Today:
Welcome to this week's instalment of /r/AskHistorians' Day of Reflection. Nobody can read everything that appears here each day, so in this thread we invite you to share anything you'd like to highlight from the last week - an interesting discussion, an informative answer, an insightful question that was overlooked, or anything else.
I enjoyed this week:
/u/yodatsracist in Have the Kurds ever had a state? If not why have they never been able to create one?
/u/American_Graffiti in Why did everything get so "wholesome" in the 1950s?
/u/itsallfolklore in Compared to how it is portrayed in cowboy movies what brand/type of alcohol did people really drink in Saloons?
As I delve deeper down the rabbit hole of the past I find myself often facing periods which I would never have countenanced studying with anything more than a cursory interest. One such period was Anglo-Saxon England and the Norman Conquest. Now, facing a problematic matter of Anglo-Welsh interaction prior to my (somewhat) established interest (c.1090-1284) and the looming, and dreaded, AMA on social and political 'feudalism', I have been combing the archives, the stacks, and (belatedly) the backlog of AH posts.
Thus I must breach the loose rule of reflection (that being the past week's triumphs) to alert attention to an excellent response of /u/shlin28's regarding Anglo-Saxon 'continuity' post-Conquest. It was a lively, eloquent discussion (although some references to the making of men reminded me of Mafiosa activity), and well worth a read!