STAHS History and Politics - Issue 4 How We Got to Now

HOW

Anoushka Sood

Aanya Apte

Juliette Beswick

Aadya Rajesh

Isabel Paoli

Geopolitics

A Longview of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The Crux of the Recent Israeli- Hamas War Does Recent Expansion of the BRICs Agreement Threaten US Global Dominance?

China-Russia Relations: How Close Could They Really Get?

Ayodhya and 80 years of India-Pakistan Relations Politics

Witch trials, McCarthyism and AntiImmigration: America’s Problem with Paranoid Politics

Imogen Myatt

Lizzie Wadham

Anoushka Sood and Aadya Rajesh

Political Propaganda: 20th and 21st Century Britain

British Political Turmoil: Will the Two Party System Last?

A Longview of Migration to the UK Economics

Harshini Anand

Would Redistributing Income Boost the UK Economy?: Progressive Taxation

The History of Wall Street

A Longview of China’s Economy

Emily Withnell

Sadie Nicholls

Gladys Lam

Maya Gordon

Bella Kelly

Shari Bassi

Olivia Hudson

Seyram Ameadah

Tolu Afolayan

Culture

Should the British Museum Give Back its Artefacts?

The Woman Behind the Little Black Dress

The Development of K-pop: Empowered by Music

100 Years of Rom Coms

The Perception of the American Dream through time

Famous Mugshots Through Time

Social Developments

How Did We Get to Such a Point of Environmental Crisis?

An Overview of the History of Prosthetics A Longview of

EDITORS’ NOTE

Welcome to the fourth annual issue of ‘How we got to now ’ . Our magazine traces back contemporary events to their roots and allowes for a fuller understanding of how the current socio-political, economic and cultural landscape has emerged and explores the inevitable interaction between these factors.

Throughout the 2023/2024 period we have witnessed the long-term consequences of domestic issues such as income inequality exacerbated by the cost-of-living crisis and international issues such as threats to future environmental protection. With many elections of great importance taking place in the UK, France, the USA, and India, understanding developing electoral patterns and similarities, as well as addressing the role of political propaganda is key. The conflict between Israel and Hamas leading to catastrophic consequences from a humanitarian perspective further highlights the importance of understanding historic precedents to prevent further geopolitical crisis.

This issue seeks to look at ‘How we got to now ’ in two ways: celebrating change and progression on the one hand, and on the other, utilising past events to aid present understanding, acting as a gateway to knowledge or, indeed, a cautionary tale.

Articles in this issue that focus on technological developments over time and the progression of cultural trends offer a fascinating picture of the social advancements that have shaped current societies. These merit considerable celebration as they have helped mould social and cultural practices today. On the other side of the coin, some articles in this issue are particularly focused on the history behind recent political and geopolitical controversies. These prove essential to our understanding of the ‘bigger picture’ of what some often see as isolated, present events. Indeed, amid current culture wars and political polarisation our understanding and interpretation of the past can easily be skewed. We hope that in providing the necessary context around present events more reasoned judgements can be made on current issues.

We aim for our readers to come away with this dual perspective: enabling them to celebrate progression and development from antiquity to modernity yet also remain wary of past events and constantly challenge present perceptions

Of course, this thought-provoking issue relies on the hard work and passion of all those who have contributed to it, therefore, we are immensely grateful to the Year 10-12s who provided us with such fascinating articles. We also wish to offer our thanks to the rest of the magazine team- the copy editors and design editor who helped bring our vision to reality! A final thanks must go to Mrs Kordel for her support in overseeing and guiding us through this exciting journey.

A LONGVIEW OF THE ISRAELI-

PALESTINIAN

CONFLICT: THE CRUX OF THE RECENT ISRAELI-HAMAS WAR

A

n o u s h k a S o o d

The events of October 7th 2023 revived the intractable conflict between Israel and Palestine. Hamas, a Palestinian militant group which has shared control over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, breached Israel’s ‘iron wall’, launching a brutal attack on Israel from the Gaza Strip, killing 1,400 and taking nearly 200 Israelis hostage This provoked a brutal counter offensive from Israel, killing in total around 30,000 Palestinians. Hamas justified the attack on the basis of: retribution for Israel’s historic occupation of Palestinian territories, resentment for the current expansion of illegal Israeli settlements, retaliation for Israel’s crimes against Palestinian refugees and finally a vehement hatred of the existence of the state of Israel Israel justifies its brutal counteroffensive and ‘siege’ of the Gaza strip as the only way in

which it can root out Hamas, the organisation which calls for Palestinian lands to be returned from Israeli settler colonies. Yet the events of October 7th and these justifications cannot be looked at in isolation. Indeed, this conflict is rooted in a long history of disputes between two opposing societies who among all their perceived differences share the desire for one thing: their own state. So, in order to understand the current conflict in 2024 it is essential that we look to the past.

The root of the conflict lies with the ostensibly careless and self-interested actions of global powers involved, coupled with the strength and consistency of the Zionists (those part of a movement to establish the basis for a Jewish homeland in Palestine) who lobbied for a single Jewish state. The primary point of contention between Israelis and Palestinians concerning the right to land and who it ‘belongs’ to. Indeed, at its very crux, this periodic conflict over the last 75 years between Arab nations, Palestinian factions and the Israeli government concerns the mutual recognition of a Palestinian state and Israeli state alike.

In 1917, after fighting the Ottomans who controlled Palestine, the British government, backed by the Allied powers, issued the Balfour Declaration where they established the need for ‘ a national home for Jewish people’ in Palestine. Despite Jewish people making up less than 15% of the otherwise Arab dominated nation of Palestine, they were promised, by the Allies, a land to call their home This

proved a triumph for Zionists, who believed Jerusalem to be the rightful ‘homeland’ of the Jews, but an emerging threat to the native Arab majority inhabitants. The precise motivations for the Balfour declaration seem rather multifaceted: some speculate the British government was susceptible to Zionist lobbying and had connections with members of the Zionist movement, others seek to portray Britain in a more noble light by suggesting that it was British sympathy for the Jewish plight in Europe which drove the Declaration Nonetheless, while the Declaration did not preordain the future conflict between Israelis and native Palestinians, it certainly paved the way for the disputes over lands and territory that characterised the next century.

Once the British had an official mandate over Palestine in 1923, they became committed to supporting the immigration of European Jews to Palestine in line with the calls from the earlier Balfour declaration. Indeed between 1922-1936 the Jewish population of Palestine quadrupled and Hitler’s assumption of power in Germany in 1933 further contributed to the large influx of Jews from Europe fleeing Nazi repression. With growing numbers came growing calls from Jewish leaders such as David Ben Gurion to press for a state of their own in Palestine. Despite the claim that Balfour would not adversely affect ‘the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine’, there was nonetheless a blatant disregard by the British occupiers and Jewish leaders to acknowledge the presence or wishes of the native Palestinians. The Palestinians began to fear Jewish domination. Lord Peel, who headed the Peel Commission which called for the partition of Palestine in response to the growing tensions between Arabs and Jews that couldn’t be reconciled wrote, ‘I did not realise how deep-seated was the Arab fear

of Jewish Lordship and domination’. In 1937, the British government attempted to find a way to ‘solve’ emerging disputes between Israelis and Palestinians. The Palestine royal commission declared that ‘Half a loaf is better than no bread’ and proceeded to partition Palestine, believing that it would offer the prospect of ‘obtaining the inestimable boon of peace ’ Those words carry a morbid irony when considering the gravity and enduring conflict that followed. On November 29, 1947, United Nations (UN) voted to partition the British mandate of Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state under UN resolution 181.

In response to a period of extreme violence during and after WW2, British forces withdrew from Palestine. The chaos they had indiscriminately caused from their two-state solution was indeed far from the ‘inestimable boon of peace ’ they had predicted. Indeed, this chaos and conflict reached boiling point when Israel declared their independence on May 14, 1948. While the state of Israel was recognised by the UN, a Palestinian state was not established. This triggered the first Arab-Israeli War, lasting only a year. Arab nations Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria occupied the areas apportioned to the Palestinians under the resolution 181, yet Israel occupied all of the Negev up to the Egypt-Palestinian frontier. Zionist military forces displaced at least 750,000 Palestinians from their homeland and had gained 77% of the previous Palestinian mandate territory. The remaining territories were administered from 19481967 by the countries of Jordan and Egypt Israel had won the war and remembered it as the ‘War of Independence’ yet, in contrast, those in the Arab world coined the war as ‘Nakba’, Arabic for catastrophe. For many Palestinians it was just the beginning of a tumultuous existence. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians

were displaced and made refugees with the systematic erosion of Palestinian territories.

The climate of mutual distrust and fear of existential threats in the wake of the first conflict and further crises such as that concerning the Suez Canal coupled with the immediate spark of border disputes culminated into another Arab Israeli war in 1967. Known as the Six-day War it remains a seminal moment in the shaping of the middle east and Arab-Israeli relations. Supported by Syria, Palestinian guerrillas had begun launching attacks across the Israeli border provoking reprisal raids from Israel Defence Forces. Egypt was also amid disagreements with Israelis over water rights and soon Jordan joined the war, backing Israel as a show of solidarity among Arab states. The war was also significant as it marked a more decisive interest and intervention in the events of Israel and Palestine by global powers. The stance of global superpowers at that time makes for an interesting comparison to present-day allegiances. The Soviet Union who had previously aimed to exert

influence over Egypt intervened in the war on the side of Egypt. Such an intervention, considering the climate of the Cold War, elicited concerns in the US that the war would extend to become a proxy war. Yet, despite being severely outnumbered, Israel yet again emerged from this war victorious and relatively unscathed, crushing opposition with a notable prowess that won the admiration of Lyndon B Johnson in the US. Indeed, the end of the Six-day War marked the beginning of a multidecade alliance between the US and Israel. The role of global western superpowers has therefore been historically central in facilitating the state of Israel. The US supported the UN resolution at the end of the war that called for countries to recognise Israel’s right to ‘live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force’ as well as calling for Israel to withdraw from ‘territories occupied’ during the conflict’. These peace talks were supported by Egypt, Jordan and Israel but whilst this marked a peaceful end to the war, the tenets of these talks were not upheld. Indeed, the peace talks in 1967 ultimately proved short-lived. Egypt and Syria in a ploy to regain control over the the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights launched an attack on Israel in 1973 which marked the beginning of the Yom Kippur War. Israel, caught off guard by the unexpected offensive, turned to the US for support which was duly granted when news broke that the Soviet Union was helping to supply Egypt in Syria. Intervention from global powers has evidently been a continuous theme in many ways sustaining the conflict between the Arab powers and Israeli state. Yet today, questions have been raised regarding the extent of western support for Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu’s statements about the likely decimation of Palestine and his rejection of the United States’ push for peace in the form of the recognition of a Palestinian state have presented Washington with a dilemma.

Israel, which was once considered an essential Cold War ally in the Middle East may be increasingly seen as a strategic liability due to their recent stance.

Bringing the focus back to the main point of contention that exists in this conflict concerning land and territory, the Six-day War indeed changed the landscape of Israeli domination. Israel won vast amounts of territory including Gaza, the West Bank, the Sinai Peninsula and parts of East Jerusalem. For the Palestinians living across the West Banks, their fates, identity and nationality were in a state of flux. After the Six-day war Israel’s deputy Prime Minister Yigal Allon launched the ‘Allon plan’ where he proposed that Israel annex a strip of land along the West Bank and establish Jewish settlements. The shocks and tensions surrounding Israel’s occupation of the Gaza strip and the West

Bank can still be felt today. The relative ambiguity of the situation of those living on the West Bank remains a pertinent issue, with Israel being accused of settler colonisation and Palestinian civilians living on Israeli territory left unprotected under Israeli law. The 1967 Jewish settlements on Palestinian land contradicted the United Nations recommended resolutions, and have come under contest as violating international law. Israel fervently disputes this citing historical and biblical ties to the land. Israel claims that they have a religious stake over Jerusalem and that it should remain ‘its indivisible and eternal capital’ despite the Old City of East Jerusalem holding religious significance to Muslims, Jews and Christians alike. Disillusioned with Israel’s domination the decades thereafter saw Palestinian militants turning to terrorism in order to defend and avenge the Palestinian plight.

The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) escalated tensions triggering war in Lebanon against the Israelis in 1982 followed by what came to be known as the First and Second intifada in the late 1990s to early 2000s. This was where Palestinians, frustrated with new Israeli settlements and increased repression under Israel, staged an intifada, Arabic for ‘shaking off’ which included mass protests which eventually turned violent. The official emergence of Hamas into the conflict came in 2006 after the group won a majority of council seats defeating Fatah forces and taking control of Gaza. Since becoming a governing power on the Gaza strip, clashes between Hamas and the Israeli forces were frequent, such as the Gaza war of 2008, but none indeed of the scale and severity of the recent events.

The situation today, Hamas’s menacing attack and Israel’s brutal response thus

follows a long pattern of historic clashes between the Israelis and Palestinian militant groups. This thus begs the question: what is the solution to this persistent conflict? Indeed, how do you reconcile two opposing sides that throughout history have wanted the same thing? We have established that the origins of this conflict can be attributed, in part, to the role of global powers. Indeed, recent events carried out by Palestine Action, a pro-Palestinian protest network that protests against multinational arms dealers to Israel, specifically the UK, destroyed the painting of Lord Arthur James Balfour, covering it in red paint to signify ‘the bloodshed of the Palestinian people’ in the wake of the declaration in 1917 which ‘ Gave away the Palestinians homeland- a land that wasn’t his to give away ’ . This therefore reflects the deep-seated attitude amongst Palestinians that global players are culpable for the loss of Palestinian homeland in place of an Israeli state.

It seems that the peace-making burden should now fall to some extent on those who historically started this conflict. Instead of fuelling partisan attitudes towards the conflict global powers need to support and advocate for sustainable solutions to this conflict. Certainly, the events of October 7th, the deaths and capturing of innocent Israeli civilians should be denounced, but such an event should also demonstrate the absolute necessity for a lasting peace solution between Israel and Palestine. There are two-bridges to peace that need to be built, the first to resolve the current conflict in Gaza and the second to address the historic conflict that remains the driving force for periodic disputes, addressing the issue of Palestinian statehood in a way that puts an end to decades of Palestinian suffering, whilst enhancing Israel’s sense of security therefore promoting a peaceful coexistence between the states.

DOES RECENT EXPANSION OF THE BRICS AGREEMENT THREATEN US GLOBAL DOMINANCE?

A a n y a Apte

In 2009, Brazil, Russia, India and China formed an alliance we now know as the BRIC agreement. In 2010, the group expanded to include South Africa, forming the BRICs. The alliance is not a primarily military focused one, like NATO is, but rather an economically and politically focused agreement, composed of countries with tremendous economic growth potential, which some believe is set to rival the G7. The term ‘BRICs’ was first coined in 2001 by Goldman Sachs economist Jim O’Neill. O’Neill proposed that the combined economic potential of the rapidly emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China would be set to become one of the world’s most dominant economies by 2050, exceeding that of the US

Currently as the world heads into 2024, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are set to join BRICs

on January 1st, creating a new BRICS+ format. Could this expansion of BRICs tip the scales in the dominance of the global economy away from the US? What does this expansion do for US leadership?

BRICs countries include major continental powers, such as China and Russia, that when united, control key areas of geopolitical interest. For example, the new group controls 44% of the world's crude oil and has a combined economy of over $28.5 trillion dollars which amounts to around 28% of the global economy The countries involved will also have a combined population of 3.5 billion people which is 45% of the world's total population. The key aim as outlined in many BRICs summits is to shift the balance of global power of economy and industry away from the US and promote the growing economies and industries of countries not affiliated with the West.

Many BRICs nations have stipulated that the US holds a monopoly on key economic organisations such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and as our global economy has and is ever changing, the organisations involved in key financial decisions should likewise change to reflect this shift away from dollar dominance.

Positive BRICs alliances began to develop in the 1980s between China and Russia, after years of escalating tensions from the mid 1950s once Khrushchev took control of the USSR He embarked on a policy of de-Stalinization which caused ideological rifts between the two countries, resulting in the Sino-Soviet split. Relations improved once Chinese leadership shifted from Mao Zedong to Deng Xiaoping, who was less ideologically driven in foreign policy than his predecessor. This led to Gorbachev visiting Chinese leaders in the 1989 Sino-Soviet summit, the first of its kind since the Sino-Soviet split in 1969 In

2001, China and Russia signed the joint agreement of the Treaty of GoodNeighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation. Since then, positive relationships between the two countries have only grown stronger in military, economic and political might, and both are firm allies, coordinating diplomatic and economic policies against the US.

However, not all members of BRICs share primarily positive relations today. The most recent set of disputes amongst founding BRICs members was against India and China who saw several border disputes, especially from 2020-2021. Historically, China has been contested as one of India’s biggest rivals within Asia as both countries have growing economies and militaries within the continent Yet, India has also been a long time ally of Russia since the Cold War era, when Russia allied with India during the 1971 IndiaPakistan war against the US and UK backed Pakistan and provided them with military

and naval assistance, which ultimately allowed India to win the war. Therefore, today with Russia’s growing positive relations with China, it means that India too, in a careful balancing act, must improve their relations with China as the BRICs alliance grows in strength and power, especially with newer members that hold key areas of world power. Indeed, Argentina was also due to join BRICs in 2023, but pulled out of the alliance due to their political disagreements with China Argentinian President Milei, a right-wing politician, firmly disagreed with the foreign policy of communist China and wanted to allow Argentina to maintain bilateral ties with the West as well.

The nature of members the US seems to be a re division amongst BRIC 2023 BRICs conference Putin attend the meetin conference to avoid arr warrant placed against h war crimes committed occupation of Ukraine. of Ukraine is the most r political disagreements and the US since the em Cold War in 1947, two y of WW2 and the collap Grand Alliance. China h to politically side with t became communist in 1 prominent during the K 1950-1953 in which Chi communist North Kore backed democratic Sou recently, China and the odds with each other ov and Taiwan, marked by 2022 visit to Taipei whi in diplomatic tensions b the US. The recent addi driven up the BRICs rep Western organisation a Iran also faces sanction

Having considered, the historic origins and relationships concerning the BRIC agreement, it is evident that today, whilst the BRICs nations certainly have grown in economic strength, the varying political ideologies between the countries and their differing foreign policies provides the alliance with a divided agenda regarding its relationship with the US, thus making it unlikely to pose a severe threat to the West politically. However, what is certain, especially with the recent expansion of BRICs, is that the world order is definitely shifting as newer countries are asserting a growing importance in the geopolitical landscape.

SINO-RUSSIAN RELATIONS: HOW CLOSE COULD THEY REALLY GET?

J u l i e t t e

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia and China established diplomatic relations. Dating back to the 17th century, there were clear indications of cooperation that displayed strong and cordial connections. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that these relations have developed and secured a powerful foothold internationally. More recently, this has fortified as both major powers continue to strengthen their military and economic ties. With the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Israel-Hamas war happening concurrently, Sino-Russian relations have exhibited ‘strong strategic coordination’ and mutual bilateralism - a threatening force that could dominate the global landscape, “not [as] allies, but better than allies”

Evidence of mutual diplomacy stretches back to 1689 where the Treaty of Nerchinsk settled a common border, the Amur River, between the Tsardom of Russia and the Qing Empire, and fixed a trading arrangement. Likewise, in the 20th century, assistance could be seen in the 1937 Sino-Soviet non-aggression pact where Stalin supplied Chiang Kai-shek with arms to fight against the Japanese. Interestingly however, although China came to North Korea and the USSR’s assistance in the Korean War of 1950-53, whilst fighting a proxy war against South Korea and USA with the aim of pushing the 30th parallel further south, China felt resentment towards the USSR, feeling its economy was relying too much on her.

Yet, it is fair to say that relations between Russia and China weren’t as strong during the Cold War. After the death of Stalin in

B e s w i c k

1953, Nikita Khrushchev succeeded as First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and enacted policies of DeStalinization after his denunciation of Stalin that was delivered through the ‘Secret Speech’ in 1956. Prior to Stalin’s death, President Mao Zedong worked closely with the USSR under the Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance (1950). Unsurprisingly, Mao grew distrustful of Khrushchev, consequently leading to the Sino-Soviet split in 1961, and cooperation ceased as both the communist leaders became ‘bitter rivals’

Turning to more recent years, Russia and China have exhibited seemingly strong ties. Despite previous hostilities, relations got back on track after the Treaty of Good-

Neighbourliness and Friendly cooperation in 2001, signed by Jiang Zemin and Vladimir Putin, and have continued to strengthen ever since. Both countries took another step towards improved bilateralism through the BRICS agreement in which a group of newly emerging countries aim to improve economic cooperation and trade between them.

As of today, president of China, Xi Jinping, runs an authoritarian and communist state, putting tight restrictions on societal freedom. Vladimir Putin’s regime in Russia, though a federal republic, follows the same authoritarian principles. In addition to their anti-US alignment, common beliefs and ideologies create the perfect grounds for alliance.

So far, Russia and China seem to be pretty close, albeit not in the sense that they are a formal alliance. In what way does it inhibit relations developing further?

Is China stuck in the middle? In the early stages of the war in Ukraine, China’s ambivalence towards Russian aggression was because China didn’t want to break off important trade with Europe and the USA. Although, if China refused to assist Russia, it could have destabilised its economy and ruined any chance of future diplomacy and mutual trade

We know for a fact that in February 2022, when Russia declared war on Ukraine, China quietly supported Russia and came to its assistance in building a powerful force to attack Ukraine where Chinese ammunition was used on the frontline. Over the last year, China has disagreed with the economic sanctions laid on Russia and accepted the increase in exports to Russia with commodities and other resources to keep its economy on its feet. Regarding the condemnation of Putin’s invasion, western powers have

Volodymyr Zelensky, president of Ukraine, expressed his thoughts on Russia and her dependence on China: “I’m confident, I’m sure that without the Chinese market for the Russian Federation, Russia would be feeling complete economic isolation”. Indeed, Russia’s belligerence towards Ukraine wasn’t well received by China, however, Russian exports are important to China’s economic growth

As two major powers, it is common to

think that there is a chance that China and Russia could grow increasingly close and become an existential threat that will dominate the world stage, but it is still relatively unclear whether they will head towards a formal alliance. Yes, the volatile relations during the Cold War increased tensions for the short term but we have seen that there are many parallels between their regimes and their beliefs regarding the west. But most importantly, when considering this history between China and Russia, the potential for nuclear proliferation and assistance between the two powers should not by any means be underestimated.

GEOPOLITICS

AYODHYA AND 80 YEARS OF INDIA PAKISTAN RELATIONS

A a d y a R a j e s h

In August of 1947 British India was granted independence ending 300 years of colonial rule, leading to the creation of India and Pakistan as separate nation states. India had a Hindu majority and Pakistan had a Muslim majority population, particularly due to calls from the Muslim league for a separate Muslim state during the partition. The roots of historically tense relations marked by territorial disputes, religious divisions and even occasional armed conflict can be traced back to the partition, particularly in regard to contention over Kashmir, a region bordering India and Pakistan. To understand how by 2024 we have reached a point of continued religious conflict over the city of Ayodhya in the state Uttar Pradesh, it is essential that we examine the root causes of such territorial disputes.

One major point of contention between India and Pakistan was the Kashmir region, with both countries wishing to claim it in its entirety. This has resulted in 3 major wars as well as one undeclared war. Following the Indian Independence Act, Kashmir was granted the opportunity to decide which country to join.

Initially the Kashmiri leader, the local maharaja, sought independence for the region due to Kashmir’s individual cultural and regional identity, but was ultimately persuaded to join India in exchange for protection against invading Pakistani herdsmen. This decision led to the 19471948 Indo-Pakistani war until the 1949 Karachi agreement overseen by UN military observers established a ceasefire. Despite this ceasefire, tensions in the area remained high and in 1965 another full

blown war was fought over Kashmir following a skirmish between border controls. In 1971 another brief war ensued until the 1972 Simla Agreement which separated Kashmir into two administrative regions, each governed by either India or Pakistan. In 1989 further conflict broke out with the Kargil War beginning after a Pakistan-supported resistance movement in Indian-administered Kashmir reignited tensions and Pakistani soldiers crossed the line of control established when Kashmir was separated into two regions.

Since 2003 the countries have maintained a fragile ceasefire, with continuing military conflict on the contested border. To this day, Kashmir maintains its own cultural identity, with many Kashmiri or Koshur speaking inhabitants believing in an independent state for Kashmir separate to both India and Pakistan

The Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute revolves around the site in Ayodhya where the Babri Masjid, a mosque, was located Ayodhya is regarded as the holy city of Hinduism, which many

Hindus believe is the birthplace of Rama, a Hindu deity. Many Hindus believe that a temple, the Ram Mandir, stood there before the Babri Masjid mosque was built. The land has been long disputed, with many believing that in 1528 the Mughal emperor Babur ordered a mosque to be built on the land of a temple to Rama, and for his followers of Muslim faith to destroy the idols and Hindu symbols of the temple.

The facts of this story however, are disputed with rumours of the existence of this historic temple being spread by British colonists in an attempt to divide and conquer the people of Ayodhya.

Previously both Hindus and Muslims alike would worship together at the site until British authorities used a fence to physically separate them in 1859. From the 1980s onwards politicians from the BJP (the Hindu Nationalist Party who favour a solely Hindu India) began to advocate for building a Hindu temple on the site. The party’s appeal to the nationalists in India clearly paid off, as in 5 years the BJP went from 2 to 85 parliamentary seats.

By 1991 Ayodhya had become the most contested and biggest political issue in India. In 1992, a mob of at least 75,000 Hindu nationalists demolished the mosque, leading to communal riots and tensions between Hindus and Muslims across India and Pakistan. Rioting and violence between Hindus and Muslims engulfed several Indian cities resulting in over 1000 deaths Indiscriminate shooting of peaceful Muslims by Indian authorities was also reported during this time. In 2002, violence erupted once more as the BJP mobilised tens of thousands of Hindu nationalists to march to Ayodhya for the construction of a Rama temple foundation. Following the event, a train carrying Hindus back from Ayodhya was bombed, attributed to Muslims, sparking further riots, primarily in the state of Gujarat, under BJP control. The unrest resulted in nearly 2,000 deaths, predominantly Muslims, with many holding the BJP responsible. Despite this, the BJP's commitment to the Rama temple elevated its political standing and support, culminating in the election of Gujarat's BJP leader, Narendra Modi, as Prime Minister

In 2019 the Indian Supreme Court ruled the holy site of Ayodhya should be given to Hindus wanting to build a temple there and that Muslims would be given another plot of land to construct a mosque In January of 2024 India’s top politicians, religious leaders and celebrities gathered for the partial opening of the Ram Mandir temple. The BJP used the elaborate consecration ceremony to lobby support from the Hindu nationalists in India and has continued to be the face of the dangerous, unprecedented and unapologetic fusion of religion and politics in India, seemingly disenfranchising the some 200 million Muslims citizens.

Another pertinent aspect of tensions between India and Pakistan over the years is terrorism and proxy warfare. Despite the fact that shortly after India and Pakistan separated they established full diplomatic ties, both countries have accused each other of supporting and sponsoring terrorist groups. These groups have been involved in various acts of violence, including attacks on civilians, military personnel, and government facilities. This has been a major point of contention and has led to several diplomatic standoffs between the two countries.

The 2008 Mumbai attacks saw a group of 10 heavily armed militants affiliated with the Pakistan-based nationalist organisation Lashkar-e-Taiba carry out a series of coordinated terrorist attacks. In particular they targeted hotels, a railway station and a Jewish community centre, resulting in 166 casualties and heavily strained relations between India and Pakistan.

Another instance of terrorist violence impacting relations between India and

Pakistan was the attack on the Pulwama district in India-administered Kashmir. This attack in February of 2019 was described as the worst attack in two decades of Kashmir conflict, with 42 Indian forces being killed. The Pakistan based rebel group, Jaish-e-Mohammed claimed responsibility for the attack, where a car filled with explosives rammed into a bus carrying Indian paramilitary troopers Jaish-e-Mohammad was formed in 2000 to fight for Kashmir’s independence from India. This violent act conducted by the Pakistan-based group once again heightened tensions between the two countries as India’s foreign ministry accused Pakistan of harbouring terrorists on its territory, while Pakistan rejected the insinuation that the attack was linked to Pakistan without the proper investigations being conducted.

A further key element of relations between India and Pakistan has been attempts at diplomatic relations and cooperation. One attempt to improve diplomatic relations in order to prevent further conflict and violence was the 1966 Tashkent Agreement following the 1965 war. The Indian Prime Minister at the time, Lal Bahadur Shastri and the Pakistani President, Ayub Khan signed the Tashkent Agreement, facilitated by the Soviet Union aiming to restore peace and normalise relations, although tensions persisted. The agreement stated that both countries would withdraw armed forces to the pre-war territorial lines, and that economic and diplomatic relations would be restored. The 1972 Simla Agreement following the 13 day 1971 IndoPakistani War resulted in the creation of Bangladesh from East Pakistan. Indeed, such an agreement between the Indian Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi and the Pakistani President, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto outlined the principles for future bilateral relations, emphasising respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty as well as the promotion of harmonious relations of India in 2014. However, the violence deeply troubled many Hindus, who disagreed with the use of violence in order to achieve the nationalist agenda.

and peace in the subcontinent. In July of 2001 following the undeclared Kargil War, the Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and the Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf held a summit in Agra aimed at resolving differences, particularly over the aforementioned tensions concerning control of Kashmir. However, the talks collapsed after two days and failed to produce any significant breakthrough regarding the issue of Kashmir.

Despite significant attempts at peace talks and measures aiming to facilitate harmonious relations between the countries, diplomatic relations between India and Pakistan have remained strained. It seems apparent that various factors, including domestic politics, military interventions, and ideological differences, have hindered sustained efforts towards reconciliation.

It is also essential to examine the conflict between India and Pakistan through a wider lens of the global and regional context of international involvement. Throughout history it has been apparent that major powers have supported one or the other for strategic reasons, therefore the involvement of the United States, Russia and China has, in many ways,

exploited and exacerbated the inter-state rivalry. It is essential to note the powerlessness of interstate agencies such as the United Nations in ensuring countries abide by recommendations, so the relations with global powers hold much more importance.

The US has had a large stake in the area of South Asia due to its geo-strategic significance since the Cold War where the US developed a more interventionist foreign policy in an attempt to limit the spread of expansionist communism. The nature of US involvement in the conflict between India and Pakistan is however bilateral, as during the Cold War India was seen as an ally of the USSR, leading the USA to quickly encourage relations with Pakistan and induct them into the Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation. However Pakistan has faced increasing pressure to curtail and combat terrorist insurgents, with tensions rising due to instances of international funds and weaponry being misappropriated and used against India The later years of the USA’s engagement in the conflict have been categorised by the American alignment with India in an attempt to counterbalance the emerging China, displaying the largely strategic position the US has taken, rather than a consistent ideological standpoint.

Looking at the USSR, due to strained relations with China, much of the USSR Cold War policy towards South Asia was predetermined by Pakistan's close ties with China and at times the United States which led the USSR to ally with India. This developing relationship between India and the USSR further pushed Pakistan to reinforce ties with the US and China. The Soviet’s did support India’s claims over Kashmir and stated so in international diplomatic settings, however also played a key role in facilitating peace following the 1965 war through mediating the 1966 Tashkent declaration

In terms of China’s involvement, due to their ascension to major world power status as well as the geographical proximity being a key factor, it had the most immediate interests in South Asia. The nature of China’s involvement in the conflict has been described as an ‘all weather friendship’ with Pakistan, with China supporting Pakistan to confront India to a large degree. This is particularly evident in China’s supplying of military equipment to Pakistan, most notably in relation to Pakistan’s nuclear programme. The Chinese supplies of materials and technology allowed Pakistan to quickly bypass its military inefficiency and become a nuclear power. As tensions heightened between India and Pakistan it became apparent that China’s support for Pakistan in conflict would remain, advocating for Pakistani sovereignty, territorial integrity and security.

Despite the deep-rooted contention between India and Pakistan concerning issues of religious conflict and territorial dispute, it is clear the issue has been prolonged and exacerbated by international involvement as well as

increasing nationalist rhetoric. Despite instances of international mediation promoting peaceful coexistence between the states, the strategic position taken by the major powers involved has indicated their prioritisation triumphing any comprehensive attempts of resolving the long lasting issues between India and Pakistan.

As it stands, it does not appear that deescalation of the conflict and promoting harmonious relations between the states is at the forefront of the major powers ’ future foreign policy decision making. The other integral reason for the prolonged conflict is undoubtedly the dangerous adversarial nationalist rhetoric that defines aspects of domestic politics

As we near the 77th anniversary of Indian and Pakistani independence, it is more evident now than ever before that the promotion of secular peace and prioritisation of diplomatic ties must be at the forefront of policymakers’ minds in order to end the normalisation of violence and death over religious and territorial disputes

WITCH TRIALS, MCCARTHYSIM AND ANTI-IMMIGRATION: AMERICA’S PROBLEM WITH PARANOID POLITICS

I s a b e l P a o l i

Throughout American history, the spectre of political paranoia has loomed large, casting shadows over the nation's democratic fabric From the Salem witch trials, to the Red Scare of the early 20th century, to contemporary conspiracy theories fuelled by social media, the United States has grappled with fears of subversion, infiltration, and betrayal This enduring phenomenon has shaped not only government policies and public discourse but also the very psyche of the American public. Examining the roots, manifestations, and consequences of this political paranoia provides crucial insights into the nation's complex identity and its evolving relationship with power, trust, and dissent.

During the winter of 1691, the Village of Salem became a place of fear and accusations of witchcraft. It began with several girls, who claimed to be suffering

fits and random feelings of pinching who then accused three women as being the cause of these unusual happenings. The accused were put on trial for witchcraft setting off a wave of mass hysteria and pointing accusational fingers. More than 250 years after these trials, individuals still made drastic accusations in order to enforce social norms. This is clearly depicted by the hysteria of the red scare in the late 1940s and early 1950s during the Cold War After Communists won the Chinese Civil War and Stalin's comprehensive programme of expansionism, many Americans feared that communism would infiltrate their ways of life Many notable figures were accused of being a communist spy, including scientist Klaus Fuchs, who confessed to passing secrets about the atomic bomb to the Soviets. Following this exposé, suspicion became common, with everyday Americans accusing coworkers and neighbours of being a communist or a communist sympathiser. Although these two trials were set in quite different time periods, they had many similarities. Ultimately both trials were based on the fear that a group of people could threaten their way of life because they went against what was perceived as normal in society. Therefore, we can use these two trials to look at how modern-day paranoia persists.

An important feature of both trials were the false confessions and accusations. Those who confessed or named other witches were not executed, due to the Puritan belief that they would receive their

punishment from God instead. The law at that time dictated that people were assumed guilty and had to convince the jury of their innocence. However, it was much easier to make an allegation than to deny one. Similarly, in 1947 during the Red Scare the House of Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) was established to put accused communists on trial and named a group of notable people in Hollywood as communist, known as the Hollywood Ten. Despite having no proof to back these claims the actors and writers were blacklisted from Hollywood. Republican Senator, Joseph McCarthy alleged that ‘The State Department is infested with communists. I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party’. He then questioned suspected communists by using tactics of character assassination, smear campaigning, and defamation in his trials. During this era, if you were accused, whether guilty or not, your reputation was destroyed in many walks of life, particularly by being blacklisted in the workplace. In both eras, anyone who was not considered normal by society’s standards was accused with little to no proof. In the Salem trials, strict religious doctrine governed everyday life and perceived a small deviation from society as a threat. Any evidence to support their belief was accepted with unwavering doubt ‘managed in imagination yet the effects are dreadfully real'. This witness-based evidence was a shared feature of the McCarthy trials as well, victims of the Red Scare were persecuted for ‘communist behaviour’ such as being unwilling to share secrets from a husband or wife Paranoia within the Salem community and during the Red Scare was so heightened as each society was fearful of forces infiltrating their ways of life and widespread hysteria engulfed American society

can view any variation from the standard as a threat to their safety and a cause of their issues This can be seen through McCarthyism and the Red Scare, where the overwhelming fear that Communists would infiltrate the United States and overthrow the liberal democracy of the United States government made people fearful of their neighbours. This paranoid mentality further divided the country by blaming communists. Scapegoating consumed the Red Scare as communists were blamed for many of the contemporary social and economic issues facing American society. However, in modern day America the Red Scare has been replaced by immigrant scapegoating. Paranoia has resulted in laying the issues of the country at immigrants’ feet. ExPresident Trump declared that immigrants are to blame for “Reduced jobs, lower wages, overburdened schools, increased crime, and a depleted social safety net.’ Additionally, Senator Pearce of Arizona stated that ‘The United States faces disintegration of its culture; of its language; of its cohesiveness as a nation of free people. It faces massive infusion of unrelenting poverty; of crime; of diseases; of civil violence’ This shows that scapegoating is a strong tradition in the history of the United States that still persists.

An explanation for this behaviour may be that in times of uncertainty people will often accuse others as being the cause of it It can be said that the witch trials distracted the Puritans from the larger indigenous and natural threats out of their control, similar to what the Red Scare hearings did during the fear of the Cold War In colonial New England, many people were afraid of illnesses and the danger of the Native American Wabanaki invading them. Other tensions included family feuds over trade, land disputes, and the inheritance of property. All these concerns of colonial life fuelled the growing fear following the first accusations of witchcraft by the girls in Salem. Likewise, labour unrest after WW1 can be attributed as a factor of the rise of the Red Scare. As a result of this insecurity, there was an increased aggression toward communists,

socialists, and unions, who they viewed as threats to American democracy and capitalism McCarthyism utilised paranoia against individuals that the HUAC considered a threat to American society and culture. Even today, we can see how fear is used to redirect frustration into aggression against outsiders that have little to do with current economic and political crises. There is a greater fear that outsiders will overwhelm and undermine America. Some psychologists suggest that economic crises are often accompanied by waves of anti-minority behaviour known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis. The German Reich passed increasingly repressive laws targeting Jews as the country struggled with the Great Depression. In modern day America, Donald Trump won his presidency on a platform blaming immigrants for middleclass stagnation.

Five years after the Salem witch trials, Samuel Sewall, one of the judges, admitted his guilt for his role in the trials. In 1702, the General Court declared that the witch trials had been unlawful. McCarthy's reputation plummeted much further and faster than Sewall's McCarthy’s power declined when he began to investigate the US Army in April 1953. The tipping point in these hearings was when Attorney Joseph Welch asked McCarthy, “have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” because of McCarthy’s harsh and aggressive tactics of interrogation, including intimidation and falsified evidence. Americans eventually saw McCarthy as a bully after his televised hearing of the Army. Both trials ended with their judges in disgrace By looking at these two trials we can learn more about the cause of modern day scapegoating and paranoia in politics. These trials help give an insight into why anti-immigration ideas and policies are so prevalent and used consistently in order to scapegoat outsiders for issues facing American society.

POLITICAL PROPAGANDA: 20th AND 21st CENTURY BRITAIN

I m o g e n M y a t t

From the soldier recruitment campaigns during WW1, to modern scandals and the role of social media we are confronted with today, the UK’s political propaganda has reached people and influenced public opinion in many ways. The messages and purpose behind British propaganda has continuously transformed to align with our social climate. Which pieces have had the largest impact? And how can we see the evolution of Britain since 1900 reflected in our propaganda?

In recent years we have witnessed an influx of press and tabloid coverage over pressing issues in the UK. Strikes, small boats and Suella. All pushing a certain view or criticism over our current politics, including mockery of Liz Truss’ brief tenure which was compared to the shelf life of a lettuce.

WW1 Recruitment Propaganda:

In this image, wearing the cap of a British field marshal, Kitchener stares and points at the viewer calling them to enlist in the British Army against the Central Powers. The image is considered one of the most iconic and enduring images of World War I It’s a hugely influential slogan from Kitchener a "figure of absolute will and power, an emblem of British masculinity” . Before conscription and enforced enlistment was established for WW1, this recruitment propaganda was essential in encouraging men to join the war effort. By the end of 1914, 1,186,337 men had enlisted in the war, and the fighting in 1914-16 had a huge impact on the outcome of WW1. Kitchener foresaw a much longer war requiring hundreds of thousands of enlistees.

Yet, during and after the war, the generals faced criticism in the media due to their perceived incompetence by soldiers In the series “Blackadder Goes Forth” (set in 1917) the misguided leadership of generals is highlighted and the episodes reinforce the “lions led by donkeys” myth. It presents an anti-war message and the dialogue is marked throughout by satirical musings about the nature of the war.

WW2 Female Workers Propaganda:

The artist Philip Zec’s powerful image is dominated by a woman surrounded by factory smoke raising her arms in a style reminiscent of Moses parting the Red Sea.

World War Two provided women with an opportunity to prove that they could do almost any job usually undertaken by a man, acting as a strong and capable workforce. Although women had worked in factories before, there was a large increase after war broke out in 1939. As men were increasingly called-up to join the Armed Forces, shrinking the factory labour force, more and more women were needed to replace them. A massive 90% of all able-bodied single women between the ages of 18 and 40 were engaged in some form of work or National Service by September 1943. This poster serves as an emblematic symbol of female empowerment during this historic period. In this striking piece of British propaganda, we witness women stepping out of their traditional roles and entering the factories with determination and

resilience. These brave women epitomise the spirit of unity and sacrifice that defined wartime Britain. The poster's vibrant colours and bold typography convey a sense of urgency, urging women to contribute their skills towards supporting the war effort. It serves as a reminder that every individual had a part to play in securing victory against adversity. As a result, the vote was extended to women over the age of 30 in 1918 as an acknowledgement of their contribution to the war effort

Nature of modern propaganda: Lettuce Liz:

Propaganda and political media has undergone many changes, leading us to the current political climate of critical journalism through humour and ridicule. In a recent scandal over Truss’ fate as prime minister due to her £45 Billion of ideological neo-liberal unfunded tax cuts, propaganda and critical media was a key factor in her consequent resignation. In October 2022, just weeks after Truss became the prime minister, the Daily Star began a livestream of a head of lettuce next to a photograph of Liz Truss following an opinion piece in The Economist predicting Truss’ premiership would last just as long as a head of lettuce. Who would wilt first? A Tesco iceberg lettuce in a blond wig was crowned the winner of a competition after outlasting Liz Truss’s grip on power The internet facilitated widespread mockery of

her government with abundant comments including “Lettuce for PM”, “Lettuce 1 Truss 0”. The lettuce-cam attracted global media attention as a symbol of the rapid disintegration of Truss’ term in office, and drawing attention to the state of political turmoil. Even Russia’s former president Dmitry Medvedev publicly congratulated the lettuce, writing on Twitter: “Bye, bye @trussliz, congrats to lettuce.” Such an informal response from international leaders reflects the developments in political propaganda, as globalisation facilitated by the rise of the internet means critical political media can reach many audiences and individual jokes can spread rapidly. Truss’ political failures were partly caused by her refusal to appoint anyone into government that had not supported her campaign and held her Thatcherite views, leaving her with a limited pool of talent. Ultimately it was clear Truss’ mini budget alongside the relentless political criticism she faced would lead to the end of her premiership, as it quickly did after a record set for the shortest time in office: 49 days.

political action and social issues was prevalent at the start of the 1900s. Progressives were alarmed by the spread of slums, poverty, and the exploitation of labour. They often advocated for new government policies and regulations, and new agencies to carry out those roles, including reforming the banking system Magazines experienced a boost in popularity in 1900, with some attaining circulations in the hundreds of thousands of subscribers. In the beginning of the age of mass media, the rapid expansion of national advertising led the cover price of popular magazines to fall sharply, lessening the financial barrier to consume them. The influence of social media in political propaganda can be seen rising from the past through increasing use of posters and magazines, both to promote policies of the incumbent government and criticism of the government from the official opposition and small parties.

Throughout recent history, leaders of Britain have been criticised and mocked in the media. From “Blackadder goes forth” condemning the certain death faced by soldiers, to the ridicule of Prime Minister Liz Truss after her ruinous time in power Through the essential role of various forms of media in holding governments and officials accountable, it is clear that despite the developments in the forms of British political propaganda, its fundamental nature and purpose remains unchanged and indispensable.

BRITISH POLITICAL TURMOIL: WILL THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM LAST?

L i z z i e W a d h a m

Britain is a prime example of a country with a strong two party system, in which two major parties dominate the political landscape. This is highlighted by the use of the plurality first past the post (FPTP) electoral system used in Westminster elections, in most cases leading to a strong, single party government. Additionally, the very basis of British politics is adversarial, as opposed to consensus politics, seen by the existence of the official opposition to the government, as well as the architecture of the House of Commons. The British two-party system stands as a cornerstone of the nation's political landscape, shaped by centuries of historical evolution and socio-political transformations. Rooted in tradition and institutionalised over time, the dominance of the Conservative and Labour parties can be traced to their origins from the early emergence of

political factions to its modern manifestation as the two dominant parties By examining key historical milestones, pivotal events, and changing socioeconomic contexts, we can gain insight into how this unique political framework has evolved and continues to shape the governance and identity of the United Kingdom, and whether this two party system as we know it will survive the changes in political climate we are witnessing.

Since 1992, we have seen a gradual increase in support of a ‘third party’, the Liberal Democrats, due to economic turmoil and the declining support of the two major parties. Is this a sign that the British twoparty system is crumbling? To understand whether the British political system could become a multi-party one, we must go

back in history to understand why there was a two-party system in the first place.

The British political system, and democracy as a whole, emerged slowly and gradually; there was never a cataclysmic moment which led to the creation of the party system. As a result, it is hard to pinpoint the moment that it was created. Many factors led to the democratisation of the UK, such as the growing power and influence of the Whig and Tory factions within Parliament from the 18th century. There is a fundamental continuity to the British political system It isn’t very neat or logical or always fully democratic, with change often being slow and pragmatic. Moreover, the UK lacks a codified, entrenched constitution. The United Kingdom’s constitution is composed of the laws and rules that create the institutions of the state and regulate the relationship between the state and the individual. However, these laws and rules are not codified in a single, written document.

Since the Second World War, all the Governments in the UK have been formed by either the Labour Party or the Conservative Party, and both would win at least 3 consecutive general elections. As a result, many define UK politics as twoparty dominant. The ‘two party system’ is when only 2 parties have a realistic chance of forming a government, getting the majority of votes in elections. In 1979, the two main parties of Labour and Conservative won an average of 91% of votes and almost 98% of seats in the Commons in this period. This implies that there was little to no chance of any of the other parties, such as the Liberal Democrats, gaining political power and influence in parliamentary affairs.

The last majority Liberal government in Britain was in 1906. Since then, the only time the Liberals have been part of the government was in 2010, when a coalition

government was formed between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, as neither of the main parties gained a majority. Due to the FPTP electoral system, the winning party only needs to gain the majority of votes, resulting in them being awarded the majority of seats in parliament i.e. at least 326/650. In 2010 the Conservatives won the most seats at 306 Labour won 258 and the Liberal Democrats won 57, therefore as the conservatives didn’t have a parliamentary majority of over half the seats in parliament, they were forced to join a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats. This resulted in the conservative government being forced to make concessions on some manifesto pledges, such as revoking the 1998 Human Rights Act.

There are numerous reasons why it is so difficult for a third party to get a foothold in the government in British politics. The FPTP electoral system, for example, discriminates against smaller parties. FPTP is a plurality system, meaning the winners

do not require an absolute majority of over 50% of the vote, but instead must be the largest single minority. This means that the elected government usually forms solely on around 40% of the vote. For example, in the 2019 General election, the Liberal Democrats were particularly disadvantaged by the electoral system, losing a seat despite increasing their overall vote share by 4%. Furthermore in the 2015 general election the SNP earned about 50% of the vote and were rewarded 56/59, essentially all of the Scottish seats for the Westminster parliament

Third parties also suffer from other issues, such as a lack of funding or media exposure as well as suffering due to tactical voting The Conservatives in particular, have a penchant for absorbing other parties, such as the National Liberals in 1968, making it hard for a third party to succeed. In the 2017 election, the number of votes for smaller parties decreased, arguably because the voters now had a clear choice between the Conservative and Labour parties, who offered substantially different policies. For some commentators this was evidence of the traditional twoparty system reasserting its dominance. In many cases voters are aware of ‘wasted’ votes, as when voting in general elections many voters carefully vote tactically against the party they disagree with, rather than the party they ideologically agree with, such as more left wing voters voting Labour rather than Green Party solely as to not inadvertently support the Conservatives by splitting the left wing vote. This means the FPTP and the two party system under-represent the true ideological identity and disenfranchise voters who hold differing views to the dominant parties.

parties such as the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party. Alongside this there has been a decline in support for the two major parties of the Conservatives and Labour. Their combined support has been as low as 2/3 of voters in 2005, and in 2019 only 76% voted for the two main parties, which means that 1 in 4 voters chose to vote for another party. The only thing that prevents this being translated into greater representation and the strong likelihood of a multi-party coalition government, is the electoral system, FPTP. It formulaically disadvantages smaller parties, attempting not to fragment parliament in order to allow a strong government to deliver on manifesto commitments without facing parliamentary opposition.

Since the coalition government of 2010, the idea of a stable two party system has been increasingly questioned. Voters have been gradually voting more for smaller

Brexit also exacerbated the issues surrounding the two party system due to the two major parties having faced challenges from insurgent groups, such as the Brexit Party causing the Conservative Party to shift to the right, with the influence of Momentum and Jeremy Corbyn shifting the Labour Party left. This political polarisation due to the influence of populist parties and groups demonstrates the fragility of the two party system, where dominant parties can be influenced by small groups within the party. Internal party splits further threaten

to topple the system, particularly at the moment, with the Conservatives becoming ever more divided, as it drifts to more right wing neoliberal economic policies of tax cuts and neoconservative social policies such as the Rwanda bill and anti-woke legislation. Brexit was also a controversial topic in regard to the two party system and FPTP as 53% of the electorate voted for parties against Brexit, but due to the plurality system of rewarding the largest single minority, the majority of the population was ignored, and Johnson delivered a hard Brexit. Add to this the increasing political turmoil over climate change, global conflicts and the cost of living crisis, as well as the governmental instability with 5 Prime Ministers in just 6 years (formerly unheard of for British politics) and it is no surprise that it has led many to conclude that the British political system is no longer performing as it should.

There is much evidence that shows the two party system is starting to crumble, such as the decreasing support for both major

of 4% in votes from 2017-2019.

However, this two-party system has lasted since the 18th century, demonstrating that it is a robust political system Despite the dramatic rise in support for other parties, particularly the Liberals, between 1974 and 2010, there were no effective challenges to the dominance of the two parties, and there is no indication that such challenges will happen now. However, it is impossible not to acknowledge the influence of the increasingly politically active young population becoming aware of the democratic shortcomings of the two party system and FPTP. They look to the success of proportional representation systems in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and it is therefore possible to suggest that the UK may see a shift to a new proportional system in the future. This is supported by the fact we may see a new coalition in the 2024 general election and may again see a PR system referendum. This time a referendum may succeed due to the level of public discontent with the current political system which could mark the end

A LONGVIEW OF IMMIGRATION TO THE UK

A a d y a R a j e s h a n d A n o u s h k a S o o d

Immigration to the UK has undoubtedly helped to enrich our nation with various cultural influences, defining the sociopolitical landscape and promoting economic prosperity. To understand the cultural diversity immigration has provided the UK with over the centuries, it is essential to consider immigration to the UK throughout various phases: all the way from antiquity to modernity. Yet it seems that even despite the benefits afforded by immigration to the UK throughout history, the notion of ‘free movement’ have provoked divergent attitudes and sometimes discriminatory policies regarding immigration. In recent events in the UK, immigration numbers have become one of the most contested and discussed political issues, clearly demonstrated by the culmination of support for Brexit and right-wing antiimmigration policies such as the recent Rwanda Policy. So how do popular attitudes towards immigration today reflect the long history of immigration to the UK? Has there been continuity or change in the way Britain views and values migrants?

Immigration in antiquity and medieval eras:

The population of Britain in the first century AD had already been shaped by thousands of years of migration. By the time the Romans conquered in 43AD it was already a diverse land of cultures and languages. Indeed, England was first formed by large numbers of Germanic speakers who became known as AngloSaxons who migrated following the fall of the western Roman Empire. Towards the end of the 8th century, bands of Vikings, Norse raiders from Norway and Denmark, began to invade and settle in England. Subsequently, many Scandinavian migrants travelled to Britain from the 9th century onwards. The Viking kingdom, known as the Danelaw, was slowly absorbed into England but the people remained a strong Scandinavian cultural identity. This allowed the Danish King Cnut to make England the centre of a North Sea empire that included Scandinavia and Ireland, which eventually disintegrated in 1035. The instability caused by this left England vulnerable to the Norman conquest of 1066, which pushed England to shift its political outlook towards continental Europe.

The first Norman king, William I, encouraged European Jewish migrants to settle in England to help administer the kingdom and work as moneylenders to finance royal building projects and wars Indeed, over the next two centuries Jewish communities grew in several towns, in a wide range of occupations. Throughout the period the free movement of people and goods between England and the rest of Europe increased the wealth and prestige

Immigration in early-modern period:

to England, seeking refuge.

South Asian immigration to the UK increased following the actions of the East India Company, an English joint-stock company formed in 1600 to trade in the Indian Ocean region. Following the company ’ s pursuits in gaining control of large parts of the Indian subcontinent and colonising various areas in Southeast Asia, large numbers of people from the Indian subcontinent settled in England. The English deemed South Asian immigrants as inferior yet these immigrants undoubtedly played a central role in transforming British culture. By the mid19th century some 40,000 Indian seamen, diplomats, scholars, officials, tourists, businessmen and students had settled in England. Originally many south Asian immigrants were lascars, sailors from the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia therefore the first areas concentrated with Asian communities were often port towns. Dean Mahomet was a British Indian traveller, surgeon, entrepreneur who was later honoured with the name ‘sake’, meaning ‘venerable one ’ . Mr Mahomet is of the English crown. Whilst it is difficult to ascertain the precise attitudes in England towards immigrants it seems that they were deemed as ‘useful’ for the new skills that they brought with them Indeed, religious polarisation was nonetheless ever-present, with the majority of English inhabitants observing Catholicism. Events such as the First Crusades led to increased bigotry against other faiths which resulted in the eventual massacring and expulsion of Jews during this period.

During the early modern period, the two largest areas of immigration to the UK were from French Protestant Huguenots and South Asians. Around 1670 groups of French Protestants known as Huguenots began to move to England in large numbers as they were offered sanctuary from the persecution they faced when the Edict of Nantes was revoked. The Edict of Nantes was a document that granted rights to the Protestant minority in France despite Catholicism being the established religion of France In October 1685, King Louis XIV revoked the doctrine, leading to

opened the Hindustani coffee house in George Street London, offering traditional Indian cuisine. Mahomet is considered responsible for the introduction of shampooing, and in 1814 he opened Mahomet’s Baths in Brighton, a commercial shampooing vapour masseur bath.

Immigration in the modern era:

Immigration in the modern period was defined by immigration from various countries and groups of people such as people from Ireland, Africa, Germany, and Eastern European Jews Immigration during this period was particularly accelerated by developments in rail travel and steamboats, making long distance travel possible and affordable.

The Irish famine, a period of starvation and disease in Ireland from 1845 to 1852, as well as job opportunities created by the Industrial Revolution in industry-based cities in England led to a dramatic increase in immigration to the UK from Ireland. This Irish integration to the UK was particularly evident in industrial powerhouses such as Liverpool and Glasgow. Until the late 1980s total African migration to the UK was around 5000 people a year, however by the 1990s this figure reached an average of 20,000 annual immigrants.

Immigration particularly from West and Central Africa steadily increased Migration for asylum was a key underlying cause of migration to the UK from Africa, with applications peaking in 2002 and afterwards declining. Throughout the period of 1998-2007 there were a total of 171.5 thousand asylum applications from African applicants. Until the Great Migration, the influx of Jews to the UK, Germans were the largest group of foreigners in the UK, peaking in the early 20th century.

German migrants in the 19th century were predominantly economic migrants from agricultural backgrounds, searching for work due to lack of adequate opportunity in their homelands Not all German migrants, however, were economically disadvantaged as another group of German immigrants were German bureaucrats, bankers, scholars, artists and doctors. Karl Wilhelm Siemens was an influential German businessman who immigrated to the UK and established a London branch of the Berlin engineering firm, Siemens and Halske. The number of German immigrants continued to grow until the First World War where widespread antiGerman sentiment amongst the British population became increasingly apparent, leading to government policy aiming to bring down the immigration figures.

Another area of significant immigration to the UK in the late 19th and early 20th century was Eastern European immigration, including 2 million Jews migrating from western regions of the Russian Empire to North America, Western Europe, and the UK. Many Jews had previously settled in the Pale of Settlement, however faced persecution and pogroms, anti-Jewish riots, particularly from Russian Christian’s who placed blame on Jews for the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881. Many Christians throughout the ages blamed the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus and carried antiSemitic sentiment towards various issues, therefore mistrusted and mistreated their Jewish neighbours.

In the 19th Century, with the mass immigration movements prompted by famine and pogroms, there were also global trends to legislate for immigration restrictions. In response to fleeing and mass defection to the West Coast of America and to Australasia, the US and Australia started the trend of passing jurisdiction to restrict the entry of

immigrants on a racial basis, indeed the ‘white Australia policy’ paved the way for race-based border control in most Anglophone countries which was met with little to no resistance Somewhat surprisingly however, this did not take place in the UK. It was true that in the 1890s, the large influx of Eastern European Jews to the UK undoubtedly led to the materialisation of overt antisemitism in Britain through calls for ethnic-based immigration restrictions modelled on their western counterparts. However, unlike in Australia and America, in Britain, there were fierce, vocal and principled objections to any restrictions on ‘free movement’.

Indeed, unlike its other western counterparts up until and during the nineteenth century Britain approached immigration with a largely ‘open-door’ policy. The first notable legislation intending to reduce immigration to the UK is the 1905 Aliens Act. The growing demand for immigration controls at the

time was due to rising numbers of foreign national criminals in UK prisons and fears of poor public health due to overcrowding and housing conditions in big cities. Deteriorating standards of living fuelled an anti-immigrant sentiment. Under the 1905 Act the Home Secretary was granted responsibility over matters concerning immigration and nationality, and at the time granted that those unable to support themselves were deemed ‘undesirable’, however supposedly exempted those fleeing persecution.

This act was strengthened during the First World War, with the 1914 Aliens registration Act quickly gaining parliamentary approval in a single day on the eve of the First World War. The act tightened controls of immigration, with every person entering the UK subsequently requiring evidence of identity and granting the Home Secretary the power to prevent the entry and order the deportation of ‘aliens’ if they deemed it beneficial to the public good. During the 1920s immigration legislation was centred around the illegality of immigrants promoting industrial action following the Russian revolution due to increased fears of the spread of the communist ideology.

In the 1930s immigration policy was defined by the increasing numbers of refugees and asylum seekers. Indeed, in 1930 the number of refugees was close to zero, but by 1933 this figure was in the thousands. Many Jews fleeing German Nazi persecution fled to the UK, and despite the lack of an entrenched policy regarding refugee arrivals, the immigration service cooperated with Jewish support organisations and facilitated the intake of thousands of German Jews. The 1947 commonwealth conference on nationality and citizenship led to the 1948 British Nationality Act, granting commonwealth citizens citizenship of the UK and the colonies

The 1971 Immigration Act later altered the previous immigration application threshold stating any arrivals before 1973 could stay in the UK indefinitely, however any new arrivals would have to prove their right to stay, which caused serious consequences with presenting in the Wind-Rush scandal in 2018. Other corresponding acts sought to further reduce the flow of immigrants into the UK such as the 1981 British Nationality Act which removed the automatic rights of children born in the UK to be granted British citizenship unless at least one parent was a citizen or settled Acts similar to these, aiming to reduce immigration were passed in 1983, 2002 and 2009.

Attitudes towards immigration today: In the last decade, immigration has been a largely polarising subject in both the political and public sphere. Indeed, rising Euroscepticism, in part due to rising hostilities towards immigration fuelled the 2016 Brexit referendum. The decision to leave the EU invariably resulted in a more restrictive immigration policy in the UK

Today, a largely debated aspect of immigration in the UK is its influence on the economy and whether influxes of immigrants are damaging by leading to unemployment and lower wages amongst the domestic working population and a strain on the UK’s public services, such as the NHS. Historic immigration has proved to be essential for Britain’s economic growth and wellbeing, demonstrated by aforementioned policy decisions aiming to increase immigration inflows. This has historically been due to fiscal advantages provided as a high availability of labour has contributed to high levels of productivity and economic prosperity.

Many who are suspicious of high levels of immigration fear the exploitation of the tax and welfare system by migrants, who could potentially access a ‘free ride’ by

contributing little to the economy and increasing the welfare burden by relying on government transfer payments. However recent studies by the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration have seemed to disprove this notion, stating “immigrants from outside the EU countries made a net fiscal contribution of about £5 2 billion, thus paying into the system about 3% more than they took out. In contrast, over the same period, natives made an overall negative fiscal contribution of £616.5 billion.” This research, as well as similar findings from different time periods, implies that the economic detriment caused by economic immigrants relying entirely on UK public services and welfare systems is largely over exaggerated in the public debate

Recently, immigration has continued to be

a political battleground as the UK government has dealt with great controversy surrounding the 2023 Illegal Migration Act. This policy proposed the deportation of immigrants to the thirdparty East African country, Rwanda. The conservative government led by Rishi Sunak is acting upon the manifesto and mandate won in the 2019 election, and therefore has attempted to pass this legislation, supposedly fulfilling Boris Johnson’s electoral pledges of reducing the rates of immigration The party has faced many obstacles of internal party divisions and criticism of the policy, as well as the Supreme Court verdict that Rwanda cannot be deemed as safe and is incompatible with the European convention of Human Rights (which the UK remains a member of despite Brexit).

Despite this, due to the UK’s lack of a clear separation of powers such as the United States, the government is attempting to surpass the court’s ruling by passing an act

in parliament, due to parliamentary sovereignty in the UK.

With the recent Rwanda policy, increasingly divergent attitudes towards immigration have emerged. With around half of the public supporting the government’s proposed policy, it seems there is little consensus surrounding what the previous foreign secretary Suella Braverman called an ‘invasion on our Southern Coast’. However, we have seen through the shifting attitudes towards immigrants throughout history that responses to immigration are inextricably linked with the economic climate of our country and external factors and allegiances Therefore amongst the current political and social furore surrounding the topic of immigration we must remember that since the UK’s very inception immigrants have helped sustain and shape our society into what it is today

ECONOMICS

‘WOULD REDISTRIBUTING INCOME BOOST THE UK ECONOMY?: PROGRESSIVE TAXATION’

H a r s h i n i A n a n d

An alarming statistic released by the House of Commons estimates that by 2030, the richest 1% will possess two-thirds of all global wealth. Progressive taxation is defined as the increase of tax burden in correlation to the increase of income, meaning an individual’s tax burden is determined by their income, and higherincome individuals shoulder a larger share, whilst middle and lower-income individuals take on a proportionately smaller tax burden. The redistribution of income refers to increased taxation and income transfers to the poorest segment of society in order to achieve greater equality but also faster growth. In mainstream and left-of-centre politics, progressive taxation is a political given. But how have ideas around far collection of taxation evolved over time?

The redistribution of income and wealth are often associated with socialist ideals of a more egalitarian society. The idea of the communal right to land and wealth can be traced back to 17th Century Diggers, an English agrarian movement A group of about 20 poor men assembled in Surrey and began to cultivate the communal land, believing the land should be available to all, particularly due to the record high in food prices Ideas of redistribution are also largely credited to Karl Marx who in the 1848 Communist Manifesto alongside Friedrich Engels specifies “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” This phrase can be interpreted as individuals contributing to society what they are capable of contributing and, in return, society taking care of their basic

needs. This is also clear in Marxist ideology which condemns the bourgeois of upper class landowners exploiting the working class, the proletariat, by underpaying them for their labour as the laissez faire government position left workers vulnerable to exploitation.

The application of these ideals took shape in the UK in the ‘People’s Budget’ in 1910 under Lloyd- George’s Finance Act. To finance his war against 'poverty and squalor', Lloyd George established the principle that 'taxation should be used for social regeneration'. In light of this, his budget introduced a progressive taxation system ( at the time known as ‘supertax’) as one of the means to ‘eliminate poverty.’

Today, the UK still abides by this progressive taxation system. A proportion of income is taxes based on total earnings.

Income of above £12,570 is taxed at 20%, any income above £50,270 taxed at 40% and any earnings above this is taxed at 45%

One major benefit of progressive taxation is reduced income inequality. As wealth disparities have grown, there has been an increase in global inequality and poverty. Oxfam recorded that the 26 richest individuals on earth combined have the same amount of money as the poorest half of humanity, 3.9 billion people. Nearly all of those 3.9 billion live on less than £4.34 per day Supporters of progressive taxation argue that the government is more able to provide a high standard of public service provisions, such as education, infrastructure, and healthcare, which benefit the poorest in society the most Furthermore, the decreased tax-burden for lower-income individuals means that they have more income to contribute to the economy through spending on retail and services, which aids economic growth and development as consumption is a key component of aggregate demand leading to more business for establishments. Due to the multiplier effect, the initial injection of increased government spending encourages further growth as further economic activity progresses where individuals have more disposable income.

Another commonly held belief is that progressive taxation will also be sure to decrease UK crime rates as there is a direct correlation between income-deprived areas and high crime rates. High rates of tax and government expenditure ensure that resources are delegated into crime prevention initiatives by councils, such as youth centres to reduce knife crime. During the 2010-2015 coalition government’s fiscal policy of austerity, measures to reduce the deficit (largely of government spending cuts rather than increased taxation) council budgets were cut by 60% as well as police budgets being cut by 25%.

However, detractors argue that progressive taxation could lead to a decrease in economic efficiency as members of society are less inclined to work harder, in order to avoid heavy taxing. Investments, entrepreneurship and business would decline and hinder the progress of the UK economy. Higher tax-paying individuals are also more likely to devise schemes in order to evade taxing which leads to a reduction in tax revenue, preventing significant government expenditure on infrastructure, healthcare, education and transport This would have a knock on effect on the success of future generations as educational institutions lose funding, and the number of workers in jobs that require a higher level of education, such as doctors and lawyers, would decrease, leaving the UK in an ongoing cycle.

Moreover, some argue progressive taxation makes the UK less appealing to migrants due to the repercussions of high earnings. Work and efficiency rates would eventually slow as being rich becomes less and less appealing, leading to the UK becoming less attractive for global investment deals as direct taxes, corporation tax alongside income tax, increase

However, modern UK governments since Lloyd George’s Liberals appear to have concluded that redistributing wealth in the UK through progressive taxation will have a greater positive impact on establishing more wealth and income equality, as well as an impact on economic growth through an improved standard of public sector provisions They may fear that if progressive taxing were to be abolished, lower and middle-income households would be damaged and would be completely alienated in wealth in comparison to higher-income households. So, cheers to the Diggers!

THE HISTORY OF WALL STREET

A s h a B h a m r a

Home to the New York Stock Exchange and several banks, Wall Street is an 800metre stretch located in downtown Manhattan in New York City. Wall Street handles not only financial matters but also real estate and insurance, together accounting for 35% of New York's total revenue. Wall Street stands as an iconic symbol of financial prowess and global economic influence. From its humble beginnings as a Dutch trading outpost to its current status as the epicentre of the world’s financial markets, the history of Wall Street is a captivating narrative of innovation, ambition, and resilience

America was referred to as the " new world" when British settlers arrived there in the 1600s to establish trade and enjoy religious freedom The Dutch arrived in the United States, not long after the British while trying to discover a route to Asia through North America. They constructed their own colonies; the first, which was referred to as New Amsterdam, which covered the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut, and Delaware. Then, to keep the British out, the Dutch constructed the wall that is today known as Wall Street. Wall Street was constructed at 2,340 feet long and nine feet tall utilising 15-foot planks and dirt. It spanned between two gates and was armed with cannons. Thus, following their occupation in 1664, the British dubbed New Amsterdam New York in honour of the Duke of York Wall Street was widely acknowledged as America's financial hub even prior to the British seizing power. Slavery was brought to New York in 1626, but a slave market at the base of Wall Street wasn't established until 1711 Traders and merchants would congregate at this time to sell shares and bonds. Dealers and

auctioneers were the two classes that were eventually identified to have spent their time at Wall Street

Throughout the 19th century, Wall Street evolved into the financial nucleus of the United States. The establishment of the New York Stock Exchange in 1792 marked a pivotal moment in the street’s history, providing a formal venue for the trading of stocks and bonds. As the nation experienced rapid industrialization and westward expansion, Wall Street became synonymous with wealth accumulation and economic opportunity

The history of Wall Street is punctuated by periods of exuberant growth and devastating downturns. The 19th century witnessed the rise of powerful financial titans, such as J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, whose vast fortunes shaped the trajectory of American capitalism. However, the Panic of 1837, the Great Depression of the 1930s, and the more recent financial crisis of 2008 served as stark reminders of the inherent volatility and fragility of financial markets.

The 20th century witnessed the modernization and globalisation of Wall Street. The formation of investment banks, the proliferation of complex financial instruments, and the advent of electronic trading revolutionised the way financial transactions were conducted. Wall Street’s influence extended far beyond the borders of the United States, with multinational corporations, foreign investors, and global financial institutions converging on the street to participate in the world’s largest and most liquid capital markets

The 1929 Wall Street Crash in which the

New York Stock Exchange saw a sharp decline in share prices in September led to the Great Depression. The Crash has been traced back to causes including an increase in bank loans, rising interest rates, and inflated stock prices. This resulted in the Great Depression, a catastrophic worldwide economic crisis that had an impact on numerous nations Businesses failed during this time, leading to the closure of factories and a sharp increase in unemployment. Thousands of families experienced starvation and between 5 and 10 million people perished during the Great Depression. Some managed to survive by cultivating their own gardens to yield food, even if it meant having to buy stale bread occasionally. The Crash only lasted four days, however the effects of the Great Depression didn’t finish until 1941.

After the Crash America took several steps to rebuild its economy. The government implemented various policies and programs such as the New Deal, to stimulate economic growth. They invested in infrastructure projects, created new jobs and regulated the financial sector to prevent future crises. These efforts, along with the industrial production during World War Two helped revive the economy and set the stage for its recovery.

In the 21st century, Wall Street has faced a myriad of challenges, including increased regulatory scrutiny, technological disruptions, and geopolitical uncertainties. The aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis prompted sweeping reforms aimed at safeguarding the stability and integrity of financial markets Additionally, the rise of fintech startups and the emergence of cryptocurrencies have reshaped the landscape of finance, challenging traditional business models and paving the way for new innovations and a future of more developments and adaptations in the way the financial markets operate.

A LONG VIEW OF CHINA’S ECONOMY

I s s y S n a p e

China has been an agrarian society for most of its history, similar to medieval Europe or civilisations of the northern and western Mediterranean. Where China differs is that as these Western agrarian civilisations saw relatively early commercial and industrial revolutions, China largely preserved its basic features for a significant period of time, experiencing industrialisation a lot later than the West. When that industrialisation did occur however, the pace and ferocity of change was a major shock to the world economy - China rising from a poor, developing country into a globally recognised, major economic power in only four decades, possibly the greatest acceleration of industrialisation ever seen and took the world economy by storm in doing so.

There are many different interpretations on why China experienced such a delay. One interpretation was the different societal mindsets, namely the difference as to whether people looked backwards, idolising the past and looking there for answers, or optimistically into the future. Joel Mokyr, an economic historian, believes that a culture of ‘interstate competition’ was a large driving factor. Hegemonic power is defined as dominant ruling in a political or social context. Mokyr says that as China was the regional hegemonic power, from the 17th century onwards, this culture of ‘interstate competition’ was nonexistent, therefore no threatening competitive development against other countries occurred and also no innovation was relatively needed. On the other hand, Europe was faced with no clear hegemonic power, therefore generated this ‘interstate competition’ that drove economic, cultural and

technological developments and progress. Additional factors include the fact that new revolutionary ideas which questioned or conflicted with this idolised past history and culture of China were vanquished, eliminating the room for new developments, therefore suppressing economic progress.

After their success in the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) have been implementing the FiveYear Plans, a set of social and economic development programmes in China, beginning in 1953 It all began with Mao Zedong, the leader at the time of the CCP. His main goal was to implement a socialist transformation in China, heavily influenced by methodologies seen in the Soviet Union. To understand how we got to China’s present economic state, we must look at the various different stages of economic development plans in China that took place since 1953.

The Beginning:

The First Five-Year Plan was mainly focused on industrial development, receiving funds, expertise and supplies from the Soviet Union In total Soviet advisors oversaw 156 industrial projects, contributing to about a half of industrial production. Northeast China, which had a large emphasis on industry, received the majority of the funds The government collectivised agrarian services whilst commercial services and industries were brought under the government through buyouts, sometimes coercively. This included financial pressures to persuade these private owners to sell or convert their companies and firms into joint public-private enterprises. Overall, this first plan was a success for the CCP as it particularly aligned directly with the Soviet-style development strategy. By the end, a heavy industrial base had been developed, as well as improved agriculture through efficiency, reorganisation and cooperation. By 1957 China had completed its socialist transformation of the domestic economy

This Second Five-Year Plan had even more ambitious objectives. This included expanding further heavy industry in China, advancing socialism by transferring more property to collective ownership, the promotion of economic growth in all industries, fostering cultural and scientific developments, and improving national defence and living standards The Political Bureau, which is the highest political organ of the central committee in communist parties, set a 270% increase target for the gross value of agricultural products. The outcome of that however was only a meek 35%. Despite that, the country saw increases in capital construction, industry output value doubled and income for workers and farmers increased as much as 30%. On the other hand, China saw a huge decrease in food production due to the fact that millions of agricultural workers were

diverted into industry. The Great Sparrow Campaign also contributed to this, leading to an infestation of locusts, mixed with the issue of unprecedented weather issues, overall diminishing food production entirely. Concurrently, the rural officers were hugely under pressure to meet their quotas, leading to an overstatement in grain availability. Consequently, a mass nationwide famine occurred The overall policies of the Second Plan differed from the original approach of a Soviet-inspired one, which stressed central command. This plan however had more responsibility placed on local areas In the early 1960s, attempts were undertaken to put millions of workers back into agricultural production, a direct comparison to the First Plan and a desperate act to solve the famine issues.

From 1963-1965 China saw no economic plans in place. Whilst the Third Plan was originally due in 1963, China’s economy was too incoherent due to the failure of the Great Leap Forward seen before. The Third Plan’s initial priority was to further develop China’s coastal areas and focus on consumer goods. However, Mao acknowledged that during the Great Leap Forward they “set revenue too high and extended the infrastructure battlefront too long, ” and that it was “best to do less and well” . This current plan instead prioritised national defence on the chance of a possible big war, actively preparing to fight back and improving and speeding up construction in national defence, science and technology, and industry and transport infrastructure. This was all evoked by the Gulf of Tonkin incident, an international confrontation that led to the US engaging more directly in the Vietnam War, which essentially raised fears among Chinese leaders that the US would invade China. The ‘Third Front construction’ was proposed and ultimately changed the direction of the plan altogether. The central government of the CCP had

drawn out a 1976-1985 Ten Year Plan Outline of Developing National Economy in 1975, which included the Fifth Five-Year plan. The original Ten-Year Plan was amended due to the impossible targets and unrealistic goals it set, including the government investing 70 billion yuan in infrastructure construction, equalling total national investment over the previous 28 years. At first, the Plan looked like a success. The gross output value of industry and agriculture reached roughly 500 billion yuan, around 4% above the target and an increase of 10% compared to the previous year. Gross domestic product also increased around 12% from the following year, totalling at around 300 billion yuan. However, these very high goals allowed for another set of mistakes. The Chinese economy had developed too quickly, allowing for inflation and potential unemployment. The CCP decided to shift its work focus to modernisation, emphasising that their development should follow economic rules. They proposed readjustment and reforms, which were formally put forward by the government in April 1979.

The Transition:

The seventh ten-year plan proposal illustrated a transition from the direct governmental oversight of enterprises to the utilisation of indirect macroeconomic

controls, aiming to "establish a new system for the socialist economy ” . It was the first time ever in Chinese history that a plan for social and economic development was created at the start of a new five-year plan. The Plan's objectives involved improving coastal development, while inland regions were designated to "support and expedite coastal development." Throughout this plan, Chinese regions were urged to capitalise on their specific strengths, for example coastal areas were directed to concentrate on restructuring traditional industries, establishing new industries, and enhancing consumer goods production Western regions were directed to concentrate on emphasising and processing agriculture Central regions focused on energy, construction and minerals.

During the 10th Five-Year Plan, there was a shift in planning objectives Instead of narrow and quantitative growth targets, they strategically focused on coordinating structural and qualitative changes in economic and social growth targets. The plan highlighted science, technology, and human resources as crucial areas for improvement to enable China to catch up with the most advanced countries in the West. Emphasis was placed on expanding the services sector, advancing domestic economic demand and promoting rural

urbanisation. The plan also addressed environmental sustainability, setting goals such as increasing forest coverage to 18.2%, elevating the urban green rate to 35% and targeting a 10% reduction in the total amount of pollutants released in comparison to 2000.

Present Day:

Implemented in 2011, the Twelfth FiveYear Plan guidelines were less focused on investment but more on prioritising development in rural and inland areas by distributing wealth, increasing domestic consumption and enhancing social infrastructure. Fast forward to the Fourteenth Five-Year plan, drafted with the backdrop of strained China-US relations and the COVID-19 pandemic. This plan aimed to boost the services sector, increase urbanisation and expand social safety. China also addressed its ageing population, seeking them to expand healthcare and retirement system initiatives while placing a strong emphasis on high-tech innovation.

Today, China holds the second-largest economy. It stands as an upper-middleincome nation with a mixed, socialist market economy, guided by the five-year plans and industrial policies mentioned earlier. The one sector that puts China behind the world’s largest economy, the United States, is economic performance. This is surprising as China is expected to overtake the size of the US economy by 2050, however, measuring China’s economy only by GDP can be deceptive because it hides the social inequality within the country. Instead, by applying GDP per capita, it shows a more accurate distribution of national income across the large population. GDP per capita in the United States measured $69,287.54 in 2021, compared to only $12,556.30 in China, highlighting the fact that the average income earned per person in the US is five times more than the average income of a

person in China. In addition, Western free trade agreements are constantly challenging China’s trading in an attempt to protect against their potential domination of the global economy The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TTP) excluded China from free trade from economic partners on both sides of the Pacific. When Trump removed the US from the TTP, the remaining countries created the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), inhibiting trade relations for China with Canada, Australia and Mexico. China is however negotiating several new free trade agreements, the most important being a free trade zone between South Korea and Japan. If this works, it will provide China with free trade access to the thirteenth and third largest economies respectively. Moreover, if China devotes itself to openness for more free trade agreements and also tackling poverty, it could reach its goal of becoming the largest economy in the world, not only in terms of economic growth but also social and economic equality

SHOULD THE BRITISH MUSEUM

GIVE BACK ITS ARTEFACTS?

E m i l y W i t h n e l l

We have all heard in the news that the British Museum is in trouble and the trouble revolves around the issue of theftboth now and in the past. In June 2021, former chancellor and now Chair of the British Museum, George Osborne reported around 2000 artefacts missing or stolen. The missing artefacts are mostly small pieces including gold jewellery, gems and pieces of glass dating back to the 19th century They were not on display but kept in a storeroom for academic research and study. Perhaps even more shockingly, such an event has brought to light the worrying fact that the British Museum might never know the true extent of what was lost due to socalled “ gaps in its inventory”. Sadly, when reflecting on the history of the British Museum's treatment and occupation of artefacts, this isn’t the first time something like this has happened

During the 1970s, the museum claimed historic coins and medals had been stolen.

In 1993, Roman coins and jewellery worth £250,000 were pilfered after thieves broke in via the roof. Some years later, in 2002, the museum had to review security after a 2,500-year-old Greek statue, believed to be worth around £25,000, was taken by a member of the public. The marble head was removed from the Greek Archaic Gallery which had been open to the public without a permanent guard on duty. Just two years later, in 2004, it was reported that 15 Chinese artefacts - including jewels, ornate hairpins and fingernail guards - had been taken by a member of the public. More recently, in 2017, it was revealed that an expensive Cartier diamond had actually been missing since 2011. All of these examples of sustained theft carried out throughout the decades are reflective of a systemic problem in regards to the safety of artefacts in the British Museum This ultimately brings us back to the age-old argument of “Should the British Museum return its artefacts?”.

Historically, the main reason the British Museum used to justify taking and keeping artefacts was that they would be safer if they remained in the museum. Now, this may have been true, for example, when the Elgin Marbles were initially taken in the early 19th century. Greece was under Ottoman rule and Lord Elgin apparently got permission from the Ottomans to take the sculptures to study them. He said it was to ‘ preserve history’ as the Ottomans had been using the Parthenon as munitions storage which had a potential of exploding, destroying all the artwork. Consequently, the British Museum built a special wing to display the sculptures as they would have been in the temple.

it is definitely safe for the artefacts to return to Greece. Indeed, the Acropolis Museum was built in 2009 as a safe place to house and protect artefacts. Since then, people have been determined for the marbles to return to their rightful place with the rest of the sculptures, especially since, according to aforementioned recent reports, the security at the British Museum seems relatively “lax” and negligent.

Nevertheless, the British museum continues to keep hold of many artefacts that were brought to England when the British Empire was at its peak, claiming it was to keep them ‘safe’. Now, many countries that were once colonies want to reclaim their artefacts and their history. For instance, Ethiopia wants the British Museum to return ceremonial crosses, weapons, jewellery, and sacred altar tablets taken from Maqdala in the north of the country during British military action in 1868. The Nigerian government has also formally asked the museum to return 900 Benin Bronzes and the ruler of Ghana's Asante people has pressed the museum to return multiple gold items in its collection.

So why does the British Museum keep all these stolen artefacts? Is it to highlight how powerful of an empire Britain was? Is it because it would be too expensive and

Firstly, they claim that they are bound by the law to keep all the artefacts. The 1963 British Museum Act prevents the institution from giving away objects from its collection except in very limited circumstances. Secondly, they claim that keeping the artefacts displayed in one place allows everyone access to see them, so they don’t have to make expensive journeys across the globe to learn about history. A final reason that the British Museum uses is that they claim to have a higher standard of care for the artefacts that they keep safe. But how true is this considering the successive pilferings that have been uncovered?

Additionally, it is known now that the pure white marble was not the original look of any Greek sculptures, they were actually beautifully painted in bright colours. Such paints had left traces on the marble, yet in the 1930s, Lord Duveen, dealer and benefactor of the British Museum and other institutions, demanded that the sculptures be scrubbed “clean” with wire brushes. This destroyed the remaining paint and permanently damaged the marble.

With evidence of this damage, worsening security and incomplete records, increasingly coming to light, demands are getting louder for artefacts and valuable pieces of history, to be returned to their original countries in an attempt to ‘right’ the wrongs of colonialism and perhaps to even keep them safe from the British Museum itself. This past year has been marked with increased calls for the repatriation of historical artefacts such as the Benin Bronzes. As more and more countries fight for their cultural property to be returned in order to assert their own national identities, the British Museum will continue to be challenged to rectify their historical wrongdoings.

CULTURE

THE WOMAN BEHIND THE LITTLE BLACK DRESS

S a d i e N i c h o l l s

Many of us are familiar with luxury fashion brand Chanel, with its prolific perfumes and consistently successful fashion collections But how much do you know about this history of the brand and its founder Coco, or rather, Gabrielle Chanel? She was undoubtedly a titan of the fashion industry, and the story of her life has come back into the public eye with the sellout exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum, where over 200 of her designs were on display in 2023. The exhibition spanned the entirety of her 60-year career and focused on her close links with Britain. The focus of this article though, is to reveal the woman behind the icon and, in so doing, reveal her links to some of the most significant historical and political events of the twentieth century.

Born on the 19th of August 1883, Gabrielle Bonheur Chanel was not born into the life of luxury and opportunities that we might expect but instead in a workhouse in Saumur, France to her unmarried mother This was already a hard start in the late 19th century with the restrictive social expectations for women, but it got worse when her mother died of tuberculosis and Chanel’s father abandoned her and all her siblings in an orphanage run by nuns. Despite the complicated relationship with her father, it was rumoured to be him who initially gave her the nickname Coco.

Against all odds, she was able to start her first business selling hats in 1909, after obtaining employment as a

seamstress and receiving financing from Arthur Capel, whom she was having an affair with at the time. By 1915, she was opening her third shop and employing over 300 workers. One of her most successful businesses was her perfume company but this was also where she made one of her biggest mistakes which she went on to regret for the rest of her career In 1921, she launched her first scent called Chanel No.5, and in an attempt to raise funds to expand, she agreed to sell 70% of shares to Piere Wertheimer. The Wertheimer family still currently plays an important role in Chanel, with Piere Wertheimer’s grandsons co-owning the Chanel Company. This would have been much to Chanel’s disappointment. She tried for years to take back complete control of her company. In 1941, she even went as far as to attempt to use the law implemented by the

Vichy government banning Jews from

owning their own business against the Wertheimers, but this ultimately failed.

This leads on to the darker side of Chanel: the side which would stop at nothing to get what she wanted. The side which is not mentioned on the Chanel website. Instead, the website describes its founder endearingly as “ an inspiration for all women ” . It is impossible to deny the impressiveness of her achievements as she pioneered not only in fashion, but also as a businesswoman during a time when women were harshly bound by societal expectations. However, to idolise her like this is to hide away the truth about Chanel’s past, which is still being debated today. The allegation against her is that she was a Nazi agent during World War II. Whilst she was never charged and it remains a highly controversial topic, there are some facts which we know for certain We do know that Chanel started a relationship with Baron Hans Guenther von Dincklage (an agent for the Nazi military intelligence service, the Abwehr) in 1940. The accusations against Chanel vary in severity, the harsher ones relating to how she was registered as Abwehr agent F-7124 in 1941. This has been recorded in the Abwehr’s Berlin Registry and in French Police Intelligence reports. She was even

given the code name Westminster, referencing her close friend and former lover, the Duke of Westminster.

In addition, it is claimed that Chanel travelled with Baron Louis de Vaufreland, a friend of Dincklage, to Spain in the summer of 1941. Both French and British files describe the trip as part of an ongoing German military intelligence effort to recruit new agents willing to serve Germany. However, what they did there remains unknown, as all Spanish World War II archives were destroyed In 1943, Chanel made another trip, this time to Berlin. There she met SS intelligence chief, General Schellenberg. This is known to have happened as it is contained in the 1945 British Secret Service transcript of Schellenberg’s statements made during interrogation, which match up with historical records. There they planned a second trip to Madrid, given the code name Modellhut. The aim was for Chanel to use her personal connections, established in earlier trips to England, to get a letter to Prime Minister Churchill. In order to complete this mission, they needed the help of Vera Lombardi, a mutual friend of Chanel and Churchill who was to act as an intermediary, delivering Chanel’s letter to Churchill. The contents of the letter have never been revealed but ultimately the mission failed when Lombardi condemned Chanel and her associates as German spies to the British Authorities upon her arrival in Madrid. The failure of operation Modellhut is speculated to have led to the end of Chanel’s work in facilitating Nazi operations, as in Schellenberg’s statement he said that after this all contact was dropped with her.

Chanel is portrayed as a collaborator, who repeatedly disregarded her moral conscience and only acted out of selfinterest. However, no person is this black and white and there are more layers to

Chanel’s story. It is important to know that Chanel’s nephew André, whom she had raised herself after her sister tragically died, was taken as a prisoner of war by the Nazis in 1940, just before Chanel began her relationship with Dincklage. The only way she would ever be able to safely get him back was through a powerful Nazi official, which we can only assume was a crucial reason she decided to have a relationship with Dincklage. Regardless of motivations, Chanel was successful in securing her nephew’s return to Paris. It is speculated that in her initial meeting with Vaufreland, he convinced her that he could arrange André’s freedom and return to Paris. By the time she returned from her trip to Spain, her nephew had in fact been brought back to France. This information could shift our understanding of Chanel away from a heartless and power-hungry businesswoman towards a fearful and concerned aunt desperate to help her nephew. On top of this, it cannot be proved that Chanel was at all aware that she had been registered as an Abwehr agent because there is no evidence to support the idea that she did know. Although this cannot alter the choices she made, it does provide the context which is needed if we are to criticise her.

Moreover, it is more difficult still to come to a conclusion on Chanel’s actions throughout World War 2 as new evidence is still coming to light. Hal Vaughan’s book Sleeping with the Enemy was published in 2011 and accumulated many documents and evidence against Chanel that had not been previously considered. Although he doesn’t claim she was a spy, he pushes the idea that she played a key role as a Nazi facilitator. There has also been more recent evidence that has emerged in the V&A’s Gabrielle Chanel: Fashion Manifesto Exhibition, which did not fail to address the fashion icon’s wartime records. The curator of the exhibition Oriole Cullen made sure that alongside over 50 tweed suits displayed, there were also documents providing strong evidence for her collaboration with the Nazis but interestingly, alongside other documents showing her involvement with the French Resistance. The previously unseen evidence showed the name “Gabrielle AKA Coco Chanel” on a list where she is registered as an occasional agent for the ERIC network, a branch of the Resistance with links to British Intelligence. There was also an attestation document for Chanel displayed; these documents were given to those whom French Government officials

verified as having taken part in the Resistance. This newly unearthed evidence of Chanel’s involvement in the resistance adds to the complexity of her character and raises many new questions Was she a double agent? Or did she only become part of the Resistance to protect herself?

These questions remain unanswerable and heavily debated, but a question that can be answered is what happened to her next. After France’s liberation, the country took harsh measures against all collaborators, executing many of those who had been involved with the Nazi regime and shaving the heads of women who were called “horizontal collaborators”, for having relationships with German soldiers during the war. Chanel, however, was never convicted for any of her actions and never even had her head shaved despite her relationship with Dincklage Chanel did undergo investigation immediately after the end of World War II; she was arrested and interrogated but never charged. The groups interrogating her likely had no knowledge of the extent of her involvement with the Nazi regime, but it is also suspected that Chanel remained free due to the help of Churchill, though there is no proof of this. A second investigation was opened against Chanel in 1946, as by this point documents implicating her as an Abwehr agent had been discovered. She insisted that she didn’t know about this and when explaining her first trip to Spain with Vaufreland she asserted that they had met on the train by coincidence and that she was travelling to promote her perfumes, an entirely plausible story. The court never referred to her relationship with Dincklage, her meeting with Schellenberg or her second trip to Madrid. The judges possibly did not see the French Intelligence files on these events or for political reasons intentionally ignored her interactions with the SS. Having escaped conviction she took refuge in Switzerland for several years before making a surprise

comeback into fashion, reopening her couture fashion house in 1953 after 15 years of closure. Without this return, we would have never seen the iconic trimmed tweed suits she is renowned for or the classic 2.55 quilted bag. Unsurprisingly, her first collection when she came back did not see positive reviews from France, suggesting there was some resentment towards her and her wartime actions. But praise from America meant Chanel continued to be a formidable businesswoman until her death in 1971.

To this day the question remains the same: who was the real Coco Chanel? An inimitable and visionary fashion designer? A Nazi agent, a French Resistance supporter, a loving Aunt, or a ruthless businesswoman? Maybe she fulfilled all these titles. One title she undoubtedly deserves is survivor, but at what cost?

CULTURE

THE DEVELOPMENT OF K-POP: EMPOWERED BY MUSIC

G l a d y s L a m

"

안녕하세요" (ahn-nyeong-ha-se-yo), people in East Asia turn their heads in curiosity when they hear Korean spoken in the streets. Maybe a lot of us will perk up our ears when we hear “Gangnam Style”. “What is happening?” you might ask Have you never heard of K-pop? Today, the infectious melodies and charismatic artists of Korean pop music has become a worldly trend but more importantly, Kpop has become a landmark of globalisation as a story about how a seemingly isolated country found its voice to connect with the world.

Before it became the contemporary excitement we see today, Korean music hid in the colourful night club districts of 1950 where artists were first exposed to western music. Jazz and trot blared from American radios and concerts performed by superstars like Marilyn Monroe pushed pioneering musicians to take their chances on making a name for themselves in America. Perhaps the most eye-catching of them all were the Kim Sisters who became the favourite guests to be invited to The Ed Sullivan Show 21 times Though they gained success in the US, the Kims were constrained by America’s narrow ideas of East Asia and their first album, produced by Monumental Records, contained a confusing mix of “oriental” sounds and American songs. Indeed, the producers of tv shows patronised them for their “foreignness” but little did they know that this was only the beginning of the Korean Wave.

The younger generation from the 1960s grew under Western influence which brought exciting things like jeans, unruly

hairstyles, rock and folk music “Youth culture” burst into public view starting with the debut of Korea’s first ever rock song Woman in the Rain which was followed by the rise of other “ group sounds” like Add4 and the Key Boys similarly influenced by the Beatles. However, not everyone agreed with the clamouring liveliness of pop culture, Park Jung Hee’s authoritarian regime, for one, labelled these music as “unhealthy”.

In response to this generation clash, more young artists began to pick up their guitars and folk music became their way of expressing their rage and hope. Han Dae Su’s To the Land of Happiness became an anthem for politicised young Koreans In his song, he wishes to see the world through the curtains, feel the breeze outside the window and “turn the pages of youth and temptation”. The references to the regime seemed so vague, it could have passed as a simple song to praise youth but to people at the time, it voiced their most

sincere hopes for a country of happiness. Despite their wishes, the 70s was underlined with more censorship of “unhealthy” songs , peaking in 1975 with more than 200 each of Korean and foreign songs that had “negative influences on national security” or “pessimistic contents”.

Following the death of Park in 1979,Korea had seen the fruit of industrialisation and exportation, growing to become one of the biggest economies in Asia. Yet, one thing was absent to restore true peace. It was democracy

A series of democratic movements swept across South Korea in the 1980s, music continued its purpose to illustrate the mood in society and to heal its audience amidst strikes, deaths and struggles. Ballads, with its harmonious nature sometimes combined with jazz elements, became the main trend in pop music. They were perfect when paired with skilfully crafted lyrics that spoke to everyone about gentle love and hope for the future. During the sixth form history trip to the Allied Museum, we saw a display about Kim Kwang Seok’s cover of The Private’s Letter. The song is a letter from a young man to his family and friends as he leaves for mandatory military service. In his monologue, the soldier said farewell to the “dream of his youth,” fearing that he would forget his town but later, he realised that it was only the beginning of his life and found the courage for his first mission after sending his letter back home.

Soon, the constitutional reform in 1987 that consolidated democracy for presidential elections marked a new chapter of Korean history. Music became flamboyant again as the band Seo TaiJi and Boys came into the spotlight in the 1990s. They introduced street dance and street fashion into their performances, bringing American hip hop to the main trend. The

band brought new elements to their audiences again and again, Jamaican styled rap with Korean lyrics, rock and roll elements and traditional Korean instruments in pop songs. In fact, Seo TaiJi and Boys were so popular, they were the first band to have an official fanclub in Korea, making them the first “idols”. Along with Seo TaiJi, more and more artists and bands like H.O.T. arose experimenting with similar styles, pushing the music industry to be livelier than ever.

In 1994, the Korean government published a report that compared the revenue of a big blockbuster, famously using Jurassic Park as an example, to 1.5 million Hyundai cars, which was Korea’s main export at the time At that moment, Korea saw the chance to be involved in the limelight of a global stage. By increasing the Cultural Budget by 600% during the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997, K-pop was set to reestablish Korea’s international image and to explore the “unlimited markets awaiting” in the words of President Kim Dae Jung.

Most of us, for example, could picture PSY’s horse riding dance when we hear the intro of Gangnam Style. Hot on the heels of the first Hallyu, came the second in 2012 when Gangnam Style became the first video to reach 1 billion views on YouTube Soon, globalisation became a norm for k-pop as if the world hasn’t been able to take its eyes off other K-pop groups like BTS, BLACKPINK, NewJeans and more. Today, K-pop fans span across continents, only 10% of fans being Korean. Though popular across the world, Korean pop never left its roots as artists still sing in Korean and wear modernised Hanbok as stage costumes. It is this element of being culturally Korean that the global audience always finds K-pop refreshing. Another aspect of modern K-pop is artists’ vocalness about issues like mental health and gender equality. BTS’ album Love Yourself is composed of songs that seek to be compassionate and talk about confidence to their listeners, relating to young people all around the world.

Along with K-pop, there’s K-beauty, Kdrama, gaming and technology… Whether we like it or not, Korean culture has seeped into our lives one way or another and none

of us are really strangers to the name South Korea anymore. This is the soft power that Korea wields in the world that never influences others by threats but through captivating the genuine curiosity and imagination of its audiences. In the case of North Korea, K-pop can even be a weapon of infiltration as South Korea has been blasting K-pop with other propagandas across the border to the North for years. Hence, it is not uncommon for North Korean soldiers to be arrested for dancing or listening to BTS.

Furthermore, during the Korean Summit in 2018, South Korea’s ministry of defence had to promise to switch off their speakers to enable a peaceful exchange in the DMZ when Kim Jong Un stepped in South territory for the first time. Moreover, Kpop artists like Red Velvet were allowed to perform in Pyongyang to which President Kim admitted that he was “deeply moved”. Additionally, South Korea’s international presence has been growing in recent years through its soft power in events like BTS’ speech in the United Nation about youth wellbeing and BLACKPINK’s recent acceptance of honorary MBEs from King Charles for their roles as advocates in the COP26 climate summit Which brought headlines about South Korea’s green technology, new concerns about vaccines for children in need along with fans’ excitement about BTS’ performance after their speech

It’s surprising how as K-Pop continues to evolve, it has transformed from local folk music to a global movement that contributes to a more interconnected and culturally diverse world. Through ages of war, dictatorships and peace, Korea’s music continues to accompany all its listeners and strive for international applause until Korea is no longer the quiet corner of East Asia remembered by the name of a war but remembered as the home of song and dance.

CULTURE

100 YEARS OF ROM COMS

M a y a G o r d o n

The first rom-rom film is commonly agreed to have been released in 1924, so the genre is 100 years old and is celebrating its centenary this year. Why do people even watch romantic comedies? They are not the most exciting films: they can be overly formulaic, predictable, cliché and awkward when done incorrectly. It is evident that rom-coms can also promote unrealistic and unhealthy expectations of love and relationships. Yet if you asked anybody you knew if they had seen at least one, almost everybody would say: yes.

The way that they have been perceived in the past has less to do with the watchers understanding and more to do with what the producers, directors and writers want

you to take away Romantic comedies, often dubbed rom-coms, reflect what is, and was, popular at the time. From fashion to body standards to even behaviour, the time a film was made has everything to do with the way it will be perceived Nowadays, rom-coms focus on having a diverse cast and a romance that does not always play from a heteronormative viewpoint, to add variation from the previously white, thin and straight perspective; for instance, Crazy Rich Asians was released in 2018, starring a predominantly Asian cast, and it quickly became the sixth-highest-grossing romantic comedy ever, proving how much people craved a refreshing and new take on the genre We can now question whether the film industry can keep successfully adapting the rom com structure in order to maintain the interest of the audience, or if the glory days of rom coms ended with the early 2000s

Many say that the original creator of the romantic comedy was Shakespeare. Plays such as Twelfth Night and Much Ado About Nothing have been called the first-ever rom-coms. The tropes mentioned in them are still prevalent today such as, ‘ everyone can see it but them’, ‘rebel with a heart of gold’, and ‘star-crossed lovers’. Despite the outdated terms and sexist ideals commonly mentioned in Shakespeare's plays, modern retellings of them have become popular and beloved. She’s the Man is a loose retelling of Twelfth Night and focuses on the love square between Viola, Duke Orsino, Olivia and Sebastian. In the original play, Viola pretends to be a man so that she can pursue a career (as women in Elizabethan times did not have the opportunity) however in the remake she

pretends to be a man so that she is allowed to join the boys’ football team, as there was no funding or support for a girls’ team. The play was adapted for a modern audience but still displays the main plot and themes of injustice and inequality between men and women, as well as misunderstandings and disguise This relatability and realism is the fundamental tool that has ensured rom-coms have stayed relevant throughout many decades and centuries.

Girl Shy is one of the first two rom-coms to make it on the screen in 1924. It was hugely popular and became one of the ten highest grossing films in the year of its release It contains an incredibly common element seen in many romance films today: the ‘meet-cute’. Defined as ‘ an amusing or charming first encounter between two characters’, the meet-cute has become an important part of rom coms. The classic feature further solidified the reputation that romantic comedies inspire unreasonable desires for love. A main part of the plot is that the main character wrote a book on ‘The Secret of Making Love’- a manual designed to instruct men on how to woo women A direct quote from the foreword is ‘it is very easy to win the heart of any woman, providing you know the

correct method to use ’ suggesting that all women have the same desires and aspirations centred around finding a male suitor. Despite that, the film is actually quite endearing and ends with a humorous chase scene to stop a wedding caused by miscommunication. It was around the 1940s, with the release of The Philadelphia Story that rom-coms changed for the better. With the help of Katherine Hepburn, the female love interests in films began to be more headstrong, driven and smart They also realised that they did not have to wait for men to chase them and could pursue people themselves. Originally, the films where she played a “stronger” woman were less popular, most likely due to the social norms of the time being that women should be modest and submissive, however that did change. As women gained more social freedoms and rights in the working and political world, this was reflected in film, and especially romantic-comedies.

The 1990s and 2000s saw a flurry of romantic comedies. Julia Roberts took the screen by storm and starred in: Pretty Woman, Notting Hill, My Best Friend’s Wedding, and many more Pretty Woman was released in 1990 and is the secondhighest-grossing rom-com ever (the first

being My Big Fat Greek Wedding) despite there being some controversy about the archaic idea that women (specifically sex workers in this instance) are damsels in distress requiring men to save them. On the contrary, 10 Things I Hate About You was made in the same decade but nine years later, and focused on how women can be independent. The film is loosely based on Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew- once again proving how relevant his plays are in modern day romance- and follows Kat Stratford and her ‘I don’t need a man ’ attitude. Unlike many other female love interests, Kat never changes herself to please Patrick (the male love interest) and remains her usual, snarky self even after they *spoiler* get together. The comparison of these two films shows how much relationship ideals can change in a decade.

The term ‘chick-flick’ was around as early as the 1930’s however it did not become a common phrase until the 80s and 90s, when rom-coms started to properly focus more on the woman ’ s point-of-view. Whilst rom-coms can be feminine, the branding insinuated that they were not suitable to be enjoyed by men, which may have contributed to the decline in production of rom-coms in the 2010’s. At

this time, studios were very focused on producing big, blockbuster films that would make huge amounts of money and a genre run by women and repressed by stereotypes was not going to do that. So, inevitably, rom-coms died out for a bit... until lockdown

A depressing, distressing, disheartening pandemic. What could anybody crave more than a fluffy and romantic film? The reemergence of the romantic-comedy was tied to the fact that streaming services were much more accessible than the cinema and people did not mind wasting time watching a cheesy feel good film if they were comfortable in their own home. Titles like: ‘To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before’ and ‘The Kissing Booth’ were immensely popular on Netflix and rekindled the love for a good rom-com.

So finally, to answer the question: why do we watch rom-coms? For people who like to dream, their wholesome nature provides scope for the imagination and for people with a more realistic outlook on life, romcoms can be a reminder that not everything is like Hollywood, and that’s okay. Either way, the films reflect culture and society at its finest and utilise what is most liked by the people, making them so agreeable and an important tool to deliver moral messages subliminally And, if the thirst for diverse and unique stories continues, then the future of romantic comedy looks extremely bright.

THE PERCEPTION OF THE AMERICAN DREAM THROUGH TIME

attain to the fullest extent of what they are innately capable of.” Essentially, this highlights how ‘the Dream’ is that people should be able to attain their own personal success in a society where everyone is on a level playing field to begin with and the main factors for this success are the individual’s own talent, determination and efforts

This does, however, completely disregard that a person ’ s initial social class will inherently play a role in how successful ‘the Dream’ plays out for them Recent research indicates that in the United States the rate of upward income mobility (the percentage of children that grow up to earn more than their parents before them) has massively declined over the past 50 years.

While in 1940, the American Dream seemed very attainable with over 90% of American children earning higher incomes as adults than their parents did, nowadays only half of today’s children do the same. Meanwhile, richer children who have been given a starting advantage are far more likely to stay in the same high social class or earn even more than their parents did. New studies suggest that poorer smarter people are 50% less likely to succeed in life compared to their affluent less talented peers.

On the other hand, the American dream set forth on the roots “prosperity for all” understandably has its roots in consumerism. Perceived social prosperity is highly dependent on financial stability. In fact, the cost of the American dream in 2024 - the estimated expense of common milestones in life such as marriage and raising children is $3 4 million!

Nowadays, the desire to spend and spend has heightened and the value of success in the American dream acts as an encouragement for this highly materialistic consumption ritual. Today the dream is increasingly defined by purchasing material items and flaunting wealth rather than simply having financial security and being able to sustain the common milestones of life. There is nothing explicitly wrong with enjoying certain luxuries and indulgences. In order to lead a comfortable life, we are inclined to invest money in many things: holidays abroad, eating out and about, new clothes; things we don’t need but understandably want for a better life.

But when modern self-care has become about buying more and more tailored products and the urge to treat ourselves becomes the urge to spend; when fast fashion is bought in bulk and reaches the landfill soon after; when every time of celebration is an excuse to excessively splash out, it is time to realise that the American dream had come to be defined by material gain. How did the American dream let this happen though?

Well, after WW2’s high rates of wartime production adults of the 1940s saw a significant rise in their spending power. After the lack of consumer goods during the war they were desperate to spend. Businesses realised this and began to tailor their products to the desires of their consumers in order to increase their sales. Ever since, companies and industries as a

whole have become more effective at making the ‘want’ of their products feel like a ‘need’ through sneaky advertising tactics, decoy products and the encouragement of competition among consumers. As a result, the American population feels inclined to keep consuming, as an act to improve their quality of life and gain the ‘prosperity’ that the Dream epitomises. Statistics show that Americans spend an average of 1.2 trillion dollars annually on non-essential goods and roughly 48% of Americans feel they need to spend more money to feel ‘ more fulfilled in life’.

Finally, I want to focus on how the perception of the American Dream has changed over time by looking at those who may seem unlikely to achieve the Dream.

While I went into this article expecting to see a disillusioned view of the Dream among immigrant communities, given the rise in hostility towards immigrants in American politics over the last 20 years, I have to say I am pleasantly surprised. That is not to say that the situation of American politics and mass media in which antiimmigrant rhetoric is becoming more common is not concerning, but it’s despite this that immigrants remain the most optimistic set of people towards the fulfilment of the American dream.

1st generation immigrant parents from the working class in particular are the most common believers in a better life for their children. This attitude implements a sense of hard work and determination for 2nd generation children, who as a result are more likely to fulfil their version of the Dream and go further in life than the rest of the working class. New research shows that in recent years children of immigrants have higher rates of upward social mobility than the children of those born in the US. There is nothing these children have, no secret formula to success but their

own perspective and worldview. Many immigrants that come to the US leave behind awful situations in their home countries and are therefore far more determined for their children to have a better chance than they did and be prosperous in life. Also sadly, for immigrants, the hardship of achieving the dream hasn’t fully sunk in yet. Newer working class immigrants have yet to embrace the materiality of the dream, that is much harder to fulfil across generations. While, for 2nd generation immigrants the Dream is within reach studies suggest that this optimism towards approaching it is limited beyond the 3rd generation

Anyways, it’s safe to say the Dream has certainly been transformed from its original meaning and become more and more unattainable to most of society To achieve it you need a head start in lifeeither a completely optimistic perspective of it or to have been born into a family with a large house and a white picket fence already But there is no denying that the legacy of the Dream has shaped the American culture and way of life quite like no other belief. From an economic, social and political standpoint it has certainly rocked American society and redefined what it means to be American.

CULTURE

FAMOUS MUGSHOTS THROUGH TIME

S h a r i B a s s i

Throughout time, crime has been prominent all over the world The justice system has put millions of criminals as well as anyone who opposed the rules and regulations of the time, behind bars for years, and the documentation of this is the mugshots. Over the years, some of these have become very well known to the public. One of the most known mugshots from recent times is the infamous Donald Trump, who was arrested in Georgia in 2023 for racketeering and conspiracy, which made me think: how did we get here? How has the publication of famous mugshots through time changed, and how have they affected our response to famous arrests?

Donald Trump is a key example of a modern celebrity who provoked a large response from his arrest. As Trump’s guilty face made the front of all the newspapers, the public had two very different responses: the Trump supporters

were furious, and those who never supported him or anything he did were over the moon. Crystal Myers-Barber, a 51 year old Republican from California told BBC news that “He looks very upset and actually disgusted. It makes me very sad to see this.” The truly terrifying thing about this is that the age of his supporters start from as young as 18, which is the youngest you can be to vote in general elections in the USA. 22 year old Republican, Luke from New York told the BBC “Regardless, the Trump campaign is going to use this image to fundraise - and they will make a fortune,” showing the unbelievable amount of faith he has in Trump. On the other hand, there were widely published responses to Trump’s arrest from international magazines, which were more critical of him. The French magazine ‘Le Monde’ stated that "The result is a weakened judiciary and a democracy under increasing strain," indicating that Trump’s arrest does not only paint a poor image of him in people’s heads, but also worsens the US political system as a whole. On top of this, the German daily newspaper, ‘Tagesspiegel’ wrote an article titled ‘He Had it Coming,’ and, whilst China did not have this case headlining their newspapers, there was lots of talk about it on the social media site, ‘Weibo,’ where a trending hashtag that said that Trump could face 136 years in prison if he was found guilty received more than 340 million views and over 11,000 comments This widespread international reaction shows not only how many people had an opinion on Trump’s arrest, but also how different the publication of his arrest was all over the world If we go to Minneapolis, May 2020, we arrive at the tragic death of

George Floyd, after he was arrested and suffocated by police officer Derek Chauvin. This fired up a huge response from the media, as the racial injustice was published everywhere, including mainstream news companies, Twitter, Instagram, and most memorably, TikTok. The reason for this was because George Floyd was discovered to have been innocent but died as a result of Chauvin’s violence during his arrest. Almost a year after the event, Chauvin’s own mugshot was plastered up on all major news channels in America after he pleaded guilty and was charged with the murder of George Floyd. ABC, NBC, and CBS all came together to announce his imprisonment, showing the chokehold this case had on the States due to the high publicity. This ruling made the public feel as though justice had been served, as this case was up in the air for so long before he was finally imprisoned, showing that the media perhaps aided the judiciary in making their final decision.

Travelling further back in time, we arrive in 1960s America, at the height of the Civil Rights Movement. Before the Civil Rights Movement, there was a very clear divide between black American citizens and white American citizens, including different schools, different seating areas in restaurants, and unfair seating on public buses. However, thankfully there were people willing to fight for the rights of black Americans, and eventually black citizens all over the world. The story of the infamous Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat for a white person on a public bus in Alabama, which led to her arrest When

Parks refused to give up the seat on the bus, she triggered a key part of the civil rights movement: the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Her arrest inspired others to fight for equal rights for African Americans, including the powerful Martin Luther King. Many recognise him as ‘the man who had a dream,’ but he is so much more than that. Yes, his impactful speech had an effect on African Americans all over the world, and whilst it changed the course of history, he did so much more than just give a speech. He led a demonstration in Birmingham 1963 with the intention of protesting for civil rights, which led to him being arrested. Actually, Martin Luther

King was arrested 29 times for fighting for civil rights and was headlining newspapers all over the world. If we compare this to politics today, rather than an ex-president being arrested, and embarrassing the nation, it’s a man fighting for the future of the nation. However, if we compare this to the George Floyd case, there are similarities in the events themselves, but the publication of the mugshots is interesting. In 2020, the image of the white police officer who murdered George Floyd occupied the front pages of all the newspapers, portraying him as the villain. However, in 1963, when Martin Luther King was arrested yet again, trying to make the country better for so many people, his mugshot was in the news, portraying him as the villain. It is interesting to see through the changing perceptions of mugshots how society has progressed in many ways. Taking the case of Martin Luther King in our society today he is viewed as a great hero in American history

this demonstrates just how far society has developed since MLK’s time and how the world treats everyone fairer than they did.

Stepping back another few years, we arrive in the early 1900s: the Suffragette movement. This is another key part of our history where people, not only in the USA but also in the UK, are fighting for the rights of a particular group, and trying to improve their future. This was arguably one of the most brutal times in British history, as the era involved police violence, force feeding and unfortunately death. One of the most infamous women who died fighting for this cause is Emily Davison, who walked in front of a horse to draw attention to the group, and the articles about her death did not do her justice. One of them quotes that Davison’s actions was “ a suffragist mad act” and stated that “the king’s horse was brought down,” rather than focusing on the death of a woman who fought for the rights of

women. However, prior to this, Davison was one of the thousands of women who were arrested multiple times for being a part of the suffragettes and spent lots of short, frequent time in jail Her mugshot constantly headlined every newspaper in the UK, which raised awareness of the cause to everyone. The publication of her mugshot was similar to the ones I’ve talked about as it raised awareness of the Suffragettes, but the article portrays the victim negatively, which is different to modern times. As well as Davison, another famous woman who put everything into the suffragette movement was Emmeline (Emily) Pankhurst, who was arrested multiple times, along with her own daughters. Her mugshot was seen by everyone at the time, which meant that, similarly, she educated men and women of the time about the unequal treatment of women. Pankhurst’s mugshot had such a widespread effect that she was named “ woman of the 20th Century,” which just goes to show the impact of her actions.

Now, if we return to 2024, we realise how far we ’ ve come since women in politics were fighting for basic rights. But have we really come anywhere? Let’s review: we started 100 years ago with people being arrested for fighting for the future of women. Then we moved to about 70 years ago when many were arrested for working to improve the future of black people. Now, Donald Trump is planning riots, all faith in US politics has been lost and our futures look like nothing will change. Not to mention racism is still very much present in today’s society, as seen by the death of George Floyd. So what did all these people suffer for? What was the point in publicising those mugshots so widely if nothing is going to change? What we really need is that fire, that passion that so many famous historical figures had to try and improve our lives. Will those mugshots make us, or break us?

HOW DID WE GET TO SUCH A POINT OF ENVIROMENTAL CRISIS?

O l i v i a H u d s o n

Although the climate crisis appears to be a modern phenomenon, it has been a long time in the making. This past December marked the 28th annual Conference of Parties (COP) in Dubai, in which countries from across the globe gathered to discuss the question of how we can stop the climate crisis. With over 100,000 people in attendance, almost every country on the planet was represented, making it the largest COP event to date.

The concluding statement of the summit called for “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050”. This was a highly significant moment, marking the first time that a goal to reduce consumption of all fossil fuels, coal, gas and oil, has been agreed upon by the governments of the

world. Dimming these successes, however, was the first Global Stocktake that demanded each nation evaluate how well they are working towards the goals outlined by the 2015 Paris Agreement. This resulted in the disappointing news that no major country is on track to meet the aim of limiting the rise in global temperature to well below 2°C. This has led many countries to feel concerned that the concluding statement of the COP28 negotiations was not forceful enough, and that more aggressive action must be taken to prevent the progression of climate change.

But how is it that we have reached such a severe point of environmental crisis?

The environmental changes all began with the First Industrial Revolution. The movement, concentrated in the United

Kingdom and lasting from the mid 18th century to the early 19th century, can be defined by its pioneering scientific and technological developments. It was emblematic of a new era in which steampowered machines led the manufacturing process, instead of humans. This change had a plethora of impacts on life as it was known, increasing production and efficiency, lowering prices of goods and in turn their accessibility to consumers, increasing wages, and leading to mass migration from rural to urban areas. However, lying in the shadows of these great developments was a dark truth of environmental destruction: natural resources were exploited, industrial city air became heavy with layers of smog, and rivers were turned into wastelands for factory pollution.

But if the First Industrial Revolution was a monster, the Second Industrial Revolution was a beast.

No period saw more industrial changes than the Second Industrial Revolution. The almost historically unparalleled movement lasting from the late 19th century to the early 20th century created globalised, rather than just national,

advancements. Occurring in Britain, continental Europe, North America and Japan, this wave of industrialisation brought about new inventions in the way energy was produced and used, heralding the use of electricity in the industrial sector and putting a focus on steel production. Additionally to coal-fuelled factories, the use of oil became commonplace

Although the environmental impacts of the First Industrial Revolution were severe, the containment of these advances within the UK and northern Europe meant that, globally, environmental impacts weren’t significant. However, the spread of industrialisation to the entire world in the Second Industrial Revolution had enormous environmental repercussions

As you probably know, fossil fuels produce greenhouse gases which trap the heat from the sun, causing an enhanced greenhouse effect, which leads to global warming and climate change. The beginning of climate change is most strongly linked to this second wave of industrialisation, meaning the Second Industrial Revolution can be considered a watershed moment, changing the relationship between humans and the environment forever.

It is very easy to criticise the impacts of industrialisation with the gift of hindsight, but the truth is that contemporary figures did not understand the long-term impacts of their actions The only issues they were able to recognise were any visible signs of decay, such as polluted rivers, but not problems of the atmosphere. So when did alarm bells start to ring?

In 1938, a little-known scientist named Guy Callendar discovered that global temperatures had risen by 0.3°C in the last 50 years and he correlated this finding of global warming with the carbon dioxide emissions produced in industry. Unfortunately, other scientists thought it was impossible for humans to impact such

large systems as the climate and Callendar’s amateur status made the grave findings easy to dismiss. With the rise of Adolf Hitler and threat of war looming over Europe, climate concerns were put on the backburner for another decade.

Moving into the 1950s and 1960s, further developments in climate science began to increase the pressure on the world’s governments to finally address the big climate question. In 1968, for the first time ever, environmental issues received serious attention by major UN organs, as the Economic and Social Council decided to create a United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, later entitled the First Earth Summit. This was to be held in 1972 to set out principles for the preservation of the environment. This growing concern and interest in green issues was evident in the rise of environmentalists groups and emergence of green parliamentary parties in the 1970s in many countries.

Tracking forwards to the Third Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) instituted an international environmental treaty to counter "dangerous human interference with the climate system". This action gave rise to the Conference of the Parties (COP), which are the crucial meetings of UNFCCC signatory countries to address climate change, the 28th of these being held at the end of last year.

Although the past 50 years have shown action being taken against the climate crisis, as COP28 discovered, every nation is behind in their climate targets. It seems that there is always a political issue deemed more important, and more pressing than the ongoing climate emergency, making the governments of the world continue to ignore the impact humans are having on the environment. But history tells us that climate change is not a recent issue, but a product of the last two centuries which persists to build further, meaning we cannot afford to ignore it any longer. We are reaching a climactic point that demands large-scale change and as the pressure ramps up, only time will tell if we can take the heat

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENTS

AN OVERVIEW OF PROSTHETICS

S e y r a m A m e a d a h

Today, with the advent of Artificial Intelligence and advancements in scientific fields, prosthetics have become increasingly intuitive and multifunctional. 2023 saw the development of a new bionic hand that allowed users to control each finger with unprecedented precision. Indeed, AI powered prosthetics now focus on improving sensory feedback allowing users to experience increasingly more ‘natural’ limb-to brain engagement Yet, it is by looking into the past that we are able to assess the revolutionary advances in prosthetics that have improved accessibility and usability and appreciate the seismic shift that has occurred.

Prostheses were created as a solution to replace body parts lost due to congenital limb differences or because of an illness, disease, severe infection or in an accident. These range from external attachments such as arms and legs, to surgically implanted replacement heart valves, cochlear implants and more. They are often used as an alternative to reconstructive surgery, due to it often looking better aesthetically However, the prosthetics today would not be possible without the many developments made through history.

Ancient Egypt, 1550 B.C – 700 B.C:

The earliest evidence of the use of prostheses comes from Ancient Egypt. Researchers studying a 3000-year-old Egyptian mummy, found clear evidence of an amputation of the big toe. This had then been replaced by a makeshift wooden toe, kept in place by leather strings and wooden plates. The mummy was of a woman found buried in the necropolis of Sheikh Abd el-Qurna, and evidence shows

that the priests’ daughter had had the wooden toe refitted multiple times to match her foot exactly. The craftsmanship of prosthesis gave her the ability to flex her foot and be able to restore the majority of her mobility, as without the prosthesis, she would have great difficulty remaining stable when standing or running.

The Middle Ages, 476

– 1000:

During the Middle Ages, amputations were rare due to high chances of infection, especially as amputations above the knee caused great blood loss. The majority of amputations were below the knee, but the stump was not usually comfortable in tight fitting prosthetics, unless you were rich and could afford a custom-made prosthesis, or a knight who had prostheses made for battle use The main prosthesis used was the wooden peg leg because the knee still had full range of motion. As there was not much demand for prostheses due to the little advancements in medicine and cleanliness, there was a lack of development of prosthetics in this era.

The renaissance, 1400s-1800:

The renaissance was a time in which the study of medicine progressed, as humans began to travel the world. It was also considered an age of discovery. There were many physicians and surgeons who made great contributions to knowledge on human anatomy and medicine, for example, Ambroise Paré Paré was a surgeon and key figure in the early developments in prosthetics during the renaissance period. He engineered multiple prosthetics, such as the abovethe-knee kneeling peg leg, a fixed-position foot and more. Many of these have features which are still used today.

During the US Civil war and the World wars, 1850s – 1950s:

There were great advancements in prosthetics during wartime as developments in artillery increased the number of casualties. This led to amputation becoming the most popular treatment, as amputating a leg is much faster than surgically removing a piece of shrapnel, for example. The man who ushered in a new era of modern prosthetics in America was one of the first documented amputees of the US Civil War Confederate soldier James Edward Hanger lost his leg above the knee after a cannonball explosion, and after using a

need to build his own leg. This leg was more lightweight and comfortable than the previous wooden peg leg and was able to bend at both the knee and the ankle. This led him to launch his own company, Hanger, Inc. which is still running today.

During World War Two, mass production was introduced to the field of prosthetics This enabled parts to be made at a fast rate and gave manufacturers room to experiment with different materials and methods in making the prostheses. However, while they were able to replace the form of the missing limb, it was difficult to recreate its typical motion, as the majority were made on a ‘one-size fits all’ basis. This led to soldiers adapting with different solutions, for example, Lieutenant Robert Stall Fletcher who, with both legs amputated nearly to the hip, adapted a roller seat and used hand blocks to propel himself instead of the usual prosthetic legs, as the doctor found it difficult to attach them to his body.

So as we see, throughout history, there have been many contributing factors to the developments in prosthetics, with wars playing a key role due to the exponential growth in demand In more recent years, there has been an increase in prosthetic research and ongoing developments in the osthetics field, progressing the structure d functionality of prostheses created. ready there are emerging technologies, ch as Elon Musk's NeuraLink, which ms to take prosthetics to the next level, creating an ‘invisible prosthetic’ rough allowing people with quadriplegia control computers and their mobile vices with their thoughts. These new vancements in prosthetic technology are rtain to have a profound and ultifaceted long term impact on the ality of life for millions.

e can only wonder if the Ancient yptians knew what they were on to.

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENTS

A LONGVIEW OF WOMEN IN SPORT AND THE GENDER PAY GAP

T o l u A f o l a y a n

Women have made crucial contributions and developments to our world and yet, despite this, women have been relegated to the side lines and continually discriminated against for centuries. As G.D. Anderson said, “Feminism isn’t about making women stronger. Women are already strong, it’s about changing the way the world perceives that strength.” Both emotional and physical strength are important in sport, so why is it that women have historically been seen as less capable (even after proving their critics wrong) and more importantly how has this shaped society's treatment of women in the sports world today? In 2023 a survey conducted by WIF (Women in Football) found that 82% of women working in football had experienced discrimination at work

The earliest hints of women ’ s involvement in sport can be found in the art and artefacts of ancient civilizations. The Egyptian and Greek civilisations boasted a noteworthy tradition in which women

ely participated in athletics Although of these sports were done petitively, carvings on Egyptian tombs paintings suggest that women cipated in ball games and swimming. hermore, there is evidence that ates that women in the Greek state of ta engaged in sporting activities such orse-riding, racing and even wrestling. sports listed would clearly indicate there was no notion that women were pable or faced any stigma for their vement in sport at that time, so what wrong?

Medieval Age brought about a decline omen ’ s presence in sport. This was due to the rise of Christianity in Europe, which fuelled the patriarchal stereotype that women needed protection as they were weaker than men and were therefore not fit to participate in sport. There were also many perplexing ideas that people used to justify not allowing women to participate in sport. Among these was the belief that physical activity could adversely affect women ’ s reproductive health and make them look unattractive to men and as result participation in activities was heavily looked down on. These attitudes persisted for hundreds of years.

By 1900 the tide was finally turning again in favour of women. Although the first Modern Olympics held in 1896 barred women from participating, a Greek woman protested by participating as an unofficial competitor in the marathon. In 1900, only 2% of participants were female and whilst this figure is shockingly low, it at least suggested that women were gradually being assimilated into sport. Further

developments were made possible by the work of the Federation Sportive Feminine Internationale, a platform started by women ’ s sports advocates in 1921, which played an instrumental role in the initiation of the first Women’s Olympic Games in 1922. Such changes in sport were encouraged by the emergence of the first wave of the feminist movement in society as a whole. The Suffragists, for example in the early 20th century, used bicycles as a tool to promote equality for women, with the bicycle becoming a symbol of women ’ s liberation.

A second wave of feminism, which occurred alongside post WW2 decolonisation, saw women gaining more prominence in sport. In the 1950s and 60s, at the Asian Games and All Africa Games, the newly independent countries sent women to demonstrate and represent their freedom. This helped to question existing prejudices about gender roles prescribed by patriarchal social structures.

Despite the increased representation and opportunities for women in sport, women ’ s sport has suffered poor coverage and viewership. The reasoning often given for this is based on physical prowess Women are ‘deemed’ weak when compared to their male counterparts, since

they possess around 40% less upper body strength and 33% less lower body strength than males. Many critics have thus used such comparisons to claim that women ' s sports are less entertaining as games are supposedly slower and less exciting. A study has shown that men gave lower ratings when they discovered that they were watching women ’ s football which confirmed the fact that in male dominated sports (such as football and basketball), gender stereotypes lead to a poorer assessment of women ’ s athletic performance. Unfortunately, these stereotypes have been ingrained in society and many are not willing to unlearn these harmful ideas. It is abundantly clear that the reason that women ’ s sport lacks coverage and appreciation is not truly about ability but down to gender-based prejudices perpetuated by society

The gender pay gap in Women’s sport: As a result of prejudices in almost every popular sport in the UK today, there is a significant discrepancy in the average wage between male and female athletes.

This is pronounced especially in sports that have historically been male dominated The gender pay gap is a pressing global economic issue affecting women in every country and is in many

ways a result of aforementioned historical deeply rooted inequalities in the economy and our societies. It remains as a tangible way of emphasising the disproportionate attention and respect women ’ s sport receives is by comparing the pay received by men and women for conducting the same work. The most prominent pay disparity in the world exists in football

The average yearly salary of a male footballer who plays for a top-league club in the UK is £2,800,000, whereas the equivalent for a female player in the Women’s Super League (WSL) is £30,000 Even after the Lionesses won the Women’s Euros in 2022 (which the England men ’ s team is still yet to do, despite having entered the competition 10 times), causing the average attendance at WSL matches to increase by 227%, female footballers still earn a fraction of that earned by their male counterparts, both in relation to prize sums from tournaments and annual salaries. To further emphasise the point, Lioness Leah Williamson earned an annual salary of £200,000 in the 2021/22 season, whereas Harry Kane earns this sum in a week.

figure as they mainly prioritise sharing men ’ s sports rather than women ’ s.

This situation is also replicated in rugby. For instance ,today, in the English Premiership, the average salary for a male rugby union player is around £150,000 while players with several appearances in rugby tournaments for their country can earn up to £800,000 Conversely, clubs in the women ’ s equivalent of the English premiership, the Premier 15s are subjected to a salary cap for the entire team, meaning there is a maximum of £190,000 that needs to be split between 50 players

The media also help to perpetuate this pay gap. The main reason put forward by the press as to why the gender pay gap is so disproportionate is that women ’ s sport is less popular than men ’ s, and therefore generates less revenue. However, the media is massively responsible for this

Although their argument may have rung true in the past, it is clear that this is simply justification for the sexism in the media since in 2019, the number of American viewers of the Women’s FIFA World Cup final was 22% higher than the audience for the men ’ s final the previous year and generated more revenue in each of the last four years than the US men ’ s soccer team At the current rate of progress, it will take 257 years to achieve equal pay around the world, in all aspects. This is far too long.

Progress for women in sport and the gender pay gap:

Although there is still great inequality in most sports, progress is being made. This is often because of the contributions of key individuals, where tennis, for example is helping to pave the way for a more equal

future. Female winners of international tournaments, including all four Grand Slam tournaments receive the same prize money after tennis legend Billy Jean King threatened to boycott the tournament in 1973. Moreover, sports events themselves have taken a stand to help. Wimbledon and Roland-Garros have awarded equal pay to male and female athletes since March 2007. Additionally, the Welsh national men ’ s and women ’ s football teams are guaranteeing that both teams will receive equal pay for international matches (up until the FIFA World Cups in 2026 & 2027) In order to achieve this agreement, the men ’ s team has agreed to take a 25% pay cut.

Through the early 21st century, the number of women playing and closely following sport has grown exponentially and there are now many women more who can serve as an inspiration to others in sport. Serena Williams with her total of 39 grand slam titles, 14 of which were in

doubles with her sister, Venus Williams.

Simone Biles who is the most decorated American gymnast in history and who is considered one of the greatest gymnasts of her time with seven Olympic gymnastics medals. And finally, Alex Morgan who has been a strong advocate of equal pay and access for young athletes in sport.

However, In order to progress further, broadcasters and reporters must take a central position in ensuring that women ’ s sport is better highlighted and promoted, as this tangibly helps increase viewership and the support given to women ’ s sport. Alongside this, governing bodies should take responsibility over the equality in their sport (with the support of the men of the sport) With this assistance, it is possible for women to be placed in an equal position, enhancing visibility and profitability for women moving forward.

Although we have come a long way since the nonsensical historic beliefs that physical activity could adversely affect women ’ s reproductive health, there still remain vital problems in the world of women ' s sport that should be rectified.