Æ
they think about Britain. But what also emerges is that people
from all around the world are very surprised by the extent to
which British politicians in recent years have defined Britain
in terms of its behaviour in historical wars. They are struck by
the fact that Britain talks much more about its past in war than
its past as a parliamentary democracy.
This also applies specifically to the way in which Britain
addresses its relationship with Europe and the rest of the world:
it often uses language of confrontation and struggle. So much
British political rhetoric is about Britain at war, and particular-
ly the Second World War. There’s a huge discrepancy in how
Britain sees itself in that conflict and how others see us.Is it fair to say that Britain defines its identit y in terms of war
more than other countries?
I think so – and not just the Second World War. In Spain,
for instance, they’re very struck by the fact that Britain still
defines its relationships so much in terms of the supposed little,
heroic England that fought alone against mighty Spain in the
intermittent conflicts [sparked by political and religious
tensions] of the 16th century. And, for them, that has distorted
the way the British think about Spanish politics to this day.
Both of those aspects are concerning to them: the focus on
war, and the idea of Britain being alone. They don’t see that as
historically true, either.Do you think that Britain is singularly obsessed with such
myths in a way that other nations aren’t?
As I say, Britain’s rhetoric about itself and its place in the world
is largely about conflict, and the most recent conflict in which
it played a major part is the Second World War. Because of
that, the reading of that war plays a much bigger part in British
self-understanding than in any other country – with, perhaps,
the exception of Russia.
Poland, obviously, is also completely shaped by the
memories of the Second World War, so we’re not unique in
the fact that it’s a foundation myth. But I think our own
reading of the Second World War is often regarded as being
dangerously selective.Indigenous Australians dance to
music in this 20th-century bark
painting. The treatment of these
peoples by European settlers
remains a sensitive political
issue in Australia todayBR
ID
GE
MA
N
Did the people you spoke to have a sense of why Britain
focuses on these aspects of its history to such an extent?
The general view is that, since that struggle with Spain in the
16th centur y, the British have wanted to see themselves as the
small force on the edge, fighting against one predominant,
tyrannical power. Whether that power is Spain, or the France
of Louis XIV, or Germany, or Russia, a consistent element of
Britain’s self-image has been the lonely fighter standing against
foreign tyranny. And, for the people we spoke to in making the
series, it was very hard to see the present-day EU as fitting
credibly into this narrative of an oppressive, dominant power.The British empire was also a key historical factor shaping
Britain’s relationship with the world. How was that viewed?
Australia and Singapore have direct historical connections to
the empire, and they couldn’t be more different. Descendants
of European settlers in Australia have a complex view of it.
They’re clear that they were beneficiaries of the imperial system- which, for instance, is why the Australian government so
willingly supported and sent troops to fight in the First World
War. But they’re also aware of the fact their forebears often did
some terrible things to the nation’s Indigenous population:
dispossession, destruction and deliberate killing.
That, clearly, is a very big political issue. One of the great
surprises in making this series was to hear the view of a
distinguished Indigenous historian, Marcia Langton, who
suggests that Indigenous Australians view the crown as having
in some measure defended them against the settlers. In