Wednesday 30th July 2025
Blog Page 780

The Cherry Orchard review – ‘poignant moments underscored by fantastic music’

0

Anton Chekhov’s 1903 play The Cherry Orchard centres on an aristocratic landowning family as the matriarch, Mrs Ranvesky, returns from her bohemian life in Paris to the family’s estate in rural Russia. She reunites with a variety of local characters and her two daughters, Anya and Varya. We soon discover, however, that the family is in fact penniless, and that their only way out is through the sale of the estate they hold so dear.

Four Seven Two’s production of The Cherry Orchard at the Keble O’Reilly transports the play from early twentieth century Russia to rural 1920s America. The director Ross Moncrieff emphasises the links between the periods in the programme. Chekhov was writing The Cherry Orchard as Russia drew closer to political upheaval – only one year after the play’s opening did Russia see an attempt at revolution (1905). The parallel of looming disaster transfers well in this production, with the sense of imminent financial turmoil from the Great Depression foregrounded as Mrs Ranevsky (Tara Kilcoyne) hands out ruble notes across the stage nonchalantly.

Crucially, this production is interested in class divides. Mrs Ranevsky and her family represent Russia’s landed aristocracy, which Chekhov depicts as respectable but irrelevant, fixated by sentimental ideas of what they used to be. Lopakhin (Jon Berry), by far the wealthiest character in the play, is the son of a serf and thus representative of new money. Hanna Høibø’s costume excels here. Lopakhin is dressed in an all white suit and pristine shoes that can only be newly bought, a clear reference to Fitzgerald’s Gatsby.

But Chekhov also indulges the audience with a comic subplot concerned with the estate’s workers – the flirtatious Dunyasha (Kayla Kim) and the endlessly clumsy Yepikhodov (Tom Saer). Mrs Ramesky’s arrival brings her cheeky manservant, Yasha (Gavin Fleming) into the mix. The three engage in a seemingly light love triangle, which in actuality reveals the unsatisfying and imprisoning lifestyle of the lower classes when Dunyasha is left heartbroken and deserted by Yasha at the play’s end.

That being said, what Moncrieff brings to the forefront in his production is a society that suffers not only with divisions across classes, but also across generations – the old servant Firs (Lee Simonds) is physically doubled over whilst Anya (Lara Deering) prances around in the arms of Trofimov (Christopher Page), both emblems of youth. Such great division between individuals means that effective communication is a constant difficulty. Firs’ reflections are classed as ‘mutterings’ and Gayev is repeatedly silenced by his nieces.

What we do hear above all is the jazz band, a highlight of the production, led by music director Josh Cottell. The outstanding score means that transitions are smooth and sophisticated, and the audience gains a way of actualising the distinct modernity of 1920s America in musical form. As each instrument in the small band seeks to be heard individually whilst functioning in a larger collective, so do the voices of Chekhov’s characters. Each character appears to speak in a kind of soliloquy despite being in the company of others, slipping off unheard into nostalgic tangents in Mrs Ramesky or Firs’s case, or into intense political ranting in the case of Trofimov.

In terms of performance, I was particularly impressed by Alma Prelec as Varya. The Keble O’Reilly is a big space that requires a commanding stage presence, and Prelec demands the audience’s sympathy whilst simultaneously communicating Varya’s repressive and neurotic nature. Equally, Jon Berry stood out as a dignified and considered Lopakhin, and captured perfectly at the play’s end his character’s remaining imposter syndrome despite gaining the sought after land. Ariel Levine also commanded audience attention through his detailed yet entertaining characterisation of Pishchik.

One aspect of the performance that was somewhat disappointing, however, was the actors’ volume – for a play in which silence is as frequent as dialogue, a difficulty hearing what the actors were saying at times meant that some important words or even lines were lost. Moncrieff and his team’s production is thoroughly ambitious and contains some sophisticated performances. Whilst it is a shame that volume meant certain elements were lost, this production offers many poignant moments, all underscored by great music.

Running Tues 13 – Sat 17 Feb

Grace at formal is ‘gender equality issue’

2

The Merton College JCR president has raised concerns at a college committee meeting about the majority of students saying grace at Formal Hall being male.

Jules Desai told Cherwell: “It only came about because I was sitting at formal with some friends and no one could remember hearing someone non male read out grace.

“Investigation into the college bylaws revealed a bylaw which dictates the specifics of who reads grace (which isn’t followed at the moment since it is inconvenient).

“After raising with college, they were receptive, are now aware that the situation could be regarded as an equality issue, and are open to the possibility of amending its bylaws should a competent and sensible proposal be submitted.”

Currently the Merton bylaw reads that only “the senior Postmaster or Exhibitioner present or (if there is no Postmaster or Exhibitioner present) one of the Fellows [can read grace]”.

However it is generally accepted that any Postmaster or Exhibitioner can be selected, not necessarily the most qualified.

Female Postmaster at Merton Olivia Williams told Cherwell: “I think this is all about internalized sexism.

“As a female postmaster, I have been asked to do Grace on more than one occasion, but have always said no because I wouldn’t know how to pronounce the Latin, and wouldn’t want to stand up in front of a room of (mostly white male) people with knowledge of the proper pronunciation who would know when I got it wrong.

“Merton as a college is very receptive to issues of Equality, and has in my experience been very quick to address problems students feel are important – for me, this issue is more reflective of the fact that today, white males from private school backgrounds are far more likely to have learnt Latin at school.

“I believe that college are going to run a drop in session for all those eligible to read grace so that all those that want to are able to, and I think this is the best solution.

A second year classics student from Merton said: “I have heard women saying grace fairly often but it still certainly isn’t an equal balance.

“It’s probably more a product of how the reader is chosen by the hall staff (they tend to approach people that they know have read before) than it is discrimination.

“Added to that the idea of reading out loud in Latin in front of the whole hall if you’re not confident; as a result the group of people who have read aloud in hall is fairly small in number.

“It doesn’t seem to be an issue that would be hard to solve in that staff could be directed to have a balance of male and female readers.”

Union members disciplined after Coulter protest

2

A group of students will face an Oxford Union disciplinary committee this weekend, following a protest during Ann Coulter’s speech on Monday evening.

The five students briefly chanted inside the chamber, before marching out in protest at the Union’s decision to give Coulter a platform.

They also allege that Union security “forcibly confiscated our membership cards and physically manhandled the one person of colour among us.”

The protesters have now been called in front of a disciplinary committee, reportedly for actions deemed to “distress, offend or intimidate other members”.

Union president Laali Vadlamani said it would be inappropriate to comment on an ongoing disciplinary matter.

Prior to the start of Coulter’s talk, a small group of activists gathered outside the Union’s Frewin Court gate. They handed out leaflets, seen by Cherwell, which describe Coulter as a “white supremacist”.

Cherwell understands that the leaflets were produced by the revolutionary socialist group, rs21, though most of the protesters on the ground were not themselves members.

The leaflet also alleges she has “advocated for genocidal war against Muslims”, quoting her as saying “we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.”

It goes on to note how Coulter has described taking away women’s right to vote as a “personal fantasy”, as well as saying that survivors of sexual violence are “girls trying to
get attention”.

The protest then extended into the chamber. After Coulter made a remark that she was devoted to the Trump campaign “as soon as he made that Mexican rapist speech”, around five students stood up and began chanting “no Trump, no KKK, no fascist USA.”

They then left as security officials entered, shouting as they went.

The protesters told Cherwell: “The point of our action was to show opposition because this ideologue should not have been legitimised by dignifying her with a platform.

“We were forced to leave by security who forcibly confi scated our membership cards and physically manhandled the one person of colour among us.

“We hope that in future Union members will voice their dissent tooppose hosting speakers like this, and the Union will not offer a platform to white supremacists, fascists and hate speakers as a way to try to maintain relevance.”

“As long as this institution continues to platform explicit advocates of racially motivated genocide, to platform proud Islamophobes or dabblers in anti-Semitism, to platform rape apologists, or those sympathetic to white supremacy, we will not stand silent.”

Students were divided as to whether the protest was the most effective way to respond to Coulter.

Fraser Maclean, a history and politics student at Univ, told Cherwell: “We saw two responses to vicious social conservatism that night. One was a short, childish protest; the
other was a series of smart questions that attacked Coulter’s views.

“It was quite clear that the latter was more effective, as shown by the largest rounds of applause of the night being in support of questions, both from the president and from audience members, which challenged Coulter’s prejudices and claims firmly but respectfully.”

However, Jacob Armstrong, a third year Wadhamite, told Cherwell: “To me, the Oxford Union has always been an exclusive institution of self-important people who are more interested in free speech as an abstract principle than in lived reality.

“Ann Coulter has consistently supported the Trump administration’s policies which rob individuals in the US and across the world of their full capacity to participate in public debate, and does not engage with their testimony.

“The protestors have every right to challenge the intellectual platform Ann Coulter was placed on, and it is an indictment of the Union that this right is being challenged.”

Harry Samuels, the Union’s returning officer, told Cherwell that the president, Laali Vadlamani, would not comment on an ongoing investigation.

He said: “The Union’s disciplinary procedures, as detailed in Rule 71 of the Society’s regulations, have been formally engaged, and as a result, it would be inappropriate for the Society to offer comment on this matter at this time.

“This is standard procedure, in order to allow a fair hearing for those against whom complaints have been made. The Union’s Rules are available online for any member who wishes to read them.”

The hearing primarily concerns alleged breaches of Rule 71(a)(i)(30) – which prohibits “conduct intended to disrupt debates or other meetings of the society”.

Five members are under investigation, and the hearing will take place on Saturday.

Young Tories face fresh condemnation after allegations

The Oxford University Conservative Association (OUCA) has faced intensifed criticism, after the latest accusations of drunk and disorderly behaviour.

Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, the Honorary President of the Association, has called for an investigation, telling Cherwell: “there is no excuse for this type of disgraceful behaviour”.

Meanwhile, St. Giles’ Church, the venue for OUCA’s weekly Port and Policy event, has confirmed to Cherwell that it is investigating claims made about conduct on its premises.

OUCA has confirmed that any information about potential incidents of sexual harassment has been passed to Oxford University authorities.

Two members have left the Association after complaints about their conduct at a 3rd week Port and Policy event.

One student was suspended by the society’s disciplinary committee after complaints of excessive drunkenness and disorderly conduct.

Another student resigned his membership after the same complaint. A complaint of sexual harassment was also raised against the student by a purported witness, but the disciplinary committee received no evidence to corroborate this claim.

According to an OUCA statement, both women in question submitted testimony “unequivocally denying” the complaint at a council meeting.

One of the women alleged to have been assaulted told an assembled OUCA meeting on Thursday night that the claims were “entirely untrue”, and that she was not consulted before the complaint was submitted.

 

On hearing of the continued reports of harassment and sexism, Jacob Rees-Mogg told Cherwell: “I would expect both the University and the Conservative party to investigate this and to apply appropriate sanctions to any university or Conservative party members who may have brought the Oxford University Conservative Association into disrepute.”

Rees-Mogg, current frontrunner for the Conservative party leadership, is Honorary President of OUCA. His nephew William Rees-Mogg is the ex-president of the Association.

The latest developments follow a statement regarding the society’s problem with sexual assault allegations, revealed by Cherwell last week.

At a council meeting two weeks ago, eleven current and former OUCA officeholders highlighted “a problem with sexism” in the society, claiming that multiple allegations of groping and harassment were “not being dealt with”.

The statement cited “numerous reports” that several attendees at 3rd week Port and Policy “groped, touched, kissed (or attempted to), or otherwise harassed female guests”. It also alleged that this has been a recurring issue.

However, when these issues were raised to other senior officers, it is alleged they were “dismissed due to fears of bad PR.”

The signatories claimed: “that senior members of the association have been ignoring sexism and misogyny, not because they are themselves sexist, but because they are worried about the public image of themselves and the association.”

In a statement, OUCA President Timothy Doyle told Cherwell: “It was reported that attendees [at third week Port and Policy] had been unacceptably drunk, had subjected other attendees to verbal abuse, and most seriously that incidents of sexual harassment took place.“

All these claims, especially the last, are deeply concerning, and describe behaviour fundamentally incompatible with the Association’s aims and values.

“All allegations of misconduct are taken very seriously by the Association. No allegation received has been or will be ignored.”

“I am determined that the Association be as welcoming an environment as possible.”

Referring specifically to the 3rd week Port and Policy event, he noted: “A particular group of individuals is widely reported to have behaved in an offensive manner at the event and afterwards.

“These individuals have not been regular attendees of Association events, and are not in any way representative of our Membership.

“They are no longer members and will not be permitted to attend our events as guests.”

A constitutional amendment to allow a vote of no-confdence in the president was also presented to the OUCA Council meeting last night.

The motion seeks to amend the constitution so a vote of no confidence can be brought against any president, though Cherwell understands those pushing for the reform are doing so with the intention of ousting Doyle.

Of this move, Doyle said: “I look forward to measured and constructive discussion in the proper manner of how to continue improving the Association’s procedures.”

Oxford SU’s VP for Women, Katy Haigh, joined those who have condemned the Association, telling Cherwell she was “extremely saddened” by sexual harassment allegations.

Haigh told Cherwell: “We want all students to treat people with dignity and respect at all times, any behaviour that does not meet those standards is unacceptable.”

A spokesperson for Oxford University told Cherwell: “University disciplinary processes are entirely confidential and we do not confrm or deny whether specific allegations are being investigated.

“However, we do not tolerate sexual harassment and will always investigate when a student brings forward a complaint of harassment at the University.

“We also offer comprehensive welfare support to students who complain of being harassed and can give advice on how to make a complaint.

“We can also advise student clubs and societies on their own disciplinary codes, which they should apply to ensure they conduct events in accordance with University’s Policies and Procedures on harassment.”

The Conservative party did not reply to multiple requests for comment.

‘Entitled’ Trinity students deaned for halfway hall raucousness

0

Trinity second years have been threatened with a collective fine, after college staff were “appalled” by their behaviour at halfway hall.

It is understood that various students smashed glasses and were generally rowdy, to the extent that catering staff expressed their discomfort.

It follows similar reports of debauchery at Keble’s halfway hall event. Extreme drunkenness reportedly resulted in disorderly behaviour, with some students removing items of clothing.

In an email sent to Trinity students and seen by Cherwell, the college dean, James McDougall, detailed his disgust at the actions of second years.

He told students: “However entitled you may feel about yourselves, there is absolutely no excuse for this behaviour.”

McDougall went on to request everyone who was at the dinner attend a meeting with the college president, Dame Hilary Boulding, and himself later that week.

He warned students that he expected to “impose a fine collectively on everyone who was there, in addition to costs for breakages and a reparatory bonus to the staff who were on duty.”

However, no fine was imposed at this meeting. It is unclear whether a fine will now be issued, or what the sum may be.

The president and dean of Trinity did not respond to a request for comment.

This is not the first time the Trinity second year group has made the headlines for rowdiness.

In 2016, when they were freshers, the cohort were asked to make a charitable donation of ten pounds to account for their “disgraceful behaviour” at their matriculation ceremony.

In an email addressed to all undergraduate freshers, the dean at the time, Professor Jonathan Mallinson, condemned the actions of the freshers, whom he claimed behaved in a “noisy and undignified manner”, which he also described as “neither appropriate, clever nor funny”.

Freshers reportedly sang ‘We Will Rock You’, ‘Wonderwall’ and chanted “what do we think of Merton?” at other colleges’ students inside the Sheldonian. One Trinity first-year told Cherwell that “this was interspersed with Mexican waves and lots of stamping”.

‘Artivism’ review – avoidance and awkward silence

0

Anticipating an evening of lively debate and discussion on a range of topical issues alongside fishing for much-needed facts for my art and politics essay, I made my way to Wadham for the Isis’s ‘Artivism: Can Art Revolutionise?’ panel discussion. Undeterred by the absence of one of the promised speakers, Vivian Oparah, the artistic community of Oxford had a good turnout for this much-anticipated discussion. The interest no doubt came from the calibre of the guests, most notably James Graham whose play Ink is currently running in the West End and also Christopher Beanland who is a journalist and author specialising in Brutalist architecture.

In the first section of the event where discussion was limited to the panel themselves, the hosts Leela Jadhav and Ha Jar raised some excellent questions and areas for debate. Whilst always trying to appear as though they were in agreement, both James and Christopher seemed to focus on different aspects of our interaction with art. For Beanland, the human element and personal response seemed to be his greatest consideration, however Graham was very keen to expand on ideas of a communal response and the power of theatre as a political body in addition to the emotional responses triggered in the individual. Interesting points were raised by them both although it became almost immediately clear that Graham was more flexible in adapting to the particular line of questioning than Beanland. Beanland seemed cautious in not saying anything too provocative leading to vaguer answers; preferring to talk about the importance of art in our everyday lives rather than its power as a force for change.

The question and answer section of the event, which made up the second half, provided a great opportunity to watch the speakers respond to completely unforeseen questioning. Both Graham and Beanland attempted to answer the questions from the audience to the best of their ability. However, there were moments of brain-wracking silence reminiscent of a tutorial where both you and your partner have forgotten to do the reading. Questions such as the inequality in art on the matter of race in the media and the political responsibility of artists certainly placed both of the guests on the hot seat. Beanland largely bypassed this via evasion whilst Graham made brave attempts to answer, when in doubt bringing the conversation back to the artistic development of Hull, his university town as well as the British city of culture.

A particularly engaging moment was when an audience member who had seen Graham’s play, Ink, in the West End shared her own emotional reaction to the drama. The speaker expressed her shock at finding herself liking Rupert Murdoch at a certain point in the play, and asking him whether such an emotional journey had been his intention. It must have been a great relief to her when he said yes.

Overall, it was a very well organised and polite panel discussion which opened up many areas for thought and debate, even if they were not all thoroughly explored. Interesting and thought provoking, but not revolutionary.

50 Shades Freed confines and confuses its viewers

0

“Be careful not to struggle, Ana,” Christian Grey (Jamie Dornan) warns his newlywed (Dakota Johnson) of his handcuffs in the first sex scene of Fifty Shades Freed, “they bite back”. Aside from being the first of many desperately unsexy love-making episodes, his warning provides a useful way of identifying the overriding problem with the film: ironically, unlike the handcuffs, it simply doesn’t bite back.

There isn’t much for the protagonists to overcome in this final chapter of the Fifty Shades trilogy, as they spend most of their time in expensive cars, boats and a private jet. Christian and Ana’s lavish wedding and honeymoon are condensed into one montage, making the first five minutes feel more like an advert for Trivago than an actual film.

This is not to say that Niall Leonard (screenwriter and, incidentally, husband of E. L. James, the scribe behind the source novels) failed to throw any obstacles into the paths of Mr. and Mrs. Grey. In fact, the opposite is true: over the course of two hours, he throws almost every conceivable misfortunate at the characters, many of which would provide the entire storyline of any other film. These include a break-in to Mr. Grey’s office, arson, a kidnap, a suggested affair, another kidnap (this time with a ransom), a fight, and a baby – yet somehow, none of it means a damn thing.

Each of these conflicts is dispensed with so rapidly, it’s resolved before the audience has a chance to work out what its purpose in the story was. When Ana’s best friend confides about her fiancé’s suspected in delity, Christian’s response to his brother’s alleged affair is that “it’s none of our business”. The plot-line is abruptly dropped, as if it isn’t the audience’s business either. Considering I paid ten pounds to watch a story play out, actively shutting down plot threads seems to miss the point of making a film at all.

Even Ana’s feminist struggle against her over-controlling (and, frankly, abusive) husband, tantalisingly introduced at the start of the film, is over disappointingly quickly. Christian storms into her office after discovering she hasn’t updated her work email address to reflect her new married surname, and following an argument that lasts about two lines, she agrees to change it. Once again, she fails to bite back.

Fifty Shades Freed is little more than a string of montages of product placement and brief sex scenes that are more ridiculous than kinky (including a particularly entertaining scene of Ana and Christian painting each other in Ben and Jerry’s). The acting is flat (does Dornan only have one facial expression?) and the ending is bizarre – I can only assume that the shoe-horned pregnancy story-line was designed to please James’ readership of middle-aged mothers.

There are not fifty shades to this film. There is only one: boring.

Don’t give up on America

0

According to a BBC World Service poll, 64 per cent of Britons see America’s influence on the world to have been more negative than positive. Astonishingly, given the amount of ideological common ground between the two countries, this is 15 per cent higher than the global average. As an Australian living in Britain the anti-Americanism here is notable. The question of why is multifaceted. A cynical view is that the visible parallels between American culture and British working class culture (the brashness, the monolingualism, the lack of haute culture) have led to the US being looked down upon by the upper echelons of British society since its inception. This doesn’t seem entirely fair on the Brits though, and there does seem to be a deeper, moral anger in this country which is particularly directed at US foreign policy.

There’s a consensus among many in Britain that the self-righteous talk emanating from across the Atlantic about liberty and democracy is a façade – and that the real America has caused much more human suffering around the globe than it has alleviated. This seems blinkered. The American contributions to global progress have been staggering and a world without the United States would be a crueler, darker place. The centrepiece of antiAmericanism since 2016 both in this country and around the world has been the political abomination that is Donald Trump. Even if you’re pro-America, the Trump presidency has been incredibly hard to watch. Like an old friend who has moved in with some ghastly, bigoted partner, America has increasingly isolated itself from friends and allies, many of whom have found themselves straining to recognise the country they once knew. Where is the country, we may well ask ourselves, that sent tens of thousands of its own citizens to die in the fight against fascism in Western Europe and the Pacific? Where is the country of Jefferson, Roosevelt and King? The answer is it never left.

There is so much more to America than the current administration. The country that voted for Barack Obama in 2012 has not gone away, nor have the 73 per cent of the voting age population who didn’t vote for Trump in the 2016 election. Trump was victorious not by virtue of having won more votes than his opponent, but by  an unfortunate quirk in the American electoral system. What’s more, Trump’s first year in office has been marked by some of the lowest approval ratings in modern American political history. It seems it is become easy to forget that most Americans do not like their president, and millions of Americans are every bit as shocked and as outraged by the Trump regime as those looking on from abroad. These Americans should not be tarred by the same brush as the illiberal, incompetent demagogue running the show. It pays to remember, also, that for all of America’s transgressions (and there have been many) there has never in the history of human civilisation been a nation state that has held so much power and yet yielded it so gently. The post-war United States has been thoroughly unconcerned with the idea of a geographic empire. Under the ‘Pax Americana’ there has been no process of permanent American geographical colonisation, nor has modern America attempted to annex the territory of its substantially less powerful neighbours. The same can certainly not be said of the British, French, Ottoman, Japanese Empires, nor can it be said of the USSR or China. Rather, the American world has seen a blossoming of democracies and of human rights protections around the world.

This is not a coincidence, nor was it in any way inevitable. Indeed since the fall of the Soviet Union there have been more countries and more people living in full democracies than in any other system of government. Even countries which aren’t democratic now feel the need to pretend that they are. America is not only the oldest democracy in the world (depending on your criteria), it is also by far its loudest supporter. It’s pretty clear there must be a link between this enormous proliferation of universal suffrage and the fact that the world’s greatest power happens to be the inventor of modern democracy. The transition of countries such as South Korea and the Philippines to democratic systems quite simply would not have happened without continual American pressure. Thanks largely to America, the majority of the world’s population now live in societies in which governments are accountable to the people. There effect has been one of remarkable change and frankly is not something to be sniffed at.

The irony of the American order is that the United States has been judged by their own criteria. When it comes to equality, access to justice and social process in general, it’s no secret that America lags behind much of Northern Europe. Criticising America along these lines is not only a critique many are eager to make, but is one that is wholly justified, especially in the Trump era. We should keep in the back of our minds, though, that many of our own indicators of progress derive their existence from the United States. For example, when we criticise Trump for his blatant sexism we draw heavily on the American feminist canon. Second wave feminism was born in the United States and spread from North America to the rest of the world. Even the word ‘sexist’ itself is attributable to American feminist Caroline Bird.

Likewise when we attack Trump’s racism we join our voices to those of millions of African-Americans, whose struggle for equal rights over the past decades prompted an end to racial discrimination laws around the world. The American civil rights movement spelled the end of the ‘White Australia Policy’ and focused global attention on the system of apartheid in South Africa. Without the United States, these laws would likely not have changed when they did.

Finally, when we criticise the Republican Party’s antiquated stance on global warming, it pays to remember that the world’s first environmental justice movements stemmed from the United States, which was also home to the world’s first national park. Our definition of progress has been heavily influenced by American ideals; if we lived in a world without the United States many of the battles for justice and equality globally would either have been lost or would never have been fought. One may well wonder whether we would have seen an end to apartheid, or a global push for female sexual liberation, or ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ in a world in which China were hegemon.

The softest target for those seeking to criticise the United States is undeniably its record in the Middle East. One should be careful in defending American policy in the region too vigorously, as much of it has been an unmitigated disaster. On the other hand, though blaming the systemic problems in the region purely on misguided American interventionism is inaccurate. Many of the Middle East’s woes are traceable to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the arbitrary carving up of the region by the British and French, and the geopolitical ventriloquism of the USSR – not to mention the intractable regional rivalries that exist on both a political and religious level. The United States have had their fair share of guilt to bear too, however assertions that the Middle East would be in a stable state of peace if America had just kept its nose out are pretty difficult to argue.

Likewise, to suggest that the American era should be purely judged through the lens of a region which has been mired in intraregional sectarian conflict for centuries doesn’t really seem like a fair evaluation. After the Trump inauguration many were quick to announce that we had entered into a post-American world. Analogies were hastily thrown together with the final days of Rome, with an image created of an inward looking United States in a state of gradual economic decline. Much of this followed the lead of Donald Trump’s own rhetoric about the country, which he labelled “a hellhole” which was “going down
fast.” Again though, this picture just isn’t accurate.

The American economy has been steadily growing for the past nine years and this January saw the creation of an additional 200,000 jobs, marking the country’s 88th straight month of job growth. To top it off America remains the world leader in almost all global industries, from financial services to digital technology. While it’s true that China’s GDP is now closing in on the top spot, the total value of America’s already manufactured assets (infrastructure, buildings machines and equipment) and its human capital (education, skills etc.) continue to dwarf those of every other major economy and will for a long time to come. America is not dead, and it is not dying. For all the talk of America retreating into itself, recent years have seen an increased American military presence in the Asia-Pacific region. This is good news, helping to smother regional tensions before they flare. Without US hegemony in Asia we could have seen a full blown Australian-Indonesian war over East Timor, or a nuclear South Korea and Japan, or bolder Chinese territorial claims in the South China Sea. The undergraduate assertion that America has no right to involve itself in the politics of the AsiaPacific region demonstrates a lack of understanding of what an East Asian or South East Asian power vacuum would actually look like, and who would step up to fill it. The Trump administration will pass and Europe will eventually once again see a country that more closely resembles our own staring back at us from across the Atlantic.

It’s of critical importance that in the whirlwind of Trump-ism we don’t forget all that America has done, and all that it still can. Though the phrase has become a tired, overworked cliché, America is still the country that emerged from decades of colonial oppression and the depravities of war to write in their Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be selfevident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” America has often been unfaithful to this principle, and has on occasions visibly strayed from it both at home and abroad, but it remains an astonishingly beautiful idea.The declaration was written against the backdrop of a pre-democratic, despotic colonial world. For all America’s faults, their foundation  as a state remains arguably the most moving pronouncement of the supremacy of human dignity in the history of our species.Reasoned criticism of the United States has its place, but those who long for a truly unAmerican world should be careful what they wish for.

The beach and the Bod

0

Echo chambers. Disconnect. Phone-light harms sleep. Unrealistic standards of Instagram. Filtered reality… It’s easy to feel that rapid changes in technology have harmed how we connect to a community and locate ourselves in it. This is not one of those stories.

This is a celebration of the connectedness of social media, a celebration of how it creates shared cultural spaces that are no longer (strictly) limited by geography. As an Australian living on the other side of the world, it takes me at least 24 hours and two flights to get home. This vast distance is elided by the magic of the group chat, of social media, of online culture. My English friends and Australian friends watched Game of Thrones episodes at the same time. Both sides of the world joined in responding to media. My college friends watch (and are obsessed) with Australian comedians that they never would have heard of in a pre-internet age. I see people on both sides of the planets getting tagged in the same memes about The Simpsons, or Star Wars, or Doctor Who. My Facebook fills with snow pictures and beach pictures at Christmas.

My identity is beach and bod, and although it’s bizarre, I can bridge these two worlds through something as simple as snapchat. I have a family group chat where my two siblings and parents post photo updates (my mum, since I moved overseas, has learnt how to use Facebook messenger, take pretty decent photos on her phone, use the ‘haha’ and ‘love’ react, and sometimes, she even opens the front-facing camera on purpose instead of accidentally).

I witnessed this amazing power of connection to home recently in a way that reminded me how incredible worldwide instant communication is. Last November, Australia held a bizarre and long contested “survey” to legalise same-sex marriage. I had been part of the debate and campaigning when I was home during the summer, and I’d been certain to get a proxy vote so that my voice would be counted once I’d left. I felt regret upon flying out: like I should have been there going to the rallies that my friends were at and using my political capital to the full.

However, on the night (UK time) when they were announcing the vote, I was sitting in my room waiting for 11pm with the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s live stream open on my computer. I waited with baited breath, completely alone. I felt that despite the unwavering support of my British friends that I wanted to do this with Australians. And so, at the precise moment when the figure 61.6 per cent YES was announced (at around 11:06pm), my social media exploded. A friend who grew up on the same street as me messaged immediately. I barraged my family group chat as we all responded happily. I was posting live updates about how electorates had voted to my brother while he was at work.

My first boyfriend (who still lives in Australia) and I just messaged each other exclamation marks repeatedly. As my Facebook timeline was flooded with rainbows and smiling faces and just the word “YES” over and over again, I felt like I was part of it all. Despite being on the other side of the world, I felt connection to where I had come from.

Place is a tricky thing, loaded with memories and feelings. We can only inhabit one space physically at a time. Luckily, through Zuckerberg’s magic, I was able to occupy two virtual spaces, to be part of two communities, during this watershed moment. I think about what it would have been like to have gone to Oxford as an Australian even 80 years ago. International passenger flights only started in Australia in 1935. It would have involved saying goodbye to friends and family knowing that it was unlikely to see them for three years. Letters would have been scarce and expensive. Photos would be almost an impossibility. Books, movies, music, all arrived in Australia long after their UK release – unlike today, where we can recommend and share culture instantly.

The fact that I can message my sister “u awake”, and that she can reply instantly should be appreciated as a small miracle of modernity. We can all agree that social media is too powerful to not create problems. However, I hope we can also all agree that it is too powerful not to solve problems as well. We curate, construct, and mediate our identity through technology. This process should never go unacknowledged.

Radio Four’s money man on fake news media

0

Social media and its role in mediating our perceptions of the world, is something of a modern bugbear. Centrists are tormented with visions of people rejecting the benevolent BBC and falling headlong into the arms of echo chambers and political extremists, whose views are subliminally poisoning the old, the left-behind and the less educated with a doctrine of pseudo-fascism.

Tim Harford laughs. The author of the Undercover Economist and presenter of Radio Four programme ‘More or Less?’, Harford prides himself on his ability to challenge such commonly held but often thinly substantiated beliefs.

For starters, no one, he says, even the most educated, is immune to the lure of media distortion. “Unreflective sharing and retweeting” is “super easy”, and even the driest of statistics can be interpreted emotionally, our own beliefs taking precedence over context. With a limit of just 280 characters, it is physically impossible for a tweet to contain the caveats of any study.

Any retweeted single headline is liable to mislead. Take, for instance, a recent article published by the Independent, that reverberated across the Remain Twittersphere. 230 EU academics had resigned from Oxford in what was termed a mass ‘Brexodus’.
It was a considerable increase on the preceding year and is probably testament to the amount of hostility felt by EU citizens living in the UK.

But the implied European ‘brain drain’ had not manifested. Indeed, EU recruitment had balanced staff losses, leaving the total number of academics almost unchanged.
Whilst such context doesn’t immediately invalidate the point being made, it mitigates the concept of a black-and-white Brexit apocalypse.

Such enthusiasm over this report, was, Harford says, symptomatic of “confirmation bias”.
“If you’re someone like me who thinks Brexit is not going to be terribly helpful for the British university system, when I see a headline saying ‘Oh all these academics have resigned’, I’d be like ‘Oh, yeah, of course’, rather than going ‘Wait hang on, how many people normally resign? Is that usual?’

“But on the other hand, if someone said more EU academics have joined from the EU so there’s no problem, I would naturally go, I’m not sure if I believe you, I want to see the details.”

Paradoxically, it is often those who are politically interested and have access to a lot of information who hold most strongly their original prejudice.

“Generally having more knowledge and more expertise doesn’t protect you, it just gives you more intellectual firepower to deliver the result you want, the result you anticipated to get,” Harford tells me. “Benjamin Franklin, one of the American founding fathers, once said (I’m paraphrasing here) ‘It’s great to be a rational person because you can find a reason to do anything you want.’

“And social media, with the sheer amount of statistics, reports and empirical ‘facts’, provides the perfect weaponry to back up almost any pre-existing argument, as well as a ready-made audience prepared to confirm one’s views.” The only solution is to be more self-critical.

“The very first thing you’ve got to do if you see any of these numbers is think ‘How do I feel about these numbers?’ Does this number make me feel righteously indignant, does it make me feel defensive?

“Unless you examine your feelings about the number, you’re not going to be able to analyse it in any sensible way.”

But it is perhaps through awareness of ‘fake news’, brought to our attention by social media, that we can be become savvier consumers of information. Newspapers get things wrong too, but by being aware of the potency of misleading headlines and uncontextualised statistics, we can become more self-aware as readers.

Rather than taking a newspaper, with its innate air of authority, at face value, we can extrapolate our online critical faculty to consider the implications of a newspaper’s political agenda and bias.

Furthermore, social media can also allow us access to a broader spectrum of views beyond the political frame of our publication of choice. “Yes, people cluster together on social media, you follow people whose views you agree with and the algorithms show you stuff you’re likely to agree with as well,” Harford admits. “But, and there’s pretty good research on this, you will see a broader spread.”

Through social media, we are liberated from the unifying eye of the editorial: we can skip between publications, our news feed having the ability to yoke together the Brexit-friendly opinions of the Telegraph and the anti-privatisation views typical of the Observer.

Such ability to deviate from set political party dogmas is important in a world where the borders of left and right are becoming increasingly blurred and cross-party issues dominate popular debate. We can use social media to our advantage, if only we stop believing that our existing knowledge makes us less susceptible to prejudice.