"This is England"

Previous lesson we watched a film called”This is England.” The film is written and directed by Shane Meadows. The film, which is characterized as a drama came out in 2006.

The film is about the skinhead subculture in England in the 1960. The subculture originated among the working class youth and was influenced by the mod culture and rude people. They shaved their heads and their clothing, music and lifestyle showed signs of West Indian and Jamaican influence. Originally, skinheads had no specific relation to politics but later they have become associated with racism.

In “This is England” we meet a 12-year old Shaun who lives with his mum. His dad died in the Falkland war. Shaun does not have many friends and he gets into a fight one day when someone at his school makes an offensive joke about his dad. He then gets in touch with skinheads on his way home. They are a lot older than he is but they accept him as one of them. The “leader” called Woody becomes some sort of a brother figure to Shaun. He also develops a romance with Smell, a girl with a punky new-wave type of style. Everything changes when a former member of the group, Combo, comes back from sentencing in prison. He is angry and tries to bring a nationalism into the group. Even if Milky, who is a black skinhead who has immigrated from Jamaica is a part of group, he tries to impose a conviction that immigrants and black people steal jobs from the British workers. Combo identifies with Shaun and becomes a father figure. Shaun adopts the racist and nationalist views and one day he even mugs his local shopkeeper who is also black. One day Combo snaps and beats Milky unconscious. The film ends when Shaun throws his flag, which is a symbol of the friendship with Combo, into the sea.

I really enjoyed this film. “This is England” nicely portrays the life of a young boy and how it is easy to be convinced by your friends to do things you would not have done otherwise. Especially if you do not have that many friends and are afraid of losing the ones you have. The film is also about the love and protection a mother has for her son. It was easy to indentify with the main characters even if the social environment of the film seems distant.

I can confirm that a lot of what we saw in the film teaches the views a lot about working class England. The people, the accent, the houses and the society were all very similar to what I experienced living in York last year. Even a subculture that is very similar to the one of the skinheads still breathes in the area I used to live. They are called “chavs” The term “chav” is typically associated with unemployed British teenagers, mainly with a white working class background. They are frequently involved in crimes and are among those people you would not want to provoke or approach with when walking alone. I liked watching a film about a society I felt I had some real life experience with. However, I do recommend other people to watch “This is England.” It paints a realistic picture of the subculture of working class England as well as being entertaining and exciting all the way through!

"The Catcher in the Rye"

After some time I have finally managed to finish my reading of”The Catcher in the Rye” by J.D. Salinger. This book has fascinated and touched millions of readers. It has become one of the classics and many people hold this as their favourite peace of literature. “The Catcher in the Rye” is told from the narrator Holden Caulfield’s point of view. The book begins with Holden being kicked out of Pencey Prep. High school a few days before they break up for Christmas. He cannot go home because his family are not expecting him until a few days later. He decides to spend those days in between in New York. The whole book spins a tale around these few days. During these days, Holden is a bit of an emotional wreck. He goes from place to place, meets with strangers as well as some of his old friends. He spends his money on taxi rides, restaurants and drinks. “The Catcher in the Rye” conveys a story about self-evolvement and self-perspective. It is mainly about Holden’s thoughts about the people he meets.

What hit me the most when I read “The Catcher in the Rye,” was Salinger’s success in portraying Holden’s character. A lot of the writing conveys Holden’s thoughts directly. This is a very brave way of writing considering how hard it is to make a character appear realistic. With Holden, however, it feels exactly like you know him, even if you have only read a few chapters. I believe everyone can see a bit of themselves or a bit of someone they know in Holden. Due to Salinger’s brilliant work, it is hard and sad to think about the fact that Holden is only a fictional character. This is supported by the rough language and the slang Salinger uses. Words like “sonuvabitch,” “buzz” and “hellya” are examples of words Holden says all the time. There language resembles the one of a typical teenager with little variation and few advanced words.

This way of writing, makes Holden appear as a typical teenager. He is a bit on top of his head, but at the same time very immature and fragile. He seems very pessimistic and is annoyed easily. “It killed me” and “That depressed me” are phrases he uses a lot when small incidents happen that he does not like. Most people would never bother about these incidents or even consider them annoying. It seems like absolutely anything could bother Holden in some way, like for instance in this excerpt: “Oh sure! I like somebody to stick to the point and all. But I don’t like them to stick too much to the point. I don’t know. I guess I don’t like when somebody sticks to the point all the time.” Throughout the book, it becomes clear that there is a deeper depression behind his negativity. He is definitely depressed but I do not think it is more severe than an average “bad period” of a teenager’s life. Holden is also protective guy with his morals in place. We see this through the way he treats his younger sister, Phoebe, like for instance in this excerpt: “I sort of looked at her for a while. She way laying there asleep, with her face sort of on the side of the pillow. She had her mouth way open. It’s funny. You take adults, they look lousy when they’re asleep and they have their mouths way open, but kid’s don’t. Kids look all right. They can even have spit all over the pillow and they still look all right.”

This book is more a psychological observation of a typical teenager than anything else. It is therefore natural that the hidden message of the book surrounds this topic. In my opinion, the message in “The Catcher in the Rye” does not attempt to teach the readers anything, as it does in most other books. It is mainly an observation and confirmation of a teenager’s way of thinking. The purpose of this book is to show the readers that it is normal to have ups and down and to be filled with both love and hate at the same time. I believe the personality and behaviour of Holden is the message in itself.

I have to be honest and say that I did not particularly enjoy reading “The Catcher in the Rye.” It is a splendid book when it comes to portrayal of the narrator and I definitely see how this book has become one of the classics. However, it was nothing for my taste. Perhaps because I am a girl and I do not recognize the relaxed and “I can’t be bothered” attitude boys sometimes have when they are in their teens. Nevertheless, I would recommend this book for readers the ages above 12. It is worth reading it because if you like it, I believe it will be one of those you will never forget!

Question Time - is it even about politics?

Today we got an assignment that was a bit different to what we are used to working with. We had to pretend we were journalists present at the Question Time session of 24th of February 2010 in the House of Commons. We were supposed to write for newspapers supporting either one of the three big parties, and Camilla and I chose to represent a newspaper supporting the Labour party. We chose to focus on the rhetorical aspects and the behaviour in the heated discussions.


The discussion went red hot during Question Time in Parliament the 24th of February 2010. David Cameron's poor attempts to strip Gordon Brown’s arguments for depth were weak. Even so, we cannot say that Brown was acting flawlessly either. Important political issues were discussed. However, they almost drowned in shouting, mocking and childish behaviour.

Firstly, a small induction to the formal frames of what seemed to be a fight between childish siblings, namely Question Time. Question Time in a parliament appears when the oppositional MP's and the other MP's hear the Prime minister and the ministers out on whichever topic they would like to ask. The Prime minster and the ministers are obliged to answer the questions. Such questions also appear frequently during normal days in Parliament. However, Question Time is a period of time with the sole purpose of asking questions. Questions by the opponents are asked with the aim of both attacking the leading party, but also to influence and make them aware of certain dilemmas.

Gordon Brown elegantly introduced his presence by taking a minute to tribute the seven British soldiers who bravely sacrificed their lives in the war in Afghanistan. He also mentioned the importance of these men as they have decreased the danger of terrorism in the streets of the UK. All other speakers followed up with similar tributes. Other topics that were on the agenda of the 24th of February Question Time were cancer treatment, the economy and hospital management failure.

No matter how interesting these topics are, what merely astonished me was the similarity between a kinder garden and the hullabaloo situation in the House of Commons. The amount of noise, aggressive gestures and provoking comments made the whole thing ridiculous. At one point, it seemed more relevant to mock the opposing party, rather than performing politics. For instance, David Cameron and the Conservatives laughed harshly when Brown mentioned how the Conservatives never talk about the economy. Cameron followed this up by tauntingly claiming that Brown will "leave the country poorer than when he begun." This is a completely irrelevant argument considering the impact of the global financial crisis, which you cannot blame Brown for. Other than that, there were rude pointing, slamming and shouting coming from both parties. Eventually it all resulted in a chaos which provoked Mr. Speaker to stand up and say: "If members do not stop shouting, I may have to ring some sort of help line myself - or, worse still, suspend the sitting. This sort of noise and ranting makes an extremely bad impression on the British public. I appeal to the House to have some regard for the way in which we are viewed by the electorate."

There were big differences in how Brown and Cameron approached each other. Whilst Brown mainly focused his attention towards his fellow "labourers," as if his purpose was to get their consent, Cameron addresses his arguments to the opposing party. This shows were the focus of the politics lies, namely on the Labour's policies. Many of Cameron's arguments are irrelevant to the conservative politics. In some cases, he seems more of a comedian than a serious politician. For instance, he claims that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are at war and states: "If they get any closer, they will start kissing." It seems like Cameron is merely trying to attack the personal Brown rather than conveying his own politics. Could this be because he lacks criticism of the Labour politics?

If you want, you can watch the filming of the Question Time 24th of February 2010 here! (Warning: It is more than 8 hours long!)
You can find the transcript here!

"Charlie Wilson's War"

Charlie Wilson was an important American politician. He is mainly known for his efforts in the cold war and the war in Iraq. Wilson just died (10th of February 2010) and in this occasion we watched the film called "Charlie Wilson's war." The film is about the most recognized part of his career, namely the battle of the war.

The Soviet-Afghan conflict was a violent war during the period of the Cold War. There were attacks from 1979 up until 1989. Communist Soviet wanted to conquer Afghanistan in order to make it a part of the Soviet union and presumably to show the USA that they were a strong power. After being appointed to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defence he visited a refugee camp in one of the Soviet occupied territories of Afghanistan. He there experienced what terrible consequences the Soviet army had put on the Afghan people in the refugee camps. He met children who were amputated because on mines which they thought were toys, starvation, sickness, hatred and a lot of need. He therefore decided that the USA had to do something in order to help them. He therefore suggested that they would provide Mujahideen and with ammunition. Mujahideen was a group of Afghan oppositionists of the Soviet government of Afghanistan. The purpose for giving the weapons was for them to shoot down Soviet helicopters. It was a complicated operation which had to go through many links and persons due to the risk that Soviet would find out Afghanistan had received support from the USA. The mission succeeded and Soviet never managed to take over the power of Afghanistan.

However, there were downsides to this operation which I do not think the US government is particularly proud of today. After the Afghan people had fought against the Soviet communists the country was completely ruined and in desperate need of aid to both people and to build the country up again. But the Americans had already helped Afghanistan and withdrew from the country. This was a mistake. As Wilson's famous quote puts it so nicely: "These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world... and then we fucked up the endgame." In the cold water of the Soviet and Afghanistan the well known political movement, Taliban, came into existence. It was also at this point that Obama appeared as a dominant leader. They were angry that the USA were leaving all responsibility behind when they left Afghanistan. They used the weapons and power Americans and Charley Wilson had given them and formed fundamentalist groups who strongly oppose the USA and the western world. This is an ironical twist to a story which originally had good intensions.

In my opinion the film portrayed Charlie Wilson very well. I feel that I learned a lot about him just watching it. In addition to experiencing how he was like as a political person we get to know about his personal life as well. He was find of women and alcohol and lived a rough life. I definitely recommend this film. It teaches the viewer a lot about an interesting man in American politics as well as how one man can change so much if he has the guts, wish and interest in what goes on in the world!

If you want, you can watch the film trailer here

The relationship between China and the USA - New topic for my senior project

This is very last minute, but I have decided to change my senior project topic. I have worked quite a lot collecting information about Obamas foreign policies but I could not quite find a proper structure to it. Additionally it became too wide and I realised I do not have the time or capacity to cover such a complicated topic.
I therefore decided to choose one aspects of the American foreign policies, namely the relationship between the USA and China. This is an important issue of the years to come. These are some of the questions I will cover:

- Why is the relationship between USA and China so important today?
- How has the relationship between the nations developed historically?
- How is it today? (Chinas economy is decreasing rapidly. USA has a massive debt to China.)
- What are the prospects of the USA/China relationship? (Climate, defense, weapons, economics, international power and recognition, form of government etc.)

I have the whole weekend to work on this project, so I think I'll be fine starting from scratch such a short time before deadline :)

Working on Senior Project

After over sleeping, falling over while running to the bus stop, waiting an hour in ten minus for several buses that never came I decided to walk back home before my horrible karma could ruin even more this Tuesday morning. The absence registration system even works in a stupid way which makes it more beneficial for a student to take a day than 3 hours off.

So today, I have primarily been working on my senior project. As mentioned earlier I am writing a senior project on Obama’s foreign policies, USA’s political role internationally with emphasis on Obama’s status as a world leader. I have studied which ideologies and ideas are behind the Obama administration’s foreign strategies. I have found out quite a lot and it amazes me what you can find out through Wikipedia. (Although you have to be critical as anyone can publish his or her article there) I have found material in which I can use to compare the basic ideas behind Bush’s and Obama’s foreign policies. Additionally I have made a disposition of my senior project article. This will make it a lot easier to put the whole text together at the end.

I am very much looking forward to see what I can learn from such a project and I am working eagerly as this is a topic that interests me :)

I have read the first chapters of "The Catcher in the Rye"

Currently I am reading the well-known novel The Catcher in the Rye. It is the only novel written by author J.D Salinger and it was published in 1951. More than 65 million samples have been sold and the book has been translated to nearly every language in the world. The plot is about an American teenage boy who goes to New York after being expelled from his school, Pencey Prep.
Seeing how famous this book is I was and still am curious about it. Wanting to read The Catcher in the Rye rather than The Road (which were our other option) I started a few weeks ago and have now read 13 chapters.

To be honest, I am a bit disappointed. I have read nearly half of the book already and it has not really given me anything yet, not even the wish to carry on reading. I will finish it, however. Salinger is good at making his characters appear very much alive compared to former books I have read. We get to know the main character, Holden Caulfield, easily and suddenly it feels like we already know him. However, I do not identify with him at all. Normally I find it easy to empathise with the fictional characters but not this time. This is merely my fault though, and not about the quality of the book. To say that I am exited to continue my reading would be an exaggeration. Still, there are loads of chapters to be read. Perhaps the next few of them will catch a bit more of my interest.