> If you look at various statistics, the Anglo countries share strong commonalities, even though people of British descent are now a distinct minority in the US

> If you look at various statistics, the Anglo countries share strong commonalities, even though people of British descent are now a distinct minority in the US (while being a majority in Britain, Canada, and Australia). The preferred term for Australia's historical ethnic majority is "Anglo-Celtic" not "British"; calling it "British" can be seen as ignoring Irish-Australians. One big difference between the Australia and the US - there was a significant minority of Irish Catholics in Australia from the very beginnings of British settlement. Although they did experience some discrimination, it was a lot less than in the US, so they integrated more quickly and easily into the establishment. People thought it was a big deal when a Catholic of Irish descent was elected US President in 1961; Australia had its first Catholic and first Irish-descended Prime Minister over 30 years earlier, and it was an event which attracted far less notice. > Over time, other people moved in. Those were immigrants. But for a long time it wasn’t immigration as we know it today. Many of them created greenfield communities, settling large swaths of the Midwest, etc. Those communities were pockets of Germans, etc., in a country that was still distinctly British. You seem to be drawing a "settler"-vs-"immigrant" distinction based on majority-vs-minority ethnicity. From my perspective, that's a rather idiosyncratic usage. To me, an immigrant is an immigrant, regardless of their ethnic background. A "settler" is either an old-fashioned synonym for "immigrant", or else a term for those immigrants who "created greenfield communities".