Archive for langcafe2.myfreeforum.org Come in and have your daily cup of languages!
 


       langcafe2.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Culture
Porthos

The Anglosphere

Many non-Anglophones assume too much about cultural similiarities between English speaking nations, as if, we are all essentially the same. And, they also tend to overlook cultural contributions from the British settlers in former British colonies, who were not English, but Scottish, Welsh, or Irish. Here's a very good article on the debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglosphere
Benjamin [inactive]

I usually associate the term 'Anglosphere' with the (rather bizarre, in my opinion) views of James C Bennett. What I don't understand is why Americans who use this term often seem to exclude Ireland — even though it's definitely a developed English-speaking country. Do they just forget about it (perhaps because it's small and is integrated with Britain to a large extent), or is it actually perceived as being somehow very different from all the others combined?
fab

Quote:
Many non-Anglophones assume too much about cultural similiarities between English speaking nations, as if, we are all essentially the same. And, they also tend to overlook cultural contributions from the British settlers in former British colonies, who were not English, but Scottish, Welsh, or Irish. Here's a very good article on the debate.



There is absolutly no wide cultural gasp beetween England and the other British countries. Even if sometime there is generally a different ambiance, due to wilder countryside and a more "atlantic" ambiance, basically Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland are very similar to England, since they have been colonized and assimilated since centuries by England, they have adopted English culture - even if they probably would hate to recognise it it is true.

But maybe, to be more respectful towards Welsh, Scottish and Irish people we sould better call it "britishsphere" or "Britosphere". but is is quite weird and unusual.

In the case of Spain, the different "countries" are also much more different to each other. Most people would assume that all spain looks like Andalucia or latin-American countries, while in fact Spain is a association of different "countries", very different to each other in landscapes, architecture, moods, music and way of life, where in some of them Spanish (Castillian) is not even the main language used by most people (which is not the case in the British isles where almost everybody has English as native language). [/img][/quote]
Benjamin [inactive]

I think that Josh was talking more about English-speaking countries on a global scale, rather than simply those found in North-West Europe (i.e. the British Isles). I feel that 'Anglosphere' would be a more suitable term than 'Britosphere', because the link described here is essentially the English language (rather than anything specifically 'British', as such).

Although it is right that we should recognise the contributions made by Scottish, Welsh, Irish and maybe even Manx settlers in English-speaking countries in the New World, I think that it is even more important to remember that quite a significant proportion of settlers in the now English-speaking areas of former British colonies actually came from outside the British isles.
Loic

Re: The Anglosphere

Porthos wrote:
Many non-Anglophones assume too much about cultural similiarities between English speaking nations, as if, we are all essentially the same. And, they also tend to overlook cultural contributions from the British settlers in former British colonies, who were not English, but Scottish, Welsh, or Irish. Here's a very good article on the debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglosphere


I can assure you that I have never made a assumption that English-speaking countries in the traditional sense of the word form a homogeneous bloc. If anything, the United States would be the obvious candidate for being different if you compare her to other traditional English-speaking countries that form the cornerstone of Anglosphere. While almost every other country on the list such as Canada and Australia have a Westminister parliamentary system, the United States have an executive presidency.

For me, I'd say that even in the non English speaking core countries such as India or South Africa, there probably exists a substantial group of people whose habits are more 'British' than even the New Englanders in the USA.



/
Benjamin [inactive]

fab wrote:
which is not the case in the British isles where almost everybody has English as native language).

This is arguably not the case. Although people often don't realise this, a lot of the so-called 'English dialects' could be considered separate languages, as they are not exactly mutually intelligible with Standard English.

I was in Northeast England a few weeks ago. Most of the ordinary people there were speaking what I'd call Northumbrian to each-other -- I listened to what people walking around the town were saying to each-other, but I found it very difficult to understand. Of course, they can understand and (to some extent) speak Standard English as well, because they've learnt it at school and because the media is mostly in Standard English. But I would actually say that for most of them, Northumbrian is actually their native language. (I can post some examples of written Northumbrian if you're interested).

Likewise, a few years ago, I did a week's work experience in a small historic house museum in Birmingham. A school group from the Black Country (about 15km west of Birmingham) came to visit. The children were about 7 or 8 years old, and spoke Yam Yam (Black Country dialect/language). It really was quite difficult to understand what they were saying much of the time.

Unfortunately, these languages/dialects (it's difficult to make the distinction) don't really have any academic recognition (yet).
Benjamin [inactive]

loic wrote:
If anything, the United States would be the obvious candidate for being different if you compare her to other traditional English-speaking countries that form the cornerstone of Anglosphere. While almost every other country on the list such as Canada and Australia have a Westminister parliamentary system, the United States have an executive presidency.

I think I'd probably agree with that in general. But having said that, I'd also imagine that Canada probably resembles the United States of America more than it resembles Britain on the whole.
Loic

Well, if you can consider Sir Alex Fergueson to be speaking an English dialect whenever he gives post-match interviews, I must say that I am still able to understand what that bugger is saying.

In contrast, it is impossible for me to understand another Chinese 'dialect' which I have not learnt before.

To call these various speeches of the British Isles as different languages is a little bit like exaggerating semantic differences for the sake of enhancing regional pride. In the wake of devolution, it seems that a nascent pride in their communities have awakened in Britain.
Benjamin [inactive]

loic wrote:
Well, if you can consider Sir Alex Fergueson to be speaking an English dialect whenever he gives post-match interviews, I must say that I am still able to understand what that bugger is saying.

I've never actually heard him speaking, but it wouldn't surprise me if his speach is significantly less 'English-like' at home than it is on television.

Quote:
To call these various speeches of the British Isles as different languages is a little bit like exaggerating semantic differences for the sake of enhancing regional pride. In the wake of devolution, it seems that a nascent pride in their communities have awakened in Britain.

Yes, that's right. To a large extent, for example, people from Yorkshire appear to regard themselves as Yorkshiremen and women before English or British. The same is true in many other counties in England (especially Cornwall, but also others), not to mention that people from Scotland and Wales tend to see themselves as being Scottish or Welsh before British.
Andrι in Zuid-Afrika

As South Africa is repeatedly included in that article, take a look at this.

fab

" I think that it is even more important to remember that quite a significant proportion of settlers in the now English-speaking areas of former British colonies actually came from outside the British isles "


Yes, but if we think about it the british themselves come from people that were outiside the British isles, even the celts were.

In the case of Latin-American countries it is the same, most of the population doesn't come from Iberian peninsula (Argentinean mainly from Italians, Dominicans mainly from Africa, Brasilians mainly from Africa, Italy, and even Germany or Japan. Not to forget the countries with indigenous majority such as Bolivia, Peru or Guatemala.
It doesn't erase the fact that most of these places are associated together thanks to the common spanish and Portuguese-speaking herency that comes from Spain or Portugal.
They have differences and common points, as well as for English-speaking countries.

The fact of recognising common points doesn't mean of course that everything is egual !
Elaine

Benjamin wrote:
What I don't understand is why Americans who use this term often seem to exclude Ireland — even though it's definitely a developed English-speaking country. Do they just forget about it (perhaps because it's small and is integrated with Britain to a large extent), or is it actually perceived as being somehow very different from all the others combined?


I honestly have to say that I don't think I've ever heard this term "Anglosphere" before. I guess I have to get out more.
Porthos

I think Ireland is often excluded, because we see it as being a different culture. It is not politically associated with Britain, and Ireland is of a Celtic background. There was a strong cultural identity, which was at odds with that of Protestant Anglos both in the U.K., and in the U.S. Interestingly, a lot of Mexicans seem to identify with the Irish, because they share the Catholic religion, or at least, traditionally they did. Most Mexicans are a lot more pro-Irish than they are pro-Anglo. Irishmen aided Mexico in her war with the U.S., and they settled there. And, both Mexicans and Irishmen were persecuted in America for their faith, and suffered the same tribulations together.

Honestly, the U.S. is the most different country within the Angloshpere. The U.S. has an Anglo foundation, but is a mix of many other cultural influences, whereas Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, all remained part of the British Empire, and are now still part of the Commonwealth, with a very close connection to the mother country. They are more politically similar to Britain as well. Although, Canada, in many ways, shares more similiarites with the U.S. than it does with Britain. Our accents are even very similar. But, I still think of commonwealth countries as being much more "Anglo". Most people in these countries still have British last names, and are of a very undiluted Anglo culture, whereas America is very mixed, particularly in the Northeast, and the west. The south, and the midwest is still essentially very Anglo territory, with a relative majority of people with British last names, and lack of cultural influences from non-Anglo society.
Porthos

fab wrote:
" I think that it is even more important to remember that quite a significant proportion of settlers in the now English-speaking areas of former British colonies actually came from outside the British isles "


Yes, but if we think about it the british themselves come from people that were outiside the British isles, even the celts were.

In the case of Latin-American countries it is the same, most of the population doesn't come from Iberian peninsula (Argentinean mainly from Italians, Dominicans mainly from Africa, Brasilians mainly from Africa, Italy, and even Germany or Japan. Not to forget the countries with indigenous majority such as Bolivia, Peru or Guatemala.
It doesn't erase the fact that most of these places are associated together thanks to the common spanish and Portuguese-speaking herency that comes from Spain or Portugal.
They have differences and common points, as well as for English-speaking countries.

The fact of recognising common points doesn't mean of course that everything is egual !


No, I can't say I agree with you on this one. In a lot of places, like Peru or Guatemala, the indigenous population is the majority, and in places like Mexico, mestizos are the predominate ethnic group. But, the Europeans of Latin America, or at least in Mexico, are mainly of Iberian heritage. There has been contributions from other peoples as well, such as the Welsh in Argentina, or the Italians there, but most Europeans in Hispanic America are still of Spanish descent. Argentina and Brazil are exceptions, but in Argentina, there are still just as many Spanish as there are Italians. It's about half/half actually. And what I have also noticed about the Europeans in Hispanic-America, is that most of them come from southern Spain, so that most have that "Andalucian" look, with swarthy skin, dark hair, and dark eyes.

I'll tell you a funny story. One day, when my uncle arrived home from school, my greatgrandmother, who was by that time senile, started screaming and crying that a burgular had come into the house. "There's a gringo in the house, Ayudame!" She said this because my uncled had red hair and freckles. She was a mestiza, but apparently she had forgotten that she had married a Spaniard!
Benjamin [inactive]

Porthos wrote:
I think Ireland is often excluded, because we see it as being a different culture.

I find this perception very hard to understand, I'm afraid. I have been to Ireland many times and I know many Irish people, and I have to say that it is extremely similar to Britain — so much so that it is almost impossible to draw a line between 'British culture' and 'Irish culture'. When I'm in Ireland, I feel as though I could easily be in Britain about 95% of the time.

Technically, the Irish are 'foreigners' in Britain; but in our hearts and minds, they are not. However, I cannot really say the same even for Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders, let alone for Americans.

Quote:
It is not politically associated with Britain,

What do you mean? I see Britain and Ireland as being very politically connected. When I'm 18, I could move to Ireland and vote in elections there straight away, because British citizens are treated as Irish citizens in the Republic of Ireland, as vice versa. We can't do that in any other countries.

And let's not forget that the whole of the island of Ireland was part of the UK until 84 years ago. And contrary to popular belief elsewhere, relations between mainland Britain and the Republic of Ireland are extremely good. It's only in Northern Ireland where there is any genuine issue these days (it's not even taken for granted anymore that the Republic of Ireland even wants Northern Ireland, by the way).

Quote:
and Ireland is of a Celtic background.

And? So are parts of Britain. But I'm not really sure what this means anyway — as Fab has pointed out, it's often more about music, dance, art and costume than anything else, much of which was arguably invented rather recently.

Quote:
There was a strong cultural identity, which was at odds with that of Protestant Anglos both in the U.K., and in the U.S.

Keyword: was

Quote:
Interestingly, a lot of Mexicans seem to identify with the Irish, because they share the Catholic religion, or at least, traditionally they did. Most Mexicans are a lot more pro-Irish than they are pro-Anglo. Irishmen aided Mexico in her war with the U.S., and they settled there. And, both Mexicans and Irishmen were persecuted in America for their faith, and suffered the same tribulations together.

I realise that this makse sense from an American-centric perception of the Anglosphere. But I am fairly certain that Irish people today overwhelmingly identify far more with British people than with Mexicans.

Quote:
Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, all remained part of the British Empire, and are now still part of the Commonwealth, with a very close connection to the mother country.

Yes, although one could say that there has been a decline in interest in the concept of the Commonwealth in Britain in recent years. It is almost never mentioned in political discourse these days.

Quote:
America is very mixed, particularly in the Northeast, and the west. The south, and the midwest is still essentially very Anglo territory, with a relative majority of people with British last names, and lack of cultural influences from non-Anglo society.

This is interesting, actually, because I usually imagine that Britain would be more similar to the Northeast US than to the Southern US.
fab

" I find this perception very hard to understand, I'm afraid. I have been to Ireland many times and I know many Irish people, and I have to say that it is extremely similar to Britain "


I tend to agree with you. The almost only real difference I see beetween Ireland a Britain is the majoritary catholic religion.
Benjamin [inactive]

fab wrote:
The almost only real difference I see beetween Ireland a Britain is the majoritary catholic religion.

And then we can argue how 'real' this difference actually is in secular times. Ireland has undergone rapid secularisation in recent years, much like Spain. I read an article about this a while ago, and they quoted a man from Dublin who said:

'I don't go to church and I don't know a single person who does. Fifteen years ago, I didn't know a single person who didn't.'

Let's not forget that about 25% of British people are from a Roman Catholic background as well. Although I am not from a Roman Catholic background, I have lots of friends and acquaintances who are, but I wouldn't know if they didn't tell me.
Porthos

<<This is interesting, actually, because I usually imagine that Britain would be more similar to the Northeast US than to the Southern US.>>

Well in some ways, the Northeast is more like Britain than the south is. The mentality of the people, the fact that it is more urbanized, more politically liberal, etc. But, on a purely cultural level, the Northeast is a very cosmopolitan area, with a wide variety of cultural contributions from different peoples. The south experienced much less immigration, as most immigrants settled in places like Boston and New York. The northeastern cities were overwhelmed with Italians, Irish, Poles, etc. So, the Catholic faith is on par with the Protestant one, if not greater in the northeast. Today, the more urbanized, intellectual centers in the northeast and west coast are mostly secular. The South meanwhile, remained an essentially agricultural region, populated by people of almost entirely British origin. So, the south has been traditionally, almost purely Anglo-Protestant. And the West coast is also very cosmopolitan, politically liberal, and culturally mixed. Cities like Chicago are also much like the Northeast or the West coast, but the surrounding heartland of the midwest, still remains Anglo-Protestant.
Benjamin [inactive]

Quote:
The northeastern cities were overwhelmed with Italians, Irish, Poles, etc. So, the Catholic faith is on par with the Protestant one, if not greater in the northeast.

Sounds just like Birmingham (where I live), LOL.

Anyway, I thought that a large percentage of people in the Southern US were African-Americans... no?
Porthos

There are a lot of African-Americans in the southeast, because of the slave trade, but then again, a lot of them left the south after emancipation (I know I sure would have). So, there's tons of blacks in the urban parts of more densely populated areas like the Northeast and West coast. There's almost always more minorities in cities than in the rural parts or the suburbs. But, whereas the heavily urban, cosmopolitan areas of the northeast and west coast are full of Asians, Arabs, Jews, Poles, Italians, Irish, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, African-Americans, etc., and the cultural influences which go along with that, the south and the midwest remains largely Anglo-Protestant, which might be thought of as the "traditional America". People in the northeast or west coast who are of a different origin, usually identify with a certain sub-culture, rather than just Anglo-American. That is why a lot of Americans object to being labeled as "Anglo-Saxons" by the French. In the cosmopolitan, urban environments of the northeast and west coast, and places like Chicago, the culture is really a blend of all sorts. The cuisine is very different from traditional Anglo cuisine, and the temperment of the people, and the culture is all very different. What these Americans share with the English is basically just the language.

This is a sort of vauge generalization, but to summarize, America is like this:

Northeast, West Coast, Industrial Belt of upper midwest - Cosmopolitan, liberal oriented, more secular, cultural contributions from all sorts of ethnic groups

Southeast and Midwest - Anglo-Protestant culture, religious, politically conservative

Southwest, parts of Rocky Mountain area - A mix of Anglo and Mexican culture and cuisine, politically conservative
Benjamin [inactive]

Interesting analysis regarding different regions of the US!

One can make similar observations about different regions in England though:

Basically, you have London, which is arguably the most cosmopolitan city in the world, perhaps bar New York. All kinds of people live here so it is impossible to make any kind of generalisation.

The Southeast outside of London — very wealthy, economically conservative but socially liberal; a lot of people speak Received Pronunciation; a 'pleasant' sort of environment with nice houses, lots of flowers and pretty gardens (but many people would really hate to live there). Very middle class.

Urban areas in the Midlands and the North — traditionally manufacturing industries and mining, but now more 'service industries' (and unemployment); mainly working class, often ethnically and religiously diverse — certain cities have reputations for being more or less 'tolerant' towards this than others.

Rural North, the Southwest and East Anglia — although there are differences between these regions, the regions themselves are not very diverse at all; dependent to a large extent on tourism; home to a lot of retired people; often quite poor regions, especially Cornwall in the far Southwest; some counties such as Devon (Southwest) have reputations for having somewhat 'alternative' lifestyles, which often manifests itself in the eccentric-looking older women that you see walking around there.
Porthos

Why is that people despise being called "middle class", as if it's better to be downgraded? That would be like a middle class or upper class person here aspiring to be a lower-class person.
Benjamin [inactive]

Quote:
Why is that people despise being called "middle class", as if it's better to be downgraded?

Well, as far as I'm concerned, I really am middle class, so I certainly don't despise being called that. It's not so much about being 'downgraded' or 'upgraded'; it's about your identity which reflects your background and upbringing — unless you specifically desire to change it, which requires effort.
greg in noord-frankrijk

Benjamin wrote:
Basically, you have London, which is arguably the most cosmopolitan city in the world, perhaps bar New York. All kinds of people live here so it is impossible to make any kind of generalisation.


Hep, don't forget your southern neighbours from Paris !

I can assure you not everyone here wears a blue beret and walk in the streets with a baguette under their arms and a Gitane in their mouths...
Benjamin [inactive]

greg in noord-frankrijk wrote:
I can assure you not everyone here wears a blue beret and walk in the streets with a baguette under their arms and a Gitane in their mouths...

I am quite aware of that, as I have been to Paris many times.
Uriel

Quote:
I can assure you not everyone here wears a blue beret and walk in the streets with a baguette under their arms and a Gitane in their mouths...


True. Some of you smoke Gauloises instead.

Well, I can't speak for the rest of the country, but I was surprised that you (Benjamin) think that we make much distinction between Ireland and the rest of the British Isles. I don't, anyway; English, Irish, and Scottish people all seem pretty similar to me, and of course Welsh, Cornish, and Manx are all vague subgroups as far as I'm concerned. Never been very up on that Celtic thing, I guess...

I don't think modern-day Irish-Americans and Mexican-Americans get too excited about each other any more, either.
greg in noord-frankrijk

Good to see you back, Uriel.
Uriel

Sorry, I've been working a lot.
Tiffany

Porthos wrote:
Honestly, the U.S. is the most different country within the Angloshpere. The U.S. has an Anglo foundation, but is a mix of many other cultural influences, whereas Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, all remained part of the British Empire, and are now still part of the Commonwealth, with a very close connection to the mother country. They are more politically similar to Britain as well. Although, Canada, in many ways, shares more similiarites with the U.S. than it does with Britain. Our accents are even very similar. But, I still think of commonwealth countries as being much more "Anglo". Most people in these countries still have British last names, and are of a very undiluted Anglo culture, whereas America is very mixed, particularly in the Northeast, and the west. The south, and the midwest is still essentially very Anglo territory, with a relative majority of people with British last names, and lack of cultural influences from non-Anglo society.


I serously hope you are not speaking about Canada. You've obviously never been. Toronto is more ethnically diverse than any place I've been in the US (save New York). There is also the huge French population to consider. I would think Australia has a very big population of Asians (I know many Australians of Asian descent), as well as aborgines, though I think they are a smaller minority. In New Zealand, Maori is the other official language, though I can't speak for how diverse the population actually is. Perhaps you and I have different definitions of "undiluted", Josh.
Porthos

The commonwealth countries all remained part of the British Empire, and kept close ties with Britain. Their cultural identity was patterned off of Britain, whereas America tried to distance herself from Britain. And there is certainly more ethnic diversity in the U.S. than in most of the major English speaking Commonwealth countries, excluding Quebec,Canada of course, which I don't even consider to be part of the Anglophone world. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the U.S. is far more ethnically diverse. Because of that, our culture is and has been, since the 1800s, a composite of various cultures, under the English language, and political institutions which originated in Britain and which date back to the Magna Carta.
Uriel

I don't know how Canadians and Americans compare ethnically by the numbers, but in person they're usually pretty indistinguishable. (Hell, I just found out the other day that one of the guys I've been working with all year is Canadian -- until he told me, I had no idea.)

Except for there being more French names in Canada and more Spanish ones in the US -- and both of those groups are sort of regional in both countries -- you find a lot of the same surnames in each. I even found mine in a Toronto phonebook (yes, I'm that nerdy... )

Of course, Toronto is a major metropolitan area, and you generally do find more diversity in a big city than say, in some little hick town in Manitoba or Missouri -- it may not be the best example. I forget which comedian was making fun of Canada's penchant for blathering on and on about how multicultural they are, but he said, "Except for Quebec, it's Doug Mackenzie from one end to the other!"
Deborah

Benjamin wrote:
(I can post some examples of written Northumbrian if you're interested).

Please do -- I'm very interested.
Tiffany

Uriel wrote:
I don't know how Canadians and Americans compare ethnically by the numbers, but in person they're usually pretty indistinguishable. (Hell, I just found out the other day that one of the guys I've been working with all year is Canadian -- until he told me, I had no idea.)

Except for there being more French names in Canada and more Spanish ones in the US -- and both of those groups are sort of regional in both countries -- you find a lot of the same surnames in each. I even found mine in a Toronto phonebook (yes, I'm that nerdy... )

Of course, Toronto is a major metropolitan area, and you generally do find more diversity in a big city than say, in some little hick town in Manitoba or Missouri -- it may not be the best example. I forget which comedian was making fun of Canada's penchant for blathering on and on about how multicultural they are, but he said, "Except for Quebec, it's Doug Mackenzie from one end to the other!"


Exactly. The point is if Josh wants to make issue of how multicultural the US is (despite little hick towns), I think the same can be said of Canada (despite the little hick towns).

The Chinese alone make up 3.5% of Canada's population. That number does not include other Asian groups. The 2000 US census says that 3.4% of the US population is made up of those of full or partial Asian descent - and that is all groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian-American

From the Demogrphics of Canada article:
Quote:
When compared with the United States, Canada has a greater English, Scottish, French, Ukrainian, Asian, and American Indian presence, and a smaller German, Italian, Scandinavian, and Black proportion.


According to the Canadian, only about 20% of Canadians consider themselves English. About 39% claim to be Canadian.

That is a far cry from:
Quote:
Most people in these countries still have British last names, and are of a very undiluted Anglo culture
fab

Quote:
The commonwealth countries all remained part of the British Empire, and kept close ties with Britain. Their cultural identity was patterned off of Britain, whereas America tried to distance herself from Britain. And there is certainly more ethnic diversity in the U.S. than in most of the major English speaking Commonwealth countries, excluding Quebec,Canada of course, which I don't even consider to be part of the Anglophone world. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the U.S. is far more ethnically diverse.



I don't think so. I've been living 8 months in Montreal. It is as much cosmopolitan than many north American cities (if not more). Thinking that Quebecers are all descending from the French settlers of the 17th century seems just a wrong image.
Montreal population has been made also with lots of Italians, portugueses, Jews, north africans, east Europeans, Haitians, Chineses, and of course also people of the British isles. The difference is that Quebec people has been united by a francophone culture (with British influences due to the fact of being part of British empire, and now commonwealth) and not an anglophone one.
I don't think that English Canada, Australia are less "diverse" than the US, those countries are famous for having been emigration destinations for centuries
Benjamin [inactive]

Here are the percentages of 'white' people found in the main English-speaking, semi-English-speaking and Commonwealth countries, found mainly from the CIA World Fact Book:

99% — Ireland
92% — Britain
92% — Australia
87% — Canada
80% — New Zealand
75% — United States
12% — South Africa
12% — Bahamas
_8% — Namibia
_4% — Barbados
_3% — Grenada
_3% — Botswana
_1% — Zimbabwe
_1% — Zambia
_1% — Singapore
_1% — Trinidad & Tobago
_1% — Guyana
_1% — Saint Lucia

Others are either unknown, are lower or have too smaller population. Of course, the percentage of 'white' people in one of the above countries doesn't really have anything to do with how 'Anglo' the place is — indeed, in Namibia, the British influence and use of the English language even amongst the 'white' population there is pretty negligible. However, from this I'd say that it probably would be fair to say that Canada, Australia and New Zealand are at least slightly more 'Euro' than the United States, even though this might not be noticeable in the big cities (likewise for London and Birmingham in England).

I think that I can sort of understand Porthos' point though, although I'm not sure if it's really something which one could substantiate with evidence. In my experience, British people generally feel a greater connection with Ireland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand than with the United States — this is because Britain is generally perceived here, rightly or wrongly, as being more similar to Ireland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand than to the United States. But even then, increasingly a lot of British/Irish people seem to feel a greater connection with other North-West European countries (at least) than with the United States, despite the language.
Porthos

Yep, that is basically what I am saying Benjamin. There is a closer connection, both culturally and polticially between the commonwealth Anglophone countries and Britain, than that shared by the U.S.

Those 39% of Canadians who identify as "Canadian" usually have surnames of British origin, and often Irish origin as well, so British Isles. So at least 60% of the population is from the British Isles. That's just a rough estimate on my part. Whereas, the amount of German surnames has actually eclipsed that of British surnames in the U.S. At least, that is what I have read, but if you go to non-metropolitan centers, and away from areas where there are a lot of Hispanics, you will find a lot of British surnames. My father's family is from the south, and nearly everyone has a Welsh surname, with the exception of my paternal grandmother who had a French surname. Her father was a French-Indian, although he was completely Anglo in culture, and I doubt he spoke more than five words in French, if that. It is interesting to note, though, about subcultures in the the U.S. When I visit my father's family on rare occasions, my mother and I feel very out of place, culturally speaking, because our home life, our attitudes about things, and our way of acting at the dinner table and everything is very different from that of my father's family, because Anglo-Americans and Mexican-Americans are very different in countless ways.
Tiffany

Porthos wrote:
Those 39% of Canadians who identify as "Canadian" usually have surnames of British origin, and often Irish origin as well, so British Isles.


Proof please?

Benjamin, there are non-Anglo white people. I agree that the percentage has nothing to do with how Anglo a place is because white doesn't equal anglo. People say Miami is a diverse city (or as I like to think of it: urban sprawl). But have you ever seen Cubans, the majority in Miami? They make up more than half the population of Miami. Most of them self-identify as white.

Census: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/12086.html

But "white" is the majority in Miami too...
Porthos

<<Proof please? >>

It's just that most Americans or Canadians who identify as plain ol' "Canadian" or "American", are usually the WASPS , whose families have been in North America, possibly since colonial times.
Benjamin [inactive]

Tiffany wrote:
Benjamin, there are non-Anglo white people.

Which was exactly what I said. The point of those statistics was to emphasise how the US is perhaps at least slightly less 'Euro' than the others, for want of a better term.
fab

Quote:
feel very out of place, culturally speaking, because our home life, our attitudes about things, and our way of acting at the dinner table and everything is very different from that of my father's family, because Anglo-Americans and Mexican-Americans are very different in countless ways


You made that comment a lot of times, in what consist those very different attitudes between "anglo-americans" and "mexican-Americans" ? outside of the food ?




Quote:
Yep, that is basically what I am saying Benjamin. There is a closer connection, both culturally and polticially between the commonwealth Anglophone countries and Britain, than that shared by the U.S.


Isn't it firstly for pure political reasons that a lot of Anglophones don't want to be associated with the USA ? I've seen a lot of Anglophones from various countries in youth hostels when I travelled, a lot of them (especially English-Canadians) were always insiting they were Canadians, while both in their of speaking, their look, their dress or they behaviour they were quite undetingguishible from people form other Anglophone country.
I also have seen some Americans who claimed to be Canadians because they said they feared to exprerience anti-american feelings due to the foreign policy of the US.


Quote:
Yep, that is basically what I am saying Benjamin. There is a closer connection, both culturally and polticially between the commonwealth Anglophone countries and Britain, than that shared by the U.S.


Maybe, it could be explained by the fact that the USA get their independance from England some times before the other former English colonies. But even then, does it is a so important period to have created the gasp you are speaking about ? English Canada have a lot of common point with England, but so do the US, especially in the east coast. English Canada, on its side I though share more with the US than with England, despite being part of the commonwealth.


Quote:
Here are the percentages of 'white' people found in the main English-speaking, semi-English-speaking and Commonwealth countries, found mainly from the CIA World Fact Book:


As tiffany have pointed out, I don't think that those numbers give an answer to the affirmation that the USA heve a completly different "ethnic" composition than Britain, new zealand, Australia or English Canada.
the numbers : 92% (Australia), 87% (Canada), 80% (New Zealand), 75% (United States) still more or less in the same order.
Also saying that Canada has more common points with English culture than the US is a bit ignoring that about a third of Canadians are not Anglophone and don't live in an anglophone society. Not to forget that "white" canadians can also be of as much european different countries, as the US were. Concerning Australia, I always have heard that a lot of people are of south European origins (so counted in the 92% "white"), without being of British origins (Greeks, Italians, Serbs, etc.)

I tend to think that if one "English-speaking" country may be a bit different from the others, it may be England, because it had a different status (ex-mother country/former colonies), because it is not part of the "new world" recently populated, and also maybe due to the influences of the "continent".
Actually, maybe if there are differences beetween "Anglo" nations of the new world, to a foreign eye they seem quite alike.

For urbanism and architecture, an Australian, Canadian, New Zealand or American city are often undistinguishible, small skyscrappers city center surounded by lined little wood houses connected by highways (and are linked to a specific way of life) very similar to the American one:

Australia:










Benjamin [inactive]

fab wrote:
Isn't it firstly for pure political reasons that a lot of Anglophones don't want to be associated with the USA ?

Yes, that is very true. Being likened to Americans is often seen as an insult in Britain, unfortunately, especially amongst more left-wing people. People here often talk negatively about the United States, even though most of us have never been there, but when we know Americans personally, we usually like them and get on very well with them. (The same is often also true for how British people tend to respond to Germany and Germans, incidentally).

Quote:
As tiffany have pointed out, I don't think that those numbers give an answer to the affirmation that the USA heve a completly different "ethnic" composition than Britain, new zealand, Australia or English Canada.

As I also pointed out when I first posted the statistics, and as I also reaffirmed after Tiffany said the same thing.

Quote:
Maybe, it could be explained by the fact that the USA get their independance from England some times before the other former English colonies. But even then, does it is a so important period to have created the gasp you are speaking about ? English Canada have a lot of common point with England, but so do the US, especially in the east coast. English Canada, on its side I though share more with the US than with England, despite being part of the commonwealth.
...
I tend to think that if one "English-speaking" country may be a bit different from the others, it may be England, because it had a different status (ex-mother country/former colonies), because it is not part of the "new world" recently populated, and also maybe due to the influences of the "continent".

I'd rather speak about the whole of Britain and Ireland together in this sense, rather than just England on its own.

This is basically how I usually see it: Out of Britain, Ireland, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, I tend to imagine that the United States and Britain/Ireland would be the too pairs which would be the most different different from each-other. Ignoring any current political or economic alliances, focusing solely on 'culture' (for want of a better term) and emotional feelings, although there are certain ties between Britain and the US, they are not as strong on the one hand as those between Britain, Australia and New Zealand, or on the other hand as those between the US and Canada. And then, I'd say the the ties which Britain has with Australia and New Zealand are not a strong as those between Britain and Ireland. Equally, I'd also say that Britain has stronger ties with Canada than with the US, and I'd also guess that the United States is on the whole more similar to Australia and New Zealand than to Britain. However, I'd also say that Britain probably has stronger ties with the US than with South Africa, despite political integration with Britain until rather more recently. And from the various Singaporeans I've encountered, it seems to me that they do feel at least some sort of connection with Britain, but British people tend to completely ignore Singapore altogether (sorry loic).

Note that this is only my perception and opinion. It has not objective basis whatsoever.

Quote:
Also saying that Canada has more common points with English culture than the US is a bit ignoring that about a third of Canadians are not Anglophone and don't live in an anglophone society.

Well, we can argue whether Francophone Canada really resembles France more than it resembles Anglophone Canada. I've never been to North America, but essentially all the Anglophone North Americans to whom I've posed this question have said that Quιbec is essentially very similar to the rest of Canada and also to the parts of the US nearby.

Quote:
Actually, maybe if there are differences beetween "Anglo" nations of the new world, to a foreign eye they seem quite alike.

Interesting use of 'foreign' there.

It is important to note thought that there are several important differences which might not always be externally apparent either. Despite the suggestion that Britain might be the 'different' one, I can think of many ways in which the United States has diverged the most. One example is religion — in terms of religious belief and practice, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and to a somewhat lesser extent Canada are very similar to other Northwest European countries, whilst the United States is rather more religious on the whole. That said, the US is a diverse country and it has certain regions which are more similar to Canada (etc.) in this respect than to other regions in the same country.

The same is arguably true for internal politics, whereby Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are more similar to each-other than any are to the United States.

Sport is another interesting difference between the aforementioned countries.
Porthos

<<in what consist those very different attitudes between "anglo-americans" and "mexican-Americans" ? outside of the food ?>>

This is a generalization, but in reply I would list the following. Mexican-Americans come from a Catholic background, and part of the Catholic faith, and usually, more religious than Anglo-Americans. The food of course, would be different. Mexican-American attitudes about morality would be a little different also. According to my mom and aunts, in school, Anglo girls would walk around in the locker room, wearing next to nothing, if not nothing at all, and feel no problem in doing do, whereas the Mexican girls, would not want to be caught dead doing that. Then there is the way Mexican-American men look at women. There is "Latino Machismo" mentality, where women are seen in a more subservient position than men. Although this still exist somewhat in nearly all societies, it is much more pronounced in Mexican culture when compared to that of Anglo-American culture. Mexican-Americans are also more comfortable in displaying their emotions, while Anglo-Americans would be more reserved. Mexican Americans usually have large families, which alters the home environment, while most Anglo-Americans have much smaller families. Mexican-American attitudes about time and punctuality are also a bit different, although mainly with the immigrants or first generation Chicanos. Mexican-American attitudes about family is also very different from the Anglo one. For Mexican-Americans, family is everything. People share everything with each other, there is little privacy, etc. This is all very different from the Anglo model. Also, Mexican-Americans are more prone to show affection. Mexican-Americans don't hesitate in hugging and kissing friends and family, whereas you will find a lot of Anglo-American men who won't even hug their nephews or cousins or even brothers and sons a lot of times. Then of course, there is the Spanish language aspect. Not all Chicanos speak Spanish fluently, but nearly all of them use Spanish words in place of English words for all sorts of things we use in daily life, plus the Spanish slang. Then, the way we pronounce things which are normally butchered by Anglo-Americans. Saturday, I went on a trip with four of my friends, who are all Anglos, and we must have went over the proper pronounciation of "Taco" about 30 times. They notice I say "Taco" with Spanish pronounciation, which is different from the way they say it. So, I did a "repeat after me" tutorial with them, over and over again, until they finnally got it. It sounded insane. Five of us sitting in a car saying "Taco". "Taco". Taco. Taco. Taco. TACO!!! I could add many more things to this list, but you should get the picture by now. In France things may be different. Perhaps over there, immigrants just mold to mainstream French culture, and abandon all of their foriegn culture and mentality. But in America, we have strong sub-cultures.
Porthos

And about the size of Mexican-American families, let me just give you an example.

In my family alone, my grandmother had 10 children. Her sister had 21 children. Her other sister had 16 children. And her other four siblings died before having other kids. My grandfather of course shared his ten children with my grandmother. His siblings each had about eight kids, and their kids had a bunch of kids, etc. So, as you can see, I have a huge, Catholic, breeding machine family. And, unlike most Anglo-American families, Mexican-Americans see family as everything, so we have extended family gatherings all of the time. The family celebrates Mexican holidays, and quinceaneras, and observes other Mexican traditions. We gather at each others' houses, sometimes hundreds of us, with parties, pinatas, Mexican food, Mexican music, etc. Catholic influence permeates everything, especially with the older generations.

Is this sufficient evidence of a different culture Fab? Or is all this still very "Anglo" to you?
Benjamin [inactive]

Porthos wrote:
This is a generalization, but in reply I would list the following. Mexican-Americans come from a Catholic background, and part of the Catholic faith, and usually, more religious than Anglo-Americans.

They must be very religious then, lol.

</stereotype>

Quote:
According to my mom and aunts, in school, Anglo girls would walk around in the locker room, wearing next to nothing, if not nothing at all, and feel no problem in doing do, whereas the Mexican girls, would not want to be caught dead doing that.

So does that also apply to you, or is it just a girl thing?
Porthos

Nope, just a chick thing, lol.
Loic

No apologies need, Benjamin. I must say that most Singaporeans actually do not have a connection with Britain. Those whom you have encountered probably have a bit of sentimental attachment because their fathers probably read law at Cambridge, their grandfathers studied medicine at Edinburgh, their great-grandfathers might have been knighted by Queen Victoria, etc.

All in all, these are anglophilic Singaporeans whom you have probably encountered.

Actually, what is the definition of a 'white'? Does it include Jews? I stumbled upon a white supremacist site: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/i...=a7c757d6af65c4e594c343ea92b8cee7

I definitely do not espouse their values, but the reason why I visit this forum from time to time is to be fascinated: how in the world do people like them exist? But anyway, I have read messages written by some of their more excited members that Jews are definitely not 'white' despite looking almost physically similar, from my point of view.

The 1% 'white' population here are mostly 'abandoned' when the British retreated east of the Suez. I have a personal anecdote here to relate: my aunt has a colleague of British extraction who for the better part of his life, cannot speak fluent English. Apparently, he was lost when his parents were packing the bags to sail back to England and so they actually went back home without him. He grew up in a working class Chinese family and speaks two languages fluently: Teochew and profanity.

In the late 80s, his long-lost brother apparently came back here to make an attempt to retrieve him. So this chap trooped back to England for awhile to live with his natural family. Apparently, he couldn't adapt. He was derided for being 'stupid' as he couldn't speak English well enough despite having well, 'stereotypical' English features.

The point I am trying to make is that quite a fair number of that 1% statistic has a similar story. A little sad, if you think about it.
Tiffany

Porthos wrote:
<<Proof please? >>

It's just that most Americans or Canadians who identify as plain ol' "Canadian" or "American", are usually the WASPS , whose families have been in North America, possibly since colonial times.


And how do you know this? On a Canadian census I would list myself as Canadian... Or am I somehow not allowed?
Tiffany

Benjamin wrote:
Tiffany wrote:
Benjamin, there are non-Anglo white people.

Which was exactly what I said. The point of those statistics was to emphasise how the US is perhaps at least slightly less 'Euro' than the others, for want of a better term.


Just making sure
Uriel

Fab, there really ARE many differences between "Anglo"-Americans (who don't necessarily have to be of British descent, by the way; it's sort of a misnomer that only applies to language they speak) and hispanic-Americans. Sometimes they are very obvious, as Porthos mentioned. Often they are subtle, though. I remember a coworker who worked the census telling me that a "white" (Anglo) superviser accompanied her to an interview with a hispanic family. When the lady of the house offered him a glass of water, he declined it -- as would be the polite response in white culture (not wishing to impose -- eating and drinking in another's house often require a certain amount of familiarity and explicit invitation).

My coworker almost kicked him though, because she knew that in the hispanic culture, declining hospitality is considered rude, not polite, and he had just unwittingly made a huge faux pas -- she had to quickly cover up his gaffe by saying, "Oh, he just had a bottled water while we were driving!" Later she bitched him out and he was mystified -- he had no idea what he had done wrong.

There's a similar difference in attitudes toward family and independence. In Anglo culture, once you've reached adulthood, you are expected to move out of the house, become independent emotionally and financially, and you become a guest in your parent's home when you come to visit. You no longer accept the authority they had over you as a child; you are now an adult, and their equal.

Hispanics, on the other hand, often live -- by mutual choice -- with their parents for much longer, and are quicker to take parents into their homes as they age. I've seen many hispanic mothers horrified by the idea of their children leaving to go to faraway cities, and many grown children loathe to take distant job opportunites that would take them away from their extended families. Often roles remain the same, even after children are grown; I've seen Mexican-American mothers scold their 40-year-old married sons just like they were ten years old!

And speaking of elder care, I overheard two repiratory technicians in my hospital discussing the relative differnces beteen the behaviors of white family members versus hispanic ones -- the hispanics are more likely to spend the night with their relatives in the hospital, and quicker to jump in and take over basic care needs, like taking the patient to the toilet or helping them dress, while white family members ae more likely to defer those jobs to "the professionals", not because they don't care about their relatives, but because they are more likely to see this as an intrusion on the nurses' field -- it's a form of showing respect for the medical professionals, by not wishing to step on their toes. Or they feel that it's the nurses' job, not theirs -- once in a professional setting, they want all the work doe by the professionals. (This makes them a pain in the ass!)

Also, the Anglo patients are less likely to seek accomodation in a relative's home while they recuperate, for fear of imposing again on someone's hospitality and time -- they are more likely to seek and accept care in a professional setting, where it's no imposition because the professionals are being paid to take care of them.

These are generalizations, of course, and mainly apply to the Mexican-Americans I'm familiar with -- they may not hold for other major US hispanic groups like Cubans or Puerto Ricans.
greg in noord-frankrijk

Uriel wrote:
When the lady of the house offered him a glass of water, he declined it -- as would be the polite response in white culture (...)
(...) in the hispanic culture, declining hospitality is considered rude (...)

Interesting. I think the same alternative is valid here but I'm not too sure it's always operating according to cultural background (or social class, income, age or whatever). For instance if I'm very busy I'll decline anyway mentioning I've got to leave right now and would probably explain why and thank the host for the hospitality. If I'm not so busy and feel the invitation was just a formality, I may decline too or accept. If I feel it's important for the host, I'll surely accept if I've got time.
Benjamin [inactive]

loic wrote:
Those whom you have encountered probably have a bit of sentimental attachment because their fathers probably read law at Cambridge, their grandfathers studied medicine at Edinburgh, their great-grandfathers might have been knighted by Queen Victoria, etc.

Does this apply to you, by any chance? Just wondering, lol.
Porthos

Uriel wrote:
Fab, there really ARE many differences between "Anglo"-Americans (who don't necessarily have to be of British descent, by the way; it's sort of a misnomer that only applies to language they speak) and hispanic-Americans. Sometimes they are very obvious, as Porthos mentioned. Often they are subtle, though. I remember a coworker who worked the census telling me that a "white" (Anglo) superviser accompanied her to an interview with a hispanic family. When the lady of the house offered him a glass of water, he declined it -- as would be the polite response in white culture (not wishing to impose -- eating and drinking in another's house often require a certain amount of familiarity and explicit invitation).

My coworker almost kicked him though, because she knew that in the hispanic culture, declining hospitality is considered rude, not polite, and he had just unwittingly made a huge faux pas -- she had to quickly cover up his gaffe by saying, "Oh, he just had a bottled water while we were driving!" Later she bitched him out and he was mystified -- he had no idea what he had done wrong.

There's a similar difference in attitudes toward family and independence. In Anglo culture, once you've reached adulthood, you are expected to move out of the house, become independent emotionally and financially, and you become a guest in your parent's home when you come to visit. You no longer accept the authority they had over you as a child; you are now an adult, and their equal.

Hispanics, on the other hand, often live -- by mutual choice -- with their parents for much longer, and are quicker to take parents into their homes as they age. I've seen many hispanic mothers horrified by the idea of their children leaving to go to faraway cities, and many grown children loathe to take distant job opportunites that would take them away from their extended families. Often roles remain the same, even after children are grown; I've seen Mexican-American mothers scold their 40-year-old married sons just like they were ten years old!

And speaking of elder care, I overheard two repiratory technicians in my hospital discussing the relative differnces beteen the behaviors of white family members versus hispanic ones -- the hispanics are more likely to spend the night with their relatives in the hospital, and quicker to jump in and take over basic care needs, like taking the patient to the toilet or helping them dress, while white family members ae more likely to defer those jobs to "the professionals", not because they don't care about their relatives, but because they are more likely to see this as an intrusion on the nurses' field -- it's a form of showing respect for the medical professionals, by not wishing to step on their toes. Or they feel that it's the nurses' job, not theirs -- once in a professional setting, they want all the work doe by the professionals. (This makes them a pain in the ass!)

Also, the Anglo patients are less likely to seek accomodation in a relative's home while they recuperate, for fear of imposing again on someone's hospitality and time -- they are more likely to seek and accept care in a professional setting, where it's no imposition because the professionals are being paid to take care of them.

These are generalizations, of course, and mainly apply to the Mexican-Americans I'm familiar with -- they may not hold for other major US hispanic groups like Cubans or Puerto Ricans.


You must be very close to Mexican people for you to know us that well, lol! That's hella good description you posted. Very, very good. Well, you live in New Mexico, so there's no wonder you know about beaners, lol.
Porthos

So Fab, after reading Uriel's reply and mine, do you still feel that Mexican-Americans are completely Anglo, other than the food? I have been trying to get you to realize the difference since I've been here.
Loic

Benjamin wrote:
loic wrote:
Those whom you have encountered probably have a bit of sentimental attachment because their fathers probably read law at Cambridge, their grandfathers studied medicine at Edinburgh, their great-grandfathers might have been knighted by Queen Victoria, etc.

Does this apply to you, by any chance? Just wondering, lol.


Lol. Definitely not. My great-grandfather, from what I heard, worked for the Royal Navy as a small-bit player, goodness knows what. Anyway, I think it'd be during the time of Edward VII or George V.
Porthos

I am anxious to see Fab's reply to mine and Uriel's posts. Perhaps he is travelling again.
fab

Hello Josh


No, I am not travelling, but I have starter a new job since yesterday, so I'll be less present here than I was.

I read your and Uriel comments, what I don't really get is who you call "mexican-Americans" ? the recent immigrants of Mexican nationality ? the newly naturalized immigrants ? The ones who have been born and raised in USA from mexican parents ? the American citizens ones born of one Mexican grandparents ? People who are predominantly Spanish-speaking as mother language ? Or people who have English as mother language and a Mexican ancestor (more of less recent immigration)

I doubt that in all those cases the behavour of the people would be the same, and could be put in a unique "mexican-American" category.
I agree that Mexican culture is very different from the English-speaking culture of the United States, and so I tend to suppose that the difference between "anglo-American" and "Mexican-American" tend to be link to the way people are more or less directly linked to Mexican culture (newcomers would have a greater cultural gasp that those born and raised in the USA. Those of the second generation would be less again linked to Mexico ?
Porthos

fab wrote:
Hello Josh


No, I am not travelling, but I have starter a new job since yesterday, so I'll be less present here than I was.

I read your and Uriel comments, what I don't really get is who you call "mexican-Americans" ? the recent immigrants of Mexican nationality ? the newly naturalized immigrants ? The ones who have been born and raised in USA from mexican parents ? the American citizens ones born of one Mexican grandparents ? People who are predominantly Spanish-speaking as mother language ? Or people who have English as mother language and a Mexican ancestor (more of less recent immigration)

I doubt that in all those cases the behavour of the people would be the same, and could be put in a unique "mexican-American" category.
I agree that Mexican culture is very different from the English-speaking culture of the United States, and so I tend to suppose that the difference between "anglo-American" and "Mexican-American" tend to be link to the way people are more or less directly linked to Mexican culture (newcomers would have a greater cultural gasp that those born and raised in the USA. Those of the second generation would be less again linked to Mexico ?


Mexican-Americans are simply those born in the U.S. of Mexican descent. By and large, they do fit the description that Uriel and I described for you. Generally speaking, with each generation, Mexican-Americans grow progressively distant from Mexican culture, but this is not always the case. Not all Mexican-Americans speak Spanish as a mother tounge, but they don't neccessarily have to for them to have a different mentality and culture, because besides language, culture is comprised of customs, religion, holidays, cuisine, ethnic identity, and many other things. I am a third generation American and much of my life is a blend of Anglo and Hispanic cultures, by my home life, family attachments, mentality, outlook, etc, is predominantly Hispanic. That is why I often object to you simply lumping me all together with "Anglo-Saxon" cultures. It is a label which does not truly reflect who I am as a person. When contrasting the two peoples, most Americans would say "White" and "Latino/Hispanic", but in my case, that doesn't work, as I am "white" racially, but also a Mexican-American. So I chose to use the word "Anglo" which is usually applied to Americans of northern European descent, who speak only English.

But in light of Uriel's an my testimonials, do you now see why I object to your labeling of me as an "Anglo-Saxon"?
Benjamin [inactive]

Fab,

Think of it as being a bit like the Beurs. Even amongst those who were born in France, I'm sure that you can still notice some general differences between them and, say, 'Christian' families who have been in France for hundreds of years. The 'Mexican-American' thing is probably quite similar.
Uriel

Quote:
You must be very close to Mexican people for you to know us that well, lol! That's hella good description you posted. Very, very good. Well, you live in New Mexico, so there's no wonder you know about beaners, lol.


Well, I've kept a few as pets. Mexican by injection, you might say.
Porthos

Uriel wrote:
Quote:
You must be very close to Mexican people for you to know us that well, lol! That's hella good description you posted. Very, very good. Well, you live in New Mexico, so there's no wonder you know about beaners, lol.


Well, I've kept a few as pets. Mexican by injection, you might say.


LOL
Uriel

Quote:
I read your and Uriel comments, what I don't really get is who you call "mexican-Americans"


No different than what we would mean by "Italian-Americans" or "Irish-Americans". Simply Americans of Mexican descent.

Quote:
I agree that Mexican culture is very different from the English-speaking culture of the United States, and so I tend to suppose that the difference between "anglo-American" and "Mexican-American" tend to be link to the way people are more or less directly linked to Mexican culture (newcomers would have a greater cultural gasp that those born and raised in the USA. Those of the second generation would be less again linked to Mexico ?


I don't know if it really depends that much on being linked with actual Mexican culture; Mexican-American culture is sort of a subculture all its own. It's not the same as Mexican culture per se, or simply a remnant of it. You don't have to be descended from a recent immigrant, and you don't even have to speak Spanish to be part of it. It's all in how you were raised. Or at least, that's my perception -- Elaine? Porthos? What do you think?
Porthos

Uriel wrote:
Quote:
I read your and Uriel comments, what I don't really get is who you call "mexican-Americans"


No different than what we would mean by "Italian-Americans" or "Irish-Americans". Simply Americans of Mexican descent.

Quote:
I agree that Mexican culture is very different from the English-speaking culture of the United States, and so I tend to suppose that the difference between "anglo-American" and "Mexican-American" tend to be link to the way people are more or less directly linked to Mexican culture (newcomers would have a greater cultural gasp that those born and raised in the USA. Those of the second generation would be less again linked to Mexico ?


I don't know if it really depends that much on being linked with actual Mexican culture; Mexican-American culture is sort of a subculture all its own. It's not the same as Mexican culture per se, or simply a remnant of it. You don't have to be descended from a recent immigrant, and you don't even have to speak Spanish to be part of it. It's all in how you were raised. Or at least, that's my perception -- Elaine? Porthos? What do you think?


Yeah, basically. We have a word in Spanish for Chicanos who lose their cultural heritage, or willfully abandon their heritage to fit in with Anglos. They are called "pochos". Usually, by the third generation or so, you will find a few "pochos" within a given family. But often times, Chicanos are accepted by the Mexican-American sub-group just because of their physical look. I'm white, so I'm only in the Mexican-American subgroup because of my culture and my family's nationality. Nonetheless, Mexicans, including the Mestizo majority of Mexicans in the U.S., are my people, even if we have different color skin. They are still my people and I belong to them. But, if I were to be totally Anglo in culture, considering that I look like any old white guy, I would most likely not be accepted in this subgroup. Sadly however, there are a lot of Mexican-Americans, particularly those from poorer neighborhoods, who aren't really of Mexican culture in the greater sense of the word, but are ethnically Mexican. They act as if acting educated and speaking proper English is "selling out" to the white man, so they, as most black youth do, try to act "ghetto", using improper English, and speaking with a Spanish accent, even if their first or only language is English. These gangsta Chicanos are what give other Mexican-Americans a bad rap. I'm not like that. I don't really like rap, and I respect myself, and I don't speak improper English, or wear baggy clothes. I realize that I'm an American, and I wear well cut, stylish clothes that actually fit me. I listen to rock music, or whatever else suits my taste, and I have class. This doesn't mean I'm "selling out" to Anglos. It just means I behave like a person with class and an education. Sadly, a lot of black and Hispanic youths don't see it that way. When I way younger, and I lived in rough parts of L.A., I had to advertise that I was Mexican. Otherwise, the Mexican majority of the schools would just see me as a white guy who could deserve to get jumped. I don't act like those idiots, and I don't speak English with a Spanish accent, but in truth, I'm actually much closer to true Mexican culture than many of them are.
Benjamin [inactive]

Porthos wrote:
We have a word in Spanish for Chicanos who lose their cultural heritage, or willfully abandon their heritage to fit in with Anglos. They are called "pochos".

Lol, sounds like the term 'West British' in Ireland.
fab

one question Josh,

Do you consider Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, German-Americans, Polish-Americans, Greek-Americans, French-Americans, Spanish-Americans, etc. as Anglos ?
Porthos

fab wrote:
one question Josh,

Do you consider Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, German-Americans, Polish-Americans, Greek-Americans, French-Americans, Spanish-Americans, etc. as Anglos ?


You see, when used this way, "Anglo" is a difficult word. Originally, "Anglo" was used to differentiate between "native born Americans", who were Anglo-Saxon, and all of the Irish, German, Polish, Italian immigrants etc in the early to mid 19th century. Since then, "Anglo" has taken on a new meaning, and is often applied to white people in general. Normally, I would use the word "White", because people in America think of "Hispanic" as a purely racial categorization, and don't realize that Hispanic people come in all shades and colors, from black, to brown, to white. But you, and others here do. So rather than using "White" as opposed to "Hispanic", especially since I'm a white Hispanic, I picked the word "Anglo" to distinguish between Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites.

Most people who descend from northern European immigrants were easily assimilated into American culture. They added their own native contributions which formed our present melting pot, but for the most part, they just became like all other Anglo-Americans. Most German-Americans and Polish-Americans and even a lot of Italian-Americans don't speak a drop of their ancestor's language, and they are really no different than any other Anglo-American. They were easily assimilated within the mainstream English speaking culture because by their outward appearance, they looked exactly the same, and were thus not discriminated against. Greek-Americans aren't very common, but they have a very unique, non-Anglo subculture, and often times, Italians have a very strong sub-culture, even though most do non speak Italian. But for the most part, all Americans who are of northern European descent, and have northern European surnames, and who only speak English are considered Anglo. So, Germans, Scandanavians, British, Irish, Dutch, etc., are considered Anglos. There weren't a whole lot of French emigrants in America, but the few that are, are usually just grouped in with the northern Europeans, and have no real, sub-cultural identity.
Tiffany

Hey Fab,
Isn't the racial tension in America scary? I personally do not like the word Anglo. I see it from a different perspective than Josh though, as a visible minority. I'm sorry Josh, but you are white to me. You are able to reap all the benefits a white person does - your appearance affords you that. Short of plastic surgery, or a brown paper bag, I will always be an immediately identified minority.
Elaine

Uriel wrote:
Well, I've kept a few as pets. Mexican by injection, you might say.


Guuurl! If that's the way it works, then I'm Polish.
Porthos

Tiffany, are we back to this, "Josh isn't really a minority" thing again? What about my cousins who I'm staying with right now who live in Mexico, but also used to live in the U.S. and were discriminated against because of their thick Spanish accents, and their blatently obvious alien culture? Two of the three are even whiter than I am. They have light brown hair and green eyes. Are they not a minority now too? I'm sorry, but I feel very offended when people wish to group me in with Anglo whites, and not Mexican-Americans. I am very proud of my Chicano identity, and don't wish to be known as anything otherwise. Just because I'm a Spanish-Mexican, I'm not Mexican???? When was that law passed? Did I miss something?

I think Asian-Americans have it harder than most minorities. They're usually middle to upper class, and they seem to be the most financially successful of the immigrant ethnic groups. But, they are a very small minority when compared to blacks and Hispanics, so they don't have much representation in politics or in the media, and they don't have as much social awareness of discrimination against them, so that there is a less of a restraint on discrimination against Asians, as opposed to Hispanics, or especially blacks.
fab

Quote:
Isn't the racial tension in America scary?



Yes, I find it scary, and, I should say quite artificial. If the "etnic" categories were not having been made since the foundation of the USA, I think that nowadays the USA would be a mulato/mestizo country as most of its neighbours in the new world.

But what scares me more is that, due to the influence of the socio-cultural model of the US we are now seing in Europe a recent movement of "ethnicisation" of the society. I think such a divided model of society is not livable in long term.

What continue to surprise me in the US is that a "black/white" couple is such a taboo, after 300 years of having "blacks" and "whites" living together on the same land. What I like here, is that we don't think yet too much with these classifications, and white/black (or other combinations) couples are very frequent in Paris. I myself had in the previous years, a girlfirend of Asian origins and later a black girlfriend, my actual girlfriend is mixed with some native indian and black ancestors, since her mother is from Venezuela.
Benjamin [inactive]

fab wrote:
But what scares me more is that, due to the influence of the socio-cultural model of the US we are now seing in Europe a recent movement of "ethnicisation" of the society.

Or perhaps it's because the existence of what Tiffany calls 'visible minorities' on a large scale is a relatively new thing in most European countries.
Porthos

Pardon me if I offend any of you, but it is my personal opinion that the French are the superficial ones with regard to race. They act as if they are color blind, but in reality, behind closed doors, they are just as racist as anybody else. There has historically been more racial tension in the U.S. simply because there WAS a variety of races, while Europe, until recently, was almost exclusively white. Now you are starting to see the racial tensions brought about my new immigrant ethnic groups such as those from the middle east or north Africa. And there has always been vicious anti-semitism in Europe. America was seen as a safe haven for Jews, and much more preferable to Europe, where they were lynched. That's why millions of Jews fled to America in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Elaine

fab wrote:
What continue to surprise me in the US is that a "black/white" couple is such a taboo, after 300 years of having "blacks" and "whites" living together on the same land. What I like here, is that we don't think yet too much with these classifications, and white/black (or other combinations) couples are very frequent in Paris. I myself had in the previous years, a girlfirend of Asian origins and later a black girlfriend, my actual girlfriend is mixed with some native indian and black ancestors, since her mother is from Venezuela.


Have I been living in a different world or am I just blind?? What is with this "black/white taboo" or people living segregated lives and in segregated communities? Where I live, I see mixed couples and multi-racial children everywhere so it's really a non-issue for me. My take on it is that it's more a socio-economic division rather than a racial one. I'm actually kind of stunned by this fixation with race and ethnicity that I keep reading about.
Benjamin [inactive]

At the end of the day though, I'd say that it's mostly about money, both in Europe and in the United States, past an present. Actually, I'd suggest that the apartheid system in South Africa was ultimately more about money than anything else.
Tiffany

Porthos wrote:
Tiffany, are we back to this, "Josh isn't really a minority" thing again? What about my cousins who I'm staying with right now who live in Mexico, but also used to live in the U.S. and were discriminated against because of their thick Spanish accents, and their blatently obvious alien culture? Two of the three are even whiter than I am. They have light brown hair and green eyes. Are they not a minority now too? I'm sorry, but I feel very offended when people wish to group me in with Anglo whites, and not Mexican-Americans. I am very proud of my Chicano identity, and don't wish to be known as anything otherwise. Just because I'm a Spanish-Mexican, I'm not Mexican???? When was that law passed? Did I miss something?

I think Asian-Americans have it harder than most minorities. They're usually middle to upper class, and they seem to be the most financially successful of the immigrant ethnic groups. But, they are a very small minority when compared to blacks and Hispanics, so they don't have much representation in politics or in the media, and they don't have as much social awareness of discrimination against them, so that there is a less of a restraint on discrimination against Asians, as opposed to Hispanics, or especially blacks.


My thing was never "Josh isn't a minority". My thing has always been "Josh isn't a visible minority."

The last time we talked about this (over on antimoon), you apparently felt there was no real difference between being an invisible vs visible minority, especially in treatment. This, I felt, was ridiculous to imply.

Not only can I point out some very obvious advantages invisible minorities have over visible ones, you just pointed some of them out yourself by talking about how the introduction of visible minorities in Europe have caused more racial tension.

Elaine, there is segregation still, but not as much as there used to be. I myself am in an interracial relationship (obviously), and I am multi-racial if we want to talk about. I am everything under the sun even though most can only see my Asian facial features. I don't mind though. Such is life.
fab

Quote:
while Europe, until recently, was almost exclusively white


What we call "white" is the result of the mixing of thousands of different peoples since centuries...



Quote:
Have I been living in a different world or am I just blind?? What is with this "black/white taboo" or people living segregated lives and in segregated communities? Where I live, I see mixed couples and multi-racial children everywhere so it's really a non-issue for me.


REcently we had some very American-society-based movies on french screens, one of it, I don't remember the name what about the reaction of a black family in which the girl wanted to marry with a white boy. It was a flop, since it didn't had any problem with that and it didn't had an echo in our society.


Quote:
Pardon me if I offend any of you, but it is my personal opinion that the French are the superficial ones with regard to race. They act as if they are color blind, but in reality, behind closed doors, they are just as racist as anybody else


In France, there have been racism as anywhere else, but the difference with the united states is that the racism is not based upon a "race" but upon a culture.

One exemple, "black" in France doesn't mean not much more than a physical description as "blond" or "brown". It doesn't related to any specific group since black can mean being coming from so different places and cultures.
Actually, it may be surprising, but there are some black people in the french national party, mostly French blacks from the west indies. They would never group them with the African newcomers who still live with an African way of life, which is of course very different from the French culture of the DOM-TOMs.
Porthos

What else are you, if you don't mind telling me?

And Elaine, I have to side with our French friend on this one. There is an interracial couple taboo which persists in America, especially in those barbaric red states. But it seems to be strongest between blacks and whites. You see a lot more whites marry Mexicans than blacks. And black men dating white women is much more common than the inverse. You rarely ever see a white man dating a black woman for some reason. The fact is, most white men aren't really attracted to black women, as if they are programmed that way. I have extremely close black friends, but to be honest, I couldn't ever imagine myself marrying a black girl. Black men, however, are attracted to white women. It's as if they are programmed to think that white looks are "good" looks. Black guys really fancy being with a white chick. In vegas, my two and only close friends were both black, and they would exclusively date white girls, refusing to date black girls, because they didn't like them.
Porthos

See for us, blacks in America are not culturally "African". Their whole culture was reshaped and transformed by their brutal slave masters. They don't speak a single word of an African language, and no almost nothing about the home or culture of their ancestors. They all have the European surnames of their family's slave master. The only thing remotely African which has survived in their culture is that Afro rythyms which survived in modern black-subcultural music.
Benjamin [inactive]

fab wrote:
In France, there have been racism as anywhere else, but the difference with the united states is that the racism is not based upon a "race" but upon a culture.

I thought it was like that everywhere (plus the 'non-white person = immigrant come to take my job' attitude which exists in much of Europe). So, are you saying that a lot of people in the United States actually believe that certain 'races' are inherently superior/inferior to others? Although I ultimately have no idea whether that is true or not, I hadn't realised that that was what you thought.
Tiffany

Porthos wrote:
What else are you, if you don't mind telling me?


You are talking to me I presume Josh?

Ethnicites:
Chinese
Jamaican
English
Spanish
Portuguese
French
Scottish
Irish
German
Indian (from India)
fab

Quote:
most white men aren't really attracted to black women, as if they are programmed that way


actually that's must be specific to white American males... Here black and mulata girls are popular.

I remember in the recent years have seen almost half of the "miss France" being black or mulata. As far I know the vote are made by the public on the net.

Actually I find them very attractive :


Tiffany

Benjamin wrote:
So, are you saying that a lot of people in the United States actually believe that certain 'races' are inherently superior/inferior to others?


I don't think this is true, but there are certainly people like this. Ever heard of the KKK?

Of course, groups like the KKK exist in Europe too.
Benjamin [inactive]

fab wrote:
Actually I find them very attractive :

I thought you already had a girlfriend.
greg in noord-frankrijk

Porthos wrote:
The fact is, most white men aren't really attracted to black women, as if they are programmed that way. I have extremely close black friends, but to be honest, I couldn't ever imagine myself marrying a black girl.


???

How come ?
fab

Quote:
So, are you saying that a lot of people in the United States actually believe that certain 'races' are inherently superior/inferior to others



No I don't think that most Americans don't think in terms of "inferior"/"superior" (maybe some would do, maybe in the "old-south" states, But I think times have change since the 60's (correct me If I say something wrong)). But I think that most American people think that the "races" are different biological entities that would be fondamentally different.
Benjamin [inactive]

Tiffany wrote:
Benjamin wrote:
So, are you saying that a lot of people in the United States actually believe that certain 'races' are inherently superior/inferior to others?


I don't think this is true, but there are certainly people like this. Ever heard of the KKK?

Yes.

Quote:
Of course, groups like the KKK exist in Europe too.

Absolutely. The British National Party are one of them, as they oppose 'inter-racial' marriages (amongst other things).
Tiffany

Miss Italia 1996:



She is still though the only Miss Italia who has not been white. Three was somewhat of an uproar when she won, as many people felt she didn't "represent" Italy. They've obviously been closing their eyes in Italy if they don't see the black people around. Sadly though, most of them are relegated to selling things on the street. The Italians have a name for them, "Vu' Compra'" - which is "vuoi comprare" (Would you like to buy..?) as it sounds in their North African accent.
Tiffany

fab wrote:
Quote:
So, are you saying that a lot of people in the United States actually believe that certain 'races' are inherently superior/inferior to others



No I don't think that most Americans don't think in terms of "inferior"/"superior" (maybe some would do, maybe in the "old-south" states, But I think times have change since the 60's (correct me If I say something wrong)). But I think that most American people think that the "races" are different biological entities that would be fondamentally different.


Seriously? Come on. I think most of us know thats a load of bullcrap. You've been listening to a vocal minority if you think that of most of us.
Porthos

fab wrote:
Quote:
most white men aren't really attracted to black women, as if they are programmed that way


actually that's must be specific to white American males... Here black and mulata girls are popular.

I remember in the recent years have seen almost half of the "miss France" being black or mulata. As far I know the vote are made by the public on the net.

Actually I find them very attractive :




Okay, the first one is smoking HOT! The second one, not as much. But, I like some black women and mulatas too. But, it's the black women with more Caucasian facial features (no big, wide nose, no big lips, kinky hair, etc) that are attractive to me. Most people won't admit that though. If a white guy has a thing for a black girl he could be mocked for having "jungle fever".

Tiffany,
How in the heck did you get such a diversified ethnic makeup? Is your dad a pan-Asian mix, and your mom a pan-European mix or something?

My complete ancestral history is also rather interesting, although the dominant ethnic background is Spanish and Welsh. But here's my list, of the different ethnicities that I know of at least.

Spanish
Welsh
English
French
Cherokee Indian (native Indians of the American southeast)
Mexican native (Indian)

Oh, and one of my ancestors in Mexico was raped by an Englishman. So, we don't count the English blood on that side of the family, but my dad has some English blood, as his family is from the south. My dad's maternal grandfather was a French-Indian mix, from Louisiana. But he was totally Anglo in culture. He even pronounced the 't' in "Colbert", haha!
fab

Quote:
I thought you already had a girlfriend.



Yes, but it is not forbidden to appreciate the natural beauties of the earth... with the eyes only!

Tiffany

greg in noord-frankrijk wrote:

???

How come ?


If we had the answer to that (this prejudicial way of thinking that seems impossible to eradicate) we'd know the meaning of life, the universe and everything. However, I don't think we'd like it one bit.
Benjamin [inactive]

Tiffany wrote:
They've obviously been closing their eyes in Italy if they don't see the black people around. Sadly though, most of them are relegated to selling things on the street. The Italians have a name for them, "Vu' Compra'" - which is "vuoi comprare" (Would you like to buy..?) as it sounds in their North African accent.

So true. I might say that Italy is perhaps not one of the more 'progressive' countries in Western Europe, or at least in my view. The number of beggars you see in Rome... and almost none of them are 'white native Italians'.
Porthos

I would say that most people in America think of different races as different biological entities. That doesn't mean that they think they're different species or anything, I mean, aside from crazy racist political groups perhaps. I think of different races as different genetic branches of the human family. Sort of like, different families, only on a much larger scale. We're all related if you go back far enough, it's just that one group will be more closely related to a different group than another group would.
Tiffany

Porthos wrote:
Tiffany,
How in the heck did you get such a diversified ethnic makeup? Is your dad a pan-Asian mix, and your mom a pan-European mix or something?


My parents are both mixed. Put them together, and I have alot of ethnic heritages.

Mom:
Chinese
Jamaican
French
English
Scottish
Indian

Dad:
Chinese
Jamaican
German
English/Irish (great-grandmother said she was half-Irish but from England)
Spanish
Portuguese

In addition, their parents are mixed too. Like your family, we are missing a whole branch as well as my grandmother on my maternal side was abandoned by her mother (we have confirmed chinese, indian and english from my great-grandmother) because she got pregnant outside of marriage. The man was apparently total Euro-Trash, so who knows what else is there?
Elaine

Tiffany wrote:
Elaine, there is segregation still, but not as much as there used to be.


Oh certainly. I don't doubt that. But is it so much as still based on race or is it some other underlying factor(s), like culture and economics? For instance, I live in a very mixed-race neighborhood and we all seem to get along fine. But when poor Mexican immigrants started moving in and living their lives the way they did back in Durango, Mexico, even the Chicanos among us were outraged. I don't think this phenomenon is a uniquely American thing as what seems to be portrayed in this forum, but I think it's pretty universal.
Tiffany

I agree with you very much and I think segregation is along whatever lines people can get. Believe me, people don't just discriminate based on the color of skin. There are a lot of other things they can use, and do.

But indeed in America a well-off black family is more likely to be accepted by similarly well off white families than a poor white family.
Uriel

The term "Anglo" is not meant to be taken literally when speaking of Anglos and hispanics, Fab. Nor does the fact that many people in this area will speak of people as being hispanic or "white" mean that hispanics are not technically (mostly) Caucasian (white), albeit often somewhat browner due to Native American heritage. It's confusing, yes, and non-Americans tend to take them the wrong way.

I think Americans tend to look at skin color and race as biological variation, yes, (because that's what it is), but not as something fundamentally different biologically. Culturally may be another story, as blacks, whites, Asians, and hispanics in the US often do profess cultural allegiences to their own groups. Perhaps it doesn't work that way in other countries. (I suspect it does, but the lines happen to be drawn a little differently.)

Interracial dating and marriage are actually quite common in the US. Far more so than movies and TV will lead you to believe -- those mediums are actually quite socially conservative in many ways. (If you watch 50's TV shows, you will find that married couples on them slept in separate twin beds. This was not a real reflection of the sleeping habits of actual people of that period, but a reflection of the hysterically prudish ratings board.) So don't use those as your benchmark. They are fiction, not a documentary.
Porthos

Well, what's weird is that certain inter-racial dating is still taboo in this country. For instance, take my example. I would have no problem dating a white girl or a Latina girl, but I might think twice before dating a black or Asian girl, and I certainly don't think I would marry a black or Asian girl. It's not because I am racist against the latter two, or because I don't find them attractive. It's just something that is so deeply ingrained on the sub-conscious level, that you barely even notice it. I might see a very attractive black girl, but I wouldn't go up to her and ask her out on a date. We just don't date black girls. It's not anything that people talk about (at least not among my circle of friends), but it's just something you do without thinking, like a natural, programmed reaction. Even at school, I've had black girls as friends, and we would hug, or be physically very close, but no one ever percieved this as a sign of sexual affection, because everyone knew that I was just her friend, because she was black and I wasn't. As I've said before, in my three years in Vegas, my primary friends were both black. So, we do associate with black people, but for some reason, we don't usually date them. You will see however, black guys and white girls date. A lot of white girls, although still a minority of them, are very attracted or turned on so to speak, by black men. Some of the more skanky type will prefer to just have a purely sexual relationship with a black man, but not date them in the public sphere, or share emotional intimacy with them, while also, never considering the prospect of actually marrying the black guy. And it seems as though most black men prefer white women. If a black guy manages to get a white girlfriend, he earns points with his friends, because it is a harder catch.

Also, there is a fear of social stigma. I have a friend who is half black/half white, and in a way, he has difficulty fitting in with either world, and it could be hard for half casts. He hangs out with us, and in our group, we all happen to be white or Hispanic.
Benjamin [inactive]

That's very interesting, Josh.

In England, white-black is probably the most common 'inter-racial' relationship — so much so that about half of so-called 'black' children under five apparently have one white parent. I'd expect that some older people might be opposed to 'inter-racial' marriages, and it would probably have been more of a taboo in the past, but I cannot imagine that many people my age would think anything unusual of a white person marrying a black person today.

Here, it tends to be more about religion than anything else. A majority of white and black people in England are from at least vaguely Christian backgrounds — there exists a sort of continuum from devout Christians through to militant atheists, with most probably being somewhere in the middle. Because there isn't usually a religious conflict, it's fine.

However, because a majority of Muslims here actually do practice their religion and are general quite conservative, it would be much more unusual for a Muslim to marry a non-Muslim. (Coincidentally, very few Muslims would consider themselves 'white', although I have met some).

Most younger Hindus here and many younger Sikhs here are very 'Western' (many are actually quite όber-British) and secular, so there probably wouldn't be a problem there. A relationship between, say, a white person and, say, a devout orthodox Sikh would be much more unusual though.

People of Chinese descent are usually non-religious, Buddhist or Christian. This won't generally present a religious conflict with the 'mainstream', although there will be differences between those who are more or less assimilated and those who retain a strong Chinese identity. It's hard to say, because they only constitute about 0.5% of the population.
Porthos

And it varies from region to region, and from race to race. Here, religion and class are less important than ethnicity as social barriers.

White-Asian is relatively common, although it is usually a white male and an Asian female. I think that is because Asian males are generally smaller, and thought of as being less "tough" by a lot of people, so white females would be less prone to choosing their partner among Asians as opposed to a white male. You must keep in mind also that Asian-Americans are a very small minority when compared to the rest of the population, so you will not see very many White-Asian couples simply because there aren't very many Asians to begin with.

White-Hispanic is very, very common these days. I am myself an example of that. My father is Anglo-White, and my mother is Mexican, though still of southern European descent, but self-identifies as non-white. It seems to be that more white men marry Hispanic women than the other way around, but I wouldn't say that for sure.

White-Black is perhaps the most taboo inter-racial relationship there is, and by far, the least common. It is *extremely* rare for a white male to date or marry a black female. You will see however, on occasion, a black male and white female couple, although this is still very rare indeed. The thing is however, nobody really even thinks about this social taboo. It doesn't usually cross your mind. You just avoid it without thinking about it.

Within my own family, I would probably be ostrocized if I married someone who wasn't Latina, or white. I am always encouraged to marry a Latina woman. My brother married a light skinned black woman. They were divorced within three years, and no doubt, the woman's family and cultural differences played a part in their eventual break up. It was sad, because she was a good woman, although a bit too moody. My favorite uncle married a woman who was half Vietmanese and half white. They are still happily married to this day. The rest of my family either married whites, or other Latinos. Among my family members, there has been a high rate of marriage to whites, but that is mainly because, visually, we're not percieved as being "different", which opens the way for more inter-cultural relatiionships between us and Anglo-whites. My brother is an exception because he is my half-brother, and his father was Guatemalan, so he looks like a typical mestizo Mexican, and is percieved visually speaking as Tiffany would say, as being flat out, of a different race.
Benjamin [inactive]

Porthos wrote:
I am always encouraged to marry a Latina woman.

Just of interest... are you already being encouraged to get married?

       langcafe2.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Culture Page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum