The Commonwealth

Wednesday, November 28, 2018

The Commonwealth

If I think about Britain, things like the monarchy, the afternoon tea, Harry Potter and the Commonwealth come to my mind. But for the most people, also for me, the question what is the Commonwealth exactly and when was it created comes to my mind. I always knew that the Commonwealth existed but I never really knew any specific facts about it. This is why I want to take a closer look at the Commonwealth today.

First of all what is the Commonwealth exactly? The Commonwealth is an association of 53 nations united by the ties of the former British rules. Its aim is to create and maintain ongoing prosperity in these countries. All of these countries were a part of the British Empire, before they joined the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth was created in the early 1900s. The main goal at that time was to ease the process of British decolonization. At the same time it was a possibility to maintain global unity through history, culture and language, despite growing independence and self-governance of former British colonies.

The Commonwealth represents one third of the world population. Over 2.3 billion people belong to it. These member countries are united through human rights, common values of democracy and rule of law. Entering the Commonwealth is voluntary and withdrawal is possible at any time. Withdrawal from the Commonwealth does not bring any obligations or consequences with it.

But how can countries join the Commonwealth? First requirement to be able to join the Commonwealth is by acknowledging Queen Elizabeth as the head of the Commonwealth. The other requirements are racial equality, liberty, human rights, equality, embrace of world peace and free trade. Those requirements are equally important as the first one. Sovereignty is a must for a member-state. Also English has to be accepted as the primary language of communication within the Commonwealth. The citizens have to have a desire to be part of the Commonwealth. Since 1997 member-states must have a constitutional link with any current member-state. It is also possible to get excluded from the Commonwealth if a nation fails to keep one of the democratic principles.

What does the Commonwealth actually do? The primary aim is to create strong connections or links between rich and poor countries. Also to bring together a variety of religions and demographics in one institution. Through this approach the Commonwealth managed to create diplomatic bounds between its members. Another very important and interesting thing, especially for smaller countries, is the bi-annual Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), which allows them to make their concerns and plans known. This is a great opportunity for those smaller countries to convince the richer and bigger countries to help them.

In my opinion the main advantage of belonging to the Commonwealth is to be a part of a very large network which is able to help and support you. It gives smaller countries a chance to be recognized and heard. It is a impressive and peaceful alliance.

Dominik König  

A Response to Propaganda in Britain

Tuesday, November 27, 2018

A Response to Propaganda in Britain

Just recently in my history class, we were talking about propaganda in the second world war in Germany and we compared in to propaganda of the ally forces. We also talked about Great Britain´s propaganda in the first and second World War. I also read the blog of one of the students in my blog group who also wrote about the propaganda in Britain. In her last part of her blog she talks about futuristic propaganda in Britain and this is the point where I actually got really interested in that propaganda topic. I started to ask myself how propaganda in Britain looks like in the future or even in the present. Because the only real propaganda we know is always from the first and second World War and mainly addresses the same topic over and over again. So for me propaganda is always something that is in the past and not really present in our world anymore.

https://www.google.com/search?q=propaganda+in+britain&rlz=1C1CHBD_deUS761US761&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiRu9qC2fXeAhURRK0KHZFYBCYQ_AUIDigB&biw=1584&bih=772#imgrc=MHwcmAwdOg8b9M:

Let me start of by talking about propaganda in the first and second World War and how it looked like at that time.

In the first World War from 1914 to 1918 the first domestic propaganda had the purpose of military recruitment. It was called PRC (Parliamentary Recruiting Committee). It was brought to live at the end of August 1914. I was basically led by the biggest and most influential british parties, except of the Irish Nationalists party. The recruited Volunteers for the war against Germany. In September 1915 the RPC issued over 20 million publications, which included over 8.5 million leaflets, over 5.6 million posters and around 5.4 million pamphlets. By September 1915 over 2 million british men had enlisted themselves as volunteers for the first World War. But also the Irish contributed men to the first World War. The name of the recruiting organization in Ireland was DRI (Department of Recruiting in Ireland). Over 200,000 Irishmen enlisted themselves, voluntarily, to help Britain fight in the first World War. This was seen impressive, because of the complex and difficult situation at that time in Ireland. But both of these propaganda organizations were made solely for the purpose of war and recruitment propaganda. But the British government also created a propaganda Bureau, the so called War Propaganda Bureau or also known as the Wellington House, which was in charge of neutrals and dominions. This Bureau was led by Charles Masterman. His determination was to conduct propaganda on accurate information and measured argument.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=british+propaganda+in+ww2&rlz=1C1CHBD_deUS761US761&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiN_Y_b2fXeAhVLhq0KHSJNAFkQ_AUIDigB&biw=1584&bih=772#imgrc=6T4-5azZkLvquM:

In the second World War there was not really a big change in the propaganda system in Britain. There were still the propaganda organizations which had the job to recruit soldiers and there was still the domestic propaganda organization. But in the second World War the domestic one changed to MOI (Ministry of Information´s). It had the responsibility for national propaganda, so in other words to maintain the moral of the people at home and to influence the opinion about Britain abroad, in a positive way. The MOI also had a new job in the second World War. It became major publisher of magazines, books, postcards, leafslets, etc, which played a major role in the dissemination of propaganda to the British people.

But there is also propaganda in the present Britain. Propaganda about a big decision the UK made not that long ago. It was the decision for the Brexit, which stands for Britain leaving the European Union. In this case the british government released a lot of propaganda pro Brexit. For instance the Office for National Statistics released over a period of time several statistics about the migration into the UK. And showed that the migration rate was the second highest. They also listed the costs caused by the migration but also the immigration to Britain caused by EU laws. But also independent magazines like “The Daily Mail” or “The Sun” spent several millions for pro or contra propaganda concerning the Brexit topic. Not to forget about hundreds of TV shows, which also costed millions.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=propaganda+in+britain+for+brexit&rlz=1C1CHBD_deUS761US761&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjf58jr4vXeAhUGbq0KHV5ZAZoQ_AUIDygC&biw=1584&bih=772#imgrc=hGdvE7KmRskeGM:

My last point is about future propaganda. I think Sarah Johnson made a good point in her blog. I agree with her opinion that there won´t be a great fight or world war again. At least not in the format we already know it. Problems in our world shifted to other, newer and more undiscovered topics like technology. I also think that a potential war between humanity and technology could be our next big conflict in which propaganda will also play a huge role.

Dominik König

Sex and Religion in “Goblin Market”

Friday, November 16, 2018

Sex and Religion in “Goblin Market”

Rosetti was a religiously devout woman so it is not surprising that her works reflect a lot of her religious beliefs. But the more interesting thing about one of her works, to be more specific “Goblin Market”, also one of her most famous works, has been published in Playboy but also as children´s literature. How is it able to appeal to such diverse audiences?

About Sex in Goblin Market

One comment from Norton about “Goblin Market” is about that one possible regarding of the poem to see it as an exploration of sexuality. Laura and Lizzie are enticed by the repeated imperative “come buy”, as if it was a siren call in reverse, men luring women. The way Rosetti describes the fruit, the colour, smell, texture and taste, combined with her describing listening to delicious mouthful sounds, makes it appeal to all the human senses at once. At the same time she uses single complex sentences with rhymes and half rhymes, plosives and alliterations to portray almost all the fruits someone can think of. But from the beginning, even before Lizzie brings up the “evil” about these fruits, it is easy to recognize that there is something not right about this fruit. There is also something unnatural about this abundance and as the poem develops further this hurried ripening of fruits can be compared to a rush into sexual maturity. If we go further into the poem, the virginal innocence is shown by the “unpecked” cherries. Also maturity is shown by the “summer weather” which a spring weather could not present. There is also an opposition embodied in the two sisters. When both of the sisters are introduced an abrupt scene change is marked, which immediately shows the difference or contrast between the two of them. Laura made an effort, by bowing her head towards the goblin men, to understand them better. Lizzie on the other hand was veiling her blushes, modestly hiding, which was considered an erotic response during the Victorian literature.

About Religion in Goblin Market   

Even though a lot of the sexual content in “Goblin Market” was veiled by Rosetti, which was absolutely normal for the Victorian time, Rosetti always denied that “Goblin Market” was actually a religious work, as most of the people saw it. But there is no denial about Rosetti putting a lot of religious and biblical symbolism into her poem. The most obvious one is the “forbidden fruit”. From there on it pretty much takes the same course as it did in the bible with Adam and Eve. Laura could not resist the temptation of the fruit and went to the Goblins and traded it with a piece of her hair. She ate it and was poisoned by it. Her Sister Lizzie could not see her sister suffer like that and she offered herself to the goblins as a kind of sacrifice. We can clearly compare that to a Christ-like symbolism.

Dominik König

My thoughts about “Black Mirror: Hated in the Nation” and its message about technology

Monday, November 26, 2018

My thoughts about “Black Mirror: Hated in the Nation” and its message about technology

The overall concept of Black Mirror is to show how dangerous the future and its technological inventions and advances for humanity can be. It shows us possible outcomes and downsides or side effects of technology and the future itself, besides all the shiny, useful aspects. It really fixates on things no one is thinking about or willing to think about. The episode “Hated in the Nation” shows that in a cruel but also in a realistic and good way.

The episode is structured like a police procedural, in which law-enforcement officials try to protect innocent citizens from an unknown, deranged villain. This episode is basically about deaths of people who are hated by society. An unknown person created an internet game in which people could tag other people with the hashtag “#DeathTo” and their name. After 5 pm the person with the most “#DeathTo” will get executed. At 12 am the game resets every day. After some investigation of the law-enforcement officers it reveals that the mysterious deaths are caused by the robot honeybees, or so called Autonomous Drone Insects (ADI´s). These bees were originally created to fill the ecological gap left by the extinction of the real honeybees. Due to a security gap the unknown killer is able to hack the robot honeybees and use them as killer machines.

“Hated in the Nation” is focues on two huge problems of our society: autonomous drones which are used for flower-pollinating in the first place but are actually used for governmental large-scale aerial surveillance and on another technological problem of our society, cyberbullying. The cyberbullying is portrayed by the internet game #DeathTo, created by the anonymous killer. As I already explained, the purpose of the game is to determine a person, that will be killed, by the hastag DeathTo and the name of the disliked person. But all of the people are actually not aware that the #DeathTo hastag will actually kill someone. As already said, for them it is more of a bullying purpose.

If I think about “Hated in the Nation” my first problem is to determine its actual critique. I mean the episode talks about Psychopaths who are using advanced technology to kill people, collective cyberbullying and the problem of Drones doing government surveillance without being noticed by anyone. Which can get really confusing during you watch it. But I think the answer to this problem is, that it actually talks about all those problems at once. It tells the audience to mostly see the bad side in technology and the future of technology. The same counts for the people. Also in the episode everybody is at fault: the tweeters who keep the twitter game alive, the startup which agreed to leave a backdoor in the bee drones and also the victims of the hashtag game. But on the other side there are also some attempts to undermine stereotypes about cyberbullying. The preschool teacher, one of the hashtag tweeters and the one who sent the cake to the first victim, believes that all the people behind those questionable hashtags are normal people which normal careers who just want to express their hate or dislike towards someone in a certain way. I think the point Black Mirror is trying to make here is that people often represent or appear different in the internet than in real life. Mostly because they behave completely different on social medias than in real life. Which is supported by the anonymity the internet or social media provides.

I think the episodes biggest failure is to recognize the parts of its convoluted storyline which raises the most important and also interesting question. What happens if the people, who participate every day in the hastag game, would actually find out that they had the power of collectively determining someone to die? Could this lead to a more fascinating exploration of the human nature? Maybe more than the villain-focused story is telling instead.

Dominik König

Origins of the British Empire and the Competition with France

Friday, November 16, 2018

Origins of the British Empire and the Competition with France

Britain began to make first tentative efforts to establish overseas settlements in the 16^th century. Mostly driven by the competition with France and commercial ambitions, its maritime expansion accelerated in the 17^th century. Results of this expansion were settlements in North America and in West India. In 1670 the British American colonies where in New England, Virginia, Maryland and also new settlements in the Bermudas, Honduras, Antigua, Barbados and Nova Scotia. Jamaica was obtained in 1655 by conquest, and what later became Canada from the 1670´s on, was first established as the Hudson´s Bay Company. Trading post were established in India around the 1600´s by the East India Company. Penang, Singapore, Malacca and Labuan became British colonies through an extension of that company´s activities. James Island was the first permanent British settlement on the African Continent. In was in 1661 in the Gambia River. This is also around the time when British began with Slave trading. The first trades began in Sierra Leone, even though it was not a British colony. In 1806 Britain acquired south African parts, like the Cap of Good Hope.

Almost all of those settlements or colonies were a result of enterprises of companies or magnates. The English crown did not make much of an effort to obtain any of these territories. Another important fact about the colonies of the British Empire is, that they were mostly self-managing. The crown only gave some ground rules and supervised them.

Competition with France

Under the leadership of Robert Clive, James Wolfe and Eyre Coote, the british military and naval forces gained the most important parts of its empire - India and Canada. The British and French colonies were fighting against each other in North America in the first half of the 18^th century. This war was also known as the “French and Indian War” But this seven year long war ended after the Treaty of Paris (in 1763) was made. This war left Britain dominant in Canada. In India on the other hand, the east was occupied and confronted by the French. Robert Clive managed, through military victories against the French forces and the rulers of Bengal to evict them from those east territories and claim them for the British colonies. This ensured Britain the supremacy in India as well.

During 1776-1783 Britain suffered a loss of 13 colonies in America. But those losses were compensated by new colony settlements in Australia. Through the Napoleonic Wars the British empire managed to acquire further colonies. The Treaty of Amiens (1802) brought them Trinidad and Sri Lanka. And the second Treaty of Paris, this time in 1814, brought them Tobago, Mauritius, Saint Lucia and Malta. Stamford Raffles conquered Singapore in 1819 and Malacca joined the British Empire in 1795.

Dominik König          

Propaganda in Britain

  

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Daddy%2C_what_did_You_do_in_the_Great_War%3F.jpg/220px-Daddy%2C_what_did_You_do_in_the_Great_War%3F.jpg

Propaganda plays a large part in the socialization of people. Propaganda targets and appeals to audiences of a culture in hopes of persuading their beliefs to a side. I randomly stumbled upon British propaganda on Google Images and it lead me towards thinking about what propaganda does within a society. It enlists important fundamental ideals that people in power want the masses to believe or ascribe to their collective belief of what is right. In the image above, a little girl looks at her father after asking him the question, "Daddy, what did you do in the Great War?" This was meant to enlist guilt into the hearts of men who did not fight in World War I and let their fellow countrymen fight for their lives.

In this image, we see a woman surrounded by airplanes who looks to be in military clothing. It can be assumed that men are flying these planes, but there were also a very well-regarded group of female pilots (but the government doesn't want you to focus on that). What they want you to focus on is that if you are woman, your war efforts should be in the factory because your husbands and sons are not there to work. Production and product must go and your husbands aren't there to do it. They want women to fly those plans or even contemplate flying those planes because the ideology they are imparting is to mainstream into the jobs of men.

 

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3e/bd/c0/3ebdc035d4d7a325fc7be9db991313fa.jpg

British propaganda today looks very different from the past. There is no great war to fight for, but the image above shows a potential war of technology and humanity. These two forces conflict because humans have created technology, but technology has begun to do all the thinking while humans sit back and let technology do all the work. This propaganda appeals to the mind in the same appeal that the other two images do, but has a more modern approach. It is meant to insight guilt and fear into those who look at this image.

What are your thoughts on British propaganda? Let me know down below in the comments.

See you soon,

Sarah Johnson 

British Horror Story

 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Ecran_Titre_d%27American_Horror_Story.png/375px-Ecran_Titre_d%27American_Horror_Story.png

 One of the most famous and culturally relevant TV shows of the last seven years is American Horror Story. The show has reached critical acclaim because of its expansive setting across America and its connection to important social and political topics of past and modern events that have shaped the American culture into what it is today. The show incorporates elements of horror into the storyline and this is important because horror is the best way to grab human attention. As humans we are constantly looking to be scared and for a thrill. The best way to get human attention towards important topics is to incite fear through almost unimaginable events. The lines between fictional horror and real life are blurred through the elements of the show. 

 

The question I want to know is what horrors would a show set in Britain tackle? What would make a  British Horror Story different or the same as an American one?

Social and political topics covered in American Horror Story:

 Adultery

Insanity 

Feminism (Women's Rights)

Inclusion & Equality

Sin

Racism

Political Parties

End Times

Desire for Fame

Obsession

Overarching Theme: What makes a monster a monster?

Most of these themes are prevalent throughout every season because these are the basis for the American culture. I believe that a lot of themes that are prevalent in American Horror Story would also be covered in British Horror Story. Topics that I could see overarching through every season are feminism, racism, politics, and inclusion. The other topics are more human individual plights compared to the overall societal horrors that one has to face. 

What themes do you think would be in British Horror Story? Let me know down below in the comments.

See you soon,

Sarah Johnson 

The Harry Potter Movement

Back in 2001, the first Harry Potter novel was released. At the time I was only 2 years old and these books are aimed at an age of middle school/high schoolers, so clearly I could not read it at that age. But as I grew up and got older I started seeing these books everywhere and I mean EVERYWHERE. I could be watching a football game and there was a kid sitting with his family a couple seats down reading Harry Potter. I even remember going to Rhythms on the River (a local event where random bands would play) and I saw one of my friends sitting in a lawn chair reading one of these books. This was around the time of when I was in 6th grade. Now I am currently 19 years old and to this day, I have never read a Harry Potter novel or watched a single movie. I have watched parts of some of the movies, but I have never sat down and fully watched a movie. I will say that it is astonishing how much these novels took over the world when I was a kid.

J.K. Rowling is the British author of the Harry Potter series and since its release, there have been numerous more books made. Movies have been done based off of the books and they have blown up. When I was in middle school I remember almost everyone reading at least one of the Harry Potter books. The books were very large in size, ranging from 200-700 pages. The main reason why I never read them was that I was never a fan of books as a kid unless they were small and had a good story. For example, I really enjoyed The Lightning Thief series. But because some of the Harry Potter books were so large I was honestly too afraid to read them. Even though I never read them or saw any of the movies, I was still able to notice the impact it had on literature. 

First off, J.K. Rowling is a British author so you would expect the books to mainly only be recognized in Britain but that is not true at all. The books BLEW UP... everywhere. They spread like a disease all over the globe. It really shows how dominant fiction is to the younger audiences. I know there are many adults who have read the novels too but the main audience was the younger side. I personally feel like literature is losing it's touch as time goes on. People are more interested in technology and watching films rather than reading a book. I feel like the growth of this series rekindled British literature, especially in the 2000s. There aren't many series that take the world by storm but I feel as if Harry Potter was a big step forward for the culture of British literature. It really shows how much fiction is taking over in the literature realm right now. I may eventually read the novels but I know for a fact I will eventually watch the movies because they do seem really interesting and for them to get as popular as they did I have to see what the hype was about. 

Ian Ransonet

My Thoughts on University

About a month ago in class, we were assigned to read "Discourse 5. Knowledge, It's Own End" by John Henry Cardinal Newman. A brief summary of what John says in this essay is that the student does and can make whatever they want of the knowledge they receive. He states the idea of a university is different to everyone and basically says you get out of it what you want. Depending on what the student decides to major in, they will leave the college with that knowledge if that is what they want. I completely agree with what Newman is trying to say here. He thinks that colleges should provide a variety of opportunities so everyone can experience and take part in what they want to do. He believes in more of a liberal education. Because there are so many people in this world and so many different opinions and beliefs, he says that schools should offer a wide range of subjects and classes to take and I think for the most part schools do that. People should not be restricted to do what they want to do.

Newman also wishes that students would go to school for the sake of knowledge and not necessarily just for the degree and I don't really agree with this. Currently, I feel as if schools force every major to take classes that are not going to be useful later in life. I'm currently in Mechanical Engineering and I feel like the school forces me to take subjects and classes that don't pertain to engineering at all. Because of this, it demotivates me to pay attention to some of those classes because they are unimportant to me. I don't want to learn the knowledge presented in those classes because I'm not interested, I just want to be able to get my degree so I have to take some of those classes. I feel as if Newman wanted people to mainly focus on the knowledge, then schools shouldn't force students to take classes that are uninteresting to them. For students to want to learn the information brought up to them, they should be able to have a little more say in what classes they get to take or don't want to take. 

Most people these days just care about the money. I would say most students think that what they are learning isn't that interesting to them but it's just something that wouldn't be incredibly boring. Most students just want to get out of college as quick as possible so they can get a job and start making money. Now there are some students who do really enjoy what they are doing and want to take their time and enjoy college. But if we're being real most people are in college just for the degree and not for the money. And the reason for that is because the schools force a lot of unnecessary classes in my opinion. I do agree with Newman when he says there should be variety in schools. But I don't think there will ever be a day where most students are in college for the learning rather than just to get a degree.

Ian Ransonet

Importance of Britain in World War 2

Thursday, November 15, 2018

Importance of Britain in World War 2

There is a rumour about a famous quote Stalin apparently once said: ”England brought the time, America the money and Russia the blood.”

There is a lot of truth in Stalin words when it comes to Britain buying time in the second World War. By staying in the war, Britain made it possible to allow a bridgehead for US and allied troops and also a vital line of supply to the USSR. This played a huge part in terms of material delivery but more important in keeping up the morality of the soldiers.

https://www.google.com/search?q=britain+in+ww2&rlz=1C1CHBD_deUS761US761&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjD_OGBldjeAhVh7oMKHTJRCCMQ_AUIDigB&biw=1584&bih=772#imgrc=jpOuMYf90Op2tM:

Also the rescue mission of Dunkirk played a huge role in World War 2. After Germany invaded France, Belgium and the Netherlands the British army was trapped in Dunkirk, a small town located at the shores of northern France. By the time, when the German troops slowly moved in to kill the nearly 500000 trapped soldiers there, the Britains started on of the biggest rescue missions ever. They managed to rescue almost all of the 500000 soldiers and bring them back to England. Those soldiers played a huge role later on in the following fights against Germany. If the Britains would have lost this amount of soldiers the possibility of loosing important fights in the World War against Germany would have been much higher.

https://www.google.com/search?q=dunkirk+rescue+1940&rlz=1C1CHBD_deUS761US761&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2sITDl9jeAhXKq4MKHXorCLoQ_AUIDigB&biw=1584&bih=772#imgrc=Mi05NkIBOBBwCM:

Another important contribution that Britain made in World War 2 was by winning the Battle of Britain. When Germany tried to invade Britain, the british air force managed to defead the Luftwaffe (German air force). Britain destroyed 2000 planes and killed or captured all of their pilots. This was an major achievement for the allied forces, because as a result the German air force was not that powerful, after this defeat, anymore and it made it easier to fight them. Therefore Germany had to divide its military forces and split it up, to defend against the Britains at its coast lines on the one hand, and on the other hand it also had to send troops to Russia because of the on going invasion there. This also made the defence and the attacks of the German military much weaker, which also led to more success in the war against them.

But the Britains not only helped in a military way, they also helped by supplying and in a logistical way. Because the Britains had such a big marine and air force they where able to supply they other ally forces all over the world. The british army was constantly supplying the other allied forces with supplies and important war equipment, like tanks, ammunition, weapons, etc. There were also constantly shipping or flying reinforcements to any needed place in the war zones to help out wherever it was needed.

This is why Britain played such a big part in winning the Second World War against Germany. It was crucial that Britain decided not to stay out of this war, because it was such a big factor in winning this war.

Dominik König

A Recommendation: The King's Speech

The King's Speech is a movie that was released in 2010 and was directed by Tom Hooper. Before my senior year of high school, I was forced to watch the movie in the summer. I was never a fan of the movies we were forced to watch and books we were forced to read. I never found them interesting until I watched The King's Speech. This movie is about a man named Bertie but he's not just any ordinary man. He is second in line to the throne. His father King George V currently is King of the nation. Bertie's brother is next in line. Soon into the book, King George V passes away and Bertie's brother takes the throne. Soon after that, Bertie's brother leaves the throne to marry a divorced American, meaning that Bertie is now King. There's only one problem with him being King. Bertie is very determined and knows his duties as King, but he has a severe stutter. 

Every single time Bertie is required to speak to mass amounts of people, he stutters an insane amount. It is so hard for him to get out a single sentence. If he were to recite an entire speech in front of a large crowd, with his stutter it would take hours for the speech to finish. We're never really given a reason as to why Bertie has a stutter, but the cause seems to be because of childhood trauma. Bertie's stutter is so severe, it is pretty much impossible for him to be able to give a single speech. Bertie has a wife (Elizabeth) who's very supportive of him and trying to fix the solution. So Bertie and Elizabeth try speech therapy for him. They go to many therapists but it seems pointless as no one is helping. Just when Bertie is about to quit, Elizabeth convinces him to go to one more person, named Lionel. Bertie thinks that there's no use and no one and nothing will ever fix his problem. So Bertie goes in being very skeptical.

In the beginning, Bertie is very uncooperative with Lionel but Lionel is convinced by the end of the sessions that Bertie's stutter will completely disappear. At the beginning of the sessions, Bertie says it's no use and says he's never going back. But eventually, his purpose drives him to return to Lionel. There is a scene where Lionel makes Bertie listen to music while reading and reciting different lines. Lionel recorded Bertie talking, and for the first time ever, Bertie spoke completely normally. No stutter at all. Since Bertie couldn't hear himself speak, he thought he stuttered throughout the entire thing. Bertie left with feelings of failure and anger towards himself. But Lionel gave Bertie the recording of him speaking. One day at his house, Bertie decides to give the recording a listen and realized, that it's himself speaking with no interruptions. There wasn't a single stutter and this drove Bertie to go back to Lionel and not stop going back. After multiple sessions throughout the movie, Bertie ends up having to give a speech at the end of the film to the entire nation. Great Britain is about to go to war so he has to give speeches to rally the nation to give them courage. Bertie goes into a broadcasting room with Lionel to give the speech and does it perfectly, inspiring people all over England. 

The main reason why I enjoyed this movie, and recommend it to everyone else, is because it has an element of everything. The movie is rated R but the only reason for that is because of some of the language. It's a very calm movie with a smooth plotline and I feel like it has a little bit of everything. There are strong themes of comedy, friendship, marriage, responsibilities, and self-motivation. The relationship between Lionel and Bertie is very important too. As a King, typically the kings feel above everyone else, especially people who are Australian (which is Lionel's nationality by the way). And to see Lionel and Bertie form this friendship is not common in the setting of this movie, the 1930s. Lionel and Bertie ended up being best friends for the rest of there lives and that was not common of people in higher class England. The conversations between the two were also comical every now and then. It gives good comic relief to the tension of wondering if Bertie will ever lose his stutter. The film also has a very good, non-cliche ending. It was a very simple ending with Bertie inspiring the entire country with his words. This movie also can relate to many common people. It shows how even those who are given everything at birth still struggle with problems within themselves. There's a reason why this movie won 4 Oscars in total. It provides a very good story without overdoing it. I recommend this movie to anyone who's looking for inspiration or just a good story enriched film. 

Ian Ransonet

Racism in Britain

 

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/412BMH3wiIL._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

As Americans we are generally under the impression that only are our country experiences racist viewpoints. While our country was built on racist values and a lot of our laws and even the Constitution excluded anyone who wasn't white being a free person. It is important to keep in mind that our country and its values originate from Europe. Before America was a free country it was a colony of Britain. This means that a lot of systematic forms of racism translated from the motherland over to America. Racism stems from those who desire power and oppressing those who they deem below them allows them to have stature and rise above those they believe to be inferior.  

  

https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1464415418i/19236121.jpg

White Teeth by Zadie Smith focuses on the racism and underlying disdain that colonized British people face from British people who see themselves as true British people. The characters we follow are a British man who marries a young woman from Jamaica, his friend who is from Bangladesh, the child of the British man and Jamaican woman, and the twins of the man from Bangladesh. They face many rude comments from British people because they don't look British. Millat and Irie in particular face comments from other British people who expect them to have been born from an exotic colony when in reality they were born right down the road. 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38258000/jpg/_38258532_white_teeth_300b.jpg

The racism that Smith tackles shows that racism's roots stretch far and wide. The people of Britain look upon British subjects who are not white as not being truly British. They think they take their jobs and potential housing. This ideological mindset reflects the American thinking of racism. Racism has been born from Britain and carries across the sea. This has left the American population to battle racism as much as British people. Color blindness, pretending that racism is dead, and systematic forms of oppression are the same in both countries. They just present themselves in slightly different ways, but the root of cruelty is reflected across the sea.

What are your thoughts on the racism presented in White Teeth? Let me know down below in the comments. 

See you soon,

Sarah Johnson