"History is bunk" - or is it?

Again, I beg forgiveness of my apparent laziness in not writing something original but, honestly, I just do not have the time - or the energy.  On second thoughts, perhaps it's a relief to you all.  Anyway, here is an extract from Mark Steyn's review of Andrew Roberts's latest book, History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900:

"The English-speaking peoples did not invent the ideas that nonetheless made them great," concedes Roberts. "The Romans invented the concept of Law, the Greeks one-freeman-one-vote democracy, the Dutch modern capitalism..." But it is the English world that has managed to make these blessings seemingly permanent features of the landscape.

As Roberts sees it, the story of the 20th century is one of anglophone democracies defending the planet against what he calls four assaults: "The First Assault: Prussian Militarism 1914-17", "The Second Assault: Fascist Aggression 1931-39", "The Third Assault: Soviet Communism 1945-49" and "The Fourth Assault: Islamicist Terrorism and its De Facto Allies". In between come periods of complacency ("The Wasted Breathing Space: 1990-11 September 2001") and loss of faith ("The Long, Dismal, Drawling Tides: The 1970s"), but in the end the good guys always step up to the plate.

Discuss!

Comments

[dearieme]

"step up to the plate"? Oh dear God! From left field, presumably?

[David Duff]

Yes, I know, 'Dearieme', other people's sporting metaphors never translate well but, apropos our 'Cousins', wasn't it Wilde who said that it was only our common language that seperates us?

[N.I.B.]

Indeed they don't. Doesn't 'stepping up to the plate' imply you've been hanging around on the sidelines waiting for your turn to bat?

Now theres a can of worms...