1966: The Year it Came Home

 

‘They think it’s all over, it is now!’

In the 2018 World Cup in Russia, my generation, and indeed my parents’ generation, saw England go within touching distance of becoming world champions for the first time in our lives. Gareth Southgate’s men had gloriously made it all the way to the final four, with a young squad with few expectations. In the semi-final against Croatia, Kieran Trippier’s scrumptious 25-yard free kick within the first five minutes had us all dreaming…but it was not to last, as England went on to lose 2-1 and were eliminated.

Though that was not to be, England’s one and only World Cup victory in 1966 has been immortalised in legend. It was extremely fitting that the tournament was hosted in England, with a royal opening ceremony and the commencement of the games announced by the Queen herself.[1] It was a chance for England to show off to the world that it was changing with the time and had broken free of its conservative shackles of previous decades.[2] It was an especially eventful tournament. North Korea qualified for the tournament as immense underdogs, submitting and entirely unknown team. Playing most of their games in Middlesbrough’s Ayresome Park, the Asian side became idolized by the local population after passing through the group stage with a giant-killing against two-time world champions Italy.[3] England’s final against West Germany was shrouded with controversy; the game went into added extra time at 2-2, when Geoff Hurst’s goal in the 98^th minute ricocheted off the crossbar and was adjudged to have crossed the line, though it was slim.[4] Fortunately, no VAR or goal-line technology existed then! Ironically, the opposite occurred in the 2010 World Cup, again against Germany, when Frank Lampard’s effort, again off the crossbar, which clearly crossed the line by a yard, was not considered a goal.[5] Nearly eleven years later, that poor refereeing decision still stings, though perhaps it is karma balancing out…Back to ’66, and as the crowd begins running onto the pitch to celebrate, Hurst scores again to become a hat-trick hero, prompting the iconic line ‘they think it’s all over…it is now![6]

Geoff Hurst's controversial second goal. It definitely
crossed the line...right?

This tournament was a first for the advancement of globalisation of football. Though Switzerland ’54 was the first to be televised in line with the more widespread availability of televisions,[7] the financial and technical investments made in this tournament represented a significant advancement in the field of televised sport. When assessing viability of stadiums, a venue’s ability to accommodate mass media centres became as important as spectator capacity and pitch size.[8] Football, already the world’s most popular sport, was growing into something much more – a business. The Daily Mirror claimed that over 400 million viewers tuned in for the final between England versus West Germany, the largest audience since the funeral procession of Winston Churchill, which it exceeded by over 50 million.[9] England ’66 was not only a display of England’s strong football heritage, but a performance to the world of its ability to adapt to the rapid changes that were brought on by the Sixties.

---

[1] FIFATV, ‘What Made England so ’66?’, YouTube Video, 1:39, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5qB6PXQ06k
[2] BBC Sport, ‘The Story of the 1966 World Cup’ 16 May 2014 https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/27392991 (Last Accessed 12 March 2021)
[3] Tosh Warwick, ‘The FIFA World Cup, International Friendship and the “Mystery Men of the East”: When Middlesbrough Fell in Love with North Korea’ North Korean Review, Vol. 15, No. 1 (2019) pp. 51-72 (pp. 58-59)
[4] FIFATV, ‘Final Replay ’66, | 1966 FIFA World Cup | England v West Germany, YouTube Video, 2:20:50, 30 July 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3bcX8NaYW0
[5] FIFATV, ‘Germany v England | 2010 FIFA World Cup | Match Highlights’, YouTube Video, 4:59, 27 June 2012, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v_t3NCDZG8
[6] FIFATV, ‘Final Replay ‘66’, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3bcX8NaYW0
[7] Fabio Chisari, ‘When Football Went Global: Televising the 1966 World Cup’ Historical Social Research, Vol. 31, No. 1 (2006) pp. 42-54 (p. 43)
[8] Ibid., p. 46
[9] Ibid., p.  49

King Louie and the Subject of Race: My View

The legacy of Walt Disney is a contested one, particularly with regards to race. Many maintain he held dubious views of Jews and of African-Americans, though there exists an equally unequivocal lobby that insist he was no more racist or racially insensitive than the mass of white Americans of the 1960s. The record as regards his films is similarly disputed. Though such films as Song of the South (1946) and Dumbo (1941) are a focus of this debate, this blog focusses on The Jungle Book, produced much later in 1967, and which is the subject of a blog post below.

The aforementioned post relies on two articles: one by by Greg Metcalf; and one by Cory Lund. The latter is, in my view, an intemperate rant, so I shall deal in the main with Greg Metcalf's article.

Metcalf applies the issue of racism (and prejudice in general) to a great many characters; including Mowgli, whom he decrees as a stand-in for white Americans by virtue of his skin having only a 'darker tan' and having an apparently similar storyline to white characters like Pinocchio.

He declares that it 'would not be going too far' to suggest that Shere Khan is a stand-in for communism with no evidence proffered, whilst Cory Lund attempts to attach the "yellow peril" trope to a character named Khan (associated with Mongol invaders). The fact that Shere Khan is clearly an allegory of Shir Ali Khan, ruler of Afghanistan, a very real menace and not at all a trope, seems not to have troubled Mr. Lund.

But the accusations of racist characters in the film gravitate towards King Louie. At first glance, this may hold water: An exaggerated, stereotypical, character with a fondness for jazz. However, appearances I would argue are deceptive. Both Metcalf and Lund ascribe his name to Louis Armstrong but this is a bold lie: Not only was Louie voiced by Louis Prima (an Italian) but his apparently African-American voice, mannerisms, swagger and lyrics were all directly inspired by Prima - not black musicians as is so often alleged. In fact, Armstrong was considered for the role, but was replaced by Prima over concerns that a black man voicing an ape would appear racist! Far from an example of racism, the voice of King Louie is an example of the opposite, something Metcalf appears to have overlooked.

Metcalf also suggests that the setting is a slum, reminiscent of Watts (of Watts riot infamy). This is about as convincing as trying to draw a link between Watts and Angkor Wat just because of the name: For you see, the temple-setting was modelled on Angkor Wat which far from a slum is one of history's great marvels, and an icon of human civilisation.

Discussion of the monkeys wanting to be white is a nuanced one, but is predicated on the monkeys being a stand-in for blacks which I reject. Aside from the behaviour of the monkeys, which as I said was modelled on an Italian-American, not an African-American, other of Metcalf's evidences I find similarly unconvincing. He cites a monkey appearing (somehow) like a black manservant - though that character spoke in a Caucasian accent and I saw no similarity in appearance, much as I saw no scene resembling Metcalf's allegations over bananas symbolising marijuana (neither did Alex Wainer, also cited). In similar vein, the bizarre noises of the monkeys were not in fact planned (to make fun of African-Americans), but entirely spontaneous & absent from Disney's script, playing on the utterings that were a trademark of the musicians involved. - DANIEL A. RUSSELL.

Sources:

·      Metcalf, Greg, "It's A Jungle Book Out There, Kid!": The Sixties in Walt Disney's "The Jungle Book", Studies in Popular Culture Vol. 14, No. 1 (1991).

·      Lund, Cory, I Wanna be Like You: Racial Coding in Disney’s The Jungle Book (https://sites.williams.edu/f18-engl117-01/uncategorized/i-wanna-be-like-you-racial-coding-in-disneys-the-jungle-book/) accessed: 12/03/2021.

·      Wainer, Alex, Reversal of Roles: Subversion and Reaffirmation of Racial Stereotypes in Dumbo and The Jungle Book (https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/links/essays/reversal.htm) accessed: 12/03/2021.

·      Scott, Mike, For 'Jungle Book' purists, you just can't spell primate without 'Prima' (https://www.nola.com/entertainment_life/movies_tv/article_0bf96fd4-8f8d-57ca-b59b-ce813d1c6f77.html).

·      The Jungle Book: The Making of a Musical Masterpiece (Documentary, 1997).

·      Weinert-Kendt, Rob, Cutting Through a Cultural Thicket (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/theater/the-jungle-book-comes-to-the-stage.html?_r=0) accessed 12/03/2021.

Spike Lee's 'Da 5 Bloods' & The African-American Vietnam Experience

Set Image from Da 5 Bloods. Director Spike Lee to the left.

Picture this: It’s June 2020. The United Kingdom has been in full national lockdown for three months, but the end is seemingly in sight (or so we foolishly thought). Football has returned and the pubs will be following on not long after. It’s the middle of the summer and things are looking up... 

 Across the Atlantic Ocean however, the blistering midsummer heat was matched only by the fiery racial unrest that was going on in the United States. The killing of George Floyd by the Minneapolis P.D. sparked national (and then international) outrage at the institutionalised racism and excessive police brutality that had been put on display to the world. Amongst all this, Spike Lee’s latest project Da 5 Bloods released on Netflix in the middle of June. A story of four black Vietnam veterans returning to their former battleground to honour their fallen comrade, this timely release was an excellent tale to tell - and Lee was the perfect person to tell it. His extremely provocative, confrontational, and downright uncomfortable style of filmmaking amplifies his message and enthrals the audience even further. 

The first important scene which exemplifies the traditional African American view on the war is when the characters arrive in Ho Chi Minh city. Upon being glared at by two elderly Asian men, the characters’ tour guide informs them they are also veterans of the war – but on the side of the North. Though they expect hostility, instead they receive hospitality and a formal welcome.1  With this, Spike Lee is referring to the somewhat symbiotic relationship between conscripted black American soldiers and their enemies, this is exemplified by the Muhammad Ali quote which he uses as a cold open for the film: ‘Shoot them for what? They [the Vietnamese] never called me ‘nigger’. They never lynched me, they didn’t put no dogs on me, didn’t rob me of my nationality.’ Ali’s argument was simple; how can the Vietnamese be an enemy, if the white man in America was already hostile? There is evidence within the draft boards and military to support this: There was only one African American on Kentucky’s (Ali’s home state) draft board (0.2%), despite making over 7% of the State’s population. As the ground war began, 23% of American fatalities in Vietnam were African American – significantly well over the proportionate population.

Paul (Delroy Lindo) sporting his MAGA cap.

 Special attention should be paid to the character Paul,   played by Delroy Lindo. Paul is unlike his fellow Bloods –   paranoid, aggressive, and notably a staunch Republican   and avid supporter of President Trump. Through Paul,   Lee creates a veteran filled with bitterness and rage – a   vessel to show the consequences of years of systemic   racism, extreme emotional trauma and the daily ‘wearing   down’ that is covert racism. This is both a commentary on   the war as well as on the black experience in America.   Lee deftly weaves the modern and flashback scenes   together – and in doing this shows how the anti-Vietnam   sentiment lives on so strongly today.

 

                                               

 Liam McKerral

Willy Wonka and the Financial Divide of the Sixties

Everyone knows the story of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory...unless you've been living under a rock of course. Roald Dahl's 1964 childhood classic, follows the story of young Charlie Bucket his once-in-a-lifetime chance to tour Willy Wonka's incredible chocolate factory; along the way, we are introduced to four other children who have also won this opportunity. As the story progresses, all of the children except Charlie behave in a greedy and self-centred way, causing them to be punished accordingly, until Charlie is the only child left. At the end of the book, we find out that Wonka had used this tour as a way to test the children's morality in order to find a suitable heir to his business. We are used to seeing similar things happen in films, TV shows and books - the inherently good people getting the recognition and praise they deserve, while those who are morally corrupt, face consequences for their actions. However, something that is not obvious to young readers, and many adults, is that this supposedly fictional world can be seen as an interpretation of a capitalist dystopia, which scarily holds many similarities to the world Dahl lived in at the time of writing. In recent years, many scholars have looked into Dahl's beloved books as cleverly political without hindering the enjoyment of his readers. The main political issue that influenced Dahl while writing this book, was the level of poverty in Britain during the Sixties. Perhaps the most obvious way Dahl has incorporated poverty here is through the socioeconomic status of our protagonist and his family. In the first chapter, we are introduced to the Bucket family which consists of the four grandparents, two parents and Charlie himself. We are also told that they all live in a tiny wooden house at the edge of their town where they only have two beds between the seven of them. As Mr Bucket is the only family member to work, his income is not enough to provide the family with their basic human needs, apart from the smallest and plainest meals. As a result of this, the majority of the family are on the brink of starvation. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (an economic research centre in London) claimed that as a result of Conservative government policies, alarming numbers of English households faced extreme poverty during the 1960s, attributing large family size coinciding with benefit reduction as the main causes. However, we also see the economic disparity in the characters of Veruca Salt and her family. Veruca Salt is possibly the most well-known children's character associated with childish greed. She is able to get anything she wants by asking her wealthy father to buy it for her, with which he complies. It is clear that Veruca takes her family's fortune for granted and this has led to her complete disregard for the consequences of her actions. In the context of the Sixties, Veruca Salt and her constant need to have new things is reminiscent of the consumer lifestyle that was expanding during this decade. During this time, affluent people would spend money on luxury, non-essential items. Author, Can Fenerci, highlights the important point that despite their differences in wealth, Charlie and Veruca find themselves in the same place; while Veruca's ticket was obtained through utilising her father's finances, Charlie succeeded through pure luck. The vast wealth gap between these two characters is comparable to the societal structure of the Sixties. Journalist, Samantha Leerson, highlights the very important point that Charlie and his family are the only characters in this book that could truly benefit from the generosity shown by Willy Wonka, however, they are in the position least likely to receive this life-changing empire. However, the consumer lifestyle presented in Veruca's character just shows the economic disparity that was present during the Sixties. Perhaps the message Dahl wanted to put across to his young audience, in a subtle way, was that having money does not make you a good person. Sometimes those who have little, are happier than those who have/demand everything. - Angel Barber Further Reading: https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/dec/03/willy-wonka-to-wind-in-the-willows-how-childrens-books-reveal-inequality https://the-artifice.com/charlie-chocolate-factory/ http://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/poverty-in-the-divided-kingdom https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11726111.pdf http://resource.download.wjec.co.uk.s3.amazonaws.com/vtc/2016-17/16-17_2-43/part2-never-had-it-so-good.pdf

Cornwall's Surf Capital

When people think of Cornwall, many things spring to mind: pasties, beaches, and most commonly, surfing. But not many people are aware of how surfing came to be such a phenomenon in the South-West. The Sixties saw a major increase in travel and tourism, especially for the beautiful coastal towns of Cornwall. Newquay, along the North Coast of Cornwall, particularly thrived in the Sixties, aided by the sudden popularity of surfing. Upon the arrival of Australian lifeguards to the town in the early 1960s, the ocean-based sport found a new and inviting home. These lifeguards were credited with drastically reducing the fatalities on Newquay's beaches; not only this, they added excitement to the traditional British holiday scene. The former editor of CARVE Surfing Magazine, Chris Power, stated that the Australians inspired thousands of young people to take up the sport. Young people, local and or not, were enthusiastic to match the skill they saw the Aussies perform out in the water. Some people may wonder why Newquay became the Cornish epicentre of surfing brilliance. The answer is quite simple. The famous Fistral and Watergate beaches had near-ideal surfing conditions, especially in the summer months, so, therefore, were popular sites for young cohorts to surf. In addition to this, it is important to note that in the Sixties, tourism became a major industry in Cornwall as a whole. Cornwall's once-thriving mining and fishing industries were starting to decline due to the increase in foreign imports. This meant that tourism emerged as the way forward if the Cornish economy was to be maintained. Cornwall as a county offers something that no other place in the UK does - a laid back attitude towards life, as well as the gorgeous beaches. There is no denying that this surge of popularity for surfing in Cornwall, subsequently led to surfing becoming a popular beach activity across the nation. The famous band, the Beach Boys, promoted the surfer lifestyle during this decade, just encouraging more people to take to the waves. Newquay's surfing culture soon reached national and international prominence; this legacy has only grown since the Sixties. As a result of this, the National Surfing Centre Surf School found its home in Newquay; additionally, the largest surf, skate and music festival in Europe, Rip Curl Boardmasters, also takes place in Newquay each year. As it's clear to see, Newquay's surfing culture was a major driving force behind the expanding popularity of surfing in the UK. Who would have thought that a small group of Australian lifeguards, had the ability to unconsciously change the course of Cornish history? - Angel Barber Further Reading: https://www.cornishwave.com/surfing-in-newquay-the-history/ tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/17460263.2011.554720?needAccess=true https://www.cornwalls.co.uk/newquay/newquay_beaches.htm https://www.visitnewquay.org/explore/history-of-newquay https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/aug/24/surfing-anniversary-cornwall-devon https://www.pentirehotelnewquay.co.uk/blog/newquay+surf+a+brief+history+of+the+uk’s+surf+city_32

Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence - U.D.I.

Ian Smith, who was elected to pursue independence for
South Rhodesia - with or without Britain's consent.

As the winds of change blew over the African continent, the United Kingdom began the process of decolonisation in the late 1950s and throughout the 1960s. The process in many territories was not without controversy; involving a brutal war in Kenya, the implementation of hasty and unilateral federal arrangements in Nigeria, the slapping together of British Cameroons with a neighbouring French colony, and fleeting attempts to deny popular leaders power in soon-to-be nations from Ghana to Botswana. However, perhaps the most traumatic and thoroughly botched decolonisation effort was undertaken in Southern Rhodesia.

A hard-line Rhodesian Front government came to power in 1964, under Ian Smith. Ian Smith’s government almost immediately set about trying to demonstrate their right to constitute an independent state as Ian Smith himself elaborated upon in his autobiography: The government held a referendum for the almost wholly-white electorate which endorsed independence by a wide margin, and an ‘indaba’ was held among the country’s many indigenous chiefs which unanimously endorsed independence on the Rhodesian Front’s terms.

Note that the African population was not afforded a referendum. The African population was regarded in quite contradictory manners by the government, press and white society in general in Rhodesia: They were treated with fear and suspicion, with the number of Africans considered “civilised” always being very small. But what was interesting is that there existed a parallel impression of the black population: Throughout the period the African “masses” were considered benign, simple, and thoroughly uninterested in equality with whites (black nationalism invariably considered by the Smith government as a foreign import by malicious neighbours). Keeping with this impression, the Rhodesian government sought to operate through tribal leaders - ostensibly seen as the natural representative of a population that couldn’t understand or were not interested in democratic participation. The fact that the tribal leaders were far more easily manipulated, and often served at the government’s beck-and-call oughtn’t surprise anyone.

These failed to convince Westminster, neither were they convinced by the subsequent negotiations, which failed to reach consensus on the issue of the black majority in Southern Rhodesia. The negotiations having gone nowhere, Smith's government issued U.D.I. in 1965: Detractors maintained this was ultimately to preserve white minority rule. Smith for his part rejected this to his dying day, maintaining that Rhodesia's economy could only improve when independent, which would benefit all people living there - and citing Congo as an example of majority-rule that made blacks worse off.

The newly-independent Rhodesia's race relations were nuanced
and complex, as the black majority were on occasion viewed as
unproblematic - provided they remained essentially apolitical.

U.D.I. inaugurated a fascinating period in African history wherein the two-track understanding (or lack thereof) of blacks as at once a latent threat and a benign, passive element within Rhodesian society provides a more nuanced form of what one might call White Supremacy than that which existed in, say, South Africa or the American South.

However, it also had-far reaching effects globally. It spurred the U.N.’s first-ever sanctions - with Rhodesia now forming a key case study into the efficacy of sanctions in geopolitics - and revived the Commonwealth: Now dominated by newly-decolonised states, the Commonwealth had once looked to be the last breath of empire but following U.D.I. was imbued with a new, relevant purpose as a vehicle for African states to air their grievances and have them heard: On Rhodesia, and later on South Africa and other concerns. - DANIEL A. RUSSELL

SOURCES:

·       Anglin, Douglas G., Unilateral Independence in Southern Rhodesia, International Journal Vol. 19, No. 4 (Autumn, 1964).

·       Cousins, Alan, State, Ideology, and Power in Rhodesia, 1958-1972, The International Journal of African Historical Studies Vol. 24, No. 1 (1991).

·       Fraser, Malcolm, The Effectiveness of the Commonwealth, RSA Journal Vol. 138, No. 5402 (January 1990).

·       Hovi, Jon; Huseby, Robert and Sprinz, Detlef F., When Do (Imposed) Economic Sanctions Work?, World Politics Vol. 57, No. 4 (Jul., 2005).

·       Marshall, H. H., The Legal Effects of U. D. I. (Based on Madzimbamuto v. Lardner-Burke), The International and Comparative Law Quarterly Vol. 17, No. 4 (Oct., 1968).

·       Minter, William and Schmidt, Elizabeth, When Sanctions Worked: The Case of Rhodesia Reexamined, African Affairs Vol. 87, No. 347 (Apr., 1988).

·       Smith, Ian D., Southern Rhodesia and Its Future, African Affairs Vol. 63, No. 250 (Jan., 1964).

·       Smith, Ian, Bitter Harvest: Zimbabwe and the Aftermath of its Independence, (London: John Blake Publishing Ltd., 2008).

Blinded by the Magic

Disney films are a part of everyone's childhood, but are we all so distracted by the magic that we are blind to the racist messages? The Jungle Book (1967) may seem like an innocent story on the surface, but are we overlooking the blatant mockery of African Americans? Walt Disney is a household name around the globe with his films and theme parks bringing that extra little bit of magic into everybody's lives. However, much less publicised, has been Disney's conservative views that defined how he represented people that he saw as social outcasts. In the last few years, more people have been writing about the dangerous stereotypes in Disney films and how they can lead to an altered view of reality. But in the Sixties, these views were commonplace. In 1991, scholar Greg Metcalf wrote about this family favourite and suggested that The Jungle Book was a reaction to the changes happening in American society during this raucous decade. Perhaps the most alarming to Disney, was the progress being made towards African American civil rights. So where's the racism? The answer is, right in front of your eyes! The monkeys in the film were consciously voiced by white-American actors to have 'black' accents and a tendency to sing scat. The monkeys were seen as fools who couldn't take themselves seriously, which is a clear reference to the blackfacing and mockery that existed to humiliate African Americans. Perhaps the most obvious racist detail in The Jungle Book, was the monkeys' prominent lips. One of the leading characters, Baloo, then pokes fun at this facial feature by wearing coconut halves to emphasise his own lips as part of his disguise to fit in with the monkeys. This particular stereotype feeds into the longlasting idea by Josiah C. Nott and George R. Gliddon, developed in 1854.These leading 'scientists' claimed that black people were closer to monkeys than white people were, due to the shape of their skulls. They used this to justify slavery, and later segregation. Obviously, this is a very harmful stereotype that unfortunately continues to rear its ugly head in society today.

Metcalf also discussed a link between The Watts Riot (1965) and a scene from The Jungle Book. The Watts Riot was a major event in the fight for civil rights that took place during the production of this film, so it is easy to draw parallels between the two. The monkeys attempt to stop Baloo and Bagheera from helping Mowgli to escape, which led to a big fight. In the scuffle, the monkeys ended up destroying what remained of their home - this is a clear reference to the millions of dollars worth of damage caused in The Watts Riot. The idea of civilisation is important here too, as Disney intentionally reinforces the idea that whites, or animals coded to be white, are more civilised than black people. So what's the big deal? Despite this film being made at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, the damaging representations of African Americans in The Jungle Book were forced upon millions of children during their most impressionable ages, 3-12. The subconcious racist messages throughout this film are indoctrinated into the minds of young people, and even in the present day, this is something that is dangerous for society. - Angel Barber Further Reading: Greg Metcalf, '"It's A Jungle Out There, Kid!": The Sixties in Walt Disney's "The Jungle Book", Studies in Popular Culture, Vol. 14, No. 1 (1991), pp. 85-97. Cory Lund, I Wanna be Like You: Racial Coding in Disney's The Jungle Book, December 2017 https://sites.williams.edu/f18-engl117-01/uncategorized/i-wanna-be-like-you-racial-coding-in-disneys-the-jungle-book/ Alex Wainer, Reversal of Roles: Subversion and Reaffirmation of Racial Stereotypes in Dumbo and The Jungle Book