> Could you persuasively argue that California politics is more like Mexican politics than it is the politics of other so-called Anglo-Saxon systems like the U.

> Could you persuasively argue that California politics is more like Mexican politics than it is the politics of other so-called Anglo-Saxon systems like the U.K., Ireland, Canada, Australia, or even South Africa? Calling Ireland in particular “Anglo-Saxon” instead of “Anglo-Celtic” is especially jarring to my ears. Canada has Quebec, and also Francophone minorities in other provinces. South Africa was heavily influenced by the Dutch/Afrikaners. And since the end of British rule, the South African system has discarded a lot of its British heritage-much of that was driven by its Afrikaner-dominated apartheid era ruling party. I think in terms of law, culture, politics, governance, there has been a lot of divergent evolution between the US and most of the rest of the Anglosphere, which calling it “Anglo-Saxon” ignores. “Anglo-American” may be the better term. > North and South America altogether stand out distinctly from the rest of the world, for a multitude of reasons rooted in shared historical phenomena (e.g. slavery, frontier ethos, etc), Slavery has had a long history in most parts of the world. Millions of African slaves were also sent to the Middle East, and there was also a lot of intra-African slavery and slave trading. Slavery also used to be a very big thing in Europe, but it largely disappeared in the Middle Ages (primarily, it appears, for economic reasons as opposed to moral ones) Other parts of the world have a similar “frontier ethos” to the Americas, for example Australia, Siberia, white South Africans