Katie Hopkins appeared on 'This Morning' last Friday and if you haven't seen it yet I wonder where you have been living and advise you take a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edZjdgU0asM. Hopkins argues that it is valid to use a child's name and it's connotations of class to decide the child's character and whether they would be a suitable 'play date' for her children. She believes that children with names such as 'Tyler' are more likely to be a negative influence on her children, and behave worse at school.
Now, the interview focuses on Mrs Hopkins's apparent hypocrisy and idiocy, and only lightly touches on the real issue, that people are consistently judged on their background and parents. This isn't always direct; having wealthy parents means you are almost guaranteed a certain privileges, such as private schools and increased respect for your lifestyle. This is instituted in British tradition, we still have Kings and Queens who automatically by right of birth have privilege and status over the common rabble, 'Dukes' and 'Duchesses' are seen as sophisticated and admirable, but we have to remember these titles are inherited. These presumptions are not based on individual merit, but upon a hierarchical system that discounts the majority of the British public, no matter what they have achieved.
What Hopkins presumes is that those who come from a poorer and less privileged background are automatically worth less intellectually and personally than the wealthy. But this is not necessarily the case. Typically at Oxbridge (Oxford and Cambridge) universities those who have come from state schools outperform those from public schools. The simple reason for this is that they have had to try harder and have had to show more individual strength to reach Oxbridge in the first place. In Oxford only roughly 30% of the intake at undergraduate is from State schools. Public school students will have had training for the interviews, for the entrance exams, something very few state schools have the time or resources to give. So in general students from State schools have to have worked harder, tried harder by themselves. And I'm sure quite a few of these students are called 'Tyler', and have had to fight against the prejudice of people such as Hopkins all their lives to prove their own worth.
And although I wouldn't call myself under privileged, I know what it's like to have to prove your capabilities despite your background. When I went to sixth form I was entering from a closing school, which had been deemed 'failing' by Ofsted. Most of my primary school friends in the catchment area refused to attend because they thought the school was rough because it took in a lot of people from a lower class, and a lot of immigrants. On sixth form open days at two schools I was told once I'd informed them of my secondary school that I was unlikely to get GCSE grades high enough to study at sixth form. I started to tell teachers immediately; 'I go to (name removed) School, but I'm predicted all A's'. But my secondary school was widely diverse, I had incredibly interesting friends from all over and I never felt superior because I was middle class. I had friends just as intelligent as me, and more so, and they weren't restricted by their background. The main restriction will always remain the people who assume that they cannot succeed because of where they come from, or what school they go to. And one of the reasons why this country is one of the most unequal is that these people did not get the same opportunities as public school children. The automatic hierarchy is outdated, and people like Hopkins should be rightly called idiotic, as long as we realise this isn't just an isolated case. This is a symptom of a much larger problem, one that this country is clinging to for dear life with our Royalty and House of Lords. God knows why.
What I'm reading:
Theft Eric Chappell I should first explain that this is a play, and I'm trying not to read it simply the way I would read a novel. I'm trying to work out blocking and casting etcetera, but even simply reading this it's interesting. Written in a naturalistic style, with a classical shortening of acts to create the sense of time running out towards the climax, I'm finding the play quite exciting. Set in the drawing room of the posh home of John and Barbara Miles, the play follows a burglary, and the manipulative burglar, who knows far too much about everybody involved. Relationships and trust are tested, and I think I would love to see this play performed.
What I'm watching:
The Returned Channel 4 Got to say, I normally dislike zombie and ghost programs. I find them ridiculous mostly, and would rather be watching Downton Abbey or Doctor Who (Yes, I am aware of the irony). However, The Returned is incredible, set in a French town (worth mentioning now the program is in French with subtitles) and people start returning from the dead. There is no explanation for why this is happening, and that's part of the charm. The show focuses on the characters, and the effect those returning from the dead are having. From start to finish every Sunday I am totally entranced. The acting brilliant, there is nobody who lets the side down, even the child actors are wonderful. Although, it is hopelessly complicated and there's a lot to remember, so not something to watch for a laugh.
No comments:
Post a Comment