Gateway Chronicle 2022

YOUNG VOICES 

GATEWAY CHRONICLE 2022

2 | G ateway Chronicle

CONTENTS 

FROM THE EDITORS 5 

MEDIEVAL PERIOD 

Were medieval children really seen as miniature adults? 7 

How far do you agree that Richard II lost his throne due to 

his cousin Henry’s ambition? 12 

The maid of Orleans 17 

Arthur Tudor’s untimely death in childhood 20 

EARLY MODERN PERIOD 

‘The prettiest and dearest child’ – what does the death of John Evelyn’s son 

in 1658 tell us about childhood in 17 th century England? 24 

Phillis Wheatley 27 

The forced assimilation of Native American children 30 

How significant was the 1870 education act? 33 

MODERN PERIOD 

Dismantling the rabbit-proof fence 38 

Youth and the Easter Rising 41 

Childhood in the early Soviet Union 43 

The impact of the Nazi regime on the youth of Germany 46 

A tale of two viruses 50 

‘Masters of the new society’: how childhood was redefined in 20 th century China 52 

A pioneer of American education: the story of Ruby Bridges 57 

Victims and protagonists: children and the troubles 59 

The historical significance of Lego 63 

The history of childhood 65 



FROM THE 

EDITORS 

Jonathan B 

Ben H 

Hannah P 

Arthur R 

This year, after the huge changes that 

have affected children’s lives and 

education around the world, we thought it 

fitting to give a voice to some incredible 

young people who have achieved so much 

despite their youth. What makes this 

edition so interesting is the plethora of 

ways that pupils and teachers throughout 

the School have interpreted ‘Young 

Voices’. 

It is also appropriate that considering 

recent humanitarian crises perhaps, the 

Chronicle examines the suffering of young 

people, as well as celebrates the rise in 

youth popular protest and young leaders. 

With such a broad range of articles, from 

youth movements to child rulers and Lego, 

there truly is something to whet everyone’s 

historical appetite. 

We would like to extend our thanks to all 

the teachers and pupils who contributed to 

our Chronicle and enriched us with their 

knowledge of children throughout history. 

We are indebted to Mrs Gregory for her 

tireless work in rallying us, keeping up 

morale and proofreading the whole 

Chronicle, and to Oli, whose fantastic 

cover hides our lack of artistic prowess. 

We hope you find these articles thoughtprovoking 

and, ultimately, engaging as well 

as serving as a reminder that no voice is 

ever too small to be heard. 



MEDIEVAL PERIOD 


WERE 

MEDIEVAL 

CHILDREN 

REALLY SEEN 

AS MINIATURE 

ADULTS? 

Ben H, U6VLS 

In Centuries of Childhood (1962), Philippe 

Ariѐs asserts that ‘in medieval society the 

idea of childhood did not exist’, arguing that 

children were seen as ‘miniature adults’, on 

the basis that children tended to be 

depicted in adult dress by artists. 1 The 

view that childhood did not exist in the 

medieval period has since become 

ingrained into the popular imagination, yet 

this is perhaps a misconception. Ariѐs 

argues that during the medieval period, 

people were not aware of their exact age, 

there didn’t exist a culture of childhood and 

education was limited; essentially, 

childhood was not distinct from adulthood. 

The first statement is of little significance, 

as people would have been roughly aware 

of their age and when their birthday was. 

Moreover, the evidence suggests that there 

did exist a culture of childhood and, whilst 

education was limited, this was a result of 

the social hierarchy and not because 

children were not seen as intellectually 

indistinct from adults. Another commonly 

held view is that children were not loved by 

their parents due to high rates of infant 

mortality, but the evidence suggests 

otherwise. The medieval period can be 

defined as lasting from the fifth to midsixteenth 

centuries, but due to the 

availability of evidence, this examination of 

childhood will focus on the twelfth century 

onwards. The balance of evidence from 

this period indicates that childhood was 

recognised as distinct from adulthood and 

that children were not seen as miniature 

adults. 

There is little to suggest that there did not 

exist a unique childhood culture, as toys 

from the period have been recovered. The 

Museum of London displays a toy knight, 

dating from c.1300, which is described as 

1 

Anastasis Ulanowicz, ‘Philippe Ariѐs’, 

https://www.representingchildhood.pitt.edu/pdf/ 

aries.pdf [accessed 21/11/21], p. 2 

8 | Gateway Chronicle

‘one of the earliest examples of a massproduced 

medieval metal toy.’ 2 Another toy 

knight, dating back to the thirteenth 

century, can be found on display at the 

Walters Art Museum. The existence of 

mass-produced toys indicates that it was 

common for children to play, which detracts 

from the argument that children were seen 

as miniature adults. A mechanical bird from 

the late medieval period, ‘capable of 

pivoting on a frame so that the tongue 

moved in and out’, has also been 

recovered, as have toy utensils. 3 Similarly, 

children played games and doodled, with 

‘Handy-dandy’ being referenced by the 

poet Langland in the 1360s, and the 

childhood drawings of Onfim Wuz, dating 

back to the twelfth or thirteenth century, 

having been recovered in Novgorod. 4, 5 

Moreover, the crown levied a tax on 

imported ‘puppets or babies for children’ in 

1582, reflecting the money generated by 

the toy industry. 6 In addition, the account 

of Bartholomeus Anglicus, translated into 

English by John Trevisa in 1398, indicates 

that children preferred the company of 

those their own age: 

they love talkynges and counsailles of 

suche children as they bene, and forsaken 

and voyden companye of olde men 7 

As such, there is a wealth of evidence 

suggesting that a distinct childhood culture 

existed, even paralleling the experiences of 

children today. Children had toys, played 

games, drew, and preferred the company 

of those their own age. In fairness, 

contemporary artwork depicting this is 

limited, but this in itself shows the limit of 

using art as the basis of a conclusion about 

childhood. Paintings of children dressed in 

adult clothes do not represent the 

childhood culture that existed in the 

medieval period. Rather, evidence of toys, 

doodles and games demonstrate the 

existence of a distinct childhood culture. 

Ariés’ conclusions about education are 

similarly unsubstantiated. Whilst education 

was limited to the upper classes, the fact 

that children were seen as intellectually 

distinct from adults indicates a recognition 

of childhood. It is to be expected that 

educational opportunities were limited, as 

working-class children continued to be 

employed late into the nineteenth century, 

with the framework for the schooling of all 

children between the ages of five and 

twelve only being set out in 1870. As such, 

it would be unfair to claim childhood did not 

exist in medieval times on the basis that 

few children attended school. Despite the 

2 

Museum of London, ‘Miniature knight on 

horseback’, 

https://collections.museumoflondon.org.uk/onlin 

e/object/145021.html [accessed 21/11/21] 

3 

Nicholas Orme, ‘The Culture of Children in 

Medieval England’, Past & Present, No. 148 

(Oxford University Press, 1995) pp. 57-59 

4 

The Vision of William concerning Piers the 

Plowman, ed. W. W. Skeat (Oxford, 1886), p. 

106 

5 

Paul Wickenden, ‘The Art of Onfim: Medieval 

Novgorod Through the Eyes of a Child’, 

http://www.goldschp.net/SIG/onfim/onfim.html 

[accessed 21/11/21] 

6 

Hugh Cunningham, ‘Histories of Childhood’, 

The American Historical Review, Vol. 103, No. 

4 (Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 1200 

7 



(Oxford University Press, 1995) p. 48 

9 | Gateway Chronicle

majority of children being in work, the 

evidence suggests that children were seen 

as intellectually distinct from adults. 

Schoolbooks are indicative of this, with 

several dozen, dating back to the fifteenth 

and early sixteenth centuries, having 

survived. Orme comments that ‘Masters 

composed [Latin] exercises […] with 

reference to the kinds of things that would 

interest their pupils and keep them 

attached to their work’, such as topics 

‘related to the schoolroom, the pupils and 

the everyday world’. 8 In these Latin 

translations, there are references to games 

such as ‘cherry-stones’ and ‘sayings, 

riddles and poems or songs current among 

the young’, providing further evidence that 

there existed a distinct childhood culture. 9 

Whilst schooling was also limited based on 

gender, girls born into the nobility were 

trained to perform domestic roles, which 

still reflects their being seen as 

intellectually distinct from women. 

However, students attended the 

universities of Oxford and Cambridge from 

as young as thirteen, suggesting that 

people were seen as children for a shorter 

period of time than we would expect today. 

This is a common theme throughout the 

period, however, with people getting 

married and having children in their midteens, 

and average life expectancy being 

47-48 during the fifteenth and sixteenth 

centuries. Yet despite the end of childhood 

potentially occurring at a younger age, and 

the majority of children being in work, 

children were seen as intellectually distinct 

from adults during the period, indicating 

that the concept of childhood existed. 

8 



(Oxford University Press, 1995) p. 76 

9 

Ibid. 

10 

‘Plague, famine and sudden death: 10 

dangers of the medieval period’, 

10 | Gateway Chronicle 

Another popular view is that due to high 

infant mortality rates, parents did not love 

their children, using them only as tools to 

either help with work or to advance their 

family’s interests. It is true that the death 

rate among medieval children was high by 

modern standards, with estimates that 20- 

30% of children died before the age of 

seven. 10 Moreover, parents could later lose 

their children to disease, battle, or 

childbirth. Yet applying modern perspective 

to the past achieves little. Whilst infant 

mortality was an ordinary part of life, it is a 

misconception that medieval parents 

closed themselves off from their children, 

as the biography of William Marshal, born 

in 1147, suggests. The consensus among 

scholars is that the biography was written 

by someone who knew William personally, 

and it depicts William as having had a 

loving relationship with his mother Sybil. 11 

According to the biography, every time 

William left home Sybil wept, which the 

biographer describes as ‘only natural’. 12 

https://www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/w 

hy-did-people-die-danger-medieval-period-lifeexpectancy/ 

11 

Rebecca Slitt, ‘Medieval Childhood in 

England: The Case of William Marshal 

12 

Ibid.

The fact that the biographer saw this as 

‘natural’ indicates that medieval children 

had loving relationships with their parents. 

However, this is an account of a noble 

child, which may not reflect the nature of all 

relationships between children and their 

parents. In particular, a noble child would 

have been less likely to die an infant. 

Nonetheless, it does dispel arguments that 

parents distanced themselves from their 

children, using them solely as political tools 

or in the service of their family, rather than 

caring for them. Moreover, John Evelyn’s 

diary account of his child’s death from 1658 

directly addresses the argument about high 

rates of infant mortality. Whilst it is about a 

century out from what can be considered 

‘medieval’, it nonetheless demonstrates 

that parents loved their children despite 

high rates of infant mortality. Evelyn 

describes his child as ‘deare’ and his 

‘griefe & affliction’ as ‘unexpressable’, 

having lost a son aged five. 13 He shows 

other signs of grief in his blame of others, 

accusing the ‘woman & maide that tended 

[his child]’ of suffocating him by covering 

him ‘too hott with blankets […] neere an 

excessive hot fire’. 14 Evelyn even states 

‘Here ends the joy of my life’, reflecting the 

significance of children to their parents. 15 

As such, it is likely that despite the risk of 

infant mortality, parents loved their 

children. Both the biography of William 

Marshal and John Evelyn’s diary account 

support this idea. 

In conclusion, children were not seen as 

miniature adults in the medieval period. 

The balance of evidence suggests that 

childhood was recognised as a separate 

phase of development. Children were 

viewed as intellectually distinct from adults, 

and there is clear evidence that there 

existed a culture of childhood. It also 

seems highly likely that parents loved their 

children, despite the popular view that, due 

to high rates of infant mortality, this was not 

the case. 

13 

John Evelyn’s diary, January 1658 

14 

Ibid. 

15 

Ibid. 


HOW FAR DO YOU 

AGREE THAT 

RICHARD II LOST 

HIS THRONE DUE 

TO HIS COUSIN 

HENRY’S 

AMBITION? 

Every year students in the Sixth Form 

about to study Medieval History research a 

key topic for an Essay Competition. This 

year’s winner was Milly CH, who 

considered the reasons why Richard II was 

deposed in 1399. Richard had become 

King at the age of just ten and negotiated 

successfully with the rebels in 1381 at the 

age of fourteen. Yet his reign was marred 

by rivalry with his cousin who was a similar 

age and their teenage conflict resulted in 

deposition and death… 


Bolingbroke’s ambition, both driven by his 

personal goals and Richard’s treatment of 

him, were a key factor in Richard’s 

deposition but it would be inaccurate to call 

it the most important factor. Instead, 

Richard’s own arbitrary actions led to a 

tyrannical reign and his losing his throne, 

although the declining authority and 

prestige of the crown is another factor to 

consider. 

Bolingbroke’s ambition, aptly captured in 

Shakespeare’s presentation of him in 

‘Richard II’, was a crucial factor in 

determining the fate of the throne in 1399. 

This ambition can perhaps be most clearly 

seen in the formation of his alliance with 

the Percy family in the North, a family 

continually slighted by Richard in his 

‘persistent efforts to break the independent 

power of the Percies’. As an incredibly 

powerful political and military force, this 

alliance was invaluable in the actuality of 

removing Richard II from the throne, the 

combined strength of Bolingbroke’s 

Lancastrians and the Percies proving 

undefeatable to the absent king. 

Bolingbroke’s ambition is thus evident as 

his political prowess aided his ambition to 

make a bid for the throne. By capitalising 

off the harm Richard himself had caused in 

the earlier days of his tyranny, Bolingbroke 

not only furthered his own goals but also 

united a fearful English nation behind, what 

initially appeared to be, a strong candidate 

for the throne. However, despite 

Bolingbroke’s ambition, it is key to note ‘the 

Percies opposed Henry’s design on the 

throne up to the very last.’ The 

weaknesses of Bolingbroke’s ambition are 

thus able to be seen as even his strongest 

allies could not be said to be fully 

committed to his desire for the crown. 

Continuing in this manner, Bolingbroke had 

proved himself to be capable of betraying 

others in order to get what he wanted, 

highlighting the ambition present within him 

which eventually allowed him to seize the 

throne of England. During the Lord’s 

Appellants’ uprising of 1388, Bolingbroke 

had brought the great masses of 

Lancastrian soldiers who weren’t abroad 

with his father to help stop the royal retinue 

in December 1387. Here, not only the 

beginnings Bolingbroke’s desire for a 

different monarch on the throne evident but 

also how his drive enabled his goal to be 

achieved. Although it was only temporary, 

the events of 1388 definitively set the 

scene for Bolingbroke’s own successful bid 

for the crown eleven years later, 

underlining the extent of his ambition and 

how it was crucial in later events. 

Furthermore, despite the possibility of it 

being fiction (although this has somewhat 

been dismissed thanks to Professor Given- 

Wilson), Bolingbroke sold out Mowbray to 

the king, claiming of treasonous 

advantages. It is thus key to note although 

Henry Lancaster clearly disapproved of 

Richard on the throne, as evidenced by his 

actions in 1388, he was not above going 

against these beliefs for his own personal 

gain – in this case, to obtain the trust of the 

king. Hence, even when his ambition was 

not being shown in actions and events 

directly relating to Richard II’s deposition in 

1399, Bolingbroke’s desire to achieve his 

goals can be seen to greatly influence the 

political climate of the Middle Ages, setting 

precedent for later years. However, it 

would not be fully accurate to say 

Bolingbroke’s ambition was the main 

reason for deposing Richard II as he 

publicly stated he was simply arriving back 

from exile to get his inheritance. There is 

no evidence until Henry was sure he would 

win a bid for the crown that he was 

attempting to do so, undermining the 

overall argument. Without a display of 


ambition for the crown, it would be 

inappropriate for a historian to deem this 

ambition the primary reason for Richard II 

losing his throne as it appears Bolingbroke 

was hiding behind the guise of his 

inheritance, out of disinterest for the crown 

and possibly fear until a successful 

outcome was guaranteed. Hence, ambition 

could be said to be a key factor but not the 

most important one. 

Yet, further evidence of Bolingbroke’s 

ambition is aided by the many slights 

Richard had delivered to his person and 

family, without them it would not have been 

fuelled in the way it was. Hence, a historian 

is able to see Richard’s treatment of his 

cousin powered the ambition which helped 

in throwing him off the throne. Following 

the quarrel between Bolingbroke and 

Mowbray, Henry was exiled to France in 

1398 which, after the death of his father, 

allowing Richard to take over the 

Lancastrian estates and bar Bolingbroke 

from his inheritance. Not only did this 

greatly insult Bolingbroke but also the 

Lancastrians as a family, by confiscating 

their lands Richard took away their source 

of income and pride. This proved to have 

deadly ramifications for 

Richard, Henry seized the opportunity to 

return from exile in order to claim his 

inheritance, as he repeatedly stated upon 

arrival in Ravenspur in Yorkshire. This 

quickly transpired into a bid for the crown 

as previous strong supporters of the king 

abandoned their positions in order to 

support the usurper – largely down to 

Bolingbroke’s personality and belief in 

chivalry, ambitious to bring it back to 

Richard’s England. As Saul notes, 

‘Bolingbroke envisaged a personal and 

moral solution to the essentially political 

problem of his cousin’s misrule’, 

underlining the extent of Bolingbroke’s 

goals firing his desire for the crown. The 

most prominent slight against Henry is 

undoubtedly the most famous as well; 

Richard went too far, fuelling Bolingbroke’s 

ambition to the point of no return. On the 

other hand, despite this treatment which 

certainly led to the rise of Bolingbroke’s 

resentment, thus ambition, the remaining 

evidence present does not support this 

argument. Without the presence of an 

autocratic leader, as Richard was on his 

second visitation to Ireland at the time of 

Bolingbroke’s arrival back in England, it 

was only natural Bolingbroke gained 

supporters – they rallied around the most 

prevalent autocratic figure in their midst. 

Furthermore, it is only recorded Henry 

started to champion his right for the throne 

after receiving a rapid increase in popular 

support; it is also crucial to note no large 

group of Richard’s allies deserted him for 

his cousin which weakens the argument 

significantly in its own right. Hence, while it 

is undeniable Richard’s treatment of 


Bolingbroke fuelled his ambition which was 

a contributing factor to why Richard II lost 

his crown, it would be inaccurate for a 

historian to deem his ambition the primary 

reason for Bolingbroke’s success seeing 

there is so little record of his desire until 

later on in events happening. 

On the other hand, when considering the 

consequences of Richard’s own actions, it 

is evident they were the main reason for 

the loss of his throne. Arguably a key 

reason why Bolingbroke was able to gain 

supporters in so little time was due to 

Richard’s apathetic stance towards the 

common man. Unlike other monarchs 

before him, Richard did not try to woo the 

average man in his kingdom; this 

combined with his tyrannical rule towards 

the end of his reign enabled Bolingbroke’s 

rapid growth of support. Richard’s tyranny 

can be evidenced by his dealing with the 

Lords Appellant, with Arundel executed, 

Warwick exiled to the Isle of Man and 

Gloucester murdered, as well as the 

arguably less serious but more impactful 

tax issues: his promise of lightening them 

from 1389 was never delivered upon, in 

1393 a Common’s faith was used to justify 

a tax raise and in 1398 a grant of wool and 

leather customs for life was given to 

Richard. This autocratic rule was just one 

of many of Richard’s actions with 

unintended consequences, and, in this 

case, it was to drive not only the common 

man but also the powerful families into 

Bolingbroke’s arms. Thus, it can be seen a 

large degree of Bolingbroke’s success of 

his ambition was drawn from Richard’s 

own actions which would suggest them 

being the primary reason why the throne 

was lost. Furthermore, the king’s tendency 

to prefer his favourites over the impartiality 

a monarch is meant to show, due partially 

to the youth at which he ascended to the 

throne. The appeal of the Lords Appellant 

from February 1388 aptly shows this, with 

it stating ‘false traitors to and enemies of 

the king and kingdom, perceiving the 

tender age of our said lord the king and the 

innocence of his royal person, so caused 

him to believe many falsities devised and 

plotted by them against loyalty and good 

faith, that they caused him to devote his 

affection, firm faith, and credence entirely 

to them, and to hate his loyal lords and 

lieges, by whom he ought rather to have 

been governed.’ Although the reliability of 

this source is severely hindered by the 

political motivations of the Lords, who 

sought to rebel against the king, utilising 

this appeal to legitimise their motivations to 

Parliament, they do bring to light the issue 

that Richard was young and easily led 

astray in the early years of his reign. Thus, 

as a result of the youthful counsel Richard 

employed, a precedent for his tyranny was 

set in the formative years of his reign which 

led to his subjects turning against him, 

towards Bolingbroke. Moreover, if one 

considers Richard’s treatment of 

Bolingbroke an extension of his actions, 

that too fuels the idea these actions led to 

the loss of the crown. Hence, it is clear to a 

historian it was Richard’s own actions were 

the primary reason for his deposition rather 

than the ambition of Bolingbroke. 

Finally, the declining authority and prestige 

of the crown made some impact on the 

deposition of Richard II. This decline is 

evidenced not only by the Lords 

Appellant’s challenge but also by Richard’s 

own efforts to increase the standing of the 

crown. Through imagery, such as the 

general pardon issued in 1398, as well as 

more practical means, such as claiming the 

estates of Gloucester, Arundel and 

Warwick in 1397, Richard displayed a keen 

interest in bolstering the image of the 


crown to the masses – an interest which 

could be interpreted as understanding the 

current weakness of its authority. This 

weakness can also be seen to manifest 

itself in the various unrests during 

Richard’s rule: namely the Lords Appellant 

Strike as well as the Peasant’s Revolt in 

1381. Despite the success of handling the 

Revolt, this was arguably the peak of 

Richard’s rule, with nothing else quite 

comparing to the authoritative stance he 

took when dealing with Tyler, yet it still 

underlines the continuing dissatisfaction 

with the ruling elite and the ability to 

express this against the authority of the 

crown. Thomas Walsingham notes the 

rebels ‘set out for the residence of the duke 

of Lancaster. They tore golden cloths and 

silk hangings…’ This tells of the lack of 

authority both nobles and the crown held 

during Richard’s reign, to be disobeyed 

and destroyed in such a manner highlights 

the beginning of the end of Richard’s rule. 

While similar events were mirrored across 

Europe, indicating how this factor alone 

would not be enough to dethrone the king, 

it is key to note the declining authority and 

prestige of the crown severely undermined 

Richard’s reign, thus bolstering 

Bolingbroke’s take of the crown and aiding 

in Richard’s deposition. 

Overall, while Bolingbroke’s ambition was 

certainly a key factor in Richard’s 

deposition, the primary cause was certainly 

Richard’s actions and the effect they had 

on the nation, yet it is also important to 

consider the already declining prestige and 

authority of the crown. 


THE MAID OF 

ORLEANS 

Zaid J, 2.4 

Joan of Arc is undeniably one of the most 

prolific heroines in our history. A young 

woman who used her faith and love for her 

country to overcome stereotypes based on 

her gender, age and social standing and 

ultimately becoming one of France's most 

renowned heroes. In her short 19 years, 

Joan managed to support and lead men 

into victories that ultimately helped to win 

'The Hundred Year War'. How did a female 

child of no social standing, manage to rise 

through the ranks and become one of most 

famous and idolized women in history? 

This article will look at the impact she 

played on the freedom of France, and how 

she met her untimely and tragic end. 

Jeanne D'Arc was born in approximately 

1412, to a humble peasant family in the 

Northeast Kingdom of France where she 

spent the early years of her childhood 

helping out on her family farm. A few years 

after her birth, the ongoing war began to 

move in towards her home and life soon 

became more and more challenging for her 

small and rural village. Around the age of 

12, Joan claimed to be receiving vivid 

visions from the Archangel Michael and St 

Catherine, instructing her to free France 

from England's control. Over the course of 

the next few years, her visions increased 

she began requesting an audience with the 

French Dauphin (the French heir to the 

throne). Believing it was her Divine 

mission, Joan wanted to take the oldest 

son of the King - Charles VII, and lead him 

in battle to defend themselves against the 

English occupation. After many several 

failed attempts, support for Joan finally 

started to grow after some predictions from 

her visions seemed to miraculously come 

true. To disguise herself and in order to 

travel safely, Joan was advised by soldiers 


to cut her hair and wear their clothes. 

It took some convincing, but eventually 

Joan was granted an audience. Using 

information from her 'visions' she was able 

to convince the Dauphin that she could be 

of use. He and his advisors found her to be 

strange but charismatic and believed that 

there was something about her that could 

inspire and encourage the troops. She was 

sent to the city of Orleans, where she rode 

alongside French forces. Throughout the 

span of the battle, Joan was seen 

supporting her troops on horseback and 

pushing forward her own battle strategies 

to push the English back and reclaim the 

city. Towards the end of the fighting, she 

was injured when an arrow stuck her 

shoulder, but she returned quickly to 

encourage the soldiers to make one final 

push. The following day the English 

retreated from the city, and Joan was 

recognised for her role in the victory, 

earning her the title 'The Maid of Orleans". 

From then on, Joan was seen as a symbol 

among the French rebellion and rose 

through the army ranks. Thanks to the 

victory at Orleans and a new succession of 

victories, the French Dauphin was finally in 

the position to be crowned King of France. 

Joan went on to inspire and lead troops 

into other battles, and finally the war 

started to make a positive turn in France's 

favour. 

On the 30th of May, while trying to push 

back an English advance in Compiegne, 

Joan was thrown from her horse and 

captured by English allies who placed 

under arrest. At her trial, she was 

convicted of nearly seventy different 

crimes, including witchcraft. The biggest 

crime bought against her however, was 

deemed to be dressing in men's clothes. 

The very thing that Joan had done to keep 

herself safe, helped lead to her demise. 

She was also labelled as being a heretic, a 

crime against religion, for being so vocal 

and insistent on the visions she was 

receiving from God. She was found guilty 

by a biased judge who was a known 

English sympathiser and was sentenced to 

execution by burning. On the 30th of May 

1431. at the young and tender age of just 

19, Joan was burned alive at the stake in 

front of a crowd of spectators. Before she 

died, it is said she cried out 'Jesus!' and 

looked for a crucifix that was being held up 

in the crowd. Legend says it took three 


attempts to burn Joan before she 

eventually turned to ash, shrouding her in 

even more supernatural superstition. 

Just over 20 years after her death, the 

Pope ordered an investigation into Joan's 

case. It was deemed that all charges were 

false and she was pronounced innocent. It 

makes us question why was it that Joan 

was falsely convicted of so many crimes? 

Historians believe that it probably had 

something to do with the impact that Joan's 

presence seemed to have on troops in 

battle. She was seen as a figurehead, a 

symbol of freedom and justice that the 

French troops had used to spur them on. 

By removing Joan from the picture, the 

English hoped that they could damage and 

impede the French army's moral. It is also 

important to note that Joan of Arc was a 

woman. Everything she had achieved up 

until this point was completely out of 

character, and it was unnerving to them 

that a meagre woman of such a young age 

was able to hold such standing and do 

such damage to their campaign. It might be 

fair to say that the English were even afraid 

of Joan, and in retaliation labelled her a 

witch and a heretic for not abiding to social 

stereotypes and for seemingly turning the 

war in the French favour. These allegations 

would have also encouraged others to 

disassociate themselves with Joan, and 

serve as a warning to others who wanted 

to follow in her footsteps. 

remains a role model today, especially for 

young women. Until that point, there had 

perhaps only been a small handful of 

notable women who had been able to 

overcome such adversity and push through 

the social norms. She had a deep 

unfaltering loyalty to her country, and an 

unfailing commitment to her belief in God. 

Joan of Arc has always been portrayed as 

being brave, clever and strong and 

although we could never know for sure 

exactly what she was like, we can be 

certain that she was a woman of great 

persistence who was not afraid of doing 

what she thought was right. Even at the 

end Joan was not scared of her fate, a 

tragic demise to an unforgettable young girl 

who stared adversity in the face and 

overcame it, paving the way for young 

women of the future. 

Overall, without Joan there to play her key 

part in the battles towards the end of The 

Hundred Year War, we can only speculate 

what the outcomes might have been. Was 

it luck? Was it a coincidence? Did Joan 

really have a presence about her that could 

unite and inspire whole armies? Joan 


ARTHUR TUDOR’S 

UNTIMELY DEATH IN 

CHILDHOOD 

Joseph S, U6IMS 

On 2 nd April 1502, the fifteen-year-old 

Prince of Wales and heir to the Tudor 

throne succumbed to a mysterious illness. 

He left behind a young wife, an unprepared 

younger brother, and a mourning father. 

But what was Prince Arthur’s life like, and 

what impact did his childhood have upon 

the reign of younger sibling Henry VIII and 

beyond? 

Heritage 

The Tudor dynasty had begun following 

Henry Tudor’s victory at the Battle of 

Bosworth in 1485; the culmination of the 

decades long ‘War of the Roses’. The red 

rose of the Lancastrian house had 

defeated the white rose of York in what 

was a defining moment in British history, 

but newly-crowned Henry VII was astute 

enough to realise his victory needed to be 

bolstered, so there could be no dispute as 

to the rightful owner of the English crown. 

Thus, he married Elizabeth of York, 

unifying the two houses in one family. It 

was out of this marriage that Prince Arthur, 

Prince Henry and his four other children 

were born. 

Childhood 

As the eldest son, Arthur was the heir to 

Henry VII’s crown, meaning he was trained 

for kingship from birth. Great hope was 

placed on his shoulders, as a young and 

healthy symbol of a new golden age 

following decades of conflict. Arthur was 

given the title of Prince of Cornwall 

following his birth but took on the title of 

Prince of Wales three years later. As a 

teenager he was active in this role but had 

little to do due to Wales’ docile nature at 

the time. Another key event in his 

childhood was his marriage. Catherine of 

Aragon was the younger daughter of the 

Spanish monarch, who was chosen to wed 

Arthur when he was just three years old. 

The couple first met in 1501 once Arthur 

had reached fifteen, the age of consent at 

the time. Although they had a public 

bedding, Catherine maintained that the 

marriage was never consummated. Both 

Arthur and Catherine became ill in 1502 

and Arthur never recovered, dying to much 

sorrow in April of that year. 

Impact on marriage and religion 

Arthur’s brief marriage to Catherine of 

Aragon was one of great significance. 

Catherine later became Henry VIII’s first 

wife but was famously unable to provide 

him with a living son. And with Catherine 

now in the way of marriage with Anne 

Boleyn, Henry sought a way out. Having 

been a strong Catholic throughout his life, 


he turned to the Pope for a way out. His 

protestations centered around his belief 

that his marriage was against the Christian 

faith, citing the book of Leviticus 20:21, 

“’If a man marries his brother’s wife, it is an 

act of impurity; he has dishonoured his 

brother. They will be childless”. 

Catherine consistently claimed her 

marriage to Arthur had never been 

consummated though and was a strong 

Catholic. This ultimately led to Henry’s 

dismissal of his Catholic faith and the 

emergence of the Church of England, 

following Martin Luther’s lead of Protestant 

principles seventeen years prior. Had 

Arthur’s short marriage never have 

happened, Henry would never have had to 

abandon his faith that had stayed with him 

through childhood. Moreover, 

Protestantism may never have gained the 

traction it sees today, as the majority of 

Protestant countries are member of the 

British Commonwealth, and the religion’s 

spread is clearly due to Britain’s 

colonisation following Henry VIII’s 

decisions. Henry’s divorce set a precedent 

that is increasingly followed to this day. 

Impact on Henry VIII 

Henry and Arthur did not see much of each 

other during their childhood, because 

Arthur was often taken to train in the art of 

being a great king, educated by famous 

noblemen in the art of battle and by 

academics to study Latin, science, and 

other disciplines. However, his untimely 

death did spring Henry into a surprise role 

for which he was largely unprepared, as he 

spent the majority of his childhood with his 

grandmother, Margaret Beaufort, with 

whom he had an excellent relationship. 

Had Arthur lived into adulthood Henry 

would have never risen to the throne, 

depriving Britain of one of its foremost 

historical figures. 

Impact on monarchy 

Clearly, Arthur’s death in childhood meant 

the monarchy took a different path in the 

500 years since, but this would have 

greater implications than simply the names 

on the family tree. Mary Queen of Scots, 

Bloody Mary and Elizabeth I all ascended 

to the throne in the century following 

Arthur’s death, the first instances of a true 

female monarchy in England, not just 

disputed claims such as Queen Matilda 

and Boadicea, as remarkable as those two 

women were. The late Tudor period set the 

precedent for great success for female 

rulers, especially Elizabeth’s 44-year-long 

reign, in which huge swathes of the British 

Empire was gathered. The ‘Golden Age’ of 

poetry, music, and literature (not to 

mention piracy and colonization) could be 

said to have stemmed from Elizabeth’s 

relative leniency towards freedom of 

expression and her funding Francis Drake 

and Sir Walter Raleigh’s expeditions to 

America and the Indies, as well as the East 

India Company to establish ‘British India’. It 

was in this era that the seeds of the 

Commonwealth were sown. Without 

Arthur’s childhood demise, female 

leadership may never have been accepted 

and the British Empire never built. 

All in all, Prince Arthur may have only lived 

for fifteen years, but he leaves behind an 

extraordinary legacy that spans the globe, 

impacting monarchies, religions, and even 

everyday people. One childhood had 

remarkable consequences. 



MODERNPERIOD 

23 | G ateway Chronicle 

EARLY

‘THE PRETTIEST 

AND DEAREST 

CHILD’ – WHAT 

DOES THE DEATH OF 

JOHN EVELYN’S SON 

IN 1658 TELL US 

ABOUT CHILDHOOD 

IN 17 TH CENTURY 

ENGLAND? 

Mrs Gregory 


of infant and child mortality; over 12% of all 

children born would die in their first year. A 

man or woman who reached the age of 30 

could expect to live to 59. Historians 

estimate that approximately 2% of all live 

births in England at this time would die in 

the first day of life. By the end of the first 

week, a cumulative total of 5% would die. 

Another 3 or 4% would die within the 

month. A total of 12 or 13% would die 

within their first year. With the hazards of 

infancy behind them, the death rate for 

children slowed but continued to occur. A 

cumulative total of 36% of children died 

before the age of six, and another 24% 

between the ages of seven and sixteen. In 

all, of 100 live births, 60 would die before 

the age of 16. 

When we think of child mortality in the 

past, we often assume that, because the 

mortality rate was high, parents must in 

some way have become hardened to – that 

it was an expected event or way of life. 

Perhaps then parents did not love for their 

children in the way modern parents do and 

viewed them as dispensable. We might 

even translate this into thinking that, 

because life in the past was ‘nasty, brutish 

and short’, violence, cruelty and death 

were accepted in a way that we would not 

recognise now – as L P Hartley said -‘ the 

past is a foreign country; they do things 

differently there’. 

Child mortality rates in early modern 

England were, without doubt, shockingly 

high by today’s standards. Average life 

expectancy at birth for English people in 

the late 16th and early 17th centuries was 

just under 40 – 39.7 years. However, this 

low figure was mostly due to the high rate 

These are astonishing numbers. In the 

16th and 17th centuries, 60 out of 100 

children died before they reached 

adulthood. There's nowhere in the world 

today that has anything like that (the 

current highest rates in infant mortality 

rates are 121 deaths per 1000 live births 

compared the UK's 4.5.) In those days, no 

one was immune – it is well known that 

Queen Anne (1702-1714) had 14 children, 

none of which lived beyond infancy. And 

the diarist John Evelyn (1620-1706) was 

himself predeceased by 7 out of 8 children. 

John Evelyn was a diarist who witnessed 

many of the tumultuous events of the 

seventeenth century – civil war, the 

execution of the King, Oliver Cromwell’s 

protectorate, the Restoration, plague and 

fire and the Glorious Revolution. His 

diaries covering the years 1641-1706 were 

found in an old clothes-basket in 1817 and 

provide vivid portraits of the events of the 

period as well as events in his personal 

and family life. He was a wealthy 

landowner with family estates in Wotton in 

Surrey. He joined the Royalist army for a 


time but went to Italy and France to avoid 

the conflict and in 1647 married the 

daughter of the Royalist ambassador in 

Paris. By the time of the execution of 

Charles I Evelyn and his wife were back in 

England, and he purchased a house from 

his father-in-law at Sayes Court at Deptford 

in the East end of London. In 1658, in the 

depths of a harsh winter (during England’s 

mini ice age) a tragic event occurred – the 

death of his 5 year old son Richard on 

January 27 th . Evelyn describes it as the 

‘severest winter than man alive had known 

in England’ – bird’s feet were frozen to 

their prey, ‘islands of ice’ enclosed fish and 

even trapped people in their boats. 

The event is recorded in his diary and his 

grief is recorded vividly and poignantly - 

‘his ‘inexpressible griefe and affliction’. 

What is striking is the deep affection he 

had for his little boy – he describes him as 

‘the prettiest and dearest child, that parents 

had ever seen’. He mourns the beloved 

qualities the child possessed ‘a prodigie for 

Witt and understanding’ and the ‘beauty of 

body a very Angel’. He represented 

Evelyn’s ‘incredible and rare hopes’. It is 

also striking to note that Evelyn records the 

age of his child with exact precision ‘5 

years, 5 months and 3 days’ - 

remembering this was a time before the 

births of children were officially registered. 

His grief seems never ending – ‘here ends 

the joy of my life & for which I go mourning 

to the grave’. 

and maide’ who nursed him for 

‘’suffocating’ him – not deliberately but by 

covering him ‘too hot with blankets’ and 

having ‘neere an excessive hot fire in a 

close room’. In his grief, Evelyn asked the 

two doctors from London – who had not 

made it in time to save the little boy -to 

‘have him opened’ - a post-mortem in 

Evelyn’s house to try and determine the 

cause of death. This seems to have 

revealed something wrong with his liver – 

he was ‘liver growne’ and with an enlarged 

spleen – perhaps, this rather than the care 

of the maid, explains his ‘fatal symptoms’. 

Having identified the reasons for the tragic 

loss, Evelyn buried his child in the local 

church in Deptford, accompanied by ‘divers 

of my relations and friends’. He records his 

intention to have his body moved once 

Evelyn himself has died to Wotton Church 

where he will ‘lay his bones and mingle his 

dust’ with his Fathers and with his beloved 

son. Sadly, this never happened – Richard 

is still buried in Deptford. 

One account of one father’s grief cannot be 

used to conclude that parents loved their 

children or mourned their loss. There is 

much that is exceptional about Evelyn – his 

wealth and his intellectual background for 

example. However, the diary entry is a 

heart-breaking testament to one person’s 

loss and we can recognise much that lies 

within it. 

It is of course impossible to deduce what 

the little boy died of but what is interesting 

is the lengths to which Evelyn goes to try 

and save the child and make sense of the 

tragedy. He sent to London for a doctor but 

sadly they never made it as the ‘river was 

frozen’ and the carriage ‘brake by the way 

ere it got a mile from the house’. It seems 

Evelyn’s first instinct to blame the ‘woman 


PHILLIS WHEATLEY 

Matthew M, 2.3 

Phillis Wheatley was born around 1753, 

probably in Senegal or Gambia (the date 

and place of her birth are not documented). 

She was kidnapped from West Africa when 

she was seven and was sold as a slave in 

Boston. She was bought by John 

Wheatley, who was a wealthy Boston 

merchant, in August 1761, as a slave for 

his wife, Susanna. Phillis was in a bad 

state, and in fragile health. She was nearly 

naked and just had some dirty carpet to 

cover her. The captain of the slave ship 

thought that she was about to die, so sold 

her very cheaply to John Wheatley. 

The Wheatley’s taught her to read and 

write, and she was soon absorbed in the 

Bible, astronomy, geography, history, 

literature and Greek and Latin classics. 

She soon mastered English and caused a 

stir among scholars after translating a tale 

from Ovid, a Roman poet. She started to 

publish poems, her first at the age of 13, 

and began to receive international acclaim, 

especially when she published the 

Whitefield Elegy. 

When she was 18, Wheatley made 

advertisements in Boston newspapers for 

her poems. However, the Americans did 

not want to support literature by an African. 

Instead, she turned to London, where she 

gave one of her poems to Selina Hastings, 

Countess of Huntingdon, who was a 

supporter of the abolition of slavery. Selina 

Hastings instructed a bookseller to begin 

correspondence with Wheatley. 

Phillis Wheatley left for London due to a 

chronic asthma condition on the 8 th May 

1771. Her works were being welcomed by 

many notable people. She soon published 

the first volume of poetry by an African 

American in modern times, in London, 

‘Poems on Various Subjects, Religious and 

Moral’. This included a preface which had 

seventeen Boston men asserting that she 

had written the poems in it, after she had to 

defend her authorship as many colonists 

did not believe that she had written such 

outstanding poetry. After this was 

published, the Wheatleys freed her from 

slavery. She also sent one of her works to 

the future President, George Washington, 

which resulted in an invitation for her to 

visit him in Massachusetts. 

Sadly for her, Susanna Wheatley died in 

1774, and John Wheatley died in 1778. On 

1 April 1778, she married John Peters, who 

eventually abandoned her. She had three 

children, all dying in infancy. They were 

constantly battling poverty. Eventually, she 

began to fall sick. She was forced to work 

as a maid and lived in horrifying conditions. 

However, she continued to write poems, 

but she was unsuccessful in an attempt to 

find support for a second volume of poetry, 

and even her first volume of poetry was not 

published in America until two years after 

her death. She died on the 5 th December 

1784, in her early 30s, alone. 




THE FORCED 

ASSIMILATION OF 

NATIVE AMERICAN 

CHILDREN 

Charlotte M, L6ARD 

Native Americans inhabited what is now 

known as the US for thousands of years 

before the first white settlers arrived in the 

1600s. Their land was stolen, and they 

were stripped of their culture. This was all 

at the hands of the US government which 

allowed and encouraged white settlers to 

take increasing amounts of land from 

natives, pushing them onto governmentassigned 

reservations. The government did 

everything it could to assimilate Native 

Americans into mainstream European- 

American culture, including taking their 

children. 

Starting in the late 1800s native American 

children were ripped away from their 

families and taken to government-run 

boarding schools. This was a massive 

federal project which separated thousands 

of native children from their parents. At its 

peak, there were over 350 of these schools 

indoctrinating children with US patriotism. 

The end goal was to completely eradicate 

native culture and replace it with white, 

Christian customs to achieve US 

expansion and fulfil manifest destiny. The 

boarding schools allowed the government 

to control the next generation of native 

people making it easier for them to be 

integrated into white America. It was also a 

way of separating native children from their 

land whilst the army encroached further 

onto tribal land through war. 

Once a native child arrived at a boarding 

school their cultural identity was taken from 

them. The schools confiscated all signs of 

tribal life, cut their braids, and gave each 

child a new ‘white’ name. Students were 

also forbidden from speaking their native 

languages and practising any traditions. 

Breaking any of these rules was cause for 

punishment which could include 

confinement, deprivation of food, or 

corporal disciple. Another way in which the 

schools tried to convert students was by 

forcing them to celebrate ‘white’ American 

holidays. For example, they had to 

celebrate thanksgiving which they were 

told was a celebration of ‘good’ native 

Americans aiding the pilgrim fathers. In 

addition to this, on Memorial Day students 

had to decorate the graves of US soldiers 

who had killed their ancestors and, in some 

cases, had killed their own fathers. 

The schools spent half the day teaching 

academic subjects and the other half on 

industrial training. Aside from the typical 

lessons, the boarding schools taught the 

importance of private property, material 

wealth, democracy, and monogamous 

nuclear families. This was in attempts of 

instilling traditional white American values 

into the children. Another aim of the 

schools was to convert the children to 

Christianity so there was heavy religious 

training. This involved lessons on the bible, 

emphasising the dangers of sin and 

encouraging Christian values. It caused 


many schools to keep boys and girls apart 

to allow them to have control over 

relationships. In some schools, girls were 

locked in their rooms at night, which put 

them in severe danger as they were unable 

to escape even in emergent situations. 

When not attending lessons, children 

received industrial training. Girls learnt to 

cook, clean, and sew. Whilst boys learnt 

the skills needed for blacksmithing, 

shoemaking and farming. This was a way 

of ensuring the schools were self-sufficient, 

rather than being maintained by external 

efforts. It also prepared the students for 

outing programmes in which they were 

sent away to white families to provide 

cheap child labour. The treatment of 

students in schools as well as the outing 

programmes led to serious accounts of 

neglect, abuse and even death. 

Death rates in boarding schools were high. 

This was a result of numerous factors 

including disease, abuse, and suicide. The 

unsanitary conditions and overcrowding 

fuelled the spread of communicable 

diseases such as influenza, trachoma, 

smallpox, and measles. These diseases 

massively affected students as they were 

already weakened by trauma and limited 

food rations. In 1899, there was a measles 

outbreak in the Phoenix Indian school 

which reached epidemic proportions with 

325 cases of measles, 60 cases of 

pneumonia and 9 deaths in ten days. A 

significant number of children also died on 

outing programmes as the strenuous 

labour and abuse became too much. A lot 

of these tragic deaths were ignored, and 

parents were rarely notified. Schools had 

their own cemeteries and students often 

built their classmate's coffins. 

The Carlisle Indian Industrial school was 

the first and most well-known offreservation 

boarding school. It was opened 

in 1879 and became the blueprint for 

native boarding schools across the US. 

The school is now the US army war 

college, and it has nearly 200 native 

children buried at the entrance. In the 

schools’ early years more students died 

than graduated, their bodies being buried 

on site. Parents petitioned to have their 

children’s bodies sent home, but the school 

refused. The school's disregard for the 

dead children can be seen in the fact that 

the death records are incomplete and all 

files for boys with the last names ‘l’ through 

‘z’ are missing. In addition, many of the 

children’s bodies are still missing. For 

example, Ernest White Thunder, the 13- 

year-old son of a Rosebud tribal leader 

was severely sick while at Carlisle and 

instead of being sent home he died there. 

His father then asked for the return of his 

body but was denied. He instead asked if 

they could at least place a headstone over 

his grave, but this request was also denied. 

It is still not known where Ernest is buried. 

This is just one example of parents who 

were forced to send their children away, 

only to never see them again. Now many 

tribes are pursuing justice for the families 

and are seeking the return of their children, 

who currently remain prisoners even in 

death. Arapaho reclaimed its first children 

in 2017 and other tribes have begun to 

follow suit. 

As one can imagine there was significant 

resistance from native Americans 


egarding off reservation boarding schools. 

However, this became more difficult in 

1891 when the government passed a lawmaking 

attendance compulsory for native 

children. Parents who refused to send their 

children to the schools could be imprisoned 

and deprived of resources such as food 

and clothing, which were already scarce on 

reservations. Officers were also sent to 

forcibly take children from reservations. In 

response, native children resisted by 

running away, refusing to work, and 

speaking their languages in secret. In 1893 

pressure once again increased to keep 

native children in boarding schools with 

increasing penalties for resistance. For 

example, a group of Hopi men refused to 

send their children to a boarding school 

and as a result 19 of them were taken to 

Alcatraz Island, a thousand miles away 

from their families and were imprisoned for 

a year. This showed the extent to which 

the government were willing to go, to 

corrupt native children with their ideals. 

Native communities continued to protest 

for the right to educate their own children, 

but it wasn’t until 1978 that they won the 

legal right to prevent family separation. 

However, the government found a new 

way to assimilate native Americans 

through adoption. Children were funnelled 

into the child welfare system and the Indian 

Adoption Project intentionally placed them 

with white families. The only real change 

before this was in 1928 after the 

government commissioned the Meriam 

report to give an update on native 

American affairs. It criticised the schools’ 

deteriorating conditions and the heavy 

manual labour children had to endure. It 

highlighted the fact the students were 

hungry, sick, demoralised, and subject to 

harsh physical punishments. Although this 

only led to a minor change which included 

better funding for food and clothing. The 

report had urged the closure of boarding 

schools, but they persisted as the 

government was yet to fulfil its goal of 

eradicating all native American culture. 

Centuries after the conflict started 

congress, in 2009, finally passed a 

resolution of apology to Native Americans 

directly addressing the cruelty of boarding 

schools. However, this doesn’t make up for 

the suffering of Native American children, 

many of whom are still buried beneath the 

schools that abused them. 

Native American boarding schools stripped 

children of their language, customs, and 

culture. The government allowed the 

abuse, neglect, and death of innocent 

children in the name of westward 

expansion. They held native American 

children, hostage, in exchange for land 

cessions, breaking the bonds between 

parents and their children. By 1900, threequarters 

of all native children had been 

enrolled in boarding schools making it 

almost impossible for native culture to be 

preserved. Native languages began to die 

out by the 20th century as generations of 

children had been forced to use English. 

Although the government failed to 

completely eradicate native American 

cultures as they had hoped, the impacts 

the boarding schools had are devastating 

and continue to be seen today. 


HOW SIGNIFICANT 

WAS THE 1870 

EDUCATION ACT? 

Joe Scragg (OA) 

The granting of the vote to the working 

class for the first time in 1867 led the 

government to implement policy to ensure 

that the working class were educated. 

Therefore, following lobbying action from 

the National Education league, this led to 

the passage of the Education Act in 1870, 

designed by William Forester. This was the 

first time that the government had granted 

legislation on education. This article will 

assess the significance of the 1870 

Education Act in the areas of compulsory 

education, the secularisation of schools, 

the accountability of schools and setting a 

precedent for future Acts. Overall, the 

Education Act was only of real significance 

in the long term due to the fact it set a 

precedent for future acts. 

Despite the fact that the Education Act 

introduced the idea of compulsory 

education, this was not of great 

significance. The Education Act did ensure 

that free education was available for every 

child from the ages of 5-12. This is 

because the Act included a provision that 

for parents that could not afford to pay 

school fees this would be covered by the 

state. However, before 1870 availability of 

education was just one of the problems 

that needed to be tackled. Of those at 

school in 1861, before the passage of the 

Act, most attended for less than 100 days 

a year. This was due to the need for many 

children to work in industrial factories. 

Therefore, children missing school was a 

major problem before the Act. However, 

despite the Act aiming to tackle this, it 

failed to do so as school attendance due to 

children having to work was still a problem 

due to children working. This can be shown 

by the fact that in the 1890s attendance 

was still only at 82% for children aged 5-10 

and in 1901, 300,000 children aged 5-12 

still held jobs. The biggest issue however 

with the legislation was that it did not 

actually make school attendance 

compulsory, it only allowed for school 

boards to introduce laws to make school 

attendance compulsory. Only 40% of the 

population lived in a school district that had 

compulsory attendance, showing that 

boards did not vote for compulsory 

attendance. Indeed, the issue of 

compulsory education was not solved by 

the Act as is shown by the 1876 Royal 

Commission on Factory Acts report, which 

stated that child labour was still continuing 

due to the lack of compulsory education. It 

was not until the 1880 Act that compulsory 

education was introduced for children 

between the ages of 5-10. Therefore, due 

to the fact that compulsory education was 

not introduced till further Acts, the greatest 


significance of the Act came from setting a 


Furthermore, the 1870 Education Act had 

limited significance in the area of the 

secularisation of schools. This is because 

the Act introduced non-denominational 

religious teaching to schools and allowed 

for parents to withdraw their children from 

religious education in non-church schools. 

Before the 1870 Act most children 

attended schools set up by the church. 

This was due to the fact that from 1833 the 

government gave grants to these church 

schools. Due to the passage of the 1870 

Education Act this allowed schools to be 

set up by school county boards, which 

were to be free from the church and were 

to teach religious education in a nondenominational 

method. Moreover, the Act 

gave provisional funding for schools to be 

set up as it allowed school boards to use 

local rate-payers to set up new schools. 

However, the Act was not as significant as 

it could have been in dealing with the 

secularisation of schools due to the 

Christian principles of then Prime Minister 

William Gladstone. This meant that a 

compromise instead had to be struck with 

the Church of England. Church schools 

were exempt from teaching religious 

education in a non-denominational method. 

Often to save funding school boards would 

simply allocate additional government 

funding to pre-existing church schools to 

create new places for children. This was as 

opposed to building new schools, which 

would be exempt from religious teaching. 

For example, between 1870-1885 the 

number of Church of England schools rose 

from around 6,300 to around 11,800 in 

England. The number of Catholic schools 

rose from 350 to 892. This meant that 

many of the children who began attending 

schools following the passage of the Act 

went to schools run by the Church. This 

meant that although there was some 

secularisation of schools caused by the 

1870 Education Act, the change was not 

as significant as it could have been. 

Therefore, the only real significance of the 

1870 Education Act was in setting a 


Moreover, the 1870 Education Act had 

some limited significance in making 

schools more accountable to the 

government. This is because the Act led to 

school boards being set up in each council, 

which were to be responsible for inspecting 

each school and ensuring they met the 

minimum government standards of the 

time. The Act meant that the country was 

divided into 2500 school districts and each 

would have responsibility for schools in the 

area. The boards themselves were 

accountable as they were voted for by the 

rate-payers in the area. However, for a 

number of reasons the Act was limited in 

its significance. The first reason was that a 

high number of schools were exempt from 

the Act. This was because school boards 

had no oversight of church schools. 

Additionally, school boards ranged in size 

which affected their success in overseeing 

schools. For example, some boards would 

oversee only one school in their district, 

whilst the biggest board, the London board 


was responsible for 400 schools. 

Moreover, in the immediate aftermath of 

the 1870 Act boards had no minimum 

standards set by the government that they 

had to enforce. Although, children had to 

pass tests at the end of every year to move 

up a grade, the requirements for the test 

were set by teachers themselves. It was 

not until 1872 that the government set a 

loose requirement for the content of the 

teaching. Furthermore, the Act gave school 

boards no ability to enforce standards such 

as compulsory attendance as this was not 

given until the 1880 Education Act. 

Therefore, although school boards were 

created by the Act, this did not lead to a 

significant change in the accountability of 

schools. Indeed, this change was not 

brought about until future acts, showing 

that the significance of the 1870 Education 

Act was in setting a precedent for future 

acts. 

The 1870 Education Act was of great 

significance as it set a precedent for the 

introduction of future acts that aimed to 

deal with education. Although acts to do 

with education had been passed before by 

government, these were for private and 

church schools such as the 1868 Public 

Schools Act which aimed to regulate 

standards at private schools. However, 

following the passage of the 1870 

education Act the government would look 

to solve educational problems. For 

example, problems highlighted in this 

article such as the lack of enforced 

compulsory education was solved by the 

1880 Education Act. This act made it 

mandatory for school boards to enforce bylaws 

that made attendance at school 

compulsory. The Act also aimed to solve 

the problems of child labour as the Act 

contained provisions that no child under 

the age of 13 could be employed without 

first completing the minimum education 

requirements. This aimed to solve the 

issue of children who only attended school 

half the time. The Act set a precedent for 

both parties to try to tackle issues of 

education and made it a wider issue for 

governing parties to be judged upon. In the 

case of the Balfour Act in 1902 it was 

deeply unpopular and so was partially 

responsible for the Conservatives being 

voted out of office in 1906. Therefore, due 

to the fact the Act set a precedent for 

government involvement in education, in 

this aspect it was of great significance. 

Overall, the evidence would suggest that in 

the short term the Act had little impact on 

compulsory education, the accountability of 

schools and in the secularisation of 

education. However, in the long term the 

act was of great significance as it set a 

future precedent for government 

involvement in education, which can still be 

seen to this day 



MODERN PERIOD 


DISMANTLING THE 

RABBIT-PROOF 

FENCE 

Arthur R, U6IMS 

In March 2022, the Australian government 

appealed against a landmark Supreme 

Court ruling to try to reinstate their power 

to deport Aboriginal non-citizens. This 

decision comes in spite of the fact that the 

ruling stated that aborigines were not 

‘aliens’ and thus could enjoy relative 

protection from the stringent immigration 

policies of Parliament House. Even in the 

21 st century, therefore, discrimination 

toward Aboriginal Australians continues to 

plague the Oceanic nations but it was the 

arrival of Europeans in the 18 th century that 

laid the foundations for these modern-day 

prejudices which culminated in an 

abhorrent assault on the cultural identity of 

children in the 20 th century. 

The HMS Sirius’ landing on the East Coast 

of Australia in 1788 ushered in new era of 

white colonialism to an island that had 

previously been governed by unique 

Aboriginal clans. The rapid process of 

British expansion saw land, referred to by 

the Aborigines as ‘The Country’, being 

cleared and borders drawn up which 

divided up the traditional clans. It was this 

artificial reinforcement led to the 

destruction of families, sacred sites and 

hunting grounds which begun the decline 

of Aboriginal culture. 

By the 20 th century, these policies of 

controlling and stifling aborigine culture 

had taken a different, but no less vicious, 

turn. The government of the day had 

adopted a strict policy of ‘assimilation’. This 

dictated that aboriginal children and mixedrace 

children should be removed from the 

‘reserves’ the government had granted 

them and be forced to join white society, 

thus granting them citizenship but also 

suppressing their cultural identity. Statute 

from as early as 1869 demonstrates a 

desire by the government to remove 

aboriginal children from their parents but 


the policy only really began in 1909 and 

lasted until the late 1960s. By then, as 

many as one in three Aborigine children 

had been removed against their will from 

their family and forced to assimilate into a 

white family. These powers were granted 

by the Aborigines Act of 1911 that made 

the Chief Protector the legal guardian of 

every indigenous Australian child thus 

allowing them to assume ‘the care, custody 

or control of any Aboriginal or half caste (a 

disparaging term for a mixed-race 

Aboriginals) if in his opinion it is necessary 

or desirable in the interests of the 

Aboriginal or half caste for him to do so’. 

This was administered under the 

repressive thumb of the New South Wales 

Aborigines Protection board, later the 

Aborigines Welfare Board. 

The suppression of Indigenous Australian 

children was even more horrific than the 

assimilation policy suggests. Children were 

forbidden from speaking their own 

languages and from referring to their 

culture, the resulting in them being forced 

to reinvent their identity and forget their 

past. Not all children were able to be 

adopted into white families and, those that 

didn’t, were sent to institutions that ran rife 

with malnourishment and abuse. The 

‘White Australia’ ideology that informed the 

early 20 th century government focused on 

white superiority which is reflected even in 

the country’s modern immigration policies. 

This racism became institutionalised in 

society, meaning the neglect that 

Aboriginal children experienced was at the 

hands of white citizens, who believed in 

their own natural supremacy, as well as 

governments. 

Likewise, schools also facilitated the 

rejection of aboriginal culture as they 

precipitated indigenous indoctrination of 

British history, beliefs and values. Under 

the façade of good intentions, the 

education institution was used to erase the 

Aboriginal identity. This remains a problem 

today with a study stating that Aboriginals 

‘appear only momentarily’ in the school 

curriculum and that more than half the 

teachers at schools with more than 10% of 

Aboriginal students in them said they had 

no professional development in schooling 

them. 

The destruction of these clans across the 

18 th , 19 th , 20 th and 21 st centuries has had 

severe repercussions on Aboriginals in 

2022. By violently separating clans and 

families, a whole civilisation’s history and 

culture has been lost, in part due to the fact 

that oral transfer of history was common 

amongst indigenous groups. The trauma 

felt by this ‘Stolen Generation’ and their 

descendants extends to both mental and 

physical abuse. The isolation and rejection 

of their culture, as well as the physical 

separation from their parents, has led to 

high levels of PTSD, depression and 


anxiety in Aboriginals. This is coupled with 

the fact that Aboriginals are 15 times more 

likely to be imprisoned than nonindigenous 

Australians and have a lower 

average life expectancy by 10 years. Worst 

of all, perhaps, is the societal shame that 

accompanied the Aboriginal children who 

grew up in white communities, such as the 

permit system which was designed to limit 

their movement in the 1940s. This is still 

evinced today as Indigenous Australians in 

Victoria are four times more likely to 

experience racism than non-indigenous 

people. 

The policies that the government have 

pursued over the 20 th century, in addition 

to the outbreaks of disease that 

accompanied the first invaders, have led to 

a nearly 90% decline in the Aboriginal 

population and, with it, the demolition of 

indigenous Australian culture through the 

indoctrination and abuse of their children. 

Policies and attitudes have advanced 

somewhat from heartless chauvinism as a 

1967 referendum on the issue saw 

Aboriginals included on the censuses for 

the first time. This symbolic gesture led to 

the abolition of the Aborigines Welfare 

Board and alternatives to ‘assimilation’ 

were began. In 1998, National Sorry day 

was introduced as an attempt to try to 

commemorate the mistreatment of 

indigenous people and, in 2008, a formal 

apology was issued by PM Kevin Rudd for 

causing ‘profound grief’ to the Aboriginal 

people. 

mother were shopping. She was taken to 

an institution, where she wasn’t able to 

understand anyone with her native 

Aboriginal dialect. She dubbed the other 

Aboriginals there ‘inmates’ kept ‘like 

bullocks in a paddock’ as she trained to be 

a domestic servant. Although she believed, 

after thirty years, that her mother was 

dead, the two were reunited. This happy 

ending is far from the norm, with nearly 

16,000 Aboriginal children still in care 

homes in 2015 and only 35% of those 

would go on to be reunited with their own 

families. 

The assimilation strategies of the 

government have left a perpetual scar on 

the Australian nation as, generations after 

the formal action ended, the psychological 

trauma of these horrific policies remains. It 

contributed to the death of a culture which 

saw tens of thousands of children 

displaced, alienated and feeling worthless 

without their beliefs, their language, their 

traditions, their families and their identity. 

Regardless, the abuse and trauma that 

these schemes caused Aboriginal children 

can never be reversed. One Aboriginal 

woman, Netta, described her cruel 

separation from her mother at age five. 

She was tempted away by a policeman 

with a tin of apricot jam while Netta and her 


YOUTH AND THE 

EASTER RISING 

Aiden C, L6ARD 

The Irish War of Independence and the 

fight for the free state had been going on 

since the early 19 th century. However, at 

the turn of the 20th century the frictions 

between the Irish Republican Army and 

Sinn Fein members, and the British had 

escalated. Home rule had been introduced 

in 1912 which gave Ireland some 

autonomy. This was enacted by the 

government of Ireland act in 1914 however 

was linked to Ireland agreeing to introduce 

military conscription. There was a huge 

outcry amongst nationalists with many 

believing it went directly against their calls 

for, separation from the English 

government and being not forced helping 

with wars they had started. The easter 

rising soon followed with the Irish 

Republican Brotherhood (IRB) as well as a 

small faction of the Irish Volunteers and 

Irish Citizen Army opting for a violent 

response. 

The Easter rising was fought by many 

young people hoping for an Ireland free 

from British control and interference, and 

an ability to run things the way they 

wanted. Many of the members were 

fighting for their beliefs at a young age. 

The Easter rising which happened in 

Dublin 24-29 April 1916 mainly focused on 

buildings with significant symbolism and 

major buildings around Dublin. The 

General Post Office known as the GPO 

was such a building. This is where the IRB 

headquarters were set up with a barricade 

around the centre of Dublin between the 

two canals with the river Liffey through the 

middle. Two republican flags were raised 

above the GPO whilst the proclamation of 

the Irish republic was read aloud and flyers 

given out. A key member this was Edward 

‘Ned’ Daly, aged 25. He was one of the 

youngest members of the IRB yet oversaw 

the 1 st battalion who occupied one of the 

Four Courts and surrounding buildings. He 

was declared a very good leader by his 

battalion troops, and was at the centre of 

the harsh 4 days of fighting throughout. 

Another inspirational leader for the IRB 

who was the same age as Daly was Sean 

Heuston. He was responsible for the 

holding of the Mendicity on the shore of the 

Liffey for two days. The Mendicity was 

seen as an instrumental tactical position for 

either force, lying as it did between the 

royal barracks and the Four Courts, I stood 

in the way of troops being able to access 

the south side of the river from the Royal 

Barracks. The leadership of Heuston truly 

showed in the 50 hours he was able to 

hold this vital position. Yet more 

remarkably he did it with only 25 troops in 

comparison to the 350 troops the British 

amassed to try and take back the position. 

The ability of Heuston to lead his troops 

under pressure and inspire them to truly 

dig deep and fight for their lives, in the aid 

of a seemingly impossible task at the time, 

of overhauling the British. It shows the 

influence the young can have on people 

that they surround themselves with and the 


emarkable ability to fight for something 

bigger than themselves. Perhaps naivety 

comes in but nevertheless you cannot but 

admire the bravery and courage of the 

young men who took on such a thankless 

task. 

As the British gained more momentum 

towards the end of the 4 days, the IRB 

forces started to surrender one by one with 

whole battalions forced to give up a dying 

fight. The British forces had just been too 

large and well-armed to be able to stop the 

onslaught. The constant reinforcements 

coming from England and the heavy 

machinery as well as a gun boat meant the 

IRB wouldn’t stand a chance at prolonging 

the war any further without a considerable 

loss of life, of civilians and troops. Heavy 

shelling had occurred over the GPO in the 

later days forcing the leaders of the 

rebellion to tunnel out and form 

headquarters in nearby buildings. On 

Saturday 29 th April the leader Patrick 

Pearse issued an order for all companies 

to surrender their fight. This surrender led 

to the arrest of over 3000 national activists 

by the British following the rising. These 

activists were then court-martial and not 

given a defence, and a total of 16 men 

were sentenced to death by firing squad for 

their actions in the Easter Rising. William 

Pearse, Michael Mallin, Michael 

O’Hanrahan, Éamonn Ceannt, Thomas 

James Clarke, James Connolly, Seán 

MacDiarmada, Thomas MacDonagh, 

Patrick Pearse, Joseph Mary Plunkett, 

Roger Casement, Con Colbert, Edward 

Daly, Seán Heuston, Thomas Kent, John 

MacBride. Amongst these names lies 4 

men who were still in their twenties but 

gave their lives for a cause they truly 

believed in. 

The executions of the 14 men took place 

between 3-12 May 1916 and were a 

significant turning point in the fight for Irish 

Independence. The event proved to be 

decisive in changing public opinion on the 

Easter rising. The unsure reception of the 

rising had been mixed with many 

applauding the rebels and some against 

such violence taking place in the centre of 

a city affecting anyone and everyone. 

However, the unnecessary violence and 

cold-hearted killing by the British reversed 

the tide of Irish opinion to led to calls, in 

greater solidarity now, for an independent 

Ireland. This call grew even louder during 

the War of Independence a few years later 

highlighting the important role of the Easter 

Rising played as a springboard for future 

Irish Nationalists. 


CHILDHOOD IN THE 

EARLY SOVIET UNION 

Conrad D, L6AMG 

The birth of the Soviet Union was a bloody 

one. Russia had been ravaged by the 

consecutive disasters of the First World 

War and the Russian Civil War – both of 

which proved devastating for the country. 

The major famine of 1921 and widespread 

plagues during the war years further 

compounded the troubles of the nation. 

Although victorious in the Civil War, the 

fledgling Bolshevik government had little 

opportunity to enjoy their success over the 

Whites. The losses sustained over the 

period were horrifying: World War One had 

seen some 2.5 million Russians killed; the 

combined effect of famine, disease and 

fighting during the civil war saw a further 

13.5 million Russians die (chiefly civilians). 

Approximately 10% of the Russian 

population had been killed. The total output 

of mines and factories in 1921 was only 

20% of what it was before the war; 

important industries had suffered 

massively and were in great decline - iron 

production had fallen to only 2% of what it 

had been pre-war. Infrastructure, too, was 

left in tatters: 7,000 bridges, 1,700km of 

railway and 90,000km of telegraph wire 

had all been destroyed. International 

embargoes reduced Russia’s imports from 

967 million pounds in 1913 to 0.5 million in 

1919, with Russian exports falling from 

1,472 million pounds to practically nothing. 

It was in this backdrop, with all major 

opposition defeated, a desperate and 

starving civilian population and the earlier 

societal order of Tsarist Russia torn 

asunder, that the Bolsheviks began their 

program of rebuilding. 

One of the chief areas which they 

attempted to improve was education. They 

had good reason for concern: the strife of 

the war years had resulted in a rapid 

decline in enrolled students: in 1914, 91% 

of children received education in schools 

(although this was very limited and was 

chiefly driven by religious institutions - for 

example, in 1914, only 41% of the Russian 

population was literate, despite the 

enrolment statistics); in 1920 this figure 

had dropped to only 24.9%. Determined on 

educating the population, Lenin introduced 

the ‘likbez’ policy - the liquidation of 

illiteracy. It introduced a new system of 

compulsory universal education for 

children (illiterate adults also gained the 

opportunity to attend special schools). 

Over this period of 1918-20, roughly oneseventh 

of the Soviet budget was allocated 


to education – more than most Western 

nations at the time. A new Soviet system of 

school organisation was adopted in 1923: 

with schools being separated into groups 

depending on the years spent in education: 

four, seven- and nine-year schools. Sevenyear 

schools and nine-year schools were 

much rarer, however, and since attending 

them was often required to attend higher 

education such as university – access to 

higher education remained limited. The 

change also abolished the prior subject 

system of history/geography and the like, 

in favour of more nuanced social themes in 

an attempt to permeate the curriculum with 

Marxist-Leninist aligned teachings, such as 

“the scientific organisation of labour” - this 

proved disastrous and was completely 

abandoned in 1928, returning to the old 

system of standard subjects. The Soviets 

saw the younger generation as the 

inevitable inheritor of the mantle of 

revolutionary zeal and utilised education as 

a means by which to ensure socialist 

values would be retained and upheld. 

“Give me four years to teach the 

children and the seed I have sown will 

never be uprooted.” - Lenin 

Three youth leagues were set up during 

the early stages of the Soviet Union: the 

Young Pioneers, the Little Octobrists and 

Komsomol. By 1925 Komsomol, the final 

stage of the three organisations, with 

members aged 14-28, had 1 million 

members. As in Soviet schools, which 

were all mixed gender from 1918, 

Komsomol actively encouraged women to 

join, although it met with little success. In 

order to encourage more people to join, 

benefits were rewarded for active 

participation. One of the main aims of the 

program was to foster productive 

behaviour, whilst simultaneously rallying 

against the ‘hooliganism’ of Western 

teenage culture. 

Despite the increased opportunities 

granted by youth organisations, and the 

impetus placed on educating children by 

the Soviets, the challenge of effectively 

alleviating the effects on children of the 

disaster of the civil war proved 

insurmountable. By the end of 1922, it is 

estimated that as many as 7.5 million 

Soviet children were homeless and 

abandoned. This led to the widespread 

formation of youth gangs in urban areas, 

engaging in petty crimes such as theft 

across the country. In many instances, 

petty crime gave way to worse – crimes 

perpetrated by youths rose as a whole: by 

1922 10% of all criminals apprehended by 

Russian police were minors. Organised 

distribution chains of drugs – as well as 

drug usage – arose in significant numbers, 

and sexual activity became common – both 

rape and prostitution. A survey in 1922 of 

5,300 girls of and below the age of 15 

living on the streets in cities revealed that 

88% of them had worked as prostitutes. 

The harsh living conditions of homeless life 

in cities, combined with the overstretched 

Soviet government, only just beginning to 

institute programs to combat this 

widespread issue, resulted in high mortality 

rates amongst these vulnerable children. 

The response of the Soviet government to 

these issues was equivocal. On the one 


hand, they did attempt to alleviate the 

issue - after orphanages were 

overwhelmed, the government attempted 

to encourage widespread societal 

contributions to end the problem, such as 

foster care. Foreign aid, particularly by the 

American Relief Administration, helped 

support the Soviet government in providing 

meals to nearly five million children - 

nevertheless, many still went hungry. 

Indeed, by the 1930s the Soviets had 

declared an end to homelessness - citizens 

were required to have a residency permit - 

almost every available flat was occupied, 

with unregistered flats being rented out by 

the state at a token price to those in need. 

However, given the vast extent of the 

problem, the reality was, unsurprisingly, 

different to what the Soviet government 

had claimed - they were unable to 

completely eradicate homelessness, with 

many still left on the street, albeit far fewer 

than previously. Furthermore, as Stalin 

came into power, the attitude of the Soviet 

Union towards the homeless changed - 

those unable to find housing were rejected 

as parasitic; homelessness was 

categorised as a personal issue, in a 

similar vein to alcoholism, and those on the 

street were treated as social pariahs. 

The overall picture throughout the early 

period of the Soviet Union with regard to 

childhood is therefore a varying one. On 

the one hand, the Soviet Union attempted 

and did indeed see some success in 

improving the lives of children. Their 

education programs led to a rise in literacy 

rates – far greater than those of the prior 

Russian Empire, and they also attempted 

to reduce the influence of traditional 

gender roles (initially – before Stalin), 

encouraging cooperation and freedom in 

the name of egalitarian socialism. 

However, the Bolsheviks inherited a 

broken country, and despite their attempts 

to rebuild the country, hundreds of 

thousands of children still remained stuck 

in poverty, subject to horrific conditions, 

with little improvement in sight: Stalin’s 

accession to power as sole dictator in the 

30s resulted in little great improvement, 

and the following Second World War saw 

roughly 25,000,000 Soviets killed in the 

face of German invasion and their 

genocidal ‘Generalplan Ost’ strategy (the 

systematic ethnic cleansing of the Slavic 

race). Indeed, the life expectancy in the 

USSR fell from 41.44 in 1940 to 23.6 in 

1945. It was not until after the Second 

World War that the wider Soviet population 

- children included - saw a significant 

increase in their quality of life: life 

expectancy rapidly rose to its highest point 

in Russian history. Later, following the 

collapse of the Soviet Union, similar 

desperate conditions arose for children as 

those at its inception: the number of 

homeless children rose once again into the 

millions, with drug abuse and alcoholism 

becoming prevalent issues amongst 

children in post-Soviet Russia. Indeed, to 

this day, Russia has not fully recovered, 

with around 2% of children being 

homeless, and the life expectancy of 

Russia in 2019 being not much higher than 

that of the USSR nearly six decades earlier 

- standing at 73.1. To conclude, the early 

attempts of the Soviet government to 

improve the lives of children – although 

guided in part through ideological selfinterest 

– must be considered admirable, 

particularly given the difficult context within 

which they were operating. Despite their 

considerable attempts, however, suffering 

remained a daily concern for many children 

within the newfound Soviet Union. 


THE IMPACT OF THE 

NAZI REGIME ON THE 

YOUTH OF GERMANY 

Grace Brown, L6SC 

The Nazi regime during the 1930s in 

Germany had a significant impact on all 

who were subject to its control, with the 

youth being one of the most prolifically 

targeted groups of them all. Whether it be 

through propaganda or perpetuating the 

Hitler Myth, the youth of Germany were 

targeted for one key reason, they were 

seen to be the ones who would shape the 

future and continue the legacy of the 

regime. 

In terms of propaganda aimed at the youth 

of Germany, it was ubiquitous, with aims to 

promote the union of the Volkgemeinschaft 

and embed the values that the Nazi regime 

saw as desirable. Interestingly enough, 

there were differing values for boys and 

girls within the regime, designated roles 

that were seen to be the “way things 

should be”, and the youth were moulded to 

fit these roles and not stray from them. For 

boys, they were encouraged to be strong 

fighters and be trained to be the soldiers of 

the future, being subject to military drills 

including learning how to shoot on target 

as well and hand to hand combat. In 

contrast, girls were expected to be the 

perfect wives and mothers, doting on their 

husband’s every beck and call. The way 

these values were instilled into the youth 

was through the various programmes the 

Nazis set up, namely the Hitler Youth, 

which proved to be incredibly successfully 

received by children across Germany, with 

82% of all children aged 10 to 18 being a 

part of the youth movements by 1939. This 

had a profound impact on many young 

people, with some becoming more loyal to 

the regime than to their own families, 

resulting in conflicts within households and 

children favouring the establishment to 

their own families. This demonstrates that 

for some, the effect of propaganda was 

very significant, driving issues within their 


own families and testing the loyalty of the 

youth to the Reich itself. However, the 

Nazis went further with their authoritarian 

stance on the youth’s autonomy, making 

the youth movement compulsory for 

children after 1936, showing that the 

regime was committed to influencing all 

that they could under their control. The 

influence of the Hitler Youth culminated in 

the year 1938, when many of the 

perpetrators of Kristallnacht – the attack on 

7500 Jewish-owned businesses - were 

members of the Hitler youth, showing that 

the impact was not only widespread, with it 

being compulsory to attend the youth 

movements, it was also profound as it 

meant they were coerced into believing 

that destroying the livelihoods of Jewish 

citizens was acceptable because they were 

doing it in service of the Reich. 

The youth were also impacted through the 

school curriculum, meaning that no child 

could escape the pervasive nature of the 

Nazi message, even if they weren’t a 

member of the youth movements. This 

manifested itself in a whole new 

curriculum, removing many “traditional” 

subjects and replacing them with 

information, whether true or not, that would 

perpetuate the messages that Hitler 

wanted to be received. Subjects like 

science were converted into the study of 

eugenics, with anti-Semitic messages 

being pedalled to the students daily, 

depicting Jewish people as the inferior 

race, and antisemitic caricatures featuring 

heavily in school textbooks. Religious 

studies were for the most part removed 

from the general curriculum, with it being 

banned by the 1930s due to Hitler’s belief 

that he himself should be the only 

individual worshipped like a God. The 

majority of the curriculum hours were 

devoted to physical education, many 

children having two hours per day and all 

having a mandated five hours per week. 

The aim of schools was to further 

indoctrinate the youth into the myth of the 

regime, and teachers were forced to 

comply with this aim, with them all having 

to join the Nazi Teachers’ Association, as a 

way of vetting them for suitability in terms 

of political and also racial terms. Similar to 

the youth movements, the curriculum was 

separated for boys and girls further 

emphasising the different roles that boys 

and girls were expected to fulfil, with boys 

studying history, eugenics, and PE 

primarily and girls mostly studying home 

economics. The emphasis on eugenics 

helped the Nazis to influence antisemitic 

ideas from a young age, as the youth were 

easier to influence. Jewish children were 

humiliated at school through the curriculum 

and by 1938, they were banned from 


education – showing how significant the 

idea of the Volksgemeinschaft was in 

society, as it solidified the idea that if you 

were deemed acceptable, you would have 

a fulfilled future in the Reich but if you were 

and community alien, you were ostracised. 

Finally, boys who were perceived to have 

the potential to become leaders were sent 

to Adolf Hitler Schools, which were free 

boarding schools on military lines, with 

education catered to grooming the boys 

into being future SS officers and servants 

to the Reich. 

Within Nazi Germany, the Minister of 

Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, was the 

architect of the so-called “Hitler Myth”. This 

myth was utilised to present Hitler as a 

chameleon character, a hero to Germany 

while also being an ordinary man, which in 

turn led to many of the youth feeling as 

though he was someone they could relate 

to, further influencing them into idolising 

him and making the relationship between 

Fuhrer and Volk more intimate. Goebbels 

expertly crafted this image of Hitler in order 

to ensure that every area of the population 

was targeted by the various facades of 

Hitler. The impact of this on the youth of 

Germany manifested itself into the 

significant turnouts of Hitler Youth who 

attended the 1934 Nuremberg rally, with 

700,000 supporters of the regime being 

present. The omnipresent nature of the 

propaganda supporting the “Hitler Myth” 

helped to successfully separate the Nazi 

wrongdoings from Hitler himself. This was 

further exacerbated by the schooling and 

education of young people, as history was 

tailored to depict Hitler as the saviour of 

Germany from the decadence and wrong 

doings of the Weimar Republic, meaning 

that many children revered Hitler. 

However, this is not to say that there 

wasn’t opposition to the regime of Nazi 

Germany from the youth, there most 

certainly was. One major opposition to the 

Nazi establishment were the Edelweiss 

Pirates, who primarily opposed the way in 

which the Hitler Youth had taken over the 

lives of young people in Germany. In turn, 

the Pirates were as far from the idealised 

moulds that were expected from the Hitler 

Youth as could be conceivably possible – 

they were free to speak their mind 

(something that would be frowned upon in 

the Hitler Youth) and boys and girls were 

allowed to work together (whereas they 

were segregated in the youth movements). 

Most cities across Germany had a faction 

of the Pirates, even if they did not act 

under the title. Despite not operating under 

the same title, the groups shared a few 

select traits, the main being the objection 

to the way the Nazis tried to control the 

lives of young people in Germany. Another 

major group who opposed the Reich were 

the swing youth. As a part of Hitler’s attack 

on the culture of the Weimar Republic, 

broadcasting of jazz was banned by 1935, 

as it was seen to reflect the “loose” morals 

that the Republic stood for, and in the 

following year, records of individual artists 

were banned. This censorship of media led 


to the rebellion of circles of like-minded 

teenagers. Unlike the Edelweiss Pirates, 

the “Swing Kids” weren’t organised in 

cohesive organisations, they were 

scattered across larger cities not only in 

Germany but also other European 

countries like Austria. Despite being 

somewhat disorganised, their love for jazz 

and American culture united them and 

provided a stark contrast to the dictated 

culture of German nationalism. Many of the 

anti-jazz propaganda messages had the 

opposite impact to their intended effect, as 

it didn’t only make the music more 

attractive to the youth, it also provided 

ways to access it. Due to the incessant 

propaganda that people were subjected to, 

the Swing Kids could watch anti-American 

reels at the cinema with scenes of the 

Lindy Hop, which enabled them to learn 

the dance style. Touring exhibits of 

“degenerate music” included jazz records, 

which the youth stole frequently. The 

simple existence of the swing kids proved 

to be a big threat to the expected 

conformity, as many of the youth were 

more interested in swing than they were in 

military drills or the Hitler Youth, which 

showed the significance of any form of 

opposition to the regime, possibly hinting to 

the fragility of the Nazi system. 

In conclusion, the Nazi regime, the 

prescriptive nature of it, impacted everyone 

significantly, but the youth of Germany 

were most targeted due to their easily 

manipulated nature and the ease in which 

they could be targeted through not only 

obligatory programmes like the Hitler Youth 

but also through the school curriculum, 

which means that even though not every 

child joined the youth movement, they 

were targeted in some way. If anything, the 

opposition to the establishment further 

exemplifies the impact the Reich had on 

the youth as it shows that the dictated 

nature of the Reich meant that the youth 

needed an outlet to rebel and live freely 

from their greatly controlled and conformist 

lives. 


A TALE OF TWO 

VIRUSES 

Max T, 3.1 

It was Lockdown, the first one, in May 

2020, and I was on a Zoom call with my 

Grandma and Grandad moaning about 

missing my friends and being bored when 

my Grandma told me to “stop whining” (she 

does that a lot!) and that “I was not the only 

kid to suffer being told to stay home”. It 

had happened to her, in 1948, when she 

was only seven years old. I thought 

Coronavirus was a new thing, I needed to 

find out more… 

My grandma is a Kiwi, she was born and 

brought up on a farm in New Zealand in 

Bay of Islands, in the very rural North of 

the North Island. I love hearing stories of 

her adventures on the farm; she had a pet 

lamb, sometimes rode to school on her 

horse and often didn’t wear any shoes to 

school! On a hot day the headmaster 

would just stop school and everyone, 

teachers and pupils, would go outside and 

play cricket… doesn’t that sound great?! It 

was not all cricket and sunshine though, at 

the end of every day all the school children 

had to clean the school; sweep the floors, 

wash the basins and scrub the toilets! 

In the hot Summer of 1948, only a few 

years after the end of World War Two, an 

epidemic of Polio hit North New Zealand 

and all children were told to stay at home, 

and not return to school after the Summer 

holidays (in December down under) and 

not go out in public. Children didn’t go back 

to school until Easter. 

Like Covid, Polio (or poliomyelitis) is an 

infectious virus. Whilst Covid is caused by 

the coronavirus, Polio is caused by 

picornavirus which is a group of viruses 

that live in the intestines. Unlike Covid, 

which is spread through the air, Polio is 

spread through the contaminated faeces 

and saliva of an infectious person. A major 

difference between Covid and Polio is that 

Polio mainly affected children. Polio can 

cause the muscles to waste away, 

sometimes leaving the patient permanently 

crippled and even paralysed. Similarly to 

Covid, Polio can also affect the lungs and 

the respiratory system. If the virus infected 

your lungs, children would need to spend 

time in an iron lung to aid their breathing. 

The iron lung mechanically stimulated your 

breathing and was an important precursor 

to the ventilator units that played such an 

important part in saving lives in the early 

stages of Covid. 

Grandma believes that, in hindsight, the 

Polio lockdown may have been even more 

stressful for parents than the coronavirus 

lockdown. “There is nothing more 

frightening for a parent than the thought of 

any harm coming to your children, and this 

is exactly what the Polio virus threatened 

to do, thankfully throughout the Corona 

lockdowns most parents were spared that 

fear as Covid was of much less risk to 

children”. Of course, on top of that, children 

stuck at home in 1948 didn’t have the 

benefits of the internet. Just imagine being 

stuck at home for months without your 

XBox or PS4. As Grandma explained, “the 

weekly newspaper would print a few ideas 

of what to do but in my house, we didn’t do 

much school work. I do remember learning 

my times tables but there was lots of other 

work to get on with around the farm”. 


There was also a lesson broadcast on the 

radio every few days that we were made to 

listen to. Older children were sent lessons 

in green envelopes, once returned they 

were marked by teachers sitting all alone in 

empty classrooms. The New Zealand 

government reported that at the beginning 

of the Polio lockdown there were 40 radio 

correspondence lessons a month but by 

the end there were 40 lessons broadcast 

every week. The New Zealand 

Government proclaimed that houses were 

to become ‘miniature schools’, most of the 

pressure to school the children fell on 

mums. Back in 1948 most women were 

housewives with the dads going off to 

work. 

Whilst there were major differences, it is 

interesting to see that there were also 

significant similarities in the strategies used 

for containing the epidemic. The priority 

was limiting the spread of the disease, 

children were banned from crowded 

spaces, public transport and anywhere with 

crowds. I would be interested to find out if 

any of these same strategies were 

employed at other times too, during the 

plague for example? What also seems true 

is that both lockdowns caused 

considerable stress, anxiety and 

depression. I suppose this can only be 

expected when there is real risk of harm to 

you and the people that you love. My 

Grandma thinks people were more resilient 

in 1948 than they are today, “we had 

survived the war and knew we could get 

through anything.” 

In 1953 a man called Jonas Valk 

announced that he had successfully 

developed a vaccine for Polio after testing 

it on monkeys and then on his own family. 

By 1956 the vaccine reached New 

Zealand. The polio vaccine took many 

years to develop because scientists had to 

start from scratch and did not have the 

technologies available to them that we 

have today. When a vaccine did finally 

become available it was the only one and 

because of the devastating effects of the 

disease it was seen as a miracle cure and 

was rolled out very quickly. Children were 

rushed to the doctors, anxious to get 

vaccinated as quickly as possible. 

Thankfully, the near universal uptake of the 

vaccine meant that the dreaded Polio 

epidemics were eradicated in New Zealand 

by the early 1960s. 

The Covid vaccine in contrast was 

developed in less than one year. This 

amazing effort by the world's scientists, 

building on what they had learned, meant 

that there were three vaccines quickly 

available for us to choose from. However, it 

seems that there is much more resistance 

by some people to the Covid vaccine than 

there was to the Polio vaccine, I am not 

sure why, perhaps it is because Corona 

virus does not have such a terrible effect 

on children? 

The great news is that mass immunisation 

of Polio has eradicated the disease from 

many regions of the world. Smallpox, the 

very first disease for which a vaccine was 

developed by Edward Jenner in 1796 was, 

in 1979, declared to have been completely 

eradicated from the globe. What an 

inspiring achievement. Hopefully as 

scientist continually try to develop and 

produce Covid vaccines maybe one day 

Covid will also be eradicated. 

So, my Grandma is right, we do need to 

stop whining and realise that we are very 

lucky. Whilst COVID is scary, us kids have 

got off comparatively lightly. My grandma 

has had to face two separate diseases that 

affected her generation very directly. We 

should be so thankful that the experiences 


of all the generations before us made the 

development of the covid vaccine so much 

quicker when we needed it. I think that is 

what history really teaches us – that we are 

not alone but that we are living on the 

shoulders of all the suffering, learnings, 

experiences and thoughts of everyone who 

came before us. 

‘MASTERS OF THE 

NEW SOCIETY’: HOW 

CHILDHOOD WAS 

REDEFINED IN 20 th 

CENTURY CHINA 

Jonathan B, U6DMY 

Few worldviews have had as much 

influence as Confucianism. As it was 

transformed and transferred with the rise 

and fall of empires, it shaped Chinese 

beliefs about childhood over millennia. 

However, with the advent of the 20th 

century, the values of Confucianism were 

questioned, and the Chinese family saw an 

unprecedented reconfiguration in which 

childhood was redefined. 

Confucianism developed during the 

turbulent Spring and Autumn Period (770 

to 746 BCE) when the authority of the 

Zhou dynasty waned, and states once 

bound to the Zhou developed greater 

autonomy. Despite interstate conflicts and 

internal clashes amongst nobles, 

philosophy flourished as the Hundred 

Schools of Thought emerged when officials 

who lost posts became itinerant 

intellectuals. Amongst these schools was 

Confucianism, which built on the traditional 

Shang and Zhou religion. Confucius 

expounded a social and ethical code: on 

the individual level one should strive to 

become the jūnzǐ (ideal man) by exhibiting 


virtues such as rén (humaneness) and on 

the social level, stability and unity is 

obtained by following traditional lǐ (rituals) 

which reveal the individual’s place within a 

social hierarchy. This hierarchical aspect of 

Confucianism made it attractive to leaders 

such as Wu Di, the Han emperor first to 

embrace it as a state ideology. 

Confucianism maintained dominance, 

becoming Neo-Confucianism during the 

Song Dynasty (960 to 1279 CE) with 

Buddhist and Taoist influences. By the time 

of the Qing dynasty (1644 to 1912 CE), 

Confucianism reached its apogee. 

Confucianism defined the landscape of 

childhood during the Qing dynasty. Core to 

its teachings was the concept of xiào (filial 

piety), the idea children ought to respect, 

obey and care for their parents. Rituals 

determining the treatment of family 

members are found in the Book of Rites 

which specifies the language a child can 

use towards their parents, the manner in 

which they must greet them, the gifts they 

can offer and the seating arrangements 

they can use. Filial piety is significant in 

Confucianism due to the belief the family is 

a microcosm of the state. According to the 

Confucian Classic of Filial Piety, ‘as they 

serve their fathers, so they serve their 

rulers, and they reverence them equally’. 

The Great Qing Legal Code formalised 

these familial bonds, with harsher 

punishments applied to crimes committed 

against older relatives. 

The implications of Qing Confucianism for 

young girls were particularly severe. The 

position of women in this patriarchal 

society was outlined in the Book of 

Etiquette and Ceremonial which describes 

the ‘three subordinations’ a woman would 

follow: as a girl she was obedient to her 

father, as a wife to her husband and as a 

mother to her sons. Even the female 

scholar Ban Zhao living during the Han 

period wrote in Lessons for Women, still 

taught during the Ming and Qing dynasties, 

that on the birth of a girl one should ‘lay the 

baby below the bed plainly’ which 

‘indicated that she is lowly and weak, and 

should regard it as her primary duty to 

humble herself before others’. It is 

unsurprising that in such a climate the 

practice of foot binding was common; the 

feet of young girls were bound tightly to 

shape them and women with bound feet 

wore lotus shoes which were only 5 inches 

long and 2 inches wide in a process 

intended to create a distinction between 

male and female from youth. 

Education is another area in the lives of 

children that was determined by 

Confucianism. During the Sui dynasty (581 

to 619 CE), the imperial examination 

system became a way to select 

bureaucrats according to merit and 

knowledge of Chinese (often Confucian) 

classics, principal objects of education. 

After the Ming dynasty (1368 to 1644 CE), 

candidates needed to write what was 

called an ‘eight-legged essay’, a 

standardised essay to display logic and 

literacy that required knowledge of 

Confucian Classics. Women were 

excluded from these examinations and 

supporting a candidate for the exam would 

be costly, excluding the poorest in society. 

The decline of Confucian hegemony was 

accelerated by the decline of the Qing 

empire, transforming childhood. The 

middle of the 19 th century represented the 

start of the ‘century of humiliation’. Defeats 

in two Opium Wars, defeat in the First 

Sino-Japanese War and the suppression of 

the Boxer Rebellion signalled the growing 

stagnation of the dynasty. With these 

failures and the sluggish pace of reform, 

the monarchy crumbled under the 

pressures of the 1911 Revolution. After the 

abdication of the 6-year-old emperor Puyi 

in 1912, the public was forced to 

reconsider the assumptions that 

underpinned the old system. 


The New Culture Movement of the 1910s 

and 1920s rejected and reimagined 

traditional Chinese worldviews, turning 

from Confucian assumptions. Key 

principles of the movement were demands 

for greater democracy, women’s liberation 

and use of vernacular language. This 

culminated in the May Fourth Movement, 

beginning with widespread student protests 

from May 4 th , 1919, which signalled the 

increased political influence of student 

movements, the youth slowly becoming 

‘masters of the new society’ in the words of 

Mao Zedong. 

China on 1 st October, introducing a 

communist system inspired by Marxist- 

Leninist principals. Under this new 

direction, the lives of children were shaped 

by a push to increase literacy, receive 

training in work and remove worldviews 

like Confucianism which were viewed as 

holding the country back. Where an 

American model heavily influenced the 

Kuomintang’s approach, a Soviet model 

now shaped Chinese education. Soviet 

advisers influenced the curriculum and the 

Sino-Soviet Friendship Association 

promoted Soviet culture and language to 

the extent that in many schools 90% of 

student’s were members. The new 

ideological education centred Marxist- 

Leninist doctrine, school regulations stating 

that 10% of the curriculum must be 

directed towards political education. 

However, the achievements of early 

movements were limited. The May Fourth 

Movement was strongly rejected by the 

leading Kuomintang party and was largely 

restricted to an educated few. The majority 

of households still followed traditional 

Confucian values and family structure, 

particularly in the chaos of the ‘Warlord 

Era’ when the country was divided 

between regional factions, leaving no 

centralised authority over education. After 

the Kuomintang consolidated their control 

over the country, the New Culture 

Movement returned to neo-Confucian 

ideals under the leadership of Chiang Kai- 

Shek. Confucian influence over education 

was maintained in the republic alongside a 

new Western influence as the first Minister 

of Education, Cai Yuanpei, proposed a 

system influenced by the educational 

theories of John Dewey. 

This would all change in 1949. After years 

of civil war, Mao Zedong announced the 

foundation of the People’s Republic of 

After 1953 there was a push towards 

expanding education by increasing 

‘people-run schools’ and replacing familyled 

child rearing with a more communal 

approach. The nationalisation of private 

schools and intense subsidisation of 

education increased enrolment so that by 

1959 illiteracy rates fell from the 1949 level 

of 80% to 43%. However, progress would 

falter with the Great Leap Forward starting 

in 1958 when rapid industrialisation, often 

at the expense of the population, meant 

communal nurseries were formed so 

women could participate in the workforce. 

In the rush for development, education was 

often neglected as childcare was left in the 

hands of retired women and unmarried 

girls with little training. Facilities were poor 


and inexperienced teachers resorted to 

corporal punishment to control the 

disorder. In this environment disease and 

abuse were endemic with many children 

suffering from measles, chickenpox and 

diarrhoea. For older children in primary 

schools, a work-study programme required 

productive labour and hundreds of schools 

operated factories with poor safety 

measures. As famine kicked in, the 

tradition of selling or abandoning children 

who could not be supported intensified. 

In the recovery from the famine and the 

Great Leap Forward, the Socialist 

Education Movement of 1962 to 1965 

attempted to control divisions between 

rural and urban populations and turned 

away from the Soviet model following the 

Sino-Soviet Split. Instead, a ‘two-legged’ 

system was introduced with some 

receiving an academic education while 

others received vocational schooling. This 

dual system mirrored the Confucian 

approach in which there existed a division 

between the scholar-bureaucrats and 

working masses. 

Despite this, the youth were soon involved 

in the most violent reaction against 

Confucianism. Worried that he was losing 

control of the party, Mao initiated the 

Cultural Revolution in 1966. The demand 

for the people to ‘bombard the 

headquarters’ and revolt against bourgeois 

and counter-revolutionary elements was 

soon answered by students when the first 

group of Red Guards formed in Tsinghua 

University Middle School. Although 

denounced by the school administration as 

counter-revolutionaries, they were 

promoted by Mao who had their manifesto 

broadcast nationally. The movement 

spread and achieved legitimacy when Mao 

held a rally in Tiananmen square, greeting 

a crowd of 800,000 Red Guards. Having 

mobilised these student groups in his 

interest, Mao demanded that they attack 

the ‘Four Olds’: Old Ideas, Old Culture, Old 

Customs and Old Habits. 

It was believed that the progress of the 

revolution was held back by bourgeois and 

feudal concepts that ‘poisoned the minds 

of the people’, exemplified chiefly by the 

Confucian worldview. Pre-revolutionary 

books, art and museums were destroyed 

before the Cemetery of Confucius was 

attacked and the corpse of Duke Yansheng 

was taken from the grave and slung from a 

tree, naked before the Temple of 

Confucius. Struggle sessions were held in 

which intellectuals and teachers were 

denounced and publicly humiliated in 

classrooms and workplaces. As the Red 

Guards factionalised, violent struggles 

broke out between the groups and the 

People’s Liberation Army (PLA) was sent 

to suppress the chaos. The Red Guards 

had become a liability to Mao; instead of 

eliminating his enemies to consolidate his 

control of the country, they undermined his 

leadership by creating disorder. Although 

Mao issued the order for the PLA to control 

the Red Guards in 1967 and announced 

the end of the Cultural Revolution in 1969, 

its remnants would persist until his death in 

1976 despite attempts at control such as 

the forced migration of ten million urban 

children in the Down to the Countryside 

Movement. 

In the wake of the cultural revolution, the 

entire structure of the education system 

was uprooted. With the rise of Deng 

Xiaoping after Mao’s death, the Communist 

party needed a new model for childhood 

and education. The chosen path was to 

support the aims of the Four 

Modernisations: improving agriculture, 

industry, defence and technology. As Deng 

pursued a policy of reform moving from a 

command economy to a socialist market 

economy, education was essential 

representing 16% of the budget by 1986. 

This new path didn’t immediately signal a 

return to Confucianism and maintained the 


principals of Mao Zedong Thought. The 

ties of filial piety weakened due to greater 

economic independence of younger people 

and kinship ties became increasingly equal 

as the trend of increased gender equality 

continued, foot binding mostly confined to 

the past. 

However, the policy of opening up has 

sparked a revival of Confucianism. In 2004 

the first Confucius School was founded in 

Beijing while the Confucius Institute 

promoted Chinese culture internationally. 

The government formally embraced 

Confucianism in 2007, supporting the 

worship of Confucius on his birthday and 

broadcasting the event. The return of 

Confucian inspired education and a 

growing emphasis on the formation of a 

‘Harmonious Society’ means the 

philosophy now playing a central role 

under Xi Jinping, who called it ‘the cultural 

soil that nourishes the Chinese people’. 

In this environment, the future of childhood 

in China will be forged by conflicting forces 

of Confucianism, communism and 

increased economic liberalisation. 

Although education is no longer the 

privilege of a small elite, young ‘princelings’ 

– descendants of communist officials – 

have access to greater opportunities due to 

nepotism; although young girls no longer 

face foot binding, the one child policy and 

the preference for sons resulted in the 

abandonment of young girls; and although 

expectations of filial piety remain, 

increased economic independence, family 

planning and state support of the elderly 

have meant that these practices declined. 

The resolution of these tensions between 

the traditionally hierarchical impulses of 

Confucianism and the egalitarian impulses 

of more modern ideologies will decide the 

future of childhood in China. 


A PIONEER OF 

AMERICAN 

EDUCATION: THE 

STORY OF RUBY 

BRIDGES 

Hannah P, U6EJB 

Following on from the groundbreaking 

Supreme Court decision in 1954 of ‘Brown 

vs Board of Education’, Ruby Bridges 

became the first African American child to 

integrate a Louisiana school at William 

Frantz Elementary School. 

Born in the same year as the passing of 

the Act, Ruby joined the school at only 6 

years old. She was one of five children to 

pass the entrance exam created by the 

school district after Louisiana was forced to 

desegregate after a Federal Court 

decision. The school continued to delay 

her attendance until November that year 

and following this she was escorted 

alongside her mother by four federal 

guards every day for a year. Barbara 

Henry was the only teacher in agreement 

with the decision regarding Ruby and 

taught her alone, with Ruby eating alone 

as well. Despite this she never missed a 

day of school. 

The impact of Ruby’s admittance was 

colossal for her family; there were protests 

across Louisiana- with her father losing his 

job and her mother being refused the 

selling of food to her at shops. In addition 

to this, both her mother and father lost their 

jobs as a domestic worker and service 

station attended respectively. Ruby stated 

that her conviction in herself on her first 

day was due to simply not understanding 

the situation she was entering. She stated, 

“I was really not aware that I was going into 

a white school,” she says. “My parents 

never explained it to me. I stumbled into 

crowds of people, and living here in New 


Orleans, being accustomed to Mardi Gras 

[a celebration that takes place in the city 

every year] I really thought that’s what it 

was that day. There was no need for me to 

be afraid of that.” After seeing footage and 

images of the mob she faced throughout, 

Ruby explained “It was just mind-blowing, 

horrifying,” she says. “I had feelings that 

I’d never had before … And I thought to 

myself: ‘I cannot even fathom me now, 

today, as a parent and grandparent, 

sending my child into an environment like 

that.’” 

With time passing, the school environment 

Ruby was in began to change and slowly 

she was introduced into socializing with 

other children, although still far from 

normal. She described being told by a child 

that she couldn’t play with him because his 

mother said so due to the colour of her skin 

being, “her first insight into racism”. She 

develops on this saying, “And the minute 

he said that, it was like everything came 

together. All the little pieces that I’d been 

collecting in my mind all fit, and I then 

understood: the reason why there’s no kids 

here is because of me, and the colour of 

my skin. That’s why I can’t go to recess. 

And it’s not Mardi Gras. It all sort of came 

together: a very rude awakening”. 

However, Ruby’s later commentary on this 

was that she believed the child was not 

knowingly racist and “that racism is learned 

behaviour. We pass it on to our kids, and it 

continues from one generation to the next. 

That moment proved that to me.” 

encouraged Ruby in her career as an 

adult. She has written two books about her 

schooling experience and received the 

‘Carter G. Woodson’ Book Award. 

Moreover, Ruby established her 

foundation, The Ruby Bridges Foundation, 

in 1999 to promote change and teaching of 

new behaviour through education. Finally, 

in 2000 she was made an honorary deputy 

marshal during a ceremony in Washington 

DC. 

The impact Ruby had as a child is simply 

ground-breaking. Unknowingly, at such a 

young age, she pioneered desegregation 

in schools and has brought such light to 

her experiences of racism and biased 

education. She represents an incredible 

strength faced by African American 

children of her generation in the 

breakdown of segregated schools, all 

whilst facing inhumane backlash. 

This belief of racism being a taught and 

learnt behaviour is arguably what has 


VICTIMS AND 

PROTAGONISTS: 

CHILDREN AND THE 

TROUBLES 

Jonathan W, 5.5 

children dressed in paramilitary uniforms 

have continued to commemorate terrorist 

incidents from the period, including the 

failed attack on The Alban Arena in 1991 

(see picture below). This ended with the 

death of two IRA terrorists, killed in the 

doorway of the old Barclays Bank when 

their own bomb exploded prematurely. One 

was only 18 years of age. This raises the 

questions of how and why children became 

embroiled in The Troubles. 

“The Troubles” refer to 1969-1998 conflict 

in Northern Ireland which, although on the 

island of Ireland, is a province of the UK. 

The conflict initially largely involved the UK 

security forces on one side and the Irish 

Republican Army (IRA) on the other. The 

local security forces were the Royal Ulster 

Constabulary (RUC), which was the local 

(armed) police force, supported by the 

Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), a locally 

recruited British Army Regiment, formed in 

1970 in response to the crisis. Both 

organisations were overwhelmingly 

manned by Protestants, reflecting their 

dominance of local politics. Protestant 

politicians used this dominance to advance 

their own interests within Northern Ireland 

and to maintain the union with the rest of 

the United Kingdom, hence the terms 

“Unionists.” Their loyalty to the British 

Crown gives them their other popular title 

of “Loyalists.” 

Of the 3,500 people killed in the Troubles, 

186 were children. The focus of the media 

and historians has (with some exceptions) 

been on the innocent child victims, partly 

because they were the overwhelming 

majority. However, a minority were active 

participants, killed either in training or in 

clashes with the security forces. Moreover, 

even since the end of The Troubles, 

The local security forces were supported 

by the regular British Army, which was sent 

into the province in 1969. Ironically and 

tragically given subsequent events, this 

was initially in large part to protect the local 

Catholic population from attacks by 

Protestants, due to the failure of the local 

police to do so. These attacks represented 

an intensification of the longstanding 

discrimination faced by local Catholics. 


Early support for the British Army from 

many Catholics soon turned to resentment 

as it came to be seen as reinforcing the 

rule of the local Protestant authorities. This 

resentment was stoked by the IRA, which 

was dedicated to ending British rule in 

Northern Ireland in favour of a united 

Ireland, despite this being opposed by the 

(Protestant) majority. An IRA terrorist 

campaign followed, directed against the 

security forces and the Protestant 

community. Protestant terrorist 

organisations such as the Ulster Volunteer 

Force (UVF) and Ulster Freedom Fighters 

(UFF) intensified their attacks against 

Catholics, which had begun before the 

start of the Troubles, in response. 

It did not take long for the first child to die, 

with Patrick Rooney (aged 9) being killed 

by a stray bullet fired by the RUC, which 

was (extraordinarily) using a Browning 

heavy machine gun in a civilian area. Its 

use was found by the British Police 

Ombudsman to have been 

“disproportionate and dangerous.” Rooney 

was in bed at home in Divis Tower, 

notorious as an IRA stronghold during the 

Troubles. 

185 more children were killed over the 

following three decades, largely the 

innocent victims of terrorist attacks by the 

IRA and Loyalist terrorist groups. However, 

some of the children killed were 

themselves active members of terrorist 

organisations. 

The Belfast Telegraph reported in 2015 

that “Republicans have been accused of 

trying to cover up the deaths of IRA chi ld 

soldiers” during the Troubles, specifically 

19 children between the ages of 12 and 16. 

This has been “vigorously denied” by the 

IRA. The article cites, as examples, three 

members of IRA junior organisations, Sean 

O’Riordan (14), Eileen Mackin (14) and 

Cathleen McCartland (the youngest at only 

12). Most were killed by accidental 

discharges of weapons or premature bomb 

explosions. However, according to the 

article, O’Riordan was killed while 

participating in an IRA attack on the 

security forces. 

The Troubles remain a contentious period 

in the history of Northern Ireland, with the 

ongoing religious and political divide 

continuing to influence the views of many 

commentators. It is therefore particularly 

important to question the objectivity of any 

source. The Belfast Telegraph has a large 

Protestant readership but is also widely 

read by Catholics. The Irish Times, a 

politically moderate Irish newspaper, 

describes it only as having “Unionist 

leanings.” It is owned by Irish News and 

Media, an Irish media group based in 

Dublin. Finally, it won best newspaper of 

the year at the Society of Editors’ Regional 

Press Awards in London in 2012. 

Therefore, whilst its Unionist perspective 

suggests that it might be particularly 

interested in reporting events that cast the 

IRA in an unfavourable light, it nonetheless 

appears to be a reliable source. 

Moreover, other sources corroborate its 

findings. In the BBC series “Spotlight on 

The Troubles: A Secret History,” former 

IRA member Shane Paul O’Doherty states 

on camera that he planted numerous 

bombs in the centre of Londonderry when 

aged only 16. His young age, and the fact 

that he was sent on missions with girls, 

presumably of a similarly young age, 

helped to avoid suspicion from the security 

forces. 

Whilst denying their use in terrorist 

operations, the Republican movement has 

made no secret of the involvement in 


children in its cause. For example, Martin 

McGuinness, a leading Republican and 

member of the IRA Army Council, can be 

seen in footage from the early 1970s (only 

recently broadcast) showing off weapons 

to young Catholic children. McGuinness 

went on to be Deputy First Minister of 

Northern Ireland between 2007 and 2017. 

Young children continue to take part in 

Republican marches, sometimes dressed 

in paramilitary uniforms. The parade 

pictured above was to commemorate the 

death of two IRA members (Frankie Ryan, 

25, and Patricia Black, 18) who were killed 

when their own bomb detonated 

prematurely in the doorway of the old 

Barclays Bank in St. Albans in 1991. The 

target was the neighbouring Alban Arena, 

where the band of the Blues and Royals (a 

British Army Regiment) was playing. 

Although the UVF and other extremist 

Loyalist groups had their own youth wings, 

the active participation of children in 

terrorist organisations appears to have 

been largely confined to the Republican 

side. In her article “The nationalisation and 

militarisation of Children in Northern 

Ireland”, Helen Brocklehurst writes that 

“the majority of actors at the flashpoints of 

the troubles have been young male 

Catholics” and that the IRA was “very 

successful in attracting pre-adolescent 

children into its youth groups.” This is not 

to say that Loyalists have been shy in 

exposing their children to propaganda, 

even since the end of The Troubles. For 

example, in 1999 the 12 th July Parade, 

celebrating the victory of Protestant King 

William of Orange over King James II (of 

England and Ireland) and VII (of Scotland) 

at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690, saw 

Protestant babies wearing bibs reading 

“Born to walk the Garvaghy Road.” This 

referred to the most contentious section of 

the Protestant march, through a Catholic 

area. Brocklehurst’s article notes that “The 

closing of the Garvaghy Road prior to this 

particular parade had led to 130 Loyalist 

arson attacks, one of which killed three 

Catholic children.” 

This example helps us to understand one 

reason why children came to be actively 

involved in the conflict; in some cases it 

was a family tradition. Many Republican 

families had long histories of opposition to 

British rule, in some cases going back to 

before the partition of the island of Ireland 

in 1921. With the resentment of these 

families kept alive by years of 

discrimination from the Protestantdominated 

local authorities in Northern 

Ireland, and then reignited by the outbreak 

of The Troubles, it is perhaps not 

surprising that some of their children 

became actively involved in terrorism. 

With the families of Republicans being 

seen by the 1980s as legitimate targets by 

Loyalist terrorist groups, allegedly with the 

help of members of the UK security forces, 

some children were becoming combatants 

whether they liked it or not. It was against 

this backdrop that what we see as 

extraordinary become normality for some. 

As tensions rise again due to the disputes 

over post-Brexit trading arrangements, it is 

also a reminder (if any were needed) of 

why it is so important to avoid any actions 

that could undermine the fragile peace in 

Northern Ireland. 



THE HISTORICAL 

SIGNIFICANCE OF 

LEGO 

Sufyan S, 5.6 

Lego is an abbreviation of the Danish 

words ‘Leg Godt’ or ‘play well’ in English, 

and I am sure many of those who will come 

to read this article will have played well 

with Lego at some point. But exactly what 

is it about this Danish invention that makes 

it so revolutionary and significant that it 

managed to win toy of the century twice. 

To understand this first we must dive into 

the history and the origin of Lego. 

The company that became known as Lego 

in 1936 started out as a wooden toy 

company founded by carpenter Ole Kirk 

Kristiansen in Billund, Denmark. The motto 

of the company is “Det bedste er ikke for 

godt” or only the best is good enough and 

this is to signify that every toy that they 

made would only be produced to the best 

quality. 10 years later in 1946 Ole began to 

see the potential of plastic and he ordered 

his first injection moulding machine from 

Britain and in 1949 the system of automatic 

binding bricks is first released. In 1953 the 

automatic binding bricks were changed to 

Lego bricks and one of the first boxes from 

1953 showed both a girl and a boy playing 

with the bricks. In 1955 Ole’s son Godtfred 

launches the Lego system of play as a 

structured product system and as a toy that 

stimulates creativity in children. In 1957 

Godfredt took over the day to day running 

of the company and the next year in 1958 

the Lego brick as we know it today was 

patented with the tubes and studs. It was 

also decided in 1960 after a fire had 

destroyed much of the wooden toy stock 

that wooden toys would be discontinued. In 

1962 and 1963 the first Lego wheels and 

instructions were made. In 1963 Godfredt 

announced the 10 Lego characteristics 

which were: 

1. Unlimited play possibilities 

2. For boys and girls 

3. Enthusiasm at all ages 

4. Play all year round 

5. Stimulating and harmonious play 

6. Endless hours of play 

7. Imagination, creativity, 

development 

8. More Lego greater play value 

9. Always topical 

10. Safety and quality 

From then on Lego became the system we 

know today with many themes coming and 

going over the years that each made their 

own impact on the childhoods of certain 

generations and a key invention that joined 

this along the way was the invention of the 

Lego Minifigure in 1978 to allow children to 

have characters in their games and in 1979 

Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen Godfredt’s son 

became head of the company. 

Now what makes Lego so special 

1978 launched the Lego Space and Lego 

knights’ theme, with two famous sets being 

1978’s Galaxy Explorer (set no 928) and 

the Yellow Castle (set no 375). These 


themes continued throughout the 80s, with 

advancements in plastic moulding allowing 

for new pieces and accessories for 

minifigures. Many classic sets which many 

older people remember fondly were made 

during this time period. In my opinion, what 

makes Lego so historically significant was 

that it was one of the first plastic toys, and 

it was probably the first unified system of 

play that had different sub themes within 

this as well. Also, it was made for both girls 

and boys and for the first time they could 

build and be creative with what their games 

were rather than just dolls in a dollhouse or 

tin soldiers fake killing each other on the 

carpet. This split from regimented toys 

allowed children to be creative and create 

their own little worlds and stories, which 

now could be done on a whole new scale 

as Lego now actively encouraged story 

telling. Lego was also topical and moved 

with the times as shown with the large 

space theme from the 70s to 90s while 

children were obsessed with the stars to 

the creation of Lego Star Wars from 1999 

onwards as the world fell in love with 

George Lucas’ galaxy far far away once 

again and again when sets were made for 

the release of 2012’s Marvel Avengers 

Assemble. What was also very special 

about Lego was that if you wanted to, you 

could also create whatever you wanted, or 

you could mix and match different themes. 

Back to Lego Star Wars, this was 

especially special in the historical 

significance of Lego, as it saved the 

company. Back in 1999 low demand and 

increased production costs were leading to 

the company sailing into some bad 

financial waters and the release of Lego 

Star Wars helped to bring sales back up 

again and with Lego Star Wars the 

company became the giant that we know 

today acquiring deals to make Batman 

sets, Marvel sets, Harry Potter sets and 

more. As an avid Lego Star Wars fan, 

myself, I am thankful for Star Wars as 

without it the toy we know and love today 

might not have been around. 

For this, the teachers I asked included: Mr 

Rowley, Mrs Saunders, Dr Tanner, Dr 

McCabe, Mr Taylor, Mr Spencer and Mrs 

Ginsburg. Mr Rowley enjoyed the more 

creative aspect of being able to build what 

you want with the bricks. Mrs Saunders 

stated that the problem-solving skills that it 

teaches was the most important aspect for 

her. Dr Tanner said that he liked the fact 

that the Lego he had played with in his 

youth was still compatible with the Lego 

that his children played with and that 

compatibility between all the different 

pieces was what he believed was the most 

important aspect. Mr Spencer and Mr 

Taylor both said that the idea of the 

modular system that everything can add on 

to each other was the most important 

aspect for them. Dr McCabe on the other 

hand stated that the most important aspect 

for her aside from encouraging creativity 

was the pain that you can inflict upon 

people by laying it out to be stepped on. 

Mrs Ginsburg said that the most important 

aspect for her was the idea that in theory 

you could build whatever you wanted to 

build and that it encouraged the 

imagination. 

In conclusion, I believe that Lego has had 

a profound effect on children and childhood 

since its conception as a brick system. I 

believe that due to its ability to stimulate 

imagination it has put itself as one of the 

most influential inventions of the 20 th 

Century full stop. I and many others grew 

up with Lego and despite the rise of 

technology I still do play with Lego as 

nothing else can give me the imagination 

and fun that it brings. 


THE HISTORY OF 

CHILDHOOD 

Daniel O, 4.5 

Up until the Middle Ages, children in the 

West were sometimes seen as miniature 

versions of adults. When we look at 

paintings as far back as the 15th-century, 

children were not identified as children but 

as shrunken versions of adults. It was 

expected children act as adults by 

participating in all areas of life. In society, 

children had to follow adult behaviour, and 

emotions of any kind were severely 

punished with no allowance for childhood 

emotions such as joy, excitement or anger. 

The fact that children deserved special 

treatment did not exist in these times. 

Families of the 1600s and 1700s valued 

their children for their role in inheritance 

since fatal disease in the Middle Ages was 

widespread. The infant mortality rates were 

extremely high; between 20 to 50 per cent 

of all infants died within the first year after 

being born. People had many children and 

did not get emotionally attached to any 

child just in case they died. The infant was 

referred to as "it" until they reached an age 

when survival was likely. The death of a 

child was not seen as a tragedy as it is 

seen nowadays. 

By the 18th century, perceptions of 

childhood in the West were beginning to 

change. Children began to be seen as 

innocent and to be protected, similar to 

how we see children nowadays. With the 

concept of protection, so did the idea of 

discipline. Children were severely beaten 

in the name of discipline took place. In this 

era, society decides when they are a child 

and when they become adults. 

We understand childhood is all the 

experiences and behaviours gained in our 

early lives on our road to adulthood. 

However, the history of childhood is a very 

complex topic. In my essay, I will explore 

the views of childhood over the centuries 

and their roles in our history. 

For example, child labour was commonly 

practised and accepted. Early 19th 

century, many workers in northern factories 

were children under eleven; they worked 

as long and hard as adults, some had their 

teeth pulled out to give to the rich, and 

some were maimed to be beggars to gain 

compassion. Unscrupulous adults 

sometimes recruited abandoned children 


for use in robbery and prostitution. Similar 

practices are still carried out in some third 

world countries nowadays. 

As time moved on and we reached the 

middle 19th century, the first child 

protection organisations were set up. The 

House of Refuge in America was opened 

in the early eighteen hundred; the idea was 

for children to have somewhere to escape 

the abuse and neglect of their home life 

and society. Even these were not taking 

the child's care and well-being into 

account; they were used to stop children 

from becoming an economic burden on 

society; the children were abandoned and 

neglected by being placed in these 

institutions. 

In the 19th century, the industrial revolution 

was growing fast, and many people were 

leaving the land to work in factories. Until 

then, farm life bound families together not 

by love but by economic necessity; 

children were a crucial source of labour for 

the family and provided for their parents 

when they reached old age. 

Childhood in the 20th century, and with the 

surge in industrialisation, children were no 

longer seen as an economic need. As a 

result, children became economically 

redundant, and people began to see them 

as costly to raise. 

The Russian Revolution and First world 

war resulted in large numbers of orphans 

in the Soviet Union. By the early 1920s, 

Russia had millions of orphaned and 

abandoned children. There was a loss of 

16 million lives within the Soviet Union, and 

millions of those were children, with an 

estimated seven million homeless youth. In 

the Russian famine of 1921, the children 

suffered again and were abandoned, and 

many died from starvation. After 1945 

there were 2.5 million homeless children 

placed in orphanages. Children were the 

first to be left throughout history when a 

crisis struck. 

Childhood under Stalin 1930s was the 

most educated generation of Russians, the 

most literate and the healthiest. Stalin 

believed that the youth were the future. He 

provided educational and recreation 

opportunities that improved their lives and 

forged their socialist minds. They 

responded with unquestioning loyalty to the 

party, state, and leader. Here children were 

conditioned to follow the Socialist beliefs. 

The second world war, 1939 -1945, was a 

time of significant upheaval for children in 

Britain. Attempt to save the children, over a 

million were evacuated from towns and 

cities, and they had to cope with the 

trauma of separating from their family and 

friends. Many of those who stayed suffered 

bombing raids, were injured, or were made 

homeless. They had to deal with the threat 

of gas attacks, air raids, rationing, 

changing school, meeting their adopted 

families and making new friends. 

Disruption and shortages continued after 

the war, and all this had a lasting impact on 

children's lives. Boys aged 17 and over 

had to join the Home Guards to help 

defend towns and villages against enemy 

invasion. The work, the children, had to do 

was very dangerous. Evacuees who 

stayed in the country did not see their 

families for many years; many had lost 

their fathers and family members, and 

some were made homeless and would 

never be the same again. 

In the past, the world viewed children as 

expendable and of less value, so we now 

are taught our importance and given a 

chance to be educated, learning from the 

events of history

Gateway Chronicle 2022

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?