Emergency services are currently on the scene at what is being described as a “huge explosion” involving a house boat at the Osney Boatyard area in Oxford.
Police say a number of casualties are currently being treated by emergency services. Local roads in the surrounding area have been closed.
In a statement, Thames Valley Police said they were called at 4.45pm today, “following reports of an explosion and the collapse of a property.” They are encouraging people to avoid the area.
In an updated statement, Thames Valley Police said: “Emergency services are still establishing whether there is anyone injured at the scene.”
Emergency services on scene Osney Lane and Gibbs Crescent, Oxford. Reports of explosion and collapse of a property. Pls avoid the area.
The Oxford Mail reports that a local block of flats “appears to have been completely destroyed” by the incident, which is located in the Osney Marina area, close to the Oxford train station.
One Twitter user described a “Huge explosion shook our building about an hour ago… Apparently [an] entire flat block exploded.”
When we started our investigation into racism at Oxford (see 3rd week’s issue of Cherwell), PREVENT and specifically its impact on Muslim students and students of colour was something we were certain we wanted to look into. Yet the wealth of testimonies and statements we found concerning PREVENT just proved too much to fit into the investigation, and this was certainly a topic we didn’t want to skim over. With three different testimonials from Oxford students describing their treatment under PREVENT, a statement from the Islamic Society on the specific ties between Islamophobia and PREVENT, and an interview with Sandy Downs, OUSU’s VP for Welfare and Equal Opportunities, this investigation may be published a little unconventionally but certainly has plenty of important content for considering one of the most controversial pieces of legislation concerning education in our lifetime.
Testimonial 1
In last year’s political climate, I thought it would be pertinent to organise an event on religion and religious discrimination. The event was supposed to invoke an open discussion, and involved a panel of speakers providing information on the topic. I’d booked lots of rooms in college before, and had never had any issues. This event involved a brief discussion of religious ideology, centring around Islam. The event title immediately caught the attention of staff in the administrative office. I was called in to meet with college staff to discuss the event for two reasons: I had to provide a list of the speakers I was inviting, for risk assessment reasons. But I was also questioned on the speakers’ and on my own beliefs, to find out whether I followed a ‘certain line’. This was a bizarre experience, and made me feel like an outsider in my own university – and this was before PREVENT had even been officially implemented. The rhetoric surrounding the PREVENT duty had only served to reinforce the implicit biases of those in the University. It continues to particularly discriminate against students who are already from marginalised communities, stopping their complete engagement in political and religious discourse.
Testimonial 2
I was working on the committee of a large student society at Oxford, which represents and holds events for a minority group. I looked forward to hosting some of our events at my college, expecting that they would be supportive of my efforts to bring authentic diversity to the space. I attempted to book a room for a Freshers’ Meet and Greet, but was told that the society needed to provide a full guest list 24 hours in advance. Of course it’s almost impossible to guest list many social events, let alone ones where new members will be invited for the first time. Many reasonable suggestions made by me and a friendly member of college staff — including having an agreeing member of staff supervise the door and throughout the event — fell on deaf ears. I eventually received an email telling me “the event was impossible without a guest list because of our legal duty to abide by PREVENT. All Colleges across the University must screen guest lists before they offer an event for security purposes”, and there was nothing they could do: they said, “our hands are simply tied on this one”. Being denied the ability to host at the space for Prevent reasons felt bad enough, especially with our events now almost jeopardised for this lack of cooperation. It was yet more disappointing to realise that this was also in fact a misinterpretation of what authorities are really obligated to do, but this incident showed me how much over-reach there is with PREVENT.
Testimonial 3
At the end of my working day, upon returning to my flat, I was told by a flatmate that after the normal cleaning hours the housekeeper and two scouts had entered my room, and spent approximately 25 minutes opening and closing various cupboards and drawers, presumably inspecting the room. I was also informed that the scouts were given specific instructions on ‘signs to look out for’, in relation solely to my room, and that you did not enter any of the other rooms of the flat. I believe it is well within my rights to understand why there has been a sudden and particular interest in me, my belongings, and my room. I am very concerned that this sudden inspection of my room and invasion of my privacy happened as a result of the scouts overhearing my prayers, which I read in Punjabi (since I have been raise Sikh), and therefore profiling me based on my race and religion. If this inspection is in any way related to the PREVENT strategy, it is my legal right to demand to be informed of this.
Yet my college is giving me conflicting accounts of what happened and is above all refusing to identify this as happening under the PREVENT strategy. I have been told in person that the scouts are PREVENT trained, whereas this was denied by the college. I was shown CCTV of who went in and out of the building that day, but it didn’t feature things I definitely know happened such as scouts leaving later in the afternoon when I’d got back and saw them cleaning the flat next door. Therefore I think the CCTV footage I was shown was edited, but I didn’t say this because I didn’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, so I just dropped it. My college chaplain and senior subject tutor have both assured me this is not related to PREVENT, which is very confusing. As a survivor of sexual assault, it is particularly unsettling to feel as though my personal space is completely disrespected by the college and I do not feel safe. Yet despite me informing the college of this, my room seems to have been searched again this term (3 months after the original incident), since my diary and literature on Islamic feminism had been disrupted and my door was locked although I had left it open.
This is in a broader context of staff acting differently this year. My boyfriend is always asked for his Bod Card when he comes to visit, and when two Muslim friends (who are people of colour) came to visit the porters made them register their names, addresses and phone numbers. I feel unsafe in college but I am unable to speak up about what is happening.
Interview with Sandy Downs OUSU VP WEO
What is happening with PREVENT at Oxford Uni?
The university is bound to comply with the PREVENT duty, but they are doing the bare minimum in order to limit its impact on the freedoms of students and staff. Consequently, PREVENT has only resulted in two policy changes. One is to the code of practice for meetings and events, although actually this needed to be updated anyway. PREVENT only comes into it quite vaguely, in stating that rooms or events in the university cannot be intended to draw people into terrorism. The other is to the IT policy. There had been a suggestion from HEFCE [the Higher Education Funding Council for England, who oversee prevent] that this should involve monitoring of emails and searches online, but the university has absolutely refused on that front. Once again, the only change is a specific reference to not allowing people to use university platforms to draw others into terrorism.
HEFCE has been in charge of checking up on policy at a college level, so each college has its own policy which it gave to HEFCE. We don’t have an overview of college policy, and are often told colleges don’t have a PREVENT policy, because people aren’t aware of it. The university policy is about as good as it can be, but there is an issue with what different colleges may be implementing.
What impact does PREVENT have on the welfare of students?
What’s really scary is the atmosphere created by PREVENT. It feeds into the growing Islamophobia which is having a huge impact on the welfare of Muslim students, as well as specifically feeding into the insidious tradition of Islamophobic legislation in this country.
What’s really scary is the atmosphere created by PREVENT
Hypothetically, there would be huge welfare concerns if PREVENT were being fully implemented and people were being referred. But this looks very unlikely to happen in Oxford in the current climate. A more specific worry is regarding the counselling service, and that PREVENT could mean any “signs of radicalisation” were a reason to break confidentiality. Although once again this is being mitigated in Oxford, it still impacts the likelihood of Muslim students accessing counselling if they are concerned that they might get reported.
What have OUSU and the university been doing to look after the welfare of students and staff?
The main thing has been developing training on PREVENT for staff which emphasises the risks of implementing the duty. So the training focuses on the human rights, education and freedom of speech legislation which PREVENT contradicts, and why they are more important to the university than PREVENT. The point of this is basically to inform staff abut PREVENT so that they won’t use it. I sit on the PREVENT steering group, so have been developing and delivering this training along with staff.
OUSU has been supporting the Preventing PREVENT campaign, so we have been working on an educational video for students about their rights and including some case studies about incidents in Oxford. We’ve been trying to get people to report incidents of PREVENT being used against them, either to the Preventing PREVENT Gmail account or directly to me, and we encourage that in any situation which could be vaguely linked to PREVENT.
I would stress that the university are doing quite well on this, and are very open to being contacted by anyone about PREVENT because they are incredibly concerned about how this is affecting students.
Statement from ISoc, Oxford University Islamic Society
PREVENT is legislation designed to guide bodies such as schools and universities to forestall ‘extremism’ and ‘radicalisation’ of people in its care. In its implementation, however, it is a mandate for educational institutions to surveil and monitor its Muslim students. Some of the extremist warning signs that PREVENT advises teachers and lecturers to watch out for are sudden changes in clothing, hobbies, or friendship groups. But there is a sinister side.
We’ve all heard the reports- the 14-year-old interrogated for mentioning the word ‘eco-terrorism’ in a discussion on environmental activism; the calling of anti-terror police to question a schoolboy wearing a ‘Free Palestine’ badge; the student of terrorism studies at Nottingham University arrested for studying books on terrorism. All of them involve the abuse of the arbitrary power PREVENT gives educational institutions.
We in the Islamic Society recognise that for all the talk of rights and free speech, affecting every student, the Muslim Community is the principal target for the legislation. It has been introduced to arbitrarily police the boundaries of our free speech, and demobilise our political voices. It has aimed to raise the costs of Muslim activism and engagement, and increase the precariousness of our place in British society.
In Oxford, the current implementation of PREVENT is having exactly these effects. We’ve already received reports of Muslim students not being able to hold events to talk about Islamophobia, of being interrogated by porters about the kind of Islam they believe in when booking rooms, of the refusal of College deans to allow Muslim students to host events on Palestine. However, again, the individual cases shouldn’t mask the overall, macro-effects: We have seen first-hand how the atmosphere amongst Muslim students seeking to get involved in political activism has shifted towards extreme precaution and fear – the so-called ‘chilling-effect’ of the legislation.
Students from abroad, already having had to register with the police, are particularly reluctant to demonstrate or organize, or be visibly involved in contentious issues. But even UK Muslims have intimated or demonstrated their desire to keep their heads down and concentrate on their degree, rather than involve themselves in debates over Palestine or the bombing of Syria.
PREVENT is useful for the government. It creates a sense of precarity amongst UK Muslims
PREVENT is useful for the government. It creates a sense of precarity amongst UK Muslims, and obstructs the mobilisation and organisation of a constituency which not only frequently contests British foreign policy, but commonly the neoliberal ethic too. PREVENT ensures that the boundaries of acceptable Muslim discourse on foreign policy are constricted, carefully monitored, shifting and arbitrary. It is little wonder that many Muslims, even at a place like Oxford, decide that the perceived costs of political activism are simply too high.
Thus, naturally, we are disappointed that the University, in implementing PREVENT, did not go far enough to safeguard its Muslim students under the Human Rights Act, Equalities Act, and Education Act. In our view, it has not done enough to consult its Muslim students on the impact of its implementation of PREVENT. We disagree with the attitude that this new law ‘won’t change very much’ because, for us, it already has.
At a time of increased Islamophobia, of a Muslim Ban and post-Brexit surges in hate crimes, a world-class University seeking to attract international talent, advocating free speech, and valuing the welfare of all students and staff has the responsibility to do everything it can to allow Muslim students to express themselves and feel secure by not compromising their welfare and legal rights
We need to fight back and allow all of our students to contribute to the critical debates our country faces, by pressuring our Colleges to uphold the relevant Equality Acts. All of these are law, and any College which implements PREVENT against these acts is acting illegally. We need to monitor closely the uses of PREVENT in Oxford and highlight where it is abused. We need to (at the College and University level) demand non-compliance with this discriminatory legislation, and lobby nationally for its repeal. Muslim students have a wide, rich tradition to draw on and contribute to the discussion. We cannot allow PREVENT to impose a climate of fear on an entire community.
The Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) famously issued the Constitution of Medina, guaranteeing equal rights to minorities, over 1400 years ago. Perhaps the University could evoke the spirit of that document, and assert positively the rights of all students to free speech and inquiry; refuse to implement PREVENT, treat it as a hollow, empty legislation, in name only, and instead make sure that all staff and administrators know that rigid adherence to equality (as prescribed by law) takes precedence. The Oxford community proudly and unconditionally stood with the Muslim community in a recent demonstration –we urge the University to do the same by increasing its resistance to PREVENT.
To report an incident which you think may have involved PREVENT, you can email[email protected] or contact Sandy Downs at OUSU. To find out more about PREVENT, like Preventing PREVENT Oxford on Facebook, look out for the soon to be released OUSU video and attend the panel event in 5th week. The NUS have a hotline for concerns about PREVENT on 07741264037 which you can ring at any time.
My phone says it’s 4am, and the sun is definitely right over my head. It’s 37 degrees outside: the horizon a blurred band of heat haze and smog. The roads have ten lanes, yet the taxi driver treats his rear-view mirror like the evil queen in Snow White: glancing at it, but not really getting what it’s all about.
“Where are you going?”, he asks with a strong Beijing accent, through a mouthful of orange peel and cigarette smoke. I was already asking myself a different question: “Where the hell am I?”
The first couple of weeks were a bog of bureaucracy as I trudged around this new and impossibly vast city I had to call home. I collected countless tissue-paper thin documents, concluding with my ‘Residence Permit for Foreigner in the PRC’. This turned out to be nothing more than a big blue sticker in my passport—what was all the fuss about? With the ‘abroad’ half of my year away signed, sealed, and collected from the Aliens’ Exit and Entry Administration Office, all that was left was that other bit: the year.
Full of optimism, I started looking for a place to live. Walking into every new apartment I asked the same carefully pronounced questions: Do we have to pay for the gas ourselves? Is there internet access? Are kitchen utensils provided? Textbook.
“Yes…” a string of potential landlords answered, patiently, but nevertheless completely baffled. I soon found out our role-play material was aimed at students going to Taiwan in the ‘90s. Apparently, Beijing estate agents use a different set of jargon in 2017.
Outside of lessons, everyday chats with the family who run the local dumpling stand, old men drinking tea in bookshops, and total strangers in elevators are constant reminders of how friendly and interested people can be.
December came quickly, and I was having a rough day. My 9am class had been a waste of time and my Chinese seemed as stilted and laboured as ever. A bitter wind ripped through the frozen, grey city, pressing my uncomfortable pollution mask up into my eyes. I missed my friends and family, and the VPN wasn’t working—I couldn’t even look at the Facebook post my twin had tagged me in. I got in the elevator, grouchy, joining a little boy and his mother, who crouched down beside him.
“Look,” she said, “a foreign uncle!”
“Uncle!” He cried gleefully, staring at me.
I knelt down, “Look,” I said, “my Chinese friend!”
He did the ‘a foreigner just attempted to speak my language!’ double-take before bursting into a fit of giggles.
“You look like that… what’s he called? Harry Potter?”
She was right, I did need a haircut.
“He does!” He gasped.
And with that, my love for Beijing was back again.
Whilst visiting Mongolia for a week, the family I stayed with invited me to lunch. I accepted, albeit nervously, knowing that ‘vegetarian’ is a loosely-defined concept in China. However, an uncomfortable encounter with a ceremonial chicken foot was surpassed by drinking distinctly petrol-scented spirits with an old Mongolian man, and getting uncomfortably sozzled for a Tuesday lunchtime. But, it was all laughed away during an authentic and delicious meal, and I boarded the 15-hour train home in high spirits.
A few hours in, I was bored senseless and got my phone out to watch the episode of The Great British Bake Off that I had downloaded. After a few minutes, I realised the people around me were all craning their necks to see what it was all about. I unplugged my headphones and leant the small screen up against the window. My neighbours loved it, and bombarded me with questions. Unfortunately, my cake and baking related vocab was (and remains) rather limited. Describing Candice’s Danish pastry croque monsieur kites as “a bread, a sandwich really” made me feel rather incompetent.
I’ve travelled 5,000 miles, and whilst Oxford can feel more distant than just a plane ride away, I’ve rarely found myself lonely. I’ve arrived in a vibrant city full of friends and found places that I love.
With 5th Week Blues nearly behind us, Pandora (Cherwell Life’s omniscient cat) decides to give her own advice on how to deal with the pressures Oxford may still bring…
My tutor still says my collection was poor.
But I had a nice holiday.
Conclusion: he is a fool.
I have a tutorial to prepare for.
But I am awfully stressed.
Conclusion: take nap.
I should probably read some books.
But the bar is open.
Conclusion: wine.
I hear people chat shit about me in the bar.
But I do not care for these people.
Conclusion: do not care.
The tomcat behind the bar winks. He says I should go to Cellar.
Dying Light is a beautiful production of a beautifully bittersweet play. As soon as the audience walked into the BT Studio to be greeted by a dimly lit stage, sparsely clad in the paraphernalia of a hospital waiting room, we knew the types of emotions we were about to be confronted by. Set in America, Dying Light tells the story of two teenage terminal cancer patients who meet in a cancer ward and fall in love, and explores the ways that hope and faith fill up the cracks in pain. “You always have to believe you’re gonna get better”, Jenny tells Tom, and the story’s arc explores how that strength of faith can tangibly play out in the face of extreme hardship
Both Charithra Chandran and Chris Dodsworth gave stunning performances as Jenny and Tom—Charithra’s consistent tears-on-cue were an impressive touch and were placed at key moments that allowed the play to feel continually raw, real and painful. With the production’s intimate and minimal stage setting, it was important for the actors to address the issue of maintaining the fourth wall and they achieved this expertly. The director, Lara Marks, did a wonderful job—and her choice of music was perfect for the atmosphere, as a few well-placed songs gave the play time to pause and space to breathe in such a heart-wrenching storyline.
The only noticeable first night hiccoughs were due to the Burton Taylor’s impressive blackout system, which left a few of the actors tripping over props during exits and entrances. Saying this, however, there was a gorgeous transition conducted in low light that saw Charithra and Chris change the set together—the audience watched as they built a home over hospital waiting room chairs and clinical hand sanitiser—and followed their attempt to build beauty out of their forced abrupt transition from childhood to adulthood.
In the end, this was a play about hope and faith, and both main characters enacted this necessary warmth beautifully. Their chemistry was lovely throughout, and the slow unravelling of their love story was poignantly demonstrated throughout the minutiae of Marks’ direction; the audience was warmly invited into their intimacy. The transition between emotionally draining monologues and witty quick-fire dialogue was tackled expertly—reminding the audience of the polyphonic way in which grief and love criss-cross over daily reality. The production placed an emphasis on the childish innocence present within both of the main characters, using tactful costumes and light-hearted interactions which resonated in the gravity of the story’s circumstances.
The tense-and-release aspect of the play was impressive, as the script moved from jokes about science fiction films to doubts about faith and the value of life with dizzying speed. The entire production felt like a collaborative project between the creative team and audience to navigate these questions, and the audience left having confronted the full range of emotions they conjure. This production is intimate, warm, and touching, and handled the huge topics it grappled with extreme sensitivity. “I love it all”, says Jenny, as she imagines the vastness of humanity and the miscellany of experience we call life—and I did. I loved it all.
Iffley Open House (IOH) squatters, currently using an old VW garage owned by Wadham College as a homeless shelter, have been told by the college that they have two weeks to leave the site, according to the group.
The group say that in January, the leaseholders of the ground floor of the building, the Mid-Counties Co-Operative, negotiated a lease to allow the squatters to stay until 10 April.
However, Wadham confirmed this week that it had terminated the Co-op’s lease and intend to take legal possession of the property at the end of February, in order to move forward with plans to redevelop the site into student accommodation. Wadham reiterated that the college’s “intentions and time-line remain the same as previously and consistently stated”.
In a statement, the college said: “From the start of the occupation, we have made it clear that the squatters could not remain beyond 27 February, when the site is required for pre-demolition works. We welcome the renewed commitment from representatives of Iffley Open House that, as they have always promised us, they will adhere to this time-line and vacate the property by this date.”
Since New Year’s Eve the group have being using the building to house up to 20 homeless people. They have been providing cooked meals, washing facilities, as well as providing skills to held the residents find new work.
IOH say that since opening the shelter, two residents have been rehoused, one has been accepted into University, a further two have started new jobs, and several others are awaiting responses from job applications.
Cherwell understands that there are 13 residents currently staying in the shelter, who could be forced back on to the streets. The group are calling on the local community and council authorities to help them find a new space to house the residents from 27 February should the homeless squatters not find alternative accommodation.
Sandra Phillips, a volunteer at Iffley Open House said: “This space has changed lives. We are concerned that we have to move on before the end of winter, but hopeful we can find a new home and we are determined to continue working with and supporting the residents.
“So much has been achieved in the last six weeks – in total we have provided 600 nights of warm, safe accommodation, almost 200 volunteers have given their time and thousands more have given donations and have sent messages of support. This shows what is possible when we work together as a community.”
Wadham stated its “profound sympathy for the plight of the homeless in Oxford,” and said that it remained in regular communication with IOH representatives. The college said it was in contact with “members of the local council and local housing charities to encourage their attempts to find alternative accommodation for this homeless group, whom we have been happy to shelter temporarily at the Iffley Road site for several weeks.”
Existing all around us, but disregarded by most, are the greatest societies the world has ever known. Dating back over 100 million years, they have influenced our climate and drastically engineered the environments in which we live. No, these are not some laser-shooting invaders from space hell, but the humblest of conquerors, going about their day to day lives in the shadows. These are the social insects—the ants, termites and bees, unique in their ability to form colonies numbering into the millions of individuals.
Though genetically diverse, the social insects are grouped together due to their similar societal structures, centred around a single reproductive ‘queen’ who serves no other functioning role except to produce the brood. In most cases, all the other individuals in a colony are the queen’s offspring, called the ‘workers’. They raise the brood, forage for food, and act as the colony’s defence force. In some species the workers are divided into different role-based ‘castes’, ranging from large ‘soldiers’ which act as the first line of defence with their powerful mandibles, to the tiny ‘minims’ which carefully tend the brood. Such specialised division of labour allows optimisation of both colony resources and time.
Bees, like us, are primarily visual creatures, having compound eyes sophisticated enough to sense coloured light. They use their vision to locate flowers, the source of their food, but then must relay this information back its colony-mates back at the hive. It does this by performing an elaborate routine colloquially known as the ‘waggle dance’. The bee will dance in a figure of eight, and as it crosses over from one side to the other it will ‘waggle’ its abdomen, releasing various pheromones according to the type of food to be found. The direction of the food source from the hive is conveyed by the direction in which the bee is waggling. The dance is also able to express the distance of the food through the exact duration of the waggle portion.
Such modes of communication are sufficient when the hive is composed of perhaps only a few hundred individuals, but in some insect societies the population can exceed that of humanity’s greatest cities. Termites, for example. Termites set themselves apart due to their unique success in architecture. Across vast swathes of the Australian and African savannah stand imposing mounds up to seven metres tall and 30 metres wide. If the average length of a termite was one centimetre, and we take the average human height to be 1.65 m, this would be equivalent to humans building a structure well over a kilometre high. But writing off these chimneys as mounds of dirt would be terribly naïve. Termites’ towers are meticulously constructed ventilation systems designed to keep the actual colony conditions, located deep underground, at a perfect temperature and humidity for termite life. Termites are the greatest architects on the planet, and success on this scale could never be achieved without their ability to communicate and co-operate.
It is easy to be unsettled by the ‘mindless’ efficiency of these insect super-societies, in which each individual is willing to sacrifice its reproduction, independence, and even its life to preserve the colony as a whole. Could our society be heading in a similar direction, prioritising efficiency over individuality? Our never-ending scramble towards greater productivity, from intensive agricultural techniques to increasingly rapid mass communication, means that with each passing year we may ever more aptly be described as a super-society.
For more like this, pick up the Communication Issue of Bang! Science Magazine in fifth week
In 1926, Coco Chanel revolutionised women’s fashion when she published her famous sketch of a simple black dress in Vogue magazine. Favouring simplicity over superfluity, she transformed a colour that had previously been part of strict mourning uniform into a symbol of practical elegance and style. Since then, the little black dress has become a staple in every modern woman’s wardrobe. It’s classy, understated, and slimming. More to the point it’s safe. In Karl Lagerfeld’s words, who took on the Parisian fashion house in 1983, “if you’re wearing black you’re on sure ground”. No matter what happens, black will always be ‘in fashion’.
Our style obsession with the colour has more to it than its uncanny ability to make you appear two sizes smaller though. Rather it stems from black’s duality, changing status, and symbolism. For black can be traced throughout history to have represented both authority and humility, wealth and austerity, rebellion and conformity. It’s a highly powerful colour, with strong subversive tones. In fact, when Chanel rebelled against the melancholy social restrictions on women’s fashion by reinventing black in womenswear, she was joining a long line of non-conformists who had utilised the colour before her, and would continue to do so over the course of the next century. It is this rebellious quality that has ensured the colour’s status as timeless.
Black clothing has been appropriated by many subversive political groups in western history. During the Renaissance, black was adopted by the rising orders as a symbol of wealth and authority. The mercantile and banking classes of the Northern Italian city states had been banned from wearing any garment of colour under measures known as the Sumptuary Laws. Black was the second best luxury, and so they welcomed the tone into their outfits as a sign of their underlying power. The colour’s luxurious reputation was reversed upon the eruption of the Protestant Reformation in Europe though, as Calvinists donned black robes in a demonstration of austerity. The sombre shade once more became a symbol of opposition, this time to the rich colours of the Catholic clergy’s vestments.
18th century political revolutionaries in France would later too adopt black clothing in retaliation to the pastel palette of an enlightened elite, demonstrating their humility. Whilst the paramilitary wing of the Italian fascist party came to be known as the ‘blackshirts’ after the attire they wore in the 1922 March on Rome, asserting their subversive political authority in the colour of their uniforms.
Black has also been the colour of choice for non-conformist social and intellectual movements over the last two centuries. The Romantic poets Keats and Byron assumed the colour into their melancholy identity, using it to set them apart as a movement. And in the 1950s, black came to symbolize intellectual individualism in New York and San Francisco when the Beatniks donned their famous black turtleneck sweaters, berets, and dark glasses as a mark of identification for the academic subculture.
Perhaps most famously, black became the uniform of the London youth culture of the ‘70s and ‘80s. Goth and punk sub-cultures assumed bondage trousers, biker boots and heavy eyeliner in an act of teenage expressionism, rebelling against the brighter colours worn by their parents’ generation. Rei Kawakubo famously cemented black’s rebellious reputation then in her 1981 debut of label Comme des Garçons. The dark, ripped, and hole-ridden outfits paraded down the runway were the epitome of anti-fashion, serving as a reminder that black has long been the colour of expressionism and subversion.
No other colour could conceivably unite punks and Calvinists as black has done. But black has a uniquely versatile history, and deep founded associations with individuality that means it will continue to be appropriate for years to come. As long as we have reason to evolve and rebel, we will always come back to black.
