Anglo

Anyone who knows me will tell you I have a thing for words. I like, whenever possible, to have words that are descriptive of various things, and this includes people. With that in mind, I think there is a word that isn’t used enough in our American culture, and that’s a shame, because I think it ought to be. So as a personal resolution, I’m going to try to use it more often, and I’m encouraging others to use it as well. That word is “Anglo.”

Now when one here’s the word “Anglo” there is a tendency to think “White,” but that’s not what it means at all. Anglo comes from the Latin language, meaning English. In fact, most Romance languages, use the word “Anglo” in some way, to describe English people, language and culture. Anglo simply means of, or pertaining to, English Society. This means everything from the English language, to English culture, to English common law, to English political norms (and that includes both American and Commonwealth). Admittedly, there is a lot of “White” involved in that, because Anglo people traditionally come from the British Isles which was dominated by the English. However, not all White people are Anglo. For example, some are French, German, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Polish, Scandinavian or Slavic.

Caucasian (or “White) is a race, and European is just a subset of Caucasian. While Anglo is an ethnicity: meaning a linguistic, cultural, political, legal and social group that originally came from the Caucasian people of England.

Yes, I am using the Blumenbach Method on the racial classification, simply because it is still considered scientifically sound, at least from a simple classification method anyway, and it doesn’t contain as many cultural trigger-words as some of the other methods. (Cut me some slack here. It’s hard to talk about race, in today’s world, without upsetting people. This just seemed like the least offensive method to me.) The Blumenbach Method classifies all of humanity into five basic races: Caucasian, Malayan, Ethiopian, American, and Mongolian.

If you don’t like these terms, again cut me some slack. Do you really think I’m fond of the word “Caucasian”? I hate it. That is, however, how my race is classified in the Blumenbach Method. I’ll suck it up for the sake of this blog, please do me the favor of doing likewise.

So, while most Anglos are Caucasian (or “White”), especially in Europe, North America and Oceania, they don’t have to be. Some Anglo people are “Black” (Ethiopian). Some are “Yellow” (Mongolian). Some are “Brown” (American or Malayan), and so on. Race plays a role in the formation of all languages and cultures, but it’s only one role. There are other factors to consider as well. Race is determined by one’s physical characteristics. While ethnicity is determined by a societal group one belongs to. For example, Caucasian is a race, but Anglo is an ethnicity. And I think using this term more often would help us, especially in places like the United States, where there is a strong Anglo culture in the American Southeast, even though a large percentage of that Anglo culture is racially Ethiopian (or “Black”). While in the American Southwest, a large percentage of Anglo culture is racially American (or “Brown”).

I also think this helps us move away from the ever encroaching hyphenation phenomenon (African-American, Asian-American, European-American, etc.). Granted, I don’t think we’ll ever get away from that entirely, but simply using “Anglo” as a designation of one’s ethnicity would go a long way toward that end. For example, I am racially Caucasian, or “White,” but ethnically Anglo. That means I have white skin and my ancestors hail from northern Europe, but I speak English exclusively, identify with English culture (in spite of my German surname and Scandinavian lineage), and understand both law, religion and politics from an English Commonwealth/American point of view.

I think identifying people more by their ethnicity, rather than race, would also go a long way toward reducing the hyper-fixation on race that some people have. In the United States, there is a tendency in some groups to identify American as “White,” and “White” as American, even though one doesn’t necessarily have to be Caucasian to be considered “White” or American. It’s a bit schizophrenic, but it is reality. We also see the opposite in the United States, where race is automatically identified with ethnicity, and in no place on earth is that more wrong than in the United States.

For example, living in the Ozarks, I have the privilege of knowing a few people who are racially American (or “Brown”) but are just as Anglo as any Caucasian (or “White”) person I’ve ever known. One of them, a good friend of mine, jokes about how some people ask him how he says certain things in “his language.” To which, he would laugh and say with the most hillbilly accent: “Brown people ain’t BORN speakin Spanish.” To be honest, this particular “Brown” fellow is so profoundly hillbilly, he’s probably more Anglo than I am! That’s my point though. Race and ethnicity are two completely different things. Race plays a huge role in the formation of ethnicity, but the ethnicity doesn’t end just because the skin color changes.

Traditionally, the word “Anglo” is used as a conjugation with other words, such as Anglosphere, Anglican, Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Celtic and Anglo-American. It has been used sparingly as a noun, without the conjugation or hyphen, but I think we really need to start doing that more often. We already do this in the United States with the word Latino, which is an ethnic noun referring to people who identify culturally with Latin America (both Spanish and Portuguese). Thus, the two dominant ethnicities in the United States are Anglo and Latino. Yet, in both cases, while race played an important role in the development in these ethnicities, the ethnicities themselves are not dependent on race. For people of many races identify with one of these two ethnicities in North America. It’s possible (and fairly common) to be racially Ethiopian (“Black”) but ethnically Anglo. It’s also possible (and fairly common) to be racially Caucasian (“White”) but ethnically Latino.

Now, some might be inclined to correct me, in saying that “Black” (Ethiopian) culture in the United States is entirely different from “White” (Caucasian) culture in the United States. While that’s partially true, it’s also partially false. “Black” and “White” Americans have far more in common than they don’t. Aside from accent and cadence, we both speak the same language — English. And when it comes to other things, like music, dance, food and sensibilities, in the last 75 years (since the arrival of Elvis Presley), those differences have become increasingly blurred. Now, if “Black” Americans started speaking an entirely different language, and began taking on the cultural characteristics of African nations, I might be inclined to change my mind. Until then, however, there are plenty of “Black” Anglos in the United States, and I happily identify them as just as much Anglo as I am.

Now the story of “Brown” (American) Americans is a little different. The vast majority of them come from Latino ethnicity. So upon becoming citizens of the United States, many of them will choose one ethnicity or another (Latino or Anglo) over the next generation or so. This happens once they start speaking English. I would say the defining line of demarcation is when the younger generations start to forget how to speak Spanish or Portuguese fluently. Once that happens, I would say the transition from Latino ethnicity to Anglo ethnicity is near complete. Some culture residue may remain, such as accent, food preferences, music and other cultural norms, but these things are fluid anyway, and can easily transfer from one ethnicity to another.

For example, I’m a “White” Caucasian and Anglo American, but I absolutely love Mexican food. In fact, I prefer it to the standard “American” food, and it doesn’t even compare (in my opinion) to British or English food. Why is this? Well, I grew up in Southern California, where there is a huge crossover between Latino and Anglo ethnicities. I even say some Spanish words better than some English words, believe it or not. Again, that’s because of where I grew up. There is no doubt that I am ethnically Anglo, and I don’t identify as Latino in any way, shape or form. Yet, while I lived in California, I knew a lot of Latino people who looked a lot more “White” (Caucasian) than I do. Ironically, when I moved to the Ozarks as a young man, with my jet black hair, brown eyes, facial goatee, and California accent (which sounds a hint Spanish), a lot of the people in this area thought I was Latino. Yet my mother is primarily English, and my father is primarily Scandinavian. That all changed once the goatee became a full beard and I learned to adopt a hillbilly (Ozark) accent and cadence. (It wasn’t that hard since my mother was originally from Tennessee.) The bottom line is this. Race is where your biology comes from. Ethnicity is what you identify as, and who “your people” are.

The ONLY people who should be interested in race are medical professionals, and this is so they can quickly identify congenital and pathological vulnerabilities. That’s all! Outside of medicine, it is a Secularist and Atheist society that hyper-fixates on race. I’m not the least bit Secularist and I sure as hell am not Atheist. So race just isn’t as important to me as it is to some other people. If the United States government were still Christian, which it is not, then the national census would only ask us our ethnicity, and not our race. For example, the census question might be: Do you identify your ethnicity as: Anglo, Latino, Franco or Other? Or better yet, it might ask: What is the language most commonly spoken in your home: English, Spanish or Portuguese, French or Other? That’s it. The Federal government wouldn’t show so much peculiar interest in our skin color or facial characteristics. It is odd, don’t you think? Why does the Federal government care so much about what we look like? What’s in it for them?

Ethnicity is important. Race is not nearly as important. At least, it’s not to me, and if you’re a Christian, it shouldn’t be to you either. I’m more concerned about transmitting my values, beliefs, morals, politics and culture to my progeny than I am about transmitting my physical characteristics. Maybe some people can’t get on board with that. That’s fine. I don’t have a moral superiority complex either. If skin, hair and eye color is more important to you, then so be it. Who you marry is your business, and I’m not about to tell you otherwise. In the end, race is a deeply personal thing, and I think it should remain that way. I also think, however, if we publicly identified by our ethnicity, rather than our race, we would all be a lot happier.

Shane Schaetzel is an author of Catholic books and he is an Evangelical convert to the Catholic Church. His articles have been featured on LifeSiteNews, The Remnant Newspaper, Forward in Christ, and Catholic Online. You can read Shane’s books at ShaneSchaetzel.Com