Okay... ... ...don't panic, but IT'S TRUE!!! PUBS ARE CLOSING DOWN! Whyyyyyyyyyy?
In all seriousness, this really is detrimental to society. As I discussed in a previous post, pub culture is such a big part of European (especially British) life, that its downfall would pretty much cause every individual to plummet into a deep depression. But wait, is that necessarily true? How are people really responding to this? What's causing the meltdown?
First, I'll answer the latter question. The problem is evident: Britain, like the rest of the world, is experiencing a recession. Not only are people being laid off right and left, but according to an article by Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondant, pubs are closing at a rate of 36 per week! Why? Drinkers are opting to buy cheaper alchohol for at-home consumption.
I, personally, can understand this. I went to a few pubs pretty routinely within the first two weeks of my arrival here in London, but after realizing that a) pub prices were breaking my bank account, and b) I could pay the same amount in a convenience store and stock my cabinet for weeks, I decided to ditch the pubs and opt for option B. I mean, it only makes sense, right?
With pubs closing at a rate 9 times faster than they did in 2006, you would think that Londoners would be concerned that their way of life is crashing before their eyes. However, I'd argue that this recession has made people feel as if only the most important aspects of life should be valued...what's the purpose of having a 'cultural activity' around if one can never afford to participate? I believe that more and more, people find themselves admiring the free parks and elaborate buildings contructed by Great Exhibition funds to gain a sense of culture and pride.
Are they wrong? Perhaps if people in America did what many Londoners are forced to do and quit driving the massive SUVs simply because it has become mainstream American pop-culture, we'd be in a better economic and eco-friendly state of affairs now.
Here's another idea: perhaps Londoners just aren't worried. I mean, there are over 8,000 pubs in London alone...what's 36 pubs a week for two years? Do the math, and you should have an approximate closing of about 3744 pubs. Now, that seems like a lot, but even if this trend continued every week for another two years (highly unlikely), London would STILL have over 4,000 pubs to choose from... ... ...
I wouldn't be worried, either.
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
Irish Nationalism
So we've discussed St. Patrick's Day and how the 'real meaning' has seemed to faded, especially in other cultures (outside Ireland). In that post, I also talked about how that meaning seems unimportant even in the land of the green. Upon pondering this a bit more, a few more questions arise. Is that nonchalant attitude representative of Ireland as a whole? If so, why do the Irish seems more relaxed about their seemingly 'global nationalism'?
Based upon the fact that the United Kingdom can only claim Northern Ireland as territory provides the obvious answer to that question: the concept isn't representative of Ireland as a whole (due to British possession of the north), but it does affect a big part of it. I've heard a lot about tensions between Ireland and Britain, and actually researched this issue. Follow along and hopefully you'll find it just as interesting as I did.
When you think of nationalism, you think of a social or political ideology that comprises a culture. Toss Ireland into the mix, and you get a strong sense of adoration out of it (at least from the Irish). Historically, this socio-political ideology stemmed from a desire to become (and remain) independent from Britain (which, as you can see, has prompted other very strong movements, as America resulted from one).
The 1916 Easter Rising all sparked this 'war of Independence'. I won't go into too much detail about why or how it began, for you can infer based upon reasons behind similar wars of Independence. Ireland not only had a great number of people who didn't agree with British rule, but who wanted their own culture to flourish in the way they believed it should. Thus, after this 'rising', 26 counties in Ireland became the Irish Free State in 1922, while 6 counties remained loyal to the British crown.
Tensions have pretty much ceased to exist since the end of the civil war, and there really isn't a question of whether or not Ireland's sovereignty is threatened. This is mainly because upon Ireland entering the European Union, they are less dependent on Britain politically and economically, since the EU operates with seperate currency and governance. Thus, there is no reason for petty 'quarrel' with Britain, since they are even less dependant on the superpower than before.
This is why one may detect more of a nonchalant attitude from Ireland as a whole: it stems from not having anything to fear. They've essentially won...their culture is now their own, and they are proud of it. Being secure allows for a more celebratory occasion, hence why Irish natinalism has spread to various other cultures (including parts of Britain) with little reaction from the home country itself.
I can't say that I blame them, either. Since when was a universal or global celebration over nationalism and independence ever discouraged? Ireland, like other nations, celebrates it all the time: just view how they live life.
Based upon the fact that the United Kingdom can only claim Northern Ireland as territory provides the obvious answer to that question: the concept isn't representative of Ireland as a whole (due to British possession of the north), but it does affect a big part of it. I've heard a lot about tensions between Ireland and Britain, and actually researched this issue. Follow along and hopefully you'll find it just as interesting as I did.
When you think of nationalism, you think of a social or political ideology that comprises a culture. Toss Ireland into the mix, and you get a strong sense of adoration out of it (at least from the Irish). Historically, this socio-political ideology stemmed from a desire to become (and remain) independent from Britain (which, as you can see, has prompted other very strong movements, as America resulted from one).
The 1916 Easter Rising all sparked this 'war of Independence'. I won't go into too much detail about why or how it began, for you can infer based upon reasons behind similar wars of Independence. Ireland not only had a great number of people who didn't agree with British rule, but who wanted their own culture to flourish in the way they believed it should. Thus, after this 'rising', 26 counties in Ireland became the Irish Free State in 1922, while 6 counties remained loyal to the British crown.
Tensions have pretty much ceased to exist since the end of the civil war, and there really isn't a question of whether or not Ireland's sovereignty is threatened. This is mainly because upon Ireland entering the European Union, they are less dependent on Britain politically and economically, since the EU operates with seperate currency and governance. Thus, there is no reason for petty 'quarrel' with Britain, since they are even less dependant on the superpower than before.
This is why one may detect more of a nonchalant attitude from Ireland as a whole: it stems from not having anything to fear. They've essentially won...their culture is now their own, and they are proud of it. Being secure allows for a more celebratory occasion, hence why Irish natinalism has spread to various other cultures (including parts of Britain) with little reaction from the home country itself.
I can't say that I blame them, either. Since when was a universal or global celebration over nationalism and independence ever discouraged? Ireland, like other nations, celebrates it all the time: just view how they live life.
Monday, 30 March 2009
The Linley Sambourne House
Today, I had the unique opportunity to take a trip to the house that Victorian cartoonist/artist Linley Sambourne lived in. Sambourne was an artist for Punch magazine, and completed many political cartoons that are pretty well-known. I found this house signficant not because an arguably well-known artist lived there, but because it is the only house in London that provides an accurate representation of how a middle-class Victorian family lived.
I bet you're saying something along the lines of, "Come now, Darrion, this can't be the only Victorian middle-class representation in London." While that may be true, I will insist on the Linley Sambourne house being the most accurate representation, as everything down to the furtniture and books have remained virtually untouched.
Our tour guide explained all facets of this breathtaking house, including the type of furniture and wallpaper that adorned it. Inside, one would marvel at the Japanese influence of the time, as much of hte furniture and trinkets were from Japan. This is significant because around 1850, Japan had opened itself up for exploration by outsiders, so Japanese products became a commodity.
Additionally, this house contained furniture that was made of the finest material (oak for the dining room, brass for the beds, etc.). This shows that the Sambourne's, though middle-class, had to stay with the times and have the latest style in their home. In fact, one dresser was valued at 65 pounds, which would be about 3250 pounds today (our tour guide told us to multiply by the Victorian prices by 50 to get an accurate view of how much it would cost now). This wasn't a wallet-breaking purchase either, as Sambourne made roughly 2,000 pounds annually for his work. (note: the Sambourne house costs 2,000 pounds, so Linley spent half a year's paycheck to aquire it; his father-in-law was a wealthy stockbroker and paid the other 1,000.).
As one travels throughout this luxury home, one can gain a clear view of what life was like during the Victorian period for a typical family. Though living inside of his means was important, it's clear that the Sambourne's didn't struggle. However, when compared with the gaudy houses built by his 40,000 pound a year-earning colleagues, Sambourne's lifestyle seemed mediocre.
If you actually tour this place, though, it's hard to view this mult-level house as average. Thus, based upon the alternate lifestyles of both Sambourne and his comrades, it's clear to see that middle and upper-class Victorian families were very materialistic. This actually speaks volumes about the society in general, as Victorians were very adamant about appearances (take the structure Tower Bridge for example).
Victorians of the time wanted to eradicate the former way of living and forge their own identity. By cultivating and implementing their own style into Victorian architecture, they were able to forge that identity with ease. All one needs to do is visit the Sambourne house to support that claim.
Overall, the visit to the Linley Sambourne house was very interesting and very informative. Not only did I finally get to see at least one accurate representation of the past, but I learned much about the era that went beyond teachings in books and beyond the surface level. If you ever have the chance, I recommend this site for a true representation of one of London's greatest eras.
Darrion
I bet you're saying something along the lines of, "Come now, Darrion, this can't be the only Victorian middle-class representation in London." While that may be true, I will insist on the Linley Sambourne house being the most accurate representation, as everything down to the furtniture and books have remained virtually untouched.
Our tour guide explained all facets of this breathtaking house, including the type of furniture and wallpaper that adorned it. Inside, one would marvel at the Japanese influence of the time, as much of hte furniture and trinkets were from Japan. This is significant because around 1850, Japan had opened itself up for exploration by outsiders, so Japanese products became a commodity.
Additionally, this house contained furniture that was made of the finest material (oak for the dining room, brass for the beds, etc.). This shows that the Sambourne's, though middle-class, had to stay with the times and have the latest style in their home. In fact, one dresser was valued at 65 pounds, which would be about 3250 pounds today (our tour guide told us to multiply by the Victorian prices by 50 to get an accurate view of how much it would cost now). This wasn't a wallet-breaking purchase either, as Sambourne made roughly 2,000 pounds annually for his work. (note: the Sambourne house costs 2,000 pounds, so Linley spent half a year's paycheck to aquire it; his father-in-law was a wealthy stockbroker and paid the other 1,000.).
As one travels throughout this luxury home, one can gain a clear view of what life was like during the Victorian period for a typical family. Though living inside of his means was important, it's clear that the Sambourne's didn't struggle. However, when compared with the gaudy houses built by his 40,000 pound a year-earning colleagues, Sambourne's lifestyle seemed mediocre.
If you actually tour this place, though, it's hard to view this mult-level house as average. Thus, based upon the alternate lifestyles of both Sambourne and his comrades, it's clear to see that middle and upper-class Victorian families were very materialistic. This actually speaks volumes about the society in general, as Victorians were very adamant about appearances (take the structure Tower Bridge for example).
Victorians of the time wanted to eradicate the former way of living and forge their own identity. By cultivating and implementing their own style into Victorian architecture, they were able to forge that identity with ease. All one needs to do is visit the Sambourne house to support that claim.
Overall, the visit to the Linley Sambourne house was very interesting and very informative. Not only did I finally get to see at least one accurate representation of the past, but I learned much about the era that went beyond teachings in books and beyond the surface level. If you ever have the chance, I recommend this site for a true representation of one of London's greatest eras.
Darrion
Sunday, 29 March 2009
St. Patrick's Day...European Style!
Now while I did not get the chance to visit Ireland on St. Patrick's Day (like my fiancee) or experience St. Patrick's Day weekend in Ireland pre-Patty's Day (like many of my peers), I do contend that I had a rather enjoyable day (and night).
However, amid the crowds of drunken Londoners and the free flowing rivers of Guinness, it seems as if the meaning of St. Patrick's Day has been lost in the shuffle, or simply forgotten due to the adoption of this new culture of "intoxication". In fact, even I was ignorant to the true meaning behind the day before I grew extremely intrigued (and ashamed for not knowing already). I believe that the aforementioned ignorance has only intensified across time, especially during the 20th century, since secular ideals seemed to heavily influence this period. So, in case anyone out there doesn't know the truth behind the day of green, Guinness, and good luck, I'm here to enlighten, so enjoy.
Saint Patrick's Day is supposed to honor St. Patrick, the patron saint of Ireland, and is a holy day of obligation for Roman-Catholics in Ireland. It is also known as the "holy feast day". That seems simple enough, right? So when did honoring an important religious figure for spreading Christianity throughout Ireland become a day of getting plastered beyond belief with no regard for the religious aspect of the day in question?
I, unfortunately, cannot answer that. What I do know is that the meaning has obviously been lost, for just by looking at the festivities that take place on the day, you wouldn't assume it had anything to do with appreciating a saint. In fact, if the word 'saint' didn't precede Patrick, many individuals may simply assume that Patrick was a man who set the record for chugging the most pints of Guinness in 60 seconds.
To continue, there are two additional practices that have deviated from the original meaning. First, the color associated with Saint Patrick was blue, not green. What? Oh my, we've been bamboozled! Yes, it's true. Green came to be known as the color due to the phrase "wearing the green", which alluded to wearing a Shamrock on one's clothing to show Irish nationalism. However, it was not the color associated with St. Patrick, as was mentioned previously.
So the shamrock doesn't bring good luck? Well great, I searched field upon field at the tender age of seven, hoping that I would find a four-leaved clover to bring good luck, in addition to that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Moreover, if I really wanted to find the right clover to celebrate the day, I was looking for the wrong one. A three-leaved clover is the one to look for, for this is the tool that Saint Patrick used to explain the Holy Trinity to the pre-Christian Irish.
So yes, my friends, if you didn't know this, you have been celebrating St. Patrick's Day simply for the hell of it, which can't be frowned upon, for most people just follow the bandwagon anyway. However, next year, you can attempt to do some justice to the holiday by drinking a pint of Guinness in the name of St. Patrick and sharing with your comrades the origin of your day of drunkenness.
I'll be sure to do the same. : )
Until next post,
Darrion
However, amid the crowds of drunken Londoners and the free flowing rivers of Guinness, it seems as if the meaning of St. Patrick's Day has been lost in the shuffle, or simply forgotten due to the adoption of this new culture of "intoxication". In fact, even I was ignorant to the true meaning behind the day before I grew extremely intrigued (and ashamed for not knowing already). I believe that the aforementioned ignorance has only intensified across time, especially during the 20th century, since secular ideals seemed to heavily influence this period. So, in case anyone out there doesn't know the truth behind the day of green, Guinness, and good luck, I'm here to enlighten, so enjoy.
Saint Patrick's Day is supposed to honor St. Patrick, the patron saint of Ireland, and is a holy day of obligation for Roman-Catholics in Ireland. It is also known as the "holy feast day". That seems simple enough, right? So when did honoring an important religious figure for spreading Christianity throughout Ireland become a day of getting plastered beyond belief with no regard for the religious aspect of the day in question?
I, unfortunately, cannot answer that. What I do know is that the meaning has obviously been lost, for just by looking at the festivities that take place on the day, you wouldn't assume it had anything to do with appreciating a saint. In fact, if the word 'saint' didn't precede Patrick, many individuals may simply assume that Patrick was a man who set the record for chugging the most pints of Guinness in 60 seconds.
To continue, there are two additional practices that have deviated from the original meaning. First, the color associated with Saint Patrick was blue, not green. What? Oh my, we've been bamboozled! Yes, it's true. Green came to be known as the color due to the phrase "wearing the green", which alluded to wearing a Shamrock on one's clothing to show Irish nationalism. However, it was not the color associated with St. Patrick, as was mentioned previously.
So the shamrock doesn't bring good luck? Well great, I searched field upon field at the tender age of seven, hoping that I would find a four-leaved clover to bring good luck, in addition to that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Moreover, if I really wanted to find the right clover to celebrate the day, I was looking for the wrong one. A three-leaved clover is the one to look for, for this is the tool that Saint Patrick used to explain the Holy Trinity to the pre-Christian Irish.
So yes, my friends, if you didn't know this, you have been celebrating St. Patrick's Day simply for the hell of it, which can't be frowned upon, for most people just follow the bandwagon anyway. However, next year, you can attempt to do some justice to the holiday by drinking a pint of Guinness in the name of St. Patrick and sharing with your comrades the origin of your day of drunkenness.
I'll be sure to do the same. : )
Until next post,
Darrion
Pub Culture?
It's been a long day at the office. Your boss has gotten on your last nerve. You call up your best pal and head to a bar to forget your worries. You order a few shots, down a couple of beers, catch the final score of the basketball game, then leave. Just another night out, right?
WRONG. If you ever referred to going out to a bar (known here in Britain as a 'pub') as just another night out in front of a member of the U.K., I may just have to fear for your life. Why? Because a night out at the pub isn't just a fun thing to do on a Friday or Saturday night. It's a way of life...a culture, if you will.
London alone has over 8,000 pubs, and the people are very proud of them. You see, when you enter one of these amazing venues, you not only find hilarious drunken individuals, but you stumble upon camaraderie. It's like going to a black-tie event for your job, but with people you actually enjoy spending time with.
Pub culture offers more than just having a drink. For example, many pubs in London offer the option of singing karaoke while you're getting toasted. Others have trivia nights, so that you can test your knowledge of fun and random facts while intoxicated (provided that you can remember them). Moreover, according to an official pub website, citypublife.co.uk, some pubs even offer speed dating!
Now, the fact that pub culture has an official website lets you know how serious it is here. I'm sure there would be mass riots if even one of the 8,000 pubs in London shut down. Okay, so maybe it's not that serious, but you get the drift.
So the next time you go into a bar, realize that you're doing more than simply forgetting your problems...you're participating in a way of life. That way, if you've never been anywhere outside your city's limits, you can still tell your peers that you are cultured. Do try to visit an actual European pub, though. The experience is definitely unforgettable!
Darrion
WRONG. If you ever referred to going out to a bar (known here in Britain as a 'pub') as just another night out in front of a member of the U.K., I may just have to fear for your life. Why? Because a night out at the pub isn't just a fun thing to do on a Friday or Saturday night. It's a way of life...a culture, if you will.
London alone has over 8,000 pubs, and the people are very proud of them. You see, when you enter one of these amazing venues, you not only find hilarious drunken individuals, but you stumble upon camaraderie. It's like going to a black-tie event for your job, but with people you actually enjoy spending time with.
Pub culture offers more than just having a drink. For example, many pubs in London offer the option of singing karaoke while you're getting toasted. Others have trivia nights, so that you can test your knowledge of fun and random facts while intoxicated (provided that you can remember them). Moreover, according to an official pub website, citypublife.co.uk, some pubs even offer speed dating!
Now, the fact that pub culture has an official website lets you know how serious it is here. I'm sure there would be mass riots if even one of the 8,000 pubs in London shut down. Okay, so maybe it's not that serious, but you get the drift.
So the next time you go into a bar, realize that you're doing more than simply forgetting your problems...you're participating in a way of life. That way, if you've never been anywhere outside your city's limits, you can still tell your peers that you are cultured. Do try to visit an actual European pub, though. The experience is definitely unforgettable!
Darrion
A Purely Political Post... ...(enjoy the alliteration?)
For a quick semi-historical re-cap, read further:
9/11/2001 - U.S. WTC attacks.
9/12/2001 - Bush declares war on terror.
9/16/2001 - Britain declares war on terror.
3/18/2009 - Darrion finds out that this war has consumed much of the Parliament's focus for the past 8 years... ...wait, what?
Yes, you read correctly, America hasn't been the only country affected by her decisions (how surprising...). A couple of weeks ago, I had the unique opportunity to speak with a member of the British parliament, Graham Brady. When asked what the biggest issue was that British MP (members of parliament) concerned themselves with over the past 10-12 years, Brady (in office for 12 years) replied with "the Iraqi War."
Really? Amid an ever-growing financial crisis, Britain has had the "luxury" of adding the weight of another country on their shoulders. If this is the biggest issue that has come across the parliament's desk in the very early 21st century, then maintaining satisfactory foreign alliances must be a very high priority among these two superpowers.
Now, I don't mean to imply that this war is pointless, deprived of focus, or unbearably costly... ... ...okay, maybe I am, but in addition, I was simply shocked at how much thought Britain actually put into it. Tony Blair (then Prime Minister of Britain) even took the liberty of holding public debates and votes before taking his beloved country to war (though, as PM, he possessed the power to do so without consultation).
Perhaps American politics influences and affects eastern society more than what we know. For example, not only have I encountered many Brits talking among themselves about how President Obama will definitely change their world, but I have even experienced excitement about Obama in countries like Greece, who are farther away from America than Britain.
Thus, maybe it shouldn't come as a shock that issues like the war in Iraq dominate British discussion behind Parliament's walls. The only sad part is, you don't often see that same discussion occurring on the western end unless we've directly been affected. Look at how long it took the U.S. to stand up to German expansion in WWII. The war raged on for three years before we took a stance, which happened to be after the French were captured and after the deaths of millions of Jews.
However, just five days after the 9/11 attacks, Britain declared its allegiance.
There's food for thought...are our priorities in the right place? You be the judge.
Until next time,
Darrion
9/11/2001 - U.S. WTC attacks.
9/12/2001 - Bush declares war on terror.
9/16/2001 - Britain declares war on terror.
3/18/2009 - Darrion finds out that this war has consumed much of the Parliament's focus for the past 8 years... ...wait, what?
Yes, you read correctly, America hasn't been the only country affected by her decisions (how surprising...). A couple of weeks ago, I had the unique opportunity to speak with a member of the British parliament, Graham Brady. When asked what the biggest issue was that British MP (members of parliament) concerned themselves with over the past 10-12 years, Brady (in office for 12 years) replied with "the Iraqi War."
Really? Amid an ever-growing financial crisis, Britain has had the "luxury" of adding the weight of another country on their shoulders. If this is the biggest issue that has come across the parliament's desk in the very early 21st century, then maintaining satisfactory foreign alliances must be a very high priority among these two superpowers.
Now, I don't mean to imply that this war is pointless, deprived of focus, or unbearably costly... ... ...okay, maybe I am, but in addition, I was simply shocked at how much thought Britain actually put into it. Tony Blair (then Prime Minister of Britain) even took the liberty of holding public debates and votes before taking his beloved country to war (though, as PM, he possessed the power to do so without consultation).
Perhaps American politics influences and affects eastern society more than what we know. For example, not only have I encountered many Brits talking among themselves about how President Obama will definitely change their world, but I have even experienced excitement about Obama in countries like Greece, who are farther away from America than Britain.
Thus, maybe it shouldn't come as a shock that issues like the war in Iraq dominate British discussion behind Parliament's walls. The only sad part is, you don't often see that same discussion occurring on the western end unless we've directly been affected. Look at how long it took the U.S. to stand up to German expansion in WWII. The war raged on for three years before we took a stance, which happened to be after the French were captured and after the deaths of millions of Jews.
However, just five days after the 9/11 attacks, Britain declared its allegiance.
There's food for thought...are our priorities in the right place? You be the judge.
Until next time,
Darrion
Sunday, 15 March 2009
Zionism, Art and Monet
Panic! Britain, like the rest of the world, is experiencing economic hardship!!! What ever should we do??? I know! Let's blame the Jews!
Unfortunately, this has historically been the approach taken just as soon as most things went wrong in the world, dating back to early 20th century Europe and continuing throughout the period. Jewish bankers were first blamed for the economic stagnation in the early 1900s, and were also blamed for Germany's defeat in WWI.
Yes, yes, we all know the basics. However, what I did not know was how many areas of life were affected due to anti-semitism and the opposing Zionist movement. Anti-semitism affected many areas of life, including those that are subtly influential, like the art realm.
Nevertheless, before we delve further into how exactly 20th century art was affected, it's important to know the background behind the Zionist movement and the anti-semitism that was responsible for its creation.
The Zionist movement was founded by Theodor Herzl in 1896 a response to racial ant-semitism.. Its goal was to create a seperate Jewish state in Palestine, for Herzl did not believe that the government could protect the Jews in Europe. Why did Herzl possess this belief? Because of one event that influenced more people than just Herzl...the Dreyfus affair.
The Dreyfus affair was a collection of occurrences that showed the extent of anti-semitism in France. Alford Dreyfus was a Jewish captain in the French army who was tried for high treason in 1894. Why? Apparently, bits of ripped and subsequently reconstructed paper that contained French military secrets for the Germans were found in Dreyfus's trash can. Despite there being no plausible evidence to tie Dreyfus to this note, he was tried anyway because the government needed a scapegoat. Who else better to try than a Jewish man? They were apparently at fault for everything!
Dreyfus was found guilty by the court and was subjected to military degradation and deportation. During the four years that Dreyfus was in exile, the French army found the 'real' traitor but rigged the trial so that an innocent verdict was reached to avoid admitting fault at having mistook Dreyfus for the traitor. Dreyfus had a re-trial in 1899 (remember this date), but was found guilty yet again (due to government's desire to remain 'correct'). However, instead of facing more jail time, Dreyfus was 'pardoned' of his 'crime'.
Yes, in all actuality, he did nothing and the government finally recognized it, so I presume 'pardoning' was their way of saying 'sorry we screwed up'. However, I'd rather have my good name than to be freed and forced to accept a crime I did not commit. Evidently, other individuals like Claude Monet, famous impressionist painter, agreed with how I currently feel, for after the Dreyfus affair, Monet vowed to never paint another Frenchman. Recall the date I told you to remember? 1899 - Dreyfus' re-trial and 2nd guilty verdict. 1899 - the production of Monet's 'Bridge over water lilies', which served as the beginning of a new focus for the notorious artist.
Before that, frenchmen could be found rather commonly in Monet's paintings. It interesting how much racial movements can affect the great minds and works that we all treasure today. Who would've thought that a portion of Monet's inspiration for his 'water lilies' set could arguably be attributed to the Zionist movement?
Interesting, no?
Until next time,
Darrion
Unfortunately, this has historically been the approach taken just as soon as most things went wrong in the world, dating back to early 20th century Europe and continuing throughout the period. Jewish bankers were first blamed for the economic stagnation in the early 1900s, and were also blamed for Germany's defeat in WWI.
Yes, yes, we all know the basics. However, what I did not know was how many areas of life were affected due to anti-semitism and the opposing Zionist movement. Anti-semitism affected many areas of life, including those that are subtly influential, like the art realm.
Nevertheless, before we delve further into how exactly 20th century art was affected, it's important to know the background behind the Zionist movement and the anti-semitism that was responsible for its creation.
The Zionist movement was founded by Theodor Herzl in 1896 a response to racial ant-semitism.. Its goal was to create a seperate Jewish state in Palestine, for Herzl did not believe that the government could protect the Jews in Europe. Why did Herzl possess this belief? Because of one event that influenced more people than just Herzl...the Dreyfus affair.
The Dreyfus affair was a collection of occurrences that showed the extent of anti-semitism in France. Alford Dreyfus was a Jewish captain in the French army who was tried for high treason in 1894. Why? Apparently, bits of ripped and subsequently reconstructed paper that contained French military secrets for the Germans were found in Dreyfus's trash can. Despite there being no plausible evidence to tie Dreyfus to this note, he was tried anyway because the government needed a scapegoat. Who else better to try than a Jewish man? They were apparently at fault for everything!
Dreyfus was found guilty by the court and was subjected to military degradation and deportation. During the four years that Dreyfus was in exile, the French army found the 'real' traitor but rigged the trial so that an innocent verdict was reached to avoid admitting fault at having mistook Dreyfus for the traitor. Dreyfus had a re-trial in 1899 (remember this date), but was found guilty yet again (due to government's desire to remain 'correct'). However, instead of facing more jail time, Dreyfus was 'pardoned' of his 'crime'.
Yes, in all actuality, he did nothing and the government finally recognized it, so I presume 'pardoning' was their way of saying 'sorry we screwed up'. However, I'd rather have my good name than to be freed and forced to accept a crime I did not commit. Evidently, other individuals like Claude Monet, famous impressionist painter, agreed with how I currently feel, for after the Dreyfus affair, Monet vowed to never paint another Frenchman. Recall the date I told you to remember? 1899 - Dreyfus' re-trial and 2nd guilty verdict. 1899 - the production of Monet's 'Bridge over water lilies', which served as the beginning of a new focus for the notorious artist.
Before that, frenchmen could be found rather commonly in Monet's paintings. It interesting how much racial movements can affect the great minds and works that we all treasure today. Who would've thought that a portion of Monet's inspiration for his 'water lilies' set could arguably be attributed to the Zionist movement?
Interesting, no?
Until next time,
Darrion
Wednesday, 25 February 2009
British Class Structure: Social Hierarchy and its Intricacies
Here's a subject that we all enjoy...class. What is class? Who determines what "upper", "middle", or "working" class is? Can we truly coexist?
Dr. Mark Boden, guest lecturer for my BLC course earlier this month, brought up several interesting points during that week’s lecture, the first of which was that class is embodied within all of us, whatever level it may be. Boden claimed that it would take generations for a family to “jump” social classes, based upon the amount of effort and convincing it takes to integrate into a particular class. Sure, one can work hard and move up social classes, but according to the Boden, an internal conflict may arise, posing a contradiction.
Are people ever fully integrated into this higher level on the hierarchical chain? Dr. Boden doesn’t think so. He asserts that class operates through culture , and is ultimately set by society. Thus, in the grand scheme of things, class is arbitrary.
Additionally, Boden affirms that class stems from where people think they are in society (politically or socially), so all hope for obtaining comfort in one’s own mind is not lost, though they would probably never be truly accepted into society. This may be more believable here in Britain due to the fact that so much of British history, and even modern day life, is centered on class, but I, for one, would have to disagree. It isn’t unlikely for a person from a lower class to integrate into a higher classed system, and surely doesn’t take generations to do so.
A previous lecturer (Dr. Wendy Stokes) mentioned, “No matter how far I go, I’ll never be Queen.” Here in Britain, if you aren’t of royal blood, then transcending across classes is fairly unlikely due to the fact that two “main” forms exist: upper class and working class.
Is it any different in America? I believe so. The western world has a different approach. All that’s needed is a solid education, and common interest in your area of expertise, since “work” and accomplishments are at the center of most “upper class” conversations anyway. One doesn’t have to sacrifice his/her own interests simply to be integrated. If so, the ideas of social mobility, “rags to riches”, and the “American Dream” were and have always been myths, which is evidently false.
I definitely invite comments for this post, as class is arguably a hot topic. Are their truly limitations to this hierarchical structure that centers around aristocracy? Perhaps I just have a biased, egocentric view and am unwilling to change...
Let the dialogue commence.
Darrion
Dr. Mark Boden, guest lecturer for my BLC course earlier this month, brought up several interesting points during that week’s lecture, the first of which was that class is embodied within all of us, whatever level it may be. Boden claimed that it would take generations for a family to “jump” social classes, based upon the amount of effort and convincing it takes to integrate into a particular class. Sure, one can work hard and move up social classes, but according to the Boden, an internal conflict may arise, posing a contradiction.
Are people ever fully integrated into this higher level on the hierarchical chain? Dr. Boden doesn’t think so. He asserts that class operates through culture , and is ultimately set by society. Thus, in the grand scheme of things, class is arbitrary.
Additionally, Boden affirms that class stems from where people think they are in society (politically or socially), so all hope for obtaining comfort in one’s own mind is not lost, though they would probably never be truly accepted into society. This may be more believable here in Britain due to the fact that so much of British history, and even modern day life, is centered on class, but I, for one, would have to disagree. It isn’t unlikely for a person from a lower class to integrate into a higher classed system, and surely doesn’t take generations to do so.
A previous lecturer (Dr. Wendy Stokes) mentioned, “No matter how far I go, I’ll never be Queen.” Here in Britain, if you aren’t of royal blood, then transcending across classes is fairly unlikely due to the fact that two “main” forms exist: upper class and working class.
Is it any different in America? I believe so. The western world has a different approach. All that’s needed is a solid education, and common interest in your area of expertise, since “work” and accomplishments are at the center of most “upper class” conversations anyway. One doesn’t have to sacrifice his/her own interests simply to be integrated. If so, the ideas of social mobility, “rags to riches”, and the “American Dream” were and have always been myths, which is evidently false.
I definitely invite comments for this post, as class is arguably a hot topic. Are their truly limitations to this hierarchical structure that centers around aristocracy? Perhaps I just have a biased, egocentric view and am unwilling to change...
Let the dialogue commence.
Darrion
The effects of British art on society
To some, art may simply be any visually stimulating piece, cultivated by hand. To others, it involves emotion and appeals to the senses. During my British Life and Culture lecture that took place on January 27, speaker, scholar, and artist Mark Bishop brought up several interesting points, one of which stood out among the crowd. That point is this: British art, particularly in the so-called Golden Age, was revolutionized by new approaches from five main ‘greats’: Hogarth, Blake, Gainsborough, Constable, and Turner. How exactly was art revolutionized and did it fit with society at the time? Does it fit now?
In order to fully address these questions, it’s rather important to analyze a particular artist and talk about his work. Thomas Gainsborough (an 18th century painter), is known for changing how British art was viewed. Instead of catering to those who harped over theory-based, academic and conventional methods, Gainsborough introduced a style of art that was centered on visual and intellectual stimulation through originality. He was concerned with using his art as a means link to the social world rather than appealing to the abstract appeal of the times. Bishop pointed out that the Greek conception of art involving nature, math, and natural beauty leaked (good word) into the 18th century. Gainsborough seemed to be connected to this, and was widely accepted thereafter for his “unique” vantage point.
With that said, was society really ready for Gainsborough and the “Great Five” during the late 18th century? Due to the fact that art was thought of as nothing more than pleasing to the eye rather than intellectually challenging during those times, society’s level of preparedness was probably extremely low. However Gainsborough, along with his colleagues changed the perception of art, widening the scope and instilling a vast appreciation in the process, thereby making it easy to connect then and now with the naturalistic form that we know today.
There are many more 'art' stories that I have planned to speak about, but each is unique in its own way and deserves individual posts, so more on that later!
Cheers!
Darrion
In order to fully address these questions, it’s rather important to analyze a particular artist and talk about his work. Thomas Gainsborough (an 18th century painter), is known for changing how British art was viewed. Instead of catering to those who harped over theory-based, academic and conventional methods, Gainsborough introduced a style of art that was centered on visual and intellectual stimulation through originality. He was concerned with using his art as a means link to the social world rather than appealing to the abstract appeal of the times. Bishop pointed out that the Greek conception of art involving nature, math, and natural beauty leaked (good word) into the 18th century. Gainsborough seemed to be connected to this, and was widely accepted thereafter for his “unique” vantage point.
With that said, was society really ready for Gainsborough and the “Great Five” during the late 18th century? Due to the fact that art was thought of as nothing more than pleasing to the eye rather than intellectually challenging during those times, society’s level of preparedness was probably extremely low. However Gainsborough, along with his colleagues changed the perception of art, widening the scope and instilling a vast appreciation in the process, thereby making it easy to connect then and now with the naturalistic form that we know today.
There are many more 'art' stories that I have planned to speak about, but each is unique in its own way and deserves individual posts, so more on that later!
Cheers!
Darrion
London and Roman Civilization
Yes, Yes, I'm long overdue for a post! I apologize for keeping the masses waiting, but life as a student in London is very busy, you know!
To briefly catch everyone up, I will talk about a list of different aspects of London in addition to my travels since last post, beginning with the Stonehenge/Bath trip that occurred on the 21st of January(well over a month ago...yikes!). The significance of Bath and Stonehenge also contains a recurring religious theme that will more than likely be referred to more than once, so prepare yourselves. Let's dive in!
First, after visiting the sites of Bath and Stonehenge, I would venture to say that the Roman Baths and their religious affiliation caught my attention the most. The religious significance of the Roman Baths and how they came to be was particularly interesting given the current secular nature of this area, which is only about an hour outside of Britain. Upon entering the baths, one of the first things that I noticed was the Sacred Spring. This spring, with a hot water temperature of 46 degrees Celsius, was believed to be the work of the gods, hence the sacred nature of the area. The Romans even went so far as building a temple near the spring that was dedicated to the worship of the healing goddess Minerva (goddess of wisdom and war), according to information gathered from the bath site.
Because the site was dubbed holy ground, many people threw various objects into the spring as offerings to the goddess Minerva. These acts of generosity and/or religious worship contribute to the fact that this spring is the largest votive deposit known in Britain. In addition to offerings, many individuals tossed curses, spelled out on rolled up pieces of pewter into the spring, which was thought to deliver justice to the violated.
These archaeological discoveries show that Roman London was built upon a firm religious foundation, one that has since seemingly dissipated. To continue, though slightly different in tone, the Stonehenge visit also supports the existence of religious principles in prehistoric London. According to information gathered from Diana, our Stonehenge tour guide, some individuals believe that this mysterious set of stones was built for a variety of reasons, more popular of which range from astronomical to sacrificial.
Overall, the existence of prehistoric sites such as the Roman Baths and Stonehenge solidify the existence of strong spiritual worship in a now secular society. London’s ancient predecessors proved this through works of art such as the aforementioned sites. I find it interesting that archaeology is instrumental in uncovering this semi-forgotten period in time.
It was very neat to see how much of an impact archeology has on history. Before attending this trip, I rarely paid archeology any mind, but I see now that archeological findings can definitely go hand in hand with science and solidifying/verifying many religious and/or historical aspects about any given society. Very interesting!
Until next post,
Darrion
To briefly catch everyone up, I will talk about a list of different aspects of London in addition to my travels since last post, beginning with the Stonehenge/Bath trip that occurred on the 21st of January(well over a month ago...yikes!). The significance of Bath and Stonehenge also contains a recurring religious theme that will more than likely be referred to more than once, so prepare yourselves. Let's dive in!
First, after visiting the sites of Bath and Stonehenge, I would venture to say that the Roman Baths and their religious affiliation caught my attention the most. The religious significance of the Roman Baths and how they came to be was particularly interesting given the current secular nature of this area, which is only about an hour outside of Britain. Upon entering the baths, one of the first things that I noticed was the Sacred Spring. This spring, with a hot water temperature of 46 degrees Celsius, was believed to be the work of the gods, hence the sacred nature of the area. The Romans even went so far as building a temple near the spring that was dedicated to the worship of the healing goddess Minerva (goddess of wisdom and war), according to information gathered from the bath site.
Because the site was dubbed holy ground, many people threw various objects into the spring as offerings to the goddess Minerva. These acts of generosity and/or religious worship contribute to the fact that this spring is the largest votive deposit known in Britain. In addition to offerings, many individuals tossed curses, spelled out on rolled up pieces of pewter into the spring, which was thought to deliver justice to the violated.
These archaeological discoveries show that Roman London was built upon a firm religious foundation, one that has since seemingly dissipated. To continue, though slightly different in tone, the Stonehenge visit also supports the existence of religious principles in prehistoric London. According to information gathered from Diana, our Stonehenge tour guide, some individuals believe that this mysterious set of stones was built for a variety of reasons, more popular of which range from astronomical to sacrificial.
Overall, the existence of prehistoric sites such as the Roman Baths and Stonehenge solidify the existence of strong spiritual worship in a now secular society. London’s ancient predecessors proved this through works of art such as the aforementioned sites. I find it interesting that archaeology is instrumental in uncovering this semi-forgotten period in time.
It was very neat to see how much of an impact archeology has on history. Before attending this trip, I rarely paid archeology any mind, but I see now that archeological findings can definitely go hand in hand with science and solidifying/verifying many religious and/or historical aspects about any given society. Very interesting!
Until next post,
Darrion
Tuesday, 27 January 2009
Obama Reaches Across the Pond...
I am very surprised to see that President Barack Obama is so well-received over here! Surprisingly enough, on Inauguration Day as well as the days preceding, Barack Obama graced nearly every page of the London Paper that I picked up!
After talking to a few locals, it's clear to see that many Barack Obama supporters here recognize that it's definitely time to embrace new politics, and that a strong America will definitely contribute to a strong world. When thought about, it does indeed make sense. America, for example, consumes roughly around 75% of the world's oil, while contributing roughly around 25% (please feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken). Moreover, the U.S. faces a debt of over 10 trillion dollars, which, if estimated per capita, would amount to just of $34,ooo per person (given current calculations).
SInce trade is a key factor that keeps every country afloat, it's clear to see that stabilizing the U.S. economy would do the world much justice, hence why Britain seems to be so interested and excited for the ascension of Barack Obama to the nation's highest office. Comparatively, there seems to be an egocentric view that America possesses, for I have not known too many individuals who know about domestic issues, let alone those facing the international world. However, it seems that Britain as a whole seems to be keyed in to world affairs. Is it because America is so far removed from the world, with its western location? Perhaps it's because we have not had to be as concerned as eastern society in years preceding 9/11...
Hopefully, I will return with more knowledge of the matter.
Until the next subject...cheers!
D
After talking to a few locals, it's clear to see that many Barack Obama supporters here recognize that it's definitely time to embrace new politics, and that a strong America will definitely contribute to a strong world. When thought about, it does indeed make sense. America, for example, consumes roughly around 75% of the world's oil, while contributing roughly around 25% (please feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken). Moreover, the U.S. faces a debt of over 10 trillion dollars, which, if estimated per capita, would amount to just of $34,ooo per person (given current calculations).
SInce trade is a key factor that keeps every country afloat, it's clear to see that stabilizing the U.S. economy would do the world much justice, hence why Britain seems to be so interested and excited for the ascension of Barack Obama to the nation's highest office. Comparatively, there seems to be an egocentric view that America possesses, for I have not known too many individuals who know about domestic issues, let alone those facing the international world. However, it seems that Britain as a whole seems to be keyed in to world affairs. Is it because America is so far removed from the world, with its western location? Perhaps it's because we have not had to be as concerned as eastern society in years preceding 9/11...
Hopefully, I will return with more knowledge of the matter.
Until the next subject...cheers!
D
London and Religion
When you think of Britian, what immediately comes to mind? Established, refined, conservative and the like, right? Judging by our own standards, what most likely dominates a conservative and refined lifestyle? What serves as the foundation for conservative ideologies? Religion, correct? If you agree with that notion, and if your preconceived notions of Britain were among the same lines as mine, then you will be equally as shocked to learn that Britain, as far as religious practice is concerned, is extremely secular.
Yes, it it true, ladies and gentlemen, Britain's religious emphasis, as stated by Dr. Wendy Stokes (International Politics instructor and our first British Life and Culture lecturer), has been fading for the last 50 years. During this lecture (which took place approximately two weeks ago), I learned that the average, traditional Brit doesn't attend church regularly, if at all. Currently, Britian has the lowest church-going population of any country, while comparatively, the U.S. has the highest (the U.S. reference exists purely for comparative analysis, not placing a particular emphasis on one country or another).
Don't misconstrue the message, folks in Britian are definitely aware of religion, but have more of a comparative view, thus they know and may acknowledge various forms, which is a better known practice. In a sense, this ideology is beneficial in that a breadth of knowledge helps in understanding and accepting culture, which is something that other countries seem to be struggling with at the moment...
With that said, I believe that another comparison needs to be made. Religion seems to be the centerpiece of American life, but here in the U.K., it is quite the contrary. In fact, radical christian groups (for example) don't have political representation, which may be astonishing to those of us in the U.S. who would probably undergo instant convulsion if we knew that our religious PACs weren't adequately campaigning for our rights/voice. Apparently, a clear distinction between religion and politics exists, though oddly enough, there isn't necessarily a separation of church and state...a true paradoxical situation.
There are many more things that I learned in this lecture about the history of the U.K., which bears the official name of 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' (just for those who didn't already know), of which I won't plague you with in this post. Take this information and think about it...post if you feel especially inspired.
Last random fact: Most Londoners don't even live in the area...they simply work there. This is comparable to a modern day Washington D.C...watch out U.S. I've seen quite the melting pot here.
Until next time,
D
Yes, it it true, ladies and gentlemen, Britain's religious emphasis, as stated by Dr. Wendy Stokes (International Politics instructor and our first British Life and Culture lecturer), has been fading for the last 50 years. During this lecture (which took place approximately two weeks ago), I learned that the average, traditional Brit doesn't attend church regularly, if at all. Currently, Britian has the lowest church-going population of any country, while comparatively, the U.S. has the highest (the U.S. reference exists purely for comparative analysis, not placing a particular emphasis on one country or another).
Don't misconstrue the message, folks in Britian are definitely aware of religion, but have more of a comparative view, thus they know and may acknowledge various forms, which is a better known practice. In a sense, this ideology is beneficial in that a breadth of knowledge helps in understanding and accepting culture, which is something that other countries seem to be struggling with at the moment...
With that said, I believe that another comparison needs to be made. Religion seems to be the centerpiece of American life, but here in the U.K., it is quite the contrary. In fact, radical christian groups (for example) don't have political representation, which may be astonishing to those of us in the U.S. who would probably undergo instant convulsion if we knew that our religious PACs weren't adequately campaigning for our rights/voice. Apparently, a clear distinction between religion and politics exists, though oddly enough, there isn't necessarily a separation of church and state...a true paradoxical situation.
There are many more things that I learned in this lecture about the history of the U.K., which bears the official name of 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' (just for those who didn't already know), of which I won't plague you with in this post. Take this information and think about it...post if you feel especially inspired.
Last random fact: Most Londoners don't even live in the area...they simply work there. This is comparable to a modern day Washington D.C...watch out U.S. I've seen quite the melting pot here.
Until next time,
D
Finally...a single post!!!! (Simply introductory, not academic)
So this post is long overdue...I've been in London for over two weeks now and have thoroughly enjoyed every moment of it, yet no one (at least no one who really cares) knows how exactly I got here (save the obvious plane ride), any trials and tribulations I've experienced, or of any positive experiences for that matter. This post shall be the one that attempts to rectify that...hopefully it will cover nearly everything. Ready? Alright, let's rock.
Oh what do I say about my trip to London? Actually, I can sum it up in one word...CHAOS. To be honest, I thought that it just wasn't meant to be. Let's backtrack. Getting to Barcelona (approximately 17 days before London began) was comparable to walking on firestones, as it took a delayed flight, two missed flights, and 7 hours after my original departure time to arrive even there. After arriving in Barcelona, I quickly realized one seemingly obvious fact...I didn't speak a lick of Spanish, and had to find my way to my designation. After catching a taxi (and failing miserably on the first attempt...) I found my way to my residence for the next day or so. From there, life in Spain began.
In 17 days, I saw nine cities (if my memory and math are correct), all of which had something unique and interesting to offer (pictures will be posted soon...I apologize for my lack or organization...one day it will be the death of me).
After the Spain trip ended, life in London began (one cancelled flight, an eight our train ride, and many hours later).
I missed the first day of orientation due to my dealy of arrival, but once I found my way to my residence (after mistaking a girls flat for my own), I eventually settled in and so begins my London adventure.
Tune in next time for the next bit of Darrion's fascinating London adventures...hosted by yours truly.
Cheeri-o!
Oh what do I say about my trip to London? Actually, I can sum it up in one word...CHAOS. To be honest, I thought that it just wasn't meant to be. Let's backtrack. Getting to Barcelona (approximately 17 days before London began) was comparable to walking on firestones, as it took a delayed flight, two missed flights, and 7 hours after my original departure time to arrive even there. After arriving in Barcelona, I quickly realized one seemingly obvious fact...I didn't speak a lick of Spanish, and had to find my way to my designation. After catching a taxi (and failing miserably on the first attempt...) I found my way to my residence for the next day or so. From there, life in Spain began.
In 17 days, I saw nine cities (if my memory and math are correct), all of which had something unique and interesting to offer (pictures will be posted soon...I apologize for my lack or organization...one day it will be the death of me).
After the Spain trip ended, life in London began (one cancelled flight, an eight our train ride, and many hours later).
I missed the first day of orientation due to my dealy of arrival, but once I found my way to my residence (after mistaking a girls flat for my own), I eventually settled in and so begins my London adventure.
Tune in next time for the next bit of Darrion's fascinating London adventures...hosted by yours truly.
Cheeri-o!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)