3 ms·
You claim that the US and Canada are synonymous with "Anglo-Saxon" colonies. How do you explain the place names in Silicon Valley: San Francisco, San Mateo, San
by SiVal 12y ago
You claim that the US and Canada are synonymous with "Anglo-Saxon" colonies. How do you explain the place names in Silicon Valley: San Francisco, San Mateo, San Carlos, Palo Alto, Los Gatos, Los Altos, San Jose...?
How do you explain Canada's endless "dual language" bickering? Is that Anglo speakers vs. Saxon speakers?
The United States was formed long after most of the plagues that devastated the native North Americans, yet it was the US government that bought the vast Louisiana Purchase territory. From whom? And bought Alaska? From whom? These places had quite a low density of native populations long before they became "Anglo-Saxon".
- Spooky23 12y agoLouisiana was purchased from France... Whose claim to the land was tenuous at best. The genius of the purchase was that it kept Napoleon away.
- turar 12y agoCalifornia was part of Mexico until 1846. Quebec was part of New France until 1759. I'm not sure what your point is. Today, combined Native and mixed-Native population in the US is less than 2%. Compare that with Mexico's 88%. It just doesn't add up.
- SiVal 12y agoYet you claim, "Today, only in the US and Canada, i.e. Anglo-Saxon colonies...." How could you not understand a point that you are restating? Today's US and Canada are obviously not just the "Anglo-Saxon colonies".
- turar 12y agoAh, so you took offense with "today"? Okay, read it as "former Anglo-Saxon colonies". The larger point remains.
- SiVal 12y ago"only in the US and Canada, i.e. Anglo-Saxon colonies...." Unless I'm mistaken, you claim you are trying to make a point about North America, not the East Coast of North America, and you insist on referring to places such as the vast American Southwest, the Louisiana Territory, Quebec, and so on as, "Okay, read it as 'former Anglo-Saxon colonies'". You can't see anything wrong with your point? Clearly, I have to try something else, so does your point about Anglo-Saxon colonies and native populations require us to characterize California and Quebec as "former Anglo-Saxon colonies" or not? If it were me, I'd give up the fashionable notion that this is about nasty Anglo-Saxons and a phenomenon only seen in the US and Canada and take a closer look at North American former colonies like Massachusetts (English) and Quebec (French), and almost as large South American former colonies like Argentina (Spanish) and Brazil (Portuguese), where the native population is a tiny fraction of the overall population, and compare them to those countries in the middle that still have a majority native population, and ask yourself what the first group have in common with each other that differs from the latter group. It isn't Anglo-Saxon-ness.