How would you do in an Oxford interview?

I would say the answer depends on which you perspective you approach it from, as there are the various different players involved in conflict. For example, those who are high up in the social heirachy from their perspective violence is political an example is the Crusades which was political for the Pope, but not for most Crusaders who were fighting.

Did you post that after seeing my deleted posts above yours (that was meant for another thread)?

If not, that’s a weird coincidence.

I would argue in contemporary times the opposite is true - for the ruling hegemony violence is simply a distasteful result of international expansion and business. Overthrowing the Iranian government in the 50s wasn't a political move, it was a capitalistic one to ensure the monopolistic control of the oil by western powers. For the people of Iran, it was political however - it destroyed their budding democracy, undermined political stability and hence long term safety from violence, and indelibly affected the structure of the countries society for the half century hence.

The violence of the police (state) in the US is not viewed as political by the privileged hegemony - it's seen as "peacekeeping" when peaceful protesters, who are protesting inequalities furthered by politics, are brutalised - an apolitical action to protect that privileged group. For the protesters subject to the violence it is however the demonstration of the political climate which causes their inequity, but they are seen as political agitators bringing "politics" into non-political circumstances.

This rhetoric is mirrored frequently in media where any divergence from the norm of white, heteronormative, patriarchal media - such as the refocusing of a narrative to focus on the female perspective, the perspective of a person of colour or LGBT individual - which is thus painted as "bringing politics into a non political medium" even where the media itself has always been political, Star Trek being a topical example. ultimately this serves to re-cast the marginalised groups as aggressors and oppressors in order to justify the means taken that led to such marginalisation.

25 gold coins each for the 4 most senior pirates.

Remind me, when are you re-applying to uni?

Not the official answer.

I did worse and started thinking about the piratey nature of the question and that as captain it'd be beneficial for the other pirates to feel fairly treated if they weren't going to murder you in your sleep.

Obviously there's a successful team at the moment and as captain you want your pirate crew at full strength and obeying your orders for the future raids you've got planned.

Someone is getting into Oxford and it isn't me :P

I was thinking more in the context of modern history - eg general strikes in Italy in the early 20th century. The strike is, at a glance, economic; the people striking want to be paid better and they want rights while working. But they were also striking in support of the socialists, and a particular angle to socialism. (And yes, this was violence - some groups forcibly occupied their factories/declared whole cities independent from the state and they fought back when attacked)

The key is the fourth most senior pirate, how do you make sure he votes to accept the division while giving the four most senior pirates the highest amount of gold. If the fourth most senior pirate rejects the division, the number of pirates is reduced to 6 and so it goes down.

Its not really a question about pirates.

I would argue in contemporary times the opposite is true - for the ruling hegemony violence is simply a distasteful result of international expansion and business. Overthrowing the Iranian government in the 50s wasn't a political move, it was a capitalistic one to ensure the monopolistic control of the oil by western powers. For the people of Iran, it was political however - it destroyed their budding democracy, undermined political stability and hence long term safety from violence, and indelibly affected the structure of the countries society for the half century hence.

The violence of the police (state) in the US is not viewed as political by the privileged hegemony - it's seen as "peacekeeping" when peaceful protesters, who are protesting inequalities furthered by politics, are brutalised - an apolitical action to protect that privileged group. For the protesters subject to the violence it is however the demonstration of the political climate which causes their inequity, but they are seen as political agitators bringing "politics" into non-political circumstances.

This rhetoric is mirrored frequently in media where any divergence from the norm of white, heteronormative, patriarchal media - such as the refocusing of a narrative to focus on the female perspective, the perspective of a person of colour or LGBT individual - which is thus painted as "bringing politics into a non political medium" even where the media itself has always been political, Star Trek being a topical example. ultimately this serves to re-cast the marginalised groups as aggressors and oppressors in order to justify the means taken that led to such marginalisation.

Have you seen the 'official' answer?

The correct thing to do is apparently treat it your were analysing the 'game' of Nim
and work backward from the situation where there's 2 pirates left alive by figuring out what the least generous offer that would have kept the last pirate overboard alive.

Pirates favourite author: Aaaargatha Christie

Agatharrr

That works too, Sarahberarrr.

People apply to Classics without having read the Aeneid?! And many have never studied Latin (or Greek)? I hope this is the usual PR operation by recruiters to convince us to apply. Nevertheless, I should have done so, instead of choosing finance.

They have 2 courses, Classics II is if you haven't studied Latin ot Greek previously : http://www.classics.ox.ac.uk/classics-ii.html