Black and White March 2015

2015

BLACK

AND

WHITE

MARCH

EDITORIAL More than two months after the tragic events of the 7th of January, the scenes of the Charlie Hebdo

shootings still remain vivid in the minds of many. Apart from creating endless debates on Free Speech

and Pluralism, it has encouraged many to learn to value the opinions of others, and respect the right of

others to voice these views. Indeed, proving somebody wrong in a debate is infinitely more powerful than

silencing them with a gun.

Accordingly, this issue of Black and White features a number of debates and strong opinions. The role of

Israel is re-evaluated by Harry Snider in response to last issue’s article ‘The New Anti-Semitism’,

providing the school with the first ever debate to occur through the medium of a school magazine.

However, while this landmark arguably demonstrates that St. Paul’s is moving forwards, Hugh Laurence

is keen to argue otherwise, with his opinions on the school’s seemingly backwards attitude to sexism

showing that this institution still has a long way to go.

Unfortunately, within the furore of the aftermath of the killings, journalists, politicians and ‘tweeters’

alike were all guilty of double standards, blindly forgetting to judge themselves before judging others.

This publication, however, does not have such a problem: Alex Gresty is quick to point out that America is

hardly a haven for Free Speech in his piece, while Michael Sackur urges us to explore Religion and the

Sexist double standards. In a more banal but equally poignant way, Alex Gresty makes us laugh at our own

culture, one which advertises male hair removal cream, by providing an excellent analysis of his

experience with such a product.

Through the tunnel of darkness that was the 7th of January, we should try and see glimpses of light. The

acts of courage, as inspected by Tyler Jackson in ‘The Real Hero of Charlie Hebdo Attacks’, and the

worldwide condemnation of the violent murders help us to gain hope. Proving one’s point through debate

rather than violence has never been a more important concept, and so, while you swipe through this

issue, we urge you to voice your opinions by e-mailing them to [email protected].

Carl

Editor in Chief: Carl du Jeu

Sub-Editors: Albert Meek

Alex Gresty

James Ritchie

James Cole

Paul Norris

Quentin Mareuse

The editorial team would like to give thanks to all

contributors, to the proof-readers, the technology

consultants, Mrs Mackenzie, and Mr Larlham.

CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS CURRENT AFFAIRS

The world is now richer than it has ever been before – a fact which hardly seems surprising when considering the likes of the technological billionaires across the Atlantic or the oil tycoons of the Middle East. Not only is there more money floating about, but the global economy has doubled in the past 20 years, a rate of growth never witnessed before in human history. Yet, whilst the oligarchs munch on their Caviar, it may come as a shock that not everyone is benefiting from this newfound prosperity. A study published by Oxfam this year uncovered that the richest 1% of the global population owned a phenomenal 48% of its wealth. Although the richest 1% sounds in the league of multi-billionaires, what may prove most surprising to you is that to qualify for this sector of society means possessing wealth of just half a million pounds – a bracket which encompasses most London property owners and the vast majority of Paulines. Whilst life may seem flush as daddy brings home his next big bonus, conditions for the less well off have been declining fast. Over the past four years, the poorest 50% of the world’s population have witnessed a drop in wealth of over $750 billion. As the gap between the rich and poor grows ever wider, the problem of inequality has become a pressing concern for governments across the globe. And from a policy maker’s point of view, it’s a problem that desperately needs to be addressed. Countless studies have presented the strong correlation between high inequality and higher poverty, low life expectancy, low child wellbeing, high rates of smoking and alcoholism – the list could go on. Aside from the clear social implications, the cost to the government of high inequality is worryingly high. The links between low social status and mental illness in very unequal societies are just starting to become apparent. Usually starting with cases of bullying at school, people on the more unequal end of the spectrum are feeling the impact of a loss of social status, leaving them demoralised and unwilling to work. Not only is this costly in terms of healthcare bills, but it also results in an effect known as hysteresis where mentally depressed workers lose skills and the economic output of the country weakens. But for many, the problem of inequality has been challenging to address. Given the American Dream ideology that working hard earns you success and prosperity, the redistribution from the wealthy to the poor may appear

The Problem of Inequality

difficult to justify. If you come from a family that has slogged away for generations to secure the privileges that you enjoy today it seems unfair for these to be taken away and given to those who have not been so lucky for the purpose of creating a fairer society. Yet here’s a fact that may cause you to shift your viewpoint a little: inequality is hurting the rich too. This can be seen both on an individual level and as an effect on the economy as a whole. As inequality puts more pressure on people to prove their material worth, people in unequal societies feel obliged to spend more money on flashy cars and designer clothes in order to demonstrate their rank in society. This forces richer people to spend more and more hours behind their desks and risk running into even greater debt. As inequality continually pushes back the fight against poverty, this will inevitably put a buffer on economic growth and mean that there is less wealth for the rich to benefit from in the future. Inequality is clearly a significant problem. And it’s one that is impossible to hide under the carpet. But how can we begin to tackle it? It would appear that throwing money at the problem would be the easiest solution, but this has resulted in little resolution and met with opposition – not least from the NGOs themselves. Oxfam’s own International executive Winnie Bynayima admitted in an article for the Independent that charity simply isn’t the answer. Even though the solution might not lie directly in the pockets of the rich, this is not to say that wealthier members of society do not hold the key to even out the situation. By readjusting taxes for big businesses, this will increase production costs and put a cap on ludicrous city salaries. The money raised can then be reinvested in education and training to create a skilled workforce for the future. As the elections loom ever closer, it is clear that inequality could prove an election stopper in May. Given Cameron’s continued calls for austerity, Milliband’s pledge for increased spending appears more suited to resolving this growing issue. Where the economy is concerned, voters will be forced to make one simple choice: to pocket their fortune now or look for prosperity in the future.

JAMES COLE

When, on the 29th of December last year, the ruling Conservative Greek coalition failed to generate enough votes for their presidential candidate, snap elections were called. The polls only ever predicted one winner. The radical left-wing Syriza party won a remarkable 149 seats, out of the 300 available. Needing just two more seats for a working majority, it quickly made a deal with the right-wing Independent Greeks. These two new coalition partners’ views differ on every aspect bar one, the solution to Greece’s enormous debt. Standing at €320bn, around 174% of Greece's economic output, the Greek debt continues to dominate domestic politics, as much as that of Europe as a whole. Syriza’s position is clear and concise: no more austerity! This leaves them to clearly reject the European Union’s bailout terms, which require a certain degree of cuts to be made, along with modest job losses in the public sector. These were begun by the previous government, who slowly made progress towards balancing the books. Now Syriza says that it’s going to reverse all of these changes made, whilst also giving the public an assortment of extra hand-outs, designed to appease the angry voters who elected them into government. At the same time, they argue that Greece can simply not afford to repay these massive debts, without crippling its economy. Thus, their solution is that the deficit be halved, with the remaining repayments linked to the performance of the Greek economy. So, how should European governments, who effectively own over 60% of the Greek debt, respond? Firstly, it’s necessary to acknowledge that Syriza is right, insofar as Greece can simply not afford to repay their oversized debts. It is also essential, when dishing out blame, to acknowledge that the EU watched previous Greek

governments tamper with government accounts and borrow far more than they could afford to repay, without taking any action, all as part of the great European project. Yet it’s also necessary to understand why Greek is running such a large current account deficit in the first place. Tax collecting, for a start, is inefficient: multiple whistle-blowers have alleged that a culture of intimidation exists against tax officials, who are actively encouraged to take bribes from both people and organisations. The second major issue, is the inefficiency of the state sector. Job security regulation surrounding public sector workers means that it is almost impossible to fire people regardless of their performance. This leads to many cases of poor attendance. For example, overpaid train operators don’t feel the need to arrive for work on a consistent basis as there is little action that can be taken against them. In fact, statisticians have concluded, that it would theoretically be cheaper and more reliable, for the government to close the train network and fund the taxi journey for every train user in the country than to continue operating the railway in its current form! Further complicating the situation, is that many European nations (ranging from Spain to Italy to France) with sizeable debts of their own, have growing populist movements whose support is based on their radical anti-austerity stance. If the EU acts leniently towards Greece’s debt, which it could easily afford to waive if it felt so obliged, then many voters in these nations would take it as a signal that they too could do away with austerity. Thus, the EU should strike a middle balance, whilst accepting some portion of the blame. Greece should be forced to pay the debt in full, but its deadlines should be extended around 50 years into the future, with yearly interest only equal to the inflation of the Euro. More loans at low interest rates should also be made available, as long as certain conditions are met. Foremost, Greece must reform its tax collection system, with outside help if required. Equally important, is that it makes cuts to the public sector, reforming its job security and reducing wages. Outside monitors would be needed, and although highly likely to be resented by people at first, these changes would clean up Greek finances; with reform to laws regarding job security particularly relevant to the ailing private sector. In an ideal scenario, Greece would accept these conditions, understanding that they would be beneficial in the long term. However, in reality it seems unlikely that Syriza will accept, leaving the EU with no other choice but to expel Greece from the Euro, with disastrous consequences for all Greeks involved and potential repercussions throughout the Eurozone and beyond.

Liberté. Egalité. Fraternité.

These three words are the foundation of freedom for millions. They define a nation, and

unite people in a time of distress. Quite frankly, the Charlie Hebdo attacks have been branded as a

“grim day in the history of the western world”, frequently compared to the attacks of 9/11. They

remind people of anarchy, where a small group has decided that they could not only hurt us with

terrorism but break us apart. But one man in particular simply laughed in the face of the terrorists.

It was a Muslim policeman, Ahmed Merabet, a gendarme from a local police station who

was “slaughtered like a dog”, after heroically trying to stop two armed murderers from fleeing the

Charlie Hebdo offices.

In fact, it was the image of Merabet’s killing on a Paris pavement that most shocked French

police and the wider public. As millions took to social media sites to stand strong against the

terrorists, with the catchphrase “#JeSuisCharlie” flourishing, @Aboujahjah summed up in less

than his 140 character limit exactly what the hero’s actions meant.

He posted: “I am not Charlie, I am Ahmed the dead cop. Charlie ridiculed my faith and

culture and I died defending his right to do so.”

This, if nothing else on that day, sparked chaos. Within hours people were using the chic new

#JeSuisAhmed handle. People were standing up and proclaiming the importance to stand behind

those who fight for freedom. People were coming together to fight not only for justice, but for

free speech, just as Merabet had done. Simply, Merabet’s actions kept a nation together.

Ahmed did his job as would any other police officer, and importantly he didn’t allow any

personal ties to affect his judgement, unlike many cases in the United States for example.

Furthermore, his decision showed how he chose to stand up for freedom: freedom of speech,

freedom of the press, and freedom of choice, despite the fact that Charlie Hebdo had been a

source of political and religious satire for years, making fun of everything he believed in. Yet,

Ahmed chose to defend their right to do so - literally to death - much like Voltaire had

proclaimed.

Had he not, had he decided that because Charlie Hebdo had attacked his beliefs then he

would fight back against them, the idea of liberty would have been destroyed.

Understandably, in response to the murder of so many of their colleagues, the Charlie Hebdo

survivors wanted to make a statement against terrorism. They demonstrated clearly that they

wouldn't be intimidated by a bunch of Islamic extremists. They showed that they wouldn't be

deflected from their democratic right of freedom of speech to mock whoever and whatever they

so choose. They continued to fight for what Ahmed started.

That day, liberty was threatened, equality was battered, but brotherhood was never stronger.

Even though the terrorists had retaliated with force to Charlie Hebdo’s satirising of their faith,

Ahmed’s response brought the nation together as one to fight for liberty and equality. On a day

where so much of the nation’s heart and foundations had been crushed, it’s difficult to see how

they could have picked themselves up if brotherhood has fallen apart.

Ahmed Merabet died so that Charlie Hebdo could exercise its freedom to ridicule and insult

all that he held most sacred. He gave his life to protect Charlie Hebdo's right to deride his beliefs.

If it's a hero we're looking for, or a token of freedom, Ahmed Merabet is a far more eligible

candidate than Charlie Hebdo.

#JESUISCHARLIE The Real Hero of the Charlie Hebdo Attacks

Tyler Jackson

For many years favelas have been seen as ‘social blights’ or ‘urban cancers’ in Brazil and particularly Rio, a black mark on what is otherwise a rapidly emerging global player. Many

see the favelas as limiting for Brazil’s development and a force preventing Brazil from unlocking its full potential as a global economic power. However, in recent times views of the favelas have started to change and as a result we are seeing the Brazilian government

start to embrace the favelas as they realise that instead of being a barrier to the doorway of development they may be the key that unlocks it.

So why will the favela triumph? There are several reasons, most of which have emerged in the last few years. This shows just how quick the change in perception has been of favelas

across the world. The reasons include:

1. The World Cup and Rio Olympics The World Cup provided an opportunity for the Brazilian government to show the world and

specifically the Western media that the favelas were not in fact as problematic as people thought. One of the major problems for the favelas in the past had been the way in which

they had been portrayed by Western media, with papers such as the Daily Mail running stories such as: ‘Cleaning up Brazil's most dangerous favelas: How armed police are waging

war on vicious drug cartels that rule the slums of Rio as they fight to make the city safe before the 2016 Olympic Games’. The combative nature of articles like this have historically

not helped the image of the favelas. However, the World Cup helped change this perception, with documentaries run by the BBC and other news networks that showed the

character and soul of the favelas and how they are in fact an intrinsic part of Brazilian culture. The BBC documentary showed profiles of local people in Rocinha (the largest favela in Brazil) and provided a more positive view of the favelas than before. Instead of the favelas

being portrayed as dangerous we saw them as a part of Brazil that was important, not stunting to development at all. Indeed the World Cup and the Olympics being held in

Brazil has also showed the positive sporting aspects of the favelas. Many of the sporting stars in the World Cup came from favelas. One of these was Neymar, certainly the most

famous current player in Brazil and a world football star. The World Cup has provided the recognition that the favelas produce sporting stars, which has made many in Brazil see the favelas as more important than previously. The exposing of the favelas being

able to produce such stars and being recognised as the ‘samba capital of South America’ may not be economically important but is socially important. The only way for

the favelas to be integrated into Brazil is for them first to be acknowledged as important to the country, then they can become integrated economically.

2. Pacification In the last few years the government has implemented a management strategy for the favelas that may well actually result in positive change allowing the favelas to triumph. This process is pacification and is significantly different to strategies adopted in Brazil’s past. In the 1970s the feeling towards the favelas was that it would be better to get rid

of them completely than to use them in a positive way. For that reason the military government of the day adopted a favela eradication policy which aimed to remove the

problem completely, however, this was disastrous as it only led to more favelas popping up. It seems that Brazil has learnt from its mistakes though and the pacification plan is evidence of this. The process of pacification is to reclaim territories in favelas held by

drug gangs and armed militia. This is obviously a very positive move and will in the long term benefit those living in favelas and indeed is suggestive of the government

attempting to integrate favelas into society rather than marginalising them. Although favela management could not have been much worse than the favela eradication policy

of the 1970s, the process of pacification is certainly a positive move by the government which will allow the favelas

to triumph: economically, socially and politically. 3. The future

If we see that the main cause of favelas forming and indeed enlarging is rapid urbanisation and rural - urban migration then the future looks bright for the favelas.

This is because the flow of migrants from the poor north-east of Brazil, which built up the favelas in previous decades, has slowed significantly in recent years, while some of the residents of the favelas have even decided to make the return journey. This counter urbanisation that Brazil seems to be experiencing is certainly making the government’s

job a lot easier. This movement away from the favelas counteracts in some ways the high birth rates within them and so the government’s job in reintegration becomes

slightly easier. The Pacification process certainly shows us the intentions of the government, they now believe that the favelas are marketable areas of their country:

the samba capital of South America and the home of Neymar, these tag lines bring with them a sense of belonging and increased public perception of favelas. No longer are they social blights or urban cancers, they are the key to Brazil’s economic and social

success as a rapidly emerging world power.

RAMON

MENON

It frustrates me hearing the pseudonym of Mohammed Enwazi, “Jihadi John”. Apparently he is part of some scum group in ISIS who nickname themselves as The Beatles but I mean please, aren’t we ruining the name of the legend that is John Lennon every time we call Enwazi Jihadi John? It sounds incredibly childish and peculiar to call him Jihadi John considering his actions are less childish but more just plain outrageous. It also raises the question of what do we do with people who preach non-violent extremism in university campuses as this man once did and what to do with individuals who go abroad fighting in Syria regardless of the nature of the which side they are on.

Firstly, the fact that Enwazi was able to preach his disturbing views at the University of Westminster beggars belief brings into question the government’s role in allowing

this. The government have so far clarified that it is illegal for people to preach extremism of a violent nature but have said that anyone can preach non-violent extremism wherever they want to do so. I think that they are right, due to the fact that people have the right to freedom of speech. I am however convinced that we should also do a Nick Griffin: put these people such as Anjem Choudhry on platforms such as Question Time, let him get ripped into by other panellists and members of the general public and after that let their followers contemplate as to whether following their so called idols is actually a decent thing to do. The BNP’s support has

plummeted after Nick Griffin was bashed on Question Time, so let’s do the same thing to these other people whether they be Islamists or not. Furthermore, it is about time that we took a hard line on people who intend to travel or go to countries like Syria fighting for terrorists groups. Whether it be the PKK (a terrorist Kurdish group) or ISIS, they should have harsh punishments inflicted on them. I simply disagree with those charities which say that Enwazi is a victim and frankly, they need to have their statuses rechecked. We cannot blame MI5 and the secret services for failing to monitor such individuals. This rotten Tory/Liberal coalition has pledged to ring fence foreign aid spending at the expense of the police/secret service budget thereby severely limiting the ability of the aforementioned services to monitor every possible dangerous person. I say that we increase their budget and slash foreign aid in order that we can protect people at home rather than blaming the Secret Services for everything when it’s not even their fault. The NHS spends more in one week than MI5 spends in one year which demonstrates just how tiny their budget is. I think we should follow Australia and remove the citizenships or passports of the people who fight for terrorists groups be they in Syria or Timbuktu. Obviously we have an infuriating obstacle manifested in the European Court of Human Rights; I say we should screw them and the loony lefties who think that their human rights will be impinged on if we make them stateless. After all we ignored them regarding prisoners’ rights to vote so let’s do the same here. Honestly, they have betrayed their country by fighting for terrorists groups who aim to cause damage to the UK, therefore I see no problem in having their citizenships reviewed/withdrawn.

The World’s Youthful Population Elderly populations are the only age demographic which the media appears to care about anymore. Japan, Germany and Italy constantly make news headlines with their high percentages of the population aged 65 or older (25%, 21% and 20% respectively) and subsequent discussion about what implications this will have on the society and structure of the country as a whole. But what about youthful populations, with people aged less than 30 accounting for 50.5% of the global population in 2012? In the past four or so decades medical advances and improved access to education and contraception around the globe have resulted simultaneously in soars in life expectancies and plummets in infant mortality rates especially in less developed countries - in 2012, 89.7% of the global population aged below 30 lived in emerging and developing economies. Poorer countries (which when discussing young populations mainly refers to Northern African ones as well as those in the Arabian Peninsula) are now beginning to realize that having fewer children can be more economically beneficial and pragmatic especially considering that these offspring are more likely to live longer; Algeria’s fertility rate was 7.65 children per woman in 1960 but reached 2.82 in 2012. However despite these improvements, these countries still do face multiple challenges which imped their development. The AIDS/HIV epidemic which continues to plague the entire continent of Africa, resulting in around 3 million deaths annually means that a large proportion of the population is unable to live past 30. In extreme cases such as that of Niger, most people do not even live past 15 with 50% of the population being under 14 years old. These negative and positive factors working alongside one another mean that people within say Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Yemen are living longer than they used to, past their teen years, but their lives are still not particularly long in comparison to those of people in Western countries. This means that the vast majority of society in these countries is made up by people aged 30 and under, with very few making up any other age demographics creating what is known as a ‘youth bulge.’ These bulges in the number of young people can bring about great economic and social prospects for the countries experiencing them. Aside from requiring vast amounts of money in the form of medical care and perhaps having some political involvement especially in the UK with the rise of the so called ‘Grey’ vote, ageing societies tend not to have such great impacts on the rest of the country, occupying a much more passive stance. Young people, on the other hand, have the rest of their lives to shape and mould both the structure and future of the country they live in. They are at their peak of their mental and physical fitness, not requiring any assistance in the form of funds to help them do their jobs and are thus the driving force of the economy making up on average 52% of their

country’s GDP. Having this increased number of people who are of working age results in rapid increased economic growth and reverses the poverty cycle, especially in LICs where children contribute to the informal sector, an invaluable part of the country’s economy. They also have social impacts adding diversity and culture, creating an overall more interesting and liberal society than their predecessors. Unfortunately, the most obvious and disturbing effect of youthful populations is increased civil unrest and violence as exemplified by the 2010 to 2012 Arab Spring. The young are the most economically productive members of society however in North African and Arabian countries employment opportunities are scare leaving much of the youth unemployed and economically marginalized. Coupled with an often older and autocratic political ruling party and system these young people begin to feel resentful and aggressive resulting in conflict in order to bring about what is perceived as a necessary change. In the case of the Arab Spring this was mainly overthrowing dictators such as Gaddafi and replacing them some sort of democratic government that would take greater notice of young people and care for their needs. Unsurprisingly countries which experienced instability during the Arab Spring had some of the highest percentages of the population under 24 in the world. Yemen, Egypt and Iraq had 65.3%, 62.3% and 61.7% respectively of the population in that age bracket at the time. This problem does not simply to countries involved in the Arab Spring; between 1970 and 1999 80% of civil conflicts across the world occurred in countries where 60% or more of the population was under the age of 30. In summary, youthful populations are immensely powerful and present some of the world’s least developed countries with an opportunity to economically thrive and prosper as well as create more functional, stable and harmonious societies. However this can only occur if governments begin to change their outlook and policies and tackle this ‘youth bulge’ by creating more jobs and harnessing young people’s potential and using their most valuable asset to their advantage.

Michael Hammond

Politics Liberal Democrats Labour Conservative Green UKIP Plaid Cymru Waterloo Revolution War Castle Siege Battle Sword Artillery History Philosophy Absolutism Realism Reductionism Conceptualism Ideology SNP David Cameron No.10 Commons Lords Miliband Election Politics History Settlement Union Blockade Bombardment Constitution Tax Thesis Deduction Cognition Epistemological Formalism Law Philosophy Politics Liberal Democrats Labour Conservative Green UKIP Plaid Cymru Waterloo Revolution War Castle Siege Battle Sword Artillery History Philosophy Absolutism Realism Reductionism Conceptualism Ideology SNP David Cameron No.10 Commons Lords Miliband Election Politics History Settlement Union Blockade Bombardment Constitution Tax Thesis Deduction Cognition Epistemological Formalism Law Philosophy Politics Liberal Democrats Labour Conservative Green UKIP Plaid Cymru Waterloo Revolution War Castle Siege Battle Sword Artillery History Philosophy Absolutism Realism Reductionism Conceptualism Ideology SNP David Cameron No.10 Commons Lords Miliband Election Politics History Settlement Union Blockade Bombardment Constitution Tax Thesis Deduction Cognition Epistemological Formalism Law Philosophy Politics Liberal Democrats Labour Conservative Green UKIP Plaid Cymru Waterloo Revolution War Castle Siege Battle Sword Artillery History Philosophy Absolutism Realism Reductionism Conceptualism Ideology SNP David Cameron No.10 Commons Lords Miliband Election Politics History Settlement Union Blockade Bombardment Constitution Tax Thesis Deduction Cognition Epistemological Formalism Law Philosophy Politics Liberal Democrats Labour Conservative Green UKIP Plaid Cymru Waterloo Revolution War Castle Siege Battle Sword Artillery History Philosophy Absolutism Realism Reductionism Conceptualism Ideology SNP David Cameron No.10 Commons Lords Miliband Election Politics History Settlement Union Blockade Bombardment Constitution Tax Thesis Deduction Cognition Epistemological Formalism Law Philosophy Politics Liberal Democrats Labour Conservative Green UKIP Plaid Cymru Waterloo Revolution War Castle Siege Battle Sword Artillery History Philosophy Absolutism Realism Reductionism Conceptualism Ideology SNP David Cameron No.10 Commons Lords Miliband Election Politics History Settlement Union Blockade Bombardment Constitution Tax Thesis Deduction Cognition Epistemological Formalism Law Philosophy

Politics

History

Philosophy

Let me preface this article by saying that in no way is anti-Semitism, or any form of prejudice and discrimination, acceptable and there is no place in this world for such hatred. However, let me also preface this article by saying that criticising Israel may put you into the same bracket as anti-Semites. Of course, there are anti-Semites in the dark corners of the internet that claim there is a “Zionist plot”. This is, after all, the internet. But it takes only a few minutes to find similar comments made by Islamophobes condemning a whole religion based on the actions of a small, radical minority. Now, in no way am I providing these other comments to justify those comments made about the Jewish people, but what I am trying to show is that comments on the internet cannot be taken seriously. You cannot equate criticism of Israel, on any level, to anti-Semitism just because some sad keyboard warrior has voiced a similar opinion. Unfortunately, it is possible to share an opinion with a racist, but that doesn't make you inherently racist. By sharing the view that Israel has committed war crimes against the Arabs of Palestine does not mean you share the view that there is a “Zionist plot”. Israel may have withdrawn from Gaza nine years ago, but that hasn't stopped the rapid construction of settlement on contested lands. It is a process that the UN has deemed illegal, yet Israel continues to demolish existing Palestinian settlements to make way for the new Israeli ones. Israel is actively demolishing Palestinian settlements in order to move Israelis into land that does not belong to them. This is most prominent along the West Bank and in East Jerusalem where about 500,000 Israelis have settled among 2.4 million Palestinians. This further strains relations between the Israelis and the Palestinians who live there as both see each other as a threat. As the British ambassador to Israel told us in Polecon a few weeks back, many of the Israelis who move into these new settlements, especially those who are in the settlements furthest from Jerusalem, are some of the most hardline activists who will not accept a conversation about legitimacy. A recent Vice News documentary on this housing crisis highlighted this issue. They interviewed many Israelis moving into the Silwan neighbourhood, many of whom recently moved from the US. They view Palestinians living there as a direct challenge on their God given right. They view Israel, and more specifically Jerusalem, as the Holy Land and therefore it is their land. Even though the

This article is in response to ‘The new anti-Semitism?’ by Jake O’Keefe and Theo Anton, which our readers can access by viewing the December 2014 Black and White Issue.

No, criticising Israel is not the new anti-Semitism.

By Harry Snider

Palestinians have been living there longer, this is still a contested area. Meanwhile, Palestinians claim, with some conviction and justification, that the Israeli developments are illegal. Both Israelis and Palestinians have started conflicts over this, sometimes escalating into kidnapping and murder, crimes both parties are guilty of. My point here is that Israel is committing something that is wholly illegal, hence why there have been so many UN resolutions against it. 40% of all UN resolutions were targeted at Israel: not because the UN is anti-Semitic, but because Israel is committing illegal acts. It is true that there have been a disproportionate amount of resolutions against Israel in comparison to countries such as North Korea or Syria, but this is because Israel is not considered a dictatorship. Israel is the strongest ally of the US in the Middle East, which is why there have been so many resolutions. Not once have they never threatened the security of Western countries, like North Korea and Russia have. They are not a threat to the Western world, meaning it is reasonable to assume that they would take these resolutions into account and change their ways. But they haven’t. They continue to commit atrocities ranging from the demolition of legitimate Palestinian settlements, to the police brutality that targets Palestinians. One argument suggests that Israelis equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism in a deliberate attempt to prevent legitimate criticism of Israel and discredit critics. This can be seen in Norman Finkelstein's book “Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History”, in that some supporters of Israel employ accusations of anti-Semitism to attack critics of Israel, with the goal of discrediting the critics and silencing the criticism. This is because they understand that what they are doing is wrong but they see no harm in it. They view the West Bank as part of the Holy Land and the Holy Land as theirs. Therefore, in a sense, the ends justify the means. Many Jews also view that the misuse of the accusation of anti-Semitism can be dangerous as it detracts from the seriousness of the issue. Other Jews also feel an obligation to accuse critics of anti-Semitism. Jon Stewart, for instance, the famous left wing TV show host and a Jew himself, claims to have received thousands of complaints and even death threats after showing sympathy to Palestine on The Daily Show. This highlights how many Jews feel an obligation as their own might turn on them. What I am trying to say is that there is deserved criticism of Israel and there needs to be a constructive conversation about it. Israel is a democratic state and there are views on both sides that need to be shared. But the constant accusation of anti-Semitism is not conducive to peace and change. This needs to change, so stop the accusations and start the conversations on the war crimes and legitimacy of Israel’s actions.

- No, criticising Israel is not the new anti-Semitism.

The USA PATRIOT ACT (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act) is truly a remarkable thing. Not only has it given the right for authorities to snoop at will and hold terrorism suspects without trial indefinitely, it has also had a lesser

known effect of caging free speech, quite literally. The United State’s Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech for all its its citizens. However, one U.S. federal judge decided that whilst it protects the right to speak freely, the constitution does not dictate the freedom to speak wherever one wants. This means that you, dear reader, can say what you want but not where you want. This has led to the creation of “Free Speech Zones”, more commonly known as “Free Speech Cages”. In the 2004 Democrat National Convention, protestors were confined to a small wire cage, both reducing their numbers and reducing their ability to influence the politicians hundreds of metres away. This, the protesters claimed, was a direct violation of

their 1st Amendment rights. Yet there has been no repeal of the law. Such zones are now so common in the U.S that they have appeared in TV shows such as Arrested Development which features a tiny cage full of protesters in the desert surrounded by heavily armed police. Is the existence of such a thing an anomalous result of a particular judgement in a federal court? Or is it more indicative of a general trend of the repression of basic freedoms? The question is: is this justified? At what point does restricting freedoms for the purpose of safety become tyrannical? Benjamin Franklin once said that “those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” When the PATRIOT ACT (which coincidently reduces the right to Freedom of Assembly, the Security of Person and the Right to Due Process) was passed through Congress, it was said that not one member read it through in its entirety. True, it was rushed through following the 9/11 attacks, but such a drastic change to the law surely deserved greater scrutiny. Russell Feingold was the only man to vote against the measure. He said that “preserving our freedom is one of the main reasons that we are now engaged in this new war on terrorism. We will lose that war without firing a shot if we sacrifice the liberties of the American people”. What does it mean when the supposed leader of the West can pass draconian, tyrannical laws through the senate without debate? Have the terrorists truly won?

Caging Free Speech

By Alex Gresty

Remember that scene in Annie Hall where Annie and Alvy Singer go on their first date, and they’re sitting on a bench in Central Park, and they surreptitiously spy on all those people and take wild, jokey guesses as to who they are and what they might be like? “Look, look at that guy! He’s the latest! Just came back from the gin-rummy farm last night. He placed third!” That one. Got it? Okay. Now I want to play a similar game. But in my version, instead of extrapolating information about people on the basis of their appearances, our judgements are going to be made on the basis of stuff they have said or written. First up: let’s all take a wild stab in the dark as to what sort of bloke might open an article – published in 2009 and contemplate the prospect of the deputy leader of the Labour Party succeeding Gordon Brown – with these words: “So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober.” Now, you might disagree with me on this one, but the overriding impression I am getting of the person who wrote the above – and this is going to sound strange so bear with me – is that he is, ooh I dunno, a bit sexist. Particularly if said person went on to lambast Mrs. Harman not only for her unattractiveness, but also for her belief in a “vacuous feminism” deriving from her “reflex loathing of men”. It would be my conviction also that, despite this person’s subsequent attempts to claim his comments were “satirical”, they are probably still revealing about his underlying attitudes towards women. But that’s just my take on it. Why do I bring this up? Well, as it happens, the particular character responsible for this piece of anti-Harman “satire”, a man who goes by the name of Rod Liddle, has decided he has some issues with Islam, too. “I’m not terribly keen on Islam”, he admitted in a Channel Four News debate. “It seems to lend itself to a certain homophobia…and I don’t agree with its views towards women…I wish there were a lot more Muslim feminists.” Oh really? So let me just see if I’ve got this straight: in Mr. Liddle’s world, the terrible absence of Muslim women – let’s just conveniently forget for a minute about Irshad Manji, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Zeba Khan, among others - who are willing to self-empower and take on the patriarchal assumptions of their faith is a crying shame. But when western, non-Muslim women identify as feminists, that’s really just a cloak for their empty-headed, man-hating bigotry. What we have here is a classic example of a very modern right-wing malady: the white, male, conservative journalist who will spend copious amounts of time penning articles perpetuating the kind of lazy gender stereotypes which are harmful both to women and to the LGBT community, and who will criticise those who challenge them, but also conveniently jumps on the feminist bandwagon whenever it comes to attacking Muslims. From the EDL to Geert Wilders, from Richard Littlejohn to Mark Steyn, time and time again people who purport to be

Some Thoughts on Religion and Sexist Double Standards

By Michael Sackur

deeply concerned by the status of women in the Islamic faith turn out mysteriously to be just fine with their treatment under Christianity and Judaism, and indeed call for the returned “cultural dominance” of those religions as a means to prevent Islam’s spread. Even Richard Dawkins, once a powerful voice of the humanist movement, has been at it recently. In a sarcastic letter to an imagined Muslim woman living in a repressive Islamic state, Dawkins adopted the voice of a Western feminist to write: “Stop whining will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and…yawn…don’t tell me again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.” In other words, women in the West have no right to complain about the sexism they experience on a daily basis, for the simple reason that they don’t live in the Middle East, where the women there have it worse. To remain utterly silent about sexism and oppression, or worse still, to promote it; until it comes to the debate about Islam, at which point it transforms into a handy stick with which to bash Muslims, is deplorable. But what I find even more egregious is the suggestion made by some that, in order to tackle widespread anti-women attitudes inspired by the misogyny undeniably evident throughout the Quran, governments must respond with “a foil”: one which takes the form of the aggressive promotion of “Christian values” in the public sphere. This is absurd for two reasons. First, there is absolutely no cause to consider Islam as any worse, in its teachings on gender or on any other matter, than the other Abrahamic religions; let us not forget the claims of the Book of Genesis that women were brought into existence specifically for the purpose of serving men, that their pain in childbirth is a punishment and that they must always remain subservient to their husbands. It is a source of continued bafflement to me that people like Melanie Phillips and Niall Ferguson, both of whom characterize themselves as non-believers, claim to view Christianity as the chief facilitator of “the transmission…of ethical values between generations” and as the source of “the bedrock values of Western civilization” respectively, whilst paying no heed to the fact that, in the words of writer Kenan Malick: “Perhaps the most original and profound contribution of Christianity to the ‘Western’ tradition is also its most pernicious: the doctrine of Original Sin…in the Christian tradition it is impossible for humans to do good on their own account, because the Fall has degraded both their moral capacity and their willpower.” Malick points out that, whilst in the Jewish and Islamic tradition, Adam and Eve’s transgression creates a sin against their own souls but does not condemn humanity, it is in Christianity’s transformation of the story’s meaning that it “has perhaps secured its greatest influence, a bleak description of human nature that came to dominate Western ethical thinking…Not till the Enlightenment was the bleakness of that vision of human nature truly challenged.” And all this hand-wringing about how the decline of Christianity is robbing us of the “spiritual weaponry” needed to fight Islamism is distasteful for a second reason: from so very much of it there rises the pungent whiff of hypocrisy. It is telling that pretty much all of the politicians and commentators who

subscribe to this moral panic line of thinking actually call themselves atheists. “I’m an incurable atheist” proclaims Niall Ferguson, for example, in spite of his aforementioned rant about the necessity for Christian ethics. And will you just listen to this: “I saw as a child that, having tried as hard as I could, I could not believe in God…despite extensive reflection, I can see no reason after all these years to revise my view.” That was Simon Heffer, a man who has written that Christianity is essential for providing “the moral fabric” both for the foundation of society and for public policy. This kind of belief, the “I-don’t-believe-in-Christainity-but-nevertheless-think-it-should-be-promoted-because-it’s-good-for-people” viewpoint, is extraordinarily patronising. If you expressly identify yourself using the term “atheist”, that requires your conviction that there is no God to be very strong, as strong as your conviction that fairies do not exist. If you do genuinely have the degree of certainty implied by the word “atheist”, it is clearly not consistent of you to claim that it is “good for society” for people to be religious; it palpably is not good for society if in that society there is widespread belief in stuff which is untrue. So please. I don’t ask for much. I just demand that if we condemn misogyny in Islam, which by all means we should, we be consistent and condemn it everywhere else we see it, too. Also, I ask that, if we are going to call ourselves atheists, which by all means we should, can we please stop insulting the intelligence of others by telling them that even though their belief system is predicated on falsehoods, they should go on subscribing to it simply because such belief is good for them? That’s not really too much to ask, is it?

SCHOOL

LIFE

“SOME PEOPLE ARE GAY. GET OVER IT!”. ‘Hmmmm’ is the first thing that springs to

mind. These seven words, which have been plastered across billboards and buses all

over London (if you haven’t seen them, you don’t get out enough), are part of a

campaign by Stonewall, a charity which continually strives to end homophobia. In case

you didn’t know, you can also get T-shirts, hoodies, and (wait for it) mugs with the

immortal words splashed across them, that would of course label you as an offensively

proud homosexual in a matter of seconds (because who else would own such things?)

Sadly, no mugs have permeated the SPS common rooms; however, the effort to spread

an egalitarian message has been ramped up in the biology department, which has

been littered with A3 versions of the same poster. A slightly poorer show in the library

(one of the biggest rooms in the school), where two smaller-than-playing-card sized

signs whisper passive aggressively at a largely heterosexual population about how

intolerant they are.

The reason for my hmmmm-ing is as follows: I do not like this slogan. To me, it

screams (literally - exclamation marks seem to be a big deal) hostility, and an

assumption that people at this school have a massive problem with homosexuals. They

don’t. I know this; I can testify that no one has ever sought to fashion a crucifix out of

a ruler and a glue stick and oust me from the school, in the name of Jesus or anyone

else (e.g. Nigel Farage). In fact, I cannot recall more than one remark that was

genuinely meant to make me feel ostracised or uncomfortable as an openly gay

student. This is great for me, and the rest of the c. 10 not-heterosexual students at our

school that I am aware of; but at the same time I am not ‘thankful’ that I work in such

an ‘accepting environment’. I no longer breathe a sigh of relief when people don’t

recoil if my sexual orientation is brought up. Why should brownie points be given to a

person who lets the world know that they are accepting towards a minority group. The

description of neutrality/positivity towards the LGBTQIA etc. etc. population (the list

seems to keep growing) as ‘accepting’ or ‘tolerant’ suggests that there is a deep

problem with anyone who isn’t straight (i.e. 10% of the population), and some nice

guy has the decency to overlook it.

As someone once said (probably online, anonymously), ‘Homophobia is not a phobia.

You are not scared. You are an arsehole.’ Even this, at our school, is an exaggeration.

The ‘homophobic’ language that the school is trying to discourage is not people being

scared. It’s not even people being arseholes. It’s people being ignorant. And I write

ALBERT

MEEK ON HOMOPHOBIA

that word in the nicest, most non-accusatory way I can. It is difficult to expect 13-18

year-olds not to feel awkward about such a topic (and combat said awkwardness by

being overtly masculine, or indeed offensive) if they have not been introduced to the

idea from a young age. Sexual orientation is not like race; it is invisible, and starts to

determine itself at this age. It’s like an alarming and life altering game of duck-duck-

goose. Who will it be? Who is it already? In the grand scheme of things, it really

doesn’t/shouldn’t matter.

Whilst it’s obvious that same-sex relationships are not the same as heterosexual ones

(they are in fact loads more fun), there’s a clear difference in that they are two guys or

two girls, as opposed to a girl and a boy. Gasp. Is it really a big deal? You could

compare it to an interracial relationship - a century ago, that was a reason for

disownment. Nowadays, few

people would even bat an eyelid. I see no reason why the same shouldn’t apply for a

gay couple. In my opinion, a lot of people want attention, but not very many want

attention for being gay. In that way, indifference should be the new acceptance. Like a

gay person if you want. Hate a gay person if you want. But not because they’re gay. Do

it because they are boring. Or because they vote labour.

Society is getting to the point where outspoken and aggressive homophobes are a

vanishing minority; the only person who is likely to care is a close relative - probably

an emasculated, conservative grandfather. Yet even whilst sitting in the art library,

writing this article with less than 24 hours out of the four weeks I was given to do it

remaining, there are loud and irritating sixth formers proclaiming that a friend’s art

looks ‘gay’. Sadly, they are not noticing my cold stare of exasperation. I’m wearing

them down don’t worry.

I am in a state of discontent not because they are choosing to link negativity with a

word that still means homosexual (it does, for those of you prepping the inevitable

‘evolution of language’ arguments). The point isn’t whether or not something is gay, or

what the word gay means today. It’s about who is listening to your inoffensive

“banter”. The majority of you will probably never know what being in the closet feels

like. In fact in our year, averages dictate that there are about 10-15 more people who

are yet to come out. In last year’s U8th, there were 9 guys who were openly

gay/bisexual at the end of their final year. I do not accept that all of the ‘other team’

were out, probably not even by half. That is because the giant wardrobe we all inhabit

at some point (hence the great dress sense) is suffocating, and terrifying, and for many

people even telling their family is unthinkable for a long time. And I can testify that it

is so very not good to hear a group that you are starting to identify with being tied to

disapproval and hatred, before you’ve even admitted it to yourself.

I am not saying that you are all homophobic - mainly because I wanted this article to

be positive and friendly, whilst getting the point across. But maybe just think about

the consequences that your words have. Maybe your best friend is gay. Maybe the

weird guy that no one speaks to/likes but he just hangs around in the same place all

the time is gay. You do not, cannot know, and there will always be wild-card, macho

person that you didn’t see coming.

So tread lightly.

How to Form a Soc The School offers over 40 societies to its student body in a bid to further the intellectual breadth and depth of its young charges. Yet, to the socially ambitious Pauline the “Socs” simply represent another avenue through which they can establish themselves as a true SPS legendo. “Perhaps I too can be a paragon of zaniness, revered for his eclectic and cooky lifestyle,” you think as you watch an Upper Eighth former receive ecstatic applause for his latest crazy-funny outburst. “He’s so random!” your peers whisper admiringly. You know that his absolute madman has played the system to the letter - and following in his footsteps, here we will reveal how you too can be clapped for wearing a bowtie. Your society must be a comedic one. Already I hear you cry - “I’m desperately unfunny, with little to no improvisational talent” - hush hush, ‘tis no matter, it has been done before and it will be done again. Think again of our zany Upper 8th - was he really that funny? Was anything he said witty, or even cogent? No, mon ami, it was not. Yet you and your peers were fooled - and you will employ the same levels of deception as you continue your inexorable rise. Comedy societies are great because everyone thinks they are funny, everyone is desperate to prove it, and you can accrue vast power very quickly by affecting confidence in the presence of others who are crippled by shame. See below for technical advice. You shall christen your new comedy troupe “GimpSoc”, or “Great Improvisational Society” (or something to that effect). This name is hugely marketable to all of the aspiring “Gimps” in the lower school, keen to make their name as someone who is not a dead loser with no bant. So grab some mates who aren't quite as funny as you in your opinion (which is anyone because you’re the biggest thing since laughter!), and head on down to Drama Studio 2 for a bit of preparation work! Henceforth, this is your domain - the Gimp Dungeon, where anything from something quite funny to a massive pile of crap can be improvised, randomly, by you and your crew! Who you choose isn’t really a big deal, just make sure that at least two of the three members of your vanguard are too self-conscious to talk without the use of an online messaging platform. Then even you, the middling average Joe of comedy who still creases every time someone shouts “HESKEY IS A BEAAAAST”, will stand out from the crowd. A couple of basic ground rules before we begin: The label of a comedy society should, after you’ve had a few weeks to establish your lack of banter, serve as a kind of cruel trick to potential audience members. Humour is not required. The beauty of calling your society “Great Improvisation Society”, is that it heavily implies humour, and you will always attempt to create humour but calling it improvisation allows for all of your shanter to fall back onto the rule that you don’t actually have to be funny: it’s all about the improv. Second, and most important of all, swearing, gratuity of any kind and general smut is prohibited. This would simply make your show too edgy- and swearing is definitely not funny, ever. It merely shows a lack of intelligence. For instance, which out these two facts is more funny: ‘GimpSoc is terribly poor’ or ‘What a pile of shit GimpSoc is’ Doesn’t the moderate nature of the first sentence just make you laugh?? Due to your inevitable lack of skill in improvisation, the common theme surrounding GimpSocs shows should be highly absurd humour. Instead of having the formulate a realistic and funny joke that is easily judged- you and your merry band of comic kooks can take refuge in the realm of the absurd. Quite often, this may in fact be the product

of floundering around looking for something and then, you lay eyes upon any random object, say, an umbrella and

Have our writers misinterpreted the comedic values of Soc’s or have they confirmed your overarching feeling towards these meetings? Feel free to reply to criticise or support our two heavily satirical writers by

emailing us at [email protected].

then- in response to ‘what would you like to eat?’ you can reply with this non-sequitur and absolutely raucous response. Umbrellas aren’t food, silly! Instead of naming something edible, you’ve named something IN-edible and with no previous connection to the humour! Complete. Utter. Gold. It’s very important to create a cult of personality if you want to groom your audience. In lieu of a personality, which is almost certainly the case (knowing you, you vapid sod!), how about you chuck in some kooky character traits instead?! A monocle for example is really far out and also makes you look like a total oddball - and all without spending an instant working on your actual personality, because your one is currently beyond terrible and it would be a travesty to waste any time on it! One Gimpsoc meeting you should try to permanently wrest control of the group from your co founders through the medium of improv. Suggest a game of freeze tag, and tag out one of your partners. Whatever the other actors position is, physically assault him as brutally as possible. Claim he used “SMUT!” to facilitate comedy as smut is VERBOTEN in all of comedy and justifies violence. Your group will now be in awe of you and worship you as the monocled God you are. This level of absurdity to mask your comic inadequacy is only part of the great amount of persona based humour that has been used by other comedy societies. The key members of your society should don a kind of highly transparent, exaggerated character, all part of their absurd act. The most common character and one I recommend you use is the very english man who is always in a kind of daze- ready to whip out a confused ‘what?’ at any given moment in order to further dodge real improvisation- but its all part of this character and his cluelessness will become a constant source of humour for the show. Then of course, aside from the real performers, there will be the one from the audience who seems oblivious to how unfunny he is. He is your ally, use him well and unsparingly. This will in fact be the most enjoyable aspect of the show- it is hard to take enjoyment in the mediocrity of your key members’ but this big headed moron- normally taking the form of an overbold newcomer who is yet to work his way up the comedy hierarchy- is truly hilarious. With absolutely zero talent and far too much confidence than what his metal cased mouth, erupting acne and interest in current affairs (which he gleefully shall unleash in his humour) should afford him- he will be the only funny part of your show. He will get boos and be laughed at but his tenacity is unrivalled. He will in fact be spurred on- dipping into a variety of jokes- normally political (a good UKIP joke never goes amiss and is something that the comedy in St. Paul’s dearly lacks). Do not shun this audience member at the door, you need him to provide a reprieve for the rest of us from your comedic mediocrity. Focusing on the concept of your comedy society, one should be aware that historically, the kind of people who take part in these societies pride themselves in having a great knowledge of comedic greats. Classic acts such as The Two Ronnies, Morecambe and Wise and the Pythons will greatly influence your brand of humour. However, here is the cruel twist: you are in fact far, far less funny than these stalwarts of comedy. Their influence is great enough to drive your society in the direction of scenario based- pseudo-sketches but your aspirations to be like these geniuses has also lured you into crashing and burning. This is the fundamental reason why it is essential that you erect the aforementioned shelter of absurdism. So there you have it, your route to one laugh every 10 jokes- easy as. From here on in you’ll have to actually be funny to get laughs, so you’re done for the rest of your life. But you will be an SPS legendo and you weren't funny anyway so dive in and create your very own “GimpSoc”.

Alex Osmond & Milo Mahon

The Duty of St Paul’s School

St Paul’s is a school whose ambitions are plain:

good GCSE results, good A level results and good

university admissions rates. It frankly doesn’t care

if students leave with backward views of extreme

proportions, doesn’t care that they will be gifted

influential positions with that mentality. God forbid

this place tries to teach us how to behave in a

civilised and liberal way that isn't on an ocr mark

scheme, that isn't being examined at the end of

the year and that definitely can't ‘go on my UCAS’.

It’s true that there has been the occasional

seminar on homophobia, but that was more for

the sake of convenience than anything else. It is a

lot easier to run a school without having

accusations of homophobic bullying slowing down

the inexorable exam mill from churning out

another set of meaningless results. If that wasn't

the case then why don't we have seminars about

elitism, or misogyny?

That’s because one student can’t be elitist to

another student in a place like this, and one

student can’t be misogynist to another in an all

boys school. It apparently doesn’t matter that

these sentiments are accepted as the norm and

will pervade well into the future of many boys, nor

does it matter that the boys from this school will

be in leading positions of society whilst still

holding and sometimes promoting these

reactionary and destructive views. It doesn't

matter because none of that has any impact in the

quotidian running of St Paul’s school.

It can be, and is, totally ignored, and in some

incredible and frankly despicable circumstances

actually promoted by the many exalted grand

overseers and their multiple bureaucratic

underlings. By far the worst example of this at St

Paul’s is its abusive relationship with Feminism.

Misogyny is rife here. It is in every classroom,

every tutor group, every games session and one

only needs to walk past the lunch queue or

through the atrium to here about the various

“sluts” that are in the pathetic pubescent news

today, or the various female teachers whose

subject is irrelevant but skirt is all important. It is

so deeply ingrained that it is impossible to say the

governing body of St Paul’s is unaware of it, and

anyone who argues so need only look at the

annual fourth form assembly; organised and

authorised by our school, this year, the talk was

given by Upper Eighth boys that compared girls

schools to restaurants and the girls at the schools

to items on the menu. Misogyny here is quite

literally institutional.

There currently exists no feminist programme and

no ambition from the governing body to rectify the

endemic sexism that takes place here despite

repeated calls from myself and other members of

my year that a change needs to be made. The

fact that joint feminist society is voluntary means

that it fails in this respect and does not come

close to rectifying this problem as those who need

to listen to what is said at these meeting are not

attending and are pressured not to.I heard a fifth

form boy being called a girl by his peers for even

considering it. Boys spend the best part of some

of the most formative years of their life at this

school, years that in many ways dictate what they

will become at a later stage. Clearly, St Paul’s

shouldn't just be a place where you learn Latin

irregular verbs or how the digestive system works,

it has a duty to show Paulines their privilege and

the circumstances of those less fortunate and a

duty to ensure that Paulines won't be going into

the wider world with a destructive and ignorant

mentality. If the school fails to do so, it will only be

further contributing to an establishment in this

country that serves to hold back equitable social

change that any sane intelligent person would

advocate fully. Unless St Paul’s wants to become

more archaic and reactionary than it already is

and is perceived to be, this is an issue it cannot

afford to ignore.

Hugh Laurence

These are the writer’s opinions. If you have any

comments, rebuttals or views on this matter, we urge

you to email the B&W team to have them heard, and

published in the next issue.

A Strained Relationship: Tatler Magazine’s Views on St Paul’s

The Tatler-St Paul’s relationship has long been a rocky one. Perhaps our intellectual aggression, cement buildings, and Barnes location intimidated well-off mothers in their Belgravia drawing rooms, who make up 99% of Tatler’s readership (and 100% of that of their so-called “Schools Guide”). While conceding St Paul’s School’s academic excellence, one review of SPS in the 2006 edition of the “Schools Guide” scorned our “ghastly sixties architecture”, while another compared St Paul’s to Grange Hill, the grotty North London comprehensive from the television series of the same name. The authors must have found the comparison to a school funded by taxpayers’ money eternally damning.

Tatler continued their unbridled assault on St Paul’s in the 2008 Guide, insinuating that it was viewed as an “exam factory”. Fortunately, one witty student amongst us retorted “We’re more like a free range, organic exam farm actually.” Bless that man. A dose of dry Pauline wit unsurprisingly triumphs over such idiotic generalisations.

To be fair to them, Tatler have cleaned up their act in recent years, calling SPS “the king of the London day school jungle” and Paulines “extremely high-achieving, clever boys who still know how to have fun”. Maybe the Master Plan and the soaring price of Barnes real estate have converted our Sloane Ranger companions, and the conversion is very welcome indeed.

But Tatler had better watch itself. Its “tut-tut, they dropped 2.5 per cent A*-B at A-level last year” remark in this year’s guide successfully rattled my cage. Criticising us first for being an exam factory, and then chastising us on the grounds of our exam results seems self-contradictory at best, and profoundly hypocritical at worst. Perhaps the comment was ironic- I’ll give Tatler the benefit of the doubt. In any case, I look forward to seeing what the 2016 issue has in store.

Quentin Mareuse

SPORTS

SPORTS

SPORTS SPORTS SPORTS SPORTS

SPORTS


SPORTS


SPORTS

SPORTS SPORTS SPORT

SPORTS

SPORTS


SPORTS


SPORTS


SPORTS

SPORTS SPORTS SPORTS

SPORTS

SPORTS


SPORTS


SPORTS


SPORTS

SPORTS SPORTS SPORT

SPORTS

SPORTS


SPORTS


SPORTS


SPORTS


SPORTS

SPORTS


SPORTS


SPORTS


SPORTS

SPORTS SPORTS SPORT

SPORTS

SPORTS


SPORTS


SPORTS


SPORTS


SPORTS

SPORTS


SPORTS


SPORTS


SPORTS

SPORTS SPORTS SPORT

On the 25th of November last year, at the Sydney Cricket Ground in Australia, Phillip Hughes was struck on the base of the head by a ball, an injury that he would not recover from. His death shocked the sporting world, sparking a hashtag on twitter ‘#Putoutyourbats’ , in remembrance of this hugely talented sportsman, who had his whole career, and more importantly his life, ahead of him. When the ball hit his head, it caused a vertebral artery dissection, which led to a subarachnoid haemorrhage, an injury that the Australian team doctor has claimed only ‘a hundred such cases have ever been reported of’. Hughes almost immediately lost consciousness, as the ball hit him behind his left ear, right above his cerebellum, the part of the brain that controls conscious thought. He was rushed to hospital, where he was placed into an induced coma. He died two days later. He was only twenty six. Hughes was an outstanding cricketer. He burst onto the scene in 2009 against South Africa, when in his second test he scored a century in both innings, becoming the youngest man ever to do so, at the tender age of 20. This prompted many to start calling him the ‘next Bradman’, a tag likely to daunt any young cricketer. Although he didn’t quite live up to the exceedingly high standards of ‘The Don’, Hughes became an established member of both the Test and One Day formats of the game. Some of his other highlights include two centuries in one ODI series against Sri Lanka. England fans may remember his partnership with Ashton Agar last year of 163, the largest tenth-wicket partnership in the history of the game. Hughes once said in an interview that if he hadn’t been a cricketer, he’d have been on his farm where he grew up and learnt to play the game, with his dad. In fact, Hughes had recently bought 90 hectares (220 acres) of land back in Macksville where he grew up, as well has 70 Angus Cattle. It seems as though he was already preparing to return back to a comfortable life back home; this all seems to make his death even more tragic. Behind all of this, we have a second tragedy; that of 22 year-old Sean Abbott, the New South Wales fast bowler. He must have been feeling distraught, as he was the person that bowled the bouncer that killed Hughes. As a fast(ish) bowler myself, I can understand that Sean may never want to bowl a ball again; how would you continue to run in hard and bowl fast if you’re worried that the end result may have fatal consequences? What must be even worse for Abbott is that he knew Hughes personally. Michael Clarke however, the Australian captain and very close friend of Hughes, has come out and said that ‘Sean, when you’re ready I will be the first one to go down the other end of the net.’ (pictured above). Such support is admirable in times such as these, and an inspiring statement from a great cricketer.

The Tragedy of Phil Hughes

By Mungo Russell

On the back of this catastrophe, there are people who have started to complain about helmet safety; supposedly the distance between the protection and the temple is too little, the faceguard could be forced onto the face in impact, and, as we have sadly witnessed, there is a blind spot just beneath the joint of the grill and the main part of the helmet. The question is, was this a freak accident, impossibly unlikely to occur again in the next hundred years, or is this a serious problem that the cricketing authorities need to address? However, it is this exceptional blend of risk and reward, success and failure, that makes sport so inspiring. These unbelievable physical specimens, that set the bar so high in their respective professions, have captured the hearts and minds of millions across the world; Sachin Tendulkar is given godlike status in India, Diego Maradona a prince everywhere in Argentina. This effect is amplified now as a result of modern technology; each little flick of Ronaldo’s caught on ten different cameras, every dummy sold by Dan Carter immortalised online, all of Lewis Hamilton’s daring overtakes replayed across the globe. Each one available in their thousands on the internet, each one able to inspire a child to go outside and practise himself. Furthermore, we are now closer to the world of our idols than ever, as we can find endless interviews online, twitter feeds, instagram pictures, which give your average viewer a much greater understanding of the person as a whole. This can also bring you to feel more emotionally attached to them. And therefore, when one of these idols, or demi-gods, fall, it is all the more poignant. We see them to be so immense and exceptional that when we lose one it is somehow more shocking. This is especially the case in the sporting arena, as although there is risk, we don’t expect any of the competitors to actually die. Formula One is a sport ridden with tragic accidents over the years, but since health and safety has taken over the sport, fewer people crash, fewer people die. To that effect, when Jules Bianchi, the 25 year old Marussia driver, tragically crashed, and was subsequently induced into a coma to save his life, the world of Formula was almost shocked into silence. However, there was not the same amount of global coverage, for the sole reason that Bianchi’s incident was a car crash, albeit at seriously high speeds, an accident that happens every day. Hughes’ equivalent was a freak, that nobody could have predicted or suspected. When you walk onto a cricket pitch, you don’t expect to be carried off unconscious. This is what has made Hughes’ death so tragic for everybody; not that I knew him personally, but from interviews I’ve watched, from accounts that I’ve read, he seemed to be such a genuine, down to earth guy. And that is why it has hit the whole sporting realm so painfully hard. I only hope that this incident really is a one-off, as cricket could not recover from another accident like this. As Michael Clarke has recently said, ‘See you out in the middle’. Phillip Hughes, forever 63 not out at the SCG.

From the start of the world cup it was hard to look beyond Australia, New Zealand or South Africa. The Aussies and Kiwis are on home soil and both of their teams are full of confidence so anything less would undoubtedly be a disappointment. South Africa have a strong pace attack backed up by a good spinner in Imran Tahir. However South Africa tend to choke and have a history of falling short against bigger teams but this year I feel they are due the trophy. Before the world cup started I saw England as dark horses but after our dismal displays against Australia, New Zealand and Sri Lanka, my mind has changed. I then decided to go for India as dark horses which may seem an odd thing to say about the defending champions but let’s be honest, no one expects them to win the world cup with the bowling line up that they have. Despite their bowling not being the best, India have match winners in most of the batsmen and are an excellent tournament side. Whether he will be on the winning or losing team, there is one man who will undoubtedly come out this World Cup a legend.Can anyone stop him? AB de Villiers looks unstoppable when he gets going and it seems that no bowling attack can contain him when he fires. De Villiers smashed 162 off just 66 balls against the West Indies in what will go down as one of the greatest innings in cricket history. The South African legend has repeatedly stated that he is just lucky but this is the second time I have seen him ‘get lucky’ in a month. Only in January he scored a remarkable 149 off 41 deliveries which included the fastest ever one day international century off only 31 balls. He is currently the top ranked batsman in the world and although his outstanding talent with the bat is fascinating it is his humble nature that is most admirable. After scoring the fastest 150 in history against the West Indies he said ‘A very enjoyable knock today. It was just one of those knocks, a little bit of luck and I made it count’. As much as he downplays these wonderful scores he will always set the stadium alight. By the end of these extraordinary innings it seemed as if records were being broken with every ball, as we witnessed the unorthodox and unbelievable shots that he has made himself famous for. What makes AB De Villiers so special? He is a remarkable player who can score 360 degrees around the pitch and it appears that bowlers don’t know what to do. Any delivery they bowl he can play any shot to. The 31 year old now holds records for the fastest 50, 100 and 150 in ODI cricket. His average of 52.93 speaks volumes of his consistent batting form. AB De Villiers is a superstar leading from the front.

Brief Cricket World Cup Analysis

By Thomas Oliver

The EA Sports FIFA franchise is without doubt one of the most powerful video game enterprises in the modern era. Every year EA as a company generates a mouth-watering revenue of $3.797 billion, the equivalent of 94,925,000 copies of FIFA 15. Every year it is played by millions of followers on every continent and without doubt its most popular selling point is FIFA Ultimate Team. FIFA Ultimate Team first came into existence all the way back in 2009 and EA Sports has not looked back since. Ultimate Team in itself has created a vibrant economy of buyers and sellers with hundreds of major coin selling sites now available on the internet. It is thus understandable that EA would have a vested interest in maintaining the game’s popularity as each year its novelty begins to fade away and people begin to realize it is just the exact same game but something else is overpowered and players have been moved to their new clubs and you’re spending yet another 40 quid on something you don’t even have time to play due to all your homework and your mother’s insistence on vacuuming right next to you whenever you get on and asking sarcastically if ‘professional FIFA player’ will be going down on your UCAS form and… But I digress. The point still stands that the gamers want to use the best, sweatiest, most over-powered monsters that EA can provide them with, and here is where EA meets a dilemma. With the exception of Ronaldo, Messi and a select few others most of the “good” players are stunningly mediocre. Why pick 86 rated Hummels when 74 rated Zouma does his job just as well, if not better. However, rather unsurprisingly, these cheap but ridiculously “good” bad players (stay with me here) never get in-forms or anything else special because quite frankly they’re not good - they’re bad. And so, every year the Ballon d’Or rolls around and with it the FIFPro Team of the Year selection. Year after year ridiculous decisions are made on who should be a part of the FIFA Team of the Year which enrages football fans globally but not enough for them to remember their anger when the awards ceremony comes by again the next year and the process begins again. When looking back through the history books, all the Team of the Years seem justified until just after the crucial turning point, the introduction of FIFA Ultimate Team in FIFA ‘09. 2010 - Lucio (Internazionale); 2011 - Dani Alves; 2012 -Dani Alves; 2013 - Dani Alves/Xavi; 2014 - David Luiz/Andres Iniesta. A common occurrence among these players are quick, skilfull defenders who are simply unstoppable machines. these are players which, although we disagree with their presence in the FIFPro team of the Year, we are absolutely desperate to own in our teams. The aftermath of the Team of the Year is in fact so severe that there is a complete crash in the FIFA Ultimate Team market as it is flooded with coins bought online. To conclude, we have a multi-billion dollar company, the most popular sport in the world, a monopoly over the rights to FIFA, a massive awards ceremony and some salivating billionaires. You can argue that this is a ridiculous conspiracy based on wild claims and completely without substance but for me the evidence is plain to see. EA Sports more or less controls the FIFPro Team of the Year and we’d better prepare to start to see some more than dubious decisions being made in the years to come.

Does EA Sports dictate the FIFPro Team of the Year?

By James Ritchie

John du Pont shot Dave Schultz on 26th January 1996. It takes two hours for this pivotal event to occur in Foxcatcher. As pivots go, this one is slightly skewered. I take no issue per se with slow build-ups to climactic events, but the fact that the killing seems completely random implies to me that the film failed to make it seem like an inevitability and more of a last minute attempt to grab the audience's attention and leave an impact. Sometimes the truth really is stranger than fiction, but it's not a good sign if this occurs to you whilst you're watching something purporting to be truth.

In case you wish to complain that I have spoiled the film by revealing its ending, I can only say that it needs something to ratchet up the suspense and a knowledge of the impending death of one of the characters can only aid this purpose. The film maintains a monochromatically dark atmosphere throughout. Good moments, such as the helicopter-bound cocaine use and a bizarre attempt by the slight John du Pont to muscle a group of professional wrestlers to the ground, are subsumed by a grim, leviathanic whole.

A redeeming feature is the skinny, hollow-eyed du Pont who leers and stalks like a mellow Richard III. Steve Carell perfectly embodies the character's weedy intensity with a voice which is eternally on the verge of a whisper and a physicality which glides as much as it does walk. A moment at which he appears in black tie at another character's door at midnight is genuinely chilling. But why, why, why does he kill Dave Schultz? Foxcatcher's failure to answer this fundamental question is glaring.

Channing Tatum is inoffensively bland as wrestler Mark Schultz, whom du Pont recruits to take part in a wrestling training facility.

Foxcatcher grants wrestling an oily, Hellenic, even balletic, elegance which seems at odds with the sport's brutality. Mark Ruffalo shines as Mark's sympathetic brother and fellow wrestler, Dave. In early scenes of them wrestling together, one can often see Mark's hulking apathy to the world at large block Dave's affection. This nuance is not explored beyond the most plodding of plot points: Mark leaves Dave behind to join du Pont, infatuated by promises of rekindling America to its former glory. Dave stays behind, wanting to care for his family, while Mark gawks at him and leaves nonetheless. Finally, Dave does join Mark at the Foxcatcher training centre, bringing his family with him, but one is granted no sense of his internal conflict over doing so. Is this a film limited by its source material? Quite possibly.

What is this fox which du Pont is determined to chase and catch? Surely, it is not money for the film is saturated with what may be intended to be old world decadence, coming across here as wing-collared, teak-lined, nouveau riche impudence.

Could it be, perchance, that du Pont pursues that infernal mistress: the American Dream? Yes, yes it could. But Foxcatcher ultimately raises more questions than it resolves, none of which succeeded in occupying my attention once I had passed through the cinema doors.

PAUL NORRIS

My first encounter with Moby Dick occurred at the age of six when I saw a 1962

animated version. My only memory of it is a dark sky looming above an ocean, with

a man tied to a white whale floating above the turbulent waves; it was, needless to

say, utterly terrifying. I have learnt since that this was a Tom and Jerry cartoon.

Has the image of the white whale haunted me throughout my life, representing the

ultimate hollowness of all my desires and the fleeting nature of the principles I hold

dear? No. But perhaps it should have. Head of English Mr Hager and Colet Fellow Ms

Candelaria engage in a dispute of leviathanic proportions... Paul Norris

Moby Dick – A Literary Debate

Ms Candelaria - An Attack on ‘The

Book’

I was asked to read Moby-Dick for the

first time two years ago, when I was a

twenty-year-old undergraduate studying

literature. I approached Melville’s chef-

d’oeuvre sceptically. I scribbled the word

“melodramatic” in the margins next to

the line: “Whenever I find myself growing

grim about the mouth; whenever it is

damp, drizzly November in my soul…” I

couldn’t get over the cliché of using the

weather to represent sadness, or how

lazy and aggrandizing it seemed to write

about the “soul”. Somewhere in that

sentence was a nuance that Melville was

refusing to explore adequately. He was

scratching the surface of some profound

revelation, but he wasn’t using language

to probe deeply enough to get there.

Each time I tried to read Moby-Dick, I was

haunted by the novel’s imprecision.

Starting off the chapter called

“Loomings”, Ishmael, the novel’s narrator,

shares with readers that he decided to

go to sea some years ago, “never mind

how many precisely.” There is little regard

for the fact that the story is in the details.

This lack of clarity is also found in the

prose. The whale is described as a

“monster”, a “leviathan”, and a “fish” at

different points in the narration, even

though whales, unlike fish, are warm-

blooded, lunged creatures. In Moby-Dick,

Mr Hager - A Defence of ‘The Book’

‘Metaphors? I hate metaphors. That’s

why my favourite book is Moby-Dick. No

froufrou symbolism, just a good simple

tale about a man who hates an

animal.’ So speaks Parks and Recreation’s

hypermasculine Ron Swanson in a joke

which credits its audience with

understanding its irony, even if Swanson

himself is entirely serious. Swanson is so

manly that in early episodes of the TV

show he has a poster of a fried breakfast

tacked onto his office wall, and while his

interpretation of the novel is comically

appealing in its rampant anti-

intellectualism, Melville didn’t write for

readers whose vision of the world was

reductive.

Nor did he ultimately write for those who

want a good story, although it seems

that the novel did actually start out as

Ron Swanson’s dream book. Having

written nautical novels before, Melville

drew on his last untapped experience -

in a whaling vessel - and produced

something with which he was

dissatisfied, writing to a friend that

“blubber is blubber...Though you may get

oil out of it, the poetry runs as hard as

sap from a frozen maple tree.” Some

readers still feel this way, citing the

supposedly interminable sections about

the whaling industry and whales

language is inexact, and as a result, it

becomes unreliable.

Because my GPA depended on it,

because I had a lengthy essay to write,

because my professor wasn’t impressed

with my selective reading habits and

selective contributions, I spent three

weeks trying, but failing, to make my way

through Moby-Dick. In a desperate

attempt to keep myself engaged, I

created a Word document with all the

lines from Moby-Dick that struck me as

funny or interesting. I tried to think of a

Moby-Dick as a dining hall friend: full of

anecdotes, lacking in insight. I selected

quotations and labelled them for myself.

What to do when you drop food on the

floor but still want to eat it: “I took it up,

and held it close to the light, and felt it,

and smelt it, and tried every way possible

to arrive at some satisfactory conclusion

concerning it”, the trouble with being

cold-called in lectures: “But the interval I

spent in deliberating what to say, was a

fatal one,” and practical advice: “But I

don’t fancy having a man smoking in bed

with me. It’s dangerous. Besides, I ain’t

insured.”

I tried to make the novel relevant to my

world, which seemed to be a way of

loving it, but my efforts were in vain. Two

years later, I am still stuck in the middle

of Moby-Dick, unable to remove my

bookmark, but also unable to pick up

where I left off because I cannot

summon the willpower required to

continue reading; there is no part of me

that feels compelled to make my way to

the end of the book. Stubborn reader

that I am, I don’t blame myself; I blame

the novel for failing to catch my

attention, for failing to intrigue and

excite me the way a good story should. I

blame Melville for his encyclopaedic

chapters on whales, and for his

imprecision, which stems from a lack of

themselves, or the simplicity of the plot

(famously simplified by Hollywood in the

tag-line ‘The Man, The Whale, The

Vengeance’) as reasons to lament its

revered status amongst writers and

critics. Such is its importance for

example, Chad Harbach’s recent novel

The Art of Fielding refers to Moby-Dick

simply as ‘The Book’.

Melville spent nearly a year revising his

already finished, tedious, whaling

narrative. In doing so he broke it, but

that was the point. He smashed its

confines and expanded outwards,

introducing the monomaniacal Ahab

and, crucially, turning the White Whale

into a symbol of everything and nothing,

of the forces of chaos that threaten

humanity and the terrifying blankness

which threatens our fragile existence.

Charles Olson, the poet, wrote the

definitive critical study of Moby-Dick in

which he celebrates “a Melville who was

long-eyed enough to understand the

Pacific as part of our geography, another

West, prefigured in the plains,

antithetical.” The sea is the logical, and

commercial, extension of American 19th

Century expansionism but it is also, for

Melville, “the dark side of this earth, and

[that] which is two thirds of this

earth”. Man can only sail on top of it,

and it therefore becomes a symbol of the

limitations of human knowledge and

power, as well as something more

metaphysically troubling. If the sea is the

plain that man tries, and fails to tame,

then the White Whale is the symbol of

the chaotic force that must be

conquered and purged, but which can

also never be fully understood. Ahab’s

quest is a cleansing one, and doomed,

and the implications of this cause Olson

to argue that the novel “is America, all of

her space, the malice, the root.”

It has been called imprecise, but those

who argue for precision have a faith in

language and human thought which

Melville calls into question. The novel is

obsessed with precision, hence the

obsession with the details of whaling,

and the classification of whales (which

Melville believed to be fish, not

mammals), but it is profoundly skeptical

of the confident man who believes that

he has the tools to pin down the

universe. Melville’s whale is both flesh

and myth, a contingent creature and a

ubiquitous force; it is a creature to be

hunted and what critics have called ‘the

unharpoonable signifier’. The Pequod,

the whaling vessel, is both a ship and a

microcosm of America. Ahab is both the

vengeful captain and the symbol of

capitalist man who has specialised to the

point of monomania. Moby-Dick

contains multitudes. It is so large that

Melville abandons his narrative voice

(Ishmael) since one human being cannot

frame the scope of his novel. Olson

argues that “the thing got away from

him. It does, from us.” Melville couldn’t

quite contain his subject matter, but one

can hardly blame him given that he took

on the physical and metaphysical realm

all at once.

Melville’s narrator tells the reader that

“To produce a mighty book, you must

choose a mighty theme.” Melville’s

theme is as large as they come. It is not

for everyone, but who wants to read a

novel that is? Perhaps Ron Swanson

does. Later in the same episode of Parks

and Recreation he offers the following

assessment of Moby-Dick: ‘Does the

white whale actually symbolise the

unknowability and meaninglessness of

human existence? No; it’s just a *******

fish’. It is a great line, but the world would be much poorer if he were right.

faith in language.

Perhaps what I struggle with, in equal

measure, is that Melville forces me to

grapple with flaws I recognize in myself.

Disenchanted with all there is to see on

land, Ishmael ignores Elijah’s ominous

prophecy, the foreboding weather, and

the unwelcoming appearances of the

men on the Pequod as he decides to go

to sea because “[he] want[s] to see what

whaling is. [He] want[s] to see the world.”

I have felt the same disenchantment, the

same unidentifiable malaise, the same

impulse to leave New York for London,

hopeful that the adventure would help

me to escape all that has been

tumultuous about my early twenties. I

hoped that Melville would find the words

to describe the chaos of emerging

adulthood; I held him to this standard,

even though the precise phrases also

elude me, because as a reader, I believe

that fiction should be a sad, funny and

enlightening mess of a thing.

I cling to the idea that fiction should

teach me lessons about the world that I

am too daft to understand without a

guide. I regret that Melville failed to find

the words that I have so often failed to

find for myself. Maybe it is because my

expectations are too high that I find

Moby-Dick falls short.

‘Relationship between Eva Mendes and Ryan Gosling crumbles’. I mean, who cares? We do.

The front page of The Sun reads ‘Godzilla kills Bono’. Nonetheless, it is the UK’s most widely read

newspaper, pulling in a weekly readership of 13.5 million people and ranking a substantial 1.5 million

readers ahead of the next most read paper, The Daily Mail.

As a nation, celebrities and pop culture obsess us. We can’t get enough of who is dating whom and that

‘Cheryl is heading back to Ashley again’. However, what exactly is the reason for this and why do we, as Brits, invest so much of our tea-drinking relaxation

time to reading such rubbish? One answer must lie in this fairly gigantic question: ‘why do we read anything?’ The answer is simple: escapism. This (for those who don’t do ‘englishy’

terms) is the tendency to seek distraction and relief from the unpleasant realities of life, namely in the

form of entertainment. Though this explanation could be used for any form of recreation, it applies

especially to this topic. What better way to get away from the harsh realities of the devastating acts of

violence in Syria, than by opening up a magazine and reading about the latest ludicrous stunt Miley Cyrus

has pulled to attract the world’s media and prove that she is still alive. It helps us carry on in life, happy in the knowledge that Katy Perry rode into the Super

bowl on an enormous lion. Yet, we stay blissfully unaware of the many thousands of soldiers riding

into war zones in tanks to protect us. Actually, maybe this would be mentioned reluctantly on Page

12, who knows? In addition, not only does it stop us thinking about

anything too ‘real’, it gives us something to talk about. Gossip. As a nation, we love to gossip. Who can blame us? I mean, did you hear that so and so

was about to get married to so and so but then just before the vows, so and so made a run for it? No!

Don’t worry, all the paparazzi were there to faithfully capture every single tear and shocked face, and then smother it on the front page to keep us enriched and

enlightened so we can tell Louise when we next see her down at the salon. Thank God. In a recent survey by the ‘Social Issues Research Centre’ of 800 people

under 30, up to a staggering 67% of conversation was found to be gossip. Though this may not be a

new phenomenon, and has been proven to be a vital part of social interactions and wellbeing, the power

these publications have over people’s lives is terrifying, quite frankly. This leads onto the next

question: ‘is this obsession dangerous?’ ‘65-lb weight gain – Kim’s pregnancy nightmare’.

Okay, so we all know of the Kardashians, that ‘multi-talented’, famous-because-they-are-famous family. Well, a recent celebrity scandal seems to have been that Kim (one of the daughters) put on weight when

she became pregnant. WHAT? I hear you gasp. A woman putting on weight because another human is growing inside of her? Quite frankly, it’s horrifying (if

you didn’t get it, yes, that was sarcasm). However, this absurd media phenomenon does bring to light

much more serious issues. Body dysmorphia, affecting around 1 in 100 people in the UK, is a big

issue. Not only this but anorexia, depression, bulimia and even suicide stem from this image-driven

society, putting pressure on both males and females to look like the photoshopped pictures of perfection

plastered on the front page of glossy magazines. However, these are all quite widely talked about

problems; one factor less considered includes the impact this ‘culture’ could be having on younger people. An appalling 85% of 11-14 year olds said they would prefer to read gossip magazines to a

novel by well-known children's authors Philip Pullman or Jacqueline Wilson. Not only does this

breed a generation of mind-numb children, obsessed with what they look like, it stops them widening

their imaginations and supplementing their development. In addition, when people read

sensationalist headlines, they become desensitised to real life events, which, if actually experienced,

would no longer shock them. An 11-year old thinking it is completely natural to look like an orange

skeleton that has been divorced five times and is 80% plastic? It’s not healthy. Unfortunately, these are only some of the issues raised by this vacuous

obsession and many more exist; the list is too long to mention them all.

Therefore, to conclude, obsession is dangerous. It would be considered so if it were anything else, yet

because many accept this one as ‘normal’, it has become a part of British culture. Therefore, next

time you see the headline: ‘Body Panic! – 21 shocking bodies inside’, just think: ‘am I obsessed?’

OBSESSED Jamie Lucas

I am acutely aware of how few people at this school care about high fashion. But I do, so I’m writing about it. Savage Beauty is the largest ever retrospective exhibition of the work of Lee Alexander McQueen and the first one to appear in Europe. The display spans almost two decades of visionary, beauty-defining creations, and has been hailed by critics as one of the most impressive artistic collections to be seen this year. Fresh in from New York, the collection features hundreds of unbelievably intricate projects, for some of which the man-hours for creation stretch into the thousands. Here are five reasons to go:

1.Everyone’s talking about it. 2.Okay not everyone. But as I said before, it’s a huge event, and you would appear really cultured if you could mention it and not sound pretentious. 3.It’s a great date idea. Talk about the dress designed to make the model look a bit like a duck. Impress your significant other with meaningless sentences about how loads of different things speak to you. Maybe even buy that significant other a dress. Or maybe not - they’re around £25,000 minimum. 4.Culturally, fashion is important. Economically, more so. McQueen had a fortune of $30 million before he committed suicide in 2010. Kering, who own the brand, boast annual profits of over a billion Euros. Go figure. 5.Everything there is really, really spectacular. Some of the best pieces are overleaf.

P.S. Good luck trying to get tickets…

A hologram of Kate Moss presented during McQueen’s 2006 show, which is

recreated in the exhibition.

Albert Meek

“Ignoring all instructions I decided to plunge straight in, pain rarely lasts I thought, how bad can it be?”

Off the back of the rapturous reception that greeted our last review concerning the 'Three Wolves and a Moon Tee' we introduce to you episode two in a series intended to inform you, dear reader, of a range of invaluable products not to be missed.

'Twas the witching hour. Suited up, pre-lashed and smelling like a disaster at a Lynx factory we were ready. It had finally arrived. The night we’d been waiting for. The night we’d become men. Lying awake staring at the ceiling for the past three and a half years, it had often felt as if it would never arrive (Rissy Q-mar'z filthy underground mixtape hadn't done a lot to help the struggle). For this was not just any night. Oh no. This was the holy grail. This was... the FEATHERS BALL (and if you've watched American Pie/The Devil Within you’ll know what we’re talking about). This was it. Dates arranged (speak to one ‘Tyrone Gwen’ for details) we knew we had to be on top form. Being men of a hirsute nature, however, we'd known we couldn't afford to make the renowned amateur-associated failure and hence had heeded the wise-words of those gone before us. Their advice rung deafening in our ears, "Don't forget to shave".

We'd decided to address this problem the week before. The razor beckoned us yet in fear we'd shuddered; the aftermath of our last encounter with the conniving instrument still stained the walls of the inside of Gus’ lost property office. Never again.

In dire need of advice we turned to the ultimate bastion of wisdom, Anything 2 Say? Tick. Tock. Minutes turned to hours, hours turned to days, days turned to years, years turned to months, months turned to minutes. The beast stirred. From deep within the bowels of control lab 3 a note was sent forth. Legend tells that Anything 2 Say? 'employs' a very clandestine man known as the "courier"/"the mole"/"that guy from the lunch hall" and, in confirmation of these whispers, it was indeed he who made contact. Well, when we say contact, we mean he literally physically accosted us. Walking out of the lunch hall we were mowed down by a rolling stack of trays. In the chaos that ensued (and unnoticed by us at the time) the note found itself a new owner.

Veet for Men Hair Removal Gel Crème 200 ml - An Epic

'Twas on a Geography field trip upon the River Tillingbourne, just South of Guildford and off the A281 that the wisdom (which had for so long remained elusive to us) revealed its secrets. Whilst playing poo sticks a gust of wind blew the fabled parchment from our pocket. It read but one word. In French. VEET. Which translates into English as... VEET.

There was no time to lose. We had but 4 days and 37 hours to get ready. Mahmoud was called. The deal went down. We had la crème. It was time for application.

And so we arrive back at the night of the prom. Alas, we had not been informed about the quantities required for such an endeavour. Three tubs seemed reasonable. Staring deeply into one another’s eyes, we gently squatted into the tepid crème. It felt as if we were dunking our manhood into a Tupperware pot of crème. We had to concentrate; one false move and we’d have to reapply. Strict instructions stipulated that we had to maintain the squat for NO MORE than half a minute. But we are men, surely it would take longer? After approximately 9 minutes and 32 seconds, it began.

So now, dear reader, we arrive back at the original purpose of the article: the review.

Those who have seen the film “Black Hawk Down” can relate to the feeling that emanated from our nether-regions. The pain was searing. Unbearable. Wincing, we clutched for a nearby length of rope to try to cut off blood supply using a makeshift torque. Unfortunately, it turned out there was no nearby length of rope. By now, the pain was so intense that even our screams turned to muffled whimpers. In this humbling moment of suffering we had but one conjoined thought: the freezer. Through systematic blackouts we flew downstairs, crashing headfirst through anything in our path (most notably a Tang Dynasty vase and a lifetime supply of “I can’t believe it’s not butter” which, oddly, was located outside of the kitchen…). Coated in butter and shards of 6th Century pottery, we slid into the kitchen. It was now, nursing considerable head wounds, that we regretted installing specifically small doorways. Tearing the freezer door off its already considerably dangerous hinges we reached for the ice-cream. Blessed relief. The cool winter-fruits flavoured substance (courtesy of ‘Thai Tanic’) soothed our dingleberries... for a brief time. It soon melted, however, in the chthonic heat of our wedding vegetables. We were left fetal, covered in butter and lukewarm ice cream. Suddenly it occurred to us that we had only 3 hours until the Prom. Once the crying had subsided we took solemn showers, trying to think past the trauma of the last 4 minutes.

Needless to say, the Prom did not go well. As it turns out, it’s difficult to enjoy an evening when your crotch feels as though it is trying to overthrow the bourgeoisie.

If however, dear reader, you come prepared (ice/on site paramedic team/a Canada Goose Coat etc.), the crème does its job pretty well.

Hot

Not

Assassins

Random Fourth

Formers

Blue Skies

Irish Tries

Easter Break

Exam Headache

Swiss Banks

Putin’s Tanks

Hot or Not

Top Knots

Black and White March 2015

Documents

Transcript of Black and White March 2015