180. England & Englishness

Рет қаралды 13,011

Күн бұрын

George Orwell, a love of wildlife, and Raheem Sterling - but what does it mean to be English in the modern world?
In today's episode, Tom and Dominic are joined by the New Statesman editor, Jason Cowley, to discuss England and Englishness in the 20th century.
Jason's new book 'Who Are We Now?' is available at all good book retailers.
Join The Rest Is History Club for ad-free listening to the full archive, weekly bonus episodes, live streamed shows and access to an exclusive chatroom community.
Editorial Assistant: Grace MainwaringProducer: Dom JohnsonExec Producer: Jack Davenport
Twitter:@TheRestHistory@holland_tom@dcsandbrook
Email: restishistorypod@gmail.com

Пікірлер: 40

@mediastudiesnetwork Ай бұрын

Love this discussion … you guys brilliantly unpacked a complex identity and his historical shifts. This could be more episodes!

@harrydebastardeharris987 Ай бұрын

Whenever I get back to England I realise how complicated easy things are to get done,even more today.

@yankeegonesouth4973 10 ай бұрын

0:34 "...the vastness of England..." I suppose Orwell could be speaking of the many particularities of England which he goes on to mention, but as an inhabitant of North America, that phrase had me cracking up. 😅

@theshrubberer Ай бұрын

thank god there was a reference to Stanley Baldwin. I never heard of him until The Rest is History and now I am sad whenever he is not mentioned in an episode 😂

@Johnconno 2 ай бұрын

Ah, England. Those blue remembered hills where I cannot go again.😢

@thanksfernuthin 3 ай бұрын

Virtue signals received loud and clear.

@mrshivers4828 3 ай бұрын

Chill out mate

@thanksfernuthin 3 ай бұрын

@@mrshivers4828 I'm chill mate. Are you?

@kambrose1549 7 күн бұрын

You don't touch on class antagonism. When I left England in the early 70s I felt that the absurd class distinctions would surely just fade away. Alas not so. If anything the antipathy has become worse.

@Irene-im8xi Жыл бұрын

The kingdom of Scotland was founded in the 9th Century whereas England became a kingdom, after Scotland, in the 10th Century.

@Bobmudu35UK 3 ай бұрын

I don't think that's right,not that it matters. England was 927 and Scotland was 1018 I think. Before that Malcolm McAlpine (not sure I spelled that correctly) was king of the Picts,not king of Scotland. Lothian was still ruled by the Angles if my memory serves. .I think it was Duncan ll that threw the English out of Lothian. Could be wrong,but I don't think I am.

@kayedavison5218 3 ай бұрын

And?? Your point??

@dearestsimone 2 жыл бұрын

Well-- one comment. Here in America, intellectuals like yourselves do not get so wonderfully giddy about sports. What a wonder! Why is this?

@Shapeguydude Жыл бұрын

You mustn't have seen me watch the Bill's game last night

@chickenfishhybrid44 Жыл бұрын

You think there aren't intellectuals who are into sports in the US?

@Johnconno 2 ай бұрын

Chomsky is a lifelong Baseball fan.

@ginojaco 2 ай бұрын

I rather like you both as historians, but this effort was toe-curlingly priggish, self-righteous and arrogant in the manner of the most caricatured middle-class liberal. Self-awareness doesn't seem to be mutually inclusive with historical nowse and online affability...

@jonathangammond3019 2 ай бұрын

There wasn't enough history in the discussion, especially pre-20th century history.

@Taqruinnius 4 ай бұрын

Your parliamentary system can't be any worse than the electoral college.

@JohnAsmith-rw6uo 4 ай бұрын

Why is that?

@Taqruinnius 4 ай бұрын

@@JohnAsmith-rw6uo A few reasons, one you could have electors who don't vote for the person who won the state. Two you could have a president lose the popular vote but still win the election. Three the whole election is based on what a few states decided to vote for. These swing states are the most important and candidates spend most if not all their time in these states while ignoring the rest. Granted the rest of the states will vote for the same party again and again. Four states with a bigger population get more electors compared to states with smaller populations. Your electors are based on the number of representatives within the House and Senators. North Dakota for example gets three while California gets 54. There is also the possibility of a tie as it has happened before, however rare it is. Finally, it is extremely difficult for third parties to win. It is dominated by the Republicans and Democrats and has been that way since 1850.

@JohnAsmith-rw6uo 4 ай бұрын

@@Taqruinnius So you think a state like California swimming with illegal migrates should have more say than the people from Vermont. Also you do not want so many parties that split the vote down so a tyrants the Hitler can take power.

@JohnAsmith-rw6uo 4 ай бұрын

@@Taqruinnius l Would say except for the losers we have since 1988 it has worked out pretty good. I think l better way is to nominate better men for the job.

@Taqruinnius 4 ай бұрын

@@JohnAsmith-rw6uo I'm saying that the electoral college gives a state like Texas, California, New York, Florida more weight in terms of presidential elections than a state like North Dakota.

@Terinije Жыл бұрын

I don't really agree with the idea that devolution ignited nationalism, it merely gave an avenue for it to be aired rather than be ignored by the English. If the Scottish Parliament had never existed, I'd guarantee that there'd still be an existential angst of Scottish nationals wanting out due to anger over Tory policies and brexit. The Scottish Parliament just created a central focal point and leader apparent in the movement that'd otherwise be spread out among a smaller Westminster party and Scottish-based groups.

@OnlineEnglish-wl5rp 2 ай бұрын

The Tories never did anything to Scotland that they didn't do to England or Wales. If the British Establishment hadn't imposed neoliberal globalisation and its attendant mass immigration, we'd still be in your precious EU - which itself has wrecked Europe