History Gcse Jarrow March Essay 2012

Jarrow March Essay 2012 The Jarrow March was a failure and didnt achieve anything In this essay, I am going to review the dictation make and decide whether the consultations given back or do not support the theory. This view is suggesting that the Jarrow March of October 1936 was a complete failure and did not achieve its culture of making the prime minister at the time, Stanley Baldwin, and the lie d admit of the government help Jarrow in its unemployment crisis of the time. Jarrow, a township in Tyneside, Newcastle, was one of the most touch on places in the peachy slump of the 20th century. 4% of the passel that lived there were unemployed by 1935. Mainly because their briny means of work, the shipyards, had e actually last(predicate) been shut down. The 207 marchers travelled from their lovemaking town of Jarrow to the Palace of Westminster in Lon tangle with, a h senior of almost 300 miles (480km). Their MP, Ellen Wilkinson walked with them. When the marchers compl eted their march, very pocketable was done for them. The towns shipbuilding industry remained closed, with the marchers given gold for the train fare back to Jarrow. I am going to asses each source for reliability, sufficiency and its nature, f whole and aspire.Some views may maintain with this title statement do because it did not achieve its goal, it didnt not shift parliament at all, with the prime minister aphorism that if he gave priority to one march, which would be secernment and it would provoke more marches. I know this from my own contextual knowledge. get-gos A and B do affiliate in some sense. Source A is a poster made by the labour caller in 1951 just before the election. It is suggesting that if u didnt vote for labour, that unemployment would spark up again. It also says on the top remember? This is asking voters if they remember the Jarrow promote, and if they dont want a life analogous that again, then they should vote for labour. This source may not be reliable because it may not support the whole labour party view, and I may be fabricated to get more votes. They gift made this poster to persuade. This opposes with the statement because it implies that the Jarrow crusade was a bad thing, and that they dont want it to receive again. Source B does squander some symmetry with A, save it does take issue as well. It is a statement from a marcher, storyed in the Sun newsprint from the 31st of October 1936.He says The first morning is what Im afraid of. Itll be getting up and aspect out of the window at the same old sight Jarrow, knowing theres zero, nothing to do. My feet hurt terribly I know this report is reliable from my own contextual knowledge that he was rightfulness. Nothing did happen after he would experience seen the same old Jarrow. This does agree with the statement because he said that nothing would happen after, implying that the march was a complete failure. Source B does somewhat agree with source A, b ut Source A does powerfully agree with source C, D, E and F.They all disagree with the statement made. Lets start with why source A might agree with the otherwises. Source A was made in 1951, 15 long time after the march itself. Suggesting that the march must be signifi freightert because it mollify was remembered and it had a legacy. I pay back assessed reliability of A, so lets fall on. Source C is the succeeding(a) one. It is an choice from a debate about unemployment in Jarrow and the North tocopherol in 1986. The speaker was Don Dixon, MP for Jarrow. It again, disagrees with the hypothesis. This is because this was 50 years later, and the government are still public lecture about the march.This suggests a very big usurpation and legacy from the march. I think this source is kind of reliable. This is because you are not allowed to lie at all in the House of Commons and it states the facts, which are consecutive, as supported by my own previous contextual knowledge. Ho wever he may have be to overdo the need for money and employment in Jarrow, and he is one sided because he was an eye attestator and he lived through the worst of the Great Depression at the age of 7. He may exaggerate the state of Jarrow because he is a Labour MP.So he wants to get votes from the public, and he says if he can limiting Jarrow, one of the worst hit, then he can change the rest of the UK. The purpose of this extract was to tell/persuade. They do agree with each other, because they are both trying to make it that Jarrow was worse than it was, and they both have the same views, being Labour. They may also moderately disagree because the labour party could put anything they wanted on their propaganda, but Don Dixon was in Parliament, where he had to say certain things at certain times and probably make a speech.Source D is an extract from a book written about the Great Depression and the Jarrow Crusade in 2005. It was written to inform. I think it is very reliabl e because the facts are all true backed up by my contextual knowledge. This also disagrees with the hypothesis because has now been remembered in the future(a) century, which really suggests how big and influential the aftermath of the Jarrow Crusade actually is. However they may have magnified to sell the book, or to gain good ratings. It does agree very much with C, because they both state the facts, but they also may disagree with each other because of the time difference.People in the future have different views to people back then. The next source is source E. This source is a cartoon about the lorry drivers slow drive from the north east to capital of the United Kingdom to protest fuel cost rises in November 2000. This purpose may be to cause humour, or reminiscence. I think this may not be very reliable. It may have been fabricated and it has no culture that can be judged on it. It is also very one sided in the fact that the Jarrow Crusade exalt fat lorry drivers to smo ke, eat McDonalds and protest, respectively.It does not similar to any source, and is very different to all of them. However, it does slightly disagree with the hypothesis because it suggests that it is still remembered in the next century. Source F is last. It is a small split up about the Jarrow Crusade written by a modern historian in 2012. It has no terra firma to lie or fabricate, so therefore I think it is very reliable, because all the facts are right and accurate. (Due to contextual knowledge) It quite similar to source C and D, because they are all filled with plain, accurate facts.But C is slightly different, again, because of the reasons to fabricate. Overall, I think most of the sources do not back up the hypothesis, because of their reliability and context. My individualised view is that the hypothesis may be true in the short term for Jarrow but it affected the whole world in the long run, excite people to stand up to what they believe in, and it still fondly remem bered even now. Otherwise it still wouldnt be taught to our class now in October 2012. thank you for reading. Shaun Perryman 10BHi. 1