One nation two histories: Winston S. Churchill and Norman Davies National stories compared.

For those of you who find this a little heavy going, I promise something lighter tomorrow!!

History is a fluid a thing. The same facts can mean different things to different people and peoples. Rarely was this statement truer than in a comparison between the great historical narratives of Winston S Churchill and Norman Davies. Polar opposites in terms of their political ideology, these two important figures provide an interesting counter balance to one another.

Winston Churchill’s a History of the English Speaking People’s takes its cue from the works of Gibbon and Macaulay. Faintly imperial, confident and wide ranging, Churchill’s history relates not only the development of England, but also English speaking peoples throughout the world. His account is lengthy and uses some, though hardly too many, primary sources.

Great developments in political systems occur, in his account, by opposed groups of elites battling it out in some way – be it intellectually, physically or by the forces of practicality. Magna Carta for example, was the first time an English monarch had his power limited through the concerted actions of a group of powerful men, the barons. Through this often bloody conflict, however, a civilised and worldly point of view developed which equipped the English speaking peoples sufficiently to play a leading role in the development of world governments, commerce and religion. For Churchill, the Uk formed by gradual and almost inpercepibly increments starting during the Middle Ages. By the end of the book, Churchill concludes that the best thing for the world would be an alliance of English speaking nations: working together for the shared good of the world; a British Commonwealth with teeth and the USA in short.

Norman Davies is a man who wears his political allegiances equally openly as Churchill. For Davies, the idea of an English speaking Commonwealth with teeth would be an alliance with fangs. Instead, he advocates European integration. Whereas Churchill’s history emphasizes individuals and personal power, Davies highlights circumstances and Europe. Where ever possible, Davies points to European parallels in English and British development. The growth of the British Empire, for example, is put into a context of general European mobilisation. Magna Carta is shown to be no more than the English take on a Europe wide phenomenon on limiting the power of the monarch. Wars between England and France during the Middle Ages are interpreted as a waste of time money and lives. For Davies the Uk and Britain were a creation of the 18^th and 19^th centuries and is simply a justification for England to rule the countries that make up ‘the UK’.

When read in close succession they provide something like a balanced opinion for the interested reader to learn more about English, and to some degree British history. Of the two, Churchill’s is the longer and more interesting read. His sentence construction alone makes History of the English speaking peoples worthy of a place on the Café Lumiere book shelf. Churchill is limited though because his account does read a little like a world war two film made in about 1950. One feels that in the light of recent shenanigans in Iraq and elsewhere; the English speaking world does not always get it right and a close alliance may not be justified by its current achievements.

Norman Davies is also a good read and can also be found in café Lumiere. Davies is obviously an idealist, very nice in its way, but his book does sometimes sound a little too much like a party manifesto for the European lovers party. For example, at the end of his account, when he argued that Britain should have joined Europe very soon after the end of World War 2, he seems to forget (wilfully) the very great hostility French governments felt towards Britain joining the European club.

The most fitting thing to say, by way of conclusion, must be… ‘vive la difference’. Let both accounts stand as worthy partners in understanding ourselves and this thing called Britain.