I'm familiar with it and the context, a mix of political and cultural.

But in France older people still call Indians 'Hindus' despite having the largest Muslim population in the world and other religious groups.

Anglo-Saxon refers to a people that ruled England when they invaded Britain in the Middle Ages, and dominated politically up to the present. The Irish, Welsh, etc in Britain, the many immigrants there and in the US and Australia, would probably find it an outdated term.

WASP is one we use in the US for something similar, referring to cultural and academic institutions and such, but I feel like it's fallen out of favor.

It's partially tied to ethnic affiliation, but that is not an essential aspect of the term. For instance, Trevor Noah's comments on the French football team would definitely be referred to as an anglo-saxon perspective even though the man himself would not be considered as such by anglophones since the term refers almost exclusively to ethnicity in English.

Although the average Frenchman could always stand to learn more about the anglosphere, the usage of the word anglo-saxon in French isn't borne out of ignorance of cultural nuance, but is often invoked and defined in contrast to French or French-inspired values. As such, the term is still popular because it's still highly relevant: whenever there's some kerfuffle about secularism or some other salient clash of values, the anglosphere tends to present the same predictable range of responses whether they are Anglo-Canadians or Irish, POC or WASP, immigrant or Baskerville.

Naturally, people from the anglosphere don't enjoy being conceptually lumped together by outsiders (leading to the misunderstandings mentioned earlier) but in this case it's not just casual prejudice on the part of the French (even though it no doubt plays a role) but a recurrent difference in values that has real consequences. In my view, it is as real a concept as "the West" is for example.

>As such, the term is still popular because it's still highly relevant: whenever there's some kerfuffle about secularism or some other salient clash of values, the anglosphere tends to present the same predictable range of responses whether they are Anglo-Canadians or Irish, POC or WASP, immigrant or Baskerville.

That's too strong a claim. It probably was more true in 1960 than in 2020, given how much has changed. For example, the prudeness was a common stereotype of both Americans and Brits, but it's changed much since those days. The generations are so different from one another, it's quite a shock to many. And let's not get started with cities versus towns. In cities, things are so international they (cities) often have similar attitudes with one another across national boundaries.

Subjectively, having lived in the UK, I often felt there was more in common between the British and the French than either with Americans. Friendships, attitudes to strangers, and romantic relationships. Religiosity is more common in the US.

I'm not talking politics here - what's an example of this commonality of Anglo-Saxon culture or kurfuffle that clashes with French culture? Political correctness? Religiosity ?

To cite a few examples, the talk about the French football team in 2018 was a clash between the French universalist vision and the anglo-saxon melting pot vision. The veil and French secularist rules is also a classic issue that comes up once every few years. Remnants of protestant ideology, attitudes towards work and food and sex are also themes that come up fairly often.

I think you are actually on to something. Our conversation forced me to critically evaluate things I hadn't really thought of before. It's quite possible we might be among the last generations for whom the word will still be relevant since the current youngest crop of people are already quite heavily influenced by American culture. And to some extent much of the meaning of the word tends to be about what Americans specifically do since they are so completely dominant in the anglosphere. It's true that the UK has quite a bit in common with France.

To be clear, I wasn't implying that every anglosphere person does the same thing all the time. More like a common thread that comes up in certain situations where French culture doesn't coincide. The word is paradoxically dependent on France having failed to create a competing francosphere. There are many regions where French is the main language, but there isn't really such a thing as the Commonwealth. Quebec evolved without much mutual contact for centuries. Francophone countries in Africa have many ties but mostly do their own thing. Belgians and Swiss don't care. There is also an identification of modern consumerism and "late stage capitalism" (a loaded term, but I don't know what else to use) as originating in the anglosphere and being spread by it, which is semi-correct, I suppose. (for instance, McDonald's compared to French traditions regarding food)

There is thus the notion of an overwhelming cultural force bursting out the door, which is not just an abstract concern since the international urban culture is heavily based on the American one. It's not uncommon for younger generations to know and care more about American politics than their own, as evidenced last summer with BLM movements across the world using the exact same tropes even though there are important local differences and histories on how racism manifests in each country (and especially in France compared to the US)

Yeah, I see and understand that the identification with American capitalism and the spread of those ideas, and how those ideas (liberal / free market / commerce) ideas are absolutely associated with the Anglosphere. They developed there 'first' (ish / really Northern Europe too), then you had the British Empire in the 19th and the American hegemony in the 20th century. The dominant force of culture via media, movies, and its adoption in France, thanks to the free market, has been good in some ways and bad in others in France. I do understand it bred much resentment.

If I can take a pause and suggest, too, that every country has its scapegoats and when I hear people in France say things like, oh, the violence in the banlieue is due to American influence (I heard this not in regards to BLM today but actually 20 years ago), I have to raise one eyebrow. I think the American influence thing has truth to it but in France the political conversation on both right and left seems to exaggerate it for drama, I think you'll agree. It behaves like France is not an agent of its own will.

Anyway, a salient difference that you highlighted between the societies is the cohesive idea of France and the cohesive idea of England or the cohesive idea of the United States. At least forgive me if I'm reading a bit in between the lines. In France, the core principles as you alluded to, of laïcité, to take one example, is core to the identity of France, sure. So of course, if a country like the U.S. which was explicitly founded BY religous people fleeing England, that cannot / will not be understood. The melting pot idea is a tough one to discuss not least because it's extremely complicated (and in today's climate it's dangerous to talk about), but when you're in the EU with open borders, you're a country that founded the idea of the EU, one expectation is the free movement of people (a principle adopted since at least the 80's). So even if the United States never existed, it would still be a challenge to negotiate conceptually for people in France tied to older ways of viewing the world.

You mentioned that the urban centers are American. I was thinking about this. I don't know if it's true or if it's false, but I live an American megacity, surrounded by upscale Chinese, and I (not so much on purpose but by habit) eat Asian meals probably 50+% of my meals (including sometimes cooking it), I live in a building designed for Chinese investors and their aesthetic tastes even, and from a consumer perspective most of what I wear and buy isn't an American style, but I'm generic here. What's an American urban center? London is similar, and honestly even Paris has large aspects where it feels like any of these other places. I'm not so sure it's specifically American or ever was. A lot of people think New York, specifically Manhattan, is very European, which may shock you. I've heard the same of how many American cities are changing.

Are you referring or did you see the NYT article attacking France's secularism as racism in disguise? I honestly don't see that viewpoint as the majority in the U.S., if it's any consolation!

>If I can take a pause and suggest, too, that every country has its scapegoats and when I hear people in France say things like, oh, the violence in the banlieue is due to American influence (I heard this not in regards to BLM today but actually 20 years ago), I have to raise one eyebrow. I think the American influence thing has truth to it but in France the political conversation on both right and left seems to exaggerate it for drama, I think you'll agree. It behaves like France is not an agent of its own will.

The 90's banlieue described in La Haine is long gone, and I agree that blaming the Americans for that sort of thing is pretty silly. It's better to critically examine each area of American influence on a case by case basis. For instance, what could be termed modern SJW concepts have definitely been spread in France by American influence, even if ironically these have a theoretical foundation in left-leaning mid-20th francophone philosophy with writers like Frantz Fanon or Foucault.

The concept of France not having its own will is essentially the result of a backwards-facing culture. France has been deeply shocked by the loss of their earlier status, and newer generations don't give a shit about all that except when conservative youths allude to a mythical past. Hence there is a current malaise about French culture dying out that would be difficult to properly explain.

>The melting pot idea is a tough one to discuss not least because it's extremely complicated (and in today's climate it's dangerous to talk about), but when you're in the EU with open borders, you're a country that founded the idea of the EU, one expectation is the free movement of people (a principle adopted since at least the 80's). So even if the United States never existed, it would still be a challenge to negotiate conceptually for people in France tied to older ways of viewing the world.

The French view tends to be interpreted as fundamentally racist by the anglosphere. I would argue, on the contrary, that it actually proposes a model of thought that attempts to limit racism in the long run (attempt being the keyword here, heh). To be clear, I do not mean to imply that there is no racism in French society as that would be completely delusional, just that its proposed ideals are in my view a healthier way of interfacing with those problems.

In reality, there is no contradiction between the EU's open borders and the French ideal, since the point is to have every citizen consider themselves as French independently of their other characteristics. Comparatively, the anglosphere model tends to strengthen and highlight the differences between people with hyphenated identities. The concept of race is thus primed to remain a divider in perpetuity unless the model shifts over time. When Noah told France to thank Africa for providing it with players, the reaction was quite negative since rejecting the inherent Frenchness of a non-white person is precisely the type of racism that causes the most grief in France and butts up with the main ideological principles there. Noah later added that he was just inviting the players to recognize their Africanness instead of rejecting their Frenchness, but that only reiterated his misunderstanding of why his remarks were tone-deaf in a French context.

>I live an American megacity, surrounded by upscale Chinese, and I (not so much on purpose but by habit) eat Asian meals probably 50+% of my meals (including sometimes cooking it), I live in a building designed for Chinese investors and their aesthetic tastes even, and from a consumer perspective most of what I wear and buy isn't an American style, but I'm generic here. What's an American urban center? London is similar, and honestly even Paris has large aspects where it feels like any of these other places. I'm not so sure it's specifically American or ever was. A lot of people think New York, specifically Manhattan, is very European, which may shock you. I've heard the same of how many American cities are changing.

The broader point is that the lifestyle consisting in consuming various products within the bounds of megacities is a quite specific cultural practice that is taking over. In a sense, whether you are eating Chinese or Bantu food or living in a brutalist or art deco building is a bit of a red herring compared to the main facts of life in a megacity. When people refer to New York's Europeanness, they are directly contrasting it with the notion of the impersonal sprawl and implying a certain authenticity and granularity among its neighborhoods that goes beyond simple variations in consumption patterns. Authenticity is a pretentious term, but I believe it describes the situation fairly accurately. It's better to interpret it as meaning a more personal interface with the surroundings, and one that is less directly linked to anglophone free-market optimization. Even in Paris, you can taste the difference between La Défense and some of the more old-school neighborhoods, but that is changing fast.

To summarize, it's the interchangeability of all those cities that French people fear, because they can compare it to life in Provence and whatnot. They are also wary of the ideology that comes with it, namely the sort of thought patterns and aesthetic choices that dominate Instagram feeds and imply a lack of cultural biodiversity. I am aware that this point of view sounds explicitly elitist, but I am paradoxically trying to communicate a view of life that is more communal and more accepting of other ways of thought.

>Are you referring or did you see the NYT article attacking France's secularism as racism in disguise?

I'm not sure which one you are referring to, but a while back they had an interview with Macron that I found really stunning in its arrogance. It's not that I am unwilling to consider opposing viewpoints, but that any person already passably familiar with the topic could tell they were not presenting the arguments made by Macron and the broader French society in good faith. I would say these views don't represent all Americans but they do represent the neoliberal coastal elite as I understand it. One of whose traits tends to be the belief that their own ideology is not an ideology but just a rational and scientific approach.