Talk:Anglo-America

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)

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.

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

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

That's incorrect, the opposite of Germanic America would be Italic America.

I was actually thinking about this and I came to this conclusion "Anglo-America" could be the "opposite" of Hispanic America if you well (even if I don’t see why this would be); and in the grander view a new article could be made that is called "Germanic America" that shows all the territories that have a Germanic derive culture in America or the Americas which ever you want. -- sion8 9:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

German America would be related to the German language, which isn't widely spoken in the Americas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hesteriana (talk • contribs) 20:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Angelina Jolie?

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

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.

Confusing and/or false statement

"Regardless of their ethnic affiliation in the US, all English speaking North Americans are seen as Anglo abroad." What on earth does this actually mean and if I understand it as so, I don't think this is true at all! Caucasian - North Americans are often viewed differently or stereotyped differently abroad, (in East Asia at least) and what on earth does "abroad" even mean. What a messy statement. Delete or change it to make sense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.14.142 (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's both confusing and false. I've deleted it. > Minnecologies^Talk 01:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

French Canadians...

Francophone Canadians exist outside of Quebec, and Canada is officially bilingual. I agree with using the term "Anglo-American" to mean an anglophone/english speaking American (in the sense of the continent) but using physical geographical boundaries to define the "Anglo-American Area" is incorrect. I would see the term "Anglo-American" as a linguistic and cultural term, representing the common Western culture that has developped in Anglophone speaking North America, not a political or geographical term.

My analysis would make the three main linguistic/cultural groups Anglophones in the U.S. and Canada, Francophones in Canada (Quebec, Acadia and the rest of Canada, the latter being for the most part descendents of french-canadian trappers and Quebec migrants before the cultural shift), Haiti, and french overseas departments such as Saint-Pierre et Miquelon and Hispanophones in Mexico and the U.S. The Carribean is a more complex situation in this case, but either way, the terms should serve strictly on a personal identity basis for the speakers of English, French or Spanish.

Swiffer (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Change the article to "Germanic-America"

In order to include some other countries that don't fit in on the classifications of Latin and Anglo America, like Suriname, Aruba, The Netherlands Antilles, Greenland, etc; this article should be changed to Germanic-America, because English and Dutch are Germanic languages official in some parts of the Americas. --Marmen2010 (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If anything, that language-based classification would be a separate article. > Minnecologies^Talk 20:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"Germanic" is a term related directly to the germanic people. And not to the Anglo-Saxon people, or its languages.

Puerto Rico....

I'm surprised Puerto Rico isn't included. Puerto Rico is BOTH part of Anglo-America AND Latin America, since English (alongside with Spanish) has been the official language of Puerto Rico since 1898. Kanzler31 (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is NOT part of Anglo-America at all. Anybody who lives or go to Puerto Rico knows that Puerto Ricans speak English worse than the Scandinavians, and nobody says that Sweden is part of Anglo-Ammerica.--83.44.102.221 (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the US Census in Puerto Rico 82% of the population is WHITE, not Black, so change that.--83.44.102.221 (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Anglo America and Latin America are antonyms. So can P.R. really be one *and* the other? "Latin America" was devised by Napoleon as a way to isolate the British controlled areas. CaribDigita (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is Puerto Rico included here? It is Spanish-speaking, and the article about the country also says that only about 10 % of the population has good knowledge of the English language. Puerto Rico is clearly part of Latin-America and clearly not part of Anglo-America! --Oddeivind (talk) 10:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me Puerto Rico and Quebec are in the same boat, so it doesn't make sense that one (Puerto Rico) is part of Anglo-America and the other (Quebec) is not. In each case the larger country (the US and Canada) is part of Anglo-America, but each culture has more influence from elsewhere (French and Latin American). They should either both count as Anglo-American, or both not. M-1 (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The irony

That the USA has several states that make up 1/3 of the mainland once conquered, named, and retains strong Latin roots (i.e. California.) Not exactly "Anglo" to me. 108.182.22.10 (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

well no--99.9% of the the Hispanics in California arrived after 1900. Apart from very recent arrivals the great majority speak English. There are strong "roots" only in New Mexico (and Puerto Rico). Rjensen (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Question

Why is it called Anglo-America and not Anglo America? like Latin America and not Latin-America? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.121.138.171 (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Latin is a whole word used as a modifier, Anglo- is a prefix. --Khajidha (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Puerto Rico being considered as Anglo-America?

I understand that Puerto Rico is a unincorporated territory of the United States but that doesn't mean Puerto Rico is considered to be Anglo-America. First of all, Puerto Rico mostly speaks Spanish, Spanish is like 98 or 99%. Puerto Ricans are known for speaking Spanish in their homeland. There is no such thing as Puerto Rico having English-speaking Puerto Ricans as a great majority in Puerto Rico. It's not like how in Canada, they are English Canadians and French Canadians, not at all. Also, many Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico do not even speak English and when they do, they have a massively weird accent. Puerto Ricans also have Spanish last names as a majority. Also, Puerto Rico was never colonized by the British. Being Anglo, you need to be colonized by the British, the British didn't colonized Puerto Rico and when America got Puerto Rico, America was becoming way more diverse. Due to those reasons, Puerto Rico is not really considered to be part of Anglo-America. It's just Latin America. It's also not a good example of Anglo-America at all.( Mikeis1996 (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• I don't like how you removed it without explanation--luckily I found that you posted here. However, this book lists Puerto Rico side-by-side with Anglo-America and seems to support your point. But you're going to have to present better arguments--arguments based on sources. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

In the book, it said, Anglo America and Puerto Rico. They didn't include Puerto Rico in Anglo-America or even try to. It was separated. I don't think Puerto Rico is Anglo-America at all. English is only a co-official language because of being a territory of the United States Of America but only a small 5% speaks English. I have also been there and while I was there, most didn't evem know how to read or even write in English and those who could, had very weird accents. It's mostly Spanish-speaking. Also, Puerto Rico uses way less English than on Quebec, the French-speaking province of Canada. The only difference is that Quebec is 100% Canada since Quebecers can vote for the Canadian Prime Minister and have all the rules of those of Canada while in Puerto Rico, Puerto Ricans can't vote for a U.S. President at all and also, Quebec is in the mainland of Canada, it's next to the English-speaking provinces of Canada while Puerto Rico is in the Caribbean and it's next to the Dominican Republic and Cuba which are both Spanish-speaking nations.( Mikeis1996 (talk)

Puerto Rico is next to Cuba? I'd like to see that map! - BilCat (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete

The Mesquite coast in eastern NIcaragua/Honduras is also English-speaking even though the entire country isnot.Lihaas (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anglo-America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070206222118/http://www.bartleby.com:80/65/ to http://www.bartleby.com/65
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008150642/http://factfinder.census.gov:80/servlet/NPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=04000US72&-qr_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_NPPR01&-ds_name=&-redoLog=false to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/NPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=04000US72&-qr_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_NPPR01&-ds_name=&-redoLog=false

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)