Manchester Historian Issue 20

M H

Issue 20: May 2015

Manchester Historian

The Peterloo Massacre In Features

History of British Politics Behind the Headlines

Marilyn Monroe In Culture

www.manchesterhistorian.com

@themcrhistorian

Issue 20: May 2015

What’s Inside

M H

• Page 3 - A Note from the Editors Women in History • Page 4 - Harriet Beecher Stowe & Simone de Beauvior Undiscovered Heroes of History • Page 5 - Mordechai Anielwicz History in Features • Page 6 - Mamcucium; Roman Manchester & The History of Devolution in England • Page 7 - The Peterloo Massacre • Page 8 - The IRA in Manchester • Page 9 - Manchester’s 26 Statues • Page 10 - Food Riots & Charles Worsley Manchester’s First MP • Page 11 - The University of Manchester History and Heritage • Page 12 - Manchester’s Victoria Baths • Page 13 - Manchester Sports Teams History in 10 Photos • Pages 14-15 - Manchester in 10 Photos Battle of the Month • Page 16 - The Battle of Waterloo The Manchester Historian 2014/2015 Team History You Should Know • Page 17 - The Co-operative Movement Editors Zoey Strzelecki • Page 18 - The Spanish Civil War Xan Atkins • Page 19 - The War of 1812 & Che in Africa Head of Design Jamie Brannan • Page 20 - The Fall of the USSR Staff Interview Head of Copy-Editing Hebe Thorne • Page 21 - Charles Insley Head of Marketing Stephanie Haszczyn History in the Headlines • Page 22 - The Fugitives of Srebrenica Head of Online James Schoonmaker • Page 23 - The History of British Politics History in Culture Design Team Laura Robinson • Page 24 - Marilyn Monroe Laura Callard Melanie Fernandes • Page 25 - Opium Use in 19thc. Literature • Page 26 - The Rhythms of Rebellion Copy-Editing Team Sophie Brownlee University Thomas Learmouth Helen Chapman • Page 27 - Advancing into the Archives Workshop Natalie Sharpin • Page 28 - Manchester Historian 2015/16 Team Charlotte Munday Advertisement

Manchester Historian

Page 2

Marketing Team

Kate Ayling Sabrina Kenth Caitlin Ovenden

Online Team

Evie Hull Mandy Poon

www.manchesterhistorian.com

Issue 20: May 2015

A Note from the Editors It is arguably England’s ‘second city’ and we call it home. It was a parliamentary battleground in the Great Civil War, the city where Frederick Engels met Karl Marx, a centre for the Cotton industry (so much so that it was called Cottonopolis), and the site of one of Britain’s ‘other Blitzes’, truly, the City of Manchester is steeped in history. From an old Roman Fort to the second most diverse city in the world, Manchester has developed through nearly 2000 years of history. In this, our final issue for the 2014/15 team, we pay homage to our beloved city.

Join us on a journey to explore Manchester’s exotic past: from the earliest remains as the Roman Fort, Mamucium, to the city’s first MP in the seventeenth century and from the centre of Britain’s eighteenth century food riots to the site of one of the worst IRA attacks on English soil, we’ve covered it all. Read about the infamous Peterloo Massacre which took place on the site of what is now the Radisson Hotel and explore the history of Manchester’s famous sporting reputation. Most importantly, though, we’ve delved into the rich history of our own university, right from the start in 1824 through to today. (Our front cover shows students toiling away in an exam session in the Whitworth Hall in 1939) Beyond that, we’ve covered the usual. Our History Behind the headlines brings you the background to today’s top stories. As we build up to the 2015 General Election, we’ve covered the history of British politics, and with fresh convictions against the perpetrators of the Srebrenica massacre, read on for to find out what happened in this Bosnian town.

If you’re in the mood for learning some new facts, our History You Should Know has it all. Learn about the events of the Spanish Civil War that rocked Spain in the 1930’s or discover the changes that led to the fall of the USSR. We reveal how the giant supermarket, the Cooperative, began with a group of locals wanting better prices and the adventures of Che Guevara in Africa as he tried to help bring about revolution.

Our History in Culture writers show you how music played a massive role in the Anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa and how nineteenth century poets got their inspiration from the opium pipe, as well as looking at the famous story of Marilyn Monroe, America’s sweetheart.

For Women in History, we bring you the story of Harriet Beacher Stowe, the American abolitionist and author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and of Simone de Beauvoir who inspired and contributed to feminist theory.

With the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo coming up in June, our Battle of the Month section gives you a blow by blow account of one of Europe’s most iconic battles, an epic contest finally brought Napoleon to defeat.

Finally, we’ve had the pleasure of interviewing renowned Anglo-Saxon historian, Dr Charles Insley, lecturer in medieval history at the university, whose interest in the subject can be traced back to his childhood.

On a personal note, it has been an absolute pleasure to have taken on the responsibility of the editorship for the magazine. It has truly been a special year and we have loved (and learned) every bit of it. To our fantastic team who have helped to get every story and fact onto paper, we say a huge thank you and wish those of you staying on the best of luck.

To our inspiring writers whose contributions have created a masterpiece, thank you and keep writing, for you are the recorders of history. And to you, the reader, who has been with us through every page, we leave you with a few words from Machiavelli, ‘Whoever wishes to foresee the future must consult the past; for human events ever resemble those of preceding times.’

Xan & Zoey

Xan Atkins & Zoey Strzelecki

@TheMcrHistorian

Page 3

Women In History

Issue 20: May 2015

Harriet Beecher Stowe

By Sophie Bullock Most famous for her novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin; or Life Among the Lowly, the writer Harriet Beecher Stowe was an abolitionist whose writings had a profound effect on the public debate surrounding slavery. Indeed, such was the significance of her novel in galvanising public opinion during the mid-nineteenth century that the discussion surrounding the novel can be seen to represent the deep divide in the United States regarding the issue of slavery.

Born in 1811 in Connecticut as the seventh child of 13, Stowe had a largely religious upbringing. Her husband, Calvin Ellis Stowe, whom she married in 1836, was a strident abolitionist. Both she and her husband actively participated in helping slaves escape to freedom in Canada during the early years of their marriage.

The idea for her most well-known novel came during a communion service where Stowe had a vision of a dying slave, inspiring her to write his story. Stowe’s main motivation was to highlight the emotional side of slavery and appeal to people’s humanity. Originally published in 1851 in instalments in a magazine, Uncle Tom’s Cabin ultimately became the best-selling novel of the century. However, opinion was polarised, with the novel well-received in the North, energising the abolitionist campaign, whereas in the South it was met decidedly less well, where the anti-slavery content enraged many in an area which was so reliant on slave labour. The novel prompted several ‘anti-Tom’ novels to be published in the South, which tried to highlight the positives of slavery, though none were as successful as Stowe’s novel.

Harriet Beecher Stowe (Wikimedia)

The novel brought Stowe fame both in North America and Europe, and she travelled extensively, promoting the abolitionist cause.

The combination of the focus Stowe placed on the human cost of slavery and the timing of the release of the novel meant the novel was perfectly positioned to have the wide-reaching impact that it did. Such is the legacy of her writing that upon meeting President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, he is said to have greeted her with the comment, “so you are the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war!”

Simone de Beauvoir: Role and Influence on the Founding of Modern Feminism.

By Katy Roughton Feminism as a movement has evolved dramatically since its popularisation in the mid twentieth century. Today, modern Western feminists use their keyboards as their weapons substituting for the more provocative arson attacks and hunger strikes employed by those for whom women’s suffrage was the leading battle. The fight for gender equality in the western world has become a steady and better calculated movement in recent years, reminiscent of the first reports presented by second wave feminists, perhaps the leader of whom was Simone de Beauvoir.

In her renowned piece of work ‘The Second Sex’, de Beauvoir, reflecting on her recent observations of American culture, constructs a narrative of the position of women throughout history. She argues that discrimination against the marginalised, born from institutionalised inequality, is perpetuated by the enduring socio-economic segregation of society by the class system.

When questioned on the influence of her work twenty five years since its publication, de Beauvoir maintained that it was not she who was to thank for the influx of feminist thought and activity among society in the mid twentieth century. According to de Beauvoir it was the more exciting work of those women writing decades after her who had inspired the masses. This is put down to her work being somewhat inaccessible to the majority of society at the time and thus the common woman would not be able to relate or react. However, despite de Beauvoir’s assertions that her work was not seminal in the creation and progression of second wave feminism, many would now beg to differ.

In ‘The Second Sex’ women are, for the first time, revealed as the ‘other’ and this, writes the author, is the fundamental cause of their oppression. This focus on, and celebration of, gender difference is one that is becoming a major contributor to the work of modern feminism. We are noticing an increase in genders supporting one another as they reach towards equality, from the battle to end the tampon tax, to the implementation of shared parental leave this year and the contentious ‘He for She’ campaign. Despite Simone de Beauvoir’s self-deprecating approach to her own legacy, her contribution to our understanding of gender difference and discrimination has been invaluable; her work continues to shape the fight for equality by all genders and for all genders in the name of modern feminism.

Page 4

www.manchesterhistorian.com

Undiscovered Heroes of History

Issue 20: May 2015

Undiscovered Heroes of History: Mordechai Anielewicz

By Lizzie Rule Mordechai Anielewicz, nicknamed ‘Little Angel’, was the chief commander of the Jewish Combat Association who authored the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising from January to May 1943. The uprising was the largest single revolt by Jews during WWII and was a response to Nazi Germany’s efforts to transport the remaining Ghetto population to Treblinka extermination camp in Germanoccupied Poland. Previously a major deportation to the Treblinka had left only 60,000 of the previous 350,000 Jews in the ghetto.

Anielewicz was born to a poor family in a poor neighbourhood, and a week after WWII broke him and his Youth Movement friends escaped from Warsaw to the east regions, assuming that the Polish army would be able to stop the German advance. As Poland became a battle ground for territory, as the Soviet Union advanced, occupying eastern Poland. Anielewicz was subsequently arrested by Soviet authorities as he attempted to pass the border into Romania, where he wished to open a route for young Jews to get to Israel. After a short spell in Soviet-occupied Lithuania, Anielewicz returned to the Ghetto to organise self-defence groups after word got around of what was happening to those deported.

Before WWII, Warsaw had the largest and most dynamic Jewish community in Europe. In October 1939, Nazi Special Forces, the SS began to deport Jews living in Austria and Czechoslovakia to ghettos in Poland. Warsaw became the largest ghetto in Europe, with 400,000 Jews living within it at its peak. In Warsaw, all 22 Ghetto entrances were sealed, and between 22nd July and 3rd October 1942, 310,322 Jews were deported to extermination camps. In January 1943, Heinrich Himmler, Hitler’s right-hand man, gave instruction for Warsaw to be ‘Jew free’ by Hitler’s birthday on 20th April.

Many of those who were left were young and able bodied, their families had already been murdered, they were responsible only for themselves and it would transpire, for Jewish history. On 18th January 1943, Anielewicz played an instrumental role in organising the first act in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising which prevented the majority of a second wave of Jews from being deported to concentration camps. Connections were made with the Polish government in London and weapons were supplied from the Polish side of Warsaw. The resistance was twofold: Anielewicz commanded the battle in the main street whilst others attacked the vehicle escort, allowing the Jews to escape. The deportation ended in a matter of days. Those who remained fortified bunkers and hideouts, obtaining additional weaponry from a few young resistance leaders such as Vladka Meed, who were active on the Aryan side of the ghetto wall.

Three months later- 19th April 1943- the last deportation was planned and uprising broke out. The Germans had planned to liquidate the ghetto within just three days, but although the Nazis greatly outnumbered the rebels, they did not surrender: for 27 days they opened fire on the SS soldiers, attacking them with grenades and petrol bombs. They resisted longer than many countries. Eventually, the Nazi forces were forced to burn down house-by-house and go through every shelter in the Ghetto until General Jurgen Stroop reported that ‘there is no more Jewish suburb in Warsaw’. In July 1944, Anielewicz was posthumously awarded the Cross of Valour by the Polish Government and the Cross of Grunwald by the Polish People’s Army as well as numerous streets renamed in his honour and memorials. He is considered a hero amongst Polish Jews worldwide, not least of the manner of his death. It is believed that on 8th May, the Nazis began to use poison gas on the last insurgents, in a fortified bunker; about a hundred men and women escaped into the sewers, but the rest were killed, including Mordecai Anielewicz.

The Jews knew that their chances of survival were minimal, but they chose to fight for the honour of the Jewish people. Just days before his death, he wrote to a unit commander: ‘The dream of my life has become a reality. I have lived to see Jewish resistance in the Ghetto in all its greatness and glory.’

Warsaw Ghetto Uprising 1943 (Wikimedia)

@TheMcrHistorian

Page 5

History in Features

Issue 20: May 2015

Mamucium; Roman Manchester

By Chris Nelson When the Romans invaded Britain, they brought with them four legions, of which three remained as a permanent garrison. As a result, three legionary fortresses were established, far larger than regular forts and built to hold an entire legion. These were constructed at Caerleon, Chester and York, and naturally these became strategically important locations. In around 78AD the governor of Britain, Gnaeus Julius Agricola, was campaigning against the Brigantes, a tribe in the north of Britain. The Brigantian territory included the areas around Manchester, and the fort at Manchester was first constructed during Agricola’s campaign against them. It remained in use after the campaign until the end of the 4th century, since it lay on the road between Chester and York.

Archaeology on the site of the Roman fort, in the Castlefield area of Manchester (named on account of the remains) has revealed that the original fort of c. 78AD was constructed quickly out of turf and wood, as most forts were on campaign. We know that it was garrisoned by an auxiliary cohort of about 500 men. In around 160AD, the fort was extended to include granaries, and then in around 200AD it was rebuilt in stone. The occasion was the visit of the emperor Severus to the area in order to subdue a revolt.

As well as the fort itself, a small civilian settlement called a vicus sprung up just outside its walls. These were not official towns and had no administrative buildings, but instead co-existed with those stationed in the fort. The inhabitants of the vicus profited from the presence of the troops, and in return they provided supplies and entertainment for the soldiers. The vicus at Manchester developed into an industrial estate, which we know on account of the number of furnaces found in excavations. However the vicus declined in the first half of the 3rd century and was abandoned not long after, despite the occupation of the fort until the next century.

Mamucium Fort Credit: Wikimedia Commons.

In 1980, the Castlefield site was excavated and it was found that the northern quarter of the fort was relatively undamaged.

Unfortunately the rest had been destroyed by the Rochdale canal and several railway viaducts. Nevertheless, the north gate and a section of wall survived and were reconstructed, making it one of only a few in the country. The name of the Roman fort, Mamucium (meaning ‘breast-shaped hill’) survives in Manchester’s name today, through the early medieval Mamecaestre as recorded in the Domesday Book in 1086, just over 1000 years since the original fort was built.

‘Devo-Manc’, and the History of Devolution in England.

By Josh Woolas Over the last few months, much has been made of George Osborne’s plans to devolve a significant amount of power from Westminster to Manchester. Osborne described ‘devo-Manc’ as a ‘massive moment’ while Labour claims that the Tories are years late to the devolution party. Meanwhile, campaigning and community groups across Manchester are up in arms, rightly arguing that the public have had no say in the matter, and it’s not clear that Mancunians are even in favour of the plans. What is certain however is that from 2017, Greater Manchester will have a directly elected Mayor who, alongside the GMCA, will have unprecedented new powers. This includes control over transport (with a single bus franchise and oyster-style ticket systems planned), a £300m housing fund, policing and crime, apprenticeships and college educations, and a further say in business and welfare. Central to this devolution is a £6bn health and social care budget, with Manchester taking full control of the NHS in the region. Amidst worries of creating a fractured, two-tier health system and at the lack of public consultation, it is clear that this is a groundbreaking change.

Or is it?

Whilst the history of devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, is longer and better documented, devolution in England was a recurring issue throughout the 20th century. The issue was first raised in Parliament in 1912 by a future prime minister: then MP for Dundee, Winston Churchill proposed federal system of government, with full devolution to English regions. This proposal fell flat, but the issue was raised again in 1969 and 1973, as two royal commissions explored various forms of the idea.

It wasn’t until the ‘90s that any plans were put into action, with John Major’s government creating 10 regional Government Offices in the last few months of his administration. These were merely the local arm of government offices, and were charged with the regional implementation of national policy. It was under Blair, however, that devolved regional governments began to take a direction of their own. Implemented from 1998, the nine Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) were autonomous bodies designed to grow regional economies, creating £1 of growth for the local economy for every £1 of public spending, with this figure estimated to rise to £4.50 upon the maturing of long-term investments and infrastructure. RDAs were eventually scrapped in 2010 as the Coalition sought to drastically reduce government spending, but the legacy of devolution in England endures with the Greater London Authority, created following the 1998 referenda. This comprises of an elected assembly and Mayor, the latter of which has become a very significant player in British politics.

Page 6

www.manchesterhistorian.com

History in Features

Issue 20: May 2015

The Peterloo Massacre: Investigate

By Natalie Sharpin On the 16th of August 1819, the area around what is now St Peter’s Square in Manchester hosted an attack on 60,000 peaceful protesters in what became known as the Peterloo Massacre. It took place against the international backdrop of the American Revolution, French wars and famine and unrest in Ireland; and reflected the political, social and economic discontent in Britain.The outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789 meant that an indigenous British radicalism which had continually romanticised the fight for liberty during the civil wars turned to France for inspiration. Thomas Paine’s rhetoric that it was necessary to sweep system away in order for individuals to claim their voting rights to participate as a citizen was particularly potent. With a constitution based on property and a monarchy based on divine right, this simple, heady idea that you were given rights at birth captured the hearts of many Englishmen.

St. Peter’s Square (Wikimedia Commons).

This frightened the conservative, aristocratic British establishment which reacted by introducing restrictions to civil liberties: the suspension of Habeus Corpus, the Treasonable Practices Act, and the Seditious Meetings Act. Social dislocation arose as part of the Industrial Revolution. A change in practices, particularly in textiles, which led to an increase of machines operated by women and children, came at a time when there was an excessive pool of labour with the demobilisation of soldiers and sailors from war.

This gave rise to anti-industrial movements such as Luddism and the Blanketeers. Post-1815, chronic economic depression ensued among textile workers in Lancashire. Weavers, who earned 15 shillings for a six-day week in 1803 saw their wages cut to 4s 6d by 1818. Exacerbating matters were the 1815 Corn Laws which imposed a tariff on foreign grain to protect English producers. The cost of food rose, famine and chronic unemployment ensued, increasing the desire for political reform.Economic and social dislocation was politicised in Manchester because of growing discontent at the inequalities in the British constitution. In 1819, Lancashire was represented by two Members of Parliament. Voting was restricted to adult male owners of freehold land with an annual rental value of 4 shillings or more; and votes could only be cast by a public spoken declaration. Constituency boundaries were out-dated, and so-called rotten boroughs had a hugely disproportionate influence on the membership of Parliament compared to the population.

These inequalities led to calls for reform and enhanced the appeal of political radicalism among the weavers of south Lancashire.

In response a ‘great assembly’ was organised by the Manchester Patriotic Union. A group formed by radicals from the Manchester Observer, Joseph Johnson and James Wroe. Johnson, wrote to the orator Henry Hunt asking him to chair a meeting. Its aim was to raise the profile of reform by a peaceful demonstration of a great number of workers.

On the morning of 16th August a crowd gathered. The speaker’s platform was trimmed with banners bearing the words REFORM, UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE, EQUAL REPRESENTATION and LOVE; and topped with the red cap of liberty. Magistrates panicked and ordered the crowd to disperse. 600 Hussars, several hundred infantry, an artillery unit, 400 men of the Cheshire cavalry and 400 special constables waited as the local Yeomanry arrested the speakers. Many had old scores to settle with the leading protesters. A Yeomanry officer called out “There’s Saxton…run him through.” ‘Peterloo’ mocked the soldiers who attacked unarmed civilians by echoing ‘Waterloo’ in which they had been seen as genuine heroes. An estimated 18 people died and over 700 were seriously injured in the name of liberty and freedom. By 2pm the field was left strewn with abandoned banners and dead bodies.

Journalists present were arrested; others who reported on the event were subsequently jailed. The speakers and organizers were put on trial. The Hussars and Magistrates received messages of congratulations from the Prince Regent, and were cleared of any wrong-doing by an official inquiry. Businessman John Taylor, who had witnessed the aftermath, went on to set up the Manchester Guardian in response. Percy Bysshe Shelley, living in Italy, found out about the massacre and “the torrent of my indignation”, as he put it, flowed into his epic poem The Masque of Anarchy which reflected the widespread public outrage and condemnation of the government’s role in the massacre.

@TheMcrHistorian

Page 7

History in Features

Issue 20: May 2015

The IRA in Manchester

By Jordan Booth The Irish Republican Army – of which the Provisional IRA is a branch - is perhaps the most infamous terrorist organization in Britain. Formed in the 20th Century, the group was not afraid to resort to violence to achieve its ultimate goal of a reunified Ireland.

Although various truces with the PIRA were negotiated, these would not last and, by the mid 1990s, the PIRA started to terrrorise and bomb England again. Whilst London was obviously the main target for the PIRA bombers, Manchester was also high up on their list and was by no means safe. In fact, Manchester had been subject of a number of threats from the IRA dating back to the 1970s culminating in the biggest bombing in Britain since World War Two. Although the 1996 bombing was the most devastating and widely covered, it was not the first time the PIRA had targeted Manchester. As one of the biggest cities in England, it is no surprise that Manchester was the centre of some of the PIRA’s attacks.

One such attack was in 1974 when the IRA planted a bomb in Manchester Magistrates Court, killing 12 people. What was even more worrying was the discovery of IRA bomb making factories in Salford and Fallowfield, add to this the constant tension within Northern Ireland and Manchester, along with many other cities in England, were justifiably worried about the threat posed by the IRA and PIRA. The series of threats, foiled attacks and general IRA trouble in Manchester came to a head on Saturday the 15th of June 1996 when the biggest bomb since World War Two was detonated in central Manchester. Early that morning two IRA members had abandoned a van containing the bombs on Corporation Street (Near Marks and Spencers, Selfridges and just up the road from Victoria Station today). Thankfully, a short time later a member from the IRA phoned up Granada Studios in Manchester to warn of the imminent bombing. This meant that thousands of deaths and injuries could be avoided – it was estimated that around the warning being issued there were 80,000 people in central Manchester. Following the warning, a massive evacuation of the area took place and a bomb squad was called to try to prevent the bomb from exploding.

Unfortunately the bomb squad would not be successful and just after 11 o’clock the bomb exploded injuring 212 people and causing untold damage. Of the 212 injured astonishingly none died and considering the number of people around central Manchester just a couple of hours before it was a miracle that it was only a couple hundred injured and not a couple thousand. Whilst the bomb did not cause any human fatalities, the sky bridge, Marks and Spencer and surrounding buildings were all destroyed. In terms of damage, it is estimated that by 2015 reparations have exceeded £1 billion pounds. It was actually the shattered glass and falling debris, rather than the bomb itself, which was responsible for many of the injuries suffered. A few days after the bombing the IRA took responsibility for the crime, although stating that it regretted injuring civilians.

What is perhaps the most troubling thing of all in the 1996 Manchester bombing was the fact that although the IRA admitted responsibility, no individuals were ever charged with the crime. However, both the investigation and attempted trials were poorly conducted leading to widespread criticism of the Greater Manchester Police, who, in 2006, admitted that it was unlikely that anyone would ever be charged with the bombing. Eventually Manchester recovered and was repaired to look like the Manchester known so well today. In terms of memorials, the most famous and long lasting is the post box that survived the 1996 bombing. Added to it was a plaque that reads: ‘This postbox remained standing almost undamaged on June 15th 1996 when this area was devastated by a bomb. The box was removed during the rebuilding of the city centre and was returned to its original site on November 22nd 1999.’

Ultimately the IRA’s troubling connection with Manchester would come to an end with both the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, which brought stability to Northern Ireland and the disbanding of the Provisional IRA in 2005. Whilst the safety of Manchester from the PIRA may now be secured, the history between them is unforgettable and acts as a poignant reminder of how far relations have progressed.

The Devestation of the bombings (Wikimeda)

Page 8

www.manchesterhistorian.com

History in Features

Issue 20: May 2015

Manchester’s 26 Statues

By Tilly Embling Disgracefully, there is currently only one female immortalised in bronze upon the streets of Manchester, Queen Victoria. The achievements of Manchester’s women are highly underrepresented, and the one women honoured remains a symbol of our patriarchal society. Looking to redress this balance, the council has asked Manchester residents to suggest another female torchbearer for the city’s streets from March 2019. Their list includes sports stars, actresses, scientists and activists, some names are familiar and others sadly obscure but what they share are their extraordinary achievements.

Emmeline Pankhurst is one of the most well known of those proposed. Noted for her militancy and tireless leadership of the women’s suffrage campaign, Mrs Pankhurst has had arguably the most influence upon future generations. Although historians disagree as to the success of her aggressive campaigning, it was under her leadership that the WSPU gained women the vote. Yet equally or perhaps more influential was her predecessor in the campaign, Lydia Becker. Becker’s many victories for female equality paved the way for future success. She attained the right for women to vote in municipal and school board elections. Most radically she suggested gender-neutral education, on the basis that men and women were equal and identical, not a common proposal in a time of ‘separate spheres’.

Other famed advocators for women’s rights include Marie Stopes, the famed pioneer of birth control. Her first book, Married Love, had huge success and brought the issue of Elizabeth Gaskell (Wikimedia) contraception to the national stage. Her advocacy for eugenics sits uneasily with modern principles yet her work was undeniably revolutionary in the freedom it allowed women. Eva Gore-Booth the poet, play-write, suffragist and labour activist, worked to free women from gender constraints, this time through questioning sexuality in her radical journal Urania. Her work for the suffrage campaign and her open lesbian relationship with Esther Roper made her a significant role model for women in the 1900s.

Annie Horniman was another advocate of women’s rights with an important cultural impact. Horniman used her large inheritance to found the first modern reparatory theatre outside of London. Manchester’s Gaity Theatre pioneered the works of new writers who came to be known as ‘the Manchester School’ and made culture accessible in the North. She was a much-loved figure, known for Avant-Garde clothing and a disregard for traditional femininity. Her improper behaviour made her a cultural icon and an example for women looking to flout the norms. Enriquita Rylands was also put forward for her cultural impact. The library she founded in the name of her husband owes its success to her vision and taste and like Horniman she essentially shaped the city’s cultural heritage.

There are two literary figures among the list. Both are noted for highlighting the contentious issues at play within the real lives of Manchester’s inhabitants. Manchester’s influence upon Elizabeth Gaskell led her to emphasise the affliction of its poor and female inhabitants and to imbue these traditionally oppressed groups with power and vivacity. Over a century later Shelagh Delany did the same in her debut play A Taste of Honey. Her depiction of life in Salford and her ability to tackle the problems of poverty, sexuality and race inspired both the songwriter Morrissey and the creator of Coronation Street Tony Warren- whose fictional creation, Vera Duckworth, is among the proposed. The actresses Maxine Peake, Caroline Aherne and Victoria Wood have also been included as Northern icons symbolic of Mancunion spirit.

The two scientists in the running include our current Vice Chancellor Dame Nancy Rothwell; perhaps a controversial choice for those speaking out against pay inequality at the university. However, Rothwell’s work on stroke treatment and in campaigning for women in science has been hugely beneficial. Mathematician Dame Kathleen Ollerenshaw is also listed. Deaf since the age of eight, mathematics appealed to her as the only subject not dependent on hearing. Ollerenshaw went on to have huge success in her study of Magic Squares and in her political career, serving as lord mayor of Manchester.

The final two proposed women are swimmers, the Olympian Rebecca Adlington and the channel swimmer Ethel ‘Sunny’ Lowry.

All of these women have had a profound impact upon the cultural, political and academic landscape of Manchester and as such, all deserve to be commemorated. What is most striking is that as yet none of them have been. One hundred and fifty years after Elizabeth Gaskell’s trailblazing novels and Lydia Bennett’s successes in female emancipation one of them may now potentially be recognised for their achievement. In that time ten men have been memorialised in Manchester. The message this has sent to the young women of Manchester is one of subordination, and a lack of female achievement. Another female statue is a fantastic idea; let us just hope it has not come too late.

@TheMcrHistorian

Page 9

History in Features

Issue 20: May 2015

Food Riots

By Melanie Fernandes The 18th century in Manchester was a turbulent period which saw numerous riots over food distribution. This article investigates the history of these food riots and the importance they played for the working class.

During the cotton revolution of the 1790s, rural voices were increasingly raised against cotton weavers who leased agricultural land at high rents. In Manchester insufficient farming techniques, soil conditions and a wet climate resulted in increasing disparity between grain production and consumption. This created a harvest of vast mix quality in 1772 and meant there was greater reliance on fewer crops, causing the cost of grain to double and oat prices to increase per bushel.

By March 1776, the rise in food prices made it very hard to purchase food, food most labourers relied on for their existence.

Virtually all the food riots between 1775 and 1800 were concerned with the subsistence crops of oats and wheat. The market was an ideal venue for the venting of mob frustration as it provided a ready-made audience, facilitated subsequent escape and the houses of local grain dealers were an easy target. In reaction to the rise in food prices, in July 1795 a Manchester mob attacked the houses of unpopular grain merchants, broke windows and destroyed the furniture of the corn dealers. The sound of breaking glass was a common feature of food rioting in the region and worried the authorities. Once the rioters mastered an area, they seized grain, forced storekeepers to sell it at a reasonable price and then set about distributing it fairly.

The food riots were a fairly representative cross-section of the labouring classes. Labourers and weavers made up the majority of the rioters. Manchester was the ideal ground for interaction between food rioting and politics, and the riots were highly organised where even women played a prominent role. Popular unrest was also paralleled by discontent with Manchester’s lack of representation at Westminster, and the town quickly became a centre of racial agitation as well. During the food riots, the political element was almost non-existent but the experience of rioting provided an audience of working-class that by 1800 was willing to listen to revolutionary political ideas. The foot riots became an integrated part of a wider conception of working class protest, it was the first step in the protracted process of class development in the region.

Charles Worsley – Manchester’s first MP

By Stephanie Keyte Charles Worsley was a soldier and politician. He fought in the First Civil War, was an enthusiastic supported of Oliver Cromwell and was Manchester’s first MP in the First Protectorate Parliament.

In the First Civil War, Worsley was a captain in a Lancashire infantry regiment. A fierce persecutor of royalists, he made his name and wealth by assisting Parliament’s sequestrators by informing on Royalists concealing their holdings and sequentially made his fortune through investing in confiscated royalist estates. In 1950, upon Cromwell’s return from Ireland, Parliament raised a regiment of foot soldiers to assist the army for the invasion of Scotland. Charles Worsley was appointed the lieutenant colonel of the regiment raised for Cromwell.

The First Protectorate Parliament was summoned by Oliver Cromwell in 1654, under the terms of The Instrument of Government which was the first sovereign written constitution in England. Proprietorial boroughs were abolished and boroughs not previously franchised, such as Manchester and Leeds were given a seat and Charles Worsley became Manchester’s first MP. Worsley was a loyal supporter of Cromwell’s protectorate and was fanatical about the persecution of royalists, closing alehouses and working to promote godly reformation in his district.

However, this parliament was entirely unsuccessful and dissolved after only one term. The MPs were encouraged to provide the nation with ‘good and wholesome laws’ yet bitter differences soon emerged between the army leaders and civilian politicians.

Amendments to the Instrument of Government were proposed in an attempt to give the parliament more power, reduce the strength of the army and limit religious tolerance. Cromwell removed many of the government’s severest critics yet debate continued – the MPs also refused to sign a ‘Recognition’ declaring their acceptance of the Instrument of Government. During Cromwell’s nine months as Lord Protector he drew up 84 bills to present to Parliament, yet all failed to be ratified and the Parliament was dissolved.

Oliver Cromwell, as a replacement, in 1656 reluctantly summoned the Second Protectorate Parliament, which was again largely unsuccessful and dissolved after only two terms. Richard Radcliffe sat as Manchester’s MP in this parliament after Worsleys death in 1656.

However, Charles II declared large puritan sympathizing towns were a liability to his rule and the Manchester constituency was disenfranchised in the Third Protectorate Parliament. It did not receive political representation again until 1832.

Page 10

www.manchesterhistorian.com

History in Features

Issue 20: May 2015

University of Manchester History and Heritage

By Jamie Taylor Most students at the University of Manchester have become very familiar with the campus and buildings around us. But, have any of you ever wondered how the institution which surrounds us actually came into being? The origins of the university can be traced back to 1824 and it has since enjoyed a rich history, allowing it to develop into the current largest single university site in UK. Our university as we know it now originated from the merging of the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST) with the Victoria University of Manchester in 2004. The University of Manchester has roots in the Mechanics Institution which was formed in 1824 by wealthy merchants and industrialists. In the 19th century, Manchester was at the forefront of British industrialisation, becoming the first industrial city in a period of rapid population growth and urbanisation. As a result, its primary objective was to educate the working class population in the sciences, literacy and numeracy to keep up with growing industrial pressures. Compulsory education in Britain was not introduced until the 1870s, and the Institution was an opportunity for urban workers to educate themselves. Initially, the Institution struggled as most students lacked basic education and found it difficult to attend classes due to full time working commitments but in the 1880s, when Britain feared losing her industrial power, a greater importance was placed on the education of working people. Ex-shoemaker John Henry Reynolds pushed this to national attention, constructing a new programme of successful classes which led to the Institute being converted in to the Manchester Technical School in 1883. From the late 19th to the early 20th centuries, the School began gaining wider recognition and appreciation for its efforts, later becoming recognised as the Manchester College of Technology after World War II. As the College continued to grow, it transformed in to the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST) in 1966, gaining full university autonomy and degree awarding powers in 1994. It was UMIST which joined with the Victoria University of Manchester ten years later, founding our university as we know it now.

Manchester’s Old Quad, containing Whitworth Hall and the John Owens Building, became home to Owens College, formed in 1851, a second institution which contributed to the founding of the university. Created by the legacy left by wealthy merchant John Owens, the College was opened to provide, “to youths of the age of 14 and upwards instruction in the branches of education taught at English universities, free from religious tests.” From the 1840s there was growing demand in the city for universitystyle education, and the College began to tread new waters as one of the first non-conformist institutions in the country outside of London. It encouraged active philosophical and theological thought, supporting the creation of knowledge rather than just its transmission. The College was subject to a strong German influence, adopting the Humboldt model which believed in both research and education, allowing students to learn new, innovative and cutting edge ideas – a model which modern universities use today.

After considerable growth and expansion, including the incorporation of the Royal School of Medicine and Surgery, Owens College was reconstituted as the Victoria University of Manchester in 1903. From here on, the University continued to grow with the joining of the Whitworth Art Gallery in 1958, and the John Rylands Library on Deansgate in 1972. By this time it had become a well respected institution, which prompted the merging of the Victoria University of Manchester with UMIST to create the University of Manchester.

Most university buildings are often named after academic pioneers and professionals, as the university believes in awarding recognition based on merit and rejects barriers to education and access to knowledge. This includes the Samuel Alexander Building, home to our school of arts, languages and cultures. Constructed from 1911-1919, it was named after professor of philosophy, Samuel Alexander, who was an avid supporter of education for women. He firmly believed in the education and training of both men and women for professional vocations, while also encouraging an independence of thought and action developed through critical study.

Our university has a very long and rich history which has led to it becoming the marvellous institution which it is today. It has enjoyed a fascinating founding story, emerging from a period of iconic British development, to now being known as a frontier of furthering knowledge and education for all.

The John Owens Building (Wikimedia)

@TheMcrHistorian

Page 11

History in Features

Issue 20: May 2015

Manchester’s Victoria Baths Jennifer Nuttall With its vast array of old, historical buildings and more modern, contemporary structures, there is a strange kind of beauty to behold in the concrete wonderland of Manchester and its surrounding areas. Perhaps one of the oldest, less well known buildings is the Manchester Victoria Baths.

On the outskirts of the University of Manchester city central campus and student halls of residence lies the Manchester Victoria Baths. Perhaps overlooked due its inconvenient location, foreshadowed by the breath-taking Whitworth Art Gallery, Manchester Museum and Manchester University Buildings on Oxford Road itself, Victoria Baths is a sight to behold.

Public baths originated from the communal need for cleanliness but is not restricted to the mere act of bathing, as the name would indicate. From ancient times onwards, the term Public baths also incorporated leisurely swimming, saunas, massages and relaxation therapies. It was thought of as a place for relaxation, socialisation and was of great importance within communities. The lack of cheap and easy holiday abroad destinations, internet, television and endless amounts of alternate leisure activities readily available to us nowadays, made public houses, the theatre, and the Public Baths central to communities.

Opened to the public in 1906 by the Lord Mayor of Manchester, the Victoria Baths is a Grade 2 listed building. For 86 years it served as a private baths, laundry service, Turkish bath and also contained three swimming pools, making it a place which facilitated the needs of the public, whilst also allowing for leisurely swimming and relaxation areas to be used by the general public.

Following the Public Health Reforms in 1906, the Manchester Public Baths no doubt emerged alongside the creation of new legislation on the welfare of the mass population in Britain. The laissez-faire approach to Public Health was rapidly being challenged by a new, Liberal approach, which entailed more state intervention into the Public Health and hygiene of Britain.

The Manchester Victoria Baths was referred to as a "water palace of which every citizen of Manchester can be proud" and was built with extremely high quality materials and period decorative features, such as terracotta, stained glass windows and mosaic tiled floors. It was purpose-built and conscientiously constructed with the needs of the people in the local Manchester area in mind. A very popular venue for people of all ages to visit.

In 1993, the Manchester Victoria Baths was beginning to look dilapidated and was closed down, after 87 long years of serving the public. It has since undergone an astonishing restoration project which is still in progress. The breath-taking beauty of the Victoria Baths is now being showcased for Vintage Fair's, Plays, Arts and Crafts Days and much, much more. It is definitely a building everyone should go and have a look around during their time in Manchester.

TheVictoria Baths (Wikimedia)

Page 12

www.manchesterhistorian.com

History in Features

Issue 20: May 2015

Manchester Sports Teams

By Will Bain Manchester is known globally as one of the major UK cities, establishing itself within England through a vast history of industrial development, scientific and engineering output and a cultural past which includes significant contributions in music, arts, and crucially, the sporting landscape. As well as being home to two of British football’s biggest teams, Manchester’s sporting scene was further developed by the hosting of the 2002 Commonwealth Games and the impact of the 2012 London Olympics. Manchester’s sporting scene has adapted to centuries of change to remain at the forefront of sporting excellence.

Around the world, Manchester is known as the home of Manchester United and Manchester City Football Clubs. Since forming as part of the Lancashire Railway depot at Newton Heath in 1878 (United) and from members of St. Mark’s Church of England in West Gorton in 1880 (City), the clubs have evolved alongside the continued growth and popularity of football from clubs who simply sought to curb gang violence and alcoholism by instituting new activities for local men to offering six-figure weekly salaries for their worldwide superstars. Success for United came in many forms in the twentieth century, With the success of the Busby Babes preceding the dominant years under manager Sir Alex Ferguson from 1986-2013. This success has resulted in United becoming one of the biggest sporting franchises in world sport, while City have found recent strength through investment from Abu Dhabi United Group resulting in them too becoming one of the world’s wealthiest sporting institutions.

Old Trafford cricket ground was originally the home of Manchester Cricket Club, but became the home of Lancashire County Cricket Club in 1864 upon the club's formation. Despite play interrupted throughout the twentieth century from two World Wars, Lancashire went on to find continued success, especially in the 1970s.They still remain one of the top county cricket clubs in the country, maintaining a healthy rivalry with Yorkshire, which started back in the nineteenth century, referred to as the Battle of the Roses.

Success and growth of team sports such as Rugby League and Rugby Union has resulted in further team sports such as American Football and even Ice Hockey emerging successfully in Manchester while athletics has also developed greatly within Manchester.

The city hosted the 2002 Commonwealth Games, with the legacy of this huge sporting event including the annual Great Manchester Run which has been hosted since 2003 and has become one of the most popular 10 km runs in the UK.

j ‘The Early Days of Lancashire County Cricket Club at Old Trafford’ (Credit: Manchester Evening News)

@TheMcrHistorian

Page 13

Issue 20: May 2015

Fallowfield station then: Fallowfield station in 1910, opened in 1891. Part of the Fallowfield Loop line. The station closed in 1958, and the line closed in 1988. (Photo courtesy of Manchester Libraries, Information and Archives.

Fallowfield station now: Same site in 2015, now buried by Sainsburys and car park. The old Fallowfield Loop is now a cycle route.

(Photo courtesy of Manchester Libraries, Information and Archives).

Manchester i

By Jason Yu

Piccadilly now: 2015, the entire area has been redeveloped after most warehouses became derelict and were demolished. The only things still standing are Watts Warehouse, and the fence in the foreground. (Photo courtesy of Greater Manchester Police Museum & Archives).

Piccadilly then: Piccadilly in 1940. Massive damage has been done to warehouses and buildings in Piccadilly. The bus shelter is one of the only things undamaged. The Grade II* listed Watts Warehouse can just be made out behind the building on fire on the left. (Photo courtesy of Greater Manchester Police Museum & Archives).

Page 14

Oxford Road now: 2015, the area is a lot different, with only Whitworth Hall still standing. Even Ducie Street has changed, now Devas Street and much shortened by Contact theatre being built on top of it.

(Photo courtesy of Greater Manchester Police Museum & Archives).

www.manchesterhistorian.com

Issue 20: May 2015

All Saints Church then: All Saints Church in 1900.

Built in 1820, it was a C of E church. It sustained heavy damage in the Blitz and was demolished in 1949. (Photo courtesy of Manchester Libraries, Information and Archives).

All Saints Church now: 2015, the site is now All Saints Park. (Photo courtesy of Manchester Libraries, Information and Archives).

in 10 Photos

Oxford road then: Oxford road in 1940. Heavy damage has been done to some buildings during the Manchester Blitz. A lone fireman can be seen in front of the smoke. King’s Hotel on the corner of Ducie Street in the centre. Whitworth Hall can be seen in the distance on the right.

(Photo courtesy of Greater Manchester Police Museum & Archives).

@TheMcrHistorian

Albert Square now: 2015, the site is pretty much the same, with only the buildings in the background being replaced, and the road in the foreground being pedestrianised The temporary fountain was replaced by a permanent one in 1897 to celebrate Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee. (Photo courtesy of Manchester Libraries, Information and Archives).

Albert Square then: Albert Square in 1895. The Square was opened in 1867 for the Albert Memorial. Statue of John Bright and Bishop James Fraser on the left and right respectively In the centre is a temporary fountain erected in 1894 to celebrate the opening of the Thirlmere Aqueduct, which brings water from the Lake District to Manchester. (Photo courtesy of Manchester Libraries, Information and Archives).

Page 15

Battle of the Month

Issue 20: May 2015

Battle of the Month: Waterloo

By Xan Atkins June 19th 2015 will mark 200 years since one of the most defining battles in the history of Europe. On Sunday 19th June 1815, on a rainy morning, thousands of men awoke to take part in the Battle that would make or break Europe: Waterloo. An already once broken Napoleon had returned from exile in Elba, steadily marching through France. He reached Paris and declared himself emperor once more.

Napoleon had then to quickly confront the situation: the coalition forces of Britain, Prussia, Austria, the German states and Russia, whose combined armies amounted to over 800, 000 whilst France had a mere 198 000, were readying to invade. However, The Battle of Waterloo (Wikimedia) his earlier campaign of 1814 had taught him that, even though he had been defeated overall, he had won all of his own conducted engagements and the coalition leaders feared his tactical ability. Therefore, if he could move quickly before the main allied armies could link up, he could defeat each in turn. It was to be an offensive campaign that relied on Napoleon seizing the initiative before the great powers could consolidate.

The Emperor turned his attention to Belgium where an Anglo-allied army, under the command of Lord Wellington, lay alongside a Prussian army, under the command of Gebhard von Blucher. He decided to attack the Prussians first before they could link up with Wellington and on the 16th of June defeated this first army at the Battle of Ligny. He despatched one of his marshals, Grouchy, to pursue the retreating Prussians and prevent them from joining Wellington for the coming battle.

Grouchy, however, was not Napoleon’s finest choice as a commander and he failed to follow up the retreating Prussians.

Wellington, meanwhile, on hearing of the Prussian defeat had moved to a more defensive position just south of the village of Waterloo. Encouraged by the news that they were hastening to join him, he chose to give battle.

On the morning of 18th June, the French forces, consisting of 72 000, formed up on the slopes of a ridge to the south of the British forces who, consisting of 68 000, had formed up on an opposite ridge, but were partly hidden from Napoleon. Wellington’s plan was to hold the larger French army off until the Prussians could arrive and help to give him the numerical advantage.

Napoleon first launched a diversionary attack on Hugoumont Farm, but the British there repulsed the initial attacks. However, it did keep the allies right flank busy and Napoleon seized the opportunity to attack the allied centre. They surrounded the nearby village of La Haye Sainte and victory was in Napoleon’s grasp as he could now attack the allied forces at close range. However, movement to the east caught his eye: it was the Prussians, though they were still far off.

Wellington only needed to hold on for a bit longer and so Lord Uxbridge charged with two brigades of cavalry at the advancing French infantry, which decimated the French line. But the allied left flank had also suffered greatly and Wellington could not afford to launch another attack.

Meanwhile, Napoleon had despatched cavalry to deal with the advancing Prussians, but they repulsed the French and he had to commit more and more troops to prevent them linking up with Wellington. The French now had to split their forces and it was costing them. Napoleon, increasingly under pressure, ordered Marshal Ney to capture Wellington’s central stronghold and wave after wave of French cavalry charged an entrenched British position that successfully fended them off.

However, eventually the British fell back, and with La Haye Saint in their hands, the French artillery moved up and at close range devastated the British line. Napoleon knew all he needed to do was to prevent the Prussians from reinforcing the British and they would break. But just as Wellington was making his last stand, the Prussians arrived and the allied army now advanced on the French who began to break. It was all over and Napoleon had been defeated.

On the 24th June Napoleon abdicated for the second time and was exiled to St. Helena where he could never again threaten Europe. Today the Waterloo battlefield is marked only by the Lion’s Mound, an artificial hill with a Lion on top. In late June this year, thousands will gather to watch or take part in a recreation of this iconic battle and mark two hundred years since Napoleon Bonaparte, one of the greatest military tacticians of all time, was defeated.

Page 16

www.manchesterhistorian.com

History You Should Know

Issue 20: May 2015

The Co-operative Movement

By Jamie Taylor “A co-operative is a group of people acting together to meet the common needs and aspirations of its members, sharing ownership and making decisions democratically.” Co-operative movements exist all over the world, as groups and organisations dedicated to achieving democratic trading and enterprise. The Co-operative Group, a name which we all know as a local shop or bank, is one of the single largest movements in the world, comprising over 3750 retail outlets and over 70,000 employees world wide. But how did this movement begin? Origins of the Co-operative movement can be traced back to the Rochdale Pioneers who formed in 1844; they are credited for founding the modern movement which we know today, as an effort against poverty and to promote equality.

Although there are records of many small, early co-operative movements from across the globe as early as the 15th century, the active and modern co-operative movement which currently exists attributes it’s founding to the Rochdale Pioneers as early as 1844.

The Pioneers consisted of 28 artisans who formed the Rochdale Equitable Pioneers Society. Plagued by dire working conditions and poverty, these traders decided to band together to open a store in order to alleviate these pressures and benefit more people by making a group effort. This mindset is at the core of the movement’s ideology; all consumers are to be treated fairly and honestly, with all parties involved in all transactions to receive benefit. Any single entity involved in the transaction or sale of goods, seller or consumer, should be considered when distributing the benefit of said transaction. In addition, every single seller and customer was entitled to a say in how enterprise would be conducted – not one party’s view was more significant than any other.

Initially this shop only opened for two nights each week, but within three months it grew substantially in order to become a full time store.

This new democratic model of trade and enterprise was declared officially in the Rochdale Principles of 1844. It outlined how the movement believed in open membership, democratic control, distribution of surplus in proportion to trade, payment of limited interest on capital, political and religious neutrality, cash trading (no credit), and the promotion of education. In an era of urbanisation and industrialisation in Britain throughout the 19th century, social welfare became a growing concern as poverty spread throughout the working class and wealth was distributed unfairly. Those who struggled to make ends meet were faced with harsh circumstances under the Poor Law of 1834, being admitted to workhouses where they were given basic provisions despite dreadful conditions. The Rochdale Pioneers created a new ideology of how trade should be conducted, which engineered trade and enterprise to benefit all people involved. Democratic methods were to be used, where all individuals reaped equal benefit from trading, and each person was entitled to have a say or vote on how practices should be managed. Although they have been later amended to keep up with social and political transformations throughout the centuries, these principles still lie at the core of the International Co-operative Alliance’s values, the global movement which employs over 250million people worldwide.

The formation of the Alliance proves the far reaching and extensive impact this movement has had on modern society. Cooperatives all over the world are uniting in order to provide a better social landscape for all individuals and communities. Currently, the movement is working towards the “2020 Challenge” in order to combat social injustice and inequality, unethical enterprise, and unsustainability. In the future, the movement hopes to be recognised as a leader in social, economic and environmental sustainability, the primary business model preferred by people, and the fastest growing form of enterprise.

Despite originating over 150 years ago, the Co-operative Movement has stuck by its core values outlined by the Pioneers in the Principles of 1844, growing in size and power to represent hundreds of millions of individuals all over the world. This movement, which originated in a poverty stricken society during a period of British industrialisation, has progressed across decades to ensure that the rights and privileges of all individuals and communities are respected and maintained in global enterprise.

The Rochdale Pioneers, 1844 (Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons)

@TheMcrHistorian

Page 17

History You Should Know

Issue 20: May 2015

The Spanish Civil War

By Matt Steadman Commonly referred to as “the dress rehearsal” for World War II, the Spanish Civil War was the bloodiest conflict in Spanish history.

The result of deep political and social divisions within Spain, the conflict that erupted became the site of intense fighting, as well as a training ground for the Axis powers and further demonstrated the failure of appeasement as a foreign policy tactic. The conflict saw the rebel Nationalists, parts of the military, the landowners and businessmen rise up against the Republican government, supported by urban workers, labourers and the educated middle classes, and lead Spain into three years of turmoil, resulting in the deaths of half a million people.

The war has its roots in the election of a Popular Front government in 1936, which was largely supported by left-wing parties and vehemently opposed to by those on the right. In response to this a well-planned military uprising began on July 17 1936 in garrison towns all around the country and within 4 days the rebels had gained control of the Basque provinces, Catalonia, Spanish Morocco, the Balearic and Canary Islands as well as parts of central Spain. Both sides set about controlling the areas they were set up in and began to ruthlessly repress any opposition and the proliferation of executions, assassinations and murders on both sides reflects the great passions the Civil War unleashed. On the Nationalist side, captaincy was gradually assumed by General Franco, and he was named head of state in October and set up a Nationalist government in Burgos, whilst the Republicans were headed by socialist leader Francisco Largo Caballero, who was followed by Juan Negrin in 1937.

Whilst the Nationalists were largely united by their hatred of the left and desire for a strong authoritarian state, the Republicans were hindered from the outset by the heterogeneous mix of political ideologies they had to accommodate. On the one hand, the anarchists and communists saw the war as a revolutionary struggle which would lead to collectivization; whilst on the other, the more moderate socialists and republicans simply wanted to preserve the Republic. Both sides played upon the growing unrest and political cleavage that was occurring in Europe to garner support for their causes. The Nationalists sought help from the Axis powers, Italy and Germany, who provided troops, tanks and planes in a clear show of power for the world to see and take the Fascist threat seriously. The Republicans on the other hand received support from the Soviet Union, as well as international brigades of 40,000 volunteers, who saw the conflict as an ideological struggle and supplied equipment, supplies and troops to the government forces.

By November, Nationalist forces had advanced to the outskirts of Madrid but were unable to capture it entirely. However, they had already gained control of the entire Northern Coast with the fall of Asturias, so that by November a bitter war of attrition had begun.

Over the next two years there was intense fighting and it was growing increasingly clear that the Nationalists, backed by German and Italian air power, had the upper hand. The Battle of Teruel marked a key Republican success and the tide of the war looked to be turning. However, due to heavy German and Italian bombardments, the town was retaken by Franco’s troops a month later, from which he launched the Aragon Offensive which cut off many of the Republican forces from their other garrisons and seriously hindered their strike power. By February 1939, 50,000 Republican troops and civilians fled to France, with the government following soon after. Nationalist forces entering Madrid a month later after Republican forces had begun to disband and surrender.

The political and emotional reverberations of the war transcended those of a national conflict, as many saw the Spanish Civil War as part of an international conflict between tyranny and democracy, fascism and freedom, communism and civilization. For the Axis powers, Spain represented the perfect testing ground for tactics they would use only months later against the Allies, such as the horrific carpet bombing of the town of Guernica; whilst for Britain and France, it represented a new threat to the international equilibrium they were struggling to preserve

The Spanish Civil War (Wikimedia)

Page 18

www.manchesterhistorian.com

History You Should Know

Issue 20: May 2015

A Not So Special Relationship: The War of 1812

By Xan Atkins When talking about war between Britain and the USA, most people think of the American War of Independence at the end of the eighteenth century. Many are not aware that Britain and the USA went to war just over thirty years later in what would simply become known as the War of 1812. The origins of the conflict can be found in the slowly rising tensions during the Napoleonic War. The US, the traditional ally of France, found its trade impeded by British warships. It also pressed those who were British born but had American citizenship into service for the Royal Navy, an act that led to a British warship firing on an American frigate in 1807.

This combined with British support for American Indian raids and the US’s expansionist policy towards British Canada led to a declaration of war from the US on 1st June 1812.

Britain, already fighting Napoleonic France, could spare few troops and so initiated a defensive policy in Canada, whilst the US initially had a small and poorly trained army. Furthermore, the unpopularity of the war in some states led to their refusal to contribute troops. In the second half of 1812, the US launched two invasions of Canada; both failed and cost them dearly.

However, they regained the initiative when they defeated several Royal Navy ships at the Battle of Lake Erie on the Great Lakes.

A successful British blockade of American ports devastated their exports sector and British raids up and down the coast proved the US’s naval vulnerability. One such raid resulted in British troops sacking Washington, burning the White House to the ground.

With Napoleon’s abdication in 1814, veteran British troops were moved to America and various battles were fought with key victories on both sides. A surge in US leadership under General Andrew Jackson led to an American victory at the Battle of New Orleans and they turned on the offensive. However, with Napoleon out of the picture, Britain and France were now allies and so several of the initial causes of the war disappeared. Since neither side had major reasons for continuing the war the two nations were in a stalemate; the Treaty of Ghent was formulated and signed on December 24th 1814.

In the two years of war, very little had been achieved and the border between Canada and the US remained unchanged. The simple terms of the treaty led to a fostering of good terms, the basis of the ‘special relationship’ that the two countries share today.

Only the fact that the White House of today is not the original, and had to be rebuilt, lies testament to the enmity that these two cousin nations once demonstrated.

Che in Africa

By George Odysseos ‘This is a story of failure.’ These words have become almost a cliché in describing the adventures and misadventures of Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara and the 130 Cuban guerrillas who, from April to November 1965, trained and fought alongside the leftist rebels in the Congo. Before the publication of his ‘Reminiscences from the Revolutionary War’, thirty years after the event, Che’s role in the Congo had been all but lost in the ‘gap’ between his public disappearance in March 1965 to the photo-evidence of his execution in Bolivia in October 1967.

A devoted internationalist, Che had always both supported and participated in struggles abroad. Following his now famous speech to the United Nations in December 1964, Che embarked on a tour of Africa. It is reasonable to assume that this tour inspired the Argentine guerrilla to fight once again. Resigning his ministerial post and Cuban citizenship in a letter to Fidel Castro, he declared that, with his duty to the Cuban revolution fulfilled, ‘other nations of the world call for my modest efforts.’ His disappearance was quickly picked up on and many a rumour spread speculating on his fate, with one theory claiming that Castro had ‘got rid of’ a potential rival.

In April 1965 Guevara travelled secretly to Tanzania in a disguise not even his closet friends could recognize him in. Crossing the border into the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and adopting the nom de guerre ‘Tatu’ (number ‘three’ in Swahili), Che soon realized that the Congolese rebels whom the Cubans were to aid were apathetic, ill-disciplined, and prone to tribal infighting.

The ‘magic’ known as Dawa, a ritual which supposedly made the recipient immune to enemy fire, was a particular restraint on relations between the Congolese and the Cubans. Military failures and diplomatic negotiations at inter-African state level soon made the Cubans’ presence untenable, and so in November 1965, Che withdrew to the Cuban embassy in Tanzania, defeated and depressed, where he began to write his highly self-critical ‘Reminiscences’.

The Congo chapter of Che’s eventful and controversial life was indeed a failure. Years later, Guevara’s comrade-in-arms Víctor Dreke would comment that ‘we Cubans upset the balance of armed peace achieved by the Congolese.’ Yet that seems unlikely, as the DRC government was employing white mercenaries from South Africa and Rhodesia, including the infamous Major ‘Mad Mike’ Hoare. Despite the continued misery in that troubled corner of the world, perhaps a certain romance could be said to linger in the internationalist aspirations of the man who said ‘the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love.’

@TheMcrHistorian

Page 19

History You Should Know

Issue 20: May 2015

The Fall of the USSR

By Matt Steadman

On 26 December 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev announced the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The communist utopian dream had come painfully crashing down, freeing the world from the shackles of the Cold War and leading to the emergence of 11 new independent Eastern European nation-states. The grip of communist fear that had consumed the West for so many decades was finally loosened and the world could at long last close the chapter on decades of archaic, rigid and ideologically backwards foreign policy tactics. The fall of the USSR would mark the start of a new era of humanitarianism and globalization in a global economy and political sphere unshackled from the old ideological imperatives and fear that had hindered human development for decades.

The question as to what led to the collapse and dissolution of a political system that had repressively governed vast swathes of Eastern Europe for so long is still a matter of contention nowadays. Debates still rage as to whether the key reasons were political, economic, social, or whether it was simply part of an inevitable political regeneration process. However, it is fair to say that a combination of all these factors severely affected a state already reeling from years of costly armament, international isolation and tensions with the other great powers.

For the entirety of the USSR’s existence, it was plagued by economic problems derived from its system of rule. With a communist ideology at the centre of its economic theory, the Soviet Union insisted on the primacy of state planning when it came to its economy, rejecting capitalist ideas of the free market. However, once the economy had grown to become a colossal enterprise, it became too cumbersome to continue state planning as it was simply too large to be regulated by planners who refused to enable more autonomy at mid-managerial level.This insistence on state planning and state regulation meant that the economy was left stagnating and deteriorating as it was unable to innovate or develop itself in the same way its Cold War rivals, who were enjoying the rewards of free markets. The power and efficiency of this already foundering economy was hindered ever further by the catastrophic invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s. Threatened by anti-communist insurgents, the mujahedeen, the prosoviet Afghan government begged the Soviet Union for support. It complied firstly by sending over weapons and equipment but this quickly developed into a full scale military commitment in the country which bogged its army down in a guerrilla war against increasingly zealous and fanatical opposition. By the time it withdrew in 1988, the Soviet Union had accomplished barely anything, and it was left economically damaged and politically humiliated on the international scale.

In the face of these crippling economic problems the newly appointed President Mikhail Gorbachev decided to embark on a new and radical economic policy route: perestroika. These revolutionary reforms caused a huge stir in the Soviet Union as they incorporated some capitalist elements of free market in the staunchly proud communist regime. These reforms were mirrored by a new approach to the people of the Soviet Union which was referred to as glasnost, or openness and transparency. With the public becoming increasingly disillusioned at their secretive and repressive government, Gorbachev attempted to compensate with a new liberal approach to the media. This further eroded support for the regime as the people finally became aware of the cover ups of past atrocities, missteps of leadership, social and health failures and the dire situation the economy found itself in. Gorbachev and his policies, then, appear as key factors behind the dissolution of the Soviet Union as they led to the opening up of the regime and the realisation that it could no longer sustain itself in the face of growing Western power.

The regime had always relied on a strong power centre in Moscow to ensure that its satellites states under its control toed the party line. However, with these new policies as well as faltering economic power, local nationalists saw the chance for national freedom that they had so long hoped for. Countries such as the Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania saw the emergence of strong nationalist movements demanding a cessation from the Union and the right to self-determination. The cracks that had started to appear were, therefore, further widened by a wave of nationalism which saw to capitulate on the regime’s weakness and unusual instability.

The fall of the USSR was the result of a number of factors that had been brewing for years within the system but due to its rigidity and closed nature had never had the chance to develop. However, Gorbachev’s new policies of openness created the environment in which these factors exploded onto the scene and made the USSR’s position untenable.

Mikhail Gorbachev (Wikimedia)

Page 20

www.manchesterhistorian.com

Staff Interview

Issue 20: May 2015

Interview with Charles Insley

By Xan Atkins ‘You’ll have to excuse my lack of voice’ says Dr Insley as I take a seat opposite him, on a desk stacked with papers. The office is crammed with books and paperwork, the hard labour of a university history professor, just returned, so he tells me, from a conference. Famous amongst students for his fantastic dress style of tweed suits and a pocket watch, Dr Charles Insley has been a senior lecturer in medieval history at the University of Manchester since 2012.

Born in Coventry, Insley was the son of a history teacher, evidently where the passion began, having grown up ‘surrounded by history books.’ His father was a secondary school history teacher with an interest in 19th and 20th century history, distanced then, from the saxon forts which comprise a part of Insley’s own historical interest. ‘I can't remember not being interested in history, in somewhat shape or form’ he tells me. He explains how a lot of this history around Coventry was lost after most of the structures were leveled during and after the Second World War, ‘But if you knew what to look for, you could still see the bits of medieval Coventry.’

It was at twelve, however, after seeing ‘In search of the Dark Ages’, the BBC documentary presented by Manchester’s own Michael Wood, that Insley discovered his passion for early medieval England. ‘It made me aware just how Dr. Charles Insley (Bolton Historical Association) interesting and exotic, this medieval past was, because it was so remote.’ After studying early modern and modern history all through school, he was determined, he says, to do as little of that history as he could, and therefore ‘made a beeline for the medieval courses.’

Insley went on to study History in Worcester College at the University of Oxford, being taught by the renowned and ‘inspirational’ medievalist Professor James Campbell. ‘My original plan before university’, he says thoughtfully, ‘was to be a lawyer’ but he was advised to study history and then look into a conversion course, the path blazed by many history undergrads. Halfway through his university career, however, he was immersed in Anglo-Saxon history and ‘it turned out I really, really enjoyed it!’

From there he went on to do his PhD, doing a year as a probationary research student, and then working on a collection of AngloSaxon documents from exeter Cathedral whilst three more summers were spent down in Devon on field research. ‘It was in this archive looking at documents that are a thousand years old and it was like looking through the eyes of the person that was writing it.’ All of this resulted in the culmination of Insley’s university career, his 100 000 word thesis on Anglo-Saxon Devon from 700 to 1066.

From here, he went on to do two years at Bangor University as a research assistant. This was followed by seven years working for a local history project based in Northampton, which looked at ‘anything and everything, from modern transport, modern industry to medieval settlements, medieval churches.’ Insley then moved on to be a lecturer in medieval history at Canterbury Christ Church University a post he remained in up until 2012, when he moved to be a lecturer at the University of Manchester. ‘ We begin to talk about the idea of a British identity that has its foundations in Insley’s Anglo-Saxon world, a factor claimed by many groups. ‘In the English national story, 1066 and the Norman conquest form such a huge transformative event that theres a thousand years of history that sees the Normans as the basis,’ he tells me,’so that the Anglo-Saxon world is almost deliberately disconnected, something that makes it seem even more remote. But we still speak the language that our forbears spoke before 1066.’

We turn to his current projects and he tells me he will be on leave next year to work on a project looking at landscape and agricultural change and the emergence of the English Kingdom in the tenth century, focussing on the processes that allowed one dynasty to dominate. The result, he says, will be a book- something that will feature on the reading list for his first year course, The Making of Europe, I ask? ‘Certainly will’, he replies with a chuckle.

For the future, Insley tells me how he hopes to embark on a project to catalogue Latin manuscripts in the John Rylands Library, a huge undertaking, but one he looks forward to. I thank him and get up to leave but struggle to find the door handle in his forest of coats, perhaps a useful analogy of Insley’s personal search for secrets of the Anglo-Saxon world, lost in over 1000 years of history, waiting to be rediscovered. Certainly, he is a man with a passion for a time that many have forgotten, a passion that has inspired many students to pursue an interest in medieval history, and one that will continue to do so for years to come. I wish him all the best for the future!

@TheMcrHistorian

Page 21

History In The Headlines

Issue 20: May 2015

The Fugitives of Srebrenica

By Safiyya Bobat 20,000 Bosnian refugees fled to the quaint, idyllic mountain town of Srebrenica months before the end of the Bosnian war. They should have been safe protected in an area declared ‘peaceful’ by the UN. Instead in July 1995, in the space of three days, 8,000 boys and men, all Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims), were rounded up and murdered. Srebrenica is a small mountain town in the eastern part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the massive idyllic spa made it popular, buzzing with tourists. This was all to change in 1992 when the Bosnian war broke out after Bosnia and Herzegovina declared independence.

In July 1995 Srebrenica became the stage for a catastrophic event comparable to the horrors of Nazi Germany. The slaying of more than 8,000 Bosniak men and boys devastated the world. As the only act to be labelled genocide by the United Nations since World War Two, there is no denying the severity of the events that occurred. Nevertheless, there has been no justice for the victim’s families.Within days, Serbian forces began their mission to cover-up the massacre. Years of analysis later, it was only in 2010 that a non-governmental organisation, International Commission on Missing Persons, managed to use DNA samples from 1995 to identify over 6,400 individual victims. All the while, those responsible for the atrocious act retained their powers and privilege within the Bosnian-Serb government. UN criminal tribunals have managed to convict an embarrassingly low number of those responsible, Radislav Krstić in 2001, Momir Nikolić in 2003 and Vujadin Popović, Ljubiša Beara, and Drago Nikolić, in 2010. Few others were ever held accountable and it was only in 2013 that the Serbian president apologised for the “crime” that had been committed at Srebrenica, refusing to acknowledge it as a massacre.

It is fascinating that in July 2011 a Dutch court decided that the Netherlands, who under the directive of the UN, forced Bosniak men out of the camps into Srebrenica, were responsible for their deaths. This was followed by the Dutch government, in 2014, being instructed to pay compensation to relatives as they were responsible for the deaths of 300 Bosniaks. Although countries are forced to finally take some accountability, those pulling the trigger are rarely held accountable. The UN’s responsibility over the lives of the 7,000 boys and men has been questioned. Although Kofi Anan has profusely apologised, declaring his shock at the actions of the despicable men, a “sorry” cannot negate the fact he failed to protect them. Nevertheless, the UN did mean to protect the 20,000 Bosnian refugees, attempting to find them a safe haven. Human rights violations were evidently violated by both the UN and individual countries who should have done more to protect the Bonsiak refugees. Nevertheless, it is naïve to allow them to take all the blame.

Going forward to the 18th March 2015, the BBC covers a story on the Srebrenica massacre: “Serbian police have arrested seven men accused of taking part in the slaughter of over 1,000 Muslims at a warehouse on the outskirts of Srebrenica.” (BBC news) The headlines on the BBC reflect the recent drive to find and hold responsible the men who masterminded and carried out the attack on unarmed Bosniaks. The additional 7 men seem meagre compared to the number of victims; it is not possible that only a handful of people were aware of what happened in Srebrenica. The arrest of Ratko Mladic in 2011 was undoubtedly a massive breakthrough. Mladic is thought to be the mastermind who orchestrated the massacre in Srebrenica, managing to survive capture for 16 years. Upon his arrest Tony Blair exclaimed: “This is a huge moment for the principle that people who engage in genocide will eventually be brought to justice, but also for Serbia.” But how long does this process take, why should those responsible for taking lives, live their lives without consequence for such a long period of time? With a 93 year old former Nazi being arrested last year, finally being held accountable for the massacres that he organised at Auschwitz, the idea that men responsible for taking the lives of innocent victims are able to hide for many years demonstrates the gross miscarriage of justice that the democratic world faces. Two decades after the events at Srebrenica, the victims’ relatives deserve answers, they deserve an apology and more importantly they deserve to find justice and hold those who stole their loved ones too accountable.

The tombstones containing the remains of the 8,000 Bosniak men and boys (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31937796)

Page 22

www.manchesterhistorian.com

History In The Headlines

Issue 20: May 2015

The History of British Politics and Shifts in Attitudes throughout the Century Lucy Wickham

At the moment everyone speaks of May 7th 2015 as an important day in British Politics, but what about January 20th 1265? A little bit lesser known but vastly more important. More important than the signing of the Magna Carta and the end of the English Civil War but not quite as important as the day Domino's gives free pizza on Oxford Road.

January 20th 1265 was the day that the most extraordinary parliament opened in Westminster.

The January Parliament was the very first time that representatives from every county and major town in England were invited to attend parliament. Prior to this it had purely been an elite affair with the King and his advisers but democracy was in action and created the constituencies which survived from then right through to the 20th century. Summoned to the parliament were two knights from each county and two citizens from each town to represent the whole of England.

Boris Johnson, a political heavyweight who owes his career to devolution (Wikimedia)

The man behind it all was Simon de Montfort, de facto leader of England and leader of a rebel political faction who wanted major change in the country. Sound familiar? He overthrew the King in 1264 at the Battle of Lewes (despite being married to his sister, Eleanor), took him prisoner and ruled the country in the name of King Henry III. All sounds so simple doesn't it? However, it all ended in tears for de Montfort as many of the powerful barons and allies defected back to the King and his heirs. Simon's forces were rapidly depleted and he died at the Battle of Evesham in August 1265.

A lot has changed since the January Parliament of 1265, but even then those travelling to the parliament had their costs paid: A13th Century MP's expenses, although I'm sure there weren't any duck houses. It remains a small and relatively unknown piece of history but Simon de Montfort and his parliament were the beginning of representative government and Britain edging closer to true democracy.

The course did not quite run smooth for the force of democracy in Britain. The English Civil War pitted the Parliamentarians against the Royalist; King against Country. The war killed a higher proportion of the British population than any other war. Between 1642 and 1649, 1 in 10 of the adult male population died; more than three times the proportion that died in the First World War and five times the proportion in the Second World War. If that's not a struggle for democracy then I don't know what is.

Now, think back to 1708, just after the Act of Union forming the United Kingdom as we know it today and the first General Election.

The politicians then would have been horrified with the 7 party debate a few weeks ago and even more horrified by de Montfort's overthrow of the King. It was a two horse race between the Whig Party and the Tory Party from then onwards until the late 19th century and the early 20th century with the introduction of the Labour Party and the Liberals.

At the time of the 1708 General Election, Britain was considered the front runner of democracy, a country to be aspired to in terms of government. Only men who owned land could vote, representatives were put forward in each area with no formal election; they were 'invited' to parliament and had no significant say over decisions. In this instance, history shows just how radically different our definition of democracy is now.

Representative government has evolved since its origins in the 13th century but a large portion of those reforms happened in the 20th Century. The Representation of the People Act in 1918 enlarged the number of people who could vote to all men over 21 and women over 30 who filled specific criteria such as property owners and those married to Local Government officials. Doesn't sound much like universal suffrage to me. It wasn't until 1970 that the voting age in the United Kingdom was lowered to 18, meaning that before that the majority of students wouldn't have been eligible to vote in the General Election.

Democracy is something Britain takes for granted today, but the struggle for it dates back to 1265, through the union of the UK, through the struggle for universal suffrage and through world wars. So, when you cast your vote on May 7th, think of de Montfort and the first representatives from your constituency in that first January parliament and how much British politics has changed in the last 750 years.

@TheMcrHistorian

Page 23

History In Culture

Issue 20: May 2015

Marilyn Monroe

By Chloe Lisa Wright Marilyn Monroe is undoubtedly one of the most famous actresses to have graced the screens of the United States and the world. Renowned for her beauty and artistic talent Monroe remains an international sex icon today, her legacy living on over 50 years after her death in 1962. Debate still surrounds the star, with many arguing over whether she was purely a sex icon, and nothing more, or whether she was a proto-feminist leading the way for the development of a highly successful feminist movement in both her home nation and abroad.

Monroe is certainly a sex icon, highly sexualised by both the media and resultantly the personal imagination. Her natural reddish-brown hair was bleached blonde to create the ‘dumb blonde’ character portrayed in many of her films such as How to Marry a Millionaire.

This look created the persona that Marilyn was believed to have by the public. In effect, producers created this sexualised beautiful woman to capitalise on her characters. Monroe also participated in nude modelling and movie scenes on various occasions throughout her career. She appeared in the first issue of Playboy magazine, becoming the original ‘playmate of the month’, entrenching Monroe’s legacy as a sex icon.

The breakdown of her second marriage to baseball player Joe DiMaggio, is attributed to Monroe’s sex appeal. He was infuriated by the famous picture of Monroe’s skirt being blown up by an air vent during the filming of The Seven Year Itch; he felt she was becoming too exhibitionist in her fame. Monroe’s married life itself is also questioned by some who felt that for a woman to be divorced three times was unacceptable in a period when patriarchy was still a dominant force in America. Her other relationships have also raised eyebrows, especially the rumours surrounding her liaisons with both John and Robert Kennedy. For many of these reasons, Monroe is seen as purely a sex icon who engaged in immoral behaviour.

Marilyn Monroe (Wikimedia)

However, Monroe was also a woman who was outspoken and knew her own mind. She had a troubled upbringing which involved sexual abuse and emotional suffering as a result of being in the care of various people due to her mother’s mental instability.

Monroe actually asserted, "Do I look happy? I should—for I was a child nobody wanted. A lonely girl with a dream—who awakened to find that dream come true. I am Marilyn Monroe. Read my Cinderella story,” during her interview for True Experiences magazine.

She also defended her nude modelling during a potential scandal of leaked photos. She told of her plight as a struggling actress doing all she could to pay her rent and the nude photos as a means to an end.

This interview actually added to her popularity as people sympathised with her situation. Monroe would not be victimised and abused as a consequence of her actions. This was a similar occurrence when her third husband Arthur Miller was questioned on suspicion of being a communist sympathiser. Despite being told to leave instead of risk her career because of suspicions surrounding Miller, she wholeheartedly refused to abandon him, naming those who suggested it ‘born cowards’, evidencing her desire to pursue what she wanted and not be dictated by others. Thus, another side of Marilyn Monroe was a woman who had come from a troubled childhood and overcome many obstacles to stardom, and would not be told what to do or how to act in situations.

Feminists have two key approaches to Monroe’s place amongst their ranks. Gloria Steinem, when asked if she believed Marilyn would be a feminist responded with, “I think so, because her experiences were ones that feminism often speaks out on: sexual abuse, sexual victimisation, a mother's madness”. Feminists identify with Marilyn’s plight to stardom from the abuse of her early life. On the other hand, feminists have used the tragic end to Marilyn’s life as an example of the consequences of being a sex icon, used and victimised for the pleasure of men. Her use as a sex object and the lack of contempt for her as an individual led to her eventual demise and for many is a clear example of how bad things were for women in the 1950s and why feminism was necessary.

Monroe was clearly both a sex icon and a proto-feminist. Although highly sexualised throughout her life, she knew her own mind and spoke it. Feminists have used her life as an example of why their work is necessary in the modern world.

Page 24

www.manchesterhistorian.com

History in Culture

Issue 20: May 2015

‘The Milk of Paradise’: Opium Use in 19th Century English Literature

By Olivia Hevercroft Primarily taken as a tincture to remedy everyday ailments such as menstrual cramps, diarrhoea, wind, and piles, opium was also used recreationally in the 19th century and has often been associated with Victorian writers.

Before the Pharmacy Act of 1868, which restricted the sale of ‘dangerous’ substances to pharmacies only, opium was widely available from a number of commercial outlets, including barbers, confectioners, stationers, tobacconists and wine merchants.

Poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge took opium regularly until his death in 1834. Literary historians have argued that he used opium medicinally to address his regular periods of ‘mental anguish’ and ‘physical pain’; however, it is has also been seen as corresponding with the period when his ‘poetic genius burst into full bloom’. Kubla Kahn, written in 1797 while Coleridge was taking opium to alleviate the symptoms of dysentery, describes fantastical and sublime hallucinations experienced during one druginduced slumber: “But oh! that deep romantic chasm which slanted Down the green hill athwart a cedarn cover!

A savage place! as holy and enchanted As e’er beneath a waning moon was haunted By woman wailing for her demon-lover!”

In 1821 Thomas De Quincy, an alumnus of Manchester Grammar School, published his Confessions of an English Opium Eater, in which he described candidly the pleasurable effects of (hitherto undocumented) recreational opium use. He wrote that opium contained the ‘secret of happiness about which philosophers had disputed for so many ages’. The drug was affordable and practical, too: ‘bought for a penny’ and ‘carried in the waistcoat-pocket’.

It has been extensively debated whether or not Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland contains references to drug use. As Kristina Aikens writes, ‘the substances Alice consumes in Wonderland are never called drugs specifically, but her encounters with mysterious bottles filled with strange substances…hookah-smoking caterpillars — all of which appear to Alice in a dream-space, and which distort her sense of her body, space, time and logic’. However, Aiken notes that we should be careful attributing contemporary perceptions of drug use to Carroll’s literature. Nevertheless, the output of literary figures rumored to be taking opium meant that drug-use became synonymous with creativity, a belief that was sustained into the 20th century and beyond, with writers such as Hunter S. Thompson and William Burroughs openly writing about their personal drug use. However, as the 19th century progressed, perceptions of opium became more negative. Coleridge’s The Pains of Sleep describes agonizing and terrifying nightmares experienced as a result of opium withdrawal: “But yester-night I prayed aloud In anguish and in agony, Up-starting from the fiendish crowd Of shapes and thoughts that tortured me” Similar to Coleridge, De Quincy also wrote about the terrors and nightmares experienced when suffering withdrawal. He wrote that the pain of coming off the drug was too severe that he could not bear to, even though it was in fact affecting his creative output rather than stimulating it.

As the 19th century progressed and the negative effects of opium became more apparent, the drug became associated with a criminal underworld. Charles Dickens’ The Mystery of Edwin Drood (1870) has been attributed with bringing the image of the ‘Opium Den’ into public consciousness: “He lies, dressed, across a large unseemly bed…lying, also dressed and also across the bed, not longwise, are a Chinaman, a Lascar, and a haggard woman. The two first are in a sleep or stupor; the last is blowing at a kind of pipe, to kindle it.”

More negative portrayals of opium and the people who consumed it are found in other later Victorian novels. Arthur Conan Doyle’s character Sherlock Holmes was a regular user of cocaine, and is found by Watson in an unfavourable position in an opium den in the 1891 novel The Man with the Twisted Lip. Also published in 1891, in Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray the image of the opium den as a place of iniquity is utilized, where the main character Dorian goes to ‘buy oblivion’ – the language of drug use as an illicit commodity becoming apparent here, too – a contrast to the medicinal discourse surrounding the drug at the beginning of the 19th century. Although we cannot argue that opium directly influenced writers’ literary output, we can draw parallels between common themes in literature written by authors who are alleged to have used opium. Whether or not the authors discussed used opium medicinally, recreationally, or at all, opium offers a useful inroad into understanding Victorian literature and society.

@TheMcrHistorian

Page 25

History in Culture

Issue 20: May 2015

The Rhythms of Rebellion

By Aiswarya Kishor Amidst the clouds of legal racial segregation and inhumane apartheid laws in 20th century South Africa, music was a silver lining for the masses. Songs were powerful political tools that subliminally shaped the opinions of the people and encouraged protest against the regime.

Freedom songs sang praises of the anti-apartheid heroes and lifted the spirits of the oppressed. Within Africa, anti-apartheid couriers such as Miriam Amoeba, Hugh Masekela, Youssou N’Dour and the Malopoets expressed outrage through song. Brenda Fassi, popularly known as the ‘Queen of African Pop’ and ‘The girl with the golden voice’, was a notable figure that vehemently protested the apartheid through songs such as Black President and Abantu Bayakhuluma (The People Speak).

Support poured in even from outside the African continent in the 1970s and 1980s as popular artists such as U2, Bruce Springsteen and Stevie Wonder sang out on behalf of the cause.

Any article on the anti-apartheid movement is incomplete without mention of Nelson Mandela. Known for his life-long struggle against the movement and a 27-year long imprisonment, Mandela was also a jazz music enthusiast. He was at the forefront of the anti-apartheid movement and his actions sparked hope in the hearts of the people.

Although it is almost inconceivable now, at the dawn of the 1980s Mandela's name was not widely known outside South Africa. By the time he was released from prison a decade later, his name, face and story were synonymous with the anti-apartheid struggle, and pop music played a major role in that transformation.

While he was jailed on Robben Island, the government did its very best to obliterate his existence and rob the people of an icon.

Extreme measures were taken such as a nation-wide ban on his image and the control board stifled any kind of music that referred to either Mandela or freedom. In 1980, Stevie Wonder released clippings of himself singing “Happy Birthday” to Mandela. The South African government retaliated by promptly placing a ban on all of Wonder's songs from the country. In retrospect, music played a crucial role in Nelson Mandela’s long walk to freedom.

Rough estimates show that between 400 and 500 albums and recordings were banned during the years of oppression. However, artists of the day constantly tried to circumvent the censor board and slip in underlying messages of support into pop music. Even banned songs soared into popularity behind closed doors. For instance, the “Free Nelson Mandela” song by the band Special A.K.A., although officially banned in South Africa, worked its way through the charts in Britain. The song provoked embargoes around the world on South African products and many other harsh economic sanctions until the end of apartheid. The lyrics referred to the physical abuse Mandela endured while at prison and called to let him out, stating, “Shoes too small to fit his feet” and “His body abused but his mind is still free”.

Looking beyond the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, music plays a key function in every struggle against socio-political oppression. From the civil rights movement’s “We Shall Overcome” to the “Rockers” music of Jamaica, it is difficult to find a resistance movement that did not utilize the power of music in some form. Even today, the rhythms of rebellion continue to play on.

Small Caged Bird Sings (Wikimedia)

Page 26

www.manchesterhistorian.com

University

Issue 20: May 2015

Advancing into the Archives Workshop: Liverpool Records Office, 9 March 2015 Second-year undergraduates from the University of Manchester and Liverpool John Moores University were invited to go digging in the archives on Monday, as part of a new workshop designed to introduce students to conducting original research for their finalyear dissertations.

‘Advancing into the Archives’ was a one-day event held at Liverpool Records Office, giving practical advice on how to identify relevant historic material for developing a new project, liaising with archivists to get the most out of your research trip, and learning how to handle fragile documents and records appropriately. Beginning with an introductory talk by Liverpool’s Chief Archivist Helena Smart on the vast wealth of material and resources located at the Records Office (of which only a fraction is currently catalogued), students then participated in a session on tips for planning your dissertation led by Manchester masters student Olivia Havercroft.

They then used letters and press reports from the 1888 Jack the Ripper murders held at the National Archives to think about the nature of the sources available for studying different periods of history, and the way in which different records get preserved. In the afternoon session, students were then able to develop research projects based on handling original archives from Liverpool’s vast collections, including records from the Cavern Club, Liverpool workhouses and Lock Hospitals, child emigration reports, theatre archives, and even historic papers from Everton Football Club.

Here is a selection of some of the feedback received: ‘This helped me to think ahead to 3rd year, especially about what topics might interest me, and what relevant archive materials I should use.’

‘It gave me a much greater understanding of what types of source material is out there to be used, and how broad it is.’

‘Finding what is available made it less scary and gives me an insight on how to begin my 3rd year.’

‘Great trip, I’d encourage all students to come on this workshop – I learnt so much.’

Students in possession of Liverpool’s fantastic collections and resources, including bound volumes from C19 workhouse reports and town planners.

Examining letters sent about the Beatles’ appearance at the Cavern Club during the 1960s, including death threats.

@TheMcrHistorian

Page 27

manchesterhistorian@gmail.com

reddit.com/manchesterhistorian