M H
Issue 17: December 2014
Manchester Historian
European Monarchs One Big Family?
The Middle Passage Transatlantic Slave Trade
Cleopatra
The Beauty of a Killer
The Real Robin Hood Exposed
www.manchesterhistorian.com
@themcrhistorian
Issue 17: December 2014
What’s Inside
M H
• Page 3 - A Note from the Editors Women in History • Page 4 - Women and the American Civil War • Page 5 - The History of the Bra History in Features • Page 6- Cleopatra: The Beauty of a Killer • Page 7 - The Meiji Restoration & ‘Mad’ Kings • Page 8 - Inifidelities of Rulers • Page 9 - Ruling in Style • Page 10 - European Monarchs: One Big Family? • Page 11 - Monarchy in the Holy Roman Empire • Page 12 - The Divine Rights of Kings • Page 13 - The Rajas of India & Henry VII Battle of the Month • Page 14 - The Battle of Ulundi 1879 History You Should Know • Page 15 - The Middle Passage • Page 16 - The Australian Apartheid • Page 17 - The Great Schism & What You Didn’t Know about William Wilberforce History in 10 Pictures • Pages 18-19 - Monarchs in 10 Pictures The Manchester Historian 2014/2015 Team History in the Headlines • Page 20 - The Union Jack in Afghanistan Editors Zoey Strzelecki • Page 21 - The Sudan Divide Xan Atkins History in Culture • Page 22 - The Trafalgar Square Christmas Tree Head of Design Jamie Brannan • Page 23 - ‘The Great Fire’ Review & The Real Head of Copy-Editing Hebe Thorne Robin Hood Head of Marketing Stephanie Haszczyn • Page 24 - Book Review: ‘Wolf Hall’ by Hilary Mantel & Christmas Markets Head of Online James Schoonmaker University • Page 25 - Yangwen Zheng Interview Design Team Laura Robinson • Page 26 - Half Time Team Talk, UoM WW1 Laura Callard Centenary Commemoration & Upcoming Events Melanie Fernandes • Page 27 - Competition
Manchester Historian
Copy-Editing Team Sophie Brownlee Thomas Learmouth Helen Chapman Natalie Sharpin Charlotte Munday Marketing Team Kate Ayling Sabrina Kenth Caitlin Ovenden Online Team Evie Hull Mandy Poon
Page 2
www.manchesterhistorian.com
Issue 17: December 2014
A Note from the Editors It’s that time of year where the essays are piling on, nights in the library are getting longer and exam revision is looming. But the end of the semester does lead to one good thing: Christmas. To whet your Christmassy appetites we have been looking at the history behind London’s Trafalgar square tradition that we all appreciate, but don’t know its origins and its links to World War II. Plus, with the yearly instalment of Manchester’s Christmas Markets filling the town centre, and the smell of hot dogs and mulled wine, we have also sent one of our writers to explore the origins of Christmas Markets, and how they have developed over time. But our theme for this month is devoted to monasticism. Our writers have researched those that have ruled and those that have fallen from across the world. From India to Japan, to Egypt and Europe, they’ve looked at madness, infidelities and fashion, all offering a new perspective or angle on those that have ruled countries and whole empires (but of course we have thrown in a profile on Henry VIII). So read on to find out how Europe’s monarchs were all related, which rulers were truly mad and discover the awesome power of the divine right of kings. Amidst all these powerful figures we have not forgot about those events that you should know. We’re trying to fill those gaps in your historical knowledge with The Middle Passage- the largest forced migration in history, Australian Apartheid where local nomadic tribes known as Aborigines were persecuted right up into the 20th century, The Great Schism dividing the Catholic Church for 50 years, and to inspire us, what we didn’t know about William Wilberforce and his lengthy list of achievements. Our Headlines this month have covered a range of issues and the history behin d them: How did Sudan become two countries? And with a third British conflict in Afghanistan drawing to a close, has the Union Jack really seen the last of those Middle East Mountains? For some more light-hearted history we have explored the history behind the bra and the real truth behind our well loved childhood hero, Robin Hood. Our staff interview this month is a must read, exploring the career of one of the history department’s most enthusiastic and unique historians, Yangwen Zheng. We would like to thank all of our writers who managed to find the time in these last few mad weeks of term to contribute to this issue. And of course we would like to thank the Manchester Historian team who have all managed to keep to their deadlines fantastically and make this issue possible by working hard. We hope you enjoy this issue and have a wonderful Christmas! Xan and Zoey “Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn’t before! What if Christmas, he thought, doesn’t come from a store. What if Christmas...perhaps...means a little bit more!” -Dr. Seuss, How the Grinch Stole Christmas!
Xan Atkins and Zoey Strzelecki
@TheMcrHistorian
Page 3
Women In History
Issue 17: December 2014
Women and the American Civil War By Holly Donald Like all wars, the American Civil War is perceived as a man’s world. However, women, disguised as male soldiers, fought alongside men completely undermining contemporary ideas of the ‘true woman’ and proving there is space for women in male dominated war. But what legacy did they actually leave? At a time when women were thought of as weak but pure and moral, war was too corrupting and violent. In fact it was illegal for women to fight in the Civil War. Of course, women were involved but in typically female roles like sacrificial mothers who maintained the homestead. Even extremely dangerous nurse jobs were still seen as largely feminine. However, despite legal and social restrictions, an estimated four hundred plus women did fight. Given their obvious secrecy, there could be hundreds more unknown cases. This phenomena was not Jennie Hodgers (Wikimedia Commons) unique to the Civil War either – there is evidence that women donned male clothes to fight in the American Revolutionary War too. Although it seems incredible that women could pass as men; sometimes for years, physical examinations on both sides were pitifully simple. As long as you were abled bodied with a good set of teeth, you qualified. Neither side had an established and enforced minimum age for enlisting. It is less surprising then that women across America could take active part in this war. There is also a case to be made for respect amongst male Union Soliders in Trenchers (Wikimedia Commons) soldiers. Initially, women had to dupe officers into believing their masculinity; however, there are many cases of senior officers who turned a blind eye when they discovered women soldiers. Why women decided to join up is a more open-ended question. For many it was the Malina Blalock (Wikimedia Commons) same reasons as men: patriotism, a sense of adventure, glory-seeking, to earn money or a vehement belief in the cause. Some used war as a means of escaping an unsatisfying home life. Yet others followed their husbands or brothers in the conflict, perhaps a more overtly feminine reason.Most were young and accustomed to physical labour. They were predominantly from poor farming families, the exact same profile of male volunteers. These women universally proved they could contend with their male counterparts, whatever reason brought them to the battle field. Malinda Blalock, later to become Samuel Blalock is one such non-conforming woman. In 1862 she joined the Confederate’s 26th North Carolina Regiment following her husband Keith. Incidentally Keith was unaware of his wife’s activities until he met a mysterious but familiar young boy shortly after he joined up. Malinda then posed as Keith’s 20 year old brother. Intending to desert to the Union Army, they fought until Malinda was shot in the left shoulder. Naturally, injury led to detection for many women soldiers and Malinda was not an exception. After feigning measles, Keith was discharged around the same time and they returned home together; Malinda having to relinquish her $50 joining up reward. However, her war exploits didn’t end there. The couple soon ran away and, after other incidents, eventually joined a Union guerrilla group maintaining an underground rail road Amblulance (Wkimedia Commons) assisting escapees from Confederate prison. The final chapter of their violent adventures saw them become marauders. Malinda suffered another shoulder injury, while Keith murdered his uncle and lost an eye. Together they gained a reputation throughout North Carolina. Another particularly interesting case was that of Jennie Hodgers, or ‘Albert Cashier’. She enlisted in the 95th Illinois infantry in 1862. Whilst in service she is described as being relatively withdrawn, like most women soldiers who feared drawing attention. Yet she was considered a good soldier across her three year enlistment. In one account Cashier supposedly escaped capture by overpowering a prison guard. What is especially interesting about Cashier’s case, however, is her persistence in cross-dressing for around fifty years after armistice. Masquerading, she enjoyed the rights of a man in an intensely patriarchal society; holding many jobs from farmhand to street lamplighter, collecting veterans’ pension and even voting. In fact, it wasn’t until she was admitted to mental hospital that Hodgers’ secret was discovered. Despite attendants controversially forcing her to wear a dress, on 10th December 1915 Hodgers was buried as Cashier in full military uniform with her military service and male name inscribed on her tombstone. However, what is the legacy of these brave women? Although they completely refuted nineteenth-century gender roles, their secrecy somewhat limits the impact they could have had on contemporary gender perceptions, and therefore on gender history. By becoming almost invisible can they still be revered as fighters of gender equality as well as military soldiers?
Page 4
www.manchesterhistorian.com
Women In History
Issue 17: December 2014
The History of the Bra: A ‘ludicrous invention’ or a Device for Emancipation? By Olivia Havercroft The bra has often been seen as an instrument of patriarchy, used to subjugate women through the restriction and sexualisation of the female body. In contrast, it can also represent women’s emancipation: a garment designed for women, by women. Ancient visual material often depicts women as bare-breasted. However, the first bra-like garment dates back to Ancient Egypt, with paintings showing women wearing the ‘kalasiris’ - a tight tube dress held up by two straps, exposing the breasts but providing support. The representation of the bra as indicative of male repression dates back to Ancient Rome. Literary evidence suggests that the dominant male view was that large breasts were unattractive so many women bound their breasts. However, the 4th century ‘bikini girls’ mosaic depicts women playing sport while wearing what looks like a strapless bra, suggesting that bra-structures in Ancient Rome were not entirely a negative objectification of the female form. It was not until the Renaissance that décolletage became fashionable and women began wearing corsets that pushed the breasts upwards and restricted movement.
4thc. ‘bikini girls’ mosaic (credit: Wikimedia Commons)
This fashion prevailed into the Victorian era, when, due in part to the work of female clothing reformers in late 18th century England, the corset was replaced by the bra. The invention of the bra can be seen as representative of female emancipation, as it allowed women to enter the public sphere and enjoy activities that would not be possible with a corset (e.g., riding a bicycle). However, this was mostly confined to upper-class women.
It was a century ago that the modern bra became available to the masses. Brassieres became more versatile, comfortable and affordable, developing in line with women’s entry into the workforce. Famously, the 1960s saw some feminists denounce bras as a ‘ludicrous invention’, used to restrict and sexualise the female body. In the oft-referenced example of the Miss America protests in 1968, protestors burned bras and other symbols of male oppression in the ‘Freedom Trashcan’. The legacy of the feminist movement is the choice for women to participate in society with or without a bra, without negative social consequences. The bra has continued to develop in the 21st century, with both silicone-moulded and diamond encrusted bras selling for $10 million. Whether you see the bra as an object of repression or emancipation, it provides an entry to understanding how women’s identity has been constructed throughout history.
The Renaissance Corset (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)
1950s American Bra (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)
@TheMcrHistorian
Page 5
History in Features
Issue 17: December 2014
Cleopatra: The Beauty of a Killer By Zoey Strzelecki Cleopatra VII; the last in a dynasty of Macedonian rulers, a general under Alexander the Great, a lover of Julius Caesar and Mark Anthony, but how she maintained her rule is not so glamorous. Cleopatra is often depicted as a beautiful, powerful woman who ruled over Egypt earning her an enduring place in history and popular myth. The nature of her ascendance and maintenance of the throne are often overlooked in popular fiction. Digging deeper into the legend of Cleopatra, beneath her renowned beauty was a ruthless killer. Committed to being the omnipotent power in Egypt, Cleopatra oversaw the deaths of all three of her siblings following her father’s death. It was sibling rivalry and the emerging power of Rome that split loyalties after the death of Ptolemy XIII (Cleopatra’s father), 51BC. Following tradition, 18 year old Cleopatra was to be married to her 10-year-old brother; Ptolemy XIII and they were to co-rule over Egypt. It soon became clear that Cleopatra had no intention of sharing power; she dropped her brother’s names from official documents and their faces from the coins. Cleopatra went against the tradition of female rulers being subservient to their male corulers and put increasing strain on the crown. These existing tensions were heightened when the issue of Rome emerged. The Roman Empire was expanding across the Middle East and a foothold had already been established within Egypt. The ruling dynasty had to choose between resisting Rome and risk going to war, or forming an alliance with Rome and potentially provoke an internal rebellion. Cleopatra’s intentions were clear early on; she sought to befriend Rome and make them a powerful ally of Egypt but her brother Ptolemy, and sister Arsinoe disagreed. With increased lack of co-operation, and due to her increasing status as queen, Ptolemy exiled his sister from Alexandria in hope of forming solidarity within Egypt. Cleopatra’s thirst for power however, turned her eyes to the manipulation of Rome. Using her petite size and beauty, she managed to roll herself into a bed sack that was carried to Julius Caesar in his visit to Alexandria. Cleopatra knew it was important to get to Caesar before her brother. Desperate to return to power, young Cleopatra seduced the Roman emperor, winning his favour and his military muscle. Ptolemy learnt this news and in reaction, troops loyal to Ptolemy and Arsinoe attacked the palace Caesar was staying in. After a narrow escape, Caesar still pledged to see Cleopatra returned to the throne. Calling in troops from Syria, Ptolemy was pursued and eventually drowned in the Nile, weighed down by his heavy gold armour. Cleopatra’s first rival had been eliminated. Arsinoe, who had been declared ruler during the rebellion against Rome, was soon taken prisoner at the hand of her sister and Rome. She was taken to Rome in chains, and in tradition paraded around the capital alongside other prisoners, ultimately to be strangled. As a vulnerable young girl, she was spared the humiliation of murder. As punishment, she was exiled from Egypt and became a political exile under the protection of the temple of Artemis in Ephesus, Turkey. She remained under the watchful eye of Rome but, in Cleopatra’s eyes, she remained a threat. Returned to the throne by the dynastic solution dictated by Caesar, Cleopatra was forced to continue tradition and married her youngest brother. Shortly after this restoration Caesar was stabbed to death and Cleopatra had her co-ruler murdered. But Cleopatra’s power was still not stable with her little sister still alive and in the power of Rome. When Mark Anthony became the senator of Ephesus, Cleopatra saw an opportunity. His lavish lifestyle, and love of war had left him broke and looking to Cleopatra for aid. Suddenly, Mark Anthony and Cleopatra proved invaluable allies. He needed her resources and she needed security. In return for money to pay his war debt, Mark Anthony had Arsinoe murdered in the holy temple of Artemis. No more descendants were alive to challenge Cleopatra’s rule.
Queen Cleopatra (credit: Wikimedia Commons).
Through being a ruthless politician, a beautiful queen, and a lustful seductress, Cleopatra managed to secure her position as one of the most successful and powerful queens in history. Her rule was scattered with internal and external battles, but she managed to keep Egypt independent for 20 years by securing a relationship with Rome. By murdering her siblings, the Ptolemaic dynasty ended with Cleopatra as the last queen of Egypt, and a legend in history.
Page 6
www.manchesterhistorian.com
History in Features
Issue 17: December 2014
The Meiji Restoration By Jennifer Birdsall In 1868 the Tokugawa rule that began in 1603 came to an end. The Tokugawa shogunate was replaced by the Meiji Restoration. This era consolidated a political system based on rule by the Emperor of Japan. In reality, the ‘restoration’ of the emperor was purely symbolic. It helped give the new regime the legitimacy they needed to transform Japan. The new rulers seized control of the Tokugawa government in Edo, changing the name of the city to Tokyo. In 1889, Meiji created a constitution and gave it as a gift to the people of his country. Westernisation of Japan occurred during the restoration period. Commodore Matthew Perry travelled from America and explored South East Asia, arriving in Japan in 1854. Perry was one of the reasons that Japan became aware of the fact they were behind developmentally in comparison to the West. The word ‘Meiji’ means ‘enlightened rule’. Meiji wanted to combine Western advances with traditional Japanese values. Perhaps the most prominent example of this is the implementation of a Western style schooling system, but the school continued to include many aspects of the traditional curriculum. The impact of the West was not limited to cultural ideas. The Meiji also sought to create a nation-state capable of standing equal among Western powers. This was done by military modification. In 1871 there was a formation of a national army. Then, by 1873 Emperor Meiji (Credit: Wikimedia Commons) there was a universal conscription law. The attempts to create a Japanese army eventually led to the country’s rise as a military power by the year 1905. The success of military policies was solidified by the 1894-95 Sino-Japanese War, the 1902 Anglo-Japanese alliance, and the 1904-05 Russo-Japanese War. The acceleration of industrialisation was another primary goal of the newly instituted government. Industrialisation was seen as another route Japan should take to be recognised and respected on the world stage. They developed strategic industries, transportation networks and communication links. In 1872 the first railroad was built and by 1890 there was more than 1,400 miles of track. Following this, in 1880 the introduction of the telegraph linked major cities. Then, in 1882 a European-style banking system was introduced. The death of Emperor Meiji in 1912 marked the end of the restoration period. It needs to be acknowledged that, building on the foundations established in the Tokugawa period, this was the government that was responsible for the emergence of Japan as a ‘modernised’ and powerful nation in the early twentieth century.
‘Mad’ Kings By Christopher Jolliffe. According to Russian legend, Ivan the Terrible was so impressed when seeing the completion of the Saint Basil’s Cathedral in Moscow, that he kindly ordered its architect Postnik Yakovlev, to be blinded, so as to never build anything as beautiful again. Whether or not Yakovlev had any choice in this matter we are unsure, but there was little room for question when you were ruled by a ‘mad’ King, and history has been full of them, whether driven by a love of cruelty, or cases of mental illness. Ivan the Terrible grew up ill-treated during bitter struggles for power. Often he would vent his anger like any other young aspiring ruler would: by blinding birds and dissecting them alive. When he was later Tsar, during a sack of the city of Novgorod, he had the cities inhabitants impaled, roasted, and even fried. Later on in his life, after beating his pregnant daughter in law leading to her miscarriage, he retaliated to his son’s anger by striking him with his staff, eventually killing him, an event succumbing him to grief until his death a few years later. Another ruler who took pleasure in cruelty was Vlad ‘The Impaler’ Tepes of the early Romanian Kingdom, whose main interest was the ordering the impaling of his own people. The reasons for impaling ranged from severe treason, to simply stealing a loaf of bread. One event showing Vlad’s love for torture occurred during the invasion of the Ottoman Empire on Vlad’s lands, where Vlad impaled almost twenty thousand captured Turkish soldiers. The ‘forest of death’ as it was perceived was so terrifying that the Ottoman army swiftly turned and fled the country. Charles VI of France, or Charles ‘the Mad’ lived up to his name, beginning to suffer from mental illness early in his reign, made by apparent when he killed four of his bodyguards unknowingly. He would at times believe that his name was George, deny that he was King, and flee with horror whenever he saw his wife. A particular story is of Charles claiming to others to be made from glass; that none should approach him out of fear of him shattering and ordering iron rods to be inserted into his clothing so that he would not break. His regular impressions of a wolf, howling and running around the castle, would exhaust his wife Isabeau of Bavaria. She swapped her place with another woman, who Charles did not even notice was not Isabeau.
@TheMcrHistorian
Page 7
History in Features
Issue 17: December 2014
Infidelities of Rulers By Chloe Lisa Wright The infidelity of those in the limelight is an issue that always has, and probably always will be, one of public interest. In the modern day, famous individuals including politicians, those in show business and sportsmen are constantly in the press amidst claims of infidelity. One of the most notorious adulterers in history is the Roman emperor, Caligula whom reigned from 37AD to 41AD. Evidence suggests that Caligula was a moderate emperor for the first six months of his reign, however after this he turned into a tyrant. He carried out extra marital liaisons with women alongside a procession of four wives. He is described in records by Philo of Alexandria and Seneca the Younger as sex obsessed, misogynistic, self-absorbed and indulgent. He often bragged of sleeping with other men’s wives and was also accused of participating in incest with a number of his sisters. Closer to home, English kings have been renowned for keeping mistresses. Henry II, a notorious adulterer whom reigned from to 1154 to 1159 is one of the earliest kings for whom records of his mistresses have been found. Henry had several long term affairs with women including Rosamund Clifford and fathered illegitimate children; some of whom he gave titles and status in court. Henry VIII of the Tudor family is now infamous for his infidelities, taking various mistresses during his six marriages and like Henry II, fathering illegitimate children. Charles II has been hailed the “Merry Monarch” earning this title as the most prominent womanizer in English kingship. Charles is different from many other kings as he is believed to have taken mistresses from the lower classes of English society as well as noble women. Charles is believed to have had at least fifteen mistresses and was open about the fact he fathered 14 illegitimate children. In more contemporary England, royal mistresses have still been in the public eye. Although not married, Edward VIII was in the public domain during his reign in 1936. He was carrying out an affair with divorcee Wallis Simpson whom due to her two ex-husbands being alive, was infidelity in the eyes of the church. Lastly, Prince Charles of Wales’ infidelity against Diana Princess of Wales with Camilla (now the Duchess of Cornwall) caused nationwide outrage. Hence, infidelity has been a prominent theme throughout the history of rulers and will undoubtedly remain a strong talking point for years to come.
Charles II of England by Kneller (credit: Wikimedia Commons).
Page 8
www.manchesterhistorian.com
History in Features
Issue 17: December 2014
Ruling in Style By Vivienne Daly The image of rulers is crucial for public support, but vital to the machinations of anybody who is politically inclined. Political symbols can be used to claim countries, as Edward III did in 1340 when he altered the Royal Arms of England. Or, political symbols can shepherd a nation through wartime, as Winston Churchill is said to have done with his famous V sign during the Second World War. By the same token, certain colours, have been reserved as demarcations of political power, with the colour purple having been prized for its association with power, wealth, and royalty for hundreds of years. Purple’s elite status stems from the rarity and cost of the dye originally used to produce it in the Phoenician city of Tyre, now in modern-day Lebanon. Fabric traders obtained the dye from a small mollusc that was only found in the Tyre region of the Mediterranean Sea and about 9,000 molluscs were needed to create just one gram of Tyrian purple in a costly, labour-intensive process; only wealthy elites could afford to buy and wear the colour. The toga praetexta, a white toga with a broad purple strip on its border, traditionally worn by the Kings of Rome and later on by the political elite, is particularly prominently featured in popular culture representations of the period. In HBO’s Rome, Caesar frets over choosing the kind of outfit that will ‘suggest purple without actually wearing it’. Some few hundred years later the dye became so expensive that even the elite couldn’t always afford it. Emperor Aurelian famously wouldn’t allow his wife to buy a shawl made from Tyrian purple silk because it literally cost its weight in gold. However, the illustrious connotations of wearing purple lasted a great deal longer than the Roman Empire. From the reign of Edward III until well into the 17th century, Sumptuary Laws in England strictly regulated what colour and type of clothing, furs and fabrics could be worn by people of different classes and incomes within society. Elizabeth I’s Sumptuary Laws forbade anyone but close relatives of the queen and royal family to wear purple. One of the earliest acts passed by Henry VIII’s first parliament, which met in January 1510, was a lengthy Sumptuary Law entitled ‘An Act agaynst wearing of costly Apparrell’. Some historians have suggested that the intermittent instability of the Tudor dynasty accounts for the Tudors’ preoccupation with prescribing what the rest of the populous could and could not wear, and how other people were allowed to present themselves. It is therefore unsurprising that mass movements have also been quick to utilise the power of symbolism and adopt powerful and distinctive regalia in order to identify their cause. Perhaps the most famous of these is the hammer and sickle, a Communist symbol conceived during the Russian Revolution. The hammer stands for industrial labourers, who dominated the Russian proletariat during the revolution, and the sickle for the peasantry. The two symbols combined (in theory) represent the worker-peasant alliance in favour of socialism and against the tyranny of the bourgeoisie. Today, despite the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the hammer and sickle symbol remains commonplace in Russia and is even featured on a lot of western products with surprising regularity, particularly on clothing, bags and badges; a testament to the enduring power of symbolism. However, its display is prohibited in several of the former Eastern Bloc countries, much like the swastika is in Germany, and the foreign ministers of six countries called for an EU-wide ban on communist symbols in 2010, urging the EU to criminalise ‘the approval, denial or belittling of communist crimes’. In more recent times, following the release of the film V for Vendetta in 2006, the Guy Fawkes mask, a stylised depiction of the face of Guy Fawkes (the best known member of the Gunpowder Plot) has become commonplace in antiWinston Churchill ‘V’ sign establishment political protest. The Guy Fawkes mask, initially (credit: Wikimedia Commons). appropriated by the ‘hacktivist’ group Anonymous, has since been touted in favour of causes as disparate as the Occupy Movement, an anti-capitalist protest movement, pro-democracy campaigns against the Chinese government in Hong Kong and in the protests against racism and police brutality in Ferguson, Missouri. This sudden reversal of Guy Fawkes’ fortunes, whose effigy has after all, been burned annually across the UK for hundreds of years, usually accompanied by mass merriment (and mulled wine!), says it all about the use and abuse of symbolism in politics, and throws the potency of good stylistic management into sharp relief.
@TheMcrHistorian
Page 9
History in Features
Issue 17: December 2014
European Monarchs: One Big Family? By Xan Atkins In 1914, on the eve of the First World War, Europe was tense as the thought of the coming conflict occupied everyone’s minds, a conflict that to some appeared more like a family feud. Why? The monarchies of Europe were so interconnected through centuries of marriages that, despite being enemies through 5 years of war, many of them were blood related family. The branches span hundreds of years and there are various examples of how they all came to be related. One such example lies in the rise of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. In 1826, the Duchy of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld was reorganised to become that of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Its first duke was Ernest I whose family had ruled the previous duchy. In 1831, Ernest’s younger brother became Leopold I of Belgium after he was offered the position by the Belgian National Congress, who had recently declared independence from Holland. This was the first outward move of the house and established a line that still exists in Belgium today though the current King, Philippe I. Ernest’s nephew went on to marry Queen Maria II of Portugal and their descendants ruled Portugal until it was made a republic in 1910. But the connections of this house did not stop there. In 1840, Ernest’s second son, Albert, married Queen Victoria of Britain. It was not the start of such relations, however, as the two were first cousins. Victoria’s father, Prince Edward, the fourth son of King George III, had married Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, who was Ernest’s sister. Through the marriage of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, the British monarchy became part of the House of Saxe-Coburg, and this remained so until it was changed to Windsor during the First World War due to anti-German sentiment. It was through this marriage that the web of relations evolved further, as the nine children of Victoria and Albert married into noble families across the continent, earning Victoria the nickname “Grandmother of Europe”. Their eldest daughter, Victoria, married Frederick, crown Prince of Germany and Prussia who later ruled both kingdoms. Their son became Wilhelm II, and ruled Germany until the monarchy was abolished in 1918. The heir to the English throne and later King Edward VII married Princess Alexandra of Denmark, a controversial choice because of the German connections in Edward’s family who were in a state of tension with Denmark. Victoria’s second daughter, Alice, married Louis IV, grand Duke of Hesse and their daughter eventually became Alexandra, Empress of Russia, through her marriage to Tsar Nicholas II. Certainly Queen Victoria’s nickname rings true. Another house that established itself through various monarchies across Europe was the House of Bourbon. Although it had older roots, this house began its royal connection in 1268 with a marriage into the French monarchy, the result of which established the son as Duke of Bourbon. Through marriage they came to rule the Kingdom of Navarre and eventually founded the Bourbon dynasty in France when Henry IV became king. The Bourbons went on to establish themselves in Spain when, just before the War of the Spanish Succession in 1700, the Spanish king, Charles II, left the throne to his grand-nephew, Philip of Bourbon who became Philip V. This founded a dynasty which still exists today through Felipe VI. The Bourbons also moved into Italy. Philip V married the niece of the Duke of Parma and their eldest son, Charles, inherited this small, independent kingdom. He later went on to become King of Naples, furthering their Italian titles.
Queen Victoria, Grandmother of Europe (credit: Wikimedia Commons).
It was through this connection that a later descendant of Charles, Prince Felix, married, in 1919, Grand Duchess Charlotte of Luxembourg, who was also his first cousin. Their son eventually became Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg and, in turn, his son is Duke of Luxembourg today, as well as first cousin to King Philippe of Belgium. It is with this connection that the journey across the relations of European monarchs is brought full circle.
It was through links like these that George V went to war with his cousin, Wilhelm II in 1914. Though the connections established here barely scratch the surface of the web of relations that existed and continue to do so throughout Europe, it is interesting to note how united these nations are through their past and present rulers. Despite the wars and disputes between them, they were, and are very much one big family.
Page 10
www.manchesterhistorian.com
History in Features
Issue 17: December 2014
Supreme but no Power: Monarchy in the Holy Roman Empire By Jonathan Van Varik Many things have been said about European Medieval civilizations. A traditional notion describes the downfall of European civilization when the Romans left and northern Europe slipped down in a dark age. The dark times of competing warlords and looting barbarians were seen as destroying all Roman progress, setting most of Europe back nearly one thousand years. The medieval times, however, were not static. Political experimenting and theorizing did take place and the ancient tradition was never forgotten. The accessible Roman knowledge was combined with profound religious devotion made to fit the current political atmosphere of Europe. These are the origins of the Holy Roman Empire. Nuremberg Chronicles (credit: Wikimedia Commons). The very idea of the Roman Empire was never rejected. The medieval theory of the ‘Translatio Empirii’ was to be regarded as the proof that there could only be one supreme emperor to govern material power. Indeed, the Holy Roman Emperor was to be regarded as the direct successor of the Roman emperors and his power was regarded as greater than all of the other European kings combined. He was only equal to the Pope in Rome, ruler of ecclesiastic matters, and only humble to God. Charlemagne was the first of such emperors. His title was allocated by the Pope, thereby immediately launching a struggle for the highest power. This struggle would persist until the end of the Middle-Ages. Despite the efforts to revive Roman greatness, the Carolingian empire disappeared. The empire was split and the non-hereditary imperial throne got many different claimants, but none of them could leave their mark on the imperial title for any length of time. It took several generations before the imperial title was appointed again. It was Otto the Great who, after providing military assistance to the pope, revived the imperial title in 962. This time, the imperial title was lasting; Otto managed to make the title hereditary. Several generations of Ottonian emperors followed, but new conflicts arose. Subsequently, it was realised that an institutionalised means of election was needed to grant power, in order to avoid further conflict. At this time, the Holy Roman Empire slowly began to take the shape of the German territories in central Europe. In the 13th century, it was decided that the mightiest of the rulers of imperial lands should be granted the power to elect the Roman king. This exclusive papal power was dropped in the 16th century by the Habsburg emperor Charles V. From then on, electors directly granted rulership to the emperor. In the centuries that followed, seven major lords had a vote in electing an emperor that was to rule over 2500 minor authorities, mostly imperial knights. These apparent inequalities of Holy Roman power distribution were, however, not as large as they may seem. The emperor only formally exercised supreme power. In practice, he only acted as arbiter in the Imperial Diet, the highest juridical power in the empire. This Diet consisted of three councils: the council of seven Elector-princes, the council of Princes (consisting of many ecclesial and secular lords), and a council of Cities (in which several Imperial Cities had a voice). These three organs had to control jurisdiction, maintain order and grant resources to the emperor’s military campaigns. The Diet, in which the first council was the mightiest, controlled the emperor more that the emperor could control his appointed empire. Like the power of the emperor, the power of the Diet was not to be exaggerated. Supreme power over German territories diminished over the years. During the later years of the Empire, chaos and religious wars were to tear apart all unity. Decreasing power of the highest nobility made the Imperial borders only symbolic, and autonomous cities made the title of ‘Emperor’ an empty but powerful symbol. The system of elective emperorship became more and more vulnerable for corruption. It is this emptiness that made Voltaire describe the empire as ‘Neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an empire’. Indeed, despite the title remaining the most powerful in the house of Habsburg, the empire had disappeared long before 1806. Ironically, it was only high corruption that kept it alive, as the buyable title of emperor ensures easy prestige. This is also why the empire dissolved when Napoleon threatened to become too influential in the German lands. With his most prestigious title in danger, rather than give it up to Napoleon, Francis II dissolved the title. He ended the empire in 1806, but not before creating an imperial title of his own – Francis I of the Austrian Empire.
@TheMcrHistorian
Page 11
History in Features
Issue 17: December 2014
The Divine Rights of Kings By Jess Wilkes Do Monarchs possess unique, supreme powers compared to ordinary human beings? Does being a King or Queen enable one to perform extraordinary and supernatural acts in order to benefit subjects? Although these questions may seem absurd when examining modern Kings and Queens, in the past, the idea that a Monarch had supernatural abilities was very common and known as the Divine Right of a King, or the ‘Royal Touch’. Essentially, the Divine Right of a King is the belief that the monarch derives their right to rule directly from God and therefore is subject to no earthly authority. This means that the King is not compelled to the wills of his people, aristocrats or even the Church. According to this belief, only God can judge the King and if any person was to deem the King unjust, he was accused of disobeying the will of God. From the Doctrine of the Divine Right came the practice of the ‘Royal Touch’; a supernatural healing practice performed by English Kings and Queens on their ill subjects in an attempt to cure them of their illness. A ceremony was held in which the monarch touched his subject by placing his hands on their face with the intention of curing them of any illness or disease they possess. The Royal Touch was particularly used to cure the illness known as Scrofula or the ‘King’s Evil’; this disease rarely resulted in death and often went into remission on its own, giving the impression that the Monarch had cured it. The Royal Touch was a hugely popular ceremony amongst Englishmen with sometimes as many as six hundred ill people being cured in one session. So why, during the medieval years, did this supernatural form of curing become so popular to Englishmen and their monarchs? The theory of the Divine Right hit the height of its popularity at a time when people were most impressionable; before the Glorious Revolution in 1688 and before the American and French revolutions later on in the seventeenth century. The lack of accurate medical and technological knowledge at the time meant that religion played an integral role in many people’s lives; the theory of the Divine Right of a King was very plausible to most people and also gave them hope. Historians have often discussed possible and controversial reasons as to why the practice of the Royal Touch was popular with monarchs themselves. Many historians openly argue that some Monarchs use of the Royal Touch was purely to correct and strengthen the relationship between themselves and their subjects. The ceremony had the impact of increasing respect and loyalty shown towards the King; magnifying his power and therefore bringing him personal gains in the form of increased political power. It is interesting to look at the personal and political circumstances of various English monarchs who performed the Royal Touch in order to discover if there is a positive correlation between those who used the Royal Touch and those who needed to increase support and power. King Charles II (credit: Wikimedia Commons). Charles II is a prime example of a monarch who perhaps used the Royal Touch to achieve personal gains. Charles faced various problems including numerous religious and political divisions among his subjects in England, outbreak of war with the Dutch and the widespread epidemic of bubonic plague, the Royal Touch was a perfect distraction for Charles to prove his power and authority to his people. It seemed like a clever belief for a monarch to adopt and in Charles II case, a necessary form of gaining support from your subjects. The origins of the Divine Rights of Kings are rooted in the medieval idea that God had bestowed earthly power on the King, in the same way that God had given spiritual power and authority to the church, through the Pope. In England, records of the Royal Touch date back since the 12th century though it became most known under the reign of James I of England who reigned in the early seventeenth century. However, the theory of Divine Right was then abandoned in England during the Glorious Revolution of 1688–89. Advances in science and technology in the late eighteenth century greatly weakened the theory’s appeal; people were moving away from supernatural beliefs and turning to more natural ideas about the world. By the early twentieth century, the Divine Right had been virtually abandoned.
Page 12
www.manchesterhistorian.com
History in Features
Issue 17: December 2014
The Rajas of India By William Godfrey For centuries, regions of the Indian subcontinent were ruled with quasi-autonomy by kings known as Rajas. Though their roles and responsibilities invariably changed over time, they remained permanent fixtures of Indian society. After the establishment of the British Raj in 1858 however, India was officially subsumed into the British Empire, raising questions about the position of the Rajas within the hierarchy of the imperial system. In keeping with imperial policy, British officialdom elected to maintain many of the Rajas rather than replace them with colonial officials. Indeed, the Raj allowed ‘native chiefs’ to rule 175 princely states throughout India. Nevertheless, Indian rulers were henceforth made to emulate Western customs. Long gone were the days of the nabob – during which white European settlers actively immersed themselves in Indian culture. The British Raj considered Indian men to be, not only racially inferior, but effeminate, and inherently incapable of self-governance. This perception could hardly be further removed from that of the powerful Indian kings who had long ruled the vast Indian subcontinent. Although their power was curtailed by imperial authorities, including being demoted from kings to ‘princes’ and ‘chiefs’ by colonial rhetoric, many Rajas and Maharajas (‘rulers’ and ‘great rulers’) successfully retained some degree of autonomy. They continued to maintain order, collect tax, and implement reform within their kingdoms. In fact, some positively thrived in this period; expanding women’s rights, increasing access to education, outlawing child marriage, and legislating against caste discrimination. Some Rajas took it upon themselves to better their kingdoms in the face of the empire on which the sun never set. Gaekwar of Baroda (Maharaja Sayyaji Rao III) took this further still – infamously disrespecting George V at the 1911 Delhi Durbar (a mass assembly in Delhi to mark the coronation of King George V) by turning his back on him. Each Raja had been expected to perform proper obeisance to the newly crowned Emperor of India by bowing three times before backing away without turning. This public humiliation of the Emperor took place against the backdrop of the Indian Independence Movement. Thirty-six years later, India and Pakistan achieved independence from Britain. Following independence, many Indian provincial rulers became bankrupt as a result of declining incomes. Others however, transformed their palaces into hotels, opened museums, and flourished on the political scene. It is testament to the adaptability of the Indian Rajas that today many remain important symbols of regional identity.
Henry VIII By Imogen Wheeler Arguably the most famous Tudor monarch, the legacy of Henry VIII is famous – or infamous, as some would argue. In schools up and down the country, children are often taught about his gluttonous lifestyle, and the rhyme “divorced, beheaded, died; divorced, beheaded, survived” is relatively common when it comes to remembering the fates of his six wives. While his legend has continually developed throughout the more than 450 years since his death, it is only by looking at how and why Henry created such a lasting impact on England - one that still resonates today - that one can see why he was such a monumental ruler. The key changes that Henry introduced into England predominantly concerned religion. After realising that the Pope would never grant his wish to divorce Catherine of Aragon to marry the younger Anne Boleyn, in 1529 he began the process of setting up the Church of England, which simultaneously resulted in the break with Rome. England had been Catholic for hundreds of years and Catholicism was deeply embedded both as an institution and as a societal norm. His dissolution of the monasteries and declaration that he was Supreme Head of the Church was the last straw: England by 1534 was irreversibly a non-Catholic country, at least in name. Such an immense upheaval isolated England in Europe, and, by Henry’s death, Protestant England was diminutive in comparison to its overbearing Catholic neighbours. Nevertheless, despite the massive upheaval that forming a new Church brought, including waging war on those who refused to convert, posterity demonstrates to us how successful his policies were. Today, at least in name, England is still a Protestant country; with the Queen still head of the Church. Henry VIII (Credit: Wikimedia Commons) Henry’s lasting legacy.
Although Henry’s agenda was political, in that he wanted to marry Anne so that she could provide him with a male heir, the religious ramifications nonetheless must be attributed to him: the fact that Henry’s Church of England is still the de jure church centuries on is proof of
Ultimately, while the key changes that Henry brought about can be found principally in his religious policy, it should be recognised that he was the first natural successor to the throne since the tumultuous Wars of the Roses; his threechildren continued the line of succession and ensured that after Henry’s death England was under Tudor rule for over half a century.
@TheMcrHistorian
Page 13
Battle of the Month
Issue 17: December 2014
The Battle of Ulundi 1879 By Philip Nixon On 4th July 1879, the British Empire fought the Zulu’s at the Battle of Ulundi, the last major battle of the AngloZulu war; as part of their imperial expansion campaign in South Africa. They imagined a confederation of states in South Africa, where cheap black labour could be exploited for British sugar plantations and mines for diamonds and gold. But the Zulu Kingdom, which neighboured other British colonies including Natal and Transvaal, threatened to disrupt this union. Therefore, the British intended to destroy the Zulu army led by King Cetshwayo in what turned out to be a series of conflicts in 1879 lasting from January until August. Furthermore, Lord Chelmsford, commander of the British invasion forces, wanted to restore his celebrated military image at home after his earlier embarrassing defeat in January against the Zulu ‘savages’ at the Battle of Isandlawana. Speed was paramount as Garnet Wolseley was selected by the British government to replace his command shortly and his supplies diminishing. The Battle of Ulundi would be as much a battle to achieve long-term imperial aims, as it was a conflict for revenge and repairing military reputations of the day. Having learnt from the massacre at Isandlawana, Chelmsford took extra precaution when facing the Zulu army in open warfare. Battle formations began at 6 a.m. for the British army. A guard of mounted troops crossed a ford and onto the Mahlabatini plains just outside the Zulu capital town, Ulundi. By 8 a.m. further British forces arrived creating a large hollow square formation. The perimeter of the square facing outwards consisted of 1,000 regular cavalry, 9,000 regular infantry and a further 7,000 men with 24 guns, including the first Gatling gun battery to take the field for the British army. Within the square were engineers, ammunition and hospital carts in reserve. The British army effectively created a mini impenetrable fortress on the field. This would prove to be far superior to the Zulu army of 20,000. The British saw them as ‘savages’ armed with spears and a few old rifles, and predictable in their tactics, which usually meant hiding from the enemy and then attack at close range. With such primitive weaponry and tactics, the Zulu’s stood little chance against the more prepared British army. At around 8:45, the British cavalry rode out of the square to encourage enemy attacks. The cavalry fired at Zulu warriors in the surrounding area that were hidden in the long grass. The Zulu’s charged directly at the British. However, concentrated infantry, and fire from the Gatling guns and powerful artillery meant the Zulu’s were unable to get closer than 30 feet from British ranks. It quickly became clear the Zulu charges were futile and the majority fled the battle to higher ground. The battle concluded with British cavalry hunting down fleeing Zulu’s until none were left alive on the Mahlabatini plane. The royal capital, Ulundi, was soon after set on fire and Cetshwayo was captured days later. After battles such as Isandlwana and Rorke’s Drift, Ulundi would become the last major battle of the Zulu wars. It was in fact, a rather underwhelming encounter that only lasted www.britishbattles.com roughly 30 minutes. Yet, it was in Britain’s interest to promote it as a great, decisive, battle that ended the Zulu agitation once and for all. Reports that 1000 Zulu warriors died in the battle were likely exaggerated, with Wolseley suggesting it was more like 400 (a stark contrast to 10 British deaths). But portrayed in this way meant the battle’s outcome largely supported the British Empire’s political ambitions. The embarrassment of Isandlwana was overshadowed, and the British Empire could once again appear the convincing, relentless, imperial force. With the exception of a few pockets of resistance after the battle, the threat from the Zulu’s was mainly over. The Zulu kingdom was divided into 13 tribal states to prevent another centralised authority opposing the empire. However, the long-term British imperial plan for a confederation of the entire South Africa region would not be achieved until the outcome of the Second Boer War in 1902. Nonetheless, Chelmsford had his revenge and his military reputation was restored, which was a great victory for him in an age when military figures of the empire, such as General Gordon in China, were heroes in contemporary British popular culture like plays and paintings. This perhaps reveals the vanity and superiority felt by Britain and its military figures.
Page 14
www.manchesterhistorian.com
History You Should Know
Issue 17: December 2014
The Middle Passage By Rosie Wright The Middle Passage was a route which slaves were transported through from West Africa to America. It was part of the Transatlantic Triangle. The triangle started in the West Indies and transported products such as sugar, tobacco and cotton to Europe. Then from Europe, textiles, rum and manufactured goods were transported to West Africa. In West Africa, slaves were gathered from the surrounding areas and loaded onto ships bound back for America and the West Indies. The slaves were packed into the decks of the ship and subjected to appalling conditions. They were given barely enough room to breathe, let alone move. Diseases ran rife throughout the ships due to poor hygiene and cleanliness as cleaning of the decks was rarely done; the sheer number of slaves kept on the ships also added to the spread of diseases and ultimately ended up in the death of many. Although the slaves were fed twice a day, the food they were fed was not sufficient and therefore many died of starvation. The dead bodies of these unfortunate slaves were thrown overboard to maximise on space and attempt to stop the spread of disease. In addition, the slaves were also victims of violence as they would be whipped by the crew; this added to their pain and discomfort on this wholly unpleasant journey. Three weeks (or more if weather conditions were bad) in this situation would definitely be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of the slaves. Even if they did arrive alive in the West Indies, they would arrive damaged and in ill-health, only to be thrown into the tumultuous life of a slave. This meant that when the ship reached the West Indies they never have had as many slaves as they had originally packed in because so many of them had died through the poor conditions. There were two ways in which the slaves were packed into the lower decks. The first, ‘loose packing’, meant that although there were fewer slaves arriving in the West Indies, they would all be in better health and more would survive. Because they had not been so tightly packed they had more space to move and breathe, plus disease would spread at a much lower rate. In contrast, the other method ‘tight packing’ was an initiative which some captains of the ships preferred. Although there would obviously be a higher fatality rate because of the slaves being so tightly packed, they would still gain more profit for the slaves when trading. As profit was the main aim for most captains, ‘tight packing’ would have most probably been used more than ‘loose packing’. The Africans were important in the capture of people in West Africa to be used as slaves. Often tribes would sell their captives and prisoners of war to European buyers. Sometimes criminals were also sold into slavery as a form of punishment for their crime. This meant that most of the time it was not West Africans picked up by the Europeans on the west coast, but neighbouring parts and other ethnic groups which were enemies to these particular Africans. The Europeans played their part too by buying and collecting these prisoners and criminals from ports in West Africa. These were however, not the first slaves that Europeans had collected. They had previously used Aboriginals as slaves and so they were familiar with the practice of capturing and keeping slaves. However, there weren’t enough Aboriginals and a lot of them were killed by disease and maltreatment so the Europeans needed to find more slaves; especially as there was a high demand for labour in the colonies but Europeans were not eager to emigrate over. There was a need for labour in the Americas, therefore West Africans were collected and sent over to fill the requirement. Some helped with mining, however the majority of slaves ended up working on the plantations where they harvested sugar and cotton which would be sent back to Europe, therefore completing the Transatlantic Triangle.
Description of a slave ship by an anaoymous artist, wood engraving 1789 (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)
@TheMcrHistorian
Page 15
History You Should Know
Issue 17: December 2014
The Australian Apartheid By Matt Steadman During the second half of the 20th century, news media focus on the events in South Africa and the fight to end apartheid there greatly eclipsed the plight of the Aboriginal Australians and the incredibly harsh and violent apartheid they were also subjected to. The subjugation of the Aboriginal people started when the British began their colonisation of the island in 1791 in what historian Henry Reynolds called “one of the biggest appropriations of land in human history”. The massive influx of violent and diseased convicts, who were sent in their thousands to the island to serve their sentences, had a terrible impact on the local aboriginal population. The diseases that the convicts brought with them such as smallpox and measles spread like wildfire through large Aboriginal communities as their bodies were not used to the foreign diseases. Equally, the massive influx of foreigners and the resource intensive nature of the prison system meant that aboriginal land was seized in massive swathes, which eventually deprived the natives of access to any fertile land or water supply. This forced them to abandon their nomadic lifestyle and restricted them to live in slum like settlements, officially called “reserves”. These factors, along with the introduction of alcohol and the numerous aboriginal uprisings against the settlers meant that by 1900 the aboriginal population was reduced by 90%. With the creation of the Australian Federation and the advent of Australian democracy in 1901, you could be forgiven to assume that the aboriginal crisis would be resolved and their rights would be restored. However, it was not to be. In the first half of the 20th century, the Australian government wanted to create a true Australian identity, separate from its British colonial past. To do so, it abandoned its policy of separation where they restricted Aborigines to reserves; and started one of assimilation which was based upon the assumption of white supremacy. They ruthlessly decided to let the Aborigines die out whilst attempting to incorporate any mixed race ones into Australian society by forcibly removing them from their families and community. Aborigines refer to this era as the “the lost generation”. Many point to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s official apology for Australia’s past policy of assimilation as the moment where the country recognised its past mistakes. Anti-apartheid campaigners (Credit: Wikimedia Commons) They also hoped it would mark the start of a new era of inclusion for the Aboriginal people in Australian society and politics. Since then however, these hopes have been dashed, as assimilation is still very much in place today, with over 13,000 children removed from reserves in 2012, the highest number than any time during this past century. This has led to the near complete destruction of Aboriginal identity and culture and is arguably a policy inspired from the theory of eugenics, the idea of breeding a superior race. John Pilger’s work on the plight and suffering of the Aboriginal population also casts a great deal of light on the incredible disparities between them and the rest of society. For instance, in the town of Wilcannia, New South Wales, the Aboriginal people’s life expectancy is 37, lower than that of the Central African Republic, one of the poorest countries on earth. The fact that the number of incarcerated black Australians is 8 times that of black South Africans during apartheid is also particularly revealing to the injustice they suffer. Far from improving, the situation has worsened over the past few years, with the number of Aborigines living in slums increasing by a third, life expectancy decreasing dramatically and malnutrition so severe that many cannot even ingest the antibiotics NGOs give them because they have nothing to eat them with. It is also looking increasingly unlikely that change will come from Australia’s political elite, who have either completely ignored the issue or outright rejected it as a matter of importance. This is epitomised by Prime Minister Tony Abbott who, upon being confronted by the UN rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous people regarding his policies towards Aborigines, told her to “get a life” and to not just “listen to the old victim brigade”. South African apartheid was defeated by a global campaign from which the regime never recovered. Given the general political consensus and lack of awareness of the issue in Australia, it looks likely that change will only come from a globally coordinated effort on a larger scale than has ever been seen to achieve justice for the Aboriginal people, “the most enduring human presence on earth”.
Page 16
www.manchesterhistorian.com
History You Should Know
Issue 17: December 2014
The Great Schism By Melanie Fernandes In 1378, several Popes claimed to be the true successor of St. Peter, in an event known as The Great Schism (1378-1417). This article examines the origins of the event that divided the Catholic Church for almost 50 years and the consequences of the schism on the Catholic Church. The crisis ignited in 1377 when Pope Gregory XI decided to move his papal residency from Avignon to Rome. This angered the Roman nobility and some of Gregory’s own cardinals, which increased during the election of his successor, Urban VI (1378–1389), an Italian who had served at Avignon. Fear of Urban’s violent nature, combined with the disruption caused during the election, led people to question the validity of Urban Vl’s title. Accordingly, the cardinals in the French interest refused to accept him, declared his election void, and named Clement VII as pope. This meant that while Clement withdrew to Avignon, Urban remained in Rome, creating a divide in the Catholic Church. The divide created two Popes and two accompanying papal structures which forced the surrounding European countries to divide in loyalties. Widespread administrative confusion occurred and led to an increase of spiritual anxiety. Consequently, in 1409 the Council of Pisa was established. However the council produced a third rival pope, John XXIII which served only to intensify the conflict. Accordingly, in 1414 the Council of Constance took the decision to depose the Avignonese Pope, Benedict XIII, as well as accepting the resignation of the Roman Pope, Gregory XII. This eliminated all three claims to the head of the Catholic Church, healing the schism by allowing the Council to appoint Pope Martin V (1417–31), the newly appointed leader to the entire Western Catholic Church. The consequences of the schism were profound on the Catholic Church. While the Council of Constance ended nearly four decades of disruption in the church, it also asserted the belief that the Pope was no longer an absolute monarch. The pope was now accountable to the community of the faithful who had the power to judge, chastise, and even depose him. The dispute also Pope Gregory XI (Credit: Wikimedia Commons) demonstrated that leaders of the Church had become more interested in riches and politics than salvation. As a result of the disruption, many political and theological thinkers began to call for moral reforms in the Church during the 15th century.
What You Didn’t Know About William Wilberforce By Jennifer Birdsall William Wilberforce was born in 1759 to a wealthy merchant family in the north eastern city of Hull, England. He became a Member of Parliament for Hull at the age of 21. This made him the youngest member of the House of Commons. Following this, he became the MP for the whole of Yorkshire. Wilberforce is generally recognised for his outstanding contribution to humanity. He devoted his political career to ending the slave trade. In 1807, the slave trade was abolished; however, this did not free those who were already slaves. Wilberforce continued his push to see a complete end and finally in 1833 the act was passed that gave freedom to all slaves in the British Empire. As significant as the end of the slave trade was, it means that Wilberforce’s other great achievements are often overlooked. In 1789 he made his religious conversion. He became a member of The Clapham Sect which associated itself with Evangelical Christianity. The Clapham Sect was a group of more affluent people who thought it was their duty to help the poorer sections of society. John Newton once said to him, “God has raised you up for the good of the church and the good of the nation. God has brought you into public life and has a purpose for you”. His Christian faith prompted him to become interested in social reform. His interest in social reforms had a wide spectrum. It ranged from factory conditions and limiting the number of hours children were required to work, to prison, education and healthcare reforms. Wilberforce used his family wealth and his large personal income for good causes. He donated generously to charity. He also cut the rents he charged tenants to live on his land, meaning people who may have been rendered homeless could afford to rent an area to reside. Wilberforce died on 29th July 1833, merely a few months after his act to free slaves passed through the House of Commons. He is buried near his dear friend, the Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger. He lives on in history for his commitment to the abolition of the slave trade in the British Empire. Nonetheless, he deserves recognition for his sincere desire and goodwill to make society a better place.
@TheMcrHistorian
Page 17
History in 10 Pictures
Issue 17: December 2014
Emperor of China, Qianlong (Credit: Wikimedia Commons) Imperial Crown of the Holy Roman Emperor (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)
Monarchs in
By Xan Atkins
Indian Prince’s parade ceremony (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)
Marriage of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)
King Henry V at the Battle of Agincourt (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)
Page 18
www.manchesterhistorian.com
History in 10 Pictures
Issue 17: December 2014
Napoleon crowning himself Emperor (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)
10 Pictures
Pharoah Narmer, King of Egypt (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)
Shaka, King of the Zulus (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)
The Royal Family in France dressed in classical costume during the reign of Louis XIV (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)
Queens bedchamber, Palace of Versailles (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)
@TheMcrHistorian
Page 19
History In The Headlines
Issue 17: December 2014
The Union Jack in Afghanistan By Xan Atkins The end of 2014 closes another chapter in British military history as British and NATO troops withdraw from a conflict that became of the most controversial since The Vietnam War. In October 2001, in the wake of the 9/11 bombings committed by Al-Qaeda, troops from the United States and other NATO nations intervened in an ongoing civil war in Afghanistan with the aim of deposing the ruling Taliban from power and thus denying Al-Qaeda a safe haven from which to conduct operations. Although British troops took part initially, it wasn’t until mid-2002 that Britain fully committed itself to the war effort under the codename of Operation Herrick. Twelve years later, after spending millions of pounds and with the loss of 453 British personnel, Operation Herrick has come to an end but many are still wondering whether British troops will be back. After all, this wasn’t the first time that military forces from Great Britain had been in Afghanistan. Over 150 years ago, in 1839, Britain was caught up in The Great Game, the competition for power and influence in central Asia between Great Britain and Russia. Britain, represented by the presence of the East India Company, was firmly entrenched in India. However, Russia’s sphere of influence was slowly expanding and the possibility arose, that Russia could attempt an invasion of India. Britain needed a barrier and that barrier was Afghanistan. Afghanistan itself was in the middle of a dispute with Persia, and both sides were looking for Western allies. The arrival, in Kabul, of a Russian envoy gave ground to fears of a Russo-Afghan alliance that would open the way toIndia. Britain sent an envoy as well but negotiations between them and the Afghan ruler, Dost Muhammed Khan, were handled so untactfully on their part that negotiations broke down. It was then that the suggestion of military intervention to replace Dost Muhammad with a pro-British ruler was put forward to the Governor-General of India, lord Auckland. The threat of Russian interference was grossly exaggerated to Auckland but he began plans for the invasion. At the end of 1838, 21 000 British and Indian troops set off on the long march to Kabul. By July 1839, they had arrived at Kandahar and shortly after, defeated Dost Muhammed in a decisive victory, proclaiming Afghanistan’s new ruler to be Shuja Shah Durrani. Most of the army then returned to India leaving a force of 8000 to help oversee the new change. This took longer than expected with the result that the families of soldiers were allowed to come and join them. To the Afghans, this bore all the signs of a permanent occupation. Soon Afghans were flocking to a new call to arms by Dost Muahmmed’s son, Akbar Khan. The tension culminated with the killing of senior British officers in Kabul at the end of 1841. Shortly afterwards, when the Britishrepresentative, William Macnaghten, and his staff were murdered, the British decided it was time to leave and the 4500 remaining troops began to withdraw. However, disaster beset them whilst crossing the mountain passes, as the column was set upon by Ghilzai warriors. They fought a running battle over several days through two feet of snow. Only one survivor, Dr William Brydon, made it to the British outpost of Jalalabad. The British responded by combining their forces in the area and inflicting a heavy defeat on Akbar Khan. By September 1842, they had retaken Kabul and, after several reprisals, once more withdrew. Dost Muahmmed returned and replaced Shuja Shah. It was not to be the end for the British there though, for just over 30 years later, in 1879, they returned. The causes again were much the same: the Russians had sent another mission to Kabul and when the British tried to do the same, they were kept out. Fearing another possible Russian invasion, they sent an army of 40 000 British and Indian troops who quickly captured and occupied Kabul then, once more, withdrew. However, a rising in Kabul that resulted in the death of the British representative there, meant that they returned and after a lengthy campaign, signed a treaty which ensured British control of Afghan foreign policy. As the final troops withdraw from Afghanistan today, it is easy to see the parallels between those two conflicts and the current war, and one cannot help to wonder whether the Union Jack has seen the last of Afghanistan. With that in mind, the phrase ‘history repeats itself’ certainly has some meaning here.
The sole survivor of the Retreat from Kabul (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)
Page 20
www.manchesterhistorian.com
History In The Headlines
Issue 17: December 2014
The Sudan Divide: The Split of Two Nations By Amna Shaddad In light of Scotland’s recent Independence Referendum we’ll explore the youngest country in current existence (3 years and 4 months old): South Sudan, and its formation. The underlying factors of independence usually depend on ethnic and/or linguistic differences but mainly socio-economic issues. The area that was named the Sudan in the 1820s is the area that encapsulates most of the Nile, the longest river in the world. The first pyramids ever built were in Sudan and the area was referred to by Homer and his countrymen as a place to visit for trade purposes. Before the split Sudan was the 10th largest country in the world.
Flag of South Sudan (Wikimedia Commons)
In 1884 Mohammad Ahmad and his armies reclaimed Sudan and eventually the capital city, Khartoum, from Albanian-Ottoman and Anglo-Egyptian rule. In 1898 Kitchener regained Sudan under Anglo-Egyptian rule. Sudan was an abundant resource for Britain, but eventually in 1953, after strong resistance from different Sudanese factions, Britain and Egypt agreed to end the condominium agreement and hand Sudan over to Sudanese governance within 3 years. It is very difficult to classify the entire population of Sudan even when split into the North part or the South part. Different areas of Sudan are made up of different kinds of Muslims, Christians, and Tribal traditions: the number of different languages and dialects in Sudan today is assumed to be around 400. Sudan’s boundaries were determined by European forces in the late 19th century. Christianity was brought to parts of South Sudan via British missionaries but not to the North, and racism between different Sudanese peoples, particularly between the Northerners and Southerners was also imported with the different colonisers. In fact Sudan is one of (many) examples of the lasting effects of colonial ‘divide and conquer’ methods. The government located in Khartoum, in the North, was made up mainly of Muslims of Arabic descent, with little input from Southern representatives meaning neglect of the South. John Garang, originally from South Sudan, joined rebel uprisings of the South against the Government in Sudan straight after scholarly studies on Eastern African agricultural economics. He eventually became leader of SPLM/A and was one of the signatories of the 2005 peace agreement to end long running civil war between the North and South that agreed on 6 different issues: The Machakos Protocol, Security Arrangements, Power Sharing, Wealth Sharing, Implementation modalities and Global Implementation, Permanent Ceasefire, Resolution of the Abyei Conflict, Resolution of Conflict between Kordofan and Blue Nile states of South Sudan. In July 2005 he was sworn in as the second most powerful person of the country as the First-Vice President of Sudan, the highest position to be held in office by a Southerner since Sudan’s independence. In the same month he died in a plane crash. Garang had hoped to oversee an eventual progression towards a referendum over a possible split from the North. However, due to his untimely death and U.N. pressures, the referendum was moved forward from 2015 to 2011 with an overwhelming majority voting for the partition. The sudden rush towards the referendum over the split can be blamed for the war that ensued between the North and the South over the most oil rich areas that are located along the referendum-proposed borders dividing the North and South. Tribalism is a major issue in all areas of Sudan. For example, tribalism in Darfur has drawn global attention to the extent that celebrities like George Clooney have assumed authority over the issue; explaining it naively as Christian retaliation to an aggressive Muslim power. Since the split, China, Israel and America have expressed economical interest in South Sudan. Global aid and interest in the region should be encouraging. However, international interest in developing countries is under heavy scrutiny since reports have been published covering the lack of transparency surrounding “sustained looting” of developing nations and their resources by methods including tax evasion and illicit financial outflows. For example, Western countries send about $30bn to Africa in aid each year but, according to Global Financial Integrity’s annual report, $66 billion left Africa in illicit outflows in 2011 alone. Amongst developing countries worldwide, Sudan came 30th in the country rankings of illicit financial outflow between 2002 and 2011. The IMF and World Bank are currently working with Sudan over macroeconomic policies although the IMF and World Bank have been accused of forcing diverse and matchless developing economies to take on later-crippling Neoliberal and free market economics and unfair trade agreements. There is civil war in South Sudan over leadership which still continues.
@TheMcrHistorian
Page 21
History In Culture
Issue 17: December 2014
The Trafalgar Square Christmas Tree Tradition By Sophie Bullock Forget the John Lewis Christmas advert: as far as traditions go, the Trafalgar Square Christmas tree given to Britain by Norway is one of the most established and deeply symbolic parts of the British festive season. Since 1947 the gift has been given every December as a token of friendship between the two nations, and to express Norway’s gratitude for British support during World War II. In May 1940, Nazi Germany invaded neutral Norway in a surprise attack, overcoming the ill-prepared Norwegian forces and beginning a period of occupation that would last until the very end of the war in 1945. Whilst officially the pro-German Quisling government held power, they were effectively a puppet government for the Reichskommissariat Norwegen, a Nazi administrative office for the occupied country. Within a month of the beginning of the invasion, the legitimate government and the Royal Family were forced to flee on HMS Glasgow to Britain, where they later established the exiled government in London. The exiled government’s main role during these five years was one of resistance; King Haakon VII in particular became an important figure of hope for Norwegians against the Nazi occupiers.
Traffalgur Square Christmas Tree and Carolers (wikimedia commons)
The King attended weekly cabinet meetings and regularly broadcast speeches through the BBC which were heard across Norway. A month after the surrender of Nazi Germany, the cabinet and the Royal Family returned in June to Oslo, where they were met with the great joy of the Norwegian people and officially reinterred as the legal establishment. Through providing the Royal Family and the government an escape as well as an adopted base, Britain allowed the Norwegian government to resist rather than collaborate with the Nazi regime, preserving the hopes of the relatively young nation and allowing the government to assume its rightful position of governance at the end of the war. The first trees that were sent to Britain were actually in 1943 from Norwegian underground fighters as a symbol of their gratefulness, which were given to the Norwegian king, the Norwegian embassy and one for display in Trafalgar Square. It was only after the war in 1947 that the process took on the precedence and custom currently associated with it. Today, ‘the most famous Christmas tree in Britain’ attracts thousands of visitors due to its prominent placement in Trafalgar Square. It serves as a reminder of the warm relationship between Norway and Britain and of the role Britain played in ensuring the continuance of the democratic principles and independence of the Norwegian state.
Page 22
www.manchesterhistorian.com
History In Culture
Issue 17: December 2014
‘The Great Fire’ Review By Zoey Strzelecki The Great Fire of London (1666), which began on Pudding Lane, recently became the focus of an ITV drama. The city of London, made predominantly from timber buildings, burned for 3 days, leaving 70,000 of 80,000 inhabitants of London homeless. This series dramatizes some of the events that took place while London burned, however it becomes over-embellished with modern stories of love and betrayal, shying away from political and economic undercurrents that were flooding the city. In this ITV drama we follow characters from the widower of Pudding Lane bakery, to the Seething Lane residence of philandering diarist Samuel Pepys, up to the court of King Charles II. The mini-series dissects and illuminates the class divides in Restoration London. The story begins with Tom Farriner, a baker for the King’s navy, having to go without payment due to the King’s reckless spending. After the fire breaks out at Farriner’s bakery the divide between rich and poor develops further. Whilst peasants flee from their homes, lynching and looting all they can, the King indulges himself in croquet and courtesans as he remains ignorant about the social and economic problems heightened by the fire. Samuel Pepys, whose diaries have provided us with invaluable documentation for the retelling of this disaster, is the only official to be blunt with Charles II King charles II (historyvault.co.uk) and warn him of a potential rebellion (and of course they manage to put a line in about him burying his cheese in the garden). Charles strongly encouraged evacuations and resettlements away from London in fear of rebellion, even after his advisors, concerned for money purposes, declared that it wasn’t that serious and “a woman might piss it out”. Whilst this tension is mounting, a sub-plot emerges of plotting anti-monarchist Catholics, and we learn of the potential loss of Farriner’s brother at sea during the second Anglo-Dutch war. The love story between the baker and his brother’s wife seems unnecessary, detracting from the political issues London was facing. Through historical and fictional characters, London family life and a decadent monarchy, we see a recreation of the experiences of Restoration London. Whilst useful for documenting some of the events that took place during the fire, the modern-day speech does little to develop the working-class characters, and by romanticising some of the events this new slant shies away from the true political and economic problems the fire posed to the city of London.
The Real Robin Hood: Exposed By Will Davis-Coleman Robin Hood is a well-known folklore classic, famous for ‘robbing from the rich and giving to the poor’. There are however, many arguments suggesting that he was actually a psychopathic murderer and the romanticism era twisted him to be a well-loved fairy tale character.When picturing Robin Hood, very often the image which springs to mind is a man in green tights holding a bow and arrow. This image of the famous outlaw originated from the era of Romanticism in the midnineteenth Century. However, if one was to scale back the reinvigorated legend, leaving aside the tights and the ‘Merry Men’, one would be left with an outlaw who stole substantial sums of money from landlords across Nottingham. The origin of the legend himself is not clear; the two leading theories are that either Robin Hood was Lord Robert of Locksley or that he was an archer returning from the Third Crusade. Either one of these possibilities has the potential for The Friar took Robin on his back by Louis Rhead 1912 admirable qualities which are enhanced in the ballads and stories over the centuries. Robin Hood was supposed to have been roaming in the era of Richard the Lionheart. Richard the Lionheart was the epitome of the warrior king; in all his dealings in the Holy Land, at the courts of Europe and at home he was revered. It is not surprising that he is remembered as a brilliant king. However, in his ten years as King he spent only a few months in England which left his brother John as regent. With such an overshadowing brother it is hardly surprising that he was unpopular, however he was not a lucky monarch; economic theory was non-existent in the 13th Century and it has been proven that there was mass inflation in England which led to a rise in taxes. It is within this time period that Robin Hood appears and it is not surprising that the legend took root in such a fertile set up; a glorious king, a malicious regent and a heroic outlaw.The theories which suggest that Hood was a psychopathic murderer are just as unfounded as those records which identify Robin as being a historical figure. The problem with labelling a legend is that there is no evidence to support it; the “Man in Green” may well have had an imbalance but with the data available, he is just as likely to have been a pacifist or not have existed at all.
@TheMcrHistorian
Page 23
History In Culture
Issue 17: December 2014
Book Review: Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel By Nina Khan Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall is centred around Thomas Cromwell, a man widely hated in his lifetime and distrusted by his peers. He served as a high-ranking advisor to Henry VIII and played an important role in Henry’s break from Rome and both the rise and downfall of Anne Boleyn. Mantel, despite this, still attempts to portray Cromwell as the true hero archetype, having escaped the harsh cruelties of a drunk and abusive father and into the learned culture of the sixteenth century. His claim to omnipotence at times makes him a loathsome character and Mantel’s acknowledgment that he looked “like a murderer” only pushes Cromwell further from the reader’s sympathies. Despite this, Mantel is keen Thomas Cromwell (wikimedia commons) to juxtapose this by attempting to portray him as an enlightened and appealing character in comparison to her depiction of other characters such as Wolsey. The book on the most part is historically accurate and doesn’t stray too far into fantasy. It is able to successfully avoid a scandalous love triangle clouding the minds of the reader, which have otherwise become such a prominent feature in other early modern historical novels. Instead Mantel focuses heavily on his complex relationship with Anne Boleyn, which she successfully pens as being fuelled by a jealous rivalry and portrays Boleyn as a fitting anti-hero. When considering the book stylistically, it is understandable why the book has been panned by so many. It fails to highlight the sexual and more lurid aspects of court life and instead focuses on the formalities undertaken by a self-indulgent monotonous lawyer. It must also be noted that Mantel uses the pronoun “he” far too often and after reading the first 16 pages it becomes only becomes clear that she is talking about Cromwell, due to the fact one knows he is the protagonist. Wolf Hall has been named as one of the “top ten best historical novels” by the Observer and has won both the Man Booker Prize and the National Book Critics Circle Award. On the surface then, it would seem this book is an excellent read. Mantel does shed light on a different aspect of Cromwell’s character and offers new ways of understanding the role other figures played in the course of Tudor politics, but ultimately for a reader not interested in the sixteenth century it is hardly the most thrilling page turner.
Christmas Markets By Joe Heys It’s that time of the year again. The nights are drawing in, the songs are playing on the radio, the trees are being decorated and Manchester’s infamous Christmas Markets are in town once again. A staple of the Mancunian festive calendar since 1999, the various stalls and bars always provide a way to get into the Christmas spirit. But where did they begin? Perhaps unsurprisingly, the idea for them didn’t originate from Northern England, and the earliest known mentions of Christmas markets date back to Bautzen (1384), Frankfurt (1393), Munich (1310) and the Vienna “December market” which was forerunner of the Christmas markets dating back to 1294. One of the most famous markets is held in the city of Dresden in Germany. Celebrating its 580th birthday in 2014, the Striezlmarkt was first held the Monday before Christmas in 1434.The name Striezlmarkt comes from Strüzel, meaning Stollen – a now infamous light airy fruitcake low in sugar that is still sold on the stalls of Albert Square to this very day. It still can’t beat the Dresden Stollen, which is distinguished by a special seal depicting the city’s famous king, August the Strong. The shape of the cake is reminiscent of the entrance of a mining tunnel, reflecting Dresden’s rich silver and tin mining history. In many towns in Germany and Austria, Advent is usually ushered in with the opening of the Christmas market or “Weihnachtsmarkt”. Generally held in the town square, on opening nights onlookers welcome the “Christkind” – originally a boy Jesus but often Christmas Markets Tallinn (Wikimedia commons) depicted as an angel-like girl – acted out by a local child. The typical Christmas market included a nativity scene, Zwetschgenmannle (figures made of decorated dried plums), Nussknacker (carved Nutcrackers), traditional Christmas cookies such as Lebkuchen and Magenbrot (both forms of soft gingerbread), and the infamous hot mulled wine which traditionally sometimes included a shot of brandy to warm up visitors to the markets on cold winter nights. The modern day market has spread like wildfire. The 1982 Lincoln annual Christmas market has become the most extensive in the United Kingdom, whilst three and a half million visitors head to the 300 stalls of Dortmund in Germany each year. In 2007 a new twist on the market began in Sibiu, Romania, inspired by the traditional Viennese Christmas markets – a project developed by the Social Attache of the Austrian Embassy in Romania. The Sibiu markets show that despite their age, the festive market is still continuing to warm the hearts of their many visitors, over 500 years later.
Page 24
www.manchesterhistorian.com
University
Issue 17: December 2014
Yangwen Zheng Interview By Mattea Bubalo I was lucky enough to interview the History department’s most electric member: Dr Yangwen Zheng. Joining the university and effectively starting its Chinese history curriculum, she has been on an academic warpath since 1995. From studying at Oberlin College and Cambridge, then teaching at the University of Pennsylvania and the National University of Singapore before finally settling down at Manchester, Zheng has clearly had a dynamic university experience. When asked about the differences between her previous universities she describes some of the previous History faculties as “tribal and divided into factions.” At Manchester, she loves her colleagues in the history department they are “good scholars and good people.” In terms of bringing the rarely taught field of Chinese history to the university she states: “Manchester is ahead of the game,” and advises history students seeking work in firms related with China to “use their knowledge of Chinese history- brag about China!” Yangwen’s talents extend beyond the historical world. In 1991, she and thirty others were chosen from three thousand applicants to intern at CNN. A career in media, however, was not for her: “I am too smart for reading the news” she chuckles. At first, she actually studied political science and opera at Oberlin. However, she knew in her final year that opera was not her path: “I want routine and stability, I don’t want excitement.” For Yangwen an academic career was perfect: “you can do exactly what you want to do.” And she has certainly left a clear mark on the academic world- her work on how ballet was adapted in Communist China is singular. In 2015 she will be publishing her new work, ‘Dancing the Communist Revolution’. I asked her about how it was to being the first to research this and she notes that some say being the first in a field is easy. This is not the case for her however, the lack of historiography made it hard for her to engage with other historians and create a conversation: “it was like doing another PHD!” To overcome this hurdle and engage in historiographical discourse she had to examine the way ballet’s history was recorded beyond China. This led her to look at how ballet developed and became popularized in other totalitarian states and relate it with Mao’s China. “Intellectually I have had great fun by exploring something out of nothing; it’s a risk when you have to start from scratch, but if I don’t challenge myself I won’t grow as a scholar.” On the surface, Yangwen’s study of ballet may seem like a departure from her previous work that focused on China’s trade and patterns of consumption. The underlying pattern, however, remains: “People always ask me ‘how can you go from opium to ballet?’ I tell them I did not travel! Like communism, like maize, they are all things that came from outside of China and underwent a complex and dynamic process of indigenization.” To articulate this sentiment she refers to the word ‘sinicization,’ summing up the dynamics and the complexities of the Sino-foreign connection, “how things come in, how people looked at it and redefined it and turned it into their own.” It is obvious Yangwen cares for her students, and when asked about them she beams, “I love you guys!” She frequently talks about her excitement in helping and seeing students grow. She cannot help but “feel like a mother sometimes”. She even stays in touch with of them after they have finished university- many of them taking her advice and venturing out into the Eastern part of the world. In terms of differences between her students from around the world, she describes American students as “more eager” and “competitive”, “they don’t ask questions, they just want to be heard!” British students are more “quiet” apparently. I notice in our discussion that Yangwen has a clear philosophy: “Constant change gives you an opportunity to reinvent yourself… the world is ahead of you, it’s up to you to make it!” She stresses it is important to grow as historian, actually turning down Berkeley to go to Manchester- partly because she didn’t want to go back to the US. “People would say I took a down turn, married below by going to the University of Singapore” but she “found gold in Singapore” and was “able to run a lot of projects and conferences, I learned from the region, about the complexity of the European empires and China’s relationship with South East Asia…I learnt a lot, I met a lot of people. I gained, I didn’t go down.”
Yangwen Zheng
@TheMcrHistorian
Page 25
University
Issue 17: December 2014
Half Time Team Talk By Nina Khan It has been another exciting month for history sport with lots of drama and a few tears. History FC have had a good month so far with comfortable wins against Hulme Hall and the Hindu Society, and have progressed into the next round of both Campus Sport Cups. The game against the Hindu Society was particularly impressive as the team came from a goal down to win 2-1 with 9 men after team members Harry Almond and Pat Harvey suffered severe injuries in the second half. We wish them both the best and a speedy recovery. It does seem like the one-man cheerleading squad rooting for the team is finally playing off though. History FC’s most avid supporter, otherwise known as ‘professor’ is a former lecturer at the University and has yet to miss a game this season, it must be the charming allure of our players that keeps him going back. Meanwhile the Netball team have continued to put out consistently good performances on the court and narrowly missed out on victory in their last game of the semester. Having dominated the game for the first three quarters, they let their lead slip away with fatigue creeping in and sloppy looping passes losing by a marginal 3 goals. Despite the loss, Josie Roberts came away with player of the match, which was well deserved after an excellent display as a Centre. Meanwhile, Evie Grant and Laura Sullivan have also been graced with player of the match; Laura’s performances in particular as wing defence have proven crucial to the team. Once again, well done to all the players who have contributed to all our sports teams in some way. Good luck in all your forthcoming games, but make sure not to eat too mince pies over the Christmas break, there are still games in the New Year!
UoM Commemorates WW1 Centenary and Honours Students Who Died By Xan Atkins Last month, the University organised its own centenary commemorations ceremony to honour those from the University of Manchester who fought and died in the First World War. The service was held in the Whitworth Hall and was attended by a variety of staff, students and alumni. The key idea was not to have a military or religious style remembrance but instead to remember those from the University in our own unique way, thus the reason it was held several weeks after Remembrance Day. The service was begun by the University Chancellor, Mr. Tom Bloxam, who gave a moving speech on the importance of remembering those UoM students and staff who were involved in all aspects of the war. He particularly highlighted that it was not just soldiers we remembered but men and women in various other parts of the war, at home and abroad. Then it was the History Department’s turn as our own Dr Ana Cardyn-Coyne delivered an inspiring lecture on the First World War. This was followed by a reading of The New Session: an address made to students returning for the new term in September 1914 on the impact of the war, written by then Vice-Chancellor Professor F.E. Weiss and read in the ceremony by the current President and Vice-Chancellor, Professor Dame Nancy Rothwell. The service would not be complete, however, without the voices of those students who had gone off to war. Several of these students kept in touch with the Head of History at the time, Professor Thomas Tout, and four of these letters were read out by four current students. To add to this, a war poem written in 1915 by the first History PhD Graduate, Florence Evans, was read by a current history student. All of this was punctuated by moving music from the University’s Chamber Choir. The service came to a close with a two minutes silence to remember all those from the University, who were involved in all aspects of the war. Over 600 students and staff from Manchester University gave their lives in the First World War, a figure that highlights the importance of holding such a service. It was to them that the day was honoured and, if those scholars were looking down, I feel sure they would have been proud.
Upcoming Events As well as the trip to Dublin next month, the History Society are planning a trip to the Imperial War Museum, so keep your eyes peeled on details to come! Also, if you still fancy joining the Dublin trip, the deadline to secure your place and £50 deposit is Wednesday 10th December, so don’t leave it too late to book!
Page 26
www.manchesterhistorian.com
Issue 17: December 2014
@TheMcrHistorian
Page 27
Have a historical interest? Enjoy writing? Then write for us! Suggest articles by emailing manchesterhistorian.com
manchesterhistorian@gmail.com
reddit.com/manchesterhistorian