Sponsors
English Blogs
Blog Resources
Posted on Nov 19, 2008 by 
The problem of the gap between generations has always existed across the world’s cultures. Think about the relationship between you and your parents. Even if you have the best of relationships at present, I am sure that you had your periods of not understanding each other. The same gap probably existed between your parents and their parents.
The present situation in the UK seems to be quite serious, however. According to a poll recently conducted by YouGov, 54% of adult Britons perceive today’s youth as “beginning to behave like animals!” More so, a little less than 50% of the respondents believe that the youth of today are increasingly becoming dangers to themselves and other people in society. Even more alarming is the 43% who believe that something should be done to protect them from today’s youth!
If you think about it, these figures and perceptions are very surprising as the UK has consistently been known to give birth to sub-cultural movements that have spread to other countries. Think mods, rockers, and punks. It seems that the older generation of today is becoming less and less tolerant of the youth and their behaviour.
The question is whether the perception is justified or not. The people at Barnados, a charity focusing on children, say that it is not. According to Pam Hibbert, the charity’s associate policy director, “People in Britain now routinely refer to children as `feral,’ `vermin’ and as `infecting our streets.’ The shock here is that people show such intolerance toward all young people, when in fact only a very small number are involved in anti-social behaviour. The truth is that young people in Britain are responsible for 12 per cent of crime. But the public overestimate that by a factor of four, according to the recent British Crime Survey, with people believing the young commit half of all crime. So a major part of the problem here is a question of perception.”
How about you, how do you perceive the youth of today?
Recognise these words? If you like Disney films, then I am sure you would. It still evokes images of the cute baby Simba prancing around the wild, singing to his heart’s content. This time, though, it is not a cute little lion that I am thinking of. Instead, the image of an austere Prince Charles is what is in my head.
The Prince turned 60 on Friday and this event highlighted the fact that he is still waiting to take the reins of monarchy from the present Queen. For Prince Charles, the wait started in 1952. It has been a long 56-year wait and the end does not seem to be in sight. I feel for Prince Charles, I really do, especially when you read write ups such as the one I just read in The New York Times, where he was described as:
In the meantime, he’s relevant — kind of — in a low-key way. He christens ships and travels to funerals. He speaks out on architecture and global warming and organic farming. He paints, he drives an Aston Martin that uses biofuels. He presides over meetings and charities.
But mostly, he waits for his mother, Elizabeth II, the Queen, to give up the throne in life or death. (And you thought your mother was a royal pain. Did she ever deny you the throne?) Unfortunately, she seems to be enjoying herself too much to quit. She still gallops horses and got the satisfaction of being played by Helen Mirren. Besides, she’s only 82 and her mother lived to 101. Time’s on her side.
Then again, he has those longevity genes as well, doesn’t he? So maybe, in 20 years time, he will finally ascend to the throne.
Remember those days when you had to find a public telephone booth in order to make a call? How many times has one saved you a great deal of trouble? I cannot even begin to count the instances that I thanked the heavens for the presence of a phone box. You can find public phones practically in any country but in the UK, the red phone box is an iconic fixture in the streets.
I am sure that you have seen these fixtures in movies. Originally designed by Sir Giles Gilbert Scott, the red phone box was given its colour so that it would be easy to spot at any time. These boxes have had their heyday but today, it seems that they are not being used as much as before.
In fact, statistics show that they are barely being used and this means that the 12,700 phone boxes all over the country are in danger. If they are not being used, they are not earning the telephone company any money and this might just mean that they are on their way out. Fortunately, these phone boxes are loved more than they are used.
BT wants to scrap around 400 of the phone boxes but the local authorities are increasing their efforts to save the boxes. Though they may not be used for their original purpose, the locals are trying to find other useful purposes for them. Some examples would be as community notice boards, greenhouses, miniature art galleries, and so on. The effort includes villages and local governments adopting a phone box in order to save it.
I’m glad to hear this effort being made to save the boxes - the streets wouldn’t be the same without them.
Today marks a special day in history. For many of the younger generation, it may not mean much more than a vague idea. Still, for many, November 11 is something that we cannot afford to forget for it marks the day that the First World War ended.
The red poppy has long been the symbol for death, life, and renewal. Three distinctly different things but all interrelated. This symbolism is attributed to Lt. Col. John McCrae who “was able to distill in a single vision the vitality of the red poppy symbol, his respect for the sacrifice made by his patients and dead comrades, and his intense feeling of obligation to them. McCrae would capture all of this in the most famous single poem of the First World War, In Flanders Fields.”
Today, the poppy remains the strongest symbolism of that war long ago. As the years pass, the memories and the implications may fade slowly for many people. Yet there are those who strive to keep the memory alive, if only to remind this generation and the coming generations of the stark horror that occurred. In this way, we hope that such a thing will never happen again.
I particularly like Jonathan Jones’s column for today. In it, he wrote:
Yet, the November rite of Remembrance, instituted to appease survivors and smooth official consciences, served its original purpose long ago. Why does it endure? Because there is nothing, nothing at all, that redeems the first world war in memory and turns it into happy lies. It is a scar, a void, a horror. In remembering it we are doing a duty to those who died with no glamour, no heroic myth, no purpose - like cattle.
The second world war killed more people but it generated myths. The first world war left no illusions standing. No myth-maker has ever been able to redeem it. In this war we therefore see the true face of all wars - the unmasked skull, rotting in a muddy trench. That’s why we should never forget it. That’s why we never can.
More than being moved, we should strive to keep the memory of the First World War alive and create something good out of it, don’t you think?
The English language is the universal language, there is no denying that. Well, at least if you are a pragmatic person. There will always be people who would assert that English is not THAT widely spoken. For the sake of this discussion, though, I would like to consider the English language as being used so widely that it would be ok to consider it as a universal language.
We all know the existence of a dichotomy when it comes to the American version of the language and the British version of the language. Let us dub them US English and British English. The discussion about this dichotomy has long been in existence and people far more experienced in this field than I have had their say. I just thought that it would be interesting to share something that I read from the Times Online. In it, the author strongly presents his views on how US English is quickly permeating the world of British English - and he is NOT liking this one bit.
The assertion is that the British should make a decision to disallow the influx of these Americanisms. He writes:
I would like Britain to decide to stop allowing US English to permeate, pervade and pollute British English. (I am acutely aware that the term “British English” has more than a little of the oxymoron about it.)
I believe in the frank and fair exchange of ideas, philosophy and words. When the US takes of some our new language on board I’d be a great deal more relaxed about the transplanting of US English into our way of life. The newly elected leader of America, and consequently the Free World, has oft spoken about change. If he is willing to say “Yes We Can” to change, then perhaps he will say “Yes We Can” to US English changing to adopt the odd British English word. Even he might concede that that would be a jolly good show.
I suppose his idea suggestion is fair enough, don’t you think?
No one knew for sure who was going to win the F1 championship this year. For the longest time, it was Hamilton who was dominating most of the races but you know, in this sport, you can never be sure about the outcome. In the end, Lewis Hamilton proved to be all that his fans have been dreaming of. The global media has been having a heyday at his win as well. This young British driver has made the headlines all over the world and countless eyes are on him. It is just fitting to show an excerpt of a news report from The Times Online, one of the leading British newspapers:
Lewis Hamilton produced the most dramatic climax to any Formula One season at Interlagos yesterday and the world’s media has responded by hailing the man many believe can go on to become one of the true greats.
Hamilton and his McLaren team kept their nerve in the rain, overtaking Timo Glock’s Toyota almost within sight of the finish line to write the 23-year-old’s name into motorsport history. Hamilton has become Formula One’s youngest champion and only the second man to win the title in his second season.
In Britain Hamilton has dominated front and back pages with The Sun leading with the headline “Phew, Lew”, the Daily Mirror saying “Lew Beauty” and the Daily Mail declaring the champion as “Last-lap Lewis, the £100m British hero”.
Naturally, not everyone is happy with his achievement. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, of course, but this is something that Britain can be very proud of.
If you tune in to BBC Radio, you would certainly recognise these names. Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand are two of the most popular radio show personalities in the UK today. They can give you a really great show, which can help you chase the blues away on any given day.
It seems that this time, though, they took things a little too far and offended some people. As a result, they have been suspended by BBC, pending further action. The Guardian published this story earlier today:
The BBC today suspended Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand until an investigation into their prank calls to actor Andrew Sachs has been completed, in an attempt to quell the mounting furore over the “Sachsgate” affair.
Today’s suspensions almost certainly mean that BBC1’s Friday Night with Jonathan Ross, the presenter’s Saturday morning Radio 2 show, and Brand’s Saturday night show on the same station will not be broadcast this week.
The BBC director general, Mark Thompson - who is understood to currently be on holiday in Sicily - said he would return to London to review the situation, saying it was clear from the public’s reaction that Ross and Brand’s Radio 2 broadcast had caused “severe offence” - a view he shared.
Thompson described the calls to Sachs - in which Brand and Ross made lewd suggestions about the Fawlty Towers actor’s granddaughter, which were pre-recorded on Thursday October 16 and
broadcast on Brand’s Radio 2 show on Saturday October 18 - as “completely unacceptable”.
A public apology was given by Thompson but no official statement has been released by the duo. The question that is circulating now is this: Is the suspension a good enough penalty? Looking at the other side of the coin, though, is the suspension too harsh? What do you think?
Ever since Prime Minister Gordon Brown took office, he was hell bent on raising the consciousness of the British people on what it means to be British. I suppose that this is quite an understandable effort, especially if you look at other countries who have a distinct sense of nationalism. The Thai people, for example, are known for their openness, calmness, and always ready smile. The American people are known to be warriors of democracy. I know some would disagree with my descriptions but you know what I mean. National identity is something that is valued by some people. And I think Gordon Brown is one of them.
Personally, I do not see anything inherently wrong with his efforts. He merely wants to strengthen nationalism in Britain. The problem, as many experts have stressed over and over again, is that there is no clear answer as to what it means to be British! More so, in the midst of the recent hullabaloo about Britishness Day, many critics have railed that “public display of nationalism” goes against what it means to be British! What a quandary they are in…
So now, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has another idea shot down to the ground. Britishness Day is to be celebrated no more. What do other people in the government think? Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Herbert says: “Labour still hasn’t worked out that British identity is bound up in our institutions, culture and history. It can’t be re-manufactured by their spin doctors.”
So tell me, what do you think marks you as British? What makes you British?
I have this friend who spent a couple of years in London when she was at the university. A little less than 10 years later, she still reminisces about her years there. According to her, it was the best time of her life. Given a chance, I am sure she would gladly hop on a plane and go back for good. She has her London dreams – as many other people do, I am sure.
And speaking of London dreams, there is actually a movie titled the same. London Dreams is directed by renowned director Vipul Shah. Movie enthusiasts – especially those who have a particular affinity for Bollywood creations – would recognise this name as being behind the big hit Singh is Kinng. This movie is making history as it also launches a treaty between Bollywood and the British movie industry. The treaty will allow Indian film makers easy access to British resources if they wish to collaborate with British film makers. Though it may be an arguable point, many consider Bollywood and the British film industry to be only second to Hollywood.
More on the treaty from NDTVMovies:
The British government’s department of culture said that without the treaty, co-productions would have to pass a “UK cultural test” to qualify for tax relief, adding: “Most would be unlikely to, particularly if they were in a non-Council of Europe language like Hindi or Tamil.”
“The treaty allows co-produced films to bypass this test. This means they are granted national status in both countries. And this means they can gain access to the new Britain tax relief - one of the most generous and competitive tax reliefs in the world,” a department spokesman said.
The treaty is also expected to support a range of spin-off businesses, including British-Indian suppliers, which support filmmakers with anything from costumes to caterers, British-Indian owned cinemas which are likely to show the films and the British tourist industry.
Follet pointed to the economic value of the treaty as Britain faces a recession, saying: “The wider your base, in an economically difficult time, the more resilient you’ll be.”
This will certainly revolutionise the Indian film industry and help them reach a broader audience than they have now. It is something to look forward to in the coming years, isn’t it?
Yes, there is such a thing as English Art, although not too many people may be aware of it. Wikipedia actually defines English Art as “body of visual arts originating from the nation of England, in the form of a continuous tradition.” This kind of art was actually only defined in 1956 by Nikolaus Pevsner, in his book The Englishness of English Art. Many decades later, great men were still trying to give a clear definition to English Art. In 2000, Sir Roy Strong wrote The Spirit of Britain: A narrative history of the arts and in 2002, Peter Ackroyd wrote The Origins of the English Imagination.
So what is English Art, really? The general consensus is that traditional English Art involves paintings of landscapes. English Art is not limited to this, however. Wikipedia further expounds on the themes of English Art:
Its earliest known developed form, one that continues to the present-day, is arguably the decorative surface pattern work exemplified by the Lindisfarne Gospels and the exterior carving of Anglo-Saxon churches and monuments. Ackroyd argues that the concern for a light and delicate outline, for surface pattern for its own sake, and for patterns and borders that threaten to overwhelm the portrayal of figures, have all been long-standing characteristics of a continuous English art. Other elements Ackroyd sees as inherited from the early Celtic church are a concern to portray the essence of animals, a tendency to understatement, and a concern for repeating structures that extends from Celtic knotwork to church organ music to Staffordshire ceramic-ware to stained glass windows and to the wallpapers of William Morris.
Indeed, a visit to England will prove to be a feast for the eyes and soul as one gazes upon various art forms, some of which have been around for millennia.
