> I think this article goes through a lot of micro-exercizes and micro-corrections and semantics to avoid the obvious conclusion that Japan is mostly honogenous, and to a far more degree than the US or a lot of European countries.
It depends on what one looks at.
The U.S.A., culturally, most famously treats race as if it be an ethnicity. As such, in their perspective what they call “African-American" and “European-American” are very different.
From where I stand, they are all “Anglo-Saxon”, and further subdivisions seem rather minute and trivial. They all live in a similar culture, having grown up with English as a native language, and tend to have very similar Anglo-Saxon cultural sensibilities that are shared with say Australia and the U.K.. that often seem uniquely and recognizably Anglo-Saxon to me.
I do not really think that the color of a man's skin, having grown up in a very similar environment, speaking the same language, practicing the same traditions, and being influenced by the same values, makes him all that different and worthy of a different “ethnicity”.
Many countries actually have a large population of recent immigrants. Did you know that Polish is spoken more in Ireland than Irish as of this moment for instance? These Polish immigrants have grown up speaking a different language, exposed to a different culture, eating different food and practicing different traditions. — they might be as “white” as the Irishman as a stereotype, but there is a greater difference to be had here than between the Anglo-Saxons of different colors.
And, to note, the only Polishman I have ever had a good conversation with was quite dark skinned, but nevertheless Polish was his native language. He lived in the Netherlands but was a recent immigrant from Poland and quite catholic. Apparently both his parents were immigrants as well, but he was born in Poland and spoke Polish as a native language.
African-American culture is most certainly not Anglo-Saxon. It’s actual roots in the African diaspora and the Caribbean, and there are entire communities, like the Gullah of the Carolinian coasts, that have preserved their culture and language since the diaspora began. The most noticeable elements of African-American culture have been adopted into Anglo-Saxon culture, they don’t come from it. American culture predominantly descends from Anglo-Saxon culture, but it’s distinct.
Well, I was born in the Caribbean and much of my family is actually culturally Caribbean, and I much disagree with that.
The African-American does not eat Caribbean food; he does not listen to Caribbean music; he does not practice Caribbean traditional festivals, does not dress in Caribbean clothes.
I definitely feel that you draw this association purely because you think of Caribbeans as dark-skinned; it is a very different culture.
The African-American in general eats Anglo-Saxon food; he listens to Anglo-Saxon music; he celebrates Christmas and Easter; and he dresses in Anglo-Saxon clothing.
I know expat Jamaican and Dominican communities in New York that celebrate festivals yearly. I ate jerk chicken with red beans and rice last week, I don’t think that was an Anglo-Saxon invention, nor was chitlins, collard greens or other dishes. And we don’t listen to Anglo-Saxon music, as African American music isn’t descended from anglo-Saxon music at all. The fact that it’s been widely adopted in Anglo-Saxon culture doesn’t mean that they claim it’s origins at all. Gospel music and hymns do not come from Anglo-Saxon culture at all, nor does jazz, rap or blues. Gullah culture isn’t Anglo-Saxon, nor is the creole language and culture practiced around New Orleans and Louisiana. Trying to label African-American culture as Anglo-Saxon erases most of the actual history, which again comes from the African diaspora. Mexican-American culture doesn’t become ‘Anglo-saxon’ just because they now live in America and can speak English.
>I ate jerk chicken with red beans and rice last week, I don’t think that was an Anglo-Saxon invention, nor was chitlins, collard greens or other dishes.
No, but those latter aren't carribean or african either. They are african-american, created in the US (and for specific historical circumstances, including food price concerns, and local food availability).
As for "jerk chicken" that's just an imported popular dish. Carribeans do eat it, but you aren't carribean for eating it any more than you're Mexican for eating mexican..
> I know expat Jamaican and Dominican communities in New York that celebrate festivals yearly.
And I would not call those Anglo-Saxon as they are actual expats of a different ethnicity and recent-generation immigrants?
That you even consider those comparable to Anglo-Saxon African-Americans that are not recent immigrants but have lived in the U.S.A.. from six generations back is baffling to me.
> nor is the creole language and culture practiced around New Orleans and Louisiana.
Nor would I call those Anglo-Saxon.
You seem to cast very different populations, that speak very different languages and have very different cultural practices, in the same bucket, simply because of a shared skin color.
There are indeed populations of any color in the U.S.A. that are decidedly not Anglo-Saxon. I would no more call recent black Jamaican immigrants Anglo-Saxon than I would recent white Italian immigrants, but the vast majority of population of any color in the U.S.A. is decidedly Anglo-Saxon and has been nurtured within an Anglo-Saxon milieu for generations.
I’m telling you that black people in America have a culture that is descended from a lot of sources, and you cannot just simplify it as Anglo-Saxon, again because such a wide swath comes from the African diaspora that ignoring that means ignoring its most noticeable aspects. Gospel, jazz, blues, and rap are not descended from any Anglo-Saxon musical tradition, nor are our dances, or many of our foods.
American culture is largely descended from Anglo-Saxon culture, but that doesn’t transitively mean that all American culture is now Anglo-Saxon. The pockets of non Anglo-Saxon culture are not recent additions to black culture, they’ve been intact and distinct throughout their history. The Gullah people are American, not an expat community.
> I’m telling you that black people in America have a culture that is descended from a lot of sources, and you cannot just simplify it as Anglo-Saxon, again because such a wide swath comes from the African diaspora that ignoring that means ignoring its most noticeable aspects. Gospel, jazz, blues, and rap are not descended from any Anglo-Saxon musical tradition, nor are our dances, or many of our foods.
I looked up the origin of Gospel on Wikipedia; it seems to stem from Gaelic sources and the first composers thereof were white.
As for Jazz: “Jazz originated in the late-19th to early-20th century as interpretations of American and European classical music entwined with African and slave folk songs and the influences of West African culture.[32] Its composition and style have changed many times throughout the years with each performer's personal interpretation and improvisation, which is also one of the greatest appeals of the genre.”
Perhaps there are some West-African elements to it, but I find the music to sound very European in terms of structure, also using mostly European instruments.
Jazz at the end of the day is played with the piano, the European drum kit characterized by the cymbal, the guitar, the cello, and the tuba. — whatever West-African elements it has seem to be played up, again for racial reasons.
This is one of the make disappointing comments I’ve read on HN in awhile. You are literally admitting to being ignorant on the issues being discussed (“I looked up”) and justifying incorrect conclusions based on the results of immature, inaccurate research.
Do you realize the depth of the topics you’re making these claims about?
>This is one of the make disappointing comments I’ve read on HN in awhile. You are literally admitting to being ignorant on the issues being discussed (“I looked up”) and justifying incorrect conclusions based on the results of immature, inaccurate research.
Do you have better sources? Because I'm quite well informed in those areas, and I mostly agree with the parent, as do all scholars.
I detest this attempt to deny historical people of their creative capacity. You are acting as if the cultures of modern times are simple antecedents of cultures from the fall of the Roman Empire.
To back up your claim of jazz being "European", please source a European that composed with blues scale, jazz chords, and swing before African Americans.
>To back up your claim of jazz being "European", please source a European that composed with blues scale, jazz chords, and swing before African Americans.
Those jazz chords are descended and altered from traditional european harmony though, themselves, not sole descendants some African musical tradition (which didn't use such harmonies).
As were the instruments themselves (trumpets, trombones, saxophones, pianos, etc.)
Jazz was a mix of African-American vocal music and musical idioms (with a US-localized trhough over African origin) with european harmony, marching band music, and other forms.
>African-American culture is most certainly not Anglo-Saxon. It’s actual roots in the African diaspora and the Caribbean
Roots lost in time and declining though. In modern times it's Anglo-saxon, or African-American-Anglo-Saxon, but have little to nothing to do with Africa or the Caribbean.
If you put an African or Carribean and a African-American there are little cultural traits they share (cultural as in everyday life, outlook, worldview, etc. - African-Americans might still carry some traces of e.g. African music in the modern music they produce). But even eg. food is totally different.
And I would not refer to those Spanish speakers as “Anglo-Saxon”.
The so-called “hispanic” population is a true ethnicity within the U.S.A., distinct from the Anglo-Saxons, that is not defined by race, but by a different culture and native language.
A Hispanic man can be white, black, blow, yellow and in practice is a mixture of all, what defines him is not the color of his skin, but the language and sensibilities he was immersed in in his formative years.
I wouldn't call the distinct African-American culture "Anglo-Saxon". It is instead rooted in the historical experience that black people have had. The black identity was already formed during the slavery period and incorporates elements of African, European, and Native American culture.
Similarly, just because people speak English does not make their culture "Anglo-Saxon". There are many different cultural practices that coexist in America whose origins do not originate from North Western Europe.
> I wouldn't call the distinct African-American culture "Anglo-Saxon". It is instead rooted in the historical experience that black people have had.
It is rooted in their experience living in an Anglo-Saxon milieu.
At the end, they speak English, practice Anglo-Saxon religions, practice Anglo-Saxon traditions, eat Anglo-Saxon food, have Anglo-Saxon sensibilities on gender relationships, social hierarchies, criminal justice, parent–child relationships, personal privacy, nudity, and all the other quintessential Anglo-Saxon sensibilities and cultural norms that make it unique in the world.
> and incorporates elements of African, European, and Native American culture.
I would be interested in knowing what elements of African, European, and Native-American culture are incorporated.
It is also common cultural to draw a divide between “North-West Europe”; “Eastern Europe”, “Southern Europe” and the “British Isles” culturally, as these tend to be culturally quite different from one another, but the lines are obviously not that clear. The U.S.A. obviously primarily draws it's cues from the British Isles culturally given it's origin.
> Similarly, just because people speak English does not make their culture "Anglo-Saxon". There are many different cultural practices that coexist in America whose origins do not originate from North Western Europe.
From their perspective it might seem diverse, just as from the perspective of a Dutchman Randstad culture will seem very different from below-the-rhine culture or Eastern-Saxon culture, but an Englishman will look at all three and find them very close together, which they are on a global scale.
> At the end, they speak English, practice Anglo-Saxon religions, practice Anglo-Saxon traditions, eat Anglo-Saxon food, have Anglo-Saxon sensibilities on gender relationships, social hierarchies, criminal justice, parent–child relationships, personal privacy, nudity, and all the other quintessential Anglo-Saxon sensibilities and cultural norms that make it unique in the world.
Hard disagree. African-Americans speak a very distinct English language, and while they follow "Anglo-Saxon" religion, many still retain roots to African elements in their rites (ever been to a black funeral in some parts of the South?). Their cultural food is also heavily distinct, although it is partly influenced by Anglo-Saxon food. They don't have the same sensibilities as Anglo-Saxons because of their culture, but more because of religion, just like many Southerners. "Anglo-Saxon sensibilities and cultural norms on.... " is also something that's very distinct across the US and the world - there's a lot of difficulty in breaking down the barriers of race and sexual orientation in the US, while all other Anglo-Saxon countries broke them down way back. Latin countries such as France or Spain have broken down many strict rules many years ago, while they still continue in most of Latin America.
Honestly you sound like someone who has had very little interaction with the African American community, while doing a lot of grandstanding for them from your plantation home. There are just so many things you'll find different right in upon interaction. As a simple question, why are African American names so unique and not Anglo-Saxon names or African names?
I was surprised when I learned that this US ethnicity is a self-defined status. This means that me, a blond blue eyed man (and accessorily French) could define myself as Afro-American in the US.
His comme this is not wildly used in cases where it gives you an advantage? (such as positive discrimination when entering a university, or for grants,...)
> I was surprised when I learned that this US ethnicity is a self-defined status. This means that me, a blond blue eyed man (and accessorily French) could define myself as Afro-American in the US.
That's not really true. You wouldn't be actually able to define yourself as Afro-American in the US, beyond maybe lying on a form (and even that designation would probably be overridden if it mattered). Pretty-much everyone would consider your self-designation to be annoying BS.
A few full-blooded white people have tried passing as Afro-American (only possible because of the lingering effects of the one-drop rule), but they received a lot of press (and rejection) when the real story came out.
> You wouldn't be actually able to define yourself as Afro-American in the US
Please see https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html, and especially "An individual’s response to the race question is based upon self-identification. The Census Bureau does not tell individuals which boxes to mark or what heritage to write in."
The "annoying BS" you mention is people's response to that self-identification, not a legal one.
I did not know that Polish was spoken more in Ireland than Irish, and I still don’t know it.
Also Anglo Saxon is probably the whitest descriptor imaginable. The fact that the differences are minute to you means you probably don’t have the authority to speak on this.
It is not merely “one of the official languages”; the Irish constitution grants it status as “the first official language”, and English as “the second official language”, obviously granting primacy to Irish.
The reality, however, is that indeed Polish is spoken more than Irish in modern day Ireland, and the former is in decline and will probably be near extinct in a generation or two.
The difference are certainly minute compared to the possible variety of differences in the world.
In Japan, for instance, varies ethnic groups live that either speak languages that are are as far removed form Japanese as Danish is from English, or genetically not related at all.
To not even start about “Han Chinese”, which is an “ethnic classifier” that is so wide, it s more analogous with “Germanic”, “Slavic”, or “Romance” than it is with “Anglo-Saxon”; and contains a larger number of inhabitants than any of them respectively.
“Anglo-Saxon” on a world perspective is really quite close together and comparable to “German” or “Francophone”.
Ah, well that's kind of worth mentioning, I would think; that person was Polish in nationality only, not actually of Polish descent yet somehow dark-skinned. :)
What I mean regarding "as if it be ..." is not standard English grammar. Use of the "be" form of the verb (that is not the subjunctive be) without inflecting for tense or person is featured in African-American Vernacular English.
> What I mean regarding "as if it be ..." is not standard English grammar. Use of the "be" form of the verb (that is not the subjunctive be) without inflecting for tense or person is featured in African-American Vernacular English.
But it is the subjunctive.
“as if” classically demands the subjunctive the mood in it's subordinate clause, if it __be__ used as an irrealis.
I realize well of course that in vernacular English the subjunctive mood has been in decline for the past centuries, so it might not be so commonly used as such any more in spoken English.
It depends on what one looks at.
The U.S.A., culturally, most famously treats race as if it be an ethnicity. As such, in their perspective what they call “African-American" and “European-American” are very different.
From where I stand, they are all “Anglo-Saxon”, and further subdivisions seem rather minute and trivial. They all live in a similar culture, having grown up with English as a native language, and tend to have very similar Anglo-Saxon cultural sensibilities that are shared with say Australia and the U.K.. that often seem uniquely and recognizably Anglo-Saxon to me.
I do not really think that the color of a man's skin, having grown up in a very similar environment, speaking the same language, practicing the same traditions, and being influenced by the same values, makes him all that different and worthy of a different “ethnicity”.
Many countries actually have a large population of recent immigrants. Did you know that Polish is spoken more in Ireland than Irish as of this moment for instance? These Polish immigrants have grown up speaking a different language, exposed to a different culture, eating different food and practicing different traditions. — they might be as “white” as the Irishman as a stereotype, but there is a greater difference to be had here than between the Anglo-Saxons of different colors.
And, to note, the only Polishman I have ever had a good conversation with was quite dark skinned, but nevertheless Polish was his native language. He lived in the Netherlands but was a recent immigrant from Poland and quite catholic. Apparently both his parents were immigrants as well, but he was born in Poland and spoke Polish as a native language.