The Historian 2013

The Historian 2013

The Historian …on heroes and hero-worship.

Founder’s Day 2013

Editorial.

‘The hero is life in all its potentialities: hence he is poet, prelate, king or god, according to circumstances.’ (Eric Bentley)

In a year that has seen the discovery of Richard III’s remains and the death of Margaret Thatcher, the History Society debated the question; “What is a hero?” Members each put forward convincing arguments for the greatness of their own personal heroes in history, and familiar names were brought up: Churchill, Nelson. It soon became clear that our historical heroes shared common characteristics, such as bravery and sacrifice, and the discussion moved on to the question; “What is the purpose of a hero?” It was interesting to consider that a hero’s reputation is a cultural construction that reflects the values and ideologies of the society in which it is revered. Thus, what makes a hero changes over time, as shown quite clearly by the articles collected together in this Founder’s Day edition of The Historian. My personal hero is Edith Cavell, a nurse in the First World War, who was executed for helping around two hundred Allied soldiers escape from German occupied Belgium in 1915. She both demonstrates the characteristics of bravery and sacrifice necessary of a hero, but is also of great interest to me in the way that she has been commemorated, as her life was used to garner support for the women’s suffrage movement. A memorial statue stands in St. Martin’s Place, just off Trafalgar Square and shows Cavell in her nurse’s uniform, with the

inscription “Patriotism is not enough. I must have no hatred or bitterness for anyone.” She was used by suffragists as an example of the strength and sacrifice of women in the First World War, the effects of which certainly contributed to women over 30 gaining the vote in 1918 under the Representation of the People Act. Cavell’s life and commemoration clearly demonstrate to me the purpose of a hero that goes beyond actions of sacrifice or bravery. This collection of articles by our budding historians in the Remove both represents a broad range of heroes and considers why heroes are worshipped by particular societies. Oliver Daniel opens by examining the evolution of the hero over time and asks the pertinent question: “What has become of the hero?” He concludes that our modern day heroes do not necessarily share the noble characteristics of their predecessors, which in turn suggests that the moral values of our society are in decline. Nik Nicheperovich delves into the life of his hero, Cicero, and explains how he was seen as

The Edith Cavell memorial, St. Martin’s Place.

more of a villain during his own lifetime. William Beddows discusses the achievements of a local and national hero, William Wilberforce, whose campaign to bring an end to the slave trade helped garner support for the cause and undeniably had an impact worldwide. Max Leslie considers his hero, a man who still lives and whose life embodies both the strength of a great sporting hero and the determination of a man facing racial prejudice in segregated America: Muhammad Ali. Darshan Chohan argues his case for the late Margaret Thatcher as a saviour of Britain, recognising the fact that she is a figure who still ‘divides a nation’, as recent events surrounding her death brought into sharp relief. Saul Sorooshian, being the proud Scot he is, focuses on Scottish heroes and considers why the Scottish feel the need to worship such gloriously doomed men. Ned Tidmarsh, in contrast, investigates which characteristics make the peculiarly British hero, considering figures such as Churchill, whose flaws are what make him so loved by the British. This edition ends with a valedictory piece by our Head of History, in his final year at the College. Mr. Edge charts the decline of the imperial hero, offering personal insight into British India’s legacy. Mr. Edge has presided over a fantastic year for the History Society, during which we have been honoured to host seminars by eminent historians including Dr. Nicholas Lambert, who gave an insightful lecture on the outbreak of the First World War, Professor Orlando Figes, who spoke to over one hundred Dulwich boys and JAGS girls on Late Tsarism and Communism in Russia and Professor Alan Macfarlane, Professor Emeritus of King’s College, Cambridge, who explained what he had learned from studying English witchcraft to a rapt audience. The History Society also heard from its very own Dr. Pyke on his recent adventures in Moldova and from Chris McKeon, OA, who was keen to return to the sanctuary of the Masters’ Library to address the History Society on his studies of African history. The year drew to a close with the History Society combining forces with the Politics Society in welcoming Lord Hennessy to the Master’s Library to address a packed audience of Dulwich and JAGS students. He reflected upon his observations of recent Prime Ministers, including amusing anecdotes on John Major’s socks. All in all, an intellectually rigorous and stimulating year, which now ends with well earned rest and relaxation at Founder’s Day and in the coming summer. Enjoy! Miss V Trevelyan June 2013

What has become of the hero?

The evolution of the Hero: Hercules, Shackleton, Gandhi…Rooney?

It is almost universally acknowledged that we need inspirational heroes as role models in our lives. But who exactly are these heroes? Originally the concept of heroes stemmed from Greek mythology, referring to demigods (half god / half mortal) such as Hercules and Aeneas. Later, however, the word became synonymous with characters who, in the face of danger and adversity, or from a position of weakness, displayed courage and the will for self sacrifice —that is, heroism—for some greater good. However throughout the course of history, these heroic ideals have reflected the nature of a given culture at the time. Throughout the middle ages, archetypes of the hero displayed the characteristics of honour and morality, whilst also demonstrating virtues such as prudence, justice, courage, fortitude, cunning, wit and wisdom and perhaps most importantly, the triumph of good over evil. These types of characters are instantly recognisable today - Robin Hood for example. Consequently whether mythical or real these heroes have served as symbols, personifications of good qualities and role models for the young. Furthermore, historically, in order to obtain the status of ‘hero’, one had to be a warrior. This was a construct which was evident up until 1842 when the work of Thomas Carlyle arguably led to a change in the definition of a hero. Subsequently heroes no longer had to be men of arms but were often simply people who through their sense of nobility, virtue, humanity, sacrifice or perseverance in the face of adversity achieved exceptional feats. As such, our original definition of a hero now encompassed not just martial courage but more general moral virtues, such as Martin Luther King or Gandhi. In the early Twentieth Century, however, it could be argued that there was a resurgence of the ‘traditional hero’. Explorers like Ernest Shackleton and Robert Falcon Scott in the early 1900s were replaced once again by soldiers and the idea was coined of a ‘noble death’ for one’s country. The reluctant heroes of the First World War are portrayed by poems such as Siegfried Sassoon’s ‘The Hero’ and ‘Dulce et decorum est’ as well as by the ‘heroes of bomber command’ in the Second World War. Therefore during this period the hero reflected this ‘culture of death’ and people were much more eager to celebrate heroic death rather than survival.

Regardless of the period however, heroes have always been prominent people in the public consciousness - people who achieved great things, people who have done great deeds - proud,

noble leaders and bold pioneers. So what has become of the hero today and how does it reflect our culture? I would argue that unfortunately, the word hero has become debased, largely as a result of today’s media. If one were to survey a group of children, the likelihood is that it is neither Gandhi, nor Mandela nor even Churchill who they would regard as their hero, but rather James Bond, Wayne Rooney or the latest X-factor winner. Today's heroes are often sports figures, celebrities, and rock stars whose lives are laced with controversy as well as frequent appearances in our over-crowded court rooms. So what has caused this colloquialisation of the term hero? Critics and social commentators alike have argued that the age of the hero is over, that it could not survive when public life came to be dominated by the media. The media was responsible for the demise of heroes; in order to become a hero today, what matters is not so much the greatness of one’s achievements, but the exposure one is given in the media. Having altered the hero we have replaced him with a distinctively modern public figure: the celebrity. Exposure in the media helps to increase a person’s status as a celebrity. Celebrities offer exclusive stories to increase their exposure, the media promote them to increase their ratings, and we collude by paying attention to the glossy features, the exclusive interviews, and the various scandals and intrigues. Therefore, in order to become a hero today, it is more important to have a good press agent than it is to possess ‘heroic qualities’. This is one of the reasons why figures from the world of entertainment and sport are some of the most successful celebrities. The key to becoming a household name is simply clinching the next big contract or the next lucrative advertising deal. With cleverly crafted media events in which managers collaborate with magazine editors and programme directors it is possible to give these figures a level of exposure which is out of all proportion to their actual achievements. The extent to which these modern ‘heroes’ have been built up creates the idea of them being ‘on a pedestal’ or untouchable and they’ve become role models for children. This can therefore have an extremely damaging effect if these heroes suddenly fall from grace. In fact in some ways, a recent comedy sketch from the comedian Simon Brodkin (Lee Nelson) insightfully demonstrated this point. In an interview posing as a made up premier league football player (Jason Bent), he stated that he had just signed a lucrative advertising contract with Nike and that he was delighted to be joining the ranks of such heroic sporting legends as Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong and Oscar Pistorius.

However, it would be unfair to say that the mass media is solely responsible for the death of the hero. A democratic culture also undermines the idea that certain individuals carry a divine spark and are therefore in a category superior to the rest of us. We are inclined to believe therefore that no one deserves to be worshipped as a true hero. Moreover, often as more details emerge about past heroes together with critical scrutiny by the psychologist and sociologist, society changes its opinions of

Mandela: still a hero.

them and, although their achievements remain undiminished, the people themselves often emerge without nobility. Therefore it is necessary once again to consider how exactly we define ‘hero’ today and whether we have moved beyond the stage of idealised characters that served as virtuous paragons of courage and ensured the triumph of good over evil? Thankfully we haven’t entirely relinquished these ideals - many of these qualities are still present in heroes of today, evident in the fact that we still recognise some heroes whom epitomise these original qualities such as Gandhi, Mandela and Martin Luther King. To conclude, throughout history, the heroes of the past were an inspiration for many people, they broadened our horizons by giving us an example of a course of action that could be considered noble. Celebrities, on the other hand, with the string of stories about their hardships and their lucky breaks, their affairs and their break-ups, prove to be nothing out of the ordinary. Reading about their lives does not inspire us or fill us with purpose and it is therefore essential to avoid conflating the title hero with the word celebrity.

Martin Luther King

Oliver Daniel

Cicero – a hero to some, but a villain to others.

Marcus Tullius Cicero, commonly known as Cicero, was an influential orator, philosopher, consul and lawyer. His life, coinciding with the decline of the Roman Republic and the formation of the Roman Empire under Julius Caesar was so influential, that he has been remembered, and revered, on the same level as other famous statesmen of the Greco-Roman era. Although Cicero was born into a rather wealthy family of the equestrian order, the lower of the two aristocratic classes in Ancient Rome, nobody from his family tree had ever served in the Senate, let alone become a consul. Cicero himself

(whose name derives from the Latin word cicer , meaning “chickpea”) became consul in 63BC, thus achieving what nobody in his family line had achieved, and was classified as a novus homo meaning “new man”, a title given to the men who were the first to achieve the position of consul in their respective families. Before Cicero became consul, Cicero had to complete the cursus honorum , essentially a course lasting up to several decades, during which he would serve in many public offices before having the opportunity at being elected consul. Cicero served in the military at the age of just 16 during the Social War, but having little taste for military affairs, he turned his eyes towards a more studious profession, namely a career as a lawyer, where he made a name for himself on the Roman political scene as a brilliant but ruthless prosecutor. Cicero’s first major case caused great political controversy in Ancient Rome, as he acquitted Sextus Roscius, a man charged with patricide, whom also posed an indirect challenge to the dictator of the time, Lucius Cornelius Sulla. Following this unlikely victory, Cicero, by then a quaestor , (the first rank of many on the political ladder to consulship) achieved another victory, this time a prosecution, of Gaius Verres, a Sicilian who had plundered Sicily as well as certain parts of Greece. The speech, which has been recovered in its entirety, was so extensive and damning, that only a fragment of it was actually spoken in court, as Verres fled to Marseille before the second day of the court session had begun. Such flamboyant performances in court gained him a place amongst the political elite in Rome, whither he returned after Verres’ flight. Cicero had an eventful year as consul in 63BC. During his time in office, he was forced to impose martial law, Senatus Consultum Ultimum , after Lucius Sergius Catilina tried to overthrow the Republic in an attempted coup d’état. The speeches (known as the Catiline Orations) given by Cicero, condemning Catiline, were of such great impact that a famous Roman historian, Gaius Sallustius Crispius, chose extracts from them in his work Bellum Catilinae , “The War of Catiline”. For his efforts in successfully thwarting the coup, Cicero was awarded the Pater Patriae – “Father of the Fatherland”. Despite this recognition, Cicero lived in exile for several years due to the fear of being prosecuted for sentencing Roman citizens to death without trial during the time of martial law. Following his return from exile in 60BC, Cicero was invited to join the “First Triumvirate”, a group spearheaded by Julius Caesar, with the intention of overthrowing the Republic. Cicero, however, had just returned to Rome and was still being accepted rather grudgingly by the Senate, and did not want to give the impression that he wished to undermine the position of

the Roman Republic. Until 49BC, Cicero continued to decline Caesar’s offers and instead began to support Pompey the Great, who too began to distance himself from Caesar though he was, at first, a staunch supporter of the would-be dictator of the Roman Empire.

After Caesar invaded Italy in 49BC, Cicero fled Rome only to return a year later, and was pardoned by Caesar for siding with the opposition. Cicero was upset at the overthrow of the Republic, but hoped that Caesar would revive several institutions, which had been active before the transition into the Roman Empire. However, he was taken aback by the assassination of Caesar on the Ides of March, and his case in pleading his innocence to the actions taken on that day were undermined, as his name was called out by one of the assassins.

Camuccini’s ‘Death of Julius Caesar’, 1798, captures the dramatic moment that shook Cicero’s world in 44BC.

In the aftermath of Caesar’s death, Cicero became a popular leader and gained a dislike for Mark Antony, whom he thought had been solely interested in avenging Caesar’s death.

Both men soon began to clash after Cicero denounced Antony in a series of speeches now known as the “Phillipics”. Soon after, however, Mark Antony and Octavian, Caesar’s heir, formed the Second Triumvirate, and began to make a list of individuals whom they considered to be hindering the actions of the state. Cicero was one of the most fiercely sought after people on the list, but as he shared the sympathy of many Romans, he was usually not reported by them to the authorities. However, he was caught on December 7th, 43BC and executed shortly thereafter. His last words, in the typical fashion, which made him so beloved by his supporters, were directed at the centurion, Herennius, in charge of the execution. Bowing his head out of the litter in which he was supposed to have been carried to the seashore, he said- Following the execution, Cicero’s name was associated with treachery until his son, Marus Tullius Cicero Minor, partly avenged his death by playing a part in the naval defeat of Mark Antony at Actium in 31BC. Since then, Cicero has been lauded for his orations and his impact on the Latin language as a whole, having been a major contributor in translating and adapting Greek philosophy to Roman ideology. He also made great impacts on the great body of Latin prose, and has subsequently been revered throughout the centuries until the 19 th century, as most writers that had followed in his footsteps adapted his work to their own. Despite his accolades in this respect, Cicero has been regarded as one of the initiators of the 14 th Century Renaissance, after the rediscovery of his letters, as well as his influence on the great philosophers of the 17-18 th centuries, namely John Locke and David Hume. Thus, his substantial works have not only caused an eruption of intellectual thought, without which our society would be bereft, but also provided us with an opportunity to examine the day-to-day aspects of Roman life, and most importantly, the transition from Republic to Empire, and its effect on all the peoples and citizens of lands concerned therein. Nik Nicheperovich "There is nothing proper about what you are doing, soldier, but do try to kill me properly."

William Wilberforce- a local and national hero.

William Wilberforce’s lifetime achievement of the abolition of the Slave Trade Act 1807 was described by the then Prime Minister Lord Grenville as the ‘most glorious measure that had ever been adopted by any legislative body in the world’. William Wilberforce had the willingness to pursue a moral cause without incentives of material gain, he had the resolve to continue his efforts whatever barriers arose and produced a legacy that remains

complete and admired to this day. His dedication to improve the lives of others via a group called the Clapham Sect based just 3 miles from Dulwich, means he can be regarded as both a local and national hero. He had the courage to take on a cause that before 1787 was supported by very few, and had widespread opposition among the British aristocracy and governing classes. Ports such as Liverpool, London and Bristol had their wealth built on the backs of slaves, resulting in powerful economic and material arguments for the continuation of the trade. The British people were largely ignorant of the reality of the trade and until the involvement of Wilberforce in 1791 no key figure high up in society had openly questioned the morality of the slave trade. Despite this uphill struggle Wilberforce was ultimately successful in passing his most notable achievement, the abolition bill of 1807 which changed the actions of Britain as a country forever. Slavery between Africa and the Americans had begun in the 1500s with the Spanish and Portuguese; from the 1560s onwards English traders became increasingly involved in the transportation of slaves. By the mid-1700s Britain dominated the trade transporting some 100,000 Africans across the Atlantic every year providing slaves not only for their colonies but also for French, Dutch and Spanish territories in the West Indies. The trade worked in a triangle with ships sailing from British ports with cargos of trade good which they would exchange in West Africa for Slaves captured by local slave traders. These slaves would be transported across the Atlantic to work on the plantations in the Caribbean. From there, the cash crops such as cotton, tobacco and sugar produced on the plantation would then be shipped back to Britain. By 1783 the slave trade triangle was providing 80% of Britain’s foreign income. Many wealthy merchants and members of the aristocracy made huge fortunes from having shares in the plantations. As they were resident

in Britain, few ever visited the plantations and the brutal treatment of slaves; it was this distance from the harsh reality of slavery that led to many of them to regard slavery with indifference. William Wilberforce was faced with the enormous challenge of depicting the reality of slavery to the British people in an age without photography or film. After joining ‘The Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade’ in 1791, Wilberforce persuaded his close friend from Cambridge University and Prime Minister William Pitt (the Younger) to appoint a parliamentary committee to investigate the conditions on board slave ships. The results of this enquiry successfully opened the eyes of Britons to the horrors of the slave trade; the inquiry estimated that of the 11 million slaves transported to the Americas 1.4 million had died during transportation. Diagrams of slave ships which had emerged from the inquiry showed around 500 slaves crammed into one small ship and examples of thumbscrews and shackles where circulated around the country by Wilberforce and his abolitionists. This was crucial to changing public opinion on slavery by revealing to all ranks of society the realities of the slave trade. Wilberforce in 1789 made his first major speech to parliament on the subject of the slave trade describing in detail the conditions slaves were transported, he also stated 12 resolutions condemning the trade. Furthermore the involvement of former African slaves such as Olaudah Equiano and Ottobah Cugoano in Wilberforce’s campaign gave first-hand accounts of experience of Slavery to ordinary Britons.

However, despite the turnaround in public opinion, the First Abolition Bill was defeated in parliament in 1791 by 163 to 88 votes, which was largely as result of MPs having stakes in the trade or connections with the slave traders. The slave revolt in the French colony of St. Domingue further discouraged members from taking a reforming stance. Wilberforce, whom had successfully persuaded the public in favour of abolition, now had the hugely difficult task

of persuading Parliament to support his cause. He was seen by some members as a radical and Jacobin sympathiser which lead him to be distrusted among members of Parliament. The following year in April 1792 as a result of public pressure parliament passed a bill put forward by the Home secretary Lord Dundas which was aimed to abolish the trade gradually over a number of years which was a compromise between abolitionists and pro- slavery members. The compromise was however a well thought through deception which had the aim of appeasing the public whilst ensuring than complete abolition of slavery was delayed indefinitely. Despite slavery slipping down the agenda in the late 1790s as a result of the war with France it resurfaced again in 1805. After William Pitt’s death in 1806 Wilberforce worked closely with the administration of Lord Grenville who supported abolition and brought more abolitionists into the cabinet. While Lord Grenville led Wilberforce’s campaign for abolition in the House of Lords, his foreign secretary Charles Fox led the campaign in the Commons until his death in September 1806. In the general election of autumn 1806 the slave trade was a key issue among the electorate who had been in many cases converted to Wilberforce’s stance through his effective campaigning. This resulted in a huge number of new abolitionist MPs, which included many former military men who had seen and experienced slavery personally. Lord Grenville led the abolition Bill through the House of Lords where it passed comfortably. On the 23 February the Bill passed the Commons by 283 votes to 16 receiving Royal assent in March 1807. The success of Wilberforce’s abolition Bill in 1807 had worldwide consequences. The British parliament was the first major European country to abolish the trade and set the path for other European nations to follow suit. The Netherlands abolished the slave trade in 1814 and in 1818 the British government signed treaties with Spain and Portugal to abolish the trade. It therefore can be concluded that as the world’s dominant power Britain’s Abolition Bill marked the beginning of the end of centuries of slave trading across the Atlantic. Before Wilberforce, the anti-slavery groups in Britain had been minor and had no contacts with those high up in British society. Wilberforce, as a Cambridge graduate and close friend of Tory Prime minister William Pitt, was well placed to take the abolitionist’s campaign to another level. His persuading of Pitt to open an enquiry in the trade was crucial in causing public resentment towards the trade. His ability to form a strong relationship with the Whig administration of Lord Grenville allowed Wilberforce’s Bill to have support in both Houses of Parliament. But it was Wilberforce’s determination that drove Bill through parliament, making way for the total abolition of Slavery in the British Empire in 1833. It can therefore be said that the courage of Wilberforce to take up a cause that seemed at first unwinnable, presents him as a hero and champion of Liberty.

William Beddows

For my hero, impossible is nothing.

My Father told me that everyone he knows can remember where they were and what they were doing the day OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder. Apparently at the time it was such a shocking verdict that it reverberated around the world and my Grandmother tells me that this was nothing like the day the world heard that Kennedy had been shot. I believe the days my living heroes die, it won’t matter how, it will be like the world stops turning. Muhammad Ali and Nelson Mandela have to be two of the most heroic people ever to have lived and their names will echo through the coming ages. I could have written for hours about both of these truly great men, however I want to tell you a little about Muhammad Ali and why he is a classically flawed hero in the mould of the mighty Hercules. I have to start by describing the age in which the young Cassius Clay grew up, in the Southern American state of Kentucky. Here was a society barely reconciled to the abolition of slavery, the colour of your skin dictated what class of citizen you were. You couldn’t use a public toilet designated for white men if you were black. No dining in the whit e restaurant or riding on the white seats on the bus, and woe betide a black man falling fowl of the law. Justice for a black man in a white world was no justice at all. Into this unfair and brutal world was born probably the greatest and proudest black athlete ever seen: a man of supreme talent, unbending will and a determination to win, the like of which may never be seen again. Imagine for a minute, a twelve year old Cassius Clay, who had saved what little money he could to buy himself a little bicycle. Now imagine how he felt when on the very day he had purchased his new, red bicycle, which shone brightly in the overbearing heat of the Deep South sun, that it would be stolen whilst he bought an ice cream with the rest of the money he had collected. Angered and enraged, the young Cassius Clay demanded that a “state wide bike hunt” be implemented to catch the thief. But later was directed to seek the advice of Joe E. Martin, a police officer who spent time training young boxers when he was off-duty. When Clay finally entered the gym, it seemed as if he had discovered his destiny. Intoxicated by the smell of perspiration and the sound of leather on leather, Cassius was to be an instant hit in the sport of boxing. It was six years before Clay got a taste of his first international tournament. But with six Kentucky Golden Glove titles, two National Golden Gloves, two Amateur Athletic Union championships, the eighteen year old was no stranger to competition. Clay stole the show in the Light-Heavyweight Division of the OlympicGames held in Rome, 1960, pummelling his Polish opponent, Zbigniew Pietryskowsky, in the final to claim the gold medal. This brought him international acclaim for the first time. Segregated drinking fountains.

However, the adulation awarded to an Olympic champion did not stretch to allowing this black man to dine in the white restaurant. To the young Cassius Clay this would be a bitter pill he just couldn’t swallow. In his frustration and anger, he threw his hard earned medal into the depths of the Ohio River, never to be seen again. This deeply prejudiced world was more than Cassius could bear. Determined to make it in the professional world he embarked on a devastating run of 19 fights, all won and 15 by knockout. Along this journey he had come to know Malcolm X, Elijah Muhammad and Sam Cooke, all leading lights in the growing black empowerment movement determined to eradicate the last vestiges of slavery in the United States. The concept of being “free” was a genuine cause at the time. He was on his way to one of the most defining moments in boxing history, when he fought the invincible Sonny Liston for the World Heavyweight Title in Miami Beach, Florida, on 25 th February 1964 at the age of just 22. What unfolded that night truly shook the boxing establishment. Sonny Liston was the

Ali, with Malcolm X.

heir to the legendary Joe Louis and seen as an unbeatable and truly great black heavyweight champion of the world. This wasn’t the way the young Cassius Clay saw him. Rather, to Cassius Clay, he represented the subservient black man, still willing to follow his white master’s orders. The night was electric. The whole world was tuning in on the radio, expecting an epic battle between the Cassius Clay and the vastly more experienced and powerful champion. The world thought that this was the night that the “Louisville Lip”, as Clay was known, would eat his words. However, Clay’s resounding victory meant that his claim to be the greatest now reverberated all around the world. By the end of the fight, Cassius Clay, such an angry young man, stood over the reigning champion screaming for him to get up and fight. In the end Liston refused to emerge from his corner and the “Louisville Lip” became world champion at the age of 22. Not long after this, Muhammad Ali took his Islamic name and began to defy not only the boxing establishment, but also the U.S. Government. At a time in America when the Vietnam War was seen as right and just, he refused to be drafted and sent to fight. As he so succinctly put "I ain't got no quarrel with them Viet Cong ... They never called me n*****." The government fined and threw him in jail. The boxing establishment stripped him of his title. No matter how hard Ali’s opponents tried to defeat him, all the succeeded in was to strengthen his resolve and make him more determined to overcome injustice. He was never broken and came back to defy the odds, going on to become the first three-time world

heavyweight champion and in a time of truly awesome heavyweights. He was genuinely the undisputed champion, once winning a fight with a broken jaw.

However, for all of this, his truly heroic achievement is to have never bowed to the abuse. He charmed the entire world with his wit and kindness. Because Ali had put his body on the line for millions of people he did not know, in countries he had never visited, who spoke languages he did not understand, his global audience felt they had a share in his success. His stance of conscience was one that translates across all boundaries, across all cultural barriers. No one can emulate what Ali did in the ring, or his style outside it, but his act of solidarity and sacrifice, his resistance to the pressure of power, is something we can all draw strength from. A true hero is one who is knocked back by defeats, marred by flaws and doesn’t always make the correct decision, but at the end of the day strives to uphold their principles, their key beliefs, so that no matter how hard you try, you can never hold them down.

Cassius Clay’s victory over Liston.

Max Leslie

Margaret Thatcher- The Lady who wasn’t for Turning

Two enduring images of Thatcher: the villain in Spitting Image and the hero in Time magazine.

What makes a leader a hero? In my opinion, the determining factor that makes a leader a hero is the context in which they change a nation for the better. Heroes distinguish themselves from ordinary leaders because they initiate vital change during difficult times, be it wars or economic slumps, with a vision that makes their legacy long lasting and widespread. The extent to which Margaret Thatcher can be considered a hero or a villain is a controversial question of history and depends largely on perspective. To some, she was a tyrant, leading with an iron fist that increased social divide in the UK, whilst to others she was a hero- someone who symbolised a conviction of belief and brought about much needed change to a declining nation. First and foremost, Thatcher’s legacy rested upon the hinges of economic change through her radical, but much needed, free market economic policies. Indeed Thatcher’s economic policy was largely based on the work of Friedrich Hayek, a classical economist who essentially argued for competition within markets, incentives for innovation in the form of low tax rates and weak trade unions, and a government that would refrain from intervention, leaving economic activity to market forces. Thatcher did exactly this, lowering the top rate tax from a ridiculous 83% when she came into power to a far more acceptable 40% by the time she left power, reducing the number of individual working days lost to strikes from 29 million to 2 million, and initiating the process of privatisation and deregulation in the UK by privatising state owned assets such as BP and BT and breaking up the monopolies in the gas and electricity industry. These significant changes to the UK economy benefitted the country greatly because they encouraged innovation, entrepreneurship, and independence whilst increasing efficiency and lowering costs through the privatisation process. This, in turn, created profits and business confidence in the nation, which then trickled down into the lower parts of the economy by creating jobs in the long run. This economic change was supported by a lower rate of income tax, which meant that workers were being rewarded more for their Economic Policy

labour whilst government tax revenues increased because Thatcher’s fiscal policy reduced tax evasion greatly and encouraged business investment and therefore more corporate tax returns.

Moreover, the economic revolution Margaret Thatcher brought about was also vital for the UK economy in the long-term because it helped create the supply-side improvements that caused the golden age of non-inflationary constant expansion between 1997 and 2007, which was fuelled by the rapid development of the service industry in the UK, most notably the financial sector. This period of boom was testament to Thatcher’s policies because whilst she may have increased inequality and unemployment in the short-run, the true effects of her policies were only felt over a decade later through the vision she demonstrated in causing the improvements in productivity and the vast profits created from the financial sector. Indeed, the complexity of Thatcher’s economic policy is what seems to divide opinion. However, it was simply the work of someone who strived for long-term prosperity that stretched beyond her generation, for the children and grandchildren of those miners made unemployed, through a short-term trade off of economic gloom in the form of unemployment and painful structural change. It is this lack of short-termism and a vision for the nation long after her time that makes Margaret Thatcher a hero and distinguishes her from the leaders of today’s world. Thatcher also displayed her heroic leadership of Britain through her dealing with international relations. This aspect of Thatcher’s legacy shows the widespread effects of her terms in office that, I believe, sets her apart as a hero. Indeed through her invaluable involvement in the thawing out of the Cold War, Thatcher reshaped the international landscape as we know it. This is because she helped end the hostile divide between the West and the USSR, which seemed to be heading towards nuclear war if the ‘iron curtain’ was not brought down, as can be seen by the Cuban Missile Crisis. Through Thatcher’s deep friendship with and mutual admiration of President Ronald Reagan, she was able to identify and support the man who would be instrumental in bringing about the collapse of the Soviet Union- Mikhail Gorbachev. International Relations

This three-way relationship that Thatcher constructed was monumental in shaping the events that would follow because it allowed the USA to re-open communications with Russia through Gorbachev and ultimately led to de- Stalinisation and the collapse of the Berlin Wall. In addition, Thatcher’s refusal to join the European Monetary Union and her maintenance of the pound as an independent British currency was perhaps the decision in which she demonstrated the most foresight as a leader. Thatcher can be argued to have saved Britain from being involved in the collapse of the Euro and the national bankruptcy dangers that face many nations in the EU today. Furthermore, Thatcher’s nationalistic heroism is

“I like Mr. Gorbachev. We can do business together.”

shown through her Falkland Islands campaign because she led Britain into the war on ideological principles of British sovereignty and fundamental interest in the disputed area. Whilst her victory was costly, it was a symbol of national pride and British identity all around the world, bringing Thatcher vast amounts of public support which helped her win another election. Hence whilst Margaret Thatcher can be blamed for some deterioration in relations, such as with the Scottish due to the Poll Tax, her overall impact is arguably heroic through her reshaping of the Soviet Union, which made her a hero to millions of repressed Eastern Europeans, alongside her nationalistic heroism in her effort to stand up for and maintain British interests in the Falklands. Perhaps one of the most important aspects of Margaret Thatcher’s heroism that I have so far overlooked was her style of leadership during her three terms in office. Indeed Thatcher’s leadership qualities were perfectly suited to the situation at hand in 1979 because of how difficult and desperate times had become. Inflation was over 20%, the government was operating with a budget deficit, and the economy had become generally inefficient through trade union power, illustrated by the three-day week that was introduced in order to preserve the dwindling amounts of electricity, restricting growth heavily. In came Margaret Thatcher, the first female Prime Minister of the UK, and one that would prove to perhaps be the Leadership.

strongest-minded the country would ever see. Thatcher’s conviction of belief and refusal to back down to her ‘enemies’ was a trademark throughout her time and is a major quality that, in my opinion, makes her a hero because she wasn’t swayed by short-term temptations and firm opposition. Thatcher had a clear vision for Britain and would not divert even an inch from that path, which is a something that, unfortunately, many politicians and leaders of today’s world can be accused of time and time again. However, this is not to say

that Thatcher was the perfect leader. She was not. Shortcomings include perhaps being too rigid in her policy, shown by her refusal to aid the structurally unemployed, her imposition of the Poll Tax, and her ultimate removal by her own party. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that her bold and unwavering leadership was heroic in its transformational long-term effect on Britain in providing stability and strength to a country that was shaking at its foundations when Thatcher came to power in 1979. Overall, I believe the reasons for Margaret Thatcher’s case as a hero can be summarised by three key words: vision, change, and strength. Thatcher came into office with a vision of long-term prosperity, even if it meant short-term distress, she initiated the much-needed change to fulfill this vision through economic policy, and perhaps most importantly, she had the self-belief and strength to maintain her polices and face off against opposition that thought otherwise. Whilst the legacy that Margaret Thatcher has left behind will be controversially debated for generations to come, I think the immense improvements that she thrust upon this nation far outweigh her shortcomings because of the long-lasting and widespread benefit that her leadership had in transforming an inefficient near socialist society in 1979, to the productive and wealthy capitalist-based society we live in today. And I would argue that what allowed Thatcher to be so instrumental in this change was her character, because after all, “The lady’s not for turning”. Darshan Chohan

Bravehearts and Blackhearts: Why Scotland creates Heroes.

Although every country has its own heroes from history, there are some who are particularly prone to creating these figures for themselves. As a Scot I can’t help but look to my own country in this respect. Whether it’s on banknotes or in storybooks, these people are everywhere in Scotland and they greatly influence people views of their country. But do these “Heroes” deserve the title? And if not, why are they regarded as symbols of nationhood?

William Wallace

William Wallace. The most famous of Scottish heroes. A low born freedom fighter who rose up against English tyranny to lead the people to victory at Stirling Bridge and sacrifice his life for Scotland’s freedom. Simple, right? Well, not quite. Born in 1270 as the second son of a minor lord, he was destined to walk the path of the church. However, a year after the English occupation of Scotland in 1296 he murdered the High Sherriff of Lanark, William Hezelrig, most likely over a prostitute. He became an outlaw, and fate propelled him to become the unexpected leader of an army of

disgruntled Scots peasants. The victory at the Battle of Stirling Bridge, which was most commonly attributed to Wallace, was actually the brain child of the forgotten Andrew Moray who had been the first to raise the standard of rebellion in Scotland. However he was wounded by a stray arrow in the battle and died two weeks later, leaving Wallace with the glory. He was knighted and appointed guardian of Scotland, making him sole leader of the people. This was short lived. When his leadership was put to the test at Falkirk, he was soundly defeated and Wallace was forced into hiding. After six years of hopping between the French King and the pope for refuge, he was eventually captured outside Glasgow and brutally executed. Whether Wallace was a hero or not is a matter of opinion. He was the only Scottish noble who had not submitted to the English at any time. He probably was never inspired by feelings of national pride or identity, as he killed many Scots as well as English in his rebellion. But he sacrificed everything he had in the end, and gave many Scots hope of victory.

Robert the Bruce

Robert Bruce, Earl of Carrick, had inherited a strong claim to the Scottish throne upon his father’s death. However this meant nothing now that King Edward I, “Longshanks”, of England controlled Scotland. After the defeat at the Battle of Falkirk, where the Bruce was mysteriously absent, he became joint leader of the rebellion with his nemesis John “the Red” Comyn, Lord of Badenoch, who also had a claim to the throne. They enjoyed little success and one

by one the Scottish nobles submitted to King Edward, including Robert Bruce. However, in secret he made plans to be crowned as King. But before he could do so he had to remove his main rival. In 1306 he murdered John Comyn in Greyfriars Church in Dumfries. Not the most heroic act. After being crowned king a month later, he could not garner the support of the whole realm because of this murder and was forced into hiding. He disappeared from history for a year, but he returned with a vengeance. With a few faithful followers he slowly retook castles occupies by the English. Fortunately, “Longshanks” died in 1307 and his son, Edward II was unwilling to fight leaving Bruce the opportunity to slaughter the Comyn opposition in

the north. He salted the fields and killed the farmers who tended them so that nothing could grow there for a generation. By 1314 Stirling was the only castle still left in English hands. Forced to respond to the disintegrating situation north of the border, Edward II gathered the largest army he could and marched north. Now Robert had to face the thing he feared the most, a pitched battle. Some 30,000 English faced a Scots army of 10-15,000 spearmen. The Bruce kicked off the fight by beheading the English knight Henry de Bohun in single combat, and through a combination of Edward’s ineffectiveness and the Bruce’s excellent tactics the enemy was routed, with less than a third of the invaders returning home. It would be another 15 years before Scotland won the war, but in that moment the Bruce became a legend. Although at first he had been motivated by self-interest and ambition for the crown, he kept fighting when could have easily given up. He was brutal and sometimes savage, but he achieved what was thought to be impossible and there most likely would not be a Scotland today without him.

Bonnie Prince Charlie

Charles Edward Stuart is the most overly romanticised character from Scotland’s history. His bid to reclaim his grandfather’s throne has been transformed into a war to free Scots from Westminster’s rule. However Charles’ Jacobite rebellion was anything but that. 56 years before, his grandfather, James II, was forced to abdicate due to his Catholic leaning to make way for William of Orange and the Hanoverian dynasty. In July 1745, with the backing of the French King and the Pope, the Bonnie Prince landed in the Outer Hebrides. Many of the Highland clans, both Protestant and Catholic, gave him a warm

welcome. Once he had raised up to 6,000 men he marched south, first taking Edinburgh and then marching into England. He won a string of significant victories and got as far south as Derbyshire. However rumours of a large government force to the south persuaded the Clan leaders to return to Scotland, against the protests of the Prince. The rumours were false, but this retreat gave the Hanoverians enough time to raise a large force under the Duke of Cumberland. The superior government force trapped the Jacobites at Culloden field outside Inverness. Ignoring the advice of his best commander, Charles chose to fight on a flat open field, leaving his forces open to the British artillery. While the highlanders charged the Prince waited behind the lines where he could not even see the battle. It lasted no longer than an hour and by the end the Jacobites were totally crushed. Charles managed to escape Scotland by dressing as a woman. Bonnie Prince Charlie was far from a hero. He sacrificed thousands of Scottish lives in a vain attempt to retake his ancestor’s throne. He was mostly Polish, and had lived in Italy all his life. And the idea that this was a war of Scots against English is a fallacy, as there were more Scots who supported the Hanoverians than the Jacobites. Charles Stuart died in 1788 exiled, depressed and drunk, a disappointing end to the Stuart dynasty. There are many others that I could talk about, like Robert Burns or the Black Douglas. But these most prominent individuals epitomise Scotland’s tenancy to create these heroes from people who do not deserve it. It is interesting that these heroes have all been drawn from the two most violent periods in Scotland’s history. Perhaps it is when a nation’s existence is threatened, as Scotland’s was many times, that the people romanticise and exaggerate the virtues these men had. They feel that big men must counteract small size. That is not to say that it is a bad thing. In purely practical terms heroes that create interest in a country’s history can bring benefits. But we must be careful not to forget the truth of what happened and indulge too much in a false culture. Saul Sorooshian

The British Hero.

The “British Hero.” It is a term often attached to many of the successful leaders and servants of Britain. But what does one mean by this term? To be British is to be of British heritage and to be a hero is to carry out a noble or courageous act. However these two definitions do not simply combine to create a British hero. There are many who successfully fulfil both these criteria but who are, as Trotsky remarked, consigned to the “dustbin of history”. Take the Duke of Marlborough who fought with great bravery and skill at the Battle of Blenheim and won a vital victory in the War of Spanish Succession, yet he has not gained the status of a “British Hero.” Why is this? What distinguishes the Duke of Marlborough from Churchill or Alfred the Great?

Elizabeth I’s Ar

Elizabeth I’s Armada Portrait, c.1588

One attribute that might be seen as important in shaping a British hero is the pursuit of success against all odds. Churchill, when faced with the might of Nazi Germany and even opposition from his own cabinet, decided to fight on in the Second World War despite the threat of invasion. Alfred the Great achieved glory by uniting a fractured kingdom to repel the Viking hordes, adversaries who were not only greater in number, but armed with more advanced weapons. Elizabeth I presided over the defeat of the great Spanish Armada and Wellesley was victorious at Waterloo with the might of the French Empire stacked against him. It appears that being the “underdog” is essential to becoming a “British Hero.” Furthermore, something in the British hero’s character seems to distinguish him from lesser men. Not only is he usually brave and courageous, but he also has a quickness about him. On being accosted for being drunk by Lady Astor, Churchill retorted “I may be drunk Madam,