History and identity: handle with care

History is central to identity. Not being taught your own history is a form of disenfranchisement and this is what Black History Month seeks to address. But it shouldn’t have to: we should be taught this stuff at school; we should know about the contributions different groups have made to European and British society, because they are remarkable, and because they are as much a part of British history as a part of ‘black’ (or ‘Jewish’, ‘Arab’, ‘Indian’ etc) history. Otherwise we may be in the thrall of such ignorance as was exhibited by John Cleese in his complaint that London is ‘no longer an English city’. Actually, it kinda never was. London has been a centre of trade for centuries, meaning that it has long been a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural ‘melting-pot’. Cockney incorporates words from Yiddish and Romany. So get your facts straight. Especially when you are a British ‘institution’ yourself.

However there is a danger that our sense of history will define and constrain rather than liberate us. For this reason we have to be careful what popular history we are creating. It is worrying that the two most prominent historians in the public eye are both well to the right of centre. Eight years ago Niall Ferguson got to explain in a six part television series why the British Empire was so great – not a conclusion that many historians are comfortable with. Do people now believe that Britain was superior, that it brought massive benefits to backward peoples? Not a healthy view. This summer David Starkey was given a platform to express his views on the riots: they happened because ‘whites have become black’, as though ‘black culture’ is inherently violent and driven by opportunistic theft. It chimed with the Conservative representation of feral youths, and then he made this a ‘black’ thing. These men are in an undoubted position of influence over public opinion, respected academics. What they say matters, and may be taken as fact, even when it is on a subject of intense debate; or, in the case of Starkey’s comments this summer, just plain bigoted.

So history should be treated with caution. It can be as important to appreciate historical ‘myth’ (not dragons and heroes, but certain historical interpretations that may come to form part of a ‘national’ psyche), as the history of ‘proper’ historians, because this is what really forms identity. How can we hope to understand the Israel-Palestine conflict without being aware that the idea of Israel defending itself heroically (ok, so some heroes) against surrounding enemy states that sought its total destruction is central to its foundation myth? And of course there is some truth in this – although to see Israel as solely defensive is misguided, as Israeli historians are beginning to admit. History, therefore, must also challenge these popular notions so that we can move past them.

Studying the past is hazardous: we must be careful that the creation of identity does not mean the closing of ranks; history should broaden our understanding, not lead us to develop a blinkered view of our ‘own community’. Specific history months risk creating an inward-looking communalism, and compartmentalising histories that really form part of the fabric of history of a whole. But at least these campaigns go some way to correcting the bias in research and teaching. Histories should be integrated with the overarching ‘white’ narrative that dominates history in this country, because each is linked – the white narrative is both false, and boring. If this aim is pursued, we won’t need Black History Month, or Women’s History Month, or any other special focus on groups that have been under-represented in our education, because their part will be addressed and taught in schools. But in the meantime, happy October.

Childish politics - Dave vs Boris

The fact that Boris Johnson is the Tory party favourite, above the PM, is disheartening for David Cameron. It is also concerning for UK politics; whilst Cameron is slippery, promoting a new face of Toryism yet standing at the helm of brutal cuts that the head of the IMF cautions are likely to cause the British economy even more difficulty in the long-run, Boris is a buffoon (yes, I like the alliteration of this cliché, and what?). The one-upmanship in which he engages with Cameron only serves to prove this point: it is childish, and attention seeking – the curse of the over-privileged, arrogant posh boy. And Johnson knows how to get attention: he knew that he could make a song and dance about protecting Crossrail from cuts, despite having been assured it was safe. And Cameron and Osborne went along with it. What a waste of time and energy that could have been directed elsewhere. ‘In the current economic climate’ this makes me feel so very confident.

The BJ-DC tussle is worrying because it is a diversion from the real issues. Personality is of course crucial in politics; and no matter how much we dislike this, it has been the case for over a century (take the Gladstone-Disraeli competition in the late 19^th century), perhaps longer. But Dave and Boris need to grow up: their competition only highlights the unsavoury lad-ishness of the Tory Party, which Cameron has unfortunately (for his and his party’s sake) exposed to the public through such gaffes as the Calm Down Dear, and the Lady Is Frustrated incidents. Oops. I’m not suggesting a no-jokes policy (after all, I am from Catholic not Puritan stock!), they just need to ask themselves, in the favourite phrase of my year 6 primary school teacher, “is that appropriate?” Because this is not school, this is not even university, it is ‘the real world’; and more than this, these are men whose actions impinge on the school, university, and real worlds of everyone in Britain.

See Sonia Purnell’s article in The Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-camerons-bte-blond-2364610.html

The Individuals on Death Row

The execution of Troy Davis by lethal injection is a sad moment in the history of the American justice system; it taps into what is perhaps the strongest argument that can be deployed against capital punishment: what if the courts get it wrong? Davis was convicted twenty years ago on evidence that has looked increasingly dubious in the time since. Guilt must be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. In Davis’s case, there was doubt. Lots of it. And it was reasonable. Since the conviction, seven of the nine witnesses have rescinded their statements, and jurors have admitted doubts about their verdict; there was no DNA evidence linking Davis to the murder, and no gun was found at the scene. One witness even claims to have heard another man (Sylvester Coles, a witness for the prosecution) admit to the crime. The family of Mark Allen MacPhail insist that Davis is guilty, but they cannot in any way be regarded as impartial. There is a reason that victims and their family members do not decide either on guilt or on the sentence of convicts: people want revenge, or closure, they think that a life for a life will make them feel better. Perhaps it will, but that is not how the criminal justice system works, thankfully.

So people are asking why, in the face of so much doubt, an appeal was not granted, even by the Supreme Court. Surely, if judges were so sure of his guilt, granting an appeal and demonstrating this more conclusively could only have served to vindicate the execution, if only in the eyes of those who support the death penalty. The judicial system has more to fear from Davis’s execution than it would have from another hearing: and if he had been found not-guilty, well then, the system would have done its job in righting a serious miscarriage of justice. Members of the African-American community are depicting this as a race issue: a black man was hastily convicted on now-questionable grounds for the murder of a white police officer; black witnesses were pressured into giving evidence against the suspect. Instead of tackling this criticism head on by allowing an appeal, and demonstrating that there is truth in the principle that all are equal before the law, the Supreme Court forced Davis and his family to endure another few hours of uncertainty whilst it debated whether or not to grant his lawyers’ request.

The death penalty is morally repugnant (that is the strongest phrase I can think of) because no one has the right to take the life of another human being: it is playing God, and I don’t even believe in God; or it is making the state the same cold-blooded murderer as the individual it kills. But sometimes I wonder, wouldn’t it be kinder just to kill them? Troy Davis’s execution was scheduled four times, and in 2008 it was stayed just 90 minutes before it was due to take place. On 20^th September Cleve Foster received a stay of execution hours before he was due to die, and this for the third time. Surely it is inhumane to put him through that stress again and again, to make him prepare himself for death only to tell him that he has a few more rounds of appeal to endure, days, months, years longer waiting for the final judgement, as much as it would be to actually kill him. Under international law mock executions are a form of torture; coming this close to the real thing is no different.

Troy Davis’s execution brings the question of continuing racial tensions in Georgia to light, it demonstrates the care that the courts absolutely must take in handing down sentences when capital punishment is involved, and it highlights the horror of last-hour reprieves. This case has touched so many people so deeply because they came to identify with Davis as an individual; all the men and women on death row, guilty or not-guilty, are individuals.

DSK and sexual assault

The prosecution withdrew the case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn and he has apologised for his ‘moral failing’, in other words, for his extra-marital dalliance. Perhaps this was sex, (not so) pure and simple, in which case, we can only feel sorry for their respective partners and butt the hell out of the whole sordid business. Serious doubts surround the credibility of his accuser, Nafissatou Diallo, and for this reason the charges were dropped. It may well be true that Diallo was not sexually assaulted; indeed, under the principle of justice that regards the defendant as ‘innocent until proven guilty’ this is what we must believe. However, the conviction, and especially the prosecution, rate for sexual assault and rape is frighteningly low (in the UK it is estimated that perhaps 95% of rapes go unreported), making cases such as this deeply concerning for victims. No one, not even DSK, is denying that a sexual alliance took place, and photographs of Diallo’s bruised vagina were produced by the prosecution. But she is unreliable: she has lied about being sexually abused in the past. What are the victims of sexual assault to make of this?

It has been argued (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7442785/Rape-conviction-rate-figures-misleading.html – and I am no natural Telegraph reader) that statistics highlighting the difficulty of acquiring a conviction in rape cases discourage women (and men) from coming forwards, and if this is true, then such a high-profile incident as this can only reinforce such reluctance. After all, who would want to go through with the trauma of a court case (standing in the witness box under any circumstances is said to be a terrifying experience) if they believe that their attacker will, in the end, walk free and innocent? It is not preventing French journalist Tristane Banon from pursuing her accusation against the former IMF chief for attempted rape. Good, unless of course she is discredited too.

And there is of course another issue: that of what constitutes sexual assault, and how to protect victims from psychological rather than physical abuse. DSK’s lawyers argue that Diallo’s continuation of a civil case against him indicates that she is primarily concerned with a possible monetary compensation, one of the arguments deployed to demonstrate that she is not a credible witness. If this is true, it would be a sad thing for rape victims for their plight to be so belittled by a mercenary. But even if the encounter was ostensibly consensual, it cannot be denied that the Frenchman was in a position of power over the chambermaid. Perhaps she did use ‘feminine wiles’ to lure him into bed in order to sue him for his cash. But equally likely, he forced himself upon her (even if not in a literal, physical sense) by virtue of his wealth and status. Banon’s accusation suggests that he is not the innocent target of a slanderous and gold-digging plot that some of his political supporters would have him, and it is essential that rape victims everywhere are not discouraged from coming forwards as a result of the affair.

Commemoration

There are a plethora of films about 9/11 on TV. My brother quipped that it is like showing Love Actually at Christmas, which seemed insensitive. But I think he is right: it does feel strange to be watching actors recreate the scenes at the World Trade Center, especially if the lead is played by someone as wooden as Nicholas Cage, even when Oliver Stone is the director. It seems to diminish the horror of the event, and the lives of those that died on that date and in the wars since, be they American, British, or Arab: not the film, but showing it on 9/11; like Miracle on 34th Street, or horror flicks at Hallowe'en.

Laura learns to write

I am using my free time effectively, whilst also compensating for my lack of life love in a very mature way: I watch bad films about other people's romances. Today I watched 'You've Got Mail' and I do not even fancy Tom Hanks (does anyone?!); yesterday I watched 'Goal!'; the day before... You get the idea. I has reached the point that I cannot even distinguish a 'good' romcom from a 'poor' one anymore, and I have realised that I really ought to do something constructive; for this reason I decided to start a blog. Well, that is not strictly true; it was one of my many aims for the summer, but I was finding it too intimidating, like filling in an 'all about you' form.
My brother is having to do this at the moment for his accommodation at Durham. They insist that they take the questionnaire very seriously, and he is treating it in much the same way as I am dealing with my too-long summer holiday: as a joke and a waste of time. Accordingly his form reads as follows. Beliefs: 'Manchester United 4 lyf'. Interests: 'TV'. Ideal Roommate: 'Manchester United supporter'; he toyed with the idea of requesting 'blonde, six-foot, big tits' but decided it might not go down too well. Part of his problem is that he takes issue with the form asking what level of sport you play: 'school/ county/ regional...' As he pointed out, it is clear that this refers to 'university' sport: 'county level' means nothing for football, the nation's most widely played game (and the one that he plays). Shame on you, Durham snobbery.
So whilst he is forced to tell his college-to-be about himself (yet again), unless he wants to live with Third Years, I am finally attempting to combat my inertia, posting my own 'all about me form' to the internet. So hello cyberspace, here goes nothing. I am learning to write.