Letter: Losses and gains on Britain's historical journey
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Paul Johnson exhibits an outdated anglocentric approach to history. He mentions that 'doom- mongering' is a tradition 'that goes back to a time before England existed', but seems to have forgotten that England is not the same as Britain. The two words are used throughout his article as if they are interchangeable.
Britain did not exist as a state until the union of Scotland and England in 1707, yet Mr Johnson wrote of events in England before this time as if they represented the history of the British Isles as a whole.
He mentions that 'the country . . . with the exception of the century 1350-1450', has experienced growing living standards. But which 'country' is he speaking of? He mentions that as a child he studied 'our history', in which 'the last conquest of England' (the Norman invasion) represented the last threat to 'our national sovereignty'. But whose history and whose sovereignty? English sovereignty and history is spoken of, without the mention that Wales, Ireland, and Scotland have their own histories, and all have suffered losses of their national sovereignty since 'the last conquest of England'.
The 'lessons of history' that Johnson attempts to gain were perhaps correct, but it is discrediting that he bases his conclusion on an approach bristling with ambiguities, and amounting to English history in a British disguise.
Yours faithfully,
MICHAEL DAVIDSON
Edinburgh
8 March
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments