Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:31 am Post subject: 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.
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?
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]
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.
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:38 pm Post subject: 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.
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.
/ _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
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).
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.
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. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
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.
" 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 !
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Angeles del Río de Porciúncula
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:12 pm Post subject:
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.
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. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
" 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! _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
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.
Last edited by Benjamin [inactive] on Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:52 pm; edited 3 times in total
" 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.
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.
<<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. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
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?
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
All times are GMT + 2 Hours Page 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11Next
Page 1 of 11
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
