Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Fort Bend County, TX/USA/Mississauga, ON/Canada
2,702 posts, read 6,029,743 times
Reputation: 2304
Advertisements
Latin America is closer to their Southern European colonial heritages than the US is to the UK. I'm Hispanic & have visited many Latin American countries (even the ones who are mestizo, black, & Spaniard/Portuguese/Italian)
Yes, for two main reasons that come to mind right away.
1. In the case of the USA, the English settlers moved to a place where the climate and geography were very much like England, as was the economic development strategy, so the economic cultures just picked right up as if they were in England.
2. There was almost no indigenous population to use for labor, and in the northern states no importation of slaves, so for a long time, the culture remained strictly English from top to bottom.
Conversely, in the Spanish colonies, the geography was very different from Spain, different challenges were faced by people attempting to form a society, and large plantation agriculture was alien to the traditional cultures of Spain. So socialization began to diverge quite a lot from the Spanish model. And there was the influence of a large sub-population of non-Europeans in the vicinity.
In the case of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the English settlers never even agitated for independence, preserving the crown to this day.
In the case of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the English settlers never even agitated for independence, preserving the crown to this day.
I think it was much more nuanced than that, at least in the case of Australia.
Britain adopted a very hard line in North America which probably left the American colonies with no choice but to fight for independence. In Australia full self government was granted to the then states following a series of rebellions against the colonial authorities, the most historically significant being at Ballarat, Victoria, in 1854. The was so much open public support for the rebel leaders (at their trial juries acquitted them of crimes they clearly committed, and following their acquittal crowds carried them through the streets of Melbourne as heroes) that the British colonial administration probably realised their cause was lost, so it was better give large concessions and retain influence if not political control.
When the Australian constitution was drafted in the 1880s and 1890s it rendered the crown more a legal concept than any position of influence or power, with all the powers of a head of state given to the position of Governor General, appointed by the government of the day, who exercises those powers in their own right and based on their own judgement, and not as a representative of the crown.
latin-american countries deff have more roots to its old colonizers than anglo countries do. latin-americans go out of their way to be associated with europe. its ridiculous.
There doesn't seem to be a whole lot in common, but based on the greater amount of colonial infrastructure in LA alone, I always thought of it as the other way around. Buenos Aires is probably more European-ish than any other new world city.
There doesn't seem to be a whole lot in common, but based on the greater amount of colonial infrastructure in LA alone, I always thought of it as the other way around. Buenos Aires is probably more European-ish than any other new world city.
Most of Buenos Aires wasn't build when it was part of the Spanish empire, but when it was a de facto British colony.
Had Argentina stayed true to the British model, today it'll be another Australia.
Back to the topic, I find Anglo countries are more in tune with each other than their Hispanic counterparts.
Then again, the US also received lots of non-Anglo immigrants like Germans, Italians, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and other Spanish-speaking New Worlders themselves, plus of course African-American culture and Asian and other later immigrants.
Anglo Saxons were Germanic
The Romans invaded Britain in AD43. After that, for 400 years southern Britain was part of the Roman world. The last Roman soldiers left Britain in AD 410, and then new people came in ships across the North Sea.
Historians call them Anglo-Saxons. The new settlers were a mixture of people from north Germany, Denmark and northern Holland. Most were Saxons, Angles and Jutes. There were some Franks and Frisians too. If we use the modern names for the countries they came from, the Saxons, Franks and Frisians were German-Dutch, the Angles were southern Danish, and Jutes were northern Danish.
As for our British Ancestry it's as much Basque as it is Anglo Saxon, at least according to world renowned Genetics expert Professor Stephen Oppenheimer of the University of Oxford and Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine.
You don't feel "British presence/influence" too much in the US within the "middle class" of America, but the higher in the society you go, the more this influence/connection is felt.
Just watch the "House of Cards" as an example.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
