next »

[prytania3]

It seems instead to be switching between "White" (capitalized) and "Anglo-Saxon," as though to prevent repetitiveness.

There's your answer. I think it's stranger that white is capitalized.

[gennidad]

It sounds like it is referencing the invasions of England by the Angles and the Saxons.  Both of those groups also equated manliness to prowess in battle.  So, it seems like a dig at the whites who moved there and repeated that portion of history.

[crazybatlady]

But is that satisfying, Pry?  I'm disturbed by both the use of White and its being interchangeable with Anglo-Saxon.

That's why I'm wondering if "Anglo-Saxon" is commonly used for white.  Why the "W" is capitalized might be related to that decision, but I don't know.

Super, the author is an English professor.

[anthroid]

Sorry, CBL, about my earlier response.  I didn't know you were serious! 

I grew up hearing Anglo-Saxon.  Yes, it is a (poor) synonym for European-American, used back in the days when the only good European was a Brit (and thus, ancestrally, probably either Angle or Saxon or both, given the history of Gaulish and Celtic invasions of England).  It's an odd usage these days, to be sure.  I wonder if the English prof is being ironic.  Or, in the alternative, the prof could just be very, very old.

[crazybatlady]

It is key that the continental US had already been conquered.  The "reenact conquest" part is about reenacting the drama of manifest destiny in a new land (Alaska as opposed to California), not about ancient English history.

Thus, I have to consider:

Is this just sloppiness and an effort to not repeat prose?

Is there a correlation between the original movement of people of European descent across the continent and Anglo-Saxon heritage--a correlation that's being paralleled in this article?  (That's a crappy sentence.  And I know that the first European folks to move across the now-US were not all Anglo-Saxon, so it doesn't hold true anyway.)

Or.... what?

[prytania3]

That's why I'm wondering if "Anglo-Saxon" is commonly used for white.  Why the "W" is capitalized might be related to that decision, but I don't know.

You know, at one time it was now that I think about it. I must be older than toi. D***.

What can I say? It's old school. I judt remember from when I was a very, very small child.

[crazybatlady]

Sorry, CBL, about my earlier response.  I didn't know you were serious! 

Ah, no worries.  I don't blame you for thinking this was a joke!

I grew up hearing Anglo-Saxon.  Yes, it is a (poor) synonym for European-American, used back in the days when the only good European was a Brit (and thus, ancestrally, probably either Angle or Saxon or both, given the history of Gaulish and Celtic invasions of England).  It's an odd usage these days, to be sure.  I wonder if the English prof is being ironic.  Or, in the alternative, the prof could just be very, very old.

That sounds racist, anthroid.  The prof is not very, very old.  He's just coming up for tenure, as far as I can tell.

How could this be ironic?  Please, explain!

[crazybatlady]

I didn't mean that you were racist, anthroid!  But that the author was using it in a racist manner, if your suggestion is true.

Sorry about that!  Too many amaretto sours....

[trystero49]

That would make sense, Prytania, except it's not being used that way--thus the confusion.  It seems instead to be switching between "White" (capitalized) and "Anglo-Saxon," as though to prevent repetitiveness.

For example: "For these adventurous White males, Alaska functioned as a site of White flight, a new frontier where Anglo Saxon males could reenact conquest and reclaim their manliness."

What time period is it discussing? The author could be trying to be accurate to the terms used at the time.

It sounds like 1890s language or thereabouts ---- Teddy Roosevelt and a lot of his contemporaries used "white" to refer _exclusively_ to Anglo-Saxon, British heritage Americans.

There was also a lot of "race science" and eugenics discourse around this time differentiating between the "most superior" Europeans ---- i.e. those from Britain ---- and, let's say, "less superior but still white" Europeans, like the descendants of Dutch, French and German immigrants. Southern and Eastern Europeans, like the Irish, were _not_ considered "really white" at this time --- thus the debate about whether America could really be a "melting pot" and assimilate these strange, frightening immigrants. (Black people, Asians and Latinas/os were never eligible for the discourse of the melting pot as it originally was conceived.)

And, to just make things even more confusing, in the Southwest, like New Mexico, the term "Anglo" was and is used instead of white and seems to be connected to the Spanish Conquistadors for some reason. Since I do not "qualify" as Anglo-Saxon according to the above definition, it was always a pet peeve of mine to be called an Anglo when I lived in the Southwest.

[crazybatlady]

Amen, trystero!  Thank you.  Yes, that's exactly the time period being discussed, and perhaps the author is trying to use the language of the time.  Perhaps a footnote to that effect would help....

I didn't know the historical details, and I appreciate you filling me in. 

[gennidad]

Thank you trystero.  I learned something today.  Learned something = not wasted.

[anthroid]

Yes, trystero, your description of the European hierarchy comports with mine--though (niggling point but relevant) the Irish, of course, are neither Southern nor Eastern European.  They certainly were treated horribly though (Noel Ignatiev's How the Irish Became White is a fascinating journey through Anglo-Saxon [if you will] and, then, Irish ethnocentrism and bigotry).  So Anglo-Saxons were considered, in this time period, the superior types, with the hierarchy as trystero outlines it. 

Is this making any sense, CBL?

[crazybatlady]

I thought there are Irish with Celtic ancestry and Irish with "west Brit"-ness, and that these differences contributed to some of the Irish skirmishes and perhaps still do, although muted by the fact of the Northern Ireland/British imperialism thing.

Boy, I'm tipsy and having trouble articulating myself.

Okay, if Irish were not "Anglo-Saxon" in 1890s, what do we do with the Irish-American and other non-AngloSaxon folks who participated in westward expansion?  Do they get included under the label "Anglo-Saxon" because it's easier that way, or because it's an attitude (about imperialism, expansion, ethnic superiority, etc) more than a true ethnic label?

[elsie]

I thought there are Irish with Celtic ancestry and Irish with "west Brit"-ness, and that these differences contributed to some of the Irish skirmishes and perhaps still do, although muted by the fact of the Northern Ireland/British imperialism thing.

Boy, I'm tipsy and having trouble articulating myself.

Okay, if Irish were not "Anglo-Saxon" in 1890s, what do we do with the Irish-American and other non-AngloSaxon folks who participated in westward expansion?  Do they get included under the label "Anglo-Saxon" because it's easier that way, or because it's an attitude (about imperialism, expansion, ethnic superiority, etc) more than a true ethnic label?

Nobody has brought up the Scots-Irish yet, which were a group that settled in the Appalachians and South and much of the Midwest. While "white", they too are not Anglo-Saxon, and as a group they often resented Anglo-Saxon authority. When what is now the Daniel Boone National Forest was being instituted, it was initially to be named the Cumberland National Forest, but the Scots descendants of the area resisted having the forest named for the victor of Culloden.

[zharkov]

Strikes me as hoky....

Can you email the author and ask for an explanation?  (In a nice way.)

PS:  Some of Zharkov's ancestors come from the British Isles, but the last name in question is not Anglo-Saxon at all, but Norman....