Jasmine Sahu is well suited with this new American drama exclusive to Dave.
Lois Cameron explains why this series is much more than your average cosy period drama.
The last episode of this series sees Sherlock and Moriarty attempt to solve the final problem with devastating consequences.
With major cast changes afoot, Jacob Martin ponders whether Being Human can live up to its own scarily high standard.
Written by Joanna Starzynski
We all know bankers as the bad guys, the people who juggle our money like clowns in a circus and who ultimately caused a recession on more than one occasion. But were bankers ever good? Or generous? Ian Hislop aims to find out.
Hislop gives us a picture of Victorian bankers and their charitable donations to society, believing that modern bankers could learn a little charity from their ancestors. Instead of focusing on the flaws of the capitalist system, Hislop focuses purely on bankers. He doesn’t really try to answer the current position on bankers, but rather looks back in nostalgia on previous charitable individuals.
The introduction shows the religious origins of bankers, and banking as a religious duty such as the Gurneys, Barclays and Lloyds. Really? This almost seems like a shock to the system for the greedy bankers in society today. Hislop concentrates on influential Victorians who have had a lasting influence on us today. Philanthropy is defined as a love for humanity, a private initiative to focus on public goods; this is exactly what the bankers aim to do in Victorian society.
It’s not all to do with bankers, however; it is the rich that the programme focuses on, such as Angela Burdett-Coutts a.k.a the “richest heiress in England”, who went against classical norms to be generous to society and did not care for monetary values. However, When Bankers Were Good focuses on a time period before tax and the welfare state and when the rich truly gave a helping hand to those who needed it. In Victorian society, it was expected for the rich to donate funds. On the other hand, it’s not just a rosy picture that is painted in this documentary; the overwhelming wealth of these rich aristocrats against the poor working class is quite appalling and represents the growing gap between working class and upper class, which is yet again developing today.
Overall, this programme promotes a positive message that bankers who have an infinite amount of money are not always happy, so they try to achieve happiness from charity. However, with the decline of the religious following that seems to have pushed bankers to give so charitably in the past, things become depressing for modern society.
Known for Private Eye and Have I Got News For You, Hislop provides a fairly generous commentary on the banking system that is accessible to all, rather than people who just understand the financial system. Hislop doesn’t ask questions about how greedy the bankers are in the Victorian era, but rather if they are interesting at all, as they have had no lasting impact other than monetary contributions.
"Instead of focusing on the flaws of the capitalist system, Hislop focuses purely on bankers."
Well, seeing as the programme was about what Victorian bankers did, and it was not supposed to be a crtique of the current semi-capitalist system of today, I think you're missing the point slightly.
"the overwhelming wealth of these rich aristocrats against the poor working class is quite appalling and represents the growing gap between working class and upper class, which is yet again developing today."
Personally, and I mean this constructively, I think you should stick to giving a review and an opinion on the programme, rather than spouting what could sound like far left rhetoric, especially considering the people Hislop looked at did great good for the poor!
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report