How We Got to Now - Issue 3

HOW WE GOT TO NOW

Welcome to the third issue of “How We Got to Now”. As we navigate through history, this edition offers an exploration of the events that have shaped our present-day reality.

It has certainly been an interesting year with unprecedented political turmoil. In 2023 we have seen the inquiry of prominent politicians such as Boris Johnson and Donald Trump, over a year of the Russia-Ukraine war, the coronation of a new monarch and protest movements gaining momentum. By evaluating the events of the past, we have seen substantial developments in numerous areas including, legislation and international relations.

Looking back allows us to see parallels within history and areas which have yet to change. The articles in this magazine explore a diverse range of topics which explain how we have arrived in certain areas and look back to the past to explain this. It is not only important to understand the current political state but also the past as it allows us to look back and see where we now stand.

I am extremely grateful for the work of the year 11 and 12 students who have chosen to write an article. The great contribution of the copy and design editors made it possible to produce the magazine. Finally, I cannot thank Mrs Kordel enough for her help in coordinating the magazine.

Kitan OyetundeEditor in Chief

Emilia DunnCopy Editor

Poppy O’ReganCopy Editor

Eve HoldstockDesign Editor

A LONG VIEW OF POLITICAL POLARISATION IN THE US – HOW NOT TO DO POLITICS

US politics is in crisis. There is no cooperation in Congress as polarisation means the two sides refuse to work together leading gridlock of the whole system – (almost) nothing gets done. Polarisation is the trend of political groups diverging from the centre and separating into more extreme parties. It’s something very visible, especially in the growing extremes of American two-party politics. Being on the opposite side of the aisle has gone from civil disagreement to personal dislike and even hatred, and it has spread from politics to communities and within

interpersonal relationships Fears that polarisation will undermine democracy are growing because of the lack of healthy conversation and debate, and whispers of a civil war being at the end of the slippery slope are beginning to spread. But how serious is this problem? How crucial is cooperation between the parties to make progress and change minds? And can the warnings and past examples of partisanship teach us where to go from here? Let’s start at the beginning, to understand how American politics has got to where it is today.

Political parties as a concept, although they seem timeless, were not always there. In fact, they were discouraged by the first President of the United States and generally avoided by most of the Founding Fathers In 1796, military officer and lone independent president George Washington gave a parting speech, known as his farewell address In it, he warned of political partisanship, writing “beware” of joining parties, which will only become vessels of hatred and bickering. He argued that a civil and democratic society was one that resisted intolerant extremes and had moderate views. This idea may have stemmed out of disapproval of the British political system, which had a tyrannical monarchy and colonialist views that Americans very much feared. After his departure from office, however, disagreements

formed over how much the government should be involved in the lives of citizens, hence Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton formed parties which differed in policy towards government intervention, even after Hamilton called factions “the most fatal disease” (although Jefferson was an outspoken supporter of the party system). Hamilton’s party died with him when he was shot and killed in 1804 and, although there were other short-lived parties in between, the main opposition to today’s Democratic party, the Republicans, would not be created until 26 years later. The definitive twoparty system based on ideology would be suggested by another president, Martin Van Beuren, in the 1830s and become standard soon after.

In the beginning, the parties had the incentive to stay near the middle of the political spectrum because that’s where most of the voters were - polarisation almost didn’t exist then. Parties were made up of loose groups of diverse thinkers, keeping each other grounded and not letting the party drift from the centre, but also coming together to support causes on which they agreed. Since then, the parties have drifted from the centre. Recently, one of the main reasons for polarisation has been the media. Essentially, parties drifted from the middle as they became hungrier for attention Since news channels and social media have entered the political scene, politicians have become desperate for airtime, which is granted when they have something controversial and exciting to say In an effort to get people riled up around a cause, the politicians themselves embody the excitement and passion that they want to see from their supporters, straying further from the centre to earn an eye-catching headline that becomes a quick spreading talking point of news outlets. The coalitions that have formed

since are nearer to ideological extremes, and we can see this in the number of people on the far sides of the political spectrum rising from 10% in 1994 to 31% in 2014. The era of modern political polarisation really started with the election of Bill Clinton as President in 1992 and his subsequent impeachment by the Republican controlled House of Representatives (although he was acquitted by the Senate) Republicans were appalled that Bill Clinton had been elected on just 43% of the vote and to make matters worse, they viewed his personal behaviour and morals as being unsuitable for the office of President In turn, Democrats were outraged that the Republican Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, impeached Clinton with no good constitutional reason – something which Democrats saw as an abuse of power. The divide was deepened in the 2000 election, when the two sides argued over the legality of the result of the Presidential election, with Republicans again being accused of an abuse of power

This striking visual comparing the communication between the two parties in the House and Senate in 1979 and 2015 shows just how little parties interact in order to try and pass legislation. The lack of conversation is disheartening and doesn’t give young people the representation of healthy debate and compromise that our future leaders need to see.

This isn’t exclusive to politicians, however. Their aim to make people enthusiastic about their cause has worked, and the country is more divided than ever A growing minority are identifying as holding consistently ideological views. An extensive study done by Pew Research Centre and published in 2014 analysed different opinions and habits of Americans, and there was a 14% increase in people who say that they find the other side “heavily

unfavourable” since 1994, proving the trend in intolerance. Interestingly, Thanksgiving dinners are estimated to be 20-40 minutes shorter if the family shares mixed political views, and Republicans and Democrats don’t even care to live in similar places

To show the extreme way that politics has split the nation, let’s take an example of a polarised issue: abortion. Especially in the USA, abortion has become politicised to the point that voters are said to either identify as ‘pro-choice’ or ‘pro-life’: “Yes” to abortion or “No” to abortion and this drives their voting preferences. However, this simplified version is not representative of the actual views of Americans, where only 27% of people hold an absolutist view and the majority have complex opinions on the matter, according to Pew Research Centre. Even those who identify as on the far edges of the political spectrum still have varied views Yet, the media and politicians have placed everyone into these one-dimensional boxes and encouraged everyone to think the same way.

So, what are the long-term ramifications of this political state of affairs? We saw a glimpse of it in January 2021, when a group of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol protesting the outcome of the 2020 election in an alarming breach of democracy. This has exacerbated worry about potential threats to democracy due to the intolerance in the US. Although it might have seemed like an immature

joke, an angry outburst from a few people who didn’t get what they wanted in an election, there is a frightening underlying message that democracy is not being upheld, especially as the protesters were armed and the event ended in the deaths of five people and 100s of injuries to the Capitol police. Without a peaceful passing of power, the USA could follow the same path as autocracies.

Polarisation isn’t an American only issue - it's been seen all over the world in places like India, Poland and Egypt. But what is strikingly different about the US is that religion, ethnicity and ideology have been weaponised all together to make the two sides as separate and distinct as possible, prompting the question if it is significantly worse than anything seen before. The trends in what the left and right think of each other suggest that the US might be going down a path that damages interracial, interclass and interpersonal relationships, preventing progress and encouraging division.

If the US wants to stay what many believe to be the best country in the world, it must protect what gained it that status in

the first place: freedom of speech; religion; press; assembly and petition. It’s what’s written, literally, into their permanent rulebook, but something that is becoming more under threat every day.

So, what is the solution? The 2014 Pew study cited above showed that the USA has been getting more polarised in recent years. However, with a new generation comes new hope. The same study also shows that the young people of the 21st century (of voting age) are increasingly moderate and less likely to feel represented by either party. Moderates watch unbiased news sources and think more positively about those who think differently to themselves This seems encouraging for the future.

Unfortunately, moderates don’t vote in nearly the same numbers as Republicans and Democrats This is understandable since moderates may find it hard to agree with the relatively extreme views of either party and often find both unappealing. So, does the US need more parties to satisfy the widening range of views? Or would this fail and eventually just collapse into the two-party system again?

RUSSIA’S INVASION OF UKRAINE – A LONGVIEW

2022 was a year that witnessed a myriad of unexpected, tumultuous events, ranging from the death of a longstanding monarch, record-breaking heat waves, the world population exceeding 8 billion, and much more, but arguably, the most prominent world issue was the Russian invasion of its neighbour, Ukraine, which left the world both stunned and outraged. This event, unlike others previously listed, cannot be categorised as ‘unexpected’. The blockbuster tale of how Russian and Ukrainian history has intertwined traces back millenniums, and the accumulation of bloodshed, invasions, and foreign domination both connecting and dividing the two states has brought us to now.

What exactly are the events that have occurred in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

On February 24th, 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, setting out to conquer the country and supersede its government. This was denoted a “special military operation” and witnessed the Russian President Vladimir Putin’s deploying of over 100,000 troops to the borders of Ukraine, anticipating attack.

How far back does the relationship between Russia and Ukraine stem?

The two neighbouring states harbour an extensive, long-standing association with

one another, originating back to the ninth century and a loose federation of East Slavic tribes referred to as Kievan Rus, centred around Kyiv (which was renowned to be the hub of Rus cities) and other towns along the Dnieper River at the heart of what is now regarded as Ukraine

The Rus tribes are the ancestors of those who still bear their name today: the Russian and Belarussian people, and, as cannot be disregarded, the Ukrainians This thousand-year-old connection is the indisputable foundation of today’s current tensions.

Kievan Rus experienced an eccentric sequence of events, notably on behalf the Mongols (an East Asian ethnic group, native to Mongolia) who perpetually attacked cities in order to expand their empire, and who, in 1240, obliterated Kievan Rus, slaughtering over 50,000 people, tearing down 34 out of 40 large buildings, and generally shattering the power of the once affluent area. Nonetheless, the arrival of the Mongols was an integral moment, as the authority of [today’s Ukraine] was diminished, and the client of the Mongols, and the Genesis of [today’s Russia] – the Grand Principality of Muscovy – was introduced. Kyiv was swiftly replaced as the core of the Rus people. On the contrary, Muscovy was, in effect, indefensible, with geographical disadvantages of an abundance of mountains, deserts and rivers presenting any potential invader with easy opportunities.

This was, however, rectified, by one of the most well-renowned, influential men in Russian history: the first Tsar, Ivan ‘The Terrible’. It is widely accepted that without his character of simultaneous

ruthlessness and vision, the course of Russian history would’ve taken an exceptionally different route, as he was the individual to invent the concept of attack as defence. Rapidly, a partial ‘buffer-zone’ of protection and a hinterland were constructed within the Caucasus Mountains: the first time that Russia had actively established a physical barrier for the sole purpose of defence, and from this point onwards, the notion of this became an incessant constant in Russian history, and a motive for more recent events that have brought us to today.

Moreover, the Cossacks (a collective of predominantly East Slavic Orthodox Christians) who possessed close links with Kyiv, began resistance against their current Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, in advocacy of joining Russia. Under the Grand Princes of Moscow, Russia had slowly been forming from disparate states, but the process was completed and officiated in the 1520s: a Russian state appealed to the Rus masses, especially in Ukraine, in turn exerting a pull in their allegiance It was this act that Stalin and the communists of the USSR styled a pivotal moment in the reunification of Ukraine and Russia, establishing their roots that should bring ceaseless loyalty to one another in their relationship.

Fast forward to the late 18th century, Russia was enhancing itself in terms of both stability and power, and was now able to occupy Ukraine, and additionally take over the Baltic States (comprising Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia). To ensure a consolidation of power and diminish the growing separatist movement in Ukraine, the eradication and erosion of Ukrainian culture began. This is evident in the ban of the Ukrainian language being taught in schools in 1804, and

cultural identity is still an issue prevalent in today’s Ukrainian society, and it wasn’t until 1995 that Kiev officially changed its name to Kyiv to align more with the original Ukrainian language

So, on the basis of all of this, modern events and conflicts have been in the mould for centuries.

How did the liberation of Ukraine from the Soviet Union in 1991 contribute to the conflict today?

Looking past the original roots of the imperial ties between the two countries, when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) broke apart into 15 separate countries, it could be argued that Russia eventually action in seizing back Ukraine became predetermined.

Ever since Putin’s acceleration to the Presidency in the year 2000 – a whole 23 years ago – an obsession with restoring Russia to its previous national and imperial ‘greatness’ has grown. Nonetheless, his notion of ‘greatness’ appears to focus less on personal Russian success, and more on the failures and weaknesses of others with the intention of re-asserting Russia as a great world power.

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the previous members took contrasting stances on whether they would assume pro-Western or proRussian positions. It was no surprise that the countries which suffered extensively under Soviet control (comprising Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, Albania, and Romania) having been liberated from the Warsaw Pact, swiftly joined organisations such as NATO and the EU. Ideally, Ukraine would have accompanied these countries, but due to

its unfortunate geographic proximity to Russia, partnered with Russian troops and militia on its soil, it understood that NATO membership in any way could be an incense war

As long as a pro-Russian government held sway in Kyiv, the Russians could maintain confidence that its buffer zone would remain intact. A studiedly neutral Ukraine which would avoid any ties with NATO or the EU and uphold the lease that Russia had on the warm-water port in Crimea would be tolerated, but the notion of a pro-Western Ukraine with ambitions to join the two great Western alliances, or even one day host a NATO naval base would in no case be permitted. In Russia’s opinion, membership of the EU is simply a gateway for membership of NATO and for Russia, a Ukrainian membership of NATO is a red line. In an increasingly alarmed state, Putin felt he had no option other than to annex Crimea.

Crimea was originally annexed by Russia in 1783 under the orders of Empress Catherine the Great subsequent to its position in the Ottoman Empire and remained under Russian control for two centuries before being transferred rightfully back to the Soviet Republic of Ukraine in 1954 by Nikita Khrushchev who was envisaged that the USSR was ultimate and perpetual, and in turn would be controlled by Moscow for eternity.

This was, of course, not the case, so with the alluded knowledge of 60% of the Crimean population being “ethnically Russian” and the majority being Russianspeaking, Putin made the executive decision to annex Crimea a second time in 2014. This was, however, predominantly to attain the valuable port of Sevastopol (Russia’s one true warm-

water port), but the Russian authorities used the outward argument of the Kremlin’s law compelling the government to protect “ethnic Russians”. Following Putin’s aforementioned second-hand humiliation of the breaking up of the USSR, he had decided that he would not be the man who “lost Crimea”

The annexation of Crimea showed how Russia is prepared for military action to defend what it regards as its interests in what it labels its ‘ near abroad’, taking the gamble that outside powers would not intervene. It is unsurprising that, having seized Crimea, Russia proceeded to encourage pro-Russian uprisings in eastern Ukraine, to act as a reminder of who controls their energy supplies, and to, first and foremost, ensure that Kyiv did not venture into the chambers of the EU or NATO.

But in 2022, this did not appear to be not enough. And the year appeared to be the opportune moment to do that. With his view of the West being in decline, with its prominent members (such as the United States) being seemingly distracted, and the trans-Atlantic relationship being under possible strain, he acted, in order

to accomplish his very maximalist objectives.

In spite of all of this, Ukraine recently took steps to fight back on the 8th of October 2022 when the Crimean bridge explosion occurred. This was a critical moment of protest, illustrating Ukraine’s reclamation of its rightful land, and solidarity as an independent state.

So, how did we get to now?

As explored, the answer to this question is not easy, nor is it simple. And while Putin pinpointed his explanations on alleged ‘neo-Nazism’ within Ukraine and the West’s alleged ‘infallibility’ and ‘obsession with expansion’, it ultimately all returns to history.

Throughout time, Russia has asserted itself as the ‘master’ and ‘ owner ’ of Ukraine, violating its sovereignty as a country and making it constantly struggle for defining an identity of its own. This attitude has continued very much to the present day, amplified by the influence of Putin, who, as demonstrated clearly, is willing to go to any measure to fortify his country.

A LONG VIEW OF CLIMATE CHANGE PROTESTS

In Autumn 2022, I missed form time as I experienced my first protest. I was stuck on the M25, not moving for hours. I wasn’t protesting but stuck in a traffic jam on the coach. I’m not sure at that moment, how many of my fellow commuters would have agreed that ‘it is better to protest than to accept injustice’, as Rosa Parks famously said. Now more than ever, because of social media, it can appear as though we are living through an unprecedented time. However, protests have not caused this feeling of uncertainty, as protests have been with us for as long as societies have functioned. The struggle between those with power, influence and resources and the powerless, poor, and excluded members of societies will always lead to the need and desire to protest.

The climate change protests are the latest

in a long line stretching back to 1215 and the Magna Carta. Climate change protesters have utilised mass media and communications, deployed tactics of disruption, attracted millions to march and have been led by charismatic individuals. Although only recent protests have been able to utilise social media, they are not alone in using these tactics. Extinction Rebellion and Stop the Oil have used social media to spread their message with speed and appeal to the masses. Anyone who owns a smartphone have become journalists and broadcasters who amplify the message further. In doing so, they take their place alongside Martin Luther’s use of the printing press and the publication in 1517 of his 95 Theses. They follow on from the creation of the Daily Herald in 1912, the first daily newspaper of the British trade union and labour movement.

Climate change protesters have used disruption to attract attention, gluing themselves to roads and gantries, and throwing soup at Van Gogh paintings. They follow a long tradition of protests adopting such tactics. For instance, The Boston Tea Party of 1773 saw tea chaotically thrown into the sea The Suffragettes used disruption to great effect, famously with bringing down the King’s horse at the 1913 Derby and burning down the orchid house at Kew Gardens. In 1914, works of art at the National Gallery were attacked, and a Mummy case smashed at the British Museum.

Climate change protesters have used mass marching as part of their campaign The September 2019 climate strikes saw an estimated 6 million people march in support of the causes. Gathering and marching is the oldest form of protest. From the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 to the March on Washington in 1963, mass participation events have been used to great effect over hundreds of years. This type of protest has proven to be extremely effective in gaining huge amounts of publicity, as well as highlighting a true sense of unity and togetherness within the movement.

Charismatic individuals are another common thread within protest movements across the centuries. Greta Thunberg has become, through her involvement in climate change protests, one of the most famous women on the planet. The passion, eloquence, and clarity with which she speaks has mobilised hundreds of thousands of people to participate in her cause. Charismatic individuals have long been a focus of protest movements. Wat Tyler, Martin Luther, Emmeline Pankhurst, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela have all shown the leadership and personality to become focal points of their respective

movements.

In conclusion, climate change protests have much in common with what has gone before. In many ways, recent climate change protests are a continuation of the perpetual struggle between the powerful and the powerless However, there are many ways in which these protests are unlike any that have gone before. Their motivation is not to right a current injustice happening in the world, but to stop injustices that may occur in the future. They are protesting on behalf of everyone, including those who disagree with them. They are acting on behalf of humanity against an existential threat. They are a protest movement operating around the globe, across generations, genders, races and classes. Although the protests bear similarities to protest movements in the past, climate change protests are unlike anything that has gone before and stand alone in the importance of their issues. The future of humanity depends on the success of their movement.

HOW PROTEST MUSIC IMPACTED THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

It is relatively common knowledge that music can affect how we view the world, and change how we feel, however its impact is often underestimated. Modern music listeners will be familiar with the protest song. From Kendrick Lamar’s ‘Alright’ which challenges police racism in the United States through to ‘Thoughts and Prayers’ by the Drive-By Truckers which calls into question gun laws, American protest music is an enduring tradition. But where did it begin? We need to go back to the 1960s when the protest music of the Civil Rights Movement was a force for change that was impossible for sceptics to mitigate.

‘When a cop pulled him over to the side of the road

Just like the time before and the time before that

In Paterson that's just the way things go

If you ' re black you might as well not show up on the street

'Less you want to draw the heat’

- Hurricane, Bob Dylan, 1976

Bob Dylan is perhaps the most well regarded and famed songwriter of all time, and his music impacted the civil rights movement by bringing an accessible

message into the lives and homes of people it could not otherwise reach Music doesn’t require a high level of education or a complex lexical set to understand. The song Hurricane brought the horrors of the racist south into the homes of the average person and raised awareness amongst society of what the police and government had tried to cover up.

‘Picket lines and picket signs

Don't punish me with brutality

Talk to me

So you can see

Oh, what's going on (What's going on)

What's going on (What's going on)

What's going on (What's going on)

What's going on (What's going on)’

- What’s Going On, Marvin Gaye, 1971

The Black Power anthem What’s Going On has stood the reckoning of time In the landmark album Marvin Gaye managed to reunify a crumbling movement somewhat. He gave an answer and a voice to many people who had lost faith both in the government and the movement itself It showed an evolution of music- people were no longer willing to sugar coat the state of the USA and were no longer

willing to hide. The music of Black Power arrived as a stark change for the Civil Rights Movement towards anger and violence, but also brought with it a sense of unity that had begun to be lost. There would no longer be any compromise.

The music of the American Civil Right Movement was terrifying for the people who tried to stop the protests and movement of the 60s and 70s. The institutions responded in kind. Jimi Hendrix was arrested in May 1969, shortly after he shot to superstardom and his cover of Dylan’s ‘All Along the Watchtower’ became an anthem for hope and the fight.

It came to light in September this year that the FBI had kept secret dossiers on members of the 60s quartet the Monkees, much of which is still redacted and inaccessible. Whilst the FBI has refused to comment, accessible information would suggest that this as a result of a Monkees concert in which ‘subliminal messages

were depicted on the screen which constituted ‘left wing innovations of a political nature,’ including video footage of ‘anti-US messages on the war in Vietnam’’

In 1972 President Nixon attempted to deport John Lennon on the basis of his involvement in the peace movement. The disclosure of the FBI’s Lennon files in 2000 revealed an invasive and borderline illegal tracking of his daily movements and actions as he was deemed a threat due to his influence. Similarly, Elvis Presley was subject to the FBI’s attention due to his apparent ‘influence over the teenage population.’

It is no secret then, that the government attempted to suppress the force of protest music and the influence of musicians. The issue, however, that they faced time and time again, is that the music of the Civil Rights Movement was too strong a force to suppress, and its impact and message still lives on in American popular culture today.

A LONG VIEW OF PERFORMATIVE ACTIVISM

M A R G A U X H I L L

Did you know that SHEIN uses modern slave labour? ‘Inside the Shein Machine: UNTOLD’ is a Channel 4 documentary which exposes that the £84 billion company pays its workers 3p per hour, 18 hours a day, 7 days a week. Their wages can be deducted by 3/4 if they make an error in their work. So what are you going to do about that? Forget about it and in a fortnight buy more shirts and jeans for just £2.99? Will you share this online, repost some TikToks made by anti-fast fashion creators? History has been shaped for countless years by activism. Subjugation and injustices exist alongside activism and reformation and due to the magic of technology every single person with internet access can be an activist No longer do we have to wage war alongside Spartacus in order to express our contempt for terrible governance but instead we can instead pick up our phones, like, share and repost and make sure that our support can be broadcast worldwide. Then we can return to our schools, jobs, homes and families and forget about the traumas experienced by others In other words, we can employ performative activism – liking and sharing posts to show the world what a good *insert marginalised group here* ally we are. Surely it’s better this way? We ourselves don’t have to live the lives of others to become conscious of horrendous things experienced by people in places the Romans could never have dreamed of setting foot in. But what performative activism does is it cultivates complacency with the very things people

Are protesting against. Or does it? Has activism lost its effect through the ages? And has performative activism really changed anything?

Early activism is largely defined by war, and the three Servile Wars are maybe one of the earliest recorded examples of protest in human history They constituted of three battles against the Roman Republic in protest of slavery, the third and most famous of which being led by the gladiator Spartacus. Children were born into slavery or captured from foreign nations by the Roman Empire during one of their many rapacious invasions and taken home to be sold in slave markets. The first of the revolts was led by a slave named Eunus He was a magician, long foretelling his audiences of the day in which he would be king and his fellow slaves would lay siege to the Roman Empire and all of its tyrannical upper class In what could potentially be described as a self-fulfilling prophecy, he and 400 other slaves stormed the nearby city of Enna where their slave owner lived, executing him and nearly every single person who lived there Only five years later in 130 BCE, once the army had swelled to somewhere between 70,000 and 200,000, did the Roman army manage to quash it, killing the entirety of its membership by one horrific means or another.

In short, every one of the Servile Wars ended in a loss for the enslaved people, and the Roman Empire crushed them all

And so, Roman ideas of activism were very different to ours now, largely owed to the fact that their idea of democracy was really not that democratic. It was exclusively rich, male citizens that could ascend in politics whether that be to become a senator during the age of the Roman Republic, when the servile wars took place, or to become a member of the Emperor’s household through wealth, lineage and sycophancy during the era of the Empire. But as demonstrated, protest through means of war and violence has varying levels of success. Through this same means of activism the Bolsheviks did overthrow their tyrannical governors about 2000 years later, after storming the Winter Palace and seizing control from the provisional government. Some would argue that violent coups and torture is not necessarily the ideal means of activism. And murder is not as socially acceptable as it was whilst the Romans were around, setting their murderous example And so we turn to other methods.

‘Skolstrejk for Klimatet’ has become one

of the most well known phrases defining this generation. Greta Thunberg used to be a 15 year old climate protester who on Fridays, skipped school to sit outside the Swedish Parliament. Now, she is a 20 year old multimillion-bestselling author, has spoken to world leaders at the UN climate change conference and been nominated four times for a Nobel Peace Prize. She is one of the most successful activists of the millennium having caught the attention of millions worldwide and inspired change at the highest levels. But even after the 2016 Paris agreement, most of what has been achieved is ‘targets’ to be carbon neutral, electric cars only etc. by 2030. It’s quite easy to see that in the highest levels of government, climate conferences aren’t achieving everything Greta undoubtedly wants but, regardless, she inspires the average person to eat less meat, cycle instead of drive and reduce their overall emissions. This is hard to quantify but her influence has certainly rallied thousands of climate and Fridays for Future protesters worldwide.

Thunberg uses social media to her advantage, now with 5.7 million followers on Twitter. She reposts tweets from other organisations who are planning on organising events and protests. But this is not her only means of activism. All of her prize money over the years has gone to climate charities and she lives without pomp or circumstance in Sweden. She practises what she preaches, not buying new clothes and being a vegan. For these reasons, nobody could call her a performative activist. But it’s a little harder to say the same for some social media users in May and June of 2020. One of the most recent and prominent examples of performative activism followed in the wake of the tragic murder of George Floyd. Cultures and communities across the world were angered and devastated. In order to greater expose the horrible presence of police brutality worldwide, Blackout Tuesday was created, where people posted a black square on their social media feeds alongside the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter. What could be the problem with that? An internet protest designed to show solidarity and express feelings of anger and sorrow. But arguably it achieved the opposite.

By only posting a black square and a hashtag, celebrities and influencers could capitalise off of this internet protest in order to demonstrate their wokeness to their younger audiences. They could use their platform to fundraise or help organise protests but instead, they used performative activism to avoid being cancelled on the grounds of staying silent about George Floyd’s murder. 47.8 million people used the hashtag on Twitter from 26th May to 7th June 2020. The voices of black activists were drowned in the sea of performative activists, posting passively for the sake of appearing ‘woke’. We see this even on a

corporate level; companies slap a rainbow over their products or logos during June to ‘celebrate’ Pride Month are very arguably doing the same, using performative activism in order to sell to a younger, woke-er market, instead of elevating queer voices, funding LGBTQ+ homeless shelters or spreading education.

Furthermore, when people vowed to let their feeds fall silent for the day in honour of George Floyd’s murder, this was quite literally the opposite intention of the founders of Blackout Tuesday, who, on 3rd June posted on Instagram that ‘the purpose was never to mute ourselves, the purpose is to disrupt.’ A simple google and 2 minute read would have revealed the origins of Blackout Tuesday, called ‘The Show Must Be Paused’, created by music executives Brianna Agyemang and Jamila Thomas, encouraging a boycott from work in order to activate change in the ingrained

the boardroom and on the boulevard.’ Performative activism not only allowed celebrities to come across as woke without evoking any genuine change but it also in fact harmed the movement by obscuring black voices from the forefront of the protest.

But it would be unfair to simply say that performative activism is exclusively harmful. It would also be unfair to say that everybody who misused the Black Lives Matter hashtag did not want the best for black communities and wanted police brutality to stop. Intention on social media is in the eye of the beholder, after all. In fact, there are arguments for performative activism being a very valuable tool. For example, the organisation Black Lives Matter existed seven years prior to George Floyd’s murder. It was created in 2013, after George Zimmerman was acquitted of the murder of African-American teenager Trayvon Martin in 2012. But through the use of #BLM bursting onto every social media platform, the movement has caught far more attention and attracted far more donations as well. On the 25thMay 45% of Americans said that they supported Black Lives Matter. A mere 9 days later, the day after Blackout Tuesday, this number swelled to 52%. While the numbers may still seem small, in such a miniscule amount of time the change is enormous. And maybe the use of the pride flag in advertising is in fact a small step towards normalising being queer. And, the social media presence will have engaged people in the movement who would not have done so otherwise.

In summary, the question ‘Has activism lost its effect over the ages?’ isn’t an easy question to answer. As the old adage goes, history is written by the victors, so it’s practically impossible to gauge the overall success of rebellions or protests

during any given period in history. Cover-up, exaggerations and downright lies will always shroud the pages of history and so an entire overview is near impossible. Likely during the Roman era there were hundreds more slave revolts ending in the death of slaves, slaveowners and the general population of Rome that had varying levels of small success. What we can determine is that complacency is the common enemy and inaction does not put you on the ‘right’ side of history Performative activism has the potential to be mobilised to a great extent and monumental activists of our era such as Greta Thunberg would not have managed to secure so much attention from people globally without access to modern tools such as social media, mass publishing and international news platforms. And no one can really call themselves an activist if their only achievement is ‘spreading awareness ’ Whilst awareness is certainly a good thing to spread, action, education and conversation is where we really start to see shifts in public opinion, legislature and quality of life

The father of modern sculpture; an epithet frequently associated with the 19th century, was French sculptor Auguste Rodin. In the present, his work has been displayed at the most prestigious galleries on the globe, and every encyclopaedic museum owns at least one casting of a sculpture of his. On top of this, there is a museum dedicated to him and his work in the centre of Paris. What is it that made, and continues to make, Auguste Rodin such an exceptional figure in the art world, and why, to this day, is his work still credited so highly?

A LONG VIEW OF AUGUSTE RODIN E V E

H O L D S T O C K

Rodin had an inauspicious start After frequent failures in art school, and unexpectedly serving in the Franco-Prussian War, the likelihood of the now 35 year old Auguste Rodin fulfilling his childhood ambition of pursuing a career within the arts, was unimaginable. Following the French surrender in 1871, Rodin spent some time reviving his career, plastering architectural ornaments in Brussels, before making a trip to Florence in 1876. It was here that Rodin found his inspiration: Michelangelo. The

16th century painter, sculptor, architect and poet, Michelangelo is indisputably one of the greatest artists of all time. His ornate and anatomically precise pieces, such as his sculpture ‘David’, his monumental painting on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel, and his architectural work on St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, all contain an expressive, spiritual nature that has captured the attention of artists and critics for centuries. For this reason, it is no surprise that it was the work of Michelangelo that caught the eye of Rodin, who quickly filled a multitude of sketchbooks with depictions of Michelangelo’s work. Rodin returned to his home city of Paris,

determined to create work that captured the same vivacious and yet clearly defined style as that of Michelangelo. He set about producing the first of his great works, ‘The Age of Bronze’.

It was this bronze, a life-size sculpture of a nude Belgian soldier, that initiated Rodin’s rise to fame. When released to the public in 1876, the impeccable level of detail and anatomical correctness, echoing the style of Michelangelo, led to many art critics alleging that the piece was in fact a direct cast from the human body, rather than a modelled sculpture. These claims not only proved just how inconceivably perfect Rodin’s work was, but also demonstrated how his work was bringing the teachings of past masters into the 19th century. During his 1876 trip to Florence, Rodin had also briefly explored the work of Donatello; a 14th century Florentine sculptor, who predominantly studied classical art. As a result of his studies, Donatello practicedcreating pieces with balance, harmony and a sense of proportional beauty. These meticulous values, found in the work of Donatello, contributed towards Rodin’s scrupulous understanding of the human form.

As a result of his success with the Age of bronze, in 1880 Rodin was commissioned to create a set of doors for the newly devised Museum of Decorative Arts in Paris. These would come to be known as ‘The Gates of Hell’. Disastrously, after many years of working on the piece, the plans for the museum were halted and never reinstated. Despite this, Rodin continued working on the piece for twenty years, expanding it into a series of copious elements, including his most renowned works, ‘The Thinker’ and ‘The Kiss’.

In 1891 Rodin received his final commission, a life-size piece of the late French novelist and poet, Balzac. In preparation, Rodin spent years reading Balzac’s poetry, studying every image of him he could find and curating a group of countless models, who bore resemblance to him. After 7 years of sculpting, the piece was eventually released to the public in 1898. To the horror of the Societe des Gens de Lettres, who commissioned the piece, the sculpture was not only hideous, but also exceptionally offensive to Balzac. In the place of a proportional, polished Balzac, stood a contorted figure, lacking any form of refinement or warmth Later in his life, RodinRodin made it clear that this result was entirely intentional, as it wholly captured his distaste for Balzac.

Although he never directly addressed the topic, this piece is also suggestive of Rodin’s desire to end his public career in a controversial way, similarly to how he began it, ensuring that he would not be lost to history.

When taking a long-term look at the career of Auguste Rodin, it becomes obvious that his success, during and after his lifetime, is due to the influence his works had on those who viewed them. Additionally, his success was also due to his refined artistic skills, many of which had developed from studying artists of the past. Similarly to Rodin’s relationship

with Michelangelo and Donatello, many artists of the more recent past have credited Rodin as an inspiration of theirs, one such artist being Henri Matisse. As a painter, sculptor and printmaker, Matisse is yet another artist who has made a significant impact on the world of art, and his connection to Rodin further supports the prominent position Rodin has held in connecting artists prior to himself to those of the future. By supporting the legacy of past artists who are of remarkable value to the art world, Rodin has elevated himself to similar heights, earning himself a place amongst the greats of art history.

TRAGIC DEATH IN CONTEXT

S O R A Y A K A R D O N N I

The death of Mahsa Amini, who was beaten and killed by the mortality police for ‘improperly’ wearing her headscarf in September 2022, shocked many around Iran and the world. Iran, formally known as Persia, has a long and rich history that plays a role into how the country is now burdened with conflict. Persia has a history spanning thousands of years that is coated in power dynamics and numerous empires, with both western and eastern powers having influence over the country a handful of times. The Persian Empire dates back to as early as 550 BC, founded by Cyrus the Great, sometimes called the Achaemenid Empire. At the height of the Empire, it stretched from Europe’s

Peninsula (in the modern day this includes parts of Bulgaria, Romania and Ukraine) to the Indus River Valley in northwest India and south to Egypt. The Persians are often credited for their arts; including metalwork, rug weaving and architecture. They also were some of the first people to establish regular routes of communication between three continents, Asia, Europe and Africa.

Between the start of the empire and the early 1900s, Persia had experienced multiple different dynasties, with the Qajar dynasty being in power at the start of the 1900s and replaced by in a coup the Pahlavi dynasty, 1925-1979.

Reza Khan ascended to the throne as Shah of Persia in 1926, and was crowned Reza Shah Pahlavi This started the Pahlavi dynasty which brought regeneration and modernisation to Persia, his policies included: emancipating women, requiring them to discard their headscarves in 1935, the building of roads, schools, hospitals and opening the first university in 1934. He wanted to steer clear of foreign interference. One of his main changes was changing the official name of the country from Persia to Iran in 1935

By the early 1940s, Reza Shah Pahlavi created the modern state of Iran, prior to this it was ruled by Provincial leaders. Additionally, in 1908 oil had been found in Iran, which made Iran strategically important, especially to Russia, Germany and the West in general. Reza Shah wanted to avoid foreign interference but this was hard to achieve as in 1941 the USSR and Britain invaded Iran. Reza Shah abdicated in September 1941 and was succeeded by his son Mohammad Shah, who was 22 years old at the time. Mohammad Shah was educated at a Swiss boarding school, so had a very Western education and way of thinking. He again focused on modernisation and wanted to lean into Western ideas and cultures, and he wanted to prove his reliability to the Allies After the war, with oil wealth coming in, the Shah started the programme of modern Westernisation. In 1951, there was an election to appoint a new Prime minister as leader of the country rather than the Shah having all political power - this was considered very forward thinking at the time. Dr Mohammad Mossadegh was elected, who symbolised patriotism for Iranians and these elections were considered legitimate in Iran. One of the first things he did in office was nationalise the oil industry, which ended over 50 years of British monopoly over Iran’s oil supplies, as he felt they were wasting their

resources on the British.

In 1953, the British and Americans engineered a coup d’état to remove the government and its powers. This resulted in the prime minister being arrested and a return of power to the Shah, as prior to this, in 1953, the Shah fled the country after trying to remove Mossadegh as Prime Minister. It is widely thought by modern historians that if Iran was able to succeed as a republic it would have been an example to other middle eastern countries, whereby democracy might have prevailed rather than dictatorships.

During the 1950s and 1960s the Shah was able to create a modern state through oil revenues, gave people a great deal of freedom, and Western ideals became accepted. However, this created a situation where the wealthy city dwellers became more affluent than those who lived outside of these areas. He carried out a national development program, called the White Revolution, which included the construction of expanded road, rail and air networks He aimed to improve the literacy and health of the Iranian people. Whilst the White Revolution solidified his domestic support among richer educated city dwellers, he still faced criticism. Some for not pushing his reforms far enough and some claiming his reforms were too far. The Shah used the power of his secret police to crush any opposition. One significant reaction against his rapid modernisation was the rise of radical Muslim clerics who felt that Islam was being neglected. They publicly denounced the government and its progressive ideology. Ayatollah Khomeini was very vocal about his disdain for the Shah’s government, which led to him being exiled. Most of the opposition to the Shah stemmed from his autocratic rule and corrupted government: his secret police, Westernisation and unequal distribution

of oil wealth. By the late 1970s many young people opposed the Shah’s regime, with many university students organising and joining protests against his government. The Shah used his military to stop these protests, with the force used creating much bloodshed on the streets. During this time Khomeini became a key figure for this movement, using the power of the media to spread his message. The protests got increasingly worse for the Shah, leading to the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979, where the Shah decided to abdicate and leave Iran with his family.

As the Shah had fled Iran, Khomeini was able to return to Iran as the leader of the revolution which later became known as the Islamic Revolution. It was originally thought that Khomeini was going to give the liberal minded revolutionaries opportunities to become part of the new government. However, this resulted in some infighting with the revolutionaries which resulted in Khomeini making the decision to run the government as more of an Islamic Republic, which would be dominated by Islamic law. It opposed anything it saw as Western, forcing women to wear headscarves and removing women ’ s right to divorce their husbands. This heavily contrasts how it life was in the Shah’s time.

Now Iran is ruled by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has been in power since 1989 as head of state Iran does have a president, but his powers are relatively limited, and furthermore elections in Iran fall short of being democratic. The president’s powers are limited as they have to comply with what the Supreme Leader wants and his interpretation of Islamic law. However, for the past 40 years, Iranian women have had the benefits of other freedoms that their fellow sisters have not experienced

In many other Middle Eastern countries. They have the power to be employed, to vote, to have access to a good education, and to drive. One of the most positive aspects of the Revolution has been the right for all to have access to a good education. Iran has an adult literacy rate of about 89%, which means they have a highly educated young population. This young population has access to global news and the internet, and have become increasingly tired and frustrated by the old ruling Islamic leaders who remain strict on not giving them freedoms which they regard to be part of their human rights. This is very important as the 1979 Revolution started due to a lack of opportunities and fairness. As in 1979, young people have grown increasingly annoyed at their government.

In recent times, the lack of freedom granted to young people has been building

up, creating mass discontent. The tragic death of Mahsa Amin, who was beaten and killed by the morality police for ‘improperly’ wearing her headscarf, was the catalyst for the protests still ongoing in Iran currently. Both men and women from all ages are protesting against the regime in hopes for more freedom and a new government. These protests are being spearheaded by young teenagers and students, with many women refusing to wear their headscarves and cutting their hair in the streets as a sign of solidarity. The police are using tear gas and other violent methods to stop the protests, and it is unclear how many people have been killed because of the protests, it is estimated at least 400. The regime has blocked off social media platforms to stop people from spreading messages about the protests. Furthermore, the government has started sentencing protesters to death, many being young men in their early 20s, many of which had families and their whole lives to live

In the opinion of many, the regime has held back many women for many years. This includes Shirin Ebadi, who became the first Muslim and Iranian woman to win a Nobel Peace Prize in 2003. From 1975 to 1979 Shirin was the head of the city court in Tehran, but after the revolution she was not allowed to hold this position anymore, and was forced to become a clerk of the court. She later got her licence to practise law after an immense struggle, and in 1999 she distributed evidence implicating government officials for the murder of students For doing this, she was put in prison. In 2009 she went into exile in the UK. Throughout her career she has continued to advocate for the people of Iran and has been critical of the regime, and she has also written a number of books on human rights.

Many Iranians just want their freedom

back and a chance for a proper democracy, as they have been plagued with countless dictators over the years and haven’t yet been able to properly choose a stable government for themselves There is no way to tell what will happen over the coming months and years with the protests, but the young Iranian people have shown no signs of stopping, despite the violence and threats being used against them by their government. We have seen throughout history that students often lead protests as they want to fight for their future, which is reflected in Iran right now. The young people of Iran are highly motivated to achieve a greater future, with freedom for themselves and future generations, which is why it is important for people to stay educated and informed to help spread the word about the injustices people are facing everyday in Iran. It is also important to remember that many Iranian people do not reflect the regime in place and most do not agree with the rules in place, with many fighting for women to have better and fairer opportunities.

THE MIGRATION CRISIS IN EUROPE- NOT A NEW STORY

It would be fair to state that recent years have brought with them an instability across Europe. From the glare of a pending global recession to the conflict surging in Ukraine, Europe has faced unrelentless social and political crises. This makes it easy to neglect the present humanitarian turmoil of asylum seekers in Europe and those who remain in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. The consequences of the western withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and the Russian threat to food supplies, including the Black sea blockade, has resulted in another migration crisis in Europe. In 2022, further Middle East and Asian instability, fuelled by the increasing threat of organised criminal groups and terrorist organisations now that western troops have withdrawn, has increased the amount of undocumented, “irregular”, entries into the UK by 84%, not including

permitted Ukrainian asylum seekers. It should be assumed that after the experience of previous migration crises in Europe, in particular World War Two and in 2015, European countries would now be better equipped to deal with the current 114,720 undocumented asylum seekers reported by the EU border agency, but unfortunately, as in the past, Europe is floundering to find a coherent solution to aid the hundreds of thousands fleeing their war-torn and unstable homelands.

Historically, Europe has seen many migration crises in times of political and social instability. Perhaps the most significant would be that of the Second World War, which, from 1938-39 saw some 340,000 Jews attempt to escape persecution from Germany and Austria before the Second World War. Originally

fleeing to European countries such as Switzerland, Spain or Great Britain, displaced Jews were then often sent to the USA, which between 1938-39 had some 300,000 Jewish applicants seeking refuge Sadly, those who fled to nearby countries surrounding Germany at this time were often found and persecuted, with over 100,000 refugees that had escaped to nearby Europe being killed in the Holocaust. The obstacles faced by Jewish asylum seekers, as for Syrian or Afghan refugees in the modern day, were vast. Border controls in the US, for example, made it extremely difficult for Jewish refugees to obtain a visa, even sending boats of people, such as those on the St. Louis in 1939, back to Europe. Although European countries did accept some of the 908 St Louis refugees, ultimately, 254 of the passengers were known to have died as a result of the Holocaust.

This attitude was emulated throughout Europe, with other nations such as Great Britain, Switzerland and Spain severely tightening their border controls and restricting Jewish immigration even after reports of the German persecution of Jewish people reached Western countries This reluctance to provide refuge to Jewish emigrants is emphasised within the Evian conference of 1938, called by Franklin D. Roosevelt and attended by delegates from

32 countries, which saw no unified or permanent solution to the crisis and most countries refuse further entry to Jews escaping persecution, resulting in differing European standards and rules. By the end of 1939 however, significant numbers of Jews had emigrated, including 95,000 to the US and 40,000 to the UK, unquestionably changing the cultural geography of the western world after World War Two, seen today in the UK and US within the large Jewish population of North-west London and in New York

We can draw the comparison of Europe’s response to Jewish asylum seekers to those in 2015. The 2015 migration crisis bought just under 1 million refugees to European shores, predominantly from Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. The treacherous journey into Europe saw a reported 4,000 lives lost from boat journeys and over 20,000 missing since the crisis began in 2014. It’s not difficult to understand that this highlights the desperation and distress faced by the men, women and children fleeing their countries, and demands compassion and understanding from those in a position to help

However, 2015 did not see the coordinated humanitarian response it ought to. Instead, a reluctance of countries to open their borders to mass immigration, which inevitably fractured relations within the European Union and brought about a xenophobic, extreme wave of intolerance. As in the Evian conference of 1938, Europe failed to enact the supra-national response needed to effectively deal with the crisis and share the burden of the mass migration. Germany, France, Italy, and Sweden bore the brunt of migrants, whereas nations such as Spain, Romania and Finland barely gave refuge to any, with countries such as Austria and Poland continuing to avoid offering any assistance. At some national borders, e.g.,

Hungary, fences and walls were erected to keep refugees from entering, however at others, for example Germany, borders were kept open, and entry was allowed for all, even though this proved unpopular. As in Europe prior to World War Two, processing these migrants was inefficient and so they were often left in temporary camps for large amounts of time, leaving them vulnerable to disease, poor healthcare as well as gender-based violence. Throughout Europe, the 2015 crisis began a heated public debate about the apparent link between migration and terrorism, which there is no evidence for, and gave rise to a wave of neo-fascist, xenophobic attitudes from many Europeans towards asylum seekers and have resulted in a neglect from some to view refugees as people, facing unimaginable hardship and appalling conditions in their homeland. These attitudes have contributed to the poor treatment of the current asylum seekers in 2022 and could be contrasted by the welcoming treatment of Ukrainians vs

attitudes towards those fleeing from Afghanistan, for example. The failure of European nations to produce any coherent policy for the migration crisis throughout history will inevitably affect the present crisis, as there continues to be a lack of unity.

To conclude, crossing into Europe has not been made any safer due to this lack of effective policy, and Europe’s historic inability to agree on an appropriate response will continue to add to the 100 million people currently displaced, endanger innocent lives and contribute to the rising numbers of missing migrants, at 24,000 since 2014. We can clearly see the consequences of the migrant crisis in the UK now in 2023, where concerns around immigration have been widely cited as one of the dominant reasons for Brexit, and there continues today to be considerable issues and tensions surrounding migrants crossing the channel from France into the UK, for example.

THE RISE OF THE RIGHT IN ITALY

L I Z Z I E N A S H

On the 22nd of October 2022, Giorgia Meloni was sworn in as Prime Minister of Italy, the first female Prime Minister and Italy’s most right-wing government since Mussolini’s fascist dictatorship 1922-45. An absolute majority in both chambers of parliament enabled her to take power. She won as the leader of the centre right coalition, made up of Fratelli d’Italia (FdI), Forzia Italia, Noi Moderati and the League. Given her political leaning, are fears of a new wave of fascism and a far-right turn in European politics justified and

where did this new government really come from?

To understand the concerns about this new government we must understand the role of Mussolini and his impact on Italian and European politics. Mussolini was prime minister and dictator of Italy from 1922 until 1943 and was made leader of the Italian Social Republic in northern Italy by Hitler until 1945 when he was executed by a firing squad. Mussolini first used the term fascism in 1919 to describe his political movement and created the first one-party fascist state. However, he never really tried to define what exactly fascism was at the start and even in his essay published in 1932 titled ‘The Doctrine of Fascism' failed to bring clarity to the issue, due to its confusing nature.

Historians continue to debate what exactly defines fascism even now. This is where part of the fears for this new government stem from because differentiating between a party’s previous fascist influences and associations and the party’s current political aims is difficult; This is compounded by the mixed signals given out by Meloni and the parties of the coalition. In addition, there is a distinction between neo-fascist and post-fascist parties that is often overlooked by the public and the media; neo-fascism is a far-right ideology after WWII which includes significant elements of fascism, making it like the Italian Fascist movement in the early 20th century Post-fascism on the other hand has been described as a “transitional category”

where the parties have the historical links to the pre-WWII fascist movements but are attempting to move away from this and mutate away from traditional fascism. An example of this kind of party is the Italian Social Movement (MSI) which moved past its fascist history, being founded in 1946 by a group of Mussolini’s allies from the Italian Social Republic and became a part of the traditional right by merging with the conservative elements of the former Christian Democracy to form the National Alliance (AN). It was from the National Alliance that Fratelli d’Italia was born.

Cas Mudde, an influential Dutch politics professor makes a distinction in his book ‘The Far Right Today’ between the two parts of the far right: the “extreme right”, rejecting the essence of democracy with examples such as the Nazi Party and the National Fascist Party led by Mussolini, and the “radical” right, accepting the democratic system but opposing fundamental elements of liberal democracy such as the rule of law It is in the second group, the “radical right”, that we would find parties such as the League, one of the principal parties in the centre right coalition now leading Italy. Meloni is the leader of the party Fratelli d’Italia, whose ideologies are largely based on national conservatism and right-wing populism and promotes a public image of herself as a “ woman, mother, Christian” with a mission to defend “God, country and family”. Fratelli d’Italia opposes euthanasia, abortion, and LGBTQ+ rights, calling for a zero-tolerance policy on illegal immigration and describing the plummeting birth-rate in Italy “ a true emergency. ” The party has also firmly condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with Meloni vowing Italy would never be the “weak link” in the western alliance against the Russian invasion and promising to send arms to Ukraine.

Even though Fratelli d’Italia is relatively young, having only been founded in December 2012 after a right-wing split within Berlusconi’s party ‘The People of Freedom’, the party’s origins can be traced all the way back to the end of World War II. In 1946, a group of Mussolini’s allies, mostly from the Italian Social Republic (the last incarnation of the Italian Fascist state led by Mussolini), founded the neo fascist Italian Social Movement (MSI) which over the course of the 1990s was transformed into the National Alliance. At the same time, some disagreed with this new course and formed Tricolour Flame instead – another neo-fascist party. When the AN merged with The People of Freedom party in 2009, Fratelli d’Italia was formed and has been described as the ‘political successor ’ of the National Fascist Party. The party’s origins themselves show the emergence of neo-fascist and postfascist parties was not a sudden shift in Italian politics to the right, as its creation was the result of slow development of political parties that all had their roots in fascism and Mussolini’s dictatorship

In fact, the process of normalisation of farright parties and neo-fascist ideologies has been long occurring, with former prime minister and leader of the party Forza Italia Silvio Berlusconi often viewed by media as a “moderating influence”, particularly when compared to his coalition counterparts. However, this is despite his routine trivialisation of Mussolini’s crimes, describing how “the racial laws were the worst fault of Mussolini, who, in so many other aspects, did good” in January 2013 on International Holocaust Remembrance Day This means Berlusconi is now being viewed as more and more centre, despite his politics not drastically changing and his open support and admiration of Mussolini at times and this is likely happening with others like him. Overtime, this process has been

pushing Italy further right-wing and helping to normalise parties rooted in fascism, leading to the widespread acceptance of these post-fascist parties.

Despite Fratelli d’Italia’s ties to fascism, Giorgia Meloni has vehemently denied any fascist ideologies in the party, stating that the Italian right had “handed fascism over to history for decades now ” and “unambiguously condemned the suppression of democracy and the ignominious anti-Jewish laws''. A few days after the elections, Meloni told Corriere della Sera (an Italian daily newspaper published in Milan) that there were no “nostalgic fascists, racists or antisemites in the Fratelli d’Italia’s DNA'' and that she had always removed “ambiguous people”. However, it is ambiguous as to whether the party has genuinely moved away from fascism yet as Fratelli d’Italia has retained MSI’s tri-coloured flame in its official logo and has its headquarters at the same address in central Rome where MSI set up office in 1946, suggesting that unlike the National Alliance that managed to move past its fascist roots as the MSI, this party doesn’t wish to do that. In addition, the historian Luciana Cheles found during research that the imagery used in posters, brochures and anthems of the National Alliance

youth wing and later Fratelli d’Italia drew inspiration from fascist propaganda and imagery, and that Meloni’s slogans frequently echo those of Mussolini.

The actions of party members and senior politicians in this government also does not seem to align with the idea now being propagated by Meloni that the party has no relation to fascism. For instance, Enrico Michetti, who was the party’s mayoral candidate, said during his campaign that the Roman salute, which has obvious fascist connotations, should to be revived for hygiene reasons during times of Covid19 and Ignazio La Russo, a member of the party and currently serving as President of the Senate of the Republic which is the second highest-ranking office of the Italian Republic, also collects fascist memorabilia as a hobby and has stated "We are all heirs of Il Duce," Even Meloni herself had praised Mussolini and expressed sympathy for fascism as a youth activist, having joined the youth wing of MSI when she was 15 and although she

insisted she did not belong to “the cult of fascism” in her book, I Am Giorgia, it is the combination of her chequered past and the unpunished fascist supporters in the party’s midst that make it virtually impossible to make an accurate assessment of the party’s intentions and where they will go from here.

It is for these reasons that only time will tell whether the rise of the right in Italy will cause a reinstatement of a new form of fascism, or whether this coalition will

morph, just as the MSI did, from a postfascist party into an accepted and uncontroversial part of right-wing conservatism. One thing we do know is that this trend is not only in Italy, as many countries in Europe are shifting towards the far-right with the polarisation of politics potentially causing a pull toward extremes, with countries such as France also being pulled to the right. Italy is now at a point in history of great import, as we wait to see which way this will turn.

HISTORY OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE UK

LEADING UP TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS ACT

The repeal of the 1998 Human Rights Act could serve as a significant impediment to the advancement of human rights in the UK Academics and leading lawyers continue to debate whether the new British Bill of Rights considered to be introduced has the potential to adversely impact human rights. Many lawyers support this notion, suggesting the government was “systematically eroding people’s rights in an attempt to make itself untouchable by the courts”. The question arises as to why the Human Rights Act is potentially being repealed when it is understood as the embodiment of human rights and it is effective in ensuring each individual is subject to rights provided by the law. In order to understand this decision, we must consider how we got to now and return to the origins of human rights and its extensive evolution.

The 1215 Magna Carta, also recognised as the “Great Charter”, was a fundamental development to human rights in England and is widely recognised as the founding source on which the basis of human rights stems from. The Magna Carta established the principal idea of the rule of law in which “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned or stripped of his rights”, the notion that no man is

above the law, irrespective of social status. The Magna Carta was originally issued to prevent the King from exploiting his powers but also ensured everyone is subject to the same law and guaranteed individuals the right to justice and a fair trial. These values are continuously upheld within the legal system today and act as a foundation for basic human rights In spite of the significant influence of the Magna Carta, these laws were only applicable to “free men ” and this accounted for a small proportion of the people in England at the time Therefore, the Magna Carta failed to warrant individual rights for all, undermining its effect and necessitating further development within human rights.

Following the Magna Carta, the next substantial legislation to further human rights was the Habeas Corpus Act (1679),

which served to ensure that no one can be imprisoned unlawfully. “Habeas Corpus” translates from Latin to “ you may have the body”, meaning the court may order the state to “have the body” so it can review the legality of the prisoner’s detention Habeas Corpus has been utilised predating the Magna Carta as a writ for courts to charge or release people arrested without charge, despite only being integrated into the law in 1679 Under the Magna Carta accessibility to human rights was constrained to a small number of people and the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 aimed to extend this figure by extending the right to people imprisoned by the King and Privy Council. Although in practice the difference made was limited, it was more important for what it represented regarding the development of individual rights within the legal system and the conscious effort to improve human rights within England. It is still used today as legislation in the UK.

It was not until the world endured the various atrocities regarding World War Two that issues concerning civil liberties obtained international recognition. On the 10th of December 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the newly established United Nations to establish a blueprint for the fundamental civil and political rights each individual warrants. The UDHR is understood as the foundation of international human rights law as for the first time individual rights were globally introduced. The development of the UDHR continuously endeavours to uphold the “inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family”. The objective standard substantiated by the declaration initiated a wealth of other legally binding human rights treaties so there are now more than 80 international bills, declarations, conventions, and constitutional provisions. Undoubtedly,

the UDHR is essential in the world today however it is purely aspirational and there is no system to hold countries accountable. The UDHR is not the pinnacle of human rights as it fails to ensure that the laws implemented are upheld by countries and there is no obligation to comply with these laws despite numerous countries recognising the law as a blueprint for human rights. Despite the substantial development in human rights the document was flawed, and further legislation would be fundamental to ensure the aspirations outlined in the UDHR were attained.

The 1998 Human Rights Act, introduced by the Labour Government was put into effect to enforce the European Convention on Human Rights within the British legal system The HRA was entitled “Rights brought home: The Human Rights Bill” and was described by Lord BrowneWilkinson as an unprecedented “code of the moral principles which underlie the common law” It is one of the key documents which underpin Britain’s constitution as it works to certify no individual’s rights are infringed. The legislation has three main effects: one ’ s ability to seek justice in a British court, the public bodies obligation to respect an individual’s rights and new laws must be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Despite its significance in upholding the fundamental principles for human rights, critical flaws were highlighted and presented a substantial contribution to the suggested repeal of the act.

Despite immense support for the 1998 HRA, from 2006 the Conservative Party raised the issue of reforming the act due to concerns of its impact on combating crime and terrorism whilst protecting freedom The pursuit for a reformed HRA has been an ongoing process over the past 17 years,

yet it has still not been achieved The Conservative Party’s persistence in revising the HRA only came into effect in 2020 when the government launched an independent review into the HRA. Following the review, the government announced its intentions for the HRA and this consisted of the proposal of a Bill of Rights which it states would “strike a balance between individuals’ rights, personal responsibility, and the wider public interest” .

The principal justification for reforming the HRA is to restore Parliament’s role as the ultimate decision-maker on laws impacting the UK population, allowing more possibility of interpretation of the ECHR in Strasbourg and ensuring no public body acts incompatible with the ECHR Over time Conservatives have insisted for the reform of the HRA due to a foreign offenders’ ability to exploit the HRA by avoiding deportation and claiming a right to “family life”. There have been various examples used to underpin the threat this poses to the UK. One of the most prominent cases is the case of William Danga. Danga was an asylumseeker incarcerated for the rape of multiple under age children, one of which was 4 years old. Danga was freed on bail while he challenged the deportation attempt on the grounds that he had a right to “family life” because he had a child with his girlfriend in the country This case is one of several examples in which individuals can override punishment on the basis of “family life” under Article 8 of the Human rights Act 1998. Foreign criminals account for up to 1 in 8 of the prison population in England and Wales and Conservatives aim with the new Bill of Rights to ensure that the HRA cannot be utilised as a tool to avoid deportation. However, the Chief Inspector of Prisons and a parliamentary select committee made plain what caused the release of

hundreds of prisoners who were not British citizens was not the law but was entirely poor administration. It is debated whether the new Bill of Rights goes too far in an attempt to prevent exploitation and infringe on some of our other fundamental individual rights.

Despite changes made in the bill it shares some features in common with the HRA . One aspect of consistency between the bill and the HRA is how UK courts will continue to remain a ‘state party’ to the ECHR despite its aims to create greater distance between the UK human rights regime and the ECHR system The fundamental conventions listed in the ECHR are still implemented with identical language. Under the new bill Strasbourg courts are still able to issue a declaration when they find UK legislation incompatible with convention rights. Despite this, the government is only encouraged to respond and they argue that this is positive, with determination over resolutions moved to an appointment to an elected body. Ultimately this will make a response much slower and discourage courts from questioning the government, reducing independent oversight.

An area of change shown in the Bill of Rights is Section 2 of the HRA . Currently the UK courts are required to consider the Strasbourg jurisprudence in cases concerning Convention rights Instead in clause 3 of the new bill the UK Supreme Court will be recognised as the ‘ultimate judicial authority on questions arising under domestic law in connection with the Convention rights’ with no corresponding requirement to apply Convention rights. The Bill of Rights seeks to ensure that domestic courts interpret Convention rights in a conservative manner irrespective of whether it results in disregard of the way the ECHR interprets those rights. Despite this, the ECHR is the

ultimate source of judgement regarding international matters and will continue to determine the UK’s treaty obligations.

Clause 8 of the bill prevents UK courts from finding legislative provisions on deportation that would be incompatible with Article 8 of the HRA. The clause would enable governments to further restrict what should be considered when evaluating whether deportation would disproportionality harm someone ’ s private and family life. British deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab said “These reforms will reinforce freedom of speech, enable us to deport more foreign offenders and better protect the public from dangerous criminals”. The clause has the ability to narrow the strength of connection to the UK of someone facing deportation meaning there is the possibility that people who have lived in the UK since they were a child or born here could be deported ignoring the impact of separation of family. A “foreign criminal” as the bill describes would have to prove that a dependent family member

would come to “extreme harm” if they were to be deported. The new bill constricts the definition of “extreme harm” about one being deported so that it only applies to children and fails to include other family members The bill would make it significantly harder for people to uphold their rights but more importantly for people who have taken long residence in the UK to invoke rights to fair trial or family life to prevent deportation

Furthermore, with the new bill public bodies would have less obligation to actively protect human rights, on the grounds that the government does not want to burden public authorities, however the way in which it could be used is detrimental. The Bill of Rights would introduce a “permission stage” requiring one to prove they have been significantly disadvantaged to bring human rights claims to courts. The Law Society of England and Wales has called the Bill a “lurch backwards for British justice”. It criticises the introduction of the permission stage (requiring those bringing human rights cases to prove that they have gnificant disadvantage”), arguing that is provision “will create an acceptable ass of human rights abuses in the United ngdom”.

urrently it is still unknown whether the ll of Rights will be implemented into itish legislation Rishi Sunak intends to ing it back however it has been eprioritised”. Despite superficial ntinuity with the 1998 Human Rights ct the bill will significantly change the K’s relationship with the Strasbourg urts but also has great potential to fringe on human rights based on how it used or interpreted. Ultimately, the Bill Rights is a complex piece of legislation d depending on how it is utilised could substantial to the obstruction of human ghts.

During times of political and economic uncertainty, many question the logic of electing leaders within the Conservative party, and how and when a leader decides to resign. In the recent event of Boris Johnson’s resignation, many were disappointed to see the actions of his cabinet and chaos under his leadership did not lead to a general election, in which the public would have the ability to elect alternative leadership with different policies. Instead, his resignation and the consequent election of Liz Truss, resulting in brief but disastrous spell in office, can partially be attributed to the actions of the 1922 Committee.

The 1922 Committee is a parliamentary group of all backbench Conservative MPs. It has significant influence over the Conservative party’s leadership, and can play a significant role in Conservative prime ministers resigning. The committee, formerly known as the Conservative Private Members' Committee, meets weekly when the Commons is sitting and provides a way for less senior MPs to coordinate and discuss their views (independent of frontbenchers), air concerns, share their constituency work as

LONGVIEW F THE 1922 OMMITTEE A A D Y A R A J E S H

well as coordinate legislative agendas, facilitating coordination within the party The committee can play an important role in choosing the party leader, but more importantly, can force the resignations of prime ministers. In the 1980s they earned the nickname ' men in grey suits’ after prompting the resignation of Margaret Thatcher; essentially meaning this delegation of Conservative MPs can influence a party leader to step down without forcing an open challenge This means its power, when called upon, can be huge as well as its influence in the Party’s affairs. Its 18-member executive committee, executive membership and officers are by consensus limited to backbench MPs, although following controversy within the party in 2010, frontbench Conservative MPs have an open invitation to attend meetings.

Prior to the 1922 Committee’s formation, the UK was governed under Liberal David Lloyd George’s coalition government (1916-1922) after he was appointed Prime Minister of the United Kingdom by King George V. Lloyd George was widely commended for his leadership record during the First World War, but during his tenure he attracted criticism for his controversial leadership style, including bestowing honours for his own personal advancement. Many in the upper and middle classes also disliked Lloyd George for his role in developing the welfare state, as taxation rates rose to meet the new government public health provisions. The name does not, as is sometimes wrongly

supposed, stem from the 1922 Carlton Club meeting, in which Conservative backbench MPs successfully demanded that the party withdraw from the coalition government, playing a prominent role in the fall of Lloyd George’s government in 1922 The name is derived from events following the 1922 general election which the Conservatives won, as the new Conservative MPs elected at the General Election formed the committee in April 1923 The 1922 Committee was formed following an initiative to facilitate cooperation within the party, particularly between the different ranks in the party, hence backbenchers were establishing a greater role in the party’s affairs. The 1922 Committee initially began as a small dining club of new members elected in 1922, and after the 1923 and 1924 elections, the membership expanded as more new Conservative MPs were elected; it was only from 1926 that all backbench Conservative MPs were invited to become members. The committee soon developed into a

‘ginger group ’ , a group within an organisation seeking to influence its direction and activity, of active backbenchers. It became known as the Conservative Private Members' Committee and consequently became a platform for the majority to voice their opinions on the inner workings of the party, rather than a focus for discontent.

It is assumed that the 1922 adopted its present role after its formation, however there was slow, erratic progress to achieve the current status of considerable political influence the 1922 Committee now holds, punctuated by periods of irrelevance and decline. When David Cameron formed a coalition government (alongside the Liberal Democrats) in 2010, he proposed changing the 1922 Committee’s constitution to enable frontbenchers to play a greater role in its activities. Many ministers supported this action and had argued that such a change would be necessary to continue operating coherently as a party during its membership of a coalition government. However, the move angered several backbenchers, fearing it was an attempt to control potential dissent and undermine their autonomy. It prompted Sir Graham Brady, who became chairman that year, to rule that while frontbenchers would be able to attend meetings of the 1922 Committee, only backbenchers would be able to vote for its officers and the 18member executive committee.

The committee oversees the election of party leaders, or any Conservative partyled vote of confidence in a current leader. A leadership challenge begins when MPs, dissatisfied with their party's current leadership, submit no-confidence letters to the committee to express their disapproval. A vote of no-confidence is triggered when 15 percent of Tory MPs write a letter to the 1922 Committee

chairman. If it comes to it, the vote takes place in the form of a secret ballot where all Tory MPs vote. The Prime Minister of the day needs to secure at least half of their votes plus one to stay in power. This process was used most recently on 6 June 2022, against Boris Johnson, when the threshold for a vote of no confidence was reached and he resigned a month later.

The 1922 Committee are often sent in at times of crisis to tell prime ministers to step down, for example during Theresa May’s troubled Brexit negotiations in which the 1922 Committee grew in public prominence. In December 2018, chair Sir Graham Brady received enough votes to bring a motion of no confidence against Theresa May. The move ultimately failed, with May winning with a majority of 83, with 200 Conservative MPs voting for her to remain, and 117 voting against her. However, it was reported that she had announced she would stand down as Conservative party leader before the next general election as a means of ensuring that she would win the vote. In March 2019, May announced that she would resign before the next round of Brexit negotiations, but did not set a date to leave. It was only following requests for clarification by Sir Graham Brady for a “roadmap” of her plan to depart office. Some criticised the public power struggle between the prime minister and committee during a time of a national political crisis– however the actions of ‘the men in grey suits’ led to her resignation, and in June 2019 Boris Johnson won the subsequent leadership contest, once again showing the influence of pressure by the 1922 Committee.

The last time a leader lost a power through a vote organised by the committee was on 29 October 2003, when Iain Duncan Smith was defeated by 90 to 75. Duncan Smith had faced opposition for his lack of

charismatic leadership and many conservative MPs considered him incapable of winning the next general election. He was further undermined by ‘Betsygate’ in which he faced allegations of inappropriate salary payments to his wife who acted as his diary secretary After losing the vote of no confidence, he immediately resigned and returned to the back benches.

Margaret Thatcher’s 15-year leadership of the Conservative Party was also bookended by the actions of the 1922 Committee. Following Edward Heath’s third general election defeat in October 1974, the 1922 Committee urged the Conservative leader to either resign or hold a leadership contest. Heath resigned after finishing behind Thatcher in the first round of votes. However, the rules agreed for this 1975 contest stated that the victorious candidate needed to lead their nearest rival by a margin of 15 per cent. She missed the threshold by four votes in the first round, leading to her eventual downfall in 1990, where she resigned before the second vote could take place.

Over the past 100 years the significance of the 1922 Committee’s influence on the Conservative Party’s inner workings and political policy has undeniably been huge. The committee has acted as a forum for Conservative MPs to express their views on leadership candidates within the party, proposed political policies, and most significantly in expressing discontent with the party’s leader. This is exemplified by the fact that the 1922 Committee had a role in the resignations of Conservative Party leaders Margaret Thatcher, Ian Duncan Smith, Theresa May and most recently Boris Johnson.

HOW MAPS HAVE BEEN USED TO PROMOTE POLITICAL MESSAGES

P

O P P Y O ’ R E G A N

Most people think that maps are just used to work out where things are, and older maps are less accurate purely because they were less technologically advanced. However, the truth is that maps have been used to promote political messages for hundreds of years, and older maps are sometimes less accurate because they were promoting a message, not that the creators of the map didn’t know that it was wrong. In modern times, even as we have incredibly accurate maps, maps are still used as a political tool. In this article I will be picking out some important political maps across history and explaining how they have been used to alter public opinion on an issue.

One of the earliest maps that clearly promoted a message was the Map Psalter, created in 1262, which mapped the world as it was known then as well as mapping the religious world. This created a rather extraordinary map, where Rome is plotted, but so is the garden of Eden and Moses parting the Red Sea. Atop the map is an illustration of Christ holding an orb which is used in the coronation of the monarch, and the centre of the map is Jerusalem. This very interesting piece was commissioned by King Henry III, and that

fact suggests that this map provides insight into how the King wanted the people to view religion, and the role of the monarch. One message that can be extracted is the importance that the King wanted to place on Jerusalem because of the Crusades, but also a message about the similarities between the King and God. The fact that Christ is holding an orb used in the coronation cements this link between the monarch and God, and further reinforces the idea of the divine right of kings. The Map Psalter asserts King Henry III’s authority, and this was no accident. The map was created to push that message.

A later, interesting political map is Leo Belgicus, created in 1650. The map represents the seventeen provinces of the Netherlands, organised in the shape of a

lion. This map was published to commemorate Dutch independence from Spain, and this fact sheds light on the meaning of the map. The lion motif suggests a strong and powerful nation, and mapping the provinces all together showcases unity. Leo Belgicus was created not only as a commemorative map for the Dutch public, but also to show to other countries that the Netherlands were strong without Spain’s influence. This shows how maps can be used to help establish a new nation and its international reputation.

A more modern map the ‘Portugal não é um pais pequeno ’ (Portugal is Not A Small Country) was created in 1934 to promote Portugal’s strength and the inportance of colonialism to it. Portugal’s colonies Angola and Mozambique are superimposed onto a map of Europe, demonstrating the size of those countries. This creates a sense that Portugal dominates Europe, when in reality it was

dwarfed by many more powerful countries This map was used to justify colonialism, suggesting that Portugal’s colonies were strengthening the nation, despite huge amounts of money being funnelled away from Portugal to fund the colonies, and the obvious huge ethical problems with colonisation. This map was translated into many different languages, demonstrating that this map was created to boost Portugal's reputation. Especially in

the tense political environment that preceded the Second World War, this kind of posturing was important, and was done through the creation of this map

A final map that portrays a fascinating political message is ‘Two Worlds’, created in 1950. It was published in Time magazine, at the start of the Cold War, when the USSR

was expanding its influence over Eastern Europe and the USA was wary of its actions Depicted in the map a large, red USSR is positioned where it seems to dominate the globe, exaggerating its size. In contrast, the USA is barely visible over the horizon, minimising its size and importance. The rays of light emanating from the USSR represent its influence over Eastern Europe and newly communist China Published against the backdrop of McCarthyism, ‘Two Worlds’ contributed to the Red Scare, and promoted the message that the American public should be scared of the aggressive communism of the USSRand its increasingly threatening influence.

In conclusion, although maps are under appreciated as a political tool, they are commonly used as one From the divine right of kings to colonialism to the Cold

War, maps have been used to promote political messages and influence the wageneral public. How we got to now, with all of the movements and wars that came with that, were helped along by propaganda maps such as the ones that have just been discussed. Maps are sometimes not just a literal representation of where we are, but often a snapshot of the political situation, and where leaders and countries would like to go

A MODERN HISTORY OF CHINA AND THE USA: ENEMIES, FRIENDS OR ‘FRENEMIES’?

Today, we are witnessing the start of a ‘growing schism’ between China and the US.

Day after day, a ‘salvo of accusations and recriminations’ are launched from Washington in the direction of Beijing and vice versa. The outbreak of COVID-19, the Trump presidency and the recent RussiaUkraine war have undoubtedly further fuelled this fire Are China, a rising power, and the US, a dominant global power, on the brink of the ‘Thucydides’ Trap’? What will be the extent of the deterioration of Western-Chinese relations? In order to contemplate the possibilities, we must first reflect upon the tumultuous historical events between these two superpowers.

Looking back, we can see that China and the US have shared a long history of encounters: confrontation, estrangement, alliance, stalemate, détente and friction.

However, arguably the periods of Containment, followed by Rapprochement and Engagement in the mid twentieth century, provide us with the most illuminating view of Sino-US relations

Containment: Mutual Fear 1949-1971

In 1949 the Chinese Communist party (CCP) became the victors of a decade long Civil War in China and founded the People’s Republic of China. The defeat of Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist party, who fled to Taiwan, shattered any previous camaraderie the US had with China In the space of a few weeks, China and the United States quickly turned from cooperative allies to bitter enemies. This marked the beginning of twenty-two years of destabilising and at times aggressive behaviour from both the US and China.

Mao Zedong, Chair of the CCP, was relentless in his demonstration of disapproval towards the West. Shortly after Mao’s victory, the US state department published a White Paper outlining their relations with China over the previous century. Such a report aimed to first absolve the US government of the responsibility of the loss of China to the communists and therefore it sought to undermine the ‘Chinese revolution’ by consequence. Mao was angered by the paper, stating that the US were telling a ‘bare-faced lie’ by claiming that the two countries were 'friends' when in reality Mao viewed the US an ‘imperialist country’ and perpetrator of ‘aggression’ towards China over the years. Delivering a speech entitled ‘The Chinese people have stood up!’ only typified Mao’s mission to establish a ‘New China’ that challenged the existing world order under Western domination.

Consequently, in the US, communist hysteria was rife. The US government had prohibited Americans from visiting China;

trade ties were cut, and an orchestrated international trade embargo was enforced. Moreover, the US encouraged its allies to refrain from entering into diplomatic relations with the new People’s Republic of China altogether, but keeping relations with Taiwan.

After the founding of the People’s Republic of China, China was worried that the US might engage in armed aggression, whilst the US was worried that China might engage in Communist expansion in Asia. Both countries seemed to be afraid of each other. This mutual fear drove a pattern of cautious strategic decisions between 1940 and 1960. In 1950, during the Korean War (the first ‘hot war ’ of the Cold War) China did not initially involve themselves. Mao later joined the side of the North Koreans when fighting raged a little too close to the Chinese border. Despite such an uncharacteristic intervention, President Truman chose not to extend the war to Chinese territory despite the hostilities between two countries.

Equally, the diplomatic dealings of the Vietnam War in the 1960s avoided a physical or diplomatic ‘clash’ Instead, they managed the crisis through ambassadorial talks in Warsaw, avoiding direct confrontation. Therefore, it seems that although both nations were firmly opposed to each other and both strived to contain the other's influence, in effect, their mutual fear translated into a form of mutual understanding, preventing physical conflict from ensuing.

Rapprochement: Mutual Respect 19711979

In the 1970s China and the US began to move closer to each other - a historic turning point. America’s desire to bring an end to the war in Vietnam and worsening

Sino-Soviet relations contributed to the ‘breaking of ice’ and establishment of diplomatic ties between both nations In Spring 1971 Nixon and Mao engaged in ‘Ping Pong Diplomacy’ during the World Table Tennis Championships. President Nixon’s visit to China in February 1972 marked the breakthrough towards Rapprochement; the decade long hostility between both nations was fading away. The signing of the Shanghai Communiqué cemented the new era of US-Chinese diplomatic relations In the Communiqué both sides agreed that countries, regardless of their social systems ‘should conduct their relations on the principles of respect’. On this basis, unofficial relations began to develop with trade, educational, and cultural exchanges. Mutual respect between both nations began to prosper.

Engagement: Mutual Trust 1979 – 2016

In 1979 the two governments established full diplomatic relations. In general, this was the most stable period in China-US relations in history. President Nixon’s visit marked the beginning of the policy of ‘engagement’ toward China. On the Chinese side, the establishment of normal diplomatic relations with the US coincided with the adoption of ‘reform and opening’ policies in China This period saw rapid development of trade and investment ties with the West. China also opened itself up to tourism from the West and developed extensive ties to the West academically and culturally A sense of trust seemed to be forged between both nations. However, the relationship was tempered when a core human rights issue arose over the violent crackdown against student demonstrators in Beijing in June 1989 – the so-called Tiananmen incident. Notwithstanding the human rights abuse, the reform policies, investment and trade deals with the West and the co-operation over the denuclearisation of North Korea helped

China’s integration into the world and by 2010 China became the second largest economy in the world.

The “New Cold War”: Mutual Fear is back - 2016 onwards

With the accession of Xi Jinping to the position of Chinese Communist Party General Secretary in 2012, China adopted more assertive policies on security issues in the Asian block. It also adopted more repressive policies at home. Similarly, in the US, Donald Trump’s presidency marked a corresponding shift toward a harder line on China The US declared China was a ‘strategic rival’ and competitor. Problems in the relationship continued to surface including economic and trade frictions, disputes over intellectual property rights, the Hong Kong issue, the Taiwan issue, and disputes in the South China sea.

The shift and slide back to ‘mutual fear’ has been rapid Since 2020, official relations between the two countries have been virtually frozen and the ‘mutual antipathy between the two peoples unprecedented’. Standing here today, it looks as if China-US relations have come full circle. Now we are back into a period where diplomatic relations between the two countries have fallen to a serious alltime low. We can see that China and the US have been enemies, friends and even ‘frenemies’ over the past 80 years. Will the cycle repeat and follow a similar pattern? Or is the relationship between these two extraordinary superpowers now on a completely different and potentially dangerous trajectory? In my view, what will happen next is hard to predict.

HIS-STORY: WOMEN’S ONGOING ERASURE FROM HISTORY

It is well known that women have been erased from history for millennia, either with men taking credit for their achievements, or women simply not being given opportunities in the first place. Men are the default in history, from politics to literature. I have explored examples of this erasure, and importantly, how it impacts us today.

Throughout history women have been seen as inferior to men, starting from childhood, with girls hardly receiving an education in comparison to boys Later on, any land or money they owned were transferred into their husbands’ name after marriage. Women were valued based on their appearance and their role as wives and mothers As women were prohibited from positions of power, their chances of being remembered were limited, with most history being the history of battles, kings, politics and economics. Women’s activities were deemed not worth recording by historians and archaeologists due to their domestic role. Whilst some women have been recorded, such as Queen Elizabeth I or Cleopatra, these women were of the aristocracy Class, race and gender all played and continue to play a key role in the likelihood of women ’ s contributions being deemed worthy of recording; the working class and women of colour had little chance of being documented as they were seen to be not

worth remembering In this article, I explore women lost to history, particularly in the scientific world, and their impact on today’s society.

Mary Seacole – Lost then Found.

All women have a limited chance of being remembered, but this dramatically decreases for people from marginalised backgrounds. A fundamental example is Crimean nurse Mary Seacole, who was only recently credited for her hard work. Born in Jamaica in 1805, at 12 years old she was helping to run the boarding house her mother had set up where many of the guests were ill or injured soldiers, before travelling to England to stay with relatives. There she learnt about European medicine, which later helped her training in Caribbean medicine. Following her time with relatives, she travelled to London herself, where she experienced racism on a daily basis, in particular from white men.

Before her involvement in the Crimean

War, she nursed victims of the Kingston cholera epidemic and of the yellow fever epidemic. Her most famous work is her involvement in the Crimean War. She asked the British War Office to be sent as an army nurse but was refused Undeterred, she made her own way to Crimea where she established the British Hotel to care for sick and recovering soldiers. It was so close to the front line that Seacole was able to visit the battlefield to nurse the wounded, even when it was under fire.

Mary Seacole died in 1881 and her work was lost to history for over 100 years, deemed unworthy of remembering, unlike how her white counterpart Florence Nightingale has been remembered. It is only recently that her work has been rediscovered and her achievements properly recognised. How did this come about?

The Matilda Effect

When asked to think of scientists, many people picture Albert Einstein, or Stephen Hawking. This is understandable; these men have made significant contributions to our understanding of the world. But there are many men who have stolen womens ’ achievements; it happens so frequently it needs its own name: ‘The Matilda Effect’.

Rosalind Franklin was critical in the discovery of the DNA structure. However, when her two colleagues Francis Crick and James Watson received a Nobel Prize in 1962, her work went uncredited. This is not an uncommon occurrence; Nettie Stevens’ discovery of the XY sex determination system is often credited to Thomas Hunt Morgan; a distinguished geneticist at the time. In the 12th century Trotula, an Italian physicist, had her accomplishments credited to male authors; her life’s work was erased.

This phenomenon was named by Margaret

Rossiter, a Yale graduate who attended University in the late 1960s. She studied the lives of hundreds of female scientists and wrote a book, Women Scientists in America, investigating the lives of these women and how they were systematically prevented from taking credit for their scientific work. She stated that the reason for this was due to women not fitting society’s image of a scientist. Furthermore, before the 20th century, women ’ s position in society meant they couldn’t access science as a leading researcher, often meaning women were left to the roles of assistants in the lab, thus making it easier to ignore them in scientific documentation.

One theory as to why women were systemically at a disadvantage in the science world was due to 19thcentury biological writings which believed that females were both intellectually and

physically inferior to males as one of the first evolution theories. Moreover, another assumption was men had bigger brains than women, so were therefore more intelligent. Helen H. Gardener (1853-1925), a political activist and American author, took it upon herself to challenge this theory, publishing her paper Sex in Brain which argued there was no correlation between brain size and intelligence, partly because if this were the case, humans would not be the most intelligent species. Unsurprisingly, Gardener faced harsh criticism for her paper that went against the systematic belief that women would always be biologically inferior to men

Rossiter created the phrase the Matilda Effect, inspired by the term the Matthew Effect-(origin of this phrase?), that described the bias that left hundreds of female scientists with no credit to their life’s work. Named for suffragist Matilda Joslyn Gage, whose own work was often overlooked, this bias has had an enormous impact on the scientific world today Firstly, the exclusion of women from professional spaces of science led to more women working in astronomy and botany, as these rely on fieldwork, meaning women could finally be involved in scientific research. As a result, the sciences are still divided today, with physics being seen as a hard science, making it a “ man ’ s world” and sciences such as biology being labelled as a soft science which is more acceptable for women to partake in. This in turn causes young girls to not feel welcome in the industry, and also allows misogyny to remain prevalent in science. A 2018 study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine revealed nearly 50% of women in science and 43% of female STEM graduates had experienced sexual harassment at work or university This leads to a higher rate of dropouts amongst women, and thus continues to exclude women from the

scientific field

Conclusion

In the last century, some change has been made. The rise of feminism and social change has brought a change in expectations and an increase in equality. A developing interest in social history has also put women ’ s history more into the spotlight, with their stories being unfolded and their achievements finally recognised More recently, the realisation of the need to make history more diverse and representative has put women of colour and those from marginalised backgrounds to the forefront of people’s education However, some damage has already been done with the universal omission of women. History gives a sense of identity and subconscious ideas about what we can achieve The focus on men in history gives the impression women are less successful and less likely to make major discoveries or achievements. The effect this can have on young women and girls in today’s society is detrimental; not seeing themselves represented throughout history can make them feel inferior to their male counterparts. Furthermore, this risks the increase of misogyny, as the inequality of the past is perpetuated into modern day. It is critical that we include women in history going forward, as well as excavating women of the past and rewriting their place in history, in order to create a society going forward of equity, diversity and inclusion.

DRESS AND PROTEST THROUGH TIME

Possibly the most frequently asked and prevalent question throughout history and the world is ‘what shall I wear?’ What someone chooses to wear can become a means of relaying their political orientation and angst. As a medium open to the masses, in the hands of those who choose to use it, fashion is the most accessible and powerful tool of expression. Its consistent pervasion in the political sphere is of paramount importance and should not be underestimated.

A common criticism of the modern woman is that she cares too much about her hair, her makeup and her clothes. I believe that there is some truth to this statement as we do care about how we look, but perhaps our heightened attention to detail in the way we present ourselves is not uncalled for. As a gender, we may have broken out of the corseted cage, but we have not escaped the persistent judgement from men and women alike regarding our fashion choices. Many a family dinner in my household have featured both brief and lengthy discussions on the topic of what Alex Jones on ‘The One Show’ is wearing tonight and although I myself have on occasion analysed this topic in great depths, I can’t help but notice a fundamental gender imbalance in this regard While we listen to the news relayed by Alex’s male counter-parts, her opinions may slip through the cracks as we discuss whether that was really the right colour for her. If we are unable to alter the unrelenting, unconscious desire to conform to the male gaze, if we cannot escape our consumerist society’s tendency to capitalise on the insecurities of its young

girls, if nobody will listen to what we have to say, then we can speak through our clothes. And we have.

In the 1850s, one of the first instances of a ‘feminist fashion piece’ was the ‘Bloomer Dress’ sometimes dubbed the ‘Freedom Dress’. ‘Let men be compelled to wear our dress for a while and we should soon hear them advocating a change’ said the garments namesake, Amelia Bloomer. She and other early suffragettes popularised them as the first female trousers, pioneering a more practical alternative to the restrictive dress of American women at the time.

The suffragettes would go on to adopt

fashion as a means of symbolising the movement. The WSPU adopted a colour scheme, choosing white to represent purity, purple for ‘the royal blood that flows in the veins of every suffragette, the instinct of freedom and dignity’ and green to signify hope and ‘the emblem of spring’. Often ridiculed in the media and portrayed as masculine, they wore these colours on sashes over particularly traditional and feminine dresses Sylvia Pankhurst once remarked that “ many suffragists spend more money on clothes than they can comfortably afford, rather than run the risk of being considered outré and doing harm to the cause ”

In the 1920s, American society was brimming with post-war excitement, newfound vitality and consumerism that women embraced Flapper feminism saw young girls romping into jazz clubs, riding bikes and driving in cars, drinking like men, chain-smoking and flirting outrageously. Their reckless behaviour that rolled its eyes at social conventions and taboos was exemplified by their dress, after all, how could they be expected to Charleston in a corset? Circa 1923, Coco Chanel introduced what became known as the ‘ garçonne look’ which included high

hemlines, non-existent waistlines and lighter undergarments to create a straight and slim silhouette. This scandalous look was completed with a hairdo as short as it would go: a bob. This was often refused in beauty salons, but a flapper girl would not be deterred and would simply take her business to a barber shop.

The end of the Second World War caused women to hang up their workwear and retreat into the home to live in suburban bliss, and they were given the housewife makeover along the way. As a kickback against the pearls, aprons and hoop skirts with circumferences that would require door widening, designer Mary Quant popularised the mini skirt. This coincided with the contraceptive pill becoming commercially available in 1961 and a new era of women ’ s liberation Second wave feminism had also become synonymous with bra burning, and although this was a myth perpetuated by the media to portray feminist ‘hysteria’, many began to reject traditional feminine items such as heels and pantyhose, viewing them as symbols of their repression that betrayed the movement.

The end of the Second World War caused

women to hang up their workwear and retreat into the home to live in suburban bliss, and they were given the housewife makeover along the way. As a kickback against the pearls, aprons and hoop skirts with circumferences that would require door widening, designer Mary Quant popularised the mini skirt This coincided with the contraceptive pill becoming commercially available in 1961 and a new era of women ’ s liberation Second

wave feminism had also become synonymous with bra burning, and although this was a myth perpetuated by the media to portray feminist ‘hysteria’, many began to reject traditional feminine items such as heels and pantyhose, viewing them as symbols of their repression that betrayed the movement.

In this vein, the 70s and 80s saw shoulder pads reach new heights and the women wearing them reach new heights in their careers. ‘Power dressing’ reflected the equality sought by the growing number of women who had broken through into the workforce, even if it wouldn’t be until 1993 that the US would make pantsuits on the Senate floor a legal fashion choice.

Third wave feminism was spurred on by ‘Riot grrrls’ is that their spelling? in the 90s unleashing their raw feminine rage in surly punk lyrics that addressed domestic abuse, sexuality, the patriarchy and empowerment. They embraced gender-

neutral garments, bold graphic messages on torn up t-shirts and reclaimed feminist motifs such as the colour pink.

In response to Trump’s ‘grab that pussy ’ statement in 2017, women all over the world donned ‘hot pink pussy hats’ whilst marching in protest against his inauguration.

Without verbal communication, fashion has aided women in their political resistance and rebellion, hence the history of fashion equates to the history of feminism.

Throughout the ongoing fight for civil rights, black people have strategically embraced different styles, recognising fashion’s adaptive ability to reflect their aims. In the 1960s a respectable image was projected in the battle to shift deep rooted prejudice in America. By reframing societies preconceived ideas of what a disrupter looked like, the civil rights movement was able to control its message.

Presentation equated to dress and marches and rallies were attended in one ’ s ‘Sunday best’, demanding to be taken seriously. The striking images of respectable, dignified and peaceful citizens facing systemic violent horrors forced Americans to confront their attitudes.

In the late 1960s a shift in politics resulted in a shift in style. The Black Panther party responded to the younger generation’s call for swifter more meaningful change that would resonate in their daily lives. Civil suits were replaced with black turtlenecks, berets and leather jackets - a militant style for a generation that had grown weary of politely asking for equal rights. Through their dress, the Panthers communicated the duality of their policies. They expressed radicalism and regimentation. Their fashion contrasted against the loosely fitting, tie-dyed, flower powered attire of hippies, establishing that although these two radical groups were connected in their desire for change, the Panthers were organised about it. Determined and driven, the Black Panthers were a force. The recurring use of black was an intentional reclamation of the colour, refuting the stigma that ‘black is bad’ and reclaiming it as ‘black is power ’ and ‘black is beautiful’. This beauty was released freely in the natural hair movement, and afros were worn as a statement reclaiming their roots, embracing their natural beauty and called for an end of the desire to assimilate into white society and abide by its strict regulations.

The Black Lives Matter movement’s recurring garment was the statement Tshirt, delivering its message with blunt conviction and iconography that appealed to the potential power of social media We may not have been able to read the lips of the mask wearing protestors, but we could read their t-shirts and they proclaimed that ‘black lives matter’. The practicality of

a t-shirt also features a beneficial day-today wearability aspect, meaning that the message is not limited to a march. However, t-shirt activism can be simultaneously criticised in this feature, as its accessibility can allow people to fulfil an external expression of solidarity without reflecting any internal desire to effect real change.

Over time, from all cross sections of society, people have used fashion to stand out, to blend in, to express solidarity and conformity, making it impossible to mention all of the iconic outfits that have arisen from our unrelenting determination to improve society. Besides feminists and black civil rights protestors, mods, rockers, punks, skinheads, disco queens, ravers and football hooligans to name a few all included a uniform that expressed solidarity within a group of rebels. I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the late Vivienne Westwood, the grandmother of punk in the 70s and just as cool at 81 years old, who styled us for a different cause but with the same tenacity that created anarchy in the UK. I would argue that even roadmen and their international variants, who may appear to have simply stumbled into JD and picked up the first tracksuit they had found, are making a larger statement. One that perhaps speaks to their growing insecurity in a society that is increasingly accepting of homosexuality and increasingly encouraging its young men to explore their emotions. This may be speculative, but the same insecurities were present in the straight, white rockers on disco demolition day.

We are taught not to judge a book by its cover, but more often than not, the cover reveals what the author wants you to know and the same can be applied to protest and its constant inter-relation with fashion.