Sunday 12th April 2026
Blog Page 494

Music in a foreign language: short-lived novelty or here to stay?

Lucas Jones
-
0
Music in a foreign language: short-lived novelty or here to stay?

When it comes to most music, you realise quite quickly that the language it’s written in isn’t really that important. Maybe you wouldn’t get the exact details of Adele’s traumatic breakup if she was singing in Swedish, but I reckon you could listen to ‘Turning Tables’ in any language and still be in tears at the end of it. I sang along to Sia’s ‘Titanium’ for two years without getting a single word of bridge right, but it’s still one of my favourite songs. Brilliant artists get the point across regardless of the language they’re singing in – that’s a big part of what makes them amazing musicians.

So why don’t we hear as much foreign music when we go out in the UK? Go to most clubs in Western Europe and you’re certain to hear music in English, Spanish, and French. But go to clubs in London and you’d be lucky to hear one song that isn’t in English, unless you go to a night that is specifically dedicated to reggaetón, for example. The same goes for pop music here. In fact, the greatest stamp of approval for foreign songs that get really popular in the UK and US (think ‘Despacito’ or ‘Mi Gente’) is often for a bland English cover, released to satisfy our narcissistic obsession with our own language.

Perhaps part of the problem is our obsession with productivity. I study languages, and it seems like every time I recommend music that isn’t in English to other people they think I’m trying to inflict my study techniques on them. Not only does this turn foreign music from a relaxing experience to an academic chore, it also limits us to only listening to music in languages that we’re learning. I get it; I love French, and I love a lot of music in French. But I also really like music in Portuguese, a language I couldn’t order a drink in. Seeing music as a gateway to learning other languages rather than a musical experience in itself can actually be limiting rather than encouraging.

There’s also an issue with compartmentalisation, where English listeners will hear two songs in another language and decide that that sums up ‘x music’. It makes as much sense as listening to two Rebecca Black songs and swearing off music from America which, as appealing as the idea is, would only mean you don’t get to hear the amazing diversity of music produced there. ‘French music’ isn’t a genre; it’s a very vague grouping of every kind of musical style imaginable, from Rap to Folk music.

This diversity is what makes listening to international music so rewarding. Not only does it allow you to find a lot more music from the genres that you love, it also gives you the chance to hear styles of music most people in the UK couldn’t even imagine. Don’t believe me? Try Mongolian throat-singing/hard-rock fusion music. ‘Yuve Yuve Yu’ by The HU is a great place to start. 

Encouragingly, it seems that a lot of people have started to take the plunge. K-Pop has grown into a global phenomenon which isn’t just cultural, but political. Similarly, as Spanish becomes an increasingly common second language in the USA, a lot of popular artists are tapping into the demand for Latin music, resulting in artists like Drake and Cardi B singing verses, if not entire songs, in Spanish.

It’s going to be a long time before you can sit in a café in England and hear music in a range of languages. But it has also never been easier to get into international music on your own. Digital music platforms like Spotify host an incredible range of artists and languages, and if there’s a particular language that you’d like to hear, it’s never been easier. Spotify also has a feature called ‘song radio’, which compiles a playlist of songs that an algorithm has worked out are related to the song you are listening to. Even if you only know one song in a genre that you like – German Rap, for example – the song radio feature lets you find a variety of others to keep you entertained.

We are also lucky enough to go to a university that welcomes students from a range of cultural and linguistic backgrounds. The best musical recommendations I’ve received have been from friends with far more taste than I have (shout-out to Nadia’s ‘Arab Indiez’ playlist on Spotify). Diversify your taste; ask your friends if they have any recommendations. I strongly believe that normalising music in foreign languages in the UK is critical in the fight against the language-complex that sees British tourists expecting people in every country to visit to speak English. However, this can only happen once we reject that notion that it is a purely academic exploit, and start to treat international music in the same way we treat our own. 

Cameroon and the problematic nature of humanitarian aid

Henry Waddon
-
0
Cameroon and the problematic nature of humanitarian aid

Prospective doctors and healthcare professionals are often asked about which particular field of medicine they hope to one day pursue. When this question has been posed to me in the past, I have often proudly announced that I would love to work around the world in the field of humanitarian aid, “providing help to those who need it most”. While it is true that thousands of humanitarian organisations undertake incredible work in times of unimaginable crisis, it is also irrefutable that the very existence of the industry has been built on the remnants of colonial history, and continues to perpetuate racist ideologies, such as the ‘white saviour’ complex and the notion of ‘voluntourism’. Indeed in recent weeks and months, it is only through the work of countless incredible activists that I have come to see the inequitable and often fundamentally racist nature of the humanitarian aid sector, and have come to question how I myself have internalised these problematic notions, and continue to perpetuate them in the discourse surrounding the field.

Humanitarian aid, by its very nature, creates a narrative based on status imbalance, forming a relationship between those who need help, and those who fly across the world to provide it. What’s more, the sector also serves as a vehicle for the erasure of professional and cultural expertise and excellence that already exists in these nations, as well as for the prevention of financial support and advocacy of grassroots, indigenous organisations that have first-hand experience of lived realities in these countries. The United Kingdom, a nation whose history is comprised of inflicting pain and oppression throughout its colonial empire, must reflect on how and why it is necessary to continue to assume authority in foreign territories in incidences of crises in today’s world in the form of humanitarian aid.

The UK’s Role

We needn’t go very far to observe the troubling role that the UK very often plays in international crises, and the even more distressing dialogue that can subsequently ensue amongst those in power in such moments. I write this article in a week in which the Secretary of State for the Home Department has promised to make small boat channel crossings undertaken by refugees “unviable”, describing the current situation as “appalling”. The lack of empathy and understanding that exists in the agenda of this message is made worse when we recall that many of these migrants are attempting to flee a conflict that was, at least in part, catalysed by wars that Britain helped to start. If we turn our attention to the ongoing situation in Cameroon, we see a conflict that exists between two factions, born out of French and British colonial rule respectively. This conflict exists because the harsh cultural and linguistic assimilation enforced onto this country has been made impossible by the incompatibility of two colonial regimes, and due to a colonial legacy of disparate distribution of financial resources and developmental opportunity between anglophone and francophone regions. Significantly, both British and French humanitarian aid organisations continue to work in Cameroon, and again, while much of this work is incredible, and can even very often save lives, it is only necessary because of the history of colonial maltreatment inflicted on Cameroon by these two nations.

What Can We Do Better?

On a macroscopic level, the most vital work is to ensure the relationship between all parties is one that is as equitable and cooperative as possible, and to act primarily on the experiences and insight of indigenous professionals and populations. As long as humanitarian aid is perceived as a field that provides assistance to fragile or vulnerable populations, its fundamental sentiment is in line with, and is therefore largely a continuation of, colonial rule. Instead, we can support and advocate for institutions that champion amazing grassroots organisations. These include organisations such as 1847 Philanthropic, which seeks to “enhance the long-term viability and financial stability of indigenous organisations in developing countries”, The Global Fund for Women, who “fund bold, ambitious, and expansive gender justice movements to create meaningful change that will last beyond our lifetimes”, and the Rainbow International Fund, who “make grants to small grassroots LGBTQ+ groups that are best placed to make a real difference with limited resources and often struggle to find funding.”

In addition to this, we can all (myself very much included) begin to ask more uncomfortable questions of ourselves and one another in relation to how we perceive the work undertaken by the humanitarian aid sector, and ask ourselves how damaging and racist prejudices exist in these narratives. Furthermore, we can remind ourselves of what the intended goals of the field are and, instead of defending this work where it falters, empower ourselves to seek out indigenous people that could instead assume these roles. We should in turn actively find avenues by which we can support, and be activists for, these organisations.

Further Reading (Articles, Podcasts and Books)

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/aug/04/grassroots-means-no-brains-how-to-tackle-racism-in-the-aid-sector

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/humanitarian-aid-system-continuation-colonial-project-180224092528042.html

https://nowhitesaviors.org/what-we-do/podcast/

Akala’s Natives: Race and Class in the Ruins of Empire https://akala.tmstor.es/cart/product.php?id=65051

Layla F Saad’s Me and White Supremacy https://www.meandwhitesupremacybook.com/

Opinion: Ignore those saying otherwise – coronavirus has proven that devolution works

Jack Vaughan
-
0
Opinion: Ignore those saying otherwise – coronavirus has proven that devolution works

Crises have a tendency to throw devolution into the limelight. In 2014, the vote on Scottish Independence saw calls for greater Welsh control over internal affairs. Following 2016 and the EU referendum, rhetoric was much the same. There is, in a sense, a devolution paradox – precisely when it matters, its status comes under the greatest scrutiny.

So far, the coronavirus is shaping up as a crisis carved from the old block. In many ways, nobody is surprised. More than ever, the decisions taken at Stormont, Holyrood, and the Senedd enjoy a remarkable degree of everyday relevance. Devolution is no longer simply a political affair – now, it’s socio-economic too. For some, it seems, this is too much. 

Mark Reckless certainly appears to agree that devolution has gone too far. In an announcement unsurprising from a party seemingly bent on the dissolution of institutions of which they are a part, the leader of the Brexit Party in the Welsh Parliament described devolution as an institution now at a stage “so much further” than initially conceived. In Reckless’ view, the coronavirus pandemic means that “a lot of people who haven’t engaged with devolved politics now see the powers this place has.” He is, of course, by no means the first to question the future of devolution in the course of the pandemic. Daniel Kawczynski, Conservative MP for Shrewsbury, expressed a similar degree of contempt as early as May – albeit over the differing messages for his constituents around access to a beach, rather than any serious political concerns. Yet what Kawczynski and Reckless embody is a rising existential threat to the power of the devolved nations. Coronavirus, they argue, has exposed a fundamentally flawed system – as Rob Roberts, MP for the North Welsh constituency of Delyn puts it: “if we had taken that approach [a unified government], we would have avoided all of the mixed messaging, tit-for-tat and one-upmanship… which really annoys people.” 

Are we to pay heed to such an argument? It seems that those in Wales aren’t so sure. I put out my own survey, to which one respondent to a recent survey remarked: “I think the Welsh Government has handled the crisis with caution and good communication on the whole.” Kier Starmer certainly seems to agree, praising the ‘real contrast in how the Welsh government’ approached the pandemic, when compared to their English counterparts. Matt Greenough, political consultant for Words Matter and former Welsh government chief special advisor, goes one step further. “What will annoy anyone who actually understands devolution is the idea that the devolved institutions are deviating from the Westminster approach for the sake of it, to flex their muscles or demonstrate their political differences”, he warns. “Nobody is approaching this as a way to score points”. 

In fact, far from devolution frustrating efforts to deal with the spread of COVID-19, evidence indicates a remarkable degree of co-operation between leaders, be they in Westminster, Cardiff Bay, Belfast or Edinburgh. In a recent report, the Institute for Government (IfG) found that devolved bodies and central government in many ways demonstrated, perhaps for the first time, how an effective and successful co-operative form of governance can operate between Westminster and the devolved institutions. In March, the joint ‘Coronavirus Action Plan’ represented a collaborative consideration of approaches to both limiting the spread of the virus and to mitigating the impacts of it. The ‘Coronavirus Act’ too indicated a far more harmonious reality than that presented by Reckless, Kawczynski, and others – it was passed with the consent of the devolved nations under the ‘Sewell Convention’. What we see is not a failed and flawed system, but rather one under which effective and congruous government can and has taken place. 

Collaboration and harmony aside, there also lies the undeniable truth that, in breakdowns of regional success in dealing with the pandemic, it’s those in the devolved nations that consistently come out on top. Take Scotland – in a recent YouGov poll, some 74% of respondents felt Nicola Sturgeon had handled the challenges posed by COVID-19 well. This is perhaps unsurprising – on the day of writing, the death toll lay at a comparatively lower 2,491. In England, by contrast, just 45% expressed confidence in the approach of the UK Government to the pandemic. – a level of support understandable when their own death toll falls at 41,802. The simple fact remains that members of devolved nations have fared better than their counterparts in London. Sure enough, it could be argued that variations in population density lend themselves to a higher death toll – England undeniably has a far higher population than Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland combined. Nevertheless, proportionally speaking England still fares worse than its devolved neighbours in both cases and deaths. Is this indicative of a system worthily condemned by Rob Roberts for ‘confusion… tit-for-tat, and one-upmanship’? Arguably not.

Nobody is suggesting, of course, that devolution has worked flawlessly throughout the pandemic. This is politics after all. It’s true enough that exceptions have presented themselves to the success of the policy (think streets on the Welsh-English border, in which No.42 lies under the jurisdiction of Cardiff, whilst No.43 listens to Westminster). Yet these are minor aberrations when compared with the wider picture. In simple terms, devolved nations have come out of the pandemic in a better shape than England. Leaders in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland have seen rising approval ratings. Boris Johnson has not. The common denominator in all of this? Devolution. Hardly indicative of a system in need of change. 

Few are convinced by Reckless’ comments. This is unsurprising – COVID-19 has, in many ways, been an endorsement, rather than an exposé, for the future of devolution. ‘The Welsh government has dealt with the coronavirus pandemic… [in] a more effective and more trustworthy way than England (and I’m English)’ remarked one individual in my study. Like most crises, Coronavirus has directed a spotlight at devolution – yet this has illuminated a system representative of political success, not failure. As an old Oxonian, Reckless lacks little in intelligence. Nevertheless, today, he doesn’t look too clever. 

An Oxford student’s guide to graduating in an economic crisis

Fonie Mitsopoulou
-
0
An Oxford student’s guide to graduating in an economic crisis

When it comes to financial ruin you could call me a seasoned veteran. As a Greek, we did it before it was cool. Now, if you have any internet access at all, you’ll have read that a fun consequence of the coronavirus is the massive economic recession that is due to follow. Lucky for us, it’s timed exactly when most of us will be fresh on the job market- something which has earned our generation the very heartening moniker: “the Recessionals”. I come to you- like the Pythia of our time- as the bearer of bad news; while the Oxford name was enough to justify that History degree to your parents (“it doesn’t matter what I study if it’s at Oxford!”), it’s no longer sufficient. But fear not- all hope is not lost! I’m here to give you- the average, upper-middle class Oxford student (because, let’s face it, you’re probably the worst positioned to deal with this crisis), the tools to survive the fallout. 

  1. Stop reading the news
    Stop it! I know you’re tempted, just itching to read that Financial Times piece so you can “erm, actually…” an unassuming (and uninterested) girl later on (sapiosexualism isn’t a thing), but it’s not worth it. You don’t need to have the statistics to dunk on us, I promise you they’re not pretty. Make something up. Add a minus in front of it. You’re good. 
  1. Consider a degree in finance
    You said you wouldn’t be a corporate sellout, but demand for pundits is high. You looked down on your friends who unironically went to those networking events, but now you’d happily sell your soul for even just a hint of acknowledgment by a recruiter from anywhere named after two white men (is he from Morgan Stanley? I’ve got to go). The devil works hard, but E&M boys work harder (and they already have the devil on LinkedIn)- like a cockroach in the apocalypse, they’re absolutely thriving. 
  1. You’ll start to have a political opinion- don’t panic!
    It’s weird; you’ve never had one of these before. I mean, you never knew what you stood for, but you knew who you stood with, and that’s with whatever cute guy was delivering an impassioned rant at you last. Red starts to look like a really attractive color- and not in the way that Buzzfeed listicle with dubious sources claimed (28 Ways To Get Your Crush to Notice You if You’re a Disney Person and They’re a Harry Potter Fan Based Off Your Favourite Foods)… 
  1. Horror movies become a great way to destress
    Why did you ever even find these scary? I can take a murderous clown- another rejection letter, on the other hand….
  1. Make it part of your identity
    You know, I’ve found that taking every bad experience and trauma I’ve ever had and just internalizing it, letting it fester inside of me and never letting it go until it becomes an intractable part of my personality is an extremely healthy and fun coping mechanism!
  1. Consider another degree- any degree
    Did someone say: emergency masters? No, it’s not that I couldn’t get a job, I just really wanted to further my studies in…. 13th Century Catholic churches… 
    Bet you regret not following your mom’s wishes and applying for Engineering now, don’t you.
  1. Get used to the fact that all your favourite stores are closing down.
    Brooks Brothers went bankrupt because people didn’t need to buy the pants part of the suit anymore. What are you going to wear to every vaguely formal social event ever now?! 
  1. Become thrifty and resourceful
    When it comes to fashion, one man’s trash… Use those thrifting skills you developed back when it was trendy, and that deep social conscience you exhibit in your preachy instagram stories. If you can’t find anything cute, just crop the top and call it upcycling. It’s like Urban Outfitters Renewal, but for a tenth of the price and without the weird sense of guilt you feel in the back of your mind for funding a controversial company with some very unsavory scandals under its belt. 
  1. Date! 
    Gone are the days when you didn’t need romance in your life- when you were just focusing on yourself and your degree. Now escapism is definitely the answer. Why not burden someone else with the burning existential fear and uncertainty that has been plaguing you since the start of lockdown? Can’t afford a therapist? Get a boyfriend!
  1. Travel (as soon as you can safely do so) 
    Don’t worry, even if daddy’s business goes under, you won’t lose your second house on the Amalfi Coast- property won’t sell anyways. Sure, there’s a deadly global pandemic that’s absolutely obliterating the status quo, but it’s quite taxing to have to face that reality all the time. Take a break, sun yourself by the pool with a good romance novel (are they ever good?) and some lemonade. You deserve it!
  2. Everything is fine.
    It’s fine. Seriously, I’m fine. 

COVID-19 and Sexual Harassment: The Hidden Dangers of the New Normal

Eleanor Redpath
-
0
COVID-19 and Sexual Harassment: The Hidden Dangers of the New Normal

CW: sexual harassment, domestic abuse

Catcalling, sexual comments, and even public groping are frighteningly regular occurrences when you’re a woman outside. So, I didn’t think much of the unwanted sexual attention I was receiving on my one government-approved walk per day, even blaming it on my re-dyed hair and new shorts until my feminist credentials took over. But then it started happening practically every time I left the house and culminated in an incident of indecent exposure, which I’d never experienced before. After about thirty seconds of research and a few tweets venting about what had been happening to me, I found that I was not alone. According to Plan International UK, one in five women in Britain have experienced street harassment since lockdown started, and over a quarter of women feel more unsafe outside than they did before. For women, COVID has made the outside world increasingly hostile in more ways than one.

Many women have reported feeling far less safe stepping outside since lockdown and social distancing measures were imposed in the UK. A woman who contacted me after relating to my rants on Twitter had previously only experienced catcalling once every three months or so, but over lockdown this increased to three times in the space of two weeks. She found that several men would stare at her in an unpleasant and threatening way or verbally harass her, and on one occasion, a man exposed himself and masturbated in her direction, only stopping when he noticed others were walking down the road towards them. All this, she says, has been incredibly jarring for her. 

One of my friends was recently waiting at a train station when a man deliberately came within 2 meters of her in order to verbally harass her – clearly violating boundaries and risking her health. She finds it frustrating that even during a pandemic, some men are prepared to put their own health and that of others in jeopardy when making unwanted and inappropriate advances. Another of my Twitter followers is 17 and has had similar experiences, being cat-called as often as three times in one week. Upon speaking to male friends about the issue, she thinks the rise in street harassment might be linked to the widespread social isolation lockdown has caused. The lack of other interpersonal connection, she believes, might be leading more men to approach and sexually harass women to prompt a reaction from them. She also thinks that face masks play a significant role. If most of your face is obscured, it’s probably easier to sexually harass women with the added confidence of relative anonymity.

While this trend might initially appear perplexing, the conditions created by lockdown make it far easier for men to sexually harass women without being noticed by others or held accountable for their behaviour. The rise could be attributed to the fact that at the height of lockdown, most people were only outside when taking their daily exercise alone, and it’s far more likely that a man will target a woman walking on her own than with a group. Moreover, many chose to take their exercise later in the day, to avoid encountering too many others at close distance, and it’s again far more likely for a man to go after a woman alone after dark than earlier in the day. Public spaces are now far emptier than they were before, so there are far fewer witnesses around to deter a man from harassing a woman than there would have been pre-pandemic, and there are fewer shops, cafés, or other public inside spaces for women to go to for safety if someone is following or harassing them. Statistically, women are also more likely to be in key worker roles, so spend more time in public-facing positions than men do.

But whatever the explanation behind the rise in street harassment, it’s an extremely disturbing trend, and yet another way in which women are disproportionately affected by lockdown measures. Experiencing unwanted sexual attention can be deeply upsetting or traumatising, yet because sexual harassment and violence services are now all operating remotely, lots of women are deterred from getting the support they may need after being harassed. Street harassment is also more likely to affect women of colour, who are more likely to be at higher risk of complications from the virus, and transgender women, whose rights have recently been endangered by the postponement of the reform of the Gender Recognition Act.

Furthermore, women are already far more likely to be tasked with childcare and home education even if they are working the same hours as their husbands are, and their careers are more likely to be adversely affected by months spent working from home or on furlough. Even more worryingly, domestic violence has risen by approximately 20% since the start of lockdown. This pandemic is changing all of our lives, perhaps irrevocably, but may prove to be a huge setback for women’s rights to equal pay, safety, and refuge from danger. Life for women, both inside and outside the home, has become more difficult at best, and highly dangerous at worst. 

Hooks and Hardbacks: a summer music reading list

Fred Waine
-
0
Hooks and Hardbacks: a summer music reading list

For the music obsessives among us, the pieces of literature that stick longest in our minds are overwhelming those which take music itself as a subject. Austen’s Emma? Meh. Tolstoy’s War and Peace? Rather not. Jayson Greene’s 2018 Pitchfork review of Yves Tumor’s critically acclaimed third album Safe in the Hands of Love? Abso-bloody-lutely.

And when better for us to get our fix of musical nerdiness and obscure album facts than the summer vac? While everyone else is jetting off to Majorca or out for a game of tennis, you could be sat in your gloomy bedroom reading about the story behind your favourite band’s split-up (“Feel like pure shit just want Sonic Youth back x”)! With this in mind, I’ve picked out a few of the most insightful, poignant, and downright nerdy music books and publications that I’ve been fortunate enough to read in summers past and present, in the (admittedly faint) hope that there are people out there who care for this stuff as much as I do:

The brand of music book which has typically achieved the most commercial success is the (auto)biography. For me, however, this genre is all too often soulless and dusty, with publishers and writers paying little attention to what fans actually care about and reworking great musical stories to fit the same profitable tropes over and over again. Nevertheless, in the last few years I have really enjoyed reading Tracey Thorn’s Bedsit Disco Queen (2013) and Robert Forster’s Grant & I (2016).

In the former, ex-Everything but the Girl frontwoman Thorn details her suburban adolescence and concurrent political awakening, an excellent tableau of the late 70s and early 80s which puts EBTG’s eventual pop stardom in context; more often than not, the author herself seems bemused by her own success, making for an equally comic and affecting read. The latter is the history of Australian indie rock band The Go-Betweens, a group founded on the friendship between Forster and his co-frontman and songwriter Grant McLennan. Following McLennan’s tragic death in 2006, aged just 48, Forster began writing the story of the pair’s relationship, their struggles with the rock-and-roll lifestyle (clue: drugs and alcohol play a prominent part in the book), and the band’s agonising knack of narrowly missing out on mainstream success. As I read Grant & I  last summer, my love for The Go-Betweens blossomed, and they quickly became one of my favourite bands on account of this biography – perhaps the biggest compliment you can give to a music book.

One collection of books which in my experience is more or less guaranteed to initiate a love affair between its reader and a particular band or record is the 33 1/3 series, in which each title is dedicated to a different writer’s favourite album. Two personal standouts from the many 33 1/3 books I’ve read in recent years are Ezra Furman’s ode to Lou Reed’s Transformer (one legendary queer artist writing about another) and the edition dedicated to Dinosaur Jr.’s You’re Living All Over Me, written by St Catz alumnus Nick Attfield – who said Oxford students weren’t cool? My sister is currently reading Jovana Babovic’s Sleater-Kinney title, which she described as “pretty bad-ass” (if that doesn’t sell it to you then nothing will).

But if I had to prescribe a single music-related publication that everyone should buy this summer, it would without a doubt be UK-based hip-hop magazine BRICK. The latest 250-odd-page issue (one of two released each year) features artist interviews with the likes of IAMDDB, Thundercat, and Ezra Collective’s Femi Koleoso alongside works from a team of BAME writers/artists and, perhaps most pertinently, a guide to police abolition. What’s more, 100% of profits from this issue of BRICK (available here for just £12) are being donated to Black Lives Matter initiatives. Donating to an essential cause and bagging yourself one of the most innovative and exciting music magazines available right now seems like a no-brainer.

So, a sizeable selection of specialist reading for all you music lovers to dig into, if you wish. But, as dismissive of classic fiction as I was at the start of this article (soz for that, bookheads), I’d like to end by pointing out that music also has its place in the writing of the literary greats:

One section of my current read, Proust’s Du Coté de Chez Swann (still tempted by a response to Lucas Jones’ recent ‘Classic Letdowns’ article, I can’t lie), revolves almost entirely around a song. Un Amour de Swann (or Swann in Love), which functions as a self-contained novella-length love story, chronicles the relationship between the enigmatic aristocrat Charles Swann and the courtesan Odette de Crécy. Swann’s tumultuous love for Odette becomes synonymous with his admiration of a single phrase from a sonata by the fictional composer Vinteuil; the music acts as a beautiful metaphor for Swann’s alternating adoration and anguish, human desires and pleasures reflected in the swell of the song. This, of course, is the true joy of music, and of literature:

“The little phrase was associated still, in Swann’s mind, with his love for Odette…as soon as it struck his ear, [it] had the power to liberate in him the room that was needed to contain it; the proportions of Swann’s soul were altered; a margin was left for a form of enjoyment which corresponded no more than his love for Odette to any external object, and yet was not, like his enjoyment of that love, purely individual, but assumed for him an objective reality superior to that of other concrete things.” (Translation by C. K. Scott Moncrieff)

Music Reading List Summer 2020:

  1. Tracey Thorn – Bedsit Disco Queen (2013)
  2. Robert Forster – Grant & I (2016)
  3. Ezra Furman – Lou Reed’s Transformer (2018)
  4. Nick Attfield – Dinosaur Jr.’s You’re Living All Over Me (2011)
  5. Jovana Babovic – Sleater-Kinney’s Dig Me Out (2016)
  6. BRICK Magazine (2015-)
  7. Marcel Proust – Un Amour de Swann / Swann in Love (1913)

The Height of Ignorance: Why the Media is Fascinated with the Link Between Covid-19 and Height

Jemima Sinclair
-
0
The Height of Ignorance: Why the Media is Fascinated with the Link Between Covid-19 and Height

A new study by data scientists in UK, US and Norway has just suggested that men over 6ft tall are almost twice as likely to get Covid-19 than others, and there’s a lot to unpack here. 

To begin with, and most importantly, this is potentially key evidence that the virus is airborne and spread through aerosols, something that may further our understanding of the virus and lead towards a quicker development of treatment and vaccines. Furthermore, the widespread reaction to this particular study highlights some of the major problems with media-driven responses to Covid-19; every major newspaper has focused on the extent to which height is a predicator for Covid-19, while severely underreporting the study’s other findings that link Covid-19 with activities typical of people of lower socioeconomic status, such as shared kitchen and living spaces. 

However, as a woman who is over 6ft tall, my knee-jerk reaction was not to consider either of these things. Instead, I headed straight into the Tall Girl mind-set that not only is being tall objectively terrible, as proven by the fact that we’re more susceptible to Covid-19, but being tall and female is worse, because female results weren’t even included in the study. So not only are we shafted by the disadvantage of being tall, but as girls, we’re also marginalised within the tall community because ‘so few women’ are over 6ft that there’s no point in studying them. Poor us.

But then I gave myself a metaphorical slap around the face. In times as bizarre and frankly dystopian as these, the audacity of someone just over 6ft complaining about a ‘disadvantage’ is laughable. Anyone who’s seen the 2019 Netflix film ‘Tall Girl’ (or more likely its hundreds of parodies on TikTok) will remember the backlash at the title character whining, ‘You think your life is hard? I’m a high-school junior wearing… men’s Size 13 Nikes. Beat that.’ One TikTok user succinctly replied to this, ‘I’ve got cancer’. In other words, minor inconveniences based on being slightly above average height are not grounds for believing your life is harder than anyone else’s. I’m not saying it’s always a joy to be a tall girl, especially in senior school – standing in the back row of school photos, occasionally being referred to as ‘giraffe’, and (most crushingly) watching my short friends date all the available tall boys were all part of the typical Tall Experience. But everyone has a terrible time for some reason in school, and out of that environment, the biggest height-related issue I face now is worrying the Top-Shop sale will run out of tall jeans. And I’m well aware that in the current circumstances, it would be an insane privilege to put energy into worrying about that. 

Not every tall person has it as easy though. My ‘little’ brother, 6’8 at seventeen years old, faces far more trouble in his daily life thanks to his height – doorways are too low, beds are too short, hardly any clothes are available in his size and so on – and yet at the moment his biggest worry is his future. As one of the Year 13 students confronted with cancelled A Levels and government-decided grades this year, he hasn’t got the luxury of worrying that his feet will be hanging off a single bed in halls; all he cares about is whether he’ll be going to university in the first place. 

Even if he did have time to worry about his height, there’s a good chance he wouldn’t: a wealth of evidence suggests that tall people have had happier childhoods, are more likely to succeed, and end up wealthier than average. Livescience, links greater height to better nutrition in childhood and suggests taller people are more likely to be hired for jobs, while a study from Exeter University in 2016 demonstrated that for men, every 6.3 cm in height added about £1,580 to their annual salary (the Guardian article which reported this adds, characteristically, ‘A smaller effect was seen for women’). This all seems to suggest what many people have suspected for centuries: people (especially men) who are tall, are more fortunate than those who are not.

Therefore, though this Covid-19 study demonstrates there’s a way in which tall people actually do have it rough, the universal tall experience is fairly decent. Beyond this, the fact that reports are downplaying the study’s other findings in favour of a focus on height suggests a more worrying trend. At first, this focus makes complete sense: it gives strong evidence that Covid-19 is an airborne virus, which is pretty ground-breaking. But it’s interesting that the connection between height and Covid-19 fascinates us more than the other links found in this study. Shared kitchens, use of public transport, and lower income levels are also reported in the study to be predicators of Covid-19, but these are relegated to further down the list in most of the articles available. Even in the stupor of a locked-down summer, it doesn’t take much thinking to realise that these other findings are fairly conclusively linked to lower socioeconomic status. 

With a cynical mind-set (the kind that can only come from months stuck at home watching the news with my parents), it could seem as though the sensational appeal of the ‘height link’ exemplifies the media’s boredom with talking about those pesky poor people. It seems reporters have reached their breaking point for pretending to care about the multiple studies showing that BAME people, the elderly, people with underlying conditions and those with lower incomes are disproportionally affected, instead rejoicing that finally, there’s an angle on Covid-19 that isn’t depressingly linked to poverty and disadvantage.  And as previously discussed, tall people statistically fit this profile far less than anyone else. 

The height focus may also imply that tall people (and perhaps by extension people of higher socioeconomic status) are seen as unfairly targeted by the virus, while those who are more disadvantaged somehow deserve it more. There’s definitely a sense that the government and media see other factors as preventable (Just travel by car! Just spend time in your own garden!), despite these solutions’ links to higher incomes. In contrast, height is seen as random, even though it can be anything but. 

It’s a fairly dark reading, but these are fairly dark times. Hopefully it’ll turn out that all this is just quarantine-brain talking, and the truth is people care about all these factors equally. But I won’t hold my breath to find out – even if it does halve the risk of Covid-19 at my height. 

SOURCES

The study: 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.13.20152819v1

The Metro: 

Men over 6ft twice as likely to catch coronavirus, new study suggests

The Guardian: 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/08/genetic-study-shows-mens-height-and-womens-weight-drive-earning-power

Live Science: 

https://www.livescience.com/36616-height-cause-of-death-mortality-short-tall.html

The Daily Mail:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8568125/Men-6ft-TWICE-likely-infected-Covid-19-study-claims.html

Setting the Scene: When location becomes character

Sam Lapham
-
0
Setting the Scene: When location becomes character

I can remember the first time I watched The Revenant in an empty screening at my local cinema. It was during the height of winter, and I remember making the conscious decision to order a hot chocolate rather than the usual strawberry milkshake from the ice-cream counter. A tactical move. I necked that hot chocolate quicker than I’ve ever consumed any alcohol at university. I’m unsure whether it was the briskness of the January weather or the placebo effect of watching a film about the extremes of the natural world, but less than twenty minutes into the first act I vividly recall enveloping myself in my thick puffer, clinging to it with the desperation of yielding the same warmth that Hugh Glass was getting from the animal carcasses he took shelter in.

Alejandro Iñárritu’s nature documentary (thinly veiled as a revenge thriller) was the first time I’d had a physical reaction to a cinematic experience that wasn’t caused by the broken heating or air con in the cinema screens. Watching Leonardo DiCaprio push the limits of human endurance as he refused to die of hypothermia for a second time in his career was remarkably raw, and I felt every rain drop and every crackling ember as man came to terms with his own existentialism.

Following that experience, the physical profundity of a film’s environment has rarely affected me on that level since (and that includes prompting me to invest in the extortionately priced hot chocolates). I have always found that Quentin Tarantino, the auteur who has become a genre in and of himself, has a spectacular ability to make you feel less like a viewer and more like a bystander, lingering in scenes for an unconventional duration as they unfold with a realistic sense of progression. Both the opening sequence and the bar scene in Inglourious Basterds comprise about 35 minutes of the film’s total runtime, and both are masterclasses in gradual tension and release. There is a beautiful claustrophobia to sequences that feel organically played out and not cut short for time constraints. Conversations are given room to breathe and build like real conversations. The Hateful Eight, the first film I grew out my facial hair for in order to feign the appearance of being eighteen at the cinema, spent nigh on three hours confining its characters to the apparent cosiness of Minnie’s Haberdashery, a location which simultaneously balanced hospitable comforts with an intensifying proximity. Devoting time to locations and sequences make them feel lived in , inhabited as opposed to fleetingly visited. With The Hateful Eight ,Tarantino delivered a narrative that didn’t deviate from its central setting, and consequently graced us with a location that was as equally fleshed out as the octet taking refuge inside it.

Time dedicated to exploring a setting not only contributes to the realism of the place but also the familiarity. Seeing the same sets used episode after episode in sitcoms is part of the reason they attain an unrivalled sense of comfort to watch. The overuse of the word ‘wholesome’ throughout Oxford makes me reluctant to use it here, but I think perhaps it is applicable. I never thought I’d have the sudden compulsion to work behind a desk until I watched The Office, or the resentment of college accommodation after living in the shared apartments of The Big Bang Theory and Friends for over 200 episodes. Sitcoms provide environments that become inseparable from the characters, mise en scène that constantly lingers in the background without ever intruding, yet remains essential in our identification of it. For many, locations like Central Perk will be as iconic as the characters themselves, particularly more resonant when scenes are performed in front of a live audience. A relationship is then forged between mediums as stage and screen clash, with location bridging the gap and audiences actively engaging on the periphery.

Perspective is everything. It is a well worn trope that accessing a new film environment (usually a fantastical or futuristic world) works more effectively when you are viewing it through the lens of a character equally unfamiliar with it (think Harry Potter, Luke Skywalker, Frodo Baggins) because the exposition and world building is justified rather than painfully shoehorned. But we are sometimes quick to forget that locations exist first and foremost for the characters, and as soon as a world has to be lectured to us we are made self-aware of our own position as outsiders.

Location and aesthetics can be subtly intimate, designed to reflect the way a character views their world and operates within it. Take Baz Lurhman’s The Great Gatsby, a film which excessively exploits the CGI trend of the early 2010s to create a stylish, but at times artificial, re-imagining of the Roaring Twenties. In hindsight, it was a perfect decision, adding a sense of superficial and materialistic polish to the film, a sense of modernism which seemed incongruous to the era. Bolstered by the fact that Gatsby is in and of himself a dreamer, a man refusing to take the world as it is and using that malleability to transform it into the romanticised paradise he expects it to be, the film’s colourful gloss is almost tragic. It reeks of a man out of his own time, a man suffering in the fantasy of his own reality as the glamour of the city on screen seems tainted with delusion and falsity. We indulge Gatsby’s colourful lifestyle because we can’t see anything to the contrary.

Setting transports and film surpasses the stage for that simple reason. Characters feel more alive because the world they live in feels like a world, whether that be big or small, real or fictional. The tangibility of a setting allows us to accept that the environment we are watching is no less real than the cinema screen we have planted ourselves in. To quote Frank Underwood in the pilot episode of House of Cards, ‘it’s all about location, location, location’. It can make you feel glad to be detached from the world via the screen, or feel agitated by the fact that the screen stops you from accessing it. It makes you feel like ordering a hot chocolate to counteract the frostbite you’ve diagnosed yourself with. But most importantly, it makes you feel.

Image via Flickr

Oxford honours A-level students’ offers after government U-turn

Mark Robins
-
0
Oxford honours A-level students’ offers after government U-turn

The University of Oxford will honour its offer to all applicants whose A-level Centre Assessed Grades meet their conditional offer, although some may have to defer to 2021 entry.

This comes after the government announced that A-level results will be based on teachers’ predictions rather than the Ofqual algorithm, increasing the number of students who meet their offer.

The University’s policy does not apply to courses with externally enforced caps on student numbers such as Medicine.

Oxford said it “welcomes the government’s announcement” and is “delighted” to admit additional students.

Before the government’s announcement, the University had rejected some unsuccessful offer-holders and says that it now has “many more offer-holders meeting their grades than in a normal year”. It has committed to admitting all new offer-holders “either this year or next”.

Oxford has not stated how many more offer-holders will be admitted for 2020 entry. After A-level results day, the University told Cherwell: “We… do not have space to admit any more students while meeting social distancing restrictions and other health and safety challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic.”

In January, Oxford made 3,900 offers for an expected 3,287 places. Before the Government announcement on Monday, Oxford confirmed 3,440 students had received offers, including over 300 students who missed their grades under the Ofqual algorithm.

As a result of the larger cohort, Oxford is facing “significant capacity constraints both within our colleges and on our academic courses.”

The University said: “Since results day, Oxford University and our colleges have been working hard to support offer holders from disadvantaged backgrounds who were disproportionately issued grades below their conditional offer. We felt this was an unacceptable situation, having previously shared our deep reservations about the algorithm approach with Ofqual. As part of our admissions process, and after carefully reviewing each applicant, we accepted over 300 students who missed their offers under the Ofqual algorithm…

“We will need to ensure we minimise the risk to the health of our staff and students caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, whilst also protecting the quality and the personalised nature of our teaching. We are now working to ensure everyone who has met their offer conditions under the new CAG policy can be admitted either this year or next. As such, we are reviewing the capacity on our courses and within colleges and will confirm the position to offer holders as soon as we can.

“We warmly congratulate all our successful new students and look forward to welcoming them to Oxford.”

Let’s not pretend that pandemics are a ‘foreign’ problem

Francesca Butt
-
0
Let’s not pretend that pandemics are a ‘foreign’ problem

Make no mistake, it’s not just the bats and pangolins of distant Chinese markets that pose a direct threat to your health. Viruses do not necessarily jump from animal to human only when an exotic creature is introduced, ill-advisedly, to particular anthropomorphic spheres. We’ve been brewing a bug in Britain since modern mass-farming began. And if you’ve echoed Trump in referring to COVID-19 as the ‘Chinese virus’ or the ‘Wuhan virus’, now is the time to examine your motivations.

Rosamund Young’s The Secret Life of Cows (2003) was a more profound and perspective-changing read than I imagined it might have been. Expecting a Doctor-Dolittle-style insight into the bovine world (and that’s partly what it is), Young’s opening statement instead offers a neat summary of the importance of de-barring, de-drugging, and diversifying the diets of local cow populations in order to avoid future catastrophe. Yes, freeing Daisy to the field and refraining from patting her on the head and pumping her with drugs is important in bettering the quality of your steak and lessening the likelihood of lockdown.

Written prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, Young’s analysis of the disease-breeding state of intensive farming, or ‘factory farming’, is oddly far-sighted. Although not explicitly addressing the possible worldwide spread of a virus, Young knows intuitively that intensive farming poses a risk to human, as well as animal, health. Scientists agree that ‘intensive farming techniques increase the likelihood of pathogens becoming a major public health risk’. Clearly, domesticating and containing once-wild animals is a risky business wherever it happens.

We seem desperate to prove that questionable experimentation with bat-blood means that China, specifically, created this storm in a test-tube, rather than acknowledging that the UK might also have caused the next big breakout. Recently, I wrote an article for Cherwell which, in part, explored our strange ability to ignore or belittle the coronavirus crisis while it remained ‘elsewhere’. The present manifestation of this xenophobic denial and belief in British invincibility is seen in the search for conspiracy-style theories which tie the genesis of the virus irrefutably to Chinese practice and never to our own. This is a pattern repeated globally.

Covid-19 has fuelled an outbreak in racism and xenophobia worldwide. In the ‘global coronavirus blame-game’, there is a commitment, against fact, to find that the virus was stewed in a Chinese laboratory and a comparative lack of Google searches to investigate the xenophobic rhetoric used in such statements of the case. The outsourcing of blame for the coronavirus is an example of political scapegoating which relies on prejudice, rather than evidence, to become a shared and accepted narrative.

Donald Trump voiced the rumour, Mike Pompeo backed him up, and Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6, has been a prominent voice in the UK to support the unfounded cause. On the contrary, most scientists agree that the virus is neither man-made, nor man-manipulated.

If Chinese wet-markets, wildlife farming, and styles of governance pose a greater risk of causing a pandemic, it is only a matter of probability rather than a fundamental difference. The certifiable reasons for the spread of coronavirus are universal results of global trends, including an increased number of disease-hosts (animals), a closer proximity to animals, increased travel and trade, and the destruction of individual habitats. If you eat meat, have been on holiday this year, have come into contact with an animal, and have purchased something from abroad, I would argue you’ve played a part in the path towards the current crisis.  

In China and in relation to Covid-19, it is invariably the proximity of livestock and people’s houses, or the condensing of multiple species into one environment that made the transmission to humans ever-more likely. International movement of goods and people allowed for the virus to spread quite so extensively in a relatively short space of time. Nothing more, nothing less.

Myths which connect pandemics to animal-eating habits, to poor communities, and to certain areas of the globe are debunked in this article by the World Health Organisation (WHO). Recent pandemics have ushered from pigs in Northern America (H1N1 in 2003) and from camels in the Arabian Peninsula (MERS in 2012). Future ones might conceivably hail from the British Isles. The UK was simply lucky that the British-bred Mad Cow Disease was less infectious than COVID-19 and the fall-out less bleak, although they still somehow managed to lay the blame unjustly upon Chinese restaurants despite the more probable cause being the feeding of Scapie’s-infected sheep-meat to cows.

Racist rhetoric can blind us from applying information reasonably and critically to our own contexts. Poaching, hunting, eating road-kill, keeping strange pets, packing animals into close-quarters are catalysts which might be seized upon in a comparable fashion to Chinese eating-habits or market-shopping if the UK were the source. Near my home, a field of sheep is surrounded by laminated signs asking people to stay at a distance or risk catching the next disease of animal origin. I have no reason to believe that this is a ploy to keep people off the land, as they always settled on ‘we may bite’ for that purpose before.

Labelling a pandemic, which by definition is global, with a nationality is questionable and unscientific. At the very least, it shows a will to palm off responsibility to distant shores. At the suspected worst, it (unsubtly) constitutes discriminatory rhetoric. The national press is split between creating clickbait headlines declaring that the virus is a Chinese bioweapon and taking issue with such unjust accusations. However, few have thought to posit worldwide culpability and need for reform in our treatment of the ecosystem; the buck is still passed to the Chinese to pay individual penance.

Pandemics have not always given rise to violence and hatred. The Covid-19 Anti-Racism Group is petitioning for a more compassionate and, ultimately, non-racist response to this pandemic. In their words, it’s about time that ‘the media… emphasize solidarity, courage, and mutual support across all communities, rather than feed hostility, division, and racism.’ Why not make this pandemic an international lesson, rather than a chance to condemn a single nation’s practices which are replicated in some form across much of the post-globalisation world? Let’s stop pretending pandemics are a Chinese problem.

1...493494495...2,577Page 494 of 2,577

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by Jamie Ashley