What do you think?
Rate this book
Britanya Adaları Tarihi - Dört Ulusun Tarihi: İngiltere, İskoçya, İrlanda Ve Galler
İngiltere, İskoçya, İrlanda ve Galler. Nüfusu, dünya tarihindeki yeri, dili ve kültürüyle Britanya Adaları'nın öne çıkan ulusu İngiltere'dir. Ancak İngiltere de aslında tıpkı Galler, İskoçya ve İrlanda gibi Birleşik Krallık'ın bir bölgesidir. Bu doğrultuda, Britanya Adaları tarihini İngiltere tarihiyle sınırlandırmanın yanlı ve yanlış bir yaklaşım olacağını savunan Hugh Kearney, Britanya Adaları Tarihi'nde, sadece İngiltere'nin değil, adaları oluşturan tüm ulusların tarihini; birbirleriyle siyasi, dini ve kültürel etkileşimlerini geniş ve tarafsız bir bakış açısıyla sunmaktadır.
Britanya Adaları Tarihi'nde Kearney, Kelt toplumlarından adalardaki Roma etkisine, adaları istila eden Vikinglerden Normanlara, İngilizlerin dünya hâkimiyetinden Sanayi Devrimi'ne, mezhepler arası çatışmalardan etnik farklılıkların yarattığı kültürel sorunlara, etnik siyasetin yükselişinden milliyetçiliğin sonuçlarına, emperyalizmden sendikacılığa ve göçlere kadar Britanya Adaları tarihinde değinilmesi gereken her konuyu, çeşitli kaynaklarla destekleyerek irdelemektedir.
Britanya Adaları Tarihi'nde Kearney, Kelt toplumlarından adalardaki Roma etkisine, adaları istila eden Vikinglerden Normanlara, İngilizlerin dünya hâkimiyetinden Sanayi Devrimi'ne, mezhepler arası çatışmalardan etnik farklılıkların yarattığı kültürel sorunlara, etnik siyasetin yükselişinden milliyetçiliğin sonuçlarına, emperyalizmden sendikacılığa ve göçlere kadar Britanya Adaları tarihinde değinilmesi gereken her konuyu, çeşitli kaynaklarla destekleyerek irdelemektedir.
- GenresHistoryNonfiction
392 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1989
20 people are currently reading
220 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
January 5, 2022
I was given The British Isles: A History of Four Nations in 2016 shortly before I moved to Scotland. Some books patiently await the right moment to be read and this one's finally arrived. It is a history of Britain focused on the interplay between the different cultures and nations, intended as a counterpoint to England-centric scholarship. My prior experience is certainly of British history books inevitably treating Scotland, Wales, and Ireland as peripheral if not absent. Moreover, I appreciated the deliberate avoidance of national categories prior to their existence, as explained in this section on the Viking period:
I found the evolution of Britain's sub-national cultures fascinating, as these have at various points been anchored in ethnic origin (viking, norman, roman), language (welsh, gaelic, french, english), and/or religion (catholic, church of [nation], dissenting). Kearney's style is academic yet readable throughout, making nuanced analysis accessible. This second edition includes epilogues to most chapters commenting on what was not covered in the initial edition. Kearney acknowledges that there is limited discussion in terms of class, so refers to other work like E.P. Thompson's The Making of the English Working Class (which specifically limits itself to England). I enjoyed the commentary on the nationalist assumptions of previous scholarship, for example this on the rebellion of Robert the Bruce:
From the early sixteenth century, Kearney uses the concept of an English empire ruled from London and the south-east. He notes that this model is especially helpful for understanding the treatment of Ireland. The concept also fits neatly with The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View, which frames the 16th century imposition of early capitalism in Ireland as the means of its subjection to England. This same rapacious approach was then repeated further afield.
Given that I live in Scotland, I was particularly interested in how current Scottish cultures emerged. The shifts in the mid-19th century, after the potato famine, are still visible now:
As the chapters wore on, I inevitably found myself muttering that the fucking Tories have been doing the same fucking thing for 150 years, e.g: 'The issue of Home Rule made it possible for the Conservatives to divide the north by appealing to a potent combination of nationalism, imperialism, and anti-immigrant feeling'. This second edition was published in 2006 and concludes like so:
That certainly accords with my memory of the 2005 general election, the first in which I voted. Kearney was wise to identify the damaging potential of English europhobia (scepticism is too gentle a term for brexit). Austerity, brexit, and the pandemic have shaken up the dynamics of the British Isles in the years since. English nationalism now dominates the UK's Conservative government. Here in Scotland, the SNP runs the devolved government and pro-independence parties have a majority in the parliament. Given the currently unstable state of the union, it is particularly interesting to look back on cultural diversity of the British Isles across the centuries and the roots of present socio-political differences.
The problem presented by ignorance is made worse by the manner in which national historians of 'Wales' and 'Scotland' (as indeed those of 'England' and 'Ireland') create a framework which presents the 'emergence' of these 'nations' as the primary fact in which we should be interested. Indeed, we deal better with the intricacies of historical development if we leave 'national' categories out of the picture as much as possible. In both northern and western Britain, we may assume, several distinct cultures continued to exist with their own sense of identity and their own view of 'their' past. What later generations see as the emergence of a nation involved the superimposition of one culture upon another.
I found the evolution of Britain's sub-national cultures fascinating, as these have at various points been anchored in ethnic origin (viking, norman, roman), language (welsh, gaelic, french, english), and/or religion (catholic, church of [nation], dissenting). Kearney's style is academic yet readable throughout, making nuanced analysis accessible. This second edition includes epilogues to most chapters commenting on what was not covered in the initial edition. Kearney acknowledges that there is limited discussion in terms of class, so refers to other work like E.P. Thompson's The Making of the English Working Class (which specifically limits itself to England). I enjoyed the commentary on the nationalist assumptions of previous scholarship, for example this on the rebellion of Robert the Bruce:
Confusion is often caused by the use of the concepts 'English' and 'Scottish' in dealing with these events. In fact, issues of national identity have little place in a situation which at the highest political level was dominated by ideas of lordship and vassalage. What occurred in the years following 1294 was not a conflict between 'England' and 'Scotland' (though it became so later) but a struggle for power within the Norman ascendancy. As such, it was little different from the civil wars of the mid-century. The contenders in the struggle, with the exception of Wallace, were all of 'Norman' extraction.
From the early sixteenth century, Kearney uses the concept of an English empire ruled from London and the south-east. He notes that this model is especially helpful for understanding the treatment of Ireland. The concept also fits neatly with The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View, which frames the 16th century imposition of early capitalism in Ireland as the means of its subjection to England. This same rapacious approach was then repeated further afield.
Given that I live in Scotland, I was particularly interested in how current Scottish cultures emerged. The shifts in the mid-19th century, after the potato famine, are still visible now:
There was to be no equivalent in Scotland of the decline of the landed ascendancy in Ireland or Wales, however. The great landed estates survived, more often than not as large-scale game preserves.
[...]
Despite the survival of Gaelic, it may be argued that the Lowlands radically transformed the culture of the Highlands. By a curious turn of events, while this was taking place, a romanticised version of Highland culture was making headway in the Lowlands. In the wake of the Ossianic forgeries of James Macpherson and of the novels of Walter Scott, the cult of the Highlander achieved extraordinary success. The newly invented kilt and tartan were taken over by Lowland families as emblems of ethnic identity. For many, Scottish romanticism replaced Scottish Enlightenment.
As the chapters wore on, I inevitably found myself muttering that the fucking Tories have been doing the same fucking thing for 150 years, e.g: 'The issue of Home Rule made it possible for the Conservatives to divide the north by appealing to a potent combination of nationalism, imperialism, and anti-immigrant feeling'. This second edition was published in 2006 and concludes like so:
For the moment at least New Labour's policy of granting devolution seems to have been successful in drawing the teeth of Welsh and Scottish nationalism. It was a different story in Northern Ireland, where two ethnic nationalist groupings, Sinn Feinn and the Democratic Unionists, made headway at the expense of the centre, leaving the Good Friday Agreement in limbo. English nationalism was largely silent, voiced only by the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and the British National Party (BNP). The question of UK membership of the European Union remained largely in abeyance during the [2005] election. Since public opinion in Wales and Scotland is pro-Europe it remains to be seen whether some future referendum on the European Constitution will be a crucial issue for an English-, as opposed to British-wide, nationalism.
That certainly accords with my memory of the 2005 general election, the first in which I voted. Kearney was wise to identify the damaging potential of English europhobia (scepticism is too gentle a term for brexit). Austerity, brexit, and the pandemic have shaken up the dynamics of the British Isles in the years since. English nationalism now dominates the UK's Conservative government. Here in Scotland, the SNP runs the devolved government and pro-independence parties have a majority in the parliament. Given the currently unstable state of the union, it is particularly interesting to look back on cultural diversity of the British Isles across the centuries and the roots of present socio-political differences.
April 21, 2021
I'm not sure why people have a problem with his premise. He recognizes that they remain four different nations. He is just showing how linked they are throughout history. For better and for worse.
January 27, 2012
Certainly a bit dated - considering it was published back in 1989, and so the premise of inter-related histories may have seemed a fresh and notable idea back then. Of course this also may be reflective of the English state of mind as well in not aligning English history relative to the interactions of the 4 nations. As it stands it is a good thesis and provides ample info to confirm the idea of the interacted histories of England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland, but surely one needs to be pretty aware of the histories in themselves as the author whisks through nearly a thousand years in 216 pages! Ofttimes casually, and all to briefly, discussing personages and events in an assumed manner. This is its primary downfall - not all of us are as versed and while I have read my share of English/Celtic histories it still became a real trial getting through certain sections, where the names and places were flying across the pages. A sentence alone might encompass what should be an entire book! - However that being said this book serves as a good introduction and review of the related histories of the British Isles and as long as one keeps that in mind it will serve as a stepping stone to other more elaborate works.
February 7, 2021
2 stars [History]
(W: 2.07, U: 1.25, T: 2.25)
Exact rating: 1.89
#89 of 90 in genre
A bright-eyed American walks reverently into the Cambridge University Press Bookshop, his only destination in a short stop at the ancient town. He expects, and finds, exemplars of scholarship, but he also finds this book, which is not.
Use: 1.25
To put the bluntest demerit first, it was arrogant to title this book The British Isles. It should have been A Sketch and Critical Analysis of British History: Assuming Much, Explaining Little, and Delighting in Plot Holes. In the event, the staid, misleading title did its work and extracted 10 British pounds from my person.
The utility of this work rates between "Specialized" [1.5] and "As An Example of Gaping Holes" [1]. Knowing very little about early British history, I bought it to learn. The first half of the book covering early Celtic history up to the break-up of the Norman Empire was the most interesting, even if one learns very little about it by reading this book. Straining the tortured narrative for scraps of interesting historical data was the only reason I finished this book.
Writing: 2.07
A pedantic, academic, contrarian style [2.25] characterizes the narrative. I say this as a scholar, who enjoys good academic writing; this is not the good kind. The pacing was atrocious [1.5], rarely permitting me to read more than a few handfuls of pages at a time. The prose was variable, ranging between ratings of [2] and [3.75; the Introduction only]. Its exact rating was [2.46]. In short, no amount of editing could save this work; it is irredeemable.
Truth: 2.25
Its best element was its uncommon [3] axiom of opposing the classical viewpoint of British history as that of primarily England, or a "Unionist" viewpoint. Other elements were of common truth [2.5] or mild bias [2]. Kearney employs copious references to other works, but the endemic lack of nuance in his Body casts doubt upon the objectivity of his citations. Interspersed, but not axiomatic, were notable [1.5] omissions or untruths, such as the following.
Kearney seemed not to understand the difference between Irish and Roman Christianity on pp.32-35. All of chapter 2 could be called a 'revisionist' defense of Roman rule, in opposition to the rosy, colonialist interpretation; but almost no nuance was provided for the other side. He penned only one line on Mary Queen of Scots' execution, and made it sound like hers was an execution of mere riddance.
Chapter 7 covered the Reformation, but offered only some of its political effects. Later, he was overly skeptical and even dismissive of pro-unification testimony in the 16th and 17th centuries. He attempted to cover immigration in the modern era in some detail, but barely touched Islamic fundamentalism. He called Thatcher's government radical, but not Leninists elsewhere in the book nor the Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams who claimed the Irish Famine of the 1840s was an intentional, governmental conspiracy and comparable to the Holocaust.
Takeaway
Do not purchase this book unless you are a diehard consumer of British history. For my part, I hope to find a History of early Britain with some real solidity one day.
(W: 2.07, U: 1.25, T: 2.25)
Exact rating: 1.89
#89 of 90 in genre
A bright-eyed American walks reverently into the Cambridge University Press Bookshop, his only destination in a short stop at the ancient town. He expects, and finds, exemplars of scholarship, but he also finds this book, which is not.
Use: 1.25
To put the bluntest demerit first, it was arrogant to title this book The British Isles. It should have been A Sketch and Critical Analysis of British History: Assuming Much, Explaining Little, and Delighting in Plot Holes. In the event, the staid, misleading title did its work and extracted 10 British pounds from my person.
The utility of this work rates between "Specialized" [1.5] and "As An Example of Gaping Holes" [1]. Knowing very little about early British history, I bought it to learn. The first half of the book covering early Celtic history up to the break-up of the Norman Empire was the most interesting, even if one learns very little about it by reading this book. Straining the tortured narrative for scraps of interesting historical data was the only reason I finished this book.
Writing: 2.07
A pedantic, academic, contrarian style [2.25] characterizes the narrative. I say this as a scholar, who enjoys good academic writing; this is not the good kind. The pacing was atrocious [1.5], rarely permitting me to read more than a few handfuls of pages at a time. The prose was variable, ranging between ratings of [2] and [3.75; the Introduction only]. Its exact rating was [2.46]. In short, no amount of editing could save this work; it is irredeemable.
Truth: 2.25
Its best element was its uncommon [3] axiom of opposing the classical viewpoint of British history as that of primarily England, or a "Unionist" viewpoint. Other elements were of common truth [2.5] or mild bias [2]. Kearney employs copious references to other works, but the endemic lack of nuance in his Body casts doubt upon the objectivity of his citations. Interspersed, but not axiomatic, were notable [1.5] omissions or untruths, such as the following.
Kearney seemed not to understand the difference between Irish and Roman Christianity on pp.32-35. All of chapter 2 could be called a 'revisionist' defense of Roman rule, in opposition to the rosy, colonialist interpretation; but almost no nuance was provided for the other side. He penned only one line on Mary Queen of Scots' execution, and made it sound like hers was an execution of mere riddance.
Chapter 7 covered the Reformation, but offered only some of its political effects. Later, he was overly skeptical and even dismissive of pro-unification testimony in the 16th and 17th centuries. He attempted to cover immigration in the modern era in some detail, but barely touched Islamic fundamentalism. He called Thatcher's government radical, but not Leninists elsewhere in the book nor the Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams who claimed the Irish Famine of the 1840s was an intentional, governmental conspiracy and comparable to the Holocaust.
Takeaway
Do not purchase this book unless you are a diehard consumer of British history. For my part, I hope to find a History of early Britain with some real solidity one day.
July 25, 2007
Prof. Kearney's book takes to task the modern notion that we need to study history through the lense of the nation-state. Instead, he looks at the British Isles as a kind of organic whole -- not a homogenous or static whole, to be certain, but a geographically distinct region sharing cultural and ethnic ties. A useful and interesting work.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews