Raise a Pint at the Pub!
Pubs make up one of the vital parts of the culture of London. They have been at the center of British social life for almost a thousand years. They are the place where people come together for a meal or a drink, to relax after work, and to meet up with friends. They are a welcome place to anyone regardless of class, age, background, or ethnicity. In line with Turner, the pubs are an excellent “text.”A person can learn all there is to know about London by simply spending time in the various pubs talking to the many people who drift through them on a daily basis.
Since the first century, pubs, or “public houses” have been the symbol for social life in Great Britain. They were originally called ale houses because that is where the ale was brewed for the town. The alewife would put a green bush on a pole when the ale was ready and the townspeople would flock to the house. The ale houses became a place where the people could meet and socialize and settle issues within the community (Wilson). In this way, pubs have largely remained unchanged. They are still a place where people can come together for some good gossip and conversation.
Much of history has happened or been recorded within pubs in London. The Mayflower pub originally called the Shippe was the place where Christopher Jones picked up his passengers to sail to the new world. Ye Olde Watling was the pub built by the architect of St. Pauls to accommodate the laborers building the cathedral. The Mitre Tavern has a preserved trunk of a cherry tree built into the corner of the front of the pub that Elizabeth I danced the maypole around. The Anchor is where the writer Samuel Pepys sat and witnessed The Great Fire of London in 1666. Charles Dickens used the George Inn as settings for some of his novels, and William Shakespeare acted in its courtyard. Karl Marx lived next door to and frequented the Crown and Two Chairmen pub. And the Cask and Glass is said to be the Queens Pub because it is the nearest to Buckingham Palace (Knowledge of London). Pubs have also been great hangouts for people like George Orwell, Samuel Johnson, Oscar Wilde, and others. Stories like these go on and on about the various pubs in London. There is little need for a person to buy a history book of London. They can learn London’s history just by visiting the pubs.
Just the name “public house” shows that pubs are more than just a place for booze and for grabbing a bite to eat. The word “house” shows that the pubs are a place that people can be comfortable and call home. They can relax and unwind from their day. It symbolizes that when people are at the pub they can be themselves. The word “public” shows that everyone is welcome and there are no stipulations or requirements for those who wish to enter. There are around 3,000 pubs in London with one on almost every street corner. In this way pubs are one of the few establishments that surpass the boundaries of class, status, and background. They are in every neighborhood and so they are able to serve an incredible number of diverse people. It is also interesting that unlike other places in London, the pubs rarely have a take-away menu. They encourage people to come and stay and have a drink or something to eat. They are not trying to hurry its customers out.
The look of the pubs is also significant. A writer for the Evening Standard once commented, “From Victorian grandeur to the glamour of art deco, each is a magnificent watering hole that has avoided being swallowed by a faceless chain (Wilson).” Every part of the look of the pub has significance. In 1393 King Richard II decreed pubs must have signs so that the tester of ales would know the location of each pub. The pubs also made these signs pictorial because a large part of the population was illiterate (Knowledge of London). The pictorial signs are still up today in most pubs and usually symbolize where the pubs name comes from.
The look of the pubs can definitely be read as a text. They are a perfect mix of old and new, which is also something indicative of London. The outsides of pubs typically look Victorian and decorative, far from modern. The use of old English writing shows something of prestige, history and class. The flowering boxes show beauty and a sense of the country being in the city. The outsides of almost all the London pubs are uniform they all look about the same, but the insides can vary greatly and this is where the new steps in. Many pubs will boast high definition flat screen TV’s, lottery machines, and digital music players. Some will have seating that looks like something from IKEA while others will have miss-match furniture that looks like it came from several garage sales and antique stores. The music will typically be a mix of the top-40’s and get really loud after around 7:30 at night.
This mix of old and new within the pubs really symbolizes what the city of London represents. It is an excellent preservation of its history and background, but at the same time moving forward and embracing what post-modern life and culture has to offer. This is a “text” evident throughout the city and so it is natural that the pubs would characterize this as well.
Another thing that is really striking about the pubs and London culture is the alcohol consumption. People in London start drinking as early as 4 in the afternoon and it is not uncommon to have a couple drinks during your lunch break at work. Alcohol does not carry the stigma here that it does in the states. Someone will not be sent to rehab if found drinking alcohol at both lunch and dinner daily. Many pubs are built right next to churches. People here are comfortable with alcohol. They don’t put it on a pedestal the way the states do. While talking to some locals at the pub they mentioned that, “You Americans are crazy when it comes to alcohol. You see alcohol as a form of rebellion. You don’t know how to control yourselves. Over here, yes we have fun with alcohol, but we’re not going crazy. It’s just another part of everyday life.” Before the 20th Century even children drank ale. Maybe if Americans wouldn’t make alcohol to be more than it is we wouldn’t have the problems that we have today.
One of the issues surrounding the pubs in London today is the fact that so many of them are being bought up by these large beer and alcohol companies. All around London these pubs are bought and many are standardized to have the same look, which means sometimes changing the original structure of the pub. Many people are upset by this because it takes away from the uniqueness of the pubs and almost just creates another generic chain. At the same time though, in the last 20 or so years pubs have really been suffering and many have had to close. With the chains buying some of them up, many have survived that may not have. What the people of London have to decide is how much they want their local pub to last. Are they willing to let it be bought by a chain if that means it will still be there the next day when they are craving that daily ale after work? Hopefully some of the alcohol and beer companies will retain the individualism of the pubs they purchase and leave them just the way they are to preserve the vast history that is within them.
Works Cited
Knowledge of London. 2008. 10 July 2009; knowledgeoflondon.com.
Turner, Graeme. British Cultural Studies. London: Routledge, 2003.
Wilson, Bo. “London Pubs, Where Time Has Stood Still.” Evening Standard, January 2006: 50-51.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
“The Buddha of Suburbia” was a pretty intriguing book. It was both serious and very comical at times. Each character was highly developed and this allowed the reader to get a complete picture of what kind of people each of them were. The book touches on all areas of society from high and low, rich and poor, the outcasts and the privileged, minorities, old and young, experimenters and conservatives, traditional and new age. Each of these different traits is expressed by various characters and this really enables the book to be something very diverse and at the same time something that a lot of people can relate to.
One theme that really stood out to me in the book was decisions and there affect on people. I feel like almost all the characters at one time or another in this book had to make a decision that would either hurt others or themselves. They all had to struggle with the question of, do I make the decision that will benefit me and possibly hurt others, or do I make the decision that will not necessarily be in my best interest but will appease others? Should we avoid our unhappiness or the unhappiness of others?
The first person to really struggle with this question is Karim’s father. He must make the decision to go be with Eva who he really loves and is the most happy with or stay with his wife and family who will be broken if he leaves. While Haroon is struggling with this decision Karim comments, “hearts were slowly breaking while nothing was being said (87).” Already making the choice to be intimate with Eva has hurt his family, but it could hurt his family more if he leaves. Karim struggles for the rest of his life with the decision that his dad made in leaving his mom. He states at one point, “Mum’s wretchedness was the price Dad had chosen to pay for his happiness (116).” He is always bothered and angered by it. He loves Eva but he still thinks his father’s decision was selfish. After his father moves in with Eva, Karim stops referring to him as god. This decision completely alters the way Karim views his father.
But at the same time, Haroon wasn’t happy. His life had lost adventure and drive. He thought he could regain these things by being with Eva. Karim’s mother wasn’t happy either. She spent her life slaving away for the men in her life with little return. The one who is hurt most by the decision is Karim. But do we make the decision that will benefit 3 people (Haroon, Karim’s mother, and Eva) or make the decision that will be beneficial for one person (Karim)? Karim even questions at one point, “Is there anything you can do about anyone (106)?” which suggests that maybe we should just make decisions for ourselves not caring about the consequences for anyone else.
Another character who must make a decision like this is Jamila. She must decide whether to follow her free spirit and reject her father’s wishes to marry Changez or give in and keep her father from killing himself. Karim must decide if he will play Changez in the play against Changez’s wishes although he knows the character will be great. Karim states, “If I defied Changez, if I started work on a character based on him…it meant I was untrustworthy, a liar. But if I didn’t use him it meant I had fuck-all to take to the group (186).” In the end most of these decisions worked out for the good. Karim’s mum is better off with a new man, Jamila ends up living the life she wants even while married to Changez and Changez ends up being proud of the character Karim plays.
Sometimes it is as if you just have to make a decision either way and just hope for the best. Things aren’t always black and white, someone always benefits, and someone always loses. But, making the decision is always better than not because the pain someone may experience from the decision is never worse than the pain from being stuck in limbo with no decision. At least when someone makes a decision you can move on and go from there. I think Kureishi expresses this point through the characters in this novel beautifully.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Experience on the London Eye
The London Eye was definitely something I had looked forward to every since arriving in London. I have always enjoyed Ferris wheels and the feeling of being up high and what a different perspective that puts on things. The Eye was really an incredible piece of machinery. Between the giant pods that could hold 20-30 people and its towering height, it was a bit intimidating. It definitely resembled something futuristic.
From the London Eye you can see many famous buildings and churches. Buckingham Palace, Big Ben, Parliament, Westminster Abbey, and St. Paul’s Cathedral are just a few of the famous places visible while riding on the eye. One thing that stood out to me while in the eye was Buckingham Palace. I had gone to see the palace they day before and found it to be very beautiful, but somewhat unimpressive considering all the other castles and palaces I have visited on this trip. However, from the sky Buckingham Palace was much more striking. From the eye I could see that the palace was almost completely surrounded by trees and that there was a river that flowed away from it in front. There is also a park and gardens nearby. The nature that surrounds the palace is impressive. It almost secludes the palace which is a hard thing to do in a city as big as London. To me, seeing Buckingham Palace from the eye really made it much more appealing. The way it is surrounded by trees and on its own makes it seem a lot more extraordinary than just seeing it from the ground. I liked the way the eye was able to give me this different perspective of it.
The first photo is from the ground and the second photo is from the eye.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
The Tate Modern & Modernism
The Tate Modern reflects its name in every way. It was definitely different from any museum I have been to yet on this trip. The first difference was in the architecture and design. Other museums, like the Louvre and the National Gallery follow a more Greco-Roman architectural style. They use lots of columns, intricately designed moldings, marble floors, etc. Each room has nicely hung paintings all spread out and evenly lined up around the room. The Tate museum was totally different. The outside of the building was nothing spectacular. It was large, but had nothing that really drew your eye to it. The inside was also very different than the typical museum. Before you entered each gallery there were signatures all over the wall of the various artists that the gallery housed and scribbles of the names of the exhibitions. Inside the galleries the pictures weren’t always neatly lined up and spaced apart and you would find that sometimes there would be portraits up and down the walls not just at eye level. There were also pieces of art built into some of the rooms. Wood tacked to the wall, concrete in a corner, rope on the floor, or a palm tree spread on the ground. Even the artwork was very different. Much of the art in the Tate Modern was distorted. The paintings weren’t always clear and it wasn’t easy for the viewer to always know what exactly the picture was of.
All of these differences really help to show Modernism within the museum. Much of the artwork is crude, showing a lot of unabashed nakedness and violence. These reveal how, in Modernism, people were beginning to believe that humans were no longer above nature. They had the same drives and instinctual habits that the animals did. A lot of the paintings and art didn’t necessarily make sense and showed the irrationality of man. This was especially shown through the work of artists like Picasso and Francis Bacon. Also perception is really challenged within the Tate Modern. A lot of the worked is titled “untitled,” and it is almost left to the viewer to decide what the piece of art is to them.
My favorite works within the museum were two paintings by Marlene Dumas. They hung right next to each other and were titled “Ivory Black” & “Lead White.” One is a self-portrait of the artists who is white and the other is of a black girl. The title of the paintings comes from the name of two different oil paints. It would seem odd to most to have a color of paint that is both black and white, but this actually shows that the division between black and white isn’t as substantial as we think it is. The work also talks about apartheid and how the colors black and white aren’t as separate as we think they are. This really stuck out to me because apartheid is what I talked about in my blog for the Tower of London. These two paintings were both somewhat revealing of the women they displayed, but very beautiful. It was also as if putting them side by side made them even more beautiful especially since they were created with these blended oil paints.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
The characters in this novel fascinate me. Each one is so unique and so real. The reader is able to hear each characters thought processes so completely. Virginia Woolf is very skilled in using the technique of stream of consciousness. This can be confusing at times but I feel that this is more natural because peoples thoughts are confusing! They don’t always follow a clear or organized pattern and I think that Woolf captures this so perfectly.
She even shows how everyone can be a little bit crazy at times, how we can all overreact and think thoughts that could be considered bad or innapropriate. Septimus is technically the character that is going crazy, but it is easy to see how the other characters are not far off from his state of mind. Doris Kilman is constantly fighting a battle with her self-esteem, Peter is fighting a battle of the heart and who he really loves, and Clarissa struggles with who she is and what she has done with her life and if she is really happy. Everyone is fighting a battle to just be content with where they are and who they are with and this makes them all a little bit crazy.
This book really shows how significant just one day really is. How so many things can happen and no one day should be taken for granted. At one point Clarissa says that she, “had the feeling that it was very, very dangerous to live even one day (8).” At times, I forgot that the events I was reading were taking place over just one day because of all that was going on and all the reminiscing of the characters.
Another theme that really struck me in this book is death and its various forms. The first form of “death” that I noticed, is death of a persons’ unique self and personality, especially for women. During this time period, women were so restrained and had so many expectations placed upon them. Society told them that their main focus should be to find the right husband with good status in society, settle down, and be a good supportive wife and mother. Be who your husband wants you to be. I believe that this is why Clarissa ends up with Richard. He is well off financially, a safe option for her, but from Clarissa’s thoughts it is easy to see he is not her true love. Her true affections lie between Peter and Sally, but going for either of these two individuals would be looked down upon and so she buries her affections and marries Richard, losing a little of herself as she becomes his wife.
The other character that experiences this form of death of individuality is Lady Bradshaw. Her husband says of her, “she embroidered, knitted, spent four nights out of seven at home with her son (99),” and he describes this as the ideal woman. The woman other women should model themselves after. This wasn’t her original nature though, this came about when they got together and he says, “there had been no scene, no snap; only the slow sinking, water-logged, of her will into his (100).” Her will, her individuality died and she took on his instead.
The other character that experiences a form of death in the novel is Septimus, which brings up the topic of the fear of death. People have always seen suicide as something horrific and sinful, no matter what the individual circumstance. Holmes calls Septimus a coward for commiting the act. It seems though that Woolf is trying to shed a different light on the act of suicide in this book. She presents Septimus as a very sympathetic character. One who is struggling significantly in this world, and cannot overcome the trauma he has experienced in the war. For Septimus, death is his only escape from the pain he experiences on earth. Clarissa even comments on Septimus’s suicide saying, “She felt glad that he had done it; thrown it away…He made her feel beauty (186).”
People are so afraid of what someone’s death will do to them that they forget that it might be the best thing for the person in that situation. This is the reason why nursing homes and hospitals are overrun with people just waiting for death. They are miserable, in agonizing pain, can barely remember others much less themselves and yet we consider it a horrible offense to put them out of their misery. Is this really showing our love for them by keeping them alive in this kind of condition? Yes, there are those who there is still hope, but death is something inevitable, it is foolish to pretend like we can escape it. This is the plight that the death of Septimus brings about and it seems as though Woolf is really trying to get people to see another side of suicide.
Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment
Both field trips today were really incredible. These were both places that were on my list of must-see things in London and so I was pretty excited to go.
My first impression at the Tower of London was how “untowerish” it actually was. Compared to all the buildings around it, it seemed very short and unimpressive. I was amazed that a place like this would be where the crown jewels were held. I did love the tour though, and the guide was very entertaining and informative. I also was very intrigued that Sir Isaac Newton had lived there and that Guy Fawkes had caused trouble and been killed there.
St. Paul’s was probably the most beautiful church I have ever been in. Of course I was impressed with Westminster, but I think that I will have to choose St. Paul’s as my favorite. I loved how open and uncluttered it was and I really liked that the large majority of the graves were in the basement and out of the area of worship. This to me was more representative of how a church should be set up without the distractions of numerous extravagant grave markers like in Westminster.
The first similarity I noticed about these two places was that they each had clearly defined areas to separate the nobility from the commoners. At the Tower of London the Queen and other nobility had their house, that was of course the largest and grandest of the abodes. The Yeoman had their place and the commoners theirs. The nobility did not walk around the outer streets in the tower to get in, but was instead carried into the Tower by a boat in the moat. Only nobility were buried within the church. All these things must have been a constant reminder to the commoners that they were beneath and less than.
It is the same within St. Paul’s Cathedral. There are designated areas in the church where the commoners can commune and worship and there are separate, usually elevated and loftier areas, that are for the priests and nobility. The extravagant graves and memorials in the church are almost always strictly for those who held positions of power and wealth. This also sends a message. Are only the people with the money and power good enough to be buried within the church, the place considered “closest” to God? This would almost make it seem to a commoner that there must be greater and grander places in Heaven for those who had the money, power, and status on earth, which is not what the Bible teaches.
The second comparison I noticed between the two places is that they are both towers in some form. They were both built to stretch towards the Heavens and the sky. This is to accentuate power, being ”closer” to God, and control. At one time, a person could stand at the top of either of these two places and look over the town beneath. This serves to exemplify to the townspeople that they are being watched. This could be seen as security because they could be watching over to make sure that you are safe. But this can also be seen as a way for the nobility to show that they are in control. They can watch you to make sure you are doing what they want and that your actions are in line with what they say is right.
Below are some pictures I took at each of the field trips. The first is of the outer walls of the Tower of London and I think it is easy to see that this place was pretty grand at one time. The second two are of the outside of St. Paul’s since we weren’t allowed to take pictures inside. Both exemplify the greatness of the church. It definitely makes a statement.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
The National Gallery
I really enjoyed visiting the national gallery. I had no idea how many famous paintings resided there. I was so excited to see the paintings of Michelangelo, da Vinci, Velazquez, Rembrandt, Monet, and Van Gogh. But one of my favorite artists has always been Renoir, so of course I probably spent the majority of my time studying his work.
The work of impressionists has always caught my eye because of the amazing colors they use to create scenes of everyday people and life. Renoir is a master at this. There are 4 Renoir paintings at the National Gallery. Each one is a little different but they all follow the same painting style. My favorite picture is called ”The Umbrellas.” I have always loved this picture because of 3 things. First I love the chaos in the background, all the umbrellas, and the mass of indistinguishable people. The colors are amazing and make you feel as if you are apart of the scene, as if you can feel what is happening. Secondly, I like the little girl with the slight grin who is not apart of the hustle and bustle. The 2 ladies with her, probably one of them is her mom are working to get through the crowd and the little girl is just calm and unaffected by the mass of people and umbrellas. She just stands there staring at you. Third, I am also intrigued by the woman on the left whose clothes are not like the others and she does not carry an umbrella. She reminds me of a free spirit and I want to know the story behind what she is doing out in the rain in the chaos without an umbrella just standing there. Her basket is empty and although a man is looking at her she is looking away towards us, the unknown.
The other painting I really liked from Renoir was “Gladioli in a Vase.” The flowers are so beautiful and so realistic. I love the way they are just tumbling out of the vase. The colors are so vivid and each hue is so bright. I like the way he draws the flowers without distinct edges as if they are all blending in to one another. It causes the eye to make the distinctions between each individual bloom. I know that he has a couple of peices at the Musee D’Orsay in Paris so hopefully this weekend I will be able to visit the museum and see those paintings.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Westminster Abbey
The field trip today to Westminster Abbey was incredible. It was very different and grander than I expected. I was amazed by how many kings, writers, scientists, etc. were buried there. I was blown away by the intricate design and architecture of the place. You could really tell that hundreds of people over several centuries had poured their heart into making this church spectacular.
I was kind of disturbed though by what I found to be a great contradiction within the church. The whole time I was walking around I kept noticing these incredibly elaborate graves and memorials. It was as if each grave were fighting to be even greater and more spectacular than the last. The people buried within the church and their memorials really seemed to be the vocal point of the Abbey. Which doesn’t seem right. Isn’t the church supposed to be centered around God and bringing its visitors closer to him? Many times I would forget I was even in a church because all of the focus seemed to be on its inhabitants. Yes, it was fascinating to see the graves of all these people, but it just seemed to really take away from the church’s true purpose. These graves also seemed to accentuate a hierarchy. The rich and royalty buried within the church with these elaborate grave markers seems to really seperate them from the common people. And doesn’t the Bible always talk about how everyone is equal in God’s eyes? Being in this church does not make one feel equal to the people buried there. I just felt like all the goudyness and memorials really took away from the churches true purpose and put the focus on something other than what its focus should be. Also, the fact that there is a memorial to Charles Darwin and that he is buried seems really contradictory. I just wonder if the church is striving towards appeasing people or towards appeasing God.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
The thing that stuck out to me the most about this book was the way that people are so easily decieved by beauty. Just because someone is nice to look at and has the appearance of beauty we assume that their qualities and personality must match the exterior.
From the beginning, Dorian Gray is praised and adored because of his boyish good looks. He is thought of as being wonderful and a delight to be around because of his appearance. Others become entranced and obsessed with him and his appearance. “There was something about Dorian Gray that charmed everyone (100).” Basil is consumed by Dorian. He says, “He is all my art now (13).” Lord Henry falls for him too. He says to Dorian in ch. 19,”You are quite perfect.Pray, don’t change (172).” He is completely fooled by Dorian’s facade. They describe him in ways of absolute desire and adorement. Sybil Vane was completely content before her “prince charming” came into her life and took away her original passion for the stage. She ultimately kills herself because of his rejection of her.
In chapter 12 when Basil comes to confront Dorian of his various sins he mentions over and over the countless people who fell under the influence of Dorians good looks and then were lead into destruction. And yet even after all this evidence it is still hard for Basil to see any evil in Dorian. He states, “But you Dorian, with your pure, bright, innocent face, and your marvelous untroubled youth-I can’t believe anything agianst you (126).” No one sees Dorian for who he really is. Dorian tries to admit to Harry afterward, the crime that he has commited and yet he still won’t belieive it. He states, “It is not in you Dorian, to commit a murder (175).” Everyone falls prey to his good looks. Lady Narborough states, “but you are made to be good- you look so good.” Agian, Dorian meets a girl in a village in the country and tells her that he is wicked and to that she laughs and says that, “wicked people are always very old and very ugly.”
This is not a theme just confined to this book. Disney movies constantly portray the good characters as being beautiful and young and the evil characters as ugly and horrid looking. Studies of school children show over and over that when children who are cute or good looking do bad things it is attributed to their surroundings. Such as, they have had a bad day or were confused as to what the rules were. But when less cute or unnattractive students do the same thing it is attributed to themselves. Such as, they are bad children or are prone to do naughty things. We, as human beings tend to assume that good looking people are more prone to have good attributes and to be trustworthy. I think that Wilde really uses this book to make the point that we must not be decieved by physical appearances and that we should learn to look first for what is on the inside of a person before we judge the morality of that person.
Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment
The thing that caught my attention the most at the London Museum was the section on the Anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa. This section was smaller and seemed kind of out of place considering all the other exhibits were more of a chronological history of the creation of the city of London. This is one of the reasons I was drawn to this area. I wanted to know why it was included when it really didn’t seem to have much to do with London as a city. The other reason I was drawn to the exhibit was that I wanted to know what apartheid meant since I had never seen that word before.
The word apartheid means “apartness.” This exhibit had to do with the outrageous segregation of the blacks in South Africa and the movements against this that took place from around 1920-1994. Before this exhibit I had always kind of known that there had been some kind of racial unrest in South Africa, but I had no idea the extent of it. I was shocked and saddened by the things I read in this exhibit. I found out that in 1910 South Africa became a part of the commonwealth of England. Segregation already existed in the country and when England took over they not only keep these laws in place but extended them further. They not only discriminated against blacks, but Indians as well causing India to ban trade with South Africa in 1946. The anti-apartheid movements in England and South Africa started up about this time, but were mostly unsuccessful. The movement wanted to break the links between South Africa and Britian so that Britian would not be associated with such a discriminating nation. South Africa was banned from the Olympics in 1964 because of their discrimination and was not allowed back in until 1992. Hundreds of people involved in the anti-apartheid movement were killed or tortured without trial for being a part of it. And in 1976 police officers fired on demonstrating high school students and killed 100 of them! Britian was also a major arms supplier to South Africa, and even though they were banned by the UN to provide weapons to the them, they continued to do it. It wasn’t until 1992 that blacks finally got their rights and were able to vote thanks to the help of Nelson Mandela.
I couldn’t believe how long it took for equality to take place in South Africa. Why are humans so prone to judge and think less of those who look different from them. I know I have my own stereotypes, but how does someone get to the point where they can justify killing a young student just because they want to be treated just like their fellow white students? I was especially surprised to find out that this racial discrimination was going on during my lifetime. I think I like to believe that horrible things like this happened in the past and don’t still continue to go on, but it just isn’t true. Inequality still exists today. Things may have been finally resolved in South Africa but it doesn’t mean that people are still treated fairly everywhere. I think that people really need to to be aware of these events and be careful about the way they think about and treat those that are different from them, because you never know when those discrimating thoughts and actions might turn into something much more.
These are some photos that I took of the exhibit. The first is of some of the apartheid laws and is displayed as part of the anti-apartheid movement to show how hideous the laws were. The second picture is interesting because it shows the address of the anti-apartheid movement which is 89 Charlotte St., just down from where we are staying. The last two picture are of signs and t-shirts for the movement.
Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment
Search
-
Blogroll
Recent Entries
- Raise a Pint at the Pub!
- Decision Making and The Buddha of Suburbia
- Experience on the London Eye
- The Tate Modern & Modernism
- Sanity and Death in Mrs. Dalloway
- Comparison Blog: Tower of London & St. Paul’s Cathedral
- The National Gallery
- Westminster Abbey
- Interior vs. the Exterior in Dorian Gray
- Field Trip to the Museum of London
- Research Project!
Categories
- Uncategorized (12)
