Contents
Contents Medusa………………………………………………………………………………………1 The Shape of Water………………………………………………………3 On Reclaiming Culture………………………………………………5 Human Genetic Research……………………………………………6 Separating the Art from the Artist……………9 Snow’s Kiss………………………………………………………………………11 The Importance of Having an Opinion………12 What is Feminism?………………………………………………………13 Month in Science…………………………………………………………15 On the Problem of Protesting…………………………17 We Need to Talk about Climate Change……19 Sustainability Guide………………………………………………21 The Trials and Tribulations of Having Indian Parents………………………………………………………………23
ALEXANDRE DEPLAT- CREATING MUSIC THAT SOUNDS LIKE WATER Guillermo del Toro describes The Shape of Water as ‘a fairytale for troubled times.’ It is a 1962 drama set during the American Cold War; a world of secret government science projects and Russian spies. It’s also a romance between Elisa Esposito, a mute, and a river creature from South America. It’s a story which deals with the duality of perfection and imperfection, unity and otherness, humanity and monsters. This love letter to Creature from the Black Lagoon (Arnold, 1954) delves deep into the world of janitor Elisa who has lived every day the same, yet everything seems to change when a relationship sparks between herself and a mysterious beast the government facility she works for have brought back from South America. Guillermo del Toro is famous for his movie Pan’s Labyrinth (del Toro, 2006) which deals with fantasy and fear yet is grounded in a very real world, similar to Shape of Water. However, in this movie, the monsters aren’t strange white beings with eyes in their palms. The monsters are the humans. The monster is Richard Strickland (played by Michael Shannon), the clean-cut family man who fears cleaning ladies, gay people- people alien to his world. Guillermo del Toro’s Shape of Water is a movie about “celebrating imperfection, celebrating otherness, falling in love with the other”- which is beautifully represented through the love story between Elisa and the Creature, two individuals who are expelled from society yet have found each other through their otherness. Alongside duality and imperfection, del Toro’s movie carries the motif of water throughout. Guillermo aims to remind his audience that “the shape of water is the shape of love.” In an interview, del Toro says that water is all around us- it is in sweat, water bottles, in the rain- similar to how love surrounds us in the smallest ways. Since water is such a powerful motif it was important for the film to be able to capture this in its music. Alexandre Desplat is notorious in the world of film scoring, known for his work on The Danish Girl (Hooper, 2016), The Grand Budapest Hotel (Anderson, 2014) and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (Yates, 2010). What is so captivating about Desplat’s score in this movie in particular is the way he creates music which sounds like water.
“Water takes the shape of everything... it’s invisible, transparent, but it still has a lot of power.”
Desplat was tasked with the difficult goal of pairing such a delicate movie, with the right music- and in only 6 weeks. In an interview, Desplat speaks about how his personal life influenced the score, commenting on how he was inspired by his time in the Caribbean. He compared the feeling of warmth one feels in the Caribbean waters to the feeling of warmth one may also feel when being loved. There’s the warmth of the water that had just had the sun beating down on it and the warmth of longing when missing a loved one. From here Desplat began his journey. When listening to the Shape of Water score it’s hard not to notice the small features that echo the sounds of water. The music seems to “roll forward in waves” and at some points is paired with a certain blur which is reminiscent of being underwater and hearing sounds from above you. Used even when above ground in the movie, this technique completely immerses the audience and is a subtle reminder that we are always surrounded by love. Deplat made sure to sculpt the music to follow the story, having enough trust in the actor’s performance and del Toro’s directing to follow the movie rather than allow the movie to be led by the music. A way in which he highlighted this was through creating variations of each character theme for each climax, creating a cocktail of noticeable tracks with small variations each time leading up to the final climax. Desplat placed his character themes carefully throughout the film to build up the aforementioned final climax. Elisa’s Theme and Love Theme never meet until this final scene where Eliza joins the Creature for the rest of her life underwater. For me, the sudden influx of music and emotion (and almost certainly tears), is reflective of a surface that has had the pressure of water above on it for so long and has finally broken under this pressure, releasing the water. By the end of the film it’s clear that although surrounded by it, Elisa had never truly felt love until now, when she is submerged in water and the audience are submerged in the carefully combined tracks. Desplat’s careful handling of the film and its emotions is clear and perfectly complements del Toro’s piece of art.
“Unable to perceive the shape of you, I find you all around me. Your presence fills my eyes with your love. It humbles my heart, for you are everywhere”
It is not unusual for a medical breakthrough to soon become a political topic. After all, the safety and wellbeing of the people should always be at the forefront of every government official’s mind when constructing new legislation. However, it is clear that some matters go beyond the law and become a more matter of what is morally right and wrong. Human genetic modification is one of these issues. It is the direct manipulation of the genome using molecular engineering techniques. Initially, the idea that in the next few decades, all babies could be born without any herniated diseases such as cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia and be genetically immune to all fatal diseases sounds phenomenal, miraculous. However, there is an ugly and darker side to this research that has the potential to compromise fundamental moral and ethnic beliefs. The journey started with the development of ‘Crispr’, a system that guides a protein called cas9 to cut DNA, basically editing your genes. Although not at the clinical testing stage yet, scientists are continuing to develop better and more advanced proposals all the
time. One thing is very clear: the possibilities of this technique would be endless, unlimited, unrestricted. A few decades of extensive research could be all that is between now and unprecedented future. Undoubtedly, new developments would have life-changing effects on babies’ lives. By manipulating and ‘fixing’ faulty genes at an embryonic level, for example replacing a gene that is known to cause muscular dystrophy or a gene that has in past generations led to glaucoma, it would be possible to grant people longer and healthier lives and give them the opportunity to live independently. However, it is impossible to foresee (when this breakthrough eventually becomes common practice in a few decades time as many medical discoveries do), how far cosmetic businesses may take it. Dr Harold Gillies said by many to be ‘the father of modern day plastic surgery’, began his research in hope to treat Allied WWI soldiers who had suffered severe disfigurements to their faces from shells and bullets in no man's land. Modern-day plastic surgery is now over 72% cosmetic, according to the ‘Harley Medical group’ and so it is
disconcerting to think what human genetic engineering techniques could eventually be used for in the cosmetic world in years to come, seeing the transition in the plastic surgery industry from mostly medical to cosmetic in the last few decades. Furthermore, legalising the practice now could open the flood gates to a brave new world of “designer babies” engineered with genetic enhancements. The gene that could ‘cure’ glaucoma and muscular dystrophy in one child could give another superhuman vision or strength, creating a new age of extreme inequalities unlike anything ever seen before, as it likely that only the offspring of the very rich would have access to such absurd and expensive procedures. It would also open a door to an unsettling new world of marketbased form eugenics as babies could be born one day, by the will of their parents, with unnatural characteristics that society temporarily views as desirable, which would undermine many people’s basic religious beliefs and moral attitudes about selfacceptance. How would it be possible to embrace who you are while being blatantly aware that your characteristics, personality traits, and physical features were fabricated by your parents and society’s narrow perspective of
beauty? Furthermore, the procedure is not done without severe risks. Although one day the treatment may be safe enough to be carried out on real clients, the type of clinical testing to achieve that level of security would essentially mean playing with human life. Recently, we have observed the consequences of tinkering with genetics with the cloning of animals, such as ‘Dolly’ the cloned sheep. For every one successful cloning, many hundreds of embryos have died, simply labeled as failed attempts, which is one the main ethical issues sounding this matter. This also gives reason to believe that we, as scientists do not know enough about genetics to tinker with something as complex and intricate as the human genome. It would take thousands of unsuccessful attempts and billions of pounds to achieve a success rate that passes human genetic engineering techniques through modern-day medical standards, but it is likely, with the known potential power and influence the procedure would have in the world, that many would invest in decades of research and clinical testing, which is money and time that should be spent elsewhere. To conclude, whilst the
development of human genetic engineering techniques is an unquestionably groundbreaking and exciting prospect, it is also clear that the matter must not be taken lightly, legally or morally. The entire concept of editing a person's original fundamental makeup before they are even born compromises basic ethic beliefs and raises concerning issues about the unborn child’s human rights. Ultimately, there is plainly too much of a risk that the technique will become the next commercialised phenomenon. Although it is also clear the development of the technique could, in time, have the potential to improve the lives of thousands, many parents would simply not be able to access or afford the treatment for their unborn child resulting in more extreme inequalities worldwide. It is impossible to know if the treatment will or will not eventually be used for unethical purposes, as it is not uncommon for big companies and organisations to find ways to compromise with the law. How can we allow the fate of these unborn children to potentially be put into the hands of people who may manipulate parents into thinking their child is genetically inferior, all in search of a profit? The technique, if used in this way would create more
damage to humanity than it restores. Scientists must find methods to combat the symptoms genetic diseases rather than trying to avoid the gene altogether. Therefore, although an exciting breakthrough in medicine and science, human genetic engineering techniques should be considered too hazardous to be legalised in any country or state, as it could threaten the fundamental moral and ethnic standards of humanity. If legalised, we will only start to rely on this technique that attempts to harness nature. It will open a Pandora’s box and make way for a new meaning of superficial and coming of a vastly unequal future generation. “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled” -Richard P Feynman.
BY RACHEL WEST
The question of separating art from the artist has undergone many critiques from those who take issue with so-called ‘PC culture’ but has recently come under discussion because of the alleged paedophilia of Michael Jackson. Many artists over the centuries have had questionable personal lives which have never inhibited people from consuming their media, so it is interesting to observe those which have been ‘cancelled’. Traditionally, artists who have questionable beliefs or personal lives often don’t come under any criticism when the time period they lived in is considered. For example, it is widely known that the Italian renaissance painter Caravaggio murdered a man, yet this would not cause museums to take down any of his work. Perhaps the fact that he has been dead for over 400 years allows us to overlook this part of his character. Additionally, the moral philosophy of Kant is still taught in schools today, despite the openly racist opinions he held. This again would suggest that, although we may not agree with the personal beliefs of an individual, the works they have produced overshadow our opinions of them. However, by turning a blind eye to these behaviours, could it not be argued that we view them as acceptable? Even in more recent years, the questionable behaviours of artists have not affected their success. For example, the works of Eric Gill, a man who raped his daughters and had an incestuous relationship with his sister, are still celebrated amongst art critics. In 2013, the Mail Online published an article which spoke of the pressure on the BBC to remove Gill’s statue from the Broadcasting House, and multiple comments spoke of leftist ‘witch hunts’ against artists. This may suggest that the public are in favour of separating art from the artist (or perhaps just those that read the Mail). Even today, the music of XXXTentacion is extremely popular, even though he was awaiting trial on charges of assault against his pregnant girlfriend when he was killed. Is death all people need to excuse artists of their bad behaviour?
The debate nowadays has become focused around Hollywood, especially with the ‘#metoo’ movement accusing producers such as Harvey Weinstein (who is now due to go on trial for 5 counts of sexual abuse) of sexual harassment and rape of several actresses. The problem with separating the art from the artist here is this: if you watch one of the hundreds of films produced by Weinstein, he is still making money off of it. Those who disagree with Weinstein’s actions but still choose to watch his films are therefore accepting and funding his habits. Though some may dismiss the boycotting of Weinstein’s work as he is yet to be convicted, there are successful individuals who have been convicted. Roman Polanski for example is a convicted sex offender who is still working as productively as ever, and 6ix9ine is currently facing life in prison on six charges (including conspiracy to murder). Is it then ethical to consume media of convicted criminals, especially as they are still profiting from it? This then leaves us with the dilemma of Michael Jackson, a man who has had a significant impact on the music industry and the world. Though there are still many sceptics regarding the allegations of paedophilia against him, there has been a significant debate over whether it is okay to still listen to Michael Jackson’s music. The television show ‘The Last Leg’ did a Twitter poll asking this question and found that 62% (of 18,614 voters) were still in favour of playing his music. The difference in Michael Jackson’s case is that he is such a widely loved celebrity, arguably much more well-known and popular than any of the other individuals mentioned above. Many feel that to stop listening to Michael Jackson would be to create a musical void. In my opinion, it is hard to give a definitive answer to this question. With cases such as Michael Jackson’s the best thing to do may just be to give it time. That seems to be what has kept the other artists’ work in circulation: the fact that they are long dead, so their personal lives have become irrelevant. The argument does become different, though, when the artists are still alive. Personally, it makes me uncomfortable to think that I could be funding a rapist like Roman Polanski by watching his films, even if they are considered good pieces of art. However, there is no black and white answer to this question, as it seems to be quite a personal one.
I wander around the silent house aimlessly. I do nothing. I see the point of nothing. I feel Nothing. I am Nothing. There is an empty black hole in the pit of my stomach and it is getting bigger and bigger. Engulfing me. I can’t breath. I grip the kitchen counter and sit down. I don’t know how long I have been sitting down like this. I am not real, yet I am. I am doing nothing, yet my body is functioning like a normal human being. Except, even though my body is functioning, my soul is shrivelling up an slowly, ever so slowly, dying. Unable to shake off this feeling, I get up and trail somewhere and end up in the bathroom. I vaguely remember even coming here but what is the point of it anyway? What is the point of anything anymore? I shuffle through my box of bath bombs until I find the perfect one. Ombre Sunsets. I slowly peel off the wrapping and place the circular explosion in the water. How can such a big burst fit into something so small? I suddenly realise how much like my heart this bath bomb is. A ticking time bomb. The bath bomb sways gently in the water and starts falling apart and climbing to the edges of the tub until the centre I bright yellow and the inner edges are deep red. I undress and sink into the colourful water as it fizzes everywhere. I hold my breath and duck under and open my eyes. All around me is the still water, colours bleeding into one another. My hair floats up and the only thing in motion are the slow-rising air bubbles emerging from my mouth. I push upwards and the reality of my so-called life reappears as I take a deep breath, climb out of the bathtub and the freezing air grips me until goosebumps stain my skin. I quickly wrap the fluffy bathrobe around myself and get dressed. I pad into my room and sink into the bed. Again, darkness envelopes me. But this time, it feels right. I wake up to the sound of birds chirping. How can everything seem so normal after what has happened? How is it ok? How can the world go on? Not knowing what I am doing, I get dressed and go outside. My footsteps crunch in the newly fallen snow, and I look up to the sky to her. An icy magic has come. I remember all the fun times we had together and I remember that last time she threw a snowball at me, and it landed on my nose andSomething soft and cold lands on my nose. I smile in delight as the snow starts dancing all around me. This is the first time I have been genuinely happy in a long, long time and it feels incredible. I look up at the sky once more and I now she is here with me. She is loving me, kissing me through the snow. You know, she and I had the most incredible bond you can imagine in sisters. And we still do. Always.
Think about all the big movements of history, and how periods of time progressed into one another- what sparked the changes? And where would we be if they hadn’t taken place? It took someone who had an opinion and believed in it to advocate for the change that ultimately led to the society we live in now- regardless of whether they had everyone onboard or not. Imagine what the world would be like if people were too scared to have and express their opinions- perhaps we would still live in houses made of clay and use wooden tools. Expressing opinions is the only way society can progress. If those thoughts of people who campaigned for the changes were never verbalised, there’s every chance we would still live in a world of primitive technology. Opinions don’t only spark change, they can also define the kind of person you are: are you passionate, determined and willing to take a stand for something you believe in? In having an opinion and expressing it, you are proving what kind of person you are, and your unique set of opinions differentiates you from others. Obviously, this leads to large amounts of people with varying views and beliefs, which should be seen as a strength rather than a weakness. A downfall of humanity seen throughout history seems to be the longing for a people who all conform and believe the same things. But considering the complexity and different experiences of people worldwide, this possibility becomes less and less likely, which is probably for the better. As a society, we need to learn how to tolerate one another and how to grow from working with people with different views. Expressing opinions can become a problem when it turns from standing up for what you believe in, to shoving your beliefs down someone else’s throat: people should be able to stand up for themselves and their beliefs without tearing down others. An example of toxic opinion sharing can be found when looking at McCarthyism in 1950s America when only one side of the conflict was expressing their opinion that certain people were communists. These beliefs were irrational and led to the interrogation of many innocent people, often leading to them being ostracised. These unsupported opinions would not have posed as much of a threat if the people who believed they were being questioned without true purpose spoke up, except not many people expressed concern out of fear of being accused themselves. Problems arise when people are put in situations where they feel too scared to express an opinion, which is counter-intuitive as opinions can’t be right or wrong. Regardless of whether everyone agrees with you, or if they all disagree, it doesn’t change the validity of your opinion. However, opinions are not facts. Whilst everyone is entitled to their own opinion, this does not mean that their views can be serious contenders for the truth. This often seems to be forgotten, as many people hide behind “I’m entitled to my own opinion” when presented with counter-arguments to their beliefs. There is nothing stopping you from thinking and saying these things, but your viewpoint is more likely to be taken seriously if it is well-informed. As people grow, opinions evolve as well, and as people, we should not be ashamed to modify or outright disagree with past beliefs we have held. In learning more about the world and ourselves, we become more confident in expressing our opinions, which may eventually lead to the world changing in the ways we envision.
WHAT IS FEMINISM? BY OVEA VIGNESWARAN Some say feminism began with the suffragette movement but I believe feminism has always existed - as far back as the Elizabethan era, when we had a queen sat in her throne, without a man by her side, destroying the Spanish Armada and bringing victory to the country singlehandedly. Even further with Boudicca, the Celtic queen who rallied up forces to fight the Roman invaders. Feminism has existed for as long as we have felt the power and strength of women, from Boudicca, Queen Elizabeth I, the suffragettes, Rosa Parks, Indra Ghandhi, Benazir Bhutto, Aung San Su Kyi, Margaret Thatcher, Michelle Obama and Malala Yousafzai So what actually is feminism? The Oxford definition is: "The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes."(Oxford Dictionary) So what does this mean? To me, I read this and see feminism as a movement that helps to improve the inequality between men and women. By helping women reach equality we are helping men and, more than anything else, by helping men see and understand inequality in the forms of toxic masculinity and rape culture, we are helping women reach equality. I see this definition and see that feminism is not about fighting against the male gender but instead working together to bring equality. Some question, if feminism is about helping both genders, why is the word itself linked to women only? This is purely due to the fact that the original fight was to lift the rules and norms imposed on women so, at the time, it was a fight for women. However, feminism is now so much more than that and, like the Oxford definition says, it is "on the grounds of the equality of the sexes". So what do I mean when I say by helping men we help bring equality for women too? If we look deep into toxic masculinity we can see the roots of inequality between the sexes. Men are made to feel like they have to be strong, powerful and brave. No emotion, no weakness, no failure. These qualities in turn create fragile egos, which creates this toxic environment our men are consumed in. We, as women, constantly feel the need to comfort these egos as, if we question them or merely find a fault in them, they feel as though we are overpowering them. This is part of the very existence of rape culture. Most rape cases have everything to do with power plays. If we look at the Harvey Weinstein cases, he had the power to start a woman's career and he exploited that to get what he wanted. I’m not saying that all men are rapists because not all men hold these traits. Some choose to reject these values and because of that they get marginalised. Suicide rates for men are higher than they have ever been. 76% of suicides are of men. Why is this? We have allowed girls to grow up and become whatever they want, to be whoever they want. Why don't we show our boys the same respect? We have stopped raising our girls in a patriarchal society but we never stopped raising our boys in one. Boys are made to feel like the breadwinners in their families, taught not to cry and taught to be brave. Our boys are still taught and ingrained in the same patriarchal views. This means that they carry and hold certain norms and values, like feeling the need to support their family financially and being the alpha male in every situation. We say we have moved on from those times because girls can now be whatever they want but have we really, if our boys are still being raised as if in a patriarchal society and having to carry on living in sexist ideals? Once we allow our boys to be so much more and express their emotions and themselves freely, only then will we be able to let go of the patriarchy.
Whenever I ask people if they're a feminist and they respond, “no”. I always ask: why? Their response to this is either, " I don't hate men" or " I don't believe in the feminism we see today" or "feminism is a white woman's fight". Well, I, as a feminist, don't hate men; I also don't believe in some modern-day feminist movements and I'm not white. Feminism isn't a fight against men, as you can tell from my previous paragraphs. It is the fight for equality. We don't hate men - we hate the patriarchy. You don't have to agree with every single feminist to call yourself a feminist. My mum and I are both feminists with very different opinions, at times she disagrees with a quite a lot of what I say at times and vice versa. But that doesn't mean I'm a feminist and she is not. We both are because at the end of the day we both believe in the one same thing that unites us and brings us together: we believe in the equality of the sexes. To be a feminist you don't have to believe everything every single feminist says, you don't have to agree with every single movement. The only criterion is whether you believe in the equality of the sexes or not. Now, most importantly, feminism is not a white woman's fight, it is everyone’s fight. Yes, some may say that feminism was founded in the West but we too have so many influential women like Indra Ghandhi, Benazir Bhutto and the epitome of a coloured feminist, Sojourner Truth. She tirelessly fought to bring women freedom and to abolish slavery. After escaping with her daughter, she later found out that her son had been illegally sold into slavery too. Angered by this, she took his captor to court. This was the first ever case of its kind. At a time when coloured people were killed for existing, she took one huge step towards bringing equality by helping her son then further speaking out about the injustices women of colour face. If the title “feminist” existed back then, she would have been hailed as one of the greatest feminists to walk this planet. Feminism isn’t a white women only fight. It is the fight for girls in Pakistan to be adequately educated. It is the fight to stop FGM in Africa. It is the fight to stop rape victims being stoned to death in Saudi Arabia. It is the fight to stop little girls becoming sex workers in Indonesia. It is simply the fight to stop the injustices all women face. So what is feminism? Feminism isn’t just a fight for women but a fight for men too. Feminism isn’t just a white women movement but an all-inclusive movement. Feminism isn’t about radical views on women taking over the world but merely about giving those girls in Pakistan an education, about helping end child marriages in India, about saving our girls in South America that we lose every year due to illegal abortions. The fight for equality is not over. Yes, I have my rights as a female British citizen, but I am not equal to a man because not all of my sisters have the same rights as me. So no, I and every other feminist will not stop fighting until every man and women is equal, no matter their race or nationality. “I raise up my voice—not so I can shout, but so that those without a voice can be heard...we cannot succeed when half of us are held back." ―Malala Yousafzai
1. Could we bring back mammoths? • In 2010, scientists found a woolly mammoth that lived around 28,000 years ago. • As it was so well preserved, they were able to take cell nuclei from it, and implant these into mice’s egg cells • It is believed that, despite cell division not occurring, cloning could still occur, although the outcome of this would differ from mammoths as they are imagined.
2. Lost sleep can’t be made up for over the weekend • Many young adults use the weekend to catch up on sleep, however, studies have shown this is an ineffective method. • In a research group, participants with too little sleep during the week had disrupted levels of appetitecontrolling hormones like leptin. • Therefore, this sleep schedule caused subjects to gain weight and get hungry later in the day.
3. The first image of a black hole • The Event Horizon Telescope is global telescope array dedicated to combining data into images • Black holes are invisible, making their detection difficult. • The point of no return in a black hole is known as the event horizon and may be the way to view black holes. •
4. 97% of plastic bottles are recycled in Norway • The organisation Infinitum has managed to create one of the most efficient and environmentally sound recycling schemes in the world. • Now less than 1% of plastic bottles end up out in the environment, with some materials being reused over 50 times. • Worldwide, 91% of plastic isn’t recycled, but by adding in a monetary incentive Norway has greatly improved over other countries. 5. Single-use plastic banned by the EU • On March 27, the EU voted to ban single-use plastic by 2021. • This includes items such as non-reusable straws, cutlery and cotton bud sticks. • This new law is estimated to reduce the environmental damage bill by €22 billion, as this money is spent towards fighting plastic pollution. • Currently over 80% of litter in the oceans is caused by plastic.
6. Could forgetting things be a sign of greater intelligence? • Research has found that people with the best memories tend to find themselves forgetting smaller, less important details. • Remembering every small fact would make decision making much more difficult as there would be much more data to process. • So, forgetting things aids both thinking and decision making!
1. https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1107951/science-news-woolly-mammoth-cellclone-ice-age 2. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/sleep-recovery-weekend-health 3. https://www.sciencealert.com/black-hole-event-horizon-accretion-disc-jean-pierre-luminetevent-horizon-telescope 4. https://www.physics-astronomy.org/2019/03/norways-insanely-efficient-scheme.html 5. https://www.physics-astronomy.org/2019/03/single-use-plastic-completely-banned-by.html 6. https://www.physics-astronomy.org/2019/03/science-confirms-that-forgetting-things.html
Last month, on 23rd March, I went to my first ever protest and, I must say, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Despite the slight nerves beforehand about being packed into a small space surrounded by a load of slightly miffed Brits, I did feel a strong sense of solidarity and, to some degree, relief that there are other people who share the same worries as me – there turned out to be quite a few actually. Not only that, but a feeling of finally being able to express a political opinion, something that can be slightly more difficult, I feel, as a minor in this country, as obviously we are unable to vote and are given few other outlets to be politically outspoken. However, after having experienced a huge march first-hand, I wonder if protests really are the best way to express oneself; as such, this article will aim to explore what it really means to protest and whether they are a suitable means of self-expression. Obviously, protests are often necessary for political, social and national revolution. When significant masses of a population take to the streets, there are undoubtedly consequences such as a change in the stance of a government, for good or sometimes for worse, because thousands of people making the effort to unite under a common cause usually sends a clear message, thus attracting sufficient attention. Although, it would be naive to think that this is always the case: protests can work in other ways, for example they can create a threat to a nation’s peace – a threat that can often be enough to motivate authorities to comprehend the scale of societal unrest and try to, or pretend to try to, adapt to the people’s will. Sometimes protests accomplish nothing. I like to think that
nowadays, violence isn’t an essential part of marching and that the act of people uniting under a common cause is effective enough. However, what I want to touch upon is the problems that arise in peaceful protesting, which are of course far less serious than those that come with violent protests, albeit worthy of discussion in my opinion. As already established, the key factor that makes protests worthwhile is the common cause that unites, but this is problematic. Firstly, everyone at a protest, although claiming to be there for the same reason, may in actual fact be there for completely different reasons. Despite all agreeing on a general principle, people have individual reasons for attending marches as well. For instance, at the most recent ‘People’s Vote’ march, there were people there carrying placards with widely varying messages: ‘scientists against Brexit’, ‘youth need a voice’, ‘think about climate change’, ‘don’t kill the economy’ and even ‘vegans against gammon’: a surprisingly wide range in fact. People there also wanted different things as an outcome, such as a hard remain, a Labour leadership (and both of the above) or just a vote on the final agreement. Point proven – there are sizeable nuances in the opinions of people at protests. From my point of view, the main problem this leads to is loss of the individual voice to the larger, generalised social
voice, which stems from two main bodies: organisers and the media. The organisers of a march are perhaps biased. Though they sell a march as having a very general objective in order to attract a wide range of people, such as a so-called ‘People’s Vote’, indeed it is possible that there exists notable bias. A pertinent example of this would be at the ‘People’s Vote’ march, where the official premise of the event was to protest for a public vote on the final Brexit deal but, at the beginning of the event, there was a number of blatantly socialist, left-wing speakers who spoke about the march purely from a pro-Labour perspective, which in turn could be argued was a misrepresentation of the people who were there, as supporters of different parties had in fact come together on the issue and there were signs criticising both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn. Then, both during and after the protest comes media representation. Of course, this does vary depending on what newspaper channel you read or what channel you watch although this essentially is a similar problem to that arising from that of the aforementioned bias. It is true different news outlets are inherently biased; however, the other issue is that they represent protests as a group of people protesting for one singular, generalised goal, which, as pointed out by the lists of the different messages attendees were purporting, is not the case. They do have to do this since if they began to specify sub-sections of public opinions, they would be accused of bias for inevitably missing out a specific segment of the population therefore the blame doesn’t lie with those working in media but in the fact that it is almost impossible to document the nuances in public opinion at marches, meaning the protests themselves are perhaps flawed.
This is not to say that protests are useless; I myself am very glad that I decided to protest about an issue that is important to not only me but so many others in the country at the moment. But perhaps we should be mindful of the limitations of protesting, regarding the fact that individual voices may well be lost to the larger picture. I know this sounds a smidgen drastic and maybe I am
exaggerating to make a point; other than the above issues identified, peaceful protests provide an undeniable sense of togetherness, as witty placards and chants and songs help us to enjoy the much more serious underlying problems.
On March 15th, an estimated 15,00020,000 students refused to attend school and instead gathered in Westminster to protest against the government and its appalling attitude to climate change. Londoners weren’t alone, though, with an estimated more than 2,000 events taking place all over the world. Now seems the perfect time for us to rise up. These strikes, sparked by the inimitable Greta Thunberg, come after last year’s UN report, which warned us that we have 12 years to make a different. Otherwise, the global climate surpasses 1.5 degrees Celsius, heavily increasing the risk of drought, flooding and other natural disasters. Naturally, you might think that this prompted an outcry from our government, seeing as this warning reinforces the bitter truth that life on earth is threatened by our own actions. Alas, this is the UK. We rarely function competently. Instead of addressing the issue, our MPs placed themselves on the wrong side of history. Layla Moran, a Liberal Democrat, secured a discussion in parliament about climate change after the February school strike.
Disappointingly, this discussion was had with a mostly empty chamber. According to Moran, at points there were as few as 10 MPs sat on government benches, though there were more members of the opposition present. While Downing Street condemns us for our truancy, they actively ignore the future we’re trying to secure. I wish I could say I’m surprised. So, what about the march? If its goal was to show that the British youth will not tolerate the government’s reckless response to the UN, then did it succeed? While it definitely proved that the youth of our country care about Earth’s future, there were also some undeniable flaws. Most notably for me was the ecologically damaging actions of some marchers. A sea of water bottles and cutlery, crisp packets and chocolate wrappers lined the streets. I won’t be awarding prizes to anyone who can explain the hypocrisy of this, but there’s something deeply damning in someone who marches for environmental justice while littering. We are fighting to save the environment yet refusing to dispose of our garbage appropriately. If we ever want to be taken seriously as a generation that wants to make a change, we can’t be so careless with our rubbish, especially not when our point is the protection of the environment. I won’t even mention the abundance of single-use plastics thrown on the floor,
but just know that it was enough to make me want to rip my hair out strand by strand. There was one other obvious failing of this march: its politics. Although we were united under the banner of climate justice, it seems that we were confused everywhere else. People were bringing in the debate of socialism versus capitalism, with communist flags being waved Les Mis style on top of the Queen Victoria statue outside of Buckingham Palace, vegans were running freely down the roads with signs urging us to stop eating animals, the ceaseless argument of May’s Conservative Party and Corbyn’s Labour was raging on. The “Oh, Jeremy Corbyn” chant which plagues my sleep and has probably destroyed a good handful of my brain cells was on repeat throughout the crowd, despite the obvious fact that he’s just as unable to do anything about climate change as May currently is. Similarly, chants of “1, 2, 3, 4, Theresa May’s a f*cking wh*re” ran like electricity from participant to participant. Ignoring the blatant misogyny of the chant, it presents clearly that many attendants are happy to use May as a scapegoat for the government as a whole. Regardless of how much I dislike May’s politics (spoiler alert: I dislike them a lot), it’s narrow-minded to blame our government’s apparent apathy towards climate change on her and solely her. The majority of MPs didn’t seem to care very much either. Obviously (to me at least), it isn’t just our prime minister
posing a problem but almost everyone else in power as well.
Don’t take my criticisms as being against the climate march. I think applying pressure to the government can only help and our hearts are in the right places. There’s nothing more reassuring than hearing the hoarse screams of “This is what democracy looks like!” and “Change now!” and from this point on all we need to do is keep convincing our classmates to join us. But we need to stop mixing up a strange concoction of political ideals and motives into the march. We need to recognise that reducing our environmental impact start with us as well as with major companies. March for our world, I applaud you for that. Just make sure you’re marching sustainably and under the banner of the most important cause of current times: saving our planet before it’s too late.
By Dana Collins
You may have heard of the term “fast fashion” before. But what does this mean? Fast fashion refers to cheap, trendy outfits which are quickly mass produced by large retailers. Some examples of companies which encourage this include Primark, Topshop, New Look, and Missguided. Often these clothes are produced abroad in sweatshops, where workers are underpaid and subjected to unsafe working conditions. 80% of said workers are women, and about 250 million children aged 5 to 14 are forced to work in sweatshops. It is vital to recognise that while you may pay little for a new dress, these people are paying a much bigger price. Fast fashion has a massive impact on the environment, too. Toxic dyes used in clothing is one of the largest causes of clean water pollution, which results in damage to ocean life. As lots of clothes are produced in a short period of time, lots of clothes are also disposed of at a faster rate. It is also estimated £140 million worth of clothing goes into landfill each year. This extreme amount of textiles production results in 1.2 billion tonnes of CO₂ being released into the atmosphere per year. These
figures are primarily caused by the extreme rate at which clothes are produced. When shopping, there are many signposts which tell you if a brand used fast fashion. This includes the production speed - if brands are quick to stock their shelves with the latest trends, they may be ones to avoid. Ask yourself if you will want to wear these clothes in a few months time. Another thing to look out for is the quality of the product. If you think that you will only get a few wears out of what you want to buy before it rips, it is better to invest in a higher quality, more ethically sourced item. Once you have identified the culprits of fast fashion and unsustainable methods, you know what shops to avoid. However, now the questions is; Where can you shop sustainably? It’s honestly very simply. Although it may take more time and effort at first, the benefits of slowly adapting the way you shop is truly valuable. Firstly, you can delve into the wonders of charity shopping. Conveniently, these shops are located everywhere, with 8 in Wallington and Carshalton alone. It may be slightly intimidating or
discouraging at first, but it takes a few tries to find efficient ways to discover the best pieces among the ‘trash’ of the second-hand clothing. Vintage shops are very similar to charity shops, but they are slightly more expensive and are mostly located Central London, for example Shoreditch. You can help source the clothes that sell in these shops by donating your unwanted clothes for someone else to cherish, instead of contributing to the issue in landfill sites. An alternative to going out to shop is Depop! It is an app where you can discover some amazing styles, sell your preloved clothes and buy some new garments. This can be done in the comfort of your home, just like online shopping but more sustainable. Finally, you can develop your sewing skills as you take it upon yourself to mend your own clothes.
There are no limits to creativity here, which can be very intriguing. These DIYs can be as simple as repairing a hole or sewing a button on a top, or as complicated as constructing a whole new garment with old fabric. All the items you may need to do this, can be reworked from clothes in charity or vintage shops and Depop. If second hand clothing doesn't appeal to you, there is the option of buying less and higher quality garments. These clothes will remain in good condition for longer and they are more likely to be made sustainably and ethically, for example the manufacturers would get better pay and working conditions. If many people stop buying from fast fashion brands, they will realise the change in consumer habits and adapt to be more sustainable - in terms of labour, materials and packaging. As a consumer, you have the power. Think before you shop.
.
By Sustainability Society
Disclaimer: The below are stereotypes and are likely not experienced by everyone. This is just a compilation of my experience and those of others I have spoken to.
At a friend’s Growing up inhouse an Indian household is… different: PARENT: ‘Go and get your jacket, we’re going to leave now.’ Gets jacket 10 minutes later
PARENT: ‘Let me just sit down for chai. We’ll go soon.’
30 minutes later An hour later Excessive hugging and saying farewell only to see each other the next day PARENT: ‘Let’s go now.’
Bakes something for school
PARENT: ‘Bring my dabba (box) back or you’ve had it.’
In the kitchen
ME: ‘Hey, do you need any help?’ PARENT: ‘No, I’m okay. Go and study.’
15 minutes later
PARENT: ‘Nobody in this house ever helps me.’
ME: ‘I got 90% on this test. I’m really happy with it.’ PARENT: ‘Where did the other 10% go? 90 and 10 makes 100, right?’ ME: ‘I’m sorry, I found some questions hard, but so did everyone else.’ PARENT: ‘You must be doing something wrong. Should I email your teacher? Do you need tutoring?’
Study break
PARENT: ‘What are you doing? You should be studying.’ ME: ‘I’m taking a 5-minute break. I’ve been working for the last few hours’
Pulls duvet off the bed Flips mattress
PARENT: ‘You can relax on the study table. With revision in front of you.’
Eating dinner
ME: ‘I’m done.’ PARENT: ‘No. Have one more roti and some more daal.’
Eats that
PARENT: ‘Go and eat some more please.’
Eats that Is now literally internally exploding PARENT: ‘I made some kulfi earlier’
ME: ‘Remember that history test I told you about? I’m really happy with the results.’ PARENT: ‘But what about maths and biology and chemistry?’
Makes a bad cup of chai
PARENT: ‘X can make good chai. They can also do this and this and this and this. Why can’t you?’
Leaves for school
PARENT: ‘Send me a text when you get on the bus. Then call me when you’re there. Send me another text just to make sure.’
Calls friend 5 minutes later just to check
But of course, we love our overprotective and maybe sometimes oldfashioned Indian parents. Where would be without them?
By Antara Singh
We hope you enjoyed issue 14 of the Wally Street Journal! We are looking for new submissions every issue, so please send work to collinsd@wallingtongirls.org.uk or williamss@wallingtongirls.org.uk. Have a great Easter break!