Arrghh!!! That’s Anglo-Saxon for ‘I’d better get off this laptop and be at work on time if I want to stay employed.’
I love being surrounded by history. My church, First Unitarian, has a bell forged by Paul Revere and Sons.
We all remember the famous poem about Paul Revere’s midnight ride. He bravely raced to warn the Redcoats that anti-colonialist insurgents were massing in the towns planning to overturn the legitimate Anglo-Saxon reign of, God bless him, King George.
Sadly, the loyalists failed, and instead of just being chill, like Canada, we had an American Revolution. This is a deep national embarrassment, and we never finish apologizing for it when one of our candidates goes to solicit the English vote.
What? They can’t vote here? Even the Anglo-Saxons? Well, they can send some of those British pounds to the campaign. That counts more than votes anyway. And lots of their people have dual citizenship, like that really big person, Newscorp.
There’s lots of history nerds in Britain, and The Guardian gets all technical about the successive invasions that hit their isles through history.
Speaking of invasions, I’m not sure I can really get into the Anglo Saxon thing– my ancestors having emmigrated to escape starvation during the Irish Famine. But I’m not holding a grudge. Don’t push it, though. And the Saxons? Weren’t a lot of them Germans? The US has strong connections to Germany, so maybe that country is next on the campaign trail.
What confuses me is why brilliant thinkers like Dinesh D’Souza and Newt Gingrich and that guy on the Romney campaign talk like anti-colonialism is a bad thing. And like we never had issues with the British.
Next summer should we have a pageant where the Redcoats rescue the Gaspee from burning and throw the insurgents in Guantanamo? It’s not like history hasn’t been re-written before.
Kmareka.com 
Oh, snap! I agree with you, and love the way you expressed your opinion.
As I recall, the Angles and Saxons were Germanic folks who pushed across Europe and moved into Britain or tried to. Britain of course was populated by the Scots, Welsh and irish folks, if I recall correctly, all Celtic and with a good mix derived from the Romans, long occupiers. Arthur (or Artorious), who may well have existed, was likely a Romanized Celt, attempting to keep out the Angles and Saxon invasion (the modern English). Of course in 1066, at Hastings, William’s Norman invaders defeated Harold, the Anglo-Saxon ruler of Britain, and it all changed again. Normandy, of the land of the North Men, the Vikings, ended up bringing their culture to Britain, creating the modern British/English nation with the wonderful richness of the Welsh, Scots and Irish, Another irony is of course that later “North Men” or Vikings started pillaging from Scandinavia, the same Britain, Ireland and Scotland William invaded from Normandy. But I am not a historian, so am entitled to be befuddled.
None of this has anything to do with American having American English as the national language, a fact of history. We were almost French, as was Canada. Early on, the Dutch had a foothold here, as did the Spanish and in the far West, the Russians did a lot of wandering. There are tales of Welsh King Madoc making to America, the Vikings got here and may have something to do with the Newport Tower and a colony in Newfoundland and a Runestone in Minnesota. Several stem Indian languages were here early and perhaps 100 or more regional branches of these formed. These folks were likely beaten here by an earlier people as seen in the non-indian skeletal remains found in 9,000 BC layers in Washington state, and of course the Eskimo languages are very different from all languages.
Historically, however, we are an English speaking nation–American English to be sure. Was it Winston Churchill who said America and Britain are two nations separated by a common language? There is nothing preventing anyone from speaking as many languages as they choose, but the national tongue is as it is and has been, kind of, maybe, English as interpreted in America.
Thank you for the history lesson taking a longer and wider view than the pop press.
Bi-lingual countries are not happy places-the French/English schism in Canada is real and never going away.Belgium is a country that is virtually all White and 95% Catholic and yet bitterly divided by language-Flemish vs.French-the hatred is something you have to see in person to believe.Cameroon has many languages,but the French vs,English split is similar to that in Canada.This is all stuff I’ve been exposed to first hand.
When a group of people within a country forms a language enclave they limit themselves from economic advancement and a mistrust arises between them and the dominant language speakers that needn’t be.
What are you saying,Nancy?
Perdoname, I wasn’t even thinking about the ‘English Only’ folks. I was wondering since when is ‘anti-colonialism’ a bad thing?
Usually your meaning is crystal clear-maybe it’s me.Anti colonialism is never a bad thing.The aftermath of colonialism has brought horrors to Africa,the Middle East,and Asia.Our “colonial”history is negligible.Except for the Philippines and there seems to be no hard feelings there.
BTW being bilingual,I think it’s a good thing on a personal level.I just think a common language makes for better inclusion and understanding.