Actually, the more I think about this, the more I think the issue is not
a misrecognition of the pluralism of the contemporary US, but a
misrecognition of the pluralism of 12th/13th century Britain & British
history itself, imagining a kind of pure "Englishness" that was
threatened by the "French" King Louis. In fact, the English King at the
time, John, was the first British monarch to actually speak English,
though it really wasn't his first language--though born in England, he
was culturally "French" and spent much of his youth there--he was
Norman. After the Norman invasion of Britain and for many years, there
was little distinction among the ruling class between being English and
French--the distinction would not have made sense to them, as categories
of identity. The emerging English language of John's time was (to use a
modern term) a mash-up of Anglo-Saxon and French. Whether or not Louis
was defeated, Britain would have been ruled by a "French" king. Indeed
it had been, since 1066.
On 8/28/15 8:28 PM, Rich Heyman wrote:
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 12:45:04 -0400
> From: Hillary Shaw<[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: The forgotten King Louis I of England.
>
> You crit-geoggers in America would probably now be speaking French,
> and probably be Catholics as the Reformation might not have happened.
> Maybe.
>
> 'Course, some of us in the US are Catholics, and Jews, and Muslims,
> and Hindus. And some of us do speak French, and Spanish, and Thai, and
> Korean...
>
>
>
--
Rich Heyman
Urban Studies Program
Department of Geography
University of Texas at Austin
Member, Texas State Employees Union, CWA Local #6186
|