England through the Eyes of the World
It is common to attack the British, and the English in particular, as lacking in a cultural character. Curiously, this attack often comes from within the diaspora of England itself. From cuisine to expression, architecture to leisure, the English seem to be in a perpetual state of confusion as to what their national character actually constitutes.
This is by no means a modern problem. There are bookshelves overflowing with attempts to understand the English national character both from within and without. Works from the French, English, Middle-East, Italians, and Spanish have all attempted to explain England, and in particular its curious relationship to continental Europe from its island stronghold. There are comments ranging from the early first millennium to the modern day proving that the English character has remained relatively unchanged. This article will present several of these accounts, and round out with what I believe the commonalities demonstrate about the true English character. In many ways, I am writing directly to my fellow Englishmen and women so that they might know themselves better.
Through the eyes of our contemporaries, enemies and allies throughout the world, the English are known as a distinct people. The earliest description of the English I can find is attributed to a nameless Byzantine Scholar around the year 560AD. The writer is quite disdainful. He notes England’s rejection of progress, saying the English are “barbarians who depended wholly on oars.” At the time, most other European nations had adopted the sail, notably the Greeks and Romans. Personally, I find it deeply amusing that the first recorded instance I could find mocked our naval capability, given the dominant role we would later take.
There was a period of relative quiet from this time onward but as the world entered the 17th and 18th centuries, the English began to write of themselves. Richard Carew, a Cornish man and translator in his seminal work An Epistle on the Excellency of the English Tongue described the English as “bees who have gathered the honey of other languages, leaving the ‘dregs’ to the Europeans.” The English Jurist William Blackstone noted the English as “a polite and, no less, a commercial people.” Daniel Defoe, noted writer of Robinson Crusoe, saw the English as “from a mixture of all kinds [...] that heterogeneous thing, an Englishman.” Dean Inge, an Anglican priest, writing in 1929, described the English as a people who “interpret all human life on the analogy” with a “sturdy individualism, robust morality, and practicality” noted by foreigners. The English character rejects “foreign piety.” It is curious to me that there is a juxtaposition of English exceptionalism with the opinion that we both reject and embrace foreign influence in different strata.
Perhaps some of the most relevant perspective on the English comes from David Hume, the esteemed Scottish philosopher. Writing in 1748, he is somewhat unique among many of the commentators by offering an opinion that is neither pure commendation nor condemnation. “The English are the most remarkable of any people that perhaps ever were in the world” he states, as the English began to reassert themselves as a distinct national and political entity. However, this is juxtaposed by the observation that “the English, of any people in the universe, have the least of a national character, unless this very singularity may pass for such.” This curious paradox is something to hold on to when we come to the conclusion of this article.
Across the Channel lies a nation we have come into conflict with more than any other, and unsurprisingly the French comment often on the English. The writer, philosopher and historian Voltaire said through his magnum opus, the fictional story Candide, that the English “had their own type of madness … extremely moody and morose.” Napoleon Bonaparte, the Emperor of France, disdained the English as “a nation of shopkeepers.” French Novelist Honoré de Balzac called the Englishman “noble.” All of these things, I contend, are likely true.
The Spaniards described the English as men of action, and the Belgians described us as “independent-minded, polite, critical, moody, class-conscious, polarised, practical-minded, entrepreneurial, humorous, and reserved.” The Americans describe the English as “plucky.”
Further afield three words are often highlighted: Reserved, Uptight, and Snobbish. The middle easterners, notably Islamists, contend that the English are “little of intelligence, great of perseverance, ambition, greed, stubbornness, patience, and haughtiness.” Iranian author Jahangir Amuzegar announced that the British are “cold, crafty, self-controlled, deferential.” M. Sıddık Gümüş, of Turkish origin, called us “a conceited and arrogant people.”
Through all of these descriptions, there are running threads of character. From Byzantium to America and through all the nations in between we can see the Englishman laid bare. We are a stubborn people, barbarically so compared to others. We cast our eyes backwards and reject change with a cautious air. But we are also living as a contradiction of what that might imply. The English are men of action: ferociously protective, proactive, and practical. We maintain good humour despite our high opinion of ourselves, and know how to play the calculated games of our own political structures dispassionately. We’re a bit perfectionist, critical, occasionally holding back due to our polite nature. Even those attempting to insult the English seem incapable of doing anything other than describing a national character with both pros and cons. Our perseverance and ambition are laudable, whereas where it leads to stubbornness and haughtiness it is not. But man is not perfect, and neither are the English. Nor have we ever pretended to be. We are unique, distinct, and characterful, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
I would like to end on the words of the ever-controversial English magnate and politician Cecil Rhodes, an unabashed Imperialist and architect of South African physical infrastructure. A man who opposed the restriction of progress based on skin colour but was still proud to give the magnanimous statement to all fellow English-born men and women: “Remember, you were born an Englishman, and have subsequently won first prize in life.”
Mark Houghton is a qualified psychologist, political commentator and founding member of the Basketweavers initiative. He is a frequent guest on popular internet talk show ‘Unpopular Opinions’. He promotes ethical and virtue based practise and believes everyone can live an authentically meaningful life if given the tools and the environment to thrive.
Comments