There is nothing new under the sun…turn, turn, turn

Archive for the month “March, 2012”

Go west, young sportsman

It took over a century for the western United States to be politically incorporated into the country. Initially a set of territories, portions of the West eventually achieved statehood, with the last two states in the continental western United States joining the country in 1912.

Integration of the region into the country’s sports landscape took a little longer.

Over thirty years after Arizona and New Mexico joined the union – and nearly a century after California joined – the so-called National Football League had no team west of Chicago, Illinois. As of 1945, the Rams were still in Cleveland, and even the Cardinals were still in Chicago. But the NFL moved with lightning speed compared to the other major sports.

Twelve years later, in 1957, the NFL had teams in Los Angeles and San Francisco. But in major league baseball, the Dodgers and Giants were still New York teams. But baseball was beginning to penetrate the West and the South – the Athletics had moved to Kansas City, and the Braves had moved to Milwaukee. The southern team in Major League Baseball was the Washington Senators. Of course, this would change over the coming years, as the Dodgers and Giants moved to California, the Athletics to Oakland, and the Braves to Atlanta.

A couple of years later, the 1969-60 National Basketball Association was miniscule compared to the NBA of today. The entire league consisted of eight teams, divided into Western and Eastern Divisions. Of the four Western Division teams, only the Detroit Pistons (now in the Eastern Division) have remained at their original location. The Minneapolis Lakers relocated to Los Angeles, the St. Louis Hawks to Atlanta (again penetrating the South), and the Cincinnati Royals underwent a slight name change – they are now the Sacramento Kings. (This week.)

Of the four traditional major sports leagues, it took hockey the longest to establish a western presence. As of 1966-67, this multinational league did not have a team west of Chicago. Of course, the National Hockey League only had six teams at the time. It wasn’t until the league doubled its size in the following year that you could see hockey out west.

It’s hard to conceive of a time in which there was no major league baseball, football, basketball, or hockey in my home state of California. But then again, Los Angeles has not had a football team since the mid-1990s. Now try to imagine Los Angeles without Angels, Dodgers, Lakers, Clippers, Kings, or Ducks, and you’ll have an idea what the city’s sports landscape was like in the 1940s.

We didn’t have Sundaymania, did we?

Continuing on the sports theme, I want to talk about a popular sports figure. Not popular because of his sports prowess – frankly, he’s not that good – but because of other characteristics related to his religious beliefs. This part-time baseball player –

What? Did you think I was talking about a football player?

I was talking about baseball player turned evangelist Billy Sunday. Some excerpts from his Wikipedia article, which references several sources including Wendy Knickerbocker’s Sunday at the Ballpark: Billy Sunday’s Professional Baseball Career 1883-1890.

Sunday struck out four times in his first game, and there were seven more strikeouts and three more games before he got a hit. During his first four seasons with Chicago, he was a part-time player, taking Mike “King” Kelly’s place in right field when Kelly served as catcher.

Sunday’s speed was his greatest asset, and he displayed it on the basepaths and in the outfield. In 1885, the White Stockings arranged a race between Sunday and Arlie Latham, the fastest runner in the American Association. Sunday won the hundred-yard dash by about ten feet.

Sunday’s personality, demeanor, and athleticism made him popular with the fans, as well as with his teammates. Manager Cap Anson considered Sunday reliable enough to make him the team’s business manager, which included such duties as handling the ticket receipts and paying the team’s travel expenses.

While the parallels are uncanny, there is one important difference between Billy Sunday and Tim Tebow. Tebow became a Christian long before he ever got to the NFL. Sunday became a Christian midway through his baseball career.

No, Mark Sanchez does not have to worry about Peyton Manning (but who saw Tebowmania coming?)

I like to look at old predictions that went horribly awry – not to make fun of the person who made the prediction, but to analyze WHY the prediction went awry.

Today I want to look at a prediction that was entirely accurate – but still went horribly awry.

The following news item appeared in the Huffington Post (and other sources) on March 10.

After New York “looked into” pursuing Manning, Jets general manager Mike Tannenbaum announced Friday night that the team extended Sanchez’s contract by three years.

The statement above is entirely true. But the article continued:

The move ended speculation the Jets could push him aside to make way for the former Indianapolis Colts star who’s now a free agent.

“I’m going to be the starting quarterback for the next few years here, and that’s exciting,” Sanchez said on a conference call. “It gives the team just a reminder that I’m the leader of this team.”

Yep, Sanchez is still the main man for Rex Ryan’s Jets, not Manning.

“To find out that I could come back for three more years means the world to me,” Sanchez said. “I’m absolutely pleased to be a Jet.”

However, there are infinite possibilities in the world, and the contract extension for Mark Sanchez did NOT mean that his job was secure.

As many of you know, less than two weeks after that contract extension was given to Sanchez, Peyton Manning did find a team – the Denver Broncos. However, the Broncos already had a quarterback, Tim Tebow. Perhaps you’ve heard people talking about Tebow. And the next thing you know, Tebow found a new team – the New York Jets.

It just goes to show that you can’t take anything for granted, and something that seemed to be a sure thing just two weeks ago is suddenly less so.

Repurposing facilities for their original purposes – Upper Room Chapel in Fort Mill, SC

We often forget about this, but all of the wonderful buildings that have been built will eventually get torn down, if they haven’t been torn down already. Those edifices that look so sturdy could easily disappear thousands, or hundreds, or even tens of years later.

In the shorter term, a building may be built and then may be abandoned. Perhaps there will be a reason for someone to maintain the abandoned building, or perhaps the building will be torn down; if neither of those two options occurs, the building simply fades away, perhaps being taken over by the surrounding grasslands or forest or desert.

Americans (and others) of a certain age may remember the Heritage USA complex in Fort Mill, South Carolina. Built in the 1970s by Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker (leaders of the religious PTL Club), by 1986 Heritage USA was the third most popular vacation destination in the United States, eclipsed only by the (then) two U.S. theme parks established by Disney. Here are some home videos of Heritage USA from that period.

A mere three years later, in 1989, Heritage USA was closed, due to the fallout from the Jessica Hahn affair, investigations into the Bakkers’ finances, and Hurricane Hugo. Kerry Decker visited the empty park in August 1989:

Today, the property has been subdivided and hosts a number of religious and secular organizations, including a golf course, a communications broadcast facility, homes, a hotel…and a prayer center.

The prayer center traces its…um, heritage to the original efforts of the Bakkers. Despite their faults, they did some positive things:

The spiritual center of Heritage USA was a two-story building modeled after the Upper Room in Jerusalem, said to be the site where Jesus held the last supper with his disciples and then reappeared to them after his resurrection to give them the Holy Spirit….

Bakker’s Upper Room, say those that worked at or visited there, was the heartbeat of the resort.

It was staffed around the clock, with ministers waiting to pray for people, anoint them with oil and offer communion. Small cubicles along one wall offered space for private prayers.

In the basement, staffers manned numerous phones, listening to people’s prayer requests.

Prayer was a prime concern, said Dot Scott, who worked for PTL. She remembers Bakker telling the staff to stop and pray with anyone in need.

After praying with visitors, “I would tell people to go to the Upper Room and their needs would be met there,” said Scott, who lives in Fort Mill. “I asked them to come back to me and let me know how they felt. So many came back a different person.”

But after 1989, the Upper Room began to fade away.

Fred Yeary of Charlotte…was there the day Jim Bakker dedicated the park. He worked on the broadcast crew, and volunteered at the park, once even planting grass seed.

After the park closed, Yeary would occasionally drive past the Upper Room and remember. As trees started reclaiming the property – and people vandalized the building – Yeary stopped driving past.

“It was too painful,” he said.

In 2010, Russell James was at the site. James also had a long history with the site – he was one of those who purchased a $1,000 PTL “lifetime membership” which died prematurely. Now a Christian conference/concert promoter, he felt called (and I use the word “called” in the religious sense) to do something about the Upper Room, which was for sale.

He took a proposed contract to the property owner, Colston Enterprises. They discussed the contract and agreed to a sale.

James had a new mission. “God wanted me to return this property to a house of prayer and worship.”

Upper Room Chapel is now open, and its message is being conveyed in ways that the Bakkers could not have envisioned in the 1970s or 1980s. Ironically, the Bakkers themselves were technological pioneers, having participated in the founding of three religious broadcasting networks (CBN, TBN, and their own PTL). But could they have envisioned the Upper Room being promoted on a website for “Roadside America,” or that people would use mobile phones to “check in” to the site via Foursquare, or that there would be a webcam?

For more information, see http://www.upperroomchapel.com/ or https://www.facebook.com/groups/62147692320/.

The one constant – shiny new toys get old very quickly

In the process of writing a post that is scheduled to appear next week, I had occasion to reference a rant that I wrote back in August 2008. At the time, I was an employee of Motorola, and Motorola’s officially-approved web browser was Internet Explorer version 6.

To some people, this was, like, TOTALLY uncool.

In my August post, I referenced a March 2008 post from Offbeat Mammal that discussed the then state-of-the-art. At the time, I didn’t quote Offbeat Mammal’s introductory paragraph, but I’ll quote it now.

IE7 has been available for a couple of years, and IE8 has just gone into beta. Firefox 2 is getting on nicely with v3 in the wings and even Safari with version3 is looking pretty good on Windows. Some people even like Opera (actually, it’s pretty cool on the Mobile platform).

Now there was a portion of the Offbeat Mammal post that I did quote – the one that claimed that it was really really easy to get one of these new web browsers. (The mammal neglected the fact that large multinational corporations do not put software on an approved list until they ensure that the new software works with all of their existing applications.) Let’s look at the justification for getting a new browser, back in 2008.

If all those folks using a version of any browser older than IE7 could just upgrade, get with the program and do their bit (it’s only a few moments to download and install and it doesn’t even insist on a legal copy of Windows these days!) then developers could concentrate on making great web applications using all the cool Ajax, Silverlight and Javascript features without having to worry about testing a load of different quirky behaviors.

It’s interesting to look at this paragraph less than four years after it was written. You see, there’s one technology that Offbeat Mammal didn’t mention.


Even though the HTML5 standard isn’t approved, people are scrambling to support it, pushed in part by the late Steve Jobs’ insistence that Flash was not worth supporting.

And there are tests that can be performed to see if your web browser can handle HTML5.

For example, my favorite 2008 browser Internet Explorer 6 got a score of 25 in the HTML5 test.

Compare that to Internet Explorer 7, mentioned by Offbeat Mammal. That web browser got a much higher score for HTML5 compatibility, scoring a – well, a 26.

Firefox 2 and Safari 3? The HTML5 folks didn’t even bother to test them.

Why not? Because they tested the current versions of those and other programs. Here are those scores:

Google Chrome 17.0 374
Mozilla Firefox 11.0 335
Opera 11.60 329
Apple Safari 5.1 302
Microsoft Internet Explorer 9 141

All these scores are much higher than the scores for the state-of-the-art web browsers in March 2008.

Now to be fair, Offbeat Mammal never claimed that IE7 and IE8 would be the best things of all time. But when I went to look at his blog to see what he was saying about web browsers these days, I discovered that he had switched to blogging more at a Posterous site. But when I visited that site, I was unable to find any postings since December 14, 2011.

He’s probably using Pinterest.

Dance music…in the eighteenth century

During my hour-plus afternoon commute from Orange County to San Bernardino County, I will occasionally amuse myself by imagining that Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson has been transported through time and is sitting in the passenger seat next to me.

Why Franklin and Jefferson? Because those two are more likely to comprehend the changes that have occurred in the intervening centuries.

The freeway upon which we are driving is certainly recognizable – it’s much bigger than anything they’ve ever seen (at least in the United States), but at least they can figure out what it is.

And by some extrapolation, they may be able to figure out how something like kerosene can be used to propel the “automobiles” that are zooming by them on the freeway (I’d say “steam on steroids,” but neither Jefferson nor Franklin would understand the “on steroids” reference). Now I’ll grant that they would be traveling much faster than they had ever traveled in their lives, but eventually they’d get used to it and calm down – well, at least until I told them the story of how my car got flipped over in 1991.

Perhaps as they saw the power lines overhead, Franklin could be persuaded to remember that little incident with the kite during a thunderstorm, and would realize that the power of electricity had been harnessed. A quick glance at the instrument panel of my car would show various ways in which electricity could be used.

Now I’m not sure how I’d explain the radio to them – I can’t think of anything in their 18th century experience that was remotely similar to the radio – but at the end of the day, I’m sure these two Deists would just accept radio by faith.

However, the one thing that might cause confusion might be the sounds that came out of the radio once I turned it on.

I thought of this one afternoon when I was listening to Simian Mobile Disco’s “Sleep Deprivation.” Remember that to Jefferson and Franklin, the major 18th century musical instrument innovation was the piano (the pianoforte). How would one explain to an 18th century person that Franklin’s kite was placed in the air and used to power devices that create purely electronic music – including a thumping bass and a drum machine that had no parallel in Beethoven’s earlier work.

“Where’s the kite?”

I can just imagine Jefferson, covering his ears faster than a 1950’s Elvis hater, and screaming, “What is THAT?”

“That,” I would reply, “is dance music.”

Then Jefferson’s head would REALLY reel.

After all, the eighteenth century social dances of the courts of England and France, and even the more popular “frolicks” of that time, would not lend themselves to the Ibiza-style music. After all, these were the predecessors to today’s square dances (it was the Americans who invented the caller, so that the dancers wouldn’t have to memorize the complicated dance steps).

But the square dance has been modernized a bit.

Oh, those hipsters.

No, social media companies do NOT practice “digital feudalism”

One of my pet peeves is when people misuse pejorative words. My favorite example is the haphazard use of the word “fascist” to describe someone that someone else does not like. “George W. Bush is a fascist because he’s under the control of the oil companies.” However, in a true fascist system, the government would control business, not the other way around. (And no, that doesn’t necessarily make Ralph Nader a fascist.)

Well, another pejorative term has been bandied about. One example is this February 13, 2011 New York Times article by David Carr. Excerpts:

The Huffington Post, perhaps partly in an effort to polish the silver before going on the market, did hire a number of A-list journalists, but the site’s ecosystem of citizen bloggers and its community of commenters represent some share of its value. (How much is open to debate, as Nate Silver pointed out on the FiveThirtyEight blog.) Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr and Quora have been positioned as social networks, but each of them hosts timely content that can also be a backdrop for advertising, which makes them much more like a media company than, say, a phone utility.

The Huffington Post, social networks and traditional media may all seem like different animals, but as advertising, the mother’s milk of all media, flows toward social and amateur media, low-cost and no-cost content is becoming the norm.

So far so good, but then the label comes out:

Last month, Mr. [Anthony] De Rosa wrote — on Tumblr, naturally — about how audiences became publishers, essentially painting the fence for the people who own the various platforms.

“We live in a world of Digital Feudalism,” he wrote. “The land many live on is owned by someone else, be it Facebook or Twitter or Tumblr, or some other service that offers up free land and the content provided by the renter of that land essentially becomes owned by the platform that owns the land.”

So now Arianna Huffington and Mark Zuckerberg and the others are evil – well, they’re evil FEUDALISTS.

Except that they’re not. The term sounds cool, but feudalism was significantly different from the practices of these social media companies. These companies provide us with free accounts, which we then populate with data that allows the companies to receive advertising revenue. But this is NOT a digital example of the classic definition of feudalism, which includes reciprocal obligations and exclusivity. First, let’s look at a statement of classic feudalism:

The classic Francois-Louis Ganshof version of feudalism describes a set of reciprocal legal and military obligations among the warrior nobility, revolving around the three key concepts of lords, vassals and fiefs. A lord was in broad terms a noble who held land, a vassal was a person who was granted possession of the land by the lord, and the land was known as a fief. In exchange for the use of the fief and the protection of the lord, the vassal would provide some sort of service to the lord. There were many varieties of feudal land tenure, consisting of military and non-military service. The obligations and corresponding rights between lord and vassal concerning the fief form the basis of the feudal relationship.

Note the reciprocal obligations here. The vassal was obliged to provide service to the lord, and the lord was obliged to provide protection to the vassal. If anything, this is more akin to a traditional employment relationship than it is to the various content generation models used by the social media companies. I am obliged to write proposals for my employer, and my employer is obliged to pay me and provide me with health care. I am not obliged to share content on Facebook, and Facebook is not obliged to protect me in any way – in fact, if I examine Facebook’s terms of service, I would not be surprised to discover that Facebook disavows any obligation to protect me from viruses or any other bad content that I acquire from Facebook’s servers.

Now I’ll grant that Facebook provides me with a platform on which to practice virtual farming, but I am not OBLIGATED to farm, and Facebook is not OBLIGATED to do much of anything for me.

But the more important difference is the difference regarding exclusivity. Because classic feudalism was based upon land – a geographic concept – it would be difficult if not impossible for a vassal to serve multiple lords at once. As long as the land situation was stable, a particular piece of land only belonged to one lord, and the vassal would therefore be obliged to serve only one lord.

In most cases, exclusivity is not a requirement in the free content generation model of social media. When I signed up for Facebook, Facebook didn’t require me to disable my MySpace account. When I signed up for a Google+ account, Facebook didn’t stop me from doing so. When I created this WordPress blog, Google (Blogger) didn’t raise a stink.

So what would “digital feudalism” REALLY look like? Again, you’d have reciprocal obligations. If I became a writer for Huffington Post, then Huffington Post would require that I provide a specific amount of content. And in return, Huffington Post would give me something. Perhaps one could argue that Huffington Post would give me “fame,” but that would be much less than what a feudal lord gave to his vassals. If Arianna Huffington wanted to become a true feudal lord, she’d have to do better than that. She’d probably have to pay me.

And then there’s the “exclusive” part. I’d be willing to bet that a number of Huffington Post writers have their own blogs, and they probably write for others. Can you imagine what would happen if Arianna Huffington loudly declared, “You can only write for me, and for no other service!” That army of writers would dry up pretty quickly.

It should be noted that even services who actually PAY their writers don’t insist on exclusivity. Some time ago, Duncan Riley sold The Inquisitr. Many of the Inquisitr’s writers continued to write for the Inquisitr after the sale. At the same time, these writers also worked on some of Duncan Riley’s newer websites. (Here are James Johnson posts at the Inquisitr and Medacity.) Both the Inquisitr and Riley and fine with this arrangement.

So, while “digital feudalism” makes a good headline, it’s not accurate. (And neither is “slavery,” since again there is no obligation to serve the social media firm.)

Can technology enforce AND break spelling conventions?

An Trubk is a profesr @ oburln univrcity hu pend a post @ wyrd intytld Proper Spelling? Its Tyme to Let Luce!. Trubec maad sevrl points in her post. Her mane point:

Standardized spelling enables readers to understand writing, to aid communication and ensure clarity. Period. There is no additional reason, other than snobbery, for spelling rules.

She noats dat “proper spelling” is a resint convenshin:

“The phrase ‘bad speller’ rarely appears in English-language books before the 1770s,” Jack Lynch notes in his book The Lexicographer’s Dilemma. Until William Caxton used a printing press in 1475, English words were reproduced by scribes in scriptoria. There were no dictionaries (or Google) to check for “proper” spelling. Most words were spelled several different ways—there were at least 114 variants of through. (Even the spelling of something as personal as a name was inconsistent; there are six surviving instances of Shakespeare’s signature, and they’re all spelled differently.) Even after the advent of print, variant spellings were the rule.

And wial 1 kan klame dat gootinburgs printing pres helpd to enfors a cohmun set of speling konvenshuns, othr teknologikl advanses r also helping to obliteraat them:

The most widely used American word in the world, OK, was invented during the age of the telegraph because it was concise.

@ u no that new conventions have arisen due to tech:

More recent textisms signal a similarly creative, bottom-up play with language: “won” becomes “1,” “later” becomes “l8r.” After all, new technology creates new inertia for change: The apostrophe requires an additional step on an iPhone, so we send text messages using “your” (or “UR”) instead of “you’re.” And it doesn’t matter—the messagee will still understand our message.

But not everyone agrees with Anne Trubek. Wired’s copy editor, Lee Simmons, took issue with Trubek’s position:

So if you want to chat in leetspeak or use cutesy abbreviations in your texts, go crazy. You’re talking to your own tribe; they know the code, and they’re willing to indulge your affectations. And let’s be honest: A lot of that intentional misspelling, like the argot of any subculture, is meant to exclude outsiders—such as nosy parents. It’s a badge of membership in your little clique….

But having gained a yard or two for laissez-faire spelling in narrow, private circumstances, Trubek proceeds straight to the touchdown dance, proclaiming without further ado that the very idea of standardized spelling is an “outdated dogma” of the “print era.”…

Trubek observes that civilization got on for centuries without spelling rules, and she implies that it worked just fine. Sure—if you like confusion and inefficiency. To give just one example I’m painfully familiar with, the wasted man-hours that actors, directors, editors, and scholars still spend debating what the hell Shakespeare meant in this or that crucial passage would make an economist weep.

After reading Simmons, I have to say that I agree with Trubek. For one thing, as I’ve previously noted, one of the main interpretation issues with Shakespeare doesn’t have anything to do with the way that the particular word (nunnery) is spelled.

Now I am paid to adhere to particular spelling rules – for example, when we adopted a new version of Microsoft’s style standards, I have had to learn to remove the dash from the word email. However, I found that despite my decades of practice of proper spelling, it was relatively easy to write the first few paragraphs of this post and spell things any way I liked. And I suspect that most of my readers were able to understand exactly what I was saying.

At least in the United States, it’s probably a stretch to say that there is one “standard American English” and a bunch of different tribe dialects. Our society is so large and diverse that any attempt to reach common agreement on a standard American English is next to impossible. An educated person in Massachusetts is going to communicate differently than an educated person in Georgia, or an educated person in California. And style guides (including those that discourage sentences beginning with “and”) can result in wars that make the Android vs. iOS wars look like child’s play.

Links to my January 2012 series of posts on Usenet and the World Wide Web

About a month before I officially started the tymshft blog, I posted a series of “empo-tymshft” posts in my Empoprise-BI business blog about Usenet. This transitioned into a series of posts on the World Wide Web (which was initially announced on Usenet). I’m not going to repost the entire series in the new blog – not now, anyway – but I would like to link to the series, for those who have an interest in Usenet or the World Wide Web.

The series, which began on January 2, 2012 and included the “empo-tymshft” label, included the following posts:


The French-speaking country of England

As a citizen of the United States of America, I reside in one of many countries that traces its government back to the government of England. (England itself is now part of the United Kingdom.) And therefore, I am well aware of the importance of the year 1066 in English history. That was the year that William the Conqueror, from the French-speaking province of Normandy, invaded England.

And since that time, William the Conqueror and all of his successors ate fish and chips, drank warm beer, and made fun of people who eat snails.

Not exactly.

Albert C. Baugh and Thomas Cable describe how the conquest succeeded in establishing a French court.

Many of the English higher class had been killed on the field at Hastings. Those who escaped were treated as traitors, and the places of both alike were filled by William’s Norman followers. This process was repeated several times during the next four years while the Conquest was being completed.

For the next several generations, the vast majority of the noblemen and church leaders were Normans. And since they were French, the language of the country was French.

For two hundred years after the Norman Conquest, French remained the language of ordinary intercourse among the upper classes in England. At first those who spoke French were those of Norman origin, but soon through intermarriage and association with the ruling class numerous people of English extraction must have found it to their advantage to learn the new language, and before long the distinction between those who spoke French and those who spoke English was not ethnic but largely social.

Two hundred years. From our 2012 perspective that doesn’t seem like a long time, but that is about as long as the history of my own country as an independent nation. Imagine if we had fought the American Revolution and the French, instead of helping us defeat England, instead took over the country ourselves. Would I be speaking English today, or would I be speaking French just like my friends in Quebec?

In the case of England, the continued importance of the French language was emphasized by the fact that some of the English rulers also held territory in France.

Upon the accession of Henry II, English possessions in France were still further enlarged. Henry, as count of Anjou, inherited fïom his father the districts of Anjou and Maine. By his marriage with Eleanor of Aquitaine he came into possession of vast estates in the south, so that when he became king of England he controlled about two-thirds of France, all the western part of the country from the English Channel to the Pyrenees.

So why aren’t the English people speaking French today? Because as time passed, the interests of people on either side of the Channel diverged. When I took an English history course in college, the professor began the course by emphatically stating that “Britain is an island.” That simple statement explains a lot of things, including the reason why England eventually became an English-speaking country again at all social levels. (The masses continued to speak English, even when their rulers did not.)

[B]y the end of the twelfth century an English jurist was able to write: “Now that the English and Normans have been dwelling together, marrying and giving in marriage, the two nations have become so mixed that it is scarcely possible today, speaking of free men, to tell who is English, who of Norman race.”… Only the events of the next century, the loss of Normandy, and the growing antagonism toward France, were necessary to complete the union, psychological as well as physical, of all the inhabitants of England.

This situation, in which a conquering people are eventually assimilated into the conquered population, is of course not unique to England.

Post Navigation