Sunday, 25 January 2015

Egyptian Revolution



Four years ago today, violent demonstrations started in Cairo sparking the ‘Arab Spring’ which was to hit the rest of the region. The protest was the first coordinated demonstration in Egypt and was against poverty, unemployment, government corruption and most significantly the thirty year rule of President Mubarak. Egyptians were inspired by the success of the protests in Tunisia, as the president - Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali – was forced to flee the country.

The demonstrations in Tahrir Square, Cairo (and other cities in Egypt) were at first just peaceful protests until the police and demonstrators clashed and led to violence. Over the many days of protest, there were thousands of casualties and many arrests. The government blocked internet access and mobile phone communication in an attempt to stop the demonstrations, which were organised on social media. But they continued nonetheless. On the 29th January, Mubarak appointed a new cabinet hoping to appease the demonstrators, but did not step down. It was not until 11th February after 18 days of demonstrations that he resigned as president, causing widespread celebrations across Egypt. The military were now in charge.

An election was held between 28th November 2011 and 11th January 2012, but fraud was suspected and the results were discarded. Egyptians finally got the democratic presidential election which they had been fighting for in a two round election process in May and June 2012. Mohammed Morsi was the winner of these elections and stayed as president until July 2013 when he was overthrown by another uprising. The military were put in charge once again and remain in this position today.

As part of the ‘Arab Spring’ there was also unrest in Algeria, Libya, Yemen, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, Bahrain, Iran, Morocco, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Syria.

Today, Egyptians commemorating the 2011 uprising are protesting in Tahrir Square and 11 people have been killed so far. 

AE

This timeline from The Guardian gives an interesting overview of the Arab Spring.

Tuesday, 20 January 2015

Democracy Day



Today is the 750th anniversary of the meeting of the first elected Parliament, organised by Simon de Montfort. You can read more on the story here:


 

Students also may enjoy this “History of Parliament in 60 seconds” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Yr1Dj8jKv8 and the BBC are celebrating “Democracy Day” today, assessing how democratic the UK is and comparing it to democracies around the world, which links neatly to some of the ideas from Ms Hartley’s assembly this week. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-30734123


 

Friday, 9 January 2015

Cromwell's Second Rise - The 'Wolf Hall' Phenomenon


Mark Rylance as Thomas Cromwell, in the BBC's upcoming adaptation (source)
With our TV listings this January jam-packed with Tudor dramas and documentaries, and new editions of Mantel’s books hitting the shelves, it seems that Thomas Cromwell is rising as fast and high in 2015 as he did in Henry VIII’s day. Cromwell has had his fair mix of good and bad press in historical dramas (as shown in Tracy Borman’s  recent article here) but it’s Mantel who’s really captured the public’s imagination.
Now, I’m fairly new to all this hullabaloo. His reign was what first got me interested in history, but for a long time, I avoided Henry VIII like the plague, thinking that he’s overrated and very ‘popular history’. It wasn’t Thomas Cromwell, or even Wolf Hall, that brought me back, shame-faced, into the Tudor fanbase, but now that I’m here, I’m buzzing about the upcoming BBC series, based on Mantel’s writings, as much as anyone else.

Discussing her books, Mantel has stated that what she writes is fiction woven around the facts, but that she tries to keep it as accurate as possible. That said, pinpoint historical accuracy is now being plugged as the Unique Selling Point of the BBC series. Both Mantel and director Peter Kaminsky have said that they envisioned it being filmed almost as a documentary from Cromwell’s point of view, and Dr Lucy Worsley has walked away from the set with her only criticism being that Jane Seymour (played by Kate Philipps, image here) is ‘too pretty’. (Dr Worsley’s article is here.) All this historical hype really does beg the question: how much should we trust the series?

I’m willing to take Dr Worsley’s word for it that the practical details are accurate (the costumes, ceremonies, use of cutlery, the state of the lawn, you name it), but having read Wolf Hall and seen both of the RSC productions, and I think it really does depend on the script and how the actors tackle it. Having seen him in various productions, I’m confident that Mark Rylance, playing our scheming Master Secretary, will deliver, and that Mark Gatiss’ Stephen Gardiner will be every bit as scathing and grandiose as the real bishop’s prose. Claire Foy, in her French hoods and stunning gowns, has already won me over as the ill-fated Anne Boleyn.
The problem is, I had the same compliments to make about the RSC production. It was stunningly acted. Yet there was something amiss. Mantel’s books capture the essence of most of the characters brilliantly, with just enough exaggeration to make them memorable. (How else is a casual reader to remember which Thomas is which? One quickly labels Cromwell, Wolsey, More, Howard, Boleyn and Cranmer as Our Tom, Cardinal Tom, Honest Tom, Old Tom, Monseigneur Tom and Quiet Tom.) The problem with the RSC production is that when you take away the subtleties of Mantel’s work, condensing two books into six hours, they quickly become caricatures. Lovely caricatures though they be in some cases, figures like Norfolk, Suffolk and George Boleyn really do draw the short straw. (Poor George always seems to draw the short straw, no matter who writes him. And his wife, for that matter.)
The thing is, the RSC production seems to have been aiming for comedy, in the first play at least. The BBC service isn’t. I worry for characters like Thomas More. His portrayal in the books is certainly no Man of All Seasons, and has drawn a great deal of criticism. I’m no expert on More, but I do like to see one who is less than saintly. In the RSC’s Wolf Hall, he comes across as incredibly harsh and self-centred. In the books, on the other hand, I feel a great deal of sympathy for him. The TV series is likely to bring some of that sympathy across, seeing as Margaret Roper – More’s much-loved daughter, who did not feature in the play – has been cast, but it will largely depend, I think, on the directing.
Ben Miles and John Ramm as Cromwell and More in the RSC's Wolf Hall (source)
On the other hand, I do know a fair bit about Thomas Cranmer, and I find it difficult to fault cautious, candid, politically naïve scholar we see in Mantel’s books. (One thing I will say though, to add to Lucy Worsley’s criticism of the TV casting, I am disheartened to see a bearded Cranmer at Anne Boleyn’s coronation (image here) when the unwritten rule was that good Catholic priests were clean-shaven. Only a minor niggle.) Giles Taylor’s interpretation in the RSC production was certainly endearing, but would probably look incredibly out of place in the BBC drama, and it could be difficult to get Cranmer’s subtle personality across without the aid of Mantel’s prose.
I think this – the removal of Mantel’s prose – is what’s most dangerous about both the RSC and BBC productions. Without the subtleties of her writing, and the brilliant insight we get into Cromwell, her flaws are much easier to notice. The misinterpretations of some of the Boleyns will be that much clearer, and other characters may be reduced to mere shadows, or villains, or saints. This is inevitable with any editing project as large as this, but in a production that has prided itself on its historical accuracy, it does set off a few alarm bells in me.

Where I think the strength of the TV production lies is in Cromwell himself. Rylance has shown himself willing to find the threads of comedy in everything in the past, tragedies included, but I trust him to play this part straight. What we get, therefore, is a Cromwell who still remains mysterious to us, who still begs us to ask whether he looks like a murderer. In Bring Up the Bodies (the book), when Cromwell is playing the ruthless schemer, we know him well enough to consider him as our ruthless schemer, and I think the TV series will help to bring that edge back.

I might post something once all six episodes have aired, but these are my thoughts so far.

Of course, the Tudor hype this January doesn’t begin and end with Wolf Hall. Tomorrow (the 10th) at 9pm on BBC2 we have David Starkey teaming up with Lucy Worsley to present Britain’s Tudor Treasure: A Night at Hampton Court, to celebrate 500 years of the palace by reconstructing Edward VI’s christening. We also have documentaries later in the month about accidental Tudor deaths and Hans Holbein. Even if you don’t buy into historical fiction and period dramas, there’s still plenty to watch!

V.G

Tuesday, 6 January 2015

The General Election Campaign begins!

As it is the first General Election that is being held since the Fixed Term Parliaments Act of 2011, we know when the next election will be - 7 May 2015.  This means that the campaigns have already started, as you may have noticed when reading the news yesterday.  At Nonsuch, we will be holding a mock election which will give everyone the chance to vote for a party within school so you will need to be informed.  The links below will whet your appetite and get you thinking:








Wednesday, 5 November 2014

US Midterms



The US Midterm elections took place yesterday, and the results are now coming in thick and fast. The news is not good for the Democrat party, and there is now a clear Republican majority in the Senate, and a gain of at least 13 seats in the house. There are lots more details on this here in the New York Times, which has some excellent maps, some helpful graphics here in the Guardian, and all the data you would ever need here at Real Clear Politics

Berlin



Here is a fascinating article from the BBC about Berlin, to mark the 25th Anniversary of the wall coming down on 9 November 2014. It examines how Berlin has changed since then, becoming more united in many ways but still retaining some distinct differences between East and West. One of the most famous of these was taken by NASA, noting how West Berlin mainly has white streetlights, while East Berlin has retained its sodium yellow ones.

You may also enjoy these photographs taken on 9 November 1989, this attempt to retrace the route of the wall, this "secret history" of the Berlin Wall, and this article about the significance of Berlin in the Cold War, the last two both from "History Today".

Tuesday, 30 September 2014

Shakespeare's England


Here are some of the sources which today's talk on Shakespeare's England (for Nonsuch Literary Week) was based on:


If you find any further useful sites, please let us know and we will add them to the list!

Monday, 29 September 2014

Why did Obama win the 2012 presidential election?
Year 13 Politics Group decide

Many articles (USA Today, Real Clear Politics, CBS News for example) have been written about Obama's victory in 2012 but what really made the difference? 

Thursday, 25 September 2014

Your name is Mud!


So the last time I came across this phrase was back when I was 10 and reading ‘Horrid Henry’; not exactly the most common phase used today but there was a really cool legend behind the phase that I was told as a bedtime story by my Godfather.
So, as we know, Abraham Lincoln was shot in 1865 by a man called John Wilkes Booth. Lincoln was attending Ford Theatre to see ‘Our American Cousin’, a comedic play. The police guard, William Crook went across the street for a drink and during the 3rd act; Booth entered the box and shot Abraham Lincoln in the back of the head with a derringer. As Lincoln lay unconscious, the assassin tried to make an escape and leapt down below onto the stage, a breaking his left shin. Nonetheless, he hobbled backstage to where there was a saddled horse waiting. John Booth galloped away with a fellow conspirator.
As time went on, Booth could no longer ignore his pain, despite the large quantity of whisky he had downed. He made his way to the house of Dr Samuel Mudd. Where he tended to his leg at 4am. Mudd was apparently weary of the men and ‘although acquainted with the men’ he testified that he did not recognise Booth went setting his leg right. As the assassins slept in the house while the doctor went out the next morning. This is when Mudd learnt of the death of Lincoln and ordered the men off his property.
Dr Samuel Mudd was convicted of being a conspirator. The evidence against him was ambiguous and historians have argued his case. He has since been pardoned.
So this is the origin of the phrase ‘Your name is Mud’.
Unfortunately not.
Disappointingly enough, it is a coincidence that the surname of the doctor is ‘Mud’ as the phrase which means’ You are unpopular’ can be traced back to the 16th century to describe things that were ‘pointless and polluting. It was used in 1703 to describe lower class people.
So it was just a coincidence, I was a little disappointed when I found out that the Booth and Mudd story was not the origin but I suppose I can deal with it…

A.C

Friday, 12 September 2014

Stalingrad


This book covers the operations and attacks during WW2 between the German and Russian sides with a detailed account of the hardships that the Russian soldiers faced and the brutality and extremism of the Red Army among its own men. After reading this book you understand how incredibly important loyalty is to Stalin and the Red Army as a whole with even the slightest deterrence from their own side and they would be executed as a result of taking part in “anti-Soviet activities”. To replace those that died, civilians would then be brought in with no uniform so would have to scavenge off dead bodies to gather up suitable clothing for the harsh winters. However, it was not just Stalin’s rule that was intense, Hitler himself was constantly cautious in anything he did, even down to eating, where he would have another person try everything before he consumed it as to be cautious of poisoning. Overall the novel highlights the longevity of the attack on Stalingrad and it is made evident the draining effect that the battle had on the German Army as a whole after the SIxth Army were bled dry and why it was such an important event in the overall outcome of the war.  

CL