History Gcse Jarrow March Essay 2012
Jarrow March Essay 2012 ‘The Jarrow March was a failure and didn’t achieve anything’ In this essay, I am going to review the statement made and decide whether the sources given support 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 goal of making the prime minister at the time, Stanley Baldwin, and the rest of the government help Jarrow in its unemployment crisis of the time. Jarrow, a town in Tyneside, Newcastle, was one of the most affected places in the Great Depression of the 20th century. 4% of the people that lived there were unemployed by 1935. Mainly because their main means of work, the shipyards, had all been shut down. The 207 marchers travelled from their beloved town of Jarrow to the Palace of Westminster in London, a distance of almost 300 miles (480 km). Their MP, Ellen Wilkinson walked with them. When the marchers completed their march, very little was done for them. The town’s shipbuilding industry remained closed, with the marchers given money for the train fare back to Jarrow. I am going to asses each source for reliability, sufficiency and its nature, origin and purpose.
Some views may agree with this title statement made because it did not achieve its goal, it didn’t not budge parliament at all, with the prime minister saying that if he gave priority to one march, which would be favouritism and it would provoke more marches. I know this from my own contextual knowledge. Sources A and B do agree in some sense. Source A is a poster made by the labour party in 1951 just before the election. It is suggesting that if u didn’t 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 Crusade, and if they don’t want a life like 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 have made this poster to persuade. This agrees with the statement because it implies that the Jarrow crusade was a bad thing, and that they don’t want it to happen again. Source B does have some agreement with A, but it does disagree as well. It is a statement from a marcher, reported in the Sun newspaper from the 31st of October 1936.
He says: “The first morning is what I’m afraid of. It’ll be getting up and looking out of the window at the same old sight – Jarrow, knowing there’s nothing, nothing to do. My feet hurt terribly…” I know this report is reliable from my own contextual knowledge that he was right. Nothing did happen after; he would have 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 slightly agree with source A, but Source A does strongly agree with source C, D, E and F.
They all disagree with the statement made. Let’s start with why source A might agree with the others. Source A was made in 1951, 15 years after the march itself. Suggesting that the march must be significant because it still was remembered and it had a legacy. I have assessed reliability of A, so let’s move on. Source C is the next one. It is an extract from a debate about unemployment in Jarrow and the North East 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 talking about the march.
This suggests a very big impact and legacy from the march. I think this source is quite reliable. This is because you are not allowed to lie at all in the House of Commons and it states the facts, which are true, as supported by my own previous contextual knowledge. However he may have lied to exaggerate the need for money and employment in Jarrow, and he is one sided because he was an eye witness 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 change Jarrow, one of the worst hit, then he can change the rest of the UK. The purpose of this extract was to inform/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 slightly 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 reliable 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 next century, which really suggests how big and influential the aftermath of the Jarrow Crusade actually is. However they may have exaggerated 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 London 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 information that can be judged on it. It is also very one sided in the fact that the Jarrow Crusade inspired fat lorry drivers to smoke, 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 paragraph about the Jarrow Crusade written by a modern historian in 2012. It has no reason 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 personal view is that the hypothesis may be true in the short term for Jarrow but it affected the whole world in the long run, inspiring people to stand up to what they believe in, and it still fondly remembered even now. Otherwise it still wouldn’t be taught to our class now in October 2012. Thank you for reading. Shaun Perryman 10BHi. 1
