Embedded Files
Volume 1 | Issue 1 - Conflict
Article by Kathy Stein. Edited by Sarah Purssell. Additional Research by Ellie Veryard.
When historians reflect on the 21st Century in years to come, how will it be categorised? An age of freedom, justice and liberty, or an era of unmitigated conflict where the gap between the rich and poor is an ever growing chasm impossible to bridge? The inadequacies of society exposed by the radical “enlightened” thinkers of the 18th Century such as Thomas Paine have not been solved; the only difference is that we seem to have grown accustomed to injustice.
As Paine said in the 1700s, ‘A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom.’ For centuries slavery was not considered wrong and, almost unthinkably to modern society, was defended by many during the period of abolition. This is a clear example of something that was so embedded in society that, despite the clear injustice to us now, was perceived by most contemporaries as a normal, unquestionable part of life. How many injustices or inadequacies entrenched in society do we still believe to be justified or “just one of those things”. How do we know that these “things” cannot be changed if only we do not settle for less?
The fact that we openly refer to certain countries as being part of a “third world” and to a poverty gap that to most of us seems unconquerable, appears to be a perfect example of knowing a thing to be wrong and yet remaining inactive. We need not even look as far as Africa; here in Britain 1 in 5 families live in relative poverty, with more than half being of ethnic minority. Surely this is a problem that justifies action. Yet still there is an outcry against giving tax payer’s money to aid these people, these immigrants; a word which cannot be said in modern society without seemingly negative connotations. Where is the political will required to make active change?
Who are the free thinkers of our age and why are they not heard? The best selling work in 18th Century America was Paine’s political pamphlet Common Sense. Written in language that could be understood by all, he openly challenged the idea of monarchy, circulating ideas which enabled the common American to consider revolution as something feasible and maybe even achievable.
It is almost impossible to imagine a political writing being a 21st Century best seller, at least in England anyway. The only political pamphlets we receive are usually left on doormats until finally transferred to a rubbish bin and the thought of actually buying one seems almost inconceivable. Here in Britain the majority have become too comfortable, aware of the fact problems exist but unwilling to consider active change. Perhaps we are too easily satisfied.
It is easy to believe ourselves “enlightened” or “advanced” when the majority of Western individuals can live in reasonable comfort; believing ourselves “better off” than those who lived centuries before because we can now live in a heated house with satellite TV. But how can we call this stagnant life advancement when there are people even within Britain who live below the poverty line? Perhaps, we should be labelled as an age of individualism, an age where politics is no longer important as long as government seeks to satisfy the comfortable majority. People will not seek to help the vulnerable minority but instead all too easily shy away from the uncomfortable truth.
History supplies us with an abundance of examples of societies which, despite being labelled ‘advanced’ have condoned and often promoted injustice and barbarism. The Romans and the Greeks, who are primarily remembered for their cultural and technological advancements, are often given the title of the ‘forefathers of civilisation’. Yet, slavery was an intrinsic part of Roman life and the persecution of minority faiths was brutal. Roman rule was not perhaps so dissimilar from modern day parliament; as long as the wealthy were kept satisfied, those on society’s fringe could continue to suffer. Equally, the Renaissance was not perhaps a “golden age”. Though life was enriched by new ideas of art, literature and architecture, for the ordinary person it may be an age better remembered for its religious wars and witch hunts. Post “Enlightenment”, the Industrial Revolution is viewed by some historians as one of the most important “advancements” of our age and yet people were allowed to live in squalor, working 12 hour days with no minimum wage. In all these cases, injustice was accepted, even promoted by those in power. The powerless were left to struggle without the leverage of universal suffrage to instigate change. This begs the question of whether society has ever had the political “will” to promote change? I would argue that it does, where the conditions allow. When a minority becomes aware of an injustice and actively seek to reverse it, through the spreading of ideas and increasing awareness, this minority can become a majority and overturn the ruling of those in power in favour of justice.
Throughout history, where inadequacies have been exposed and relentlessly challenged, change has been fought for and accomplished. Thanks to the work of the trade unions, workers were able to claim certain rights, even at a time when the intrinsic economic philosophy was one of extreme “Laissez Faire” and those with the money at the top looked set to lose out on profit margins. Votes for women, only a century before 1928, would have been laughable and only decades before
the American Civil Rights Act of 1964 the idea of equality would have seemed unthinkable. Use history as an example for positive action. Although contemporary politics seems to provide little motivation, inaction will change nothing. Let a history of unthinkable change be a motivation, that even things that seemed entrenched within a system, despite all adversities, were overcome.
Report abuse