Comments on: DEBATE: Is British History European? http://historycompass.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/debate-is-british-history-european/ Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:59:06 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: European History http://historycompass.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/debate-is-british-history-european/#comment-103 European History Wed, 26 Nov 2008 03:39:12 +0000 http://historycompass.wordpress.com/?p=55#comment-103 Blindingly obvious to be frank - British history is certainly framed within a European context and as Stefan Berger opens above with it's been a nation state within Europe for a pretty long time (even more so these days with the parameters of our overlord in the EU etc) and remember now everyone wants their children, European or not to sepak English above all else, so yep we're inextricably linked with Europe and so is our history - the mixed blood that flows in the viens of our children (Saxons, Normans etc) prove it again and again as well Ollie Blindingly obvious to be frank – British history is certainly framed within a European context and as Stefan Berger opens above with it’s been a nation state within Europe for a pretty long time (even more so these days with the parameters of our overlord in the EU etc) and remember now everyone wants their children, European or not to sepak English above all else, so yep we’re inextricably linked with Europe and so is our history – the mixed blood that flows in the viens of our children (Saxons, Normans etc) prove it again and again as well

Ollie

]]> By: John Carman http://historycompass.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/debate-is-british-history-european/#comment-61 John Carman Tue, 07 Oct 2008 12:31:40 +0000 http://historycompass.wordpress.com/?p=55#comment-61 It seems to me -- writing as an archaeologist rather than a historian, and with the archaeologist's predilection for large-scale analysis across both time and space -- that there is no contradiction between an explicitly British (or British and Irish) history and a (wider-scale) European history that includes Britain (and Ireland) as well as France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Grece, Holland, Scandinavia, etc etc. etc. Where they differ is in terms of scale: a European history will look for connections and currents that operate at the the Continental scale, while national histories may look at the same things but will do so with a narrower focus. What I think you may not be able to do so easily -- because of the differences of scale -- is to compare e.g. British history with a European counterpart; you may be able to compare Britain with France, France with Germany, etc. but not an individual country with Europe as a whole. So is British history European history? Of course -- or at least a part of it. But they are not the same kiond of history. It seems to me — writing as an archaeologist rather than a historian, and with the archaeologist’s predilection for large-scale analysis across both time and space — that there is no contradiction between an explicitly British (or British and Irish) history and a (wider-scale) European history that includes Britain (and Ireland) as well as France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Grece, Holland, Scandinavia, etc etc. etc. Where they differ is in terms of scale: a European history will look for connections and currents that operate at the the Continental scale, while national histories may look at the same things but will do so with a narrower focus.
What I think you may not be able to do so easily — because of the differences of scale — is to compare e.g. British history with a European counterpart; you may be able to compare Britain with France, France with Germany, etc. but not an individual country with Europe as a whole.
So is British history European history? Of course — or at least a part of it. But they are not the same kiond of history.

]]> By: Boudewyn van Oort http://historycompass.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/debate-is-british-history-european/#comment-60 Boudewyn van Oort Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:39:31 +0000 http://historycompass.wordpress.com/?p=55#comment-60 I find this debate fascinating, but I approach the issue from an entirely different point of view: I am not a professional historian, but have sought and struggled to describe and explain the decisions my parents made before, during and after teh second world war. I think they represent a typical example of a modern trent: human mobility. History is fascinating in its own right, but I view the importance of historical studies as chiefly being our enhanced ability to understand our society and to grapple with a rapidly changing world. I live in Canada, once almost exlusively French, then increasingly dominated by British norms, customs and ideas, and now changing into a far more complex society with the influx of peoples from other European countries and lately, Asia. When immigrants step on Canadian soil they do not leave behind their customs and ideologies, but what are they? I submit that to understand this process it is necessary to understand their history. Our preoccupation with national history, especially monolingual modern history is threatening to blind us. My own literary problem was explaining why my parents, who had immigrated to South Africa from the Netherlands in 1936, chose to leave that country for the Netherlands East Indies in May 1940 weeks after teh German invasion of the Netherlands. I believe I answered that question by considering the ideological baggage my parents brought with them from the Netherlands when they first arrived in South Africa, and describing the social environment in South Africa at that time. My quest was assisted by being able to read Afrikaans as well as Dutch. Moving to the Netherlands East Indies in 1940 was not a very clever thing to do, but we survived and returned to South Africa, only to find by 1951 that history was threatening to repeat itself, at least in the minds of Pacific war-chastened adults. My familiy's tale is meaningless without providing historical context. But these experiences have also become commonplace. What I merely did was describe one such incident. My effort was unfortunately limited by minimal knowledge of Malay, the erstwhile lingua franca of Indonesia, and zero knowledge of Japanese, the language and culture of our captors, forcing me to rely on limited translations. A polyglot historian would be a wonderful person, but is doomed to be rare. It should however not be necessary to begin training in a second language in University: what's wrong with our schools? In large parts of the US Spanish is become relevant. Where I live Cantonese might be extremely useful. Perhaps mastery of at least one language other than English should become a prerequiste for University acceptance to University History programs. I find this debate fascinating, but I approach the issue from an entirely different point of view: I am not a professional historian, but have sought and struggled to describe and explain the decisions my parents made before, during and after teh second world war. I think they represent a typical example of a modern trent: human mobility. History is fascinating in its own right, but I view the importance of historical studies as chiefly being our enhanced ability to understand our society and to grapple with a rapidly changing world. I live in Canada, once almost exlusively French, then increasingly dominated by British norms, customs and ideas, and now changing into a far more complex society with the influx of peoples from other European countries and lately, Asia. When immigrants step on Canadian soil they do not leave behind their customs and ideologies, but what are they? I submit that to understand this process it is necessary to understand their history. Our preoccupation with national history, especially monolingual modern history is threatening to blind us.
My own literary problem was explaining why my parents, who had immigrated to South Africa from the Netherlands in 1936, chose to leave that country for the Netherlands East Indies in May 1940 weeks after teh German invasion of the Netherlands. I believe I answered that question by considering the ideological baggage my parents brought with them from the Netherlands when they first arrived in South Africa, and describing the social environment in South Africa at that time. My quest was assisted by being able to read Afrikaans as well as Dutch. Moving to the Netherlands East Indies in 1940 was not a very clever thing to do, but we survived and returned to South Africa, only to find by 1951 that history was threatening to repeat itself, at least in the minds of Pacific war-chastened adults. My familiy’s tale is meaningless without providing historical context. But these experiences have also become commonplace. What I merely did was describe one such incident. My effort was unfortunately limited by minimal knowledge of Malay, the erstwhile lingua franca of Indonesia, and zero knowledge of Japanese, the language and culture of our captors, forcing me to rely on limited translations.
A polyglot historian would be a wonderful person, but is doomed to be rare. It should however not be necessary to begin training in a second language in University: what’s wrong with our schools? In large parts of the US Spanish is become relevant. Where I live Cantonese might be extremely useful. Perhaps mastery of at least one language other than English should become a prerequiste for University acceptance to University History programs.

]]>