The Legacy of a British Century - Essay Example

? Topic Based on your research and experience critically assess how values and beliefs have changed in Britain over the last century. Analyse how these changes affect Britain’s youth in the 21st Century. Title British Youth in the 21st Century: Changes in Values and Beliefs and the Legacy of 100 Years. Name/course/institution/date/course supervisor etc can be either here or on a separate title page- could also include your name in the footnote of each page, on the left if you want to. The Essay ‘We cannot say the ‘past is past’ without surrendering the future” (Winston Churchill, 1874-1965) (The Staff of the New York Times, 1965). These words by one of Britain’s most influential and famous statesmen certainly echo the central themes of this essay. On no level more so than the values and beliefs of the British people has the nature of the United Kingdom changed during the course of the last century. The effect these changes have had will certainly manifest currently, and continue to affect contemporary the youth in the 21st Century, in varied and significant ways. At the turn of the last century, as the world moved into the 1900s, Britain and her Empire stood at the forefront of the world, dominating culture, belief systems, education and politics across the globe. It seemed that the historic continuity of the kingdom would last forever. And throughout this history, Britain was part of Europe, sometimes at war with countries on the continent, sometimes in alliance with them, but always connected to them, perhaps due to proximity. But is has also been due to the close bonds that Britain and the British people have had with European values and beliefs, particularly those of Western Europe, that these ties have remained. And certainly throughout the last century, Britain has been the defender of the values and beliefs of Western Europe (Thatcher, 1988). In the era of Colonisation, British education, inspired and interchanged with European models, was taken across the world into every British colony, and became the basis of world education systems to a large degree. British values, again tied to the interaction between Britain and Europe, also formed the basis of what is regarded today as civilisation, or civilised behaviour. The democratic parliamentary system in Britain formed the beginnings of many democratic government systems, both in the Colonies, and in Europe. Importantly this system also derived from European influence and philosophical thought. Throughout, Britain has recognised the personal liberty of the individual, and a human rights culture, based on responsibility and duty to the collective, rather than personal gain exclusively (ibid). The religion of Britain and the European continent at large, Christianity, has consistently informed the value systems of Britons, leading to particular set of morals to inform behaviour that is considered acceptable or unacceptable (ibid). Defending this ideal of behaviour, government and civilization has at least twice forced Britain into taking the lead in successive world wars: In both World War I and II, the kingdom did not hesitate to stand up to the forces of autocracy and fascism, respectively, and risk all in defending the democratic rights of its own citizens, as well as the rights of all free peoples to remain free (The Staff of the New York Times, 1965). Continually, though, Britain has asserted its sovereignty, interacting with Europe and the rest of the world, yet remaining defensive of its own culture, values and civilization. The perception that Britain was leading the world certainly rang true at the beginning of the 1900s, and continued to be valid for at least the first half of that century. It was never in doubt that the British way of life was enviable, defensible and something to be proud of for most Britons. As the Empire declined, and the 20th Century drew to a close, though, both Britons’ own opinions, and world opinion was that the United Kingdom was no longer a world super-power. Perhaps this is in part the explanation for the contention of some writers and commentators that British youth is irredeemable: “Almost daily, news headlines cry out worldwide about Britain’s youth: stabbings upon stabbings…extreme drunkenness in holiday hotspots…senseless beatings of the elderly…gangs “hanging out” and causing trouble… For over a decade, the United Kingdom’s government has struggled with what is termed ‘antisocial behaviour.’” (Denee, 2008). Denee further observes that teens and young adults are “… very different today that they were decades ago …” He claims that there is a gang culture which is steadily growing and an almost complete lack of authority figures for the youth of Britain. “… the prevalence of drugs, drunkenness, truancy, vandalism and petty criminality—are common across Britain” Denee quotes from The International Herald Tribune. Child poverty continues to increase – in a country that is one of the wealthiest in the world community; the Czech Republic ranks ahead of the UK in child health and safety (UNICEF, 2007); teenage suicide is endemic, and one suicide in an area, or social group, sparks a wave of similar acts; sports violence has become what British youth is known for across Europe, with regular reports of violence and lawless behaviour from soccer fans (ibid). According to the World Health Organisation, in a BBC report, alcohol abuse is the cause of one in eight deaths of young men in the United Kingdom. And it is not only soccer hooliganism that gains young Britons abroad the reputation as poorly behaved: according to Meg Munn, a minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, “... drink does play a part in a number of these situations” referring to the escalation of arrests of British citizens in Spain and France (ibid). Each passing decade, Denee claims, sees deterioration in the behaviour of British youth, and he proposes that the situation will only become worse. Simultaneously, the incidence of unemployment among British youth continues to rise: an estimated 19.8 percent in November, 2009 (Trumpet.com, 2009). “The number of 16-24 year-olds claiming benefits is approaching the 1 million mark” (ibid). According to the Telegraph, this is partially because of the number of unemployed who are university graduates, as a result of Labour’s “obsession” that young people should attend university (ibid). It should be noted here that former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, did state as one of his goals that he wanted to change what was happening on the streets of the U.K. He did not specify how he was going to do this. The Independent also reported that Tory leader, at the time, David Cameron, now Prime Minister, planned to solve the problems of a growing knife culture among the youth by calling on Radio 1 to stop playing certain types of hip-hop music on Saturday nights (Denee, 2008). In a special edition of Time magazine (28 March 2008), the following extracts appeared: "Last year more than a fifth of Britons avoided going out at night rather than risk encounters with a .... form of terror: groups of children. Britons are frightened of their own young... Violent offences by British under-18s rose 37% in the three years to 2006... In 2000, Euan Blair, the son of the Prime Minister, was arrested for being 'drunk and incapable.' Twenty-seven teenagers were murdered in London last year by youths wielding guns or knives...” Some, such as columnist Ron Fraser blame the degradation of the youth on a lack of the virtues that a well-disciplined education system imposes, the values that are no longer taught in the education system, such as honesty and civility, and argue that a sense of honour and respect for the heritage of Britain is lacking in the youth of the United Kingdom currently (Trumpet.com, 2009). In the view of another writer, “For decades now the present Labour government and its Conservative predecessors have presided over an unprecedented redistribution of wealth from the poor to the very rich. They have denied millions of young people the chance of a proper education and a decent job at the end of it. This is the real crime that is perpetrated against society—and which is ultimately responsible for the brutalisation of tens of thousands of young people” (Reydt, 2004). So, where did it all go wrong? The government of the day in Britain did, well after the end of the Second World War, experience a period of reassertion on the world stage. This was with the election of the Conservative Party’s Margaret Thatcher in 1979 – once referred to as “hard to work with” (Hurd, 2003). It is Thatcher who began to assert inclusion of Britain in the, then, European Community, and began to insist that “We British are as much heirs to the legacy of European culture as any other nation. Our links to the rest of Europe, the continent of Europe, have been the dominant factor in our history” (Thatcher, 1988). It is Thatcher, too, who revisited the relationship between the UK and the USA, ensuring Britain’s place as ally of the leader of the so-called free world. Particularly Ronald Reagan, the fortieth President of the USA, and she developed a close personal friendship, in addition to the connection between the countries being strengthened, Reagan remarked, as evidence of his respect for Thatcher, that she was like Queen Victoria, when approached on the subject of her suitability for the office: "I believe she'd make a magnificent Prime Minister” Reagan asserted, and was met with the incredulous “… a woman Prime Minister? …” to which he replied: "England had a Queen named Victoria once who did rather well" (Reagan, 1989). The respect was reciprocal: Thatcher delivered the eulogy and her opening line confirms this – “We have lost a great president, a great American, and a great man, and I have lost a dear friend” (Thatcher, 1994). Perhaps another extract from this eulogy gives a clue that Thatcher modelled her approach in some respects on the Presidency of Reagan: “He sought to mend America’s wounded spirit, to restore the strength of the free world, and to free the slaves of communism” (ibid). It was, however, the area of economic policy and approach that argues both for and against the success of Thatcher. She advised the European Community that future success and security of employment for all Europeans were dependent on less regulation of business: “… enterprise is the key” (Thatcher, 1988). Economics in the 1970s and 1980s had been evidence that central planning was ineffective and that the capitalist ethics of personal endeavour and initiative would allow Europe (and the UK) to flourish. Europe would have to compete with the economic powers of the day, using her principles and operating as a unified economy. Thatcher proclaimed Britain a leader in opening its market, in welcoming financial institutions from all over the world, in transport, shipping trade and deregulating business (ibid). The aim was also to reduce the cost of employment, so that European (and British) markets could be competitive with world labour markets (ibid). Significantly, in her speech to the College of Europe, Thatcher confirmed her commitment to free markets when she reiterated a British aversion to collectivism and corporatism (ibid). Likewise, Thatcher’s aims to stimulate the European countries into a more aggressive stance on defence, while re-asserting Britain’s former military power, were controversial. She advocated the modernisation of nuclear arsenals, and the drive to ensure that Europe was able to strengthen the USA’s defence of the free world. In this Bruges speech, Thatcher’s rhetoric was even (perhaps consciously) reminiscent of Churchill’s war talk: “But let us never forget that our way of life, our vision and all we hope to achieve, is secured not by the rightness of our cause but by the strength of our defence. On this, we must never falter, never fail” (ibid). Certainly Britain’s response to the war in the Falklands, led by Thatcher, indicates her reluctance to back down to military threat. It may be that she saw herself in a role similar to the one she attributed to Reagan: “Others prophesied the decline of the West. He inspired America and its allies with renewed faith in their mission of freedom” (Thatcher, 1994). Reagan, again, summarises the positive view of Thatcher: “She demonstrated two great qualities. The first … she had thought seriously about how to revive the British economy … brought down inflation … began removing the controls, subsidies, and regulations that kept business lazy. Her second … the true grit of a true Brit … She never wavered. And she was proved right by events … unprecedented economic recovery … British businesses, woken from the long sleep of socialism, … Margaret Thatcher has begun to dismantle the undergirding of socialism itself by privatizing large nationalized industries like steel and airline” (Reagan, 1989). Twenty-five years after the end of Thatcher’s tenure, a businessman’s response to a B.B.C. question session reads: Margaret Thatcher believed market forces should be allowed to promote healthy businesses and expose the weaker ones, creating what is, to me, the most entrepreneurial of European societies” (B.B.C., 2004). It may appear that Thatcherism could have revived British pride and status. But the Labour government which followed did have to deal with a Britain in which inequality had increased significantly, and the welfare system had been weakened. This may have been advantageous, in that British youth after Thatcher could have seen their country more similarly to how it had been perceived a number of decades before, and perhaps a change could have been wrought. The attitudes of the citizenry of Britain, though, had changed: the public was less willing after Thatcher to unthinkingly accept the decrees of those in authority (Giddens, 2010). And New Labour could be argued to be closer to Thatcherism than expected. In a world where globalisation had become a profoundly important trend, the “information age” had been coined as a widespread term of recognition and a rapidly changing global and local economy the traditional Labour policies were no longer applicable (ibid). In fact, economic prosperity had to become the underpinning feature of socially just policies and practices. In the New Labour years, economic growth continued for ten years, until the housing and credit bubble failure affected world economies; a national minimum wage was instituted; the health and education systems underwent significant reform (ibid). Giddens (2010) further argues that the position of the poor was substantially improved and inequality contained. His proposal is that social justice under New Labour did increase. This was partially due to the close focus on social necessities, and partially due to the Thatcher-like economic approaches that New Labour adopted. There is some present optimism, nonetheless, in the view of Britain’s renewed and growing influence on the world stage. It is certainly essential that, given the globalising world economy, and the increasing communications technology, that Britain position itself in the world, for the present and future, rather than rely on the vestiges of the empire of a century ago. David Miliband asserts that it is not only due to historical factors that Britain is positioned as an influential and noteworthy player in international affairs. The argument Miliband begins with the point that Britain is absolutely part of the increasingly international nature of world politics. Britain contributes to the great challenges facing the world today through its armed forces, intelligence services, development assistance programmes and through its foreign service, one of the most extensive of any country (Miliband, 2009). “New thinking” (Miliband’s description) characterises Britain’s impact: climate change, the economic crisis, the Middle East issue – all benefit from Britain’s ideas, research and discoveries. He further claims that Britain has an enviable set of values, based on equal worth, social justice and mutual responsibility (ibid). An important fact is Britain’s involvement and even leadership of the European Union, allied to the extensive networks provided by the Commonwealth. In short, Miliband argues that the present government has arrived at the correct measure of outward, international focus to make sure that Britain continues to “punch above its weight” (ibid, quoting an American foreign policy expert). The current Prime Minister, Mr David Cameron, has stated that Britain is at a turning point (B.B.C. Online News, 2010). He added: “The decisions we make now will live with us for decades to come. For many years we have been heading in the wrong direction … Our economy has become … over-reliant on welfare, with mass worklessness accepted as a fact of life and around five million people now on out-of-work benefits … increasingly hostile to enterprise, with business investment in the past decade growing at around 1% each year … far too dependent on the public sector, with over half of all jobs created in the last 10 years associated in some way with public spending." It seems, then, that Britain is, on the public stage, regaining some of its earlier status, justified not by a historical legacy, but by current policy and realistic international relations advantage. At the same time, government is acknowledging the relative failure domestically and the need to address the current condition of Britain, and especially its economy. But, government initiated attempts to redress the conditions which give rise to the present mindsets and attitudes of Britain’s youth seem to have little impact. Perhaps, in time, a sense of the legacy of the UK, its history and, most essentially, its present status will combine to change these ways of thinking. “It would be a great reform in politics if wisdom could be made to spread as easily and as rapidly as folly” (Winston Churchill, 1874-1965) (The Staff of the New York Times, 1965). References B.B.C. News Online, (2004) Evaluating Thatcher’s Legacy available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3681973.stm and accessed 11/01/2011 B.B.C. News Online, (2010) David Cameron to outline plans for economy in speech available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8710071.stm and accessed 11/01/2011 Denee, K., (2008) “Britain’s Troubled Youth.” Time Magazine March 28, 2008. Giddens, A., (2010) “The Rise and Fall of New Labour.” New Statesman, May 2010. Hurd, D., (2003) “When she was tired, she talked too much and without reflection.” The Times (London) September 23, 2003. Maddox, D., (2011) “David Cameron tries to placate sceptics over European referendum bill.” Scotsman.com at Premium Article ! Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button. Options Premium Article ! To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site. Subscribe Registered Article ! To read this article in full you must be registered with the site. Sign In Register http://news.scotsman.com/politics/David-Cameron-tries-to-placate.6684775.jp and accessed on 10/01/2011 Miliband, D.,(2009) “Britain is still a big player.” The Times (London) October 26, 2009 Reagan, R., (1989) “Margaret Thatcher and the Revival of the West: Her real legacy.” National Review, May 19, 1989 Reydt, P. (2004) “Britain: Youth Prison Accused of Abuses” Observer 17 January 2004 Thatcher, M., The Bruges Speech (September, 1988) Speech to the College of Europe available at http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107332 and accessed on 10/01/2011 Thatcher, M., Eulogy for President Reagan (June 2004) available at http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/110366 and accessed on 10/01/2011 The Staff of the New York Times, (1965) Churchill New York: Bantam Books Trumpet.com (November 18, 2010) Britain: Youth Unemployment Reaching Crisis Level available at http://www.trumpet.com and accessed 10/01/2011 UNICEF, (2010) Report on the Health and Wellbeing of Children (Writer unknown)., (2008) “Britain’s out-of-control kids.” Time Magazine 28 March 2008: Time Magazine Highlights Britain’s Violent Youth. Read More