
Luck of the English: A new history shatters myths about an extraordinary nation - Petiver
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/12/tombs-english-history-uk/421995/?single_page=true
======
DrScump
"The worst crop failure of them all would strike Ireland in the 1840s—the
potato famine that still haunts that nation’s memory. The United Kingdom
responded with the most ambitious program of food aid and cash relief ever
attempted by any nation to that point, but one that still fell horribly short
of the magnitude of the disaster. "

That's quite a nationalist spin. In fact, England _exported_ far more food
_from_ Ireland than it provided in aid of all kinds, even if you don't count
the grain consumed in making exported alcohol.

See
[http://www.usbornefamilytree.com/irishfoodexports.htm](http://www.usbornefamilytree.com/irishfoodexports.htm)
or Wikipedia's article for references.

~~~
pjc50
It is so misleading that it calls the whole thing, book _and_ review, into
question.

Yes, the pendulum has swung from "yay, Empire!" to "boo, colonialism" and this
book is trying to push it back; but that means we need a careful unravelling
of the issues involved, probably attributing them more to the good and bad
actions of individual people or groups than trying to answer the single
question "England: Good or Bad?"

Denying the role of English capitalist politics in worsening the potato famine
is almost as bad as denying the holocaust.

(I'd settle for "England: Not As Genocidal As Belgium")

~~~
s_dev
This was the chap England thought best appropriate to handle the famine.

"The judgement of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson, that
calamity must not be too much mitigated. …The real evil with which we have to
contend is not the physical evil of the Famine, but the moral evil of the
selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people. \- Charles Trevelyan,
head of administration for Irish famine relief, 1840s"

He thought the famine would "thin" the population like you would do when
maintaining a forest. It's borderline genocide.

~~~
sjcsjc
I take it this is the same Trevelyan of "Fields of Athenry" fame [1], a great
rendition of which can be heard at the end of Veronica Guerin [2]

1
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fields_of_Athenry](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fields_of_Athenry)

2 [http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0312549/](http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0312549/)

------
allendoerfer
> But since poor East Germany rejoined West Germany in 1990, England no longer
> lags far behind Germany. Depending on which numbers you use, the English
> parts of the United Kingdom may already exceed Germany in GDP per capita. If
> recent trends continue, the U.K. as a whole could even overtake Germany in
> gross output by the year 2030.

So after 2008/2009, when everything Germany did was great and everything
England did was bad, because the crisis affected Germany much less than
England, we are now back to extrapolating, after London got back on its feet?

In 2015 1.1 million people fled to Germany and birth-rates are rising. For me
long-term estimates of economic numbers (which are largely based on
demographic estimates) seem like complete guessings, because we simply do not
know how this will play out.

~~~
douche
Assuming all of those immigrants integrate successfully into German culture
and there is no widespread right-wing backlash...

~~~
TheGirondin
Assuming all of those immigrants want to integrate into German culture and
there is no widespread religious backlash against secular culture.

------
mcguire
I'm a bit lost here, between the article and this discussion; I'd really
appreciate it if someone could set me straight:

It seems that the English oppressed the Irish (the "800 year occupation"), the
British oppressed the English, the Scots were paid by the British to oppress
everyone else, and the Welsh (I just finished watching _Hinterland_ ) look
like they've had their last puppy kicked. (Am I wrong in believing Wales to be
the northern European equivalent of West Virginia, with a lot of hills and
mines and a lot of people without shoes or teeth, where nothing pleasant ever
happens?) Oh, and Northern Ireland is an extension of England (although the
inhabitants are mostly Scottish) that has been declared a country, for
taxation purposes I assume.

As I understand it, the Cornish don't exist any more except as place-names
(understandable, given that Wikipedia says, "It continues to be occupied by
Neolithic and then Bronze Age peoples"), and the Kents never did exist. (But
what about the Brigantes tribe from 62 Wallaby Street?)

Honestly, the closest analogy this intellect-deprived American can come up
with for the article is whether Virginians are a large, nationless group of
people in North America.

So, ok, here's my question. Can anyone lay their hands on two-three of these
British folks? They sound like real bad-asses. With them, we should be able to
set the world to right in a jif, what?

------
ZeroGravitas
This article seems to switch between 'Britain' and 'England' haphazardly, as
in this example:

 _" What was distinctively English was the determined and costly campaign
against the slave trade led by the British state"_

~~~
bboreham
I don't think it's haphazard; much of TFA's point is that people don't make
the distinction correctly.

So, here, it's saying that few Scots/Welsh/etc were involved in fighting the
slave trade, politically.

