> The article about the actual people the anglo saxons does reinforce their point though.
Nope. On the contrary, it rather directly contradicts it.
> > The history of the Anglo-Saxons is the history of a cultural identity. It developed from divergent groups in association with the people's adoption of Christianity and was integral to the founding of various kingdoms.
And that's why "Anglo-Saxon" is nowadays used to mean at least the British nation -- a nation that includes the conquered Celts of Scotland and Wales, and lots of more recently immigrated ethnically and religiously diverese groups, but still as a whole the somewhat coherent Christianity-based English-speaking culture descended from the original Anglish and Saxon tribes that migrated to the British isles a millennium and a half ago -- or indeed that nation, plus the Anglophone erstwhile colonies that were settled and inherited their mainstream cultures from Britain (i.e the USA, Canada, Emutopia and Kiwiland, and possibly some smaller ones I'm forgetting at the moment). It is, as Wikipedia so correctly notes, a cultural identity.
It's just a convenient shorthand, because "Anglo-Saxon" is a fucklot easier to say than "the somewhat coherent Christianity-based English-speaking culture descended from that of the original Anglish and Saxon tribes that migrated to the British isles a millennium and a half ago, encompassing all the tribes they subjugated and assimilated since" or "all the preceding plus the Anglophone erstwhile colonies that were settled and inherited their mainstream cultures from it". That's how language works.