Talk:Anglo-America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Anglophone Canadians

"A significant proportion of Canadians do not speak English"

This isn't necessarily true, the overwhelming majority speak at least some English, even if they choose not to. This sentence as it stands can give an inaccurate impression and should be re-written.Fire Star 14:58, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Little used term?

I disagree. There are plenty of Google hits, and Brittanica has a (stubby) article. English-speaking North Americans are a very important ethnic group (or group of closely-related ethnic groups) with a rich culture and history. How could there not be a term for where they live?

Pekinensis 17:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Sadly it is true, hardly used.


[edit] Falklands?

Does the Falklands count as Anglo-America?

It should do. Even its nemesis Argentina has a long standing Anglo-Saxon population, particularly in Buenos Aires. The legacy's in the sports they play like Polo and rugby etc

[edit] Anglo is not in the same level of Latin

  • Latin languages: french, spanish, italian, portuguese, romanian, etc.
  • German languages: english, dutch, deutsche, norwegian, swedish, etc.

The opposite of Latin America is German America

[edit] Not only english as German language

German America is better. in Suriname, Netherlands Antilles and Aruba Dutch is spoken, no english.

The terms and meanings of German and Germanic should not be confused. siarach 15:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Anglo-America"

I have never heard this term used before and the Google hits weren't encouraging. The western hemisphere can be divided culturally into Latin American (which includes Central and South America) and North America. The term North America is ambiguous: it can refer to just US+Canada (so-called "Anglo-America"), sometimes US+Canada+Mexico, and sometimes it can also include Central America, in which case its geographic meaning is different from its cultural meaning. (I'm leaving out islands for simplicity.) This is why some Spanish-speaking people refer to Americans/Canadians as norteamericanos. Has anyone else ever heard this term used to describe US+Canada? It sounds like a neologism. Tocharianne 21:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The term isn't a neologism. You may never had heard the term before, but you may have heard of "Anglo-Americans" (which is a term normally used to refer to Anglophone Canadians and Americans - especially in contrast to Quebec). As the article rightly points out in its introduction, the term has two overlapping meanings. A more narrower, cultural definition referring to the US and Canada (minus Quebec and probably Cajun areas of Louisiana) and a broader, linguistic definition encompassing all the areas of the Americas where English is the predominant language (whether official or not). I have to disagree though with your classification of culture in the Americas. The western hemisphere cannot simply be divided culturally into Latin American and North American. That division excludes the non-Spanish/French speaking territories in North America (including Greenland, Central America and the West Indies/Caribbean) and South America. It also excludes the Inuits and Native Americans and indigenous Amerindians in South America. Their is a predominant Latin culture and a predominant Canadian-American culture (although where the Quebecois/Quebeckers fall in all this depends on their opinions), but they are not the only cultures.72.27.165.213 06:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] edits on 1-8-2007

I removed the latest addition from BrendelSignature because it listed this pdf as a reference, but I can't find any place where that article uses the term Anglo-American or specifically mentions western states. If I missed finding it, please let me know and we can add it back. Tocharianne 02:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] I believe the title of this article should be changed to Teutonic America

If you were to split the Americas into two parts following the language factor, the best option is to call this article "Teutonic America" (as in opposition to "Latin America). Different from the word "Germanic", that is too much linked to Germany only, the word "Teutonic" encompasses several nations of North Europe, England, Netherlands and Denmark included. Plus, it would work way better if your goal is to fit Suriname (Dutch speaking), Greenland (a territory of Denmark) and USA in a same common category that is based on the languages spoken.

As for Quebec and Lousiania, you shouldn't worry wether the classification would fit or not, because the line separating Americas into "Latin America" and "Teutonic America" is not supposed to fraction countries into parts. The idea is to group entire countries in one or other linguistic side, and what matters in this case is what language is spoken by the majority of the population of a given country, provinces and states don't count. Quebec is in Canada and Quebecois are Canadians and since 75%-80% of all the Canadians speak English as their first language, then that's enough to group Canada in the Teutonic America.--Patrasmentium 12:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] errors in the map?

The map seems to suggest that Panama, Guyane (French Guiana), and the ABC islands (the Netherlands Antilles) are "regions where English is prevalent, or where people have English historical roots," in line with Belize, Jamaica, and so on. Shurely shome mishtake? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How can the map be changed?

I completely agree with jbmurray and I'd also add some things: -Hawaii is coloured on the map!!!!!! If Hawaii is coloured, maybe we should colour all of the US dependencies. I propose to decolour Hawaii from the map because it's not part of America! -Panama? Panama belonged to Colombia until 1903, was conquered by Spain and its official language is Spanish (only). Panama should be decoloured. -In the article says: "Suriname is not a part of Anglo-America because Dutch is the official language there, like in the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba."...so why are Suriname and the ABC islands coloured??? -Guadeloupe and Maritinique seem to be coloured too. Should I change the map using Paint? How do you think the map can be corrected? Lautarocos 01:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. It appears that Guyana and Suriname are highlighted (not French Guiana) -- the first is English-speaking. Dutch is spoken in Suriname, as in the ABC islands. Apparently, English is common in Panama, despite Spanish being official. A number of the Antilles are English-speaking, but (in my opinion) the individual islands may be hard to distinguish on this map. Hawaii, though not technically part of the American landmass, is English-speaking and a part of the United States of America. Is there a list of territories in Anglo-America we can refer to when/if changing the map? I suppose the PNG map can be edited using any picture editing programme like Paint. Quizimodo 02:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I liked the idea of making a list so here it goes:

1- Canada (Quebec could be coloured in light green instead of dark green, as it is now). I agree with you, Quizimodo: maybe the islands might be too difficult to distinguish (so as St. Pierre and Miquelon...) 2- USA, including Alaska but excluding Hawaii. It might be better to get other map of the American continent, so as to exclude Hawaii (because it's not in America but in Oceania) or to not colour Hawaii. I'm just talking about the continents, and not about the fact that Hawaii is, obviously, "Anglo-Oceanic". 3- Guyana: I think it might be dark green because English is the official language in there and the English culture is important there. Elizabeth II was Queen of Guyana until 1970. 4- Belize: the same reasons as in Guyana. Elizabeth II is Queen of Belize at the moment. It could be changed from light to dark green. 5- Falkland islands: the fact of the sovereignity of the islands doesn't deny the fact that the Falklanders speak English and don't follow Argentinian culture. 6- Jamaica: obvious reasons. 7- Bahamas. 8- Bermuda. 9- Puerto Rico (in light green since Spanish is also an official language) 10- Both Virgin islands. 11- Small islands in the Caribbean: Anguilla, Antigua & Barbuda, Cayman islands, Montserrat, St Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Grenada and Trinidad and Tobago. I'd definitely take away from the map: - ABC islands: I don't know why they were put in the map in the very first place (perhaps the creator of the map painted the whole Caribbean...) - Suriname: the same as ABC islands. - Panama: the country was conquered and colonized by Spain; it belonged to Colombia; its official language is Spanish (and not both English and Spanish, such as Puerto Rico). In the Wikipedia article about Panama says that 14% of the Panamanians speak English and, as a "note", "many Panamanians are bilingual". 14% is not that much so as to be light-green coloured on the map. Besides, the Panamanian culture is completely different, an English king or queen never ruled Panama, etc. If Panama is coloured maybe we should colour the whole map...what country doesn't have influencies from the English and the US culture? Here in Mexico we have lots of McDonalds, Starbucks, Tommy Hilfiger, etc., and we may say that "many Mexicans are bilingual" since English is taught in most of the schools. In the US-Mexico border the fluency of the English and the dollar is even greater than in Mexico City. So we have to decolour Panama or we would have to colour lots of other LatinAmerican countries. Lautarocos 05:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the map is basically fine, since it shows the Western hemisphere/Americas and is used elsewhere too. However, I believe it can be improved -- I will work on creating an SVG version with better resolution. The list above is all fine and good, but is there a list of countries in Anglo-America we can refer to? In absence of that, I think we would need to consult a listing of countries in the Americas and determine the ones in which English is official or used by the majority. I think that only two countries should be rendered dark green -- the US and Canada (except for Quebec) -- since the term is sometimes used to refer to those two countries alone (and this is referenced in the article); others in Anglo-America (including Quebec) should be in light green. Otherwise, we're back to where we started. Quizimodo 10:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I agree with the dark-green colour used in the US and non-Quebec Canada. I have an idea: is it possible to take a map from the Caribbean from the Caribbean article of Wikipedia and, maybe, mark with a colour the NAME of the country? In that way we will tell people in an accurate way where English culture and language is very important.

Lautarocos 00:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. I'm working on an improved map of the Western Hemisphere. As well, there appears to be a nifty feature whereby we can place a link (with text) on a specific area of the map -- for instance, look at the third map on the right at Europe. I'm not totally sure how this works, but maybe we can use that feature here? Quizimodo 00:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Angelina Jolie?

World's most powerful actress? That sounds very unencyclopedic. 74.78.98.109 (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notice of Significant Edits - please comment

Hi, I'm about to make the following significant edits to this article as it defines Anglo-America incorrectly - looks to me as if someone was trying to "expand" the definition. The only references and definitions I can find for Anglo-America does not refer to "those parts of the Americas in which English is the main language" - it only refers to North America (USA + Canada) and England/United Kingdom. I can find no references or citations to substantiate the broader claim, and the included references actually state The term “Anglo-America” is frequently used in reference to Canada and the United States combined, while the term “Middle America” is used to describe the region including Mexico, the republics of Central America, and the Caribbean.". Of the following edits, please let me know if you have reason to object or if you believe there is something useful and of value about to be editted out:

  • Remove broader definition (until WP:V is satisfied)
  • Remove paragraph "Commonwealth of Nations" (not part of definition, not part of USA + Canada)
  • Substantially edit the Demographics paragraph as per above - alot of duplication from other article is apparent and a reference will suffice
  • Remove Transportation paragraph as it attempts to define Anglo-America as an entity with defined statistics but most of the statistics are WP:Synthesis

Bardcom (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, as I'm opposing Bardcom's apparently wholesale attempts to get rid of the phrase 'British Isles', I agree with at leat some of the above. As an American myself, I have always (many decades I'm afraid) understood Anglo-American to be similar to 'African-American', etc, ie meaning WASP (white anglo-saxon Protestant). The section on the Commonwealth is just puzzling and doesn't belong to. Anglo-American as an adjective to me means something to do with relationships between the USA and the UK. A Google search on the term brings up 64,000 (including Wikipedia) which doesn't justify the word 'frequently' at all.
So, I find this article confusing and not at all in line with common usage. The America in 'Anglo-America' means the USA - I doubt that you would find many people in the USA or Canada disputing that.
And Middle America? Please, that is part of the USA, nothing to do with any other country. That's ridiculous, look at the disambiguation page which is correct. Was this article written as some sort of hoax or joke? The image is just a public domain image someone has recoloured and then added some text. I'd say the Britannica is just plain wrong about this. It's interesting that my Oxford Dictionary (big huge one) doesn't even have the word at all.
So, I want to go further than Bardcom. Almost all of the article should go.Doug Weller (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I see it finally agrees with the definitions in the Britannica, the one referenced, etc. It was ridiculous to have a reference that contradicts the lead.