"Otto von Bismarck astutely (although apocryphally) pointed out that ‘The most significant event of the 20th century will be the fact that the North Americans speak English.’"
Many if not most of my own astute observations also suffer from being apocryphal.
The first time I heard the title phrase of this article, was in the mid-80's on a port call to Cannes France with the US Navy. For the most part the people were lovely and the waitstaff polite and helpful. So, when one younger waiter got annoyed with a group of my shipmates for trying to order in English, he walked away and muttered what amounted to "f#cking Americans" in french. One of our party was fairly conversant in french, but hadn't tried to translate for us, told us what he said. When the waiter came back to give us our bill, my friend says to him in French, "If it wasn't for us you'd all be speaking German". He stiffened like he had got an electric shock and made a quick exit to the back. But later when we went to leave he came out and said in perfect English, with a smile, "Thank you very much".
Here's a line from Simon Winder's "Germania" on the Franco-Prussian War:
"This meant that when war did at last break out in 1870, the British were neutral, assuming despondently that the French would win, but hoping that the Prussians might at least damage them severely in the process. This British attitude of seeing the Germans as a sort of thermostat that could be regulated to keep France at the right temperature now spectacularly malfunctioned as Prussian troops marauded across Normandy (leaving a trail of excellent Guy de Maupassant short stories behind them). But this was a surprising outcome – and surprising to many Germans too, until then hostile and sceptical towards what was happening." (p. 331).
As soon as I saw the reference to the anthropologist in Appalachia in the early twentieth century, I knew it must be Kephart. Our Southern Highlanders is a great book.
"When the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783, recognising the independence of the United States, a French delegate reportedly told his defeated British counterpart that the new country ‘would form the greatest empire in the world.’ To which the British representative is said to have replied: ‘Yes sir, and they will all speak English; every one of ‘em.’"
Napoleon Bonaparte was quite self-conscious about how American power would be enhanced by his signing of the Louisiana Purchase and how this would ultimately be to the detriment of "England" (in terms of its relative power):
"The sale [of Louisiana] assures forever the power of the United States and I have given England a rival who, sooner or later, will humble her pride.”
"The nationalist wars of the 20th century had an ideological element, with liberal democracy proving triumphant, but they also might be considered a struggle between the English and German-speaking peoples, a struggle decisively won by the former.
Without the United States’ entry into the first war, Germany would inevitably have dominated the continent and German would still be the language of the middle classes in Prague, Riga and Tallinn."
Hence why it is a common feature of alternate realities where the North American power balkanizes to feature a German dominated Europe:
"The Irish and Australians are not seen as ‘outlandish’, although that view is influenced not just by a common language but by the huge numbers of people with relatives in both countries."
Some years ago I was chatting to an Irish colleague, and remarked, "We don't really think of the Irish as foreigners." A week or two later I told him, "We don't really think of the Northern Irish as British." Self-evidently, the two statements were mutually contradictory. And yet, I still think they were both accurate.
Though not quite the same thing, living in Leicester I come into contact with many Indians and I subconsciously divide them into two groups: those who speak like me and those who don't. I barely distinguish the former from native Brits, whereas I feel more distant and less warmly towards the latter. One Indian gentleman I was talking to in the local park used the word 'dubious' and I immediately took a liking to him!
The 'English Speaking Peoples' was an obscure and languishing Whiggish late Imperial fever-dream until it was taken up and re-animated by Wintson Churchill to justify and palliate mid 20th Century English Attlanticist subserviency. The Servile Relationship.
It has caused no end of muddle since then. I'm not at all surprised to see Lord Hannan trading in it. There are few Whiggish tropes he doesn't. God bless him.
The basis of English nationality is not linguistic, it is not ethnic, and it is certainly not civic. It is feudal. It is derived from loyalty to the crown. It is an obligation, not a right. See Blackstone's Commentaries.
Neither the 'nativist' nor the 'globalist' wants to acknowledge this because to do so involves a submission to obedience rather than an assertion of right. And so we end up going down rabbitholes about 'values' or 'DNA' or such like.
As far back as 1199 King John (Norman French speaker) changed the Royal Style of the Sovereign from Rex Anglorum (King of the English) to Rex Angliae (King of England) re-emphasising the fact that the basis of belonging to the English nation is common loyalty, not common descent or common language.
Which is why - for instance - we can say there are more ‘English’ in The United Sates today than in Great Britain and still make sense. They seceded from 'England' when they abjured their loyalty.
The English political nation grew up out of the Feudal duty owed to the person of the Sovereign not shared ethnicity or language. Thus the English of Lothian in Scotland, where my ancestors are from, were never part of the English Nation. For the same reason, between 1286 and 1967, the term ‘England’ legally included Wales in it.
People only started talking about a 'Common Language' when the Imperial Centre, 'wont to command' was forced to 'sue' for help.
And even then (perhaps revealingly) no-one evr seems to have in mind the 200 Million Indians who speak the Kings better than many a Son of Hengist today.
I’m reading “A Short History of America” by Simon Jenkins, whom I rate highly as, well, a chap. I think the split really came in the late 1800s, when anyone with the money for an Atlantic crossing, even in steerage, could start a new life in New York or Chicago. That still left a fairly English, Scottish or Irish influenced elite - have a listen to FDR in one of his fireside chats: none of the yadda yadda yadda we get these days…
OK but I've been asked more than once why I say "aluminum". That's easy to answer. Vase, route, herb, and Moscow I don't know about and half the time don't even know how I'm supposed to pronounce.
"Otto von Bismarck astutely (although apocryphally) pointed out that ‘The most significant event of the 20th century will be the fact that the North Americans speak English.’"
Many if not most of my own astute observations also suffer from being apocryphal.
the one famous quote not attributed to Churchill at least...
I think it was Abraham Lincoln who said that Churchill came up with all the best quotes, not leaving any for those who came after him.
The first time I heard the title phrase of this article, was in the mid-80's on a port call to Cannes France with the US Navy. For the most part the people were lovely and the waitstaff polite and helpful. So, when one younger waiter got annoyed with a group of my shipmates for trying to order in English, he walked away and muttered what amounted to "f#cking Americans" in french. One of our party was fairly conversant in french, but hadn't tried to translate for us, told us what he said. When the waiter came back to give us our bill, my friend says to him in French, "If it wasn't for us you'd all be speaking German". He stiffened like he had got an electric shock and made a quick exit to the back. But later when we went to leave he came out and said in perfect English, with a smile, "Thank you very much".
Oh that’s lovely. I hope you gave him an American style tip!
"If it wasn't for us you'd all be speaking German"
Is this line borrowed from A Fish Called Wanda (1988) per chance?
I love, love, love the English language. The older I get to more I love the familiar sounds of its words. Their infinite variety. God what a gift!
Here's a line from Simon Winder's "Germania" on the Franco-Prussian War:
"This meant that when war did at last break out in 1870, the British were neutral, assuming despondently that the French would win, but hoping that the Prussians might at least damage them severely in the process. This British attitude of seeing the Germans as a sort of thermostat that could be regulated to keep France at the right temperature now spectacularly malfunctioned as Prussian troops marauded across Normandy (leaving a trail of excellent Guy de Maupassant short stories behind them). But this was a surprising outcome – and surprising to many Germans too, until then hostile and sceptical towards what was happening." (p. 331).
“Two nations divided by a common language”
Wilde? Shaw?
Classic
As soon as I saw the reference to the anthropologist in Appalachia in the early twentieth century, I knew it must be Kephart. Our Southern Highlanders is a great book.
"When the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783, recognising the independence of the United States, a French delegate reportedly told his defeated British counterpart that the new country ‘would form the greatest empire in the world.’ To which the British representative is said to have replied: ‘Yes sir, and they will all speak English; every one of ‘em.’"
Napoleon Bonaparte was quite self-conscious about how American power would be enhanced by his signing of the Louisiana Purchase and how this would ultimately be to the detriment of "England" (in terms of its relative power):
"The sale [of Louisiana] assures forever the power of the United States and I have given England a rival who, sooner or later, will humble her pride.”
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/april-11/talleyrand-offers-to-sell-louisiana
I guess Boney had the last laugh against the British, though arguably the Americans have proven the real nation of shopkeepers.
"The nationalist wars of the 20th century had an ideological element, with liberal democracy proving triumphant, but they also might be considered a struggle between the English and German-speaking peoples, a struggle decisively won by the former.
Without the United States’ entry into the first war, Germany would inevitably have dominated the continent and German would still be the language of the middle classes in Prague, Riga and Tallinn."
Hence why it is a common feature of alternate realities where the North American power balkanizes to feature a German dominated Europe:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/wiki/doku.php?id=alternate_history:for_want_of_a_nail
https://www.deviantart.com/quantumbranching/art/For-want-of-a-nail-for-all-nails-289345322
https://www.alternatehistory.com/wiki/doku.php?id=timelines:decades_of_darkness
See The World in 1935:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/
https://www.alternatehistory.com/wiki/doku.php?id=timelines:fight_and_be_right
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/fight-and-be-right.94562/page-2#post-1747487
"The Irish and Australians are not seen as ‘outlandish’, although that view is influenced not just by a common language but by the huge numbers of people with relatives in both countries."
Some years ago I was chatting to an Irish colleague, and remarked, "We don't really think of the Irish as foreigners." A week or two later I told him, "We don't really think of the Northern Irish as British." Self-evidently, the two statements were mutually contradictory. And yet, I still think they were both accurate.
Though not quite the same thing, living in Leicester I come into contact with many Indians and I subconsciously divide them into two groups: those who speak like me and those who don't. I barely distinguish the former from native Brits, whereas I feel more distant and less warmly towards the latter. One Indian gentleman I was talking to in the local park used the word 'dubious' and I immediately took a liking to him!
America will also likely come to see more foreign to the British as it's increasingly influenced by Latin America.
The 'English Speaking Peoples' was an obscure and languishing Whiggish late Imperial fever-dream until it was taken up and re-animated by Wintson Churchill to justify and palliate mid 20th Century English Attlanticist subserviency. The Servile Relationship.
It has caused no end of muddle since then. I'm not at all surprised to see Lord Hannan trading in it. There are few Whiggish tropes he doesn't. God bless him.
The basis of English nationality is not linguistic, it is not ethnic, and it is certainly not civic. It is feudal. It is derived from loyalty to the crown. It is an obligation, not a right. See Blackstone's Commentaries.
Neither the 'nativist' nor the 'globalist' wants to acknowledge this because to do so involves a submission to obedience rather than an assertion of right. And so we end up going down rabbitholes about 'values' or 'DNA' or such like.
As far back as 1199 King John (Norman French speaker) changed the Royal Style of the Sovereign from Rex Anglorum (King of the English) to Rex Angliae (King of England) re-emphasising the fact that the basis of belonging to the English nation is common loyalty, not common descent or common language.
Which is why - for instance - we can say there are more ‘English’ in The United Sates today than in Great Britain and still make sense. They seceded from 'England' when they abjured their loyalty.
The English political nation grew up out of the Feudal duty owed to the person of the Sovereign not shared ethnicity or language. Thus the English of Lothian in Scotland, where my ancestors are from, were never part of the English Nation. For the same reason, between 1286 and 1967, the term ‘England’ legally included Wales in it.
People only started talking about a 'Common Language' when the Imperial Centre, 'wont to command' was forced to 'sue' for help.
And even then (perhaps revealingly) no-one evr seems to have in mind the 200 Million Indians who speak the Kings better than many a Son of Hengist today.
I’m reading “A Short History of America” by Simon Jenkins, whom I rate highly as, well, a chap. I think the split really came in the late 1800s, when anyone with the money for an Atlantic crossing, even in steerage, could start a new life in New York or Chicago. That still left a fairly English, Scottish or Irish influenced elite - have a listen to FDR in one of his fireside chats: none of the yadda yadda yadda we get these days…
'Well, he said they would all speak English – he didn’t say that they would speak it properly.'
It would help if Americans could pronounce simple words like maths, Moscow, herbs, vase, route, lieutenant, Nietzsche and aluminium.
People in Glasgow and Edinburgh understand this sentiment...
We pronounce it aluminum because we spell it aluminum.
That was part of my joke about simple words. It's not meant to be 'serious'.
OK but I've been asked more than once why I say "aluminum". That's easy to answer. Vase, route, herb, and Moscow I don't know about and half the time don't even know how I'm supposed to pronounce.
The only one in the list I disagree with is 'lieutenant'. When reading the word I simply can't make myself say the British version.