#british social history

[theorahsart]

Incorruptible chap 2 pt 17

Was really torn on how to tackle drawing so many ppl whilst keeping my sanity in tact. But when it comes down to it, it was an important collective moment and I wanted to get across the energy of so many people coming together, so it felt right to draw and colour everyone individually (even though it took AGES lmao)

[vintage-london-images]

With Trooping The Colour being tomorrow 15th June 2024, I thought this snippet may be interesting of the slow march past from 1933.

The Colour being Trooped is the King's Colour of No 7 Company 1st Battalion Coldstream Guards in front of his Majesty King George V.

Please check out other posts with hashtag #video on @vintage-london-images

[eirene]

The Wedding Dress, 1889 Thomas Benjamin Kennington

[thoughtportal]

not having to work in a factory as a child

[georgefairbrother]

Harry H Corbett, Diana Dors, and Wilfrid Brambell in the second feature film adaptation of Steptoe and Son; Steptoe and Son Ride Again, released in July 1973.

It was directed by Australian-born Peter Sykes (1939-2006) whose other comedy for Nat Cohen-EMI was Frankie Howerd's House in Nightmare Park.

The second Steptoe feature copped a bit of a pasting from the critics, the principal objections being that some of the subtleties of the father-son relationship were lost and the humour was unnecessarily cruder.

It also didn't live up to the box-office success of its predecessor; writers Ray Galton and Alan Simpson speculated that the title was ambiguous and potentially confusing, and may have given the impression to audiences that it was a rerelease of the first Steptoe and Son feature from the previous year.

In 1973, Britain's film industry was described as 'in crisis, due to a combination of declining audiences, a weak dollar and lack of overseas investment. Anglo-EMI was the biggest studio operating in the country and was dubbed 'Britain's one man film industry'.'

[candicoated]

The thing about British people is that y'all suck at taking jokes sometimes. Bragging about your people being responsible for centuries of essentially oppression, genocide, displacement and slavery over a fish and chips joke is so unhinged. Glad Hetalia TikTok is having a normal one. Also, 'we' is sending me you didn't do anything. Why are you proud of that?

"Haha, beans on toast tastes so bad."

"My ancestors are responsible for oppressing and enslaving your ancestors. We have stolen from every part of the world and profited off it. "

[thepaintedroom]

Albert Chevallier Tayler (British, English, 1862-1925 • An Elegant Soirée • 1900

[portrait-paintings]

Portrait of Catherine Osler (Mrs Alfred C Osler)

Artist: Edward Samuel Harper (British, 1854-1941)

Date: 1918

Medium: Oil on canvas

Collection: Birmingham Museums Trust, Birmingham, England

Catherine Osler or Catherine Courtauld Osler; Catherine Courtauld Taylor (26 February 1854 – 16 December 1924) was a British social reformer and suffragist.

[vintage-london-images]

Filmed after Queen Elizabeth's coronation celebrations on the 2nd June 1953, we can see traffic moving again and pedestrians in the street. We visit the Mall, Whitehall and Trafalgar Square amongst others, with the streets decorated for the coronation. The film ends showing us the bomb sites around St Paul’s Cathedral still awaiting rebuilding following the war. Please enjoy this 1953 time capsule. I posted this film originally on 4th June 2022, a couple of years ago now with no sound, now I've added some. Enjoy.

Please check out other posts with hashtag #video on @vintage-london-images

[harmonica-talks]

"Please sir, can I have some more?" I cried. "No." said Charles Dickens, as he wrote the final page of Oliver Twist.

I was saddened by his reply.

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

TLDR: I recommend Oliver Twist! It's a great story with interesting characters, and is a great commentary on the workhouses and crime of Dicken's time. It's also kind of funny at points! :)

~

I took much too long to fully read "Oliver Twist" by Charles Dickens, (thanks a lot, midterms!!) but best believe I was engrossed in EVERY. SINGLE. PAGE. I'd tried to read it a few years ago, to no avail, but once I picked it up again, it was as if a switch had been flipped. Though it can be a bit confusing in some parts, you come to realize that it is a well-written, exciting book, which gives us a clear view of the concerns and views of Dickens's time.

I found myself so attached to the characters, especially little Oliver Twist. Seeing him going through so much struggle, while still trying to maintain his morals made me strongly care and root for him. He went through so much hardship at such a young age, and he deserved that peaceful ending. I wished they did more with the female characters, such as Miss Maylie! She's definitely an example of the pure-white, angelic standards of women for the time, though I found myself peeking at a lot of emotional depth in some of her scenes. She and Nancy were such great foils for each other! I absolutely loved Nancy's character. Seeing a woman with so much depth is so rare in classics, and it's even rarer to see that they are not the outright villain (Madame Defarge, anyone?). Nancy deserved so much more and how her story ended was depressingly pragmatic. Seeing someone in her situation being portrayed as someone with real, human emotions and hardships is still lacking in literature today, and it is imperative that more stories like Nancy's, fictional or not, be read and discussed. I had a soft spot for the protective, grandfatherly Mr. Brownlow and the kind Mrs. Bedwin, and I actually found Fagin and his gang to be compelling characters. Doubtless, they were bad people, but between the rapport between the Artful Dodger and Charley Bates, to the crafty plans of Fagin, they were really entertaining!

One thing I really enjoyed throughout the book was the satirical, sarcastic tone that Dickens employed to mock the attitudes of the time. He notes the "generosity" and "benevolence" of the magistrates on the board of the workhouse, (ironic, since they clearly possess neither!) and uses similar language to really contrast with the actions of certain characters. It's honestly funny at some points, and makes you feel like the author understands how you feel. I also (surprisingly!) liked that the name of a chapter would tell you what would happen in it. Though these chapter names gave me many a spoiler, it was interesting to know what would happen before you read the chapter, and be able to focus more on how it happened.

One thing I absolutely did not like was the flagrant anti-Semitism aimed at Fagin. I know that this was obviously written in a time where anti-Semitism was rampant, and you can't judge books from the past based on present standards, but it's disgusting to see just how blatant Dickens's prejudice was. Though Fagin was obviously a bad person, he gets much worse treatment than other bad characters, such as Bill Sikes. Fagin is repeatedly called "the Jew" throughout the book, while people like Sikes are referred to by their names. Fagin is also given the pejorative stereotypes that are unfairly and untruthfully associated with Jewish people, as expressed by the description of his features (giving him an exaggeratedly hooked nose, referring to him as a rat) and actions (the emphasis on him hoarding money/precious things). Dickens's writing reflects the terrible dehumanization of Jewish people, which still, unfortunately, continues to this day.

Phew!! This was a long review, and I still have so many more opinions. If you have any questions or comments, be sure to let me know, or drop in your viewpoint if you've read Oliver Twist too!

⚡ SPOILERS AHEAD - DISCUSSION ON THE BOOK PLOT: ⚡

Did anyone else feel really empathetic for Fagin as he was In the prison cell, awaiting his execution? I agree that he needed to face the music for all the horrible things he had done over the years, but I couldn't help but feel pity for him. Seeing his formerly quick and crafty mind degrade into madness was the kind of thing that really makes you feel a sense of loss. I could also relate to how he felt trapped, and it was a bit depressing to see the downfall of someone who had been able to evade the law for so long, and who had so many plans.

Also who was rooting for Miss Maylie and Nancy to be lovers?? Because I KNOW I WASSS!! They had so much chemistry and I still can't believe Nancy had to die 😭

[clove-pinks]

A Senior Non-Commissioned Officer, Probably a Sergeant, 2nd (or the Queen’s Royal) Regiment of Foot, by unknown artist c. 1806.

I love that this includes a woman and child in the background! The UK National Army Museum describes her as probably "a sutleress," but she looks more like a soldier's or even officer's wife. And to be fair, she might also be a washerwoman or sutler. I don't think people appreciate how many women and children were involved in Napoleonic era wars, accompanying the huge baggage train of the army.

[georgefairbrother]

A confronting story of pensioner poverty, isolation and loneliness in the UK, first broadcast in 1970, from the Thames Television Archive.

Some statistics on the situation around this time:

In 1966, 59% of elderly people living alone 'had particular difficulty in paying for either food, clothing, rates or fuel'.

At least 30% of elderly people were showing 'clinical evidence of undernutrition'.

During the winter prior to this broadcast, 60 000 elderly people died as a result of 'diseases associated with cold'.

39% of pensioners eligible for Supplementary Benefit did not claim it, through pride or a lack of awareness of the available support.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"Police commissioner Perry decided to invite three of the “Revolutionary Socialists” to a secret meeting to get a sense of their intentions. Victor Midgley, Bill Pritchard, and Jack Kavanagh were all stalwarts of the Socialist Party of Canada from British Columbia. Midgley was the union official beaten by veterans during the sympathetic strike in Vancouver the previous August. He was one of the main organizers of the Calgary conference, which named him secretary of the One Big Union central committee. Pritchard joined him on the central committee. With his spectacles and a quiff, he had more the appearance of a mild-mannered school teacher than a longshoreman on the Vancouver waterfront. But Pritchard was a fire-and-brimstone orator who had played a pivotal role planning the Calgary conference, then guiding its debate. He would later serve a year in prison as one of the convicted leaders of the Winnipeg General Strike. Kavanagh, also a longshoreman and newly installed as the president of the BC Federation of Labour, was in charge of the committee that was meant to proselytize in favour of the One Big Union [OBU] in British Columbia.

In the report of the meeting that Perry made to his superiors, he described the trio of Reds as “intelligent, well-read men.” “They are tireless in pursuit of their objects,” he wrote, “and have all the fervour of fanatics.” He did not think they were plotting a violent overthrow of the government, but he feared them nonetheless.

I am not prepared to say that they are aiming at a revolution in the ordinary sense of that word, but I do say that they are influencing a section of labour in the West and unchaining forces which, even if they so desire, some day they will be unable to control. Here is grave danger to the peace and security of the country.

Even so, Perry urged caution. He feared that repressive measures would simply radicalize the more moderate members of the labour movement. Returning to the subject of armed revolution, he observed that “it can only succeed if a considerable number of returned soldiers join the movement.” The Reds knew this and were doing their best to court the veterans. He urged the government, therefore, to promote full employment and whatever other policies it could to placate the grievances of the soldiers.

Another crucial document influencing government thinking about the labour situation was a “Memo on Revolutionary Tendencies in Western Canada” prepared in early April by C.F. Hamilton. Hamilton was a former journalist (he covered the Boer War for the Toronto Globe) and wartime press censor. He had been assistant comptroller of the Mounted Police before the war and rejoined the Mounties afterward as an intelligence officer. He was a highly influential official within the force who reported directly to the commissioner. In his thirteen-page memo, Hamilton argued that there was a small but active band of revolutionaries at work in western Canada attempting to subvert the Canadian government.

Their openly avowed aim is to procure the establishment of a Soviet government, with its concomitants of the disappearance of parliamentary government, the subversion of the rule of the majority, the abolition of private ownership of property, and the destruction of the other institutions upon which society is founded.

Hamilton admitted that armed insurrection seemed unlikely in Canada, but he argued that there were circumstances in which it could occur. The key was the troubled labour situation, he said, and he sketched out a plausible scenario for the “would-be revolutionists.”

What they aim at is an intense conflict between labour and capital, embittered by riots and bloodshed; they calculate on a general dislocation of the industrial system, passing into an uprising of the working classes, probably reinforced by masses of discontented returned soldiers. The whole project turns upon the propagation of bad temper and mutual hate between classes …

Despite his dire prognosis, Hamilton did not believe that direct repression was the correct response. Instead, he called for a campaign of counter-propaganda highlighting the failure of Bolshevism to bring social peace and prosperity to Russia.

As alarmist reports piled up on the desks of senior ministers in Ottawa, the acting prime minister, Sir William Thomas White, panicked. White, a Montreal financier who had won his seat in Parliament in the 1911 election as an opponent of freer trade with the United States and had been rewarded with the finance portfolio in cabinet, was filling in for Prime Minister Borden who was still away at the peace negotiations in Europe. He cabled the absent prime minister in mid-April with the news that Bolshevism was rampant in Canada among soldiers and workers, especially in British Columbia. There was a revolution brewing, White reported, and he wanted Borden to ask the British government to dispatch one of its warships to Vancouver where “the presence of such ship and crew would have steadying influence.” Borden was in Paris hobnobbing with heads of state, making the world safe for democracy. He was impatient at White’s bothering him with what no doubt seemed like petty, and exaggerated, domestic problems. “I would very much like to reply, For Heaven’s Sake, let me alone,” he peevishly confided to his diary. Instead he advised White to do the best he could with the armed forces at his disposal. There would be no request for British help."

- Daniel Francis, Seeing Reds: the Red Scare of 1918-1919, Canada’s First War on Terror. Arsenal Pulp Press, 2011. p. 82-84.

[racefortheironthrone]

I'm not as upset as some by inaccuracies in entertainment based on historical events, but in real life Queen Charlotte wasn't Black, right?

There is a theory out there about Charlotte having African ancestry and/or "African features," but it's mostly held by this one particular guy who's a historian of the African diaspora, it's not widely accepted, and even then de Valdes' argument is that Charlotte's African heritage came from a Portuguese royal marriage some 300 years previously - whether a 21st century observer would consider her black is pretty unlikely and really depends on how much credence you're willing to put into a few hostile observers' comments that were (in my opinion) just using racist sterotypes to insult Queen Charlotte rather than accurately describing what she looked like.

If you're asking about Bridgerton and it's spinoff, I think this is a case where the showrunners know that they're building off this theory to create essentially an alternate history where Queen Charlotte and a number of other aristocrats are black, and those characters frequently discuss what it means to be black and trying to rise in British society, and so on. This creative decision raises some tricky questions. On the one hand, there are real issues when it comes to representation on TV and ensuring that BAME actors in the UK have equal opportunity in their careers given the prominence of period pieces in British film and television. And ultimately, color-blind casting is completely harmless - the 2021 Green Knight movie was some of the best Arthuriana ever made, and no one cared or should care that Dev Patel isn't a white Welsh guy.

On the other hand, as various black critics and commentators have noted, Bridgerton et al. isn't a case of color-blind casting, but rather of color-conscious casting, where the actors' race is a significant element of the plot. And this raises some potentially troubling issues about whether making a TV show about elite black aspiration and upward mobility in 18th century Britain can be squared with Britain's history of slavery and the slave trade and the very real discrimination faced by black Britons in this period. For example, the real Queen Charlotte notably ignored abolitionist petitions directed at her, and was pretty harshly (and ironically, through some rather racist political cartoons) criticized for not partaking in the anti-slavery boycott of sugar. There was even a slave ship called the Queen Charlotte. Is this history sympatico with a portrayal of Charlotte as a racial trailblazer in British society? How one weighs the relative importance of these issues to TV shows that are ultimately adaptations of romance novels more focused on Regency handjobs than the nuances of 18th century social history is a question that's ultimately above my pay grade, and I feel it's more appropriate for me to listen to what said black critics have to say (incidentally, let me recommend the YouTuber Princess_Weeks, who has some very good video essays on the subject).

[chai-en-kaadhale]

thinking about the walls of benin and how the british destroyed them, and thinking about all of the literature of south america that the spanish destroyed just like that and then thinking about the library of alexandria

because how many more libraries were ravaged by colonialization yk? how much knowledge and architecture was destroyed for conquest?

feeling feelings

[troythecatfish]