Review: Chichester Record’s Office

In this blog update I am going to briefly describe my recent visit to the Records Office at Chichester in West Sussex. I will explore some of the pros and cons of this visit as well as answer why the record offices are so useful to historians studying their local areas/regions.

To begin with it is worth mentioning why I travelled to this records office in particular considering the shorter distance that the records office at Winchester is for me. For my university assignment I needed to explore the reasons behind the increase in crime levels in the counties of Hampshire and Sussex in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. I had previously visited the Winchester records office for this purpose and decided to go further a field for more primary source information. After about 45 minutes on the train I reached Chichester and about 20 minutes later I had walked the record office (thanks to Google maps, though it was not that difficult to find). Similar to the Winchester Records office I show my readers ticket and was given access to the store of records that Chichester held. This I felt was convenient because it meant that I did not need to sign for a new ticket, just use the one from Hampshire. I had a rough idea of what I was looking for, mainly cases of smuggling and reports of incidents relating to the Swing Riots of 1830. As I looked through the records that I had requested, a very speedy process just to mention, I began reading through the sources. In the end I found that not all of the sources that I ordered were entirely of use but that’s to say they were not of interest. Some of the Swing Riot accounts were very useful as well as the sources relating to the national population and crime convictions.

By far the best aspect of the visit was the helpfulness and friendliness of the records office staff. They helped me find the sources that I required and even offered to send me photocopies of sources that they held at a separate building in Chichester. They also showed me sources that I did not think were held there such as the A full and Genuine History of the Inhuman and unparalleled murder of Mr William, A Custom Officer and Mr Daniel Chater A Shoemaker, By Fourteen notorious smugglers with the trials and execution of seven of the bloody criminal at Chichester (1749). There were some cons to the visit but they were only minor. Problems such as unreadable texts within letters and reports and not being able to find the sources that would tell me what I wanted to find were foreseeable. There was also the problem that some of the sources that I required were elsewhere but the information that I found more than made up for that. Overall it was a very useful visit that provided more primary sources for research as well as bolstering the evidence that I already had from Winchester.

With the increase in research for local studies and history, record offices are treasure troves to any seeking to uncover their family histories and local history. They too often have many sources that have never been investigated and offer another perspective on the historical past. Whilst they may not be the most enjoyable places to spend your time, they are both quiet and comfortable places to do research in. To summarise, the visit to the records office at Chichester was both productive and helpful in expanding my knowledge of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

American land policy on the American-Indian Frontier

In this week’s blog update I am going to discuss the policy of the United States towards the Indians of North America in the years around and after the American Revolution or American War of Independence 1775-1783. America by this stage was made up of colonies belonging to various European states such Great Britain, Spain, and France neighboured by numerous Indian Tribes that generally had a good, if at times unstable relationship. As the Anglo-American colonies started to break away and revolt against the British, the Indians were also brought increasingly into conflict with the two sides. Whilst the American’s wanted the tribes to stay neutral, the British were actively encouraging tribes to raid settlements along the American Frontier.  Most tribes joined the British as they saw the Empire as a lesser of two evils, who could hold back the growing tide of settlement advances on Indian land. However the American’s won their independence and as a result the Indians would need to deal with the new American government in the hope of controlling the settlement plan.

The settlement policy for American Indian land had for the previous century been that of purchase by the imperial government for the land from the Indian nation that it belonged to. It was generally agreed that the land in North America was held by the American Indians and only to be acquired if the it was rightfully sold to a buyer. However there were ways around this such as private land buying that went past the government and went directly to the Indian land seller. In 1763 under the British represented government a law had been brought through that banned the purchasing of land by private buyers. This view was held until the ending of the American War of Independence when it became a symbol of British oppression and halted the expansion of settlement into west America. In the eyes of the American colonies the American Indians were defeated alongside the British and their land would be taken as reparations. As the colonists were no longer bound by the 1763 proclamation they could buy land privately, though the ideas concerning the Indian land ownership were being hotly debated. It was stated that if the land became government held then the speculators (private buyers) would have nothing to buy. Whereas if the land could be directly bought from the Indians, it could be bought cheaper and quicker than if the government intervened. 

This pattern continued through most of the 1780s due to the political climate and speculators high influence within the various states government. The first few years after the Revolution would proof difficult for the various Indian tribes who saw their land confiscated for their part in a war that they wanted no part of. The land had been confiscated but still needed to be bought to claim ownership. The settlers had to an extent always wanted to take the land from the Indians and the result of the American war could justify the taking of land as compensation. The war against the British had been, if not more so a war against the American Indians and the ‘goal of freedom from British rule could be superseded by the goal of freedom to settle on Indian land.’ [1] The push for more land and expansion in the American west was pressuring many to follow the needs of speculators to buy up land at cheap prices and then resell it to settlers at a profit. The pre-constitution government was too weak to stop any of the private buying from going ahead; ‘The Revolution contributed to the new land policy … by giving birth to new units of American government that were desperately short of cash, by increasing the political power of land speculators and western settlers, and by removing the restraining hand of the imperial government’. [2]

This is not to say that the Indians did not want to sell parts of their land. For many the trade of parts of their land in exchange for supplies and mechanical and agricultural expertise was a fair one. In most exchanges however this was not the case. Indians were often left without their goods or were undervalued hugely for how much the land was actually worth. The aggressive land policy from 1784 to 1786 did not help the relations between the colonists and the American Indians. For example the treaties for the land were often forcibly signed and in many cases the private buyers would seek out any member of the tribe and buy the land, regardless of the position in the American Indian nation’s hierarchy. It was near impossible for the boundaries between the American settlers and the American Indian nations to be kept to as settlers moved in Indian lands without permission and caused further problems.

There was an attempt in 1787 to again remove the private buyers from the equation as the expansion into Indian lands was gaining the attention of the government. As they saw it, it would be both cheaper and safer to buy the lands gradually from the Indians than expand quickly and risk open war. The British were still present in America (mainly in Canada) and should the American Indians head for war, the British would surely join in. The 1787 proclamation therefore made it law that land could only be purchased from the American Indians through the American government. However again the western advancement took priority and the American Indian’s land was slowly but surely bought by the settlers. In the 1790s it would seem that the new American government was doing what the speculators were doing but on a larger scale. Land was being bought up quickly by the American settlers, with the American Indians being forced into tighter spaces with less useable land and less hunting space.

The American land policy towards the American Indian’s can therefore be seen as a continuous westward expansion that took into regard the ownership of land but not its value or worth to the native population. Laws and proclamations were passed with little effect as land was being sold quickly to feed the settlement that moved further west from the eastern states. The land purchases appear to have been successful despite all the damage that they caused. There were just enough land purchases at a time to keep most settlers content whilst not causing war with the American Indians. However, ultimately the American Indians were the groups to lose in the long run, not only did they find themselves being forced out of their lands but there appeared to be no solution to stop the growing tide of American and European settlement.

[1] Stuart Banner How the Indians lost their land (Harvard, 2005) p122

[2] Ibid., 113

Sources

Stuart Banner How the Indians lost their land (Harvard, 2005)

Angie Debo A History of the Indians of the United States (Oklahoma Press, 1970)

The Imperial frontiers of the Roman Empire

In this week’s blog post I will be investigating the Imperial frontiers of the Roman Empire from the first to fifth centuries AD. I will be looking at the placing of the frontiers, what constituted a frontier and how successful they were at keeping the enemies of Rome at bay. The Roman Empire expanded from western and central Europe in the North West to the lands in the east of Egypt and Parthia. These territories, built up over hundreds of years needed protecting and a well placed natural or man-made bounder was the most efficient solution compared with the large costs of a standing army. Though first we must ask what it is meant by a frontier in general terms. On the one hand they kept the Empire together and ensure the protection of its citizen in the event of an attack. However they also kept ‘others’ out both physically and psychologically. A wall, a hedge or even lines painted on the ground can be a boundary intending to keep someone out and asserting ownership over an area of land. Simply, a boundary told a person where their land stopped and where someone else’s began. These boundaries also needed to be visible and to have a meaning in their construction. The construction and impression of a boundary presents an image of power and security, one such picture that the Roman Empire achieved in their control of the lands in the Empire.

Firstly, where were these frontiers placed? The most impressive and well known Roman frontier lies in the north of the Empire at Hadrian’s Wall. The Emperor Hadrian ascended to the Imperial seat in 117 AD, with the death of his predecessor Emperor Trajan. It was under Trajan that the Empire’s expansion reached its height and it was Hadrian’s decision to begin consolidating these areas. Whilst the Britons had largely been subdued over the last century of Roman conquest, the Celtic peoples still fought with Rome in northern England. Raids by the Picts presented a constant danger to the Roman citizens and legions based in Britain and therefore it was decided that a wall should be built to consolidate the edge of the Roman World. Running for 80 Roman or 73 British miles (117 km) and with a height of 7-10 ft, Hadrian’s Wall was finished in 124 AD with various forts and stations soon built afterwards to bolster its defence. From this example it is clear that the frontiers, at least in the north of the Empire, were built at the limits of Roman control. Supported by varied and uneven terrain the Wall in the north served as boundary for the Empire until Rome’s retreat from Britain.

Frontiers could also be placed where no artificial boundaries could be placed and the natural elements and landscape could serve as a defence. In the south east of the Empire, the deserts of Africa served as the limits of the Roman Empire. With Egypt annexed under the reign of Emperor Augustus around 30 BC, the Empire now controlled a vast wealthy area of land with the Nile River at its centre. However apart from a few cohorts and forts inside Egypt, the province was lightly guarded. As it was mainly accessible through the Mediterranean and up the Nile, its protection handled by the Imperial Navy, and surrounded on land on most sides by the Sahara desert, Egypt and the rest of Africa was well defended in the south. Whilst I have only briefly looked at Egypt, the desert frontier protected the Roman Empire’s African interests without much difficulty. Derek Williams hints at another reason why the edges of the Roman Empire were loosely defended, that of internal dangers. The Empire had been wrecked beyond counting from civil wars and by placing fewer soldiers and their commanders at their limits; they could hope to limit the number men seeking to elevate themselves when not under the eyes of their superiors.

Therefore both natural and artificial defences constituted a frontier for the Roman Empire and they both served as a way of controlling who entered and left the Imperial territories. Depending on the time period and the political setting, the Roman frontiers generally held against those who would seek to attack Rome. What was crucial to the frontiers success however, was for the Empire and those who administrated it to remain focused on its defence. This was a difficult motion to continuously follow as the various civil wars were played out, with one emperor replacing another prove. Whilst the frontiers held the Roman Empire together another process was occurring that in many ways secured, not just the Roman world but the Latin world, when the Empire eventually fell. Romanization unified the cultures and peoples within the Roman Empire under central laws, religions etc and served to protect the ideas that held Rome up for over five centuries. The frontiers were a success because they allowed this process to flourish as each border was a meeting point between one culture and another. Alongside this boundaries trade flourished and the Roman way of life was spread further than any frontier could hope to extend to. Therefore, whilst the frontiers served as images of power and spectacle for the Roman Empire, they really stood and represented the very limits of Roman control. As a cost effective means of protecting an incredibly large and culturally diverse Empire, the Roman frontiers serve their purpose to maintain the Empire’s coherence. The extent of the Roman Empire, roughly 4,000 miles, means that there was more than I could handle in this blog post so my apologies but I hope this has been interesting for our blog readers.

Sources

Derek Williams, The Reach of Rome, A History of the Roman Imperial Frontier 1^st-5^th Centuries AD (London, 1996).

Stephen Johnson, Hadrian’s Wall (London, 1989).

A brief look at the history of the toothbrush

In this blog update I will be briefly looking at an ordinary object that all of us use on a daily basis, usually two to three times a day (at least that’s what we’re told to do) can you guess it? It’s the toothbrush! This invention left everyone smiling with amazement and this will be the theme for my blog post.

Whilst many people associate toothbrushes with the modern day supermarket versions, toothbrushes began early in history as nothing more than the end of twig. Indeed around 3,500 to 3,000 years ago Ancient Egyptians and Babylonians were using the ends of twigs as toothbrushes with evidence of this shown alongside their remains in their tombs. To many these early forms of toothbrushes have been termed chew sticks.  The Chinese too had a similar method of cleaning their teeth and created the first bristle toothbrush in the late fifteenth century. These were created by using bristles from the necks of pigs and attaching them to a bone or bamboo handle thus creating a pre- teeth cleaning device. This idea was adapted by Europeans when contact became more fluid between China and the Middle East and then Europe though the Europeans replaced the pigs bristles with the softer horse hairs and occasionally used feathers.

The modern versions of toothbrushes started to take form in the following centuries. Whilst France took the lead in promoting the use of the toothbrush in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Englishmen, William Addis of Clerkenwald, created the first mass-produced toothbrush in about 1780. The design at this point was very similar as it was still constructed from pig’s neck bristles and the handle was still made from animal bone, though in 1844 the toothbrush evolved with the first 3-row brush. An American company called H. N. Wadsworth also began mass producing toothbrushes in 1885. Another American company, the Florence Manufacturing Company of Massachusetts was the first to box up toothbrushes. Up to this point, the toothbrush had relatively few changes it would not be until the twentieth century that the device would become beyond doubt modern.

The next stage of toothbrush development was in 1938 when the old style of brush was replaced by first nylon bristle toothbrushes. Nylon toothbrushes were invented by Dupont de Nemours and were quickly replaced as people preferred the new models and by the 1950s softer nylon bristles were being made. Electric toothbrushes were just round the corner as in 1939 they were developed in Switzerland and Broxodent, the first electric toothbrush in the US was unveiled in 1960 by the Squib Company. Toothbrushes have changed very little over the past centuries, apart from in colour and design (brush size and design) as the idea behind them stays the same. The toothbrush of today shows the same characteristics of those from Ancient Egypt and China. This concludes my very brief look at the history of toothbrushes.

Sources;

http://www.toothbrushes.com/history-of-the-toothbrush.html

http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/tooth.html

http://www.colgate.com/app/CP/US/EN/OC/Information/Articles/Oral-and-Dental-Health-Basics/Oral-Hygiene/Brushing-and-Flossing/article/History-of-Toothbrushes-and-Toothpastes.cvsp

http://inventors.about.com/od/dstartinventions/a/dentistry_2.htm

William the Conqueror’s England and its relations with the Papacy

In this blog update I am going to talk about William the Conqueror and his relation with the Papacy concerning the Post-Conquest English church. As everyone knows William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066 and defeated King Harold at the Battle of Hastings leaving the kingdom under Norman rule. This famous period in English history has often been remembered solely because of the landmark battle but not so much in regards to what came after, particularly the religious aspects.  Therefore I aim to look at the approaches by both the Papacy and the Normans to reach an agreement over how the church will be controlled.

The Papacy had begun a series of reforms to the European churches under its influence in the eleventh century and the Pope wanted to bring these reforms into the newly conquered English kingdom with the support of King William. These reforms were concerned with morality and practice within the church and from the 1040s onwards there were attempts to suppress the customs that many of the higher clergy thought unfit for their flock. Therefore in the eyes of the Papacy the English church was in need of reform. As it would soon be seen in England, William was not against removing church figures from their posts if needed; in the mid-1050s William deposed his uncle Malgar as Archbishop of Rouen and Primate of Normandy for simony.

Upon entering the English kingdom, both William and a group of papal legates removed another individual from office due to his corruption; the Archbishop of Canterbury Stigand. Stigand faced three charges when the papal legates arrived in 1070 to crown William king and bring England back into the influence of the Roman church. At the Winchester Council he was charged with; continuing to hold the see of Winchester whilst being Archbishop of Canterbury, taking the archbishopric whilst Robert of Jumiege was still alive and using in mass the pallium (a woollen cloak bestowed by the Pope to those with jurisdiction over bishoprics and archbishoprics) that belonged to Jumiege. With Stigand deposed, the church could be reformed alongside the standards of the Continent.

Clerical marriage was also a problem for the Papacy when renewing their influence over the English churches. However at the Council at Winchester in 1076 the new Archbishop of Canterbury Lanfranc shrewdly avoided a general condemnation of the practice and contended himself with legislation to make clerical marriages impossible in the future. Therefore the Conqueror and the Papacy indeed followed some of the same policies towards the English church when it would suit both sides. Reforming the English church gave the Normans a further degree of legitimacy in their conquest whilst the Papacy reformed its link with England.

However there were also some occasions when the relations between the Conqueror and the Papacy were strained. To secure further ties between the Papacy and William, the Pope in 1080 asked for fealty from the England and the continuation of Peter’s Pence. However William response, that he will not pay fealty to Rome, shows the limits of papal authority. Though William agrees to pay the Peter’s Pence, England is being brought into a conflict between two Popes in Europe; the debate between the Pope and the anti-Pope had begun with the pope in Rome calling for English support. Both William and Lanfranc stay neutral and refuse to get involved with William ordering that no pope should be recognised and that no papal letters should be received in England.

With the papal crisis continuing in Europe, papal influence in England was stalled and the Norman kings were able to regain some of their lost influence over the church. This end the part that the papacy plays in the reign of William the Conqueror and during the reigns of his sons, the papacy and the kings of England do clash again. I hope this blog update has given you an insight into the Post-Conquest English church and how the Papacy used its influence to reform the religious structure.  

Sources:

G, Slocombe., William the Conqueror (1959)

E, Van-Houts and  C, Harper-Bill, (ed.) A companion to the Anglo-Norman world (2003)

B, Golding., Conquest and Colonisation, the Normans in Britain: 1066-1100 (1994)

The Boston Tea Party of 1773

In this week’s blog post I thought that I would go into a period that I myself have yet to explore; the eighteenth century. A century filled with events such as the American War of Independence and the beginning of the French Revolution and key figures such as Jane Austin, Benjamin Franklin and Edward Teach aka the pirate Blackbeard. Whilst my first thoughts were to look at Blackbeard the pirate, I have chosen to write on the topic of the Boston Tea Party in 1773 because of its historical importance in both American and British history.

The Boston Tea Party took place on the 16^th December 1773 when 200 men, some dressed as native Indians, boarded three ships owned by the East India Company in Boston port and dumped the cargos of tea into the harbour. The cause of this unrest can be traced back earlier to the 1760s and 1770s with various laws coming into place from England concerning American trade and taxation.  The Townsend Acts of 1767 brought into accord laws of taxation on various luxuries such as glass, lead, paint, paper, and tea. The American colonists responded that they would not pay them because they had no representation in English politics. The English parliament retracted the Acts, though the tax duties on tea remained as they were.  In May 1773 parliament, seeing the falling influence and power on the East India Company, gave them the rights to import tea into America.  As one of the most popular non-alcoholic drinks available to the British colonies, tea was shipped across the world and it was therefore believed that the colonists would gladly pay for tea than not have it.  The colonists would also pay a cheaper price for the tea as the duty tax placed on tea was also reduced.  On the other hand if the colonists paid the duty tax on the imported tea then they would be recognising Parliaments right to tax them.

The turning point came with the arrival of tea laden ships into the colonies ports. The shipments to New York and Philadelphia were turned away, whilst the three ships sent to Boston were accepted with utter resentment. The tea ships presence in Boston rallied 7000 local men to call for the removal of the tea ships and the duty not to be paid. However the customs collector said that the tea ships would not leave without the duty tax thus the ships remained where they were.  Rounding things together, on the evening of 16^th December the tea supplies on the three ships was dumped in the port and the spark of revolution had been ignited. This almost small event created a chain of events that would led to the signing on the American Independence; the Battle of Lexington in 1775 and the retreat of a British force after an engagement with patriot troop and the capture of Fort Ticonderoga also in 1775 and the surrender of the British garrison without bloodshed. The Battle of Princeton, New Jersey in 1776 was the turning point in the campaign for freedom as the future first President of America George Washington defeated a British army on 3^rd May. Finally the surrender of a large British army at Yorktown in 1781, six years later to a joint American and French force culminated in peace signing and the eventual creation of American Independence in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris.

This landmark event in history is therefore very important because it created or at least pushed forward a movement that would help found a nation. Whilst the Boston Tea Party was aimed at removing British taxes, it achieved some much more and helped encourage ideas of freedom and independence for the American colonists. Thanks for reading and apologies for this rather short blog entry.

Sources;

http://www.boston-tea-party.org/

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/buildingamerica.htm

 http://www.bostonteapartyship.com

The last site on this list has been suggested by Mitch and is a link to the Boston Tea Party Ship Museum in Boston. Take a look =)

The ‘United States of Europe’.

One word has appeared more regularly in the news and media than any other in recent months and years and this is the European Union or EU.  Whether this is because of financial reasons such as in Greece within the debt crisis or political with David Cameron’s dispute with the EU of the Britain’s role within it, it has attracted both criticism and praise. The twenty-seven member union oversees co-operation among its members in many areas such as; trade, the environment, transport and employment. The modern EU is one of the final forms of integration that arrived after centuries of successes in bringing the states of Europe in a closer alliance. As suggested by the title of this blog (made famous by Winston Churchill) I would like to look briefly at the various motives behind European integration centring on the Post-War period.

The Second World War ended on Tuesday 8 May 1945 after six years of endless bloodshed and destruction. Europe had been devastated with bombing raids and death on an unprecedented scale.  With the war in the Pacific coming to a close three months after VE day in Europe, the three major powers of Europe; USA, USSR and the UK met at Yalta and Potsdam in 1945 to discuss the future of Germany, post-war reconstruction and future peace in Europe. Ideas of an integrated Europe unified with a common economic and political agenda were also found in the early post-war period and were made increasingly popular by speeches by Winston Churchill.

The place of Germany within Europe had been one of the key factors in contributing to the ideas of European integration. There was a desire in incorporate Germany into a federate Europe to avoid further conflict between the European powers. Whilst Germany had been split into four zones following the Yalta conference, in the 1946 the ‘Iron Curtain’ had descended across Europe and had split Germany in half.  What quickly arose were the two spheres of influence in Germany; the West (Britain and France) and America in the west and Soviet Russia in the east. This divide created new motives for European integration as many states in Europe, weakened by the war, were not strong enough to resist an attack from Russia should they invade. Therefore many states looked to Britain for leadership, as shown by Churchill’s evoking speeches in 1946, though Britain was more concerned with the Commonwealth than Europe.

With Europe devastated economically and even Britain seeking loans from America, integration was also one of the most important reasons for unity in Europe. ‘Integration of the European economy would promote large-scale, low-cost production that would lead to greater economic output and an improved competitive position in the world market’. [1] One of the earliest forms of economic improvement came from America in the form of the Marshall Plan in 1947. Seventeen nations joined this initiative and it became known as the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC). Whilst not all Europe joined, such as the states in Eastern Europe, this showed that economically the states of Europe needed each other to survive. To further ties, the Council of Europe was set up in 1949 to plan for further political integration. However the Commission of Ministers had no deliberate power and could only advise and offer recommendations to European states. This still represented the power that Europe could create should it act towards further unity across Europe.

To conclude the motives towards European integration are very important factors in which the EU is the modern result. I hope this blog had helped identify some of the motives behind European unity and integration in the post-war years.

Thanks

[1] J. R. Weggs., Europe Since 1945 (New York, 1977), 151.

Sources;

J. R. Weggs., Europe Since 1945 (New York, 1977).

D. W. Unwin., Europe since 1945 (London, 1972).

R. Vaughan., Twentieth Century Europe, Paths to Unity (London, 1979).

BBC History Website

Christmas on the Home Front

In this week’s blog post I will be looking at what Christmas was like in Britain or the ‘Home front’ during the Second World War. From September 1939 to the May of 1945 the world was engulfed in a second global conflict that started with the expansion of Nazi Germany in Europe. The British public would therefore have to face five Christmases before the war had ended. Whilst soldiers were being deployed in Europe, one of the greatest threats that Britain faced was from the skies. The Blitz changed Christmas as it brought the conflict to the doorstep of the people of Britain and affected all ways of life. However, whilst many other festivals and events were cancelled such as Guy Fawkes Night and the Summer Holidays, Christmas remained present for everyone to celebrate.

During the War there were many changes that people would have to adapt to celebrate Christmas. Firstly there was food rationing that came into effect from late 1939/early 1940 that took away the food traditionally associated with Christmas. In 1940 bacon and butter began to be rationed, though it wouldn’t be until the Christmas of 1941/42 that turkey and many luxuries such as chocolate were in short supply or there was none available. During 1943 ‘The Ministry of Food estimated that only one family in ten would get turkey or goose for their Christmas dinner that year. A lot of Christmas food was ‘mock’ (ie fake). Christmas recipes included mock ‘goose’, ‘turkey’ (made from lamb), ‘cream’ and ‘marzipan’.’ [1] Christmas gifts were also in short supply during the war years and many presents were handmade as gifts from shops were too expensive. Knitted slippers and other handmade objects were the exchanged as well as seeds and other practical presents. Comparing this with today’s food supplies and the amounts of gifts in which we buy, it clearly shows that many of the ideas created during the war such a making do with what we had, has been forgotten through the decades. 

Families also faced a difficult Christmas once the war had started since in most cases they would be separated from one another.  Men would be fighting in Europe or wherever they would be needed and would be away from their families for many months. Women might also be with the army or continuing with the war work. Children would be absent since they would have been evacuated away from the cities and into the countryside, away from their families and into the care of foster families.  Despite this families would still try to send gifts to one another whether overseas or across the country.

Whilst the people of Britain were changed by the harshness of war, Christmas was still a time of celebration and the festivities continued in most conditions. In contrast with modern ideas of Christmas, the people of war-time Britain would have had a much more difficult time celebrating Christmas than people do today. We therefore need to take care not to complain about the problems that we faced concerning what to give friends and family, when 60-70 years they had to worry whether they or their families would still be alive the next day. To end on a more positive note, the British people during the war years made do with what they had available and proved that even in war-time, Christmas could be celebrated in some way or another. It is also worth mentioning that the Christmas Speech, which is presented by the monarch, was established at the beginning of the war and goes on today.                           

Finally Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/britain_wwtwo/christmas_underfire_01.shtml

Sources:

http://www.iwm.org.uk

http://www.bbc.co.uk

 

Black History Month; Obama and His Place in History

The theme for this month’s set of blogs is Black History. Black History Month (BHM), also known as African History Month (AHM), was created to promote and bring attention to black history and culture around the world. Black History month is in the month of October in the UK whilst it is in February in the US. BHM was originally founded in 1926 when Carter G Woodson, editor for thirty years of the Journal of Negro History, established African Caribbean celebrations in America. Whilst in the UK Black History Month was founded in 1987 alongside Diane Abbot’s election into Parliament as the first black female member.

In this week’s post I will be looking at Presidents Barack Obama presidency and inauguration and its place in black history. I will now give a brief overview of Barack Obama’s life. Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961 and was son to a Kenyan father and mother from Kansas. Obama went on to attend law school, where he became the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. Obama became politically important when he was elected into the Senate in 2004 and passed various reforms aimed on healthcare and ethnic reform. Obama secured the Democrats vote in August 2008 and became the first African American President in November 4, 2008, and was sworn in on January 20, 2009.

In this section I will have a look at the impact of Obama election on both America and the World. Firstly Obama presidency can be seen in some ways as a fulfillment of the American Dream. This is because it marks a decisive moment in the grand story of the black freedom struggle in America. In some aspects it means a greater sense of equality, as now there is an African-American is in charge of the country rather than a white man. This fact also point towards a shift in perception towards minority community and also re-asses what it means to be American. Johnny Bernard Hill comments in his book The First Black President that ‘What the election does tell us is that the way we think about race in America has forever changed.’ I find that this statement is very true as it highlights the impact that Obama’s election has had on the American people and around the question of race and equality. For me personally, despite not really understanding American politics (or any politics for that matter), Obama’s victory showed to me that anything could be changed and that the future was best faced together rather than alone.

I would finally like to discuss a part of Presidents Obama’s speech to the Democratic Convention in 2008;

“America, we cannot turn back. Not with so much work to be done. Not with so many children to educate, and so many veterans to care for. Not with an economy to fix and cities to rebuild and farms to save. Not with so many families to protect and so many lives to mend. America, we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone. At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future. Let us keep that promise – that American promise – and in the words of Scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.”

Upon reading part of Obama’s speech we can get a sense of change and promise for a united future. We get an idea that it’s not just Obama campaign, but an American campaign to tackle the problems of the future together whatever race or background that you are from. To finish I believe that Obama election and presidency is a major historical landmark not just for black history, but for world history. Obama’s story proves that anything can be achieved if you believe in it. I hope that you have enjoyed reading my post and that Barack Obama amazing achievements as president have inspired you to believe that anything is possible.  

Sources;

Johnny Bernard Hill The First Black President (New York, 2009)

http://www.black-history-month.co.uk

http://www.blackhistorymonthuk.co.uk

http://news.bbc.co.uk

Queen Boudicca and Her Fight with Rome

“a terrible disaster occurred in Britain. Two cities were sacked, eighty thousand of the Romans and their allies perished, and the island was” almost “lost to Rome.”

Cassius Dio’s Roman History Book LXII

This blog will be focused around the revolt of Boudicca, Queen of the Iceni Tribe in 60/61AD. The revolt took place early on in the Roman occupation of Britain, around seventeen years after the Emperor Claudius’ troops first landed on the south-east coast. I hope to give you the details of the revolt, state why I think this is such an important event and to end a look over how Boudicca has been remembered in the Modern era.

The revolt has its roots, it can be said, when the Romans arrived in Britain in 43AD.  By the early 50s AD the southern half of the country was under the control of the Romans with many client kingdoms protecting these lands. One such kingdom was that of the Iceni tribe in Modern East Anglia and the King of the tribe, Prasutagus had submitted to the invaders. This system of creating client kingdoms had served Rome well in the past and was used extensively across the Empire. It also tended to benefit both parties; Rome would gain further allies and influence in an area, whilst the client kingdom would be recognised and protected by the Romans. However when the client king Prasutagus died in 60 AD, the Iceni lands were taken by the Romans and according to some sources, Boudicca was flogged and her daughters were raped. This angered the Iceni, and they quickly rose in revolt against the Romans.

Boudicca joined her tribe, the Iceni, with other tribes in south-east Britain such as the Trinovantes. They first attacked and destroyed the town of Camulodunum (Colchester), one of the main colony cities where the local British population were forced out their homes by the retiring Roman soldiers. The next city to be attacked was Londinium (London). Suetonius Paulinus, the Roman governor at the time, had hastened to London from the island of Mona to find the city un-defendable and moved his army away from the city. Tacitus’ Annals tells us that Londinium had to be abandoned even though “the tears and the weeping of the people, as they implored his aid, deter him from giving the signal of departure”. Boudicca and her followers burnt London to the ground and killed any who stood in their way: Roman or British alike. As “Boudicca was not interested in taking prisoners or ransoming them, or any of the commerce of war. The enemy was bend on slaughter, with scaffold, fire and crucifixions, like men taking what vengeance they could before retribution came down on them”

With London destroyed Boudicca’s army moved towards the city of Verulamium (modern St Alban’s) with Paulinus closely following. By this point it is to be believed that Boudicca’s army had killed over 70,000 Romans including Britons that had joined the Romans. With the city of Verulamium destroyed and with the Roman army nowhere to be found, it would seem that Boudicca revolt was successful. This was until Paulinus choose to fight the strong army of 230,000 Britons; with only 10,000 Roman soldiers (However the British figures have been exaggerated).

The final battle occurred somewhere in the midlands where the area had trapped both sides in fighting and neither could retreat. Although the Romans were heavily outnumbered, Paulinus used tactics that would win him the war; firstly he had the high ground and was able to use this to push the Britons back in what has been described as a wedge-like formation. The Britons had also been supported by their families who placed their wagons at the edge of the battlefield thus trapping the Britons in the path of the advancing Romans.  The Britons were defeated and accounts say that around 80,000 Britons died in the battle. Boudicca escaped the battle though we are unsure on how she died; sources tell us that she and her daughters took poison, though no burial site has ever been found.

Although the revolt was ultimately crushed, in my eyes it was very successful. Boudicca managed to almost win back Britain from the Romans and triumphed in showing that the Romans were not unbeatable. Boudicca had become a hero of Britain and had achieved so much towards the freedom of the Britons under the Romans. Whilst Boudicca’s rebellion shows a heroic stance against tyranny, we must not forget the human costs. If we believe the sources some 150,000 people died as a result of the revolt. We must wonder was it necessary for this amount of death and both sides must take responsibility for this outcome.

Whilst the Roman historians Tacitus and Cassius Dio recorded the revolt, it wasn’t until the Victorians that Boudicca became again known to people. The Victorians, discovering the Roman writings, began painting images of Queen Boudicca and used her as an image of British identity. A bronze statue of Boudicca was finished in 1905 and is located on Westminster Bridge in London. Commissioned by Queen Victoria’s husband, the statue depicts Boudicca with her daughters at her side whilst riding a chariot. I see this as a fitting reminder of Boudicca’s rebellion, in a place where everyone can see it and wonder who this amazing queen was. Thanks.

Sources

• Terry Jones and Alan Ereira ‘Barbarians’ (2006)
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A19248320
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/boudicca.shtml