Tag Archives: politics

Day 27: “Not That There’s Anything Wrong With That…”: The Controversy Card

Hi guys!

When I started this challenge, I always assumed there would be a post in which I rant about political correctness, and what better time would there have been to write about it than after the Charlie Hebdo attacks? However, I decided not to write about Charlie Hebdo when it was more prevalent. Fortunately for me, though, another news story has emerged, which has caused me to, again, become equally frustrated with the kind of society we live in.

A few days ago, a news story emerged regarding Benedict Cumberbatch, one of Britain’s most beloved actor, who caused outrage when he used the term ‘coloured’ regarding black actors. I have many coloured black friends, and if I was in the somewhat surreal situation of having to describe their skin colour, I would say black, and I like to think none of them would be particularly offended by that. But when Cumberbatch, who was supporting coloured black actors, comes under such heavy fire for use of a term, I just can’t comprehend how this incident could override the fact that Cumberbatch obviously isn’t racist or whatever.

I did do some research, and found that people regarded this term as ‘outdated’, and harked back to an era in which racial inequality was regarded as the norm. However, I have heard the term ‘coloured’ be used recently, and there has never been any reaction. This will always lead to the same point, for me at least, regarding racism in our current society, being that whilst racial slurs obviously do exist, dwelling on non-racist remarks, which may just be misunderstandings, will never achieve racial equality, or any equality for that matter.

Fortunately, Cumberbatch has received plentiful support from coloured black actors, in particular David Oyelowo, who has been lauded for his performance of Martin Luther King Jr. in the Oscar-nominated film Selma. Oyelowo told the BBC that “to attack him for a term, as opposed to what he was actually saying, I think is very disingenuous and is indicative of the age we live in where people are looking for sound bites as opposed to substance.” I like to think he’s got that spot on.

Oyelowo has been in the media recently as he, surprisingly, wasn’t nominated for Best Actor at the recent Oscars. This has been part of a major controversy where of the twenty individuals nominated for acting awards this year, not a single one is black. Again, this is such a major example of people trying to find examples of racism in situations where racism simply doesn’t exist. No, there are no coloured black actors nominated, but there are also no Muslim actors, Jewish actors, half-caste actors (sorry, turns out I’m not allowed to say that), no gay actors, no Russian actors, no actors from Manchester, who have been nominated. Where are their advocates! In fact, JK Simmons represents the only bald actor nominated for an Academy Award this year. What sort of world do we live in…

I’m rather good at digging holes for myself in these sorts of situations, but I’m not at all trying to deny the existence of racism, nor am I trying to diminish how awful racism is. I am, however, trying to point out the novelty of the arguments of anti-racism organisations, such as Show Racism The Red Card (who have been particularly angry with Cumberbatch, who happens to be an albino white actor), who seem to think that equality will be achieved by demonising mistakes, instead of supporting education and proper steps to achieving equality. Maybe I’ve just been living under a rock, but I never knew how derogatory ‘coloured’ was as a term. Does that make me racist? I like to think it doesn’t, because as a Jew, I’ve certainly succumbed to my share of racist comments, and I don’t like it one bit.

This is probably why I normally avoid posts like this one, but what the heck! I’m four from the end of my challenge. So there.

As I said, I do dig holes for myself, and as a result I have been accused of just about everything. I was accused of sexism because I travelled to Israel during school for my cousin’s Bar Mitzva, and not another cousin’s Bat Mitzva (even though I did). I’ve been accused of racism for saying that maybe David Oyelowo didn’t receive an Oscar nomination for Best Actor because five other actors were better, and they just happen to be albino white. I’ve been accused of homophobia for not understanding ‘pansexuality’. I’ve been accused of Islamophobia for saying that the people at Charlie Hebdo shouldn’t have been killed, and that Islam isn’t a religion centred around peace, even though I went on to describe how no religion is really a religion of peace. You may be questioning this, but I assure you I am none of these things whatsoever. There. Disclaimer done.

Seinfeld, the ultimate sitcom, is often cited as developing the term “not that there’s anything wrong with that”, with reference to homosexuality in particular. In the episode The Outing, it is published in a local newspaper that Jerry and George are a gay couple, and not only was watching them run around convincing people they weren’t gay completely hilarious, but their approach to it was also very interesting. It showed that whilst they didn’t want to be considered homosexual, they also didn’t want to be considered homophobic, so have to repeat this phrase multiple times throughout the episode.

In conclusion, of course all of these phobias and isms are factors preventing any peace on this Earth from arising. However, where are we going to get to by demonising the Cumberbatches in this world who simply make mistakes? Shouldn’t we be focussing on the actual racists and homophobes and anti-Semites and sexists?

Day 11: The War Against Facebook

Hello! Fancy seeing you here!

Did you know that Russell Crowe has a very strong body odour? Did you not? No? Has your life improved as a result of knowing that? It has? Really?

This was part of a post I found on my Facebook News Feed regarding something on the lines of Ten Celebrities who smell of a piece of mouldy cheese which has just found itself dropped from the rear of a cow, though it was probably much less colourful a title…

Still, I wasted ten minutes on my phone scrolling through the list to see who the smelliest celebrity is. Then I put my phone down, and realised that I had achieved a new level of efficiency regarding time wasting.

I’ll be honest, I might be shooting myself in the foot a little with the connotations of this post. Regardless, today, I’m going to have a rant about Facebook, and the actions of both myself and others in lieu of these thoughts.

So, I’ve been on Facebook since the Summer after Year 8, so just over four years now. That’s over 20% of my life, and it’s incredible to think that for all that time, my life could be summed up by a single website. A bit like this blog, though with slightly more effort put in (ashamedly). Do you remember those videos that Facebook made where you could see your first memories and your most liked posts and stuff? The video only lasted a minute. How are you supposed to condense life into something as disposable as a 60-second video? That was a scary video…

It’s not that I think the past four-or-so years have been wasted. I just don’t think that big chunks of it deserve to be eliminated from the body of what will officially be ‘remembered’ on Facebook. Just because something ends up on Facebook doesn’t mean that it is any more important than another event that didn’t quite make the cut.

Many people have also had the issue of lack of privacy. They complain about how companies use your Facebook profile to compile masses of data to learn about where you study, or your most likely future, or whether you prefer Oasis or Blur, or whether you prefer Chicken McNuggets or being kicked in the face by a horse (the horse, every single time). To be brutal, I can’t really sympathise with any of these people. It is “social” media after all: what did they really expect?

If there are all these issues, why was I ever on Facebook in the first place? I was the only one of my friends at the time who hadn’t lied about being over 13 before getting an account, and was cynical at first, but only because I felt an overwhelming urge for cynicism (as you do at 13). I first went on to share photos from a school geography trip (which, incidentally, I never ended up sharing), but I still remember my first morning on Facebook, where I received 26 friend requests, including from people who I hadn’t spoken to. Ever. I’m still not sure what it is about Facebook that makes people seem like social animals when, in reality, they don’t compare with their virtual confidence.

There has only really been one benefit from Facebook: free messaging. This may be the reason why I have kept Facebook for so long. Whilst any messages could easily have been relayed by what are now less conventional means, (ie email, texting, though it feels really odd calling them ‘unconventional’ given today’s standards), it was still reassuring to know that I wouldn’t have to pay for it. Other than this (admittedly, rather substantial) benefit, there hasn’t really been much else. I’ve kept in contact with, maybe, one person from Tour in Summer 2013. I only really starting speaking to a couple of new friends via Facebook. And because I don’t add people unless I am friends with them already, therefore, I am essentially making a list of my friends. And it’s not even accurate, as plenty of my friends don’t have Facebook! I’ll tell you what, though: their lives seem much more fulfilled than mine.

Coincidence?

As a result, I’m going to take a break from Facebook for a while. It’s only a temporary thing for now, so I will only disable my account. A few of my friends decided to experiment with this as part of their new 2015, so I thought I’d join them in their quest to talk to actual people again.

So, I’m going to stay long enough to get people’s numbers and really, really, really plug my talk for our Senior Maths Society PiShop (my talk is titled Ebola vs Zombies, and discussed the use of models to demonstrate the spread of infectious disease. You see? I’m even plugging on my blog now!). Then, it will be goodbye for a while!

This really reminds me of a birthday card I got a couple of years ago from my good friend Qesser (hi Qesser!!!), which said that he was giving me a birthday card. Not a text. Not a facebook post. Not an email. An actual birthday card! With an inside and everything! I love that card 🙂

So that’s basically it. Unlike other people who have ditched Facebook, this is a completely personal experiment, and I really hope that it doesn’t hinder me socially. Otherwise, my account will be dis-disbanded.

But yeah, that’s my post for today…

Hope to see you tomorrow!

P.S For anybody who’s interested, Jennifer Anniston, Zac Efron and Cameron Diaz also featured on that list.

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!

 

‘What An Ironic Title For This Novel’

‘What an ironic title for this novel’ begins a one-star Amazon review of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s magnus opus The Great Gatsby, which is succeeded by ‘The eponymous ‘Great Gatsby’ is certainly not great, and neither is this novel.’

 

 

This may seem to be a point of view taken by UK Education Secretary Michael Gove after he allegedly ‘banned’ a variety of American books from the GCSE English Literature syllabus, including John Steinbeck’s classic Of Mice And Men, which has occupied many a GCSE student for several years now. Whilst Mr Gove has endlessly stressed the fact that he has not ‘banned’ these books as such, he has set an obvious stress on literature from Britain, such as Dickens, Orwell and Austen, and also literature from British-based authors, such as Kazuo Ishiguro and Willy Russell, giving the impression of him being a bit of a UKIP politician.

But how beneficial are these changes in terms of the range of literature which GCSE students will be exposed to? To find out, I have decided to do a little analysis of the new reading lists to see if all of these changes will have a positive or negative net effect, so here goes…

19th Century Literature

Charles Dickens – Great Expectations, Charles Dickens – A Christmas Carol, Robert Louis Stevenson – The Strange Case Of Dr Jekyll And Mr Hyde, Mary Shelley – Frankenstein, Jane Austen – Pride And Prejudice, Charlotte Bronte – Jane Eyre, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle – The Sign Of Four

Considering the extreme lack of pre-1900 literature on the current specification, bar any Shakespeare plays studied, this is not only a very impressive list of books, but also a bit of an optimistic selection. Something that is particularly different about this set of literature sompared to the current set texts is the fact that these books are significantly longer. Given that the most common set text, Of Mice And Men is only 100 pages or so, the inclusion of Jane Eyre, weighing in at over 500 pages, is something extremely new. Even my own set text, The Great Gatsby, even being an A-level set-text, still includes less than 200 pages. It seems to be an issue that teachers will be most willing to teach shorter books due to increased detail and decreased assessment pressure. But this is what makes this list a breath of fresh air.

Whilst including shorter works, such as A Christmas Carol and Stevenson’s inclusion, what this list does is open students up to a world involving the books that have defined British literature. Jane Eyre has made the Brontes’ hometown of Haworth, Yorkshire, a hub for Japanese tourists. Doyle’s The Sign Of Four has made Sherlock Holmes, a fictional protagonist, one of the most beloved and recognisable characters in British history. And having read the majority of these books myself, I can assure you that these books to live up to their hype.

The one issue concealing this list is the fact that English Literature is a GCSE which is compulsory for every child in the UK, how can we get every student in the UK to immerse themselves in classic literature? The fact is that the number of memes found on Facebook complaining about Of Mice And Men or The Great Gatsby or I’m The King Of The Castle is overwhelming, and if this country is unable to cope with these titles, it would take a bona fide miracle for this list to achieve success. Nevertheless, I am personally hopeful that it does.

Post-1914 Drama and Prose

JB Priestley – An Inspector Calls, Alan Bennett – The History Boys, Willy Russell – Blood Brothers, Dennis Kelly – DNA, Shelagh Delaney – A Taste Of Honey, Simon Stephens – The Curious Incident Of The Dog In The Night Time, William Golding – The Lord Of The Flies, George Orwell – Animal Farm, Kazuo Ishiguro – Never Let Me Go, Meera Syal – Anita And Me, Stephen Kelman – Pigeon English

Unlike the previous list, this selection is something that I am much less familiar with, having only read three of the books, which seem to be most unrepresentative of the overall theme of these books. Golding’s The Lord Of The Flies is possibly the only novel left from the previous specification, and rightly so, being both an interesting and important novel. Orwell’s Animal Farm, though a phenomenal book, is far too politically active for a GCSE specification. To put it simply, Animal Farm is Orwell’s thinly disguised attack on Communism, and when I describe this book as ‘thinly-disguised’, I mean that every single character in this book matches up to a figure of Communist Russia: Napoleon is Joseph Stalin, Snowball is Leon Trotsky, Old Major is Karl Marx, Mr Jones is Tsar Nicholas II. This is not a fiction book. It is a 150-page analogy.

Finally, Kazuo Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go. In all honesty, this book is a good read. It has an interesting back story and concept, well-affiliated characters, a good plot, what more could you ask for from a book? However, it is one of those books where, upon analysis, all information must be extracted by a mixture of bullshitting and reading in between lines that just don’t have spaces between them. It seems that Mr Ishiguro has set out to write a decent, coming-of-age novel that might be made into a film, and he has ended up with a book chocka-blocked with ‘meaning’ that he never intended, and a film. Thus, I really can’t imagine this books being a decent novel to study in detail. To read, absolutely, but to study? Maybe not.

Whilst containing some modern classics, the thing that this selection is lacking is the collection of important novels, novels that define an era. Novels like The Great Gatsby or Grapes Of Wrath or Slaughterhouse-Five, though I feel that teachers themselves will struggle to find the meaning between the Tralfamadorian aliens who decide to abduct poor Billy Pilgrim and stick him in a zoo on their home planet.

In conclusion, Mr Gove’s new ideas seem to be defined by an unambiguously Conservative approach to classic literature, which may not be reflected well up north. However, he does ostensibly show an immense patriotism and pride in British literature, which is undoubtedly one of the richest sets of literature the world has ever seen, which is something to be admired.

A New Poetic Dimension

Every year, my primary school held a verse-speaking competition within each year. At that time, my attention span was about as short as I was, and I was living in a period where what was ‘cool’ was clearly defined. Thus, an annual poetry reciting competition was something none of us were particularly keen on by any means. However, two YouTube videos have reopened my eyes, and along with my further appreciation of poetry that joins my attempt at being a ‘culture-vulture’, I have now seen what was so special about spoken word poetry.

The first of these is a stunning performance by Neil Hilborn at ‘Button Poetry’, a Minnesota-based organisation promoting spoken word poetry. The poem is entitled ‘OCD’ and is about a man with this disorder who falls madly enough, and has been copied into the post here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnKZ4pdSU-s). The other is a Ted talk by a Sarah Kay, who seems to have taken the role as an advocate for spoken word poetry (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0snNB1yS3IE). Citing Hilborn’s performance in particular, as the first video filming spoken word itself that I watched, what really struck me was how powerful his story, his emotions, even his head movements were. This talent enabled a truly vivid picture to be painted.

And this is what has really attracted me further to the idea of spoken word poetry. Poetry itself is great: Wilfred Owen, Dante Rossetti, T.S Eliot, Dr Seuss, love them. But when poetry is a collection of words printed onto a piece of paper, the imagery and thoughts created by the poem are only what you can conjure up in your own mind. A poem being read out provides an almost third dimension to a poem, as whilst you can still hear the words and create your own images, someone else is donating an entirely new aspect to it This is what seems to make analysis of spoken word poetry a particularly rigorous discipline, yet also ever more fascinating.

There is one, however, quite common aspect of many spoken word poems, and that is that they contain huge amounts of indignancy. Take these videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9Wf8y_5Yn4, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5frn8TAlew0, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFPWwx96Kew, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2Ks06Al8c0. Whilst all of these performances are extremely powerful and demonstrate huge amounts of raw talent, they all seem to focus on one topic: hate. They seem to try and spread messages that, whilst prevalent in our society, are over-exaggerated and even violent in some cases. Just take these videos: black boys being more vulnerable than others, JK Rowling discriminates against Chinese people, and apparently society has not fully reacted to this ‘revolutionary idea of homosexuality ( in fact, if you do decide to browse spoken word poetry on YouTube, you will be surprised about how much homosexuality is expressed as a topic of choice).

The fact is, I understand that spoken word poetry is being all revolutionary and thought-provoking, but can this not be done by a more light-hearted means? I understand that many spoken word poets use this art form, in the same way that Orwell used his literature for political means, but this just shows how present this indignancy is.

Fortunately for me at least, spoken word poems for the sake of its inherent ‘beauty’ are easily found, with two of the big players in this ‘category’ being Sarah Kay, as mentioned, and Phil Kaye, who act as collaborators (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdJ6aUB2K4g). Phil Kaye also did a lesser publicised Ted talk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7fWagDQyvg) where he speaks about storytelling. Interestingly enough, both have cited ‘storytelling’ as a reason for pursuing this art form. Given how powerful this form of speaking is, is it not a brilliant grounds on which to spread stories? Whether they be about love, hate, family etc., poetry in this form offers a gateway for the creation of more abstract thought which I, personally, find fascinating in itself.

Anyway, those are my views on what I am finding to be a brilliant new and undiscovered art form. Spoken word poetry can be found very easily on YouTube, but here are a couple more of my favourite videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv00xjClbx0 – This is a poem by two girls, one Jewish and one Muslim, about growing up separated by culture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSHnnPunShg – Whilst indignant, this poem is nonetheless powerful and thought provoking, as any good poem is. And this Youtuber is quite funny as well, so yeah…

Enjoy!

Results Day

As I have called this blog, ‘My Factless Autobiography’, as of now I feel a certain allegiance to abide by the rules I have set myself in terms of laying out my own autobiography. However, as I am yet to write anything about my whole Summer, I feel that the biggest event in recent days would be a good place to start. But not only was this an important day for me, but also for the entire United Kingdom.

Before this day, not only had there been a lot of talk amongst those examined, but also throughout the press. This year saw the introduction of the English Baccalaureate, a new form of examination set out by the British Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove. For years there had been a lot of controversy surrounding GCSEs (the exams taken at 16), as there had been evidence of them being ‘dumbed down’, as grades had become increasingly higher over the years, something known as ‘grade inflation’. The thing with this whole situation is that it seems, to me at least, that not only is there an obvious cause of ‘grade inflation’, but there is also an extremely simple way of solving this issue. And they better start quickly, lest 16 year olds would have to succumb to writing the word ‘baccalaureate’ over and over again.

One important characteristic of major exams taken in the UK is that although many people will take a Biology GCSE, for example, not everyone will take the same exam. This is due to examining boards, such as OCR, Edexcel and AQA, independent companies who set their own exams, including their own textbooks. As there is now competition, due to multiple companies, these boards are now competing for schools to buy their textbooks and do their exams. But how do they convince schools that they should take their exams instead of somebody elses? Simple. As schools are fixated with good grades, resulting in good publicity, they will always choose options that will be best for the student in terms of getting top grades. Therefore, they will pick the board offering the easiest exams.

This is what is causing ‘grade inflation’. Boards will continue to make their exams easier and easier, resulting in everyone getting top grades.

But there is a simple solution which can be expressed using just one word: nationalisation.

Let us say that the government was to take all of these independent examining boards and merge them into one ‘super-examining board’, now schools only have one option as to what exams they can choose for their pupils to take. This leaves this new board free to make their exams as simple or tough as they please. And using this technique, the best pupils and schools can be broadly defined, thus eliminating grade inflation.

But whilst the country has wallowed within its own debates and discussions, it has been a particularly nerve racking period for all 16 year olds. Fortunately for some of us, the fact that once the exam was taken there was absolutely nothing you could do about it seemed to calm us. Oddly enough, having it written down on the screen in front of me makes me wonder how the anxiety had been quelled.

Yet when the grades were finally revealed at 9:30 two days ago, for my school and friends especially, everyone was extremely happy. At my school, Manchester Grammar, one in five people, including me, got straight A*s and over 90% of all grades were A* or A. Looking back on it, some skeptical readers might refer to the grade inflation that has been mentioned previously. However, my convenient rebuttal would be that at my school we do iGCSEs, and so none of this inflation has actually happened. Lucky us!

(This is a photograph from the Jewish Telegraph with five guys from Manchester Grammar who all got straight A*s. I am second from the right)

Jewish-Telegraph

And it hasn’t just happened within my own school, while my friends elsewhere have also done extremely well. A particular shout out to Oliver Hayes, a very close friend of mine, who achieved 10 A*s and 2 As, two A*s higher than anyone else in a year with many other high flying results. The North Manchester Jewish newspaper ‘The Jewish Telegraph’ even named him as ‘the star student’, so I’d just like to say another Congratulations to you Oli. (You may or may not read this, but I’ll just do it anyway).

So in conclusion, I’d like to congratulate everyone not only for competing these exams but also for doing spectacularly well. Well done everyone!

The Anti-War Novel

Considering my, frankly, disastrous form in terms of posting here, due to the fact that I have spent a month in Israel,  I’d like to apologize and say that I shall be writing here much more frequently as of today and, luckily, I have plenty to write about. But what I write about today will be about something a little different to my holidays. Enjoy!

Over the past week or so, I have been engaged in a book that was recommended to me by my friend Ed (who recommends most of the stuff I read to be honest, making me look a bit odd). It was called Slaughterhouse-Five, by an American writer called Kurt Vonnegut. The blurb described it as ‘the most original anti-war novel since Catch-22’ and Joseph Heller, the author of Catch-22 himself, described this novel as ‘a work of keen literary artistry’. So undoubtedly, I was expecting a  book that would live up to its expectations.

However, when I finally put the book down yesterday afternoon, I was left with mixed feelings about it. Whilst being a highly interesting novel with lots of literary technique and entertaining scenes, it was clear to me that this was a very ‘arty’ book, in terms of saying that it goes out of its way, thus making it look particularly confusing, for the purpose of developing meaning. And this is exactly what is done here. The blurb (I know I keep referring to it. I did read the book) begins by saying, ‘Prisoner-of-war, optometrist, time-traveller – these are the life roles of Billy Pilgrim…’ And this doesn’t even mention the fact that he is abducted by aliens by a planet millions of miles away, with the name Tralfamadore. This is truly not your typical novel.

Yet when I put the book down and ran through all the random plots and sub-plots (it is random due to Pilgrim’s spontaneous and involuntary time-travelling throughout his life) in my head, it all made sense. And although this does not characterise an anti-war novel, it is a common characteristic.

Let us use Catch-22 as an example. Firstly, what is a Catch-22? A Catch-22 is a situation where no favourable outcome is possible due to contradictory rules. Here is an example:

A university graduate goes into a job interview as he wants to gain some experience. However, the interviewer will not hire him as he does not have any experience. In this situation, the only way in which the graduate can be hired is if he had the job already, as he would need the experience.

The situation in Catch-22 is a little more complex. It is a fact in the army (Catch-22 happens amongst American soldiers in the US Air Force after they invaded Italy in 1943) that if you are crazy, you cannot fly the planes. If you know that you are crazy, all you need to do is tell the commander that you are crazy, and you will be demobilised and sent home. However, here is where the twist comes in. By telling someone you are crazy, with the full knowledge that you will be sent home, you are showing that you have concerns for your safety; evidence of a rational mind. Therefore you are not crazy and have to stay. Here, it is impossible to leave the army without proving that you have to stay in the army. This example of a logical paradox is now commonly known as a ‘Catch-22’.

One idea relayed in Catch-22 seems to be echoed in all anti-war novel, and that is the idea of insanity. In Catch-22, it seems to become clear quite early on that only someone insane would fly a plane, thus indicating that anyone who says they are not insane is actually insane. In Slaughterhouse-Five, this idea is mentioned too. In his old age, Pilgrim becomes increasingly unable to live life by himself, and he needs the assistance of his daughter, Barbara, who treats him like a childish invalid. When she makes her first appearance in the book, she says, ‘Father, father, father…what are we going to do with you?’ This seems to be a perfect example of insanity, as specified in both novels.

And  this is what really makes an anti-war novel. From the first chapter, it is made clear that one thing that caused Pilgrim’s insanity was the night when Dresden, a German city, was bombed and destroyed (as a matter of interest, according to the book, 71,739 people were killed at Hiroshima, but around 135,000 people were killed in Dresden). Pilgrim spends this night in the slaughterhouse with the other prisoners-of-war, which provides an excellent bomb shelter for him.

What these anti-war novels do is ignore the glory of war and replace it with the true effects that war has, not only concerning the people who have been killed, but also those who weren’t killed. We are endlessly told about all of the soldiers who suffered shell shock after World War One, and we learn to sympathise. This is what a good anti-war novel does and, gladly, this is what Slaughterhouse-Five does.

So it goes…

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.