London Reflection (for March 29 Class)

When I visit a new city in Europe, I try not to create idealistic fantasies about what I am going to see or how the food will be or how much I will love it, namely because I hate building something up unrealistically only to be disappointed when reality can’t compare to my expectations. With London, I tried really hard to forget we were going. Because I read a lot growing up, I was terrified that if allowed to, my brain would pull up all the settings I had read about in London that consisted of Big Ben, a dreary sky, and terrible food, and I would inevitably hate our time there. But how wrong was I—I loved everything about London. From the unchanging literary architecture and the blustery winds to the familiar language and unknown history, London soared very easily to the top of my list of favorite European cities.

Perhaps the most important thing I learned was that of the separation of the city of London from the rest of London. I knew London had a rich history that went back to the Roman era, but I was completely unaware that the Romans had built a wall around a city of their own creation that was so strong and self-sufficient that later powers did not want to interfere with its management. Now it seems, the real city of London, still self-ruled, is hidden behind the more national influence of Parliament and the iconic image of Big Ben in Westminster.

The importance of the Thames in the making of London has been in the back of my mind since history classes in high school, but the effect of the river on the development of London is something I was not expecting. Emma, I believe, called the river “the blood of London” and “the most important man in London’s history.” Obviously the point of imports and exports as well as access to the city, the Thames helped make London into the economical stronghold that it is today (and hopefully will remain despite Brexit). It was home to (several) the London Bridge, which at one point was a thriving village of its own before having to be rebuilt. But, in addition to the creation of the city, the river fully supported its development. Without the quays and business on the riverfront, London would not have the history of starting small coffee shops. And it was at these coffee shops that traders and merchants shared information, leading to the creation of newspapers. London would not have the history of the “eighth wonder of the world” of the first underwater tunnel. It would not have grown so large outside of its walls. The changes made along the river—such as those at Canary Warf to support the economic industry—have only served to grow the life and power of this city.

I enjoyed seeing the evolution of London—growth from within the walls to the Great London Fire to an expanding trade market and city outside of the walls. I love how the city has held onto its history, preserving buildings and mounting plaques where great people worked on lived. Historically, England has been a nation of rebirth and power, and I saw that most clearly demonstrated with the story of the Great London Fire. To think that building codes today are still influenced by that tragic event explains the extent of damage better than any memorial. And then there are all the buildings destroyed in the war which have been rebuilt to preserve history and life. I think it is easy to forget today that such a beautiful city was bombed and destroyed in the war. The story of the blitzworkers in the cathedral who ran silently in the dark of night to prevent fire on the rooves of the church signified to me the English spirit to carry on that I felt so much in London.

That spirit, more presently, was obvious in the streets of Westminster just days after the terrorist attack. Kaitlynn and I would watch the news every morning, and we knew that people were returning to work in the area immediately the morning after. News anchors were saying how “London had faced terrorism before, and they would not be intimidated.” Still, it was shocking to me to see not four days later a large protest in the streets by Tralfagar Square. Carrying European Union flags and posters and wearing blue and yellow, London, it seemed, wanted to make it clear that they were not in support of leaving the EU.

I know we’ve talked in class about how the effects of Brexit have the possibility of being hard on the English economy as banks look outside of London for a new banking center with access to the rest of Europe. We’ve seen it already start as companies actively seek to replace British jobs with branches in nations such as Germany and Belgium. It only makes sense that such consequences would be apparent to those living in London, but I didn’t put two and two together until we stood in Canary Wharf, and then amongst those in blue in yellow, that London, this capital city of England, did not want to leave the EU.

Because it seemed so obvious while we were there that the city was against Brexit, I did a little research into the vote from that area. Unsurprisingly, the top five percentages of votes to remain in the EU came from voting regions within London. I was surprisingly shocked to find, however, that London as a whole averaged near 70% voter turnout, with just under a 60% majority for remain. For me, these numbers most clearly explain the enormity of the split within England; if a city who will obviously feel a large shock from breaking from the EU economically was only 60% majority to remain, the feeling of isolation and frustration with immigration was greater than I realized.  

Ultimately, though, London was charming, historic, and a small taste of home after three months abroad. I learned more than expected about its rich history. I hope that as these next two years pass, Brexit does not hurt such a beautiful place.