Issue 39 Commemoration and Remembrance by Manchester Historian

MH THE MANCHESTER HISTORIAN

WINTER JANUARY 2022

COMMEMORATION AND REMEMBRANCE ISSUE 039

WELCOME JANUARY 2022

ABOUT US

Welcome to Issue 39 of the Manchester Historian! This issue is titled ‘Commemoration and Remembrance’ and explores a range of historical events and their place in modern memory. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused many to draw comparisons between current times and the Second World War, demonstrating the extent to which historical memory influences society’s perceptions of the present day. With this in mind, we wanted to produce an issue covering a range of examples exploring how and why historical events are remembered as they are.

Our Team Editors Kerry McCall Lina Fitzjames Serena Roberts Lawson Heads of Copyediting Adam North Jack Radford

Commemoration and remembrance can take place on national scales, as well as within communities and families on much more intimate and personal levels. Moreover, the ways in which events are commemorated and remembered are often influenced by nation-states, religious groups, film, art, literature - and, more recently, social media.

Copyeditors

As a result, historical memory is subject to change over time. Just last year, the toppling of the Edward Colston statue in Bristol, and the defacing of the Churchill statue in Westminster demonstrated an obvious shift in society’s attitude towards controversial figures and a re-evaluation of the position of such figures in public memory.

Heads of Design

ABOUT US

Annie Hackett Daniel Kirchin Sehar Amin Mohy-ud-din Carys Yudolph-Wood

Megan Hannaford Yvette Fuhrmann Designers North Garms Huma Hussain

As an academic field, history has shifted over time away from the dominant field of political and military histories, which focus on the elite, towards more social and cultural histories, that include the voices of ordinary and under-represented individuals and groups. At both public and academic levels, the way history is approached and remembered is always dependent on society, government and culture.

Matthew Long Leah Weisz Heads of Online Erin Carrington Isaac Feaver Heads of Marketing

How is history remembered by different people? How and why have narratives changed over time? What significant or less-known dates were commemorated in 2021? These are some of the questions that will be addressed in this issue of The Manchester Historian. The articles explore a range of geographical locations, time periods, and individuals or groups - which we hope will illustrate to readers the scale on which remembrance and commemorative activities take place around the world. We would like to thank our wonderful sub-teams for helping to piece this issue together, as well as our staff liaison Dr Kerry Pimblott and the University Graphic Design Team for supporting us in the design and editorial processes. Of course, we must also thank all our writers for taking such a keen interest in this theme, and contributing a fantastic range of articles that we hope all our readers will learn from and enjoy.

Happy reading!

- The Editors

THE MANCHESTER HISTORIAN I JANUARY 2022

Alexandra Luxford Anna Williams

Our Digital Edition For the digital edition visit manchesterhistorian.com/current-issue/

Find Us manchesterhistorian TheMCRHistorian The Manchester Historian The Manchester Historian Podcast

IN THIS ISSUE

MEDIEVAL HISTORY 4

The Battle of Agincourt in Historical Memory Gareth Lewis

Genghis Khan: An Emperor between Colonialist Stereotypes and Nationalist Sentiments Bahutan Aksu

AFRICAN, ISLAMIC, AND ARABIC HISTORY 6

Ashura and the Power of the Martyr: How Ritual Mourning Has Preserved and Strengthened Global Shia Identity Kane Carlile 10 Years since the Arab Spring Erin Barnett

NON-WESTERN AMERICAN HISTORY 8

Problems with the Study of ‘Native American History’ Mike Jennings Viva la Revolucion: Castro and the Spirit of Cuba James Butler

EURO 96: 25 Years On Adam Jennings

Film and Memory of World War II Miles Davenport

An Imperialist Aggressor or the Truly Great Britain Harri Talfan Davies

BRITISH HISTORY 18

Does Britain Need a Monarchy? Aimee Butler

Engels in Manchester Shikhar Talwar

100 Years of Northern Ireland: How Do We Remember? Annie Hackett

The Falklands War Louise Clare

EUROPEAN HISTORY 22

Who Were Ellen and William Craft? Emily Hunt

Engaging with the Past – An Antifascist Antidote: Lessons from the German Example Jason Lee

100 Years since the End of the Russian Civil War Elliot Cousins

200 Years of the Greek War of Independence and the Story of Greek Diplomacy Ioannis Drakos

The Armenian Genocide: A Forgotten Genocide? Melissa Croxford

85 Years since the Babi Yar Massacre James Newman

ASIAN HISTORY 10

Over a Decade On: The Memory and Commemoration of AsiaPacific Natural Disasters Emily Jackson The Deadly Legacy of the Vietnam War Eve Henley

SPECIAL FEATURES 12

20 Years since 9/11 and the Truth behind the ‘War on Terror’ in Iraq Stephanie Esho HIV in the Press: Coverage of the Early Years of the Crisis in the Mainstream and Queer Press Tomas Roma

October Is Black History Month: Why Is It Important that We Dedicate a Month to Black History? Nicola Miles

THE MANCHESTER HISTORIAN I JANUARY 2022

MEDIEVAL HISTORY

The Battle of Agincour t in Historical Memor y WORDS BY GARETH LEWIS

The story of the Battle of Agincourt follows the age-old narrative of the beloved underdog rising against the odds. A legacy of victory and glory would become synonymous with Henry V after this epic episode in medieval history. An idyllic tale of knights, courage and king; it is recounted even in modern memory, but how honest is it?

he scene is set in 1415, fighting for a claim to the French crown amid the Hundred Years War like many English Kings before him, King Henry V finds his army diminished: a result of casualty, disease and desertion two months into his campaign. On 25 October, near Azincourt in northern France, English and French forces would go head-to-head once again. The twenty-nine-year-old king, a seasoned soldier and commander, had at his disposal between six and nine thousand men-at-arms. The opposition boasted twenty to thirty thousand soldiers, according to contemporary accounts. Despite this overwhelming disadvantage on the side of the English, Henry rallied his troops, reminded them of their cause and the families back home they were fighting for: in Shakespeare’s King Henry V the protagonist declares: “The fewer men, the greater share of honour.” Their forces prevailed, marking one of the most significant victories of the Hundred Years’ War and one that would become legend. This victory would make possible the conquest of Normandy and the treaty of Troyes in 1420 which would name Henry the heir to the French crown. The legacy of this grand triumph would be set in stone in the King’s burial in Westminster Abbey where he is depicted helmed and mounted as the warrior king he wished to be remembered as. However, the realities of medieval warfare couldn’t be further from this simple narrative of the brave soldier fighting for his country, defeating the enemy with ease. The battlefield would have been horrific, filled with desperation and misery: piles of dead, soldiers up to their knees in mud and an unimaginable violence and bloodiness. The psychological impact of such an episode must have been traumatic. Thinking about medieval fighting today, the modern mind is somewhat detached. Perhaps the common perception is that warring was simply the nature of medieval life and that child soldiers like Henry V were steeled against the horror of seeing fellow men-at-arms and friends killed on the battlefield. This seems unlikely, indeed many of the noble commanders of Henry’s army, such as his youngest brother the Duke of Gloucester, were facing combat for the first time. Whilst it might be difficult to label the experiences of medieval soldiers under modern diagnoses such as post-traumatic stress disorder, it is almost certain that a great anxiety surrounded the idea of fighting on the battlefield. This could be reflected in the great emphasis on the religious culture of memorials and prayers for the dead. The brutality of Henry’s fighting strat-

LEFT Henry V on the battlefield (Stapleton Collection/ Cobris).

THE MANCHESTER HISTORIAN I JANUARY 2022

egies also seems forgotten in the historical record. For example, at the six-month siege in Rouen he starved hundreds of people to death. Evidently, such elements of warfare were not fitting with the noble, honour-bond protagonist constructed as a symbol of English greatness as a justification of dominance in France. Indeed, this mythologised episode of English history would become very significant propaganda for subsequent kings. It would go on to dictate Henry VIII’s foreign ambitions in France. He wanted to emulate this military glory and claim the French throne for himself as his namesake was able to, however, this was not achieved. Henry V’s transformation story from reckless youth to accomplished leader, as noted later, would also counteract the despair of royal heirs. In cases of the heirs of Victoria or George V, when young Princes acted in a fashion unfitting of a king, nobility could look to the history of Henry V for comfort. The tale was revitalised by Shakespeare at the end of the 16th century. Henry’s character is constructed largely on one event: the Battle of Agincourt. The play is centred around 1415 and the protagonist is distorted to exaggerate the achievement of the battle. The plot features a ‘transformation story’ in which young and reckless Hal turns from rebel to ruler. Whilst it is true that Henry’s life would change dramatically after his father, Henry IV, usurps the throne and then again once he went from Prince to King, Shakespeare inflates these transitions to shine greater light on the achievement of 1415 which plays centre stage in his play. Shakespeare is also responsible for exaggerating the numbers on each side of the battle, an exaggeration that would stick in historical record, enhancing the valour of the victory. Seeing kings through Shakespeare’s eyes is a common trend in English history; the connotation of Richard III as a ‘hunchback’ persists in modern imagination. Richard’s skeleton shows a sideways displacement of the spine, but not the limp and withered arm emphasised in the play. This embellishment in truth would serve to cast Richard as an ‘evil’ King to an Elizabethan audience. Thus, to view kings ‘through Shakespeare’s eyes’ is incredibly problematic. As a final point, it must be mentioned that even after the battle at Agincourt, it took five further years to reach the peace treaty at Troyes. This points to the fact that this battle might not be as decisive as imagined in its mythology. It is therefore interesting that war and violence is remembered more vividly than peace.

MEDIEVAL HISTORY

Genghis Khan: An Emperor between Colonialist Stereotypes and Nationalist Sentiment WORDS BY BAHUTAN AKSU

Genghis Khan (r. 1206-1227) was one of the prominent leaders in world history with the formation of the Mongol Empire. However, many ethnic and national groups have different perceptions of him, those being both positive and negative.

o begin with, the Mongols often commemorate Genghis not as a successful soldier, but as an experienced administrator with nationalist attitudes. Many Mongolians appreciate his statecraft in building new socio-political institutions and innovations like their first written laws (yasa). Interestingly, they rarely emphasize the battles that made Genghis world-famous outside of Mongolia. Given his long-lasting institutions, his short-lived military invasions are typically secondary to them. They also

celebrate his religious tolerance, political meritocracy, and economic contributions, such as increasing trade on the Silk Road. Chinese society had different perceptions about him because of his Chinese campaign. While many Chinese people appreciate his legacy by incorporating China into a cohesive unit, some accused him of demolishing Chinese culture and society. To exemplify, Mao contended that he “only knew how to shoot eagles with an arrow.” His invasions constructed a generally negative perception of him in the Middle

East. Contemporary Muslim historians like Ibn al-Athir have frequently condemned Genghis, underlining that he was “the greatest catastrophe and calamity…since God created Adam until now”. Along with the continuation of this perception, several Muslim communities compared later occupations to his invasion in written and oral ways. Furthermore, his name is used in idioms and proverbs to frame deceitful people throughout the Middle East. In European communities, leading intellectuals after the Renaissance and later colonial ideologists conceived Genghis as “a barbarian leader” to justify their control of Asian societies. Accordingly, European art and culture reflected this stereotype in a variety of manners. To illustrate, Voltaire depicts Genghis as a “destructive tyrant . . . motivated by the basic barbarian desire to ravish civilized women and destroy what he could not understand” in The Orphan of China. Moreover, several European artists painted him with savage eyes and merciless looks. Colonial doctrine regarded him as an excuse for its oppressive practices, claiming their rule is preferable to “barbaric nomads” like Genghis. American popular culture reinforces and reflects these prejudices in comics and cinema. Dr. Donald, a Marvel character, mutters that “the only thing that could make this day worse would be if Genghis Khan and the Mongol horde ran me over.” Similar judgments are found in Spider-Man and Scooby-Doo, in which encountering Genghis is the worst case scenario. In conclusion, the perceptions of Genghis shift across different ethnic groups under the influence of nationalist sentiments, colonialist stereotypes, and historical conflicts. It seems that these changing perceptions will remain contested among these societies.

LEFT Genghis Khan (Artstation/@Thahn Tuan).

THE MANCHESTER HISTORIAN I JANUARY 2022

AFRICAN, ISL AMIC, AND ARABIC HISTORY

Ashura and the Power of the Matyr :

How Ritual and Mourning Has Preserved and Strenghened Global Shia Identity WORDS BY KANE CARLILE

Shia men in Iran thumping their chests in unison (unknown).

he Islamic holiday of Ashura takes place on the tenth day of Muharram, mourning the death of Husayn ibn Ali, the grandson of the prophet Muhammad and third Shia Imam who died at the Battle of Karbala in 680. The events leading up to and including Husayn’s death solidified the split between Sunni and Shia Islam, with Shias believing the legitimate Islamic Caliphs should be descended from Imam Ali, who ruled as the fourth and last of the Rashidun Caliphs and was the cousin of Muhammad. As Husayn was one of Ali’s sons, Shia Muslims rallied around him as their candidate for Caliph after the death of the Umayyad Caliph Muawiya in 680, as Muawiya broke his promise to pass the Caliphate on to a descendant of Muhammad by declaring his son, Yazid, his successor. Subsequently, Husayn set out on a journey from Mecca to the town of Kufa (in modern Iraq) where his support was strong. Yazid sent out his men along the way to Kufa to quell dissent and to target any messengers sent by Husayn. Even though faced with likely death, Husayn continued his journey to Kufa, where he and his followers encamped at a place known as Karbala. It was here Yazid’s men attacked and killed Husayn, eternalising his memory as a martyr among Shia Muslims. Whilst officially recognised as a day of significance in the Islamic calendar by all Muslims, this day of commemoration takes on a hugely significant role within the global Shia community. For a large part of their history, and in many countries still today, Shia Muslims have constituted a minority sect within the societies in which they live. Ashura has often been a way for the Shia community to reinforce and maintain their identity in societies that have frequently oppressed them and have often been the catalyst of many resistance and protests movements throughout Shia history. One of the primary features of Ashura is the

THE MANCHESTER HISTORIAN I JANUARY 2022

idea of the rightful martyr, an idea which in recent decades has been mobilised by Shia groups and communities as a political tool. The society where Ashura rituals and commemorations have been most appropriated into political tools is in Iran, the only Middle Eastern country that consists of predominantly Shia Muslims and is ruled by a Shia political elite. Ashura has been a powerful rallying point for protests movements in Iran as evidenced in both the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and the Green Movement protests in 2009, which in both cases saw the complete and partial banning respectively of Ashura ceremonies either nationally or at sites of religious significance. The fact that even the ruling Shia elite of the Islamic Republic would issue partial restrictions demonstrates the power of these mourning processions to inspire social unrest. However, Ashura and the martyrdom of Husayn has also been used to strengthen the identity of the Islamic Republic, especially in its formative years during the 1979 revolution and the IranIraq War (1980-1988). Throughout both of these events, the ruling elite encouraged and could even demand sacrifice on the battlefield by dressing it up as ‘martyrdom’, portraying it as a kind of reward and state of higher exaltation. Today, many of these martyrs are commemorated throughout Iran through city murals and posters, reinforcing the power of the ‘cult of the martyr’ in the minds of Iranian society, and looking to rituals of commemoration to legitimise its rule. Lebanon is another state in which the commemoration of Ashura is of major significance. Prior to the late 1970s, Ashura in Lebanon had been commemorated in more traditional forms such as public chest beating and weeping. These traditional forms of commemoration began to be replaced with more activist commemorations as the national (and regional) Islamic movement

began to grow, all of which solidified during the Lebanese Civil War (1975-90) and Israeli invasion and occupation of 1982. During this period, Ashura processions saw processional reciters framing the lessons of Husayn’s martyrdom at Karbala as acts of resistance against oppression, and subsequently drawing parallels between their situation of Israeli occupation and that of Husayn against the Caliph Yazid. Ashura is also weaponised as a political tool by the Lebanese Shia group Hezbollah, who frequently reinterpret the events of Karbala in its yearly Ashura posters. These posters frequently posit Hezbollah fighters as noble martyrs just like Husayn, fighting against global oppression, evidencing their reliance on Shia history as an oppressed minority to reinforce their identity. The politicisation of Ashura continues today, where most recently the Afghan Shia community, the Hazara, have had to alter their usual commemorations due to the return of the Taliban, which resulted in self-censorship and scaled back Ashura processions across the country, largely due to reported instances of Taliban persecution, such as reports of a massacre of Hazara in the city of Ghazni on 19 August. Whilst promising to form an inclusive and representative government, at the time of writing, the Taliban have over the last month been found to be unlawfully killing members of the Hazara community, as well as forcibly evicting them off their land with only a few days’ notice provided. Therefore, as the cases of Iran and Lebanon have shown, it would not be surprising if the commemoration of Ashura acts as a future rallying point for the Hazara to protest and resist Taliban rule, using the well-established narratives of Karbala as an inspiration to resist oppressive rule.

AFRICAN, ISL AMIC, AND ARABIC HISTORY

10 Year s Since the Arab Spring 10 years on from the Arab Spring, we must look back on what happened and why WORDS BY ERIN BARNETT

he Arab Spring was a pro-democracy uprising that spread throughout the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). By mid-2012 most of the actions against governments had faded, many achieved little and were met by severe violence and curbs on free speech – social media platforms like FaceBook were shut down by governments in an attempt to prevent the spread of revolutionary rhetoric. Before considering the event itself, the term ‘Arab Spring’ must be analysed. The term was coined by Alan Lynch, an American political scientist, reporting on the events in the MENA for Foreign Policy. The term is limited in its scope because it does not fully encapsulate all the countries and peoples involved in the movement. It embodies the orientalist perception of the MENA, as theorised by Edward Said. Orientalists perceive the MENA as backward and dangerous, something that has always been in control of the Occident, the West. Lynch’s coining of the term ‘Arab Spring’ plays perfectly into this narrative, homogenising the MENA. For example, Iran’s population is only 2% Arab, with most people identifying as Persian, Azeri or Kurdish. The country is not defined as an Arab country by the ILO Regional Office and is not part of the Arab League. Yet, it participated fully in the so-called ‘Arab Spring’. Thus, we must recognise the limitations of this term, as an orientalist perception of the events that occurred.

The ‘Arab Spring’ was started in 2011 by Mohammad Bouazizi, a Tunisian fruit trader. Bouazizi set himself on fire after the police arbitrarily confiscated his fruit leaving him penniless and unemployed. Enraged by blatant displays of corruption and kleptocracy, revolutionary spirit quickly spread across Tunisia. The state dealt with the protests violently. In the initial uprising, three hundred people were killed by the police. This response did not seem to work because following the atrocities in January 2011, Ben Ali, the autocratic leader of Tunisia stepped down after twenty three years in power. He fled to Saudi Arabia where he was given diplomatic protection but was imprisoned in absentia (‘in their absence’) in Tunisia. These events prompted the spread of revolutionary ideology across the MENA leading to other insurgencies – the most famous being the ‘Roundabout Revolution’ in Egypt. The trend followed that of Tunisia, with all unrest put down violently by police and other state actors. The goals of these protests were to secure democracy, economic freedom, human rights, regime change and the end of foreign intervention in MENA. These goals were achieved to varying degrees of success over the MENA. Islamism, a political ideology based upon the teachings of the Quran influenced by Sharia Law and the Hadith, was also another undercurrent for the uprisings, especially for older protestors, who saw nationalism and secularism promoted by governments as a threat to the traditional way of life. As initial protests faded by mid-2012, largescale conflicts resulted. For example, the Syrian Civil War, which was instigated by the harsh treatment of civilians by Bashar al-Assad, the president, during the ‘Arab Spring’. Other conflicts that can be cited as a direct result of the ‘Arab Spring’ include, the Libyan Civil War, the Egyptian coup and subsequent crisis, the Iraqi Civil War, and the Yemeni Civil War. Furthermore, the

political chaos created by some of the unrest has also allowed fringe groups of religious radicals, such as ISIS, to penetrate larger bases of power in certain countries. Tunisia is the only place that has seen actual regime change. Sudan arguably also experienced a regime change but from one dictatorial style of government to another. Even now Sudanese people are marching for the right to vote. Analysts have argued that only the countries that have little to no oil wealth and no hereditary line of succession have experienced any change, however minuscule, in government. Royal families and other regimes based upon primogeniture, like Saudi Arabia and Libya, have too much of a familial/tribal hold over bases of power for the regimes to have any effect without complete insurgency and deposition. Some people have argued that the ‘Arab Winter’ followed the ‘Arab Spring’’. With the slight thawing after the protests, authoritarianism has resurgence in many areas of the MENA. However, recent protests in Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt and Sudan have demonstrated that the spirit of the ‘Arab Spring’ has lived on. The question of whether the ‘Arab Spring’ succeeded still remains. The standard answer is no. In the majority of the countries that participated there was little progressive change in the political makeup. Tunisia being the only success story. As well as this, the anti-European imperialist feeling of the unrest has prompted Russia and China to move in on MENA, hoping to exploit its oil wealth and turn countries further against the West. However, though the objectives of the revolutionaries have not been achieved, the fact that there is a desire for regime change within MENA is arguably a success for democracy. Many experts predict that within the next decade another ‘Arab Spring’ like event will occur that will change the political landscape of MENA.

A Tunisian demonstrator makes a peace sign next to a flower in the barrel of a gun during a mass protest for changes in Tunisia’s new government, in Tunis, Tunisia, Janurary 2011 (Getty Images).

THE MANCHESTER HISTORIAN I JANUARY 2022

NON-WESTERN AMERICAN HISTORY

A large group of Native Americans stage a protest over land rights by occupying the Bureau of Indian Affairs building and steps in front, Washington DC, November 6, 1972 (Getty Images).

Problems I with the Study of ‘Native American History’ WORDS BY MIKE JENNINGS

THE MANCHESTER HISTORIAN I JANUARY 2022

n light of this November being Native American History month, it is fitting to reflect upon the unique challenges that writing the history of Indigenous Peoples evokes. It is important to consider Donald Fixico’s observation that “obtaining a tribal viewpoint” is mandatory for writing a more balanced history of Indigenous Peoples. However, in a field of study dominated by white, male scholars the question of authenticity in Native American scholarship looms large. The question of Indigenous voices becoming increasingly distanced from the study of their own histories is worrying. This overwhelming demographic hegemony speaks for the fact that colonialism constitutes a continual process of historical dispossession, as colonised people become deprived of access to their own historical narrative. This situation has profound academic implications because even the utilisation of the term “Native American History”, which is frequently deployed to establish the intellectual confines of the field, is shrouded in deep controversy due to its synonymy with the rigid, colonised identities imposed upon Indigenous Peoples by European settlers in North America. The fact that Indigenous Peoples cannot settle on a single racial label through which to identify themselves, illuminates the significant challenge a historian is confronted with when attempting to summon Indigenous histories respectfully and objectively. Fixico’s insight comes under intense scrutiny with appreciation that deciding upon a singular viewpoint that encompasses the disparate historical experiences of a mul-

tiplicity of Indigenous Cultures is an almost unattainable goal. Native American historical perspectives have varied dramatically over time and the imposition of Western cultural values upon Indigenous history has huge implications in sculpting social perceptions of the past and directing subsequent academic enquiries. Within the scholarship of Indigenous People there is a consistent trend of portraying them as subsidiary to the Europeans, with their presence acting merely as a tool to illuminate the significance of European American historical events. Irrespective of the accuracy of this approach, focus needs to centre upon where this leaves the field as an academic discipline. To make legitimate strides towards preserving the academic integrity of these studies, Fixico’s idea needs to be taken a step further. The “tribal viewpoint” needs to be the central nucleus of Indigenous scholarly endeavours. The already profound disjuncture between European and Indigenous cultures is exacerbated in Indigenous scholarship by the fact non-Indigenous academics perceptions of history can never be independent of culturally constructed concepts the researcher has previously been exposed to. This illuminates the central dichotomy within Indigenous scholarship, that even in an increasingly de-colonised scholarly world, academics’ divergent cultural experience will always shape their perspectives of history, which will likely never be mutually comprehensible with the historical understandings of Indigenous Peoples.

NON-WESTERN AMERICAN HISTORY

V iva la Revolucion Castro and the Spirit of Cuba WORDS BY JAMES BUTLER

he people of Cuba possess a revolutionary spirit, one of passion, selflessness, tenacity, and long-suffering, unlike that of many other nations. As of 2021, it has been 10 years since Fidel Castro resigned as the leader of Cuba. If anything, Castro’s legacy is contentious because the history of Castro is ultimately the story of a great nation’s independence. In 1820, Thomas Jefferson called Cuba, “The most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of states,” and suggested the USA, “Ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba.” Cuba’s history is complex, but its development is essentially shaped by external aggression. Cubans fought Spain for independence in 1902, but shortly after, US forces occupied Cuba and wrote its constitution to become a reliant protectorate. By 1950, the USA controlled three-quarters of sugar production, 90% of Cuba’s electrical systems, half the railways, and only 3% of farmers owned the land they worked. Nearly 25% of the population was illiterate and life expectancy was only 59 years. The US-instated dictator Fulgencio Batista was the breaking point for the Cuban people. In 1956, Fidel Castro and 21 others began their revolution in the wilderness of the Sierra Maestra against Batista’s army and the United States of America. The guerrillas’ popular support quickly gathered a people’s army and together they overthrew the government in just two years. This event captivated the whole world, especially with the rise of the handsome 34-year-old Fidel Castro who was unabashed in his anti-colonialist stance, “What the imperialists cannot forgive is that we are here!” Fidel collectivized US-owned industries and began building a socialist system focused on education, healthcare, and agriculture. This seemed like a major turning point in the Cold War with the birth of socialism in the western hemisphere, just 90 miles off the coast of Florida. The American populace was split in its reaction to Fidel. He had come to New York to address the United Nations and to attend an anti-racism meeting organised by Malcolm X. The Cuban leader was met with roars of disapproval by the segregationists downtown and the American representatives refused to acknowledge him. However, in

Fidel Castro (Eduard Artsrunyan, 1963).

‘

From Havana to Tampa, in love or disdain for Castro, Cubans should look at their history with a sense of pride.

Harlem where he stayed, he was welcomed warmly by the black community. President Eisenhower conspicuously excluded Castro from a meeting for Latin-American leaders and Castro responded by treating 12 workers at his hotel to steak and beers, stating to the press he was “honoured to have lunch with the poor and humble people of Harlem.” Fidel made close acquaintances with Nikita Khrushchev (Premier of the Soviet Union), Gamal Abdel Nasser (President of Egypt), and Jawaharlal Nehru (Prime Minister of India). Some three thousand people attended their meetings in Harlem, with signs reading “Viva Nasser!” and “Viva Fidel!” The reaction to Castro in the USA was telling of the politics at the time. Anti-colonial leaders and working-class movements welcomed Castro, while the elites and colonial powers saw Castro as a threat. Cuba’s domestic initiatives under Castro succeeded but were faced with extreme challenges. By 1961, Cuba’s literacy rate skyrocketed to 96%, one of the highest percentages in the world, and today it enjoys

a higher literacy rate than the United States. By far the largest challenge to these initiatives was the continued aggression from America. According to the CIA, there were over 600 attempts on Castro’s life, and one of John F. Kennedy’s first actions in office was an attempted invasion. The invasion, known as the “Bay of Pigs”, was a replica of the plan the US used to invade Guatemala in 1954. The invasion failed spectacularly and represented a huge political success for Cuba. The largest blow to Cuba’s development was not in the form of invasion, but blockade. The US blockade on Cuba stated that no company owned by US shareholders could trade with Cuba, forcing Cuba into isolation. For 6 decades since, the UN has held votes to lift the blockade on Cuba, with only two nations in the world voting in opposition: America and Israel. A statement from the CIA in 1960 states, “every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba.” However, despite being a developing country, healthcare is nationalised, and life expectancy is above the US, on par with developed economies such as Britain. Castro’s legacy today is a simulacrum of Cold War attitudes. In Cubanized South Florida, Castro is cursed and reviled, and the poverty of Cuba’s system is blamed on the failure of socialism. Exiled Cuban elites have made cities like Miami and Tampa their own capitalist Cuba. In Cuba itself, though the people suffer from poverty, especially after the fall of the Soviet Union, the memory of Castro has become a national myth. The discrepancy was on display this summer when widespread demonstrations occurred in Cuba about conditions under the blockade. Protestors held “Viva Fidel’’ and “Julio 26” banners, but American media promoted it as merely a protest against communism, thus missing the point entirely. Castro is dead, but in many ways the Cuban revolutionary spirit is alive today in both Florida and Cuba thanks to him. Economic conditions define politics and the obstinate Cuban spirit exists because of poverty and oppression, but also because of hope and solidarity in the face of adversity. From Havana to Tampa, in love or disdain for Castro, Cubans should look at their history with a sense of pride.

THE MANCHESTER HISTORIAN I JANUARY 2022

ASIAN HISTORY

Days after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, a man in Banda Aceh, Indonesia, scavenges the rubble for useable items (Word Vision/@Jon Warren).

T Over a Decade On: The Memory and Commemoration of Asia-Pacific Natural Disasters WORDS BY EMILY JACKSON

THE MANCHESTER HISTORIAN I JANUARY 2022

he Asian-Pacific has undeniably been impacted by devastating natural disasters. Investigating from a socio-economic perspective, cases such as the 2004 Tsunami (a natural disaster so big its death toll reached 227,898 across Indonesia and Thailand), can provide an insight into the severity of the chaos wreaked on communities savaged by the natural world. With the 17th anniversary of the 9.1 magnitude earthquake approaching, we can reflect on the disaster that obliterated communities within Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, and Thailand. Waves reached 17.4 meters tall and there was no escape for thousands. Many lost their lives and for those who survived, issues such as homelessness, joblessness, and trauma resulted from the aftermath. Indonesia was worst hit by this specific disaster with over 570,000 people displaced and around 179,000 homes destroyed. The impact makes this natural disaster a stand-out event in history and it likely contributed to the further devastation encountered by other disasters, such as the South Asian floods (2007)and the Great Sichuan Earthquake (2008). Factors including climate change, population growth, and urbanization have all contributed towards Asia-Pacific’s increase in both number and severity of disasters. However, seventeen years on, research indicates that these countries are better prepared for potential disasters. Aid agencies, governments, and regional institutions have increasingly placed urgency on the ‘Global

Risk Hotspot project’, first published in 2005, which uses modified quantifiable data analytics to predict extreme weather conditions to reduce socio-economic impacts. These are long-term solutions compared to the typical short-term government responses that occurred prior to 2004. However, short-term responses are still important and cannot be dismissed. The United Nations estimates that every $1 spend on disaster prevention saves at least $4 on disaster recovery expenses later. Thus, providing both immediate and long-term relief are essential to countries’ recovery from natural disasters in the Asia-Pacific region. This is still an ongoing issue within the region. The Asian-Pacific is twenty-four times more likely to be impacted by natural disasters when compared with the UK. It is important to commemorate these events in the memory of those that lost their lives and remind us that they still occur and that there is more that can be done to prevent catastrophic devastation occuring. It is similarly important to note the essential work of charities within the Asian-Pacific, while maintaining the knowledge that western governments need to take more responsibility for their responses to such incidences. This responsibility is not just towards less wealthy countries that are suffering from climate change, but also towards those who continue to recover from the lasting effects of colonialism.

ASIAN HISTORY

The Deadly Legacy of the V ietnam War WORDS BY EVE HENLEY

pon visiting Phong Nah-Ke Bang - a national park located in the middle of the Annamite Mountains in Vietnam - I was stunned to observe that exploration was not advised without a map marking the unexploded bombs of the area. Despite the war in Vietnam culminating over 45 years ago, the subject of unexploded ordnance is an issue that plagues the inhabitants of not only Vietnam but Laos and Cambodia too, further exacerbating issues of poverty, inaccessibility of farmland and hatred towards the US. Persistent aerial bombardment, otherwise known as Carpet Bombing, was undertaken by the US between the years 1965-68 under the name of Operation Rolling Thunder. The objective of said operation was to persuade North Vietnam to withdraw support for the communist insurgency in the South through the attainment of overwhelming civilian casualties. The Northern Vietnamese supply lines, especially along the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, were particularly targeted. 864,000 tonnes of bombs were dropped on North Vietnam throughout Rolling Thunder, amounting to a larger sum of ordinance than any bombing mission that the US had previously been responsible for. Approximately 305,000 tonnes did not explode. This unexploded ordnance embedded in the land of all targeted countries is responsible for the death of 42,000 people in Vietnam and 50,000 in Laos, since the withdrawal of US troops. Not only

are lives being lost every day as a consequence of Operation Thunder, but a vast proportion of healthy farming land is inaccessible on account of unexploded ordnance, only further alienating and economically depriving those reliant on their land to live a handto-mouth existence. 40% of tragedies regarding unexploded bombs concern children who mistake them for toys. This is exemplified in an incident in early 2021, whereby four young children walking to school in Vientiane, Laos’s capital, mistook a cluster bomb for a ball, amounting to the death of two. The Mine’s Advisory Group (MAG) have been clearing bombs for the past 20 years and, as of 2020, have released 30,952,585 square metres of land in Vietnam, detonated 12,813 bombs and held 203 education sessions regarding unexploded ordinance. MAG also aims to ‘build the capacity of national mine action authorities’ in an attempt to further local networks of mine clearing; one group that has come to be known as ‘Landmine Girls’ work in the Quang Tri Province in Vietnam, where 40-50 unexploded bombs are found every day. In Laos, less than 1% of those that didn’t detonate have been cleared as of this year. The collateral damage of America’s headless Carpet Bombing campaign grows persistently. They say generational trauma lasts seven generations, though I am afraid the trauma of Vietnam shows no signs of disseminating.

Flying low over the jungle, an A-1 Skyraider drops 500-pound bombs on a Viet Cong position below as smoke rises from a previous pass at the target, on December 26, 1964 (AP Photo/@Horst Faas).

THE MANCHESTER HISTORIAN I JANUARY 2022

SPECIAL FEATURES

20 Year s since 9/11 The Truth behind the ‘War on Terror’ in Iraq WORDS BY STEPHANIE ESHO

n 2001, the infamous terrorist organization, Al-Qaeda, hijacked two passenger planes, using them as weapons to launch an attack on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon. Not only did these attacks result in the deaths of almost 3,000 innocent people, but they also resulted in a traumatised United States, intent on revenge. Consequently, the NATO Mutual defence clause was enacted, and for the first time ever, the UN Security Council approved a military operation in the name of self-defence. NATO allies were able to overthrow Taliban rule in Afghanistan in mere months. However, in 2003, George W. Bush (US President at the time) authorised the invasion of Iraq without justification or legitimacy. Through claims of Saddam Hussein’s involvement in the September 11 attacks, as well as allegations that Hussein had obtained weapons of mass destruction, the Bush administration concealed the real reason behind the invasion of Iraq: Oil. While the undisputed atrocities committed by Hussein in the past against the Iraqi people were also often cited as a factor, such actions were not sufficient to promote US intervention. Thus, Bush utilised the tragedy of 9/11 as a reason to invade Iraq. He claimed America would invade Iraq to combat threats of terrorism and bring democracy. However, by illegally starting a war, and capitalising on Iraqi oil, it can be argued that one of the greatest threats that Iraq ever faced was a direct result of America and its allies. The first justification of the US invasion of Iraq was the threat of Saddam Hussein. False accusations were made by Bush and his administration, claiming that Hussein was involved in the September 11 attacks. Furthermore, the US falsely claimed that Hussein had obtained weapons of mass destruction. The idea of Iraq being a nuclear superpower with a dictator infamous for using chemical warfare on ethnic and religious minorities frightened the rest of the world into complying with the US’s war on Iraq. Tony Blair employed the same reasoning to justify his support of the American’s cause. However, Blair’s connection to the war runs deeper. Blair was a personal friend of Bush, and in a letter written from Blair to Bush in 2002, Blair stated, “I will be with you, whatever”, indicating the importance he placed on maintaining close ties with the US. However, the invasion of Iraq resulted

THE MANCHESTER HISTORIAN I JANURARY 2022

Cartooning for Peace/ @Cécile Bertrand.

in an international uproar of protests, and it was heavily disputed by other states, such as Germany and France. Additionally, the trauma caused by 9/11 was used by the Bush administration to generate support for the illegal ‘War on Terror’. While Bush declared war to combat Iraqi extremism, his actions would produce Iraq’s largest terrorist organization, ISIS. Many initial ISIS fighters came from Saddam Hussein’s old army, and as stated by Bernd Greiner (historian and political scientist), “we know very well that the rise of IS was a direct result of the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003”. Thus, had the US and its allies not invaded Iraq, it is likely that ISIS would never have been established. Moreover, the American war on Iraq also resulted in the deaths of over 460,000 people and caused 1 in 25 civilians to be displaced, which could have been avoided. Following the September 11 attacks, the US sought to “democratise” Iraq through illegal occupation, labelling it “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. This resulted in the US’s decreasing reputation and political influence throughout the Middle East. Bush, afraid of losing political hegemony and control, decided that ‘bringing democracy’ would

prevent future acts of terrorism stemming from Iraq. However, of the nineteen hijackers of the September 11 attacks, none were from Iraq, with fifteen from Saudi Arabi, two from the UAE, one from Lebanon, and one from Egypt. The difference between these countries and Iraq being that they were allies of the US. This leads to the question, why Iraq? Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq’s domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and almost entirely closed off to Western oil companies. Since the invasion of Iraq, the Iraqi oil industry has become predominantly privatized and almost completely run by foreign companies. The war is likely the only reason for this newly privatised access to the Iraqi oil industry. The main obstacle to US access to Iraqi oil was Hussein. The US quickly addressed this issue, through falsely accusing him of being involved in 9/11 and possessing weapons of mass destruction. These reasons were enough to justify the decision to remove him from power. While oil was not the only goal of the Iraq war, it was central to the Bush administration’s invasion plan. It has since been admitted by the former head of US Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq in 2007, that “of course it’s about oil, we can’t really deny that”. Additionally, this was confirmed by Former Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, who said, “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil”. Furthermore, former secretary of defence, Chuck Hagel, acknowledged, “People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course, we are”. These quotes shed light on the true intentions of invading Iraq. In conclusion, Bush and Blair fundamentally lied in their reasoning for starting a war against Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of countless innocent Iraqi civilians, and displaced millions. These deceptions are not only evident with the benefit of hindsight - they were evident at the time. Widespread domestic and international anti-war protests noted such concerns and other countries, such as Germany and France, openly opposed the invasion of Iraq. 9/11 and the ‘War on Terror’ continue to have an enormous impact on global affairs today and there has since been a major shift in public opinion towards how ‘military interventions’ are perceived.

SPECIAL FEATURES

HIV in the Press: Coverage of the Early Years of the Crisis in the Mainstream and Queer Press WORDS BY TOMAS ROMA

orty years ago, on May 18th, 1981, writing for the gay newspaper New York Native, Laurence Mass addressed rumours of a new gay disease in an article titled “Disease Rumours Largely Unfounded”. Rumours had appeared in New York that a potentially dangerous form of pneumonia was emerging. This form of pneumonia, Pneumocystis jirovecii (or P. Carinii as it was called at the time), was not uncommon in the immunodeficient. However, in New York, several otherwise healthy homosexual men had acquired it leading to speculation that it was somehow ‘community acquired’. Mass was reassured by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that rumours of a ‘gay disease’ were unfounded. Of course, these men were in fact immunodeficient and although Mass could not have known it at the time, he was the first person to ever publicly document HIV. Mass even beat the CDC to the ball and only 3 weeks later, on June 5th, they published on the disease in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). This time, in Los Angeles, 5 men had all been treated for P. Jirovecii with one dying. Just like in New York, they were all homosexual and otherwise healthy. For weeks, the CDC awaited responses and calls from the press asking for more details but apart from the Associated Press (which published the MMWR weekly) and two local newspapers, journalists were completely uninterested. On July 4th, the CDC published another article detailing how the number of cases of otherwise healthy gay men with P. jirovecii had risen to 15 in California. Additionally, there were now 26 cases of Kaposi’s sarcoma, another rare disease, across New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco. For the CDC to publish two articles on a similar topic in such a short period was concerning and this did gain more attention from the press leading to the New York Times publishing an article entitled ‘Rare Cancer Seen in 41 Homosexuals’ (July 3rd, 1981). However, this article was buried in the back of the

People protesting in support of more money for AIDS research marched down Fifth Avenue during the 14th annual Lesbian and Gay Pride parade in New York in 1983 (Rolls University/New York Historical Society).

newspaper. Despite the red flags which had emerged, the government did nothing to educate and inform the press. By late 1982, AIDS was still receiving limited coverage from the press, but the CDC had learned more about the disease. HIV the virus had not yet been discovered, but it was becoming increasingly clear that the disease was not exclusive to homosexuals and that it was infecting the ‘4 Hs’Haitians, homosexuals, heroin users, and haemophiliacs. Additionally, infections did not appear to be random but were associated with certain behaviours. Scientists theorised drug usage and sexual promiscuity. Medical professionals were starting to realise that AIDS had an incredibly high mortality rate but it still lacked coverage within the press, being relegated to the back of the newspapers if the issue was covered at all. One might expect queer publications to cover the crisis more extensively and in some cases, this was true. Laurence Mass, the whistleblower for AIDS, continued to write about the developing situation and on July 27th, 1981, his article, “Cancer in the Gay Community” reached the front page of the Native. The primary reason for Mass and other journalists to take a particular interest in the crisis is clear. Journalists and readers were personally affected by AIDS because even if they were not sick or dying, many of their closest friends were. Therefore, it is not a surprise that Mass was a founding member of the Gay Men’s Health Crisis (GMHC), in 1982. However, despite the work of Mass, some newspapers responded with the opposite approach reflecting a similar or even worse attitude to the mainstream press. The Village Voice, an alternative newspaper with a large gay reader base, rejected an article

submitted by Mass in spring 1982 reporting on the crisis. Years later an editor admitted that they purposely avoided writing about the crisis for as long as possible for fears of offending their gay readers. As Mass acknowledged, “Sexual Freedom was essential to being gay”, and it was difficult for queer publications to come to terms with the transmission of HIV. Larry Kramer, another co-founder of GMHC, was considered a ‘spoilsport’ and even a ‘sexual fascist’ after his 1978 book, Faggots, criticised the lack of sexual safety in gay communities, resulting in him being ostracised from the community. Readers may assume that the early years of press coverage regarding the HIV crisis were categorised by rampant homophobia. However, this perception is largely inaccurate. The CDC first termed the disease ‘Gay Related Immune Deficiency’ (GRID) but by August 1982, this term had fallen out of use, with AIDS becoming the prefered term. By 1982, AIDS was still relatively unknown to the general population and only inconsistently covered by queer publications. Therefore, early coverage of HIV in the mainstream press can be considered lacking rather than insidious. Of course, this is not to pin inadequate publications concerning the disease down to homophobia. A key reason for deficient publications was a lack of interest in the mainstream press to cover a taboo community such as homosexual men, especially when the government gave no reason to. In Queer publications, often the press was similarly sparse but for different reasons relating to a lack of willingness to acknowledge the reasons for the transmission of the virus. Ultimately, word only spread through the work of HIV activists such as Mass and Kramer.

THE MANCHESTER HISTORIAN I JANUARY 2022

SPECIAL FEATURES

October Is Black Histor y Month: Why Is It Important that We Dedicate a Month to Black History? WORDS BY NICOLA MILES

A Look Inside (Deborah Roberts, 2021).

ontemporarily, we often learn of identities through mainstream media and popular culture. Being black, you soon realise the restricted identities the media portray you as are simply inadequate. Black men are aggressive, Black women are angry, and the only way we can rise to the top is through the sport and entertainment industries. But where else can we go to find ourselves? Be encouraged to keep going when all odds seem to be against us? For myself, informal education from family members about Black history was crucial in finding my own identity and meaning in this world as a Black woman. However, it is still hard to maintain confidence in your heritage when everywhere around, it is forgotten or even ignored. In the mid-1980s Akyaaba Addai-Sebo recognised a common identity crisis many Black children were facing in Britain:

“

A colleague of mine, a woman, came to work one morning, looking very downcast and not herself. I asked her what the matter was, and she confided to me that the previous night when she was putting her son Marcus to bed, he asked her, ‘Mum, why can’t I be white?

This discouraging revelation led him to investgate Black identity representations within education. He found, despite great progress in racial awareness and activism within the Black community, more had to be done:

“

So, when this incident with Marcus took place in London, it dawned on me that something had to happen here in Britain. I was very familiar with Black history month in America, and thought that something like that had to be done here in the UK, because if this was the fountainhead of colonialism, imperialism and racism, and despite all the institutions of higher learning and research and also the cluster of African embassies, you could still find a six year old boy being confused about his identity even though his mother had tried to correct it at birth, that meant the mother had not succeeded because the wider society had failed her.

Addai-Sebo identified that at the a time, Black children were subject to ancestral past and experienced while cultivating ideas of Great Europeans who brought civilization to the savage continent of Africa. Low self-esteem was inevitably instilled into Black children. Over a decade earlier, politician Bernard Coard highlighted how the Eurocentricity of British school curriculums was detrimental to Black children and contributed to their disadvantage. In his book, How the West Indian Child is made educationally sub-normal in the British School System, Coard compared the representations of White people to those of Black people in the classroom. He identified that all the historical and contemporary heroes and public figures were White, whilst Black people were represented as racialized stereotypes

THE MANCHESTER HISTORIAN I JANUARY 2022

(predominantly servants) in most texts. Coard recognised that this had made it impossible for the Black child to be Black and identify with anyone non-White. Coard’s analysis continued:

“

The Black child under these influences develops a deep inferiority complex. He soon loses motivation to succeed academically since, at best, the learning experience in the classroom is an elaborate irrelevance to his personal life, and at worst it is a racially humiliating experience.

Ultimately, the lack of positive representation of Black figures, and overemphasis on white achievements, can result in self-hatred within Black children, setting them up for failure. In response to this, Addai-Sebo initiated the anual celebration of Black History Month in the UK in 1987. With the aim of promoting positive public images of Africans and the diaspora through the encouragement of teaching about their history, culture, and struggle. The month of October was selected to celebrate Black History since it is an ideal time of the year to engage young minds in the UK. Children’s minds are fresh after summer and thus able to absorb more without the stress of exams looming over them. Almost thirty-years on, my experiences growing up are not so far removed from Marcus’. As a child I felt ashamed of my skin colour, hair, culture, and heritage. I didn’t relate to the representations of Black people in the media, nor did I want to relate with the slaves I learnt about in primary school, despite it being the only aspect of history taught that linked directly to my heritage. I felt being black was associated with weakness and victimhood. The curriculum still lacks education regarding Black history beyond dialogues of slavery and American civil rights. Though these topics are important, when it is the only thing being taught concerning Black history, Black children learn nothing beyond their own people’s disempowerment. Black History Month allows for adults and children to gain a broader understanding of Black history beyond racism, adding value to the contributions of Black people in society. Black History Month is not just beneficial to Black children, but to non-Black children. Knowing more about the Black community can reduce the likelihood of discrimination against them. A sense of identity and belonging are what make Black History Month so important. Being unable to access my history in the curriculum made me doubt my abilities and value in British society, which is the same for many Black children across the nation as well. The British curriculum still has a long way to go in incorporating non-white history and perspectives, so Black History Month remains relevant today. October must be utilised to educate people of the achievements and contributions of Black people that have typically been overlooked by society, to properly represent this country’s history.

SPECIAL FEATURES

Paul Gascoigne celebrates with Edward Sheringham after his superb strike sealed a 2-0 victory over Scotland at Wembley (Rex Features).

EURO 96: T 25 Year s On WORDS BY BY ADAM JENNINGS

he summer of 2021 will live long in the memory of English football fans as manager Gareth Southgate took England to the very edge of glory, aiming to end 55 years of footballing hurt and rekindle the spirit of previous glory. Whilst ultimately ending in heartbreak for Southgate’s young squad, the feeling generated by his team’s promising performance throughout the summer brought joy to the nation. But, this was not the first time, and won’t be the last, that the country was gripped with Euro’s Fever. 25 years ago, England played host to EURO 96. Plans for EURO 2020 to be the first ever cross continental tournament were scuppered by the pandemic, meaning England hosted a larger proportion of games than was originally planned, Euro 96 was all England’s from the outset. Despite being the first home tournament for the Three Lions since their famed World Cup triumph in 1966, Terry Venables’ men weren’t considered to be amongst the pre-tournament favourites. Euro 96 was only England’s second time hosting a major international competition - it also saw an expanded competition for the first time, doubling in size to 16 teams for the tournament’s 10th iteration. England’s quest for glory began at the Old Wembley Stadium in front of 76,000 fans in the opening group-stage game, but a disappointing result followed as Venables’ side could only manage a 1-1 draw

with Switzerland in spite of efforts from star striker, and eventual top-scorer, Alan Shearer. From then on, the only way was up for England. Following the early disappointment they comfortably beat arch-rivals Scotland before putting 4 past the Netherlands in the last group stage encounter. Any win against neighbours Scotland will be fondly remembered, with this particular encounter having extra significance. Culturally, it saw the explosion of Baddiel and Skinner’s ‘Three Lions on a Shirt’, which rang around the stadium after the full-time whistle – ‘Football’s Coming Home’ was born. Just as in the summer of ‘21, England topped their group with 7 points and advanced into the quarter-finals. Historically the Three Lions and penalty shoot-outs have not been a match-made in heaven, but after a goalless draw in the capital, they managed to overcome a talented Spain side, winning 4-2 on penalties. However, achieving a semi-final position would turn out to be the pinnacle for this England side as they crashed out on penalties to eventual winners Germany. The ironic twist being that current manager, Southgate, missed the crucial spot kick. Therefore, Southgate will know all too well the feelings of Bukayo Saka and co. as England experienced heartbreak yet again on home soil this summer. Although 30 years of hurt has quickly turned into 55, that’ll never stop us dreaming.

THE MANCHESTER HISTORIAN I JANUARY 2022

SPECIAL FEATURES

Film and Memory of World War II WORDS BY BY MILES DAVENPORT

e have retold the stories of the Second World War without pause since it drew to a close in 1945. Films are an increasingly important way in which we remember the Second World War. But yet, these films, while engrossing in character and wildly popular, do not always reflect how the Second World War actually panned out. For the eagle-eyed historian out there, it’s incredibly intriguing to look into how these films may or may not reflect reality. War films are indeed not documentaries; they are made for the purpose of entertainment, with artistic licenses being taken for dramatisation. When we analyse these films, it is imperative we do not devolve ourselves into nitpicking historical details, but rather look at broader historical narratives and how they may influence our perception of the war. How filmmakers portray Second World War era weapons and equipment is one of the biggest challenges they would face, particularly in the drive for authenticity. A common way films got around this, particularly the “old classics” of films from before CGI, was by refitting Cold-War era tanks with mock-ups of WW2 era turrets, hulls, or chassis. This can be seen in A Bridge Too Far, where the viewer clearly sees a Cold War Era German Leopard I tank that has been modified to try and emulate a Wehrmacht Panther tank. This phenomenon can be seen in many other movies as well, which has undoubtedly shaped public perception, because we don’t get to see what tanks and armored vehicles looked like in the war. There is an argument to be made that the modern audience simply wouldn’t notice that incorrect vehicles are used to portray Second World War equipment, but for the avid historian out there it stands out like a sore thumb. Throughout the 80 years it has been since the Second World War, we have seen an innumerable number of films about that conflict. For both a historian and an avid film connoisseur, it’s intriguing to look at how war narratives have shifted from films made in the 1950s-1980s, to how films portray the war now. So called “classic” films often took a broader look at the war and made an effort to demonstrate the brutality and messiness of battle. Films such as A Bridge Too Far or The Longest Day are prudent examples of this narrative. Neither film focuses too much on individual characters, and instead they look at their respective historical events through the lens of numerous different people involved in different places of the battle. It is arguable that such a shift towards stronger individual narratives began with Saving Private Ryan, one of the most iconic films set in the Second World War. This is common with

THE MANCHESTER HISTORIAN I JANUARY 2022

other such films in the post 2000s, such as Fury, Dunkirk, Inglourious Basterds, and Downfall. One can speculate why such a shift has happened. It’s possible that this is what a modern audience wants; an involved story in which the audience gains an understanding and emotional connection to the characters, rather than a grand depiction of the confusing and hectic war. However, I am more convinced that there has been a shift because producers are more interested in telling character driven narratives than grand films depicting the epicness of war. Given what we know about the importance of character driven storytelling in modern film, this shift does not seem too surprising. This new common narrative definitely takes away from a perception of the war being large in scope, with each individual person playing only what is a small role in the war as a whole. Modern films make it seem like war is a collection of heroes doing what they do out of camaraderie, or a sense of altruism. This definitely is one of the most important ways in which film shapes our perception of the war. Modern audiences like a good hero, and the Second World War, while almost certainly had its heroes, was not a war won by heroism. Second World War films are not, however, simply a monopoly of Hollywood or the British film industry. Films made in Germany or in Russia often approach the war from very different angles and make for incredibly interesting viewing. The most famous example is undoubtedly Downfall, a film perhaps more infamous for being the source material for the “Hitler Rants’’ parodies across YouTube. Barring it’s creative meme uses, it’s an incredibly interesting film given that it is a German film that looks at Hitler’s last days in power of the Third Reich. The New York Times headlines their review with “All-Too-Human Hitler on your big screen”, which summarises the film perfectly. Making a film about Hitler is incredibly difficult, and Downfall commendably humanises Hitler while simultaneously warning the world about the dangers of a flawed person such as him being seen as a god. Second World War films, while perhaps a dying art form, still undoubtedly have a large influence on our perception of the war. From the way writers construct narratives to shape our perception of how war was fought, to how war is visually represented through the medium of film, these films have continually shaped how we remember the most deadly war in the history of warfare. TOP RIGHT UK poster of The Longest Day, A Bridge Too Far, Saving Private Ryan, Downfall, Inglorious Basterds, Fury, and Dunkirk.

SPECIAL FEATURES

An Imperialist Aggressor or the Truly Great Britain ? Britain’s history of international involvement and intervention is a tale of both empirical horrors and of world-leading international development programmes WORDS BY HARRI TALFAN DAVIES

s the populist left and right separated, conversations about Britain’s history of international involvement became dangerously simplistic. Amidst the ongoing culture wars, fuelled by both political division over Brexit and the populist candidates at the last general election, British people have found themselves increasingly segregated by their political opinions, creating a population that no longer exchanges ideas. This segregation, by my assessment, has led to one sided, simplistic answers to complex cultural questions of British history. Throughout the 2010s, as the War on Terror began to conclude, the British public sought to re-examine its history of international intervention and involvement. Whilst many at the time sought to come to balanced conclusions, the political divide broadened throughout the decade, leaving the debate increasingly fractious. By the end of the 2010s, the different sides of the conversation were being held in different circles; there was now no overlap between the ignorant British triumphalism of Johnson and Corbyn’s anti-western rhetoric. The reality is, Britain’s history of international involvement and intervention is a tale of both empirical horrors and of world-leading international development programmes, of the successful intervention in the Kosovo war and of the destabilisation of the middle east. To paint history with naively broad brushstrokes is to miss crucial details that truly matter. So why is the populist right wrong? As Prime Minister Johnson took to the stage at the Conservative Party conference in October, he spoke with his typically provocative tone, stabbing at “cancel culture,” with its attempts to “edit history,” suggesting that in response: “We conservatives will defend our history!” Unfortunately for the prime minister, British history has already been edited, and not by the left’s production of ‘cancel culture,’ but under the instruction of a Conservative government. As first reported by the Guardian in 2012, a secret foreign office archive, hidden for 50 years, revealed that 1961 Secretary of State Iain Macleod gave instructions for the systematic destruction of sensitive papers from Britain’s colonial era, suggesting that post-independence governments should not get any material that “might embarrass her majesty’s government.” Now what could this information have covered? Perhaps the British introduction of concentration camps in the Boer war? Where, of 107,000 Boer prisoners, over 27,000 would perish in the camps due to the brutal military treatment, most of them women and young children. Or perhaps details of the Amritsar Massacre? Where peaceful protestors to British colonial rule in Amritsar, India, were locked in Jallianwala Gardens and shot at, until Gurkha soldiers had no ammunition to spare. Within 10 minutes, 500-1000 protestors lay lifeless. The problem for the Prime Minister is that when he

states the role of his party is to “defend our history,” he ignores the reality that much of our nation’s history is indefensible. And it is the role of our most senior minister, to present the balanced truth to our union, not an unwavering defence regardless of facts. On the other side of the aisle, we face a similarly predictable story. You will hasten to find yourself one left wing political article that praises the history of Britain’s legacy abroad. Go on, have a google. More often, left wing political commentators get swept into the Tories game of attack and defend and towards the end of the 2010’s, Corbyn’s perpetual expression of a never-intervene style of foreign policy, fuelled a surge in adamantly isolationist thought. Creating an overly simplified assessment once more. So, what is there to celebrate? Perhaps most impressively, until Sunak’s very controversial adjustment, our international development spending as a percentage of GDP, had been higher than every single nation on the planet, except the incredibly rich Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Not a single nation of similar international presence had surpassed the UK in what was coming up to twenty years, spending over 19 billion dollars as recently as 2019, on free international aid, infrastructure and medical resources for some of the world’s poorest nations. Britain is globally recognised as a world leader in fighting serious malnutrition as well as being a major donor to global vaccine programmes. This financial aid helped to immunize 56 million children between 2015 and 2017, saving an estimated 990,000 lives. Aside from world leading international development, British people can be proud of our involvement in the Kosovo war of 1998-1999. Our military action stood to take on a Yugoslavian army that was morally repugnant, to the extent that widespread rape and sexual violence had been used by the counter insurgency army, on an estimated 20,000 Kosovo Albanian women. By defeating this campaign, with NATO allies, 900,000 Kosovo Albanians were able to return to their homeland, preventing a humanitarian catastrophe. Or just as recently, the success of the Good-Friday agreement, a multi-party commitment that firmly halted a 30-year period of horrifying non-secular violence, known as the Troubles. British leadership in this negotiation, especially from former Prime Minister Tony Blair, is still regarded as perhaps the most impressive moment of his political career. It appears clear, that on balance, Britain’s legacy abroad is a mixture of both horror and brilliance with everything in-between. And no single adjective will ever suffice. But what is increasingly self-evident is that the Left and the Right often dismiss the balance of argument needed to address these complicated questions. Our future, internationally, is stronger if it is informed by both our previous failures and successes, by criticism and patriotism and by the left with the right.

THE MANCHESTER HISTORIAN I JANUARY 2022

BRITISH HISTORY

Does Britain Need a Monarchy ? WORDS BY AIMEE BUTLER

The Royal Family in 2015 (EPA/@Facundo Arrizabalaga).

n February 1952, Queen Elizabeth II ascended to the throne at the youthful age of twenty-five, becoming a historic moment that captured the hearts and minds of the nation. Her reign is bejewelled with monumental records and achievements, beginning with her coronation’s televised broadcast to the general public and including her most recent accomplishment of reaching her Platinum Jubilee, having been on the throne for 70 years. The celebration of the Platinum Jubilee will be the first of any British monarch and will entail an array of events across the country, as well as numerous international territories. The event will culminate in June, with a spectacular show promised by the BBC and an extra bank holiday to be created. The British monarchy has been in place for over a thousand years and the Queen occupies many high-rank roles in society, from Head of the State and the Commonwealth to Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The position has developed since the days of Henry the VIII, when the king or queen led by divine rule, in a class of their own, perceived as better than their subjects with the ability to execute and punish whoever they liked. The monarchy in those days had an unrelenting and unbalanced hold over society and although there was a government, this was orchestrated and controlled by the monarch. Nowadays, the UK operates on the basis of a ‘constitutional monarchy’, where the Queen and the Royal Family is separate from the state, politically impartial with no official authority. The Queen is still the head of many organisations, such as the armed forces and the civil service, however, her role tends to be purely ceremonial (e.g., appointing the Prime Minister, opening parliament) and she has almost zero control over goings on. In October 2020, polls recorded a total of 67% of people wanting to see the continuation of the monarchy, a number that remained consistent across social classes. Whether it is due to the monarchy potentially symbolising unity, or the tourist revenue they reportedly generate, there is no doubt that a large proportion of the British public seem to enjoy having a monarchy. Additionally, the Royal Family have obsessed the nation on several occasions, such as the love affairs with captivatingly regal characters that represent another, more glamorous, world. Diana, the Princess of Wales was even dubbed ‘The People’s Princess’, due to her continuous charity work, casual attitude, and popular image. From a historical point of view, the monarchy is not only fascinating, but ground-breaking. Queen Elizabeth is the oldest and longest reigning monarch in British history, having overseen seven archbishops, six popes, thirteen US presidents, and fourteen UK

THE MANCHESTER HISTORIAN I JANUARY 2022

Prime Ministers. As described by ex-Prime Minister David Cameron, the Queen has acted as a ‘permanent anchor’ throughout years of political and social instability, consistently providing an air of ‘calm and perspective’. She is a notable figurehead, not only as a monarch but as a powerful woman of authority. Of course, her duties and political prominence have decreased significantly since the beginning of her rule, but at the time of her ascension, the world was largely governed by aging men, which made her royal debut as a young, female monarch a refreshing and exciting moment for many. It is from this that one could assume attitudes towards the monarchy are mostly positive - if the Queen is to be considered a symbol of unity and peace, with little say in government, and arguably most of the Royal Family remaining admired by the public. But is there a problem? Now, the ‘problem’ is not necessarily to do with the Queen and the Royal Family themselves, it is possibly to do with the idea of the Queen and the monarchy. Recent studies have raised the question of whether a change is needed. As much as the legacy of the monarchy is historically lasting, it can also project Britain as an old-fashioned society perpetuating the idea of a hierarchy and the notion that there is an upper class of people who are automatically superior to others. In a 2020 poll, 18-24-year-olds were recorded as the generation most likely to support an elected head of state, over the monarchy, highlighting the prominence of up-and-coming, fresh perspectives. I must also draw attention to the type of society that Britain has become – one in which religion plays a less significant role and there are a vast array of cultures. This means that the Queen being Head of the Church of England actively promotes adhering to religion, whilst also favouring Christianity over all others – a dangerous message to be projecting, especially in a modern and mostly secular society. Combining this with the Royal Family’s extortionate expenditure, there is immense validity behind the question of whether a monarchy is something the UK actually needs, or if it is just something it is trying desperately to hold on to, for history’s sake. The public’s attitude has been shifting for a long time, and with recent scandals regarding institutional racism towards the Duchess of Sussex and a sexual abuse case involving Prince Andrew, the place of the monarchy in society has never been more unstable. The final question to be asked is: what is more important – the preservation of history or the progression of an equal and modern society?

BRITISH HISTORY

Engels in Manchester WORDS BY SHIKHAR TALWAR

The welcome celebration of the newly erected statue during the Manchester International Festival on 16 July, 2017 (Shady Lane Productions/Joel Fildes).

riedrich Engels, by virtue of a statue in Deansgate, is ingrained in the heart of the city of Manchester. But how did a German man, who co-wrote the communist manifesto, become a Mancunian icon? What does Manchester owe to him? Well, the answer is simple: Engels was sent by his father to Manchester to take care of their family-owned business in the city but Engels never felt it right to be working in such a way, hence he often took to reading literature. According to Eric Hobsbawm, the literature being published was beginning to diagnose and discuss the working-class struggle in Britain. The day to day grim life from slums to factories was ever present, especially in the city of Manchester. Engels believed that the city could have had a beautiful landscape, as it resided on foothills and had rivers flowing through it. However, industrial realities had altered the opportunities nature had presented. Many historians have suggested this is the reason why Engels left his comfortable lifestyle in business and instead pursued the intellectual task of writing. As an intellectual, understanding socio-economic realities was central to Engels’ thought process as he sat down to write his first book, The Conditions of the Working Class in England. In one chapter, entitled ‘Great Towns’, Engels began by exploring the busy and gruesome life experienced in London. However, his exploration of Manchester is much more detailed and significant. According to Engels, Manchester was the first Industrial town. It was the first town to be fully industrialised and became one of the most crucial cities in all of England. Engels explored the physical layout and appearance of the city. He considered Exchange Square and Market Street where he projects a sense of awe at the clean markets, warehouses, and hotels for the middle and upper classes. Then he describes south of the centre, towards the river Medlock, where there were more hotels, beer houses, and places of leisure for the middle and upper class. After this he looked to Oxford Road, past the university, towards the outskirts of the city as though there was nothing else to see. All this created the illusion that Manchester was a clean and well managed city, a city that cared for its people and that were happily living in the current conditions. However, as Engels pointed out, there is much more to the city that was often hidden from visitors. A side to the city that was grim and unplanned, with a lack of sanitation or general hygiene. For Engels, visiting the main part of the city centre was entirely contrasted by heading west into Deansgate. Deansgate was, for Engels, the

worst possible market at that point, it was disgusting. Here, the winds that often blew from the north-east would take the smoke billowing from the warehouses of Market Street and Exchange Square into Deansgate. In addition to this, Engels noticed that the river Irwell, which flows through Deansgate, was incredibly filthy and provided extremely poor sanitation. Engels loathed the living conditions in these areas of Manchester and he pitied the people who had to live there. He wished that something could be done to help the working-class people and likely feared the same fate would inflict Germany, which was also beginning to industrialise rapidly. This book had a much wider significance than merely mapping and describing industrial Manchester. The contents inspired Karl Marx, who would eventually pair with Engles and the two would work on The Communist Manifesto together. It was this book that provides a first-hand account of the reality of working-class life and demonstrates why Marx and Engels conceived of Capitalism as societally damaging, thus they decided to imagine how things could change. Engels remains an important figure in Manchester. His statue on First Street is viewed by visitors from across the country and remains especially dear to those from Manchester, where radical change is part of the city’s history. Andy Burnham, the current Mayor of Manchester, made this remark in a TEDx speech where he argued that Manchester remains at the heart of the conception of communism and those in Manchester should understand what the history of the ideology means to the city. Furthermore, Engels’ statue has also held a significant symbolic position in the route of many protests in Manchester. Most recently the “Manchester Night In” protests saw hundreds of protesters pass by the statue. The University of Manchester also understands the pride and respect that the people in the city have for Engels, shown through the erecting of a dedicated plaque to him in Whitworth Park Student Accommodations. Finally, Manchester still possesses scars that echo from the city that Engels described. The differences continue to exist between the city centre, which is north of the River Medlock, and the less privileged south, which suggests that a historical disparity is ingrained in the city’s layout. Engels was one of the most educated and decorated philosophers of his era. He has often been referred to as a voice for the working-class, and the city of Manchester continues to recognise this.

THE MANCHESTER HISTORIAN I JANUARY 2022

BRITISH HISTORY

King George V and Queen Mary arrive for the opening of the parliament of Northern Ireland in Belfast, June 23rd, 1921 (Getty Images).

O 100 Years of Northern Ireland: How Do We Remember? WORDS BY ANNIE HACKETT

THE MANCHESTER HISTORIAN I JANUARY 2022

n May 3rd, 2021, Northern Ireland commemorated its 100th anniversary as a separate legal entity within the United Kingdom. This raised the question: how do we commemorate a state with a history of violence and discrimination? This essay doesn’t attempt to answer this question but explores Northern Ireland as a case study to demonstrate the complex nature of contested anniversaries. Footage of 50th Anniversary celebrations in Belfast’s Botanic Gardens indicated that the then Government had no reservations about marking the day with parades, music, and fanfare. That this would be mere months prior to the Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday massacres makes for difficult viewing. However, it is no surprise that an all-unionist Executive would organise such a brash celebration. Despite the fact that Ulster Unionist history far outlives that of Northern Ireland, the two appear intimately tied in the minds of Unionists. Is it not the Orange Order who are most loudly celebrating the centenary? Altogether the affairs of 1971 were far from inclusive. Comparatively, today’s Executive opted for a more toned-down affair. Certainly celebrations were tempered by the pandemic, but there is a sense that even without logistical concerns, the commemoration would have been a discreet one. Indeed, outside of staunch loyalist areas there has been little celebration. In a post-Troubles society, after the deaths of 3000 people and remaining mental and

physical trauma, it is understandable why there would be an indifferent mood toward marking its centenary. Where centenary events have been organised, they have not been without controversy and compromise – one of the most notable being Irish President Michael D. Higgins’ choice to decline an invitation to a centenary church service, driving home the question of the place for an Irish identity in Northern Ireland. The Troubles is fundamental to understanding memory, as well as why there has been a lacklustre response to centenary celebrations. But for nationalists the issue runs deeper: even before the Troubles, Northern Ireland’s history has been one of supremacy, discrimination, and sectarianism. Gerrymandering; police violence in Catholic areas; discrimination in housing and the workplace were built-in to the foundations of Northern Irish Society from 1921. Historical memory is distinct for the two communities. For unionists, a celebration of Northern Ireland is a celebration of them. For Nationalists there is instead a total disengagement with the state they live in. Without a shared historical narrative it is difficult to see how anything but conflict might arise from major centenary events. What the Northern Irish Centenary has shown is that, in any state where violence and sectarianism have reigned for so long and the history is so divisive, ensuring commemoration does not celebrate such a reality should be a priority.

BRITISH HISTORY

The Falklands War WORDS BY LOUISE CLARE

“

The Falklands thing was a fight between two bald men over a comb.

hese were the famous words Argentinian writer Jorge Luis Borges used to describe the 1982 Anglo-Argentine Falklands/Malvinas Conflict over the sovereignty of islands in the South Atlantic, known to Britons as ‘the Falklands’ and to Argentines as ‘las Malvinas’. The seventy-four day event which Buenos Aires classed as ‘a war’ and London classed as ‘a conflict’, began on 2nd April 1982. This was when, from the British perspective, Argentine forces invaded the Falklands, provoking British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s response to send a Task Force of over one-hundred ships to recapture the Islands over eight-thousand miles away. This was to prove that ‘naked armed aggression’, according to Thatcher, must not pay. For Argentines, 2nd April 1982 marked Argentina’s recuperation of a piece of Argentine territory, ‘stolen’ by ‘English pirates’ in 1833. The sovereignty dispute over this South Atlantic archipelago had been a thorn in the side of Anglo-Argentine diplomacy for over a century-and-a-half, resulting in attempts by several British governments to ‘rid Britain of the Falkland Islands’. However, in Britain there was the Falkland Islands Lobby which, albeit small, had thwarted many of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s attempts at a leaseback deal with Argentina as recently as 1980. This was despite the fact that few Britons had even heard of the Falklands before April 1982. Many of whom, when hearing of Argentina’s action on 2nd April 1982, assumed the Islands were ‘either somewhere off the coast of Scotland’ or ‘somewhere in the Azores’. For Argentines, ‘la recuperación de las islas Malvinas’ (‘the recuperation of the Falkland Islands’) remains (now part of Argentina’s 1994 constitution) a national cause, taught to Argentines from school age and known

UK troops arrive on the Falklands Islands during the conflict with Argentina (Getty Images).

as ‘la causa Malvinas’. British control of the Islands since 1833, was recognised by Argentines until today, as an act of ‘piracy’ and ‘colonialism from an imperial era’. Not only does this archipelago still remain a contentious issue in Anglo-Argentine politics and international affairs, but the 1982 war itself, and the way in which it is remembered and commemorated, marks an important point in not only British and Argentine history, but the Falklanders’ history. After almost 40 years, the war and the resultant British victory is most commonly remembered by commentators as being the spark which led to Margaret Thatcher’s election victory in 1983. Conversely, the British victory has been credited with paving the way for democracy in Argentina, as it led to the fall of Argentina’s ruling military junta. US support for Britain in the conflict meant that Argentines viewed the war as another act of Anglo-US collision to uphold colonialism in the modern era, whilst subjugating Latin Americans. For the Falklanders, the conflict’s outcome meant that the British Government’s 1981 Nationality Bill which removed the right of abode in the UK for 600-700 Islanders was overturned. In its place came the 1983 British Nationality (Falklands Islands) Act, conferring full British citizenship on the residents, which provoked the notorious mantra about the Falklanders, who regularly fly Union flags, as being ‘more British than the British’. However, most crucially, the Falklands/ Malvinas War incurred the tragic loss of over a thousand lives. This loss, which included the deaths of three Falklanders, is remembered and commemorated every year by Falklanders. On 14th June- Liberation Day has now largely become seen as the Falklands’ national day, marking the Argentine surrender. Coupled to this day of commemoration and remembrance is Margaret Thatcher Day on 10th January. The Islanders’ appreciation of the late PM

is demonstrated through not only ‘Thatcher Drive’, but also a bust, sitting yards from the Falklands Memorial in the Islands’ capital. The latter forms a focal point on Remembrance Sunday when Islanders pay their respects to the fallen British forces. Unlike the Falklands, Britain has no specific national holiday to celebrate British victory. To many of the younger generation, the war and its significance is not instilled in the national consciousness as it is in the youth of the Falklanders. The Falklands War has only recently begun to creep into the UK school History curriculum, but only in relation to Thatcher’s 1983 election victory. However, members of the South Atlantic Medal Association meet regularly to commemorate the 1982 conflict. Moreover, as in the Falklands, Britons who fell in the 1982 War are remembered every year on Remembrance Sunday and there have been commemoration events held for the 10th, 25th and 30th anniversaries of the conflict. In Argentina, las Malvinas still remain a focal point, and are seen as being ‘part of Latin America,’ something the Argentine nation is incomplete without. For years after the 1982 war ended, there was a process of demalvinisation, turning the conflict into a taboo subject. This was not because ‘la causa Malvinas’ was an unjust cause for Argentines, but because of its association with the failed military junta. However, in the year 2000, the Argentine Government proclaimed 2nd April ‘Día del Veterano y de los Caídos en la Guerra de las Malvinas’ (‘Day of the veterans and the fallen in the Malvinas War’). This provides Argentines with an opportunity to remember those who died in the 1982 war and commemorate the conflict publicly. The 1982 conflict is unique in that both sides commemorate it, but the sovereignty issue still lies open at the UN, with calls for Britain to negotiate with Argentina.

THE MANCHESTER HISTORIAN I JANUARY 2022

EUROPEAN HISTORY

The blue plaque marks mid-Victorian house in Hammersmith where the Crafts lived after making their extraordinary escape from enslavement in the US (English Heritage/@Justin de Souza).

Who Were Ellen and W illiam Craf t? WORDS BY EMILY HUNT

THE MANCHESTER HISTORIAN I JANUARY 2022

n Thursday 30th of September 2021, a blue English Heritage plaque was unveiled in Hammersmith, commemorating the residence of Ellen and William Craft. The Crafts were an African American couple who married as slaves and did everything in their power to flee to Britain. Their escape began in 1848 and after their arrival in 1850 they continued their abolitionism work from across the Atlantic. The impact of their escape and substantial work was unparalleled and profound – so is a plaque enough to sufficiently commemorate these figures? Ellen Craft was born in Georgia in 1826, to a mixed-race mother and her white enslaver. With her mostly European heritage, Ellen was very light-skinned, and could ‘pass’ as white. She met her future husband, William, after he was sold, and they married in 1846, immediately planning their getaway. Historians have agreed that, out of many successful outbreaks from slavery, the Crafts’ escape is one of the most compelling. Ellen, able to pass as white, dressed as a man and posed as disabled, ultimately to portray herself as a wealthy Southern slaveowner, travelling north for medical treatment – with William as the accompanying servant. Even though her perceived whiteness combatted most suspicion, Ellen as a woman would have been unable to travel alone, and so the disguise helped the couple surpass boundaries of race, gender and class. In December 1848, the Crafts complet-

ed the four-day journey from Georgia to Pennsylvania, an abolitionist area, under this guise. From there they made their way to Britain by boat, eventually residing in Hammersmith. But their efforts did not stop once they had settled. Ellen and William Craft organised the London Emancipation Committee, lectured on abolitionism around the country, and published their life story in 1860, all whilst raising children. Their work enabled them to return to family in the United States in 1865, once slavery was legislatively abolished. Over 150 years later, their Hammersmith home is adorned with an iconic blue plaque, celebrating the bravery and their journey and the impact of their work. The Blue English Heritage plaques of London are key means of remembrance today. There are over 900 in the city, but they are still undoubtedly prestigious. With plaques celebrating the lives of Alan Turing, Mary Seacole and more, the recent inclusion of Ellen and William Craft suggests they have earned a similar degree of recognition and acclaim, which they truly deserve. But, is this enough? Their story, situated in the horrors of Western slavery, but still deeply relevant in terms of race and gender, is like no other, yet is mostly obscure in mainstream history. Perhaps, the narrative of the Crafts reflects a need not just to commemorate, but to educate – and ensure that the masses are taught about their anti-racism, commitment and above all, their bravery.

EUROPEAN HISTORY

Engaging with the Past - An Anti-Facist Antidote: Lessons from the German Example WORDS BY JASON LEE

Roma from Burgenland are forced to stand for roll call in the Buchenwald Concentration Camp, Spring 1940 (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum).

n recent years Germany has been presented as the exemplar western liberal democracy. Their recent election saw increased turnout, almost 10% higher than the 2019 UK General Election. Chancellor Merkel’s Conservative CDU/CSU party has led ‘GroKo’ – Grand Coalition governments with the Social Democrats for twelve of the last sixteen years. This coalition between the largest parties is difficult to imagine elsewhere, especially in the UK. Finally, in response to the 2015 Refugee Crisis, Germans accepted over a million refugees, whilst the UK pledged to take 20,000. Thus, it’s easy to assume Germany’s engaged, consensus politics and democratic culture as permanent and inevitable. However, this is an assumption. One date dispels this: the 9th of November. This date is the anniversary of two seminal events in German history; ‘Kristallnacht’ – Crystal Night, named after the broken glass which littered the streets after the brutal Nazi pogrom against Jewish communities in 1938; and ‘Schicksalstag’ – the day of fate, when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, leading to reunification and birth of today’s Germany. In the memory of the 9th of November, we find that today’s Germany is built upon these twin pillars. How did the antifascist Germany of today emerge from the horrors of its past? After World War Two, the Allies occupied Germany and it went through Denazification. The most notable form of Denazification was the Nuremberg Trials which put the Nazi leadership to trail, resulting in 161 convictions for war crimes or crimes against humanity in western zones, 37 of whom were sentenced to death. Although this punished Nazism’s worst perpetrators, this didn’t deal with the rest of the eight million members of the Party by the war’s end. Whilst Nazi leadership and institutions had been physically removed, their ideas were still pervasive. US authorities found consistent majorities between 1945-1949 who thought ‘Nazism was a good idea badly applied’; in 1952, 25% of West Germans had a ‘good opinion’ of Hitler as well as 37% who believed Germany would be better off without Jews. Denazification was ended by West Germany’s first Chancellor Adenauer who was worried it would provoke backlash. Some post-war Germans believed they were “passive victims of Nazism”, accepting no guilt themselves. Far from today’s democratic culture, many post-war Germans avoided politics and didn’t engage with its uncomfortable past, contributing to a culture of avoidance. How did Germany confront this? While much of Nazism’s physical presence was removed, its invisible cultural spectre was still present. Efforts to rehabilitate culture and minds really took off from the sixties and seventies. An effort encapsulated in the German word ‘Vergangenheitsbewältigung’ – the cultural movement and struggle to confront its history, particularly its Nazi past. One avenue of cultural rehabilitation was education. A primary

example was the 1962 Guidelines on the treatment of totalitarianism in teaching. Nazism and the Holocaust were to be taught in schools comprehensively. Specific policies included the encouragement of visits to memorial sites, especially to local ones, provided insights into Nazism’s effects on their neighbourhoods, not only confronting students with the past’s tragedy but allowing for the recognition of that past’s closeness and presence. These students prompted national movements and conversations, questioning previous generations’ responsibility, such as that of Chancellor Kiesinger in the late sixties, a former member of the Nazi Party. This student engagement with their past began the process of eroding the culture of avoidance. Next was the shift in German popular culture. Even before civic education, there were signs that the taboos of the past were breaking. An early sign was the success of ‘The Diary of Anne Frank’ selling over 700,000 copies by 1960, becoming Germany’s best-selling paperback. Additionally, the news forced reflection and engagement with these changes, such as Chancellor Willy Brandt’s Warsaw visit and genuflection at the memorial for Stolpersteinevictims, the murders of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, and the 1979 ‘Holocaust’ documentary series which was watched by well over half of adult Germans. Altogether propelling collective responsibility to the top of the public agenda and developing a society engaged with the crimes of the past and listening to the voices of victims of Nazism. Finally, this process is evident in the commemoration of Nazism’s victims. Germany has conserved over two thousand memorial sites, like those of former concentration camps, but also built new sites of memorialisation. These include state-created memorials, like the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin, and memorials created by the public. Public-made memorials are a critical component of this process. An example is the community-made ‘Stolpersteine’ – stumbling stones, initiated by the German artist Gunter Demnig in 1992, that memorialise Nazism’s victims through laying brass plates on the ground of their last residence or place of work. As of 2019, over 75,000 have been laid, making it the largest decentralised memorial in the world. In summary, Germany’s example demonstrates that active civic engagement with historical tragedy can rehabilitate a culture once gripped by far-right propaganda and ideology. When tackling global challenges like systemic racism, the climate crisis, etc., the German example offers clear lessons that the voice of victims should be amplified and local communities should not only be actively engaged, but should drive movements. For without its confrontation of the difficult past in education, national culture or community-built memorials, today’s Germany wouldn’t be the model democracy it is today.

THE MANCHESTER HISTORIAN I JANUARY 2022

EUROPEAN HISTORY

100 Years since the End of the Russian Civil War WORDS BY ELLIOT COUSINS

he Russian Civil War Lissitzky’s Beat the Whites (1917-1922) broke out with the Red Wedge (1919) is after the Bolshevik an engaging depiction of seizure of power between the Civil War’s impact on the Bolshevik Red Army Soviet Constructivist art. and anti-Bolshevik White The piece depicts a red triarmies. Victory in the Civil angle (wedge) penetrating War saw the true consolidaa white circle, its smooth tion of the revolution, which walls being pierced by the allowed the Bolshevik state sharp points of red trianto create history. Howevgles. The use of colours er, millions died during the and shapes here symbolCivil War, from starvation, ises the work’s title. The disease, the war itself and piece was important in the the Red Terror. Russia’s development of Lissitzky’s population, which stood at work, as an earlier attempt 170.9 million in 1913, had at propagandistic art. The fallen to 130.9 million by work demonstrates the im1921 as the country had been portance of the Civil War Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge (El Lissitzky, 1919). fraught with constant waron Socialist Constructivism fare and devastation. The threat it experienced during this period and artistic propaganda, though Soviet art would refocus around had dark consequences in defining the political organisation of Socialist Realism under Stalin. the Soviet Union. Perhaps the most popular canonisation of the Civil War comes The threat the new regime encountered in the Civil War enin Boris Pasternak’s Dr Zhivago (1957). The novel frames an incouraged a radical overhaul of economic planning, reflected in tense romance narrative across a backdrop of revolution and war. the policy of War Communism (1918-1921). Lenin enacted a strict Pasternak articulated that “The war was an artificial break in life,” nationalisation of industry, with a complete ban on private trade. and its disruptiveness is reflected in the novel’s plot, as Zhivago Labour discipline was established for workers, strikes were forbidden, is interrupted in his campaign to confess his love for Lara Antiand harsh sanctions were established for slackness, lateness and pova, when he is captured and forced to work as a medic in the absenteeism. Perhaps the most salient feature of War Communism White Army. Pasternak described “two revolutions,” a “personal was grain requisitioning, whereby soldiers or secret police would revolution as well as the general one.” This reflects the intense seize grain and other supplies from peasants, leaving them with personal experiences of this turbulent period. However, the novel scarcely enough to live on. Kulaks (richer peasants) were denounced was rejected by the journal Novy Mir because of its implicit rejection and sometimes had their entire stocks seized. Significant conflicts of socialist realism. Ultimately, Pasternak showed more interest broke out between state authorities and peasants. The revolutionary, in individuals than societal welfare and had subtly criticised the Viktor Serge, described how “Savage peasants would slit open a Soviet state. The book was banned in Russia, only to be read as Commissar’s belly, pack it with grain, and leave him by the roadside samizdat until 1988, when it was finally serialised in Novy Mir. as a lesson for all,” which is how one of his comrades perished. In April 2020, a new monument was unveiled in Sevastopol The conditions became so dire that there was a year-long revolt commemorating the “fallen heroes” of the Civil War. The piece in the Tambov region, during which 70,000 peasants clashed with depicts a female figure, the image of Russia, as a mother calling 100,000 Red Army troops who brutally quashed the revolt. for the reconciliation of her sons, representing the Red and White Fundamental to War Communism was the Red Terror, an intense army. This monument reflects the contested nature of Soviet hiscampaign of arrests, imprisonments, and executions. Terror was tory in the post-Soviet era. The Civil War is complicated because partially aimed at political enemies, though victims included all it has the potential to conflict with Putin’s portrayal of a singular areas of society, including workers and peasants of all ages. The Russian unity and strength. This monument is intended for people Bolsheviks established a complex system of labour camps, albeit not to learn from the ‘tragic events’ of Russian history. Alternatively, as orderly as the Stalinist Gulag system, but certainly a precursor to the Great Patriotic War (World War II) occupies a much larger them. Half a million are estimated to have been executed. Therefore, space in post-Soviet discourse, as it can be co-opted by the Putin the Civil War demonstrated that Terror was fundamentally baked regime to present the importance of strength and centralisation into the Soviet system. In his 1956 ‘secret speech’ denouncing the for Russian leaders. The Great Patriotic War reflects Russian unity Stalinist cult of personality, Nikita Khrushchev argued that “Lenin and strength against foreign oppression and thus has much greater taught that the application of revolutionary violence is necessipolitical capital in the post-Soviet period. tated by the resistance of the exploiting classes,” thus presenting As we move further from the Soviet period, the Russian Civil War the Red Terror as justified by the conditions of the time. Whether is at risk of being eclipsed by the Great Patriotic War, as it reflects a one agrees with Khrushchev or not, it is certainly true that Lenin more complicated period of disunity in Russian history and cannot established the willingness of the regime to use Terror as a tool in be separated from the Soviet regime. Nevertheless, its immense ensuring its own survival. impact on the history of the Soviet Union, as well as Russian art In terms of the cultural and intellectual impact of the war, El and literature, is both undeniable and poignant.

THE MANCHESTER HISTORIAN I JANUARY 2022

EUROPEAN HISTORY

200 Year s of the Greek War of Independance and the Stor y of Greek Diplomacy WORDS BY IOANNIS DRAKOS

Battle of Navarino (George Reinagle, 1827-1829).

821 was possibly the most inopportune time to begin a war for independence in Europe. A few years prior, Napoleon was crushed, and the European powers inaugurated a revived conservative status quo in the Congress of Vienna that endeavoured to prevent any further upsets to the continent’s power balance. No more shocks and a good dose of conservative rule. Then came the Greeks declaring independence. Alone, the Greeks did not have the necessary martial strength or unity in the 1820s to establish themselves against the might of the Ottoman Empire. Great civilian sacrifice and initial military successes against Ottoman forces helped attain European attention to the Balkans. But, as Ioannis Stefanidis corroborates, few leaders in Greece had any understanding of the conservative consensus Europe had imposed on itself and what it meant for them. Those who did were learned statesmen and diplomats, with a background in powerful Ottoman or European circles. It was these leaders who were the secret to the formation of an independent Greek state. Statesmen such as Alexandros Mavrokordatos and the esteemed Ioannis Capodistrias sought to establish support for the Greek cause from the big three powers: Britain, France, and Russia, playing their uneasy relationships off of one another. Britain wanted to frustrate Russian desires for an Ottoman war in order to prevent disruption to routes to India. Russia wished to expand Balkan influence and consolidate territorial gains, and France hoped to

limit both as much as possible. Greek diplomatic policy served to exacerbate this mutual paranoia and establish a zero-sum battle for influence over the nascent uprising that would secure growing benefits for the Greek project. Accordingly, the work of Capodistrias et al. nurtured a competitive environment between powers with no actual geopolitical interest to help Greece. This reveals that the limited Russo-Ottoman war of 1828 had no Greek pretext whatsoever. Similarly, British embarrassment for their role in the battle of Navarino and the damage to their “friendly [Ottoman] power” indicates that both these states belatedly grasped the value of a capable Ottoman Empire installing each other’s ambitions – not a Greece that induced a power vacuum which required filling. Too little too late, as the aforementioned battle of Navarino was “a point of no return for the [interventionist] Greek policy of the three powers” (Stefanidis), and guaranteed Greek independence. Therefore, the Greek war can be regarded as a great diplomatic coup in post-1815 global politics. Contemporary remembrance of 1821 focuses on the great fight of a reawakened nation in wartime. Yet this other great story of the independence effort, its tactful manipulation of Europe’s political powerhouses, is also worth remembering not only nationally, but globally, as a blueprint that would inspire many more in their efforts for independence for decades to come.

THE MANCHESTER HISTORIAN I JANUARY 2022

EUROPEAN HISTORY

The Armenian Genocide: A Forgotten Genocide? WORDS BY MELISSA CROXFORD

Activists hold portraits of victims during a silent demonstration on April 24 2016 to commemorate the mass killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks in Istanbul, Turkey (Reuters/@Osman Orsal).

he date April 24th, 2015, marked the centenary of the beginning of the horrific Armenian Genocide. Both the event and the commemoration of it accompanies a highly controversial debate over the nature of genocide and the acceptance of it as such. The genocide, which began in 1915 and ended in 1917, involved the systematic attack of the Armenian population living in the Ottoman Empire by Turkish authorities. The attack involved forced deportation and the mass killing of between 600,000 and 1.2 million Armenians as well as other atrocities including rape, forced marriages, and forced conversions, all demonstrating the horrific nature of the event. Thus, it is important to commemorate the event because of the devastating impact it had on both the victims and their families. However, that does not make it any less controversial. This article will subsequently discuss some of the issues surrounding how the genocide is commemorated.

THE MANCHESTER HISTORIAN I JANUARY 2022

The persistent denial by Turkish authorities over whether what occurred constitutes genocide marks the main controversy around commemoration. This ties into the debate over the controversial use of the term genocide. First coined by Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin in 1944, the definition has been adopted by the UN to mean ‘acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group’ which includes mass killings. It is this definition that the argument proposed by Turkish authorities in their denial focuses on; what occurred was supposedly not intentional, but an indirect result of their main goal of relocation of the Armenians. It is these complications over defining genocide which has led to a debate over how to remember the Armenian Genocide when it is not universally accepted as such. For this reason, the Armenian genocide and the victims involved face the potential of being overshadowed by such a divisive debate.

Therefore, it is important to remember the victims and the atrocities they suffered to successfully commemorate their lives, rather than focusing on the technicalities of these terms. Remembrance of this genocide is evidently a sensitive issue. With several debates circulating over the legitimacy of the event as a genocide, the commemoration was never going to be an easy task. Nevertheless, it was and is still important to do so. The 2015 centenary successfully addressed what occurred through memorials, a mass cultural outpour and it inspired activists to continue to lobby for formal recognition from the Turkish authorities of the genocide. Whilst Turkish authorities have not officially accepted the genocide, the 1915-17 events have been much more widely accepted thanks to continued action, demonstrating the power of commemoration in making a ‘forgotten genocide’ more widely known.

EUROPEAN HISTORY

85 Years since the Babi Yar Massacre WORDS BY JAMES NEWMAN

abi Yar is a name synonymous with the Holocaust. Between the 29th and 30th of September 1941, 33,171 Jews were killed by SS Einsatzgruppen death squads, assisted by the Wehrmacht and Ukrainian collaborators. The mass shootings continued until November 1943 with the final death toll, which also included nonJewish victims such as Romani, Soviet Prisoners of War, and Ukrainian nationalists, estimated somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000. Beyond the tragic events, Babi Yar offers a window into the commemoration of the Holocaust and the Second World War in the Soviet Union and modern Ukraine. Initially buried by Moscow, the tragedy was rediscovered by Ukraine and now exists as part of a politicised and contradictory memorialisation of the wartime experience. The post-war Soviet silence over Babi Yar and the Holocaust in general was part of the Kremlin’s effort to reassert its control over its multi-ethnic and multinational superstate, parts of which had been occupied by and collaborated with the enemy. Stalin sought a binding, patriotic, narrative which spoke solely of German fascist aggression against the Soviet Union as a whole. The western establishment of the Holocaust as a specifically Jewish tragedy did not fit this narrative. Thus, even after Stalin’s death, when monuments were eventually erected at Babi Yar in the 1960s and 70s, they made no reference to the Jews. They were devoted simply to the “Soviet victims” of “the fascist terror”. This blindness did not go unnoticed. In 1961, the Soviet poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko was rebuked by Nikita Khrushchev when he drew attention to the forgotten massacre, and to contemporary No monument stands over Babi Yar. A steep cliff only, like the rudest headstone. I am afraid. Today, I am as old As the entire Jewish race itself. … I know the kindness of my native land. How vile, that without the slightest quiver The anti-Semites have proclaimed themselves The “Union of the Russian People!”

anti-Semitism in the USSR, in his haunting poem Babiyy Yar. With the fall of the Soviet Union, there came what French historian Pierre Nora termed an “ideological decolonisation”. Ukraine, and the post-Soviet space as a whole, began to examine their histories, free from the party line. The first official ceremony at Babi Yar came in 1991 with the 50th anniversary of the September 1941 massacre. In explicit reference to the Jewishness of the tragedy, a large bronze menorah monument was erected. Of course, there are always political dimensions to commemoration. An optimistic observer would have seen Ukraine recognising the repressed grief of its Jewish minority, and asserting itself as a sovereign nation, master of its own past and future. A view based in realpolitik would hold that by embracing the western Holocaust narrative, Ukraine sought to ingratiate itself with potential new allies. Indeed, Ukrainian commemoration seems somewhat performative. Large international ceremonies like those of 1991 are held on major anniversaries. At the sixty-fifth anniversary in 2006, the President of Israel and Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv were in attendance. In contrast, Ukraine’s guardianship of Babi Yar itself leaves much to be desired. When the country was awarded the 2012 European Championship, plans were mooted to build a fan hotel on the site. Linda Kinstler from The Atlantic perfectly captured this dichotomy. Visiting in 2016, she wrote:

“

Today Babi Yar is a popular local hangout, complete with a makeshift soccer field and playground. When I visited the field on a sunny afternoon this summer, two young Ukrainians sat on the edge of the ravine smoking cigarettes, their legs dangling over a picnicking couple sprawled out in the valley below… On the ground beneath them, seven decades prior, the retreating German army exhumed and burned the corpses of their victims.

A cynic would argue that the opening of a synagogue on the site in May 2021, a full thirty years after Ukrainian independence, was driven by a desire for plaudits from the West. A logical motivation given current Russo-Ukrainian relations. Contemporary and historical Russo-Ukrainian relations feed into Ukraine’s conception of the war as a whole. Ukraine suffered immensely under the Soviet Union, the foremost example being the Holodomor famine of the 1930s. When the Germans invaded in 1941, peasants emerged from their homes with traditional gifts of bread and salt to welcome their apparent liberators. While the Germans turned out to be simply another set of brutalisers, they found tens of thousands of willing collaborators. Ukrainians served in the Waffen SS Galician Division, and the Einsatzgruppen at Babi Yar were assisted by Ukrainian volunteers in the Auxiliary Police. This complex past is intrinsically linked to contemporary politics. In a violent explosion of anti-Russian sentiment since the annexation of Crimea, Ukraine’s Nazi past has been legitimised, even venerated. In January and April 2021, thousands turned out in Kyiv to honour first Stepan Bandera, an anti-Semite and Nazi collaborator, and then the Galician Division. Bandera’s portrait and Galician Division flags were held high, reenactors wore SS uniforms, members of the crowd made Nazi salutes, and local women held bouquets of flowers. Ukraine has ended the Soviet era silence over Babi Yar and outwardly at least it has recognised the suffering of its Jews. Yet, by hosting grand memorial ceremonies and opening new synagogues, while simultaneously honouring Bandera and the Galician Division, Ukraine is conducting its own flattening of history. It whitewashes the role played by its people in the fate of the Jews, justifying this as part of a patriotic, anti-Russian campaign. Babi Yar will continue to play a central role as Ukraine simultaneously evaluates and manipulates its post-Soviet flood of memory.

Overview of the Execution Site at Babi Yar in 1941 (Yad Vashem).

THE MANCHESTER HISTORIAN I JANUARY 2022

PLEASE DON’T THROW ME AWAY, PASS ME ALONG.