Back to Brussels Blog homepage
Time to stop calling us, or them, Anglo-Saxons
November 16, 2008
According to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, last weekend’s G20 summit was a big success. “Never before have Anglo-Saxons agreed to subject credit ratings agencies to oversight and regulation,” he declared.
You know what, he’s right. Check out the ‘Historia Ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum’, the 8th century AD masterpiece by the Venerable Bede. This greatest of all Anglo-Saxon chroniclers had nothing to say about credit ratings agencies, and not just because he wrote in Latin.
Almost every day, all over the European media, one comes across the term ”Anglo-Saxons”. It is usually intended to mean Brits and Americans, with perhaps a glance in the direction of Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders.
To my mind, the term carries a deeply unpleasant undertone of invoking alleged racial origin to define nationality and establish a stereotype of national character. Weren’t Europeans supposed to have stopped doing things like that after the destruction of Nazism? Moreover, the term is, of course, utterly inaccurate.
After all, whom did American voters just elect as their next president? A direct descendant of the Venerable Bede? (A Belgian newspaper reported two days after Barack Obama’s victory that genealogical researchers had discovered he was 1 per cent Belgian. But that’s another story.)
The millions of African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians and many others who live in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles would be flabbergasted, and possibly rather amused, to hear that in Europe they are categorised as Anglo-Saxon. So would all sorts of people in Montreal, Toronto and Sydney.
It goes for the UK, too. Huge numbers of Londoners are no more Anglo-Saxon than my cats. Look at the family tree of any Englishman - which is what is generally meant when “Anglo-Saxon” is applied in a British context - and you will soon discover an Irish father-in-law here, a Scottish aunt there, a Polish or Indian grandmother somewhere else.
So, speaking as someone with three half-Japanese nephews, two of whom recently played in the famous Eton v Harrow annual cricket match, I say - it’s time to stop calling us, or them, Anglo-Saxons!
Dear Tony, you should not get offended by continental attempt to put a name on something they feel deeply inferior to. For them, “Anglo-Saxon” is a state of mind, rather than racial denominator. It means efficient government and polite and professional counter staff (although I cannot say if this is applicable to UK any longer). Also goal oriented, free thinking professionals, easily transformed business structures, entrepreneurial spirit and everything that is not in line with – wait for instructions from above, arriving through non-transparent decision making channels and, in the meanwhile, try to make everyone around you feel as miserable as you can. “Anglo-Saxon” is above all about trust that another human being will do what he/she says he/she will.
That is why this type of system tolerates only a small amount of corruption, and the latest generation of “Anglo-Saxon” turned out to be more corrupt than maximum allowed. Now, Sarkozy types get to gloat on how they were always right and that human beings are ultimately corrupt, requiring strict control.
Best,
Posted by: Dusan | November 16th, 2008 at 2:19 pm | Report this commentInteresting. A vlaams/flemish-speaking employee wrote about this topic on a blog.
http://blog.vacature.com/2008/02/19/you-have-a-very-anglo-saxon-accent/
Someone named Brigitte left a comment related to what you’re pointing out: Anglo-Saxon was a culture that died in the 11th century (with the Norman invasion). I knew it meant a whole lot more to the French, but apparently so in Belgium/
Posted by: Nicolette | November 16th, 2008 at 3:33 pm | Report this commentAs a dutchman, I thus far always thought this term was a self-labeling by those it is meant to describe. How often have I heard Britons speak about “our Anglo-Saxon ways”, “Anglo-Saxon culture”, etc. A few weeks ago, on one of Andrew Neil’s BBC programmes, I heard him say: “Up until now, all US presidents have been Anglo-Saxons.” (Not sure how right that is, but all in the studio nodded in agreement.)
So when someone like Sarkozy uses the term, I suppose he is merely copying those who descibe themselves as such.
Of course, you rightly say that it’s a misnomer, and anyone is welcome to provide more accurate alternatives for us all to use.
@ Dusan
Posted by: Vic v.R. | November 16th, 2008 at 3:55 pm | Report this commentHere we go again, the eternal ‘us vs. the continent’ thing. The idea that the UK is a liberal paradise whereas continental Europe is shackled by bureaucracy, over-regulation, overall inefficiency, and constantly on the brink of slipping into authoritarianism.
Having lived and done business in the UK for a while, I have experienced the UK and ‘the continent’ as by-and-large similar, if not identical, as regards business culture.
I think it’s high time these myths (both regarding the UK’s self-image and its image of ‘the continent’) are discarded.
Tony Barber tells you that Anglo-Saxons do not exist, but that Europeans do; that those trying replace the democratic nation-state by remote supranational governance are the good guys, and those defending ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’ are actually closest xenophobes.
The Anglo-Saxon tradition of free press has been to question governmental authority, but Barber is the champion of politics as remote authority for whom the journalist can serve as the transmitter of their decisions to the affected masses. The Anglo-Saxon tradition of journalists like Woodward and Bernstein is not for him; Why question power when it is so much easier to curry favour with it by attacking individuals like Declan Ganley, or Vaclev Kalus or anyone else who questions the undemocratic path to EU integration?
Tony Barber has befallen the fate of so many of those who spend too long in Brussels, of seeking to defend the indefensible because his lifestyle depends on it.
Posted by: Freeborn John | November 16th, 2008 at 4:21 pm | Report this comment@Vic v.R.
Another reading of my comment is due. Unfortunately, my experience with UK, was similar. Fortunately, this was not the only “Anglo-Saxon” country I lived and worked in, so I can tell what it used to be like, before it came closer to continental ways. Every society eventually degenerates into dysfunctional bureaucratic mess, and then barbarians come and put things in order again. Unfortunately, we seem to have run out of barbarians.
Best,
Posted by: Dusan | November 16th, 2008 at 5:46 pm | Report this commentAlso it is time to stop calling black Americans Africans as if they were not Americans.
Black Americans are Americans. Period.
Posted by: Enrique | November 16th, 2008 at 6:10 pm | Report this commentSurely a more correct term would be “Anglo-American” or “US-British” (banking), reflecting the enthusiasm in both of these domains for exotic financial instruments.
As the writer suggests, the term “Anglo-Saxon” is ridiculous by any stretch of the imagination!
Posted by: kevin Mac Mahon | November 17th, 2008 at 2:04 am | Report this commentAnglo-Saxon is a state of mind and a political coalition. Every sensible person knows that it does not refer to race.
Posted by: Frank Gerlach | November 17th, 2008 at 9:05 am | Report this commentIt is the counter-concept to all sorts of Authoritarianism and started with booting out the Authoritarian Catholic faith.
It may be under threat from Catholic and Islamic immigration into those English-speaking countries. And no, “Catholic” and “Islamic” is an ideological, not racial concept.
Also, ever heard of the term “UK/USA/CA/NZ/AU eyes only”. Now that is part of the “Anglo-Saxon” thing.
Posted by: Frank Gerlach | November 17th, 2008 at 9:10 am | Report this commentTony, the designation “Anglo-Saxon” obviously refers to an economic ideology (free market capitalism) and has nothing to do with race. I don’t think anyone is claiming the latter either (with the exception of English and maybe Australian nationalists). As someone pointed out above, the Anglo-Saxons haven’t really been around since the Normans/Franks/French invaded England. Actually, current English culture probably owes more to French/Latin culture than to Anglo-Saxon culture!
Posted by: oscar | November 17th, 2008 at 11:04 am | Report this commentBy systematically “opting out” from core European institutions and policies and courting the USA in the name of an often delusory “special relationship”, the British are setting themselves apart from “Europe, aka the Continent” and should not be surprised that they are lobbed together with Americans under whichever more or less accurate collective designation! As a continental European I am personally anglophile and love British culture which I consider as a main component of our European culture in all its diversity. I hardly ever encounter though British people who are ready to accept that they are cultural Europeans… So Anglo-Saxons they are, by their own choice!
Posted by: phw | November 17th, 2008 at 12:01 pm | Report this commentIn response to Dusan: efficient government (what government)? that gotta be some type of a joke, I think anglo-saxon means neo-liberal + an economy based on financial services and the inability to produce well engineered (German) or cooked products (France). Beforehand being anglo saxon was hip (London) or rich (NY). That’s over so of course now we don’t want that anymore. Now we want to be like mainland europeans, hip (Berlin), protectionist (France)…
Posted by: Dan | November 17th, 2008 at 3:16 pm | Report this commentWith all respect, but… I have learnt this anglo VS Latino VS Continental distinction in countries that loves to separate group of people on the basis of race: check the US out… you are LATINO… no matter if you come from Mexico, Argentina; Spain, Cuba… we should please remove this distinctions that started since Greeks called Barbars the non greek community and make from our culture a less egocentric thing. By the way, Tony.. with all the financial problems we have to face the middle class, I am sure that readers will appreciate more some op-ed related to concrete and pragmatic solutiosn rather than projecting personal kind frustration
Posted by: Martin | November 17th, 2008 at 3:46 pm | Report this comment“Freedom/Liberty”….
Freedom is Anglo-Saxon, Germanic from Frei, Free.
Liberty is Latin, from Libertas.
So we could say Anglo-Norman.
But, it is true the French and Normans were Germanic tribes assimilated by the Romanized majority (a great part of them Celtic tribes)
So we could say German-Latin-Celt to the French.
….etc
Posted by: Enrique | November 17th, 2008 at 3:52 pm | Report this commentA lot of very good answers to a quite stupid article from Mr Barber.
I would like to enphasize that the way I understand anglo-saxon culture (as you have a germanic culture, and also a latin cutlure which form the continental culture as calle din UK) is not only economical.
There is a very different way of communicating. For me the american are3 very good for the small talk, and the english are also quite reluctant to talk about personal matters.
If you watch french films or french TV you will see a huge difference in the tonic accent and the behaviour of the people.
In france you would never see like on the apprentice people saying they are the best , and assuming that they are pretentious . In france you have to be Mr nice guy, a kind of politicaly correctness very different from the anglo-saxon one.
I feel anglo saxon are far mature in their communication. You can watch (I know it is painfull) the reality show in UK , US and the continent, and you will see major difference.
On the other hand when it comes to friendship, or to the kind of conversation you can have in UK, it is quite superficial.
I feel I have more in common (I am Belgian) with a german, a spanish or any continental than with a Brit.
Actually UK is maybe the most exotic culture I have experienced. More exotic than a chinese or an african, or a south american.
It is very hard to describe, but very concrete emotionaly and in the relationship.
For the rest I agree with most of the comments here. England use to be the land of freedom.
The sicel des lumieres that the french are so proud of is comming from the English phylosopher.I advise to Read “les lettres phylosophiques” by Voltaire, where he already criticise the french administration and lack of modernity.
I feel now that Gordon Brown and part of english society is loosing this freedom spirit.
So many rules applied in a such rigid way (against the spirit of the rules). Punishment not in line with the crime (they crush your car if you do not pay the tax), goverment campaign on tv using the fear (the train thing), you are a danger if you eat a banana while driving, some comics being fired after doidn a bad joke, Clarkson being blamed for a joke. gordaon Brown blaming the household for spoiling 20P per day of food whioch woudl explain the inflation (bollocks)
Posted by: gauthier reniers | November 17th, 2008 at 3:58 pm | Report this commentI am not even talking about USA.
Where is the freedom???????
As has been mentione already, the term “Anglo-Saxon” in French media and politics means “free-trade liberalism”. And, of course here, “liberalism” is usually taken to mean “unregulated”. And it’s not meant as a compliment.
So, Tony, it’s not a racial slur, but a slur nonetheless.
What Sarkozy was getting at was that those advocates of deregulation were now accepting the need for regulation. I’m not sure that Sarkozy has read Adam Smith but he would find support for his views right there - in the capitalist “Bible”.
Posted by: Derek Tunnicliffe | November 17th, 2008 at 6:20 pm | Report this commentEnrique:
“Black Americans are Americans. Period”. Yes, and so are Canadians, Mexicans and all Latin Americans - even Cubans!
Posted by: Ken Beard | November 17th, 2008 at 6:39 pm | Report this commentSurely a more correct term would be “Anglo-American” or “US-British”
Kevin, Mexico is part of America (North or Central America, depending on who you talk to), and is fully known as the United Mexican States, so would it not be covered by those terms?
Posted by: ad | November 17th, 2008 at 9:04 pm | Report this commentCanadians should be splitted: Quebec is French while REC (Rest of Canada) is English…
Americans are clearly a different ethnic group from the English the same way as Afrikaners are a different ethnic group from the Dutch or, centuries ago, Carthagenians from Phoenicians…
Posted by: Enrique | November 17th, 2008 at 10:38 pm | Report this commentThe Anglo-Saxon problem does not exist nationwide in the UK. There are the so-called “lunatic Celtic fringes” - Scotland and Wales.
And Tony Barber doesn’t look like my idea of an Anglo-Saxon, more like an East European perhaps and do I discern a chip on his shoulder?
Posted by: J.J. | November 18th, 2008 at 9:37 am | Report this commentSomebody,in the years forthy,freed Europe from Nazifascism and put the basis of the reconstruction with the MARSHALL PLAN.Now that we realize that the Anglosaxon don’t exist,seems apparent to me that those boys over the Sherman tanks were aliens from the Planet QX75
Posted by: stefano de santis | November 18th, 2008 at 10:08 am | Report this commentThe expression “Anglo-Saxon” seems to be more specifically French than continental European. I have never heard it used in Spain. It is inaccurate and misleading in all respects but serves to reinforce a widely-held view in France that France has its own specific way of life, much as Americans used to speak of an “American way of life”, which other people, including other Europeans, can never fully understand - although they can worship it from afar. It can also be used to justify reluctance to make major changes to old practices or institutions. At least in France, the expression “Anglo-Saxon” to identify English-speaking countries whose way of life is both disdained and envied, has a long future.
Posted by: Strongbow | November 18th, 2008 at 3:04 pm | Report this commentI rather like the use of “Anglo-Saxon” as a reference to the UK, US, Canada, NZ, Australia. It does have a quaint ring to it, maybe Edwardian?
Obama is very much Anglo-Saxon on his mother’s side, going back centuries.
Posted by: James Canning | November 18th, 2008 at 11:48 pm | Report this commentlet us remember that to call someone a “Scot” was actionable at law 400 years ago.
Posted by: James Canning | November 18th, 2008 at 11:49 pm | Report this commentSo, how does one recognize an English gentleman anyway? Among the answers I got to that question when I was teaching English once a week at night-school in Zug (CH) were:
- He wears a flower in his bottum hole
Posted by: J.J. | November 19th, 2008 at 1:31 pm | Report this comment- He wears a 3-piece suite (sic)
Dear Tony,
I hate to sadden you but I am Anglo-Saxon. All my forebears back to at least 1800 and some back to 1650 were born in England. And I can still speak the Anglo-Saxon tongue. If you don’t believe me try and find a word (other than “Anglo-Saxon”) which is not Anglo-Saxon in what I have written here. I may be wrong, but I don’t think you can. Now try writing a tale like this without any Anglo-Saxon words in it. You’ll find you can’t. I’m neither sad nor glad that I was born and bred Anglo-Saxon since I had nothing to do with it. However, I am fed up of the likes of you telling me that I died out hundred of years ago. I would be beholding to you if you would not do it any more.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | November 19th, 2008 at 2:13 pm | Report this commentCommon law jurisdictions, or Anglo-phone areas work better for me as terms, being described as part of the Anglo Saxon world tends to get the Irish goat.
Posted by: O'Donovan | November 20th, 2008 at 3:19 pm | Report this commentHas no-one noticed that “Anglo-Saxon” is an adjective referring to a language, not to a group of people? The nearest parallel of which I can think is Serbo-Croat and how many people refer to the aggregate of the Slavonic nations or peoples as Serbo-Croats?
Posted by: John | November 21st, 2008 at 6:55 pm | Report this commentThe French believe that the language defines the people (hence Academie Francaise and the right of the people of Martinique to elect a representative to the French Parliament) and that it controls or at least affects their culture so they regard the British Commonwealth (apart from the Francophone parts of Quebec), the USA, South Africa, Hong Kong, etc as a bloc and when they rail against the undesirable (and very unBritish) culture of Wall Street, based in a city where those descended from Angles and Saxons (or Britons) are heavily outnumbered by those descended by Continental Europeans and Africans, and moderately, it seems, by Latin Americans, Asians and Irish, they blame the “Anglo-Saxons”.
English people usually describe themselves as “English”, occasionally “British” (as a Celto-Saxon, I prefer “British”) - I cannot immediately remember hearing an Englishman (apart from Jeff, above) describing himself as “Anglo-Saxon”. I find Vic VR’s comment highly surprising and wonder whether something has got lost in translation (Kennedy, Ford and Clinton were wholly or largely of Irish descent and McKinley, Van Buren, Eisenhower and Roosevelt are not English names)
Tony: monks don’t have direct descendants - what would have been a good rhetorical flourish is spoiled by being ludicrous.
A couple of short remarks for those who still believe in Ester Bunny, German engineering, Santa and other fictional characters:
- the last good German engineer died in WWII
- the last half decent German engineer retired in eighties
- in the meanwhile, dysfunctional education systems and half-communist economy, managed to prevent every single graduate from developing into an engineer
- present German engineering products are overpriced, malfunctioning paraphernalia, living off the brand-worshiping laypersons
If you want a good engineering product, pick the one with “Made in Japan” label.
Best,
Dusan
Posted by: Dusan | November 22nd, 2008 at 2:11 pm | Report this commentFirst, the term Anglo-Saxon is primarily employed in English-language publications and the English-speaking countries themselves. Only for that reason is it also in use in other languages, though far less often.
Second, the author’s horizon appears to stop at his nation’s borders. What is new about the fact that western societies, including English-speaking ones, are multi-ethnic? I have some news for the author then: most societies other than the English-speaking ones that he mentions are not composed of a single ethnicity either. This does not stop the English-speaking media from employing, e.g. the term Latin to France, Italy or Spain. Does the author think that the ethnic composition of France is any less diverse than that of Britain? Obsessed by his own ethnicity, however, he does not even seem to have thought about that.
Posted by: Bonaparte | November 23rd, 2008 at 7:15 pm | Report this commentI am one quarter Anglo-Saxon.
Posted by: American here | November 24th, 2008 at 5:05 am | Report this comment“I hate to sadden you but I am Anglo-Saxon. All my forebears back to at least 1800 and some back to 1650 were born in England. And I can still speak the Anglo-Saxon tongue. If you don’t believe me try and find a word (other than “Anglo-Saxon”) which is not Anglo-Saxon in what I have written here. I may be wrong, but I don’t think you can. Now try writing a tale like this without any Anglo-Saxon words in it. You’ll find you can’t. I’m neither sad nor glad that I was born and bred Anglo-Saxon since I had nothing to do with it. However, I am fed up of the likes of you telling me that I died out hundred of years ago. I would be beholding to you if you would not do it any more. -Jeff”
You speak English and you’re writing in English. Can you understand this:
Þa cydde man me, þæt us mara hearm to fundode, þonne us wel licode: and þa for ic me sylf mid þam mannum þe me mid foron into Denmearcon, þe eow mæst hearm of com: and þæt hæbbe mid godes fultume forene forfangen, þæt eow næfre heonon forð þanon nan unfrið to ne cymð, þa hwile þe ge me rihtlice healdað and min lif byð.
Posted by: American here | November 24th, 2008 at 5:17 am | Report this commentErm; I think you have ALL missed an important point here..Anglo…ok, England, anglican etc etc….but if my geography is correct, Saxony is in GERMANY….., So why the confusion for ENGLISH speakers?? And us Irish……WE speak English, but are NOT anglo saxon…but THAT is another kettle of fish… So it is all a load of cobblers ‘cos if you want to use the term Anglo Saxon, for me, it automatically implies GERMAN influence. Then again, it is a mainly French term!!! ’nuff said (sic)!!
Posted by: Tony | November 24th, 2008 at 11:31 am | Report this commentI agree with Dusan who wrote: …“Anglo-Saxon” is above all about trust that another human being will do what he/she says he/she will.
That is why this type of system tolerates only a small amount of corruption, and the latest generation of “Anglo-Saxon” turned out to be more corrupt than maximum allowed….
In material prepared for exchange students to the UK, it appears that “trust” and showing trust is an important part of respect and the social order. Bush’s state of the union address in 2008 used the phrase “you have to trust” several times..In intercultural communication studies for work on “trust”, trusting at Time Zero is supposedly the norm for the US and UK. But NOT for France or Italy. Distrust at Time Zero is the norm there.
Anyway, this is interesting because I’m here in the Netherlands and worked for company that was bought out originally by an American one. A colleague from the former Dutch company resented all the rules and regulations imposed, claiming it was American (thus Anglo Saxon) to have excessive regulations! Go figure.
The term obviously has morphed to mean just about anything, but using it to mean Anglo Saxon’s don’t like to regulate isn’t right. Ever try to get medicines or devices approved by the FDA? Like Dusan wrote, it’s maybe less about attitudes toward regulations and more about norms concerning trust and respect.
Posted by: Nicolette | November 24th, 2008 at 5:19 pm | Report this commentI rather agree with you.It is too general.
But in the english media,french are very often called “Gallic”. And i can guarantee you that we are no more gallic than you are anglo saxon.
It is obvious.The gallic were the first inhabitants. And then came the Romans and finally the Franks.
So ,we could be as well gallic or roman or franks. And now,from black or arab origin.
ps: in england,you use the word “gallic” in a sens which often means absolutely nothing for a Franch. So, one could say 1-1.
Posted by: christophe | December 4th, 2008 at 11:51 pm | Report this commentDear Sir:
Posted by: Peter | December 11th, 2008 at 9:51 am | Report this commentI absolutely could not agree with you more. To some it may sound trite but identity is of utmost importance in multracial/multicultural environments. As a first generation American New Yorker of Celtic decent, it has always irked me to be referred to as Anglo, Anglo-Saxon or as a WASP. I might as well be called Slavic, Baltic or Latino (a la Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian…)in my opinion. It’s always felt like a negation of my culture and a blatant denial of ethnic diversity amongst Europeans and members of the European diaspora. If one needs to speak about whiteness (an absolute MUST, in my opinion if white folks are to engage in the ongoing struggle to help counter racism and white supremacy)then let’s talk about whiteness, in a real and un-candy-coated fashion. But to FURTHER homogenize us all with inaccurate terms like these only serves to keep whiteness under the radar where, indeed, color-blindness still reigns supreme (right next to Supremacy)and nothing ever changes in our white communities.
On 24 Nov American here wrote: “You speak English and you’re writing in English”.
Correct. I was just reacting to Tony’s nonsense with some nonsense of my own.
My advice to Tony is that, in language matters, he should respect English tradition and go with the flow, just like the king who, around the year 900 ordered the following to be written:
“Brittene igland is ehta hund mila lang & twa hund brad, & her sind on þis iglande fif geþeode: Englisc & Brittisc & Wilsc & Scottisc & Pyhtisc & Boc Leden“.
This king was probably a Saxon, but called his language Englisc, thereby ignoring the centuries of tribal warfare between the Angles & the Saxons. He went with the flow and expended his energy on other things like fighting the Danes.
Tony should also stop trying to confuse his less discerning readers with irrelevant and distorted information, although, as a journalist, it will be difficult for him to kick this habit.
He knows full well that Barak Obama with his almost 40% English ancestry could, in theory, be descended from the Venerable Bede, or more likely from the illegitimate offspring of an Anglo-Saxon king, as I could be myself. And so what if he (Tony) has half-Japanese nephews. I don’t have any nephews but neither of these facts proves anything about the ancestry of the English population as a whole.
I was beginning to hope that I was unique and might enrich myself by selling my body to the British Museum to be exhibited with the Sutton Hoo treasure. However, I now suspect that Tony himself is also 100% English since he doesn’t offer any evidence to the contrary. And if there are two of us there are probably many more.
True they have fled the crumbling and self-styled financial capital of the world, leaving it to the more prudent Scots and other financially savvy individuals who are now presiding over a bloodbath of legendary, one might almost say, Anglo-Saxon proportions. The Scots are now scouring New York to see if there are any Anglo-Saxons there who they can blame it all on. They will soon be agreeing with Nicolas Sarkozy that Madoff is a pretty Anglo-Saxon sounding name. Tony is welcome to step in front of this moving train if he wants. I shall go with the flow.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | December 22nd, 2008 at 1:21 am | Report this comment