Dickinson College Humanities Program in Norwich

Parks is a topic I know all too well, considering that was what my group project was about. I thought that this blog post should be the easiest because of that fact, but actually it has been quite difficult trying to figure out what aspect of parks I should talk about. Parks, as I learned through research, are more than just aescetically pleasing. They can serve a purpose of immortalizing people and places or even as a place of national pride. What I was most interested in when I was researching parks though was the use of parks as a public space, in the sense of the public being able to use it as a place to proclaim their beliefs, where they could be ridiculed, praised or even arrested.

In Hyde Park, the park I have studied more in length, seemed to have the most to do with free speech. The first example of this was with Edmund Beales and his Reform League in 1866. They protested in Hyde Park on the 23 of July, 1866 over male suffrage and the representation of the working and middle classes in England on the ballot. Fighting broke out between the Reform League and the police, and there was much consideration on banning these demonstrations. The Prime Minister at the time though soon allowed such demonstrations to continue “unchallenged…since 1872” when Speaker’s Corner was sort of informally born.

Speaker’s Corner is found on one of the far corners of the park, and today is relatively unmarked so that walking by you wouldn’t even notice it was a place of importance. Since 1872 people have basically had the “right” to speak on whatever topic they so desired on any given Sunday, so long as no profanity or violence be used. Many famous people have come here to speak such as Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenon, and George Orwell to name a few. There is really no law that states that this place is the only place of free speech here in London, but police will allow those who wish to speak their mind (granted they follow the very basic rules as mentioned previously) to do so.

One of the most famous events of free speech in the park was Women’s Sunday on the 21 of June, 1908. The Women’s Social and Political Union decided to hold a “meeting” at Hyde Park featuring suffragettes from all parts of the United Kingdom. They all rallied to obviously prove the point that women should be allowed the right to vote. It attracted a crowd of at least 300,000 people and it was one of the largest single demonstration of that time. Women were advised to “wear the colours” which were white for purity, green for hope, and purple for dignity. Although the demonstration was successful in proving its point, it ended in many women’s arrest.

It is strange to think of the limits on free speech, coming from a country where it is allowed (within reason). The importance of these green spaces to the history and heritage of London and England as a whole can be seen through such events of free speech and demonstrations. These places hold a sense of national pride to England’s history, and I am glad that people are still allowed to get up on their “soapboxes” today and speak on whatever they so believe in. That is the beauty and power of history.

So I am quite sure I was not the only one that was moved by The Pitmen Painters tonight. I must admit, this was the performance I was least looking forward to, and it was the one I enjoyed and was touched by the most. I guess it was because, first of all, it struck close to home. My great grandfathers on my father’s side of the family both were coal miners and it just gave me so much pride in my family. My father was the first person on his side of the family to attend college, my sister and I being the next, so I have a strong appreciation and respect for those who earn their living by hand.  I also appreciated this play because it featured the working class.

I am a social historian at heart, so to watch this play was truly a treat and a learning experience. The scene that stuck out to me the most was when Oliver was talking with Miss Sutherland about his refusal to her offer. It reminded me a bit of Great Expectations and Joe. I thought of the conversation Pip and Joe had where Joe, even though he has the capacity to perhaps achieve greater things, decides he is satisfied with his honest way of living and would not change it. Pip of course did not understand why one would want to do that, just like Miss Sutherland had the same sort of reaction. In the play, Oliver says something that miners and painters just don’t mix. They are from two different worlds and they both speak two different languages, he would never be able to fit in. At first, I remember thinking, I really hope he takes this offer because he was an incredible artist. Then, when I saw the opening of the scene and he sat there waiting to tell her the answer, I just thought in my mind, don’t say yes. I don’t really know why I thought that, but I guess I knew too, like he did, that sometimes two different social scenes just cannot mix. In the end though, he was still proud of the work he did and who he was, and that was what was important.

I thought this was an excellent final play to end our time in London because it kind of brought together all of the central themes we had been discussing. From the ever popular juxtapositioning to class structure to identity. The moral of the story is to just be proud of where you come from, like we had learned with Dickens and other authors, and tonight I was definitely proud of my heritage.