Medals: An act of remembrance or better best forgotten?

Medal Index Card of one of my relatives.

Within the National Archive there are over 5 million medal index cards for soldiers and other military personnel who served between 1914 and 1920. This included most British army officers, Indian Army personnel, British Army nurses, Royal Flying Corps personnel, Royal Naval division personnel and some civilians. 5 million cards, issuing any number of the medals issued to those who served in one of the most difficult periods in modern British history. And that is a figure which excludes those many thousands of records for the service men and women from the Second World War.

I started thinking about this topic the other day when I caught a few minutes of one of these day time auction shows and on there, they were selling a collection of WW1 medals. These medals had no connection to the person who was selling them and it got me to thinking what a sad state of affairs that is. These medals represent the courage and sacrifice made by our generation of grandfathers and great grandfathers, and yet here they are, detached from anyone with a personal connection and being sold off to the bidder of the highest price.

Perhaps it’s a rather sentimental view to take, but it is one I find quite difficult to understand. In the year in which we mark the centenary of this life changing event, to think that so many medals have been disregarded and have ended up in auction rooms or antique shops across the country is quite a sad thought. I suppose for me, it’s because we as a family take such pride in the medals earned by my grandfather and great grandfather, and for the last few years they along with a picture of them both (only one in uniform unfortunately) have taken pride of place on my Nan’s living room wall. For me they are part of our family story – the fact my great grandfather is believed to have arrived in Britain because he wanted to fight in the war and his native Sweden being neutral, marking a changing point in the family history. I can’t imagine them being given away or sold and would fight to keep them in the family.

With this in mind,  I got thinking about the fascinating project my fellow MA student Sue has begun, which uses the diaries her granddad kept during WW1 to offer a very personal insight into life during the conflict. The collection of memorabilia also includes medals, postcards and letters all of which are providing her with some wonderful material on which to base blog posts and with which we, as the interested audience, can engage. It is a really thought provoking way to think about one of those periods of history we think of as familiar, by emphasising the personal experience. The diaries were only discovered after his death, which in itself tells us something about what those diaries meant to him, but had they not been kept and treasured by Sue and her family, this valuable record would have been lost. And it's that idea that underpins my whole reason for writing this blog - the idea of giving away or disposing of something so valuable to a family story. Sue's project is a very personal one but it is also a very publically relatable story and I for one am very keen to hear more of William John West Taylor’s story as it unfolds.

Selection of one of my relatives medals.

I’m sure that Sue’s project is driven by a desire to find out more about the stories behind this amazing assortment of material and the people involved, just as it is with many of us who embark on our own similar family history projects. The genealogical revolution has really gripped the nation and there is an inexhaustible desire to know more about our own individual’s family’s past – so what it is that motivates some people to sell medals or memorabilia? Or worse, too throw it away? And what has led to so much of this material being ‘family-less’? I notice this is not just a predicament found in Britain, but remember vividly passing a stall in Rome which was also selling medals and at the time commented, how if I could have afforded too, I would have bought the medal, traced to whom it was awarded and returned it to the family – they are only small items but they represent so much and I think that is all too easily forgotten. However then on the other hand, I think well, if they were appreciated and valued by the family they'd never have been given up in the first place. There are also those  soldiers who actually sold them, so I guess as with everything, there are many different ways to look at this.

What makes this worse, for me anyway, is that some people have seen the commercial value in this and try to exploit the interest some of us have in our family’s past. Not so long ago I was contacted by a medal dealer who had acquired the medals of a distant relative of mine. He’d tracked this relative through Ancestry and seen my relationship to him and contacted me to see if I would be interested in buying these medals from him. I can only assume, others in a similar position were also contacted, but what a thing! I mean not only has he reduced this item to a meaningless commodity, but he was also willing to play on the sentimentality of those of us with an interest in genealogy. Now I know this is a livelihood for some people, but really? In my view these items are invaluable and should be treasured by families as a reminder of the contribution their ancestors made to two of the greatest conflicts in modern history and at such a prominent time in the ceremonies of remembrance we should really be remembering this.

Then again, as a final thought, perhaps those who were awarded the medals want them forgotten? I know in our case, those medals were hidden away in a tin for years, not displayed - perhaps that's what they both would have wanted? It's hard to say really isn't it - but to see them auctioned on the television just seemed disrespectful in some way.

To be taken to Sue’s blog please follow this link - http://fromshacklefordtothesomme.wordpress.com/ and she has also set up a Facebook page which can be found here https://www.facebook.com/shacklefordtothesomme?fref=ts. Do take a look and keep an eye out for updates on this very interesting project as it evolves.

Reflections on Our Zoo: A Follow Up

As promised I went away and did a little more research on the use of animals by production companies, and in particular those zoological collections who exist merely for that purpose. I will say now, that again I do need to do more research and that these are just thoughts on what I’ve found out since that last blog – they’re not definitive and neither are they completely well informed judgements, but hopefully over time they will be.

So, I didn’t really know what to expect. On the one hand (and perhaps rather optimistically) I had imagined a collection that was the best that a zoo could hope to be; the money they earn from supplying animals to television companies etc. being reinvested into animal welfare and provision within their own collections, or at the very least an investment into some form of conservation work. In my experience, those people who work with animals do so because they are passionate about wildlife and want to do all they can to help species survive; they want to be the best they can be at their jobs, in order to best help their animals. Then on the other hand, I expected something far from what I’d deem acceptable and that would reinforce that feeling of discomfort that had nestled deep in my stomach when watching that first episode of Our Zoo. Unfortunately, it was the latter expectation that was met, and while I wasn’t really surprised that that was the outcome, I have to say I was really disappointed.

I can’t help but think of one of the zookeepers I spoke to for an oral history interview and how he talked about how invested he became in his work, but also the commitment he had to various associations that monitored the standard of zoological collections nationwide. In the later stages of his career he invested so much time and energy into making sure these standards were enforced and that zookeepers were trained to know the best ways to look after their animals. Yet here we are, some 30 years later and things haven’t really changed. Some zoological collections can still get away with cramming big cats into tiny enclosures,  having nocturnal animals out in daylight and active because their routines have been disturbed and having vulnerable and endangered species that aren’t part of breeding programmes.

Again this is something I need to keep digging into to find out more about the legislation and regulations that are in place. It might well be that the problem is actually with the lack of regulations and not the direct actions of the zoological collections, but instinctively I got angry. Maybe the rules for private zoological collections are different, or maybe as a visitor we have different expectations now. Have our sensibilities changed? And now, because we visit them and we take our children, have the public become bigger stakeholders in public zoological collections, and do they plan with us in mind just as much as the animals?  Does what goes on behind closed doors not matter when we are not directly confronted with it? These are all questions I’ve been left asking myself because I just don’t understand how this is still acceptable and I don’t get why it’s still allowed to carry on.

There was an interesting article recently that compared the Zoo lates that take place at London Zoo, to a relic of the bygone Victorian age and their desire to reduce animals to spectacle and you can’t really deny that this mentally doesn’t still exist by some of those who work within professions involving animals. I think I’d been quite naïve to it until recently, and now I find my inner moral being questioning a lot more of what I see and hear.

I know there was anger earlier this year when the Queen’s Speech at the State Opening of Parliament omitted mention of the proposed ban on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses, that it was hoped would come into being at the end of 2015 and I just wonder why that was? I know it’s not top of the political agenda at the moment and there are more pressing issues at hand, but why does there seem to be this hesitation to do anything? Furthermore, why stop at their use in travelling circuses – I get that this will impact people’s livelihoods and change the way of life for people that might have been animal trainers for generations, but surely we are at a point where we need to move past this and those skills people have acquired through their careers utilised elsewhere and for the benefit of the wildlife.

The whole idea of animals being used for entertainment, even if born from the decline of the circus, is outdated. We should be looking elsewhere for sources of entertainment – animals are not put on this earth for that purpose. We should be teaching our children to respect wildlife and the benefits of promoting conservation – not “ooooo” and “ahhhing” as they’re forced to do tricks for a round of applause and chunk of meat!

And then I think about somewhere like ZSL Whipsnade which I visited on Sunday in order to be reminded of the positive work that zoological collections can do. ZSL has come under fire recently for its Zoo Lates and while its motives for holding those events are debateable, it is hard to deny the value of the other programmes and organisations they are involved with and the positive repercussions that come from that involvement. So a group of friends and I went along and had a really nice day. One of the things I like most about Whipsnade is the amount of space they can offer the animals, it’s never going to be as good as their natural environment, but unlike a number of zoos I’ve been too, there is a lot of space for the animals to roam around and to hide from public view if they want to.

And while there, for the first time for a long time, I actually sat and watched one of the scheduled ‘talks’ they hold throughout the day. On this occasion it happened to be the Sea lion one, which normally I would avoid because I don’t like to see animals used for entertainment purposes. It’s the same reason (well that and my fear of clowns) that I won’t go to the circus (I know you could argue this is the entire purpose of zoos – I am wading through murky waters on this one!). But on this occasion I figured that it couldn’t be as bad as I’d seen previously and I was right. The whole talk is built around a narrative that highlights the importance of conservation and looking after our wildlife. So every ‘trick’ is done with that in mind. Fetching hoops with fishing netting on from the bottom of the pool informed the audience of the danger to wildlife when fishing nets are just discarded into the ocean; picking up a plastic bottle and placing it in the recycle bin promoted an anti-littering message and highlighted the importance of recycling; and playing dead wasn’t shown for the purpose of entertainment, but is a ‘exercise’ taught to the animals for the purposes of animal husbandry and to allow keepers close enough to conduct checks on their animals, in this case ultrasounds if the animal happened to be pregnant, or to perhaps also check their teeth. After each exercise each animal was rewarded, but equally if a Sea lion went off and did its own thing, it wasn’t forced to come back (again as I’d seen previously) the keepers just adapted and carried on and that was a notable contrast to those who are taught purely for entertainment – after all time is money in that situation. At the end of the Sea lion talk the keepers remind you that your money helps with the upkeep of the animals at both Whipsnade and London Zoo and also helps fund over 50 conservation programmes with which they are involved and that is a really positive thing to be reminded of.

This whole topic is a complex one that is riddled with moral and ethical questions and I’ve realised to conduct research, I am sometimes going to have to do things that go against my principles. Visiting zoos is sometimes the best source of information but equally, can be a difficult experience. I will therefore continue to watch Our Zoo because I’m interested in the historical aspect the drama is trying to convey – but I will do that by sacrificing my principles because I don’t agree with the training of animals purely for entertainment purposes. In my opinion, to justify their existence zoological collections need to actively be demonstrating commitment to conservation and the preservation of endangered and vulnerable species. There should not still be a desire to ‘own’ animals for the purposes of your own entertainment or for commercial purposes – too many animals are at risk and efforts should be concentrated on encouraging future generations to assist in preserving the world’s wildlife and not viewing it purely for entertainment.

No doubt I will follow up on this blog once I've done further research.

The End of an Era!

Well its over – my time as a student of Public History at Royal Holloway has come to an end. And what a year it has been! There have been highs and there have been lows but what a ride?! When it all began a year ago I was anxious about making the move from history to public history.  It was something I was interested in and passionate about, but I wasn’t quite sure how I’d make that adjustment. Soon enough all those anxieties were appeased; I was in my element and didn’t look back.

The course has covered a wide range of elements, including oral history, a skills project and the creation of a radio programme. We’ve also written a conventional dissertation assessing the condition of the heritage industry and analysing how heritage institutions respond to current challenges. While finally there was the final project – our own individual masterpieces of public history. (For those with insider knowledge – yes I did skip over the Concepts module, for it is now a vague and very distant memory!) The creative elements of this course have allowed me to pursue elements of history that are particularly interesting for me and along the way I’ve met and made contact with some truly fascinating people. So, with that in mind there have been a few highlights from the year which really stick out for me and I really just wanted to share them with you.

The first part that really sticks out is the oral history interviews I conducted back in the winter term. I had no idea that there was so much involved in carrying out oral history and while that made for slightly daunting task, once you’ve got your head around it and actually get going, it’s fantastic. I’m a chatty person anyway and I like to hear about people’s stories, yet in this setting you’re potentially being invited in to some quite personal or intimate moments in that person’s life and I hadn’t really appreciated that before being taught this module by one of the best! It’ a valuable historical approach for making inclusive history and it’s definitely something I would look at doing again in the future. Anyway, I digress. So, in keeping with my interest in the history of the wild animal trade and zoological collections, I was fortunate to be able to interview two zoo keepers, one now retired with over 50 years’ experience and the other still in the job, with 30 years’ experience. Research cannot compare to the unique insight these individuals had to offer and I learnt so much about how zoos work behind the scenes, and for a historian in this field, that was a really valuable experience. I know there is this air of hesitation for zoos to open up about their history and I understand the reason for that and it conflicting with their current principles, but that evolution is a hugely interesting process and getting to know more about that from the perspective of those who helped to assist in that process, was one of my favourite parts of the year.

The second has to be the radio programme! For this I chose to look at the effect of WW2 on animals, and the story that began to emerge was not one I’d expected. The final programme looked at the impact on pets rather than the unique uses of animals in the war effort and it was a really enlightening area to look at. Having been taught the history of WW2 all through school and right up to university level, you think you know it all – or at least have a good grasp on it. But in doing this programme the view I had that animals can offer alternative ways of looking at the past was really reinforced, because in researching this programme and speaking with experts, I realised that so much more went on during the war, especially on the Home Front, than I could ever have imagined. I don’t think I’d ever asked before, what happened to peoples pets, or to the animals in zoos? You just don’t do you – when you think of war you think of the human experience and not the animal one. So yes, not only was the topic one I was completely enthused by, but in searching for speakers I also made valuable contacts – because as much as this course is about expanding knowledge, it’s also about getting to grips with the professional world; and making contacts and exchanging information is hugely important to that process. 

The feedback I had for this programme put the icing on the cake, because I’m not really creative or musical and so to be told I “have a good ear” was something I could gloat about to my musically talented younger brother! It was just a really enjoyable experience; taking a concept, researching it and conducting interviews, and finally editing it together into a programme that people want to listen too.

As a final note, I have to talk about the final project and the pop-up exhibition I curated on the history of the wild animal trade. In pursuing ambitious plans for this project and trying to create as many opportunities as possible, I made contact with numerous institutions, not all successfully, but those that were met with positive responses had and continue to have, the potential to be hugely exciting. Whether I really do create a larger installation, or manage to take my research to a new medium and new audience, I don’t know. Who knows what the future has in store but it’s all good experience and adds to this remarkable journey.

Furthermore, hosting Who Let the Lions Out? at LMA last Friday was perhaps the most fitting way to end what has been a remarkable year. I’d been planning this event since February, secured speakers, conducted research and recruited an audience – it was hard work but what a way to finish! I’ve been going on about the fact that the history of animals, or however you want to phrase it, is somewhat new and to have an event where that is the focus and to be responsible for that event, gave me a real sense of accomplishment. I really felt like I’d achieved something and it confirmed that for me this is the path I want to follow. I do want to do the PhD and get this largely untold story out there. I’m enthused and excited about what lies ahead and the MA has equipped me with many of the skills I need to embrace every opportunity. So watch this space…

Reflections on Our Zoo: Animal historian and nature lover in conflict.

As a young historian with an interest in the history of zoological collections and the wild animal trade, I was pleased to hear that the BBC had been working on a new drama series Our Zoo which would look at the creation of Chester Zoo in the 1930s. However, as I sat watching it last night I realised I had mixed emotions about the programme. On the one hand I was somewhat glad that it was exposing this rather new area of historical research to a wider audience, but on the other I found that it somewhat conflicted with my views on animal welfare and the treatment of captive animals. In that moment, it dawned on me that by pursuing the line of research that I am, it becomes difficult not to appear to be glorifying something that was very much of its time and that those actions can actually come into conflict with modern views and expectations.

I was aware that CAPS had begun a petition against the BBC using taxpayers money to fund the use of animals as a sources of entertainment. And actually, it wasn’t until then that I realised (rather stupidly) that companies still exist that ‘own’ animals purely to hire them out for the purposes of entertainment, and that made me feel both sad and angry. When I first started this research I expected things to have been very different in the past to what they are today. I really expected our attitudes and treatments of animals to have changed dramatically, yet while to a certain extent this is true and our knowledge of animal care and biology is vastly improved, the more research and reading that I do, the more I am struck by the striking similarities and how actually, very little has changed. Animals are still seen as sources of entertainment and spectacle, even though renewed emphasis has been placed on conservation and preservation.

Through my research I’ve read a lot about animals having been imported as sources of entertainment and curiosity for the public and I know that this is what it was like at the time, but with a modern mind set, watching a recreation of those attitudes just felt wrong because to recreate them, you have to act them out. For example, witnessing lions performing circus tricks and jumping through hoops in fire and in the trailer for the next episode, bears being caged/chained in a cave, just made me feel really uncomfortable. I disagree with the use of animals in circuses in modern society and don’t ever wish to see animals chained, so the fact that this was done for the TV audiences, in order to tell the history of a zoo, made my heart sink.  I know regulations have improved since the turn of the century and that the animals will have been cared for to a certain degree– but I was actually left wondering if this programme should have been made at all; and for me that would previously have been an inconceivable question.

I am hoping to embark on an academic career looking at the development of the wild animal trade and zoological collections with a public history element and yet, when an opportunity to highlight this aspect of history arose, I recoiled and doubted its suitability. I’m really interested to hear the history of Chester Zoo, yet the presence of the animals in that feature was unsettling. But it’s a catch-22 situation because I don’t know how you’d get around it. This story has animals at its heart and you can’t really tell that story without them, but to have them puts the animals in a compromised position. I kept thinking about the film Water for Elephants where they used digitally composed stampede scenes – yes it was slightly noticeable but would this not have been an alternative?

I need to conduct more research to make more informed conclusions about this programme for these are merely reflections having watched last night’s episode and having studied the topic for two years. I had just expected to sing the praises of the programme for the service it was doing to the blossoming area of historical research and yet I was actually left feeling quite unsettled about it all.