub-prime method of lending was so profitable that even the government wanted to be part of it.

Due to the chance for more profit, banks issued adjustable rate loans on top of sub-prime mortgage loans. Adjustable rate loans were loans that were dependent on the level of Fed interest rates (the central bank of America). For example, if Fed interest rates increased, then adjustbale rate loan interest would also increase. Adjustable rate loans were loans that had small interest for many years, but would then bloom up and often become unpayable by the sub-prime lenders who often defaulted on them, regardless of adjustable rate loans. From 2007, interest rates bloomed and sub-prime borrowers found it extremely hard to pay the high interest. This led to more sub-prime borrowers defaulting on their mortgages. Therefore, banks decided to sell the houses but could not accumalate any money from them as by 2008, bank interest rates had become 5%. And already banks had given lots of loans to borrowers. Because of this, there were no buyers. In 2005, 50% of borrowers did not pay anything themselves to buy a house; they only used the money the bank was giving them. Due to these adjustable rate loans, house prices were lower than the mortgage price, which led to mass defaults and as a result, most of the money was not entering the banks. Due to these defaults, the value of CDO’s became 0, and big companies which provided insurance on CDO’s, in the form of credit default swaps, or CDS’s, became bankrupt, such as AIG. Due to the loss in value, people stopped buying CDO’s, which accentuated the problem as the banks still had many CDO’s remaining. With the loss of money accumalating, the housing market crashed.

56

TIMELINE 2022

Another key factor to the Financial Crisis includes the negligence of regulators.

Regulators such as the FED were blind eyed to the developments and indicators of risk. The chairman of the federal reserve, Alan Greenspan, said that there was no need to regulate CDS’s and CDO’s, when the federal reserve were the only people that had the power to regulate these and save an incoming major crisis. CDS’s were an example of a security that should have been regulated, as anyone could have bought CDS’s, which added to the overall increase in loss when the housing market crashed. Martin Daunton, a professor of economic history at the University of Cambridge said, “Excessive financial liberalisation […] accompanied by a reduction in regulation, was underpinned by confidence that markets are efficient.”

This shows the fact that bankers were driven by the idea that their markets would never fail and that they ignored the idea that regulation could prevent a crisis from occurring. In addition, the federal reserve knew that some places were governed by sub-prime lending, and they knew that sub-prime lending was unreliable, yet did nothing about it. An example of this is Cleveland, which was the ‘sub-prime capital’ of the USA. In conclusion, the financial crisis was disastrous. When one delves deeper, it becomes apparent that the financial crisis was caused by a need for more profit. In a requirement for money, banks gave mortgages to the people with weaker credit ratings and put adjustable-rate loans on top of sub-prime mortgages. In the same necessity, rating agencies falsely evaluated sub-prime loans and CDO’s which led to the downfall of many CDO insurance companies such as AIG and investors. Warren Buffet said that the US economy was “like a train, picking up passengers and cargo,” but the train would eventually derail. Financial institutions knew this, but also recognised the fact that lots of profit could be made from manipulating the economic market. Due to the rewards that could be obtained, investors were there until right before the financial crisis occurred. The Financial Crisis proved to be, and still is, a wake-up call for the world, as there were many chances for the Crisis to have been avoided; all of which were ignored.

57

TIMELINE 2022

Manav Mashru, Middle School ‘How one man united Modern India.’

India is a fascinating case study. A country comprising of multiple languages, cultures and religions have assimilated and intertwined to form the modern Republic of India. The history of India can be described as grand and turbulent, piloting many crucial contributions in the modern world. At its pinnacle, India had a share of 35% of the world’s economy, and harboured numerous religions and cultures which have defined today’s world through its literature such as the Ramayana, through faith, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, all native to the Indian Sub-continent.

The decline of India undoubtedly happened through the gradual fragmentation of a once unified nation, paving the way for colonialism to prosper.

Today, India’s share of the world’s economy is 3%, however it is important to note, India as we know it may not exist, without the effort of one man’s grit and determination. That man is Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, The Iron Man of India. The word Sardar is bestowed upon him to honour his longlasting legacy and the role he played to unite 365 million people. Sardar Patel was an Indian freedom fighter and India’s first home affairs minister who was instrumental in unifying over 562 princely states into India – arguably he is the greatest diplomat in Indian history and international history.

Let us envision what India looked like at the point of 1947, where Indian Independence and the idea of ‘swaraj’ (self-rule) was now certain, as announced by the Viceroy of India, Lord Mountbatten. Around 66% of Modern India was ruled by the British Raj, in addition to Portuguese and French India, plus another 562 princely states, all individually governed, most of whom had agreed pacts of co-operation with the Raj, in return for sovereignty. This was much to the disdain of many who believed in Akhand Bharat (unified India), as India was to be split into two. These would be the newly formed states of India and Pakistan, and the princely states would accede to one of the two. Despite the British order to accede to at least one of the two, many princely states wanted to remain sovereign. Here was the first fundamental problem which could have undermined the formation of India, even before its independence.

Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister, viewed the fragmentation of an independent India as the ‘Balkanisation’ of the sub-continent, in order to stem power from India. 25% of India’s modern population lived in princely states. Sardar Patel’s job was to negotiate the merger of these states into India.

58

TIMELINE 2022

Some compare Otto von Bismarck to Sardar Patel. Von Bismarck too, successfully united 25 states in Germany, to form the German Empire. Nevertheless, the problems each faced were different. India was transitioning into a democracy, as opposed to an empire which is a monarchy. Not only did it have to deal with the princely rulers, but the constituents as well. Patel quite cleverly and effectively turned a potential problem into an advantage. One such instance was the princely state of Junagadh in modern day Gujarat, who had an 80% Hindu population, but a Nawab (Muslim ruler) who had already acceded to Pakistan. Junagadh was well into the Indian heartland – within Junagadh, the people revolted as a result of this decision. Mangrol and Babariwad, two towns in Junagadh declared independence and joined India. Due to the unrest, the Nawab fled to Karachi to rule in exile. Patel and India tactically strangled Junagadh economically, cutting off coal supplies and severing air links. Following Pakistan’s refusal to cede Junagadh, India sent the army in and annexed it. The example of Junagadh was reflective in many ways of the complications faced by Patel. The polarisation of states on religious grounds had become a defining factor, especially in Northern India. The choice was to join a Muslim Pakistan or Hindu India, despite a promise of secularism in India. This was a problem reciprocated nationwide, and not limited to just religion, but caste, language and culture.

Patel alone visited 500 princely states, and would host lunches in order to persuade the princely rulers to join India. He would also send V.P. Menon, an Indian civil servant as a delegate on behalf of Patel. Patel then came up with a clever idea to appease Mountbatten, and utilise the power he had. The offer of making him Governor-General of the dominion of India, and in return, he would exert his soft power to influence the princely states to join India. Mountbatten already maintained good relations with many high-profile princes. The added concern for the princes was if they chose to remain independent, they could not join the Commonwealth, which India would be guaranteed to be part of, and was another factor that helped win the minds of the rulers.

Then there was the more human touch and diplomatic approach that Patel adopted.

The Instrument of Accession allowed India to take the control over certain subject matters, such as external relations. Should the princely states agree to that, they would sign the Standstill Agreement, which ensured the continuation of agreements stuck between the Raj and the respective princely states, until a new constitution came into effect. Even then, there would be a degree of autonomy to preserve the local culture.

The incentive was further emphasised by the freedom from prosecution from Indian courts, while the nation shifted to democracy. On top of people pressure to accede to India, the geography in many circumstances meant that it was only logical to join with India, as many of the states were too small to form their own nation. Many others saw integration unavoidable, and tried to get on the good side of Patel to maintain their own way of life. A combination of these factors of diplomacy, circumstances, people, and power, were capitalised and seized upon by Patel, which led to the final outcome, of a modern unified India.

59

TIMELINE 2022

Fast forwarding to the 21st century, 75 years from India’s independence, India has made significant progress across the board. India’s life expectancy has increased from 35 years at birth to 70. The literacy rate has soared from 16% in 1941 to 75% in 2011.

Unlike many neighbouring countries, India has not faced any military coup, and joins a few countries that has acquired nuclear weapons. Today, India is the fastest growing economy among the G20 nations. There are many improvements still to be made, but there is no doubt that without Sardar Patel, India may not be what we know it as today.

In 1991 he posthumously received India’s highest civilian award, the Bharat Ratna.

On the 31st October 2018, the world’s largest tallest statue, the Statue of Unity, was inaugurated, in Gujarat. It is a statue of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel to commemorate the work of his life, and how he shaped modern day India. Today, it is renowned as a symbol of hope and prosperity for the people and nation of India and will continue to be, for generations to come.

60

TIMELINE 2022

Jared Onnie (OH 2020) ‘VAR Review: how fascist governments of the 1930s dismantled the romanticism of the football intellectuals and the coffee-house.’

Before 1920, the tactical versatility of winning a football match was extremely limited. The only recognised formations were the 2-3-5 pyramid and the English W-M line-up with little flexibility or need for individuality to be channelled within the framework of a system. Originating from the coffeehouses in Vienna, the style of the game evolved from the physical English game to one similar to the Scottish passing game whereby technique was valued over physicality. It was developed into a team structure known as the Danubian school. At the heart of the Danubian school’s rise was the influence of English coach Jimmy Hogan. After leaving England in 1910, Hogan coached in Switzerland, Hungary, Holland, Germany and Austria.

Everywhere he coached, Hogan encouraged his players to play a game centred around passing and movement. His focus on technique was a lot more accepted and embraced in continental Europe than it was back in England where the emphasis remained more on stamina and physicality than it did on skill with the ball. By incorporating Hogan’s teachings, the Danubian school was able to compensate for any physical weakness with superior skill. Nevertheless, newspapers and media ignored the revelation of tactics and continued to print team line-ups as if they all played the 2-3-5 pyramid right up until the 1960s. In fact, Doncaster Rovers enjoyed some success in the 1950s when their manager, Peter Doherty, would tell the players to switch shirts, confusing the opposition who were used to matching up against opponents by the numbers on their backs. For the significance of tactics to be universally accepted, football required to be taken up by a social class that had the intellectual capacity to intuitively Coffee-house in Vienna: the birthplace of football as we know it today dissect and decompose the core skills required to win a football match and to come up with a winning formula without the stubbornness of the rugged English game philosophy. A more technical yet subtle approach, which had previously taken hold in South America, most namely 61

TIMELINE 2022

Uruguay and Argentina (countries with expanding British communities), could be conveyed across Europe through a largely Jewish division of the Austrian and Hungarian bourgeoisie, yet it needed a medium through which discussions and consultations could take place amongst the masses: the coffee-house.

Whilst in Britain, where football was still very much a working class sport with the discussion of the game taking place in the pubs, in central Europe, although the players themselves were also working class, the progress of the game was progressing rapidly by the pioneering minds of the intellectuals situated in the urban areas across Vienna, Austria’s infamous Wunderteam of the 1930s which Budapest and Prague where went 14 games unbeaten the coffee-house culture was strongest. As a result, the coffee-house blossomed towards the end of the Habsburg Empire in the 1920s, becoming a public forum, a place where men and women of all classes socialised, liberalising intellectual thought. People would read newspapers, exchange ideas and gamble large sums of money on outcomes of football games. In the late 1920s, politicians took advantage of the expanding communities and used coffee-houses to set up political unions, stage meetings and debates on current affairs such as art, literature, drama and football.

The impact of the coffee-houses can be seen by the career of Rapid Vienna centreforward Josef Uridil who embodied the proletarian roots of the club. From a workingclass district in the suburbs of Vienna, Uridil’s direct style of play made him one of the first heroes of the coffee-house. Early indications of the commercial side of the game surfaced when he began advertising a range of products from soap to fruit juice and by 1924, Uridil was appearing as a compère at a music hall whilst also filming Pflicht und Ehre in which he played himself. By-products of the coffee-houses such as Uridil, provided the foundations for the infamous Wunderteam of the 1930s. Once Austria thrashed Scotland 5-0 in May 1931, two days after England’s 5-2 loss to France in Paris, it became clear that British dominance was slowly dwindling, with the Arbeiterzeitung reporting that Austria’s thrashing of Scotland ‘was ultimately a tribute to Viennese aesthetic sense, imagination and passion.’ Although the Austrian side with a new identity may have narrowly lost 4-3 to England in December 1932, their performance did not fail to capture the minds of many with the Daily Mail calling it a ‘revelation’. Likewise, The Times awarded Austria the ‘moral victory’ and praised their ‘passing skills’. There lay clear distinctions between England’s quick, physical and tough style compared to Austria’s technical, patient approach which arguably lacked England’s conviction and tenacious character. Nevertheless, Austria stuck by their ways and finally defeated England 2-1 in Vienna, 1936. By then however, the 62

TIMELINE 2022

Wunderteam was in decline and Austria had ceded their European dominance to Italy and the Metodo which also derived from the Danubian school.

Having acknowledged the practicality of sport as a propaganda device, Mussolini’s fascist government fervently invested in stadiums and infrastructure, taking the notion of football as a commodity to a whole new level. Winning football matches became manifested within Italian nationalism. Before a friendly against Hungary in Budapest which Italy won 5-0, the players were made to visit the World War I battlefields of Oslavia and Gorizia and the cemetery at Redipuglia to remind them of their patriotic duties towards the country.

Matthias Sindelar: Austria’s greatest ever football player

Over in Spain, the emergence of their successful national team known as la furia, was due to the large-scale promotions as part of the propaganda of Francoist Spain. ‘The furia española is present in all aspects of Spanish life, to a greater extent than ever’, said an editorial in the Falangist newspaper Arriba in 1939.

‘In sport, the furia best manifests itself in football, a game in which the virility of the Spanish race can find full expression’. Similarly to Mussolini’s Italy, football to Franco’s Spain became a martial pursuit.

With players from the Wunderteam retiring and the hugely successful Austrian coach Hugo Meisl aging, the Danubian style was in sharp decline during the late 1930s. The Anschluss prompted the end of the central European Jewish intelligentsia and the end of the pioneering coffee-house conversations. Despite the annexation of Austria, gifted Austrian centre-forward Matthias Sindelar, a Czech-born migrant who played for the club of the Jewish bourgeoisie Austria Vienna, snubbed the opportunity to play for Hitler’s rapidly improving Germany side. He allegedly celebrated extravagantly in front of senior Nazi dignitaries when he scored against Germany in Austria’s last game before the Anschluss in 1938. Sindelar died aged 35 in 1939, most probably at the hands of the Nazi secret police force, the notorious Gestapo, who had a file on him and had kept his local coffee-house under surveillance.

Even today, the story of the coffee-houses remains somewhat romanticised – how the exchanges of ideas between the social classes developed core philosophies of the Wunderteam. These pioneering ideas can be greatly admired but it was the huge capital investments from fascist governments of the 1930s which took the game to a whole new level both in terms of skill and commercially, providing the financial and technical impetus to where football lies today. Ultimately, such expenditure was needed to elevate football from what still was a working-class sport delivering low wages with incoherent rules and limited game management strategies. Most crucially, 63

TIMELINE 2022

with an absence of World Cups during the 1940s, such capital investment was crucial in keeping football pertinent during World War II and then subsequently taking off from there. Instead of the comforting smells of warm soup and aromatic blends of coffee in the coffee-houses, we now share opinions through online platforms surrounded by countless distractions and statistics which often obscure our opinion and judgment.

One can only speculate what theories and analyses modern society could be able to devise alongside technology if pubs, restaurants and bars had large communities of all backgrounds and classes, all together as one, talking about improving what lies at the heart of our beloved game of football instead of moaning about its ongoing controversies, commercialisation and financialisation.

Inspired by the book ‘Inverting the Pyramid’ by Jonathan Wilson.

64

TIMELINE 2022

History Book Reviews

Kellen Dubignon, Senior School ‘Book Review: ‘Rights of Man’: Thomas Paine.’

Thomas Paine’s infamous book ‘Rights of Man’ (1791) is one of the most significant and influential books written in the history of British radicalism.

Paine’s book is split into two parts, the first revealing his celebration of the French Revolution and his attack of Edmund Burke’s ‘Reflections on the Revolution in France’; the second introducing Paine’s disgust for the system of a hereditary monarchy and government that most of Europe operated under in the late 18th century.

Paine begins his book by viscously attacking British MP Edmund Burke and his book ‘Reflections on the Revolution’. Burke condemns the French Revolution and suggests that power should be given exclusively to the educated aristocracy because that the rest of the population was not suitably qualified to bear the burden of government office. With regards to the French Revolution, Paine further criticises Burke for suggesting that it was an attack Louis XVI himself, but instead he points out that the Revolution was an attack on the system of the monarchical government, rather than it being an attack solely on the King. He comments how the revolution was against the ‘despotic principles of the government.’

Paine cites the storming of the Bastille in July 1789 as key to this idea of the overthrowal of government. In his eyes, the prison was a symbol of the despotism of government, so its overthrowal was a symbol of hope for better equality, rights and 65

TIMELINE 2022

freedom from government oppression. This argument is broadly convincing because there is, in fact, sufficient evidence to suggest that the French government operated under a system of despotism prior to the revolution – the incompetent government used a regressive taxation system which saw the peasants bear the burden for France’s economic depression and debt, whilst the aristocracy and clergy continued their lavish lifestyle.

Paine’s second argument in the first section of ‘Rights of Man’ is that it was the moral duty of the French people to overthrow a government that operated under such despotism and abused their rights as men. Paine expresses how human rights are unassailable, as he traces the rights of man back to their origin, suggesting that religious history states that men are born equal, so therefore these rights cannot be granted by a government because that would imply that they are privileges. Paine then illustrates how it is a government’s sole responsibility to protect these inherent rights that we possess. However, in Paine’s eyes, the despotism that the French government operated under prior to the revolution did not protect these rights (in the case of the revolutionaries these rights were ‘liberté, égalité, fraternetié’), so Paine suggests that it was ‘the duty of the people to guarantee as well as possess their rights as a man.’

This is Paine’s fundamental argument in defence of the revolution – he argues that the initial violence that was seen was justified because it was the moral obligation of the French people to overthrow the oppressive government and restore their inherent God-given rights as men. Again, this argument is broadly convincing as it is clear to see that the majority of the French population and been severely oppressed for centuries, and the government was not defending these rights. Although, it is important to note that Paine wrote ‘Rights of Man’ in 1791, which is before the revolution became bloody and violent and was prior to the emergence of Napoleon as a dictatorship figure, who to a large extent undermined the initial principles and values of the revolution.

As Paine progresses into the second part of his book, his arguments tend to provide a broader perspective as he denounces the idea of a hereditary, monarchical government and then sets out plans for significant social and economic reform in Britain.

Paine’s initial argument in the second part of his book is one which attacks the form of hereditary government and aristocracy. Paine remarks how ‘the vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies,’ which is in fact a further attack on Burke who argues that the ruling aristocracy are the only people in society who have the necessary education and qualifications to operate in government. Paine then goes on to declare that ‘man has no property in man,’ implying that hereditary government sees its people as their property, rather than free men who have the right to democratically choose their governors. Therefore, he proposes that hereditary governments prevent the people from gaining their inherent God-given rights as men. Personally, I find this to be one of Paine’s most progressive and convincing arguments because in this instance, he suggests that a liberal democracy is the best form of governance, as it will help to 66

TIMELINE 2022

uphold equality of the rights of man in this society which is something that we can see today in the 21st century as most European countries operate under this system of a liberal democracy.

The next argument that Paine proposes is perhaps the most radical and striking of them all. Initially, he draws out his criticism of monarchical hereditary governments, where he suggests that having a hereditary monarchy, who is ignorant of the rights of man of the people, is likely to promote tyranny and a system of despotism. This is because all men are born equal, so power should not lie in the hands of the few members of the aristocracy and the monarchy who have inherited this power. This argument is similar to the one proposed in the previous paragraph and is broadly convincing.

However, Paine then suggests that social harmony operates despite government and that before the system of oppressive hereditary power, society had operated in a system where men governed themselves because of their mutual dependence on one another and that at this point in time, society operated in unity and harmony. Here, Paine takes an idealistic and slightly foolish viewpoint when suggesting that man once operated in total harmony with a mutual dependence on each other – in every period of history, there was some sense of conflict or oppression in society. While I agree that all men should be all born equal, Paine perhaps takes it a step too far when he suggests that all men have a capacity for natural thought. Does this mean that they should not be able to vote? No. Ultimately, democracy is the form of government which promotes equality. But I believe Paine is slightly naïve to suggest that all men have the intellectual capacity to operate in government. We can see the downfall of Paine’s idealistic take on government with the events in the USA after their independence. The USA is supposed to be the centre of democracy where the people could operate in unison and harmony. However, ultimately, we saw that not all men have a natural capacity for rational thought, and we cannot operate in a system where we mutually depend on each other to defend the rights of man, thus highlighting the importance and need for government.

Paine’s final argument in the book is that which is perhaps slightly less known but is certainly one of his more convincing arguments. Paine draws out plans for practical reformations of the English government. Paine looks to promote wider equality within society and suggests strikingly progressive policies such as subsided education and lower taxes for the poor, a progressive income tax which targets wealthy estates to prevent the re-emergence of a hereditary powerful aristocracy. These arguments are certainly profound considering the period in history with which Paine proposed these ideas. It is interesting to note that aspects of these policies can be seen in today’s society – free education is available for all in the UK, and income tax rates in the UK are largely progressive. While I strongly agree with some of these progressive reforms that Paine proposes, I do think he is slightly unrealistic when he proposes the idea of total equality in a society where there is no aristocracy – yes although total equality in society would be ideal, this is almost impossible to achieve because ultimately there must be someone at the very top in order to control the governance system. Look at 67

TIMELINE 2022

the French Revolution where it ended up in Napoleon, a military dictator becoming the leader of a ‘democratic’ country which highlights how true democracy and true equality can never be achieved because ultimately in the corrupted society we live in, all men are not born equal and there is still stark inequalities within our lives.

In conclusion, I thoroughly enjoyed reading Paine’s ‘Rights of Man’ and would strongly recommend the book.

It deals with gripping issues, and personally I find Paine’s take on the French Revolution to be (although complex) fascinating. Although, I would conclude that some of his proposals regarding the dependence of man on one another in a free and equal society to be perhaps a little naïve and idealistic as Paine fails to recognise the corruption and inequalities that run throughout society, which ultimately mean that we are not all born as equal. Nevertheless, Paine’s writings are extremely profound and engaging so I would still highly recommend the book to anyone that is interested.

68

TIMELINE 2022

Isaac Halpern, Senior School, ‘Book Review: ‘The Adventure of English’: Melvyn Bragg.’

The Adventure of English by Melvin Bragg is primarily a book about linguistics. However, it certainly sparked a historical line of questioning for me: what was the English language’s role in the history of England?

Bragg recounts that part of the reason the Peasants’ Revolt was unsuccessful was because, at Smithfield, the 14-year-old King Richard II spoke in English. This was used in conversation with Wat Tyler and then, after the violence that resulted in the radical’s death erupted with the crowd, defusing the situation and leading them away. This, according to Bragg, impressed the crowd because – if he was to be there at all – Richard, was expected to speak French, the language of the crown and Parliament.

However, contrary to Bragg’s thesis, it was this use of English that seemed insincere to Tyler. Whether this was because of what he said or the language in which he said it, English was pivotal in this event in English history: for most peasants, the King’s very use of their native tongue was a feat – but for Tyler, it was disregarded.

The fact that the King’s native tongue was not English intrigued me. Upon reflection it seems obvious that the once Norman royalty continued to speak French for a number of years after 1066. This Norman “occupation” however, as Bragg puts it, “affected not only the progeny but the generality”. Its affects only started to diminish in the 14th century, when the language of the courts changed to English and, for the first time ever, the speaker addressed Parliament in English as opposed to French. Bragg also references a subsequent change in grammar schools where English was taught for the first time. Despite this “sea change”, the official language of the Crown remained French. This was until 1399 when Henry IV took the crown in England. Quite literally, English, for the first time in over three centuries, sat on the throne. These changes of status between English and French shaped English royalty and hence society, too. If Henry had continued tradition and not been crowned in English, the country’s landed class would have likely followed suit and continued speaking French. The switch, though, influenced greatly the history of England (and the English language itself) and it would have been much different otherwise.

Bragg also writes about religion and how English shaped the Church. The Church had exclusively functioned in Latin – with Bibles and, often, sermons. This all changed with John Wycliffe who started a process of translating the Bible into his fourteenth century 69

TIMELINE 2022

English. As a result of this endeavour, Wycliffe became an enemy of the Church in both Rome and England. What Bragg calls a “show trial” was held in Whitehall and all English Bibles were outlawed and Wycliffe was denounced as a heretic. Nonetheless, Wycliffe’s impact on English history is incredibly significant. Particularly, this impact comes from Martin Luther finding inspiration in Wycliffe’s works and the eventual effect of Luther’s Protestantism on English history.

In these three examples alone, it is demonstrably the case that English played a crucial role in the history of England amongst the people, the Crown and the Church. On top of this, English eventually shaped the Empire and thus the world. Bragg is successful, then, in demonstrating English as a catalyst in all events. However, in most cases, it can be argued that any impacts of a language are more so the impact of ideas formulated into words. Nonetheless, I posit that English has served as a vehicle to carry these ideas and propel them forward into the modernity we know today.

All in all, I thoroughly recommend this book by Bragg. It’s incredibly easy to read, especially with the flagrant language he uses to guide the reader through over a millennium of English history. It is, however, limited to an extent by its broad time scale as no event is explored for long enough to include much particular detail. By virtue of the book being a whistle-stop tour, I did find that it sparked my interest in several new aspects of English history that I had not considered before reading – ranging from the usage of English amongst royalty as alluded to above; Chaucer; Shakespeare; the notion of the language being ‘better in the old days’ ever since its conception and so many more. Despite Bragg’s bold presumptions and occasional inaccuracies, it is a great read for anyone interested in history, politics, theology, English literature and language, too.

70

TIMELINE 2022

Grossel Essay Competition Prize Winners

Dhilan Mehta, Middle School ‘Which President did the most to advance the civil rights of American citizens between 1945 and 1980?’

1945-1980 was the post- war era: World War II had just ended in the 1940s, and there was a change of leadership in the White House- Harry Truman had become President of the United States of America. Many Presidents have tried to improve the living and working conditions of non- white American citizens, especially the African- American citizens, who were particularly discriminated against. Despite each President introducing some legislation to combat this, there was no real effect of many of the laws.

However, the period 1945- 1980 did see some important laws being brought in, in order to combat discrimination against African- Americans, and to make American society more equal. This period also saw the civil rights movement, the founding of black history month and the first African-American to serve as Ambassador to the United Nations, to name a few.

Despite every President making life better for black Americans, the President that brought the most change was President Lyndon. B Johnson. The civil- rights movement, led by figures such as Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, from 195471

TIMELINE 2022

1968, was a long campaign for black Americans to secure social, economic and political rights, under United States Law. Even though there was the abolishment of slavery in the aftermath of the American Civil War, discrimination was still high amongst the public against these minority groups. So, in the 1963, when President Johnson came into power, he moved rapidly to establish these rights, that seemed to deteriorate during Kennedy’s Presidency.

Johnson enacted the most important and largest number of civil rights acts, out of any other President in US history. These new pieces of legislation had a genuine change on the day- to- day lives of black Americans, and other minorities.

One of the pieces of legislation introduced by President Johnson was the Civil Rights Act. Prior to his presidency, Kennedy had submitted the Civil Rights bill to Congress, in June 1963. However, he was met with very strong opposition, and Johnson undertook the task of renewing this effort, in spite of being a Southern politician, where black discrimination was the worst. Johnson successfully passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in the House of Representatives and compromised in the Senate, on the 2nd of July.

This was a crucial turning point in United States History, for the rights of African Americans, and would pave the path for more legislation to be passed. The Civil Rights Act was a flagship act for labour laws, and civil rights, and outlawed all discrimination based on race, natural origin, colour and sex. It banned prejudice in ‘hotels, motels, cinemas, and restaurants, and encouraged the desegregation of schools’ , as well as public transport in many states. As well as the end of discrimination in hospitality, the bill also called for better employment rights, which were met. In addition, the Act prohibited the unequal application of voter registration requirement, however in some states, the voting requirements of black citizens were very unfair, and some found loopholes. For example, literacy questions to assess whether people can vote, for black Americans, consisted of questions such has ‘how many bubbles in bath soap’ . There were attempts, which worked to a certain extent, to limit and prohibit these questions. However, generally, many more AfricanAmericans could vote. At first, the enforcement power of this act was languishing, however, President Johnson and Congress declared their authority and power to control interstate commerce, stating United States Constitution.

Interstate commerce gave Congress the power to regulate behaviour in states, under 72

TIMELINE 2022

Article 1. Furthermore, Congress stated its role ‘to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment, and its duty to protect voting rights under the 15th Amendment’, of the Constitution. President Johnson was able to take a Congress that was strongly against civil rights, to one where they wanted to protect them.

Following the success of the Civil Rights bill, President Johnson then introduced the prospect of another Act, to revolutionise the lives of African- Americans. President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 into law, as another major landmark of federal legislation. The primary aim of the act was to uphold and enforce voting rights, guaranteed to all US Citizens under the 14th and 15th amendment of the United States Constitution. The development of this act was a major blow for the Southern congressional opposition, whose constituents were against rights for African- Americans. This is where this group was the most oppressed. This law gave the right for minorities throughout the country to vote. Within this act, section 2 prohibited every state and local government from forcing voting conditions, designed to discriminate against minorities. This was a federal order, from the top of the government, and thereby did not allow states, particularly southern states to discriminate. Section 2 of the legislation included the forbidding of states using voter literacy tests. This was also targeted at the South, where this was a common occurrence. Also, to enforce this, federal government examiners were deployed in every state to observe and regulate the voting. The attorney- general was also given the power to contest and oppose poll taxes, which were later deemed unconstitutional, in 1966. The act even had 5 amendments to expand its protection.

It was described as ‘one of the most far- reaching pieces of civil- rights legislation in US history’.

The final, major piece of civil rights legislation signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, on 11th April 1968 was the Civil Rights Act of 1968. This legislation included more recognition, and clearer rights for native Americans and Indians, as these were previously overlooked. However, the main difference with this act, and the one produced in 1964, was the formation of the Fair Housing Act. The Fair Housing Act is a federal law that was enacted in 1968. Fundamentally, the act outlawed the ‘discrimination in the purchase, sale, rental, or financing of housing— private or public—based on race, skin colour, sex, nationality, or religion’. Crucially, this act identified that previously, the government had to update other Civil Rights Acts, due to states finding work- arounds, or loop- holes, to continue discriminating.

The Fair Housing Act said that states and local governments could increase the protection of the law, but could not limit, or reduce the quality and amount of protection. The Fair Housing Act was instrumental in procuring the rights of every American, as before this, non- white families would, in many cases, be paying far more than white families, for the same property. Also, there would be certain ‘white neighbourhoods’, in certain cities, where minorities would not be allowed to stay (race-based housing patterns). This act lets anyone by anything- ‘private or public’, without being discriminated, enforced by the Department of Housing and Development, at the federal level.

73

TIMELINE 2022

Other US Presidents that served between 1945 and 1980 also advanced civil rights for minorities, however, approached these matters with more apprehension, due to possible political and people backlash. Meanwhile, President Lyndon Johnson, even though he was a Southern politician, was able to assert his thoughts, without the same apprehension. President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the first, federal civil rights legislation into law, on 9th September 1957, after his legislation being presented to, and passed by the 85th United States Congress. This was the first major bill since the end of the American Civil War in 1875. Approximately 10 years after Johnson’s Presidency, President Jimmy Carter appointed the 1st AfricanAmerican Ambassador to the United Nations: Andrew Young. However, after Johnson’s Presidency, not much action was taken by US Presidents to further improve life of African- Americans, or minorities, in comparison with Lyndon Johnson.

74

TIMELINE 2022

Samadi Beligaswatte, Middle School ‘Should Stalin be remembered as anything more than a murderous tyrant?’

Introduction: Joseph Stalin (1878-1953) ruled the USSR from 1922 to his death in 1953. He had been one of the main dictators during WW2 (along with Hitler and Mussolini). During his reign, he had done many unspeakable acts in order to secure power and popularity through propaganda and the elimination of any threat from the opposition.

This essay shall analyse the roots of Stalin’s ideology how Stalin controlled the USSR socially, economically, and politically, reaching a conclusion on whether he truly should be remembered as a murderous tyrant from the 20th century in the USSR. Ideologies and Concepts: After the Tsar’s reign and the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks had secured power over the Provisional Government with Lenin as their leader (the predecessor and close friend of Stalin). His main ideology of Leninism arose from Marxism which essentially focused on the flaws of Capitalism projected a future of Communism. This was further acted upon by Stalin - which is nowadays known as Stalinism.

The main qualities of Stalinism included one party totalitarianism, a focus on swift industrialising and socialism. Most importantly it included aspects such as the cult of the leader and intensification of class struggles. These were important because these ideas are what can be seen to support Stalin’s acts which today are viewed as evil. Stalin had stayed true to his core values and made it absolutely clear that he would not make any exceptions or amendments. This was to demonstrate and show his power because it ultimately showed his decisions were absolute and final.

The Purges: The Great Purge had been a national-scale repression towards the Kulaks (peasants deemed to have over eight acres of land), the Red Army, Ethnic Minorities, general Political opponents as well as their supporters and finally, religious leaders/activists. They were all seen to be the main enemies of communism. At the same time, Stalin’s main goal was to secure his power over the country. This consolidation was taken to the extreme of elimination. One must remember the vacuum in power that was left after the abdication Tsar Nicholas II. Before the Bolsheviks came to power, many other parties including the Mensheviks and the Provisional Government could uprise at any time. Stalin needed time to consolidate and fully close the vacuum in power. To do so effectively this meant that no competition could interrupt this.

75

TIMELINE 2022

However, the harsh treatments that the victims faced are comparable to that of the concentration camps. They had also been accused of many political crimes such as

The following shows an address to the common

espionage, sabotage, rumours of uprising preparations. The penalties included being shot and being sent to labour camps (under GULAG government agency). In these labour camps many died from exhaustion, starvation, and disease. Even gas vans were used, which were most notable in Hitler’s attempts to exterminate the Jewish people. In 1937, it has been estimated that 18 million were transported to these camps with a death toll of 10 million.

However, at first these effects for WW2 would lead to the severe weak state that the USSR was left in. It was clear in the past (in the 1800s) that their manpower had been their prime weapon. This was clearly removed by the Purges. Furthermore, Stalin’s most able individuals were removed leading to a reduction in the ability and quantity of the USSR. This was a huge gamble which almost incited disaster when Hitler invaded in 1941 because the defending Red Army suffered from having no experienced officers (they had been seen as an enemy of Stalin and therefore has been “hindered”).

When reflecting back on the Purges, one must consider his causes for their launch.

At first, it can be said that he was obsessed with gaining power (as mentioned with the consolidation of his authority) and so was mad in his ideologies. However, when looking at the situation of the Soviet Union, it is clear that the country was suffering from political instability. Stalin said himself rightly in 1931 that “We are 50 to 100 years behind. the advanced countries. ‘Either we make good the difference in ten years, or they crush us. There was a clear gap in their development. With the rivalry to absolute power, corruption and even instability within the society it was clear that Stalin had to make some very difficult decisions in order to bring stability and redirect the USSR into the right path of industrialisation and development.

One must remember that Stalin was renowned as the man who modernised the nation to the Communist state that it was at the time. These Purges were dire, but the Soviets could have faced countless numbers of casualties as the Stalin with nation was on the brink of collapse.

Markizova (1936) 76

TIMELINE 2022

Propaganda: By eliminating his enemies, Stalin ensured that there was no competition. Stalin had always tried to ensure that he was represented in the best way possible. For instance, he was shown holding a young girl called Gelya Markizova (her parents killed by his orders). However, the photos show her very happy and also Stalin as a kind, compassionate person. Again, this clearly shows the sort of image that Stalin wanted to create of himself and what everyone had of him. This can be related to the Cult he had created, known as the “Cult of Personality”. Stalin had deliberately created this Cult of Personality. This meant that everyone would have portraits, photographs, and statues of him around their house. Processions and regular celebrations were held in towns in his honour.

The Society under Stalin’s rule: Stalin was known for his strict censorship of information that Soviet citizens could access. On top of this, he influenced other areas such as religion. In the 1930s, many churches were forced to close, with the buildings even being pulled down. This led to only 1 in 40 churches operating normally by the end of the decade. Religions such as Islam were attacked, with only 1300 mosques in the country (mainly in the far western areas around Moscow) in 1939 existing compared to 26,000 in 1917. One must also bear in mind this even extended towards the traditional Orthodox Churches in the space of thirteen years (1927-40), where even 85,000 priests were shot in just 1937 alone. These two religions were attacked harshly due to having the largest number of followers. This was done in the USSR anti- religious campaign (1928-1941). The aim of which was to promote atheism and socialism. It was quite common for Communists at the time to believe in atheism (found at the roots of Marxism).

On the other hand, women gained far more freedom and opportunities industrially compared to the Tsar’s time, To the extent that they even had as much employment, education facilities and rights as men. By 1935, 42% of the entire workforce was comprised of women and the Communists believed that women should have free choice. Laws were implemented allowing mothers to receive 2000 roubles per year for each child up to the age of five. A main aspect of Communism was initiating equality for all, clearly shown by the acts done to raise the rights for women.

On top of this, the education section had a reformation. Stalin’s government had taken control over the national curriculum, key qualities of regimental discipline were emphasised and embedded into many Russians’ core values because Stalin wanted the younger generation to be the working and agricultural force of the Soviet Union.

This ultimately leads us to the question of whether everyone was indeed treated equally under Stalin’s rule. This evidence provided clearly shows that this was the intention and the goal. Even critics believed that life was made equal for the society.

However, one can argue that they treated equally poorly. The average worker’s 77

TIMELINE 2022

wages had halved and the food in the 1930s he ate was only a fifth he would have in the 1900s and finding residence was hard and very costly.

Conclusion: Stalin had to rule a Soviet Union that faced many problems politically, economically, and socially. All of which were rooted in unstable power shortly after the Tsar’s abdication. One can conclude that Stalin was no murderous tyrant of any sort.

Despite, the traumas and horrors of the Purges, the main objectives were to ensure that disloyalty and revolution could never spike again (especially towards Stalin).

Strict rules and discipline were heavily implemented into the Russian way of life. At the same time, Stalin made sure that independent thinking leading to opposition was annihilated. Only propaganda praising him would be allowed within the confines of strict censorship.

78

TIMELINE 2022

Slava Bulin, Middle School ‘“It was the German elites who were most responsible for the accession of Hitler to power in January 1933”. Discuss’.

The German Elite are often considered as the most responsible for the accession of Hitler to power in January 1933, however the Nazis could never have legally come to power through the Reichstag if Hitler had not won over the support of the German population. The German Elite were key industrialists and affluent members of the upper classes who had positions of power in society. Following the unsuccessful Beer Hall Putsch, the NSDAP decided that they would try to rise to power without a violent coup against the Weimar Republic. Instead, they would seize power through the legal framework of the German government, leveraging the instability. Aided by the financial backing of key industrialists and the socio-economic impacts of the Great Depression, Hitler was able to ascend to power by taking advantage of different problems facing the government. The German Elite underestimated Hitler’s drive to gain and consolidate power and, to a certain extent, helped him gain publicity and take on important roles in the Reichstag. The weaknesses of the Weimar government and Nazi propaganda meant that Hitler was able to control the actions of the German Elite and the German population, as a consequence shifting control to the Nazi Party.

Although the German Elite can be largely blamed for Hitler’s accession to power in January 1933, the Great Depression is also a fundamental reason that allowed Hitler to gain more support. From the foundation of the Weimar Republic, the German economy experienced great instability, remaining heavily reliant on American loans, and thus causing Germany to be hit badly by the Wall Street Crash that occurred in 1929. The Ruhr mining crisis of 1923 and hyperinflation had caused much unrest amongst the population as many feared that a democratic government was too weak to support the German economy and that a more conservative right-wing government could provide the same stability as seen during the Kaiser years. In times of economic crises, support for extremist parties usually grows as people are less certain of their futures and extremist ideologies offer apparently novel solutions to their problems. The Great Depression in Germany was fundamental in allowing the Nazi party to expand their platform and gain more support, as they were able to make the Weimar Republic look incapable. The table below shows how the events of 1929 dramatically increased the support for the NSDAP, whilst more central parties saw a decrease in seats in the Reichstag.

Year 1928 1930 1932 (July) 1932 (November)

Number of seats held by NSDAP 12 107 230 196

Percentage vote (%) 2.60 18.25 37.25 33.09

79

TIMELINE 2022

The Great Depression also saw a rise in unemployment that helped the Nazi party undermine the Weimar Republic and reach a broader audience as all of the middle and working classes of Germany were affected. During 1928 to 1933 Germany had four different chancellors of whom only one, Heinrich Brüning, had a degree in economics. However, as Brüning was unable to address the problem Source: The German Federal Elections (Wikipedia) of growing unemployment and rising poverty levels successfully, many Germans thought that they needed a radical right-wing leader that could fix their problems- translating into growing support for the Nazi party. William L. Shirer, 1960 explored how the NSDAP was able to capture unemployment as part of its manifesto.

“Hitler in a whirlwind campaign offered what seemed to them, in their misery, some measure of hope… bring the money barons to heel (especially if they were Jews) and see to it that every German had a job and bread.”

Indeed, Hitler’s bold claims that he could provide every German with a job and bread did bring hope to the German people who were badly suffering from the market crash. The Wall Street Crash meant that the middle class lost all of their savings, businesses, and homes. Furthermore, the Weimar Republic exacerbated the problem by raising taxes so as to pay the cost of unemployment benefits. The upper The writing on this Nazi classes and German Elite were particularly unhappy propaganda poster from the and weary of this policy and some even feared that 1930s translates to “Our last hope”.

Brüning was a Communist, as a number of his ideas involved the upper classes sharing their wealth with the working class. The failure of Brüning’s policy resulted in him being replaced by von Papen, who was a right-wing politician, highlighting the growing appeal of rightwing politics. The Great Depression brought numerous problems to people and the inept handling of the economic crisis by the German government meant that even more people began to support the NSDAP. As a result, Hindenburg was forced to elect Hitler as Chancellor in 1933. The Great Depression and unemployment gave Hitler an opportunity to rise to power without the direct support of the German Elite.

80

TIMELINE 2022

The German Elite were responsible for providing financial backing to the Nazis that then allowed them to spread their influence across the whole of Germany. Alfred Hugenberg, the leader of the right-wing German National People’s party, became a vital supporter of the NSDAP, as Hugenberg controlled a large number of popular newspapers that were able to spread Nazi propaganda.

Hugenberg also involved Hitler in the campaign against the Young Plan and Locarno Treaty that were greatly disliked by the Germany population. The documents stated that it was Germany’s fault for starting the First World War and so it had to pay reparations for the damage it had caused, thus contributing to a significant out flow in Germany’s fiscal budget. Another financial backer to the NSDAP was Fritz Thyssen who owned the United Steelworks company.

By 1930 he became the leading backer of the Nazi Party and was able to persuade other industrialists to provide further financing for the Nazi Party. Thyssen also joined other industrialists in signing a letter to Hindenburg, the President of Germany, to appoint Hitler as chancellor. Without financial support from Thyssen and Hugenberg, Hitler would never have been able to take power, as the NSDAP would not have been able to gain a wide public audience, nor generate rapid interest from those in the Reichstag. Joseph Bendersky, a historian studying Hitler’s rise to power stated: “Industry received top priority in Hitler’s calculations…

Industrialisation was a fact of life and the foundation of Germany’s power.”

Undeniably, the Nazi party would never have been able to take control of the state had it not had the support of Industrialists and the German Elite. The elite’s financial support allowed the NSDAP to maintain and expand the SA, a paramilitary group that helped Hitler destroy his political rivals. The idea that the German Elite discredited the opposition within the left wing, ultimately meant they narrowed people’s choices between extremist ideologies and pushed them towards the choice of the Nazis. It is important to note that the Nazi party was never able to gain a majority support from the working classes who preferred left wing groups and so it was rather the German elite who were responsible in sustaining Hitler’s rise to power.

A reason why the German Elite were responsible for Hitler’s accession to power was also because he was underestimated in the early 1930s and was considered a political pawn. Hindenburg and his advisors saw him as a successful public speaker who could be controlled so as to further their own political gains, however, this was not the case.

Kurt von Schleicher advised Hindenburg (shown above) to set up a government led

by Von Papen (shown below) as the Chancellor, and Hitler as Vice Chancellor. Von Papen’s ignorance of Hitler’s political ambitions can be seen in a quote from the 29 January 1933, a day before Hitler was appointed chancellor.

81

TIMELINE 2022

“What do you want? We have hired him [Hitler] I have the confidence of Hindenburg! In two months, we’ll have pushed Hitler so far into the corner that he’ll squeal.”

The word “hired” indicates that Von Papen and the German elite saw Hitler as inferior to them and someone who could easily be pushed around for their own gain.

Furthermore, the idea that Von Papen wanted Hitler to “squeal” suggests that Von Papen and Hindenburg did not care about the instability that Hitler was planning to bring and that it was in their own interest for Hitler to fail so that he would lose public support. To a certain degree, the German elite were responsible for the accession of Hitler as they aided him in becoming Chancellor which allowed him to pass the Enabling Act and seize control through legal means. Hindenburg was pressured into picking Hitler as Chancellor due to two reasons: the Nazi party had a majority in the Reichstag and Hitler would be able to control violent opposition from the right. Data shows that the NSDAP lost 34 seats in the Reichstag in the November 1932 elections as the effects of the Great Depression were slowly fading away. These statistics indicate that Hindenburg did not have to appoint Hitler as Chancellor as the Nazi party did not have a majority vote and he was facing less pressure to act than there was in the Summer of 1932. One could argue that if Hindenburg had not elected Hitler, then he would have been seen as acting in an undemocratic way, which could have seen the rise in street violence. The German Elite can only be partially blamed for Hitler’s accession to power as other factors such as the Great Depression meant that the German public supported the NSDAP and those in the Reichstag, who represented public opinion, had to in turn appoint Hitler to power.

During the four-year period of 1928-1932, the NSDAP turned from a small party that only held twelve seats to the largest in the Reichstag, holding 230 seats. Hitler’s accession to power was largely due to support from the German Elite. Although the Great Depression was a large contributor to Hitler’s rise to power, financial support from key industrialists allowed the Nazis to take control of Germany using not only violent and brutal methods but by also spreading large amounts of propaganda. Hugenberg was a significant character who intentionally helped the NSDAP to win over the vote of many crisisstricken Germans and consequently gain seats in the Reichstag. Propaganda allowed the Nazis to criticise and weaken the fragile foundations of the Weimar Republic that had risen from the ashes of an autocratic society, therefore showing that the German elite were directly involved in guiding Hitler to power. Without financial backing from the German Elite the NSDAP 82

TIMELINE 2022

would never have been able to reach such publicity. Once the Nazis became the largest party, they were in a position to demand Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as Chancellor. Yet the Nazis would never have gained those seats had they not won the vote of nearly fourteen million people, which was only affected by a minority of votes from the German Elite. Hindenburg, throughout 1931 and 1932, tried to stop Hitler becoming Chancellor by appointing others into that position, however some argue that he did this not to protect the German government but because he personally disliked and was jealous of Hitler’s support. Indeed, certain members of the German Elite such as Von Papen, Hugenberg, Schleicher and Thyssen can be regarded as personally most responsible for Hitler’s accession to power as they underestimated the threat that the Hitler and the Nazi party were. The German Elite helped Hitler into power only after the Nazis had gained approval from the German population and therefore they cannot be entirely held accountable for Hitler’s accession to power in January 1933.

83

TIMELINE 2022

Epilogue I hope that you have enjoyed reading through all of the high-quality submissions that have been crafted by other students. In this magazine there have been various types of articles, ranging from ancient history to contemporary journalism, all of which have been equally enjoyable to read and submit into the magazine.

The first thing to say is if you enjoyed reading this at all you should go to History Society. It is always on a wide range of topics from brilliant and knowledgeable speakers, whether that be teachers, students, or even external researchers. Ask your history teacher and find out when your year group session is, I am certain that everyone would be happy to see you there.

Sadly, we were unable to make Timeline as wide-ranging as we would have liked, since the limitations of Coronavirus restricted this year’s edition much alike the last. I do hope that next year, Coronavirus will be a thing of a past, and the next set of editors will be able to bring you an equally- if not more – fascinating rendition of the magazine, including interviews and wider-ranging editorials amongst other features. These editors can be anyone who has a real passion and commitment to History. If you are interested and organised and believe that you can produce a high-quality magazine that all will enjoy, please do apply by emailing Dr St John. It is no extra burden, rather it is an opportunity for you to sharpen your skills as an editor and learn a plethora of things that could have been unknown to you otherwise.

Thank you for reading all the way to the end. I am sure that everyone who’s article has been displayed would be happy to discuss it with you. As the editor-in-chief, I am glad that we have managed to create a magazine worthy of our predecessors and hope that you have enjoyed reading through these different pieces.

Once more, thank you for reading. Have a good one!

Tom

Back cover painting – John Francis Rigaud’s ‘Captain Horatio Nelson’ painted from 1777-1781.

84

TIMELINE 2022

85

TIMELINE 2022

86