A Brief Truth about the English

I am an historian. Shocking to many people as my given profession is not of this line. But not being an historian does not preclude me from being an historian. I read much, write often and submit frequently.

In my readings of American days I find much discussion of the people of a small island. They are called English (not to be confused with “the English” referenced by Amish to non-Amish). Much to my chagrin, these kind people are very much maligned in these histories. “How can this be so?” I asked myself over and again. My conclusion? Ingrates. All Americans. This I will thusly explain, for the history is the thing.

Who exactly the first “Englishman” was is a debatable, and therefore useless, concern. What matters is he did not exist before 1215. And I say “he” because clearly the first Englishman was a man. Now, King John signs the Magna Carta and civilization is born. Instantly and instinctively the English knew that a proper life is regulated and ordered. The schedule is loosely as follows: up at dawn, off to work, have a lunch, home to yell at servants, eat dinner discussing horticulture or arborculture, a glass of brandy, a book, a pipe and bed. No more than 20 words said all day. Waste not, want not!

Being the kind hearted people they are, the English wanted to share this knowledge, which they clearly perfected, with the rest of the world. So they took to the seas. Unfortunately, the rest of the world, ignorant of this “proper” way of living, resisted. The English, like any normal people, defended themselves. They realized it was their moral duty to show these people the proper life, no matter how long they had to defend themselves. They hunkered down for the long stay. Why long? Good question. First, there was the language barrier. Clearly the people could not learn if they did not speak English. And, as they were inherently ignorant (not being English, and all), the English had to teach them English. Only then could they properly re-educate them about the way things could and should be, once they would get rid of their ridiculous lifestyles. Thirdly, paternal love. Once in place the English did not want to see their adopted sons fall. They stayed to guide.

As is clear, there was no “Empire”. People were not killed or jailed without due cause. Without merit. All were welcomed with open arms. When some could not (or refused to) learn they were put down for their benefit and for the benefit of the whole.

Though the need for convincing of the good the English have had is no longer necessary, we shall now examine concrete examples of English benevolence. Specifically, we shall start with basic practices. The English taught the barbarian hordes to take metal, sharpen the edges and rip their scraggly beards clean from their faces. They took the loose, brown, comfortable clothes and introduced the gentlemanly starched white cuffs and neck collars, and womanly girdles, braces and ruffles. No more natural fruit juices. Only tea before dinner with stale bread, and brandy as the only gentleman’s drink (though only after nine in the morning for only a scoundrel would have a taste before that!).

Amazingly, these contributions have been overlooked. It is said that winners write history, and losers have to live it. This lack of bias, devastatingly, rings true here. Once the English were convinced that their adopted children were adequately prepared, they departed. Every nation, despite parental impulse, must be let to have a go at independence. Here, then, is the “winners’” history. Winners in that they feel they have won their freedom. Much like a child who does not know he was freed by his father, the child feels victorious.

One such people are the Irish. These were a simple and hard working people on an island next to England (which is retrospect proves sad that they were not enlightened as were the English). They were not terribly bright. This point is easily verifiable by the numbers of people in the clergy to escape free thought in life. Now, the English tried to help educate the Irish in norms and mores of behaviour in society. Like a puppy being trained, there was nipping at misunderstood lessons. Thusly they were smacked on the nose. Not always a workable tool, the English then knew there was a good lesson to teach: use the mind when the body is weak. Through sleight of hand and word of mouth, the English tricked the Irish out of their lands in courts. In this way, every nation could see how the English were trying to help the Irish come to an understanding of how society works through a little tough love. The Irish economy is only now beginning to show signs of rebounding from that refusal to learn centuries ago.

One last example of “winners’ history” – India. Here the English tried to introduce modern concepts of business and international relations. The Indian response? A hunger strike. Their hero was no general. No warrior. No bloodied sword bearer. Rather, a simple man named Gandhi. The mere following of such an anti-English man is a testament to the Indians refusal to accept the enlightened world of the English.

As an historian, I am deeply disturbed at the myopia of my fellow man. In all history, no nation was as altruistic as the English. Yet, we colonials still smirk and sneer “we won the Revolution!”. Did we? Was there even a revolution, per se? Maybe thanks should be given to the English to letting us blossom on our own. Grow to our full potential. “Win” the war.

I, for one, say thank you, English.

Signed,
JT Parral
[e-mail]

P.S. I am available for discussion at nine in the morning for brandy, or at four in the afternoon for tea.