Will We Remember Them?

Two minutes of lost time seemed more than some customers could handle.

Observing a two minutes silence for the war fallen each year seems a logical and traditional manner to commemorate and remember the sacrifice of our countrymen. Two minutes in which to take solace, stock and thank those who gave up their lives so young is, in fact, not very much by way of a remembrance.

Yet, whilst at work on Sunday, I couldn’t help but notice customers agitated by the two minute delay to their day. It seemed unthinkable that men who had died in a country not so far away, in a part of the world we are quite accustomed with, could roughly rob them of 120 seconds. Many shuffled around, sighed, and launched forward at the till points once an announcement declared the time 11:02.

Watching people behave with such disregard shocked me. How have the British become so desensitised to the Remembrance Sunday tradition, and unobservant of this most remarkable occasion to honour the dedication and service of veterans, old and new?

Could it be that the idea of war has become synonymous with twenty-first century lifestyle? Internet access and dedicated news channels have ensured that conflicts over the past decades are under constant scrutiny from a plethora of different outlets and sources. The conflict in Syria is believed to be the most reported news item this year. Whether on social media, the radio, television or in newspapers, scenes of warfare have come to dominate from all around the globe: be that in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria or countless other territories torn by fighting.

The inundation of information is as confusing as it is unending. In his work, ‘A Tragic Legacy’, Glen Greenwald reasonably argues that “The fact that war is the word we use for almost everything—on terrorism, drugs, even poverty—has certainly helped to desensitize us to its invocation; if we wage wars on everything, how bad can they be?” 

Greenwald’s extension as to how negative war actually is may be a push too far, but it does reflect on an interesting phenomenon. There is increasingly less support for war, and consequently we often try to completely distance ourselves from the events. 

Following the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that have dominated the first decade of the 21^st century, support for intervention in the Syrian conflict has dwindled. While a May Gallup Poll of the US found that 59% and 82% of the population supported those respective wars, only 36% are in favour in the case of Syria, versus 51% against. The sentiment is echoed by Britons, with 56% believing that military intervention in the area is not the answer.

It is difficult to imagine then that the World Wars drummed up so much support – of course, largely through propaganda. The threat to the public in the UK was a very real and very palpable one, with attacks on the country a constant reminder of the ongoing fight for freedom. With such little first-hand interaction into modern warfare in the last 50 years, it would appear that Britons have forgotten how crucial an army is to maintaining freedoms.

David Cameron is calling for some change to that, announcing plans for a larger remembrance on the centenary of World War One. However, Jeremy Paxman branded the PM a “complete idiot” as a result of this suggestion, arguing that “people [will] get the idea that somehow this is going to be celebrated. Well, only a complete idiot would celebrate such a calamity.”

Downing Street have demanded an apology for the comments, and rightly so. Indeed, celebrating war itself would be a calamity, but celebrating the lives of young men and boys who died for their country is nothing short of justified. There is much to be said for the courage and valour of men who, with little knowledge of the war and not wholly in support of the fighting, still went to meet certain death.

Only last week, we have seen the remarkable act of remembrance for unifying a nation under a single emotional banner as hundreds of strangers turned up to mark the funeral of soldier Harold Percival. It demonstrates our resolve to stand up for what is right and to intervene to protect social and cultural liberties. It is our respect for these men that unites us every 11 November as a testament to British resilience under adverse pressure; something that resonates with many nations following a century pocketed with war.

After all, while only a complete idiot would celebrate the calamity, it would be a far greater fool who did not remember history and commemorate its lessons.

Why Should We Continue to Send Aid to India?

Indian Government Spending and Aid contribution figures have been blown sky high.

The launch of an Indian Mars Mission is a giant leap for mankind. It marks another step in a global space age, once the reserve of the US and Soviet Russia.

Not only does it stand as a statement of India intent, but it demonstrates that here is a country slowly building its way out of great economic deprivation.

However, it is slowly. Public perception of India’s Mars Mission has been largely confused, with many claiming it to be a demonstration of wealth from the country. The evidence shows that the country is taking off quite literally and so aid contributions are no longer needed, many have suggested.

In reality this is a gross miscalculation that confuses the difference between growth and wealth in the Indian subcontinent.

Since the 1990s, the area has experienced its greatest period of growth in the country’s history, with many companies tapping into the wealth of resources that India can offer. Whilst it has helped to bring many millions out of poverty, there has not been a significant reduction in the percentage of people who live below the line. Around 40% of children are malnourished, and adults fare little better. The country is still renowned for its slums, with more than 500 million Indians living without electricity.

Here is a tale of two cities, twoIndias.

The growth of skilled labourers, scientists, doctors and other professionals is redefining the landscape of India. The space missions are far from a new project: they date back to the 70s. In fact, China’s space missions are more recent than India’s. Therefore, the willingness to invest in these enterprises shows a keen dedication from the Indian government not to be backfooted once again. Here is a nation that was forced into submission by British and French forces, which made the lands part of their empire and irrevocably damaged development there.

Never again says the space mission.

This is not a declaration that India does not need aid. India still remains home to the world’s largest poor. After all, aid is about poor people and not poor countries.

In Uganda, for example, aid packages from the UK are now not being sent to the government, but instead to agencies that will ensure the people will benefit from the money sent to the country. A similar review of expenditure in India should be brought forward, especially since there have been previous examples of India declaring that they do not need British aid.

Whilst this is a gross underestimation on the part of a country still in need of sufficient sanitation measures for a vast percentage of its population, the space missions do mark a step in the right direction.

Withdrawing from India at this stage would not be right; it would be a fiscal rerun of independence. The support from Britain ensures that India can now be seen not as an economically undeveloped country, but somewhere for companies to invest. Indeed, Pepsi Cola have recently announced a larger investment into the country’s infrastructure.

Aid merely needs readjustment: instead of packages, India now needs business legitimacy amidst its Asian rivals. The space mission is merely a manifestation of this Indian capacity. Providing these economic opportunities will ensure a strengthened British-Indian relationship, profits for both countries, and slowly reduce Indian dependence on aid.

India’s space revolution ushers in a new era of economic strength that needs commercial and corporate support if it is to transform and reform India as the international player that the country craves to be, surrounded by Arabian prominence and China’s technical drive. Acknowledging the injustice of colonial expansion, and supporting the Commonwealth evolution from a business table will launch the country to the stratosphere without much more help.

The Work Experience Conundrum

Are internships now so commonplace that value should be found elsewhere on the young person’s CV?

“Make sure that you go into the offices and sit there until someone comes and sees you. Don’t move. Don’t let them move you. Go in with a box of chocolates. Any journalist worth their salt will wonder what you are doing sat there, and, of course, be intrigued thanks to their irrepressible desire for those chocolates just sat there.”

This was some of the first advice I had regarding work experience and internships. The bold ‘Don’t-Hold-Back’ approach to get you through the door and into the chairs upstairs. It is one of many methods often advised for all young graduates and students pursuing any number of given career paths: send endless emails, update your LinkedIn profile, and shamelessly tweet away at important professionals until they notice you. As long as by your early 20s, you can boast a plethora of experience in the industry, an unrivalled portfolio of work and relevant employment.

The importance of experience and internships should never be doubted. Nowadays, any job application is underlined with phrases like ‘must have relevant work experience’, or ‘must demonstrate a working knowledge of the field’, or ‘must be able to provide examples of previous employment in this area.’

The myriad of means by which this same vague and crippling statement is recycled and reused is a seemingly virtual slap in the face, even to those with previous background in their chosen area.

The High Fliers’ graduate job survey reinforces this stigma, announcing that the modern graduate stands ‘little chance’ of success without this work experience.

Yet is this prerequisite a restricting and increasingly unfair method to assess applicants? A little over two decades ago, the very idea of work experience was practically unheard of, and now it is ubiquitous on the CVs and cover letters of the recently graduated.

In the same manner that a degree has fast become no real indication of whether the candidate is suitable for employment, could the endless amounts or experience really be a similar mirage, that needs to be culled? Employers are increasingly faced with shiny internships that scream ‘dedication and determination’. Yet for all the bolstering experience provides on a CV, it is not necessarily an indication of how one would fit permanently into a team.

Overcoming this new crisis is something that should be tackled. Of course, it would mean that other valid arguments against work experience – such as the limits of working for free restricting access, and the increasingly competitive nature meaning there are fewer chances for such work – would be vindicated. But the real measure would be to realign the work experience balance, and reintroduced other focuses, prominent before the mid-90s.

Part time jobs and student employment should be regarded just as beneficial as direct involvement in a chosen area for a limited period of time. The skills and competencies gained from these activities are often a more direct indication of the long term ways a person works in a team and reacts to different situations – like the time I accidentally managed to spill a new bottle of milk over a customer for whom I was making a coffee.

Customer service, tactful dealings with difficult or awkward customers and initiative all come to the forefront in a permanent job, where one’s own direction, business skill and awareness of the area come into play, independent of the ‘experience’ umbrella. These candidates have seen first-hand how to operate a business, integrate fully into a team and deal with customer complaints or queries that leaves them better equipped to handle unusual situations in the future.

Of course, experience in your own area of interest is vital, and should remain important in the application process. But now that companies are inundated with almost comparable experiences as well as similar degrees, other practical experience needs to be reinstated as an essential recruitment tool.

Not that I will deny how far a box of chocolates can get you in breaking the ice with a prospective employer.

Street Smart for Street Art?

Has Banksy’s latest New York stunt proven that we are all slightly ignorant to culture?

An old man laid out his art stall this weekend and sat through a bright, yet slightly chilly autumnal day in New York.

His stand, much like those that lined not just the same street, but boulevards and promenades in London, Paris and around the world, presented a hot-pot of artistic pieces of intricate detail, selling at just $60 (roughly £38).

Few people took notice of whatappeared to be an ordinary stall. It took hours to sell his first painting. Even then, it was at a discounted price of 50% off.  Total takings for the day only came in at $420, not even £300.

But this was not just a street vendor. These were 100% originally Banksy paintings. It is estimated their true value may be in the region of £20,000. A bargain for the savvy few that bought the pieces; for the rest of us, this is a truly saddening indictment of society.

The questions raised by the experiment are just as interesting as the spontaneous sale itself: “Are we too busy?”, “Are we ignorant?”, “Are we uncultured?”. And, seemingly, the answer would be a yes. At least based on Banksy’s approach.

A similar experience befell world renowned and talented violinist, Joshua Bell, a few years ago at a Metro station in Washington DC. The musician, who had but two nights before sold out a theatre in Boston for an average of $100 a seat, earned just $27 in the stunt, which saw thousands of naïve commuters pass by unawares.

Such unusual tactics obviously catch us by surprise. But is the reality that we are becoming less observant and increasingly driven by a busy society? We no longer give time to consider the value the art in front of us until a bystander informs us of what we have missed. The old school of thought that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” has never rung truer, yet been so underappreciated.

If an artist paints his work, but no one stops to consider it; does the painting remain true great art? Of course it does. The legacy and testament of artists such as Van Gogh proves this. But in the modern world, with internet, mobile technology and greater access to information, it strikes as ignorance that so many could walk past unaware as to the achievement in front of them. It goes to show that increasingly, it is not talent, but marketing and reputation that sell artwork: a sign of a culture that has become dependent on others to tell them what art is, and by extension, how to think and live.

Seneca noted the problem over two millennia ago: “There is nothing the busy man is less busied with than living” he mused. He concluded that it left little space for man to successfully consider everything because his mind was too busied. The sentiment was echoed last century, when W. H. Davies penned the immortal words “What is this life if, full of care, we have no time to stand and stare”.

Now, with television adverts, billboards, the internet, social media and an increasingly diverse number of mediums by which to disseminate information and opinion, are minds have never been so busy sifting through information. The result is that we are immune and numb to art and talent, because we have become hardened by the apparent need to strive for achievements in work, glamorised by society.

The art debate has raged fiercely throughout history: is art representing fact or an opinion or an emotion or all of these?

The Banksy project does not show that we are incapable of recognising beauty. Rather, people have the wrong priorities: the art seems irrelevant to them at the time. If it were housed proudly and resplendently in a museum or gallery, then we can be sure that people would queue eagerly to snap a photo and admire the detail up close. If we took time to stop, would we realise we have been missing a wealth of culture every day?

Society will have to pay for its ignorance several times over before the month is out. Banksy’s ‘Better Out Than In’ project promises new street art in NYC each day throughout October. And whilst art buffs and fans alike race the streets of Manhattan to find the artwork each day, they have already found the works defaced and altered by other taggers, artists and property owners, unaware they are covering a thousand dollar masterpiece.

The Day After Shutdown

America’s greatest challenge only comes to light now the shutdown is over.

The United States of America, considered by many to be one of the greatest examples of Western democracy, has been in shutdown for over two weeks. In this time, America’s global standing has certainly been undermined each day with its allies, whilst its enemies have looked on in a mocking triumph, as if this is the proof of everything wrong with the American way of life.

Dysfunction within a nation considered a bastion of power and democracy is always going to challenge international relations, but, more so than ever before, this government shutdown has reeked of ego massaging, in a scenario akin to a child walking away from his team because they’re losing a game. Reopening the house is now a mammoth and multifaceted problem.

Paralysis in the US means that other nations have learnt their own power. State Department deputy spokeswoman, Marie Harf, blasted what she called a “damaging” shutdown that “negatively impacts [US] standing abroad.”

Council on Foreign Relations president, Richard Haass, mimicked the sentiment, expanding that “This sends a message to allies that they're somewhat on their own.”

Indeed, you would be forgiven for forgetting the trouble across the pond. Following the initial week of turbulence, the shutdown seems largely disappeared from our news channels. With little action for negotiation on either side, the rest of the world could hardly wait around for America to splutter and kick start its way back to life.

In 1995, the last government shutdown, the economy was better equipped to deal with this sort of mass reduction in activity. Now, the economy is volatile.

Consequently, resolve within the American government, however, ushers in a new series of crises waiting to befall what appears an ailing regime of democracy.

Cancelling his important trip to Asia, with the intent of fostering better Chinese-American relations, Obama has allowed China to expand its global influence. The long planned trip was cut immediately to attend to the American crisis; a crisis fuelled and fired from the inside, on an issue triply settled in Congress, the courts and ballot.

The budget battle seriously risked sending the world into another recession, should the US default on its debts. This would provide China with grounds to claim that the US Dollar is not a secure currency, and to switch internationally to the Yuan, creating inflation in the US and leaving China able to manipulate exchange rates. China has a heaven sent opportunity to portray itself as the image of stability once peddled by US citizens.

Reopening government will be haunted by questions not only of reliability, but efficiency and how effective America is as a world power.

Not too long ago, America was the flexing power by which Syria was a crisis that would soon be resolved. Instead, the state now appears hypocritical at best for not even being able to hold control of its own house. Iran’s nuclear programme, one of the most controversial aspects of news, is legitimised by the US shutdown: how can one country in a turbulent period comment on another’s right for nuclear power?

The ramifications are more than economic and political then: they shake the very foundations of opinion on Western democracy and its impact. Russian President Vladimir Putin has expressed his disappointment at not being able to meet with Obama over these key international issues that have been played out on a world stage for the past year. His spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said, “There is a great need in our bilateral relations for a dialogue at the highest level.” Yet the only dialogue is that of the Russians.

Ironically, not only does this strengthen the Russian position, but seriously gives credence to those who believe the Russian President is a viable candidate to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. This nomination the result of what is now viewed the most effective plan to initiate peace in Syria, spearheaded by Russia alone during shutdown.

Uncle Sam awakes to find a nation not only questioning its own importance, but one that has shot itself, and is now bleeding internally. It will be a slow and painful process to recover, but never heal fully. Being held to ransom by its own government, the US continues to lose money every day with hundreds of thousands of people out of work, tourism and national monument sites closed, and Head State funded programmes cancelled without notice, as it slowly hits restart. Not only will this be an international debacle, but a case of national humiliation. Americans will need to learn to have faith and trust in their own system again. When controversial popstar Miley Cyrus manages to mock the shutdown with panache, one wonders whether the people responsible realise the true extent of the extravagant spectacle.

What ‘Obamacare’ is highlighting is a chronic condition: an illness with little chance of treatment. Raising the debt ceiling and reopening the government isn’t the last of the turbulent American issues: it just kicks a proverbial can of worms a few months further down the line. This is a disease that has become malignant.

The latest poll suggests that almost three quarters of American’s leave the blame with the Republican Party. Essentially, the minority are trying to gain the upperhand through a form of extortion, and Obama is not willing to give into that. So, as government is reopened, the logical solution would be to pass an amendment to stop such petty squabbles crippling the US in future.

Well, this is where America comes to its ultimate Catch 22. This is the nation that declares itself the land of the free. This is the nation of modern democracy. To change the freedom enjoyed by Americans in the House is to admit that the system was wrong. It is unlikely that the government will risk this ultimate humiliation. Ideologically and, more importantly, in all practicality, this is a battle for freedom of speech that neither side can win.