Issue 43 Resistance and Rebellion by Manchester Historian

WELCOME DECEMBER 2023

Welcome to Issue 43 of the Manchester Historian!

Our Team

Rebellion, conflicts and history have always gone hand in hand, from war, to music, to uprisings, to culture - they are integral to the formation of human history. Stories in history are formed from the human mind, woven by human actions, and pushed by the human spirit of rebelling. The recording of history in itself is almost an act of rebellion against the tides of time; despite how short a lifetime is, in comparison to the whole of history, we must fight to pass these stories and ideas down. And what’s not fun about a little “screw you” to time.

Editors Romy Nicholson Chloris Lo Tsz Yu Zara Alansari

For this issue, we have delved deeper into every aspect of resistance and rebellion - a theme we picked due to its poignancy and relevance to the almost constant political strife and conflict experienced across the world today. This issue encompasses many different forms of rebellion: from the fight for women’s rights across time and nations, to China’s Tang Ping (lie down) movement that rebels against traditional work values, to a closer look at the history of rock and roll music, an emblem of the rebellious human soul. From the Roman Revolution, to the recent actions of Just Stop Oil, this issue seeks to remind and emphasise how important rebellion can be, as a tool to strive for change, equality, or peace. We hope these articles will invoke readers to question, ‘what does rebellion mean to you?’. The rebellious sparks of fire which engulf the fields of history in flames, are often initiated by small thoughts or ideas from a person unsatisfied by where they are, or the world they live in. Through spotlighting resistance and rebellion, we hope that these stories, however distant from you, will strike a chord, like Bowie and Mick Jagger. We’d like to thank Dr Kerry Pimblott, the University of Manchester History Department, the University of Manchester Graphics Support Workshop, and our wonderful team at Manchester Historian who made it possible to create Issue 43! Most of all, we’d like to thank all the contributors who have written these inspiring articles and submitted them to us, for you to read. We are beyond excited to have received such interest in writing for the magazine, and enthusiasm to be involved with us. We would, of course, like to thank you as well, for picking up a copy of this magazine and having a read. Have fun!

Heads of Design Gianna Stanley Laura Mason Design Team Sophie Jesson-Ward Gabriella Bee Alex Harvard Catherine Hart Heads of Copyediting Molly Harcourt Kaylee Mountford Copyediting Team Kailyn Huang Eden Thornton Aisha Munir Jamie Parmar Heads of Marketing Hayley Cregor Dorothy Buttery Head of Online & Podcast Matthew Coleman Evie Clancey

IN THIS ISSUE

Ancient History 4

The Ionian Revolt, by Gabriel Rumble-Siddique

Egypt’s Great Revolt, by Richard Schoenfeld

Bouddica, Superstar: The Life of a Celtic Queen, by Rosa Davies

The Significance of the Roman Revolution, by Laura Wilkinson Medieval/ Early Modern

16 We Hold The Rock: The Importance of the Native American Occupation of Alcatraz Island, by Fox Ryan Axworthy 17 The First Intifada 1987 - Causes and Consequences, by Liam Jackson 18 Spirit and Modernity in the 20th Century: The May Fourth Movement in China, by Molly Harcourt 19 The Storming of the Capitol: America’s Descent into the Far Right, by Larisa Jones

How far did Elizabeth I Resist Accepted Notions of Queenship, 20 Exploring the Divide of India and Monarchy and Femininity? by Pakistan with Reference to ReleScarlett Oram vant Rebellions and Uprisings, by Myra Haq The Significance of Jack Cade’s Rebellion as a Cause for the 21 The Arab Spring: How One Fruit Wars of the Roses, by MaimooSeller Set the Middle East Alight, nah Yaasmeen by Aaliah Petel

10 “My God, have pity on poor people”: The Origins of the Dutch Revolt, by Christopher Turner

22 Recent Protest Movements in India: The Farmer’s Protest and the Anti-CAA Protest, by Ishan Tripathi

1750-1900

23 The Tang Ping Movement: Why are China’s Young People ChoosTaiping Rebellion ‘the bloodiest ing to ‘Lie Flat’? by Lucy Mortell 11 war in history’ - what effect does this have on China today? by 24 Do You Hear the People Sing? Eddie Rudolph by Gaurav Matai Music & Film 12 Revolutionary Women: Olympe de Gouges’ Advocacy for Women’s Rights in the Early French 25 “Don’t Tell Me, I’ll Tell You”: How Revolution, by Kaylee Mountford Nina Simone’s Mississippi Goddam Reshaped Music as ResistModern History ance Culture, by Rory Bishop 26 Can rock and roll artists, like 13 Defiance Against Distortion: Memorial’s Fight to Uncover the Bowie, Jagger and Lennon, be Truth of Stalinist Repressions, by considered ‘rebels’? by Isabella Sophie Stanford Brown 27 Conscientious Collaborator: An 14 Women During the Algerian War of Independence, by Keziah Analysis of Resistance an RebelTaylor? lion in Hacksaw Ridge, by Carter Price A Glass House with Many 15 Stones, by Freddie Tuson

ANCIENT HISTORY

Ionian Revolt

by Gabriel Rumble-Siddique At the beginning of the 5th century BCE, a hodgepodge of political strife, imperialistic occupation, and territorial conflict spurred the Ionian Revolt, a bloody rebellion on the coast of Asia Minor, now modern-day Turkey. The revolt lasted six years, during which the powers of Ionia and Persia both sustained significant losses. By its end, however, Persia emerged the unequivocal victor. The city-states of the Ionian coast had been captured by the Persian king in the mid-6th century BCE and had remained under their rule ever since. The Persians installed tyrants, leaders of unconstitutional power, to establish governance in each city-state. The proud Ionian Greeks would not have taken well to external rulership in any case, but most unacceptable was the foreign imposition upon not just their government but also their land. Land, a commodity more valuable than gold, was frequently granted by the king to Persians relocating to the Ionian coast, often in exchange for some kind of political or military service. The Greek mainland, on the other hand, was becoming increasingly democratised while the Ionian coast watched through the bars of Persian occupation. In 499 BCE, the Greek-born tyrant of Miletus, Aristagoras, incited a revolt in the city with the incentive of land repatriation and democracy, readily joined by the rest of the Ionians. Athens and Eretria supplied military help at the request of Aristagoras, but the aid he was most eager to gain was Sparta’s, the militaristic superpower renowned for its fierce fighters and penchant for warfare. Described as the best warriors of the Greek world, many historians have wondered how Spartan aid might have turned the tide of the revolt. The tyrant’s appeal, however, was rejected by the Spartan king. With the help of Athens and Eretria, the Ionians razed the inland city of Sardis which proved a massive victory for the cause and the first significant turn of Persia’s rule over Ionia. Although, this would be one of few victories as the Persian counter-offensive was longer and more brutal. Over the following years, the Persian military violently quashed revolts across Ionia: Cyprus, the Hellespont, the Propontis, and Caria, forcing the conquered into military service or killing the local population in each conquered city. The Persian army was also bolstered by Egyptians and Phoenician soldiers. By 493 BCE, the locus of the rebellion at Miletus had been retaken by the Persians, and the city was purged of the native Milesians; they had officially quelled the revolt. A dimension we may recognise in the Ionian Revolt is the noticeable lack of Spartan aid: aid that may have turned the tides. It is not the historian’s job to speak in terms of potentiality, but the capability and magnitude of the Spartan regime are markedly felt within the whole conflict. It is true that the historical narrative of the Ionian revolt is construed primarily by Greek writers, namely Herodotus. However, most classical historians can agree that Ionia was the ‘underdog’, so to speak, in the conflict. It was outnumbered, desperate for the gleaming egalitarianism of formal democratisation, and the recipient of Persian imperialistic cruelty. The case for the Ionians as the ostensible ‘good guys’ seems quite strong, so

much so that we can immediately point out the moral wrongs of the Persians. But why might we discuss this two-and-a-half-millennia-old conflict? Is it still relevant? It seems so. As the saying goes, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, and the Ionian Revolt bears an unfortunate resemblance to the current Israel-Palestine conflict. There are the clear material parallels: vicious land disputes, brutalisation of a much smaller region, the stripping of an identity of the locals from a dominant power, and the alliance of said dominant power with other major powers. Today, Palestine is undergoing a ruthless onslaught from Israel, which has used thousands of bombs on the area, an extraordinary and unnecessary degree of violence. And much like the Ionians, Palestinians are occupying the space in which they first lived. Most of all, the negligence of the Spartan king in aiding Ionians, which so affected the conflict, is almost parallel to our Western negligence of the condition of Palestine. In fact, in this, the nations of the Western world are perhaps more egregious. Such nations like the United States, Canada, and our very own Britain have publicly affirmed Israel during this humanitarian crisis and done little to acknowledge Palestine at all. I do not have the answers on how we will reconcile the inadequacy of state acknowledgement with the atrocity of what is occurring, but at the very least, we can learn and remember. We are lucky to live within democratic processes in which we can educate ourselves and speak on issues, and in which the constitution of a citizenry can affect the politics of a nation. It should also be noted that this is not a direct parallel. There is a great deal of nuance needed to analyse both situations, and this piece is not meant to synthesise them. Rather, it is to analogise the two and recognise that the barbarism we see in antiquity is not a thing of the past: it still exists, and it is happening right now, and if we are to condemn the Persians, we must condemn contemporary powers who exhibit the same imperialistic methods. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, and forgotten it we have.

ANCIENT HISTORY

Egypt’s Great Revolt by Richard Schoenfeld

Illustrated by William Alexander Smith Oftentimes provincialism prevents one from diligently searching for clues to past, present, and future human behavior. Resistance and revolts are not exclusive to the most recent past; instead, over 2,300 years ago they were being documented… As crisp, cool autumn sea air covered Egypt’s Mediterranean coast, Alexander the Great’s invasion was welcomed as liberation from a century of Persian rule. The year was 332 BCE. Yet, the people’s elation was fleeting as the liberators quickly became the new overlords. Post-Alexander, the Ptolemaic Kingdom, blending Greek and pharaonic ideals, encountered numerous challenges. By Ptolemy IV’s reign, just over 100 years later, economic tensions and the war with Antiochus III stirred additional discontent. While many upper-class nobles favored the Ptolemies, anti-Alexandrian sentiment grew among the masses. Preparing for the Battle of Raphia, many locals, trained in Macedonian tactics, gained vital military expertise as well as a sense of purpose, direction, and motivation. Thus, the foundation for potential rebellion in the long term was being created. The line between the liberators and the liberated blurred… After the Battle of Raphia, Ptolemy IV’s short-term military recruitment strategy appeared to be successful. Trained Egyptians, released from military service, returned to their villages. Skilled in combat, they became key figures in the resistance against Ptolemaic rule. Utilizing guerrilla tactics, these former soldiers effectively challenged the professional Greek army. No-

tably, it was one of the earliest documented instances of guerrilla warfare in history. Contrary to modern uprisings with swift communications, information dissemination during these ancient times was exceedingly slow. The protracted communication processes meant that rebellions and their subsequent counter actions were drawn out, extending the duration of civil unrest for the subsequent two decades. By 207 BCE, a revolt was ignited in Edfu. Fast forward to 205 BCE, and Haronnophris, crowned as Egyptian pharaoh in Thebes, was overthrown by the Ptolemies around 200 BCE. His successor, Chaonnophris, also faced defeat, retreating to Upper Egypt as Ptolemy V took Thebes. The city alternated rulers until 194 BCE, when it briefly returned to Chaonnophris before the Ptolemies regained control in 191 BCE. The pendulum swung one last time in 186 BCE when Chaonnophris faced a decisive defeat at the hands of General Komanos. Even though defeat was in the air, the natives spread the uprising as far north as Assiut. The Ptolemies in the end had victory and held Egypt until Cleopatra VII’s fall in 30 BCE, ushering in Roman rule and ending a 3,000-year era. Over 2,300 years ago, early guerrilla warfare resembled, or perhaps premised, modern resistance against foreign powers, evident in both Vietnam and Afghanistan. While Egypt’s revolts faltered, later uprisings in history succeeded. Does the past shape the future? Only if we can learn from it.

ANCIENT HISTORY

Boudicca, Superstar: The Life of a Celtic Queen by Rosa Davies

Nearly two thousand years ago, Queen Boudicca of the Iceni tribe led an uprising against the oppressive Roman Empire, fighting for the freedom of her people, the British Celts. Although ultimately unsuccessful, her name is still remembered by many Britons for her might and bravery in facing one of the strongest Empires the world had ever seen. What happened back in 60AD? How has her name managed to remain so prominent in the story of Britain? This article aims to shed light on these questions through analysis of the infamous story of Boudicca. The Iceni tribe, Celts residing in present-day Norfolk, were led by their pro-Roman king, Prasutagus, who willingly formed an alliance with the Roman Empire. As a part of this alliance he promised to leave half of his inheritance to his daughters, and the other half to Emperor Nero of Rome. However, after his death in 60 AD, the Romans did not honour his will: they flogged his widow, raped his daughters, and enslaved members of his family and tribe. Despite being faced with the force of an empire, Prasutagus’s widow Boudicca, rallied neighboring tribes and started an uprising to reclaim their freedom. With an army of 120,000 soldiers by her side, Boudicca led a revolt which saw the Roman settlements, Camulodunum (Colchester), Verulamium (St Albans), and Londinium (London) razed to the ground, leaving few survivors. The final battle took place in the midlands where, despite massively outnumbering the roman soldiers, Boudicca and her army were defeated. Although there were fewer Romans, they had superior weapons and military strategies, allowing them to defeat the Celts on their own land. In order to avoid being enslaved by the Romans, Boudicca chose to end her life by drinking poison. Unfortunately, it remains difficult to understand the status of women in Celtic culture as the only written evidence from the time comes from the Romans and Greeks who both looked down on the Celts, viewing them as barbarians. There is little evidence of women in power at the time, which would imply that Boudicca’s position of power would have been seen as an anomaly rather than the norm. The Roman historian Tacicus, author of one of the most credible sources on Bouddica, writes, ‘Win the battle or perish: that is what I, a woman will do; you men can live on in slavery if that’s what you want.’ This shows her awareness that she was different from her male army. As a result of her leading an army despite being a woman, her story has been passed down through generations, used to show the power of women, as well as, ironically, the power of imperialism. During the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, as Britain fought

the Spanish Armada, Boudicca’s story saw a rise in popularity. The Queens PR team needed to prove to Britain that a woman could be a worthy and capable wartime leader. Her story was changed to fit this narrative, having previously been told as a cautionary tale against Celtic culture in Britain. After the death of Elizabeth I, her successor, James I, changed the narrative again to make Boudicca seem inferior, highlighting her failure, and her death in suicide. During the heyday of the British Empire, the nation was once again under the rule of a woman; Queen Victoria. Despite being over two centuries later, women in Britain were still not commonly in positions of power. The Victorians’ appreciation of Boudicca is noted in the statue which sits opposite the Houses of Parliament. However, they too changed the narrative in order to better fit their ideals. During the first half of the 19th century, it was common to blur the lines between historical fact and fictional narrative. This allowed Bouddica to be remodeled into an imperialistic icon of triumph. Through plays and poems, her story was rewritten and retold, transforming a life sacrificed in defiance of imperialistic forces attempting to take her homeland, into an inspiration for an Empire which repeated some of the atrocities she died fighting against. In the 21st century, most of us have been taught somewhat about the history of the land we live in, meaning many of us at least recognise the name of the ancient Queen. Alternatively, our understanding derives from the Horrible Histories song (2010), which managed to bring her back into our collective memory. Although the BBCs “cherry bomb” parody is perhaps less academically stimulating than the poems and plays previous generations used to keep her name alive, the song is another easy-to-digest piece of media allowing the British public to learn about the ancient Queen who fought for freedom. It could be argued that this was another example of pro-monarch propaganda during the reign of a female monarch during wartime as Britain deployed 10,000 troops to fight in Afghanistan under Queen Elizabeth II’s reign in the year of its release. Boudicca’s fight for her people’s freedom against imperial forces has left a lasting legacy, albeit one used to justify British imperialism. Her story stands out as an example of a powerful woman in history and her bravery has been remembered in Britain for nearly two millennia. ‘Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past’, as the saying goes. This is seen in the manipulation of Boudicca’s story, used to fit the narratives of each time. In this way, history can be used to alter the public’s opinion and shape collective perspectives.

ANCIENT HISTORY

The Significance of the Roman Revolution by Laura Wilkinson

In 500 BC, in a relatively obscure kingdom in Italy, a noblewoman was raped by the son of the king. 2,200 years later, the American Constitution was enshrined into law after the success of the American Revolution. If you believe in the butterfly effect, you may think that the latter might have never happened without the former. The assailant in this story, a man named Sextus Tarquinius, could not have known the impact of his actions when he decided to force himself upon the object of his entitled desires, a woman named Lucretia. But Lucretia was so ashamed of her violation that she martyred herself, invoking an anger in the noblemen of Rome so strong that they overthrew the corrupt monarchy and founded the Roman Republic, a political institution whose legacy seems impervious to the passage of time. The Roman Revolution became a symbol of integrity and virtue that predominated the Roman Republic and shaped the course of history in its effect on later revolutions. Tarquin the Proud, the king of Rome in 509 BC, was not known for his clemency. While all ancient narratives are tenuous in their provenance, Roman historians such as Livy, Cassius Dio and Diodorus of Halicarnassus agree with some certainty that his reign was violent, brutish, and characterised by the suppression of the Roman Senate and disrespect for Roman tradition and customs. Roman historians recount that while discontent with Tarquin’s regime simmered among aristocrats, the catalyst for the revolution came from an incident during which the tyranny of the monarchy was personified. Sextus Tarquinius, Tarquin’s son, raped the noblewoman Lucretia, who was famed for her moral character and devotion to her husband. Lucretia, unable to bear the shame of her defilement, disclosed what had happened to her husband and then committed suicide. Struck with grief and outrage, the noblemen of Rome took up arms immediately and banished the Tarquin family, taking over control of Rome and fending off counter-attacks from the monarchy. While the specific story of Lucretia has since been disputed, it still serves to reinforce the idea that the Romans saw significance in their revolution’s resistance to injustice and tyranny, and venerated Lucretia as a symbol of this. After their success, the leaders of the revolution founded the Roman Republic to replace the monarchy. The Republic embodied the spirit and principles of the revolution: never again allow one man to hold too much power, nor allow the populace to be subject to such mistreatment as they had suffered under the Roman kings. The government of the Republic guaranteed liberty and justice by representing all adult male citizens in the Senate by way of democratically elected officials, giving the population a voice in politics which

they had been previously denied under the kings of Rome. This system evolved throughout the Republic to become even more representative, and the plebeian classes were allowed to vote and hold office by 400 BC. Rome’s commitment to this ethos of populism is most easily seen in its emblem ‘the Senate and People of Rome’ (SPQR), where the masses are afforded equal prominence with the leaders, and the supremacy of one citizen over another is explicitly rejected. Protesters of corrupt monarchies throughout history, aspiring to a free and fair government, have looked to the Republic as a precedent of how a nation could thrive without a king. The Founding Fathers of America saw themselves as disciples of the Romans, pursuing a similar goal of liberty and justice to that which drove the Roman Revolution. Jay, Madison, and Hamilton even used the pen name ‘Publius’ when writing the Federalist Papers to promote the Constitution in reference to one of the founders of the Roman Republic, Publius Valerius Publicola. In building their new country, the Founding Fathers actively endeavoured to emulate the Republic, placing their senate on Capitol Hill next to the Tiber. Many features of American democracy are also inspired by the Republic, like the meeting of committees and the use of vetoes. Likewise, the proponents of the French Revolution took inspiration from the ethos of the first republicans, and paid similar homage to them in their reformed constitutions. French revolutionaries even adopted the Roman symbol of the fascis, an axe in a bundle of wood which signified the power of the magistrates. Brutus, the first consul, had monarchical sympathisers beaten with fasces during the revolution as a symbol of the triumph of justice. These are only a select few examples: throughout history, the Roman Revolution has been used as a blueprint for resistance; most notably, an honourable resistance in which the rights and liberty of the people in the face of autocratic corruption are valued above all else. The Roman Revolution should be remembered as an unprecedented development in the history of democracy, whose legacy is integral to the tradition of resistance and rebellion in modern history. Not only did the Romans abide by the values of their rebellion throughout the 500 years that the Republic lasted, but these principles also informed revolutions which have shaped the nature of the world we live in today. There are worthwhile lessons to be learnt from a study of the Roman Revolution. Its dedication to the liberty of the people and opposition to tyranny are a valuable example of how to govern successfully and democratically without a monarch.

MEDIEVAL/ EARLY MODERN

How Far Did Elizabeth I Resist Accepted Notions of Queenship, Monarchy and Femininity? by Scarlett Oram The role of a queen for most of English history had, up until the Tudor period, been non-existent. No queen had ruled in her own right, their role was to serve as a woman should and be subservient to their husband. When Mary ascends in 1553, a new type of monarch is forged, and a new question arises. Does a queen gain an independence never before seen and serve her country as ruler, or remain within patriarchal values and place her country second to her husband? Since Mary’s reign was too short for her to truly answer this question on her own, it is her sister Elizabeth who truly defines what it means to be a queen. For this period, women were primarily viewed as a commodity; a resource to be traded in the hopes of gaining something. Regal women were of no exception, princesses were betrothed often before they could even speak; Mary I was set to be engaged to the son of the King of France when she was just 2 years old. Interestingly, this is where Elizabeth already becomes the anomaly for women and queens alike. Through a combination of her being declared illegitimate under Henry VIII and Edward VI and the suspicion thrown on her under Mary, Elizabeth was never betrothed to a man as nearly every royal woman before her was. Elizabeth was one of the few female members of royalty who was not valuable as a commodity but as her status as a royal woman. This helped set the stage for her infamous Virgin Queen persona; what was originally a matter of coincidence and fortunate timing soon became a deliberate decision. Despite decades of pressuring from councillors and centuries of traditional practices weighing on Elizabeth, she remained steadfast in her belief that she should remain unmarried telling her councillors, “I have already joined myself in marriage to a husband, namely the Kingdom of England”. In fact, through her reluctance to wed, Elizabeth not only resisted the expectations placed upon her as a woman, and subsequently as a Queen, but challenged a long-standing expectation of marriage among monarchs in general. Elizabeth I is one of the four English monarchs that remained single, of which two were children and unable to be wed. Through her lack of marriage, Elizabeth was able to fight back the expectations placed on her as a woman, a queen and a monarch. It was also through marriage that Elizabeth was able to resist another fundamental aspect of womanhood at the time: being a mother. While at the same time she defied one of the most important parts of being a monarch: naming an heir. The refusal to wed, and thus to bear a child, meant Elizabeth was already rejecting her ‘role’ as a woman and monarch; the Tudor line would end with her. Even after the obvious heir came forth, James I of England, Elizabeth gained his favour but never officially declared him heir. Due to the various uprisings, primarily led by James’ own mother, Elizabeth was reluctant to name James her successor for fear of further revolts. Though he would rise to the throne unchallenged, this small fact that he was never actually declared heir further highlights Elizabeth’s resistance to the expectations placed on her at the time. In this sense, Elizabeth redefined what it meant to be a woman and a monarch, prioritising herself and her reign over all else. Through her lack of motherhood and lack of heir, Elizabeth defied her supposed role and defined what it meant for her, and later others, to be queen.

Finally, Elizabeth had a unique perspective of her own femininity at the time, fuelled partially by her sister’s work. As Mary was the first true Queen of England, she had to set the precedent for her and future female monarchs. Despite her generally more traditional attitudes, Mary was steadfast in her stance that she be treated with equal authority, telling her council, “My father possessed the same regal estate [as me]; to him ye were always loving subjects”. Mary paved the way for Elizabeth to take this one step further. Instead of just arguing for her equal authority, Elizabeth seemed to argue that she was of equal intellectual and mental capacity as the kings that preceded her. Famously in 1588, Elizabeth stood in full armour on the cliffs at Tilbury, proudly declaring, “I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and the stomach of a king, and a king of England too”. It is here that we begin to truly see how far Elizabeth resisted the ‘female role’, using her sister’s work to defy the misogynistic hierarchy that deemed women lesser than their male counterparts. In several fundamental ways, Elizabeth defied the very basics of what femininity and womanhood meant in this period. While she was still subjected to a plethora of patriarchal attitudes of the era, she fought many of them wherever she could. Elizabeth was far from a traditional monarch by most means, yet she has been remembered as one of our most powerful queens even hundreds of years on. In terms of how far she resisted the notions attempting to trap her into a more subservient role, in my opinion Elizabeth pushed against them more than any other monarch to date.

MEDIEVAL/ EARLY MODERN

The Significance of Jack Cade’s Rebellion as a Cause for the Wars of the Roses? by Maimoonah Yaasmeen The Wars of the Roses were a series of wars fought in 15th century England between two rival factions of the royal Plantagenet house until the ascension of the Tudor house with Henry VII in 1485. It was during the Wars of the Roses that the bloodiest and biggest battle on English soil was fought: the Battle of Towton. Although some see the Wars of the Roses as beginning in 1455, this fails to factor in the many issues leading up to the first battle in 1455. It was these issues which set the necessary pre-conditions for Cade’s rebellion in 1450 and sowed the seeds of war within England. However, to begin explaining the significance of Cade’s rebellion as a cause for the Wars of the Roses, it is necessary to shed light on the key figures who played a major role within the conflict. The Plantagenet royal house during the Wars of the Roses was split between two rival factions: the Lancastrians and the Yorkists. At the beginning, the Lancastrians were headed by the ruling monarch at the time, King Henry VI, whilst the Yorkists were headed by Richard, Duke of York. Both descended from King Edward III, yet the Lancastrians descended from his third son (John of Gaunt, the Duke of Lancaster) whereas the Yorkists were descended from his second son (Lionel, Duke of Clarence) through York’s mother as well as his fourth son Edmund, Duke of York, giving them an arguably greater claim to the throne. Cade’s rebellion can be seen as a cause of the Wars of the Roses as it is during the rebellion when the conflict between the two factions began to simmer. Jack Cade’s rebellion began in May-June 1450. A mark on the ground at the beginning of a long bloody journey. Cade’s rebellion displayed the cracks in the foundations of Henry VI’s rule and exposed the Lancastrians to rival claimants for power. There are a wide variety of causes of Cade’s rebellion, from economic to social to political, highlighting the many failures of the king. England’s losses in France, such as Maine, Rouen and Normandy from 1448-1450 caused disgruntled and defeated soldiers to sail back to Kent, where Cade’s rebellion began.

the Wars of the Roses. Jack Cade had changed his name and proclaimed himself with the surname Mortimer. Richard of York, a man who had an arguably greater claim to the throne through his mother Anne Mortimer, was seen as a grasping power-hungry man by the court. In addition, Cade had stayed in the White Hart Inn in London, which was seen as the symbol of the deposed Richard II. York being linked to Cade, regardless of his adamant claims of fealty to the King and lack of presence in England, was seen as treasonous. Cade was killed on the 12th of July 1450, yet the effects of his rebellion lingered. Overall Cade’s rebellion is seen as a significant cause and often the beginning of the Wars of the Roses, since the king failed to resolve the many issues that created the rebellion. Corruption and favouritism continued as seen in the dominance of the new ‘favourite’ of the king Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, who was also a rival of York’s. Tensions exacerbated which ultimately led to the first military confrontation of the Wars of the Roses at Dartford in 1452 wherein York asked for the removal of corrupt persons, such as Somerset, from the King’s presence. It also led to the first battle of St. Albans in 1455 wherein Somerset was killed by the Yorkists. A weak monarch unable to administer government, solve rising debt, nor lead battles was a recipe for disaster and would spell the end for Henry VI and the rise of the Yorkists. Henry VI himself left London during the rebellion, a move which he repeated during the Wars of the Roses and eventually, as some historians argue, turned him back into a noble instead of a monarch. York’s claim to the throne and his proclaimed passion for the ‘communitas’ and ‘commonweal’ would prove to be stronger than the monarch himself.

The theme of the peoples of England losing faith in the rule of King Henry VI is one that would remain throughout the Wars of the Roses. Corruption within the government of Henry VI and his officials was rife. Henry VI was a weak, unfit king who was more interested in scholarly and religious pursuits, having notably founded Eton College, than fighting wars and leading government. This drastic difference from his father, Henry V, led the peoples of England to fester in discontent which eventually blew up with the rebellion of Jack Cade. As he had no interest in ruling the realm, the task was left to his closest companion William de la Pole, the Duke of Suffolk, who maintained his dominance through keeping the king away from all except a select few chosen individuals. However, Suffolk was soon imprisoned and sent away to quell tensions as a scapegoat of government, being murdered on his way to imprisonment near Kent. Corrupt officials such as William Ayscough, the Bishop of Salisbury and the hated sheriff of Kent, William Crowmer, were also killed during the rebellion. Alongside these events was a significant issue during Cade’s rebellion which would eventually lead to the major conflicts of

MEDIEVAL/ EARLY MODERN

“My God, have pity on this poor people”: The Origins of the Dutch Revolt by Christopher Turner

These were the final words of William of Orange, nicknamed Father of the Fatherland, after being shot in 1584. These words encapsulated the dire circumstances faced by the Dutch at that moment, embroiled in a war of independence after enduring decades of oppression from their Hapsburg overlords. Years of punishing taxation, Hapsburg centralisation, religious persecution, and contravention of long-held privileges boiled over into the Dutch Revolt. To understand why the Dutch decided to shake off the Spanish yoke, it must be established how they came into the Hapsburg fold. A century of competent rulership saw Burgundy encompass much of eastern France and the Low Countries via dynastic matchmaking and conquest, still the Duchy found itself in a precarious position by 1477. Duke Charles the Bold’s ambitious quest for realm unification ended with his death, earning his other epithet as ‘the Rash’ by being killed in battle and leaving no male heir. Enter the Hapsburgs. Faced with an impending French invasion, Charles’ widow strategically betrothed their only daughter, Mary, to Maximilian I, successfully deterring the threat of invasion. Yet, Mary’s early death curtailed the union, transferring Burgundian territories passed under Habsburg dominion and Maximilian began to consolidate his new lands. Maximilian’s son, Charles V, then extended Hapsburg rule over the Netherlands in a decades-long war of subjugation, absorbing Dutch provinces into the Empire. Since time immemorial, taxation has been begrudgingly paid. Philip II had inherited a grave financial situation from his father, who had engaged in expensive foreign wars across Europe. So expensive were Charles’ wars that much of the costs were passed onto the prosperous Netherlands, with the deficit skyrocketing from 415,878 Flemish pounds in 1531 to nearly seven million by 1555. The Dutch were obliged to pay taxes directly to the emperor and were liable for provisioning men and finances to defend the empire. Particularly grating, was their taxes being spent to wage war against foreign powers who, posing no threat to the Dutch, were often important trading partners and crucial sources of wealth for the Dutch economy. Realising the strain it would place on their finances, the Dutch were recalcitrant to Philip’s new levy to fund his war against the Ottomans. A condition attached to Maximilian’s and Mary’s marriage included the granting of the Grand Privilege to the Dutch, thus securing Dutch privileges and initially weakening Hapsburg control over the Netherlands even before Maximilian had crossed the Rhine to marry his bride. The Hapsburgs, aiming to tighten

their grip, initially sought the nobility’s loyalty to maintain lucrative Netherlands taxes. Dutch nobles were commonly found in the higher echelons of the church, army, and administration while those who belonged to the most eminent families were elevated to the prestigious Order of the Golden Fleece and invited to sit in the Council of State. However, under Hapsburg rule, the Council’s consultative function had eroded. Forced to make concessions to levy his new taxes, Philip II was led to cementing his authority by undermining the consultative function of the Council. He sidelined Dutch members and reduced its involvement in governance; effective control was entrusted to Granvelle, culminating in William’s resignation in 1567 and his self-exile to his estates in Nassau. The religious atmosphere of this time was encapsulated by the Reformation and the subsequent Counter-Reformation that fragmented western Christianity. Protestantism had spread across northern Europe, and sizeable minorities of Lutherans and Calvinists called the Netherlands home by the mid-sixteenth century. The Hapsburgs were staunch papal allies and committed to suppressing these heretics by any means necessary, including reviving the inquisition. Edicts under Charles V proclaimed death for Lutherans, with an estimated 2,000 Protestants being executed during his reign. The persecution intensified with Philip II’s ascension, who swore to zealously uphold Catholicism. Through reforming the bishopric system in 1559, Philip introduced inquisitors into every Dutch province, while some newly enthroned bishops, notably those of Roermond and Middelburg, were selected for their anti-Protestant vitriol. The Dutch practised religious toleration and were aghast at this state-sponsored religious persecution. Staunch Protestants became more entrenched in their beliefs and joined Calvinist communities across the Netherlands. Calvinists refused to surrender to persecution and practised a church organisation and theology that proved to be readily adaptable to group resistance. Indeed, the Calvinists would assume a pivotal role throughout the Revolt and initiated the Beeldenstorm that saw the iconoclastic destruction of countless Catholic artworks and decorations across the Netherlands in 1566. The Dutch enjoyed a tradition of constitutionalism that contributed to their identity. Its origins lay in the privileges granted to cities and guilds by various rulers during the mediaeval period, some of which, notably the Joyous Entry of Brabant, laid out the division of power between the ruler and the ruled. These were affirmed in the Grand Privilege following the Burgundian Succession. Such privileges acted as conduits for the formulation of political rights and duties for the Dutch, providing protection against arbitrary and corrupt rule while also stipulating their right to disobey if the ruler violated their privileges. From this came the principle of liberty, often described as the ‘daughter of the Netherlands,’ that was venerated by the Dutch as the source of their prosperity and welfare. Thus, the persecution of Protestants was met with outrage by all Dutchmen, who saw it as an egregious contravention of their established local privileges that the ruler swore to uphold.

1750 - 1900

Taiping Rebellion - ‘the bloodiest war in history’ what effect does this have on China today? By Eddie Rudolph

Dubbed ‘the bloodiest war in history’, the Taiping Rebellion (1850-1864) shook China, its scars both present and still healing today. In 1843, Hong Xiuquan was converted to Protestantism by Western missionaries and founded a God-worshipping society. However, much to the disdain of Western missionaries, Hong’s new society was a sinicization and ‘distortion’ of Christianity that didn’t reflect ‘true’ Christian values, particularly with Hong claiming to be Jesus’ younger brother. In 1850, Hong then founded the Kingdom of Heavenly Peace, with the goal to drive ‘demons’ out of China, which included the ruling Manchus. The Kingdom of Heavenly Peace quickly militarised and began attacking cities, imposing their rule and belief system. This ‘bloody’ war spanned fourteen years and took the lives of between 20 to 30 million people, possibly the deadliest civil war in history. At the time of the rebellion, its effects were evident in the fragmentation of China and, ultimately, the collapse of the Qing dynasty. Yet, its legacy has resulted in China’s rejection, fear, and distrust over religious groups. The Taiping Rebellion simultaneously inspired rebellions from other minority groups, including Muslims in the North-West and the Miao to the south. This has entrenched a fear over religious insurgencies in China, which modern policy reflects. For the last five years, the Chinese state has been cracking down on underground churches not sanctioned by the state over fears that they do not promote the party ideology. In contrast, state-sanctioned Christian churches have bishops appointed by the state, not the Vatican, and therefore have control over the ideas and messages being preached. Discourse has opened between the Vatican and the Chinese state in recent years, giving a dual authority to appoint bishops. This has led to underground churches feeling somewhat left behind, as the

Vatican is now closer with the state, not underground churches, further suppressing the underground movements. The legacy of the Taiping Rebellion and fears over religious insurgency cannot be discussed without recognising the internment, jailing, and ‘re-education’ of the Uyghur population in Xinjiang. These discriminatory policies toward the Uyghur population undeniably have links to fears over independence movements and religious uprisings, whether they pose a genuine threat or not. Finally, the influx of Christianity was a product of Western intervention. Similarly, the Western world jumped at military and economic opportunities that presented themselves with Chinese decline in the 19th and 20th centuries. This helps feed into a rejection of the West and the Chinese rhetoric of moral superiority, which is widespread in Chinese state ideology. China is still grappling with how to deal with their religious groups, and the hangover of the Taiping Rebellion shows no sign of letting up.

1750 - 1900

Revolutionary Women:

Olympe de Gouges’ Advocacy for Women’s Rights in the Early French Revolution by Kaylee Mountford

The French Revolution, renowned for its transformative revolutionary politics and societal impact, initiated substantial changes in the pursuit of liberty and equality. While the revolution is often celebrated for its achievements, like the abolition of the absolute monarchy and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789, the same efforts did not extend to women’s rights. So, what did the French Revolution achieve for women’s rights? In short, not a whole lot. The limited strides made in favour of women during this period, such as the right to divorce granted in 1792, were short-lived. Subsequent legal developments, like the Code Napoléon in 1804, retracted these gains, leaving women in a position with even fewer rights than children. Though women were confined to the private sphere during the early French Revolution, there were some pioneering individuals who challenged gender boundaries. In particular, Olympe de Gouges, born Marie Gouze into the merchant class, emerged as a beacon of resilience by radically transforming her identity to secure a foothold in the public sphere. Reinventing herself with an aristocratic name and a fabricated lineage as the illegitimate daughter of a playwright, de Gouges strategically entered the public sphere, utilising literature and theatre as platforms to engage with democratic and revolutionary thought. Having successfully established her new identity, Olympe de Gouges wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Women and of the Female Citizen in 1791. Addressed to Queen Marie Antoinette, the declaration advocated for women’s rights in liberty, property, security, freedom of speech and press, political participation, and resistance to oppression. Her declaration, modelled on the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, utilises the same seventeen articles but replaces the word ‘man’ with ‘woman’. In doing this, de Gouges underscores the inherent equal-

ity of women and challenges the prevailing norms that had relegated women to a subordinate status. This act has been considered a bold and unprecedented move, positioning de Gouges as an exemplary figure in the discourse surrounding gender equality during the French Revolution. While de Gouges’ efforts had limited impact on revolutionary policy, her Declaration of the Rights of Women and of the Female Citizen stands as a powerful testament to the struggle for gender equality in the early French Revolution. Unfortunately, de Gouges paid the ultimate price for her convictions and was executed by guillotine in 1793 for being labelled an unnatural woman. Nevertheless, her legacy persists as a reminder of the formidable struggles faced by those who were challenging societal norms and advocating for women’s rights during this pivotal period in French history.

MODERN MODERN HISTORY

Defiance Against Distortion:

Memorial’s Fight to Uncover the Truth of Stalinist Repressions by Sophie Stanford In Russia, memories of Stalinist repressions and the Gulag are contentious topics. Despite over 20 million people perishing as a result of Stalin’s purges and many more being forced into labour camps in Siberia, the Kremlin, through propaganda and censorship, has consistently attempted to sanitise its dark history, which it portrays as a necessary measure for the nation’s security and stability. The state memory, in which the grim realities of past forced labour camps and political repressions are downplayed, however, has not gone unchallenged. The most forceful opposition to this narrative has come from Memorial, a non-governmental organisation that, until its forced closure in 2021, steadfastly pursued the truth of repressions amidst the distortions propagated by the Kremlin. Through meticulous research, commemorative events, and unwavering dedication to historical accuracy, Memorial emerged as a symbol of resilience and defiance against the Kremlin’s efforts to manipulate historical truths. Founded in 1987 Moscow, Memorial was formed in a period of increasing critical discourse due to the Gorbachevian policies of glasnost and perestroika. It was established by the elite intelligentsia, most notably future President Boris Yeltsin and political dissident Andrey Sakharov. By creating a forum for survivors to voice their grief, Memorial aimed to restore historical truths and promote the development of a public consciousness based on democratic values to prevent a return to totalitarianism. During a period in which a culture of silence embodied official policy on the repressions, Memorial challenged the State by holding annual commemoration ceremonies at the Solovetsky Stone on the 30th of October, where victims were encouraged to share their experiences.

The Solovetsky Stone unveiled by Memorial on Oct. 30th 1990, though simple in its composition, contains impactful symbolism. The stone, taken from the Solovetsky Special Purpose Camp in Siberia, is materially linked to the atrocities it addresses. Located in Lubyanka Square, directly opposite the former KGB (now FSB) headquarters, the Solovetsky Stone is an intentional act of defiance to the intelligence organisations that perpetrated the mass killings. By placing the monument in proximity to the perpetrators, Memoria reminded the public and the intelligence services of their culpability in this atrocity whilst posing a challenge to the State. Furthermore, its central position in Moscow underscores the enduring struggle between truth and author-

itarianism, evoking the resilience of those who have dared to challenge the official narrative. During Memorial’s commemoration day at the Solovetsky Stone, the names of Gulag victims are solemnly read aloud, transforming statistics into personal narratives. This ritual is a poignant act of remembrance, and counters the Kremlin’s attempts to silence the voices of the past. The significance of Memorial’s commemorative events extend beyond remembrance. By humanising victims and amplifying their stories, Memorial encouraged the public to rethink the dehumanising narrative perpetuated by the Kremlin. In doing so, they honoured the memory of those who suffered under Stalinist repressions, and fostered a collective acknowledgment of the past, which is crucial to progress and societal healing. Memorial’s opposition to the Kremlin’s narrative extended to scholarly pursuits. It produced publications, exhibitions, and documentaries to counteract myths surrounding the Stalinist era, including the notion that repression was necessary for progress. Memorial’s academic rigour and dedication to factual accuracy made it a credible source of information that challenged the Kremlin’s historical revisionism. Furthermore, Memorial actively supported the families of Gulag victims, providing essential resources, legal aid, and emotional assistance. By addressing the enduring impact of Stalinist repressions on subsequent generations, Memorial helped contribute to the broader academic discourse on intergenerational trauma and historical memory. Their efforts empowered survivors and their descendants, enabling them to confront the legacy of the past. Memorial further attempted to prevent a return to totalitarianism in Russia by drawing attention to modern human rights abuses being perpetuated by Putin’s regime.

As a result of its efforts, Memorial faced formidable opposition from the Kremlin. The government’s response is characterised by censorship and suppression, and culminated in the organisation’s forced closure in 2021. This blatant act of repression underscores the extent to which the Kremlin perceived Memorial’s work as a threat to its carefully constructed historical narrative, and exemplifies the Kremlin’s systematic silencing of opposition to control politically sensitive narratives. Memorial’s pursuit of historical accuracy and its opposition to the Kremlin’s historical distortions exemplify its unwavering commitment to truth. Despite facing government repression, Memorial’s work stands as a testament to the enduring power of academic inquiry and the pursuit of truth in the face of adversity. In a society often plagued by historical amnesia and denial, Memorial’s unwavering dedication to truth served as a beacon of hope, inspiring future generations to confront uncomfortable truths and challenge distorted narratives.

MODERN HISTORY

Women During the Algerian War of Independence by Keziah Taylora

Why are women always excluded from the retelling of historical events? This overlooked segment of the population plays a far greater role in rebellions and the resistance than we are led to believe. In the Algerian revolution women proved indispensable, holding greater importance to the resistance than their male counterparts. This article aims to rectify male-centric history by focusing on the historical impact of Algerian women. The Algerian War of Independence took place from Nov. 1st 1954 to March 19th 1962, and resulted in eventual freedom from French colonial interference on July 5th 1962. The aim of the French was to first colonise Algeria’s women as a means of subjugating the entire country. They achieved this by targeting the veil, which was understood as something to be conquered. In doing so, Algerian women would be ‘saved’ from their uncivilised society. These Orientalist notions stem from European racism as colonialists held a superiority complex that their presence in the ‘East’, itself a concept coined by imperialism, was aiding the ‘Other’. Consequently, the French held public unveilings of women, an act described by Helie-Lucas as “public rape”. As a result, women were just as anxious to be liberated from the French as the nationalist Algerian men. They aided the fight for independence in various ways from

nursing, tailoring, collecting food, funds, and ammunition, to supervising hiding places and being armed fighters or terrorists. One of their vital contributions to the resistance’s success involved smuggling necessary items such as weapons and bombs in their veils. However, Algerian women, who carried out similar tasks as their male counterparts, were viewed as fulfilling their role as nurturers while the men were seen as fighters. It seemed that “...only the French army acknowledged [womens’] action by imprisoning and torturing [them] in concentration camps and killing [them]”. The feminist question was considered of secondary importance in relation to nationalism, and after independence women were told to prioritise the nation-building process. Thus, women gave up their wartime roles and returned to the private sphere. Then, the veil was imposed onto Algerian women by Algerian men who intended to heal the wounds of colonialism. Women experienced a two-fold oppression; firstly by the French for her race, and secondly by her own race in the name of tradition. It wasn’t until the 2000s that Algerian feminism materialised, but it was this movement that allowed for women to re-enter the public sphere for the first time since the war. History often overlooks the impact and sacrifices of women in the resistance, but women were essential for Algerian independence.

MODERN HISTORY

A Glass House with Many Stones by Freddie Tuson

As the run-up to the 2024 UK general election begins in earnest, it is likely that we will see a rapid increase in hysteria surrounding Chinese and Russian interference in Britain’s electoral process. However, there is no doubt that the majority of this discourse will fail to connect this meddling with Britain’s own historical involvement in election interference, military interventions, and assassinations, in its attempt to preserve commercial and ideological interests abroad. Since the Second World War, the UK has planned or executed no fewer than 42 attempts to remove foreign governments across 27 countries. In that time, Whitehall officials have continuously sought to overthrow democratically elected leaders in Iran, Guatemala, British Guiana, and the Congo. This was driven by their policies of nationalisation and the perceived threat this posed to Britain’s commercial and imperial ambitions. The failure to mention this violent and persistent British interference on a global political scale obscures the reality that the tools employed against us today are, in essence, tools of our own invention. When Rishi Sunak brands Chinese involvement in Westminster as, “absolutely unacceptable,” he strategically positions the UK as a victim, diverting attention from the fact that the weapons used against us are the very tools with which we engage in attacks on others. In 1953, in collaboration with the CIA, the British Secret Intelligence Service organised the coup that led to the overthrow of Iran’s first democratically elected leader, Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. The root of Mossadegh’s deposition lay in his government’s oil nationalisation, which diverted the profits of the lucrative industry back into the Iranian government rather than into the coffers of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Corporation, a forerunner for BP. UK intelligence services consistently communicated to their American counterparts that a coup was necessary, not solely to maintain Britain’s oil monopoly, but to prevent Iran from aligning with the Soviet Union. The USA’s considerable Cold War anxiety meant that minimal persuasion was needed before the CIA joined the MI6 in launching political warfare against Mossadegh. They incited riots, spread fake news through posters and newspapers, and encouraged religious leaders to criticise the nation’s leadership. This resulted in General Fazlollah Zahedi seizing Radio Tehran and announcing himself, “the lawful prime minister by the Shah’s orders,” while simultaneously collecting $1 million in cash from the CIA. The UK got their oil back. In the same year, Queen Elizabeth II signed documents greenlighting the deployment of British troops to remove Cheddi Jaggan, the democratically elected nationalist Chief Minister of British Guiana. Working again with their American counterparts, Whitehall planners dispersed anti-government propaganda in Guatemala, laying the foundation for the CIA-backed coup of Jacobo Arbenz, another democratically elected nationalist leader. The aftermath saw Guatemala plunged into 40 years of dictators, death squads, and near-genocide.

UK interference intensified in 1961, where evidence suggests that Whitehall officials, once again alongside the CIA, initiated a vicious campaign to overthrow Patrice Lumumba. He was captured, tortured, and executed just over a year after becoming the first democratically elected leader of an independent Congo. In Libya, after 42 years and two failed assassination attempts, Britain finally punished Muammar Gaddafi for nationalising British Oil operations in the North African nation. He was killed in October 2011 by Islamist militants who were aided by a major air campaign and covert support from Britain’s forces. Though Gaddafi can hardly be labelled a benign force, his oppressive rule brought progress to much of Libya which some might find seemingly preferable to the anarchy, terrorism and ongoing war that ensued in the decade following his death. However, time and again, British intelligence forces have targeted popular, nationalist, and frequently democratically elected regimes simply because these regimes fail to adhere to British and Western commercial and economic interests. Mossadeq was overthrown because he prioritised the needs of the Iranian people ahead of the profits of British oil. Jaggan faced intervention for attempting to implement policies that would benefit Guyana’s poor, but simultaneously threatened British bauxite and sugar interests. Sukarno, Lumumba and Arbenz simply represented a political model that veered away from the pro-corporate policies of London and Washington. British interference in the democracies of other nations has not dissipated in the 21st Century. In 2019, British lithium interests played a key part in the UK’s Bolivian ambassador supporting a right-wing coup against President Evo Morales. At the same time, in Venezuela, having backed media and NGO projects that promoted the opposition, Britain was one of several Western nations who recognised Juan Guaido as the ‘interim president’ over Evo Morales. The issue of British electoral integrity is a legitimate concern, but Brits should also be concerned with the UK’s history of undemocratic interference around the world. Hundreds and thousands have died in the aftermath of these coups. Millions more have suffered in the Congo, Guatemala, Iran, and beyond at the hands of regimes which were installed, in part, with British assistance. Complaints of foreign interference in British elections can only be proffered in conjunction with a recognition of British interference in foreign affairs. For as long as the UK continues to meddle abroad, we must confront the fact that nations may be tempted to use our own methods against us.

In 1965, the UK backed the slaughter of an estimated 1.2 million communists, leftists, and ordinary peasants in Indonesia during the successful overthrow of President Sukarno, having failed in their attempts to do so a decade earlier.

MODERN HISTORY We Hold The Rock: The Importance of the Native American Occupation of Alcatraz Island by Fox Ryan Axworthy At the end of the 1960s, the world was witnessing one of the most volatile moments in American history. Accelerated by the unrest caused by the U.S. involvement in Vietnam, many movements had found support and power to rebel against America. A new level of consciousness had been awakened amongst a generation, creating an atmosphere perfect to grab the nation’s attention. One group, calling themselves the Indians of All Tribes (IAT), would get this attention. On November 20 1969, 89 Native Americans sailed to Alcatraz Island, breaking through the Coast Guard blockade and landing on Alcatraz. This moment kicked off one of the most important but often overlooked moments in Native American activism. The 1969 occupation was not the first use of Alcatraz as a setting for demonstration. In 1964, a group of Sioux activists demonstrated on the island for four hours before leaving after threats from the police. The Sioux activists wanted to bring the government’s attention to the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie which stated that if the government had a surplus of land, the Sioux could claim it. Since the penitentiary on the island had closed, it was argued that the land was no longer under use by the federal government. After this short demonstration, Mohawk student Richard Oakes saw inspiration. After another brief attempt Oakes, his family, and the other activists landed on the Island, successfully occupying Alcatraz for nineteen months. The occupiers ran a school, kitchen, a radio broadcast, and many other systems needed to keep the occupiers living comfortably. Despite IAT’s attempts, the occupation collapsed after being forcibly ended by the government after nineteen months. The outcome of the occupation did not meet the expectations of the activists, as the government did not return the land to the indigenous holders. Even before its cessation, the occupation had begun to unravel. Oakes’ daughter had fallen to her death on the island, leading Oakes and his wife to leave the island. The island had its power and resources cut off, causing unrest on the island. Non-Native occupiers had started to bring the drug scene onto the island which began to disintegrate the integrity of the occupiers. The last fifteen occupiers were forcibly removed by armed special forces on June 10, 1971. It seemed like the nineteen months spent occupying the island had come to an unsatisfying end. Yet, despite the failure of the occupation, its impact cannot be understated. The island was not returned, but it did impact government policy, which changed from a policy of termination to a policy of self-determination in the 1970s. It had ushered in a new age for Red Power and Native American activism. Being one of the biggest intertribal acts of rebellion, the Alcatraz occupation had shown the value of tribes working together for a common goal. Pan-Indianism was a crucial part of Native Activism in the 1970s, both the American Indian Movement (AIM) and the Red Power movement continued to value pan-Indianism throughout their time. Its impact extended outside of the Red Power movement, inspiring the Brown Beret occupation of Catalina Island in 1972. Perhaps the most successful aspect of the occupation was the national attention and support it gained. The occupation received support from other civil rights groups; both the Black Panthers and Brown Berets delivered essentials to the island. In addition, Asian American activists also took part in the support.

Outside of activists, the occupation garnered celebrity support, as Jane Fonda and Marlon Brando offered their support. Creedence Clearwater Revival donated funds that enabled the occupiers to buy a boat. With all this support, it seemed like the public was on the side of the occupiers, creating a more favorable atmosphere towards the further 200 cases of demonstrations by Native American activists. In terms of the Red Power movement, the occupation helped break the stereotype of the Native American activist as a masculine role. Many of the key activists that worked on the island were women. Grace Thorpe, a Sac/Fox activist and island-occupant, was the reason for the celebrity support; she also supplied the island with generators and an ambulance service. Women ran the daycare, health clinic and the school care system on the island. The national media still overlooked womens’ contributions, often placing the stereotype of the male warrior upon men like Richard Oakes and other leaders. Despite this, it inspired many Native American women to start more demonstrations within the movement, the most famous movement of Wounded Knee being initiated by Native American women. Ultimately, Alcatraz was taken by the U.S. government once again, but the government could not take away what Alcatraz represented. It birthed a movement that continues to fight for Native American rights today. The power of pan-Indianism was recognized, enabling the movement to expand beyond the state level to a national level. The Red Power movement went on to achieve many of the goals it set out to accomplish. By the early 1980s, several laws had been passed to give Native Americans self-determination, religious freedom, and increases in healthcare and education funds. The movement had been inspired by the holding of ‘The Rock’, engendered by a movement strong enough to bring America’s attention to not only the plight of Native Americans but also to the power they possessed.

MODERN HISTORY

The First Intifada by Liam Jackson On the 7th of October 2023, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promised to, “cripple Hamas mercilessly and avenge this black day they have brought upon Israel” in response to the barbarous attacks carried out by the terrorist group against innocent Israeli citizens. But this isn’t just a modern-day issue; the conflict between Hamas and Israel has been playing out for almost half a century, dating back to the ‘First Intifada’ in 1987. The first major uprising of the Palestinian people against Israeli rule in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, this conflict continues to affect Middle-Eastern politics to this day.

in every context, the IDF decided to enact a form of collective punishment onto the Palestinians, including the demolition of houses, in the hope that it would cause the PLO to halt their disruptive actions. While the actions of the IDF may have seriously hindered the potential of the PLO to cause major damage to the State of Israel, the long-term consequences were an enraged Palestinian population less likely to compromise on peace arrangements and an increased diplomatic pressure exerted on Israel by its allies. Excessive media coverage meant that global audiences could witness these events firsthand, and in turn split the opinions of the world into those who supported the Israelis Ever since the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, there has and those who supported the Palestinian plight. been a never-ending series of conflicts between the Arab states and the new Israeli state. The First Arab-Israeli War (1948-1949, Although these clashes had a major impact on the lives of both Israeli victory), the Six-Day War (1967, Israeli victory), and the Israelis and Palestinians at the time, the bigger implications of Yom Kippur War (1973, Israeli victory) all created massive ad- the First Intifada were the long-term consequences. Since the ministrative issues with territory changing hands constantly. As PLO now knew that they could make a big disruption and gain a result of these conflicts, the Arabs living in newly occupied Is- an international audience through their violent tactics, this stratraeli territory were homeegy was reused again in less; some had decided future confrontations. to leave during the war Understandably, the while some stayed during more violent one side the wars and were evictbecomes; the more ed from their homes. Not violent the other side only were many left withbecomes to retaliate. out a home, but those It was for this reason, who stayed faced huge among others, that the economic hardships First Intifada caused compared to the rest of the world to step up the State of Israel. Povtheir attempts to stop erty and high unemploythe conflict and save ment plagued the Gaza innocent civilians from Strip and the West Bank being harmed. The first in the 1950s and 60s, and major attempt at peace with peace negotiations was the Oslo Accords failing between the two in 1993 mediated by sides, a more proactive Norway to create a form of resistance was pathway towards peace required. The Palestinian in the region. At the Liberation Organisation time, many viewed the (PLO) was formed in 1964 to unite all factions of the Palestinian accords as a success. The PLO was recognised as the repremovements to eliminate the State of Israel and reclaim all the sentatives of the Palestinian people, the Palestinians were given former Mandatory Palestine, which existed as a British colony a right to self-determination, and the Palestinians were given between the years 1920-1948. Tensions built up for years and self-control over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Unfortunateyears until a traffic accident, which included an Israeli truck, kill- ly, these successes were short lived as violence continued across ing 4 Palestinian labourers, and on the 9th of December 1987 Palestinian lands, orchestrated mainly by the more extreme the First Intifada began. movements of the Palestinian cause, namely Hamas. What the Oslo Accords managed to show the world was that there is a pathway towards peace in the Middle East if all sides agree; the Much of the early uprisings by Palestinian civilians were charac- only problem is that no major peace deal has been accepted by terised by low-scale protests, refusal to pay taxes, worker strikes, the Israelis and the Palestinians since. boycotts of Israeli businesses, etc. The development of the uprising into a violent fight against Israeli occupation was really In conclusion, the First Intifada kicked off a violent uprising a snowball effect with both sides ramping up their efforts to amongst the Palestinians living under Israeli occupation which hinder the other side’s chances of success. The Palestinians be- had been simmering for decades up to 1987 and of which the gan to use Molotov cocktails against the Israeli Defence Force consequences are still being felt today. Although attempts have (IDF). In return, the IDF began to use live ammunition against been made to create lasting peace in the region, what events the protestors, which as a consequence caused the Palestinians like the massacre of innocent Israeli citizens on the 7th of Octoto become even more violent and disruptive. The Palestinians ber 2023 show is that there is still a long way to go before both were never going to win a one-on-one battle with the IDF as sides can fully trust each other to create peace once and for all. they had fewer men, resources and land. Due to their superiority

MODERN HISTORY

Spirit and Modernity in the 20th century: The May Fourth Movement in China by Molly Harcourt sance’ was born. Experimental writings, critical political commentaries and iconoclastic essays excoriating traditional values began to be produced: their intellectual legacy remains prevalent to this day. For the first time, study societies discussed and promoted theories from abroad, such as the liberalism of John Dewey and a variety of forms of anarchism and socialism. The written Chinese language had still been in its arcane ‘classical’ form prior to 1919, but a “dead language cannot produce a living creature,” and so a democratising process was enacted in order to promote a more accessible and vernacular version. Why do very few people, in this country at least, seem not to know nor even to have heard of the May Fourth Movement (1919) in China? Coverage of China is ubiquitous in Western media; China’s geopolitical manoeuvres, fluctuating economic growth, and unique political ideology are a source of profound intrigue and criticism amongst social commentators. The events and legacy of the May Fourth Movement, marked in almost every Chinese textbook as ‘the beginning of Chinese modernity’, is vital for obtaining a more holistic understanding of the anatomy of contemporary China. Photographs from May Fourth, 1919, depict several thousand students, men, and women gathered in front of Tiananmen (The Gate of Heavenly Peace), the tremendous entryway to the Forbidden City. The Forbidden City housed China’s imperial rulers for more than 2,000 years until the 1911 Revolution toppled the Qing dynasty and brought forth the establishment of the Republic of China. The demonstrators gathered in outrage over reports about the negotiations underway at the Paris Peace Conference over the terms ending World War I. China had contributed thousands of workers to the Allied effort during the war. However, territories in the Shandong Peninsula, formerly German holdings located in modern-day eastern China, were purportedly going to be transferred to Japanese control. Protestors were in uproar over not only the perceived bullying and betrayal on the part of foreign powers, but also over the corruption of their own military leaders who had failed to protect the homeland. As a result, some protestors turned to violence and burned down a prominent pro-Japanese politician’s home. Ultimately, their central diplomatic goal failed to be achieved: the Treaty of Versailles went into effect in January 1920 and Japan was awarded the territories in Shandong. The 1911 Revolution had abolished the antiquated system of imperial rule, but China’s democratic weakness was a symptom of, according to protestors, the country’s inability to adapt to ‘modernity’ successfully. Chen Dixiu, a leading figure of the movement and a co-founder of the CCP, confirmed this sentiment when he declared that, “in order to advocate [for] Mr. Democracy, we are obliged to oppose Confucianism, the codes of rituals, chastity of women, traditional ethics, and old-fashioned politics; in order to advocate [for] Mr. Science, we have to oppose traditional arts and traditional religion.” The principles espoused by Chen Dixiu were shared by a vast swathe of the population; new periodicals, study societies and political organisations sprang up. The ‘New Literary Renais-

Concurrently, this newly fostered intellectual atmosphere was allowing for one faction of the progressivist ‘New Culture’ movement to flourish: the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Chinese communism, with its anti-colonial and anti-imperialist streak, combined with a renewed sense of Chinese nationalism, and thereby provided an ideological alternative to ‘western style’ democracy that could underpin the nation’s conceptualisation of the future. The cultural renaissance that followed May Fourth served as a fertile breeding ground for what would later become known as ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’; its cultural foundations gave rise to a burgeoning nationalism, but also a new cohort of Chinese radicals. Furthermore, the revolutionary zeal inherent in the ‘spirit’ of May Fourth was invoked, embodied and reclaimed by Chinese students, activists and reformers throughout the 20th century. The prominent cultural critic Dai Jinhua has noted that May Fourth, “shaped the basic model for modern mass movements and for civic disobedience in the public sphere.” The model begins with students gathering in Tiananmen Square, they are joined by Beijing citizens, the movement reaches other cities, workers become involved, and thus a revolutionary scope is reached. Yet, when this model is faced with the response of the Chinese state, a core tension is revealed: students must be an embodiment of enlightened patriotism but remain in the classroom and not shout too loudly. The Wusi ‘spirit’ has been appropriated and embodied by oppositional factions of Chinese political life on multiple occasions. For example, on May 4th 1989, a commemoration of the 70th anniversary of Wusi was held by the CCP inside The Great Hall of People in Tiananmen Square. Political competitors held a rival rally on the plaza, yet both camps claimed the Wusi ‘spirit’. One month later, the People’s Liberation Army massacred approximately several hundreds, if not thousands, of demonstrators in the same spot. In China, this event is referred to as “Liusi Yundong” or the “June Fourth Movement”, echoing May Fourth. During the 1989 Democracy Movement, many student demonstrators saw themselves as the heirs of the Wusi spirit. Western modernisation theory has for decades narrated the events of May Fourth as the beginning of an ascending liberalism in China. It is necessary to break out of this paradigm and see that the legacy and memory of May Fourth has functioned as a vehicle through which students, or protestors more generally, have voiced discontent at authorities within China’s revolutionary, enterprising and brutal 20th century political landscape.

MODERN HISTORY

The Storming of the Capitol: America’s Descent into the Far Right by Larisa Jones On January 6th 2021, following Joe Biden’s election, Donald Trump spoke at a rally where he told voters that if they did not “fight like hell, [they were] not going to have a country anymore”. Fueled by the belief that the 2020 election was ‘rigged,’ enraged Americans, some armed, stormed Capitol Hill. The attack resulted in five deaths and over $2.7 million in damages. Since then, Donald Trump has faced impeachment twice, been arrested and been charged with 97 felonies, including charges related to the inciting of violence on Jan. 6th. The question arises: when did America veer towards the far right, and how did it lead to an unprecedented insurrection? Since Trump’s 2016 election, far-right ideology has been on the rise. It is fuelled by social media, unmoderated against political ideologies demonising minorities and spreading misinformation, and polarises media coverage. Trump sold his Presidency campaign with ‘Make America Great Again,’ leading to comparisons with fascist leaders like Adolf Hitler. As California Congresswoman Jackie Speier Jim Jones once stated, “Jim Jones was a religious cult leader, Donald Trump is a political cult leader”. Throughout his presidency, Trump weaponised the idea of ‘fake news,’ accusing the media of lying and manipulating with ‘woke ideology.’ The hypocrisy in his claims cannot be understated. Trump rallied support by convincing the American public that they were being deceived while repeatedly lying to them in turn. He made bold claims regarding minority groups, including how it was necessary to “build a wall’’ to keep out migrants, whom he claimed were “rapists” and “criminals”. Trump’s campaign for President and his political standing encouraged division, fueling anger against minorities. He perpetuated beliefs that the ‘True Americans’ were under attack and his supporters spread this across the internet, inciting harassment and violence against groups he targeted. Trump’s anti-Mexican rhetoric influenced Patrick Wood Crusius who in 2019 travelled to El Paso, a predominantly Hispanic city, and opened fire in a mall, committing an act of stochastic terrorism inspired by Trump, as made clear in his ‘manifesto.’ He killed 23 people with another 22 injured. Trump’s statement following the attack included a condemnation of “racism, bigotry and white supremacy.” The next day, ‘#WhiteSupremacistInChief’

trended number one on Twitter, highlighting public calls of hypocrisy in Trump’s statement. Social media platforms like 4chan and 8chan are responsible for spawning echo chambers of hate. QAnon, a popular far-right conspiracy movement, primarily uses the internet to spread its ideologies. Donald Trump is at the core of their ideology; he is hailed as a saviour necessary to defeat a “cabal of Satanic, cannibalistic, child molesters”, a belief rooted in anti-semitic conspiracy theories. This new brand of far-right movement, dubbed ‘Digital Fascism,’ involves communication in online spheres, including social media, online forums, and far-right news channels. It is especially dangerous for new generations growing up with the internet. However, America has a longer history with the “Them versus Us” propaganda than just the past two decades. During the Cold War, in their ‘hunt’ for communists, Americans were encouraged to turn against anyone they believed could be a communist, triggering suspicion between neighbours and friends. Even before the Cold War, evidence of politicians encouraging discrimination was prevalent. After all, who could forget the treatment of Native Americans, or the enslaved African Americans, and post-Civil Rights segregation? In the United States’ Declaration of Independence, it was written that “all men are created equal”; and yet, since the country’s birth, US politicians have routinely returned to division tactics to inspire votes. 2024 will see another American election. The campaigning candidates do not inspire a vision of a left-leaning, or even centre-leaning, political atmosphere. Donald Trump has promised to make a bid for re-election, despite failing to do so in 2020. Other candidates include Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who has come under fire for passing controversial far-right laws. Arguably, the rise of the far-right in America has yet to reach its peak. With Neo-Nazi demonstrations from the ‘Proud Boys,’ state laws restricting inclusive curriculums in schools, and the continued harassment of minorities, one pressing question for the future remains: when and how will America break free from its descent into the right?

MODERN HISTORY

Exploring The Divide Of India And Pakistan With Reference To Relevant Rebellions And Uprisings. by Myra Haq Once home to the flourishing Indus Valley Civilisation and encompassing one of the most fertile regions on Earth, Punjab in South Asia is home to over 140 million people. Punjabis also make up one of the largest ethnic groups in the world and have large diaspora communities in Britain, the USA and Canada. Punjab has seen the armies of Alexander the Great, Ghaznavid garrisons, Mughal militaries and the British Raj. It is this complex history that has created a distinct Punjabi culture: it is a fusion of Indian, Arab and Persian traditions and religions. ‘Punjab’ comes from the Persian ‘Panj-Ab’ meaning ‘[Land of the] Five Waters’. These are the rivers of: Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Sutlej and Beas. During the Partition of India in 1947, the region was split into Pakistani Punjab and Indian Punjab. By examining the two halves of Punjab, one can see the tale of determination, struggle and resilience which forms the modern Punjabi identity. Pakistani Punjab forms the larger half of the wider Punjab region. It was a part of the vision of the All-India Muslim League, headed by politician Muhammad Ali Jinnah and poet Sir Muhammad Iqbal, both barristers of Lincoln’s Inn. The idea was to have a separate, Islamic nation state for the Muslims of India, who were lacking political representation and whose socio-religious culture was very different to that of Hindu-majority India. Therefore, modern day Pakistani Punjab is characterised by its Islamic identity. Its inhabitants include Sunni and Shi’a Muslims, and other religious minorities, but it’s perhaps best-known for its Sufi culture. The Parliament House in the capital, Islamabad, is where the Pakistani Parliament meets. This region is both the spiritual and political heart of Pakistan. Spirituality and politics in Pakistan often overlap, as is found in the case of former prime minister, Imran Khan. Born in Punjab to Pashtun parents, cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan became the 22nd Prime Minister of Pakistan in 2018. He wanted to revive Jinnah’s vision for Pakistan and set about doing this through addressing the modern issues that Pakistan faced. He encouraged the use of renewable energy, aimed to increase tax collection and sought to address Pakistan’s financial crisis. He led the country through the Covid-19 Pandemic until he was ousted controversially in 2022. Several criminal cases were brought against him, and he was deemed an incapable leader for failing to tackle issues such as the rising inflation rate. However, Khan had already made his mark on the Pakistani youth. Since 2022, scores of Pakistanis have taken to the streets of Punjab, and elsewhere, to demand an end to the nepotism, corruption and feudalism that have caused the deterioration of both democracy and economic stability in their country. They have also campaigned for something else in particular: the innocence of Imran Khan. These protests, marches and calls for change are unlike anything Pakistan has seen in its 76-year history. Across the Attari-Wagah border is Indian Punjab. It maintains a distinctly Sikh identity and is home to the city of Amritsar, the location of the Jallianwala massacre of 1919. During Baisakhi season in 1919, the British, who were losing control of the region, announced a curfew on the city of Am-

ritsar. However, many people still gathered in the Jallianwala garden, some just pilgrims coming back from worship at the Golden Temple. As the day went on and the crowd had increased, British Colonel Reginald Dyer, without any initial peaceful crowd-dispersing attempt, ordered his soldiers to block the exits and shoot at the crowd at Jallianwala. It was barbaric, tragic and a turning point in Indian history. After Jallianwala, Punjabis were not going to remain under British rule, nor would they allow anyone to make decisions on their behalf. After much struggle and strife, the state of East Punjab was born. East Punjab in India eventually became known as just Punjab. Many Punjabi families, particularly in rural areas, earn their livelihoods through agriculture. Land and farming techniques are passed down from generation to generation, and the fertile landscape of Punjab means that many families can be self-sufficient. Farming, agriculture and cattle-herding form a part of the cultural fabric of the region. In 2020, the Indian President signed three controversial agricultural bills. These would have threatened the livelihood of many Punjabi (and Indian) farmers by not protecting them from potential exploitation by large corporations; the bills did not guarantee them a minimum profit in accordance with the Minimum Support Price (MSP) and they threatened the regional business relationships between farmers. So, the farmers, particularly in Punjab, began protesting. There were marches, strikes, sit-in protests, and road and rail blockades. Farmers wanted the acts to be repealed. Tens of thousands of people took to the streets and there was a strong sense of community between the Punjabi farmers. There were even ‘langar’ kitchens set-up to provide free meals to anybody who needed them, as encouraged in the Sikh faith. Unfortunately, some farmers died or were killed during this time. Some decided to take their own lives as their entire identity, community and livelihood were being taken away from them. In 2021, the laws were formally repealed. Punjab is a region physically divided but it is fundamentally spiritually, historically and ethnically united. Throughout history, the Punjabi people have risen in the face of injustice, no matter their religion. Guru Nanak once said, ‘work hard and honestly, always remember God and share with the needy.’ This aptly summarises the underlying principles of Punjabi culture.

MODERN HISTORY

The Arab Spring: How One Fruit Seller Set The Middle East Alight by Aaliah Patel

In the Spring of 2011, chaos and revolts rippled across the Arab world, commonly referred to as ‘The Arab Spring’. The term ‘Arab Spring’ originates from the 1848 revolutions, also called the ‘People’s Spring’, when political upheavals swept across Europe. ‘Spring’ is often used to describe movements against democracy with the Western media leveraging ‘Arab Spring’ in reference to these Middle Eastern upheavals. A humble fruit seller in Tunisia, Mohammed Bouazizi, was at the root of these uprisings against oppression and suffering as he sparked a great revolution in the Middle Eastern world. In 2010, Bouazizi’s vegetable barrow was seized by the police over his failure to obtain a legal permit. In an act of desperation and protest, at a time of deep economic hardship across the country, Bouazizi poured petrol over himself and completed an act of self-immolation. The people of Tunisia became inspired by this act as huge uprisings spread across the country against the government and police. The government attempted to use violence to settle these uprisings but this proved unsuccessful, and the President, Zine al Abidine Ben Ali, was forced to abdicate in January 2011, after a 23-year rule. The unrest had positive outcomes for the Tunisians, and by October 2011, the people participated in a free election and a new constitution began being drafted.

government. Thus, this conflict resulted in improvements in two Arab countries. However, the compromises and relative peace experienced in Tunisia and Egypt didn’t translate the same way across the Arab sphere. Some demonstrations morphed into civil wars as discontent poured through the streets, and the Arabs were met with opposition leading to bloody and violent outcomes. In Libya, police used brutal force to break up the uprisings and though the country’s leader was captured and killed in October 2011 by rebels. Libya found no peace and remains split between rival Eastern and Western-based administrations to this day. Syria and Yemen, are also impeded with power struggles and inadequate, weak infrastructures. Only in 2019, did Tunisia experience a peaceful transfer of democratic powers, becoming one of the first Arab countries to do so. Between 2018 and 2020, a second wave of Arab Spring uprisings grew with the fall of four more rulers, however, it remains a long-term revolutionary process.

The altruism of this fruit seller quickly inspired surrounding countries as people in neighbouring Arab countries also rose up to resist corruption and poverty in their lands. Arabs across the Middle East sought social freedoms; in Cairo, thousands of Egyptians protested against their president, Hosni Mubarak. As the number of protestors rose to millions, Mubarak resigned and handed power over to the military, leading to the formation of a new

MODERN HISTORY

Recent Protest Movements In India: The Farmer’s Protest And The Anti-Caa Protest by Ishan Tripathi

If you were to ever ask any political or social commentator in India about the possibility of the whole country being ruled by a single despotic ruler, the chances are that you would get a resounding ‘NO’ as the answer. We are too diverse for any single ideology to convince each and every part of India. As Amartya Sen points out in his book, The Argumentative Indian, your average Indian is too argumentative to not question, dissent, resist, or rebel. Dissent is an inevitable facet of Indian life, a practice present in the very moral and social fabric of India. Protests and rebellions are customary in the country, so much so that one of India’s most recognisable monuments, the Jantar Mantar observatory in New Delhi, is now synonymous with demonstrations and resistance. The two protests at the focus of this article are the 2020–21 Indian farmers’ protests and the 2019-20 Anti-CAA-NRC protests. Not only was the nature of the two rebellions very different, but the consequences and after-effects of the two were also almost diametrically opposite. The 2020-21 Indian farmers’ protest was a year-long protest against the three farm bills, which aimed to limit governmental control in farming and open up agriculture for private investors. This meant the removal of state protections for farm produce (which were already considered insufficient and unsustainable), and enabling the private players to buy the produce directly from the farmers. This meant these players could dictate the selling prices and control the farmers’ fate. The bills led to nationwide agitation from the farmers. There were calls for ‘Bharat Bandh’ (nationwide shutdown in India) and ‘Rail Roko and Dilli Chalo’ (Stop the trains and march to Delhi). Following this, huge processions of farmers headed to Delhi, where they were restricted from entering the national capital. They camped around the borders of the city, enduring the use of tear gas and water cannons, and the roads dug-up by the police forces. Farmers accused the national media platforms of maligning them because they tried to portray the protests as ‘anti-national.’ Politicians, including several key members of the ruling party, BJP, were involved in the propagation of news, which later turned out fake. Soon, the government had to succumb to the mounting pressure (and the fear of losing the upcoming polls in Punjab and Uttar Pradesh) as they repealed the three farm laws. Repealing the farm laws marked the protest as perhaps the most famous and relevant example of non-violent resistance in modern India, even as dozens of farmers died from the summer heat, the chilling cold of Delhi, and the deadly second wave of COVID-19.

However, the first wave of COVID-19 consumed another significant protest across the country; the Anti-CAA-NRC protests of 2019-2020. The demonstrations were held to oppose the discriminatory Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which amends the India Citizenship Act to accept migrants who are Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Parsi, Buddhist, and Christian from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, neglecting Muslims, along with Sri Lankan Tamils, Rohingyas from Myanmar, and others. Additionally, the bill was called the ‘anti-poor bill’ because many of the slum-dwellers in India, along with massive populations of India’s homeless, could not have fulfilled the requirement to provide citizenship documents to be recognised as a citizen of India. The protests that followed the bill’s passing were exemplary and, in many ways, unique; protestors read aloud and highlighted Article 15 of the Indian Constitution at the protest sites, and also deployed creative comics and illustrations. ‘Hum Dekhenge’ (We Will See) by the legendary Pakistani poet Faiz, and poet Varun Grover’s ‘Hum Kaagaz Nahi Dikhaenge’ (We will not show our NRC papers) became the anthem of the protests. The BJP-led NDA government responded by using ‘lathi charges’ (baton charges), mass arrests, Internet shutdown, curfew, transport restrictions, water cannons, and imposing bans on assemblies. Several protestors were detained for defying the ban. Charges of sedition along with the draconian UAPA were imposed on them, with the prominent arrested figures being Umar Khalid, who has been in jail for more than three years now without any trial, Safoora Zargar, a pregnant student who was jailed for more than two months, Natasha Narwal, Meeran Haider, and many others. Different human rights organisations slammed the central government for multiple violations of human rights, as the infamous attacks on some premier educational institutions like Aligarh Muslim University and Jawaharlal Nehru University dominated the headlines. The methods adopted to stop and silence the CAA protests were chilling, to say the least, and their effect on demonstrations and protest participants in India has been enormous. Democratic spaces are shrinking in India, and its champions like Khalid are still awaiting trial after three years. One can only try to not lose hope for a more liberal, secular, and inclusive India and cling to the words of our great poet, Shailendra:

(tr. Four more days of grief, four more days of torture, These days shall also pass, as did thousands before them Someday, the spring will beam down upon this garden, too, If there is a heaven somewhere, bring it down to the earth.)

MODERN HISTORY

The Tang Ping Movement: Why Are China’s Young People Choosing To ‘Lie Flat’ ? by Lucy Mortell Five years ago, Luo Huazhong made an important discovery: he loved doing nothing. After quitting his factory job in Sichuan Province, he biked over 1,000 miles to Tibet and found he was able to survive on odd jobs and his savings of $60 a month. Luo’s post on the internet forum Baidu Tieba, entitled “Lying Flat is Justice”, described this way of life. As Luo put it, “I have been doing nothing and I don’t feel like there’s anything wrong”. Before long, the post had gone viral and captured the attention of both China’s youth and the government. The idea behind ‘Tang Ping’ is simple: advocating for the movement expresses a desire for personal autonomy and freedom from societal expectations, prioritising personal happiness and fulfilment over external markers of success. They seek a more harmonious balance between work and leisure, challenging the societal expectations and pressures placed on young individuals. This message has struck a chord with large parts of China’s young and disillusioned workforce, which has been hit especially hard by the national economic slowdown, intensified by trade tensions with the West and the COVID-19 pandemic. A generation ago, hard work, marriage, and children were seen as a route to success in China. Enforced by its authoritarian leaders, this system was viewed by many as a fair compromise for lifting millions out of poverty. This was followed by years of being force-fed Xi Jinping’s “Chinese dream”, a rose-tinted piece of propaganda which promised a bright future for the Chinese nation. This dream became especially difficult to swallow for the millions of workers who faced the ‘nightmare’ of the 996 schedules in China; a culture of overwork: 9 am-9 pm, 6 days a week. Now, many young Chinese fear that they may be the first generation to not do better than their parents. Tangping comes in the wake of an increasingly high-pressure environment for young people, a demographic which has grown up under the one-child policy and who are expected to work longer hours than their predecessors; a community twice as large, who are retiring more and more. Even before entering the corporate world, students must flourish in China’s notoriously rigorous and competitive education system. Many urban high school students attend classes six or seven days a week, from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. During the school day, they engage in tutoring, prepare for tests such as gaokao, and do home tasks like food preparation and dishwashing in addition to spending time doing group activities. Given this highly intense, structured life it’s no surprise to see the growing turn towards a slower pace of life. The desire to exit the ‘rat race’ is without a doubt gaining traction, but analysts warn this concept may struggle to become widely adopted, particularly since authorities feel it goes against ‘communist values’. President Xi declared in 2018 that, “the new era belongs to those who work hard,” and “happiness can only be achieved through great endeavours.” The government has targeted the ‘lying flat’ movement as a threat to China’s social and economic stability. Indeed, Mr. Luo’s blog post was removed by censors, as well as any mention of ‘lying flat’ being heavily restricted across Chinese media. Yet, it is not only corporate efficiency that the Chinese powers

are concerned about. Economists and social commentators suggest that a flat Chinese economy could impact consumption, growth, and lower the birth rate, which is already consuming the country’s demographic dividend and threatening its social welfare system. Prolonged inactivity in China is causing concerns among psychologists and doctors, who warn that it can lead to life-threatening physical and mental disorders, such as heart disease and depression. Dr Gavin Chiu Sin-hin, an independent commentator, believes that, “if it becomes widespread, [lying flat] will affect young people’s expectations of income growth, consumption, marriage, and childbirth, which will be detrimental to China’s ability to avoid the middle-income trap where growth stagnates and incomes stall”. The lying flat social narrative has been redirected by authorities using all available tools. State news companies have labelled Tangping as “shameful”, warning against “lying flat before getting rich.” Well-known educational services billionaire Yu Minhong urged people not to “lie flat,” because “otherwise who can we rely on for the future of our country?” To channel the energies of the younger generation, the government has also promoted entrepreneurship and innovation. Policies were introduced to support startups and technological advancements, offering alternative paths to success beyond traditional career routes. Today, Luo Huazhong lives with his family, passing his time by reading philosophy and news, and going to the gym. He expresses satisfaction with this lifestyle, saying it allows him to have a minimalistic way of life and to, “think and express freely”, encouraging followers of the movement to do the same. In the face of growing government opposition to his ideals, Mr Luo remains committed: “those people who say lying down is shameful are shameless” he said. “I have the right to choose a slow lifestyle. I didn’t do anything destructive to society. Do we have to work 12 hours a day in a sweatshop and is that justice?” The Tangping movement has prompted international discussion about the pressures faced by the younger generation and has been received with a mix of caution and monitoring by the Chinese government. With this in mind, it remains to be seen how the government will reconcile its shrinking economy with a population that wants to ‘lie down’.

MODERN HISTORY

Do You Hear The People Sing? by Gaurav Matai

In October 2023, when the cast of the iconic play Les Misérables performed at the Sondheim Theatre in London, they launched into their famous protest song, ‘Do You Hear the People Sing?’ as a part of their act. But what happened after that was entirely unscripted. The stage was abruptly taken over by activists from the Just Stop Oil movement as their t-shirts and banners proclaimed, while they chanted to the audience to ‘join the rebellion’. This is not the first time an event has been disrupted by an activist. In more popular news, activists have tied themselves to the goalpost during a Premier League match, disrupted play at The Ashes test match at Lord’s, interrupted a Wimbledon tennis match, thrown soup over Van Gogh’s Sunflowers, glued themselves to another Van Gogh, and so on. Just Stop Oil’s ploy to shift international attention to climate change has worked, and isn’t this the core of a successful rebellion; to get mainstream recognition for their narrative? Other modern movements, such as Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Extinction Rebellion (XR), have also done so. In the case of BLM, they started with a hashtag on Twitter (now X) in 2013, and steadily rose in popularity over the years. Their mission was to call out police brutality against black people, and garner online traction towards the growing pattern of systemic racism. Now they had proof. Pictures and videos shot guerilla-style made their way onto the internet, fuelling the conversation. Black Lives Matter reached new heights in 2020, when a black man, named George Floyd, was killed by a police officer in custody. Videos surfaced online showing how the white police officer kneeled on the neck of Floyd until he stopped breathing. This sparked a national outrage of epic proportions. Protest marches, rallies, and candle marches were held day in and day out. Pictures and videos of protests flooded social media in no time. It amplified the narrative that BLM had been preaching for years. BLM became bigger than online public discourse; it became a national political discourse. Similarly, we have seen a different group called Extinction Rebellion (XR), which has been using online discourse to aid its narrative of climate change. They have used social media to garner support and drive action for various protests. They blocked crucial roads and bridges, causing major traffic disruptions, disrupted London Fashion Week and House of Commons proceedings as a part of their movement. There have been endless rebellions and revolutions in history, where the oppressed have demanded change from their oppressors through various means of free speech. The issues that the groups are trying to tackle are age-old, systemic issues that have seen many rebellions rise and fall. Just Stop Oil is vocal about climate change, demanding that the UK government end new licences for developing fossil fuels in the UK. Similarly, XR is calling for government action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025. BLM is focused on its goal of making America anti-racist, giving black people a larger share of voice, and most pertinently ending the police’s random acts of violence against the Black minority. These are issues that have seen countless resistances in the past. Since the 1970s, protests against climate change have occurred every few years, such as the Earth Day protests in 1970, which made us turn off our lights for an hour on a pre-decided day in the year, and massive Kyoto protests after the US abandoned the Kyoto Protocol, an amend-

ment by the United Nations in its Climate Change framework to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Every UN summit since then has sparked a protest, such as the Copenhagen protests, the People’s Climate Marches, and the Global Day of Action. While substantial progress has been made on the awareness front, real acts of change have been swept under the carpet. The US has even had a president who called climate change a ‘hoax’. For the BLM, systemic racism in the US has persisted since the 16th-century, bubbling potently into the American Civil War in 1861. The country has undergone substantial change since then. Now, it’s on the cusp of another major change with BLM leading a strong, unfettered voice of Blacks against white supremacy. Extinction Rebellion calls itself a civil disobedience movement, and it has accumulated an influential amount of clout for it. This effectual social concept was popularised by Mahatma Gandhi’s Salt March against the British in the 1930s, where he famously marched for 385 kms from Sabarmati to Dandi, gathering (literal) followers in protest of the highly-taxed, expensive salt being forced upon Indians, despite the British growing it in India. Gandhi’s philosophy of satyagraha, i.e., non-violent protests, finds its way into almost every protest or act of rebellion, since Gandhi. The peace and love of a satyagrahi (one preaching satyagraha) was also deeply embedded in John Lennon’s philosophy of life when he sang songs and protested the Vietnam War in the United States. To see these concepts find their way back, albeit with new vigour, new ideas and new media, makes it somewhat promising to hope for a positive change. Like the Van Gogh painting doused in soup, or hands glued to Da Vinci and the House of Commons. Even the pulsating hashtag activism of BLM. Today, everyone has a voice. How one uses it differently makes people stand up and ‘Hear the People Sing’.

MUSIC AND FILM

“Don’t Tell Me, I’ll Tell You”: How Nina Simone’s Mississippi Goddam Reshaped Music as Resistance Culture by Rory Bishop

The 1960s were a period of cultural radicalism. During the civil rights era, counterculture became prevalent. From the hippie movement to London’s Notting Hill Carnival, cultural expression emerged not simply as a means of voicing oneself but also as a form of protest. Civil rights and music culture in America were notably intertwined and expressed in a range of genres such as folk and gospel through the voices of those including Jamila Jones, Pete Seeger and Mahalia Jackson. Martin Luther King Jr. would acknowledge songs of freedom as “playing a strong and vital role in our struggle” and their importance in establishing “a radiant hope, in the future, particularly in [the] most trying hours.” A key player in popular music was songstress Nina Simone. Her song Mississippi Goddam was the first of her many protest songs, but arguably also a defining aspect of the civil rights era, not only because of its popularity but also due to its radical and intersectional redefinition of the aims of the movement. According to Ruth Feldstein, the song was effective because it, “challenged principles that are still strongly associated with liberal civil rights activism in the period” and dismissed calls for ‘gradual’ racial harmony in favour of radical change. Simone’s relationship with cultural activism had always been a close one. “I don’t think I’m just out there to entertain,” she once remarked. At age 12, she acted in defence of her parents who were forced to inferior seating during a recital of hers, boycotting the concert until they were moved back to their original seats. Mississippi Goddam, however, marked a watershed moment in her career where her output became increasingly explicit in its social commentary. Mississippi Goddam was written in response to the murders of Emmett Till and Medgar Evers and Alabama’s 16th Street Baptist Church bombings of 1962 and 1963. The opening lines “Alabama’s gotten me so upset, Tennessee made me lose my rest, and everybody knows about Mississippi, goddam…” express an unrestrained rage in response to ongoing racial inequality and racialized violence. Throughout the 1960s and into the 1970s, Simone continued to change these opening lines in response to contemporary events. In 1968, on the occasion of Martin Luther King Jr.’s murder, she changed a line to “Memphis made me lose my rest”. The most biting line, however, was that which addressed her view of more moderate civil rights activists. She complained, “do things gradually, too slow… But bring more tragedy, too slow”. Simone rejected the non-confrontational passivity of other supposed protest songs like We Shall Overcome, and distinguished herself as one of the defining cultural expressions of the era.

The song’s controversy followed Simone for much of her career. Even the use of the word “goddam” was a major point of contention and she spoke openly about the detriments it had on her success. In 1970, she moved to Barbados for an extended period to avoid a warrant for her arrest which was put out after she had refused to pay tax as an additional point of protest. J.E. Baumann identifies Mississippi Goddam as, “not simply a song that preached for militant action” but “a song that demanded civil rights for all through whatever means available”. Simone was not the first to question the effectiveness of gradualism, but she was one of the few musicians who actively rebuked it. References to cotton picking additionally characterise Mississippi Goddam as a postcolonial song. Its contents acknowledge the civil rights movement as a continuation of abolitionism in the face of ongoing racial oppression in spite of concurrent decolonisation. Simone’s life was continually fascinating. She dated Barbadian Prime Minister Errol Barrow, released over 30 albums, and her real name was Eunice Waymon. However, in spite of her other protest songs, including To be Young, Gifted and Black (1966) and Old Jim Crow (1964). Mississippi Goddam remained Simone’s most potent political work. It has been covered by Andra Day and lyrically referenced by St. Vincent. John Legend quoted Simone in his 2015 Oscar speech, and Jay-Z’s sample of her songs has made its way into several of Obama’s often controversial playlists: allegedly, Sinnerman is one of his top ten workout songs. Culture and civil rights were fundamentally intertwined and inspired one another in these periods of racial activism. Malcolm X went as far as to claim that music was, “the only area on the American scene where the Black man has been free to create”. Simone’s work is notable due to its radical tone, but it was also part of a new and growing canon of protest songs. Following Simone’s tradition, Bob Dylan and John Coltrane wrote on the same murders that are protested in Mississippi Goddam in their songs, Only a Pawn in Their Game (1964) and Alabama (1963). These works showed a necessity for culture in creating a breadth of reach in a time of political dissent. The legacy of Simone’s radical and intersectional musical activism continues on in the music of Lauryn Hill and Janelle Monae. Works like Mississippi Goddam show the significance of how culture does not just have the power to voice protest, but also to engage and inform contemporary discourse.

MUSIC AND FILM

Can rock and roll artists, like Bowie, Jagger and Lennon, be considered ‘rebels’? by Isabella Brown

David Bowie morphed from character to character, challenging every norm along the way. In his most iconic stage persona, as Ziggy Stardust, he stated that he wanted “to tart rock up.” Aladdin Sane was his next, often remembered for his lightning bolt portrait on the album cover. He courageously defied all gender binaries in his hyper-sexual and androgynous style in the early 1970s. But Bowie’s next alter-ego, the Thin White Duke, was not all sunshine and rainbows, or rather, lightning bolts. First appearing in his album cover, Station to Station, in 1976, he was a shell of Bowie. A cocaine-fueled controversial character who lived off of milk and peppers; so unbalanced that he kept his urine in the fridge so that “no other wizard could use it to enchant him,” he was certainly unconventional. Instead of the iconic provocative imagery of his previous characters, he described the Duke as “a very Aryan, fascist type.” Dressed in black and white, bleached blonde hair and gaunt-looking, it was a sad sight. This time, rebellion for Bowie meant opposing democracy. Hitler and fascism were his newest passions. Rock Against Racism, a political and cultural movement, was an alliance of dub-reggae and post-punk music. Formed partially in response to his comments, Bowie was excluded from this musical revolution. It had markedly different values from him at the time, as he attested that Hitler was the “one

of the first rock stars”. He went from associating rock with ‘tartiness’ to equating stardom with Hitler’s leadership. After moving to Berlin to escape the hedonistic lifestyle, which he had lived under the guise of the Duke, he then changed again. This transformation was marked in his Berlin Trilogy of albums in the late 1970s. Raf Simons, the designer, attests Bowie’s ability to change character was inspirational, explaining he was “a chameleon, able to reinvent himself.” Bowie, as embodied in his various personas, was someone who escaped all binaries. But at what cost? These characters gave him freedom. Freedom of gender expression, yet also the freedom of a scapegoat. His comments surrounding fascism have been largely disregarded, attributed as the Thin White Duke speaking. For all his style and self-expression has done for the LGBTQ+ community today, his Nazi leanings were used by the National Front as celebrity endorsement of their beliefs. Yes, substance abuse may explain, but it cannot excuse his inflammatory comments. It seems with Bowie it’s not just a case of separating the art from the artist but separating each of his characters from one another. We have a lot to thank for Bowie, but perhaps his reputation as a ‘rebel’ is more complicated than often acknowledged.

MUSIC AND FILM

Conscientious Collaborator: An Analysis of Resistance and Rebellion in Hacksaw Ridge by Carter Price

Films are a highly impactful form of media, transporting the viewer into a new world and returning us to our rightful place in time minutely altered. Films inspire and provoke emotions and dreams in the audience through their complex themes and real-world understanding. This is even more true when films are based on true stories like that of Mel Gibson’s 2016 film Hacksaw Ridge. The true story of the American war hero Desmond Doss is brought to life through an incredible cast and an accurate portrayal of Desmond’s heroics. Doss is an unlikely war hero, however, because he is a ‘CO’. A Conscientious Objector to war and all forms of violence, Doss does not believe in taking the life of another human or in violence as a pathway to peace. Doss is often described as crazy, strange, and cowardly throughout the film as he resists peer and legal pressure from the American Military, who aggressively insist he must carry a weapon. Doss continues his rebellious attitude on the battlefield, saving lives as a combat medic while refusing to fight the enemy directly. When asked to pick up a rifle during combat training, Doss refuses to touch the weapon or any other object meant for destruction. The sergeant and captain attempt to get his fellow soldiers to turn on him and bully him out of the military by having group punishments for false accusations and orders disobeyed. In one scene, a fellow private attempts to bait him into violence by teasing Doss; however, he refuses to hit him back. He stays strong after a beating from his battalion and does not reveal those responsible to the sergeant as a display of trust and camaraderie. He remains true to himself in the face of immense peer pressure and instead commits to peace and amity. When this peer pressure fails to break Doss, the military attempts to have him dishonourably discharged and placed in a military prison for disobeying the orders of a superior. With help from his father, a veteran of WWI and a high-ranking colonel, Doss is freed and allowed to enter the war without bearing arms. A military court judge states, “Private Doss, you are free to run into the hellfire of battle without a single weapon to defend yourself”. Doss’s resistance to conforming to the violent hegemonic powers that surround him, pressuring him to become a thoughtless killer, enables him to remain committed to saving lives as a medic. Upon arrival on the battlefield, Doss and his battalion are continuously warned of the Japanese soldiers and the hell on earth that is Hacksaw Ridge.

In the film’s second half, Desmond’s heroics on the battlefield save seventy-five men, although Doss claims it was 50. During the battle on Hacksaw Ridge, the Japanese push back the Americans and Doss and his battalion are ordered to retreat. Doss disobeys this order and stays behind on the battlefield, recovering wounded men camouflaged by the darkness of night. Repeating, “please, Lord, help me get one more”, Doss saves the lives of dozens of injured soldiers. A particularly poignant moment in the film is when Doss comes across his wounded sergeant on the battlefield, bunkered behind a tree. Under fire from the Japanese soldiers, we see Doss touch a weapon for the very first time in the film. Doss uses a rifle and a sheet to create a makeshift sled for his Sergeant, who cannot walk. Running under fire from the Japanese, Doss saves his sergeant from certain death without having to harm another human. Until this moment, Desmond has rejected weapons and sworn against touching one. His entire journey to the battlefield was a fight with his superiors, who had the sole purpose of forcing a gun into his hands. When Doss finally grabs a weapon for the first time, it is used creatively to save a life rather than to take one. In the film’s final battle scene, the captain, who once held no respect for Desmond, stalls an attack. He tells Doss that he has gained immense respect from his fellow soldiers who once sought to force him to leave because of his beliefs. Those same soldiers do not want to go into battle without Doss by their side. His Captain tells him, “the men believe in how much you believe, and the others want a piece of it, and they won’t go up there without you”. Doss had become a beacon of hope and light in an otherwise bleak world because of his unwillingness to conform to the military’s expectations of him. He becomes a hero or, in his own words, a Conscientious Collaborator. Desmond Doss’s journey from an outsider in military training to a Medal of Honor recipient is rooted in his resistance to killing another person and his rebellious attitude toward the greater war. Upon returning home after the war, Desmond is the first CO to win the American Medal of Honor, a medal for bravery under gunfire. Hacksaw Ridge is an inspirational tale of resisting the status quo and staying true to one’s faith. Released in 2016, this film remains highly influential when considering the current events in the world today. Desmond Doss and his actions are moving and encouraging to everyone as we can carry his message forward: violence and killing do not answer the questions of peace.

DON’T THROW ME AWAY, PASS ME ALONG.