NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay I just saw a very odd arguement of wikipedia(good site go THERE I COMMAND IT) anyway the arguement is this: Using the term American to define american citizens is wrong because the US isn't the only country on the American continent so some group (i don't know who) is advocating the USe of US-ian instead of American for defining a citizen from the United states of America.

So does this make sense to anyone? I personally think its taking political correctness too far (and I am pretty damn liberal myself). If you can give me an argument on why this is good feel free or if you think its a tottally idiotic idea tell me why?

Why do this? BECAUSE I AM LORD ZODD KING OF THE MIDGETS AND LORD OF the GOATS!

I live in America, South America more precisely, and I am not an American, but I am an American.

Now does it make sense

no I understand that but honestly do you think US-ian should be what we are called? its not in common usage. Plus we aren't claiming the continent its in our name.. United States of America. Thus American If we were called the united states of BOB we would be alled Bobian or is it Bob-ites? hmm now I must think about this....

Does anyone know when or how the term America or American was first used to describe the British Colonials?

Wasn't it when Americano made his map, The US ppl have been called americans in writting since 1812, so its been well established.

It's along the same lines of why we don't call people from the Kingdom of Spain "Kingdomites" or people from the People's Republic of China "People's Republicans" or people from the Federative Republic of Brazil "Federative Republicans". If you want to argue that it's hubris to call the USA the United States of America, very well. But it's common usage to refer to a nation by the geographic title it gives itself, not the political one.

Wasn't it when Americano made his map, The US ppl have been called americans in writting since 1812, so its been well established.

I've never heard of Americano. I checked google and all it gave me were Spanish websites and a movie about a college kid who goes back packing around Europe.

Good Point and I think you may have just ended my thread! But If anyway wants to argue for US-ian go ahead.

I've never heard Americano. I checked google and all it gave me were Spanish websites and a movie about a college kid who goes back packing around Europe.

Amerigo Vespucci.

Amerigo Vespucci.

Do you know the circumstances under which Amerigo Vespucci started calling himself an American?

Do you know the circumstances under which Amerigo Vespucci started calling himself an American?

No, Amerigo Vespucci is who the Americas are named after.

No, Amerigo Vespucci is who the Americas are named after.

Okay but my question was intended to find out who first decided to call people from the U.S. as Americans.

Sorry I knew his name was something like that but I don't fact check so I typed the first name that came into my head. Late at night and getting lazy sorry...

we've been called americans since the war of 1812, its in some writtings from the era I would link but too lazy go google it.. or wiiki it.

we've been called americans since the war of 1812, its in some writtings from the era I would link but too lazy go google it.. or wiiki it.

The War of 1812 was fought against Canada?

partly yes, we did burn down YORk(torronto) and a lot of canadian troops were involved but it was declared against the United Kindom and we fought them. Also considering how canada didn't become a nation until 1982 it would be impossible for us to declare a war on them in 1812... So NO

I believe it was the British during colonial times...Americans were under the crown, but wern't full citizens (colonials aren't citizens by definition), so as a way to refer to the collective group, American arose (much like Indian refered to the colonials in Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh, but all people of the Indian subcontinent are technically Indian). The difference is, once seperated, the American colonies never seperated into seperate nations. Therefore, rather than New Yorkers, Connecticutanians, Pennsylvanians, Virginians, and the like, the group became known as "Americans", as that was the unifying culture and political body. Most people of the Americas identify as nationality, rather than by general geographic location (Canadians will call themselves "Canadian" rather than "American", although both are accurate) I think it is also because the area of the Americas is so large and culturally varied, while areas such as Europe are smaller and share a more united culture.

partly yes, we did burn down YORk(torronto) and a lot of canadian troops were involved but it was declared against the United Kindom and we fought them. Also considering how canada didn't become a nation until 1982 it would be impossible for us to declare a war on them in 1812... So NO

So was this an extension of the War of Independance?

you're pulling my chain right? what nationality are you? NO it wasn't an extension of the American revolution it is often called the second American Rev but that for other reasons. Its called that because it was our first test again an international power to see if we would survive. 1812 and the america Rev were seperate wars for serperate reasons (with the same partipants).

I believe it was the British during colonial times...Americans were under the crown, but wern't full citizens (colonials aren't citizens by definition), so as a way to refer to the collective group, American arose (much like Indian refered to the colonials in Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh, but all people of the Indian subcontinent are technically Indian). The difference is, once seperated, the American colonies never seperated into seperate nations. Therefore, rather than New Yorkers, Connecticutanians, Pennsylvanians, Virginians, and the like, the group became known as "Americans", as that was the unifying culture and political body. Most people of the Americas identify as nationality, rather than by general geographic location (Canadians will call themselves "Canadian" rather than "American", although both are accurate) I think it is also because the area of the Americas is so large and culturally varied, while areas such as Europe are smaller and share a more united culture.

I might be misunderstanding your statement, but how could the colonials not be considered British citizens. Didn't they come from England?

No, it came some time after the Revolution. Basicly, the British were taking US ships from the Atlantic and forcing them to help the Brits fight the French (I think it was the French). This is the war where the British marched on Washington and burned the White House.

they didn't have the rights of citizens similar to the way the indians in the 19th century didn't have rights as citizens in the US. (or blacks or any other minority wow really checkered past huh?, don't blame me, my family didn't come untill the 30's)

No, it came some time after the Revolution. Basicly, the British were taking US ships from the Atlantic and forcing them to help the Brits fight the French (I think it was the French). This is the war where the British marched on Washington and burned the White House.


Hey we burned torronto too though (called york then)

partly yes, we did burn down YORk(torronto) and a lot of canadian troops were involved but it was declared against the United Kindom and we fought them. Also considering how canada didn't become a nation until 1982 it would be impossible for us to declare a war on them in 1812... So NO

1982!? Thats a little off methinks, and the Canadians did burn down the white house (along with most of washington) while US-ian bigwigs ran away. And as an aside, for those of you who don't live in Kanuckistan, the rest of Canada would also love to burn down Toronto, just because it's Toronto. Anywho, why just make it simple and call all people from the USA 'Yanks'. Call them that anyway, but being in America is alot different than being in the USA. Just ask any Canuck, and they'll give you more than an ear full.

Anyone can be called an American, if they want to be. All they have to do is just give up their quaint local superstitions and habits, and pledge alliegance to the Flag, of the US of A. I mean, Canada's already almost the fifty-first state. Why don't the rest of you just submit to fate.

Just give in. Join us. Make your song ours.

Resistance is futile.

The preceding post was not approved by the rational government of Kaukolastan, and the user might be somewhat "wry" or "ironic" in his verbiage.

From a public terminal,
The K-man

they didn't have the rights of citizens similar to the way the indians in the 19th century didn't have rights as citizens in the US. (or blacks or any other minority wow really checkered past huh?, don't blame me, my family didn't come untill the 30's)

I don't mean to be pulling your chain, but I understood that the War of 1812 occured because the U.S. tried to occupy Canada.

Why would people from India have the same rights as people from the U.S.?

in 1982 the constitution act ( i think thats what it is called I don't fact check soo..) was passed in English paralament which gave the Canadian parlament to change their constitution thus giving them soverignty ( I can't spell lol) therefore the Canadian People got their great independence from the UK in 1982. They still have a monarch. WE must end the evil rule of Queen Elizabeth the Second Evil ruler of canada. (she chooses Gov. general and he choses candadian senate (their upper house of paralment) so they still got a ways to go)

ALL HAIL ZODD!

okay you just messing with me what nationality are you I am assuming not from North America. When I say indian I mean Native American(you know those people the english came in and killed to make room for us for?)

okay you just messing with me what nationality are you I am assuming not from North America. When I say indian I mean Native American(you know those people the english came in and killed to make room for us for?)

Although I am neither from the U.S. or Brazil, like yourself and Alien Born I am an American.

okay must sleep Ory Go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812 you will learn a lot. Anyway American is in common usage for People from the united states of America. Not to mention using USian doesn't make sense because we would have to refer to citizens of countries by their political association. (i.e. UK would be Kindom-ian, Federal Repulic of Mexico would be federal Republicans etc etc etc....) well this thread sucked I should've thought it out more..
MUST SLEEP NOw WISH I COULD CONTINUE BUT CAN"t you guys can keep going fight for americaN!!!! lol

Yes again we must all hail Zodd he rules us all and if you don't hail him a midget will eat your dog!

Thanks....

Canada was officially formed in 1867, not 1982. We patriated the Constitution in 1982. A very large difference. Before 1867 we were Upper Canada and Lower Canada, dominions of the British Empire.

Most South Americans consider themselves "American".

I was hoping Evil Mess could answer my question but since he's gone to sleep if there is anyone out there who knows when and why people from the U.S. first thought to call themselves Americans please let me know.

I think people calling themselves American would have been a case of the common people using it amongst themselves, a term which was later officially recognised by the powers that be. Once the Americas had been given the name as a landmass, then it would have probably perculated through the citizenry until it was the dominant name to call yourself.
you could also blame this whole argument on whoever decided that the USA would be called the USA and not, say, Liberia.

In the Renessince, it was a sign a wealth to pay a midget to live in your house and come out at partys and everyone would gawk at how short he was and know how rich you are

The War of 1812 was fought against Canada?

You're kidding, right? If I remember correctly, for it to qualify as a war, both sides have to have an army. The Canadians? An army? MUAHAHAHAHAno.

The War of 1812 was fought against the British. Even after the Revolution the Brits still weren't very pleasant with us. From around 1800-1812 (wasn't this when Napolean was ###raping the rest of Europe? I forget), the British navy was shanghaiing American sailors off of trade ships to serve as sailors with the British navy.

After diplomatic efforts to get the ORs (Original Red[coat]s) to stop failed, the US started molesting and/or "touching in bad places" British colonies in Canada, which led the Brits to send an army over to fight. Toronto/York was burned to the ground, Washington D.C. and the White House was burned to the ground, and Col. Andrew Jackson (later to become a President) told his troops "don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes" and slapped the British around in New Orleans using an alligator filled with cannonballs and with a gunpowdered behind. Afterwards, the US and the UK made peace with each other in around 1814 (funny thing, it's called the War of 1812, yet it continued on until 1814...), and then slowly became the close friends we are today.

America first became America after Italian cartographer Amerigo Vespucci explored the lands discovered by Christopher Columbus sometime in either the late 15th century or early 16th century and determined them to not be the Indies/Far East, but rather an entirely new continent (European leaders then added "ripe for conquest" to the end of his report as well).

Some time afterward, I've heard some European colonists dubbed the Natives "Americans" rather than the bog-standard "Indian" term used by most. However, I'm not sure wether or not that story is true or not. The first time I've ever heard of US citizens being called "Americans" was during the War of 1812, as someone else said before.

Everyone is an American. :)

1982!? Thats a little off methinks, and the Canadians did burn down the white house (along with most of washington) while US-ian bigwigs ran away. And as an aside, for those of you who don't live in Kanuckistan, the rest of Canada would also love to burn down Toronto, just because it's Toronto. Anywho, why just make it simple and call all people from the USA 'Yanks'. Call them that anyway, but being in America is alot different than being in the USA. Just ask any Canuck, and they'll give you more than an ear full.

Nope. 1982 is right, as far as the definition of sovereignty is concerned.

17 April 1982 is when the Constitution Act was passed. Originally, the machinery of the government was set up in the British North America Act of 1867. So 1867 was when it became an autonomous dominion of the UK. The head of state is still, in fact, Queen Elizabeth II.

So you could say it's 1867 and still be 95% correct.

As far as the issue of "USians" versus "Americans" goes, I think it's a matter of sheer laziness. First of all, North and South America? What kind of lazy-ass continent naming is that?!? And don't give me that "it was a new world" crap -- they didn't call Australia "Southeast Asia" or "North Antarctica" did they? NO! They called it fucking Australia!!! With THAT kind of imagination, I'm surprised that Africa isn't called "South Europe"!

I think the solution is for all the people of what is now South America to band together and craft a new name for their entire continent. I vote for "Pedro" -- there's a nice, friendly name for a continent. Either that or just stop the political correctness horseshit and let me call myself an American. "Citizen of the United States" is what I use with my Canadian friends, and they notice and appreciate it, but dammit, that's really clunky. Perhaps abbreviate that to "CUS" and then as a nickname, call us "CUSSERS." As in "loudmouth little cusser, ain't he?"

Oh, and "USians" sucks ass.

That's all I got. Thanks for listening.

NdL

The Repatriation of the Constitution in 1982 simply means that Royal Assent takes place in Canada now instead of in England, where it was before then as a matter of tradition. Sovereignty was not at issue. The Queen's Representative (the Governor General) is appointed by Canada. Confederation was in fact in 1867.

Col. Andrew Jackson (later to become a President) told his troops "don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes" and slapped the British around in New Orleans using an alligator filled with cannonballs and with a gunpowdered behind. Afterwards, the US and the UK made peace with each other in around 1814 (funny thing, it's called the War of 1812, yet it continued on until 1814...), and then slowly became the close friends we are today.
One of the more lopsided victories in military history, and a catchy little folk song. And thanks for getting that stuck in my head, you bastard.

As far as the issue of "USians" versus "Americans" goes, I think it's a matter of sheer laziness. First of all, North and South America? What kind of lazy-ass continent naming is that?!? And don't give me that "it was a new world" crap -- they didn't call Australia "Southeast Asia" or "North Antarctica" did they? NO! They called it fucking Australia!!! With THAT kind of imagination, I'm surprised that Africa isn't called "South Europe"!

I think the solution is for all the people of what is now South America to band together and craft a new name for their entire continent. I vote for "Pedro" -- there's a nice, friendly name for a continent. Either that or just stop the political correctness horseshit and let me call myself an American. "Citizen of the United States" is what I use with my Canadian friends, and they notice and appreciate it, but dammit, that's really clunky. Perhaps abbreviate that to "CUS" and then as a nickname, call us "CUSSERS." As in "loudmouth little cusser, ain't he?"

Oh, and "USians" sucks ass.

That's all I got. Thanks for listening.

NdL

Instead of expecting Latin Americans to change why don't you just call yourself what Latin Americans already call you... Gringo ;)

You're kidding, right? If I remember correctly, for it to qualify as a war, both sides have to have an army. The Canadians? An army? MUAHAHAHAHAno.

OK, enough of these Canada jokes. Canada faught in WWII. They took an entire beach at D-Day. Canada has faught in almost every war the US has, WWI, WWII, Korea, et cetera, they're just not all big a flashy about it. They have an army, and a highly advanced air force. So bugger off.

I hate Jackson. Fucker did the whole trail of tears bullshit, ignored the supreme court, and spearheaded the native american genocide.

Also, that battle in New Orleans took place like 4 days after the war was over, but because of bad communication, neither the British commander in New Orleans nor Jackson knew that.

Okay I just saw a very odd arguement of wikipedia(good site go THERE I COMMAND IT) anyway the arguement is this: Using the term American to define american citizens is wrong because the US isn't the only country on the American continent so some group (i don't know who) is advocating the USe of US-ian instead of American for defining a citizen from the United states of America.

So does this make sense to anyone? I personally think its taking political correctness too far (and I am pretty damn liberal myself). If you can give me an argument on why this is good feel free or if you think its a tottally idiotic idea tell me why?

Why do this? BECAUSE I AM LORD ZODD KING OF THE MIDGETS AND LORD OF the GOATS!
This isn't an odd argument if you're Latin American. And it isn't a new enough argument to be something spawned from political correctness. It's a long standing annoyance. You don't say americano in Spanish to just mean people from the US...not unless you're saying it in that snarky tone of voice...you say, estadounidense (UnitedStatesian). The AMERICAS are a continent. People who are AMERICAN are from the AMERICANS. It's like China renaming itself ASIA and having all Chinese people renamed ASIANS. It's silly.

Actually, in French we have got a specific word: "étasunien". But no-one ever uses it, and most people don't even know it exists. ;) So everyone says "américain".

You should read this post from the 10th message onwards... we debated this topic in another topic only recently.... it went on a bit, but maybe will make quite interesting reading...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=421427&page=3&pp=15

no I understand that but honestly do you think US-ian should be what we are called? its not in common usage. Plus we aren't claiming the continent its in our name.. United States of America. Thus American If we were called the united states of BOB we would be alled Bobian or is it Bob-ites? hmm now I must think about this....
To try and get around it, I say 'citizen of the US' or something like that, but it sure drags things out. I don't like USian. It just sounds silly, but I do try to avoid American as much as possible when referring to people from the US...because I find the habit carries over into Spanish and people give me 'the lecture'. I'm tired of 'the lecture', so "citizen of the US" you shall be named :eek:

It's along the same lines of why we don't call people from the Kingdom of Spain "Kingdomites" or people from the People's Republic of China "People's Republicans" or people from the Federative Republic of Brazil "Federative Republicans". If you want to argue that it's hubris to call the USA the United States of America, very well. But it's common usage to refer to a nation by the geographic title it gives itself, not the political one.
Yes, but I think the whole POINT of naming the US of AMERICA was to exert political control in the sense of planning for future domination. Many countries in the Americas are the United States of something or other...why did this particular country name itself after a CONTINENT??

okay you just messing with me what nationality are you I am assuming not from North America. When I say indian I mean Native American(you know those people the english came in and killed to make room for us for?)
Sorry...I happen to BE one of those Indians, but unless the context is clear, I take INDIAN to mean from INDIA.

Okay I just saw a very odd arguement of wikipedia(good site go THERE I COMMAND IT) anyway the arguement is this: Using the term American to define american citizens is wrong because the US isn't the only country on the American continent so some group (i don't know who) is advocating the USe of US-ian instead of American for defining a citizen from the United states of America.

So does this make sense to anyone? I personally think its taking political correctness too far (and I am pretty damn liberal myself). If you can give me an argument on why this is good feel free or if you think its a tottally idiotic idea tell me why?

Why do this? BECAUSE I AM LORD ZODD KING OF THE MIDGETS AND LORD OF the GOATS!
I live in Canada. I am not an American.

Instead of expecting Latin Americans to change why don't you just call yourself what Latin Americans already call you... Gringo ;)
Hahahahaa....the United States of Gringos... I LIKE IT!

Statians is dumb...

I personnaly prefer Staters, USers or USAmericans.

The people in the British colonies started to call themselves Americans since before the independence, but they weren't the only ones to call themselves so. The people in New Spain called themselves Americans, the people in New Granada called themselves Americans, the people in Río de la Plata called themselves Americans. Why? Because the name of the continent is America!

The USA is a technically correct name, but it's a name that could be applied to Mexico, Venezuela or Brazil, since they are all unions of states that are in America.

It's as if Spain changed it's name from Kingdom of Spain to Kingdom of Europe.

The USA is a technically correct name, but it's a name that could be applied to Mexico, Venezuela or Brazil, since they are all unions of states that are in America.

It's as if Spain changed it's name from Kingdom of Spain to Kingdom of Europe.
Like you know what you're talking about, you fake latino. Oh wait...no...that's me :D

Just use the country name!

btw, who the hell came up with this???

American=U.S.
Mexican=Mexico
Panamanian=Panama
And so on, and so on

I live in Canada. I am not an American.
Totally possible if you're not from Canada.

However, if you are Canadian then you are American. It would be like saying I am a Swede and not a European.

Although I understand that with the most common usage of the world American being an adjective in relation to USA, you wouldn't like to be seen as an American.

Totally possible if you're not from Canada.

However, if you are Canadian then you are American. It would be like saying I am a Swede and not a European.

Although I understand that with the most common usage of the world American being an adjective in relation to USA, you wouldn't like to be seen as an American.
I understand that foreigners will refer to me as "American," and I make allowance for it, but I am Canadian. Americans live south of the border. Anyone here will tell you that.

My favourite memory from my recent trip to Australia was people saying, "I love your accent! Are you Canadian?"

Like you know what you're talking about, you fake latino. Oh wait...no...that's me :D
I shall challenge you to an enchilada eating contest!!! :D

Americans live south of the border.


Sorry...me being me, I took that in a sexual context, and squirted coffee out of my nose :eek:

I shall challenge you to an enchilada eating contest!!! :D
Na...I prefer empenadas and chicha, thank you!

Sorry...me being me, I took that in a sexual context, and squirted coffee out of my nose :eek:
Hahaha! :)

I understand that foreigners will refer to me as "American," and I make allowance for it, but I am Canadian. Americans live south of the border. Anyone here will tell you that.

About half the people in America will tell you that Americans live everywhere from Greenland to Tierra del Fuego.

Na...I prefer empenadas and chicha, thank you!
Sorry, I squirted coffee out of my nose. Chicha has a sexual connotation, too, at least in Mexican.

About half the people in America will tell you that Americans live everywhere from Greenland to Tierra del Fuego.
I'd say more than half...more like MOST. It seems such an odd thing to people in the US and Canada...like something they've never heard before, but that's really just because almost everyone else speaks something other than English, and that's why English speakers didn't know about the conflict.

Sorry, I squirted coffee out of my nose. Chicha has a sexual connotation, too, at least in Mexican.
Really? Do tell!

Burrito to a Chilean means a burro with large genitalia...so be careful about saying you'd like one :D

Then again, I find with you over-sexed latinos, pretty much EVERYTHING has a sexual connotation!

Really? Do tell!

Chicha or chichi would be a boob.

Burrito to a Chilean means a burro with large genitalia...so be careful about saying you'd like one :D
Thanks for the warning! And, although you can ask for cajeta in Mexico (burnt milk sweet), never do it in Argentina (vagina), at least not in public.

USian? No. I could almost take Statesian, but I mean, really, this is a ridiculus argument. The United States established a recognized goverment here first, so we get the right to call ourselves American. And I agree with the lazy-ass continent naming. I mean, god, call NA America and SA Latino or something.
When the liberals take power of the world and brainwash us all for world peace, I will be the first to suggest this change.

Thanks for the warning! And, although you can ask for cajeta in Mexico (burnt milk sweet), never do it in Argentina (vagina), at least not in public.
My absolute favourite is actually ordering Italian...every single time I have to order Penne (I know, in Spanish it wouldn't have a double n, but it sounds the same), I just can't bring myself to do it. I just point:).

USian? No. I could almost take Statesian, but I mean, really, this is a ridiculus argument. The United States established a recognized goverment here first, so we get the right to call ourselves American. And I agree with the lazy-ass continent naming. I mean, god, call NA America and SA Latino or something.
When the liberals take power of the world and brainwash us all for world peace, I will be the first to suggest this change.
Huh. So the USA was founded before any other country in the Americas? That's a different history than anything I've ever seen...

I'm fascinated by the idea that people can equate the United States of America with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and claim that if citizens of the former should be called US-ians, the citizens of the latter should be called UK-ians (or Kingdomites, which I actually think would be fun). There's a difference. The USA occupies a section of the landmass called America (two landmasses, really). The UKoGBaNI occupies the whole of the landmass known as Britain, and the whole of the section of landmass called Northern Ireland. If you say 'British', you /have/ to be referring to someone in the UK. If you say 'American', you could be referring to someone in any one of dozens of countries. It would be like someone in the UK referring to themselves as 'European' and expecting everyone to understand that they came from the small island on the north-western edge. (Actually, it wouldn't, because the US has managed to popularise the name 'American' for its own citizens. Imagine for a moment that you're a visiting alien with an atlas).

So what should we call them? Well, I'd suggest 'Unionist', but I suspect that'll have some political connotations. My favourite idea would be to rename the country - United States of Lower North America, USLoNA, say - and then refer to them as 'Lonas'. But somehow, I doubt they'd like that...

Huh. So the USA was founded before any other country in the Americas? That's a different history than anything I've ever seen...
What was it? I absolutly killed the history section of my brain today. Stupid tests.
If your talking about colonies, those don't count, because there not countries, they are colonies. Thats why we add a u and and mix up the letters.

USian? No. I could almost take Statesian, but I mean, really, this is a ridiculus argument. The United States established a recognized goverment here first, so we get the right to call ourselves American. And I agree with the lazy-ass continent naming. I mean, god, call NA America and SA Latino or something.
When the liberals take power of the world and brainwash us all for world peace, I will be the first to suggest this change.

Because, you know all those damned Spaniards and Natives don't ocunt for shit as far as established governmenti n the eyes of White English people.

What was it? I absolutly killed the history section of my brain today. Stupid tests.
If your talking about colonies, those don't count, because there not countries, they are colonies. Thats why we add a u and and mix up the letters.
Ah, actually I might be talking out of my ass. It's because I always count Native Nations, which doesn't really figure into this particular conversation. Ignore me this once.

Because, you know all those damned Spaniards and Natives don't ocunt for shit as far as established governmenti n the eyes of White English people.
Well, truth be told...if we're just talking about an Independent nation-state, I do think the US was the first in the Americas...though I'd love it if someone could prove that wrong...please!!??

Though I'd be careful with the 'recognised' modifier...

Well, truth be told...if we're just talking about an Independent nation-state, I do think the US was the first in the Americas...though I'd love it if someone could prove that wrong...please!!??

Though I'd be careful with the 'recognised' modifier...
If you take out the recognised, then theirs the Iriqouis Confederacy. But thats not really recognised.

So what should we call them? Well, I'd suggest 'Unionist', but I suspect that'll have some political connotations. My favourite idea would be to rename the country - United States of Lower North America, USLoNA, say - and then refer to them as 'Lonas'. But somehow, I doubt they'd like that...
I once proposed that since the people in the US had already appropiated America for themselves and are unwilling to give it back, then we should call the continent Greater America and the people Greater Americans. I think I will start using it.

I once proposed that since the people in the US had already appropiated America for themselves and are unwilling to give it back, then we should call the continent Greater America and the people Greater Americans. I think I will start using it.
I am a GREATER AMERICAN THAT THOU ART!

How would that translate into Spanish? Un americano mas grande que la chucha? Or, Un grande americano...hmmm...neither sounds quite right...

Though I'd be careful with the 'recognised' modifier...
Yeah, that should be "recognised by modern European nations". Otherwise, there've been nation-states in America for about a thousand years, maybe more.

I am a GREATER AMERICAN THAT THOU ART!

How would that translate into Spanish? Un americano mas grande que la chucha? Or, Un grande americano...hmmm...neither sounds quite right...
Gran América y Gran americano. It would sound almost like panamericano, so I don't think it'll be too much of a problem.

If you take out the recognised, then theirs the Iriqouis Confederacy. But thats not really recognised.
Nor was it a nation state in the modern sense of the word.

But you won't really hear me arguing that the native nations were not valid. Belonging to one and all :D

Gran América y Gran americano. It would sound almost like panamericano, so I don't think it'll be too much of a problem.
Christ...since I took that French course, my Spanish is shit!

I once proposed that since the people in the US had already appropiated America for themselves and are unwilling to give it back, then we should call the continent Greater America and the people Greater Americans. I think I will start using it.

continents.... And "Greater Americans" would be acceptable use.

Americans = People from the United States of America.
North Americans = People from the North American Continent
South Americans = People from the South American Continent
Greater Americans = People from the American Continents.

In principle, depending on the definition applied, there are either 4 or 8 continents....

Geologically there are 8: (Eurasia, Africa, Australia [and India], Antartica, North America, South America, Caribean ["Central America"], and Arabia)... Under classical geography, there are only 4 (Eurasia+Africa ["The Eastern Continent"], America ["The Western Continent"], Australia, and Antartica)... If you accept geological definition, you must accept 8 continents... If you accept the classicial geographical definition, Europe, Asia and Africa must give up claims to being "continents" as well as "North America" and "South America"; to be logically consistent... The National Geographic Society, in slight morph, recognizes 7 (North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia and Antartica...)

In principle, depending on the definition applied, there are either 4 or 7 continents....

What about the historical definitions? Europe, Asia (including India), America, Africa, Antartica, and Oceania (Australia, NZ plus the other islands in the South Pacific).

Meh, there's no hard and fast definition for continent, they're merely conventions used so that people know what place they're talking about. The problem in that the US took an already accepted definition used to mean the continent. Pretty much what Microsoft does when it takes a standard and "improves" it.

Wasn't it when Americano made his map, The US ppl have been called americans in writting since 1812, so its been well established.

America -- whether you're talking about the USA or North/South America -- is named after Amerigo Vespucci (sp?)

As for an alternate term to apply to those living in the United States, how about this:

Packers

They are America's team, after all... Title Town!
----

Seriously, if there had to be another term ... how about Yanks?

(lol, I can just hear Southerners seething at their new title)

What about the historical definitions? Europe, Asia (including India), America, Africa, Antartica, and Oceania (Australia, NZ plus the other islands in the South Pacific).

Meh, there's no hard and fast definition for continent, they're merely conventions used so that people know what place they're talking about. The problem in that the US took an already accepted definition used to mean the continent. Pretty much what Microsoft does when it takes a standard and "improves" it.

There was no "historic" definition... The Crown used "America" as a term for her colonies in the Americas.... The Spaniards used "America" for her colonies in the Americas, the Portuguese used "America" for her colonies in America.... We called ourselves Americans, because that is exactly what we were IN FUCKING ENGLISH, the Spanish and Portuguese were not AMERICANS, any more than they considered the English Dutch, French (and others) "Americano" at the time..... We adopted a convention of use in our native language ascribed to us at the time...

We adopted a convention of use in our native language ascribed to us at the time...
Oh, so you are Americans because the Brirish monarch said so. Good.

Oh, so you are Americans because the Brirish monarch said so. Good.

Language convention..... Fucking idiot.... I'm done with your crap.... IGNORED!

Sorry, I squirted coffee out of my nose. Chicha has a sexual connotation, too, at least in Mexican.

Mmmmm... chichas grandes!

I like Greater American, actually, but here's my question - Why isn't North American or South American good enough? If you're from Canada, you're not American, you're North American. There is no need for the term American to mean anything but a citizen of the US. We don't need to say a person from Ireland is Eurasian or Eurafrican, simply because they are from a country in a continent that happens to be attached to other continents by land.

And good on whoever made Sin shoot coffee out her nose. Sin, TG.

Statesist?

I am a GREATER AMERICAN THAT THOU ART!

How would that translate into Spanish? Un americano mas grande que la chucha? Or, Un grande americano...hmmm...neither sounds quite right...

Soy un Americano mejor que tu. (approximately)

continents.... And "Greater Americans" would be acceptable use.

Americans = People from the United States of America.
North Americans = People from the North American Continent
South Americans = People from the South American Continent
Greater Americans = People from the American Continents.

In principle, depending on the definition applied, there are either 4 or 8 continents....

Geologically there are 8: (Eurasia, Africa, Australia [and India], Antartica, North America, South America, Caribean ["Central America"], and Arabia)... Under classical geography, there are only 4 (Eurasia+Africa ["The Eastern Continent"], America ["The Western Continent"], Australia, and Antartica)... If you accept geological definition, you must accept 8 continents... If you accept the classicial geographical definition, Europe, Asia and Africa must give up claims to being "continents" as well as "North America" and "South America"; to be logically consistent... The National Geographic Society, in slight morph, recognizes 7 (North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia and Antartica...)

Politically the Americas exist, just as Europe exists as a political notion that it seperate from Eurasia.

I don't think geography or geology has that much to do with it, whether that is correct or not.

Na...I prefer empenadas and chicha, thank you!

I will bring some bottles of aguardiente so we can toast to "Los Estados Unidos de los Gringos"... and then I will drink you both under the table.

Politically the Americas exist, just as Europe exists as a political notion that it seperate from Eurasia.

I don't think geography or geology has that much to do with it, whether that is correct or not.

Technically no, there is no "international convention" which defined "continents", thus things are applied by definition...

There are 4 primary conventions:

1 - 7 Region Model... Taught in the United States and Canada.

Europe, Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, and Australia.

2 - 6 Region Model... Taught in Latin America, the UK and Mexico.

Europe, Asia, Africa, America, Antarctica, and Australia.

3 - 5 Continent Model.... Taught in East-Asia

Eurasia, Africa, America, Antarctica, and Australia.

4 - 4 Continent Modelp.... Taught no where..

Africa-Eurasia, America, Antarctica, and Australia.... Composed of literal definition of "continent".

Under absolute principle of plate tectonics, there are far more than even 7...

Soy un Americano mejor que tu. (approximately)
No, not that phrase in particular...that would be easy enough...I meant, Greater American.

I will bring some bottles of aguardiente so we can toast to "Los Estados Unidos de los Gringos"... and then I will drink you both under the table.
Likely, considering I don't really drink.

I bet you'd like pisco if you like aguardiente...

Edit: my father in law always makes this joke about aguardiente in which the punch line is: Ha guardao los dientes (say it really fast and it sounds the same:))

Technically no, there is no "international convention" which defined "continents", thus things are applied by definition...

There are 4 primary conventions:

1 - 7 Region Model... Taught in the United States and Canada.

Europe, Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, and Australia.

2 - 6 Region Model... Taught in Latin America, the UK and Mexico.

Europe, Asia, Africa, America, Antarctica, and Australia.

3 - 5 Continent Model.... Taught in East-Asia

Eurasia, Africa, America, Antarctica, and Australia.

4 - 4 Continent Modelp.... Taught no where..

Africa-Eurasia, America, Antarctica, and Australia.... Composed of literal definition of "continent".

Under absolute principle of plate tectonics, there are far more than even 7...

Maybe true, maybe not. Americas certainly exist as a political entity and notion.

It should be noted that the United States Government refers to itself as the United States Government not the American Government. There is no such thing as American citizenship, citizens of USA are "United States Citizens" officially.

Maybe true, maybe not. Americas certainly exist as a political entity and notion.

It should be noted that the United States Government refers to itself as the United States Government not the American Government. There is no such thing as American citizenship, citizens of USA are "United States Citizens" officially.

"United States of America" in the precursor to the United States Constitution (That is, the Title existed prior to the existing Constitution today, under the Articles of Confederation)...


The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."


Itself, in title was reaffirmed in ratification of the new constitution (1788):


We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

"United States of America" in the precursor to the United States Constitution (That is, the Title existed prior to the existing Constitution today, under the Articles of Confederation)...



Itself, in title was reaffirmed in ratification of the new constitution (1788):
Oh, you misunderstood me, I didn't mean to say that the country was not called United States of America. Clearly that is the official name of the country, no one can claim otherwise, it's fact.

It's just interesting to note that the United States authorities rarely if ever refer to their institutions or bodies or citizens as American. I guess it's to avoid ambiguity ( a word that I can not spell at 0.40 in the morning!)

Maybe true, maybe not. Americas certainly exist as a political entity and notion.

It should be noted that the United States Government refers to itself as the United States Government not the American Government. There is no such thing as American citizenship, citizens of USA are "United States Citizens" officially.

There is NO such thing as American citizenship? Who exactly is this government that never refers to itself? Are you saying that noone in an official capacity has ever refered to Americans, to American citizens and to the American government?

There is NO such thing as American citizenship? Who exactly is this government that never refers to itself? Are you saying that noone in an official capacity has ever refered to Americans, to American citizens and to the American government?
No, he is saying that the legal name of the entity, which is referenced in documents from the government, is something like "United States Government" or "Government of the United States of America".

No, he is saying that the legal name of the entity, which is referenced in documents from the government, is something like "United States Government" or "Government of the United States of America".

Which is typical writing style for those types of documents? If the documents of the government of Spain only uses "The Government of Spain" in its documents, does the reference of the citizens of Spain being Spanish people, not exist?

Also, he/she re-explains himself/herself and says that officials of the government rarely use the term American which is simply not true. Watch any of them speak on television. Watch the state of the union address. Or any number of other spoken interactions with the American people.

Which is typical writing style for those types of documents? If the documents of the government of Spain only uses "The Government of Spain" in its documents, does the reference of the citizens of Spain being Spanish people, not exist?
Come on now children, don't fight. *kicks own condescending ass, then gets back on track*

The point is, the majority of people in the Americas do not refer to you US citizens as Americans. This is nothing new, nothing shocking, nothing PC. If you were not aware of this fact previously, consider yourself currently informed. If in English, the term "American" is used to mean ONLY people from the US, and we Canadians avoid the term like the plague so we don't get lumped in with you, c'est la vie. Concepts like American=people from the US or American=someone from the Americas don't HAVE to be transferable from language to language. But I still like the idea of a United States of Gringos...

Come on now children, don't fight. *kicks own condescending ass, then gets back on track*

The point is, the majority of people in the Americas do not refer to you US citizens as Americans. This is nothing new, nothing shocking, nothing PC. If you were not aware of this fact previously, consider yourself currently informed. If in English, the term "American" is used to mean ONLY people from the US, and we Canadians avoid the term like the plague so we don't get lumped in with you, c'est la vie. Concepts like American=people from the US or American=someone from the Americas don't HAVE to be transferable from language to language. But I still like the idea of a United States of Gringos...

We're not fighting. So tempting to call you names here, but I won't as people might not know I'm joking... whore (hehe)

So what happens if another union of states forms and they wish to name their country after their political formation and they become, say, the United States of Sinuhue? Then we will be having this debate because the US named their people after their political profile. As mentioned earlier, it is very similar to calling people Kingdomians or Democratic Republicans.

Come on now children, don't fight. *kicks own condescending ass, then gets back on track*

The point is, the majority of people in the Americas do not refer to you US citizens as Americans. This is nothing new, nothing shocking, nothing PC. If you were not aware of this fact previously, consider yourself currently informed. If in English, the term "American" is used to mean ONLY people from the US, and we Canadians avoid the term like the plague so we don't get lumped in with you, c'est la vie. Concepts like American=people from the US or American=someone from the Americas don't HAVE to be transferable from language to language. But I still like the idea of a United States of Gringos...

To some extent, yes. I don't advocate that the Spaniards or Swedes need to "Change the name they use reffering to United States Citizens"... Just that they use it in proper context when speaking to an American (which internally means a United States Citizen, by convention).... The same way I would not reffer to a German as "German" when speaking German to a German... But rather use "Deutsch".

When I spend time deployed to other nations, I took time to learn enough language to converse with those people.... So I expect nothing less than what I myself have done, while abroad or taking to other people.

To some extent, yes. I don't advocate that the Spaniards or Swedes need to "Change the name they use reffering to United States Citizens"... Just that they use it in proper context when speaking to an American (which internally means a United States Citizen, by convention).... The same way I would not reffer to a German as "German" when speaking German to a German... But rather use "Deutsch".

When I spend time deployed to other nations, I took time to learn enough language to converse with those people.... So I expect nothing less than what I myself have done, while abroad or taking to other people.

Get her, Tek!

I will bring some bottles of aguardiente so we can toast to "Los Estados Unidos de los Gringos"... and then I will drink you both under the table.

Yo tambien, pero voy a traer un poco de pisco. Para mi, todo esto no me importa. Naci en Chile, pero vivo en Canada. Yo soy americano, y los estadounidenses se pueden llamar lo que quieren, pero los americanos verdaderos ya saben que esos jetones se llaman 'esos gringos de mierda'.

I live in America, South America more precisely, and I am not an American, but I am an American.

Now does it make sense

Just imagine what would happen if all the countries in the Americas did what the EU is trying to do, and became a real United States of America.

Probably would change the nature of American foreign policy, for starters.

I amused by the idea of the fact that people say they are from America when they are from North or South America. My great grandparents where Eurasiafrican because those places are all joined by land. If your from South America, you're South American, not American. There is absolutely no need for the term American to refer to people from the Americas so that particular argument really has no merit. At what time would anyone need to refer to all people from the entire Americas? They are not geographically similar. They are not politically similar. They are not economocally similar. They are not socially similar. They are not ethnically similar. They have no affiliation whatsoever that ever necessitates a term like that. So really, what is the need for the term? Or is the argument really that the namers of the United States of America were pompous and we don't like they they named it this way? Is this just another the US sucks issue?

I amused by the idea of the fact that people say they are from America when they are from North or South America. My great grandparents where Eurasiafrican because those places are all joined by land. If your from South America, you're South American, not American. There is absolutely no need for the term American to refer to people from the Americas so that particular argument really has no merit. At what time would anyone need to refer to all people from the entire Americas? They are not geographically similar. They are not politically similar. They are not economocally similar. They are not socially similar. They are not ethnically similar. They have no affiliation whatsoever that ever necessitates a term like that. So really, what is the need for the term? Or is the argument really that the namers of the United States of America were pompous and we don't like they they named it this way? Is this just another the US sucks issue?
This is where you're wrong. They have geographical similarities, like being separated from the rest of the world by the atlantic ocean. They also have historical similarities, being "discovered" around the same time. Not to mention the historical similarities of being colonized by european power, natives being killed, dmeands of independance, etc...

So, yeah, they have similarities that are worth considering them as a whole as "America".

If this just another "Us sucks" issues, then the guy who brought it up really needs to work on his material. There are so much more stuff to bash the US than their name. It's merely an annoyance from resident of other countries that travel abroad. You inavertedly took the name of a whole continent for yourself and you don't seem to want to acknowledge the fact that it might rub some people the wrong way.

Okay I just saw a very odd arguement of wikipedia(good site go THERE I COMMAND IT) anyway the arguement is this: Using the term American to define american citizens is wrong because the US isn't the only country on the American continent so some group (i don't know who) is advocating the USe of US-ian instead of American for defining a citizen from the United states of America.

So does this make sense to anyone? I personally think its taking political correctness too far (and I am pretty damn liberal myself). If you can give me an argument on why this is good feel free or if you think its a tottally idiotic idea tell me why?
It's one of the most idiotic things I have seen in a long, long time. As I have been at pains to point out on here before, calling a nation by some pseudo-name someone made up is not only wrong, it's an insult. The United States has been called "America" since before the revolution. It is the name almost all Americans prefer. Why even use something as ridiculous as "Usians" or "Usaians," unless your objective is to insult?

It's merely an annoyance from resident of other countries that travel abroad. You inavertedly took the name of a whole continent for yourself and you don't seem to want to acknowledge the fact that it might rub some people the wrong way.
How about ... I don't give a shit whether the name of my Country "rubs some people the wrong way?" :D

How about ... I don't give a shit whether the name of my Country "rubs some people the wrong way?" :D
Well, you acknowledged the situation and responded how you will treat the problem. That's perfectly correct by me.

Even if I totally disagree with your solution... :)

Yo tambien, pero voy a traer un poco de pisco. Para mi, todo esto no me importa. Naci en Chile, pero vivo en Canada. Yo soy americano, y los estadounidenses se pueden llamar lo que quieren, pero los americanos verdaderos ya saben que esos jetones se llaman 'esos gringos de mierda'.

Perdóneme, mi español está probablemente oxidado (pasé solamente un deplyment cerca de España). Nos llamamos los "americanos" que usted nos llama los estadounidenses. Llamamos a alemanes "Germans", ellos nos llamamos "Deutsch". A cada sus el propios, digo. Utilizo siempre los términos apropiados en la lengua que hablo. Cuento con ningún menos de cualquier persona .

This is where you're wrong. They have geographical similarities, like being separated from the rest of the world by the atlantic ocean. They also have historical similarities, being "discovered" around the same time. Not to mention the historical similarities of being colonized by european power, natives being killed, dmeands of independance, etc...

So, yeah, they have similarities that are worth considering them as a whole as "America".

If this just another "Us sucks" issues, then the guy who brought it up really needs to work on his material. There are so much more stuff to bash the US than their name. It's merely an annoyance from resident of other countries that travel abroad. You inavertedly took the name of a whole continent for yourself and you don't seem to want to acknowledge the fact that it might rub some people the wrong way.

The Americas have as much geographical similarities as Africa and Europe. (By the way, since Australia doesn't even touch the Atlantic Ocean, I suspect they might not consider North and South America seperated from them by the Atlantic) Anyway, thank you for making my point.

Some of your historical similarities, like being colonies of Europe, the slaughter of natives, demands for independence, etc., applies to much of the world. Some of your historical similarities are inaccurate as not all parts of the "new world" were discovered at the same time (or even near the same time) unless you consider it discovered if it touches the discovered area in contiguous land.

The fact is there is no real homogeny in the Americas that would encourage the use of the term American to refer to all people born or naturalized in the Americas. The biggest claim to the term would probably go to Native Americans and even that is pulling together a lot of politically, socially and ethnically different peoples.

If your from South America, you're South American, not American. USA citizens can call themselves Americans...and so can anyone from America.

the USA is not the only country in America.

USA citizens can call themselves Americans...and so can anyone from America.

the USA is not the only country in America.

I know of no such place as America except in a shortened version of United States of America. I wonder if you could inform as to the location of this place, America.

The Americas have as much geographical similarities as Africa and Europe. (By the way, since Australia doesn't even touch the Atlantic Ocean, I suspect they might not consider North and South America seperated from them by the Atlantic) Anyway, thank you for making my point.
And yet in that very thread, someone said he saw Europe, Asia and Africa as being the same continent.

Some of your historical similarities, like being colonies of Europe, the slaughter of natives, demands for independence, etc., applies to much of the world. Some of your historical similarities are inaccurate as not all parts of the "new world" were discovered at the same time (or even near the same time) unless you consider it discovered if it touches the discovered area in contiguous land.
Well, if this is your test to find what is a continent, then you have to say that Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia (or Oceania, as I've learned it) are not continent either. In fact, there is no such thing as a continent if viewed by your definition.

The fact is there is no real homogeny in the Americas that would encourage the use of the term American to refer to all people born or naturalized in the Americas. The biggest claim to the term would probably go to Native Americans and even that is pulling together a lot of politically, socially and ethnically different peoples.
As if Europe is homogenous :rolleyes: Find me one reason why Europe or Asia should be a continent but the two Americas should not. Let's first define what we are considering a continent.

And yet in that very thread, someone said he saw Europe, Asia and Africa as being the same continent.


Well, if this is your test to find what is a continent, then you have to say that Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia (or Oceania, as I've learned it) are not continent either. In fact, there is no such thing as a continent if viewed by your definition.


As if Europe is homogenous :rolleyes: Find me one reason why Europe or Asia should be a continent but the two Americas should not. Let's first define what we are considering a continent.

Actually, I think this has nothing to do with continents. I generally only find a use for the word African to slavery (as related to the US) or the current widespread genocide or to say the African continent for geography purposes. Really it would be preferable to just use names of countries. I don't like the term Asian and often argue against it. I have heard people argue that Oriental is insulting and Asian is better, but people from the area of the world known as the orient have little in common ethnically, socially, physically with Indians or the citizens of the former USSR, nor do Soviets and Indians have much in common. Europe is the exception for a couple of reasons. One, the cultures and histories of European nations have been intertwined for thousands of years including the intermixing of monarchs and shared economies and religions. Two, during colonization there was a large group of nations from what is known as Europe that was imperialistic. This necessitates the use of word for the countries involved, like European. Yes, I know, it wasn't all of Europe and it's unfair. I don't know. I didn't make it up. Three, the EUROPEAN union. Europe is trying to have shared social and economic policies. This is creating homogeny.

Actually, I think this has nothing to do with continents. I generally only find a use for the word African to slavery (as related to the US) or the current widespread genocide or to say the African continent for geography purposes. Really it would be preferable to just use names of countries. I don't like the term Asian and often argue against it. I have heard people argue that Oriental is insulting and Asian is better, but people from the area of the world known as the orient have little in common ethnically, socially, physically with Indians or the citizens of the former USSR, nor do Soviets and Indians have much in common. Europe is the exception for a couple of reasons. One, the cultures and histories of European nations have been intertwined for thousands of years including the intermixing of monarchs and shared economies and religions. Two, during colonization there was a large group of nations from what is known as Europe that was imperialistic. This necessitates the use of word for the countries involved, like European. Yes, I know, it wasn't all of Europe and it's unfair. I don't know. I didn't make it up. Three, the EUROPEAN union. Europe is trying to have shared social and economic policies. This is creating homogeny.
So what you're saying is that you don't consider continents to be relevant and don't use that distinction. Therefore citizens of, say, Brazil have nothing to complain about when the US has taken the name America for itself. Is that correct?

So what you're saying is that you don't consider continents to be relevant and don't use that distinction. Therefore citizens of, say, Brazil have nothing to complain about when the US has taken the name America for itself. Is that correct?

I'm saying it's done. United States of America. That's the name and it isn't changing in the near future. As there is no such thing as America other than the USA, there is no problem. Brazil is not part of 'America'. It is part of South America, if a citizen of Brazil has cause to make such a distinction. I see no legitimate reason to need to point out the continent you reside on unless you think people don't have the knowledge of geography to figure it out.

Are you saying that nationalism isn't enough, now we need to have continentalism (made up word)?

I'm saying it's done. United States of America. That's the name and it isn't changing in the near future. As there is no such thing as America other than the USA, there is no problem. Brazil is not part of 'America'. It is part of South America, if a citizen of Brazil has cause to make such a distinction. I see no legitimate reason to need to point out the continent you reside on unless you think people don't have the knowledge of geography to figure it out.

Are you saying that nationalism isn't enough, now we need to have continentalism (made up word)?
I'm not saying we need it. I'm saying it exists. This thread alone proves it.

And just because you say that America does not exist doesn't make it so. The concept of "america" is viewed by and large as the two continents that are South and North America (or three if you make a distinction for Central). As such, Brazil is as much part of America as the USA or Mexico. Just because the US have America in it's name does not exclude the other countries to be on the American continent.

Otherwise, why would they have called it "United States of America?"

Yo tambien, pero voy a traer un poco de pisco. Para mi, todo esto no me importa. Naci en Chile, pero vivo en Canada. Yo soy americano, y los estadounidenses se pueden llamar lo que quieren, pero los americanos verdaderos ya saben que esos jetones se llaman 'esos gringos de mierda'.
Jajajajja...

Se llaman eso en ingles tambien...pero suena mejor en español.

I amused by the idea of the fact that people say they are from America when they are from North or South America. My great grandparents where Eurasiafrican because those places are all joined by land. If your from South America, you're South American, not American. There is absolutely no need for the term American to refer to people from the Americas so that particular argument really has no merit. At what time would anyone need to refer to all people from the entire Americas? They are not geographically similar. They are not politically similar. They are not economocally similar. They are not socially similar. They are not ethnically similar. They have no affiliation whatsoever that ever necessitates a term like that. So really, what is the need for the term? Or is the argument really that the namers of the United States of America were pompous and we don't like they they named it this way? Is this just another the US sucks issue?
People from South America don't call themselves South Americans, they call themselves Americans, and then usually follow up with their nationality. I'm going to have to point out that these people outnumber you, and this term WILL be transferred into English, and once the invasion is complete, you will be using American to refer to EVERYONE in the Americas (you know, like European), and you will call yourself gringo. Trust me:).

I'm saying it's done. United States of America. That's the name and it isn't changing in the near future. As there is no such thing as America other than the USA, there is no problem. Brazil is not part of 'America'. It is part of South America, if a citizen of Brazil has cause to make such a distinction. I see no legitimate reason to need to point out the continent you reside on unless you think people don't have the knowledge of geography to figure it out.

Are you saying that nationalism isn't enough, now we need to have continentalism (made up word)?
Again. This is not new. This is not made up. This is not really a threat. The term 'American' used by the majority of people living in the Americans to refer to themselves is at least as old as your country. So why are we bothering to get frothy about it?

I'm not saying we need it. I'm saying it exists. This thread alone proves it.

And just because you say that America does not exist doesn't make it so. The concept of "america" is viewed by and large as the two continents that are South and North America (or three if you make a distinction for Central). As such, Brazil is as much part of America as the USA or Mexico. Just because the US have America in it's name does not exclude the other countries to be on the American continent.

Otherwise, why would they have called it "United States of America?"

I'm not saying it didn't exist. I'm saying we need a word to refer to citizens of the USA and we need no such word to refer to people born in the Americas. So if you're going to do away with one, why should it be the one you need? As yet, no one has given any reason to refer to the peoples of North and South America as Americans other than it is done now (in other languages). You can suggest we call it them UnitedStatesians or Statesians or whatever, but what happens if someone forms the United States of Sinuhue? Won't they start complaining that we stole their political title and made it the name of our people? Wouldn't be just as legitimate of an argument?

People from South America don't call themselves South Americans, they call themselves Americans, and then usually follow up with their nationality. I'm going to have to point out that these people outnumber you, and this term WILL be transferred into English, and once the invasion is complete, you will be using American to refer to EVERYONE in the Americas (you know, like European), and you will call yourself gringo. Trust me:).

I will wait till you make an argument for actually calling them Americans other than, we just want to. Otherwise, there is no argument for changing the reference to citizens of the United States of America.

I'm not saying it didn't exist. I'm saying we need a word to refer to citizens of the USA and we need no such word to refer to people born in the Americas. So if you're going to do away with one, why should it be the one you need? As yet, no one has given any reason to refer to the peoples of North and South America as Americans other than it is done now (in other languages). You can suggest we call it them UnitedStatesians or Statesians or whatever, but what happens if someone forms the United States of Sinuhue? Won't they start complaining that we stole their political title and made it the name of our people? Wouldn't be just as legitimate of an argument?
Of course we need a word to refer to people from the Americas. That's why we have one (Americans). Should we get rid of the word Europeans, Asians, Africans etc?

The second argument is strange, of course they wouldn't get annoyed. Think of all the countries prefixed Republic or Kingdom. The fact is, no other country has so overbearingly claimed ownership of the name of its continent as the United States of America.

Again. This is not new. This is not made up. This is not really a threat. The term 'American' used by the majority of people living in the Americans to refer to themselves is at least as old as your country. So why are we bothering to get frothy about it?

I'm not frothy. i'm just saying one term has a point, because there isn't any other that makes any sense, and the other serves ABSOLUTELY no purpose. If you ask me which we should do away with, and you did, I think the answer is obvious. WHORE

To the mods: She really is. Cheap too. (I love you, Sin)

I'm not saying it didn't exist. I'm saying we need a word to refer to citizens of the USA and we need no such word to refer to people born in the Americas. So if you're going to do away with one, why should it be the one you need? As yet, no one has given any reason to refer to the peoples of North and South America as Americans other than it is done now (in other languages). You can suggest we call it them UnitedStatesians or Statesians or whatever, but what happens if someone forms the United States of Sinuhue? Won't they start complaining that we stole their political title and made it the name of our people? Wouldn't be just as legitimate of an argument?
Don't bring me into this, punk.

You may not need a word to refer to the rest of the people living in the Americas. But that's you. The rest of us kind of like it. The question should be, why should a minority population get to name itself what the majority population actually has more right to? Gringos you be. Americans we are. Solidarity, people. We are Americans first, *insert nationality here* second. Don't you sound silly saying,

"Yeah, I'm an American. Um, from America. The country, not the continent. I'm an American American".

I will wait till you make an argument for actually calling them Americans other than, we just want to. Otherwise, there is no argument for changing the reference to citizens of the United States of America.
How about: because that's their name? One American refers to a continental membership, the other to a national one. You just sound silly with the same name twice is all.

Of course we need a word to refer to people from the Americas. That's why we have one (Americans). Should we get rid of the word Europeans, Asians, Africans etc?

The second argument is strange, of course they wouldn't get annoyed. Think of all the countries prefixed Republic or Kingdom. The fact is, no other country has so overbearingly claimed ownership of the name of its continent as the United States of America.

There is no use for the term Asians or Africans either. Europeans is only useful because the term European Union has come about. For the record, isn't that just as overbearing? Or do they think the states that aren't in the union or aren't allowed in the union have just as much right to form a union of European countries and call it a European Union?

Also, you missed the point. We don't call citizens of the People's Republic of China, Republican simply because someone else might create a country called the People's Republic of Toronto or something. That's why we call them Chinese instead. Or in the case of the USA we call them Americans.

Why is this even getting air time?

So what if they are called Americans?

The term is as old as the country. People called it the Americas and it stuck.

Are Candians bothered by this? Mexicans? Central and South America?

I figure they wouldn't want to be associated with us anyway! ;)

I'm not saying it didn't exist. I'm saying we need a word to refer to citizens of the USA and we need no such word to refer to people born in the Americas. So if you're going to do away with one, why should it be the one you need? As yet, no one has given any reason to refer to the peoples of North and South America as Americans other than it is done now (in other languages). You can suggest we call it them UnitedStatesians or Statesians or whatever, but what happens if someone forms the United States of Sinuhue? Won't they start complaining that we stole their political title and made it the name of our people? Wouldn't be just as legitimate of an argument?
I disagree, we need a word to refer to people born in the Americas. American would fit nicely. This is the one who fits more. If we have to change one it should be the one for US citizen. As yet, no one has given any reason to refer to the peoples of the US as Americans other than it is done now (in the english languages).

When the people of the United States of Sinuhue starts calling themselves Sinuhians AND that the land of Sinuhue is bigger that just the nation "United States of Sinuhue" I will have the same discussion with them.

Don't bring me into this, punk.

You may not need a word to refer to the rest of the people living in the Americas. But that's you. The rest of us kind of like it. The question should be, why should a minority population get to name itself what the majority population actually has more right to? Gringos you be. Americans we are. Solidarity, people. We are Americans first, *insert nationality here* second. Don't you sound silly saying,

"Yeah, I'm an American. Um, from America. The country, not the continent. I'm an American American".

Never had to say that at any point I've ever been in another country even in South American. Strange how that works. Okay, well, if other countries get to name the people of the USA, then I think I get to name other sexes. Where my bitches at?

There is no use for the term Asians or Africans either.
Good luck getting the billions of people who disagree with you to drop the continental name.

There is no use for the term Asians or Africans either. Europeans is only useful because the term European Union has come about. For the record, isn't that just as overbearing? Or do they think the states that aren't in the union or aren't allowed in the union have just as much right to form a union of European countries and call it a European Union?

Also, you missed the point. We don't call citizens of the People's Republic of China, Republican simply because someone else might create a country called the People's Republic of Toronto or something. That's why we call them Chinese instead. Or in the case of the USA we call them Americans.
I don't miss the point at all. China is not a region shared by others. America is.

Of course there is a reason to refer to Asians and Africans. There is the African Union, ASEAN and numerous other regional groupings... although you need the adjectives without these as much as you need Europeans without the EU and Americans without the OAS.

And yes, when the EU uses Europeans with the meaning of just Europeans from EU member states this is incorrect. If you see the post I linked to earlier on in this thread you will see I stated this before.

And now, I declare that Sweden is going to rename itself as the Kingdom of Scandinavia, actually no, the Kingdom of Europe. We will now be the only Europeans. We have decided this because we are superior to all other countries in our region, in both arrogance and ego, and lack of knowledge of international issues. ;)

I disagree, we need a word to refer to people born in the Americas. American would fit nicely. This is the one who fits more. If we have to change one it should be the one for US citizen. As yet, no one has given any reason to refer to the peoples of the US as Americans other than it is done now (in the english languages).

When the people of the United States of Sinuhue starts calling themselves Sinuhians AND that the land of Sinuhue is bigger that just the nation "United States of Sinuhue" I will have the same discussion with them.

Again, you miss the point. We have no more claim on the term United States than on America. The whole name sucks, but it's the name now, so we have to live on. If you change us to Unitedstatesians, you are just moving from one error to another.

And how about you give me a sentence that needs you to refer to people born in the Americas that couldn't be more effectively worded otherwise?

Also, you missed the point. We don't call citizens of the People's Republic of China, Republican simply because someone else might create a country called the People's Republic of Toronto or something. That's why we call them Chinese instead. Or in the case of the USA we call them Americans.
Yes but that is only because the US chose a shitty name for themselves who lead to confusion. Why couldn't they borrow a native name for a village or something? It was mightyly naive of the founding fathers to think that they were the only "united States" in this big place called "America".

ks. Okay, well, if other countries get to name the people of the USA, then I think I get to name other sexes. Where my bitches at?
This statement very well illustrates both the arrogance and ignorance of the US mindset when it comes to international affairs and relations.

Yes but that is only because the US chose a shitty name for themselves who lead to confusion. Why couldn't they borrow a native name for a village or something? It was mightyly naive of the founding fathers to think that they were the only "united States" in this big place called "America".

Actually they were. Who owned most of the other counteries at the time.

Hmmm was Canada independent at the time?

And how about you give me a sentence that needs you to refer to people born in the Americas that couldn't be more effectively worded otherwise?
"The American people migrated through the straight that connect what is now Russia and Canada. From there, they spreaded south."

"Where do you come from?" "Brazil" "Where is that?" "America".

"The citizen of one country has appropriated a term that refer to all citizens living on the Americas: American."

How's that? ;)

Actually they were. Who owned most of the other counteries at the time.

Hmmm was Canada independent at the time?
Ah but it's not the "United Independent States of America", now is it?

Yes but that is only because the US chose a shitty name for themselves who lead to confusion. Why couldn't they borrow a native name for a village or something? It was mightyly naive of the founding fathers to think that they were the only "united States" in this big place called "America".

The title of United States of America was perfect for the time, that is what we were United States of America. It was a perfect description. At that time the rest of America was pretty much territories or kingdoms.
But no one picks on South Africa for being called South Africa. According to Egypt South Africa is huge. The only reason the US gets picked on is because the rest of the world sees the US as arrogant so it is just another log to throw on the fire.
The term united states of america is more of a description then a name, it is ike working with a bunch of fat guys and when you say fat guy you mean one specific one. Also why would you refer to anyone else at work by the term Fat guy if you knew their proper name? So you work with george, frank, Canada, Brazil, and Fat guy. Frank and George are Fat Guys but there is only one Fat Guy. USA is the Fat Guy! Go Fat Guy Go!

The title of United States of America was perfect for the time, that is what we were United States of America. It was a perfect description. At that time the rest of America was pretty much territories or kingdoms.
But no one picks on South Africa for being called South Africa. According to Egypt South Africa is huge. The only reason the US gets picked on is because the rest of the world sees the US as arrogant so it is just another log to throw on the fire.
The term united states of america is more of a description then a name, it is ike working with a bunch of fat guys and when you say fat guy you mean one specific one. Also why would you refer to anyone else at work by the term Fat guy if you knew their proper name? So you work with george, frank, Canada, Brazil, and Fat guy. Frank and George are Fat Guys but there is only one Fat Guy. USA is the Fat Guy! Go Fat Guy Go!

A few pages back I posted a link to another thread where this was discussed, and referred to South Africa (as well as some other countries), so your allegation isn't true.

I don't know why so many US people feel they are being picked on so much. There is a simple way to address this, join the international community, respect the rights of other nations, don't act as if you have superior rights to other nations... this is certainly an argument your government would be wise to learn.

But no one picks on South Africa for being called South Africa.
Ta da! http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=423381

"The American people migrated through the straight that connect what is now Russia and Canada. From there, they spreaded south."

"Where do you come from?" "Brazil" "Where is that?" "America".

"The citizen of one country has appropriated a term that refer to all citizens living on the Americas: American."

How's that? ;)

"The Native American people migrated through the straight that connects what is now Russia and Canada. From there, they spread south." (with proper grammar corrections)

"Where do you come from?" "Brazil" "Where is that?" "South America"

The last doesn't matter because if the argument ends the statement is unnecessary.

This statement very well illustrates both the arrogance and ignorance of the US mindset when it comes to international affairs and relations.

One, in the United States of AMERICA we have these things called jokes. We're very arrogant and ignorant that way. Two, if a Canadian gets to decide what the American people call themselves then why shouldn't a man decide what women call themselves? Obviously, a Canadian doesn't, nor does a man get to decide what women call themselves.

Another question might be what could be more arrogant and ignorant than the other countries in the world telling the USA what to call it's citizens?

This isn't an odd argument if you're Latin American. And it isn't a new enough argument to be something spawned from political correctness. It's a long standing annoyance. You don't say americano in Spanish to just mean people from the US...not unless you're saying it in that snarky tone of voice...you say, estadounidense (UnitedStatesian). The AMERICAS are a continent. People who are AMERICAN are from the AMERICANS. It's like China renaming itself ASIA and having all Chinese people renamed ASIANS. It's silly.

Except for the fact that there isn't another adjective for a citizen from the united states in english except for "American" and hasn't ever been. So, using US-ian is the real absurdity, changing a language to meet the wierd demands of central and south americans. Just because words exist in Romance languages for "Citizen of the US" don't mean that that me need to invent one in English (or German for that matter)....

I don't miss the point at all. China is not a region shared by others. America is.

Of course there is a reason to refer to Asians and Africans. There is the African Union, ASEAN and numerous other regional groupings... although you need the adjectives without these as much as you need Europeans without the EU and Americans without the OAS.

And yes, when the EU uses Europeans with the meaning of just Europeans from EU member states this is incorrect. If you see the post I linked to earlier on in this thread you will see I stated this before.

And now, I declare that Sweden is going to rename itself as the Kingdom of Scandinavia, actually no, the Kingdom of Europe. We will now be the only Europeans. We have decided this because we are superior to all other countries in our region, in both arrogance and ego, and lack of knowledge of international issues. ;)

No, I declare as a person on this forum (because apparently people on this forum have tons of power) that I am going to rename Sweden the Kingdom of Spotagous, because I am Swedish and I live in America and I don't like the confusion. Go now, move.

In the end, bitch, bitch, bitch, whine, whine. It's called the United States of America. It was done two hundred years ago. If you want us to change the name, why don't you come over here and make us, you bunch of Swedish wimps?!?!

Like I said, they called it the European Union for the same reason it was called the United States of America. The European Union intends to change the rules of all the countries in Europe and then include them in the Union. That's the point. The USA when it was formed expected to include all of the Americas in its territory and it did a good job of it. It has greatly increased in size since its forming including incorporating two entire countries and nearly a third, and an entire Kingdom. Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are close (at which point they definitely won't be virgin islands anymore, if you catch my drift) to joining the United States. Canada is really just Northern USA national park so they might as well just give in now before we drop the hammer and take everything except Ontario by force. Ontario will be given back to the French because if you speak french we don't want you in America. So protest all you want, but we have guns while the rest of you are throwing yours away and we LOVE capital punishment. Come get some.

(When we acquire Canada we are giving Florida back to the Spaniards because it looks like a penis anyway.)

Regardless of whatever words they have in Spanish or Portuguese as an adjective or nationality for a citizen of the United States, the simple fact is, from the earliest English settlement in North America on, the people who inhabit the current US were refered to as Americans. From the time of independance onward, the only correct nationality for a citizen of the United States in the English language, is American....

English is a board and accomidating language, and thus has terms that can allow any other nationality on the two continents to emphasize their "Americaness"... among these terms are "Latin American", "Central American", "South American" etc.

Therefore, and an American is a citizen/resident of the USA. Someone from Brazil is Brazilian, though they may also choose to identify themselves as "South American" , "Latin American" etc.....

These are the rules of English. They are accepted by the vast majority of native speakers, including some 250 million Americans. They are taught in English courses across the world. Any attempt to invent a new term is stupid, because it breaks every linguistic norm, and would be a sad attempt at language engineering.

I wonder if you could inform as to the location of this place, America.its that small piece of land between the Atlantic and pacific oceans...you cant really miss it...you standing on It rigth now...

so are Sinuhue, eastCanuck and AlienBorn.

One of the more lopsided victories in military history, and a catchy little folk song. And thanks for getting that stuck in my head, you bastard.

With pleasure.

I hate Jackson. Fucker did the whole trail of tears bullshit, ignored the supreme court, and spearheaded the native american genocide.

Exactly why I hate him too.

Also, that battle in New Orleans took place like 4 days after the war was over, but because of bad communication, neither the British commander in New Orleans nor Jackson knew that.

True.

Of course we need a word to refer to people from the Americas. That's why we have one (Americans). Should we get rid of the word Europeans, Asians, Africans etc?

If there is only one America, why do you refer to it as "the Americas"? That seems to recognize a distinction between North America and South America.

Canada is really just Northern USA national park so they might as well just give in now before we drop the hammer and take everything except Ontario by force. Ontario will be given back to the French because if you speak french we don't want you in America. So protest all you want, but we have guns while the rest of you are throwing yours away and we LOVE capital punishment. Come get some.

(When we acquire Canada we are giving Florida back to the Spaniards because it looks like a penis anyway.)
First of all, while Ontario has a decent french population, I'm sure you meant Quebec. Quebec's the French province.

Second, I do hope this is a joke because if it's really your opinion, then you need to get back to school fast.

Third, you'd be surprised to know that Canada has more guns per capita than the US. We love gun too. We've got a lot of game to hunt, you see.

America doesn't want those who speak french?

Wow, first time I heard that... Considering I'm Acadian (Cajun), and we've been living here longer than many of the english speakers... My family has lived in what is presently US lands, since before there was a US.

its that small piece of land between the Atlantic and pacific oceans...you cant really miss it...you standing on It rigth now...

so are Sinuhue, eastCanuck and AlienBorn.

Odd, I can't find it on the map. Is it somewhere between South America, North America and Central America? I just don't see any place simply called America. I wonder, why?

First of all, while Ontario has a decent french population, I'm sure you meant Quebec. Quebec's the French province.

Second, I do hope this is a joke because if it's really your opinion, then you need to get back to school fast.

Third, you'd be surprised to know that Canada has more guns per capita than the US. We love gun too. We've got a lot of game to hunt, you see.

Of course it was a joke. I actually am really bad with names and I could remember Quebec and I was in a hurry to leave work so I just wrote Toronto, because well, it's Canada so what's the difference? ;) My entire family lives in Florida as well. For the record, the only part of my joking around that is true is that Florida really does look like a penis. It's completely appropriate for the USA to have a hardon, don't you think?

America doesn't want those who speak french?

Wow, first time I heard that... Considering I'm Acadian (Cajun), and we've been living here longer than many of the english speakers... My family has lived in what is presently US lands, since before there was a US.

I was just kidding. I'm pretty sure we're not going to invade Canada, because well, who wants it? And I'm pretty sure we're not getting rid of Florida because why would the USA want to get rid of its erect penis?

Odd, I can't find it on the map. Is it somewhere between South America, North America and Central America? I just don't see any place simply called America. I wonder, why?because you are using North-American maps(made by the US)...try SouthAmerican ones(made by the other Americans).

in SouthAmerican maps they do have north,central and shouth America SUBCONTINENTS...and the Continent name is...America

If there is only one America, why do you refer to it as "the Americas"? That seems to recognize a distinction between North America and South America.
even if the World adoped the US system of maps...every citizen of the "Americas" would still have equal rigths to call himself American.

Of course it was a joke. I actually am really bad with names and I could remember Quebec and I was in a hurry to leave work so I just wrote Toronto, because well, it's Canada so what's the difference? ;) My entire family lives in Florida as well. For the record, the only part of my joking around that is true is that Florida really does look like a penis. It's completely appropriate for the USA to have a hardon, don't you think?
Figured as much.

Although, I would advise that when you point out that insulting a nation is a joke, you would do well to not follow it by another insult. One joke, I smile. Two joke, I start to wonder. Three jokes, I get upset.

Friendly advice, from one American to another. ;)

even if the World adoped the US system of maps...every citizen of the "Americas" would still have equal rigths to call himself American.

Sure, you have the right and so do we? Have a ball. We're not the ones complaining, you are? How does that saying go? You do not have the right to not be offended. So you South Americans and North Americans can go around calling yourself Americans and we'll go around calling you wannabes. You'll complain. We'll flip you the bird. Everyone wins. Now, let's go play football *grabs a pigskin and giggles as the rest of the world blows a blood vessel*

Figured as much.

Although, I would advise that when you point out that insulting a nation is a joke, you would do well to not follow it by another insult. One joke, I smile. Two joke, I start to wonder. Three jokes, I get upset.

Friendly advice, from one American to another. ;)

Well, that was at least three jokes. And I wasn't insulting a nation, I was insulting one of our national parks. Relax, at the same time, I insulted my nationality, the state my entire family lives in, the USA. Earlier, I insulted women, female dogs and, I'm pretty sure, prostitutes. At least, I would consider it an insult to be compared to Sinuhue. Lighten up, it's a thread about what people from a sovereign nation are "allowed" to call themselves. It's a ridiculous argument and it deserves to be treated with no reverence whatsoever.

Well, that was at least three jokes. And I wasn't insulting a nation, I was insulting one of our national parks. Relax, at the same time, I insulted my nationality, the state my entire family lives in, the USA. Earlier, I insulted women, female dogs and, I'm pretty sure, prostitutes. At least, I would consider it an insult to be compared to Sinuhue. Lighten up, it's a thread about what people from a sovereign nation are "allowed" to call themselves. It's a ridiculous argument and it deserves to be treated with no reverence whatsoever.
There you go again...

Just because you consider it a ridiculous argument doesn't make it so. There are ways to do humour without being insulting. You should try it.

You know, saying stuff like "relax, stupid, it was a joke. hahaha." does not remove the fact that you treated the other of stupid. Same goes here.

There you go again...

Just because you consider it a ridiculous argument doesn't make it so. There are ways to do humour without being insulting. You should try it.

You know, saying stuff like "relax, stupid, it was a joke. hahaha." does not remove the fact that you treated the other of stupid. Same goes here.

Yes, but being insulting is so much more fun. Are you worried that what I'm saying is true? Otherwise, why do you care if I say it?

Everyone knows that Canada is a real country and there is nothing wrong with speaking French. Canada matters. They have huge guns and the men have huge penises that last all night. The women can cook a meal that will make you full for three weeks and their breasts are like ripe melons. The dogs have shinier coats than can be found anywhere else in the world. Sometimes at night, you can here GWB crying and wishing he was the president of Canada. Better?

Yes, but being insulting is so much more fun. Are you worried that what I'm saying is true? Otherwise, why do you care if I say it?
Kneejerk reaction from my part at having my nation insulted. As a US-ian, you should understand the feeling, the US gets bashed enough...

Still, as most people, I don't like when you (the general you, not Jocabia in particular) make disparaging remarks to something that I associate closely to.

Everyone knows that Canada is a real country and there is nothing wrong with speaking French. Canada matters. They have huge guns and the men have huge penises that last all night. The women can cook a meal that will make you full for three weeks and their breasts are like ripe melons. The dogs have shinier coats than can be found anywhere else in the world. Sometimes at night, you can here GWB crying and wishing he was the president of Canada. Better?
Much, thanks :)

Kneejerk reaction from my part at having my nation insulted. As a US-ian, you should understand the feeling, the US gets bashed enough...

Still, as most people, I don't like when you (the general you, not Jocabia in particular) make disparaging remarks to something that I associate closely to.


Much, thanks :)

I was a US Marine so I've heard my share of bashing of things that I hold closing. I figure people who are serious are ignorant and people who are joking shouldn't be taken too seriously. So there you go.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/americas/4614839.stm

A good example of where confusion and ambiguity can arrive whilst some from USA claim the adjective American solely belongs to them.

Okay I just saw a very odd arguement of wikipedia(good site go THERE I COMMAND IT) anyway the arguement is this: Using the term American to define american citizens is wrong because the US isn't the only country on the American continent so some group (i don't know who) is advocating the USe of US-ian instead of American for defining a citizen from the United states of America.

So does this make sense to anyone? I personally think its taking political correctness too far (and I am pretty damn liberal myself). If you can give me an argument on why this is good feel free or if you think its a tottally idiotic idea tell me why?
It's errant nonsense. Ignore them and they'll eventually disappear back into the woodwork out of which they crawled.

BTW ... that just adds more fuel to what I have said before: Wikipedia is an open-source encyclopedia; any phoole with an ax to grind can post anything on there he so desires.

It's errant nonsense. Ignore them and they'll eventually disappear back into the woodwork out of which they crawled.


Are you referring to United Staters? ;)

only joking!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/americas/4614839.stm

A good example of where confusion and ambiguity can arrive whilst some from USA claim the adjective American solely belongs to them.

You do notice that one, apparently it's acceptable for the OAS to take on the term American even though they hardly respresent ever country in the AmericaS. You also note that your own article calls them the AmericaS.

You do notice that one, apparently it's acceptable for the OAS to take on the term American even though they hardly respresent ever country in the AmericaS. You also note that your own article calls them the AmericaS.
I thought only Cuba was not a member - so they do far better than the European Union, which none-the-less claims ownership of European. You will note if you read earlier posts that I stated my reservations regarding this earlier from a technical perspective.

Yes, the BBC's article does indeed call them the Americas... American being the adjective associated with it (e.g. Hello, I'm from Brazil in the Americas. I'm American.).

Okay I just saw a very odd arguement of wikipedia(good site go THERE I COMMAND IT) anyway the arguement is this: Using the term American to define american citizens is wrong because the US isn't the only country on the American continent so some group (i don't know who) is advocating the USe of US-ian instead of American for defining a citizen from the United states of America.

So does this make sense to anyone? I personally think its taking political correctness too far (and I am pretty damn liberal myself). If you can give me an argument on why this is good feel free or if you think its a tottally idiotic idea tell me why?

Why do this? BECAUSE I AM LORD ZODD KING OF THE MIDGETS AND LORD OF the GOATS!

Well US-ian doesn't make sense as a term. Personally I think that we should call ourselves by our state, or preferably our city designation. After all, does a Texan have much culturally in common with a New Yorker or someone from Austin? Yes, I know that geographically, Austin is in Texas, but say to any Texan, "well I've just been to Austin for a couple of days, and it sure is good to be back in Texas," and he'll know exactly what you mean.

Failing that, I think the term for a citizen of the United States should be Statesman. God knows no one else in the country is putting the term to use.

I thought only Cuba was not a member - so they do far better than the European Union, which none-the-less claims ownership of European. You will note if you read earlier posts that I stated my reservations regarding this earlier from a technical perspective.

Yes, the BBC's article does indeed call them the Americas... American being the adjective associated with it (e.g. Hello, I'm from Brazil in the Americas. I'm American.).

"Hello, I'm from Brazil in the Americas." "Which one?" "South America" "Oh, so you're South American."

You admit the only America is the USA. Just like there is no such thing as a Dokatan (referring to the state not the native american). Why? Because there are two states called North and South Dakota. You can refer to the Dakotas, but you are not Dakotan. You are North Dakotan and South Dakotan. Simple enough. So as long as you don't make up places then we have no need for a new word. So simple it's almost a crime.

You admit the only America is the USA. .

Could you point out where?

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

This makes as much sense as calling Black people Brown people since one might think that being called "Black" is a derogatory term.

US-ian. How would you pronounce that without making it sound retarded.

Ooshan. no thats dumb.

Yoo-es-eean. man that's really dumb.

Yooeisaen. Alrite now its starting to sound like its from another country. Stupid multiculturalism... wait a minute. Isn't that exactly what other "Americans" (especially of certain laboring denominations) would be campaigning for? So why do they want us to sound like... eh nvm. I just got a headache; too much headbanging.

America doesn't want those who speak french?

Wow, first time I heard that... Considering I'm Acadian (Cajun), and we've been living here longer than many of the english speakers... My family has lived in what is presently US lands, since before there was a US.

I was just kidding. I'm pretty sure we're not going to invade Canada, because well, who wants it? And I'm pretty sure we're not getting rid of Florida because why would the USA want to get rid of its erect penis?

Yes, but when Bush got into office, the Iraq affair was the only thing that forestalled John Ashcroft's invasion of Lousisiana.

Also, Florida is flacid. (http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y213/Snakeoil/electiledysfunction.jpg) .

Could you point out where?

Sure. It's called the United States of America. Here's a map.

http://www.50states.com/us.htm

Unless you're suggesting we call them United States of Americans? I'm perfectly willing to do that when you start calling yourself the Kingdom of Swedish. Fair enough?

Sure. It's called the United States of America. Here's a map.

http://www.50states.com/us.htm

Unless you're suggesting we call them United States of Americans? I'm perfectly willing to do that when you start calling yourself the Kingdom of Swedish. Fair enough?
Sorry, I'm afraid you have lost me. I think in English they are called 'Nouns' and 'Adjectives', and that you have these confused.

Last time I checked -- which admittedly was five or so years ago -- the USA was the only country in the American continents that actually had the word "America" in its official title. That may have changed since then, but it was certainly that way for a couple hundred years, and so we have claim on the title "Americans."

Besides, other countries can call us whatever they want. We're going to refer to ourselves as Americans, and as usual, there's not really anything any of you can do about it. :eek:

Yes, but when Bush got into office, the Iraq affair was the only thing that forestalled John Ashcroft's invasion of Lousisiana.

Also, Florida is flacid. (http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y213/Snakeoil/electiledysfunction.jpg) .

You're looking at it wrong. The Us is a big, fat guy laying on his stomach.

US-ian. How would you pronounce that without making it sound retarded.

Ooshan. no thats dumb.

Yoo-es-eean. man that's really dumb.

Yooeisaen. Alrite now its starting to sound like its from another country. Stupid multiculturalism... wait a minute. Isn't that exactly what other "Americans" (especially of certain laboring denominations) would be campaigning for? So why do they want us to sound like... eh nvm. I just got a headache; too much headbanging.

OOZ-ee-uhn.

You're looking at it wrong. The Us is a big, fat guy laying on his stomach.

OK let's clarify, are we talking geography, or sociology here? ;)

Sorry, I'm afraid you have lost me. I think in English they are called 'Nouns' and 'Adjectives', and that you have these confused.

We are talking about the term American, an adjective about which I made a comparison between my country and yours. The correct title of my country is the United States of America and the people are called Americans. You could make the argument that we should be called by the full title which would be United States of American or USian, et al? But the comparison would be to call people from the Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Swedish or Kindomians. Is that clear enough?

And if my country can not be referred to as America than yours can't be referred to as Sweden. Fair enough?

Last time I checked -- which admittedly was five or so years ago -- the USA was the only country in the American continents that actually had the word "America" in its official title. That may have changed since then, but it was certainly that way for a couple hundred years, and so we have claim on the title "Americans."

Besides, other countries can call us whatever they want. We're going to refer to ourselves as Americans, and as usual, there's not really anything any of you can do about it. :eek:
So if Romania changed its name to Europe tomorrow, would it have the sole arrogant right to the adjective Europeans?

I agree,people will still continue to use the title Americans to refer to USA. I do. I stated this quite clearly further back and in the other post I linked to. It is the de facto case. There is however strongly an argument that technically and correctly it is very arrogant for USA to claim sole ownership of the term Americans.

OK let's clarify, are we talking geography, or sociology here? ;)

That one made me laugh. Nice. (the picture was funny the first time I saw it but by now it's pretty lame)

We are talking about the term American, an adjective about which I made a comparison between my country and yours. The correct title of my country is the United States of America and the people are called Americans. You could make the argument that we should be called by the full title which would be United States of American or USian, et al? But the comparison would be to call people from the Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Swedish or Kindomians. Is that clear enough?

And if my country can not be referred to as America than yours can't be referred to as Sweden. Fair enough?
Not at all. I think you misunderstand the difference between nouns and adjectives. But, as my mother tongue isn't English I'm not going to be able to argue this point strongly.

The issue is that the United States claims arrogant sole ownership of the term American when it belongs to all those who live in America, whilst this includes USA, it also includes a large number of other countries.

A more realistic example would be if Sweden renamed itself to Europe. We would be very arrogant to assume we had the sole right to the term Europeans. Your United States of Americans / Kingdom of Swedish is just a confusion of grammar I believe.

So if Romania changed its name to Europe tomorrow, would it have the sole arrogant right to the adjective Europeans?

I agree,people will still continue to use the title Americans to refer to USA. I do. I stated this quite clearly further back and in the other post I linked to. It is the de facto case. There is however strongly an argument that technically and correctly it is very arrogant for USA to claim sole ownership of the term Americans.

No, Europe exists as far as I know. America doesn't except as the geographical title of the United States of America (as opposed to United States, which is political, like kingdom or republic). A more apt question would be if they tried to name themselves something like the Republic of South Europe, would that be acceptable. I say, yes.

You know what would be really pompous would be to call yourself some name that included European and then not allow certain European countries to join because you don't like their ideologies. Hmmm... I wonder if anyone would be pompous enough to try that. Can the boys and girls of the class think of any group that pompous?

So if Romania changed its name to Europe tomorrow, would it have the sole arrogant right to the adjective Europeans?

I agree,people will still continue to use the title Americans to refer to USA. I do. I stated this quite clearly further back and in the other post I linked to. It is the de facto case. There is however strongly an argument that technically and correctly it is very arrogant for USA to claim sole ownership of the term Americans.

If Romania had been called "Europe" since the day it was founded, and forged itself into the single most powerful force in its continent, then yes, it would have to sole right to the adjective Europeans.

Otherwise, your analogy is largely nonsensical.

What I find arrogant are people thousands of miles away acting as though their opinions on the matter are relevant. Quite frankly, the only complaints we ever hear about the adjective form of our country's name are from Europeans. Specifically, ones who really complain about titular matters only when they run out of "lol gee dubya you look liek a monkey lol" rephrasings.

Lesotho is as far south as the Republic of South Africa, yet the citizens of the latter county have the utter temerity to call themselves South Africans instead of RSAins! Can you imagine the arrogance? The Lesotho people are just as far south and just as African as RSAins! THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS I DEMAND SATISFACTION

Not at all. I think you misunderstand the difference between nouns and adjectives. But, as my mother tongue isn't English I'm not going to be able to argue this point strongly.

The issue is that the United States claims arrogant sole ownership of the term American when it belongs to all those who live in America, whilst this includes USA, it also includes a large number of other countries.

A more realistic example would be if Sweden renamed itself to Europe. We would be very arrogant to assume we had the sole right to the term Europeans. Your United States of Americans / Kingdom of Swedish is just a confusion of grammar I believe.

No, that wouldn't be realistic because the term Europe is already used. America is not.

The argument is the same whether we refer to the noun - American - or the adjective - American. Whether I'm refering to either one doesn't matter, but if you want to only discuss the noun that is fine. It would be Kingdom of Swedes for you (and your compatriots) and United States of Americans for us.

Again, point out America on the map.

No, Europe exists as far as I know. America doesn't except as the geographical title of the United States of America (as opposed to United States, which is political, like kingdom or republic). A more apt question would be if they tried to name themselves something like the Republic of South Europe, would that be acceptable. I say, yes.

You know what would be really pompous would be to call yourself some name that included European and then not allow certain European countries to join because you don't like their ideologies. Hmmm... I wonder if anyone would be pompous enough to try that. Can the boys and girls of the class think of any group that pompous?
If you are referring to EU, I agree, as I previously posted.

So, America doesn't exist. My apologies, that time I visited Mexico and Argentina must have been me dreaming. Sorry, you probably won't have heard of Mexico or Argentina as they were only in my dreams... sorry!!

Right, now we've cleared that up and know that America is merely a place that exists when I'm asleep, I must go to bed. It is already 12 minutes into Tuesday after all... Good night!

Right, now we've cleared that up and know that America is merely a place that exists when I'm asleep, I must go to bed. It is already 12 minutes into Tuesday after all... Good night!

Awww, you're confusing "North America" and "South America" with "America." That's adorable. See my post earlier about South Africa and Africa. They get mighty touchy when you confuse the two.

If you are referring to EU, I agree, as I previously posted.

So, America doesn't exist. My apologies, that time I visited Mexico and Argentina must have been me dreaming. Sorry, you probably won't have heard of Mexico or Argentina as they were only in my dreams... sorry!!

Right, now we've cleared that up and know that America is merely a place that exists when I'm asleep, I must go to bed. It is already 12 minutes into Tuesday after all... Good night!

Oh, yeah, I know what you're talking about. Mexico is in North America just below America and Argentina is in South America. They're nice places. I really enjoyed visiting South America and it sounds like you did too.

And no, America is right between Canada and Mexico. Now, you may rest easy knowing that it exists. I'm glad I could help.

Good night.

Awww, you're confusing "North America" and "South America" with "America." That's adorable. See my post earlier about South Africa and Africa. They get mighty touchy when you confuse the two.
Sorry.. I couldn't resist...

Please see my post even earlier about SA and Africa.

As for North / South America, this is not a term familiar to the majority of Americans. Don't forget USA is not a majority of the population of America.

And also don't forget, I recognise that de facto American does refer to USA. I'm merely arguing that technically that isn't correct de jure.

Now I really am going to go to bed!!! Good evening / Good night. And enjoy the remainder of your Monday... and think of those of us already in Tuesday getting dangerously near that time when we have to get up and go to work! :)

If Romania had been called "Europe" since the day it was founded, and forged itself into the single most powerful force in its continent, then yes, it would have to sole right to the adjective Europeans.


Excuse me? Why in the blue hell would Romania have the sole right to the adjective in your scenario?

That is precisely what we are saying. The US doesn't have the sole right to the adjective American.

Excuse me? Why in the blue hell would Romania have the sole right to the adjective in your scenario?

That is precisely what we are saying. The US doesn't have the sole right to the adjective American.

Well, the certainly would have sole right to the adjective if Europe doesn't exist and it was two continents called North Europe and South Europe.

I still wonder what is more pompous, a country that formed itself under the name it was called since its people crossed the ocean or a union that names itself after its continent and then says that some countries on the continent do not have a right to be a part of that union unless they adhere to certain politics.

So you South Americans and North Americans can go around calling yourself Americans I already do that... i am a North-American and sometimes I call myself American
We'll flip you the bird. Everyone wins. Now, let's go play football *grabs a pigskin and giggles as the rest of the world blows a blood vessel*sure... lets play football

Well, the certainly would have sole right to the adjective if Europe doesn't exist and it was two continents called North Europe and South Europe.

I still wonder what is more pompous, a country that formed itself under the name it was called since its people crossed the ocean or a union that names itself after its continent and then says that some countries on the continent do not have a right to be a part of that union unless they adhere to certain politics.
Both are certainly pompous. But to do something pompous because "he does it also" is downright dumb.

Just because, for example, my boss cheats around on his wife, I can also be blamed for sleeping with his wife. Do you honestly think that the neighbour thinks I'm alright since my boss is worse?

The mark of a great man is to accept criticism and do something about it (if warranted), not point the finger and utter "oh yeah, well yo mama!"

Not at all. I think you misunderstand the difference between nouns and adjectives. But, as my mother tongue isn't English I'm not going to be able to argue this point strongly.

The issue is that the United States claims arrogant sole ownership of the term American when it belongs to all those who live in America, whilst this includes USA, it also includes a large number of other countries.

A more realistic example would be if Sweden renamed itself to Europe. We would be very arrogant to assume we had the sole right to the term Europeans. Your United States of Americans / Kingdom of Swedish is just a confusion of grammar I believe.exactamente.

So if Romania changed its name to Europe tomorrow, would it have the sole arrogant right to the adjective Europeans?

I agree,people will still continue to use the title Americans to refer to USA. I do. I stated this quite clearly further back and in the other post I linked to. It is the de facto case. There is however strongly an argument that technically and correctly it is very arrogant for USA to claim sole ownership of the term Americans.
Who said we in the US have sole right to the name "Americans?" Frankly, I don't give a damn what you call yourself. The fact remains that we in the US refer to ourselves as "Americans" and always have. If it bothers you ... get over it! :p

So if Romania changed its name to Europe tomorrow, would it have the sole arrogant right to the adjective Europeans?

I agree,people will still continue to use the title Americans to refer to USA. I do. I stated this quite clearly further back and in the other post I linked to. It is the de facto case. There is however strongly an argument that technically and correctly it is very arrogant for USA to claim sole ownership of the term Americans.
We do not call people from the States "Americans" because of the continent, but because of the last word of their country's name. As far as I know, no one in northern North America considers themselves to be "American" because of the continent. (That's poorly worded - I hope you get my drift).


EDIT: HA-ha! continental drift...
Don't mind me.

Both are certainly pompous. But to do something pompous because "he does it also" is downright dumb.

Just because, for example, my boss cheats around on his wife, I can also be blamed for sleeping with his wife. Do you honestly think that the neighbour thinks I'm alright since my boss is worse?

The mark of a great man is to accept criticism and do something about it (if warranted), not point the finger and utter "oh yeah, well yo mama!"

We didn't do something pompous because someone else did. It's done and has been for over 200 years. It's not going to change. You're just pissing in the wind. We don't do anything about it, because American voters are not going to waste their time on this tripe.

exactamente.

Apparently you're not aware that American is both a noun and an adjective. Now you are. Problem solved.

The Estados Unidos Mexicanos and the United States of Colombia would like to have a word with the original poster, the insufferable moron that he is.

The fact that Canadians, Americans and Mexicans all live on a continent called North America is incidental --in that regard, we are very much still colonists here.

See my post earlier about South Africa and Africa. They get mighty touchy when you confuse the two.south-Africa is a Country, south America is a Sub-Continent just like Centro-America and north-AmericaAwww, you're confusing "North America" and "South America" with "America." That's adorable.he is not confusing anything...you have your US school textbooks where they teach you that only the US is the only America...(Just like our text books say that the Germans and japanese were extremely evil)

and most of the World has different textbooks that say that America is the continent named after Florencian Explorer Amerigo_Vespucci

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerigo_Vespucci
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerigo_Vespucci
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americo_Vespucio
http://enciclopedia.us.es/index.php/Am%E9rica
http://www.americas-fr.com/histoire/vespucci.html

The Estados Unidos Mexicanos and the United States of Colombia would like to have a word with the original poster, the insufferable moron that he is.
Because he says that it's political correctness taken too far?

Because he says that it's political correctness taken too far?

I tell you what. We'll change the name of the United States of America to the United States of Earth, so that everyone can be equally pissed off.

south-Africa is a Country, south America is a Sub-Continent just like Centro-America nd north-Americahe is not confusing anything...you have your US Geo textbokks where they teach you that only the US is America...

and most of the World has different textbooks that say that America is the continent named after Florencian Explorer Amerigo_Vespucci

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerigo_Vespucci
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerigo_Vespucci
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americo_Vespucio
http://enciclopedia.us.es/index.php/Am%E9rica
http://www.americas-fr.com/histoire/vespucci.html

Widipedia? Really?

Yes, it was named after Amerigo Vespucci and it was called America when they didn't know it wasn't one huge mass. When they figured out it was two continents that are joined by a small piece of land they aptly named them North and South America.

I tell you what. We'll change the name of the United States of America to the United States of Earth, so that everyone can be equally pissed off.
What's your problem? I just wondered why this guy was so pissed as the starter did not want to use this ridicule term. I've never said that we should use any other term than American. damn.

See my post earlier about South Africa and Africa. They get mighty touchy when you confuse the two.south-Africa is a Country, south America is a Sub-Continent just like Centro-America and north-AmericaAwww, you're confusing "North America" and "South America" with "America." That's adorable.he is not confusing anything...you have your US school textbooks where they teach you that only the US is the only America...(basically the same text books say that the Germans and japanese were extremely evil)

and most of the World has different textbooks that say that America is the continent named after Florencian Explorer Amerigo_Vespucci

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerigo_Vespucci
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerigo_Vespucci
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americo_Vespucio
http://enciclopedia.us.es/index.php/Am%E9rica
http://www.americas-fr.com/histoire/vespucci.html
*added italian link and ww2 ref*

What's your problem? I just wondered why this guy was so pissed as the starter did not want to use this ridicule term. I've never said that we should use any other term than American. damn.

I'm trying to be funny. Maybe you've been in the sauna too long. ;)

I'm trying to be funny. Maybe you've been in the sauna too long. ;)
Could be. I'm feeling a bit exhausted. And it's dinner time. (damn that man won't be able to do anything for days -just got a new laptop. I guess I have to start cooking..)

sorry.

...you have your US school textbooks where they teach you that only the US is the only America...
That is not taught in textbooks. It is a cultural standard.

I tell you what. We'll change the name of the United States of America to the United States of Earth, so that everyone can be equally pissed off.

ROFL


United States of the Part of America That Matters

USPAM

When they figured out it was two continents that are joined by a small piece of land they aptly named them North and South America.again its all about school textbooks...US textbooks say "that piece of land is too big"...

but most American countries have school textbooks that teach that there is North-America, Centro-America , South-America...all part of America.

I propose that we rename South America as Vespucci, since they're on the bottom and come second. That way we have two distinct names and not the lazy-ass monkeyflops that are North and South America.

If you Southerners don't like that though, maybe we can accept the United States of Gringo. However, I reserve the right to refer to every Latin American Country as "Superistious Beaner Land" in return. In fact lets just rename everything south of the Rio Grande/US-Mexican Border that. Canada can go on calling themselves "Canadians," "Kanucks," "Royal Subjects of her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second" or whatever the hell else you call yourselves.

I propose that we rename South America as Vespucci, since they're on the bottom and come second. That way we have two distinct names and not the lazy-ass monkeyflops that are North and South America.

If you Southerners don't like that though, maybe we can accept the United States of Gringo. However, I reserve the right to refer to every Latin American Country as "Superistious Beaner Land" in return. In fact lets just rename everything south of the Rio Grande/US-Mexican Border that. Canada can go on calling themselves "Canadians," "Kanucks," "Royal Subjects of her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second" or whatever the hell else you call yourselves.LOL

how about everyone can decide what they call themselves...its pretty much this way now...why change that?

I dont feel like calling myself USian. sue me.

Who said we in the US have sole right to the name "Americans?" Frankly, I don't give a damn what you call yourself. The fact remains that we in the US refer to ourselves as "Americans" and always have. If it bothers you ... get over it! :p
Eutrusca, if you look back at all my posts on this matter you will see that I have constantly said that I use the term Americans most often to refer to USA. I've said it so many times I'm turning into a parrot!

Your statement merely helps to reinforce the world's opinion of USA as being both arrogant and ignorant when it comes to the rest of the world.

Perhaps you should return to quoting entire articles from Washington Post as the starting point for the many, many threads you start.

again its all about school textbooks...US textbooks say "that piece of land is too big"...

but most American countries have school textbooks that teach that there is North-America, Centro-America , South-America...all part of America.

Really? I've never, ever seen that in a textbook. "That piece of land is too big" that is. Question for you, since you mentioned school, what makes it one continent?

Eutrusca, if you look back at all my posts on this matter you will see that I have constantly said that I use the term Americans most often to refer to USA. I've said it so many times I'm turning into a parrot!

Your statement merely helps to reinforce the world's opinion of USA as being both arrogant and ignorant when it comes to the rest of the world.

Perhaps you should return to quoting entire articles from Washington Post as the starting point for the many, many threads you start.

How is "you call yourselves what you want and we'll call ourselves what we want" arrogant and ignorant? Isn't it MUCH more ignorant and arrogant to think we can dictate what someone else calls themselves or they can dictate what we call ourselves? Apparently, you don't agree with this sentiment which is most likely why so many Americans have such difficulty accepting anything europeans have to say. You would probably do better to refrain from silly statements like saying that respecting soveriegnty is arrogant and ignorant.

How is "you call yourselves what you want and we'll call ourselves what we want" arrogant and ignorant? Isn't it MUCH more ignorant and arrogant to think we can dictate what someone else calls themselves or they can dictate what we call ourselves? Apparently, you don't agree with this sentiment which is most likely why so many Americans have such difficulty accepting anything europeans have to say. You would probably do better to refrain from silly statements like saying that respecting soveriegnty is arrogant and ignorant.
It is precisely out of respect for soverignty that you shouldn't as one country claim the term of American that belongs to multiple soverign states! :-)

For the record, I don't think you've been arrogant and ignorant, your debating style is a pleasure to engage with... it's people like Eutrusca that sometimes state things clumsily and give off arrogant/ignorant vibes.

Now I am going to Paris tomorrow for 2 days, so I think it is time for bed at a reasonable hour for a change... God natt or should I say Bon nuit.

It is precisely out of respect for soverignty that you shouldn't as one country claim the term of American that belongs to multiple soverign states! :-)

For the record, I don't think you've been arrogant and ignorant, your debating style is a pleasure to engage with... it's people like Eutrusca that sometimes state things clumsily and give off arrogant/ignorant vibes.

Now I am going to Paris tomorrow for 2 days, so I think it is time for bed at a reasonable hour for a change... God natt or should I say Bon nuit.

You actually said almost exactly the same thing to me earlier in the thread. You don't have to like Eutrusca, but respond to what he posted without your personal feelings for him. He didn't say others couldn't use it. He said, we're using it and will continue to. He said, specifically, we don't have claim to the term more than anyone else and that others who want to call themselves American can and should continue to do so.

In response to your sovereignty comment, we can't unclaim it. It's the name of our country and it's not going to change. Period. It was done two hundred years ago when people still owned slaves and most of Europe believed in owning half the world. It was a different time and they did what they did. Much like the history of your country and dozens of others, there are some mistakes there, but we aren't going to try and apologize for the actions of those long-dead.

Again, point out America on the map.
All the way from Greenland to Tierra del Fuego. That's America. It's been that since the 16th C, before the Mayflower.

If you notice, the name of the country is United States OF America. Let's talk about that "of". "of" means that the first part of the name, in this case "United States", belongs or is relative to the second part, "America". That is, the name literally means that this is a collection of independent political entities that are in the continent known as America.

And what continent is that? Look above.

I tell you what. We'll change the name of the United States of America to the United States of Earth, so that everyone can be equally pissed off.

Frankly it doesn't matter what they're the United States of, so long as it's not a place where they clearly aren't. To call them the United States of America is fine, because they're states that united in America. They're also states that united on Earth, so that would be fine to. They didn't unite in Europe so United States of Europe would be a bit silly.

If a bunch of sovereign states in South and Central America united in a federalist fashion similar to that of the US (and the US didn't go down and blow them up because of it) however, and chose to call themselves united states as well, well then we'd probably have to start calling ourselves the United States of North America because we wouldn't really be The United States anymore, just Some United States.

I tell you what. We'll change the name of the United States of America to the United States of Earth, so that everyone can be equally pissed off.
I agree with this. That's justice! And then you can call yourselves Earthlings :)

I just came across this in my Spanish course, to point out how "American" is often used in Spanish:

El Paraguay es el único país americano que tiene dos lenguas oficiciales - el español y el guaraní.
Translated as: Parguay is the only American country that has two official languages, Spanish and Guarani.

My only point is that, this is how American is used in Spanish, by the majority of people who inhabit the American continents. They aren't trying to force English speakers in the US to call themselves something other than Americans, but now you know...American doesn't always just mean people from the USA.

Now can we kill this damn thread?

All the way from Greenland to Tierra del Fuego. That's America. It's been that since the 16th C, before the Mayflower.

If you notice, the name of the country is United States OF America. Let's talk about that "of". "of" means that the first part of the name, in this case "United States", belongs or is relative to the second part, "America". That is, the name literally means that this is a collection of independent political entities that are in the continent known as America.

And what continent is that? Look above.
Yes, and were there to be formed a TRUE United States of America...it would include all the countries within the Americas.

I just came across this in my Spanish course, to point out how "American" is often used in Spanish:


Translated as: Parguay is the only American country that has two official languages, Spanish and Guarani.

My only point is that, this is how American is used in Spanish, by the majority of people who inhabit the American continents. They aren't trying to force English speakers in the US to call themselves something other than Americans, but now you know...American doesn't always just mean people from the USA.

Now can we kill this damn thread?

You've summed it up very well - this is not about getting people from USA to call themselves USians, United Staters, United Statish, USer or anything else other than American if they do not wish. As I've said, I use American to relate to USA most often.

This issue is simply about acknowledging that technically de jure American relates to more than just United States. It is amazing that so many US people have closed minds and can't acknowledge this. It's really surprising.

(PS: Doesn't Canada have 2 official languages?!)

Instead of expecting Latin Americans to change why don't you just call yourself what Latin Americans already call you... Gringo ;)

Where did I say I expected them to change? I merely suggested that they band together and choose a cooler name for their continent. If they'd rather keep South America, that's fine by me. Perhaps I could get all of Canada, the US and Mexico (and those CIA playground countries stretching to Panama) to come up with a better name than North America.

All I'm saying is that "North America" and "South America" are just reprehensibly lazy names for something as epic as an entire continent. [See the original post (#38) for the almost, but not quite, entirely unlike witty original argument.]

What about the historical definitions? Europe, Asia (including India), America, Africa, Antartica, and Oceania (Australia, NZ plus the other islands in the South Pacific).

Meh, there's no hard and fast definition for continent, they're merely conventions used so that people know what place they're talking about. The problem in that the US took an already accepted definition used to mean the continent. Pretty much what Microsoft does when it takes a standard and "improves" it.

Seems to me that the garden variety "continent" that people think about refers not to tectonics and geology but to geographical contiguity. In other words, if it looks like a giant land mass, call it one. Hence:

Africa
Antarctica
Asia
Australia
Europe
North America
South America

The separation of Europe and Asia is neither contigual nor geographical, but largely cultural. You could claim it was also geological, given the barrier that the Urals combined with the Caucasus Mountains, and the Caspian and Black Seas make.

I've got no problem with "Eurasia", as it certainly looks contiguous. So I go for 6 continents, myself.

Also, I'd like to bring up that argument about the ailens with an atlas of this planet. Once they'd sussed out the names we humans gave these chunks of terra firma, they'd have a fairly coherent, if basic, picture of cultural history on Earth. The relative elegance and individuality of the names of Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia (and even Antarctica, despite its name being derived, in a dead language, from its position on the globe), followed by the drab "North" and "South" appellations appended to the "America" name would certainly suggest a cultural dominance by those not from the Western Hemisphere. After that, it'd get complicated to deduce further merely from an atlas. They'd have to land and make contanct to figure out which inhabitants of what Eastern Hemisphere continent named those in the West. And that would make an interesting hypothetical short story, I think.

Just thinkin'.

I tell you what. We'll change the name of the United States of America to the United States of Earth, so that everyone can be equally pissed off.


lmao

All the way from Greenland to Tierra del Fuego. That's America. It's been that since the 16th C, before the Mayflower.

If you notice, the name of the country is United States OF America. Let's talk about that "of". "of" means that the first part of the name, in this case "United States", belongs or is relative to the second part, "America". That is, the name literally means that this is a collection of independent political entities that are in the continent known as America.

And what continent is that? Look above.

Hmmm... that really makes sense. How did I notice that before? Just like the Kingdom of Sweden is on the continent of Sweden, yeah? Silly me for not knowing this. I can't wait to tell my nephew so he can be ready for his next geography test.

You've summed it up very well - this is not about getting people from USA to call themselves USians, United Staters, United Statish, USer or anything else other than American if they do not wish. As I've said, I use American to relate to USA most often.

This issue is simply about acknowledging that technically de jure American relates to more than just United States. It is amazing that so many US people have closed minds and can't acknowledge this. It's really surprising.

(PS: Doesn't Canada have 2 official languages?!)

Actually, I haven't met anyone who would acknowledge that other people refer to themselves as Americans. The thread is called US-ian suggesting that we change our name and that is what people are arguing against.