Inns of Court

The Inns of Court
How fortunate to have a retired barrister guiding us. I don’t think a tour guide or even a history teacher could gain access to the Inns of Court; or tell us what it feels like to wear a wig. The Royal Court is huge, and another place we got lost in; so many halls and steps and passageways. But I am surprised that it was so quiet. Walk through the Los Angeles County Superior Courthouse even at 8 in the morning, and you will encounter lawyers and clients sitting on benches all along the hallways, prepping for court. When I go walking in downtown LA, I can spot the lawyers, big briefcases, small suitcases on wheels, and folders of even more paperwork. But no wigs and lace collars.
The lecture highlighted the differences in our system. The UK does not recognize the separation of church and state. As the guide pointed out, Christ, not the blind lady, sits astride their building. There are bishops in the House of Lords passing laws still. And of course, this is not a republic, but a constitutional monarchy, although England has no written constitution. Unwritten common law rules the government.
No death penalty. That is quite a change from the past, with the chopping off of heads and quartering the still living victims in front of a cheering public.
But we have many links also. The basic right to a trial, to counsel, and the presumption of innocence is shared in our systems, although the right to remain silent is interpreted differently in the UK. Silence is a right, but the UK defendant cannot add on to his original silent testimony. Rules of evidence apply in these courts, although I neglected to ask the lecturer if British courts abided by precedents, as we do in the US And the UK moved to establish a Supreme Court rather than having the House of Lords as the final court of appeal has lead to a further separation of power in the UK.
Whose Bill of Rights came first? Go to court, and its the “People versus . . ” not quite so intimidating as the “Queen versus ...” Training in the law upholds these older traditions in the UK. But Parliament seems to act fairly quickly in passing laws. In the US, of course, one goes to law school -- big name school or night community college; one only has to pass the bar exam, and go looking for work.
Most fascinating: jury selection. In UK, more random: first 12 in the box and it’s a go. In Los Angeles I have served on jury duty maybe a dozen times. When I was just a student, I was acceptd many times. Later on, as a social worker or a high school teacher, I was always excused. If I told you the reasons why, you probably wouldn’t believe me.

Contemporary British Politics

Summary: the speaker reviewed the recent history in British politics going back to the days of Margaret Thatcher, focusing on Tony Blair, the national optimism in the early days of his time in office, and the transition to Gordon Brown. The question section covered political topics like term length restrictions, party discipline, law making, and representation.

Interesting: at least twice the speaker expressed that he wished the British government was more like the U.S. government, particularly in the separation of power. I guess it is not unexpected, as he described small government to be a tenant of the conservative party. Personally, I have little experience in politics in most of its forms, but in a project for a political science class choose two parties to study closely and compare. I chose the Green and the Libertarian parties. Because these two parties have separate favorite issues, I had little to compare. Either party begins with very specific interests; the Libertarian party is interested first in a more even distribution of power, placing faith in the decision-making abilities of the average citizen, the Green party is interested in conservation of natural resources, and minimizing the impact of human activity on the planet. As major political parties, the British conservative and labor parties have to maintain a stance on a much more expansive range of issues, while being different from each other. It seems in times of great polarization or assimilation, I am disenchanted as a voter and tend to wax apathetic about participating in elections et c. as a means of making a positive impact on my society. This is where I get hypocritical. Assuming I were more motivated about social justice and activism, I would focus my energy first immediately around me, if I did not have a special issue I was concerned about that was centered in another geographic location (e.g. Darfur, Haiti, Tibet et c.). But I would focus on local because people are generally more concerned about problems if they are directly involved and believe that they can witness evidence of their own power. Being more active where I was would hopefully multiply my influence if I could make other people care, too. This is not to say I would not vote in general elections, but it would be a small part of my role as a citizen; secondary, if not purely symbolic.

Tie to Major: much ink is spilled in politics; there is always a need for somebody to write something. Ever since that bright person so long ago figured out a way to earn a living by sitting at a desk and writing things on paper instead of plowing a field or making a barrel, the bureaucrat has been a social fixture. On the humanities side, many of the most influential political texts in history are considered literature today (e.g. "Das Kapital," "Mein Kampf," "The Prince"). Novelists, poets, and other artists have changed the course of policy making and revolutions as much as politicians and activists. Other works are important for their commentary, such as Thomas Mann's "The Magic Mountain," forecasting the first world war, or T. S. Eliot's "The Waste Land," expressing the incredible destruction that followed.

Imperial War Museum: WWII and Fashion

The artifact I chose comes from the Children’s War exhibit, more towards the back in the quick area on food rationing, showing how people had to conserve fabrics and materials and had to make their clothes out of old garments and reuse fabrics or material from other items. I was very interested in this exhibit section since I have a minor in fashion and because I’ve never really heard about how they had to ration/save clothing, though it should be a given. The focus is usually on how they had to ration food or luxuries like silk stockings, but I forgot about how material and clothing we take for granted were scarce too. In the photo I took above, each garment was made out of an item or fabric that was something completely different.

The cape on the right hand side was made out of an old felt blanket and (you can’t tell in the photo) the trimming on the coat was just painted on with what looked like red paint. The dress on the left hand side was actually made out of old cloth maps that had been provided to the citizens. I thought it was actually a great idea to make garments by reusing materials especially since now a-days the focus is on being green and recycling. It would be great if people were crafty enough now as well to make garments out of unused materials. The little boys outfit in the middle was featured in a propaganda advertisement on the wall nearby showing how people needed to make their child’s outfit last for a couple of years by making the outfit roomy. It showed an example of a boy’s short jumper could fit a boy of say eight but then also fit him in five years while he’s taller as well (though it kind of looked ridiculous on the much taller older boy).

Imperial War Museum- Ali Mazzulo

Imperial War Museum

The object that stood out to me the most in the museum was a specific image that came on the video screen in the “Children's War” section of the museum. When you enter the childrens war area it is directly in front of you with images and captions of children who survived the war on the left and plaques of some who did not survive on the right. The image was of a little girl in her mother’s arms looking absolutely terrified. Her eyes are completely shut and she is just screaming with this horrible look of terror. Surely this image was taken during the air raids from the Germans on London. The timing of this was 1939-1940, after World War II was declared and the Germans immediately began their attack, with a specific aim to destroy London in 1940. I think this specific image was important because it showed the fear and distress that innocent children went through. Almost all of the other images I saw on that video screen were of children either looking sad or confused if anything. This image stood out to me and really broke my heart and made me feel even more for what everyone went through in London during World War II. After having heard the lecture on WWI and WWII and actually going to museum and seeing what the bombs, for example, that killed so many people looked like, really affected me. I had never learned the details of what Londoners went through specifically during WWII with the air raids from the Germans before our lecture in class. I cannot even fathom living every day life with Morrison Shelters, gas masks and the looming threats of bombs. Actually living in London now allows me to visualize where this all happened and makes it all the more real and scary.

Social Class (We aint got no stinking class)

BLOG
I like the term, “social stratification,” which, in the context of geology, suggests hardened layers, possibly unchangeable ones. I cannot imagine a lecturer asking a large group in that cavernous auditorium to respond to questions, but he had hopes, anyway. His definition of the British upper class as the rural landowning wealthy descended from a long ago initial mercantile class was a sharp contrast to the American rural, often ridiculed as redneck, sometimes supported as our “Heartland”, and contaminated by the Populist movements over the last hundred or so years.
American class consciousness came and went rather quickly. Social Democrats like FDR took their momentum and energy to rebuild our “broken society” eighty years ago. What fascinates is that it remains an open question about what determines class in our country. As the British developed into a democracy, the vote was established as the right of property owners. The writers of the American Constitution apparently had similar ideas. But they favored allowing the government to be run by an intelligent, caring Elite, who would also be responsive to their constituents (hence, our two house system, very much different from British Parliament). The satirical film clip made a point, though: the Elite see themselves as having privilege but also responsibility. Our American Elite I think develops from the notion of how old a family is -- new wealth compared to old wealth, how long a family has lived in America, how many generations have continuously been included in the Elite. That is our status -- my group of emigrants has been here longer than yours. We rose up by our bootstraps, yours are wastrels, welfare queens, illegals, etc. (Note: My Irish forebears were the original wetbacks -- they jumped ship in New York or Boston and swam ashore, fearing rejection).
Fascinating, too: Those British rejects (not just criminals and orphans, but also the not-first born sons of the wealthy who stood to inherit no land and little or nothing else) became the conquerors who created “new” cultures by destroying the old ones they found in the new land. Both Thomas Harriot, in A Brief and True Report of the New Found Land of Virginia, and John Smith’s A Description of New England, were pitch pieces written in the early 17th century, trying to sell adventurous Brits to come to the new land, invest what money they had, and get rich quick. Lacking nobility, the lecture continues, we invented an Elite, based on gender, income, property ownership, and a definite sense of upper class privilege and responsibility to the less fortunate. That the general public insists on voting for people who are “just like us” indicates the Populist distrust and fear of that Elite. So, like it or not, we deserved George Bush and we will equally deserve Sarah Palin or Glen Beck next time around.

Imperial War Museum

Inside the main hall sits one of the few remaining Mark V British tanks. It is green, and on one side the armor has been replaced with a sheet of transparent acrylic. The side open for view allows patrons to get a better idea of life inside a tank. I was surprised to see wooden floorboards, as I associate tanks with the era of guided rockets and gunmetal. It follows that the tank was a product of the first series of tanks ever made. Called into existence from the requirements bred of the first World War, namely a need cross trenches and resist machine gun fire, these 'tanks' (the intentionally ambiguous name was intended to maintain some secrecy) did allow for some headway. The first iteration was as much a hazard to the crew as to the enemy. The inside was a single chamber, engine, crew, and all. Poisonous engine exhaust and hot shells were formidable occupational hazards. Though a far cry from the tanks of today, Mark V featured important improvements; one of the most important, as noted in the display, is that the vehicle required only one driver. As tank technology improved, anti-tank technology followed closely behind. Armor-piercing rifle rounds, special grenades, and new tactics diminished the imposing presence that tanks could take on. One of the themes associated with the conflicts of the first half of the 20th century is the advances in technology. In the Britain at War lecture I think it was, Bob noted that when the first world war began, all sides maintained and used cavalry on the battlefield; at the end of the second world war, atomic weapons had been made and used. He said something like, "in a period of approximately 30 years, advances in technology were made that seemed like the should have taken 300 years." In terms of battlefield function, tanks replaced mounted soldiers when barbed wire and machine guns made them ineffective. The progression of advances in warfare technology before the 20th century has high points, such as chain-male, fortified buildings, and siege-works. One of the most significant developments, if not the most, was gunpowder. A literal revolution in warfare, where the best defenses, such as castles, quickly amounted to nothing against an enemy with canons and firearms. As gunpowder changed war dramatically since the 14th century, the internal combustion engine predicated the unbelievable advances in the 20th; tanks, submarines, aircraft, and ultimately the atomic bomb, would not be possible with it. Perhaps the next paradigm shift will be robots, lasers, or teleporting.

the idea of class in sociology

summary: identifiy characteristics of the idea of 'class' in sociology, using primarily the United Kingdom and the United States as examples.

interesting: rather than exposing new methods or ideas, the lecturer challenged our current ideas and definitions, reducing them to their elements. I wake up to learning when the lineage of technical terms is traced; the term here "stratification," its earth science roots, and its usage as a sociological term, already exposes latent ideas about class. Layers of rock may intermingle at points, but for the most part are discrete. There are people that can doubtlessly be identified as a member of a certain class and be placed somewhere in the hierarchy. However, as rock strata form serially and permanently, social levels materialize almost instantly, out of order, and actively change in size. At the end of the lecture, I recognized the class is complicated, that it relies on a balance of many factors. On the topic of red neck culture compared to upper class British culture (rural land owner), the parallels were fascinating; I wonder, what are the differences? Scarcity? Do red necks have low status and British elites high because of the availbility of land in either location?

tie to major: as an English major, I noted his references to the differences in speech between social classes. The whole lecture could be generalized as a matter of semantics (what do people mean by 'class'), a discussion that all language specialists should feel a large responsibility for starting and encouraging. I think that most conflicts, political, philosophical, religious, etc, come from semantic problems. In other words, we could save a great deal of trouble if we took the time to stop and clearly define our terms, positions, problems. Especially in cultures that in a pinch encourage being polite at the cost of being less honest.

Imperial Wara Museum - not a three hour trip

IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM

This is an intriguing museum to visit. There is not so much a split in perception as ascending layers of recognition. We begin on the ground level – the machines of war, the knowledgeable minds put to work to make war machines that go faster, kill in bigger numbers, and distance man further and further away from the killing. The machines fascinate in their World War I clumsiness, with rapid improvements only twenty years away, the machines of two wars seen side by side here. Relevant statistic: 95% of war casualties prior to 1900 were military; around 2000, 95% civilian (again, improved machinery, long distance battles). Interesting exhibit: the Carfibeans coming to Mother England during and just after W.W.II. And Lawrence’s motorbike.
Up the stairs: the portrait gallery. The huge portrait by John Singer Sargent must have insrired the battle scene in the movie Atonement. It’s all there: the wounded leading the wounded, the beach, the pain. The faces of war stare at us, and one cannot tell on whose side these people fought. Bitter faces, screaming ones, smiling men with thumbs up. This is the real stuff. Another stairway, and here is a special exhibit: war posters form Europe, Britain , Ireland , and USA . A familiar story erupts. The enemy is a monster. We are beautiful and dedicated. The Russian and German posters are impressive: men, naked to the waist, tools in hand, their women, strong and beautiful. The Brits tell stories of Hun atrocities, of a classless army marching shoulder to shoulder. The USA : flag and country. The competing posters from German Christian Democrats and Social Democrats scream across the room at each other. The Spanish Fascists and Communists hint that a bigger war is on the horizon. Did men always gaze at these posters and proceed to man the barricades?
Progressively more brutal: next level: the Holocaust Museum . This is the most intense exhibit I have ever seen, much more detailed than others, and frightening. There is a tunnel framed in wood one walks through. Frightening. The photographs, the rows of shoes, spectacles, teeth, the remains of the dead. Did the Nazis really take all these photos and moving pictures? And why? And for whom?
And finally, a new exhibit in the same area; one cannot go any further. “Crimes Against Humanity” is a documentary film linking the atrocities of the past fifty years. Germany , Cambodia , Viet Nam , Bosnia , Rwanda : always there is a “them” that must be exterminated for “our” survival. The bodies, the weapons, and the faces of victims on both sides remind us that the ancient ways of thinking will continue to slaughter us. There are the accusations, the accusers, the ones who said they had no choice. And, finally, over the littered bodies of Tutsis on an African road, a voice, singing, “Tutsi are dead; God is just.”
And in the basement: more photos of civilians caught in war zones; spend a while in a W.W.I trench, or a London bombshelter during the Blitzkrieg And find the clock counting off the war dead. How many die while we toured the museum. This is a war museum that sees few heroes; that rather asks that there be no new exhibits.