As an American (with no Anglo-Saxon ancestry), I strongly disagree. We call them Germans, the Italians call them Teutons, the Spanish call them Alemanni. Those

As an American (with no Anglo-Saxon ancestry), I strongly disagree. We call them Germans, the Italians call them Teutons, the Spanish call them Alemanni. Those were all distinct peoples who came together along with others to call themselves Dutch. But we use Dutch to refer to different people, and Germanic to refer to an even wider group of people then all the aforementioned put together. I've never heard a non-joking complaint from any of them about that. Granted, they're saying Anglo-Saxon while speaking English, but it's their dialect of English. I also can't see why Englishspeaking is better than anglophone. Engl- comes from Angl-. -phone means -speaking. They're both English language words with identical meanings. You haven't mentioned Anglo by itself, but that's even more common. It means English, but disambiguates England and English people from their global influence. If English is fine, Anglo should be fine too. And if Anglo is fine, then Saxon and Jute and Frisian should probably be fine too. But it's not fine when you put them together? It's ridiculous to say that the actual self-given name of the predecessors of a language and culture has racial connotations.