How The Scots Invented The Modern World by Arthur Herman

This book has been sitting on my 'To Read' shelf for a long time - probably at least a year or two.  I love the idea of it, that the Scottish nation has influenced the modern world in more ways than many people (including the Scots) even realise.  But I had a sneaking suspicion that it wouldn't be an 'easy read', something to curl up with on a Monday evening with a cup of hot chocolate, so it stayed on the shelf until this year's resolution brought it out.

I am glad that I read it, and I would recommend it.  I'd recommend it for its overview of Scottish culture, the remarkable level to which this small country did influence (if not invent) the world as we know it, and a different perspective on British history as we've probably known it.  But unless you're (like me) in the midst of a strong resolution to read a full book all the way through to the end, I'd intersperse it with some other lighter books, because this can be hard going.  The first half is more of a political and economical history book - sprinkled with phrases like "James Mill made this quasi-paternalist view the cornerstone of British colonial policy".  You get the feeling that the author just shivers with delight at reading another tome by Adam Smith or David Hume, and imagines that you do, too.  He spends pages of detail on a publication like the Edinburgh Review, why it was influential, who contributed to it, how long it lasted, and why it was a shining beacon of truth and beauty in a land coming to know itself.  On Jacobitism and Ulster Scots and Culloden and the Forty-Five, and sometimes I'd read a paragraph three or four times before I saw a glimmer of understanding.  Partly that's me - I tend to read and skim quickly, and this isn't my normal kind of reading - but partly it's just this author's way of focusing on what's most interesting to him.  As per usual, with authors!

What also made it hard going was the classic hard view on the Presbyterians and Calvinists.  He starts right in quite literally on page one of chapter one saying that Calvinism's "austere and harsh dogmas...that the God of the Bible was a stern and jealous God, filled with wrath at all sinners and blasphemers...were themselves natural extensions of Knox's own personality".  As a Calvinist who attends a Reformed Presbyterian church in Scotland which is directly descended from the churches of that time and place, it's never enjoyable to see your beliefs and denomination reduced to that which is harsh, unkind, and miserable.  Statements like "the Kirk wiped out all traditional forms of collective fun" (and then listing out pagan rituals), or "one of the pillars of 'worldlie strength' that Knox despised was political authority" (it wasn't a despising of authority, it was a desire to see that authority relegated to its correct place, under God's authority), or "the Covenanters were inspired less by their love of democracy than by their hatred of Satan".  The author seems to almost thrill in scaring us with these horror-mongers who crept around the church, rooting out all fun and joy and laughter, and replacing it with anger, hatred, and wrathful judgment.  Sadly, this is a fairly typical view of Calvinistic theology by those who wish to see Scotland grow and thrive: I've attended business seminars at which the speaker proclaimed that one of the reasons Scots don't start businesses is because their spirits were crushed by Calvinistic theology.  Naturally many people want religion to be warm and welcoming, with no one feeling bad at any time, and I can definitely confirm that God's Word does not have that as its primary objective.  As a matter of fact, a clear understanding of the Scriptures indicates that you must have the bad news (we are sinners, we deserve God's judgment) in order to get to the good news (God in love paid the penalty Himself for sin, and we thereby escape that wrath and judgment, entering into abundant joy!).  But lest I turn this into a sermon (too late), I'll just say that one of the things I appreciated about this book was understanding how many people do view this aspect of Scotland's history.  There's no point only reading books with which you agree!

As you move into the second half of the book, things begin to speed on a bit.  The heavy-going of discussions on economics and descriptions of battles begins to move into details of Scots who invented, contributed, supported, delivered in thousands of ways you never knew.  You must give massive credit to the Scots (and I do); you truly get a sense of how they did indeed, for such a tiny country, massively impact the whole world.  The telephone, Morse code, universities all over Britain and England and America, the steam engine, the proliferation of exceedingly well-trained and educated Scottish doctors, the immigration of Scots especially into Canada and the United States, are just a few examples of many.  Andrew Carnegie (himself a Scot) says, "America would have been a poor show had it not been for the Scotch."  Sir Walter Scott:  "I am a Scot and therefore I had to fight my way into the world."  It's fascinating to learn about Sir Walter Scott, and his influence on the culture.  "Scott had not only invented the modern historical novel, but one of its enduring themes: the idea of cultural conflict. He revealed to his readers that the development of 'civilisation' or modernity does not leave  clean or neat breaks; one stage does not effortlessly pass on to the next."  The same for David Livingstone and Andrew Carnegie - the look into their lives was revealing for themselves, for their country, and for the results that were borne out of their efforts.

It made me want to read more of the greats - more Sir Walter Scott, more Robert Louis Stevenson; to read biographies of Andrew Carnegie and David Livingstone (although not, I confess, any more about Adam Smith, David Hume, or Francis Hutcheson - I think he covered those pretty thoroughly).  And this is often the beauty of pressing on through a classic, but challenging, book - it inspires you.  It doesn't leave you worn out and exhausted from staying up all night to 'find out what happens', it livens you up a bit, stretches your mind and imagination, increases your sense of pride and nationality, and brings the past just that little bit more into the present, so that you press on with more focus and commitment to what lies before you.  It made me thankful - as a Christian, for what God did in and through Scotland and its reformations.  It gave me newly opened eyes to the history and beauty surrounding me on a daily basis.  It rang true that so many Scots had such a remarkable combination of a hardworking ethic combined with creativity and a willingness to take risks.  As one who is American-born, and Scottish by naturalisation, I'm proud to see a combination of these very factors in my blood, and to understand a little better why.  If I look back to the very beginning, and take on board what Herman proposes, then I'm merely returning to my roots, not creating new ones.  Many Americans would feel the same - sometimes in Scotland we feel as though every American who comes through insists that they, too, are Scottish, even though they're not quite sure how or why.  The author here would agree - and reading his defense of the incredible outpouring of talent and energy that went into the United States from Scotland, I'm tempted to, as well.

Herman tried to end the book by putting a twist on Samuel Morse's first message, "What hath God wrought?"  As one whose focus is not God and His wonders, the author of this book wanted to put all the glory on the Scots.  I feel fairly confident that many of those whose works he so gloriously lauds would refuse that honour, and turn it back again on the God they worshiped, imitated, and loved.