Churchillian

[poliphilo]

If the adjective "Churchillian" implies gravitas and bulldogs and unchanging tradition then Churchill wasn't Churchillian at all. He was a mercurial sort of a chap- a  little ball of energy who bounced all over the first half of the twentieth century, changing his party alliegance not once but twice, annoying his colleagues, alienatiing whole tranches of the electorate, being witty and mischievous, mismanaging several great offices of state and doing all sorts of harebrained and often disastrous things. He was a politician for pity's sake- a chancer, an adventurer, a Jack the Lad.

He had his hour. No-one can take that from him. But...

He died 50 years ago. Expect to be reading a lot about him this year.

I came across an article yesterday- I forget who it was by- that linked his demise with Britain's loss of its role in the world. You know the drill. And I thought, O give us a break.

Just as Churchill was never really Churchillian- except in a few speeches where he was brilliantly faking it- so Churchillian Britain- land of Empire and tradition and chaps in gold braid with feathered hats- never really existed either. We're a nation of pushy buggers (Churchill being a good example of the type) who lucked into an Empire and then lucked out again. We were never Rome. We're a people who are very good at exploring and inventing and making believe and nicking things (it's no accident weve got such a great theatrical tradition) and our very few years of being top nation were a brilliant triumph of bragging and blagging and riding our luck. We always knew it was a bit of a con (see Gilbert and Sullivan). The Empire was an aberration- and far from having lost our role when it fell apart we've gone back to who we always were- a nation of pirates and poets and dodgy entrepreneurs. The fifty years since Churchill went up the river have been brilliant years for us- think of the outpouring of British talent from the Beatles to J.K. Rowling- not forgetting our invention of the World Wide Web and the reinvention of the City of London as Wide Boy Central.

Still seeking a role? Rubbish. More like business as usual.

Comments

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

All nations are mythical (which isn't to say of course that they don't exist), and the nation you describe is no less mythical than the imperial one, but I agree that we carry it off more convincingly than last year's imperial fashion. Braid and epaulettes by their nature border on the ludicrous.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's all true.

The imperial myth is becoming a bit of a drag though; it's holding us back and depressing us when actually we're doing pretty well.

[matrixmann]

This guy also has a round obit this year?
Well, good luck.
Wonder what's going to happen what kind of drama they will make here when it's the Führer's 70th anniversary of his death.
More importantly, what they're going to do now with his famous book because, the author being dead for 70 years, the copyright that the Free State of Bavaria has on it vanishes then.
For people who don't know: This circumstance is the only reason why it had been banned in Germany.
Bavaria did give permission to no-one to ever reprint anything out of that book, not even for scientifical research or presentation.
The rulings say here after 70 years of an author's death, something turns into "common property" (however you translate "Allgemeingut" in this case) and so the old copyright expires.

See what they'll be going to do if no Bavaria can say no anymore.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I've never read the book so I don't know how it comes across.

I'd like to think it's undermined by its own absurdity but I expect there'll always be people ready to be fooled by it.

[matrixmann]

Never gotten a hold of it myself and I don't know if I would read it. They say, often it's better to know what evil you're talkin about, but on the other hand, in the end you're angry with yourself to have wasted time on reading that possible garbage.
I only know abroad from here, you can get a lot easier a hold of it because the copyright issue only exists in Germany. Allegedly you can mostly purchase it openly.
What the Russians did I don't know as they've been more at war with this stuff and I think still are so nowadays.

[negothick.livejournal.com]

"We're a people who are very good at exploring and inventing and making believe and nicking things"--sounds as though Daniel Defoe should be the National Poet, rather than Shakespeare or Milton!

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Except that Defoe- good as he may be- isn't in the same class as Shakespeare and Milton.

[negothick.livejournal.com]

True of course. . .but as a bricoleur, journalist, and creator of self-defining explorer and thief characters. . .he fits.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I think it's readily available over here, but I've never been tempted. As you say, I would begrudge the time spent on reading it.

[wyrmwwd.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

Besides giving me a good laugh this morning, you also educated me regarding the World Wide Web.

I had never considered that it had been "invented", but, if I had, I would probably had assumed that an American did it. Americans do everything, don't they? At least, that is what all Americans are raised to believe.

I always thought the Web just "happened". But no. Now I know about Sir Timothy John "Tim" Berners-Lee. Thank you!

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Berners-Lee could have made a fortune out of his invention but chose instead to give it to the world. A very great man.

[artkouros.livejournal.com]

I prefer to think of Britishers as hobbits.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

So did J.R.R. Tolkien.

[michaleen.livejournal.com]

I don't know. The British Empire lasted about as long as the Roman Empire, didn't it? The biggest difference is that Britain enjoyed a much softer landing, when collapse finally came.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I reckon the British Empire dates from 1876 (when Victoria was proclaimed Empress of India) to 1947 (when India achieved independence). Sure, Britain had colonies and dominions before and after those dates but its consciousness of itself as an Empire depended very largely on its ownership of the sub-continent.

The Roman Empire- and Rome's consciousness of itself as an Empire- lasted very much longer.

[michaleen.livejournal.com]

Well, it's consciousness of itself as empire is a very different thing.