Two ethnic groups become one via inter-breeding, whether one ethnic group absorbers the other, or the two ethnic groups mix so much that it creates a single distinct ethnic group. English Americans, (Americans of English ethnicity), still make up the vast majority of the American population, partial inter-ethnic breeding has probably resulted in an expansion of American nationhood to include those other then English Americans, (which has always been the "default" American), and this has probably helped make the distinction of ethnicity and race harmonise so that its now less of 'English Americans vs other Americans', and more of 'white Americans vs non-white Americans', hence the term "WASP" is now use to refer to American Protestants of any European ethnicity. The rest will be down to other factors. Also language is not a good proxy for ethnicity, religion is more of a better proxy, as religion tends to promote ethnocentrism among people of the same ethnic group, (i.e. English, French, Dutch, German etc), however there is no good proxy for ethnicity, the next best proxy for ethnicity would be culture, (the way of life, the general customs, beliefs, attitudes etc of a group), as culture is significantly heritability, therefore it can be mapped on to ethnicity in a surprisingly accurate way, though not 100%, it is close enough. So the term "English-speaking" is not an accurate way to make the distinction between 'English Canada and French Canada', arguably having a term such a "bilingual Canada" is not a thing for the same reason I stated above, language is not a good proxy for ethnicity, 'English Canada' is 'English Canada' not because of some notion of being an "English-speaking" Canadian, but because of English Canadians, (that is to say Canadians of English ethnicity), being precent in large numbers in Canada, in fact, English Canadians also still make up the vast majority of the Canadian population, and have been so long enough to be de facto the ""default" Canadian, regardless of what any people think of that. Ethnic conflict is only ever overcome by partial to full inter-ethnic breeding, if there is a single distinct ethnic group, there is no domestic ethnic conflict, only sub-ethnic conflict, which is much less of a problem. Also, the Conquest of New Netherland was an English conquest, not a "British" conquest as it happened around four years after the English Restoration and around forty-three years before union with Scotland, also a reconquest of New Netherland happened nearly a decade after, but was then returned to English rule in exchange for Surinam (now Suriname) as part of the 1674 Treaty of Westminster. Although that treaty was more of a confirmation that New Netherland would remain under English rule and Surinam would continue under Dutch rule after being captured by the Dutch, recaptured by the English, then handed back to the Dutch in the 1667 Treaty of Breda. The same treaty no less, which gave New Netherland to England, a bit confusing I know, but the principle at the time was "what you have, you hold" so we lost Surinam but gained New Netherland in the Second Anglo-Dutch War, and that was basically confirmed in the Third Anglo-Dutch War. Not many people seem to know that the English de facto exchanged an English colony (Surinam) for a Dutch colony (New Netherland), not quite the remarkable conquest one would image. Good video over all, even if I disagree with the liberal framing used, though I would say that as an English traditionalist.
This music is getting me serious anime visual novel vibes.
Good video. I'm happy to learn something new. Plus, the formatting and editing were good.
Two ethnic groups become one via inter-breeding, whether one ethnic group absorbers the other, or the two ethnic groups mix so much that it creates a single distinct ethnic group.
English Americans, (Americans of English ethnicity), still make up the vast majority of the American population, partial inter-ethnic breeding has probably resulted in an expansion of American nationhood to include those other then English Americans, (which has always been the "default" American), and this has probably helped make the distinction of ethnicity and race harmonise so that its now less of 'English Americans vs other Americans', and more of 'white Americans vs non-white Americans', hence the term "WASP" is now use to refer to American Protestants of any European ethnicity. The rest will be down to other factors.
Also language is not a good proxy for ethnicity, religion is more of a better proxy, as religion tends to promote ethnocentrism among people of the same ethnic group, (i.e. English, French, Dutch, German etc), however there is no good proxy for ethnicity, the next best proxy for ethnicity would be culture, (the way of life, the general customs, beliefs, attitudes etc of a group), as culture is significantly heritability, therefore it can be mapped on to ethnicity in a surprisingly accurate way, though not 100%, it is close enough.
So the term "English-speaking" is not an accurate way to make the distinction between 'English Canada and French Canada', arguably having a term such a "bilingual Canada" is not a thing for the same reason I stated above, language is not a good proxy for ethnicity, 'English Canada' is 'English Canada' not because of some notion of being an "English-speaking" Canadian, but because of English Canadians, (that is to say Canadians of English ethnicity), being precent in large numbers in Canada, in fact, English Canadians also still make up the vast majority of the Canadian population, and have been so long enough to be de facto the ""default" Canadian, regardless of what any people think of that.
Ethnic conflict is only ever overcome by partial to full inter-ethnic breeding, if there is a single distinct ethnic group, there is no domestic ethnic conflict, only sub-ethnic conflict, which is much less of a problem.
Also, the Conquest of New Netherland was an English conquest, not a "British" conquest as it happened around four years after the English Restoration and around forty-three years before union with Scotland, also a reconquest of New Netherland happened nearly a decade after, but was then returned to English rule in exchange for Surinam (now Suriname) as part of the 1674 Treaty of Westminster. Although that treaty was more of a confirmation that New Netherland would remain under English rule and Surinam would continue under Dutch rule after being captured by the Dutch, recaptured by the English, then handed back to the Dutch in the 1667 Treaty of Breda. The same treaty no less, which gave New Netherland to England, a bit confusing I know, but the principle at the time was "what you have, you hold" so we lost Surinam but gained New Netherland in the Second Anglo-Dutch War, and that was basically confirmed in the Third Anglo-Dutch War. Not many people seem to know that the English de facto exchanged an English colony (Surinam) for a Dutch colony (New Netherland), not quite the remarkable conquest one would image.
Good video over all, even if I disagree with the liberal framing used, though I would say that as an English traditionalist.
love this new style of video
I like this style of video a lot!
I love these videos on history
RIP YA 🥺