The Stoke Mandeville Games

Olympics. One word that inspires the world, attempts to bring about friendly competition, something that makes the world seem that bit smaller, creates something in which everyone can get behind, old… young; sporting… or not boys girls it doesn’t matter everyone joins in and gets into the spirit of things and enjoys the spectacle of it all. The wonder of the opening and closing ceremonies, The competition the athletes showing their amazing sporting ability, simply I think one f the greatest events that the world has to share and be a part of. Ok so I’m a bit biased I’m British and the games were in my home country so yes I might have a more positive outlook on things. However if you asked me to sum up the Olympics in one word I think the only word that fits is inspiration. Although we’ll see if it’s inspirational quality has rubbed off on me, a book loving non sporty type, and actually got me to take up a sport… we’ll see as my dad says ‘stranger things have happened’.

So what has the Stoke Mandeville games, the title of this post, have anything to do with the Olympics I hear you ask. Well, in researching for my blog post this month I was toying with a few ideas, the introduction of the modern Olympics, the impact of women in the Olympics, however I was watching a BBC drama ‘The Best of Men’ (watch it if you can its really good), the drama depicts the birth of the Paralympics in 1944, as wounded and paralysed soldiers under their German doctor regain their strength through sport, leading to the creation of a national games and then the Paralympics in 1948. This programme changed my blog entirely, and so here it goes…

The Second World War as we all know was bloody conflict with high wounded and causalities all as a result of war efforts both civil and military. However there was one question left afterwards, after the battle was won and the soldiers and the civilians return home, the same question that I’m sure occurs after every form of conflict, what do we do now? How do we go on from here? And this question becomes even more complicated when you are dealing with men and women who have done their bit for their country and now as a result of their bravery are left in a paralysed condition, from which they and occasionally professionals too see no hope of a future, in a world where paralysed… meant cripple… meant that they could not be functioning members of regular society. Something, that can perhaps seem slightly alien to us as we sit in a world where disability is more easily recognised and taken into account, well at least to an extent.

Well our story starts in Germany where at the age of 18 Ludwig Guttmann volunteered at his local hospital or coal miners as an orderly. Here he witnessed an incident which left a lasting mark upon him, the death of a coal miner who was admitted with a broken back and was paralysed from the waist down. However Guttmann was astonished to see this man left in plaster and moved away from other patients where he developed infections, and five weeks later the miner passed away. In 1918 Ludwig Guttmann started his medical studies at the university of Breslau passing in 1923 and taking a job in neurology and neurosurgery. With the rise of Hitler in 1933 and Guttmann’s growing reputation he was able to take up a position in Oxford, England in 1939 where he undertook various research projects. As the war progressed and the growing number of causalities and the government decided to open up a spinal injuries ward to deal with the victims, and in September 1943 Dr Guttmann was asked to head the ward, at Stoke Mandeville.

It was whilst at Stoke Mandeville Dr Guttmann, created the movement which later became the Paralympic games. After caring for his patients and changing the way in which they were looked after which lessened the amount of sores and infections they received, before beginning to change their mental outlook to through the introduction of sports, and allowing them to learn new skills such as wood work and typing that would enable them to reintegrate into society, by helping them to become employable. In July 1948 Dr Guttmann held the first contest which would later spark of the idea for the Paralympics, an archery contest between the star and garter hospital of Richmond and the patients at Stoke Mandeville, with the former winning. A year later, 1949, more hospitals and patients took part in what become known as the Stoke Mandeville Games.

“It was here Guttmann uttered the words for which he has forever been associated with: ‘I foresaw the time when this sports event would be truly international and the Stoke Mandeville Games would achieve world fame as the disabled person’s equivalent of the Olympic Games’ (The Cord, 1949).”

So with that the beginning of what became the Paralympics was over and now many athletes with varied disabilities come to compete in the Paralympic games, an integral part of the modern Olympics, and so in reference to my earlier definition as the Olympics being an inspiration to the rest of us and I definitely think that the Paralympics fits that description. In addition, the games are also a testament idea of anything is possible with, courage, a bit of hard work and a one very good doctor.

Sources

http://www.abilityvability.co.uk/files/factsheets/FS3%20-%20The%20Stoke%20Mandeville%20Games%201948.pdf

http://www.paralympics.org.uk/games

How useful for the understanding of supernatural beliefs are the anthropological/ social anthropological and functionalist approaches?

So for my post this month’s I’ve decided to explore something different within history, by discussing the relationship that history has with other disciplines such as Anthropology, along with its social counter-part and the Functionalists approach to certain historical situations, in this case the existence of witchcraft beliefs during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in Europe. It can often be suggested that to understand anything you need to look at it from a multitude of angles and this is especially the case with regards to the historian’s attempts to understand the belief in witchcraft that occurred. However the extent to which other disciplines can be useful to the historian to help them understand such concepts is what this post shall discuss.

Anthropology, social anthropology and functionalist are three of a wider spectrum of approaches that can be used by historians to help explain the witch craze, which occurred in Europe and the founding colonies of America, during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth centuries. This work will define before discussing the usefulness of these approaches in studying supernatural beliefs. Firstly there are two key terms in this question that need to be addressed, ‘supernatural’ is in itself an overarching term which can be used to indicate any belief in the supernatural, such as ghosts and fairies. In this work supernatural will apply particularly to beliefs of magic and witchcraft. The other key term in this work is usefulness and this shall be defined as whether these approaches allow new insights into explaining witchcraft and magical beliefs. Lastly this work will lokin particular on the works of Keith Thomas – ‘History and Anthropology’ and E.P. Thompson- ‘Anthropology and the Discipline of Historical Context’, before finally concluding on how useful these approaches are to the historical study of witchcraft and magical beliefs.

Anthropology and social anthropology can be suggested as two approaches that at times can be combined with each other as both these subjects are concerned with the study of man and humanity and thus also with the study of history. Yet, whilst they are similar as a result of what they study, they are not the same. For instance, anthropology is defined as the study of man and culture through localised studies before comparing the modern societies concerned and use this analysis to explain the past. This is underpinned by the principle that if you can understand one society you should be able to understand the other, as certain aspects of humanity and human life do not change. On the other hand social anthropology is similar to anthropology however the key difference is that social anthropology focuses primarily on how human beings behave individually whilst in social groups.

One of the foremost strengths of using these approaches, both anthropology and social anthropology, to explain supernatural and witchcraft beliefs is the approaches ability to ‘combine in one discipline the approaches of biology and social sciences’ . This is constructive to studying magical beliefs as it allows the researcher to look at the many strands of life that are related to and entwined with each other. This allows the historian to see the wider picture, along with similarities within the explanations, of why certain societies would use witchcraft to explain disaster, and the similarities in the treatment of witches across Europe and America during the witch craze. This can be demonstrated in the way that modern day believers in witchcraft use it to explain the so-called ‘unexplainable’. In the study, by Professor Evans-Prichard, of the Azande tribe, a boy knocked his foot on a stump of wood, injuring his foot. The boy in this case then accounted for his injury by explaining that someone had bewitched him to walk in to the stump of wood . This behaviour is comparable to European Witchcraft beliefs, for example in the Malleus Malificuram where if cattle fell ill; it wasn’t the result of a disease but someone bewitching the cattle .

The strength of these approaches can be further demonstrated if we consider anthropological and social anthropological studies as a form of reconstruction. By looking at areas such as rural Africa where the belief in magic still continues to be used to explain unexplainable events, this is to an extent, is a way of reconstructing the mind-set, attitudes and actions of people in Europe and America at the height of witchcraft belief. This would ‘involve an effort of… historical imagination,’ if looked at through documents alone. For instance in rural Africa today mental and physical illness can be accounted for by magic and sorcery. This can be compared to the use of ‘bewitchment’ as a medical term to describe illnesses, as shown by cases in the Salem witch trials. Thus it can be suggested that the strength of these approaches is the element of reconstruction which helps the modern historian rationalise why a society could, and would, believe in witchcraft when modern researchers do not. Furthermore anthropologists and social anthropologist do, as part of their research ‘live in or at least visit the society they are studying’. Thus it can be suggested that they perhaps have a greater understanding of how relationships between ideological entities such as politics and social structure are linked, rather than historians who treat such entities as separate things. For example social tensions are highlighted between people, in the case of the Malleus Maleficarum where the little girl makes it rain to help her father’s crops . This demonstrates how other concerns, in this case agricultural and economic concerns are also apart of studying witchcraft and it is through these approaches that we are able to see these links.

A vital limitation of these approaches is the comparative nature of their studies, while this is considered a strength of these approaches, it continues to be a limitation. For instance can historians use this analysis of modern rural Africa and explain belief in sixteenth and seventeenth century Europe and America when the contexts and situations are not perfectly similar. For example if it is considered that ‘society’s beliefs and their behaviour will vary ’ in contemporary time, is it possible to use data from this to explain belief in Europe and Colonial America, where belief is also varied. The same can be suggested for social anthropology as one person’s reactions to witchcraft would be different to another’s. This is demonstrated by the difference in belief and the treatment of elite and popular forms of magic. For instance astrologers were consulted by the elite; witches were despised by the general populous; and a social anthropologist has to be wary of the distinction between the two rather than using their analysis of a cultures belief in magic and applying it to the general belief during this time. This also highlights a further limitation of generalisation; whilst anthropologists and social anthropologists frequently take one small society and study it as a whole, applying their findings to the society experiencing the witch craze, they generalize experiences which should be considered as unique to the people at the time.

A final limitation with these approaches is that both anthropologists and social anthropologists ask different questions from a historian studying the topic. Whilst this can be considered a strength, at the same time it is a limitation as perhaps the questions do not tell the historian what they wish. For example, E.P Thompsons criticisms of Alan Macfarlane’s work, The family life of Ralph Josselin, admits that the work asked ‘questions neglected by historians,[but] it doesn’t necessarily ‘equip him to answer these questions’ . This leads to the other limitation, of anachronistic judgements and definitions that can occur from these approaches. For example the idea that among the Azande witchcraft is considered ‘normal not abnormal’ , yet Evans-Pritchard judges’ witchcraft to be abnormal demonstrates his western view upon supernatural belief. This therefore demonstrates how the anthropologist, like the historian, interprets the answers differently and can have anachronistic judgements which bias their findings and limit the approach’s use.

Finally, the functionalist approach needs to be considered; because as an extension of anthropology it also has its own strengths and weaknesses that need to be highlighted separately. The functionalist approach focuses on the use that various social elements such as social norms; customs and traditions, have within the society usually benefiting it in a positive manner. Thus the approach interprets witchcraft and the subsequent belief in it as having a useful social function within society. The usefulness of this approach is demonstrated by its ability of the approach to make witchcraft appear a more rational concept to employ to relieve guilt or undesired elements within the society. An example is found in witchcraft’s function of reinforcing social norms. In particular the scapegoat nature to accusations, old women who acted outside social norms or midwives who upset the patriarchal nature of society, and women, along with men being blamed for illness in animals to relieve the tension and explain what the society could not. Thus, the approach is useful at rationalising the concept of why people would believe in the supernatural to re-enforce the various social norms.

However, witchcraft doesn’t always have a positive social function of unifying the society together. For instance Erik Midelfort states the witchcraft trials in the German Provinces during the 16th century ‘were dysfunctional’ and left the society even more torn up and suspicious. Thus this approach can be shown as being unable to be considered as an overarching explanation applicable to all societies and so its use is limited.
These three approaches to witchcraft; can therefore be considered as highly useful to the historian when they are studying witchcraft. As they all help to rationalise a concept that to a modern audience seems irrational and unbelievable, by asking more sociologically minded questions and focusing on the inter-relationships within the society. This explains witchcraft beliefs in a way that perhaps a person at the time might have explained it. However these approaches are not the only ones and should not be considered as such. Historians, anthropologists, social anthropologists and functionalists only interpret the subsequent peoples’ belief in witchcraft in a way that would be understandable to them. As a result there will always be issues with whether what is described as the person in questions belief is what the person actually meant; or that the belief in the supernatural is the sole belief within that society, in the azande not every misfortune is also attributed to witchcraft the breaking of social norms or a supreme being . Thus the usefulness of these approaches when studying supernatural beliefs is only to an extent as the main problem, whether a study of a modern culture’s belief in the supernatural can explain a historical culture’s belief is, and will always be a difficult issue. Therefore the approaches cannot be considered as useful when studying witchcraft beliefs as just because two societies have similar beliefs and actions, it does not mean that they can explain each other.

Sources
Primary Sources
Kramer, H., & Spencer, J., The Malleus Maleficarum, translated by Reverend, M, Summers, (New York, 1948)144-149.
Secondary Sources
Beals, R., &Hoijer, H., An Introduction to Anthropology, (New York,1959) 1-22.
Brian, J, L., ‘An Anthropological Perspective on the Witchcraze’ in A, C, Lehmann & J, E, Myers (ed.) Magic, Witchcraft, and Religion; An Anthropological Study of the Supernatural (London, 2001) 208-215.
Douglas, M., Witchcraft, confessions and Accusations, (London, 2004).
Evans-Pritchard, E, E., Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic Among the Azande, (Oxford, ) 63-83.
Jenkins, R., ‘Continuity and Change: Social science perspectives on European witchcraft’ in J, Barry& O, Davies (ed.) Witchcraft Historiography (London, 2007) 203-225.
Thomas, K, V., ‘History and Anthropology’, Past and Present 24 (1963).
Thompson, E, P., ‘Anthropology and the discipline of Historical Context’, Midland History 1 (1972).

‘The greatest mistake America made was allowing women to vote’:

Now there is a title for my blog this month. The greatest mistake that America had ever made was allow women the right to vote, call me crazy but for those of us who actually believe in the ideals of equality, freedom, and the right to express ourselves and our opinions politically, isn’t this going a bit far. Ok so that’s an understatement as to how I felt about this article when I read it, and is actually the politest way I could think to describe the shock and anger I felt upon reading it, by the way yes I am a women and as my friends well know one with feminist tendencies and opinions so to me, this was a bit of a kick in the teeth. However I respect the right of Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson to his opinion and have provided a link to the article below for those of you who wish to read the article in full. Yet I hope that he also respectfully accepts my right to disagree with him. So this blog shall explore the complex relationship that women have with politics and voting, and asking the question why, as we come in England (6 years to go) to the centenary of women having the right to vote, do such out dated views, that we should not have the right to vote, still exist.

In the article Rev. Peterson states that women are ‘leading the United States down a path of wickedness because they have too much political power. Whilst I disagree with Rev. Peterson’s idea that the way in which women vote is bringing a form of ‘political evil’, to the United States, or at least this is how it appears to him, as a Republican. However it must be stated that perhaps his rather extremist view is as a result of the suggestion that in the last presidential election (2008), that more women voted for Obama and the Democrat party , his political and the party that is attempting to bring a considerable amount of change to America, which is described by some, particularly of a Republican persuasion, as attempts to bring a kind of socialism into America. For instance through the introduction of the idea of same-sex marriages; the introduction of health care reforms. As a result the suggestion by Rev. Peterson, the ‘wickedness’ that has been brought in by women voting democrat, entail the more left leaning ideas that are changing America. Which as a Republican, a group who can be typically identified as deeply Christian and extremely conservative, he would not appreciate these changes. However there is a wider comment that can be made as a result of Rev. Peterson’s suggestions, that the attitudes to women and power (in this case political, yet there are other examples) is something that hasn’t changed. Since the beginning of time it can be argued that whenever women had some form of power they were often mocked or criticized for it. In sticking with the political element to this blog post I shall stick to women who have actively participated within politics or had an impact upon them within the 21st and 20th century. However my previous statement remains women who have power have been stereotypically seen as a bad thing or something that cannot be trusted to act rationally. Once again I must state that these suggestions are my own opinions, please feel free to disagree with me and post your own comments on this subject.

As an English woman a prime example of this statement can be found in the treatment of Britain’s first and only (so far) woman Prime Minister Margret Thatcher. Now I can hear you start your tirades of how she took away milk and destroyed the miners or how she did great in the Falkland’s whichever camp you’re in, however I ask you to put these feelings aside for a moment and consider whether the fact that she was a women contributed to people’s opinions of her, in a negative manner. For instance she was known as the Iron Lady, a title given to her as a result of her determination and stubbornness with her politics and politicians, whilst this can be seen as a title of strength it can also be seen negatively as the iron lady can also conjure up images of a harsh woman, to an extent unwomanly. As it is already known Thatcher underwent voice coaching and a change of appearance before becoming leader of the conservative party, in order, it can be suggested to become more authoritative a stereotypically manly trait which is needed for any leader. However the fact that Thatcher has to adopt such traits, authoritative, stubbornness, and determination in order to succeed in British politics demonstrates how women to an extent, have to change in order to succeed in politics, and sometimes get ridiculed as unwomanly as a result. Another more recent example of the way in which women who have political power are often criticized, rightly or wrongly is the characterization of Sarah Palin as the “pitbull with lipstick” and other such stereotypes that have been attached to her. Therefore, the wider point that women who have/ gain political power is still something that is seen in an interesting manner, whilst were not burning them on the stake as witches, it can be suggested that attitudes to women being in power still haven’t changed, as women who attempt have power and attempt to create change can be criticized for it. With the negative stereotyping of women who have political power it is perhaps unsurprising that there have been comparatively less great women political figures (when compared to the amount of inspiring male counterparts) and that even today there are still very few women within the political cabinet of the U.K. that can be argued as actually having a degree of influence or the ability to change laws. Whilst I’m not suggesting that the cabinet or any political body is forced to have women with the opportunity to lead and change the status quo, I think that the relationship between women and politics remains complex and this is something that hasn’t changed since women having won the right to political suffrage. The remarks of Shirley Chisholm (a Congresswoman, for New York’s 12th Congressional District from 1969 to 1983) who said that during her New York legislative career, she had faced much more discrimination because she was a woman than because she was black perhaps remain surprisingly more relevant today than we care to believe in our modern society.

Alternatively it must be recognized that within the last 10-20 years there has been a noticeable change in the treatment of women involved within politics, for instance in America and internationally Michelle Obama is considered a very powerful and influential, within her own right as well as a result of being the first lady. Similarly Hillary Clinton, who ran in the same election as Sarah Palin can be suggested as having less negative publicity for being a politically minded women.

Thus demonstrating that whilst the public’s relationship with women in politics is no doubt complex, it is also changing. For instance in 2009 there America had the opportunity to elect its first ever women president. With this in mind the only thing left for me is to reiterate my opinion that women having the right is far from being the worst thing that has ever happened in history. It is perhaps instead a result of the negative publicity that often surrounds female politicians and women voters that has led to that particular conclusion. Yet the times are changing and there may soon be a time when women presidents and prime ministers, become the norm as it is often the case in Scandinavian countries. Who knows?

Sophie

Sources

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2141530/Fox-News-guest-Rev-Jesse-Lee-Peterson-says-women-shouldnt-allowed-vote.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Lee_Peterson http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/us_elections_2008/7709852.stm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Chisholm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

Leap year traditions

Happy Valentine’s Day readers,

So it’s that time of year again, the one day they (being the powers that help organise this blog ) let me out of the politics and gender history and allow me to write something comparatively lighter and happier, they let me write about love… about valentine’s day. Ok so maybe they don’t let me instead I offer my services to write about the history behind, what I’m now going to name as the lovers holiday. So I hope you’re all having a fabulous day with your loved ones, if your with someone special, or if your single I still wish you all the best, and hope you enjoy the different kinds of love that are around you today instead; friendship; family and a love of life all of which are great things to have. And so in the words of Beatles and Ewan McGreggor in Moulin rouge, All you need is love, and with that we shall begin.

2012 is a year of many events; in England we have the diamond jubilee and the Olympics, yet this year is special for another reason it is a leap year. Ok I can hear you saying what’s so special about a leap year, we get an extra day in February and that it is, nothing special, nothing romantic … am I right? Well what if I said that this day the 29th of February is very important in the world of romance, in particular for women…., have I given you enough clues yet or are you still reading this thinking that the author has lost the plot and should put you out of your misery. Ok so the important thing that is romantic and can only happen in a leap year is that on the 29th of February a woman can legitimately propose to a man! So to our women readers if there’s a special man in your life that either isn’t getting the hint or you love him so much that you wish to spend the rest of your lives together, now’s your chance to pluck up the courage and get down on one knee and propose to him, and I’m keeping my fingers crossed that all goes well for you.

Leap year traditions date back as far as 5th century Ireland where according to legend St Bridget struck a deal with St Patrick, after some haggling, originally it was going to be one year out of every seven, to allow women to purpose to men on leap day , in order to balance the traditional roles of men and women. Then unexpectedly St Bridget, being single got down on one knee and proposed to St Patrick, to which he refused but gave her a kiss and a beautiful silk gown in consolation. Apparently in 1288 a Law by Queen Margret of Scotland, aged 5 and living in Norway at the time stated that compensation should be given for a refusal to soften the blow. The statue apparently reads;

It is statut and ordainit that during the reine of hir maist blissit Magestie, ilk maiden ladye of baith highe and lowe estair shale hae libertie to bespeak ye man she likes; albiet, gif he refuses to tak her till be his wif, he sall be mulcit in ye sume of ane hundredth poundis or less, as is estait mai be, except and alwais gif he can mak it appear that he is betrothit to ane other woman, then he shall be free.

Rough Transulation by me: It is ordained that during the reign of her blessed majesty that a maiden lady of high and low birth, shall have the liberty to bespeak [propose to] the man she likes, if he refuses to take her as his wife, he shall be [fined] in the sum of an hundred pounds or less as it may be established, execpt and always he can make it appear that he is betrothed to another woman he sahll be free [of the fine].
However the validity of this law and whether it was actually enforced is questionable, considering it was written by a 5 year old.

This tradition of leap day, also known as bachelor’s day, was recognised by the 17th century, even if it’s origins are questionable, as shown by the allusion to the tradition of leap year to have a role reversal, in the play The Maid’s Metamorphosis(1600)

‘Master be contented, this is leape yeare,
Women weare breetches, petticoats are deare.’

And perhaps the tradition can be dated back to the medieval ages with this quote attributed to Chaucer, published in the Collectanea by Vincent Lean (1905);

In Leap Year they have power to chuse
The men no charter to refuse

But men be weary of refusing a women’s proposal on this day, as there were consequences if you refused the woman who proposed to you. The consequences include; a kiss (As stated in the law of Margret of Scotland), paying a fine, buying the woman a gown (to the value of £1 in medieval times); or as in some European countries such as Denmark, buying the woman who proposed 12 pairs of gloves, the idea behind this was that the women would then wear the gloves in order to hide her embarrassment of not having an engagement ring. In Finland, if the man refused he should buy the woman the fabrics for a skirt. Although in Greece it is considered unlucky for anyone to get married during this year and on this day.

So leap year proposals, what do you think? Some people think it’s a sweet old tradition that perhaps doesn’t have any place in a modern society any more, or it has a place as a romantic tradition that celebrates the love in this world, let me know, and in keeping with tradition I’m going to, ask for your favourite love quotes again this year, or your favourite love song, please leave them in the comment box below. Finally, all that’s left for me is to do is wish you a happy Valentine’s day, for the 14th , and good luck for any of our female readers who are brave enough to propose on the 29th. But whatever your relationship, I wish you all the happiness and love in the world.

Sophie, xoxo

p.s check out our gallery for a postcard from 1908 showing leap year tradtions.

Sources

http://www.timeanddate.com/date/chinese-leap-year.html

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/historical/a/leap_year_2.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_year.

A Christmas Truce

So it’s that time of year again, we’ve all by now finished our scrumptious Christmas dinners, whether Turkey; Goose or vegetarian alternative (thankfully not banned this year as under Oliver Cromwell’s reign as lord protector in England, Scrooge), lost track of the amount of presents we’ve carefully wrapped; which are then subsequently ripped apart by excited relatives both young and old; and probably have heard enough Christmas songs and carols that we are set till next year, and although I sounds as if I’m being cynical I honestly don’t mean to be, as unsurprisingly Christmas is one of my favourite times of the year. It is the time where we let go of the restraints we put on your inner kid and gaze in wonder at all the pretty lights and decorations both in our homes and outside them, it’s the time when we gather our families together tell them that we love them, and lastly it’s a time for miracles, one of the few times that the impossible becomes possible; that reindeer can fly, that father Christmas (St Nick,) whatever name you know him as, can get down your chimney and bring you presents. Which let me tell you; is no mean feat. I’ve lately seen a news report where this little boy asked the builder of his mum’s new house to make sure the chimney was Santa proof; they brought in a mathematician and an architect, just to make sure, Father Christmas wouldn’t get stuck. But I digress there are more miracles to Christmas than I could go on about in this post, of course not forgetting the main one, the miracle of Jesus’ birth, but also the miracle of changing as scrooge did and the ability to turn over a new leaf . Thus I think I’ve finally answered the question as to Christmas is all about… miracles, the one day of the year when absolutely anything is possible, even a truce in the middle of, one of the bloodiest conflicts in modern history.

As we know World War I, can be considered as 4 years of hell for its participants, what with trench warfare, and the development of modern machinery such as the use of gas, and the introduction of air force, it is rightly called the first total war as I believe no one who was a part of it would have been left unscathed. However I’m not here, to talk about horrors or to say what was right or wrong within this conflict. I’m here to talk about the series of unofficial truces that occurred in 1914 all the way the western front that year. See here is what I consider to be the true power of Christmas, its ability to turn enemies into friends if only for the night.

The week leading up to Christmas began with parties of German and British officers, approximately 100,000 soldiers were involved in, unofficial ceasefires including the Christmas truces. They begun by exchanging carols and greetings, often shouted across to the other trench, decorating trenches and Christmas trees with candles. Such was the Christmas spirit that the hostility between the opposing forces can be argued as being reduced to the extent that troops could cross into ‘No Man’s land’, where they mingled with each other’s ‘enemy’, exchanging gifts of what they had around food, i.e. cigarettes and alcohol and souvenirs, such as buttons and hats. Furthermore joint services we’re held, and the day was also used for both sides to collect and bury died. And for one, special you could almost say magical night the artillery fell silent, and it was for once all quite… well mostly on the western front’.

With stories of a ‘machine gunner, who was a bit of an amateur hair dresser cutting the unnaturally long hair of a docile Boche’ , and perhaps more famously the game of football played in the western front. This legendry game of football, is often repeated, however whether it actually occurred, or whether there was more than one game, as is now generally assumed, is something that is lost in history. With one man producing a football, which resulted in “a free-for-all; there could have been 50 on each side”, before they were ordered back, and for the football fans amongst us there are as you would expect variations of the final score, with a German officer Lieutenant Niemann, describing the final score of a match just outside Armentieres as 3-2 to the Germans.

Unfortunately whilst the Christmas spirit appeared to be with some, the ceasefires did not occur unanimously though out the conflict area, or throughout the war as the truces seem to decline as the war carried on to its bitter end. Although, there were later truces and attempts at truces on other religious days such as Easter. However the decline was in part a result of , ‘strongly worded orders from high commands on both sides’, which I Personally think it was a dreadful thing to order, whilst I understand that there was a war going on, they could have least given them Christmas. In addition fraternisation was not without its risks, as whist ‘goodwill to all men’ was the maxim in some hearts that year, which unfortunately others did not follow. Although this was the official line, there are recorded some situations of deliberate dampening of hostilities with artillery being fired at precise points to avoid any enemy causalities.

So with gun shots fired the truces were over and the war was on again. Yet from this, wonderful episode of humanity and good will, we can see the enormous power of Christmas, and its ability to do well, in this world of ours. And so in the words of John and Yoko Ono , war [this one in particular] is over, yet whilst there still remains conflict, and Christmas remains a time for reflection and good will to mankind then I hope that truces such as these continue to occur; to demonstrate and respect the fact that whilst we maybe on different sides, we are all human. Perhaps that’s the lesson we must take with us into the New Year, we are all human and as this golden episode in the history of humanity, demonstrates there are some things that bind us all together and Christmas is a special time in which we should all remember this fact.
So all that’s left for me to do is wish all of our readers a Merry Christmas and a great New Year, and we shall meet again in 2012, a year of anniversaries, the sinking of the titanic and Queen Elizabeth’s II Diamond Jubilee to name a few, and also a year of exciting events such as the Olympics in England. So here’s to 2012 and all it brings.

Sophie

Sources
Watch for a great depiction of the events just talked about; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHObCL2luMw&feature=related

http://www.fylde.demon.co.uk/xmas.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce

The story of the little boy who asked for a Santa proof chimney;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2076172/First-Santa-friendly-chimney-Leo-Park-6-sees-Christmas-dreams-come-true.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

pictures: Google images

Halloween

*sets the scene* the curtain lifts to reveal a dark stage, a rustling cane be heard from the wings as an old greying butler begins to light the candles on the small circular table, slowly the footlights begin to glow a soft yellow light, revealing a chair next to the table, you look at the chair to find it is occupied by… by … me your history blogger of the week. Lol.

Happy Halloween, my readers, I hope you’re having an amazing Halloween as I am. As you have guessed, the opportunity was too good to miss, and we history bloggers love the holiday too much that it was impossible not do a blog post on Halloween or All Hallows Eve. The one day of the year where we celebrate the creatures, monsters, the things that go bump in the night. Were we dress up as witches and Frankenstein lurks around the corner or if you’re silly enough to say trick to a bunch of kids your house ends up pelted with eggs. So sit back, relax and join me on this ‘ghost’ train of a ride as we explore the traditions and the history of Halloween.

The origins of Halloween

All Hallows Eve dates back to the time of the ancient Celtic festival of Samhain (pronounced sow-in) . The Celts are generally found in England, Ireland and northern France and would celebrate Halloween as the day in which the boundary between the worlds of the living and the dead was at its weakest, and it is on this day that the ghosts of the dead came back to the land of the living. It was believed that the ghost came back to play tricks on people, and destroy harvests etc. remember this was a time when the was a different type of logic and reasoning than we 21st century people are used to and people believed that if something went wrong the supernatural was to blame, something it can be argued that is still believe in by some people today. In addition it was believed that it was due to this supernatural activity that it was easier for druids or Celtic priests to predict the future. The Celts celebrated Samhain by building huge bonfires where sacrifices were made to the Celtic deities, and during the day they wore costumes made of animal skins (perhaps an early example of Halloween dress up) and once the celebrations were over they re-lit their hearth fires to help protect them from the harsh winter, that was coming. The Romans also had their own take on Halloween. After taking control of the Celtic lands, the Romans combined two of their own festivals, Feralia, a day commemorating the dead and a day that honoured Pomona the Goddess of fruit and trees with the Celtic celebration of the Samhain, in their version of Halloween. Interestingly it may be from the goddess Pomona that we get the Halloween tradition of bobbing for apples as that was her symbol.

Another aspect to All Hallows Eve is the day after, all saints day moved by Pope Gregory III to the first of 1st November. By the 9th century the influence of Christianity had spread so far that it began to mix and supplant the Celtic traditions, in 1000 A.D. all souls day was created by the church on November 2nd, a day to honour the dead. The day itself was celebrated similarly to the Celtic Samhain, with bonfires, parades and dressing up as saints; angels and devils. This was eventually moved to the 1st of November and combined with all saints day leaving the traditional Celtic Samhain to be performed the night before, coming to be known as All- Hallows eve … Halloween.

An American Halloween

Halloween was more common in Maryland and other southern colonies in America and the typical American Halloween we know was built out of these areas where different European ethnic groups mixed the the ideas of the American Indians, to become Halloween. These celebrations included ‘play parties’, public events that celebrated the harvest ‘where neighbours would share stories of the dead, tell each other’s fortunes, dance and sing;’ telling of ghost stories and mischief-making of all kinds but these were just part of autumn festivities and not yet a part of Halloween. The great migration to America in the second half of the 19th century helped to cement Halloween as a holiday in America’s calendar. In particular the growing number of Irish immigrants, who brought with them their own English and Irish traditions which soon had the American’s dressing up and going trick or treating.
However there are still elements of the old Celtic traditions, even in the 19th century, with young American women believing that they could divine the name of their future husbands by doing tricks with yarn, apple parings or mirrors. In the late 1800s, Halloween in America became more a holiday about the community and less about ghosts and witchcraft, although this still remains an important part of Halloween as it stands today. However by the 1900s Halloween became more of, what I wish to call a political correct holiday, with parents being encouraged to take the frightening or grotesque out of celebrations, this lead to Halloween loosing most o its superstitious elements and religious elements. By the 1950s Halloween in America was now a holiday directed at the young and trick-or-treating bad been revived, with adults now giving out ‘candy’ (sweets to you and me) to prevent children playing tricks on them. Today, Americans spend an estimated $6 billion annually on Halloween, making it the country’s second largest commercial holiday .

Halloween Traditions and Superstitions

Trick or treating, is suggested to date back to the early All Souls Day practise of giving poor people, on this day, “soul cakes” in return for the promise of the recipient to pray for the family’s dead relatives ( A very important thing during this time ). It can also be explained as the church trying t discourage the practise of leaving food and wine out for roaming spirits,… hmm sounds familiar lol. The practice, was referred to as “going a-souling” and was eventually taken up by children who would visit the houses in their neighbourhood and be given ale, food, and money.

Dress up- in the Celtic days, where they believed that ghost would come back on All Hallows Eve if they left their homes. To avoid being recognised they would wear masks when they left homes after dark hoping that the ghosts would mistake them for fellow spirits.

Ghosts – originally were like Casper (if you remember him) and were friendly. As people felt especially close to the deceased at this time, for the friendly spirits, they set places at the dinner table and left treats out or them, lighting candles for them on the sides of the road to help them get back to the spirit realm. Today’s ghosts are scarier and it is suggested that this goes back to the middle ages and particularly in the times of the witch craze, where the majority of the European population believed in the idea of witches, and they would avoid detection by turning into black cats and so we avoid the cats. Along with acting upon other superstitious behaviour breaking mirrors, passing under ladders, and stepping on cracks in the road.

Many Halloween rituals also focused on the future particularly finding young women their future husbands. For example in Ireland it e 18th century a cook might bury a ring in the mash potatoes hoping t bring true love to the diner. In Scotland, fortune-tellers recommended that an eligible young woman name a hazelnut for each of her suitors and then toss the nuts into the fireplace. The nut that burned to ashes rather than popping or exploding, the story went, represented the girl’s future husband. (In some versions of this legend, confusingly, the opposite was true: The nut that burned away symbolized a love that would not last.) Other rituals were more competitive, with the first guest at a Halloween party, to find a burr on a chestnut-hunt would be the first to marry; or the first successful apple-bobber would be the first down the aisle.
So from spooks and superstitions, from days commemorating the living and the dead both spiritually and religiously and finding future, maybe even your true love. Whatever your Halloween tradition I hope your day has been as awesome as mine. Now i’m offto hide under the covers whilst attempting to watch scary movies.Please feel free to comment with any of your hallowen tradtions.

Until next time

Sophie

sources
http://www.history.com/topics/halloween

www.google.co.uk/images

Comebacks

‘”we’re baaaaaaaaaack!”:)

She says excitedly which I know is a little surreal when you think of coming back to uni, or back to work after a lovely few months relaxing, then it’s September again, and the work, and the receptivity of life is already back again. However the term to come back doesn’t necessarily have to be a negative thing, although life goes on in the same manner, comebacks can usually mean a new beginning for those involved in it so instead of seeing September as the month of returning to work for all us students and those who work in the same time we do perhaps we should see come backs as part of a new more successful beginning for us as we travel through this journey called life.

Historically comebacks can be argued as happening all the time, just think about all the monarch’s that have been deposed and came back again, and if you believe in the theory that history is circular, in that the same things happen over and over again and only what we call the event‘s changes . Then history is the ultimate comeback kid. For example this last Sunday it was the 10th anniversary of 9/11 and the whole tragic event which can be suggested as having been to some extent put on the back burner for a while has and did come back in to the foreground, quite rightly so. Therefore anniversaries of events themselves can also be considered as part of the history’s comeback as they catapult memories, thoughts and feelings on to us that we probably forget about for the rest of the year. For example unless your studying World War II, your family tree or even World War I how often do you actually think about the relatives who served in the various conflicts, except on 11/11 remembrance day (for the UK ) or any other day of remembrance.

Therefore history is all about coming back.

So when thinking about what to write about for this post I began with thinking about how many things have come back within the10 years since 9/11 which there were a few so then I decided to expand the time and see how many things/ trends /events that have come back in the last 50 years or so, leading to this slightly abstract, slightly unusual but hopefully, ultimately an interesting blog on the comebacks of the last 50 years.
Fashion, for you dedicated followers of it is a great participator in the world historical come backs, for example those of you who experienced the ‘interesting’ fashions of the 1980’s must have been surprised, that even after history’s condemnation of the shoulder pads and the leg warmers and the vibrant colours, they still came back a few years ago, (I should know I have a dress with shoulder pads, and I remember seeing leg warmers everywhere, if not always in those vivid colours) like the current trend for the 1960’s fashion and hairstyles, demonstrated by the late Amy Winehouse and last year’s 1970’s trend and the most recent trend for the ‘dress silhouettes of the late ’50s / early ’60s swing their way back onto the scene’ as a fashion trend for this year.

Music is also another area of great historical comebacks and no I don’t simply mean the more recent triumphant come back of Take That. (Although it has to be said that their comeback is pretty amazing) Ok I know, I can hear you all going has she lost the plot, this is a history blog and she writing about the comeback of take that, but hear me out. Whilst music is continuingly, fluctuating media, which is anything if not full of variety, (one just has to think of Lady Gaga) yet it is still full of trends that come and go. For instance on my local news this summer, (BBC South East if you’re interested) they reported about the comeback of folk music to the local festivals, and i1f we expand this, look up the pierces on you tube they can be suggested as having a folky sound to their work, thus showing how even musical trends can come back as folk is usually associated with the late1960’s and early 1970’s. Here’s a bit of speculation for you readers punk last existed in the 1980’s with the recession and the politics influencing their music and lyrics, were in a recession at the minute or so the newspapers tell me… so will we see a punk comeback , who knows but with comebacks as with life, anything is possible.

Ok, so we have had music and fashion what else comes back, well governments come back to, I know this can be considered as a weak connection as although we have many political parties in the U.K. it can be considered as a two party race, so after years in opposition the conservative party has once again come back, with the liberal democrats. Regardless of what you think of the parties you cannot deny that this is a comeback and although politics and situations undoubtedly change, they’ve still come back and this is the essential point of this link.

For my final example of comebacks within recent history I shall turn to the royal family and patriotism. Love, hate or tolerate whatever your own personal opinions towards the royal family are you cannot deny that in the more recent years they as a collective have enjoyed a comeback of popularity . With films such as The Queen and The King’s Speech and even one coming out soon about Wallis Simpson and Edward VIII, alongside events such as the royal wedding’s both of Prince William and Kate Middleton (now Duke and Duchess of Cambridge), and Zara Phillips to Mike Tindell alongside the upcoming diamond jubilee, has bound to have generated interest once again in them and therefore can be considered as an example of a comeback.

Therefore whilst almost anything in itself can be considered as part of coming back, even if it’s just a memory of something in your own history or a larger trend in history in general, such as my examples it perhaps demonstrates that ‘comebacks’ are a considerable force in the history of the world and at the same time support the theory that history is cyclical. Yet I think that a major element of comebacks is the memory of the events that lead a resurgence of nostalgia which helps to cement the success of the comeback’s in question. Hopefully you’ve enjoyed this post and whilst reading it thought of comebacks of your own, which please feel free to comment with and so I shall conclude with the words of Celine Dion …

‘It’s all coming back to me now.’

by Sophie

Women after World War 2

This essay will focus on the idea that any radical change to the lives of women of all classes in the fifty years after the Second World War was simply illusory, by exploring a variety of aspects that impact on all women’s lives. For instance, changes within the social lives of women; stereotypes; women’s economy; employment and the impact of politics upon women. The term illusory in this essay will be defined as any radical change which does not impact upon or create a real change in the status; opportunities and lifestyles of all women throughout this period.

Firstly, there have been many changes within the post-war period which have impacted on all aspects of women’s life. Perhaps some of the main changes can be considered as the introduction of the pill; legalised abortion; the liberalization and the decline of the stigma attached to divorce. These can be considered as changes that are not illusory and had a large impact. For example the introduction of the contraceptive pill and legalised abortion in1967 can be argued as ‘open[ing] up whole new possibilities for women…without fear of pregnancy,’ as now women had a greater opportunity to experience life, which in turn impacts their lifestyles. Also, the practical application of women’s contraception and the result that they had more control of the amount of children they had, can be used as another demonstration of social changes. Those were not illusory, as women now had more freedom in their lifestyles and opportunity in the job market than previously where being a mother to a large family took up all their time. However this radical change can also be considered as double edged as despite contemporises perceiving an increase in sexual behaviour and attitudes, in fact it ‘remained pretty consistent with that of earlier decades.’ This thereby demonstrates that the radical change, in the introduction of the pill and legalised abortion, can to a certain extent be considered as illusory, because whilst it did create the potential for greater sexual freedom amongst women, this did not mean that this was the case in reality.

A way, in which it can be suggested that the radical social changes in the years following World War II were illusory, can be demonstrated through the continuation of stereotypes within society. For example, the continuations of the idea that man was the bread winner and women should continue to be the image of a traditional housewife. This is found in the years immediately after World War II wherein many women were to an extent expected to return to their traditional role as housewives and mothers, spurred on by government propaganda and other various forms of influence such as posters magazines and psychological reports, such as J. Bowlby’s research into the effects of the separation of the primary care giver from the child, maternal deprivation. This can also be found in the 1980s with Prime Minister Margret Thatcher calling for a return to ‘Victorian values… her championing of moral, social and gender norms,’ and ordinary men and women agreeing as they ‘consider[ed] married women’s primary responsibility to be to [the]home and family.’ Although it can be suggested that in the modern world the role of the bread winner being solely a male stereotype and that the women as a housewife and mother, is perhaps a weakening concept, it still demonstrates that the stereotypical status of women has continued throughout this period and thus any radical change in status of women is illusory.

Other continuous stereotypes for women can be found in the work place, as jobs can often stereotyped into specifically men and women’s work/ careers. Despite the introduction of sexual discrimination acts 1975 in England, which is used to prevent a potential applicant being sexually discriminated against when going for employment, it perhaps can be suggested as having done little to remove the stereotypes attached to jobs. For example, primary teaching and nursing are seen stereotypically as women’s professions with engineering and manual labour considered as stereotypically jobs for men. This is further highlighted since the immediate years after the Second World War women who had become part of the labour force were squeezed out of their jobs into ‘lower level jobs designated as women’s work’. Whilst there has been a radical change in the legality of opportunity for women’s professions and employment through the Sexual Discriminations Act, 1975 it can be suggested that the stereotype still remains. For instance according to The Independent’s recent survey of professional and trade bodies, ‘the Institute of Mechanical Engineering reported a landslide male membership of 96.6%, [with] the train drivers at 96.3%,’ and for women in what are stereotyped as ‘caring’ jobs, they outnumber men ’33 to 1 in nursery schools’ .Therefore it can be suggested that any radical change over the past fifty years in opportunities for women’s employment can be considered as illusory because stereotypes still remain and will continue to have an impact on the opportunities in women’s lives.

With the expansion of the economy in the last fifty years, came the rise of consumerism and the development of technology both of which can be argued as having a major impact on the lives of women though out this period, thus demonstrating a radical change was not illusory. For instance, the developments of everyday house hold items such as ‘washing machines, vacuum cleaners, gas and electric stoves,’ and also the rise of connivance food can highlight a change that has impacted on the status; opportunity and life styles of women over the last fifty years. On a practical level such developments increase the potential of opportunities for women to do as they please, including getting a job, which then in turn can change their lifestyle and status. This demonstrates that technological advancements in the years that followed the Second World War did have a profound impact on the lives of women during this time and as such this cannot be considered as illusory.
Employment is another area in which it can be argued that there were radical changes that impacted the lives of women, in the fifty year after World War II. For example, although there was pressure for women to go back to their traditional roles, many remained in some form of employment in the immediate years after the Second World War, a trend which grows and continues into modern times. For instance in America by the1980s, the number of women in work had doubled its previous total from the 1960s. Furthermore in England, women’s involvement in the labour market has increased from ‘36% in 1951 to 61% in1981.’ However this radical change does not solely lie with the fact that women remained in employment, but also includes the change in women wanting more substantial roles. This demonstrates a radical change in women’s opportunities that cannot be considered illusory as more women are continuing to be involved in some form of employment up to present day.

Alternatively, it can be suggested that the radical changes to women’s status; opportunities and lifestyle as a result of radical changes made within employment can be considered as illusory due to the inequalities that women faced in the working sphere. Although an Equal Pay Act, introduced in England in 1970, which can be considered as a radical change in the status and opportunity for women, its impact is limited when the wage gap between men and women is considered. For instance the gap in wages in the years following World War II were considerably lower than that of a man’s, further more; in 1980’s America, a woman still only earned ‘sixty-four cents to a man’s dollar’ ; and in Britain women’s wages increased from ‘54% [of a man’s wage]in 1970 to 66% in1982. Therefore the radical change, by the introduction of Equal Pay Acts, can be seen as illusory as there is still inequality within wages in the present day, therefore the change, although it has impacted on the women’s economic stability and spending power, it can be suggested as having done very little to change the status of women as it can be inferred that women are still not seen as equal to men. However, although the wage gap between men and women can to an extent be perceived as an illusory change, is not the only way in which women can gain money. For instance social benefit payments have increased in this period as an extension of social welfare, thus it can be argued that this is a change that is not illusory as social benefits and also greater provision for children’s welfare, allows women, particularly young mothers to have greater opportunity to follow a career or stay at home if they wish. This can be argued as a way in which the wage gap can be considered as being reduced, for example in ‘Western European countries have…generous maternity leaves… [and] public childcare and made considerable progress in closing the [wage] gap.’

Finally politics is another area in which it can be suggested that there were radical changes that in turn impacted on the lifestyles; opportunities and status of women. It can be suggested that the introduction of anti discrimination acts and equality laws in the last fifty years, particularly in the modern day, have impacted upon the opportunities and status of all women. For instance of the Equality Act 2010, ‘The Equality and Human Rights Commission said: “Everyone is protected by the new law.’ Thus women in particular can no longer be discriminated against, most notably in employment, therefore such acts can be argued as part of a non illusory change because they have allowed women greater freedom. It can also be suggested that as a result, women are not visibly perceived visibly as second class citizens anymore. A practical, if perhaps controversial way, in which this is demonstrated, is through the role of Margret Thatcher as Britain’s first female Prime Minister. This can be used to demonstrate that there was a change in the status of women throughout this period. During the fifties and sixties, the idea of women ministers and the reality of it were considered unusual by contemporises for example, Shirley Williams writes in her autobiography how women MP’s had been allocated ‘two rooms marked “lady members”, with an ironing board and a chintz-covered settee to rest on.’ Furthermore, Shirley Williams also talks about the ‘camaraderie’ between the female MP’s that crossed party lines, because they ‘knew [what they] were up against’, the view that ‘women weren’t up to the hard choices of politics,’ and were better off in ‘soft subjects like health, pensions and education.’ This marks a divisive change in the status of women within politics as when Margret Thatcher becomes Prime Minister in 1980 she is considered as the ‘“best man”,’ for the job. Therefore it can be argued that the status of women can be suggested as changing as a result of the growing number of female politicians, who can be used as role models showing that women have a more equal status, as they can be successful in what can be generalised as a man’s Job that of Prime Minister.

To conclude, whilst there have been a great number of radical changes that have impacted on the lives of women in the years since the Second World War, whether they can be considered as illusory or not still remains questionable. In addition, the post war decades can be considered as the period in which women have had greater opportunities for doing a wide range of activities through the women’s own choice rather than necessity, which means they now have a more equal status and more options for their lifestyle, therefore it would be logical to assume that the radical changes were, on the surface, were not illusory. Furthermore, the practical changes such as the introduction of convenience food and the development of domestic technology demonstrates that the radical changes in women’s lives were not superficial. However this answer is too simplistic, as whilst on paper all women are free, there are still issues which make the radical changes appear illusory. For instance, stereotypes of women have not completely changed, with ‘the home and childcare is still seen as primarily women’s responsibility, but now they are expected to work as well,’ and also, the employment of women which can be argued as ‘still concentrated in low skill, low status occupations.’ On the other hand, due to the fact that the changes have not changed everything in a woman’s life and as equality between men and women is still a complex issue, means that that the changes can be considered as illusory, as they are superficial and have not totally changed reality. Therefore to say that all the radical changes have impacted upon women’s lives in the past fifty years are simply illusory is to over simplify the statement, one which ignores all the changes that have made a radical difference in the lives of women over the past 50 years.

Bibliography
Bruley, S., Women in Britain since 1900, (Basingstoke, 1999).
Hewlett, S, A., A Lesser Life: The Myth of Women’s Liberation, (London, 1986).
Kingsley Kent, S., Gender and Power; in Britain, 1640-1990,(London, 1999).
Lewis, J., Women in England 1870-1950; Sexual Division and Social Change, (Brighton, 1984).
Lewis , J., Women in Britain since 1945, (Oxford, 1992).
O’Grady, S., ‘Business urged to “radically change” way they promote women’, The Independent, 25 February 2011, p16.
O’Grady, S., ‘Still a case of jobs for the boys and jobs for the girls’, The Independent, 25 February 2011, p17.
‘New equality rights in workplace come into force’, BBC News Online, 8 June 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news.
Pugh, M., Women and the Women’s Movement, Second ed., (Basingstoke, 2000).
Williams, S., Climbing the Bookshelves, (London, 2009).

Lost Causes: Levellers.

For the final post of our lost causes month we shall be looking at the Levellers, a group of rebels during England’s Civil War 1642-1651, who as a political movement attempted to bring ‘religious toleration, law reform, free trade, an extension to the voting franchise, and rights guaranteed under a written constitution and a government answerable to the People rather than to King or Parliament. As we can see by their ideals and political desires, the Levellers’, were well ahead of their time, and perhaps this is why they can be considered as a lost cause. In my opinion history rarely changes over night and if it does then it’s usually as a result of all the little factors building up and then finally exploding. This doesn’t happen in the case of the Levellers’ instead it could be considered as too much too soon and therefore they can be included in June’s L for lost causes that also begin with L month. However we mustn’t simply assign them to the Lost causes pile as I think that would neglect, another L –word, their Legacy which arguably has had influence on many political thoughts and ideas even today.

What’s in a name?

The name Levellers comes was first used to describe a section of Cromwell’s New Model Army who along with their London supporters wished to kill King Charles I of England. However it was later applied to a group of radicals under the leadership of John Lilburne, Richard Overton and William Walwyn. The name Levellers’ came from the idea that all the members of this faction wanted to bring everyone down to a common level; however it wasn’t originally used by the leaders of the group but it was later adopted by the group as the majority of the people recognised and by the time of their arrest and imprisonment in 1649 the current leaders Walwyn, Overton, Lilburne and Thomas Prince signed a manifesto in which they called themselves Levellers.

Political ideologies’

The Levellers had no set agenda, other than a broad commitment to the general good principles of abolition of corruption, religious toleration, having the Law in the common English that everyone could understand, and finally an extension of the Suffrage franchise. However these ideas changed over time with other ideas becoming more important such as the idea that the English common law and the Magna Carta was the foundation of English rights and liberties. Lastly they also believed in the idea of “natural rights”, where the people have certain right and liberties which they believed to have been violated by the king and his followers during the civil war. However what natural rights actually stood for remains ambiguous, with Thomas Rainsborough defining natural rights as those coming from the Bible, and Richard Overton considered that liberty was a part of everyman’s natural rights Therefore the levellers cause can be considered as a lost one because what they wanted politically could be suggested as semi utopian ideals which weren’t not unpractical for the time, just a case perhaps of too much too soon.

Background and events

The Levellers began by handing out leaflets about soldier’s rights, along with extensions to the political franchise, as whilst the soldiers were fighting for parliament only a small amount actually could vote for it, and this is continued with the ideas that members of the House of Commons shouldn’t be allowed t serve for more than a year at a time as they were too corrupt. By 165 an official leveller party had been established under John Lilburne, John Wildman, Richard Overton and William Walwyn, asking for their political desires and the abolition of the monarchy and the house of lords, trial by jury and an end to the tax on people earning less than £30 a year (imagine that having no tax). The Levellers also had their own newspaper The Moderate and organised petitions as a demonstration of their supporters.

The levellers are perhaps best known for their document An Agreement of the People 1647, a proposal created with the Agitators of the new model army. The document stated that all sovereign power should reside with the people of England instead of the monarchy; members of parliament should be elected in proration to the population of their constituencies; the existing parliament should be dissolved on the 30th of September 1648 and be elected biannually and sit every other year between April and September consisting of a single elected house which would act as the supreme authority within England, although there were limits to its power as it couldn’t interfere with freedom of religion and it couldn’t enforce conscription into the armed forces or prosecute anyone for their part in the civil war. The document was debated at the Putney Debates (October and November 1647) with Cromwell and Ireton trying to limit perceived extremism of the Levellers. A second extended version of the agreement was created after King Charles I’s defeat, by John Lilburne hoping to find a middle way between royal despotism and military dictatorship however they failed to achieve a complete document that could be used as the legal constitution when the king was put on trial in January1649. A final agreement was created in May 1649 it included the following;
• The right to vote for all men over the age of 21 (excepting servants, beggars and Royalists)
• No army officer, treasurer or lawyer could be an MP (to prevent conflict of interest)
• Annual elections to Parliament with MPs serving one term only
• Equality of all persons before the law
• Trials should be heard before 12 jurymen, freely chosen by their community
• No-one could be punished for refusing to testify against themselves in criminal cases
• The law should proceed in English and cases should not extend longer than six months
• The death penalty to be applied only in cases of murder
• Abolition of imprisonment for debt
• Tithes should be abolished and parishioners have the right to choose their ministers
• Taxation in proportion to real or personal property
• Abolition of military conscription, monopolies and excise taxes

This final document was created whilst Liburne, Overton, Walwyn and Prince were under arrest by order of the Council of state and just before the army leveller s were suppressed as Burford, and these actions effectively put an end to the somewhat idealistic leveller movement.

The Levellers although considered a radical group politically were perhaps not as radical as they could have been actively as Oliver Cromwell and Fairfax were able to keep control of the levellers in the army during the second civil war (). However it was in government that they caused the most problems, coming into conflict with the council of state and later growing unrest by the army levellers over plans for the state invasion of Ireland leading to munities in April and May 1649. Heres were suppressed by Cromwell and Fairfax which lead to a decline of the Levellers influence as a result of no longer having the army to support them.

Although the movement itself was over by the end of 1649, some of the more radical members became involved in conspiracies’ to overthrow the Crowellian regime, which was regarded then as a betrayal of the principles which the civil war was fought over.

Therefore are the levellers a lost cause, hmm it depends on your view of lost cause. Does lost cause apply to; something that was ahead of its time and therefore it is lost cause because it was never going to achieve much, even though world at that time was in a state of disarray that it could have achieved its goals if it had more support; or is it lost in that its simply forgotten or overlooked as a result of the wider picture of history and finally does the legacy of the Levellers over rule all of this, and leave you as a reader wondering why I covered this in the Lost Causes month.

My own thought is that the Levellers whilst I can see how they can be considered as a lost cause, I don’t think that they are one because, they can be demonstrated the beginnings of a wider perhaps more socialist movement and their political legacy and influence in this case has opened the way, albeit eventually, to greater equality . To conclude I would say the Levellers are a lost cause as in forgotten but not a lost cause overall, but feel free to comment if you agree or disagree all constructive comments are welcome.

Sophie

Sources

http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/glossary/levellers.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levellers

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/libhe/libhe005.htm

http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/index.htm

Why Did British Women Fail to Get the Vote by 1914?

Today’s history post is entitled why did British women fail to get the vote by 1914, and it was set to me as a presentation as part of my work for my Women in history module. I know that women’s history is a relatively new area in the context of history and I find it really fascinating, perhaps it is because it looks at women which traditional history seems to miss out unless they are incredibly important or they fail to conform to the stereotyped Gender Roles of their contemporary society, or its perhaps a result of what my friends jokingly call me feminist leanings. Whatever the case, I hope you enjoy my latest post on why it took so long for women to get the vote.

It is necessary to briefly look at the background and events of the campaign before going through the main reasons for the failure to achieve the vote by 1914. We begin with the 19th century ideas for a reform the voting system for men this also presented the opportunity for women to also try and change the system in order for them to vote. Perhaps the trigger for women’s suffrage was James Mill’s claim that women did not need the vote as their husbands and fathers would protect their interests.

With the first reform act in 1832 Henry Hunt attempted to extend the vote to unmarried women with property but this was rejected and for the first time women were explicitly excluded from voting. In 1865 John Stuart Mill included women’s suffrage in his successful election campaign; however when the next reform came in1867 Mill proposed the change the words of the text from ‘men to person’ he was out voted by a majority of 194 to 73, demonstrating that many politicians were not ready to introduce women’s suffrage yet. The municipal corporations act in 1869 was a success for the suffrage movement as it allowed women to vote in local elections; although it can be argued as a success it still has limitations as the act only enfranchised single women rate payers, but it is significant as it set the precedent and women were subsequently given the right to vote on local school boards.

During this time women were often seen as the angel in the house and living in a separate sphere from men. These views didn’t include for women to have an interest in politics or an idea to change their own social situation. The women’s suffrage movement did a lot to change these ideas and perceptions of women, in trying to win the vote for them.

The women’s suffrage movement was made up of many diverse groups such as the NUWSS (National Union of Women’s Suffrage societies);WSPU (women’s social and political union); the WLF (women’s liberal federation) and the WFL (women’s freedom league). This is just a small sample of the variety of women and men who were supportive of women’s suffrage throughout this period.

Divisions

A political force is perhaps stronger when it is united and although divisions can be useful putting pressure on the government from all angles, however it does not help when the divisions lead to confusion over the long term goals of the movement and who is and is not a member of the movement, for example probably the most famous division between the NUWSS and the WSPU this along with the many other divisions has prompted the question would the vote come earlier if the movement was not so divided.
From the beginning political division was a main factor in the failure for women to achieve the vote; the Conservatives within the group would not work with the radicals and later the Liberals , within the WSPU they later divided from the Independent labour Party thus alienating a potential political force. This division on political leanings caused split amongst members as to which section of the group they belonged to. Also this cost them too much time which could have been more affectively used if they were all stood together regardless of political alliance on this issue.

The political division lead o to division on the goal of women’s suffrage, although this might appear obvious in actual fact t was far from straight forward; where they about getting the vote for women; improving social conditions for women; was the vote to be for universal suffrage if not who was the vote for. For example the movement was split over the repeal of the contagious diseases act with some embers like Millicent Fawcett not wishing to associate the movement, for fear it would discredit the suffrage movement this caused a split within the movement. Furthermore the issue as to whether to include married women in the suffrage also caused a split with the conservatives arguing for only single women voters and liberals for universal suffrage. Along with the refusal of the separate groups within the suffrage movement refusing to work with other groups, this leads to confusion over whom, what and who with are we fighting for. Which can be argued as causing the delay in British women achieving the vote by 1914, and can lead to the suggestion that the vote might have come earlier had the movement not been so divided.

Tactics

Another important factor in the failure for women to achieve the vote by 1914 is the tactics used by all groups within the suffrage movement to get the vote for women. It would always be a difficult issue whether to use peaceful or more aggressive tactics and a successful balance of these might have helped women to gain the vote earlier then 1914. However this is not what happened as the WSPU’s gradual increase into militancy and the use of such militant tactics was a controversial issue even to contemporises. For example Millicent Fawcett and the NUWSS originally approved of the WSPU’ civil disobedience tactics, such as disrupting politicians meetings but what they did not approve of was the militancy that it later became, as the WSPU took to breaking windows of , rushing the house of commons, committing arson on both public and private property, they even attacked the prime minister Herbert Asquith the liberal prime minister and his car. These violent militant tactics do have the use of being able o stir up propaganda for the cause which was a good thing at the same time the acts of violence plays into the hand of the opposition who said that women were hormonal unstable creatures who would not be able to vote properly.

A more peaceful tactic used in the early 20th century was for the women of the suffrage movement to refuse to work for politicians. After the corrupt and illegal practices act women were paid and some volunteered to work for politicians by canvassing their areas to encourage voters and inform about their party’s manifesto, this obviously was often a great help to the politicians hoping to get elected. However during the early 20th century the women of the suffrage movement refused to do the work for perspective members of parliament who had not pledged to include women’s suffrage included their campaign. The impact of this tactic is debatable but at least it is successful as it manages to get women’s rights on the majority of the mp’s election campaigns.

Opposition

The final area which has an impact on the failure for women to get the vote by 1914 is the opposition that they faced both from the politicians and the general public, two very important groups of people that the suffrage movement would have to persuade in order to be successful. Women’s suffrage came at a time when public opinion towards women was that they were still weak and inconsistent and supposed to be the Victorian ideal of an angel in the house living in a separate sphere from men. This suggests that the women’s suffrage movement had a harder task as they had to change the politicians and the public’s opinions of women in order to get them the vote, on equal terms to men. Politicians are probably the most important group of people that the suffrage movement have to persuade in order to succeed. However as we know with politicians today they cannot be trusted or relied upon too easily. For example in the late 19th century Prime Minister William Gladstone was a great hope for women’s suffrage as both a liberal and a reformer it was hoped that he would be the one to bring in women’s votes. This proved to not be the case as Gladstone used party loyalty to destroy one bill in 1870 and a further amendment in 1884 which could have provided women’s suffrage even on a limited scale. Both times Gladstone uses party loyalty to destroy the bills, by simply declaring his opposition to the movements Gladstone opens up conflict within his politician’s party loyalty or what they believe in. With the 1884 amendment Gladstone was successful in persuading 104 liberal politicians to oppose the movement they previously supported.

Also the politicians were heavily relied upon, although they were perhaps the main way in which women’s votes could be achieved they can always be trusted as shown by the action of liberal prime ministers for example Herbert Asquith kept postponing the reading of the latest bills and Henry Campbell- Bannerman said it was unrealistic for the NUWSS to expect the liberal government to enforce women’s suffrage legislation.

Lastly the anti suffrage movement can be considered as another reason why the campaign for the vote took so long. As I already said the idea of women at this time was so fixed in people’s expectations and ideas that it would be a hard task to change this and it wouldn’t happen overnight. Attacked as unfeminine and suggested as attacking mans masculinity are very big obstacles for women’s suffrage to overcome.

To conclude the main causes for the failure for women’s suffrage movement are division, tactics and opposition. However the idea of failure can be questioned, considering that women did not get the vote on an equal scale till 1928, and then yes they did fail by 1914. However the hurdles they faced in publics opinion of women is a big factor which would never have been easily overcome. Also they were close in 1914 to getting the vote and had many politicians on their side, therefore who knows what would have happened if world war one did not break out when it did, and the fact that in 1918 women over 30 get the vote is an example of how far they had come by 1914, alright this is a limited group of women and is not equal to a man’s voting age but it is a beginning.

By Sophie .