Shinto, Christianity, and the Religious Power Struggle in Meiji Japan – Felix Bodsworth
The Pope vs. The Crown: The Investiture Controversy of the 11th–12th Century – Lilia Golebiowska
The Church of England’s Enduring Legacy of Power and Influence – Sohan Patel
How the Printing Press Revolutionised ChristianityAcross Europe – Arjun Patel
Were Henry VIII’s ministers selfish?- Neel Bhatt
2. Religion as a Source of Conflict- pg. 19
Causes of the Salem Witch Trials- – Liberty Oldroyd-Elliott
How 400 Years of Religious Tension Shaped the Troubles – Zachary Oladuji
From Pelham to Palmerston: The Campaign for Jewish Emancipation in the UK – Alexander Wasserstein
Salah ad-Din: Justice and Unity in the Islamic World – Ibrahim Mohammed
Rebellion and Religion: Unravelling the Causes of the 1857 Indian Mutiny – Zayna Sunka
3. Religion in Nation-Building and National Identity- pg. 36
The Holy Roman Empire: Was It Holy? – Samuel Frangi
The Influence of Faith in the Founding of the United States – Aarav Ruparelia
The Loss of an Imperial British Identity and Search for a National Story in a Post-Colonial World –Seb Maltz
WhatAbout the NativeAmericans? Bridging the Rift Between Westward Expansion and the American Ideologies of Liberty – Dan Grenfell
La Serenissima: The ‘Perfect’Medieval Nation? – Aadi Bagchi
Liberation Theory – Sophia Bennett
The Influence of Catholicism on the Franco Regime – Isabella Patel
Revolutionary Reverberations: The 1789 French Revolution and Its Influence on the Rise of the Roman Republic – Harman Sandhu
4. Miscellaneous pg. 53
What is Evil? IsAnyone Born Evil? – Issie Ridgeway
Hitler’s Propaganda Games – Aimee Porter
Why Did Napoleon Bonaparte Win So Many Battles? – Lucas Argent
What Were the Implications of Gerald Ford’s Pardoning of Nixon over the Watergate Scandal? – Alex Diefenbacher
ShouldAnyone BeAshamed of Their Nation’s History and be Proud of It? – Lilia Golebiowska
Shinto, Christianity, and the Religious Power Struggle in Meiji Japan
Felix Bodsworth Yr 11
The earliest evidence of religion in Japan is that of a magic-related ritualistic spiritual tradition.As time passed, this gradually evolved into Shinto, as it was overtaken as a religion, and a way of life, by Confucianist ethics, and the growth of Buddhism in the country. Moving into the 1200s, Buddhism prospered, with new sects that still dominate Japanese Buddhism today, like Zen and Pure Land Buddhism arising. However, this periodofreligious growth for Buddhism wassoonthrownintoturmoil by civil wars under the name of the Buddha countrywide, leading to many Japanese people to begin turning to other, international, sources of employment. Now, the floodgates were opened, and Christianity made its first few steps, via Roman Catholic and Jesuit Missionaries, into a brave new world.
While this new ‘Kirishitan’sect of religion appealed to many, especially the poor, it would not last. In 1637, after a Roman Catholic rebellion, Christians in Japan were either forced to denounce their faith or were expelled. The policy of seclusion then took place, cutting Japan off from the rest of the world, further tightening Buddhism and neo-Confucianism's grip on the country.
However, that would all change. In 1853, Matthew Perry and his black ships forced the opening of Japan’s borders, ending the isolation period of Japanese history. This heralded the end of the Tokugawa Shogunate, with imperialistic power eventually being restored in 1868, under the Meiji Restoration. With the sudden, drastic change in government, a drastic change in attitude to religion was due as well. WhiletheTokugawaregime hadrelied mainly onneo-Confucianism for moral thinking,and Buddhism, to prevent the spread of Christianity into Japan, the Meiji government was focused on the subsidy of the Japanese folk religion of Shinto into a method of power
On the surface, the Meiji government could be seen as progressive in terms of freedom of religion, due to its lifting of the edict banning Christianity, and the 1889 constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. However, these were largely due to pressure from Western powers, and the regime’s real goal soon became clear.
The first step to Shinto becoming a national religion in as religiously diverse a country as 1868 Japan was the elimination of the immediate competition. As such, 1870 heralded the Haibutsu Kishaku,
Exterminate Buddhism Policy – thousands of temples were destroyed across the country, eliciting rage fromthepopulation,withriotsin1872.Theseweresomewhatsuccessful,astheytriggeredthereplacing of the Department of Shinto with the Ministry of Religion and Education. The effect was very much still the same though, as the new ministry, like the Department of Shinto, advocated for the growth of patriotism and the emperor cult, but also for the all-important reverence of Shintoism and its deities, no matter your religion.
Shintowasnotopenforaclearruntothehelmofthecountry’sreligiousconsciencethough,asChristian missionaries, and those who had hidden their faith in Japan, especially in the city of Kyushu, during the Shogunate, were now voraciously converting. Protestantism and Roman Orthodoxy were making advances; Christian universities such as the Sapporo Agricultural College were being established, and hundreds of Churches popped up across the country. This growing following was strengthened with the growing popularity of Western intellectuals, displacing Confucianism, such as Darwin, Voltaire, and John Stuart Mill.
However, the two growing traditions in Japan now clashed, as Christianity became seemingly incompatible with the Meiji government’s ideals of a nationwide Shinto tradition that surpassed the normal boundaries a religion might follow. By the late 1880s through to the early 1890s, the government, and Shinto, began to fight back against the influence of Christianity, as religious teachings in schools were banned, except for Shinto, which was instead defined as a patriotic cult, and hence was a moral teaching applicable to all religions, so was allowed. Soon this mere allowance of Shinto teachings in school was made compulsory, along with paying reverence to Shinto shrines, no matter the religion.
As the 20th century rolled in, and Japan developed further socially, a clear battle grew; social justice, western thinking, and western religious ideals such as Christianity, against traditional, nationalistic ideals, in other words, Shinto. The tradition had by the 1930s been made into a byword for the imperialistic, traditional and expansionist nation that Japan had become. Japan’s entry into the AntiCominternPactonlysolidifiedthisandledtoevenmorepressurebeingputonotherreligions,especially Roman Catholicism, to accept Shinto as a way of thinking almost above other religions, in its own category.
The final blow in the power struggle between Shinto and Christianity came in 1939, in the Religious Bodies Law, whichallowedthegovernment to controlall aspect ofeachreligion inJapan,andnarrowed both Christianity and Buddhism by trying to unite their sects. Despite this, State Shintoism was finally defeated by the defeat of Japan in World War Two, as theAllies took control.
Throughout the Meiji period of Japan, a fascinating social development took place, as a country with strong traditional values different to anywhere else in the world was exposed to the rest of the world, 200 years on from where they had left it. Religion was one of the most significant indicators of this battle that took place socially, which still affects the country now: interestingly, 68% of Japanese people identify as Buddhist, and 71% as a believer in Shinto, illustrating the effectiveness of the Meiji government’s elevation of Shintoism abovea religion aswe would know it, aspeople feel abletofollow Shinto and another religion. Research suggests, though, that both Christianity and Shintoism are on a downward trend in Japan, perhaps a reflection of a modern version of the social war seen in the Meiji period, except this time fought on social media.
The Pope vs. The Crown: The Investiture Controversy of the 11th–12th Century
Lilia Golebiowska Yr 12
Over the past few decades, people around the world have watched the election of new popes with great anticipation - and on May 7, 2025, that excitement led to the election of Pope Leo XIV. Today, the appointment of Church leaders is carefully controlled within the Vatican, free from outside political influence. However, this has not always been the case. During medieval Europe, the appointment of bishops and abbots was deeply political. Kings and emperors often claimed the right to choose these Church officials, which led to serious conflicts with the Church.The most famous of these disputes was the Investiture Controversy in the 11th and 12th centuries, when Pope Gregory VII and Emperor Henry IV clashed over who held the authority to appoint Church leaders. This conflict was more than a religious disagreement; it was a major struggle for power between spiritual and political authorities. Both sides had strong reasons for their positions, but the Church’s argument ultimately won out, influencingthe balance between Churchand statefor centuries.This article will explore the background of the conflict, the arguments of both the pope and the emperor, the outcome, and why the pope’s position proved stronger.
In medieval Europe, religion and politics were closely linked. The Church was not only a spiritual institution but also a major political power, owning land, collecting taxes, and governing large areas. Bishops and abbots played key roles in both religious and political life, often acting as local rulers and advisers to kings.As a result of their influence, kings and emperors wanted to control the appointment of these Church leaders, a practice known as lay investiture. However, by the 11th century, many in the Church believed this system encouraged corruption, as bishops were often appointed for political reasons rather than spiritual qualifications. Church reformers, led by Pope Gregory VII, sought to end this practice and free the Church from secular interference.
Pope Gregory VII argued strongly that only the Church had the right to appoint its leaders. In 1075, he issued the Dictatus Papae, a document asserting that the pope held supreme authority, even over kings and emperors. Gregory believed that if kings continued to appoint bishops, the Church would lose its spiritual integrity and become corrupted. When Emperor Henry IV defied this by appointing bishops himself, Gregory responded by excommunicating Henry, cutting him off from the Church. Excommunication was a powerful weapon, as it threatened a person’s soul and legitimacy. In 1077, Henry famously travelled to Canossa, barefoot and begging for forgiveness, highlighting the pope’s immense influence. Gregory’s goal was to protect the Church’s independence so that spiritual authority came only from God and the pope, not from secular rulers.
Emperor Henry IV, however, saw the issue differently. He believed kings had the right to appoint bishops because these officials helped govern the empire. Bishops controlled vast lands and maintained order, so having loyal leaders was essential for the emperor to rule effectively. Henry also argued that kings had appointed bishops for centuries, and as God’s chosen ruler on earth, he had a sacred right to continue this practice. When Gregory excommunicated him, Henry even appointed his own rival pope, showing his refusal to accept the pope’s claims to authority. From Henry’s perspective, the pope’s insistence on independence was a direct threat to royal power and the stability of the empire.
The conflict lasted for decades, marked by civil wars and competing popes, until 1122, when Pope Calixtus II and Emperor Henry Vreached the Concordat of Worms. This agreement was a compromise: the Church would have the exclusive right to choose bishops and invest them with spiritual authority, but the emperor retained the right to grant them temporal, or political, authority in his lands. While
neither side achieved a complete victory, the Concordat clearly established that spiritual appointments belonged to the Church. This was a major step toward the separation of Church and state.
Although the emperor had valid concerns about governing his empire, his argument was largely based on preserving political power. The pope’s focus was on reforming the Church and stopping corruption. By asserting the Church’s independence, Gregory VII helped make the Church a stronger and more respected institution. The long-term effects of the pope’s victory were significant: it limited secular interference in Church matters, helped end the sale of Church offices, and introduced the important principle that spiritual and political powers should be separate. Even though emperors sometimes wielded greater military power, the Church’s success in the Investiture Controversy fundamentally changed European politics for centuries.
Inconclusion,theInvestitureControversywasadefiningmomentinEuropeanhistory.Itwasnotsimply a personal fight between a pope and an emperor but a larger struggle that shaped the relationship between religion and politics. While both sides had compelling reasons, the Church’s argument for spiritual independence ultimately prevailed. This conflict helped establish the idea that religious authority should be free from political control - an idea that still influences how governments and churches interact today. Modern papal elections, conducted solely by Church officials without outside political influence, reflect the legacy of this historic struggle.
The Church of England’s Enduring Legacy of Power and Influence
Sohan Patel Yr 11
TheChurchofEnglandwasadominantinstitutionthroughout BritishHistory,withitscloserelationship with the state, it had a prominent role in English society even throughout Britain’s tumultuous periods of political instability. However, it particularly stood out in times of vulnerability, secularism and pluralism, showcasing its strength.
Henry VIII’s ‘break from Rome’is undoubtedly one of the most monumental events in British History. Before the Reformation, the English state was Catholic dominant and so it was a huge surprise when Henry VIII proclaimed himself head of the Church. This was driven by his desire to annul his marriage with Catherine of Aragon and to gain the monarchy power. This was significant as it marked a shift from Papacy Rule and a theocratic system to more of a state-controlled national church. It was here when religion served political aims. The 1534 ‘Act of Supremacy’ was a prime example of this, as it declared Henry the ‘Supreme Head of the Church of England’. Therefore the reformation was a process that Henry VIII used to obtain religious authority and use it to increase his political influence. The Dissolution of the Monasteries saw Henry inhibit Catholic power and use the wealth they had to contribute to his new-found religious empire. During this new era, Parliament legitimised the taking of their wealth by passing laws that allowed the Dissolution andAct of Succession. Their actions ensured that England had a state-controlled religion and the parliamentary support of the King’s actions. Therefore, Henry VIII was able to consolidate his power using the power of religion to exert his influence, simultaneously starting a longer-term battle between Protestantism and Catholicism.
Later on in the Tudor era, the monarchy’s roles in shaping religious policy greatly increased. Henry’s successor, Edward VI spent his childhood in a Protestant household and played an important role in the Protestant Reformation. One example is the Book of Common Prayer in 1549, authored byArchbishop Thomas Cranmer. The ‘Acts of Uniformity’made it mandatory for the ‘Book of Common Prayer’to be in every church.Also, by replacing Catholic rituals in churches like Latin Mass, it promoted Protestant theology and further strengthened the power of the monarch over the Church.These were the Protestant reforms that truly consolidated the monarchy’s influence over England. However, it was Mary I who saw Catholicism as the true Christian faith and sought to restore England to papal authority. She achieved this by legislative reforms such as the ’First Statuate of Repeal’ in 1553 which annulled EdwardVI’slegislaturewhilstremovingherfather’sreligiousreformation.Thiswaspivotal inrestoring English religious practices with Roman Catholic scriptures once again. To consolidate this reform, she reconciled with Pope Julius III, leading to England’s formal reunion with Rome and nullified her father’s excommunications. More famously, she reinstated the Heresy Acts which saw the burning of 284 protestants, including figures such as Thomas Cranmer. However, these unintentionally fuelled Protestant popularity in some parts of England. When Elizabeth I took over, England was divided between Protestants and Catholics due to her predecessors’ actions. To fix this, she introduced the Religious Settlement of 1559, which included the ‘Act of Supremacy’, re-establishing her control over the Church. She became Supreme Governor, and part of her role included her introducing the Act of Uniformity. This included mostly Protestant worship in England with elements of Catholicism which appeased both parties, something different than her predecessors. This ‘religious nationalism’ brought together Anglicanism with England’s identity, unifying the nation whilst re-instating the monarchy’s authority.This was significant as her ‘neutrality’arguably preventedcivil war between the two religious sides. Overall, the Tudor monarchs’ various acts and reforms conveyed the volatility of religion in
England during the 16th and 17th century, yet representing the huge power that religion brought to politics, with certain policies setting the stage for later religious and political struggles.
Moreover, it wasn’t until the late 1600s untilAnglicandominance truly reflected the absolute monarchy in England. The Divine Right of Kings was a political and religious doctrine in Europe that reached its peak under King James I. It assured that monarchs were appointed by God and if questioned, would be challenging God himself. This was a crucial time period for the Church as it strengthened the Monarchy’s authority over the Church. This period saw the prominence of absolute monarchy and led to the Monarchs’being justified to clash with Parliament.Aprime example being the Stuart, Charles I, leading to the English Civil War in 1642, which saw Oliver Cromwell challenging the notion of the King being chosen by God. The idea undermined the Church’s independence as it couldn’t operate independently. Stuart monarchs took advantage of this and used the Church to further shape their religious policy in England to benefit their reign. Despite this, the Church maintained significant influence even during England’s shift to parliamentary democracy. After the Glorious Revolution, parliamentary sovereignty strengthened, reducing the monarchs powers. The Bill of Rights in 1689 demonstrated the growth of secularism. However, the legal system of England was shaped byAnglican beliefs. For example, education, marriage and ecclesiastical courts overseeing cases. Furthermore, it became a key symbol of England’s identity.The monarch being the Supreme Governor meant that there was more unity between the constitutional monarchy and Church than seen previously. Overall, the Stuart era, like the Tudor era, saw the volatility in the relationship between the state and Church. However, with the power of the monarchy and church fading, the symbol and identity of the Church remained a key part of England.
During the 19th and 20th centuries, the Industrial Revolution saw the rapid change of society, shifting focusawayfrom religiontotheexpandingBritishEmpireandreligiouspluralism.However,asBritain’s expansionism increased, the Church was pivotal in efforts to spread Anglicanism to foreigners. For example, the church aimed to convert locals and build churches, things that gained criticism due to the supporting of imperialism and degrading of natives. A landmark moment being in 1869 with the disestablishment of the Irish Church, showing the growth in secularism and reduction in popularity duringthemodernera.Inthe modern era,the clash between secularism andreligious nationalism sparks an important debate about its political relevance. With King Charles III still named ‘Defender of the Faith’, it is obvious thatAnglicanism is engrained into British society. Despite this, the Church plays a significantly lower role in today’s society and doesn’t have a role in state policy like it used to. This is partly due to the variation in culture in England, with many different faiths and cultures however the Church is still a ceremonial symbol and involved in charitable works.
In conclusion, the Church of England has been a powerful institution and an important emblem in British history, remaining stable in times of uncertainty and turmoil. Its power peaked during the Tudor era where monarchs used it to exert their influence. This continued through reigns of monarchs that sought to use it for power yet its symbolic importance remained intact. However, with the industrialisation of Britain and popularity of secularism, the Church’s political power diminished. Yet, Anglicanism is a pivotal part of the national identity, having a great presence in public life even as the state’s power fluctuated.
How the Printing Press Revolutionised Christianity Across Europe
Arjun Patel Yr 9
During the mid-15th century, the German inventor Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press; an event that changed Christianity forever. Before its invention, all books had to be copied by handmaking them very expensive and rare. Due to this, access to religious knowledge and texts such as the Bible was limited to members of the clergy and scholars, giving the Catholic Church significant control over how Christianity was taught. However, with the creation of the printing press, religious texts –especiallytheBible-becamemuchmoreaccessibletothepublic,significantlychangingthewaypeople practised and viewed their faith. This revolution led to the Protestant Reformation, whilst also challenging the power of the Catholic Church - reshaping Christianity all over Europe.
Before the printing press, the Catholic Church controlled nearly all religious knowledge and texts. The Bible was written in Latin, a language which only scholars and educated clergy could understand, leaving Christians reliant on priests to translate and read it for them. Scriptures were copied with quills and ink by scribes or monks; a slow and expensive process. A single Bible could take months or even years to produce, meaning only the wealthiest individuals and organisations could afford these rare books. By restricting the public’s access to Christian knowledge, the Church increased its power and influence over the population and discouraged people from making their own interpretations of the Bible. However, the printing press completely transformed how religious knowledge could be spread, as books and scriptures could be quickly printed in large quantities, making them much cheaper and moreaccessibletosociety.ThismeantthattheBible,whichwaspreviouslyonlyavailabletorichfigures and groups, could now be accessed by a much larger range of people due to its lowered cost of production. Furthermore, the printing press allowed the Bible to be translated into sleveral languages such as German, English and French, as opposed to solely Latin. This meant that for the first time; Christiansallover EuropecouldreadandinterprettheBiblethemselvesratherthanrelyingontheclergy and priests, reducing the Church’s influence over the Christian community. Instead, it encouraged
people to form their own beliefs, as well as giving people an opportunity to spread their thoughts in the form of books all over Europe.
In 1517, a German monk named Martin Luther wrote the Ninety-Five Theses, a list of arguments that questioned and criticised the Catholic Church for encouraging Christians to pay money as a form of repenting for their sins. Before the printing press, texts like this may have been contained to a small, local community by the Church, since there was no method of spreading them on a larger scale. However, due to the printing press, Luther’s words quickly reached tens of thousands of people in a very short time, including every village in Germany within two weeks. Additionally, Luther translated the Bible into German, allowing tens of thousands more to read it for themselves. His belief that Christianity should be practised based on the words of the Bible rather than how the Church taught it became a fundamental part of Protestantism, and as more people began to read holy texts in their own languages, they began to question traditional Catholic teachings. This led to several Protestant movements in several countries such as Germany, Switzerland and England.
In addition to spreading Martin Luther’s ideas, the printing press also supported other Protestant Reformation leaders such as John Calvin in Switzerland and William Tyndale in England. Calvin used the press to print books, pamphlets, and treatises that criticised Catholic doctrines, whilst Tyndale used it to print thousands of small new copies of the New Testament which he translated into English from Greek. These copies were then mass-produced and smuggled into England, with up to 16,000 copies being in circulation.Across Europe, similar events were taking place, reducing the public’s reliance on the Catholic Church.
The introduction of printed texts to society encouraged people to discuss religious theories and beliefs in ways that had never been possible before. Religious debate and critical thinking were encouraged by the distribution of Protestant texts, further fuelling the Reformation. Protestantism, which, without the printing press, would have remained a small movement, became a major part of European Christianity, and led to new branches of Christianity, such as Lutheranism, Calvinism, andAnglicanism.
The Catholic Church viewed the printing press as a threat to its authority. In response, it established the Index of Prohibited Books, a list of banned writings which included any books by Protestant authors, or any text that promoted Protestant views. Church authorities also burned books they considered heretical or against orthodox Christianity. However, the Church failed to efficiently suppress the spread of these texts as the printing press allowed them to be produced faster than they could be destroyed. During the mid-16th century, the Catholic Church launched the Counter-Reformation, aiming to regain followers and reform its practises. However, by this time, Protestantism had spread all over Europe and could no longer be contained or controlled. The printing press had already fundamentally changed Christianity, and Europe was now permanently divided into Catholic and Protestant regions.
In conclusion, the invention of the printing press revolutionised Christianity in Europe by significantly decreasing the Catholic Church’s control and authority over religious knowledge whilst simultaneously facilitating the rapid spread of Protestant ideas. It empowered Christians all over Europe to form their own beliefs and interpretations of the Bible by making it accessible to the public in multiple languages, whichultimatelyledtotheformationofProtestantism.This technological advancement played acrucial role in one of the most significant religious movements in history which would go on to reshape Christianity forever, whilst setting the stage for the diverse religion that Christianity is today.
Were Henry VIII’s Ministers Selfish?
Neel Bhatt Yr 12
In this article, I am going to show how even though both Wolsey and Cromwell made decisions which benefitted themselves, they were both reliant on the King’s judgement and had to perform the will of the King. This shows that trying to serve themselves would have been limited, as it would have had to have been consistent with the wishes of King HenryVIII; therefore, the King’s ministers had not served themselves better than theyserved HenryVIII.Thethree mainfactors whichshowthisareGovernment, Foreign Policy and Religion.
The most significant factor is how they served the King in terms of finance. On the one hand, they served themselves particularly well. This is shown very clearly through how Wolsey became the richest man in England by 1529. This shows that as much as he served the King and helped increase the Crown earnings, he had also increased his own. The Crown were also in need of money, which is why there was a push for benevolences, which were introduced in 1522, as well as the Amicable Grant of 1525, which shows that even with the need for forced loans for the King due to financial struggles, yet, by 1529, Wolsey was the richest man in England. That shows that he was serving himself better than he was serving Henry VIII. This is because when he tried to implement the Amicable Grant of 1525, he humiliated the King and his council, all while there was continued financial struggle, with Wolsey benefitting financially.
Wolsey had also become known as ‘alter rex’, which means other King, which shows the extent of the power that he gained as minister under Henry VIII. He had become so dominant in governing the country for Henry VIII, he had become very powerful. This shows that even though Wolsey helped Henry, he served himself a lot better, due to how he was one of the most rich and powerful men in the country. However, Wolsey was extremely effective for Henry VIII in being able to distance Henry VIII away from the nobility and their power. This is shown through the Star Chamber and the introduction of equity law. This allowed for those of low birth to have equal chances of winning a court case as the nobility and the high born. This encouraged more people to go to the Star Chamber for court cases, meaning that they were able to bring in more money for the Crown. This is significant because it is a way for there to be a clear dominance of power for the Crown. Not only this, but this had meant that the nobility had less power against the King. It also created a lot of animosity towards Wolsey. The nobility already resented Wolsey due to how he was the King’s minister; however, he was not a part of the gentry or nobility.This shows that Wolsey served the King better than he served himself, due to how the King benefitted financially from the Star Chamber, as well as greater control over the nobility. It
Cromwell
Wolsey
was a way to make sure that the nobility did not abuse their power. This is what the King wanted to be able to extend his power.
As well as this, Cromwell also served himself better than he had served Henry VIII. It is clear that Cromwell wanted to rise in power under Henry VIII. He was a member of Wolsey’s household in 1516, and by 1519 had become a member of Wolsey’s council. This rise in power could suggest that he did look out for himself and did what he could for the betterment of his own self. Cromwell did not want to set up a despotic monarchy. He flattered the King and used devotional language about the monarchy and the Crown; however, he based his work on the upbringing of Parliamentary power. Cromwell was also known for enjoying his wealth, similarly to Wolsey, which shows how they used their power to benefit themselves financially.They both came from poor backgrounds, potentially abusing their power to increase their own wealth, which they didn’t have before. However, Cromwell was extremely beneficial for the King. Following the dissolving of the monasteries, Henry VIII possessed between 1,000 and 1,200 paid offices of a gentleman’s standing, which was comparable to that which Francis I had access to, which was 4,000. This shows that with this came more stability, both financially and politically, due to there being steady income, as well as greater extension of power for the King. This shows that Cromwell had in fact served the King better than he served himself, as he delivered the King with greater short-term stability.
Another significant factor is the King’s ministers’approach to Foreign Policy. When Henry came to the throne, he was a very ambitious King with an ambitiousforeign policy.Wolseytaught Henrythat power can also come from alliances as well as through war. This is shown through the Field of Cloth of Gold in 1529. This was organised by Wolsey purely as a celebration and display of power from both sides, after an alliance between Henry VIII and Francis I. The Field of Cloth of Gold cost between £15,000 to £20,000, which shows how significant of an event this is. However, after this event, when there were talks of war in 1521 between France and Spain, Wolsey made sure that Henry was on the winning side. Charles had the greater resources, and so in 1522, Charles and Henry eventually allied against Francis. This shows that Wolsey’s foreign policy was to benefit the King and to keep him amongst the most powerful leaders in Europe. This shows that it was a necessity for Wolsey to do what would benefit the King and what served him better. Even though Wolsey still benefitted from doing so, he had further improved the King’s stature on a global stage than he benefitted himself.
However, the governing of domestic issues, such as the Eltham Ordinances, is an example of how Wolsey served himself better than he served the King. Wolsey was driven by his own paranoia that he would lose power if there wasn’t an adjustment in the structure of the council. There were men who grew closer to the King and had grown in power due to their wealth as well. The Eltham Ordinances dismissed these men, who were a part of the grooms of the privy chamber. It was downsized from twelve to six.The Eltham Ordinances was a way forWolsey to hold onto absolute power.The King was increasingly getting involved with state affairs, which meant that Wolsey’s power was diminishing. Wolsey abused his power as minister to be able to hold onto his control. This shows that he served himself better than he served the King. This is also shown through the fact that the King had in fact reinstated some of the dismissed courtiers into the privy chamber, which shows that he disagreed with the actions of Wolsey, which emphasises how the Ordinances of Eltham were serving Wolsey better than the King himself.
Another way which shows that Cromwell served the King better than he served himself is through the fall of Cromwell. This came about after the failure over the Anne of Cleves marriage. Henry was reluctant to be married toAnne of Cleves because Henry only remained in the marriage because of the alliance it brought to go against Catholic forces Francis I and CharlesV. However, this had reconciled
by the time the marriage took place, so there was no longer the political reason upholding the marriage. This marriage was annulled and embarrassing for Henry. This had been used against Cromwell by his enemies in court. This shows that by pursuing stability on a European scale, due to potential Catholic alliances, he was aiming to uphold the King’s authority in Europe, which caused his own fall. However, the drive for Protestantism rooted from Cromwell, demonstrating how it was an issue that he caused by trying to push his own religious agenda. This shows that it actually was Cromwell aiming to serve himself better than serving the King.
Another crucial point is Religion, where both ministers had opposing approaches to religion. The fall of Wolsey demonstrates how he served the King better than he served himself. This is because of the fact that Wolsey had driven for the King’s Great Matter to be completed and for the King to get his annulment. Wolsey was not able to attend the Treaty of Cambrai in 1529 because he was preoccupied with the King’s annulment. He attempted to work with Cardinal Campeggio to try and achieve what the King desired. Wolsey was trying to balance the King’s desire to be able to get his annulment, which would allow for him to have a male heir who could claim the throne instead of his daughter, Princess Mary.As well as this, he aimed to make sure that Henry VIII remained on the global power stage. This had brought about his fall, which shows that the fall of Wolsey came about as a cause of Wolsey trying to serve the King in the best way possible, proving that he was serving the King better than serving himself. However, Wolsey used religion as a way to gain more power, both on the international stage and domestically. Wolsey used Henry as a way to carry out the will of the Pope. This meant that he was able to become a Papal Legate, and did so in 1518. This augmented his status and placed him on par with many of the European rulers, showing that Wolsey served himself better than he served the King, because he improved his own livelihood, from being a man of the middling sort to being one of the most powerful men in Europe.This showsthatWolseyimproved his own power more than heimproved the power of King Henry VIII.
Cromwell was instrumental for the King in terms of religion. He orchestrated the break with Rome, which reduced the power of the Pope to the Bishop in Rome. Cromwell implements an effective use of hostile labelling, which aids Henry’s anti-papal propaganda. This is crucial for being able to promote the break with Rome, allowing for the King to be the head of the Church. His subjects were taught to regard him as ‘patriot king’ as a way to build the idea of the Church of England, rather than just the Church in England. This shows that Cromwell served the King better than he served himself, because his main motivation for the break with Rome was to satisfy the needs of the King, which was the annulment with Catherine ofAragon. The Dissolution boosted Crown finances through Crown treasury gaining £1.3 million. The money from annual monastic revenues had been redirected to the Crown, which stood at £160,000 per annum. This shows that King Henry VIII reaped significant rewards from the break with Rome and the Dissolution ofthe Monasteries, due to freedom fromPapal control, as well asanincreasedannualfinancial gain.EventhoughCromwellsoughttofurtherhisownreligiousagenda, it served the interests of Henry as well. This is through the annulment of his own marriage, as well as being the Head of the Church of England. This shows that Wolsey’s religious pursuits were dependent on fulfilling the will of the King as well. However, Wolsey’s religious policies could have isolated the King, and created significant enemies in court as well as Catholic European rulers, such as Charles V. This would have meant that he would have had powerful Catholic opposition within his own country. This shows how this could have harmed Henry, due tothe instability furthering a Protestant reformation could have caused.Towards the end of the reign, HenryVIII reversed some of the policies and had even reasserted traditional Catholic beliefs in 1543 with the Six Articles Act. This shows that Cromwell served himself better than he served the King, because if it weren’t for a sudden shift in approach, there could have been greater instability for Henry.
In conclusion, while both Wolsey and Cromwell sought to increase their own power and wealth, their actions were restricted by the will of the King. Wolsey’s financial and legal policies strengthened royal
authority in England, as well as the fact that Cromwell’s religious reforms allowed for the King to be free to act without the constraints of the Pope’s permission, as well as an expansion of power after the dissolution of the monasteries. Their eventual loss of power is evidence to show how they had to serve the King better than they served themselves, due to how they had driven to satisfy King Henry VIII’s will. Therefore showing how Henry’s Ministers served him better than they served themselves.
Causes of the Salem witch hunts and trials
Liberty Oldroyd- Elliott Yr 9
The Salem witch trials between the years 1692 and 1693 were fuelled by mass hysteria and the fear of the supernatural. However, there is more to these trials and hunts than there may seem. The cycle of accusation then persecution led to devastating consequences, societal distrust and the deep emotional trauma for the victims’ families. To fully understand this dark chapter in Salem’s history, we must examine closely the root causes of the hunt that lead to the unnecessary murder of many individuals.
Let us set the scene. Alargely agricultural society, governed by Puritan church officials that controlled every aspect of their life.Women had little purpose or value in society and were perceived to be morally weaker, and likely to be tempted by Satan. The justice system was incredibly biased, with evidence for theaccusedpartybeingguiltyincluding,visionsanddreams.Anunjust systemruledSalem duringthese times, that clearly was out to marginalise women.
One cause of the trials and hunts were the tensions and the divide between folks in Salem Village and Salem town. In Salem village, it was a more rural, extreme puritan, and poorer society, compared to the wealthy, more modern, commercial society of Salem town. The people living closer to the border supported the liberal ways of life and so lead to the divide of Salem village. The conflicting interests of the citizens of the village led to folk in the conservative side to throw accusations of witchcraft against suspicious parties. It was more than just a struggle over who held power in Salem, or which side controlled economic growth; it was a deeper moral conflict over how far religious authority should govern daily life. As the conservative community grew to be more sceptical and dubious about the commercial side of the village, hostilities began to emerge, in the form of accusations of witchcraft, an obvious disguise of the real fear of the new daily life and culture developing on the other side of the village.
Another cause of these witch hunts and trials was the economic decline due to food shortages and the little ice age from the 1400s to the 1800s. This period of history was characterised by severe, harsh weather conditions and bleak climate. However, the most extreme cold spell of this era occurred just before and through the witch hunts and trials. It was a recurring event that whenever terrible things should happen, the devil would be the scapegoat. This is also true for the food and crop failures, where the community collectively decided that women made pacts with the devil to gain supernatural powers. It was a common belief that witches destroyed food production and caused bad weather. The economic hardships that the village experienced led to superior religious powers targeting the weaker members
of society, women.Traditionally consideredto be physically, mentally andmorallyinferior to men, they were more susceptible to be corrupted by the devil. Women were the scapegoat of the economic difficulties as they were “followers of the devil”. This senseless idea that women of the village caused extreme conditions due to being possessed by the devil was nonsensical and a response to the fear and desperation that the villagers felt, as the future of their village was not certain, if the “little ice age” was to continue.
Finally, a slightly more obscure cause of the mass hysteria that swept across Salem was ergotism. A disease caused by a fungus that happens in grains, like rye. Due to the agrarian nature of Salem, this would be quite possible. The infected would hallucinate and be in trances. The accused witches most likely displayed symptoms like these. Medicine in that era was not advanced and new diseases or infections would be labelled bewitchment. The lack of medicine led to the disease spreading or more witches, as the symptoms were very much like the presumed witchcraft that affected the girls.Although not publicly accepted, this theory could be a modern-day explanation to the fear of witches in Salem, yet the social and political climate of Salem village should be deemed the key causes. Ergotism is rather the catalyst to the anxieties of the conservative villagers.
Overall, the political, social and economic circumstances before the trials most certainly led to the mass hysteria that controlled Salem. It was surely a calculated attack against women, a response and coping mechanism to the hardships the people of Salem faced. These witch hunts left behind anguish and exposed flaws in the justice system, yet religious extremism persisted the test of the witch trials and so did the suppression of women’s rights, for many generations to come.
How 400 Years of Religious Tension Shaped the Troubles
Zachary Oladuji Yr 10
The deadly conflict known as the Troubles took place in Northern Ireland between the late 1960s and 1998. Despite being one of the relatively lesser-known conflicts of the 20th century, it had and continues to have a huge impact on Irish and British history. Even for those familiar with it, it is often seen as a political conflict, overlooking the fact that its origins were deeply rooted in the religious animosity between Catholics and Protestants, which was imposed by English conquest and upheld by legislation and prejudice. Over 400 years, this theological separation laid the foundation for the conflict that would later be known as the Troubles by fostering long-lasting inequality, hardening nationalist sentiment, and making political compromise nearly impossible.
It could be argued that the Protestant Reformation sowed the seeds of religious strife in Ireland. Henry VIII notably split from the Catholic church in the 1530s because of their anti-divorce stance, something he was notoriously guilty of in an attempt to end his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. However, Ireland, which was largely ruled by the English at the time, maintained strong Catholic sentiment. Ireland resisted conversion, even after English monarchs such as Henry VIII and Elizabeth I attemptedtoenforce Protestantism throughlaw and military intervention. The Plantation of Ulster, a planned colonisation of the Ulster region (that largely resembles modern-day Northern Ireland), eventually took place under the reign of James VI and I of Scotland and England. To create an artificial Protestant majority in Ulster, Protestant settlers from England and Scotland took territory from native Irish Catholic lords. Due to this, the idea of Protestant privilege and Catholic dispossession became deeply ingrained in cultural thought, creating hatred that would last generations.
Legal discrimination essentially codified these religious inequalities. The Catholic James II was ultimately defeated in the Williamite War (1689–1691), which claimed 25,000 lives and involved Jacobite supporters of James II against those of his successor, William III. As a result of his defeat, already strict penal laws were expanded, eventually disenfranchising Catholics, barring them from holding public office, owning land valued at more than a particular amount, and teaching their religion to their children. Even Protestant dissenters such as Presbyterians were subject to these laws, though to a much lesser extent. Because of the nature of these rules, politics and religion wereinextricably linked: Catholics developed an identity of resistance, while Protestantism meant political power.
Religious differences ultimately influenced two distinct, opposed political movements in the 19th and early 20th centuries: Irish nationalism and unionism. Catholics gradually gained civil rights after the Catholic Emancipation in 1829, but social and economic discrimination persisted. Despite this, even some Irish Unionists in the 19th century called for Ireland to become an independent state, noting its cultural and economic advantages. Nonetheless, negotiations with the Nationalists were swiftly put on hold, due to concerns that a Catholic-dominated Ireland would marginalise the Protestant minority.All of this culminated in the argument over Home Rule, which spanned from the 1880s to the 1910s. The
idea of Home Rule was that Ireland should have greater autonomy whilst still being part of the British Empire, similar to modern-day devolution. Catholics strongly backed this idea.
Protestants, on the other hand, opposed the plan and established organisations such as the Protestant Force in 1912, which would eventually evolve into the Ulster Volunteer Force paramilitary outfit. The Irish War of Independence marked the conclusion of this debate, during which violent opposition to the British ownership of Ireland was mounted by organisations such as the Irish Republican Army (IRA), which was established in 1919. The conflict resulted in the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921, which gave 26 counties in the south of the Island of Ireland dominion status like Canada essentially, the ability to be an independent state whilemaintaining "an allegiance to the British crown." To create Northern Ireland, six primarily Protestant areas were granted Home Rule, which allowed them more autonomy within the Empire while maintaining their political and economic connections to Britain.
Despite Britain's significant concessions, systematic discrimination against Catholics in Northern Ireland ultimately descended into violent conflict in the 20th century. First, there was political
discrimination; Protestant Unionist supremacy in several elections was guaranteed by gerrymandering (theredrawingoflegislativedistricts).Economicprejudicepersisted,withCatholicsoftenrefusedsocial aid while living in far worse housing conditions. Protestants were often hired for higher-level, whitecollar positions, whereas the majority of coal miners and hard labourers were disproportionately Catholic. The fact that the Royal Ulster Constabulary was predominantly Protestant led to frequent bias in cases of violence against Catholics. Protestants feared a bloody Catholic takeover in the 1960s after Catholics started to seek equal rights, spurred on by theAmerican Civil Rights Movement.
This eventually culminated in the Troubles themselves; a complex war involving paramilitaries, civilians, and state troops. The deployment of the BritishArmy in 1969, prompted by severe riots, only served to heighten tensions, as Catholics viewed them as occupiers rather than peacekeepers. While the nationalist IRA targeted Protestant civilians, unionist paramilitaries such as the UVF focused on Catholics and state forces. Due to their inability to resolve the situation, the British government dissolvedtheStormontparliamentin1972,resumingdirectgovernanceandleadingtothedisintegration of political structures. Crucially, it became clear that religious differences not only ignited the conflict but also complicated the possibility of compromise, as faith came to symbolise allegiance, making a peace agreement appear treacherous.
The Good FridayAgreement, signed in 1998, was the result of decades of violence, covert negotiations, and international pressure from nations like the U.S. It was arguably the biggest indication that the issues were religious rather than a political struggle. Officially recognising both British Protestant and Irish Catholic identities was one of the main provisions. Another was the requirement that Catholics and Protestants cooperated in shared-power governments, which was a novel idea given the decades of animosity.
In conclusion, the Troubles were not just a political struggle between Irish and Northern Irish paramilitaries; they were caused by 400 years of religious difference, prejudice, and distrust. Even if the Good Friday Agreement ended widespread bloodshed, religious reconciliation is still underway. Religion, politics, and history are and were never really separate in Northern Ireland and continue to shape the region today.
From Pelham to Palmerston: The Campaign for Jewish Emancipation in the UK
Alexander Wasserstein Yr 12
On 7 July 1753, Henry Pelham’s Jewish Naturalisation Act was given royal assent by George II. It would, in theory, allow Jews, by application to parliament, to become privately naturalised without the religious tests prescribed in the Test and Corporation Acts passed almost a century earlier. It was a seemingly uncontroversial Act, passed in an otherwise sleepy session of Parliament, that in practice would likely have had a minimal effect. This was in large part due to its costliness, cumbersome nature, and the small number of geographically concentrated people that it applied to - historian Aubrey Newman estimated that around 8,000 Jews were present in Britain, about half of whom were foreignborn and almost all of whom lived in London. It had passed comfortably through the Lords, and, whilst it did face more opposition in the Commons - especially from Tories concerned about what they saw as an ‘abandonment of Christianity’ - was nonetheless passed by a Whig majority concerned with advancing a program of religious tolerance.
Somewhat curiously, however, theAct faced an enormous public outcry. On 14 July, The Craftsman, a newspaper established in 1726 in opposition to Robert Walpole’s Old Corps Whig faction now led by Pelham, printed an article alleging to be from 100 years in the future. It imagined a “dystopian” world in which England was controlled by Jews. Titled News from One Hundred Years Hence, it was quickly reprinted by the London Evening Post, which had outwardly attacked the bill as early as 19April - just two days after it had first been introduced in the Commons. The Post was one of the most popular journals in a time referred to by Moira Goff, an author at the British library, as ‘an era of staggering newspaper circulation’. Stamp Act duties suggest annual circulations of 7.3 million in 1750, which demonstrates just how accessible these newspapers and journals were for the people of Britain. Following a six-month campaign led by the Post and with backing by dozens of newspaper articles from other sources, including pamphlets and caricatures, the Act was repealed in the next sitting of Parliament on 20 December. Although arguments surrounding the rights of Jews had gone on for centuries, it was here, amid this unusual outbreak of antisemitism, that seems the natural point to label the beginning of the fight for Jewish Emancipation on the British Isles.
In the aftermath of the failure of the Act, there was a distinct lack of progress for a prolonged period. Britain was arguably the country in Europe that legally treated its Jews the best, as they were placed in a similar legal area to that of Puritans and other Dissenters. In essence, British-born Jews were considered citizens, with the right to settle anywhere they wanted, trade freely, and without additional taxes. However, they were barred from obtaining public office, serving in the Armed Forces, or, until the founding of University College London in 1826, unable to obtain a university degree. By 1815, whilst there had been no real legislative progress, there had been a notable decline in the presence of antisemitism in what had now become the UK. This was in large part due to a large influx of Jewish migrants, prior to, throughout, and especially after Napoleon’s tenure as Emperor, many of whom came from Germany and Italy, attracted by the more friendly laws and smaller presence of antisemitism. Although it is important to mention that life was certainly more difficult for alien Jews, who could not own land or British ships, trade with the colonies, and whose merchants were subject to additional alien duties, it was nonetheless certainly preferred to virulent antisemitism seen at the time in many parts of the continent.
Whilst Napoleon had previously emancipated Jews across Europe in a likely politically motivated move, antisemitism in many parts remained frequent; even Napoleon himself called the Jews ‘the most despicable of mankind’ in a private letter to his brother Jerome, demonstrating his seemingly selfcontradictoryviews. Regardless,following Napoleon’sfall in1815,increasedrepression,inmanycases the result of growing nationalism, led to the return of discriminatory laws across Europe. In Germany, cities such as Frankfurt imposed laws limiting the number of Jewish couples allowed to marry a year, along with forfeiting the money the Jewish community paid for emancipation. This was reflected in many other German states, with restrictions on Jewish rights to work, settle, and marry. In Italy, in the wake of Pope Pius VII regaining control of the Papal States in 1814, the situation was significantly less favourable than even that of Germany, as Jews were deprived of basic liberties and confined to ghettos. This was also echoed by multiple other Italian states. The result was the arrival of large numbers of Jewish migrants into the UK, further fuelled by the Hep-Hep riots, pogroms against Ashkenazi Jews seen across the German Federation in 1819.
Whilst the Jewish population in London certainly increased, reaching estimates of 20,000 by 1800, some of the most profound effects of this migration were seen in other places. These migrant workers spread around the country, being admitted into ports from Kingston upon Hull to Liverpool - a community of 60 had developed in the former by 1815, along with 350 in the latter. Jews were also present at the time in smaller port towns such as Chatham and Bristol, although due to limited records, the exact number is difficult to determine. This was an important influence in a significant shift away from antisemitism in Britain, as it exposed people across the country to Jews, humanising them, and thus softening public attitudes. Since antisemitic public attitudes were largely the reason for the failure of the 1753Act, this marked a key step towards the success of a future Naturalisation or Emancipation Act.
On the other hand, this social tolerance was in some ways harmful to the Jewish hope for emancipation. As Jews were fairly well treated, their cause lacked the urgency that it had in other parts of Europe. However, as the 1820s and 1830s progressed, this urgency was somewhat restored through a sort of international pressure. Following an invasion by conservative French Catholics, mobilised by Louis XVIII, conservative King of France, many liberal Spanish politicians fled to London, where they became socially active, engaged in political discourse and encountered Jews in person - often for the first time. When the reformist Queen Isabel II, and in practice her mother and regent Queen Maria Cristina, came to the throne in 1833, these liberal politicians travelled back. In 1834 the Inquisition was abolished, and Jews were, for the first time in hundreds of years, allowed to return to Spain. In 1837, the Napoleonic Constitution was restored, reinstating the practice of birthright citizenship and the free exercise of religion. It was in some respects embarrassing to the UK, which in many respects saw itself as a liberal, modern state, with recent reforms such as the 1829 Catholic Emancipation Act and 1833 Abolition of the Slave Trade. Yet still, it was beaten to Jewish Emancipation by a country with such a deep history of antisemitism. Other countries with similar histories, although with a lesser extent of antisemitism, also emancipatedtheJewsinthesame decade,suchas Greece and Belgium in 1830. Even some British colonies, such as Jamaica in 1831 and Lower Canada in 1832, passed Jewish emancipation.
Along with the recent emancipation of Catholics, many Jews back in London used the emancipation of those in Jamaica and Lower Canada to campaign for their own emancipation and political enfranchisement. William Huskisson, former Secretary of State for War and the Colonies and Leader of the House of Commons, presented a petition signed by as many as 2000 merchants from Liverpool. A series of Jewish Relief Acts, championed by liberal politicians such as Sir Robert Grant and Thomas Macauley, were presentedto Parliament almost annually throughouttheearly 1830s, yet were held back by an uncompliant Lords and an unsupportive King William IV. Things only started to change with the 1835 election of David Salomons, a Jewish banker and radical, as Sheriff of the City of London. He should not have been able to take office, as his Jewish faith prevented him from taking the compulsory
oath of office that included Christian statements of faith. However, with nofeasible political alternative, Parliament was forced into abolishing religious oaths for the office of Sheriff. Salomons then worked to turn himself into a poster child for Jewish Emancipation.
In 1837, William IV passed away, and Queen Victoria ascended to the throne. She was in many ways far more sympathetic to the plight of the Jews; she had grown up with Jewish friends and teachers. This sympathy was most keenly demonstrated in the almost immediate knighthood and appointment to SheriffoftheCityofLondonofMosesMontefiore,aprominent Jewishbankerandabolitionist,in1837. It was further shown in 1841 as Isaac Goldsmid, a Jewish broker and financier, was the first British Jew to receive a hereditary title, in that he was awarded a Baronet. In 1846, with fewer barriers present in large part due to the presence of a supportive monarch, a Religious Disabilities Act was passed, which abolishedreligiousoathsforeveryofficeexcept parliament.It alsoextendedtoJewsrightstoeducation, property, and the administration of charities. In large part due to the efforts of Daniel O’Connell, an Irish Catholic MP who had previously led the campaign for Catholic Emancipation, the Act also repealedthe1275 Statute on the Jewry,whichrequiredJewstowearidentifiableclothing.Itisimportant to mention, though, that this statute had never been enforced in modern times. It was nonetheless symbolically important, and with the passing of the Act, it was made clear that full emancipation was simply a matter of time.
In 1847, Lionel de Rothschild, a Jewish banker and philanthropist, attempted to execute a similar political manoeuvre to that of Salomons’12 years earlier. Despite not being allowed to take office as a Member of Parliament, due to the oath including the phrase ‘on the true faith of a Christian’, he ran, and was elected, to be one of the four members for the constituency of the City of London, where Salomons also ran but was defeated.The Prime Minister, Lord Russell, immediately introduced another Jewish Relief Bill in response, but the Bill, having passed the Commons, was failed in the Lords. Rothschild would continue to hold office as MP but was barred from taking his seat in the House of Commons. Onthe second failure ofthe Bill inthe Lords, Rothschild choseto stepdown. He stood again in a by-electionin 1850 to support his claim, andfollowing his victory, attemptedtoenter the Commons after agreeing to recite the oath on a Hebrew, instead of a Christian, Bible. When he omitted the Christian phrases, he was required to leave. He was re-elected twice, in 1852 and 1857, but would not be allowed to take his seat for some time.
Salomons ran again in the 1851 General Election and was elected to be one of the two MPs for Greenwich. He took the same oath as Rothschild, omitting the Christian phrases, and took his seat on the government benches. Salomons was almost certainly aware that he would be asked to leave, and thiswaslikelyhismethodofwithdrawingfromtheroleinamannerthatwouldcreatethemostdiscourse possible. Salomons left, on the second request, but nonetheless returned a few days later on 21st July 1851. This ultimately led to a debate in which Salomons defended his taking his seat on the grounds that he had won a large majority. Eventually, however, he was again removed by the Sergeant-at-Arms and fined £500 for illegally voting on three separate occasions. He was not re-elected in the 1852 election, losing his seat to another Liberal politician. Two further Jewish Disabilities Bills were thrown out by the Lords in 1851 and 1853, and it would not be until 1858 until a compromise was finally reached.
Following a ten-year campaign spearheaded by Rothschild and Salomons, but loudly supported by figures from Lord Palmerston, Prime Minister from 1855-58, as well as future Prime Minister William Gladstone,who wouldsoonserve under him inhissecond of fourtermsas Chancellor of the Exchequer, to future Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, the Jews ReliefAct, with the support of Prime Minister the Earl of Derby, was given RoyalAssent on 23 July 1858. It was still somewhat of a compromise, in that Parliament would not make permanent changes to oath of abjuration necessary to take a seat in Parliament. Instead, both houses would be able to exempt Jewish politicians from having to include the Christian clause in their oaths. It was this moment, though, that most historians regard as the moment
ofJewishemancipationintheUK.RothschildcouldfinallytakehisseatintheCommons,andSalomons followed him a year later upon his re-election. Further amendments were soon made; in 1866 the Parliamentary OathsAct abolished the Christian oath for public office entirely, and in 1871, Jews were allowed to work on Sundays and attend, or teach, at universities. The campaign was finally complete.
Was the Holy Roman Empire Holy, Roman or an Empire?
Samuel Frangi Yr 7
The Holy Roman Empire was one of the most interesting, complex structures in history; something that has captured my imagination through its deep dividing culture, struggles for power and strong, defiant leaders. However, it seems that that the success of the HRE is something rather debatable, having to be seen for most people as a failure that was doomed from creation. The 18th century French author, historian and philosopher François-Marie Arouet (known by his pen name as Voltaire) made a famous quip about the Holy Roman Empire that has become the mood for all views on the HRE:
“The agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.”
In 800, Charlemagne, King of the Franks, was crowned by Pope Leo III on Christmas day as the first Roman Emperor (the title “Holy Roman Emperor” was introduced later on as we will see). This act by the Church is seen to most as proof of the empire’s holiness under the Pope’s divine authority. The next candidate to be emperor, as powerful as they were, couldn’t be considered the ruler of the Holy Roman Empire without the Pope crowning them himself.
Another argument for the empire’s holiness is its supposed job of protector of the Catholic Church. One of the reasons that the papacy tried to keep ties with the HRE was so there would be a strong Catholic nation in central Europe that would hopefully stay under the Popes guidance. This can lend the Holy Roman Empire the status of an empire to defend the Catholic Church. This was seen by the church as a holy act making the HRE a “holy” nation from the view of the Church.
But there are some problems with these two ideas. If the Holy Roman Empire’s holiness solely lied in the first theory, then it would not have existed since the coronation of Charles V in 1530. This was the last time the next Holy Roman Emperor would have to make his way to Rome to be crowned by the Pope. This breakaway of tradition first started at Maximilian I’s coronation in 1508 when Pope Julius II allowed him to be Emperor despite not being crowned by him.In compromise,Maximilian was given the title “Electus Romanorum Imperator” which translates to “Elected Emperor or the Romans” This title shows the new form of how the Holy Roman Emperor was chosen. When Charlamagne was made Holy Roman Emperor in 800, he was directly chosen by the Pope, which became how the emperors were chosen for the next 500 years. But in 1536 Emperor Charles IV created the decree of the Golden Bull, a new system where the Holy Roman Emperor would be elected by a specifically chosen group of German princes. This arguably takes away the holy part of Holy Roman Emperor with the source of their power not even coming from a holy decree.
The second argument that their holiness came from protecting the papacy also is extremely debatable. Holy Roman Emperors such as Frederick II faced a military conflict against the Papacy in the War of Keys. Henry V captured Pope Paschal II and forced him to crown him emperor. Even the most famous Holy Roman Emperor Charles V sacked Rome in 1527, leading to him taking control of the Catholic Church and forcing the Pope at the time, Clement VII, to take refuge in Castel Sant’Angelo due to the mass killings in Rome.
The actual title of the Holy Roman Empire being holy was first given by emperor Frederick I or Frederick Barbarossa. This was meant to show Frederick’s ambitions of dominating the Papal States andtobecomeacounterbalancetothePapacy’s power.Ratherthanbeingholyby protectingthe Papacy, their holiness was to challenge the Papacy. Overall, I have been led to the conclusion that the HRE was
not holy, due to the arguments and conflicts between emperor and Pope and its failure to fulfil the supposed purpose of protecting the Catholic Church.
The next part of this article concerns the Roman part of the HRE. Once the Western Roman Empire had fallen to the Visigoths is 476, it had become a priority for the Eastern Roman Empire to continue the Roman culture. Nonetheless, there was an issue in that the east had moved away from the Roman pagan traditions and had now become a centre of Christianity. Since Charlamagne, the title the emperors were given was “Emperor of the Romans”. This was meant to show the new lands the empire ruled was a continuation of the Roman Empire, making the people they were ruling in a sense Roman. In 973 Otto II was crowned but with the new title of “Roman Emperor”, meaning to imply the Monarch himself was Roman. Yet none of the people to have this title have really been Roman.
From a national perspective, the emperors have been Frankish, Austrian, German and Luxembourger, but none of them have been from a place prominent in Roman culture.And from a cultural perspective, HRE culture was a hybrid of both Roman and German cultures. On the one hand, the empire’s court and nobles showed great interest in Roman art, literature and philosophy with the spoken language among the elite being Latin. In fact, the way the HRE was governed followed Roman administrative structures and drew heavily on Roman legal court systems and law. On the other hand, German culture was most strong among the commoners and lower classes with the German language being the most spoken language in the empire. Germanic traditions and customs continued to stay strong among the people of the HRE with numerous states having unique cultures devoid of Roman influence.
Most of the empire stayed in Germanic culture and never accepted the proposed Roman culture. Meanwhile, the ruling court did take on many Roman ideas in their law, making the upper class of the HRE quite Roman. Thus, we come to a dilemma. Does the culture of a country lie in its rulers or in its people? The majority of the HRE - 90%, in fact - spoke German and followed German traditions. Only the 10% of the HRE’s 23 million population were in the upper class and not even all of them spoke Latin. Latin was only used for official records and in the Catholic Church. If you were to visit the Holy Roman Empire in 1600, you would find the native German culturethriving, with the supposed language and culture of the Romans barely visible in a “Roman” empire. Therefore, I would conclude, the Holy Roman Empire was not Roman due to it’s the enforcement of a Roman culture only affecting the upper class and not truly making the entire population Roman.
The last part of this article is the most contentious as it concerns how the HRE was governed and whether it was an empire. The Oxford Dictionary definition of an empire reads:
“An extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy or a sovereign state.”
Does the Holy Roman Empire fit this definition? The first part of the definition we need to look at is “extensivegroupofstatesorcountries”.TheHolyRomanEmpirewasmadeupofacomplexofduchies, kingdoms,principalities, and bishoprics.In fact, barelyany oftheempire was directly ruled by the Holy Roman Emperor. The people in the various entities within the empire were ruled by the prince, bishop, or duke that ruled their area. But in relation to the first part of the definition, I would say it fits it.
But the next part is less certain on whether it the HRE fits the definition “Ruled over by a single monarch”.Aspointed out above,the Holy Roman Emperor hadlittle control over hislands.Anexample is Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II, who only had full control over his HabsburgAustrian lands and very limited control over the other two thirds of the HRE. The other rulers of the many principalities largely had the ability to act independently, including declaring war on each other, siding with countries internationally and even declaring war against the emperor himself. Hence, the Holy Roman Empire was not ruled by a single monarch, but rather the independent leaders within the empire. These leaders had the true power while the supposed ruler, the emperor, had essentially no control over many of his lands.
But definition aside, what really makes a country an empire? Let us use the largest empire in history, the British Empire, as an example. Controlling 25% of the world, their empire spread across the globe just like the HRE spread across central Europe. But the British Empire was not governed like the HRE. The colonies of the British empire were ruled autocratically by British officials that would report back toparliamentontherunningoftheempire.Sometimescoloniesweregivenadegreeofself-government, and this is where the differences between the British Empire and the Holy Roman Empire begin. Any well ruled empire would keep an iron grip on their lands, making sure that their colonies would stay close to the empire; rea for which many colonial empires collapsed comprised of colonies lacking loyalty to the empire.
The problem withtheHolyRoman Empire wasthat none oftheir lands had loyaltytothe HRE;multiple regions within the empire rarely adhered to the wishes of their supposed overlords. Any attempts to unify the empire were futile due to the wide diversity across central Europe and the deadly conflict between Protestants and Catholics, seen at its worst in the 30 years' war, something that utterly divided the HRE. Unity is the thing that truly makes an empire. One can rule all the land from Spain to Siberia, but that will only be a group of lands loosely drawn together, something that can easily collapse. To unify these lands, though, makes it an empire. To makesure that the people listen to their rulers and will always follow the will of an empire despite varying differences. What makes an empire is not land, but instead unity and that is clearly what the Holy Roman Empire was missing.This leads me to summarise that it was not an empire.
After going through the three titles the HRE had, I can confirm that it was not holy, nor truly Roman, and most definitely not an empire. Thus, Voltaire was correct in his saying. The lack of spiritual authority, the lack of supposed culture and most importantly the lack of unity has made me see that the Holy Roman Empire was none of what it said it was; holy, Roman or an empire.
The Reichsadler, the symbol of the Holy Roman Empire with its feathers bearing the various coats of arms within the empire
Saladin and the Unification of the Muslim World during the Crusades
Ibrahim Mohammed Yr 12
Salah ad-Din al-Ayyubi (d. 1193), widely known in the West as Saladin, is one of the most celebrated figures in both Islamic and world history. He was the legendary Muslim leader who, in 1187, liberated and recaptured Masjid Al-Aqsa, Al-Quds (Jerusalem), and Palestine after 88 long years of Crusader occupation. His remarkable achievements on the battlefield are often highlighted in history books, but his legacy extends far beyond military conquests. Salah ad-Din embodied the qualities of a true Islamic leader, one who was dedicated to justice, unity, and the moral elevation Muslims. His life serves as a beacon of hope, particularly in today's context of ongoing struggles in the Muslim world.
The Crusades were notmerely amilitary campaign launched byWestern Christendom; they represented a systematic effort to dismantle Muslim political authority in key regions, including the Levant and parts of North Africa. The early Crusader incursions capitalised on a period of disunity and internal conflict within the Muslim world, especially following the political decline of the Seljuk and Fatimid dynasties. The fragmentation of Muslim territories into small, rival principalities made it easier for the Crusaders to advance.
The initial Muslim leaders who fought against the Crusaders were unable to mount a unified resistance due to political fragmentation and sectarian divisions, leading to the tragic loss of one of Islam’s holiest cities. Understanding the deep humiliation and sorrow experienced by the Muslim world during this time is essential, as this set the stage for the rise of Salah ad-Din, who would go on to restore its dignity through his leadership.
Salah ad-Din was born in Tikrit, Iraq, in 1137, into a Kurdish family that was deeply committed to Islam. His father, Najm ad-Din Ayyub, served as a military commander, and Salah ad-Din followed in his footsteps, receiving both military and religious training. This balance between the sword and the pen defined much of his later career, as he was not only a skilled general but also a man of deep Islamic knowledge and piety.
His early commitment to the revival of the Sunnah (the teachings and practices of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ) and his emphasis on justice were central to his rule. Salah ad-Din’s moral integrity and commitment to Islamic principles allowed him to win the trust of both his allies and his subjects. His ethical leadership is a stark contrast to the political corruption and division that plagued the Muslim world prior to his rise.
Salah ad-Din played a crucial role in dismantling the Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt, which had long been a source of internal strife and division within the Muslim world due to its adherence to Ismaili Shia doctrines. Salah ad-Din’s ability to restore the Sunni orthodoxy in Egypt was a significant turning point in Islamic history. This is because it helped to unify the Muslim world and provided a strong base from which to launch his campaigns against the Crusaders.
Moreover, Salah ad-Din’s administrative reforms aimed at strengthening the state and ensuring justice for all citizens, allowing him to reorganise Egypt’s finances, reform its military, and implement systems ofgovernancethatwererootedinIslamiclaw(Sharia).HiseffortstoreviveIslamiceducation,patronize scholars, and promote the spread of Islamic knowledge were all part of his broader vision to unite the Muslim Work under a common religious and political framework.
The Battle of Hattin in 1187 was a pivotal moment in Islamic history. It marked the beginning of the end of Crusader dominance in the Levant and paved the way for the recapture of Jerusalem. Salah adDin’s victory at Hattin is not only significant for its military implications, but also for the ethical and humane way in which he treated his defeated enemies. While the Crusaders had committed numerous atrocities against Muslim civilians, Salah ad-Din showed remarkable restraint and mercy. After the conquest of Jerusalem, he allowed the Christian inhabitants of the city to leave peacefully- a stark contrast to the massacre carried out by the Crusaders upon capturing the city in 1099. Salah ad-Din’s chivalry and adherence to Islamic principles of justice earned him the respect of even his enemies.
Salah ad-Din’s legacy is one of justice, unity, and steadfastness. His life and leadership offer countless lessons for Muslims today. He was a leader who understood that true strength comes not simply from military might, but more importantly from moral integrity and faith in Allah. His commitment to the cause of Islam was unwavering, yet he balanced this with a deep sense of compassion, even for his enemies. Salah ad-Din’s ability to unite the Muslim world at a time of immense political division is perhapsoneofhismostimportantlegacies-onethat holdsprofoundrelevanceintoday’sdividedworld.
Rebellion and Religion: Unravelling the Causes of the 1857 Indian Mutiny
Zayna Sunka Yr 8
In 1857, a major uprising broke out against British rule in India. What began as a military revolt by sepoys (the Indian soldiers) in the East India Company’s (EIC’s) army, quickly grew into a widespread rebellion across northern India. Refusing to follow orders led to violence and a huge revolt. This event, called the Indian mutiny, was one of the most significant challenges to British rule in India. The rebellion was not caused by one single problem, but by a combination of issues. Political control by the British, economic hardship, unfair treatment of Indian soldiers, religious and cultural disrespect all played a role in creating tension and distrust between the British and the sepoys. Together, these causes provoked many Indians leading them to rise up and fight against British rule.
One of the crucial causes for the mutiny was political problems that had arisen in India. The East India Company (EIC) had taken control over large parts of India, bringing its own private army and removing many Indian rulers from power under the ‘Doctrine of lapse’ (a British law that allowed them to take over if there was no biological heir). This disrespected and angered the Indians as they were not being treated fairly. Furthermore, there were many other negative consequences of having this private country run India, particularly since their primary goal was profit. This meant that the EIC did not listen to or try to help the country but instead taxed it heavily, using it to increase its own profit rather than to benefit India. Additionally, the EIC’s trade monopoly negatively impacted local Indian industries. The British’s cheap factory manufactured goods made it almost impossible for the Indian industries to compete leading to a decline in them.This was detrimental for the Indians as the result of this combined with the unfair taxes was economic hardship, which caused may to fall into poverty. The British were not only taking over the land but also the livelihoods of Indian people.
At the same time, the army was also a place where frustration and distrust were building. The majority of the EIC’s army was made up of sepoys (Indian soldiers) and they were mistreated by the British. Sepoys were paid less than British soldiers and a racial gulf was opening up between British officers and sepoys – the British began developing dangerous views which led the sepoys to lose trust which weakened their loyalty as well.
All theseproblemsweremadeevenworsebysomethingmorepersonal: religionandculture.Inaddition to the British already changing the ways Indians ate and dressed as well as teaching British ways and the English language, the British sent Christian missionaries to operate in India and attempt to convert them. This led many to believe that the British wanted to completely change or even destroy their religion and diminish their culture and way of life. The British were now the ruling race and separated themselves off from the Indians and grew more arrogant as they were become increasingly more powerful.
Fear of traditions being attacked escalated even more so when a rumour about the new Enfield rifle cartridges was introduced. These cartridges were greased with cow and pig fat and to load them the sepoys had to bite on it. This was a tremendous insult to their religions since most of the sepoys were Hindus or Muslims meaning this was offensive as cows are a sacred animal to Hindus and Muslims cannot eat pigs so encountering them was completely against their religious beliefs.After hearing this, the sepoys were enraged but if they refused to use them, they were harshly punished.
This incident becamethe spark totherebellion.It wasthe final catalyst that brought everythingtogether –leaderslosingtheirpower,soldiersbeingmistreated,peoplelosingtheirjobs/moneyandIndianvalues beingdisregarded. Sepoysin Meerut revolted,brutallykilling the British officers and marchingto Delhi with the rebellion spreading quickly to Northern India.
The causes of the 1857 Indian Mutiny were many, but religion and the lack of respect for Indian culture stood out as some of the most powerful. Political and economic unfairness angered the Indians, but it was the fear of losing their faith and culture that truly caused Indians to stand up and fight.
The Influence of Faith in the Founding of the United States
Aarav Ruparelia Yr 10
Religion played a subtle but significant role in the founding of the United States.While the country was not foundedon religious principles,faithstill played aninstrumental rolein its founding. From theearly settlers seeking religious freedom to the Founders who worked to protect that freedom in the Constitution, religion was a key part ofAmerica’s story from the start.
Religious Motivations of Early Settlers
Well before the Revolutionary War and the American Constitution, many of America’s early settlers came to America in pursuit of religious freedom. The Pilgrims, who landed at Plymouth in 1620, fled England to escape religious persecution and hoped to build a community where they could worship freely. Similarly, colonies like Pennsylvania and Maryland (originally a refuge for English Catholics) were created with religious freedoms in mind.
These early settlers came to America seeking the freedom to practise their faith without interference. Although these colonies were not tolerant by modern standards, they laid the groundwork for religious freedom. As more diverse religious groups settled in America, the idea of protected individual religious freedoms became part of the nation's values.
Enlightenment and Religious freedoms in the Founding Documents
By the time of the American Revolution, the American colonies were home to a range of Christian denominations, from Anglicans to Baptists. Leaders like Thomas Jefferson were heavily influences by the idea of religious liberty. They saw how government backed churches could suppress personal beliefs,andtheybelievednoauthorityshoulddictatewhatpeoplecouldbelieve.Thesechurchesbecame a cornerstone of the new nation.
The US Constitution, ratified in 1787, took a major step in protecting religious freedoms. It made no mention of a national religion and prohibited religious tests for public office. The Bill of Rights, added in 1791, ensured ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’. This not only protected the right to practice religion but also made sure that the government would remain neutral on religious matters.
However, these protections did not mean religion was absent from public life. Many of the Founding Fathers believed religion was essential. In his 1796 FarewellAddress, George Washington warned that morality could not be maintained without ‘religious principle’. Although Thomas Jefferson advocated for church and state separation, he also wrote theVirginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which became a model for national religious freedom.
Lasting Legacy
Landing of the pilgrims at Plymouth Rock
Religion continued to influence the early republic. French Writer Alexis de Tocqueville, who visited America in the 1830s, noted how deeply religion shaped American democracy- not through law, but through community and culture. He remarked, ‘Religion in America takes no direct part in the government... but it must be regarded as the first of their political institutions.’
The legacy still endures today with the commitment to religious freedoms whilst maintaining the separation of the church and the state- a balance which was revolutionary for its time.
The Loss of an Imperial British Identity and Search for a National Story in a Post-Colonial World
Seb Maltz Yr 12
Before World War I, to be British was to be imperial. The empire wasn't merely something Britain possessed it formed the very bedrock of Britain. Imperial and National identity fused so completely, that when decolonisation inevitably occurred, it triggered an existential crisis of British selfhood, which remains unresolved today. This article examines how this imperial-national fusion developed, how it fractured simultaneously, in both the colonies, and metropolitan Britain, and why the loss of this imperial identity has left Britain unable to construct a coherent post-colonial national story.
The clearest evidence of this imperial-national fusion can be seen to permeate both elite discourse and popular consciousness throughout the pre-war era. Joseph Chamberlain exemplified this sentiment perfectly in 1897, when he spoke of keeping "alight the torch of imperial patriotism" to preserve "the glorious traditions of the British flag." His declaration that "the British race" represented "the greatest of the governing races" in world history wasn't mere political rhetoric, but also reflected a genuinely held national self-conception that transcended class divisions. Most tellingly, subjects across the empire's vast territories identified primarily as British Rhodesians considering themselves "more British than the British." Thus, this imperial-national fusion operationalised empire, not as a policy choice, but as the core organizing principle of British identity itself.
The fundamental loss of this imperial-national fusion came from two directions simultaneously: from within the colonies themselves, and from Britain's changing domestic reality. Regarding the colonial dimension, this manifested dramatically during World War I, when troops from across the empire arrivedtofight as Britons,onlytofind themselves usedas cannonfodder inpoorlyexecutedcampaigns. The ANZAC experience at Gallipoli exemplifies this transformation Australia and New Zealand forces suffered horrific casualties under British command, with the campaign becoming foundational to a distinct ANZAC identity. As one Australian soldier articulated: "We came as colonial troops; we returned as Australians." We can see a similar pattern at Vimy Ridge in 1917, often cited as the "birth of Canadian nationhood," where Canadian troops succeeded where British forces had repeatedly failed. These early inklings of national identity, caused by wartime experiences, represent the first major fracture in what had previously been a unified imperial identity.
This internal loss of imperial cohesion was simultaneously compounded by economic realities that undermined Britain'scapacity tomaintainits imperial identity at home. Financial strain afterWorldWar I weakened Britain's ability to sustain its global commitments, while dependency onAmerican support by 1945 created vulnerability to a power fundamentally opposed to colonialism. During the AngloAmerican loan negotiations, we can see that Keynes characterized Britain's situation as a "financial Dunkirk," and was shocked by America's lack of concern for Britain's imperial status. Keynes noted that the Americans were interested "not in our wounds... but in our convalescence," revealing the significantpsychologicaladjustmentrequired Britainperceivedempireasanextensionofitsnational body, whilstAmericans viewed it as an outdated bandage to be discarded.
The psychological dimension of this loss demonstrates why Britain's search for an alternative national story has proven so problematic. Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin's declaration in 1946, that the fall of the British Empire would be "a disaster," shows how completely imperial status had integrated into Britain's conception of itself. For British leadership, abandoning empire meant surrendering the very foundation of national identity. Even Churchill framed Britain's wartime survival in imperial terms, speaking of "the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire." Despite this desperate attempt to
preserve imperial identity, the Empire was already reconceptualising its relationship with Britain. Australian Prime Minister John Curtin's declaration, during WWII, that Australia "looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom," confirmed the complete loss of imperial British identity across both the colonies and the metropolitan centre.
This comprehensive loss of imperial identity created the enduring crisis that DeanAcheson captured in his 1962 assessment that "Great Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role." The search for this elusive post-colonial national story can be seen most clearly in contemporary attempts to reconstruct British identity. Brexit represents the latest and most significant chapter in this ongoing search for meaning. The concept of "Global Britain" emerged as a central justification for leaving the European Union, with Prime Minister Theresa May envisioning "a great, global trading nation that is respected around the world." Government officials even described renewed Commonwealth trade links as "Empire 2.0," revealing how the search for a new national story inevitably returns to cheap imperial nostalgia. According to Paul Gilroy, this represents "postcolonial melancholia" Britain's lingering grief over its lost imperial identity. Brexit appealed because it promised to restore the sense of exceptional global significance that had defined imperial British identity.
Similarly, earlier attempts, such as the "Cool Britannia" rebranding of the 1990s, can be seen to be unsuccessful efforts to fill the void left by imperial identity.These manufactured attempts were doomed to fail, simply not being able to provide the sense of global mission and purpose that had made imperial identity so compelling.
The loss of imperial British identity represents one of the most significant transformations in modern history, requiring not just political reorganization, but also the complete reimagining of national purpose. While political decolonisation was accomplished through legislation and ceremonies, the search for a replacement national story has proven far more complex. Each attempt to construct a postcolonial identity has failed to replace the sense of global mission and exceptionalism that the Empire once provided. Overall, Britain continues to struggle with the fundamental challenge of moving beyond its imperial past, whilst remaining unable to develop a compelling alternative national story. This enduring crisis explains why Britain, decades after decolonisation, still searches unsuccessfully for a coherent post-colonial identity that can fill the void left by its lost national story.
What about the NativeAmericans? Bridging the rift between Westward
Expansion
and the American ideologies of Liberty.
Dan Grenfell Yr 12
The American Revolution was born out of a desire for freedom from the British Empire of which the Americans had seen themselves as victims. We remember it terms of calls like “No taxation without representation” – a clear marker of a belief that this foreign rule which they believed to be imposed onto them was unjust due to what was described in the Declaration of Independence as a “long chain of abuses”, and a belief that all people had a God-given right to consent to being governed. However, less than a hundred years after that document was signed in 1776, the ‘land of the free’ had grown from a few colonies of approximately 400 thousand square kilometres to a nation which had control and claim of essentially the entire continent. They would then begin to consolidate this nation by taking land ownership through the Dawes Act, for example - ‘assimilation’ programmes. To a modern historian there seems to be tension between these core principles of liberty and the principle of westward expansion: the land was not uninhabited, instead being home to so many different native Americans peoples who were conquered, persecuted, and driven out of their land. I hope this article will help reconcile this.
There seems a great continuity throughout American History in the ideology held by many that the American Colonies should and will somehow expand their territory westward across the American Continent,asafateandright.Indeed,ThomasJeffersonbelieved thattheUnitedStatesmighteventually hold an empire across North and South America. And it was this belief, which in mid-1800s would come to be referred to as ‘Manifest Destiny’–America’s inevitable destiny.
One could explain the Anglo-Americans’ justification of displacement of the Native Americans from their land – which would later snowball into frequent instances of massacre, and cruel programmes of ‘residential schools’which lasted well into the 20th century, despite their proclaimed belief that all men were created equal, with the Anglo-American’s racism against Native Americans. There is certainly evidence to back this, with many writers describing Native Americans as “animals vulgarly called Indians” in the literal meaning to which they were viewed as a separate species by the pre-Darwinian Christian, and therefore would not, be deserving of the liberty and nationhood which the AngloAmericans did. But, those ideas of racial difference with the Native Americans had mostly died out
from thelate eighteenth century.This gave way tothe view that NativeAmericanswere simply a people that needed to be civilised, as can be seen through assimilation programmes, from the encouragement of NativeAmericantribes to adoptAnglo-American culture tothe 19th centuryAssimilation programme encapsulated by the slogan “kill the Indian, save the man”. This later form of racism allowed AngloAmericans to subconsciously excuse and ignore the cruelty towards Native Americans. However, because we can see a clear loss of intellectual belief in the significance of the difference of the Native Americans’ race – which means that in theory they would have deserved the same rights - the AngloAmerican’sracism offers anincomplete explanation ofhow theAmericansintellectually reconciled this expansion westward with their beliefs in liberty, which were shaped by exploitation under Britain’s Mercantile system.
It is perhaps more convincing to look at how the Americans viewed their destiny to expand Westward. Looking back to our friend, Thomas Jefferson, the writer of the Declaration of Independence, who put so eloquently into words the injustice they felt to be Britain’s exploitation of theAmericans during their rule, was able to make the idea of expansion more palatable through what he described as the creation of an “Empire of Liberty”. Under this belief, the United States’empire would be just and fair because all residents of lands conquered would be incorporated as equal citizens. Here, we see the beginnings ofideaofassimilation,whereinordertomaketheNativeAmericanshappycitizensoftheUnitedStates, they would be taught to pray and act likeAnglo-Americans.
We can see a motif of the rebranding of imperial ambition for its justification through the ages, for examplein the Land RemovalAct of 1830 and theAllotmentAct of 1887, both of which made conquest more palatable through promises, good-faith or otherwise, that this was in the best interests of the Native-Americans. The case of the Land Removal Act, which displaced many tribes, including the Cherokee Nation, makes for an interesting case study. The Cherokees assimilated, starting to enslave Africans and writing a constitution, with the hope that this would allow recognition and independence. Instead, when in 1830 the Americans set their sights upon their land, they were forced to move westward, walking for miles in what would become known as the ‘Trail of Tears’.Anywhere between two to six thousand died. This, however, was framed by Jackson as in the Cherokee’s best interests: the only way to protect them from the violence of the White settlers in lands nearby the organised territories.
And, when acts of conquest more obtusely in contradiction withAmerican values were carried out, for examplethe Sand Creek massacre in 1864, in which 200 CheyenneandArapaho people,mainly women and children, were killed in confrontation with the American Military, the conquest for American ‘Manifest Destiny’ had gone on for so long that this practice was as significant in the American conscience as beliefs inAmerican Liberty.
I think Hugh Brogan describes what happened quite beautifully: “It was the usual temptation to belief that what we want with a passion must be right; and that the means of obtaining it cannot be sinful.” And it was thisthat allowedtheAmericans to justify and rebrand their expansion westward despite their collective experience of colonial rule and belief that they were pioneers of democracy and liberty.
La Serenissima: The “Perfect” Medieval nation?
Aadi Bagchi Yr 8
Duringthe MiddleAges, the vast majority of states were feudal monarchies, whichhad kings with Godgiven rights ruling with iron fists, and waging wars for influence abroad to gain as much power as possible for their heirs. Many of these states, however, were also backwaters, with poverty common in urban areas, and regular people not getting any say in decisions.
In Italy, though, there were a few states which differed. Instead of just fighting for land, they fought for trade and commerce. Though quite rare for the time, these states were republics, for the people (the word literally comes from ‘res publica’, or ‘thing of the people’in Latin), as each republic would have hundreds of representatives to make legislative decisions in the interest of the public. A few of these Italian “beacons of democracy” include Genoa, Pisa, and Florence.
The best of them all, perhaps one of the best republics in history, was Venice!Aflourishing, serene and mercantilerepublic,itwasveryprosperousandveryrich.Most notably,however,ithadauniquesystem of governance - it was both a republic and a monarchy! In this article, you will learn how the state worked and prospered, and also how it eventually fell to the powers around it.
The history of a nation
Venice started off as the small fishing village of Venetiae during the time of the Romans and wasn’t something special. However, after the collapse of Rome in the 5th century to the barbarian Goths and Lombards, Venice (which was incorporated into the Byzantine Empire at this time) was under attack from them as well. To defend against the invaders, the locals formed an independent state, called the Duchy of Venice, in 568 under the elected leadership of Doge (their name for a king) Orso Ipato. They managedtodefendthevillagefromthebarbariansbyusingtheswampsandlagoonsasanatural barrier.
Quickly, Venice managed to thrive as a mercantile state by using its geographical position linking Europe and the East, selling grain and wine to the Byzantines, and trading them for spices and silk. Venice was also known for the salt it extracted and sold from the lagoons, and it swiftly managed to become a trading hub. To protect its trade from pirates, Venice secured key territories on the Illyrian coast, including the coasts of Istria and Dalmatia, whilst also worshipping the patron Saint Mark whose body had been brought back fromAlexandria by two merchants. By the turn of the millennium, Venice was a rich, flourishing, state, with one of the largest navies in the world, and an effective shipbuilding harbour called the Arsenale. But how was this mercantile empire managed?
The ‘Republic’part of Venice
The republic part of Venice was represented by the Grand Council, which controlled the day-to-day government. To become a member of the Grand Council, a person had to be in the city’s registry of nobility (known as the Libro d’Oro), and senior officials would be elected through votes and drawing lots. At points there were over 1000 members in the Council, which is a lot considering Venice’s medieval population of around 100,000!
For economic affairs, the Grand Council would appoint 40 of their members to be a part of the Quarantia, who would manage the treasury, whilst legislative decisions would be taken by the Senate, which had more than 200 members, along with key Venetian diplomats and generals.
The
‘Monarchy’
part of Venice
From a variety of noble families, the Grand Council would elect a Doge through secret voting and drawing lots. Doges held their post for life and were basically kings, but through the years of the Republic of Venice, the Doges would slowly start losing their official power, until they effectively became a figurehead, by the 15th century, although many Doges would still have huge influence in Venetian politics.
JoinedwiththeDogewouldbe6advisors,knownastheMinorCouncil,3delegatesfromthe Quarantia, and 16 experts known as the Savi, being 6 ‘secretaries’ known as the Savi del Consiglio, 5 provincial experts known as the Savi di Terraferma, and 5 maritime experts known as the Savi Agli Ordini. This massive group of people (including the Doge) would form the Pien Collegio, or ‘Full College’, and would run the day-to-day affairs and governance of Venice and its trade empire.
Finally, on top of ALL of this was the “Council of 10”, which would make sure that the monarchical and republican sections of the government didn’t undermine each other, and to sniff out corruption.
This balance of monarchy and republic, along with the sheer efficiency and execution of legislation through the complex system, would allow Venice to thrive as a cultural, economic, maritime, and scientific beacon in Europe. Many scholars, artists and architects would move to Venice during the Renaissance, such as Aldus Manutius (inventor of paperback books) and even Galileo Galilei, for a brief period! Venice was also the book capital of the world, printing more books than the rest of Italy combined! But what led to the downfall of this perfect nation?
The downfall of The Most Serene
Whilst the city of Venice was thriving during the Renaissance, its trade and maritime empire was collapsing. Unlike Venice, which stuck with its older galley warships, the powers of Europe were modernising with new carracks and caravels.After the collapse of Constantinople to the Ottomans, the Sultans turned their eyes to the Venetian holdings in the Aegean, including Crete. Through a series of wars spanning from the 15th to the 18th century, the Ottomans sapped away at Venetian holdings, until, in 1669, after a 23-year long siege, the island of Crete fell to the Ottomans, crushing any dreams of Venice regaining its prestige as a naval superpower.
In May 1797, Napoleon was rampaging across Italy and demanded that Venice unconditionally surrender. The Venetians, facing no choice, due to their small army, were forced to accept. Venice was plunderedfor valuables, and many artefacts, includingthefamousHorses of Saint Mark, were sent back to France. 5 months later, the ensuing Treaty of Campo Formio split the Republic of Venice between France andAustria, and, after Napoleon’s defeat, Venice was incorporated into theAustrian province of Lombardy-Venetio, marking the end of Venetian independence.
Liberation Theology
Sophia Bennett Yr 10
“But you have dishonoured the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you?”
- James 2:6
In 1960, almost 90 per cent of Latin Americans identified as Catholic. Not simply a religion, it was a part of their national identity and was woven into every aspect of their lives: their marriages, homes, art, music, education – and politics. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries, the Catholic Church was associated with conservative, political ideals, legitimizing Spanish colonial rule and tending to support traditional political ideals.However, after theWorldWars, apolitical shift began tooccurin the Church, and it was in this time when liberation theology emerged.
Many in the LatinAmerican Catholic Church employed liberation theology, amalgamating their views on the change which was needed to help the poor and address corruption in their country with scriptural teachings. Liberation theologians argued that social action was essential to confront the growing oppression of the poor, which they believed had intensified during the 1960s and 1970s due to widening economic disparities and political instability.
Firstly, World War II had worsened the divide between rich and poor - the Allies reliance on Latin American industry had boosted industrial output massively and increased economic income. Money gained from this was unevenly distributed throughout the country, however, with businessmen and landowners becoming even more powerful and wealthy while, unsurprisingly, workers benefitting very little. This divide angered many people, including priests and bishops, and led to emergence of socialist ideals which promised economic equality and support for working people.
Secondly, on the 11th of October 1962, the Second Vatican Council was opened. Lasting for three years, starting in 1962, this council sought to address the relationship between the Catholic Church and the rapidly developing modern world. Out of Vatican II emerged documents describing the understanding which the Church held of its role in the politically changing world. The Church was reconceptualized as a “church for the people”, these messages of community outreach reflecting the social action which many Latin American priests felt necessary. Vatican II had encouraged Catholic communities around the world to develop religious ideas based on the community action required in the regions where they worked. In response to Vatican II, liberation theologists felt further motivated to resist corruption and the ongoing mistreatment of working-class people. For many priests and bishops,Vatican II highlighted the role of political action in religion – although this was disputed by many.
In 1975, Gustavo Gutierrez published “A Theology of Liberation”, which is seen by many to be a cornerstone of the liberation theology movement. Read by thousands of Catholics worldwide, it was described by EBSCO Information Services to describe how the Catholic Church was “shifting its focus from traditional wisdom-seeking to a reflective examination of human action and social justice”. This perfectly describes the goals of liberation theology in Latin America – not exactly turning away from traditions of learning about religion and revelation of God but shifting towards change which can be created in communities.
It is important to note that these notions of protection of the poor and condemnation of the greedy were not new in Catholicism. The first of the Beatitudes (a series of statements describing characteristics leading to divine favour) is “Blessed are the poor for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.” In the Bible, Jesus’poverty is made very clear.As the infamous Nativity story goes, he was born in a stable as there was no room in the inn, showing his humility. Famously, the Bible writes that “It is easier for a camel
to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Through all this, it is suggested that God favours the poor and encourages abandonment of riches and greed, all of which encouraged liberation theologists to support the poor and condemn the corrupt rich.
Liberation theologists of course used these biblical principles in their work for social justice, however, some encouraged scripture to be used in a different way. In the 1970s Gustavo Gutiérrez, who wrote “A Theology of Liberation”, along with writers like Jon Sobrino and José Míguez Bonino employed a new method of scriptural interpretation. Instead of applying the Bible to life and living in accordance with it,asiscommoninalldenominationsofChristianity,thesetheologiansappliedthelivesoftheoppressed and poor in their scriptural interpretation. They read scripture through the lens of their LatinAmerican communities, who were struggling due to corruption and economic disparity. The Bible became a call for justice and peace and was used to criticize the society within which Catholics suffered. Scriptural analysis became less of an act of uncovering one truth but became a constant debateand interpretation.
This made much of the Church, both in LatinAmerica and worldwide, uncomfortable. These liberation theologists were suggesting that scripture was something to be filtered through human experience, which seemed to ignore the existence of objective truths. Some main objective truths in Christianity are the existence of God, moral laws and the life of Jesus. The idea that these truths could be discussed, debated and perceived differently based on perspective and environment made many religious leaders uncomfortable.
Aswell asthis,amainwayinwhichliberationtheologywasdiscreditedwasforbeingcloselyassociated with Marxism. This sounds contradictory as Marxist theology is notoriously atheistic and liberation theologyfocusedonhowtousereligionandscriptureinastrugglingsociety,howeverthecontext within which liberation theology emerged made accusations of Marxism far more plausible. Liberation theology emerged during the Cold War, when Latin America was pervaded with fear of Communism. This fear was, in part, driven by the Cuban Revolution which formed a Communist government led by Fidel Castro. Castro’s revolution was known for its extreme violence – an estimated 2000 people died in the Battle of Santa Clara – and LatinAmerican governments were desperate to avoid similar violent
uprisings. Other pressuresof the ColdWar encouragedgovernmentsto suppressleftist movements. Post WWII a fear of Communism had spread around the US, with the well-known movement of McCarthyism causing hysterical fear of any socialist ideas. This fear spread to Latin America and liberation theology was met with much resistance from communist-fearing governments. The books of liberation theologians were banned, meetings surveyed, and priests and bishops were questioned, some even tortured and murdered, in an attempt to control the movement.
Liberation theology was also opposed by theVatican, especially when led by Pope John Paul II. Having grown up in Poland under a communist regime which persecuted the Catholic Church, the Pope openly criticized Communism and is seen by some to have been a key figure in its downfall in central and eastern Europe.
In 1986, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith denounced liberation theology partly because of fear of the dangers of Marxist theology but also because of how it prioritised material liberation. Liberation theology focuses on liberation of the poor and the breaking of class structures, things which revolve around wealth and material possession. The Church disliked this fixation on the material as forthem, suffering dueto povertyorcorruption should not befocusedon asit isunimportant in comparison to life after death, salvation and meeting God. The Church believed that when such emphasis was placed on material possession, despite it being through a lens of care and liberation, it could distract from the ultimate objective – freedom from sin and eternal life. In short, the Vatican believed in liberation – not from corruption, poverty and political structures which undermined the working class – but from sin, a liberation which revolved around becoming closer to God through escaping the grasp of sin on humanity.
One of the biggest impact liberation theology had on Latin America was through base communities. These base communities were set up in impoverished areas and were centres of education, empowermentandprayer.Theyemployedlayleadership,allowingthosewithlesspowertohavecontrol over sessions, encouraging those who were historically excluded from the Church to have control in decision-making. Often these communities became critical places of liberation and activism against corruption. Due to Marxist leanings, the governments of Latin American countries aimed to suppress these communities and as a result, there were far fewer over time.
Due to suppression from theVatican and persecution from governments, liberation theology became far less popular in the 1990’s. However, the election of Pope Francis saw a revival in ideas similar to those of liberation theology in Latin America. With Pope Francis being a key advocate for the poor and oppressed, many of his views echoed those of liberation theologists. He emphasised focus of the poor and marginalised communities mirroring the ideas of preferential options for the poor which liberation theologists held. The late Pope also believed that The Church should move away from its traditional, slightly detached position in society to being involved in community projects and supporting the suffering and persecuted. However, there isstill much caution aroundliberation theologyin theVatican. DuetotheCatholicChurcheshistorywithpersecutioninpoliticallyextremesocieties,oftencommunist, liberation theology is often criticized for the ways in which it mirrors these political ideas.
Today, many Latin American Catholic leaders are inspired by the concepts of care and community outreach which are highlighted in liberation theology.While it is treated carefully due to its controversy in the Catholic Church, it still has an impact in Catholicism, not only in Latin America, but all around the world today.
The influence of Catholicism on the Franco regime
Isabella Patel Yr 12
Despite only ending 50 years ago in 1975 and lasting for almost four decades, the Franco regime in Spain is very often overlooked in history. Franco’s government was a nationalist and fascist one who worked throughout their time in power with the Catholic Church to promote national Catholicism and further promote the idea that that should be the only religion in Spain. From 1931-1936, before Franco becameadictator,liberal governmentsbegantochallengetheinfluenceoftheChurchsuchasbyissuing permission for divorce and removing any state funding for the Church. Therefore, when Franco ran for power, many clergy members who opposed this new liberal way of thinking supported him in his coup and helped justify it.
He believed the Catholic Church would play a key role in bringing his traditional beliefs and his authoritarian regime. He signed a concordat with the Church in 1953 formalizing the cooperation between the government and Catholic Church, therefore granting it powers under his own authority. He wanted the Church to promote traditional values, prevent opposition and legitimize his regime. He granted them privileges such as state funding or exemption from taxation.
The first key influence which Franco’s Catholic government had was on women. The Catholic Church was involved in establishing set gender roles and control over women’s lives to enforce traditional values.This would range over different things such as which jobs they could have and which rights they were entitled to. Firstly, in regards to the gender roles, the Catholic Church and the Franco regime both shared the view that a woman’s place was in the home and her main job was to be a mother. They were considered to be inferior to men. These beliefs were enforced through ways such as education; The Catholic Church was responsible for the education system so therefore they emphasized gender roles by making the main objective of girls’education to be to prepare them to become a housewife such as through domestic skills. In addition to this, as the Catholic Church opposed abortion, it was forbidden and made illegal in 1941 and they supported this view. Information on abortion and contraception was limited as an attempt to increase population growth and control women’s reproductive rights. If a woman resorted to having illegal abortions then she would have faced charges such as imprisonment or fines.
Given that the Catholic Church pushed for the importance of marriage, divorce was made illegal in Francoist Spain. Furthermore, in 1938, Franco suppressed laws on civil marriage and divorce and permanently suspended them. Any civil marriages which had occurred beforehand had been automatically annulled and those people were forced to remarry and could only do so if they were both Catholic. However, in 1941, Franco issued a permit for couples to be able to have civil marriages only if both partners could provide sufficient reasons for not being Catholic or not wanting a Catholic marriage however given that the influence Catholicism had was big, a very limited amount of civil marriages occurred and the government considered them an outcast to the state and society.
Other main areas which Franco and his government had key control over was education and behaviour. Religious education was made to be compulsory in all schools up to and including university level to mix religion and nationalism in order to promote their fascist ideologies. The Church would further be involved with inspecting schools and also training teachers and any resources which contained content not aligning with the Church’s views would be removed. This control over what children learnt was there to promote Franco’s view of national unity and also ensure the younger generation was loyal to the Franco government.Moreover, public behaviour was veryrestrictedandthe Catholic Churchplayed a very strong role in enforcing moral and social expectations. Books, films and media were censored in order to align with ideologies which the government and Catholic Church agreed with. For example,
women were meant to behave demurely and be obedient especially to men and their main place was in the home- they were banned from the public sphere to further reinforce this idea. Men however were expected to support the home, be leaders and provide for their family.
Revolutionary Reverberations: The 1789 French Revolution and Its Influence on the Rise of the Roman Republic
Harman Sandhu Yr 12
By 1789,the oldabsolutemonarchyin France waseconomicallybankrupt.Whenthe FrenchParliament met in May 1789, the ‘ancien regime’came under attack from the common people who forced change. Initially they established a constitutional monarchy, as in Britain, but by 1792 the revolution had grown more extreme and in September 1792 a Republic was declared.
This French Revolution had a long-lasting profound impact on the rest of Europe; many liberal thinkers hailed the French Revolution as a success for freedom and democracy. Consequently, it played a huge role in inspiring a wave of revolutions across Europe in 1848, often referred to as the ‘Springtime of Nations’; aseries ofinterconnecteduprisingsthat swept across Europe.AndinItaly specifically,several major Italian cities and regions thusly saw revolutionary uprisings from 1848 onwards.
There were of course other factors that influenced the ‘Springtime of Nations’ and thus the rise of the Roman Republic. This includes but is not limited to: the July Revolution of 1830 in France (whereby there was the deposition of the French King Charles X, who had tried to adopt unpopular repressive measures,infavourofLouisPhillipe,aprogressiveFrencharistocrat)andtheimpactofindustrialisation in fuelling demand for change because of it in some cases resulting in many negative consequences such as the deterioration of conditions for workers and the poor in many urban areas. Nonetheless, the 1789 French Revolution was one of the most key initial factors.
Perhaps the most significant of these events in Italy specifically as part of the ‘Springtime of Nations’ was the establishment of the Roman Republic. It was declared in February 1849 after Pope Pius IX fled Rome following revolutionary pressure. Giuseppe Mazzini at the forefront, along with other Italian republicans took control of Rome and declared a republican government in the hopes of establishing a democratic and unified Italy.
The 1789 French Revolution had influenced its formation specifically because its emphasis on republicanism, democracy, and the overthrow of monarchical authority resonated with the revolutionaries. Accordingly, these ideas of liberty, secularism, and the rejection of papal rule were motivators for the revolutionaries to actively intervene, who sought to establish a government in line with the ideals put forward during the French Revolution. Giuseppe Mazzini specifically had been inspired significantly; both him playing a significant role in the uprisings of 1848 and him founding the 'Young Italy’movement in 1831, which aimed to unify Italy and create a republican government, were in part a result of him drawing directly from the French Revolution’s ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity.
Nonetheless, the implications of the establishment of the Roman Republic were rather transformative as they challenged the existing political landscape in Italy by objecting to the Pope's temporal power in the Papal States, a large region in central Italy that spanned from the Lazio region (where Rome is located) to parts of Umbria and Marche. This is because prior to this, the Pope exercised full political control over the Papal States, meaning the Pope had:
1) The authority to appoint officials, issue decrees, enforce laws, and manage the day-to-day administration of the territories.
2) The ability to maintain an army to defend the Papal States and protect the interests of the Church.
3) Control of the judicial system within the Papal States, including the ability to create laws and hold courts. He had significant influence over the people living within these territories.
4) Control over lands, resources, and income derived from taxes, tithes, and religious donations.
But in establishing the Roman Republic, the revolutionaries sought to reduce this political power by limiting the Pope’s dual authority (since he was both a political and spiritual leader). This was perhaps partly out of fear that by his dual authority meaning his political control was tied to religious considerations that this meant that the Pope’s decisions about governance were thus negatively influenced by his status as the leader of the Catholic faith. Nonetheless, this shows the key ideological struggle between the revolutionary leaders, who wanted to separate religion from government, and the Pope, who sought to maintain control over both spiritual and political matters.
However, the Roman Republic was short-lived. French troops under Napoleon III intervened to restore the Pope to power; on 25 April, 1849, 8,000-10,000 French troops under General Charles Oudinot landed at Civitavecchia. The siege began on 1 June, and despite the resistance of the Republican army, led by Garibaldi, the French prevailed on 29 June and thus the republic fell.
Nonetheless, themagnitudeof theinfluence of the French Revolution is clearly depicted bythe political and consequent religious implications that it almost played a role in causing in Italy had the Republic not fallen; there would have been the absolute collapse of the Pope’s political power over the Papal Stateswithwhichtherewouldhavebeenthegradualseparationofreligionwithpoliticsandgovernment in Italy.
However, it is interesting to note that just 21 years after this, the Pope ended up losing his political power, and this time it was a much more permanent loss: in 1870, with the capture of Rome by the Kingdom of Italy, the Papal States were effectively abolished. Rome became the capital of the new Italian state, and the Pope lost control of the territories he had once ruled. Indeed, following this, the Pope adopted the title ‘Prisoner of the Vatican’and withdrew from public life in protest against the loss of his temporal and political power.
Overall, it is thus interesting to see how one event in history has the power to potentially have such extensive consequences and play a pivotal role in causing so much change; indeed in this case, the French Revolution’s enduring influence is highlighted so clearly; the Roman Republic’s formation in 1849 hints how the ideas of the French Revolution in 1789 had taken root in European politics via it setting a precedent that even deeply entrenched monarchies and religious authorities could be challenged.
What is evil? Is anyone born evil?
Issie Ridgeway Yr 10
Whether humans are born good or evil has been debated by philosophers for centuries. The meaning of evil is morally reprehensible, ‘evil’is anything that departs from God and his good ways that are seen withintheBible.Butanevilperson(tome)issomeonewhoderivespleasurefromthepainordiscomfort of others, whether that is emotionally, physically, or mentally. I believe that no being is born destined to be evil, everyone is born with the ability to commit evil actions, but it is environmental factors that we face as we grow up, that determines whether or not you act on this and ‘become’evil. I also believe that from the moment of birth we are able to determine morally ‘evil’actions from morally ‘good’ones (due to evidence explained later). So therefore, it is our perception on what we consider evil or not that really determines if we are then actually evil.
This argument is very controversial because the struggle between being good and evil causes more violence. As it creates a moral divide between people that causes feelings of superiority, because once we label someone as evil, we do not want to understand them. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote, ‘the battle line between good and evil runs through the heart of everyman.’But are we born that way?
Let us take a newborn baby as an example, this baby spends its whole childhood surrounded by vicious people and acts of violence.The child then learns about acts of torture though TVshows that it watches and games that it plays. Slowly, over time, these ‘evil’behaviours appear normal to the child, as it has been around them for so long, so the person now starts to act in these ‘evil’ways because they assume that it is normal. Was the baby raised to be evil or was the baby born to be evil?
The philosopherAristotle would argue that the baby learned to be evil. He would argue that morality is learnt as we grow up from our environment, and that we are born as ‘amoral creatures’. Another philosopher called Sigmund Freud said that human beings are born with pristine minds, and that everything that we think, know, and do is shaped by our environment and our experiences. Both these theories suggest that we are not born evil, but we would learn evil ways.
Thomas Hobbes, however, would say that the baby was born evil. He believed that the human nature is inherentlyselfish, nasty, and brutish, andthat we need society and rules toreign inour instincts(prevent evil actions). So, in the case of the baby, it was born evil, and due to its’upbringing, no one ever taught it to reign in its instincts. However, this argument does not make sense, as a human could be gentle and pure without the corruption of greed and inequality caused by the ways of our society.
On top of the fact that this argument does not make sense, developmental physiology studies have shown that there is some natural ‘good’in humanity even from the moment of birth (before society can teach babies what is ‘good’or ‘bad’).
One experiment was done that replicated the findings of a study from the infant cognition centre atYale university. In the experiment, babies less than a year old (some as young as 7 months), were made to watch a puppet show where different coloured shapes acted in ways that were clearly recognisable as morally right or wrong. In the show, a red circle is seen struggling to climb a hill while a blue square tries to push it back down. Then, a yellow triangle helps the red circle by pushing it up the hill. After the show, the babies were asked to pick which shape they wanted to play with between the blue square or the yellow triangle. Every single one of the babies ended up picking the ‘good’yellow triangle.
This research by Yale university shows that babies have an innate goodness and are born with some sense of morality. This experiment shows that not only are babies able to make moral judgments, but
also that they are capable of making ‘good’ decisions as well. Proving that you cannot be born completely evil.
A similar study from Kyoto university backs these results, children as young as six months old were shown a video with three characters. In it, a ‘bully’ was seen pushing the ‘victim’ against a wall, and occasionally a ‘third party’would come and intervene to help the victim.After watching the video, the children had to choose one of the characters to play with and the majority chose the third party who had tried to help the victim. This experiment further shows an innate sense of goodness in humans from a very young age.
Many people have said that these experiments don’t actually prove anything as the babies only acted in this way as they were surrounded by other people, and that the babies only did the right thing in order to please others or to avoid punishment. However, the ‘big mother’ study from Harvard in 2013 disproves this theory. This study found that infants voluntarily helped others, whether or not they were asked to or if anyone was present at the time. As the infants, who did not know they were being observed, still acted kindly and helped others, this argument cannot be used. Proving that the previous babies' actions in the past experiments, were not just because there were others around.
Although these studies don’t disprove Hobbes pessimistic view on human nature, they do seem to suggest that we are born with some sense of what is right or wrong.
Having a sense of what is morally right or wrong from a young age is helpful, but we still need to learn which one is considered the ‘normal’way to act. The things we do, and whether we consider them evil or not, is also largely based on your personal morals and your view on what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’. According to research, the first five years of a child’s life, builds the foundations for ethical and moral behaviour. So, people from different backgrounds will have different views on what is considered an evil moral action. Our beliefs grow from what we see, hear, experience, read and think about.Therefore, the things that you hear from family growing up, will determine some or most of your moral views and actions throughout life.
Investigation agents Robert Ressler,Ann Burgess, and John Douglass examined the childhood traits of 36 serial killers for collective traits within the group. As a child, future serial killers showed certain behavioural traits that were not considered ‘normal’. Many serial killers come from unstable families with criminal, psychiatric, or alcoholic tendencies. They often have terrible relationships with their families. Many serial killers are also abused during childhood-physically, physiologically, or sexually by a family member. These behaviours are instilled into the child from a young age, which they will later take out on their victims. Aileen Wuornos had a very rough childhood, she was raped and beaten by her grandfather and one of his friends, and she got pregnant at 14. Due to these experiences growing up, the ways she treated her victims was parallel to the way that she was treated.
Growing up in rough environments like these makes it a lot more likely that you will act in these ways as you grow up (be evil), due to the actions appearing ‘normal’. Or because of strong feelings of humiliation and helplessness, that you would take out on other people. So, taking this point back to the argument, these people were not born evil, but from a very young age evil tendencies were installed into them, and their perception on what would be considered evil changed due to their childhood.
Not only do we learn our morals from our parents and our surroundings as we grow up, but we also learn how to read, write, talk, and walk. These are all things that we are not born with the ability to do, but things that we learn how to do as we grow up from our parents and our environments. I believe that the case is the same for ‘being’evil, not a single person is born evil, just like how no baby is born able to walk or talk. But the people who end up being evil, (like murders or rapists), learned these evil ways, or had to express their suppressed emotions due to their tough upbringing. And if their upbringing had of been different then, they would not of learnt these evil ways, and they would not have been ‘evil’.
In conclusion, I believe that no human being is born already evil, we are born with the ability to determine ‘right’ from ‘wrong’, and we are born with the ability to commit evil actions. But it is environmental factors that we face growing up that determine our view on what is right and wrong and it’s these factors that determine whether or not we commit evil actions.
Hitler’s Propaganda Games
Aimee Porter Yr 9
Throughout its prolonged history, the Olympic Games has created many historic moments in history, whether it being within the events, or totally unrelated to the sports themselves, none more so than the Berlin 1936 Olympic Games.
The 1936 Berlin Olympic Games were staged during a significant time in history, with a tense, politically corrupt atmosphere in Nazi Germany. Germany was handed the Olympic Games by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in 1931, when the country was still governed by the Weimar Republic. The IOC felt that the economic revenue generated by the Games would help Germany to recover from the devastating effects of the Treaty of Versailles. However, in 1933, Adolf Hitler was named as Chancellor of Germany and claimed absolute power, leading to immense popularity throughout Germany.
As the Games drew nearer, countries became concerned about Nazi discriminatory policies against certain race and religion groups, and the possibility of a boycott was proposed in multiple counties, including the United States. As a result, Avery Brundage, president of the IOC at the time, undertook an inspection tour of Germany, on behalf of the American Olympic Association (AOA), to assess whetherAmerica should send a team to compete at Berlin. Brundage later returned to the United States claiming that Germany was fully cooperating with the Olympic rules of non-discrimination, with written assurances to back him up. He subsequently took the lead of the anti-boycott movement, claiming that sport should not be mixed with politics. This gained him huge political capital with the IOC for helping to deliver a star-studded U.S. team to the Olympics. In the end, no countries boycotted the Olympics.
On the 1st August 1936, the Games eventually commenced, with 49 countries competing, the most of any Olympics to that date. However, it was clear from the start that Hitler and the Nazi’s were taking advantage of the worldwide publicity to convert the Games into a spectacle of Nazi propaganda as well as using it as an opportunity to portray the country in a good light, especially after the horrors of World War One. Hitler called upon the well renowned German filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl to depict his nation as benign and prosperous, by documenting the Games on film. Riefenstahl created a piece which glorified the Games, with unprecedented technological camerawork for that era, enthusiastic commentary and music which enhanced the spectacle that Germany was supposedly creating with the Olympics. Ultimately, Hitler’s intention with the film was to show the finesse and order of the nation, therefore proving themselves not to be a threat to other counties, which would help to enforce his war plan later.
Perhaps the hero of the Games from the perspective of the rest of the world was theAmerican sprinter, Jesse Owens. Hitler wanted to use the Games to show the superiority of the Aryan ‘master race’(nonJewish people with blond hair, blue eyes, etc.), hoping they would sweep the medals. However, it was not to be for Hitler for Jesse Owens won 4 gold medals, along with many other African Americans, ironically destroying the image of the ‘supreme’ Aryans. This also created the one blow to Leni Riefenstahl’s momentous film, for it showed Owens’ success against the Aryans which did not bode well for Hitler after all his discriminatory actions against black people.
Three years later, when World War Two broke out, Hitler’s aggressive intentions were finally exposed. Any idea that Germany was a mighty but friendly country that other nations need not fear- something that the 1936 Olympic Games sought to show- was ultimately shown to be a lie.
Why did Napoleon Bonaparte win so many battles?
Lucas Argent Yr 11
Napoleon Bonaparte dominated the European continent for close to two decades at the start of the nineteenth century. In fact, he was so successful that an entire period of warfare has taken his name. This near twenty-year spanwas made up of almost constant fighting and conflict, from which Napoleon almost alwaysemergedvictorious.Hismilitaryacumenrevolutionisedwarfareforever.But thequestion of just what made him so successful has remained unanswered. In this article, I am going to argue that ultimately, what made Napoleona geniusmilitarymindwas not hisdeepunderstanding of battletactics, or use of artillery, bothof whichhe was skilledat, but his incredibleabilitytoorganise hisarmy. Despite his eventual defeat at Waterloo, his military strategies left a marked impression on European warfare. One way in which Napoleon was able to win as many battles as he did was through his use of artillery. This was hugely effective and represented a key part of his military strategy. One example of this was during the Battle of Wagram in 1809, where the barrage of concentrated French artillery fire effectively won the battle for Napoleon. It was particularly effective as a result of the damp and flat conditions of the day, causing the fire to ricochet, which meant entire Austrian files of men would be killed with a single shot. Although the Austrians also made use of artillery in the battle, the French use proved especially effective as a result of the concentration of their fire and their use of higher calibre weaponry. After the battle, Napoleon said to his artillery commander ‘at Eylau, you provided me with powerful support, but today you have won me the battle’, highlighting the crucial role that artillery often played in his military victories. Napoleon made effective use of artillery by concentrating fire at a single point to create gapsintheenemyline.Thismade subsequent infantry advancesconsiderably easier, providing Napoleon a significant advantage. In addition to being used for tactical purposes, the use of artillery also had severe psychological impacts, often leaving enemy soldiers demoralised. This marked a significant shift in how artillery was used in conflict, with Napoleon being amongst the first to utilise artillery as a major part of battles, as opposed to in a primarily supporting role. However, artillery was notuniquetoNapoleon –itsusewaswidespreadthroughouttheNapoleonicconflicts.Evenat theBattle of Wagram, mentioned above,Austria made similar use of artillery, albeit less effectively, and all of the major powers used artillery in some form. By the time of Waterloo, advancements in artillery had overtaken Napoleon, and Prussian use of more advanced artillery played a key role in his defeat. Overall, Napoleon’s use of artillery was effective, and played a key role in his success. However, it was not what led to his military success. Even though he did innovate and make use of artillery in an important way, it was never a unique feature that set him apart - it represented a common tactic on both sides of the Napoleonic wars.
Similarly, Napoleon was an effective military commander as a result of his ability to quickly cover ground and outmanoeuvre opponents. One example of this was during the Battle of Ulm in late 1805, where Napoleon marched an army of 200,000 men eighteen miles a day to catch a limited Austrian force (who had been waiting for Russian reinforcements) by surprise. The Austrian general, Mack, surrendered quickly and Napoleon was able to take an estimated 50,000 Austrians prisoner. Napoleon later wrote about the battle, ‘I have destroyed the Austrian Army by simply marching’, and in many senses he was right. Prior to Napoleon, moving troops was incredibly slow, and for most of the rest of Europe it was still the case during the wars – this was before the train. The Russian army moving to reinforce the Austrians was still over a hundred miles away when Mack surrendered and were notoriously slow moving even for the standards of the time. One way Napoleon was able to move quickly was by minimising his army’s reliance on extended, bulky supply lines, by encouraging his soldiers to live off the land 'La Maraude'. This included the scavenging of local villages and farms for food and other general supplies. Without the need to worry about supply lines, Napoleon was able to
move considerably quicker than his adversaries, giving him a significant advantage. However, it was not always effective, and in campaigns where he was unable to live off the land, he often struggled, for exampleInbothRussiaandIberia,wherethelandwasfar morebarrenthanincentral Europe.InRussia, this was exacerbated as the French army was forced to retreat over land they had already plundered, leading to a severe lack of resources. Napoleon’s force was decimated from their overreliance on living off the land and this defeat marked the beginning of the end for Napoleon. Overall, Napoleon’s speed of movement was one of his greatest assets and a key way in which he was able to dominate Europe in the early 19th century. It contributed to several of his largest victories, whether he was able to reach opponents before they were expecting, as seen in Ulm, or out-manoeuvre them in battle. Although it provided significant drawbacks, and ultimately led to his downfall, his ability to move quickly was a key element of his tactics that allowed him to control Europe in the first place.
Alternatively, it could be argued that the reason Napoleon was so militarily successful was not as a result of incredible battle tactics, but because of how he excelled at organising his army. Prior to Napoleon, armies often had incredibly rigid structures, and separate units were entirely reliant on one another. This made organisation considerably harder. Conversely, Napoleon organised his army into corps, each of which was effectively a smaller self-sufficient army. Each corps was led by a Marshal and had its own artillery, supplies and between twenty and thirty thousand men. In some senses, this highly efficient organisation was what allowed for the French army to move so quickly and be as coordinated as it was, as opposed to just Napoleon’s tactical brilliance. In the Battle of Ulm, and the broader Austerlitz campaign, discussed earlier, the entirely self-sufficient corps played a vital role in the ability toscavengetheland andminimisedthe needforinefficient central coordination which would have slowed the army down substantially. However, there were drawbacks to this approach, as a lack of central leadership could lead to tactical blunders. For example, at the Battle of Jena, one of Napoleon’s Marshals, Michel Ney, decided to attack the Prussian forces without being ordered to. Althoughhisinitial assaultprovedsuccessful,itlefttheFrenchflankmassivelyexposedandsurrounded by Prussian artillery. This highlights possibly the greatest flaw with a more fluid and less centrally organised army:an increased propensity for tactical blunders and miscommunication. However, in the verysame battle,theadaptabilityofthecorps system, one ofits greatest strengths, still ensured aFrench victory, even after the initial blunder. After recognising the situation, Napoleon was very quickly able to reorganise the position of his other corps to cover the exposed position and strengthen the weakened centre with the Imperial guard, troops under Napoleon’s direct control. This ability to quickly manoeuvre and reorganise stemmed from the devolution into corps and the fluid organisational system. With a more rigid organisational structure, as many other armies had, it would have been far harder to effectively adjust to setbacks. Overall, Napoleon’s organisational strength was arguably just as, if not
far more important than his battlefield tactics. The very occasional blunder it led to could be rectified by the ability to quickly adjust brought by the same system. It also represented a stark contrast with most of the coalition forcesat the time, who relied on very rigid and structured hierarchies, significantly limiting their adaptability and fluidity, making it something that truly made Napoleon brilliant. Conversely, some argue that Napoleon was not brilliant, but simply benefited from the failings of Europe’s other generals at the time. Several of Napoleon’s greatest strengths, in particular his organisational skills, were not individual examples of tactical genius, but broader reforms which were easily replicable. The rest of Europe failed to match Napoleon’s advancements for most of the conflict, even when they could replicate some of the reforms, giving Napoleon significant advantages. This was a key element of his success. However, perhaps even more pressingly was the prevalence of blunders made by Napoleons adversaries. For example, although the Battle of Austerlitz, arguably Napoleon’s greatest ever military victory, represented tactical ingenuity, it was made all the easier by the failings of the coalition forces. Tsar Alexander of Russia and Emperor Francis of Austria were very easily misled by Napoleon’s feign at weakness, allowing for Napoleon’s decisive victory. This was exacerbated by miscommunication and distrust between the Austrian and Russian armies completely nullifying the effectiveness of the allied offensive. This was a constant theme throughout the wars, as coalition forces made blunders which Napoleon was able to exploit. When Napoleon did face more experienced generals, he struggled. Most notably, in the Battle of Waterloo, where he fought against an AngloPrussian force.Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington, who had been fighting in the Peninsular war for much of the conflict, was effectively able to hold his own against Napoleon when he was waiting for Prussian reinforcements, and eventually re-captured Napoleon. However, it seems a weak suggestion that all of Europe’s best generals at the time knew nothing about warfare.All of these people had been recognised in some sense for their ability on the battlefield and so to suggest that they weren’t excellent generals in their own right isn’t a compelling argument. Napoleon was able to exploit his opponents’ mistakes to his advantage, making them appear larger than they were, which in and of itself requires great military intelligence. In many senses, the fact that this argument can even be made serves as a testament to Napoleon’s incredible ability on the battlefield, to the extent that he was in some cases able to reduce Europe’s greatest generals to people who had appeared never to have seen conflict before. Napoleon’s strength evidently came down to more than only facing less than adequate generals. Even if this were the case, Napoleon was still able to dominate an entire continent for almost two decadesan incredibly impressive feat in and of itself, regardless of the strength of his opponents.
In conclusion, Napoleon’s success on the battlefield came down to a range of factors, most significantly his impressive ability to organise his army, his speed of movement and use of artillery. But overall, Napoleon’s ability to effectively organise his army was the key reason behind his success. As well as beinganinnovationuniquetoNapoleon,itunderpinnedmuchofwhat allowedhimtobeagreatmilitary commander. The speed at which he was able to cover distance and manoeuvre within battles both effectively stemmed from the corps system and the fluid organisation of his army. These both played key roles in Napoleon’s most successful campaigns and decisive victories, most notably during the Battle of Ulm. However, this was aided by other factors which played a similar, albeit less impactful role in his success. Napoleon’s effective and innovative use of artillery also played a crucial role in his military success, however not quite to the same extent, as although effectively deployed by Napoleon it was less of unique to him. It could even be argued that each corps having its own artillery furthered the effectiveness of its employment, again demonstrating that Napoleon’s ability to win so many battles ultimately stemmed from an incredibly ability to organise.
What were the implications of Gerald Ford’s pardoning of Nixon over the Watergate scandal?
Alex Diefenbacher Yr 9
Richard Nixon is perhaps the most infamous president in the history of the United States. This is for a multitude of reasons, but the most memorable one was the Watergate scandal. You may have heard of this before but for those who don’t know, the Watergate scandal occurred when Nixon used his powers as president to plant listening devices in the headquarters of the Democratic National Convention and the subsequent cover-up that allowed him to win re-election in 1972.After this came to light, Congress formally impeached him, which means they found him guilty of misconduct. Other presidents have been impeached like Bill Clinton after he lied to Congress about the Monica Lewinski scandal and Donald Trump over his receipt of foreign aid in the 2020 election. But, where Nixon differs from the two is the fact that in 1974 he resigned, making him the first and only US president to voluntarily leave office early.
A lot of people think that Ford was Nixon’s Vice President throughout his presidency, but he was not. Nixon’s Vice President during the scandal was the first-generation immigrant Spiro Theodore Agnew. ThereasonAgnewdidnottakeoverforNixonwasbecausehewasputontrialfortaxevasion,extortion, bribery and criminal conspiracy during his time as governor of Maryland. He later pleaded no contest and resigned; he was replaced as Vice President by Republican House Leader Gerald Ford.
Upon Nixon’sresignation,Ford wassworninonthe9th ofAugust1974andselected NelsonRockefeller as his Vice President. Nixon was facing serious charges, the most severe being obstruction of justice, carrying a sentence of twenty yearsto lifein most cases.The evidence against Nixon was so compelling
that most people assumed that he would be convicted and sentenced. However, history had other plans. On September 8th, 1974, President Ford announced that he would issue Nixon a presidential pardon. This meant that Nixon had been cleared of all wrongdoing. He justified it in a speech where he stated that the pardon was issued in order ‘to change our national focus [and] to shift our attentions from the pursuit of a fallen President to the pursuit of the urgent needs of a rising nation’. He privately justified it with the text from the 1915 Burdick Vs the United States Government supreme court case that stated that a pardon was an admission of guilt.
No matter how Ford tried to paint it, the overall message was clear, if you are powerful enough you can get away with anything. This is a major issue for many reasons. First, it was a clear disregard for the law and modern democracy; how can a leader protect these values if they refuse to live by them? This issignificantwiththeoneofthefirstattemptstocurtailtheattemptofleader’stobreakthelawoccurring 824 years ago in 1215 in the form of the Magna Carta which stated that the King had to abide by the law. This issue is unfortunately still prevalent in modern politics. Take Donald Trump, during his first term he sparked an investigation into his dealings with Russia titled the Mueller report (after Robert Mueller). While not finding proof of Trump personally dealing with Russia, it found several people close to him did and did not state that he was innocent. Trump also incited a riot which led to protesters breaking in to the capitol building in an attempt to halt the ratification of the 2020 election results, has attempted to obstruct justice and has broken the law in many other cases, too. And yet what consequences did he face? None whatsoever. His decision to act in violation of law came from the knowledge that no matter what, even if he was convicted, he would likely be pardoned by the next guy. Ford’s pardoning of Nixon allowed this to happen by opening so many doors on what was acceptable in politics, and created a justice system where no justice is served.
Secondly, the decision to pardon Nixon implies that justice cannot be served in moments of ‘urgency’. Remember Ford’s public justification?That the government had to explore areas of urgency before they could focus on minor stuff? This suggests that if there is an emergency justice cannot be pursued, and is dangerous as in our modern world it seems like there is always an emergency! There is always a war, a bombing or another kind of international crisis. Justice, when delayed or not prioritised, is not true justice How can you expect a country to act in the best interest of justice internationally while they haven’t mastered it at home? Justice is meant to be indiscriminate regardless of power, connections or belief. Justice cannot be used only when it suits you, it must be fought in every step one takes.
In conclusion, the pardoning of Nixon was one of the biggest shames in US political history. It was done to to protect Nixon, the party and Ford’s position, without care of the implications, only that it benefited him in the short run. While it is true that there were urgent issues at the time, it shouldn’t have been used as a tool to protect the guilty. The pardon also redefined what was acceptable, shattering unspoken rules on how a president should act. In hindsight, it feels like a bit of an insult to justice and therefore America itself. But that was in the past, and we must look to the future: we cannot allow something of this magnitude to take place again. Justice will fight for all of us but first we must fight for it.
Should anyone be ashamed of their nation’s history? Should anyone be proud of it?
Lilia Golebiowska Yr 12
To ask whether people should feel pride or shame in their nation’s history is really to ask how we relate to events that happened long before we were born - and whether our identity as citizens should carry the weight or the honour of those actions. History is powerful. It shapes how we see ourselves, how we teach our children, and how others see us (Assmann, 2011).And yet, no country has a past that is purely heroic or utterly shameful.The truth lies in facing that past with honesty, avoiding the trap of glorifying it - or denying it. This article looks at examples from around the world to explore genocide, liberation, repression, and solidarity, arguing that pride and shame can both be valid - but only when they come from critical understanding, not blind loyalty. History shouldn’t be a weapon or a source of inherited guilt. It’s a legacy – something to understand, reckon with, and, when we can, make right (MacMillan, 2009).
Shame in Genocide
Therearefewpartsofhistorythatdemandmoralreckoningasstronglyasgenocide.Whenagovernment chooses mass murder – carried out systematically and with intent – it loses any claim to legitimacy.The Holocaust, where six million Jews were killed by Nazi Germany, is perhaps the most well-known atrocity ofthis kind(Bergen, 2009). However,it did not occurin isolation. It was supported by the state, spread by propaganda, and enabled by silence and complicity (Evans, 2005). Since then, Germany has tried to confront this past – through education, memorials like the Berlin Holocaust Memorial, and by banning Holocaust denial (Niven, 2002). In this case, shame hasn’t weakened Germany’s identity; it’s helped strengthen its commitment to democracy and human rights. The Soviet Union under Stalin also used genocide as a tool of control. The Holodomor (1932–33) - a man-made famine caused by forced collectivisation - killed nearly 4 million Ukrainians (Applebaum, 2017). For decades, the government denied it ever happened. In China, the Great Leap Forward (1958–62), framed as economic reform, led to the deaths of 15 to 45 million people from famine and forced labour (Dikötter, 2010). The Chinese Communist Party still hasn’t fully admitted its role. Should people today feel ashamed of what their governments did? Not personal guilt – but national awareness, yes. If nations don’t face the truth, they denyit-anddenialleadstorepeatingthesamemistakes.InRwanda,over800,000Tutsisweremurdered in 1994 by Hutu extremists - in just 100 days. The genocide was fuelled by ethnic divisions left by colonialism and by the failure of the international community to step in (Des Forges, 1999). Rwanda has since made major efforts toward reconciliation, but the pain is still raw. And the shame isn’t only Rwanda’s. France and Belgium bear responsibility for creating division, and the UN for standing by (Melvern, 2000). These moments show just how destructive state power can be. In such cases, feeling shame isn’t a weakness - it’s an ethical obligation.
Pride in Resistance to Genocide
And yet, pride in one’s national past is also valid - especially when it grows from stories of resistance and resilience. Poland’s history shows this powerfully. Though wiped off the map in the 19th century by Austria, Prussia, and Russia, Poland refused to disappear. The November Uprising (1830–31) and January Uprising (1863) were bold declarations of national identity (Davies, 2005). After regaining independence in 1918, Poland was invaded again in 1939, this time by Nazi Germany and the USSR. But the Polish resistance, particularly the Warsaw Uprising (1944), became one of the most heroic efforts of World War II (Davies, 2004). That legacy deserves pride - not in conquest, but in survival and the fight for freedom. Ukraine’s ongoing war offers a modern parallel. When Russia invaded in 2022,
it expected a quick victory. But Ukraine fought back – with determination, strategy, and the support of ordinary citizens (Snyder, 2022). This resistance, still unfolding, is already shaping Ukraine’s national memory. Pride here doesn’t come from nationalism. It comes from dignity - the refusal to surrender to tyranny. In these stories, national pride isn’t about pretending the past is perfect. It’s about honouring the courage of people who stood up when it mattered most.
Shame in Repression and Hypocrisy
There’s another side to national identity: repression. And with it, shame. Apartheid-era South Africa legally enforced racial segregation for nearly 50 years, turning non-white citizens into second-class people (Posel, 2001). Dissent was met with violence and surveillance. Though apartheid officially ended, its legacy still shapes South Africa today. But the country didn’t ignore its past. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, led by DesmondTutu, aimed to face it head-on (Tutu,1999). Under Stalin, the Soviet Union sent over 18 million people to the gulags - prisons meant to crush dissent and terrify citizens (Applebaum, 2003). What began as a revolution for the people became a system of fear. Nazi Germany used the same methods - propaganda, terror, and total control (Evans, 2005). In both cases, repression wasn’t accidental. It was policy. Shame, in these instances, is unavoidable. The West isn’t exempt. During the transatlantic slave trade, Britain and France enslaved millions ofAfricans and made vast profitsfromit -especiallythroughport citieslikeLiverpoolandBristol (Walvin,2007).TheFrench Revolution, for all its talk of liberty, also executed thousands during the Reign of Terror (Doyle, 1989). The shame here doesn’t lie just in the violence, but in the betrayal of the very ideals those nations claimed to defend.
Pride in Creating Freedom
Still, even in these painful histories, there are moments of genuine progress - reasons to feel proud. Nelson Mandela’s peaceful dismantling of apartheid, after nearly three decades in prison, remains one of the most powerful stories of forgiveness and political change in modern history (Sampson, 2011). SouthAfrica’s transition to democracy didn’t erase its past, but it proved that change is possible without revenge. The fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, especially in Czechoslovakia and East Germany, showed that people could win freedom through civil resistance (GartonAsh, 1999). These peaceful revolutions helped reshape the meaning of national identity in Eastern Europe. Even the early Soviet Union saw moments of real social change: education, women’s rights, land reform (Fitzpatrick, 1994). Though later undone by repression, they remain part of the story. And the French Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789) still influences how the world thinks about freedom and equality (Hunt, 2007). These examples show that pride doesn’t have to come from power. It can come from progress.
Shame When Nations Fail Their Duties
Sometimes, national shame doesn’t come from what was done - but from what wasn’t. When Germany invaded Poland in 1939, Britain and France declared war but offered little real help. Poland was left to suffer the consequences alone (Davies, 2005). That failure still echoes. In more recent times, many Americans have expressed shame over the U.S.'s retreat from global leadership, such as pulling out of the Paris Agreement or undermining NATO under President Trump (Wright, 2020). These choices reversed decades of cooperation and responsibility. Colonialism also brought neglect on a massive scale. Famines in Ireland and India weren’t just natural disasters, they were worsened by British policy (Ó Gráda, 1999; Sen, 1981). These weren’t unfortunate mistakes. They were part of how empires operated. Pride without reckoning is denial.And denial is dangerous.
Pride in Solidarity and Sacrifice
But there are also moments when nations stepped up for others, and those deserve pride. After WWII, the U.S. didn’t just defeat fascism. Through the Marshall Plan, it helped rebuild Europe, investing billions in economic recovery (Hogan, 1987). Britain’s role in the Berlin Airlift, flying in supplies to
sustain a whole city under blockade, was an act of real moral clarity (Turner, 2007). In the U.S., Abraham Lincoln’s leadership during the Civil War led to the end of slavery, through the 13th Amendment (McPherson, 1990). This didn’t make the nation perfect, but it was a critical step forward. These stories don’t erase the painful parts. But they remind us that nations can act with courage and justice, even after failure. Pride, in these cases, isn’t empty. It’s earned.
Conclusion
So, should people feel ashamed of their country’s past? Yes, when that past includes genocide, oppression, or betrayal. Should they feel proud? Absolutely - when their country has stood up to injustice, helped others, or made real progress. But both pride and shame must come from reflection, not reflex. We don’t inherit our nation’s sins - but we do inherit the responsibility to understand them. Nations,likepeople,arecomplex.Byholdingprideandshametogether,webuildamorehonest,grownup relationship with our history - one that can shape a better future.
Bibliography
Applebaum,A. (2003) Gulag: A History. New York: Doubleday.
Applebaum,A. (2017) Red Famine: Stalin’s War on Ukraine. London: Penguin. Assmann,A. (2010) ‘The Holocaust – a Global Memory? Extensions and Limits of a New Memory Community’, in Memory in a Global Age. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 97–118.
Bergen, D.L. (2016) War and Genocide: A Concise History of the Holocaust. 3rd edn. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Davies, N. (2003) Rising ’44: The Battle for Warsaw. London: Macmillan.
Davies, N. (2005) God’s Playground: A History of Poland. Vol. II. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Davis, M. (2001) Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World. London: Verso.
Des Forges,A. (1999) Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda. New York: Human Rights Watch.
Dikotter, F. (2010) Mao’s Great Famine: The History of China's Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958–62. London: Bloomsbury.
Doyle, W. (1989) The Oxford History of the French Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fitzpatrick, S. (2008) The Russian Revolution. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Foner, E. (2010) The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery. New York: Norton. GartonAsh, T. (1999) The Magic Lantern: The Revolution of ’89 Witnessed in Warsaw, Budapest, Berlin and Prague. London: Vintage.
Hogan, M.J. (1987) The Marshall Plan: America, Britain and the Reconstruction of Western Europe, 1947–1952. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hunt, L. (2007) Inventing Human Rights: A History. New York: Norton.
Mandela, N. (1994) Long Walk to Freedom: The Autobiography of Nelson Mandela. London:Abacus. Mamdani, M. (2001) When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism, and the Genocide in Rwanda. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Mead, W.R. (2018) ‘The Trump Doctrine and theAmerican Retreat’, Foreign Affairs, 97(2), pp. 2–7. Miller, R. (2000) To Save a City: The Berlin Airlift, 1948–1949. College Station: TexasA&M University Press.
Ó Gráda, C. (1995) The Great Irish Famine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roberts, G. (2009) The Soviet Union and the Origins of the Second World War. London: Palgrave. Snyder, T. (2022) ‘Ukraine Holds the Future’, The New York Times, 18 March.
Thompson, L. (2001) A History of South Africa. 3rd edn. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Tutu, D. (1999) No Future Without Forgiveness. London: Rider.
Walvin, J. (2011) The Zong: A Massacre, the Law and the End of Slavery. New Haven: Yale University Press.
