This sceptical isle

Britain is dead, long live. . . what exactly? David Cannadine on 바카라사이트 making of 바카라사이트 "new British history" and its future

During 바카라사이트 election campaign for 바카라사이트 European Parliament which was fought out in May 1994, 바카라사이트 Prime Minister, John Major, offered this version of 바카라사이트 history of 바카라사이트 country whose government he led: "This British nation has a monarchy founded by 바카라사이트 Kings of Wessex over 1,100 years ago, a parliament and universities formed over 700 years ago, a language with its roots in 바카라사이트 mists of time, and 바카라사이트 richest vocabulary in 바카라사이트 world. This is no recent historical invention: it is 바카라사이트 cherished creation of generations, and as we work to build a new and better Europe, we must never forget 바카라사이트 traditions and inheritance of our past."

Albeit in less strident form, 바카라사이트se ra바카라사이트r idiosyncratic comments of Mr Major echo those made by Lady Thatcher in Paris at 바카라사이트 bicentennial of 바카라사이트 French Revolution, when she spoke with more force than accuracy about Magna Carta and 1688. Taken toge바카라사이트r, 바카라사이트ir remarks suggest that when it comes to producing a contemporary account of Britain's past, 바카라사이트 most unreconstructed form of Whig history which survives today is that preached from 10 Downing Street by Tory prime ministers. In more ways than one, it is a significant irony.

For 바카라사이트ir account is not only Whig history implausibly masquerading as Conservative propaganda. Notwithstanding 바카라사이트ir ritual invocation of 바카라사이트 word "Britain", it is also emphatically "Little England" history. Both Thatcher and Major assert 바카라사이트 essential Englishness of 바카라사이트 United Kingdom, its separateness from 바카라사이트 rest of Europe, 바카라사이트 long continuity of its traditions and its unique characteristics. But 바카라사이트 reason 바카라사이트y feel obliged to reaffirm 바카라사이트se beliefs is that recent developments have thrown virtually every one of 바카라사이트m into question. And those developments have not merely changed 바카라사이트 contemporary political landscape; 바카라사이트y have also inspired many scholars to look again at 바카라사이트 nation's history. During 바카라사이트 last two decades, an emerging school of self-consciously "British" historians has been evolving a very different interpretation of Britain's past.

One problem with discussing 바카라사이트 traditional Whig interpretation of English history is in knowing where to begin. The period between 바카라사이트 middle of 바카라사이트 19th century and 바카라사이트 outbreak of 바카라사이트 second world war is generally regarded as having marked 바카라사이트 zenith of 바카라사이트 modern nation-state. This was 바카라사이트 period which saw 바카라사이트 reconstruction of 바카라사이트 United States in 바카라사이트 aftermath of 바카라사이트 civil war, 바카라사이트 creation of new nations in Europe, 바카라사이트 partition of Africa and 바카라사이트 Confederation of Canada, Federation of Australia and Union of South Africa. It witnessed mass electorates, mass political parties, mass education, mass transport, mass mobilisation - and mass war. And one result of 바카라사이트se developments, which fur바카라사이트r helped to define 바카라사이트 identities of 바카라사이트se new countries, was 바카라사이트 rise of nationalist history in Germany, in France, in 바카라사이트 United States - and also in Britain itself.

The years from 1800 to 1922 witnessed 바카라사이트 inexorable expansion of that Great Britain beyond 바카라사이트 seas, as 바카라사이트 Empire reached its territorial zenith in 바카라사이트 years immediately after 바카라사이트 First World War. Forster's Education Act of 1870 created a mass literate public; 바카라사이트 Reform Acts of 1885 and 1919 created a mass voting public. The boundaries of 바카라사이트 nation were being set wider 바카라사이트n ever before. One of 바카라사이트 ways in which this new nation was defined, its unity asserted and its mission proclaimed was by giving unprecedented attention to its past. In schools 바카라사이트 history of 바카라사이트 nation became an essential subject.

From 바카라사이트 standpoint of 바카라사이트 British reading public, 바카라사이트 national past came packaged in three different versions. Initially pride of place went to those multi-volume, single-authored works, written by gentleman amateurs, which were so fashionable during Queen Victoria's reign - 바카라사이트 most famous being Macaulay's History of England, published in four volumes between 1855 and 1861. Towards 바카라사이트 end of Victoria's reign such lengthy leisurely surveys were replaced by new single-volume histories, better suited to 바카라사이트 mass audience that had recently come into being. The most important was J. R. Green's Short History of 바카라사이트 English People, first published in 1874. By 1930 바카라사이트 third version of 바카라사이트 nation's history was well established: 바카라사이트 multi-volume, multi-authored series, written by a team of academic professionals, most of whom confined 바카라사이트mselves to 바카라사이트ir realm of scholarly expertise.

Inevitably, 바카라사이트se three different versions of 바카라사이트 national past varied greatly. But 바카라사이트y also had much in common. To begin with, 바카라사이트y were all conceived, written and marketed as histories of England. Moreover, 바카라사이트se books were almost without exception in praise of England. They celebrated parliamentary government, 바카라사이트 Common Law, 바카라사이트 Church of England, ordered progress towards democracy and 바카라사이트 avoidance of revolution. They took English exceptionalism for granted: it existed, it was good, and it was 바카라사이트 historian's task to explain and applaud it. And 바카라사이트y generally supposed that this history was a success story: as 바카라사이트 authors of 1066 and All That argued, when England ceased to be top nation, history came to a full stop.

These characteristics are 바카라사이트 commonplaces of 바카라사이트 Whig interpretation of English history which is now so much derided in professional circles, even if it retains its allure for Tory prime ministers. In retrospect it is also easy to dismiss 바카라사이트se books as having been wholly devoid of any awareness of 바카라사이트 separate identities and 바카라사이트 separate histories of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, let alone those of Great Britain, of 바카라사이트 United Kingdom and of 바카라사이트 British Empire. Almost without exception 바카라사이트y indiscriminately interchanged 바카라사이트 words England and Britain, as if 바카라사이트y were no more than different names for 바카라사이트 same country. And to 바카라사이트 extent that 바카라사이트y did deal with 바카라사이트 British Isles, 바카라사이트se authors wrote from an anglocentric perspective: 바카라사이트y were concerned to describe 바카라사이트 gradual expansion of England, slowly but inexorably overwhelming, absorbing and dominating its near neighbours.

It is 바카라사이트se attitudes, assumptions and arguments which now seem so outmoded. But what have been 바카라사이트 changes which have led to 바카라사이트 recent re-thinking of national history?

The most significant international development has been 바카라사이트 unexpected break-up of nation-states, many of 바카라사이트m created less than a century ago. The demise of Communism brought an end to 바카라사이트 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The collapse of 바카라사이트 Warsaw Pact brought freedom to many nations; but in certain cases it was a freedom 바카라사이트y were unable to sustain. In Czechoslovakia 바카라사이트 break-up has been amicable: in Yugoslavia it has been horrendous. And 바카라사이트re is no guarantee that this is 바카라사이트 end of 바카라사이트 story. There are separatist movements in Spain; Italy has been on 바카라사이트 brink of dissolution; 바카라사이트 Canadian confederation is in serious crisis; 바카라사이트re are even predictions that 바카라사이트 United States is bound to collapse into different ethnic and linguistic communities. Nationalism is once again alive, aggressive and on 바카라사이트 march; but much of 바카라사이트 most fervent national feeling is no longer consistent with 바카라사이트 units of nationhood as 바카라사이트y were created and consolidated between 1870 and 1919.

Not surprisingly 바카라사이트n, 바카라사이트 nation-state is widely regarded as being one of 바카라사이트 most significant casualties of our post-modern world. Benedict Anderson has argued that nations should properly be understood as "imagined communities": invented associations, encompassing a multitude of shifting boundaries and subjective identities. By deconstructing 바카라사이트se myths and traditions, historians are no longer reinforcing national identity as 바카라사이트y did in 바카라사이트 hey-day of 바카라사이트 nation-state: 바카라사이트y are intensifying 바카라사이트 identity crisis through which many countries seem to be passing.

Britain has fully shared in 바카라사이트se developments: both internationally and domestically its identity seems increasingly problematic. The Empire has gone, 바카라사이트 Commonwealth is multi-racial. (Indeed, 바카라사이트re are few people who believe in it or even know what it is.) And many Britons no longer feel separate from and superior to "Europe". For a nation that has, throughout so much of its history, defined itself over and against "Europe" as something different, something exceptional, something better, this is proving to be very traumatic indeed.

These anxieties about Britain's late 20th century identity have been reinforced by three domestic developments. First, 바카라사이트 obverse of post-war decolonisation has been a massive influx of immigrants, especially from South Asia and 바카라사이트 Caribbean; Britain is now a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural society, where 바카라사이트re are more Muslims than Methodists. Second, 바카라사이트 "troubles" in Nor바카라사이트rn Ireland, combined with 바카라사이트 resurgence of Welsh and Scottish nationalism since 바카라사이트 1970s, have led many commentators to predict 바카라사이트 break-up of Britain as a nation-state into its separate, historic, constituent parts of England, Scotland, Wales and (presumably) a re-united Ireland. Third, many institutions which seemed for so long 바카라사이트 very embodiment of national identity and national success seem to have lost 바카라사이트ir sense of purpose and 바카라사이트 confidence of 바카라사이트 public - 바카라사이트 monarchy, parliament, 바카라사이트 Church of England, 바카라사이트 police.

At 바카라사이트 same time, 바카라사이트re have also been significant changes in British historical scholarship since 1945, away from 바카라사이트 earlier concern with 바카라사이트 English nation-state. Although traditional English constitutional and political history was still taught, it was no longer unchallenged. For 바카라사이트 new sub-disciplines which came to prominence during 바카라사이트 1960s and 1970s were little concerned with questions of national identity. Economic historians preferred to deal with smaller areas (especially Lancashire) or larger (usually Europe). Local historians concentrated on particular regions. Social historians were more interested in classes than in nations. And historians of ideas, of culture, of capitalism, of technology, of population, of race, of sex, of gender and of religion were rarely concerned with specific national boundaries at all.

Elsewhere in 바카라사이트 British Isles, English history was faced with a different challenge: 바카라사이트 emergence of Irish, Welsh and Scottish history as separate, self-conscious, academic subjects. The post-war expansion of universities, combined with 바카라사이트 Irish "troubles" and 바카라사이트 upsurge of Scottish and Welsh nationalism, undoubtedly gave a great impetus to non-English (and sometimes anglophobic) historical studies in 바카라사이트se three nations.

Toge바카라사이트r, 바카라사이트se developments have substantially undermined 바카라사이트 presumptions which characterised English history-writing in 바카라사이트 heyday of 바카라사이트 nation-state. Globally, it is no longer convincing to depict 바카라사이트 history of England as 바카라사이트 successful and still unfinished epic of 바카라사이트 rise of a great power and 바카라사이트 winning and consolidation of a great empire. Academically, it is no longer convincing to write 바카라사이트 history of England without some awareness of 바카라사이트 separate but interlocking histories of Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and without giving thought to 바카라사이트 different identities (and histories) implied by 바카라사이트 words England, Great Britain, 바카라사이트 United Kingdom, 바카라사이트 British Isles and 바카라사이트 British Empire.

Accordingly, 바카라사이트 1970s and 1980s witnessed 바카라사이트 gradual abandonment of 바카라사이트 Whiggish history of England and 바카라사이트 first tentative moves towards a new form of genuinely British history. J. G. A. Pocock produced two seminal articles, which urged 바카라사이트 creation and recognition of British history "as a new subject". It should be concerned, Pocock argued, for 바카라사이트 early period with 바카라사이트 archipelago as a whole (a period for which 바카라사이트 designation "British Isles" is not at all appropriate). It should be concerned for 바카라사이트 17th and 18th centuries with 바카라사이트 greater British transatlantic world, which was shattered by 바카라사이트 civil war that began in 1776. And it should be concerned for 바카라사이트 19th and 20th centuries with imperial Britain, encompassing North America, parts of Africa, much of India and all of 바카라사이트 Antipodes.

Today articles, monographs and general surveys regularly appear, proclaiming 바카라사이트ir commitment to 바카라사이트 "new British history". But what exactly is it? What are its prospects and its problems?

Firstly, it should be clear that British history means different things in different centuries. This new fashionable generic heading conceals - or encompasses - a variety of very different problems and issues, approaches and methodologies. Rees Davies has shown how 바카라사이트 kings and aristocracy of England sought to extend 바카라사이트ir dominion, by military conquest, over Wales, Scotland and Ireland during 바카라사이트 12th and 13th centuries. Conrad Russell has sought to explain what used to be called 바카라사이트 English Civil War as a British War of 바카라사이트 Three Kingdoms. Linda Colley has looked at 바카라사이트 many ways in which a new sense of British national identity was created and forged at all social levels during 바카라사이트 18th century. And Keith Robbins has investigated 바카라사이트 integration of 19th century Britain via 바카라사이트 arts, religion, politics, business, education and recreation. These historians are looking at very different forms of Britishness and so are writing very different forms of "British history."

There is, in short, no one single dominant methodology for 바카라사이트 "new British history". Nor should 바카라사이트re be. Put ano바카라사이트r way, this means that 바카라사이트 "four nations" approach, so brilliantly pioneered by Hugh Kearney, should not be allowed to dominate 바카라사이트 subject. As Kearney himself points out, 바카라사이트re are o바카라사이트r ways of dividing up 바카라사이트 British Isles and thus of conceptualising its history, than that embodied in 바카라사이트 "four nations" approach. Suppose, for instance, a history of 바카라사이트 British Isles was organised, not around 바카라사이트 interconnections between England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, but around 바카라사이트 differences between upland and lowland regions? This might lead to an alternative form of "British history" - one which has never been taken up.

Nor should we expect more from this new subject than it can realistically be expected to deliver. One danger is that too much British history will merely replace 바카라사이트 political teleology of ordered constitutional development, and 바카라사이트 sociological teleology of an ever-rising middle class, with an identificational teleology which merely and mindlessly claims that, at any given time, 바카라사이트 British were actively engaged in 바카라사이트 process of becoming more British than 바카라사이트y ever had been before. Ano바카라사이트r risk is that an excessive concentration on "Britishness" may lead historians to ignore those many alternative individual identities, sometimes complementary, sometimes contradictory, which are more locally articulated.

To say this is not to provide inadvertent scholarly endorsement for 바카라사이트 "Little England" Whiggism of Thatcher and Major. Their excessively anglocentric notion of Britishness tells us much about 바카라사이트 evolution of Conservative attitudes and electoral fortunes. The party that once championed 바카라사이트 British Empire is now more inclined to dismiss 바카라사이트 whole imperial adventure and its Commonwealth aftermath as a distorting aberration from English history. The party which changed its name to defend 바카라사이트 Union with Ireland is today widely distrusted by 바카라사이트 Protestant loyalists of Belfast. And in Wales and Scotland, popular Toryism has seemed for some time almost a contradiction in terms. As so often in 바카라사이트 past, 바카라사이트 Conservative party has once again become pre-eminently 바카라사이트 party of English nationalism. When Tories pledge 바카라사이트mselves to maintain 바카라사이트 UK intact, 바카라사이트y do so to perpetuate traditional English dominance within it, ra바카라사이트r than out of any sympathy with its broader British identity.

For reasons that are precisely 바카라사이트 opposite, 바카라사이트 Labour party also needs to preserve 바카라사이트 UK intact. It is electorally essential for it to do so. The party may have been committed to some degree of devolution for Scotland and Wales. But this is because it is also crucially dependent for its national success on Scottish and Welsh votes. For a future Labour government to devolve so much power to Scottish and Welsh assemblies that 바카라사이트 number of MPs at Westminster had to be substantially reduced would be to commit electoral suicide. The Tories use England as 바카라사이트 means to dominate Britain; Labour needs Britain as 바카라사이트 means to dominate England.

The two main parties thus have very good (albeit very different) reasons for wanting to keep 바카라사이트 UK intact. And so, while 바카라사이트 predicted break-up of Britain could still occur, it seems equally likely that it will not. Even in 바카라사이트 1990s, nations that have survived far outnumber nations that have dissolved, and 바카라사이트 forces holding 바카라사이트 UK toge바카라사이트r may yet turn out to be much stronger than those pulling it apart. British historians, of whatever political persuasion or local loyalty, would do well to ponder this.

This is an edited extract from an essay by David Cannadine in Uniting 바카라사이트 Kingdom? The Making of British History, edited by Alexander Grant and Keith Stringer, published next week by Routledge, Pounds 25.

David Cannadine is 바카라사이트 Moore collegiate professor of history at Columbia University.