“ACT
OF PEACE”
was the phrase used by supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump to describe U.S. bombings of Iran in June 2025.
Message from the Editor
Dear Reader,
On behalf of the entire SHAPE Magazine team, thank you very much for picking up this copy of Issue #4.
Since Issue #3 was published last year, the world has changed drastically once more. Certainly much has happened in fields that correspond with the subjects that are part of the SHAPE Faculty. In the world of politics, for instance, things have been moving at breakneck pace. After 14 years in power, the Conservatives were decisively removed from power in last year’s July general election, with Labour being the chief benefactor and new party in government. In November, a perfect storm saw Donald Trump defeat the last-minute candidacy of Kamala Harris to secure a historic non-consecutive 2nd term as President of the United States.
Trump’s inauguration in January this year brought about months of economic uncertainty around the world, primarily thanks to his insistence on new, protectionist trade policies. Shortly before Trump’s inauguration, the history-making 39th U.S. President Jimmy Carter passed away in December last year, marking the final chapter of a political legend who came from humble beginnings to become the leader of the free world—and then a remarkably longevous humanitarian. The world of religion similarly experienced the grief of loss with the passing of Pope Francis in late April this year, but found solace and new hope in the ascent of the first pope from the U.S., Leo XIV. In the world of philosophy, another towering figure’s story came to an end, with influential virtue ethicist Alasdair MacIntyre passing away in late May. And in the world of geography, a February earthquake in Santorini sparked renewed interest in the Cyclanes’ geological and volcanic history.
Yet although much of this global upheaval is daunting, it also signifies the very real potential that this moment has for giving rise to significant change, created and driven by ordinary people from all walks of life, in the common pursuit of building better societies and a fairer future for all. Though MacIntyre worked within the Aristotelian tradition, it was Aristotle’s tutor and philosophical rival Plato who, in turn, quoted Heraclitus on the role of change in the world: “Everything flows and nothing remains; there is only an eternal becoming and changing”—an idea commonly shortened to simply “panta rhei” (Ancient Greek for “everything flows”). In this world in flux, then, where opportunities for change are everywhere, I hope that by offering some knowledge through this humble magazine, we will have contributed to making you more capable for, and ready to, be a part of positive, lasting change in the world.
Yours sincerely Hau Tak Ng 25th June, 2025
HISTORY Step into the world of
with stories of: the suffragettes, as told by PIPPA NUNN; Emperor Hadrian, from the perspective of MASON TAHIRI; the Oregon Trail, in the eyes of NITHIL KONGALA LIYANAGE; and witchcraft, reexamined by IMMY OSCROFT.
Photo: Suffragette Emmeline Pankhurst arrested after protesting. (Courtesy of Dutch National Archive / Unsplash)
Pippa Nunn on SUFFRAGETTES
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, women’s rights were a deep concern for many; women did not have the right to vote and the concept of gender equality did not exist. There were two main groups which were both concerned with the campaign for equal rights. In 1897, political activist and writer Millicent Fawcett formed the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies (NUWSS), a group that became known as the suffragists. Suffragists used peaceful methods of protest in order to gain the right to vote and acted within the law to win support for their cause. They believed that militant methods would be seen as irresponsible and could provide further excuses to refuse women the right to vote. However, some felt that suffragists were not doing enough. Some claimed that because they were not using confrontational methods, Parliament did not
feel a sense of urgency to consider the suffragist cause. As a consequence, another political activist and suffragist, Emmeline Pankhurst, founded the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) in Manchester in 1903. People involved in this campaign became known as the suffragettes—a label initially given by the media intended as an insult, but later adopted by members of the WSPU themselves.
THEIR METHODS
As suffragettes felt that the peaceful, lawful methods used by the suffragists weren’t going far enough, they instead used more militant tactics to promote their cause. They smashed windows, staged protests and
Photo: Two suffragettes standing on a cart, bringing their message. (Courtesy of Dutch National Archives / Unsplash)
set post boxes and buildings on fire. They would also disrupt political meetings as well asmale-only clubs and golf courses. Suffragettes gained substantial publicity and awareness for their cause due to the great societal impact of these methods.
Marion Wallace-Dunlop was a key figure in the WSPU, and was arrested numerous times when involved in protest. After her third arrest in 1909, she adopted a new form of protest: the hunger strike. WallaceDunlop stated that she would only eat if she was treated as a political prisoner instead of a common criminal. The authorities released her after 91 hours of fasting on the basis of ill health. This influenced others to do the same, and hunger striking became a common practice that a lot of the suffragettes embraced as a way of continuing their protest after being arrested.
In response, the government decided against early release of prisoners when they began refusing food; instead they began force-feeding these women. They would strap the women down and force a tube up their nostril or down their throat to get food into their stomach. Many suffragettes wrote about this experience in letters and diaries. Violet Ann Bland wrote, “They twisted my neck, jerked my head back, closing my throat, held all the time as if in a vice. I gasped for breath, and suffered tortures mentally lest the food which they were trying to pour down my throat should go into my lungs.”
When the public started to hear some of these accounts, it led to an outcry. Therefore, in 1913 the
Photo: Marion Wallace Dunlop. (Courtesy of Dunlop family archives / Wikipedia)
Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health) Act was passed; this was commonly referred to as the ‘Cat and Mouse Act’. This act was in response to suffragettes performing hunger strikes while in prison as a form of protest. It meant that the prisoners would be released when the hunger strike began to affect their health. They would have time to recover and be taken back to prison to serve the rest of their sentence.
INFLUENCE OF CLASS AND RACE
Throughout the movement, women from lower socioeconomic classes often faced different and harsher treatment than middle-class women. This was evident in prisons: lower class women would face crueler and more severe punishments. In her book Prisons and Prisoners, suffragette Lady Constance Lytton suggested that working class women were more likely to be force-fed, describing it as a mental and physical violation. Due to their familial ties, middleclass women were frequently protected and afforded better conditions in prison.
Although the majority of the suffragettes were white women, numerous women from ethnic minoritiy backgrounds actively participated in the movement. The suffragettes’ aim was to support and promote the rights of all women, without discriminating against any race. All women were encouraged to participate in the movement in any way they could. Sophia Duleep Singh was a prominent WSPU member who was born in London and was of Indian origin. She participated in many forms of protest such as refusing to pay taxes and was involved in the Black Friday Campaign. However, many women of colour were not as privileged as Sophia and would have also found it difficult to take part in the protests due to low pay and insecure work and housing.
BLACK FRIDAY
In November 1910, Parliament debated a new bill, the Conciliation Bill, which would give around one million women the right to vote. The suffragette movement paused their activity during this time to show their support. However, Prime Minister Henry Asquith called an election for December 1910, disrupting Parliament and decreasing the chance of the bill being debated. The suffragettes felt betrayed and instead of performing a peaceful march, stormed Parliament. The Prime Minister refused to meet with members of the WSPU, so the suffragettes tried to enter the House of Commons.
In response, the police used violence against the suffragettes. They physically attacked the suffragettes and threw them into the crowd. There were also repeated sexual assaults by the police and
onlookers, and the police encouraged those in the crowd to commit these assaults. When reporting on this, the newspapers showed the violent scenes but did not reference any of the sexual assaults that occurred. Furthermore, the newspapers portrayed the suffragettes as being to blame for the violence; however, some papers—such as the Daily Mirror— stated that it seemed the police enjoyed participating in the fighting.
1913 EPSOM DERBY
Around 500,000 people attended the Epsom Derby horse race in 1913, including the King and Queen. Also present was Emily Wilding Davison, who was a known suffragette and acted as an officer of the movement. She was known for her militant tactics such as breaking windows, setting fire to post boxes and—on multiple occasions—hiding overnight in the Palace of Westminster (where the Houses of Parliament are located).
Davison placed herself at the Tattenham corner of the racecourse, which was the final bend before the
finish line. She ducked under the barrier, walked out onto the course, and was hit by a horse owned by King George VII and ridden by jockey Herbet Jones. The horse was travelling at around 35 miles an hour. Davison fell unconscious and was rushed to the Epsom Cottage Hospital. She was operated on two days later. While there she received hate mail and the King reported that it was “a most regrettable and scandalous proceeding”. On 8 June, Davison died from the fracture to her skull caused by the horse.
But the tragic events of the horse race fostered greater awareness of the aims of the suffragettes. Nobody at the time was aware of her plans in advance, so we are not entirely sure on her intentions; some believe that it was suicide, others say that she was trying to attach a suffragette flag to the horse, and yet others think she was trying to cross the track and believed that all the horses had passed.
GAINING THE RIGHT TO VOTE
The suffragettes saw the outbreak of the First World War in 1914 as an opportunity to demonstrate their skills and expertise. They paused their militant activities and instead threw themselves into the war effort, and all the imprisoned suffragettes were released. The WSPU’s campaigning style allowed women to take a more public role in society. They took over jobs traditionally done by men, such as working in factories, farming, mechanics and engineering while the men went to fight for the country. By taking on these responsibilities, in 1918 the government recognised the significant role women played in society, and granted a limited number of women over the age of 30 the right to vote. This was one significant step closer to all women having the right to vote, and a historic achievement on the road towards true gender equality.
Pippa Nunn is an Upper Fifth student in Bloomsbury. Among the subjects she studied at GCSE level are SHAPE subjects such as History, Business Studies and Philosophy. She is also the current Secretary-General of the Bede’s Model United Nations (MUN) society.
Photo: Emily Wilding Davison. (Courtesy of the Wikimedia Foundation)
Mason Tahiri asks: WHY WAS EMPEROR HADRIAN SUCH A SUCCESSFUL RULER?
Photo: Marble bust of Emperor Hadrian, made in ~AD 125-130. (Courtesy of the British Museum)
Emperor Hadrian was born on January 4th 76 AD, the son of a prominent family. His early life was marked by a strong education and military training, and he also developed a fondness for hunting that he kept for the rest of his life. He was adopted by his dad’s cousin Trajan, a young and popular general at the time.
Hadrian was sent to a school in Rome where he was under the care of Trajan. When Emperor Nerva died, Trajan succeeded him. Trajan was an ambitious and aggressive emperor and Hadrian gained lots of military experience as a General under him during conquests of places such as Dacia (modern-day Romania) and Parthia (modern-day Iran). So, early into Hadrian’s life, he had already played a key role in the Roman Empire. When Trajan died in Cilicia, now known as Turkey,
in 117 AD he had not named an heir to the throne; nevertheless, Hadrian’s great military experience and friendship with Trajan meant that he was an obvious candidate to the throne. Eventually, he secured power and was crowned Emperor. Hadrian has historically been given a lot of credit because of his remarkably constructive attainment, especially as Emperor; he built the famous Temple of Venus and Roma. Hadrian’s reign didn’t come without any difficulties; he faced rebellions, such as the Bar Kokhba Revolt.
In Britain, which Hadrian visited in AD 122, the focus on shoring up the empire resulted in the construction of the famous Hadrian’s Wall. It was built especially to protect Roman Britain from the Northern Picts and Barbarians but included many other reasons. The wall stretched around 73 miles (about 117 kilometers) across the North of England, marking the boundary of the Roman Empire. Hadrian’s wall took about 6 years to complete and 15,000 people to construct it. Ever since the day it was built, it has remained nearly intact. What an incredible achievement! It is a physical legacy that has lasted for 1,900 years. Now it is a very popular tourist attraction.
Hadrian died in Baiae (Naples) on 10th July 138 AD after a long reign that played a key role in developing the culture and importance of the Roman Empire.
To answer the question, I believe that Hadrian was a successful ruler because he gained lots of military experience as a general and he learnt a lot from Trajan. In my opinion, his greatest legacy was that he was an architectural genius. He was responsible for building many treasure monuments such as the Temple of Venus and Roma. He was also loved by the people of Rome. History has shown us that only a few rulers have achieved this. All of these reasons are why he is one of the greatest Roman Emperors ever.
Mason Tahiri is a Year 7 pupil at the Prep School.
Nithil Kongala Liyanage looks at THE OREGON TRAIL
The Oregon Trail represents a significant chapter in American history. This arduous journey, undertaken by thousands of pioneers in the mid-1800s, was driven by the promise of new opportunities.
The decision to leave communities in the eastern United States for the uncertainties of the west was down to many reasons. Cities like New York were experiencing overcrowding, and the prospect of land ownership and prosperity in the western territories became increasingly exciting. The attractiveness of this prospect was greatly increased by the discovery of gold and the availability of farmlands. The
Homestead Act of 1862 further helped this movement, as it offered 160 acres of land to individuals who committed to farming it. While railroad development was underway, the first transcontinental railway was not completed until 1869, meaning most pioneers relied on wagons for transportation. Travel by ship was an option, though only accessible to the wealthy. The romanticised vision of the west, aided by deteriorating economic conditions in the east, made
Photo: A detailed map of the route that was historically called the Oregon Trail. (Courtesy of Encyclopaedia Britannica)
the promise of a new life particularly alluring.
Departing from the east meant considerable sacrifices in terms of possessions. Pioneers typically chose smaller carriages for perceived faster travel, which severely limited packing capacity. An average of 2,000 pounds of goods could be carried, with approximately 1,800 pounds dedicated exclusively to food supplies. The diet primarily consisted of long lasting items such as flour, crackers, bacon, coffee, and other preserved foods. Other than that, only essential items like clothing, weapons, ammunition, and bedding could be taken.
Given the four-to-six-month duration of the journey, travelers ate an estimated 500 campfire meals. Their diet was largely the same: cured meats, dried goods, and especially bacon and Johnny cakes (a cornmeal flatbread, often consumed in a dry or stale state). Coffee was also a staple. Occasionally, pioneers would hunt bison from herds, offering rare and welcome variety, but this was generally uncommon due to the effort and resources required. Furthermore, any animals that became injured or too exhausted to continue the journey often became a source of food.
The Oregon Trail was an exceptionally dangerous undertaking, and attempts to traverse it led to the deaths of over 20,000 individuals. Disease was the leading cause of death, accounting for one in ten deaths. Poor sanitation and cramped living conditions on the trail encouraged the rapid spread of illnesses such as typhoid fever, cholera, and dysentery. These diseases were frequently transmitted through contaminated water and food, often leading to severe pain or even death.
Photo: The Snake River and Teton Range, captured here by Ansel Adams in 1942, were notable natural obstacles on the Oregon Trail. (Courtesy of Wikipedia)
Accidents also posed a threat. River crossings were particularly hazardous, with the risk of carriages overturning and people drowning. Exhaustion was another major cause of fatalities. Unpredictable animal behavior could also lead to incidents, sometimes resulting in injury or death for riders. Despite the dangers, trading posts and resting points were established along the trail, providing weary travelers with chances to rest and resupply.
Photo: Independence Rock in rural central Wyoming—a major landmark on the Oregon Trail. (Courtesy of Matthew Trump / Wikipedia)
Interesting fact: some travelers actually brought entire herds of livestock with them to provide a food supply for the journey!
The people on the trail also posed a threat to themselves. While criminal activity existed, fights among pioneers were much more common, occasionally escalating into violent brawls. The extreme stress and hopelessness of the journey also contributed to instances of suicide.
Upon reaching the end of the trail, pioneers faced the task of staking a claim to land and establishing their new lives. The Oregon Territory at the time was huge, encompassing areas of present-day Washington, Idaho, Oregon and Wyoming. Married couples had the opportunity to claim up to 640 acres of land. This idea of land ownership offered a path to financial stability, contrasting sharply with the economic difficulties often experienced by people in the eastern states.
Today, the Oregon Trail is remembered in history as a powerful testament to human resilience and the desire for progress. The pioneers’ strength to venture beyond their comfort zones, enduring diseases, perilous crossings, and numerous other adversities for the hope of a better life, serves as a reminder that challenging journeys can be essential for reaching your goals and achieving personal growth.
Nithil Kongala Liyanage is a First Year student in Knights.
Immy Oscroft explores WITCHCRAFT
From the beginning of civilisation, every settlement has had some version of a witch. Whether they were known as the healer, the town wiseman or woman, the cunning folk or the witch, these people could be characterised simply as outsiders who could make herbal remedies. Perhaps they were also Pagan, a term Christians used to describe non-Christians throughout the Roman and Middle Age periods. Pagans were often spiritual and worshipped nature, and throughout the Middle Ages paganism was widely accepted as the religion of the peasants, rural people who may not have had access to the Christian Church and turned to what they knew best—nature.
However, as time went on and the Church’s power over Europe strengthened, so did the fear people had for the devil and any form of dark magic. In 1487, German clergyman Heinrich Kramer wrote his book Malleus Maleficarum (meaning “Witch’s Hammer”). The book, which was the second best selling book (after the Bible) for over a century in Europe, sparked fears in people about witches by proposing that they were under the devil’s power. Perhaps unsurprisingly, witchcraft has very few mentions in the Bible, being used to describe women’s power or sorcery in those few instances. However, what is written about often is the weakness and impurity of a woman’s body, and how susceptible women are to the devil’s influence. This was the basis of Kramer’s theory—women were being controlled by the devil and should be exorcised, tortured or even killed for practising the devil’s magic. Since 900 AD, witchcraft had been a crime in Christianity, although the punishment was nothing more than public shame and at most a day in the stocks. After the publication of Malleus Maleficarum, however, witchcraft was seen as something truly dangerous and worthy of the death penalty. Consequently, between 50,000 and 100,000 people were tried for witchcraft between 1560 and 1800 in Europe, with over 80% being women.
This paranoia reached England around 100 years later when in 1541, Henry VIII made witchcraft a crime punishable by death, likely as a reaction to growing religious tension throughout the decade. Despite the fact that Elizabeth I changed the law very slightly 20
years later—declaring witchcraft was not punishable by death, only acts of violence due to the witchcraft were—the damage was already done. The European witch-fear was now growing in England, and so began a century of brutal witch-hunting.
This terror was heightened further when James I (already also known then as King James VI of Scotland) became King of England in 1603. Six years prior, he had written a dissertation named Daemonologie which described black magic and, importantly, endorsed and described practices of witch-hunting. His immense fear of witches stemmed from his Scottish upbringing and previous kingship— Scotland had been trialing witches long before
Photo: The book Malleus Maleficarum by Heinreich Kramer. (Courtesy of Jakob Sprenger / BEIC Foundation / Wikipedia)
England. The promulgation of King James’ law was a key moment as it not only applied to England but also to its colonies, including a small but infamous town in Massachusetts named Salem: the site for the most well-known witch trials of all time. Additionally, Scotland’s witch trials under James I and his book were rumoured to have been the inspiration behind Shakespeare’s Macbeth, a play which centred around witches and their relationship with the monarchy.
Photo: A lithography containing a dramatised depiction of the Salem Witch Trials. (Courtesy of Joseph E. / Wikipedia / U.S. Library of Congress)
By the 1600s, English witch-hunting was all the rage, and was spearheaded by Mathew Hopkins, who began his career as self-styled Witchfinder General in 1644. Following the Lancaster witch trials (1612-1634) where the King’s doctor was required to examine the four women accused, physical proof that people were witches was necessary. Hopkins and his associate John Steane would travel around East England, charging towns £23 (£4,700 in today’s money) to rid them of any witches. They could do this by examining and questioning anybody who had witchlike characteristics, checking for warts, moles, skin tags or birthmarks. These were supposedly the sites the devil had control over, and therefore when pricked would not have any sensation. This practice gave witch hunters the nickname ‘witch prickers’. Other tests included cutting skin with a dull knife—if it didn’t bleed, the accused was a witch.
The pair also used the most well known witch hunting strategy—the paradoxical and famous swimming test. The accused would be tied to a chair and thrown into a body of water. If they floated, they were a witch and would be hanged or sent to prison, if they sank, they were innocent—but also dead. The idea was that if they had not been baptised the water would reject them and they would float.
Though you may assume that due to all of this
paranoia witch hunting was very common, in actuality it was quite rare. Throughout England, 513 ‘witches’ were put on trial there between 1560 and 1700, and only 112 were executed. The last known execution in England was in Devon in 1685 and by 1735 there was a new Act which decriminalised witchcraft. This coincided with a rise in science throughout Europe which was able to explain many of the events that were previously blamed on witches. This proves that witches were, at their core, scapegoats for things otherwise unexplainable; people searched for something to blame for their misfortune and chose the outcast women. Interestingly, in Ireland where folklore surrounding faeries (which would do similar evil deeds as witches) was popular, there were almost no reports of witchcraft, furthering the idea that witches were used as scapegoats. Equally, witches and witch-hunting seemed to occur in the window between religion developing enough for mass panic but science still being premature enough to be unable to explain the reason for such mass panic. Regardless, it is clear that the witch craze in the Tudor and Stuart periods was an example of the all-too-common phenomenon of those perceived as the ‘other’ being blamed for issues that were not understood at the time.
Immy Oscroft is an Lower Fifth student in Bloomsbury. Among her GCSE subjects are SHAPE subjects such as Economics and History.
HISTORY QUIZ CORNER
Think you can recall some of the knowledge featured in these four articles? Test your memory with this short quiz and see how much you can remember on the spot!
Question 1: What was the name of the suffragette who died after being trampled by a horse at the 1913 Epsom Derby?
Question 2: How many people did it take for Hadrian’s Wall to be built?
Question 3: During which time period did most travellers and adventurers take on the Oregon Trail in search of a better life in the Western United States?
Question 4: What was the name of the 1487 book authored by German clergyman Heinrich Kramer that sparked a witch-hunting craze in Europe?
Question 5: Which King of England helped popularise witch-hunting in England through publising a dissertation (and then introducing a law) on the topic?
Delve into
RELIGION & PHILOSOPHY
with an inquiry by PEYTON JACOBS on whether love affects our brains.
Photo: An illustration of the famous ‘mind-body problem’ by philosopher René Descartes. (Courtesy of Wikipedia)
Peyton Jacobs examines DOES LOVE AFFECT OUR BRAINS?
Every person has a different experience when they grow up. Some have a secure and loving home life, but others are unfortunately subjected to less-than-ideal environments and situations. How does this affect us mentally and physically? Do those people turn out different? Well, read on to discover the colossal differences in our minds that come about because of a few changes in our childhood.
What Is neglect? Well, neglect is normally known as a very complicated situation, but in reality, it’s more of a basic idea. Neglect is the ongoing failure to meet a child’s basic needs and the most common form of child abuse. This can put the neglected person in danger, and some examples of this include inadequate
health care, education, supervision, or even things as basic as food or clothes not being provided.
Now, the cycle of neglect. A cycle is normally pictured as a circle, which shows that everything comes back again. So the cycle of neglect is essentially the exact same as this—a neglected person neglects younger
Photo: An illustration purportedly showing differences in brains of normal and “extremely [neglected]” 3-year-old children. Researchers such as Val Gillies of South Bank University have cautioned that this illustration is oversimplistic and lacks important contextual information and evidence. (Courtesy of The Guardian)
people in their care, and so on. This abuse may lay stress, depression and anger onto a child, because their brains aren’t fully developed, so they don’t know how to express how they feel in words and end up lashing out instead
This is why the cycle of neglect is so important to break with speech therapy or other ways of coping with your experience. After all, assault is illegal, and if these people can’t get the help they need they will most likely end up with a criminal record. The Independent reports that in 2002, 49% of people (UK) in care as children will end up in the prison system, and that group therefore makes up 23% of the total prison population.
So now, our next question—what’s the science behind love? Well, it’s all down to something called oxytocin. Oxytocin is a hormone that is released through our spine, and it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside—like you have ‘butterflies in your stomach’. It is the hormone that helps children develop trust, love and social skills. If you have high levels of oxytocin, you will have a lower stress level, and you will feel happier and lighter.
If you have low levels of oxytocin, you will feel sad, heavy, and hopeless, like you don’t want to do anything. If this happens for a long period of time, you can develop depression or anxiety. If you are feeling low, go and do a good deed, eat something you like, or go to a park. This will make you feel happier!
Taking into consideration all of these factors, we come back to our question: how does love and neglect affect our brains?
I believe that yes, neglect and love do affect our brains. But, how? In short, neglect disrupts the ways in which children’s brains develop and process information, increasing the risk for attentional, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral disorders, and love releases high levels of dopamine that boosts us and puts us on a high. Neglect is bad, then, but did you know that too much love is bad too? It may come as a shock to many that too much love can also have a negative impact. Dopamine can also be bad for our mental and physical health! ‘Having too much or too little dopamine in some parts of the brain are linked to some mental illnesses including depression, schizophrenia and psychosis,’ says Harvard Medical School. ‘Everything is great in moderation, some more than others, but neglect is one of the most harmful types of abuse that a parent can admit onto a child.’
In conclusion to this question, both neglect and dopamine affect our brains in bad ways, and may be
linked to other mental illnesses. Love can be a remedy to neglect, but if you smother someone with love, they can grow up without the skill set necessary to be a functioning adult or even human being.
Finally, let us map out how this changes us in the future. In the long term, as I mentioned earlier, neglected children could end up in the prison system. However, if they get the support they need, like therapy for example, they can get better and become healthy, happy humans!
Photo: The prison system, a unfortunate likely destination for neglected children driven by socio-economic pressures into criminality.
(Courtesy of 7500 RPM/ Unsplash)
In conclusion, love affects our brain by making us feel whole and happy. On the other hand, neglect can leave us with this empty feeling inside, like you aren’t fully there. Hopefully, by reading this article, you have learnt new things about the degree to which our childhood shapes our entire life.
Peyton Jacobs is a Year 7 pupil at the Prep School.
EDITORIAL DISCLAIMER
This article represents the informed personal opinion of Peyton Jacobs but is not necessarily or automatically representative of professional scientific consensus on psychological matters such as the relationship between love and brain functioning and development. For more information on the topic, including the diagram on Page 13, it is recommend that you peruse the following sources/articles:
Williams, Z. (2014, April 26). Is misused neuroscience defining early years and child protection policy? The Guardian.
-The Editorial Team
up on
BUSINESS & ECONOMICS Brush
with thoughts by JACK NAPIER on achieving success in Formula 1 motor racing.
Photo: A diagram comparing the corporate and brand sponsors of Formula 1 in 2005 and 2015. (Courtesy of Reddit)
Jack Napier thinks about F1: THE FORMULA FOR SUCCESS
Formula 1 has been described as the most exciting sport on the planet—the pinnacle of speed, skill and glamour! I was curious to find out more about what makes a winning F1 team successful. What goes on behind the scenes? What makes the cars so fast? How do the drivers get so good? And who are all the people?
I found that there are four main characteristics that make up winning F1 teams: a complete team, good strategy, the car/technical innovation and the drivers.
A COMPLETE TEAM
When you think of an F1 team you might just think of the pit crew or people in the garage for the Grand Prix but there are so many more people working extremely hard behind the scenes. For example, 1,200 people work for the Mercedes F1 team but only 75 people actually go to the Grand Prix. So what do the other 1,125 people do?
The majority work at the factory, where they build and test the cars and new parts. Some of the jobs at the factory include: the factory manager, the development
team, the design team and the simulator team. The factory team always plays a key role in making an F1 team successful. This is why seven time world champion Lewis Hamilton once said, “it’s the people back at the factory who are the real heroes”.
There is also a (much smaller) team behind each driver consisting of a manager, press officer, trainer, agent and mind coach. Most of the remaining team members work in sponsor relationships, legal matters, finances, human resources, IT and media.
THE STRATEGY TEAM
F1 strategy is so much more than when to pit and what tyres to put on the car.
The strategy team starts preparing for the race when it’s several races away. They look at all the data and try to work out possible strategies, scenarios and the optimal car setup. After each race weekend, the strategy team update their systems and re-analyse the data as they have a more up-to-date view on where the team is as well as the stronger and weaker areas of the team.
Photo: A gallery exhibiting various helmets worn by drivers participating in Formula 1 races. (Courtesy of Jack Napier)
Then over the race weekend, the strategy team works out where and when to use resources and tyres. Before and during qualifying, they work on the team’s approach to qualifying. During the race they are looking at the weather, the data collected at the track from last year, as well as tyre performance, car performance (their own and other teams), track evolution and…lots more. The key conclusions of this data is how fast they think the team will be, how fast the other teams will be and how the tyres will perform.
The strategy team has to keep looking at this data throughout the race as there might be a red or yellow flag causing drivers to slow down or stop for their own safety, and this could change the strategy again.
A SUCCESSFUL CAR/TECHNICAL INNOVATION
Ross Brawn shocked the F1 world in 2009 after they took over the Honda F1 team for that season (following Honda’s “financial crash” in 2008). Brawn created a title-winning car, and this was mainly down to a piece of engineering called the double diffuser. The 2009 season brought in some new regulations to try and encourage closer racing by reducing “dirty air”. However, Brawn found a loophole in this regulation, changing the position of the diffuser to make the car faster. This helped give the Honda team the competitive edge needed to win both championships (constructors and drivers).
Photo: An exhibit showing Formula 1 race car components. (Courtesy of Jack Napier)
The impact of technical innovation can also be seen in the periods of dominance experienced by Mercedes (2014-2021) and Red Bull (2022-present). Mercedes’ main innovation was their engine as it was “2 years ahead of the competition” and Red Bull’s was their complete car.
In 2025 all eyes will be on Aston Martin for technical innovations, as Adrian Newey—known as one of the greatest F1 engineers of all time—has joined the team. His approach can be summed up by his statement, “I’m basically saying, how can I use these regulations
to try something that hasn’t been done before.” His influence will be judged by where Aston Martin finishes in the Constructors Championship.
Photo: An exhibit showing Pirelli tyres with different colour highlights. Pirelli is the sole tyre supplier for Formula 1. (Courtesy of Jack Napier)
SUCCESSFUL DRIVERS
Who comes to mind when you think of the best F1 drivers? Lewis Hamilton? Max Verstappen? Michael Shumacher? Ayrton Senna? Or maybe even someone else? Well, every single F1 driver is extremely talented. It’s very tough to rise to the top. For a start, there are only 20 seats available. Nowadays aspiring F1 drivers can be found hurtling around karting circuits from a very young age—both Charles Leclerc and Michael Schumacher started at age 4. This gives them invaluable racing experience—both winning and losing—and hones their competitive spirit, perfectly summed up by 3-time World Champion Ayrton Senna’s quote: “If you no longer go for a gap you are no longer a racing driver”.
As well as this you have to climb up through the many stages of racing and demonstrate your ability, consistency and physical and mental strength (including lightning-fast reaction times). You have to do all of this before even being considered by F1 teams! Drivers are a key part of the sport—they are the ones in control of the cars and can control the outcome of the race and the season. It’s clear why teams invest so much time and energy trying to bring the best drivers to their team.
CONCLUSION
Having answered my questions, it is clear that a complete team, a successful strategy, amazing car/ technical innovations and skilled drivers are the formula for success!
Jack Napier is a Year 7 pupil at the Prep School.
POLITICS Explore and debate
with a discussion by SAMI KAZIC on the subject of armed police, and a retelling by HAU TAK NG of the late Walter Mondale’s extraordinary political career.
Photo: Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro, the 1984 Democratic nominees for U.S. president and vice president.
(Courtesy of Vogue / Getty Images)
Sami Kazic discusses the question SHOULD ALL POLICE OFFICERS IN THE UK CARRY GUNS?
The question of whether police officers should carry guns has been debated for a number of decades in the UK. After all, it is only the UK, Ireland, Norway, New Zealand and a small number of other countries where the police officers do not carry firearms. With 90% of our police officers remaining unarmed, has the time come for the UK police to follow the majority of the other countries by routinely carrying firearms in their role?
In the early part of the 19th century, the first police force in the UK was established in London. It was called the Metropolitan Police (The Met). The new officers were armed with truncheons for protection whilst the higher ranking officers like inspectors and
sergeants were armed with pistols and revolvers. Some officers were allowed to carry sabres when working in dangerous areas.
Over the years, as the world started changing , more police officers were issued firearms to respond to national and world events. For example, during the late 19th century there were several shootings of police officers by armed criminal gangs. This resulted in the Home Office ordering 1000 Webley & Sons revolvers, which were then issued to different parts of Met Police. The officers largely refused to use them and they were not very popular. The two world wars meant that more police were armed so that they could be of help in case of enemy invasion. These were mainly old Ross rifles, pistols and revolvers which were withdrawn from the police forces when the war finished.
Photo: Armed police officers in the UK carrying guns, tasers and pistols. (Courtesy of Sky News)
The 20th and 21st century brought new challenges, such as terrorism and criminal gangs increasingly using more dangerous weapons. As a result, each police force now has a specialist group of trained armed police officers (Authorised Firearms Officers, or AFOs) who only respond to incidents involving firearm or situations that regular police officers can’t handle.
There is no question that firearms offer the officers more effective and powerful means of self-defence in life-threatening situations. It could be argued that fewer police officers in the UK would die if they all carried guns routinely in their role. A sad example of this is the case of officers Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone, who were shot in Manchester in 2012 when they responded to what seemed like a simple domestic incident but were ambushed by the perpetrator. If they were armed at the time, then maybe their deaths could have been prevented.
Photo: The late Police Constables Fiona Bone and Nicola Hughes. (Courtesy of Sky News)
There is also evidence suggesting that the public would feel safer if all police officers carried firearms. In 2007, a survey of 2,156 adults asked if they wanted to see more officers armed and the majority of adults said that they did. In addition to this, there is another type of crime that is undergoing a rapid increase, causing a threat to police officers and the public— knife crime, which is becoming a huge concern. Armed officers are routinely used as the most appropriate response to ongoing knife crime incidents. This has increased the demand for more armed officers, especially in the larger cities.
Despite there being some very good reasons for all police carrying guns, there are also equally important reasons why they should not do so. Regardless of the training offered, it can be argued that carrying a lethal weapon carries more risk to the officers themselves and also increases the chance of making tragic
mistakes. One example of this is the fatal shooting of a Brazilian man by the name of Jean Charles De Menezes. In the aftermath of the 7th July attacks on London, an armed officer mistook him for one of the terrorists. Incidents like this demonstrate the kind of difficult decisions firearm officers have to make and the devastating consequences they have for any victims as well as the officer, and for public confidence in policing. In some cases, like the shooting of Chris Kaba, the officer involved was charged with murder. Historically, police officers in the UK have never been very keen on carrying firearms, and forcing all police officers to routinely carry firearms may cause a shortage of people applying to be police officers as well as current officers leaving their jobs. This would obviously be very concerning for our country and safety. The world that we live in today has many more challenges to face and is a lot more dangerous, perhaps more so than ever before. With the threat of terrorism as well as huge increases in knife crime and organised crime gangs, though, it would bring a lot of comfort to see our officers walking around armed and ready to protect us and themselves from whatever threat we face. Arguably we would all feel a lot safer.
However, there is no denying that carrying guns is not very popular with the officers. Carrying guns brings with it many risks to officers and the public and would change the way we police. When Sir Robert Peel introduced the Met Police in 1829 , it was set up to look and behave differently from the army and did not carry firearms for that reason. He wanted the police to be trusted, not feared, by the public they served. If all police officers were made to carry guns, would this not go against what the very founder of modern policing intended?
Even though over the last decade, there has been some increase in gun crime in the UK, this increase is still relatively small compared to many of our neighbours. In the UK we are in a unique position of being an island and our Border Forces make it difficult to bring in guns to this country, unlike mainland Europe where there are fewer physical borders.
So to answer the question: I don’t believe that they should! We are fortunate enough that our tough gun laws, unique geographical position and border control make the bringing of guns into this country very difficult. Our highly trained specialist AFOs, who have made a choice to have a career in armed policing, are capable of dealing effectively with the number of incidents that our country currently faces.
Sami Kazic is a Year 7 pupil at the Prep School.
Hau Tak Ng retells THE CURIOUS CASE OF WALTER MONDALE
Walter Frederick “Fritz” Mondale (1928-2021), better known simply as Walter Mondale (or more affectionately Fritz Mondale), was an American politician who most notably served as the 42nd Vice President of the United States under President Jimmy Carter between 1977-1981. In many aspects, Mondale is roughly the same as many politicians who came before him and many who have since come after him. Yet he alone holds a dubious honour so questionably impressive that in this article, we will explore two major elections that he contested during his long and storied political career. In doing so, we will come to understand how he achieved this “honour” (which I shall not spoil right now).
The 1984 presidential election saw Mondale, who by then was a former Vice President, become the Democratic presidential nominee against the Republican incumbent, President Ronald Reagan. Like the 1968 Democratic nomination that was handed to his mentor Hubert H. Humphrey, the 1984 Democratic nomination that Mondale secured was very much a poisoned chalice. For one, Mondale faced a very strong and appealing opponent in President Reagan, whose optimistic political brand had immense appeal to a wide array of Americans despite the mixed results of his economic and social policies during his first term. Reagan’s expertly-ran positive campaign was boosted by a series of optimistic advertisements, the
Photo: The late former U.S. Vice President Walter Mondale, seen on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” in 1982. (Courtesy of AP)
“Morning in America” series, which lauded Reagan’s achievements whilst subtly contrasting American prosperity under him with stagnation under Carter and Mondale. In contrast, Mondale’s overtly liberal campaign failed to significantly resonate with moderates who were more attracted to Reagan, and was further weighed down significantly by Mondale’s personal association with the social and popular malaise of the Carter years. The so-called “crisis of confidence” that Carter had spoken of during his administration was still fresh in the minds of many Americans, who favourably viewed Reagan’s first term as having revived national confidence and prestige after the uncertainty of the Carter (or rather, CarterMondale) years. In light of these factors, the cards were stacked against Mondale from the start, and it was unsurprising, therefore, that over the course of the campaign he made three attempts to change the state of the campaign. Unfortunately for him, all of them would backfire and deal even more damage to his already dim prospects instead.
The first attempt, which Mondale committed to for much of the presidential race, involved attacking
Photo: Stills from the “Morning in America” TV advertisements promoting Ronald Reagan’s reelection effort in 1984. The ads’ positive portrayal of American prosperity under thenPresident Reagan resonated with the majority of Americans. (Courtesy of the New York Historical)
Reagan for his age. Reagan had been 73 in 1984 and that made him the oldest president to have served at the time; accordingly, some raised questions about his fitness and ability to serve another four years in the White House, owing to the gruelling stresses of the presidency. In a brief, fortuitous moment for the Mondale campaign, Reagan performed poorly in the first presidential debate of the race between the two candidates, appearing confused and tired in contrast to the articulate Mondale, who was the clear winner. For a moment, it appeared as if the attack angle on Reagan’s age had worked, but this brief fortuitous period was not to last. In the second presidential debate, a re-energised Reagan not only regained his charm and acuity, but famously quipped, “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”
Photo: Reagan’s “youth and inexperience” quip proved so undeniably witty that even Mondale chuckled in response. (Courtesy of Reddit)
It was a masterful quip typical of Reagan’s quickwittedness, not only mocking the age-based criticisms that the Mondale campaign had thrown his way but further playing on the obvious fact that Mondale was neither particularly young (he was 55 at the time) nor inexperienced at all (he’d served as a Senator and then Vice President!). The humorous comment was received by laughter from not only the audience, but also from Mondale himself, who—understanding that the age attack angle had been completely shut down by Reagan for the rest of the race—realised that he had effectively lost the election, as he later admitted:
“If TV can tell the truth, as you say it can, you’ll see that I was smiling. But I think if you come in close, you’ll see some tears coming down because I knew [Reagan] had gotten me there. That was really the end of my campaign that night, I think. [I told my wife] the campaign was over, and it was.”
The second major attempt by Mondale to shake up the race came in the form of his decision to select Representative Geraldine Ferraro of New York as his running mate. Ferraro, though relatively politically inexperienced, was a woman, at a point in time when women made up the majority of the American electorate, as well as the Catholic daughter of first-generation Italian immigrants. The Mondale campaign hoped Ferraro would boost the ticket’s appeal to women voters as well as ethnic Democrats, such as Italian Americans, who’d abandoned the Democratic Party for Reagan four years earlier in 1980. Unfortunately, her selection was to not only have neither of these effects on the Mondale campaign, but instead further damage its chances of victory. For one, America in 1984 remained a nation of relatively conservative attitudes, in contrast to today. Ferraro’s selection was not viewed in particularly positive terms and there were many who believed she had been chosen due to her gender as well as pressure from women’s advocacy groups, rather than on the basis of merit. Her vice-presidential candidacy did not resonate with women voters, only 22% of whom viewed her selection positively, with 18% of women actually finding her selection a bad idea. Ferraro further damaged the Mondale campaign when her husband John Zaccaro was openly accused of past involvement in organised crime, pornography distribution and particularly campaign finance violations. Ferraro thus spent much of the general election campaign firmly on the defensive, and her delayed decision to release her family tax returns only blew up the campaign further when they showed that she owed $50,000 in back taxes and that her husband was involved in $300,000-worth of illegal loans. Any advantage she brought to Mondale was entirely negated.
The third attempt by Mondale to shake up the race
Photo: A still from an ad ran by the Mondale 1984 campaign prominently featuring Geraldine Ferraro. (Courtesy of kansaspolitics / YouTube)
was perhaps slightly less consequential than the other two, but unlike the age attack and the selection of Ferraro, was much more of an unforced error that Mondale could’ve completely avoided. At the 1984 Democratic National Convention to accept the party’s presidential nomination, Mondale—cognisant of the state of the race—attempted to shake things up by accusing Reagan of dishonesty. In his speech to the convention, Mondale stated, “By the end of my first term, I will reduce the Reagan budget deficit by two-thirds. Let’s tell the truth. It must be done, it must be done. Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won’t tell you. I just did.”
Photo: Mondale making his speech as the presidential nominee at the 1984 Democratic National Convention. (Courtesy of AP Photo)
Mondale had said those words hoping that it would persuade voters of his personal honesty, but—as any adept politics fan/nerd may have already guessed— it was largely interpreted as a campaign pledge to raise taxes, which can only go down so well with the electorate in any kind of election. At a time when many Americans were enthralled by Reagan’s libertarian and free-market economic policies, Mondale’s image as a conventional tax-and-spend liberal—which was further affirmed by those ill-judged words at the DNC—failed to appeal to many voters, and saw him criticised by some as wanting to help the poor at the expense of the middle class. It was a completely unforced error, one that Mondale could’ve avoided had he recognised the effect those words would most likely have and chosen other words instead.
In light of all of the above, the strength of the perfect storm that was about to batter the Mondale-Ferraro ticket on Election Day 1984 couldn’t have been clearer. Reagan won the largest share of the modern 538-member Electoral College, securing 525 electoral votes (to Mondale’s 13) and winning every single U.S. state with the exception of Mondale’s native Minnesota and the perennially Democratic-voting Washington, D.C. It was an unparalleled defeat, made even worse in retrospect by the fact that Mondale
had only won his traditionally Democratic-leaning home state by 0.18% (3,761 votes out of a total of 2 million votes cast). It was one of the most lopsided presidential elections in modern American history, an unfathomably bruising defeat for the Democratic Party and particularly its liberal wing (which Mondale was aligned with).
Photo: An electoral map showing the results of the 1984 U.S. presidential election—and the scale of Mondale’s defeat. (Courtesy of 270toWin.com)
But the 1984 election alone was not what bestowed upon Mondale the “dubious honour” that he is known for today amongst dedicated political (perhaps electoral) nerds like myself. Of course, the 1984 election contributed 99% of this “honour”, but the 2002 U.S. Senate election in Minnesota was what really put the cherry on top.
The 2002 election in Minnesota for one of the state’s two U.S. Senate seats was originally contested by the Democratic incumbent Paul Wellstone and the Republican challenger Norm Coleman. Wellstone was a figure of increasing national stature, helped by his progressive and populist political positions as well as his talent for grassroots organising, the latter of which had helped him (somewhat famously back then) unseat Republican incumbent Rudy Boschwitz in 1990 and fend off Boschwitz as the incumbent himself in 1996. Although Coleman was a relatively strong Republican competitor in a historically Democratic-leaning state, Wellstone generally led the polls in the run-up to the election. Then, an unexpected and shocking tragedy blindsided Minnesota, as Wellstone died in a plane crash only 11 days before the election. He had been en route to a funeral that day, having chosen to go to said funeral instead of a rally attended by fellow Democrats Mondale and Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, and had been due to debate Coleman that evening. Due to Minnesotan state law requiring that a deceased
candidate be stricken immediately from the ballot, meaning that a replacement candidate was urgently needed, Wellstone’s relatives urged Mondale to run in his place, which the former vice president accepted.
And thus, Walter Mondale, who had suffered one of the most brutal defeats in American electoral history 18 years ago, was back on the ballot in Minnesota, at the age of 74 in 2002. Ironically, the very seat that Mondale and Coleman were battling for was the very seat that Mondale himself had previously occupied prior to resigning to become Carter’s Vice President in 1977. Perhaps due to his relatively high name recognition and lingering political clout, Mondale initially led in opinion polls.
Despite this, however, there were already factors in the race that worked against him. Chief among them was the slightly decreased name recognition and political strength that he had compared to 1984; even though he had suffered a catastrophic defeat at the hands of Reagan, Mondale in 1984 was arguably the highest-profile Democrat in the nation, a household name that everyone remembered and knew of. He enjoyed the support of the Democratic Party as their presidential nominee and doubtlessly had the “favourite son” effect on his side in Minnesota (which probably played a part in keeping the North Star State blue during such a massive red wave). 18 years had elapsed since, however, and that was enough time for a new generation for youngsters to have grown up and not really had any personal recollection of Mondale as a national figure, much less an active politician; Mondale had essentially retreated entirely from frontline active politics following his 1984 loss. Although he was still every bit the liberal icon he was for Democratic insiders, it was also true that his political strength and clout—left to deteriorate after 1984—was no longer at its peak.
Photo: Paul Wellstone, whose sudden and untimely death in 2002 brought Walter Mondale back into politics. (Courtesy of Reuters)
Plus, restoring order to a shaken Democratic campaign rocked by the death of its popular candidate in 11 days’ time was an incredibly tall order, one that even an active, skilled politician would struggle with, much less someone freshly out of political retirement like Mondale. Despite all of this, Mondale still led Coleman by slim margins in opinion polls in the few days immediately after Wellstone’s death and his emergency entry into the race. What dealt a death blow to Mondale’s prospects, however, was the memorial event held for Wellstone 4 days after his death and 7 days before the election.
The memorial event for Wellstone was, unsurprisingly, largely organised by his fellow Democrats, whose shocking lack of judgement would soon become clear during the memorial itself. What the vast majority of Minnesotans expected was a nonpartisan, politically neutral commemoration of Wellstone’s life and career, organised and held with nothing short of respect for a man that had served his state honourably during his lifetime. Instead, many Democrats in attendance, including Wellstone’s campaign treasurer (though not Mondale himself, who to my understanding was not personally involved), crassly politicised the event, repeatedly asking attendees to vote for Mondale in the election 7 days later. Such was the Democrats’ politicisation of the event that some described the atmosphere as less resembling a memorial event and more reminiscent of an actual political rally. The immediate and lasting reaction from Minnesotans, including state political leadership headed by Governor Jesse Ventura, was one of unreserved disgust.
The widely panned memorial event for Paul Wellstone. (Courtesy of Reuters)
It was a major disaster for the Democrats with only a week left until election day, and due to the proximity of election day itself, the Mondale campaign could not hope that the negative publicity from the incident would blow over; there was simply not enough for that to even possibly happen. Indeed, the appalling story of a memorial event-turned-crude political rally
dominated the headlines (and by extension Minnesota voters’ minds) in the 7 days between the event and election day, completely torpedoing Mondale’s lead and severely damaging his chances of victory. On Election Day, Mondale initially led in the vote count, but Coleman eventually caught up and pulled ahead that night, defeating Mondale 49.53% to 47.34% to become Minnesota’s new junior Senator.
In his concession speech after the election result became clear, Mondale remarked, “At the end of what will be my last campaign, I want to say to Minnesota, you always treated me well, you always listened to me.” Mondale would never contest another election or seek public office ever again, passing away on 19th April, 2021. To say that he was justified in his decision would be an understatement; after all, his 2002 loss had sealed the deal and helped him achieve that “dubious honour”, which I’ve been hinting at since the beginning of this article, of becoming the only person in all of American history to lose a general election in every single one of America’s 50 states (D.C., which went for Mondale in 1984, was and still is not a state). Nevertheless, his lengthy legacy of public service, and his work improving the lives of ordinary Americans across his entire life, must be, and indeed will be, remembered with gratitude by all Americans.
Photo: Mondale concedes defeat to Coleman in the 2002 Senate election; this was to be his last campaign altogether. (Courtesy of Reuters)
Hau Tak Ng is a member of the Bede’s Senior School Class of 2025 and studied SHAPE subjects such as History, Politics and Religion & Philosophy for GCSEs and A-Levels during his time at Bede’s. He was Co-Secretary-General of the Bede’s Model United Nations (MUN) society from January 2024 to February 2025, co-leader of the Bede’s Philosophy Society from September 2023 to January 2024, and an editor for Issue 3 of the SHAPE Magazine. He is also the editor of this issue of the magazine.
Photo:
GEOGRAPHY
Discover the nuances of with an examination of overseas territories, their significance and the lives of their inhabitants by JOSEPH BERRY.
Photo: The Chagos Islands, a politically controversial British overseas territory. (Courtesy of ZDF Studios)
Joseph Berry looks into OVERSEAS TERRITORIES
The Isle of Wight is located just 3 kilometres off the British mainland, and it is safe to say that it is, and should stay, a fully integrated part of the United Kingdom. On the other hand, it would be a stretch to say that Reunion should be a fully integrated part of France, located 9,200 kilometres away from the French Mainland. Despite this, Reunion is as much a part of France as the Isle of Wight is a part of the UK.
The definition of an Overseas Territory is a region that is politically controlled by a country that is geographically distant from it. Overseas territories are often not a constituent part of the parent country, but also not a completely independent state.
In this article, I will look at a handful of overseas territories, and you can decide for yourselves whether you believe that overseas territories have a place in today’s society or if they are a thing of the past.
Firstly, I will look at 2 territories that belong to their host country due to military or strategic importance. As a result, the majority of these territories are located thousands of miles away from their parent country.
The island of Cyprus was once part of the British Empire, and when Cyprus became independent in 1960, the United Kingdom held on to two peninsulas of the island, known as Akrotiri and Dhekelia. Both areas are home to respective air bases but also include some Cypriot farms and small villages. The territory is home to about 9,000 British Military Officers and 9,000 Cypriots.
Although the main purpose of Akrotiri and Dhekelia is military in nature, the territory is also important for
Photo: Reunion, an Indian Ocean island and overseas region of France. (Courtesy of france.fr)
the BBC, as broadcasting towers in Akrotiri are used to transmit broadcasts all over the world.
The Chagos Islands, officially known as the British Indian Ocean Territory, are a group of islands in the centre of the Indian Ocean that belong to the United Kingdom. Although the Air Base is used by the US Air Force, the territory is administered by the British. The territory consists of one main island, which is where the air base is located, along with 60 small islands, which are about 50 miles away from the main island.
The Chagossian people are seeking to regain ownership of the island; however, the UK and the US are not in a hurry to leave.
Some Overseas Territories are countries, but they are not independent and are administered by a parent
Photo: The Chagos Islands, a point of recent political controversy. (Courtesy of the U.S. Navy)
country, for example, French Polynesia. Although it is a country, it is an overseas collectivity of France, meaning that it isn’t independent.
Aruba, an island in the Caribbean, is a country governed by the Kingdom of the Netherlands. This Kingdom governs four countries, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten: countries in the Caribbean, as well as the Netherlands in Europe. Very confusing, I know!
Some territories are fully integrated into the parent country, despite being located thousands of miles away from the contiguous country. A bizarre example of this is French Guiana, a part of South America, but also part of France. Technically speaking, French Guiana is as much a part of France as Paris is; it even uses the Euro as its currency. This means that France’s longest border is with Brazil, and also means that part of the European Union lies in South America.
Not only can the EU be found in South America, but parts of it are also found in the Caribbean. Bonaire is an island that is an integrated part of the Netherlands.
The Netherlands has 15 provinces, with 12 of them being in Mainland Europe, and the other three being Caribbean Islands: Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba.
The final territory I will look at is Martinique. Another French island, Martinique, is a region of France, just like Normandy or Brittany (and French Guiana). I chose to look at Martinique because our own Madame Bonheur, teacher of French, is from Martinique and spent the first 18 years of her life there. I spoke to her last week about how life was in a place that is both a part of France and the Caribbean. It was interesting speaking to her because she told me that apart from the language and religion, there was nothing really that felt French. They had their own culture, and it simply felt more Caribbean than French.
Photo: A map of the Caribbean with the location of Martinique marked clearly. (Courtesy of Encyclopaedia Britannica)
Despite this, she told me that the majority of people in Martinique have no desire for independence because French governance gives them more opportunities, such as travel, and further education on the French mainland, and no real disadvantages. There have been many referendums regarding independence in Martinique, with the latest being in 2010, but every time, an overwhelming majority of people wish to remain French. A simultaneous referendum in French Guiana had a similar outcome.
(Further reflections by Mme. Bonheur were expressed in an interview, the contents of which were transcribed and are available upon request.)
Joseph Berry is a Lower Fifth pupil in Dicker. Among his GCSE subjects are SHAPE subjects such as History and Geography.
Credits
Editor
Contributors
Art and Graphics
Hau Tak Ng
Pippa Nunn
Mason Tahiri
Nithil Kongala Liyanage
Immy Oscroft
Peyton Jacobs
Jack Napier
Sami Kazic
Hau Tak Ng
Joseph Berry
Ming Sum Ng (front cover illustration)
Hau Tak Ng (typesetting, formatting, design, cutline writing)
Jack Napier (select photography)
Teacher Advisers
Mr J Whitaker
Mr L Davies
Special Thanks
Mme A Bonheur
All typography set in Owners Text
WANNA WRITE FOR THE SHAPE MAGAZINE?
The SHAPE Magazine always welcomes any and all pupils who are interested in contributing any number of articles.
There are only two conditions we place on articles for the magazine:
1. The topic being written about must be related to at least one of the SHAPE subjects in some way—History, Politics, Business & Economics, Religion & Philosophy or Geography. (Articles on topics related to two or more of these subjects are welcome!)
2. The article(s) must be intellectually inquisitive—meaning that it must be fuelled by curiosity and a passion for exploring the world from a SHAPE perspective!
If you think your next big idea meets these two conditions and you’re a great fit for the magazine, please do email our teacher advisors at james.whitaker@bedes.org or luke. davies@bedes.org to ask to join the team for the next issue!