" Along with this, Pocock advances the claim that there is a need for a revival of the term "British History" because this is a historically based identity. He also believes that no true history of Britain has been written thus far and whatever has been written have been separate accounts for the histories of England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. Another problem is that our historical perspective is not only Anglo centric, it is also related to our predetermined triumph of that of "Political England (pg. 9)." Pocock reminds us that it is hard to write a history in other than English terms because the conqueror that dominates sets the rules, the way people shall think, and what people remember (p.10).
Pocock's "New" history proposes that the study of one's own country and then the study of the neighbor, as a separate unit is incorrect. He firmly believes that one should study his/her history as a whole, an expanding nation, all in unison and by doing this you do not take on the interpretation of a mother land; all become connected as one history. Pocock introduces the reader with a new term to label Britain, "ATLANIC ACHIPELAGO." The description of this term is a large, sub-sub continental island group lying off the northwestern coasts of geographic Europe. The island is then divided into lowland and highland zones Pocock says that it is much like the relationship between Japan and china along with the rest of Asia in the east coast. .
Pocock identifies several reasons for his "plea for a new subject." He begins by identifying that there is a lack of records and because of this it is difficult to sort out problem of nationality. He states that English history, Scottish history, and Irish history all happened before written documents were developed. He believes that it is not until there is Anglo-Norman power in Ireland that the history of the three kingdoms, which include England and Scotland, has in a sense begun.