4 ms·
What happened to Anglo-American anyways? Substituting that term with the wildly incorrect but similar sounding Anglo-Saxon is quite literally a linguistic attac
by usrusr 3y ago
What happened to Anglo-American anyways? Substituting that term with the wildly incorrect but similar sounding Anglo-Saxon is quite literally a linguistic attack, unfortunately one that seems to occasionally get picked up by people meaning no harm because of how "more historic" is often conflated with "more sophisticated" even if it's the exact opposite when the assumed historic implications are wrong.
- nologic01 3y agoI stand corrected. Anglo-American would definitely be closer to the intended meaning. The term is only meant to be a rough placeholder for a set of norms and values anyway (and the corresponding economic systems and arrangements). It is neither geographically nor historically particularly sharp (has nothing indeed to do with race) and some non-English speaking parts of the world (e.g., the Netherlands) have been very much aligned.
- CRConrad 3y agoI think it's different because it excludes Australia and New Zealand, which are otherwise exactly like North America in that they've inherited their language and culture from Britain. If you want to talk about the world-wide English-speaking-culturally-British-based-community it's "Anglo-American" that is more wildly incorrect, which makes "Anglo-Saxon" -- denoting the common heritage from a British, English-speaking, culture -- more correct.