Subtle Distinctions

 

When I was about 17, I had a conversation with a couple of friends from my old school. I was at university at the time but one of the two was still at my old school and one had left and was at another school. As it’s an old British school, my school had a house system. It’s not very strong and I was never into athletics while I was there. I never won anything for my house as far as I can recall. Both friends were similarly uninterested in such things. We discussed the houses we’re in. One said to the other that he didn’t seem like a member of that house. She wasn’t a particularly observant girl, but she hit on something that had percolated in my mind for ten years at that point: there are differences between the members of the houses. It’s indescribable.

It’s not that Streetonites are athletic and Napierites are academic, or whatever it is that the previous generation claims based on the Sports Day results of their era. It is way more subtle and unimportant than that. Affinity for your group is one thing, but it’s quite another to have a gut instict for identifying the houses of people who largely had no say in which of the four houses they were arbitrarily assigned to. And yet, somehow, this is a widespread phenomenon (if I may extrapolate from my sample size of three).

We discussed a few people we knew and which houses they were in with similar comments popping up occasionally. All three of us had this concept that someone could seem like a member of one of the houses as a result of no describable thing.

There is legitimately no good way these differences between the members of the houses and commonalities between members of the same house could have come about. At boarding schools, which have literal houses in which the children live, obviously there are ways and reasons, but at this day school, how?

 

I grew up partially in Amington, Tamworth, Staffordshire, which is in the English Midlands. As a Midlander, I don’t really have a dog in the North-South fight. Southerners would like to think I’m from the North, but geography rather undermines this binary perception of England. Scots aren’t thought of as Northern, even though they’re even further North than Northerners. The East and West of England as well as Northern Ireland and Wales are also not really involved in it.

Despite all of this, I recently looked at the website of a small company which had a dozen staff portraits on its front page. I immediately took a dislike to the company because they looked like Southerners.

Southerners, despite what a Yorkshire lad may tell you, are largely not of a different race to people from the North. I can form no coherent explanation why I would perceive these innocent souls as Southerners simply because of the way their faces looked in sterile corporate headshots.

Many of my favourite people are Southerners and I have had no personally negative experience with a Southerner. Although my English ancestors are largely from Lancashire (including parts which are now Manchester) with one significant branch around Halifax, Yorkshire, I have never lived in the North. Nor has anyone ever described me as a Northerner, even as a joke (although I have been accused of being Southern numerous times). Nor can I seriously say anything against Southerners. Although I may be able to half-remember a joke or two, or even complain about the London-centric media we have with even the formerly Manchester-based Guardian now publishing the kind of articles that only make sense if you have a dim Londoner’s typical big-city solipsism. But I digress.

Nearly all of England is lovely, as is true of most European countries (trust me, I’ve been to half of them), so why would I have anything against a company because their staff apparently look Southern to me somehow? Prejudice is a strange thing.

Inequality in America’s State Schools

“Last Saturday marked the 60-year anniversary of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision that desegregated America’s public schools.

Again and again, we still hear the unscientific mantra that the only difference is ‘skin color.’ When we are told that ‘African Americans were underrepresented by 48 percent in gifted education,’ the implication is that this is solely due to white racism rather than a natural dearth of gifted black students.

After 60 years, is it still accurate to call it ‘prejudice’? Forget about ‘separate but equal’—maybe what many Americans have learned over the past few generations is that even if you force everyone into the same classroom, they’re still going to be unequal.”

Taki’s Magazine