A Not So Great Britain

A Not So Great Britain

It is ironic that we are called Great Britain. Nothing about the abhorrent society that we live in today is of an exceptional quality that we can be proud of. Unfortunately, extreme levels of nationalism, xenophobia and racism have become accepted. Britain’s democratic decision to leave the European Union appears to have become a justification for hatred towards different ethnicities. However, the British people are not entirely to blame. It is the Vote Leave politicians who pulled the first brick out of the wall of equality. Vote Leave campaigners have made it socially acceptable (for perhaps up to 52% of the electorate) to be intolerant towards those that are not British. Whether it is the European leaders in Brussels or the immigrants travelling here in search of a livelihood, leave campaigners have steadily demonised those that are different to ourselves. This is not “great”, and it is certainly nothing to be proud of.

In Britain’s shameful quest for sovereignty, we have sharply lost all our influence over what happens to the world and our country. One of the key arguments that lay at the heart of the Vote Leave campaign was the concept of control over our own legislation, and how we can “unshackle” ourselves from the rules and restrictions of the European Union. The officials in Brussels have been portrayed by Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson as dictators who have an oppressive grasp on our country. This appealed to voters profoundly. They questioned why we cannot have the freedom to create our own laws? Surely we should have the right to create our own legislation without the influence of an external governing body, they pondered. These are all perfectly valid points. Democracy is a valuable system we should never take for granted; in fact, it should be cherished. If 36.9% of the electorate desire for a Conservative government to create our laws, it is perfectly understandable that they would want to break away from the overpowering influence of Brussels.

However, as the seismic consequences of Brexit begin to tear the British economy apart, the evidence appears to suggest that we have become much less sovereign. Our credit rating has decreased, the pound has steeply fallen in value and we are steadily losing the power to prevent Scottish independence in the next decade. Leave voters believed they had chosen to “take back control”, to break the chains of the European officials, who were portrayed as tyrannical and undemocratic. For many xenophobes, the idea of “those European bureaucrats” having influence over our country’s politics appeared too much to endure. It must deeply hurt them to see that we have in fact lost control since we voted Brexit. Defined as the ability to govern ourselves, and to have authority over what happens within our country, it is clear there is nothing sovereign about this post-Brexit Britain. Our markets are suffering, and there is nothing we can do to prevent the tumultuous storm of a recession heading our way. The only choice our parliament can make entirely on their own is when to activate Article 50. Yet, even that decision can be overturned by the House of Lords, who are just as undemocratic and unelected as the European officials that have been demonised. Fortunately for the xenophobes in this country, the House of Lords is mostly comprised of white males, which must make it acceptable for them to have undemocratic control. Ultimately, when Article 50 is activated, we lose our influence in Europe and what happens to our own country forever. It will be they who decide what our future trade deals look like, not us. Thus, for many remain supporters, the country’s decision to leave the EU is embarrassing and appalling. In the quest for more control over our own country and break away from foreign influence, we have lost economic stability, our allies and the once strong union that defined our country. Without these, we are no longer “great”. We are just a little country who tried to augment our own power, but have lost it in the process.

Farage's poster has been highly criticised as racist and
morally disgusting 

Furthermore, many British voters opted for Brexit believing it would lead to greater controls over immigration. To be worried over immigration is a completely legitimate concern. Our public services are under strain. It is understandable why many would want to alleviate the pressure from a struggling NHS by having greater controls over immigration. However, it is repulsive how immigrants have been used as the scapegoats for all of our problems because it is easier than blaming ourselves. Whilst it is true that tighter controls on immigration would take away some of the strain on the over-worked NHS, and to perhaps take away the demand for new homes in this housebuilding crisis, to completely blame immigrants is untrue. It is our Conservative government who have made cuts to NHS funding, who have not created enough jobs or built enough homes to meet demand. Yet, we continually blame the many Europeans who come to live in the UK. Despite the fact they are 43% less likely to take out of the benefit system, instead providing vital skills that over twenty billion pounds to the economy, many British citizens have diabolized them. Many have made them the problem. Since the referendum result, reports of hate crime have risen by 57%. Europeans are being described as “vermin”, as people who the government should “send them home”. Immigrants, who have only come here to work and provide for their family, are being portrayed as a plague that has marred Britain. This portrayal is wrong and morally repugnant. How can we call ourselves “great” Britain when hate speech such as this is taking place? As Michael Keith argues, “the unspeakable became not only speakable, but commonplace”, and it is utterly repellent.  

The most extreme demonisation of Europeans is evident in the manner that the Vote Leave campaign used terrorists and criminals as a weapon of fear. On one of their leaflets, they played upon societal anxieties by highlighting how a country like Turkey, which is planning to join the European Union, is bordered with Syria and Iraq. This is an attempt to label foreign people as the other, as something different and threatening. Shockingly, this worked with a majority of the British electorate. The Vote Leave campaign’s ridiculous warnings that the entire Turkish population of 77 million, described as being full of “murderers, rapists and terrorists”, will move over here as soon as the country joins the EU. For the campaign to make this claim is absurd, for the British electorate to believe it is very worrying indeed. Believing the claim that all of the world’s criminals exist within Turkey and Syria only leads to latent prejudices and hatred rising to the surface. As discussed earlier, many British citizens have taken it upon themselves to tell foreign people to “go back to your own country”, or to “get out”, as the reports of racism have suggested. This hatred towards those who are not British can and will escalate from verbal taunts to violent acts if we do not stop demonising them now. It is almost as if the British electorate have forgotten that MP Jo Cox was brutally murdered by a British terrorist, or that murderers, rapists and thieves of white nationality do exist also. There is a horrifying ‘us and them’ attitude in this country; we have become divided as we choose to fear those of different nationalities, rather than work with them to create a progressive future. The chasm that splits our country is so profound that to call ourselves the United Kingdom sounds ironic and foolish.

The name of our country completely juxtaposes with the negative ideals that we are currently holding. We are a country who shuns the political influence of Brussel’s officials, yet would be the first to accept their help when the disastrous consequences of Brexit arrive. Our economy cannot survive without immigration, yet we continue to portray it as a plague that will eventually destroy us. And finally, we are a country that uses criminals from different countries as bogeymen to instil fear, whilst ignoring the atrocities that British people have committed themselves. This post-Brexit Britain is appalling and disgusting. Xenophobia has swiftly become commonplace in this depraved society that we now live in. It is ironic that national pride was used by the Vote Leave campaign to attract votes, because there is nothing about Little England that we can be proud of anymore.

Consider the significance of the role of the Old Man in The Pardoner's Tale

Although the character appears for only a few lines in Chaucer’s The Pardoner’s Tale, the Old Man is a character of great significance to the text. He appears to act as a foil to the other sinful characters in the poem, may symbolise the supernatural idea of death and is presented as an arcane figure that intrigues the reader. It is clear that many of these significant aspects to the Old Man’s role link with elements of the Gothic genre.

  Chaucer presents the Pardoner as an ambiguous, arcane and mysterious character in his poem. We as a reader never truly know anything about him because his name, as well as information with regards to where he has come from or where he is going, are not revealed to us. The most significant mystery about his character is his role in the reveller’s death later in the text. The Old Man sends them up the “croked weye” towards the money and where they ultimately die. Whilst the word “croked” could connote how their “abhominable” behaviour is corrupt and immoral, and that it can only lead to destruction, a much greater significance is its ambiguity. We do not know whether it is their “grisly” behaviour or the Old Man’s intervention that leads to their damnation and death at the end of the tale. There are hints that it could be the Old Man’s sinister plan when he ominously says “in age, if that ye so longe abide”. This appears to strengthen the argument further that the Old Man does intend to send them to their death. Despite this, we still do not truly know for certain. This uncertainty and obscurity about the Old Man’s character may have been used to create tension and unease. We often fear what we do not understand, so Chaucer may have wished to use this absence of information to evoke a thrilling sense of terror and uncertainty from the reader.

  A much greater significance of the Old Man is his role as the antithesis of the corrupt and sinful characters in the text. When we are first introduced to the Old Man, Chaucer presents him as humble, gentle and benign: he is described as “ful mekely” and wishes upon the revellers that “God yow see!” them through their day. This connotes his innate goodness; the Old Man appears to be a welcoming character who treats the revellers with kindness. Chaucer juxtaposes this with other immoral characters in the text, such as The Pardoner who narrates this tale. The Pardoner is the antithesis of the Old Man: he is a “ful vicious man” of “avarice” rather than selflessness. This use of the word “vicious” suggests corruption, wickedness and a decayed sense of morality- qualities the Old Man does not appear to possess. The Pardoner, in contrast, would easily let “children sterve for famine” or take from the “povereste page” to satiate his covetousness. Some would argue that Chaucer does this to highlight how monstrous The Pardoner truly is. The Old Man may act as a foil which highlights why the narrator, whose only intention is to “winne” money, is someone the reader should be utterly repulsed by. The poem appears to be didactic in its message as it presents us with a symbol of virtue, the Old Man, to juxtapose with and condemn the corrupt Pardoner. However, a much stronger reading suggests that Chaucer is not creating revulsion for the Pardoner; rather, he may be highlighting the irony and folly of his Christian role. In Medieval England, the Pardoner and all religious clergymen would have been expected to be a good-natured, holy and moral. Chaucer presents the reader with the complete opposite, subverting our expectations of a religious man. Through the Old Man’s virtues, Chaucer may be choosing to satirise the corruption of the Catholic Church. After all, it is almost comic how a ‘fictional character’ in the Pardoner’s moral tale is actually more virtuous than the preaching narrator himself.

  The greatest significance of the Old Man is his complex relationship with death. He is initially presented as a supernatural character who could be the personification of death itself. Chaucer has lexicalised the description of the Old Man- “forwrapped”; “bones” and “vanisshe”- so that it evokes a sense of decay and withering. The Old Man’s striking physical description is one that appears to symbolise erosion and decay; contextually, it may even represent the Black Death which had plagued Europe. It could be argued Chaucer wished to use him as symbolic of death itself. After all, the revellers do describe him as death’s “espye”. By doing this, Chaucer does appear to be suggesting that the Old Man has greater, otherworldly powers than we first imagined. When the three revellers die at the end, we as readers naturally remember the macabre Old Man who sent them up the “croked weye”. However, a much stronger interpretation does suggest that the Old Man is a character we sympathise with, rather than fear, because he has lost the ability to die. The character is presented as having been cheated of the one quality every human being shares- the ability to die. Instead, he is a “restless kaitif” who is often pleading for his death to come: “leet me in!” to my grave he begs; he is often despondent over the fact “none.. chaunge his youthe for myn age”. The sympathy lies in the fact he has lost something he clearly seeks, but cannot have (even if he travelled from here to India). Death is something everyone has, even the “abhominable” revellers are allowed the right to this very human experience. Yet, the Old Man does not, and this ultimately creates a lot of sympathy for this almost victimised character who is denied the experience he wants the most.

  Chaucer uses the minor character of the Old Man to create a lot of meaning. The ambiguity about him, his juxtapositioning with the Pardoner and his supernatural immortality all appear to have been used to evoke different emotions from the reader. Whilst these evoked emotions could be negative ones, such as fear and unease, it is clear the Old Man represents the virtues and goodness of humanity when juxtaposed with many of the other characters lack in this poem. Thus, a lot of sympathy is created because he is punished to the greatest extent through immortality, whereas morally corrupt characters such as The Pardoner and the revellers do not experience such comeuppance.