US Caucuses: So What's Bernie's deal?

With American caucuses on the way, the public is undoubtedly curious of the candidates' pasts. Many claims have been made by the candidates about their history and life altering events, a lot of which, unsurprisingly, have been proven to be false.

Bernie Sanders, a candidate for the Democratic Party - who instead identifies as being a democratic socialist - made claims about protesting for civil rights in 1963. Sanders spoke of his increasing political involvement during his time at the University of Chicago, where he studied Political Science. He focused, particularly, on his involvement in Congress on Racial Equality (CORE), through which he protested segregated housing in his university.
Sanders' involvement in the Willis wagons(racially segregated housing) protest, and in the civil rights movement itself, has much been debated since then.

However, in late February, Kartemquin Films released video footage online, depicting two police officers roughly handling a young man resembling Sanders, particularly due to the strikingly similar thick-rimmed glasses. (shown on the left - 1963, Chicago Tribune).

Understandably, some claimed that the picture was ambiguous, despite Sanders confirming that the young man was indeed him. In response, Mother Jone magazine released an article about Sanders' past, including the newspaper clipping below, confirming that Sanders was arrested during the protest mentioned. It also states that he was later fined $25 for resisting arrest, as displayed in the photograph above.

In his campaign, Sanders brings focus onto injustices in the US, particularly focusing on a recent social movement 'Black Lives Matter'. This was sparked by the acquittal of a racially motivated murderer, George Zimmerman, and two other racially motivated murders, which occurred as a result of police brutality. Sanders continued to mention, 'as far back as I can remember, and I can't tell you why...but, injustice is something I've always fought throughout my life.'

As a politics student who is upset about these issues, it is greatly comforting to hear a democratic candidate, who has a chance of becoming US president, recognise one of the many big problems in America, regarding race. Not only this, but Sanders has been much more independent, especially with donations for his campaign, unlike his democratic counterpart, Hillary Clinton.

If we look at some claims Clinton has made about her past, such as 'landing under sniper fire' in Bosnia, for which she 'ran with (her) head down' to get to a safe base, some queries have been made in response to this serious event. This is mainly due to the fact that those accompanying Clinton that day described it as being routine, and video evidence disproving her statements was released. In this clip, she was greeted by a group of people, including a young girl, who read her a poem and then kissed her.

Much to the great shock of those questioning Clinton, she later retracted her words, regarding them as a mere misstatement. Clinton then said, 'So I made a mistake. That happens. It shows I'm human.' I completely see where Clinton is coming from, just the other day I mistook a group of primary school children for an assassination squad shooting down at the public. It's an easy mistake to make.

However, despite all of this, it pleases me to see that no one has had any doubts whatsoever about Mr. Trump's 'small loan of million dollars' claim.

SN

The Abdication Crisis

On the 20th January 1936, Edward VIII became King of England after his father, King George V died. Later that year, on the 10th December he abdicated - having not yet been crowned - in a speech to the British public saying: "I have found it impossible to carry the heavy burden of responsibility and discharge my duties as king as I would wish to do without the help and support of the woman I love."

In 1931, a friend of Edward's, Thelma Furness, introduced him to an American woman named Wallis Simpson at a party in London. Simpson was then in her second marriage after having divorced her first husband to be able to marry her second, Ernest Simpson. Following that meeting, Edward and Simpson proceeded to have a serious relationship. When Edward ascended to the throne in January 1936, it was assumed that this relationship would end. However, the pair were seen together on a Mediterranean cruise that summer. It then became clear that they intended to marry. But the match was not approved of by either the Church of England, the government or many Britons. Simpson had been divorced once (twice after she divorced Ernest Simpson in October 1936) and both her husbands were still alive, it was therefore condemned by many for her to remarry; even more so for the King, who as head of the Church of England, ought to follow their customs. As a result, when Edward announced to Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin that they intended to marry, he was told that the government would not accept the marriage and that the people too would not be happy with Simpson as their queen. So, he suggested three options going forward:

•      Royal Marriage: Edward and Mrs. Simpson marry each other and she becomes Queen.
•       Morganatic Marriage: Edward and Mrs. Simpson marry each other, but Mrs. Simpson does not become Queen and receives another courtesy title instead.
•          Abdication: Edward abdicates and is no longer King. He would then be able to marry Mrs. Simpson without having to think of the opinion of the people and the government anymore.

As Edward was King of Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand and South Africa as well as England, the Prime Ministers of these countries would need to approve his decision. He came to the decision of a morganatic marriage, but this was not approved of by the other governments, so he had to abdicate instead. The Instrument of Abdication was signed on the 10^th December 1936, making Edward the only British monarch who had ever voluntarily abdicated. He became the Duke of Windsor, and his brother George took to the throne. The couple married in France in June 1937, creating a divide in the Royal family. Wallis Simpson was not accepted by Buckingham Palace until 1968.

Edward VIII remains to this day the only British monarch to have abdicated. The sequence of events leading to it however meant that the British public lost faith in the monarch for several years.

AE

A Politics Student's view on the European Referendum

When David Cameron returned from the European Parliament clutching his ‘new deal for Britain’ it seemed to me that the concessions that had been granted were minor and didn’t address any of the real problems that the British people wanted resolving in the first place. The whole renegotiation process seemed to be a pre-arranged charade agreed by EU leaders which aimed to fool the UK public into rejecting Brexit and stay in a virtually unreformed European Union.

Mr. Cameron knows that anti-EU feeling in the country is growing so he has called for a referendum in just 4 months’ time on the 23^rd June 2016. It’s times like these where we will be seeing the establishment whip out any tactic to sway ordinary people in their favour. “EU exit could threaten jobs” and “sterling could lose another 20% of its value” are just two of the many headlines that will effectively scare Britons into voting ‘remain’ and not thoroughly thinking through the consequences of living under a superstate which is, in the words of the late Tony Benn, on board a ‘federal escalator, moving as we talk, going towards a federal objective we do not wish to reach.’.

The British people are faced with a once-in-a-lifetime decision – are we to be a self-governing nation or not? The so-called trading bloc has grown into much more than just an economic community, we are now dealing with a union which is inherently undemocratic and starves its member states of the power they once had. A fundamental principle of the UK’s constitution is the fact that parliament is sovereign. However, as a member of the EU, Britain must take all EU law over the statutory law passed in Westminster or the common law ruled by judges and it all, in effect, comes to nothing if the European Parliament passes a law that is conflicting.

No doubt, over the next few months we will be hearing endless claim and counterclaim from both sides of the argument, but in reality, no-one can know exactly what will happen if we leave the EU. Brexit will offer Britain a key to the rest of the world as we are relinquished from the harnesses of a powerful few at the top of the European food chain. I only hope that the British public will realise soon enough that we are a strong country, ready to break the status quo and once again trade with the whole world on our own terms, especially with the Commonwealth countries who we so shamefully abandoned when we joined the Common Market.  

The issue of ‘in or out’ rises above party politics and isn’t a question of whether you’re on the right or the left, it’s whether or not you believe in Britain and its people to govern themselves. If we do leave, whatever happens afterwards will be down to us to tackle as a sovereign state once more.

JW

 

UN Work Experience

Recently, in the February half term, I had the amazing opportunity to partake in a study visit to the UN. Previously, I had a vague idea of the work and function of the UN, however this experience really gave me a thorough understanding of the UN.

            Each day I – and 36 other aspiring students – attended three or four talks given by members working for the numerous different organisations within the UN. The organisations we visited varied from the UN Refugee Agency to the World Trade Organisation to the International Environmental House.

            It was quite surprising to see the sheer scope and multitude of varying tasks that the UN actually carries out. However, it was quite new to hear of how sometimes the UN can be limited in its responses due to having to be politically neutral as well as needing to be invited by countries in certain situations (for example when setting up refugee camps).

What was equally as surprising was that climate change and its impacts is a pressing matter for the near future. Climate change was featured in nearly every talk. The impacts of climate change include natural disasters that will result in an overwhelming amount of refugees. This really impacted my understanding that climate change is something that we can’t afford to neglect because we think it won’t impact us much here in England (with our already miserable weather). This helped me understand that its consequences will impact every corner of the world on a large scale, both socially and economically.

            Overall, this experience gave me the opportunity to meet many passionate people with different opinions and ideas on current issues. Additionally, this experience helped me gain a deeper insight into the UN – how it has a role and responsibility in so many different things; helping the environment, trading, research on weather and natural disasters, refugees, etc. that I hadn’t previously known or even thought about.

MG

The EU Referendum

As part of the Conservative party’s manifesto, a referendum on the topic of EU membership of the UK will be held before the end of 2017. David Cameron is now suggesting that this could occur later this year. There are pros and cons to both sides of the argument and the opinion polls show that Britain is very evenly divided, so the outcome of this referendum remains unclear. But what would leaving the EU mean for the UK and why is a referendum even taking place?

When it was announced by the Conservatives that a referendum would take place, David Cameron promised that changes within the EU for the benefit of the UK would first be sought. These changes were suggested to target what Britons were worried about with the EU and which led to demands for a referendum in the first place. So, at the EU summit in December, David Cameron asked the other member states for reforms in four areas. These were: that immigrants to the UK from the EU would not be given benefits until they had lived here for four years (this has proved to be problematic, as it requires a treaty change); that individual parliaments of the member states should be given greater control enabling them to block EU legislation; recognition that currencies other than the Euro exist within the EU and that the UK would be allowed to opt out of closer union of the European people. Cameron hopes that a deal will be decided upon in February, but so soon seems unlikely. For one, many of the Eastern European countries did not like that their workers would be paid less for their work than a British citizen and believe that this would be discriminatory.

In the latest opinion polls, it seems that Britons narrowly favour leaving the EU. 40% questioned said that they supported leaving, 38% supported remaining a member, 16% are undecided and 6% said that they would not vote. But why do people want to leave? What are the benefits? Many people believe that the billions of pounds of membership fees for the EU is not worth it and gives us few benefits. Also, groups such as Ukip want the UK to have greater control about the number of migrants coming here to work. One benefit of leaving would be that the rules and regulations decided by the EU regarding trade, agriculture and industry would no longer restrict the UK and more relevant ones for the UK could be put in place. This has been seen previously in Norway and they now have greater freedom in this matter.

However, there are many risks involved with an EU exit, which has been dubbed a ‘Brexit’. It is estimated that this could lead to a 2.2% decline in GDP, as Britain would no longer be able to benefit from free trade in Europe. Therefore, trading overseas could become both more difficult and more expensive. Additionally, a reduce in immigration would reduce the number of workers that employers have to choose from, most of whom are keen and help to fuel economic growth. Nick Clegg argues that 3 million jobs depend on Britain’s involvement in the EU. Others believe that a ‘Brexit’ would lessen Britain’s military influence and general status in both Europe and the world.

I believe, however, that the greatest risk in leaving the EU is that there is no clear plan of what would happen if this occurs. It is all fine to say what is bad about the EU, but Britons are not able to evaluate the alternative, as there isn’t really one yet. We have been a part of the EU since 1973, and we shall have to wait for the outcome of the referendum, to see if we will be for much longer.

AE

What exactly are the gun laws in the USA?

Following the recent shootings in San Bernardino, USA where 14 people were killed by a radicalised couple, I realised that I was not really aware of the gun laws in the country. Surely not just anyone can own a gun and carry it with them all the time? Also, why has no change be proposed to them as the number of shootings seems to be rising so quickly?

Essentially, any American citizen over the age of 18 is allowed to buy a shotgun or rifle and once they are over 21, they can also buy and carry a handgun. Some people cannot own a gun, these include: convicted criminals, people with mental health illnesses, drug addicts and army veterans who left under dishonourable conditions. However, there is a notorious way for the above-mentioned to still get hold of a gun, this is known as the ‘gun show loophole’. The buyers of a gun are not checked at a gun show and so anyone of the right age can buy a gun here. Similarly, many mentally-ill people who really should not be able to own a gun are not registered in this way by a court and so most are still able to get their hands on one.

Individual states’ policies vary hugely though. For example, the states of the District of Columbia and Florida ban all carrying of guns in public, whether open or concealed. They are among only five states to do so. But Oregon allows these for all who own a gun, so long as they have a permit.

This ‘right’ to own a gun comes from the Second Amendment of the US Constitution of 1791. This stated that: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Americans take this to mean that every individual has the right to own, carry and use a gun.

Whilst gun lobbyists claim that stricter gun laws would only make the population less safe as only criminals would be armed and there would be no method for self-defence, there is a clear relationship between ownership of guns and gun-related violence. In the US, 117,000 Americans are shot every year and 33,000 of them die from their injuries (that’s 101.13 per million of the population). 270 million guns are owned by US civilians. In contrast, in Britain in 2012, there were 640 gun-related murders – only 10.43 deaths per million of the population – due to there being only 1.8 million legal guns in Britain. This clearly shows that the greater the number of guns in a country, the greater the number of murders by shooting.

Contrary to what I expected, as the number of mass shootings in America has risen, the public’s support for stricter gun laws has declined. A survey taken every year where the same question is asked – do you favour or oppose stricter gun control laws? – found that in 1989, 65% of Americans favoured the stricter laws, but this year the public was evenly divided. Herein lies the reason why imposing more gun laws is not a priority for the government and is rarely addressed in presidential campaigns, it is simply such a divisive issue and one which will gain a party few votes. Additionally, pro-gun groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Gun Owners of America (GOA) are extremely influential and wealthy, so politicians fear that arguing against these groups will lose them support.

In 2013, Obama proposed to Congress that all buyers of a firearm should require a background check (including by private sellers, which were exempt). This was strongly rejected. It is believed, on the other hand, that even if this law had been approved, that nothing would have changed. Due to the system where it is up to states themselves to decide their gun laws, a change in national law would not have had much of an impact on the gun laws of individual states.

This surprises me, as it seems clear that increasing control on guns would be a very easy way to reduce gun crime – including mass murders. It is more difficult to carry out the killings themselves and a petty dispute would not lead to death.

AE

Mao: Hero or Villain?

McDonnell brandishing Mao's 'Little Red Book'

"We must learn to do economic work from all who know how. No matter who they are, we must esteem them as teachers, learning from them respectfully and conscientiously. But we must not pretend to know what we do not know."
-Chairman Mao

The image of John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, quoting Chairman Mao's 'Little Red Book', and subsequently throwing it at George Osborne has sparked controversy amongst many.

Although McDonnell has stated the stunt served only to prove a point about the Chancellor selling £5 billion worth of British public assets to China and said it was a "self-deprecating joke" (after having been accused of being too left-wing), the "joke" fell flat and backfired on the Labour politician.

This is because the historical context of the book is far more unsettling than McDonnell perhaps realises. He merely said, "yeah of course and I condemn all that” when confronted on BBC News about how Mao is responsible for 20 million deaths in China (although the actual death toll may well be up to 78 million).

These deaths were primarily caused by starvation, due to ill-fated policies such as the 'Great Leap Forward' into modernisation in 1958, which aimed to rapidly industrialise China through collectivised agriculture, yet actually backfired and caused the economy to shrink and 20 million people to starve in the Great Chinese Famine. The 'Cultural Revolution' followed in 1966, and aimed to reassert Mao's power through the destruction of any capitalist or traditional elements still remaining in Chinese society. This involved the closing down of schools, the ransacking of historical sites, and the Red Guard's public humiliation and arbitrary imprisonment of anyone suspected of opposing Mao.
  
Yet it is not only the vast number of deaths blamed on Mao that created such a negative stigma around McDonnell's actions, but the insensitive reminder that it caused for many Chinese of Mao's tyrannical regime, epitomised in the form of the 'Little Red Book'.

Children holding the infamous book

I asked an ex-Chinese citizen about his experience of growing up in Maoist China in the 1960s and 70s, who said "as soon as I entered primary school, I had to learn the entire Little Red Book from cover to cover. The first words I ever learned to write were "long live Chairman Mao". If you dropped a newspaper with Mao's image on, and just so happened to accidently step on it, you could be persecuted...we didn't know anything about the outside world".

This event, however, has also sparked conversation as to how terrible Mao truly was for China, Diane Abbott (another Labour politician) recently stating that Mao "did more good than harm".

In China, Mao remains an untouchable icon, and the Chinese government has said Mao's legacy consists of "70% effective revolutionary, 30% bad governance". Another defender of Mao (who wishes to remain anonymous) has said that "Westerners like to demonise Mao, and often look past his many achievements". He did, admittedly lead the country out of countless civil wars and foreign invasions following the fall of the Qing Dynasty, promoted equal rights for women and raised Chinese life expectancy from 35 to 65.

So was Mao a hero or a villain? The answer is most likely both. He was an idealist whose poorly executed plans led to the loss of countless lives, and whose power and fame eventually corrupted him. Yet his regime arguably laid the foundations for his successors to build China's economy to its current towering height. McDonnell's "jocular" statement serves to highlight how unaware people are of Chinese history and how something so seemingly innocuous as a book can actually embody a period of history characterised by decades of famine, failure and a ruthless personality cult. In Mao's own words: "Lifting a rock only to drop it on one's own feet" is a Chinese folk saying to describe the behaviour of certain fools."

LB

Meeting Nicky Morgan

At Bridge Club this morning, Nicky Morgan and Rebekah Brooks joined a bright array of knowledgeable women to discuss the ever-present issue of gender equality, principally in politics, and the devastating effect open sexism in the media has on it.

Nicky, who joined the conservative party at the age of 16 and has since become the Secretary of State for education and Minister for Women and Equalities in 2014, began by declaring how politics is about people, how they live and what makes them tick. Women can be just as successful, if not better, at sussing these things out- naturally we have great empathy and therefore flourish in building up relationships within constituencies.  Yet inequality is still unmistakable in the majority of professions nowadays, although Nicky wishes to change this.

Unsurprisingly, juggling motherhood and a significant role in politics means Nicky and her family face frequent difficulties in everyday life. Nevertheless, this doesn’t prevent her from prospering in her career, despite the fact she’s a woman working in a cabinet of 75% males. In saying this, women can’t always assume the role of the victims; we must help ourselves by pushing our limits rather than accepting second best. It’s not solely up to men to eradicate sexism- we can’t simply wait for it to fade; we must be the devices used to rub it out.  Nicky then explained how, when asked to apply for a chief position, it’s part of women’s nature to presume they don’t acquire the desired qualities to fulfil that role. Whilst men would view having 3 out of 10 characteristics in an ‘at least I have 3’ manner, women would steer in the opposite direction, fretting about the 7 they lack. Women need to be more poised and assertive in themselves and their abilities, highlighting the importance of inspirational women role models, such as Nicky Morgan, in today’s society.

Moreover, Parliament needs to reflect the country they are trying to represent, hence why David Cameron is adamant in aiming for both one third of the cabinet to be female by the end of his office, and to completely eliminate the general pay gap in the next generation. The question is how do women rise to, and remain on an equal level to men? Understandably, women can’t run the country without men, but Nicky expressed the solution as involving knitting more women into the agenda. Gone are the days when men would only help men and women only helped women; integration is key when it comes to boosting equality in politics and ultimately boosting equality in aspects of life.

Rebekah Brooks, CEO of News International, then raised the debate is the media sexist, to which Nicky modestly replied with ‘inevitably’, summing it all up. This needs to change. After being editor of The News of The World when illegal phone hacking was carried out, Rebekah’s bore a very turbulent past with the media, and voiced her belief that elements of what she’s undergone has been due to her gender. As a result, a lot of media coverage puts women off going into politics, especially as we’re more conscious of our appearance and intelligence than men, thus sexist media undoubtedly disheartens many budding women politicians. Sadly, sexism is deep-rooted in all forms of media, including online and broadcasting- there seems to be no escaping it. For this reason, Nicky cited the need for a much more systematic approach to spotting young talent and creating pathways to guide the youth, so skill isn’t clouded by fear of bigotry.

From Nicky’s point of view, the lack of women in the hierarchy of politics is not down to the public. In fact, local women really love to see women in their area taking charge in politics- there’s clearly no issue with public appetite. Conversely, the Tories admittedly need to work on parties that select infrequently. This may contribute to the end goal of increasing the number of able women with authority in politics as soon as possible.

NT

London Mayoral Hustings

As the London mayoral election approaches it is time for each of the parties to choose who their candidate will be. I recently went along to one of these hustings to see the Conservative candidates that could become mayor. Each of the candidates were surprisingly different despite the obvious crossovers in policies. The four candidates that had been shortlisted for the mayoral candidate were Zac Goldsmith, Syed Kamall, Andrew Boff and Stephen Greenhalgh. Each of them was different with Andrew Boff towards the right of the Conservative spectrum and Zac Goldsmith the clear favourite amongst the supporters. It was interesting to look at how each of them prepared themselves as this was not a normal hustings. Each of the four candidates had a 3 minute opening then a 15 minute interview with the same questions asked to each one. Although it did not supply as much excitement as the usual kind of hustings it allowed the audience to come up with their own conclusion on the performance of each candidate.

Stephen Greenhalgh was the first of the four candidates to speak and his track record put him forward as a likely successor to Boris Johnson. He has previously worked as deputy mayor so his experience in the sector is well justified. However, his nerves were clear to see and the least competent speaker of them all. He may be a very good politician but not necessarily the best at being the front man for the Conservatives in London. Despite this he did make some excellent points on the current housing crisis with a suggestion towards using GLA and TfL land for a “right to build” scheme. This was much like the plans of the other three candidates. Each of them recognised that housing is a big issue to Londoners and that at least 40,000 homes need to be built every year with great success than previous years.

Andrew Boff was the next candidate out of the green room and gave an impression much like the new labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Andrew went for a more casual look with a non-matching suit without tie in order to appear more relaxed. To myself and a few around me it just seemed scruffy. However his message was opposite to Corbyn and a very right wing candidate. In looking at terrorism and how to combat it in London Boff wishes to knock down unused administrative buildings and reinvest in the policing system. He believes that if the police are asking for more resources such as guns then they should be given it automatically. I understand that he means if the police need something for their jobs then they should get it but his point seemed quite controversial. Each candidate seemed to suggest an increase in policemen on the beat but failed to give statistics and goals. Zac Goldsmith and Syed Kamall suggested that London was a target for terrorists and that we need to start from the grassroots to prevent citizens of London from going abroad to support terrorist groups.

Zac Goldsmith was the obvious favourite for those in the room as the introduction showed. His policy against another runway at Heathrow has made him popular with the green party as well as those in the local area who have to live with the noise of the planes from Heathrow. Goldsmith has a clear popularity with those in his constituency as well with his majority increasing in the last election as well as a majority in a referendum that allowed him to become a candidate for mayor. Air pollution was one of the main topics that appeared and his statement was that the congestion charge does not help the situation with air pollution as it just simply reduces congestion, so an increase in price would not help those around. It would instead lead to more people becoming frustrated with the current Government.

Finally Syed Kamall enthused with energy appeared on stage to round off the night. He was the candidate that surprised me the most, his passion was sincere and his points unique and valid. He suggested that crowdfunding could help to expand cross rail so that those who would potentially use it can invest to help to make it happen faster. Furthermore he would introduce a referendum on a Thames Estuary airport to make flying easy for London businessmen and residents. What struck me most was his plans on the environment. He courteously complimented Boris Johnsons’ work on an ultra-green zone as the other candidates did throughout their interviews. However, he mentioned the use of Zip Cars to reduce emissions as well as the improvement of electric car facilities. This consisted of an introduction of standard car batteries which could be swapped at charging points so that an empty battery could be placed in and a full one taken away.

Each of the candidates clearly want to be the next mayor of London and their desire for that comes through. One aspect that I did not expect was the criticism of the Labour candidate Sadiq Khan whom they each called a machine politician and I certainly did not expect this towards all Conservative voters. All Conservative party members now have the opportunity to vote for their favourite candidate and hopefully the results will be appearing in the coming weeks. I don’t usually look into the short list for each party but it was quite interesting to see the different choices for each party and I very much look forward to the debates between parties once all the candidates are chosen.

SB

This article was written before Zack Goldsmith's selection as the Conservative candidate.

Pompeii's victims didn't suffocate

Plaster cost of a body at Pompeii known as the muleteer. This cast led historians to believe that the victims asphyxiated, as he appears to be covering his nose and mouth from the fumes.

For many decades, historians have accepted the theory that the victims of Pompeii asphyxiated due to the toxic fumes emitted from the volcanic eruption. This was believed to explain why the casts of the victims’ bodies often depicted them seemingly holding up their hands to cover their nose and mouth. But, a relatively recent study carried out by Dr Peter Baxter from the University of Cambridge suggests otherwise. He believes that the victims instead suffered from ‘thermal shock’. This occurs when humans are exposed to temperatures above which they can survive at (above 200˚C). Here, a person’s muscles and body tissues greatly shorten, so that they are then permanently fixed in that position even after death. This creates a ‘boxer-like’ pose which is known as a pugilistic attitude, that several of the body casts at Pompeii possess and which led Dr Baxter to question the original theory.

Tests were carried out by scientists upon the proposition of this new idea. Ancient bones from Pompeii had a yellow colour. Modern bones were heated to high temperatures between 250 and 300˚C, upon which these too became a pale yellow colour, proving that the victims of Vesuvius’ eruption were subjected to these temperatures. This temperature would have come from the direct heat of the pyroclastic surge combined with the heat from the ash and killed the victims extremely quickly (within a second). Therefore, they would not have had time to suffocate from the ash.

Dr Petrone is another historian who disagrees with the theory of death by suffocation. He discounts this because: ‘the typical body posture of a suffocated person is a floppy body, mostly standing in an unnatural position, just the opposite of the ‘life-like’ stance of most of the victims found in Pompeii.’

This plaster cast displays a pugilistic attitude, leading Dr Baxter to suggest that the victims of Vesuvius did not die from asphyxiation.

AE