# data[].attributes.body
America is by far the most divided country in the world in terms of political opinions. Both sides of the spectrum see the other as devils, and it is leading us down a path of social divide that would be very detrimental to everyone. George Washington was against the idea of political parties because he knew it would divide us and pull us away from one another. After the 2016 election, I can't help but agree with him. In my scenario of putting modern children on a remote island and observing the differences between the novel and reality, the place the kids come from is very important to the outcome. For starters, if the children were American, I think they would already be used to dividing into groups and steering clear of the other kids because of the subconscious instinct that they learned from their parents, I am a victim of this as well when your parents feed you their political opinions, you almost have no choice but to believe them and feel as if anyone who disagrees with them is not someone you should be interacting with. Hell, the kids might even group themselves based on their "political opinions", which would merely be a reflection of their parent's political ideologies. If the children were British, I don't think they would be as quick to form groups and oppose one another. Does this mean American kids would lead to more violent outcomes like the novel? I personally don't think so, but there isn't really a way for us to tell besides educated speculation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In his first speech as president-elect, Joe Biden made clear his intention to bridge the deep and bitter divisions in American society. He pledged to look beyond red and blue and to discard the harsh rhetoric that characterizes our political debates.

It will be a difficult struggle. Americans have rarely been as polarized as they are today.

The studies we've conducted at Pew Research Center over the past few years illustrate the increasingly stark disagreement between Democrats and Republicans on the economy, racial justice, climate change, law enforcement, international engagement and a long list of other issues. The 2020 presidential election further highlighted these deep-seated divides. Supporters of Biden and Donald Trump believe the differences between them are about more than just politics and policies. A month before the election, roughly eight-in-ten registered voters in both camps said their differences with the other side were about core American values, and roughly nine-in-ten - again in both camps - worried that a victory by the other would lead to "lasting harm" to the United States.

The U.S. is hardly the only country wrestling with deepening political fissures. Brexit has polarized British politics, the rise of populist parties has disrupted party systems across Europe, and cultural conflict and economic anxieties have intensified old cleavages and created new ones in many advanced democracies. America and other advanced economies face many common strains over how opportunity is distributed in a global economy and how our culture adapts to growing diversity in an interconnected world.

But the 2020 pandemic has revealed how pervasive the divide in American politics is relative to other nations. Over the summer, 76% of Republicans (including independents who lean to the party) felt the U.S. had done a good job dealing with the coronavirus outbreak, compared with just 29% of those who do not identify with the Republican Party. This 47 percentage point gap was the largest gap found between those who support the governing party and those who do not across 14 nations surveyed. Moreover, 77% of Americans said the country was now more divided than before the outbreak, as compared with a median of 47% in the 13 other nations surveyed.

Much of this American exceptionalism preceded the coronavirus: In a Pew Research Center study conducted before the pandemic, Americans were more ideologically divided than any of the 19 other publics surveyed when asked how much trust they have in scientists and whether scientists make decisions solely based on facts. These fissures have pervaded nearly every aspect of the public and policy response to the crisis over the course of the year. Democrats and Republicans differ over mask wearing, contact tracing, how well public health officials are dealing with the crisis, whether to get a vaccine once one is available, and whether life will remain changed in a major way after the pandemic. For Biden supporters, the coronavirus outbreak was a central issue in the election - in an October poll, 82% said it was very important to their vote. Among Trump supporters, it was easily the least significant among six issues tested on the survey: Just 24% said it was very important.

Why is America cleaved in this way? Once again, looking across other nations gives us some indication. The polarizing pressures of partisan media, social media, and even deeply rooted cultural, historical and regional divides are hardly unique to America. By comparison, America's relatively rigid, two-party electoral system stands apart by collapsing a wide range of legitimate social and political debates into a singular battle line that can make our differences appear even larger than they may actually be. And when the balance of support for these political parties is close enough for either to gain near-term electoral advantage - as it has in the U.S. for more than a quarter century - the competition becomes cutthroat and politics begins to feel zero-sum, where one side's gain is inherently the other's loss. Finding common cause - even to fight a common enemy in the public health and economic threat posed by the coronavirus - has eluded us.

Over time, these battles result in nearly all societal tensions becoming consolidated into two competing camps. As Ezra Klein and other writers have noted, divisions between the two parties have intensified over time as various types of identities have become "stacked" on top of people's partisan identities. Race, religion and ideology now align with partisan identity in ways that they often didn't in eras when the two parties were relatively heterogenous coalitions. In their study of polarization across nations, Thomas Carothers and Andrew O'Donohue argue that polarization runs particularly deep in the U.S. in part because American polarization is "especially multifaceted." According to Carothers and O'Donohue, a "powerful alignment of ideology, race, and religion renders America's divisions unusually encompassing and profound. It is hard to find another example of polarization in the world," they write, "that fuses all three major types of identity divisions in a similar way."

Of course, there's nothing wrong with disagreement in politics, and before we get nostalgic for a less polarized past it's important to remember that eras of relatively muted partisan conflict, such as the late 1950s, were also characterized by structural injustice that kept many voices - particularly those of non-White Americans - out of the political arena. Similarly, previous eras of deep division, such as the late 1960s, were far less partisan but hardly less violent or destabilizing. Overall, it's not at all clear that Americans are further apart from each other than we've been in the past, or even that we are more ideologically or affectively divided - that is, exhibiting hostility to those of the other party - than citizens of other democracies. What's unique about this moment - and particularly acute in America - is that these divisions have collapsed onto a singular axis where we find no toehold for common cause or collective national identity.

Americans both see this problem and want to address it. Overwhelming majorities of both Trump (86%) and Biden (89%) supporters surveyed this fall said that their preferred candidate, if elected, should focus on addressing the needs of all Americans, "even if it means disappointing some of his supporters."

In his speech, President-elect Biden vowed to "work as hard for those who didn't vote for me as those who did" and called on "this grim era of demonization in America" to come to an end. That's a sentiment that resonates with Americans on both sides of the fence. But good intentions on the part of our leaders and ourselves face serious headwinds in a political system that reinforces a two-party political battleground at nearly every level.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
America is exceptional in the nature of its political divide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. is not the only country wrestling with political fissures. But the pandemic has revealed how pervasive the divide in U.S. politics is.

# data[].attributes.body
William Golding was born in 1911 in Cornwall, England and attended Marlborough Grammar School and Oxford. He has worked as a schoolteacher, speaker, actor, sailor, and musician in addition to writing. His mother was a suffragette and his father was a teacher. He was raised with the intention of becoming a scientist, but he refused. He switched from Anglo-Saxon to English literature after two years at Oxford. He was at Oxford for five years. In 1935, he released a book of poetry. He joined the Royal Navy in 1940 and spent six years at sea. He was present for the D-Day invasion off the coast of France, and afterwards in the battle at the island of Walcheren. He returned to teaching after the war and began writing again. His debut work, Lord of the Flies, was released in 1954. He retired from teaching in 1962 and won the ‘Booker Prize’ for his novel Rites of Passage in 1980. William Golding passed away on June 19, 1993.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
W illiam Golding was born in Cornwall in 1911 and was educated at Marlborough Grammar School and at Brasenose College, Oxford. Apart from writing, his past and present occupations include being a schoolmaster, a lecturer, an actor, a sailor, and a musician. His father was a schoolmaster and his mother was a suffragette. He was brought up to be a scientist, but revolted. After two years at Oxford he read English literature instead, and became devoted to Anglo-Saxon. He spent five years at Oxford. Published a volume of poems in 1935. Taught at Bishop Wordsworth's School, Salisbury. Joined the Royal Navy in 1940 and spent six years afloat, except for seven months in New York and six months helping Lord Cherwell at the Naval Research Establishment. He saw action against battleships (at the sinking of the Bismarck), submarines and aircraft. Finished as Lieutenant in command of a rocket ship. He was present off the French coast for the D-Day invasion, and later at the island of Walcheren. After the war he returned to teaching, and began to write again. Lord of the Flies, his first novel, was published in 1954. It was filmed by Peter Brook in 1963. His other books are:

In 1980 he won the 'Booker Prize' for his novel Rites of Passage. He retired from teaching in 1962. After that, he lived in Wiltshire, listing his recreations as music, sailing, archaeology and classical Greek.

William Golding died in 1993.

This autobiography/biography was written at the time of the award and first published in the book series Les Prix Nobel. It was later edited and republished inNobel Lectures. To cite this document, always state the source as shown above.
William Golding died on June 19, 1993.

To cite this section
MLA style: William Golding - Biographical. NobelPrize.org. Nobel Prize Outreach AB 2023. Tue. 17 Oct 2023. <https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/1983/golding/biographical/>

Back to top

See them all presented here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Nobel Prize in Literature 1983 was awarded to William Golding "for his novels which, with the perspicuity of realistic narrative art and the diversity and universality of myth, illuminate the human condition in the world of today"

# data[].attributes.body
This show took place in England with the first episodes being filmed in 2009. The experiment was essentially a house with cameras all throughout it and a camera crew following the kids all day, without speaking to them and only making any sort of contact for safety reasons. The boys stayed in the house for 5 days and were allowed to do anything they wanted. The behavior shown was not too out of the ordinary, with most of the kids just destroying the house and eating junk food until they were sick. While this environment is no remote island, I think putting the kids in this environment is the closest thing we have to a real Lord of the Flies scenario. There are some instances where the boys get into violent fights and they argue constantly, so while I do believe that modern children wouldn't be murdering each other and lighting their surroundings on fire like they do in the novel, They definitely aren't perfectly civil and do show their natural instincts as humans to fight with each other. Putting children in a space where they are free to make their own rules is a very interesting concept to me, and while I dont think the novel should actually be recreated by stranding real children on an island, this video is very appealing and I would highly recommend it to anyone. There is also a version with girls, and comparing the two groups also leads to many other observations between the differences in gender across children and how they work together.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Boys Alone (Social Experiment Documentary) - Real Stories

# data[].attributes.body
This article mentions how chimpanzees are very aggressive towards each other, fighting all the time and sometimes to the point of lethality. As we are natural products of the ape species, people are making the claim that Humans are naturally aggressive and that war, murder, and bullying are inevitable. Agustín Fuentes mentions in this piece that there is no solid evidence of extreme aggressiveness and conflict in the human fossil or archaeological records until recently. Aggression seems to be related to the introduction of civilizations, agriculture, and social norms. individuals. So does any of this mean that modern children would be more or less aggressive towards each other on a remote island? Personally, I think violence has been shown in a new light in today's society. At least in the US, kids learn about slavery and World War 2 from the perspective that the boys in the novel never learned about. I think kids are taught from a young age to understand the true brutality of these horrible events. I think this teaches them to inherently be more sympathetic and kind to one another, at least to the point where they would murder one of their fellow kids for disagreeing with them and being an outcast.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At the recent American Association of Physical Anthropologists meetings in Portland, I sat through an interesting talk about lethal aggression in chimpanzees. The presenter, Michael Wilson from the University of Minnesota, did a good job of laying out a substantial overview of all the data we have on chimpanzee lethal aggression.

The bottom line: Chimps can be pretty violent, especially males. But exactly why they are violent is not fully understood. Importantly, if one removes the largest and most violent population from the dataset, then no single explanatory pattern emerges.

Of course, this fuzzy and interesting conclusion is not what is making the rounds in the Twitterverse. Rather, folks are saying that this is just further evidence that chimpanzees, and their closest relatives (humans), are aggressive by nature. If this is true, then domestic abuse, bullying, and warfare are pretty much to be expected: It is just the way we are.

Or not. Let's get our myth-busting caps on and think about this. What does it mean to be aggressive by nature? Even more the point, what is aggression and where does it come from?

If humans have evolved as aggressors, if using violence is a core part of our nature, then aggression needs to be a thing (a trait) that can be targeted and shaped by evolutionary processes. There also needs to be evidence that humans (and our primate relatives) regularly rely on aggression, over other types of behavior, to achieve mating and other social successes.

Okay, so what do we know?

Aggression is not a single trait, or an easily described behavioral system. It is not a thing that has evolved as a package; rather, it is a suite of behaviors that has a dynamic and complicated range of expression. Anthropologists, biologists, and psychologists note different behaviors and patterns of “aggression” when defending yourself versus when planning an attack, from mothers defending their infants, from predators chasing prey, in fear-induced aggression, in sex-related aggression, and in territorial aggression.

In humans, there are no consistent patterns of aggressive behaviors that make men have more luck with women or succeed over other men for status, even though sometimes aggression does play a role. Even when fighting, many of the most effective professionals (such as in boxing and Ultimate Fighting) are good because of their ability to strategically constrain their aggression.

Okay, but what if aggression is itself a physiological system (part of our body) that has been favored over evolutionary time?

It’s not. Unlike a femur (the long bone in your upper leg) there is no single thing or pattern that we can measure and label as “aggression.” While we know that certain parts of the brain (the prefrontal cortex, the amygdala, and the hypothalamus) interact with certain neurotransmitters (serotonin, Monoamine oxidase A (MAOA)) and that a range of steroid hormones (like testosterone and other androgens) work together to produce aggressive behavior, we also see that there is no specific physiological or neurological system designed for aggression. Everything involved in the expression of aggression is tied to other systems, and its use in behavior is highly contextual.

For example, take MAOA (called the “the warrior gene”). One version of this gene is associated with hyperaggression in males (it is little studied in females). However, expression of this gene is related to childhood stressors and life experience. We see that a slightly larger percentage of men with the “aggressive” version of this gene (compared to those without it), who live through real childhood trauma and social stress are highly violent and have trouble controlling their behavior as adults. But many of those with the “warrior” version of the gene don’t have these problems at all (me, for example). These same kinds of complexities are true for serotonin, testosterone, and the other hormones and neurotransmitters associated with aggression.

How Can I Manage My Anger?

Find a therapist to heal from anger

There is no consistent system or pattern in the human body or mind that we can point out as the seat or the main actor in aggressive behavior.

Well, what about the other primates and our fossil ancestors: our evolutionary comparisons? We know that common chimpanzees can be highly aggressive, but their sister species, the bonobos, rarely are; both are equally related to humans. Across the primates, you find that within-species violence resulting in death is rare, and not wide-scale. There is also no one dominant or consistent pattern of male aggression tied to mating success across primate species. While aggression is important in the social lives of monkeys and apes (as in humans), it is not the “driver” of social systems.

In the human fossil and archaeological record, there is no good evidence of intense aggression and warfare until very recently; it is associated with the advent of permanent settlements, agriculture, and social stratification. Increased social inequality and more complex political and economic systems seem to correlate with more types of aggression and violence in human societies. Interestingly, these scenarios also correlate with larger and more complex peaceful relationships among and between peoples.

Anger Essential Reads

Humans can, and do, engage in a wide variety of aggression. However, aggression is not our primary “go to” behavior as successful organisms. There is insufficient evidence to argue that we have evolved a suite of specifically aggressive behaviors to succeed in the world. In fact, it is largely our abilities to get along and to negotiate complex social problems, with and without aggression, that make humans one of the most successful species on this planet (a topic for a future blog).

If you really want to think deeply about aggression, violence, abuse, warfare, and human nature, have a look at the references below; where everything I’ve stated here is discussed with details, data and explanation. Dive into the actual datasets and debates, and go bust some myths for yourself.

References

Archer, J. (2009) The nature of human aggression. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 32: 202–208

DeWall, C.N. and Anderson C.A. (2011) The general aggression model. In Shaver, P.R. and Mikulincer, M. Eds. Human Aggression and Violence: causes, manifestations, and consequences. American Psychological Association Pp.15-33

Ferguson, B. ( 2011) Born to live: challenging killer myths. In Sussman, R.W. &Cloninger, R.C. Eds. Origins of Altruism and Cooperation. Developments in Primatology: Progress and Prospects, Volume 36, Part 2, 249-270

Fuentes, A (2012) Race, monogamy, and other lies they told you: busting myths about human nature, Berkeley, University of California Press

Fry, D. (2012) War, Peace, and Human Nature. New York, Oxford University Press.

Hart, D.L. and Sussman, R.W. (2008) Man the hunted: primates, predators, and human evolution. New York: Basic Books

Muller, M. N. and Wrangham, R.W. (2009) Sexual coercion in primates and humans. Harvard University Press

Nelson, R.J. and Trainor, B.C. (2007) Neural mechanism for aggression Nature Reviews Neuroscience 8:536-546

Siegel, A. and Victoroff, J. (2009) Understanding human aggression: New insights from neuroscience. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 32:209-215

Walker, P.L. (2001) A bioarcheological perspective on the history of violence. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001. 30:573–9

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bad to the Bone: Are Humans Naturally Aggressive?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Aggression is not our nature, but it is in our potential.

# data[].attributes.body
The Post-World War 2 era in England was, at first, a major disaster in 1950. Britain's major cities were still bomb sites, it was almost impossible for many families to borrow money, rationing was harsher than ever, and there was a shortage of decent housing. However, within the next 3 years, everything changed. The economy began to boom, wages soared, unemployment almost disappeared, and everyday life became more comfortable. More supermarkets were being built every week and the overall quality of life was good for the people of England. In the Lord of the Flies, England is still at war, so the quality of life within the country is probably nothing like the golden age of the post-1953 era. As the kids are on a remote island, there is really no way to know how the setting within England affected them and how they made their decisions once they were stranded. However, my question involves putting kids their age in the same scenario, but in a different time period. In this case, the boys grew up during the height of World War 2, so most of them are probably more resilient to danger or violence. A good amount of the kids also grew up without much presence of their fathers, which could affect their choices on the island in any number of ways. For example, them being more independent or not conforming to rules as rigorously as kids with possibly stricter rules deriving from them having strong mother and father figures.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The purpose of this document collection is to allow students and teachers to develop their own questions and lines of historical enquiry on the political and social aspects of 1950s Britain. The documents themselves are arranged according to theme, so that sources are grouped together rather than following a strict chronological order.

Some of the themes include:

the economy

rationing

housing

the National Health Service

race relations

cultural life

the Suez crisis

nuclear protest

Please also note that in a couple of cases sources relating to the same topic appear in the same popup window so it is necessary to scroll from side to side to explore them in detail.

Students could work with a group of sources or source type on a certain theme or linked themes. The documents should offer them a chance to develop their powers of evaluation and analysis and support their course work. Alternatively, teachers may wish to use the collection to develop their own resources or encourage students to 'curate' their own 'exhibition' of the most significant sources on the topic.

Students could also use more documents from our Cabinet Papers website. For example, there are cabinet papers relating to the death penalty, taxation under the conservatives, immigration and the National Health Service. Finally, there is an opportunity to consider film sources as interpretations of these events in relation to the documents by following the links to Pathé and the BFI provided here.

For many people, the 1950s were a golden age. 'Let's be frank about it,' declared Harold Macmillan in July 1957: 'most of our people have never had it so good.' Almost immediately the Prime Minister's words became a symbol of the age, capturing the optimism of a nation basking in the sunshine of the affluent society. Yet like so many political quotations, they are often misunderstood. Macmillan meant them not as an expression of complacency, but as a warning. 'What is worrying us,' he went on, 'is "Is it too good to be true?" or perhaps I should say "Is it too good to last?"'

It is no wonder that we rarely remember what Macmillan really meant by his famous phrase. Even at the time, most people preferred to enjoy the fruits of consumerism rather than worry about the future. At the beginning of the 1950s, after all, Britain had been threadbare, bombed-out, financially and morally exhausted. Its major cities were still bombsites, it was almost impossible for many families to borrow money, rationing was harsher than ever, and there was an acute shortage of decent housing. Yet within less than ten years, everything had changed; indeed, perhaps more than any other post-war decade, it was the 1950s that transformed Britain's social and cultural landscape.

As the economy began to boom, wages soared and unemployment almost disappeared, everyday life became more comfortable. Towns and cities were reshaped by council estates, tower blocks and shopping centres. Supermarkets transformed families' shopping habits, while the television began to make inroads into their leisure time. Millions of people tuned in especially for the Coronation in 1953, with neighbours crowding into the houses of those lucky few who owned or rented sets. Inspired by the groundbreaking Festival of Britain, the design of the typical home, self-consciously upbeat and forward-looking, marked the transition to what contemporaries optimistically called the Space Age. And even the nation's roads reflected the new spirit, symbolized by the opening of Britain's first motorway, the Preston bypass, in 1958.

It was this extraordinary economic growth that paved the way for everything that followed. In particular, the youth culture of the day was entirely based on the emergence of a new teenage generation. Better housed and educated than ever before, the generation of Cliff Richard and Adam Faith enjoyed unprecedented financial independence. They watched television and read comics; they bought records and danced to rock music. In their carefree hedonism and economic assertiveness, they often shocked their elders: when 'Rock Around the Clock' reached Britain in 1955, there was much anguished talk of 'rock and roll riots'. In truth, though, most teenagers were fairly conservative, individualistic and materialistic - just like their parents.

Yet as the reaction to rock and roll suggests, there was a thick vein of anxiety beneath the surface of the affluent society. Despite the apparent complacency of Winston Churchill, Anthony Eden and Harold Macmillan, many politicians were worried about Britain's economic prospects. And though historians still argue about the extent of the famous 'Butskellite' consensus, epitomized by the moderate figures of R. A. Butler (Conservative) and Hugh Gaitskell (Labour), Britain's political direction remained the stuff of ferocious debate. Inside the Labour Party, Aneurin Bevan's resignation over the imposition of prescription charges in 1951 set the tone for a decade of bitter faction fighting. Inside the Tory Party, meanwhile, the abortive 'Robot' scheme to set the pound free a year later offered a hint of the emerging free-market doctrines that would eventually culminate in Thatcherism.

All the time, Britain's world status was changing rapidly. As one colony after another chose independence, the Empire was slowly fading into history, while the fiasco of the Suez Crisis in 1956 seemed to mark the end of Britain's days as a world power. Massive Commonwealth immigration, which transformed the face of the nation's cities, alarmed many working-class voters, while the Notting Hill riots in 1958 exposed the ugly face of everyday racism. With violent crime rapidly increasing, many commentators warned of rising 'juvenile delinquency'. And overshadowing everything else was the looming threat of nuclear war, which prompted some people to join the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Today, CND's marches are some of the best-remembered events of the decade. Still, the truth is that they only attracted a minority. Most people preferred to spend their weekends shopping for a new sofa instead.
Dominic Sandbrook is the author of 'Never Had it So Good: A History of Britain from Suez to the Beatles'.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The purpose of this document collection is to allow students and teachers to develop their own questions and lines of historical enquiry on the political and social aspects of 1950s Britain. The documents themselves are arranged according to theme, so that sources are grouped together rather than following a strict chronological order.

# data[].attributes.body
This poem by Stephen Crane perfectly encapsulates how one would feel in the scenario of the boys on the island. If I were in one of their shoes, I would look around me and see the chaos ensuing between the groups of boys. The "sins" they commit toward one another are truly horrible and I don't think I could see myself or any child their age doing those sorts of things in the modern-day. I also like how he uses the high place as a setting for his piece. The novel describes (and is also shown in the movie) a high peak where they made their fire at the beginning of the novel. When reading this I imagine standing at the peak and looking down at all the boys fighting amongst themselves and lighting their surroundings on fire. For some of the boys, I'm sure they aren't truly violent and are merely joining Ralph in fear of being hurt themselves. From the point of view of one of the innocent boys who joined Ralph's group, looking down and seeing the chaos and realizing that the people responsible for this call you "comrade". I think any modern child would be one of those boys, looking down at the carnage and realizing that this just isn't how humans are supposed to work together. I think violence just wouldn't break out as rapidly as it does in the novel if this was a group of boys in the modern day.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I stood upon a high place,
And saw, below, many devils
Running, leaping,
and carousing in sin.
One looked up, grinning,
And said, “Comrade! Brother!”

Analysis, meaning and summary of Stephen Crane's poem I stood upon a high place,

Do you have any comments, criticism, paraphrasis or analysis of this poem that you feel would assist other visitors in understanding the meaning or the theme of this poem by Stephen Crane better? If accepted, your analysis will be added to this page of American Poems. Together we can build a wealth of information, but it will take some discipline and determination.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
its easier to be critical than to be correct, every human being is to err , we commit mistakes and are supposed to rectify them. we should not ignore others bearing in mind that they are sinners and we are pure and pious. Allah Almighty does not like those who look down upon others.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Lifeboat and Manby Apparatus going off to a stranded vessel making signal of distress by Joseph Mallord William Turner (1831)

# data[].attributes.body
This painting speaks to me about the themes used in Lord of the Flies. The sense of hopelessness that the kids feel when they realize they are genuinely stranded on the island is well interpreted by this piece. The painting was created in 1831, long before Lord of the Flies. Applying my driving question to all different time periods is very interesting to me. How would kids in the 1800s react to the situation of being stranded? I think the piece perfectly encapsulates the despair and hopelessness the boys felt when they settle into the fact that they will most likely never see civilization ever again. The panic and fear that molds their minds over time is what drives them to do the crazy and horrific things they did in the novel. So how would the characters in this painting react to their situation in the 1830s?