# The Anglosphere



## a_majoor (7 Oct 2013)

The Anglosphere as a concept has ben drifting around multiple threads for some time now. This essay suggests that the common language of the Anglosphere is one of the factors behind the deep and strong roots of individual liberty in Anglosphere nations (in the essay, one author is quoted as suggesting the ideas of individual liberty were first being expressed in the 13th century). While language cannot be the only reason, the common cultural roots of the Anglosphere are certainly for individual liberty, and "culture" is the basis of everything:

http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2013/10/06/the-anglosphere-and-the-future-of-liberty/?singlepage=true



> *The Anglosphere and the Future of Liberty*
> 
> October 6th, 2013 - 4:20 am
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Oct 2013)

There is _some_ prospect for a useful (and even powerful) informal _alliance_ _alignment_ of like minded nations but I suspect that neither language nor a (fading) liberalism are at its base.

The big thing it needs is some purpose. What is it that _unites_ prospective members? The answer, I would suggest, is the same one I give to a wide range of _strategic_ issues: *peace* and *prosperity*. Nations with otherwise diverse, even competing interests, are likely to find common cause in maintaining peace in order to enhance their own prosperity.

(At the risk of repeating myself ...
_*Peace*_ is more than just the absence of war. Peace is the situation that obtains when countries can go about their lawful business ~ which *is* business ~ without too much worry about the safety of their citizens' or their citizens' money. It is the situation in which nations, even nations that don't especially like one another can trade for mutual advantage.

_*Prosperity*_ is more than French King Henri IV's "chicken in every pot."* Prosperity is the situation that obtains when people can live and work without undue worry about their health and safety, the basic needs of 98% of the population being met by employment, supplemented, a bit, now and again, by social welfare. Prosperity allows people and nations to help those (people and nations) that are less fortunate. Prosperity means that capital is "free" for use ~ globally ~ to invest and to innovate to increase the _common wealth_ of all peoples in all nations.)

What _should_ characterize the members of this _alignment_?

     First: what they do not share is English as a mother tongue, although we will find it in common use. Nor do they share a tradition of English _liberalism_.

     Second: they are democracies. They recognize that "government with the consent of the governed" is the type that works best to give their people the essential economic and personal _freedom_ to make their own choices
     about their own beliefs and property.

     Third: they are "free market" economies.

     Fourth: (and, arguably, most important) they are law abiding societies.

Now, consider these two list:

*Corruption Perception Index*
Essentially a list of the 20 most honest countries
*Rank     Country *
1     Denmark           
1     Finland              
1     New Zealand     
4     Sweden       
5     Singapore        
6     Switzerland       
7     Australia          
7     Norway           
9     Canada 
9     Netherlands  
11   Iceland               
12   Luxembourg       
13   Germany             
14   Hong Kong         
15   Barbados            
16   Belgium 
17   Japan                 
17   United Kingdom  
19   United States    
20   Chile                   
20   Uruguay             
     See more at: http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2012/results/#sthash.4b2rXRVG.dpuf

*GDP (PPP) Per Capita - IMF*
*Rank     Country *
1	 Qatar	                      
2	 Luxembourg	     
3	 Singapore	     
4	 Norway	             
5	 Brunei	       
—	 Hong Kong	      
6	 United States	     
7	 United Arab Emirates
8	 Switzerland	     
9	 Canada	              
10	 Australia	             
11	 Austria	                 
12	 Netherlands	     
13	 San Marino	         
14	 Ireland	               
15	 Sweden	             
16	 Kuwait	                
17	 Iceland	             
18	 Germany	             
19	 Taiwan	             
20	 Belgium               
     Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
     Countries (and territories) in blue are on both list.

There are, already, formal, recognized, _Anglosphere_ military staffs: the Combined Communications Electronics Board, AUSCANZUKUS and TTCP, for example, consisting of:

Australia;
Canada;
New Zealand;
United Kingdom; and
United States; to which I would add (from the list above)
Iceland;
Netherlands;
Norway;
Singapore; and
Sweden.

(I have excluded Hong Kong, because is a territory with only limited foreign policy _freedom_, and Switzerland, because of its long standing neutrality and non-intervention policies.)
(I did not add either Belgium or Germany because they are not every high on either list.)

Eleven nations is, it seems to me, about as large as any _alignment_ wants to be. (I served in various NATO fora before and during the expansion and I can recall that consensus became increasing difficult and, finally, impossible to achieve on major _policy_ issues.)

_____
Attributed as: "I want there to be no peasant in my realm so poor that he will not have a chicken in his pot every Sunday," the phrase was made famous in 1928 by an advertisement used by Herbert Hoover's campaign .


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Oct 2013)

I have an inherent disposition against all things Frankish.   

So to bolster the opinion that the Academie Francaise is the nexus of evil - stifling, stultifying, rigid and prescriptive - I went looking for other countries that had adopted the same style of control.  I was confident that I would find that most countries found on ERC's lists would not have such academies while the more authoritarian countries would have their own version of the language police.  I was surprised.

Wikipedia: List of Language Regulators.

It appears that English is the "only" language that doesn't have language police.  Instead it has a commercial record of the words in common use - The Oxford English Dictionary - which includes words like twerking and naffed if they show up in print anywhere three times.

Apparently English and the attitude of the English to their language is much more unique than I thought.  The language is just a medium, a currency, that floats according to the whim of the market.


The other curiousity came from E.R.'s "Chicken in every pot".  That quote originally is attributed to France's "populist" king, Henry IV of Navarre - the shape-shifting Huguenot pragmatist that conquered the Franks of Paris by accepting Mass.   I would look for links between Henry, La Rochelle, New Rochelle, Herbert Hoover and the Republicans.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Oct 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I have an inherent disposition against all things Frankish.



Ummmmm?  The Franks were Germanic tribes.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Oct 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Ummmmm?  The Franks were Germanic tribes.



Exactly.  All things evil come from the Ardennes.   >   

Merovech's kids worked their way down to Paris and eventually made their stand on the Ile de Notre Dame in the Ile de France (Francs) (Franks).

One of the peculiarities of the way that English-French history is taught is how often the peoples of the old Angevin empire have found themselves on the same side against the Franks.

Cathar crusades, Templars, Hundred Years War, Huguenots, Cevenne Revolts - The folks south of the Loire have never been of the same mind as those north of the Loire.   True all the way back to Roman Aquitania.

There is a reason why red wine in Britain is synonymous with Bordeaux.


----------



## Bert (8 Oct 2013)

Culture does evolve.  I see the anglosphere as a contemporary summation of the remnants of the British Empire.  Without the Empire, no angloshere would exist.  Arguably, modern Britain was influenced and evolved from the retreat of the Roman Empire.  Factions and tribes in Britain were resistant to Roman rule but now left on their own in 400 AD, applied the Roman concepts of law, economics, warfare, politics, architecture and engineering.  These concepts as well as British geography evolved into the middle ages and exported to the territories that ties us all together. 

http://www.britain-magazine.com/features/history/roman-legacy/
http://www.samuelgriffith.org.au/papers/html/volume%2012/v12app2.htm


----------



## GnyHwy (8 Oct 2013)

I'd like to say that I agree with the writer, but it was so long winded I'm not so sure.  The writer doesn't prove my hypothesis that the reason the English language is successful is because of its conciseness.  His writing style reminds me of my issues and complaints with mil writing, where it seems that we favor convoluted, rhetorical, ambiguous and creative writing instead of simplistic and factual.  Occam would not be pleased.  It seems we write in order to impress our colleagues and superiors rather than communicating ideas to the masses.  

This makes me question the convention conference itself.  They would like to believe that they utilize the English language correctly, but does that go beyond their special club of persons patting themselves on the back?  Judging by some of the political unrest in some of our English nations, I don't believe the spirit of this convention is reaching anywhere or anyone beyond its walls.  

What is the intent of language?  I would say it is to communicate ideas in the most efficient way possible; not to convolute ideas with a crap load of unnecessary words.

Long live Occam!


----------



## pbi (8 Oct 2013)

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> I'd like to say that I agree with the writer, but it was so long winded I'm not so sure... His writing style reminds me of my issues and complaints with mil writing, where it seems that we favor convoluted, rhetorical, ambiguous and creative writing instead of simplistic and factual.  Occam would not be pleased.  It seems we write in order to impress our colleagues and superiors rather than communicating ideas to the masses.


Sadly so true. Having worked at both CACSC and CFC, I can only mourn how poorly most officers write, and how little we do any more to teach them to cut through the garbage pile of excess verbiage and buzzwords to produce work that actually meets that good old standard of "CARL-B". Bring back Staff School! The greater sin is that most of their superiors seem to have adopted this confused, cloudy, bureaucratic/academic style of writing, instead of keeping it short, sharp and to the point.



> What is the intent of language?  I would say it is to communicate ideas in the most efficient way possible; not to convolute ideas with a crap load of unnecessary words.



I think language does more than just that: it carries culture. What makes the English language so strong and flexible is that, like the core cadre of nations who speak it, it's highly flexible and adaptive. Just open a dictionary and look at how many commonly used words were picked up lock stock and barrel from other languages. If we like a word, we steal it and get on with it: we don't set up language police to enforce the wording of signs on coffee shops.

That said, I find the article rather overblown: it's almost a paean to the supposed virtues of the English speaking peoples, to the point of being counter-factual If being ruled by the English was so great an experience, why did the Americans (uniquely amongst all British colonies of European, English-speaking stock) revolt against the Crown?  And if liberty and individual rights are so much a backbone of Anglo culture, why did American revolutionary rhetoric stress so heavily that Americans couldn't find either under the Crown?

And if being ruled by non-English speakers was so miserable, why do so many former colonies of France, Spain and Portugal resolutely continue to preserve language, culture, political and judicial systems forced on them by their colonizers?


----------



## Journeyman (8 Oct 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> Bring back Staff School!


   :nod:

Just not on Avenue Rd.


----------



## pbi (8 Oct 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> :nod:
> 
> Just not on Avenue Rd.



Ahhh, but the pubs, man, the pubs! Stumbling distance!


----------

