Tag Archives: equality

Alan Bennett’s ‘The History Boys’: This Summer’s Analogy

It is not very often that I read plays, especially modern plays. Being a Classics student, I have often revelled in the great works of Sophocles or Euripides, and I have also ‘revelled’ in Shakespeare’s The Tempest. However, theatre has almost become a thing of the past, becoming replaced by film and major Broadway productions. Even The History Boys was made into a film, starring the original cast from the stage production. Now we are reliant on playwrights, such as Alan Bennett or Tom Stoppard (Rosencrantz and Guildenstern) to redefine the theatre as an art form.

Of course, the success of The History Boys was in no way hindered by the film created post-stage. Yet its poignancy and message have been designed for the theatre and, having both read the play and seen the film, I can in some way confirm this.

That is not to say that the film is bad by any means. With the cast (including James Cordon and Dominic Cooper) achieving their successes from the stage, the film almost feels like a play. I’ve noticed that on the stage, an emotion can only be conveyed in an exaggerated fashion, so as to be conveyed to a far-off viewer. For a film it is the contrary, where techniques such as camera angles or complex body language can do this successfully. Whilst this way is just as, if not more, powerful, it almost seems lazier. However, the exaggerations are not compromised in the film, with suitable annunciation in most cases and the overly-witty responses, which only represent the theatrical nature of the film.

The quality of the actors is one huge selling point of the film, but of course, it ain’t the only thing. It was also Bennett’s job to create a production which conveys the message which he intends to convey, but also make the production simultaneously inquisitive, hilarious and heart-breaking.

And on his part, it is a huge success.

The History Boys revolves around eight working class students who, intending to study History at Oxbridge, have returned for a term to prepare for the examinations and interviews. This is done with the aid of three teachers with radically different teaching viewpoints and techniques: Hector is a veteran who believes that words and culture are most important in defining a young man. Mrs Lintott believes in teaching a curriculum to the best understanding. Irwin is a young supply teacher who wants to make History an exciting discipline again. And the Headmaster is obsessed with league tables.

This play, through these three teachers, addresses a long standing issue of viewpoints on education. What is it really there to offer? How important is it really? Of course, there are many answers to these questions, all possessed by these teachers, and also the students of our day. It has taken me almost three years to not complete my Bronze Duke of Edinburgh Award due to sheer boredom and riotous behaviour against the bureaucratic nature of everything. However, some people have lapped it up. In this case, when university entry is the overall prize, these things are done solely for the purpose of university entry. D of E was created in order to allow less privileged students to have the opportunity to help the community, learn a new skill and have some general fun. Now, it is used to get into university.

It is claimed that programmes, such as D of E, are necessary as they allow you to obtain UCAS points. These are supposed to get you into university, however its nature still eludes me to this day. This has given me a lot of comic relief in quizzing the sorts of people doing D of E concerning the nature of a UCAS point.

Does reading give you UCAS points?

What is the books are really small?

What is they contain lots of pictures?

What if you are blind in one eye?

This has allowed me to come to the conclusion that, in fact, nobody knows what they are talking about. Apparently I have UCAS points. And that is lovely. But I’m not sure why…

This idea is not much expressed in The History Boys, given that these sorts of ideas only came into play recently. However, teachers such as Irwin are fixated by teaching the boys how to ‘stand out’ amongst the other prospective History students from more privileged backgrounds. He does this by branding their essays as ‘dull’, and telling them to stand out by arguing on the contrary to their actual stance which, if you ever try it, is extremely fun.

However, the viewpoint taken by the more naive of our community is that you can partake in activities in order to broaden your character INSTEAD of in order to get into university. This stance is stressed by Hector, who encourages the students to study French, recite poetry and watch films that no one else has heard of. This has set up some of the most hilarious scenes of literature I have ever read (though sometimes a decent knowledge of French is helpful).

Being potential Oxbridge candidates ourselves, many of my friends will be using this Summer to cram their heads with enough co-syllabic knowledge to get them an interview at a good university. This action, and its consequences, are perfectly displayed in Bennett’s The History Boys. Is it the correct thing to do? I guess it depends on who you are and your own reasons for going to university in the first place. But The History Boys is a witty, subtle, moving and immensely funny ode to what our lives seem to have become, and is undoubtedly worth a read.

Reasons People Have To Hate Me…

Do you ever get the feeling that you really feel like writing but exams finished last week and you’ve spent the last three days researching Venus fly traps, so absolutely nothing new has happened?

No?

Just me then?

Fine…

Now, when I first typed the title of this post, I felt like I was going to embark on an epic adventure of sorrow and self-loathing, building up to a huge conclusion where I promise myself to change my ways, lest I end up living alone surrounded by numerous cats. And that’s a real problem. Because I hate cats.

But fortunately for everybody, I will not be taking the self-reflective path. Instead, I’m going to play a bit of a controversy card. This may not seem to be that wise a decision, given that it is implied that people already have good reasons to hate me already, but I still consider this to be quite a compulsive and prevalent issue today, amplified by the fact that we live in a society that likes to define itself as ‘multi-cultural’. So here it is. I have found that people are very easily offended.

Generally, this will not be the result of a slip-of-the-tongue or not thinking before talking. This is a result of people being extremely touchy and defensive about issues that they like to brand as big deals for the sole purpose of becoming the most offended and ‘oppressed’ of all minorities. I’ll explain later why that is some sort of evolutionary advantage.

Here’s an example: In 2011, actress Sharon Horgan was hosting Have I Got News For You, an extremely hilarious SATIRICAL news show, when she made a pretty tasteless joke about Islam and suicide bombing. Here is what happened:

Luckily, the comments have been disabled, but when I last read it, it was full of hate comments against Horgan, saying that she should be thrown in jail, that Have I Got News For You should be taken off the air, and that the BBC would have to make a formal apology and pay compensation (to who???). I will agree, the joke made was tasteless at its best, but firstly, Horgan did not make the joke, so much as she said it, and secondly, this show is SATIRICAL. That means it is designed in order to make fun of people, not just Muslims, but every group of people, from football teams to CEOs to Mormons to Swiss people. If there was this kind of uproar whenever a politician was insulted, there would be riots.

Of course, it isn’t just Muslims who react in this way. All to easily, somebody may say something which barely qualifies as ‘derogatory’, yet they will be approached with hate, and the accuser going on about how ‘offended’ they were, and running away crying.

But it only gets worse. Not only can you easily offend somebody by saying something, but even being something can incite hatred. Obviously, this ain’t news to anyone who has appreciated that oppression has occurred before. But this annoys me. Does that make it impossible for me to not offend you? What do you want from me?

So as a result, I am going to break down my character for you all, and analyse why this may incite the rage of someone. Writing that, it only occurs to me now how depressing it seems. But ah well, it’ll be interesting!

1. Straight, white, male.

I’ve decided to group these three aspects, as they seem to represent the majority of this discussion in the world now. Despite not being on Tumblr (thank god!) I have heard about what is on it, and it seems to be one of two things: memes created by crazy fans of some sort of TV show, and rants about how brilliant gay/coloured/women are.

This seems very narrow-minded and shallow, but its not just Tumblr where this seems to be happening. Concerning the development of my most recent artistic interest, spoken word poetry (I must be turning into some sort of hipster thing…), I’ve noticed that three of the most common themes for poetry are homophobia, racism and sexism.

Whilst I have tremendous admiration for both of these poets, I find it sad that they feel that the only way in which they can express themselves creatively is by talking about ‘hate’ and how awful life is for these people. Why can’t they talk about jollier things, like friends, or funny things? That way at least some sort of beneficial viewpoint of the world is generated to an extent.

2. Jewish/Pro-Semitic/Zionist

Again, despite these characteristics being very different, I have again decided to group them due to inextricable links.

I’ve always said that the Israel-Palestine conflict is an extremely complicated subject, involving deep knowledge of the political history and affairs concerning the region as a whole. As a result, very few people really know what this conflict is all about. However, everyone likes to think that they’ve got the entire thing sorted out.

Frankly, the reason why I am Zionist and all is not because I have read, analysed and formed my own conclusion. My mother is Israeli. My cousins are Israeli. My mother, aunt, uncle and grandfather have all been part of the Israeli army, with my granddad fighting in the Yom Kippur War in 1973. I’ve been many times and it is a wonderful country. The food is awesome. My decision was essentially made for me.

However, I have taken to ignoring any conversation that may possibly arise concerning this topic, for fear that I may lose some of my closest friends. I find it greatly unfair that something as common as an opinion can cause so many problems among friends.

But yeah, that still represents another group of people who may have found another reason to dislike me…This is fun isn’t it!

3. Private School

I am currently in the strenuous and soul-corroding process of university applications, and the stress has not been dissolved considering the multitudes of news articles reporting that universities must accept a certain proportion of students from state schools, or that they must discriminate against private school students, as they are more ‘privileged’. I find this ridiculous, given that the only decision the family made was that money, hard-earned money, would be spent on gaining a particularly good education instead of holidays, cars, what not.

There have also been recent articles stressing how amongst poor families in the UK, the proportion of poor White students underachieving is much higher than that of racial minorities. This is because racial minorities take a totally different perception on education. These groups consider a good education as something to cherish. Something to take pride in. Hard work is both required but rewarded. However, white families seem to have fallen into the illusion of the infamous British class system. Good education is seen as something inherently ‘bourgeois’, and so is frowned up, which is a huge shame in my humble opinion.

So yeah, I’d say that jealousy rules this group.

4. Northern

I never realised that this was a prominent factor until last Summer, when I spent a month with five Mancunians, like me, and about 40 Londoners. It just seemed like we were ‘outsiders’ with weird accents. And that makes me proud, so take that Southerners!

5. Feigns ignorance about Anime/Manga

I wouldn’t say this is a major issue outside of my immediate friend group, but a lot of my friends love this sort of stuff. Having only seen one anime ever (last week. It was Spirited Away, and it was awesome!), I used to be genuinely ignorant about the topic (eg forgetting the difference between anime and manga, going on about manga being cartoons). Now I just do it for fun. So if my mates do see this post, and are genuinely pissed off, then I am sorry. So very very solly…

Is that to far?

Moving on!

6. Haven’t seen Star Wars

Thought this was only an issue inside my friendship group. I was wrong…

7. Not a fan of My Chemical Romance/All Time Low

The TFIOSs of the music world for me. I used to keep hearing about them, about their stories, their crazy yet kind-hearted and ‘awesome’ band members, what they stood for, how they revolutionised music and how they are the best things to happen to music since a caveman decided that hitting things was fun.

Then I listened to them.

Eeeeeehhhhhhhhhhh…………

8. Bring Statistical Hypothesis Testing Into Every Single Conversation

Regular Person: Haha look! England have lost both of their games! Doubt that was supposed to happen?

Me: Well…

Regular Person: Oh god…

Me: If we assume that the probability of England losing both games is the same in each case, say 0.4…

Regular Person: Shut up, Dan…

Me: and as n is 2, X¬Bin(2, 0.4), so at the 5% significance level…

Regular Person: SHUT UP DAN…

Me: We can find P(X=0) as…where are my stats tables?

Regular Person makes better friends…

Yeah, I think I’m beginning to stray off topic…

Now for me, at least the majority of these ideas are not really something to get all touchy-feely about, but that’s only because I am not touchy-feely about all this stuff. For people who are, thus stuff is super important.

But as I’ve said, people do get offended far too easily, and they do fuss about the tiniest little things to give the impression that they are hated by a society that wishes for them to die in a hole or something. But why?

It is simply because this gives them more weight in terms of argument.

Here’s an example from a wonderful skit by Ed Byrne, discussing annoying parents.

This is true of many people. And it’s the most annoying thing in the world. Because I believe that in this world, you are allowed to have an opinion on homosexuality if you are straight, in the same way that you can have an opinion about Arcade Fire without physically being in the band. If an argument only concerns a group of people, are they the only ones who should have an opinion, even if their connotations can have an effect on the wider audience?

Anyway, I’m going to go ahead and finish with that question, because I have an Open Day tomorrow, and I don’t want to end up even more groggy than I would be otherwise on the train journey southwards (the South, again…)

Thanks for reading thus far!

 

‘I’d Like To Have An Argument Please’

Isn’t there nothing better than having a proper, thorough, structured discussion with somebody?

In reference to ‘conversation’, I am implying something more than small talk and gossip. I mean something more profound and constructive. A case in which after this conversation, you feel like you have achieved something. Most people would associate this only with politics or ethical debates, but the topic is not of such importance: it can be music, food, sport, science, cars, maths, anything. Just something more than what you had for breakfast or who has just got with who.

However, when commencing a discussion, if you want to gain as much from it as possible, there is one thing that must be appreciated: a discussion is a two-way thing. This means that what you say builds on what the other person has just said, thus leading to a structured conversation. I will confess now, I am absolutely no expert in this, and in terms of finding ‘experts’, there are two groups.

The first contains those who are very knowledgeable about the chat in question. After all, how can you say something thoughtful, relevant and informative with no prior knowledge of the subject? This is where most conversations will collapse. Take the Israel-Palestine conflict. Having come from a half-Israeli family, I am naturally inclined to the Israeli side, and thus I have structured an argument in support of Israel. However, many of my friends are pro-Palestine, and so having structured an argument against Israel. The issue is that most of us only possess one side of the argument, but rarely both. This is why, despite the conflict being extremely complicated, everyone thinks they’ve got it sorted. This is why I have had very few proper discussions concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The second group of people contain those who have the power to talk about anything naturally. I hate these people so much, because I am so jealous of this skill. And yeah, whilst I know very few of these bastards, whenever I have a chat with them, it is productive, constructive and enjoyable. But even in this group, at least a slither of prior knowledge can be useful.

However, the main topic of this post is not ‘how to have a good conversation’, because I can’t tell you how. What I would like to discuss, however, is when people can’t have conversations, and it just gets annoying.

Exhibit A: Here is a clip from ‘This Morning’, with the late Peaches Geldof and ‘Britain’s Biggest Bitch’ Katie Hopkins discussing Attachment Parenting. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY3v2KQkGmE). Now, who you support in this debate is irrelevant, but if you just watch the first four minutes, you will notice that ‘The Wicked Witch Of The West’ is given no opportunity to make her points. And when she is given the opportunity, Ms Geldof seems to deny her for another minute. It doesn’t matter whether, like everyone else, you disagree with the statements Hopkins makes, this is still not a discussion. Ms Geldof also seems to be very accustomed to the use of ‘ad hominem’ (attacking the person, not her views), which also severely weakens both her confidence in her own views and the quality of the overall discussion.

Exhibit B: Here is another clip from the world-famous Oxford Union, where they are talking about whether Islam is a religion of Peace (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQjZHFnmADQ). The speaker here, Anne Marie Waters MP, has become infamous for her ‘Islamophobic’ points of view, but again, whether or not you agree is irrelevant. If you were to watch Matthew Handley, the History student who’s voice preceded that of Ms Waters, you will notice that he is given free reign to speak about whatever. However, when Waters is speaking, she is interrupted on two occasions, during a speech a third shorter than that of Handley’s. In addition, if you watch Mehdi Hasan’s speech in the same debate, the majority is spent insulting Waters, rather than expressing his own points. I found this lack of respect striking, particularly at the most prestigious debating society in the world.

So what is it that Geldof, Hasan and Handley all have in common. It is that in these particular discussions, they have all taken the moral highground. Geldof is supported maternal nurturing, and Hasan and Handley are supporting equality, allegedly. This means that going into these debates, they are all backed by the support of the majority, putting their opponents at a severe disadvantage. It seems that this has instilled an air of confidence about them. After all, the only way in which the opponents will be able to voice their opinions is via a fair discussion, and this seems to be why they appear so slammed following these debates, and that is a shame, as this is preventing the development of an intellectual, constructive discussion.

 

Chinua Achebe – Things Fall Apart

Originally, I set out to read Achebe’s masterpiece ‘Things Fall Apart’ right at the beginning of this year, but lost concentration fairly quickly. However, following his death last March, I felt a certain allegiance to him, as I had seemed to fail his critically acclaimed book which, by many, is considered to be the greatest piece of literature to come out of Africa. So I decided to give it a go and, despite my previous views, I was thoroughly impressed.

‘Things Fall Apart’ follows Okonkwo, an 18-year-old tribesman who, despite his misguided and undistinguished father, had excelled within his tribe in a matter of months and had become the greatest and most famous wrestler in the nine villages withing which he resides. However, when he accidentally (and, despite his violence, there was no intention of murder) kills a 16-year-old clansman, he is exiled for seven years, within which the region is infested with European missionaries and colonialists wishing to spread Christianity to these ‘primitive tribes’.

Coming from Britain, which was undoubtedly the ultimate colonialist power, taking almost a quarter of the globe from people without the power to uphold them, such as the Aborigines in Australia, (This explains why all of the countries in the Commonwealth Games, bar Britain, India, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, are all insignificant) this extraordinary novel provides a drastically alternative viewpoint to the whole situation. Though we have learnt about anti-colonialist (eg Shakespeare, who used his final comedy ‘The Tempest’ to act as a revolution against colonialism, using Prospero and Caliban), we have generally been washed over by praise of the Great Queen Victoria and her glorious empire. (This is highly ironic as for her first years of reign, she did everything the her husband said. Then, after his death, she mourned for ten years, doing nothing else. And then she spent her final years doing, yet again, not much).

The literature used is also phenomenal. As Okonkwo has total dedication concerning the survival of his tribal culture, throughout the novel, Achebe emphatically uses his skills to increase Okonkwo’s despair in the face of the imminent extermination of his history (hence the name ‘Things Fall Apart’, to emphasize the process by which Okonkwo loses all faith), using not only the physical presence of the missionaries, such as the building of their churches and schools, but also a mental presence, such as the way in which they convert Okonkwo’s eldest son, Nwoye.

Having re-read the book, it seems to me that what confused me originally was not the concepts, or Achebe’s vocabulary, or the character developments. Simply, it was the context that confused me. Firstly, the names were all extremely similar in my opinion. And secondly, Achebe continuously stressed the importance, in Okonkwo’s culture, of speaking through proverbs which, originally, became increasingly irritating. However, once you find your way through the seemingly overpowering facade of the situation set out by Achebe, what you are left with is a true masterpiece and, therefore, I urge every one of you to read it. Your welcome.

Knock, Knock. George Zimmerman

Today saw the final verdict of a law case which has gripped the USA; that of George Zimmerman who, last year, was accused of murdering Treyvon Martin, a black 17-year-old. Not only has this high profile case become so important due to the horrific incident, but it has also become an analogy concerning the lack of black equality in America. So you can imagine that when the verdict found him not guilty, there was widespread outrage.

So before I break out into my rant, I just want to share with you this video from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Although it provides limited information concerning the situation, it was very funny. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Qz9foKmlQQ

There are a few things that I can’t quite understand about this case as a whole. Firstly, the ‘murder’ occurred on the 26th February last year, yet the trial itself began on the 24th June 2013, way over a year after the incident. Surely that makes lots of room for forgetfulness and changing stories, not only from Zimmerman, but also from any potential witnesses.

Despite the fact that Critical Thinking is useless, let’s use this opportunity to use it a bit. Take RAVEN (Reputation, Ability to See, Vested Interest, Expertise, Neutrality), a set of credibility criteria to decide whether a source is credible. A seriously long amount of time seems to, according to me, affect two of these criteria. It is possible that reputation could be affected, maybe if a witness seemed incredible from the beginning. Also, the ability to see seems to be affected due to distance from the event. If a witness is giving evidence, they will have to be totally certain of what they see, as a misjudgment could lead to disastrous consequences. How many people ever have that much faith in this empirical evidence. In short, when seventeen months passes, what you’re left with is not that useful.

The second major aspect of  this case that concerns me is the jury system, something that has, admittedly, already been debated for hundreds of years. If anyone has seen the 1957 film ’12 Angry Men’, they will understand the flaw. In the case in the film, the 12-man jury has to come to a verdict concerning a teenager who has killed his father, with the knowledge that if found guilty, he will be executed by electric chair. As the evidence is stacked up heavily against the defendant, at first, almost the entire jury finds him guilty. But there is always one man who can’t entirely trust it. As a result, the defendant is found not-guilty, due to the risk of executing an innocent man.

This raises a highly philosophical point about knowledge itself. Three British philosophers, John Locke, David Hume and Bishop Berkeley, collectively known as the ‘British Empiricists’, believed that the only way of receiving knowledge, with absolute certainty, is through the use of the senses. This opposed the (right, to be honest) idea of rationalism, which was headlined by the ‘Continental Rationalists’ (Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza and Friedrich Leibniz), who believed that total knowledge can only be achieved through reason (a.k.a mathematical proofing). The issue with empiricism is that it relies entirely on a total trust in the senses. But do we humans possess this kind of certainty, to the point that we will convict a man using it? How many times have you forgotten a face, or remember seeing something that was never there? This is the fundamental flaw concerning empiricism. And this reflects very well on the jural system; people are being asked to have utter trust in their senses, and that is the second main personal concern within the Zimmerman case.

The jury has also raised some issues, particularly amongst the civil rights groups who have expressed their dismay at Zimmerman’s release. The jury consisted of (five white, one black) women, with four (white) reserves. Although these groups seem to think that they are campaigning for equality, they say that having a white majority in a jury will cause favour to lean towards Zimmerman (who is white). The thing is (according to the 2010 census), African-Americans made up 12.6% of the US population. This means that, concerning the six-person jury, if everybody in the USA has an equal chance of being in the jury, there is a 25% chance that no black person will even be selected. It seems to be that these organisations are so blinded by the fact that a man belonging to a minority has been murdered that they are unwilling to look at the facts, out of a necessity to accuse somebody. They ignore the fact that, according to many witnesses at the trial, Treyvon Martin punched Zimmerman in the face around thirty times, and that Martin was part of a group with more sinister ideas in mind. Zimmerman was working as part of the  Neighbourhood Watch.

I’m kind of worried at the moment that people may call me racist. I assure you that I am not. However, I am aware that a court case is not there to decide who did it; it is there to decide who is guilty. Therefore, I do not believe that an innocent man should be put in jail  (he was accused of second degree murder, where the highest sentence is life imprisonment, so execution was out of the question).

To conclude, it is always important to question evidence. Rather than seeing that a man has been found not guilty and condemning him, try and look into it to see why this has happened. After all, if the evidence was truly against Zimmerman, he would be in prison by now.