NationStates Jolt Archive

1783: Britain recognizes the independence of the United States of America in the Treaty of Paris.

1791: Haitian slave revolt begins. The Western Hemisphere's second nation declares independence in 1804 and gets it provisionally recognized by the motherland in 1825.

Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone-
while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?
"Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
when I said, 'This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt'?
. . .
Surely you know, for you were already born!
You have lived so many years!


If you are able, please accept that the author is feeling more playful than proud. :)

Really? I thought it was because there's no way to speak of the people of the country other than that (or yanks, but bleh). People of Great Britain are Brits, Polish people are Poles, Australian people are Australians, and I don't think anyone can be fucked saying United states of Americans.

Um...

I don't know... I guess I was just always called an American...

I guess we in the US of A need to claim the name of two continents...
Frankly, I don't like the name "United States of America"

It's so bleh.

I actually like the term Norteamericano, which is what most of Central and South America calls us when they're being polite. And we don't even need to translate it into English; the Spanish version sounds cool just as it is.

Of course, you can say that this term could also apply to Canadians. I agree; it does. It's a cultural designation, not a national one, the equivalent of our use of "Latin America" for Central and South America. And while Canadians may scream at me for saying this, the US and Canada (at least the English-speaking part) have essentially the same culture, with only minor variations.

So you can call me a Norteamericano. Just don't call me a Yank, or a Yanqui; it's an insult where I come from. :p

Interesting fact: Great Britain is actually the United Kingdom. However, we still call its citizens Brits, British, Britains, and what have you (Welsh, Irish, Scots). We don't exactly call them United Kingdomites.

I guess for the same reason that the Nordic Museum in Stockholm calls itself the Nordic Museum (despite only really covering Swedish history - which admitedly does obviously blur into wider Scandinavian history as you go back)... shear arrogance.

And while Canadians may scream at me for saying this, the US and Canada (at least the English-speaking part) have essentially the same culture, with only minor variations.


I'd like to scream at you, but you nailed it dead on.

Interesting fact: Great Britain is actually the United Kingdom. However, we still call its citizens Brits, British, Britains, and what have you (Welsh, Irish, Scots). We don't exactly call them United Kingdomites.

incorrect - United kngdom is political, Britain is geographical.

Great Britain is scotland, england, wales

United kingdom is northen ireland, england, scotland, wales

British Isles is Eire, northern ireland, england, scotland, wales

England = england.

USian works well in the written language, I find.

Interesting fact: Great Britain is actually the United Kingdom. However, we still call its citizens Brits, British, Britains, and what have you (Welsh, Irish, Scots). We don't exactly call them United Kingdomites.

But that's because (Pedant alert!) The full name is: 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain (and Northern Ireland if you want to be really pedantic!)'. Calling them/us (The joys of being a dual-national!) 'United Kingdomites' would be like calling Americans, 'United Statesmen'.

Come to think of it, 'United Statesmen' does have a nice ring to it :)

incorrect - United kngdom is political, Britain is geographical.

Great Britain is scotland, england, wales

United kingdom is northen ireland, england, scotland, wales

British Isles is Eire, northern ireland, england, scotland, wales

England = england.

North American would do fine for us, then. American, for short. Same for Canadians, if you're putting it this way. Mexicans, too.

But that's because (Pedant alert!) The full name is: 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain'. Calling them/us (The joys of being a dual-national!) 'United Kingdomites' would be like calling Americans, 'United Statesmen'.

Come to think of it, 'United Statesmen' does have a nice ring to it :)

Heh, it sounds like some Fascist state!

...Wait a minute, that would fit the USA perfectly.

first of all, as Passivocalia said (in essence) we can be called "americans" because WE GOT DIBS ON THE NAME!

so there!

secondly consider this

the citizens of the united states of america are americans
the citizens of the estados unidos de mexico are mexicans

should mexicans also be called USians? noooooo.

should canadians also be called americans? i dont think they would go for that.

we are all geographically american but only the USA is politically called america.

And while Canadians may scream at me for saying this, the US and Canada (at least the English-speaking part) have essentially the same culture, with only minor variations.
I don't really know about that. For one thing, there are wide variations in Canadian culture and American culture. The culture in Ontario is different from the culture out east or out west. Hell, from here it seems like the culture in Alberta is much different from the culture in BC. (You already pointed out the Quebec thing) Also, up north is an entirely different ballgame. When you get to the point where it's basically just Cree and isolated fishing towns, you've got an entirely different culture there.

And then look at the states. The culture in the northern states is definitely different from the culture in the southern states. Out west is a lot different from out east. I don't think I'd dare say that Miami, New York and Los Angeles all have the same culture...

We both have giant countries with a great variety of people, if you take both countries as a whole, then the biggest thing that we (Canada and the US) have in common culturally is the great cultural diversity within our borders.

Oh, also, it makes sense for americans to be called such becuase they've got "america" in their name and any other name would be too awkward or just not match their country name.

Personally I'd like to scrap the term Americans in favor of the much more descriptive term imperial overlords of all humanity. :eek:

Why they can? Well, of course they can. They can call themselves whatever the heck the want. Is just rude and confusing, is all.

It's as if Spain suddenly decided "what the hell! let's change the name of the country to Kingdom of Europe and people can call us European. And those who don't like it nos pueden chupar las pelotas, ¡joder!"

And those who don't like it nos pueden chupar las pelotas, ¡joder!"
I understood "we can.... pants(I think)" What's the rest?

Why they can? Well, of course they can. They can call themselves whatever the heck the want. Is just rude and confusing, is all.

It's as if Spain suddenly decided "what the hell! let's change the name of the country to Kingdom of Europe and people can call us European. And those who don't like it nos pueden chupar las pelotas, ¡joder!"
*gives iszta the look*

no one has ever been confused over the term "american".

when the USA was formed there were no other countries in the western hemisphere. there was no place that was called "america" politically. only geographically. no other people in the americas thought of themselves as americans.

spain does not have dibs on the name "european". it is in common usage already.

Personally I'd like to scrap the term Americans in favor of the much more descriptive term imperial overlords of all humanity. :eek:
that has a certain ring to it!

maybe we can get it added as a rider to the hurrican katrina relief bill.

no one has ever been confused over the term "american".

No one USian, perhaps you mean. Speaking about the two continents and the inhabitants there does get confusing because of the usurpation of the adjective/noun.

should mexicans also be called USians? noooooo.

Simply because no other country is called Mexico and confusion never happens. USA is an unfortunate choice of name for a country that does not span the entire continent.

Personally I'd like to scrap the term Americans in favor of the much more descriptive term imperial overlords of all humanity. :eek:

I second it! Lets move it to vote.

Latley, it seems we should change our name to the United States of Geroge W. - but dont EVEN make me open up that can of worms...

Or perhaps, The United Corporations of George W. - sighs...

when the USA was formed there were no other countries in the western hemisphere. there was no place that was called "america" politically. only geographically. no other people in the americas thought of themselves as americans.

That's where you're wrong. People in America thought themselves as Americans. European thought of people in America as Americans. That's why Bolívar is "El libertador de América," why the independentist movement in New Spain started with "El Despertador Americano," why the union of countries in the first half of the 19th C was called "Congreso Americano." And why Spain and Portugal referred to the "American colonies" and "Americans" when talking about their territories and citizens here. Where do you think the phrase "hacer la América" comes from?

And politically, there's still no place called America. The country is "The United States OF America." Take a good hard look at that "OF." What does it tell you?

No one USian, perhaps you mean. Speaking about the two continents and the inhabitants there does get confusing because of the usurpation of the adjective/noun.
*giving fass the look*

are you suggesting that there was a time when someone said to YOU "i am an american" or "he is an american" when you thought to yourself "i wonder what he meant by that?"

you would have to go a long way to convince me that that has ever happened to you.

I understood "we can.... pants(I think)" What's the rest?
Actually is "they can" and the rest is "suck our balls, f***"
hmm... for some reason it sounds funnier in Spanish. Maybe it's the "ch" sound.

*giving fass the look*

Oh, behave.

are you suggesting that there was a time when someone said to YOU "i am an american" or "he is an american" when you thought to yourself "i wonder what he meant by that?"

Actually, yes.

you would have to go a long way to convince me that that has ever happened to you.

Why would I have to convince you? It happens. Especially in other languages.

That's where you're wrong. People in America thought themselves as Americans. European thought of people in America as Americans. That's why Bolívar is "El libertador de América," why the independentist movement in New Spain started with "El Despertador Americano," why the union of countries in the first half of the 19th C was called "Congreso Americano." And why Spain and Portugal referred to the "American colonies" and "Americans" when talking about their territories and citizens here. Where do you think the phrase "hacer la América" comes from?

And politically, there's still no place called America. The country is "The United States OF America." Take a good hard look at that "OF." What does it tell you?
all of those things happened after the founding of the US.

people came to think of themselves as americans when they decided to revolt from their european overlords and before they founded their own countries.

they were certainly free to name their countries "the liberated states of america" or whatever form they wanted that included the word america in it.

that they didnt do that means something doesnt it?

the phrase "united states of america" recallls to me that the country started off as a looser union of former english colonies that had existed independantly of each other. they came together as a union of states.

do YOU think of yourself as an american or as a citizen of your country?

Or perhaps, The United Corporations of George W. - sighs...
I just hope Pres. Bush doesnt figure out what the "red" button does in the oval office that says do not press and has radioactive symbols around it...j/k

Who cares what we call ourselves? Why would we have to justify it? All words are arbitrary anyway.

I wonder...
Europeans (at least, SOME Europeans...and Canadians...hell, just make it Some NSers) constantly go off on how stupid 'USians' are, but they cant seem to figure out from the context of a sentence whether American refers to somebody from the United States or somebody from America, when most everybody in Mexico, Canada, those little Central-American states Im too lazy to list and South America refers to themselves by country name, EX: Argentinian, Brazilian, Canadian, Mexican, Paraguayan (not too sure on that one...) and so forth.
And lets be honest, "USian" just sounds stupid. Would you call somebody from the United Kingdom a "UKian"? Or a person from the United Arab Emirates a "UAEian"?

check this out
click here (http://http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end.php)
trust me...its worth the laugh.

People from The Dominion of Canada are known as Canadians
People from The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are known as either British or Irish
People from The Republic of Italy are known as Italians
People from The Kingdom of Sweden are known as Swedes
People from The Commonwealth of Australia are known as Australians

Are we seeing a pattern arise yet? Now let's try the USA:

People from The United States of America are known as Americans

*claps*

People from The Dominion of Canada are known as Canadians
People from The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are known as either British or Irish
People from The Republic of Italy are known as Italians
People from The Kingdom of Sweden are known as Swedes
People from The Commonwealth of Australia are known as Australians

See how nice it works when no other geographical places/countries are called what your country is called?

Well for that you can stab whoever decided to name your country after a pair of continents in the face. But people from the US are called Americans because the country is named "The United States of America."

Also, if you do actually want to refer to people from North or South America, what's wrong with calling them "North Americans" and "South Americans?" Seriously.

Well for that you can stab whoever decided to name your country after a pair of continents in the face. But people from the US are called Americans because the country is named "The United States of America."

No, shit Sherlock, and here I was, thinking they were called that because the name contained no reference to America. :rolleyes:

The thing is, they tend to bitch when others try to use terms that are less ambiguous. See this thread.

Well, to start, "America" is generally accepted as "The United States of America." Hence, we're Americans. If you live in "the Americas" and you have a problem with this, too bad. We're meaner than you are. Besides, aside from maybe 5 countries, all of the countries in the Americas have either a one word name or a shorter name to use as the stem for the adjective they use to describe the nationality of their citizens, so they can deal with it.

No, shit Sherlock, and here I was, thinking they were called that because the name contained no reference to America. :rolleyes:

Because people are always referenced by a word found in their country name. :rolleyes:

See how nice it works when no other geographical places/countries are called what your country is called?

No other geographical places are called what the U.S. is called, either. There's North America, and South America, and the Americas, but we're America.

Personally I'd like to scrap the term Americans in favor of the much more descriptive term imperial overlords of all humanity. :eek:

Well, yeah, but then we have the same problem. Can we call ourselves "Humans", or do we have to go by "Imperial Overlordists"?

That's where you're wrong. People in America thought themselves as Americans. European thought of people in America as Americans. That's why Bolívar is "El libertador de América," why the independentist movement in New Spain started with "El Despertador Americano," why the union of countries in the first half of the 19th C was called "Congreso Americano."


Speaking of which, no one ever gets mad at Colombia. The country that's still around there is only part of what Colombia was meant to be.

Oh, and there's also still the point about 'dibs' (though I also like the term United Statesmen, even if it sounds like some sort of fraternity for ambassadors).

No other geographical places are called what the U.S. is called, either. There's North America, and South America, and the Americas, but we're America.
People from the Americas being called Americans. People from Europe being called Europeans etc. So, you can understand confusion arises when a country decides to claim the term for its own. It as if Swedes were suddenly to declare they were the only people who could be called Scandinavians.

Thats a weird question...The United States of America!!!Americans got that for short

People from The Dominion of Canada are known as Canadians
People from The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are known as either British or Irish
People from The Republic of Italy are known as Italians
People from The Kingdom of Sweden are known as Swedes
People from The Commonwealth of Australia are known as Australians

Are we seeing a pattern arise yet? Now let's try the USA:

People from The United States of America are known as Americans

*claps*
What are people from South Africa known as?

What are people from South Africa known as?
People from The Republic of South Africa are known as South Africans. :eek:

People from The Republic of South Africa are known as South Africans. :eek:
I think that's the only other country I can think of that has the name of a continent as part of its name...

Also, someone else brought it up, but what do people from the United Arab Emirates call themselves?

What are people from South Africa known as?

South Africans.

So does that mean we United States folk should call ourselves North Americans? East-West Americans?

South Africa is still Commonwealth, so the British influence was there for quite a while. Also, Ethiopia had its independence beforehand. And Liberia (or did they? I forget). The point: no dibs.

Also, no one gets angry at the Southern Irishmen who call themselves "Irish".

Or the People's Republic of China folk who call themselves "Chinese".

I think that's the only other country I can think of that has the name of a continent as part of its name...

Also, someone else brought it up, but what do people from the United Arab Emirates call themselves?

In English, they are called Emiratis. If you want to know what they call themselves though, you'll have to ask one.
The UAE is one of the very few countries whose name doesn't have "of" in it.

what else should we call ourselves really?

no one is called "commonwealthians" or "unitedkingdomites" or "republicans" why shouldnt we be called as other countries are?

if someone had trouble with the name shouldnt it have been brought up 229 years ago? its a little late now.

It's just common usage from history. People were calling the residents of the colonies "americans" before the country came into exsistence, and it stuck after independence. I don't know why everyone has their panties in a bunch about it. Aren't there bigger problems in the world today than what 99% of the people in the world are quite happy to use as an informal term for citizens of the united states.

Saying that, I do like United Statesmen, but I am afraid it would only be allowed for a brief period before being butchered into United Statesperson.

I think that's the only other country I can think of that has the name of a continent as part of its name...

Also, someone else brought it up, but what do people from the United Arab Emirates call themselves?
I always thought the different Emirates called themselves by that name.

Sorry about the delay, I had some network trouble. Anyway, here's what was left on the clipboard:

all of those things happened after the founding of the US.

people came to think of themselves as americans when they decided to revolt from their european overlords and before they founded their own countries.

Nope. Americanism obviously became much stronger after the US independence and the invasion of Spain by France, but it existed before that. Think about it, why would the libertadores choose to invoke the freedom of America to rally people towards their cause if those people didn't consider themselves Americans in the first place? "Hey, let's fight for the freedom of the English speaking protestants," I don't think that would have been too successful.

Of course transculturation has played a part in changing the uses of the term. But that the continent and its inhabitants were called America and American long before the existence of the USA is an undisputed fact. I always find it surprising that people in the US are not aware about it.

they were certainly free to name their countries "the liberated states of america" or whatever form they wanted that included the word america in it.

There was a movement. That's how the Congreso Americano came about. It's purpose was to get all the former colonies of Spain together in a single entity. But local differences and the enormous geography that added to the already difficult task and so it didn't happen. Although the idea has survived and it's talked about from time to time. It is Bolívar's dream after all.

the phrase "united states of america" recallls to me that the country started off as a looser union of former english colonies that had existed independantly of each other. they came together as a union of states.

I said to take a look at the "OF", which means that the first belongs or pertains to the second, and not that it is the second. That is, a collection of political entities located in America, but not America.

The name is correct, but unoriginal, it's what one would call a corporation. I still think they should have called it Appalchia, or at least something nicer.

do YOU think of yourself as an american or as a citizen of your country?
American first, it's my continent. Mexican second, although I'm working on the Canadian thing too. You'll find this is quite common in countries "south of the border."

I added this after reading later posts:

It's not really that important what the people call themselves, and people in the rest of the continent have become quite used to it, although it gets very annoying to hear "Americans this" and "Americans that" and "America this thing" and "America this other" from people who usually don't give a damn about the rest of the continent (and who don't even use the metric system!)

Really? I thought it was because there's no way to speak of the people of the country other than that (or yanks, but bleh). People of Great Britain are Brits, Polish people are Poles, Australian people are Australians, and I don't think anyone can be fucked saying United states of Americans.

Incorrect. Our republic has ALWAYS been named The united states of AMERICA since it's founding. Basicly, we called shotgun on the actual name "America".

Its why we call Mexico, Mexico. The name of their republic is in fact "the united states of MEXICO" This has NO designation on the continents North America and South America.Only that our republic has been named specifically America. Only blatently idiotic people and uneducated teenager's can't figure this basic concept out.

Canada.. is well Canada.

Also, Norteamericano, just translates to NORTH AMERICAN. You don't even need to be bilingual to understand that. They call us this because they call anybody north of Mexico city and its central highlands, northerners. Hell, even people on the frontier (north mexico) are called nortenos. It is not a designation of a particular nation as mentioned. Mexico just considers the center of the world Mexico.

There was a movement. That's how the Congreso Americano came about. It's purpose was to get all the former colonies of Spain together in a single entity. But local differences and the enormous geography that added to the already difficult task and so it didn't happen. Although the idea has survived and it's talked about from time to time. It is Bolívar's dream after all.

We'd probably have more clarification around if the Confederate States had triumped in the U.S. Civil War.

American first, it's my continent. Mexican second, although I'm working on the Canadian thing too. You'll find this is quite common in countries "south of the border."

Huh, that's funny. Because, here in the States, a lot of people consider themselves MEXICAN first, and American second. A lot of legal U.S. citizens even. Even some that were born in the U.S.

And it's completely beyond my comprehension.

It's not really that important what the people call themselves, and people in the rest of the continent have become quite used to it, although it gets very annoying to hear "Americans this" and "Americans that" and "America this thing" and "America this other" from people who usually don't give a damn about the rest of the continent (and who don't even use the metric system!)

There is the point that Aldranin brings up: the continents are North America and South America, not just America. In that sense, Norteamericano would cause even more confusion because it's a specific continent shared by US, Canada, and... well, Mexico and the Central American nations.

And as for that metric system..... ::embarrassed cough::

While it does seem pretty snottish to call our country "America" dispite that we are only one country on the two continents that make up the real "America", when it comes to names we got the longest end of the shit-stick. Our neighbors get cool names like Mexico and Canada, and farther south there are other really neat names like Argentina, Venzuela, Brazil, and what do we get? United States.
We have arguably the worst country name out there. So to compensate, we call ourselves "Americans" =P

While it does seem pretty snottish to call our country "America" dispite that we are only one country on the two continents that make up the real "America", when it comes to names we got the longest end of the shit-stick. Our neighbors get cool names like Mexico and Canada, and farther south there are other really neat names like Argentina, Venzuela, Brazil, and what do we get? United States.
We have arguably the worst country name out there. So to compensate, we call ourselves "Americans" =P
and to think, as the first nation in the hemisphere we coulda had any name we wanted.

sigh

the founding fathers were so unimaginative

and to think, as the first nation in the hemisphere we coulda had any name we wanted.

sigh

the founding fathers were so unimaginative

Wow. What an excellent point!!!!! We DID have first call on national name in this hemisphere!

Man. What a waste.

Americans call themselves Americans because they are from the United States of America. They could have called themselves Unionists. They could have called themselves Statesmen but instead they called themselves Americans...just so the rest of the American contenent couldn't!

Hee Hee I have a joke:

George Bush was in the Oval Office one day, one of his cheif advisors came in and said 'Mr President, 3 Brazilian Soldiers are dead'. The President sat for a while then looked completely bewildered. The Advisor was quite surprise and said to the President its only 3 Brazilian Soldiers Sir? Whats Wrong? Bush replied 'In the name of God..How many is 3 Brazilian Soldiers?

Sorry America and South American reminded me of that! :D

Huh, that's funny. Because, here in the States, a lot of people consider themselves MEXICAN first, and American second. A lot of legal U.S. citizens even. Even some that were born in the U.S.

And it's completely beyond my comprehension.
I told you there would be confusion.

There is the point that Aldranin brings up: the continents are North America and South America, not just America. In that sense, Norteamericano would cause even more confusion because it's a specific continent shared by US, Canada, and... well, Mexico and the Central American nations.
And Greenland, don't forget Greenland.
Before they realised there were two continents they gave the entire landmass the name of America. The North and South came later. Although physically it's two continents, by then people knew the whole thing as America.

um, surely the american indians are the americans, and the people from the US are american englishmen (or whatever place their ethnic background is)? just as if we invaded an alien world and shot the aliens, the humans born on the new world would be alpha centuarian humans, as opposed to alpha centaurians.
but hey, whatever.

um, surely the american indians are the americans, and the people from the US are american englishmen (or whatever place their ethnic background is)? just as if we invaded an alien world and shot the aliens, the humans born on the new world would be alpha centuarian humans, as opposed to alpha centaurians.
but hey, whatever.
if we wish to differentiate amongst our citizens we usually say "native american", "anglo american", "african american" or whatever

the pre-columbian indians werent americans they were iroquois, cherokee, navajos etc. (in their own native languages of course)

um, surely the american indians are the americans, and the people from the US are american englishmen (or whatever place their ethnic background is)? just as if we invaded an alien world and shot the aliens, the humans born on the new world would be alpha centuarian humans, as opposed to alpha centaurians.
but hey, whatever.

if we wish to differentiate amongst our citizens we usually say "native american", "anglo american", "african american" or whatever

the pre-columbian indians werent americans they were iroquois, cherokee, navajos etc. (in their own native languages of course)

I tend to use the all-encompassing term Landbridge Americans to distinguish that they just came here much earlier than the Europeans.

It is the equivalent of invading an alien world that was inhabited by people who had invaded it beforehand, shooting them all, and then declaring independence from Earth. Then shooting some more aliens, putting some more on reservations.

if we wish to differentiate amongst our citizens we usually say "native american", "anglo american", "african american" or whatever

the pre-columbian indians werent americans they were iroquois, cherokee, navajos etc. (in their own native languages of course)

true, but isnt it impossible to tell which tribe native americans today are from? just as being english, i cant call myself a roman-saxon-norman-angle, because their is no realistic way for me to accurately check. though i suppose this could well apply to lots of american fellows...

Really? I thought it was because there's no way to speak of the people of the country other than that (or yanks, but bleh). People of Great Britain are Brits, Polish people are Poles, Australian people are Australians, and I don't think anyone can be fucked saying United states of Americans.

But the people of Britain were Britons even before there was a Great Britain. The Poles were Poles even when there wan't a Poland. Maybe this is why if you ask an American what his nationality is you will usually get an answer like "well... I'm quarter Irish and Jewish on my from my maternal grandfather, my father's grandfather is Polish Catholic and his grandmother is Hungarian, by my mother's mother is Puerto Rican, with a Native American grandmother..."

I tend to use the all-encompassing term Landbridge Americans to distinguish that they just came here much earlier than the Europeans.

It is the equivalent of invading an alien world that was inhabited by people who had invaded it beforehand, shooting them all, and then declaring independence from Earth. Then shooting some more aliens, putting some more on reservations.

and of course, forcibly bringing up their children as christians and such to destroy their unique alien culture(s).

true, but isnt it impossible to tell which tribe native americans today are from? just as being english, i cant call myself a roman-saxon-norman-angle, because their is no realistic way for me to accurately check. though i suppose this could well apply to lots of american fellows...
no

that is only if you have indian blood but are not a tribal member. there are millions of actual american indians who are as easily distinguished from each other as europeans are.

google "navajo reservation" and see what you get.

no

that is only if you have indian blood but are not a tribal member. there are millions of actual american indians who are as easily distinguished from each other as europeans are.

google "navajo reservation" and see what you get.

so while their are some who can trace their ancestory, their are some who cant, just as some british people who can trace their ancestory back a fair way.

as easily distinguishable as a catalan frenchperson who speaks catalan is from a catalan spanishperson who speaks catalan living a mile or two over a border? :)

so while their are some who can trace their ancestory, their are some who cant, just as some british people who can trace their ancestory back a fair way.

as easily distinguishable as a catalan frenchperson who speaks catalan is from a catalan spanishperson who speaks catalan living a mile or two over a border? :)
yes and no

there are those people who know they have indian blood. they usually think they are part cherokee. they know nothing of their indian ancestors and their traditions.

there are those people who have indian parents who live a life not unlike those who have a parent from europe. they live like "white people" but are fully aware of who and what their ancestors were.

there are those who live in the united states as fully recognized members of their tribes. some on reservations, some not. they speak the language of their tribe, they follow the religions and tradition of their tribes. some speak no english.

and all the variations in between

for example there are about 225,000 navajos as recognized by the navajo nation, 118,000 live on the reservation. many of them make their livings in traditional ways like sheepherding, weaving and silversmithing. http://www.navajonationcouncil.org/profile.htm

where i live in new mexico there are about a dozen pueblo reservations, a couple apache reservations, a couple navajo reservations, and the zuni reservation.

its easy to tell an apache from a navajo from a isletan. (although mixes are common and then what do you do?)

Personally I'd like to scrap the term Americans in favor of the much more descriptive term imperial overlords of all humanity. :eek:

We've got a mover and a seconder. Let's call the vote.

How about the simple answer. After a couple of centuries of being called 'Americans' it has stuck. Everyone knows that if I say I am American I don't mean I am from Belize. Including folks from Belize. And if we came up with a new word for American some politically-correct nuetered abomination of language people would still know that an American was not from Honduras. So no matter what we come up with if a Tierra Del Fuegan calls himself an American you're going to expect him to speak English and watch Basketball.

incorrect - United kngdom is political, Britain is geographical.

Great Britain is scotland, england, wales

United kingdom is northen ireland, england, scotland, wales

British Isles is Eire, northern ireland, england, scotland, wales

England = england.

To reclarify this The term ‘Britain’ is used informally to refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Britian = United Kingdom and any colonies of the British Empire.

One could say Great Britian as simply GREATER Britian consisting of those states Kroblexskij pointed out.

first of all, as Passivocalia said (in essence) we can be called "americans" because WE GOT DIBS ON THE NAME!

so there!

secondly consider this

the citizens of the united states of america are americans
the citizens of the estados unidos de mexico are mexicans

should mexicans also be called USians? noooooo.

should canadians also be called americans? i dont think they would go for that.

we are all geographically american but only the USA is politically called america.

The Concise OED (electronic edition) gives the following:-

American
n adjective relating to or characteristic of the United States. Ørelating to the continents of America.
n noun a native or inhabitant of the United States. Øa native or inhabitant of any of the countries of North, South, or Central America.

So yes, people from Mexico, Canada and even Brazil are americans.

Hope that helps.

People from The Dominion of Canada are known as Canadians

But they are also americans.

People from The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are known as either British or Irish
People from The Republic of Italy are known as Italians
People from The Kingdom of Sweden are known as Swedes

And they are also known as europeans.

People from The Commonwealth of Australia are known as Australians

Are we seeing a pattern arise yet? Now let's try the USA:

People from The United States of America are known as Americans

*claps*

As are the people of ALL of the countries of both North and South America.

and to think, as the first nation in the hemisphere we coulda had any name we wanted.

sigh

the founding fathers were so unimaginative

There were many nations there before you.

It's the same reason why people from Africa are called Africans. I never heard of a Chadian. Except Egyptian... hmmm... Oh well... that sucks. Actually come to think of it... In the US people from different states are called so... We are all Americans but not all of us are... let's say, Texans. We could just label ourselves in the world in what state we come from... but not many people know of all of our states... sadly not even most "Americans". Also, for the most part South American countries would be hard to label their people. Ecuadorian? Sounds like a certain car... De Lorean. Ah well.
Sounds weird, but sure enough!
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2110.html

we can call ourselves Americans because we're from America. Just like canadians and Peruvians. That, and the rest of the world calls us Americans too. :D

We're called Americans because that's the name of our country. Calling us USians is the same as calling Germans "Federal Republicans" or residents of Spain "Kingdomians".

1783: Britain recognizes the independence of the United States of America in the Treaty of Paris.

1791: Haitian slave revolt begins. The Western Hemisphere's second nation declares independence in 1804 and gets it provisionally recognized by the motherland in 1825.



If you are able, please accept that the author is feeling more playful than proud. :)

I have a friend who is Native "American", but he's not from the the U.S.
I have a friends who root for the Colombian futbol/soccer team "America". Although they are not from the U.S. they call themselves "Americans".
I don't follow sports, but I recall there was a baseball team from Toronto called the "Blue Jays", they played in the "American" League, but they were not from the U.S.

Personally I don't think people from the U.S. should be criticized for wanting to call themselves "Americans", but then how should the rest of the world distinguish you from other "Americans"?

P.S. Why is the World Series called the "World" Series when only two countries can participate?

I have a friend who is Native "American", but he's not from the the U.S.

Is he a Native Canadian (Landbridge Canadian, rather)?

I have a friends who root for the Colombian futbol/soccer team "America". Although they are not from the U.S. they call themselves "Americans".
I don't follow sports, but I recall there was a baseball team from Toronto called the "Blue Jays", they played in the "American" League, but they were not from the U.S.
P.S. Why is the World Series called the "World" Series when only two countries can participate?

See? Sports obviously have issues with over-regionalizing their fields and focuses.

Personally I don't think people from the U.S. should be criticized for wanting to call themselves "Americans", but then how should the rest of the world distinguish you from other "Americans"?

Well, I rarely refer to mySELf as a North American, continent-wise. Everytime I call myself an American, I refer to the national usage.

Why appeal to continental unity? If you have the same culture (Europe, Catalan) it's one thing. Do Argentinos really call themselves American to find some sort of unity with Canadians? And if the unity is language-religion specific, so that the United States and Canada are excluded (americano vs. norteamericano), then what's wrong with the phrase "Hispanic" or "South American" or "Central American" or "Latin-breakoff"?

Besides, it's the rest of the world's problem because the USA came before the other Colombian nations.

[QUOTE]Is he a Native Canadian (Landbridge Canadian, rather)?

He's Native American from Colombia. But I do know people who are Native American from Canada and Ecuador. Those who can trace their roots refer to themselves as Chibcha, Algonquin, Sioux, Embera or Incan. With regards to those who can't trace their roots, does this mean they should not refer to themselves as Native Americans? If you want to impose this upon the indegenous people of the Americas what collective name would you give them?

See? Sports obviously have issues with over-regionalizing their fields and focuses.

And all this time I thought it was a reflection of the egocentric attitude demonstrated by people from the U.S. who think they have exclusive rights to the term "American".

Well, I rarely refer to mySELf as a North American, continent-wise. Everytime I call myself an American, I refer to the national usage.

And how would you distinguish yourself from someone else who was born and raised in the Americas?

Why appeal to continental unity?

Why appeal to national unity?

If you have the same culture (Europe, Catalan) it's one thing. Do Argentinos really call themselves American to find some sort of unity with Canadians?

If this is the case why should Texans call themselves Americans to find some sort of unity with Bostonians?

And if the unity is language-religion specific, so that the United States and Canada are excluded (americano vs. norteamericano), then what's wrong with the phrase "Hispanic" or "South American" or "Central American" or "Latin-breakoff"?

I don't recall claiming that the term "American" being a language-religion issue. The term "American" refers to a person who has been born or has acquired citizenship to any of the countries in the Americas. Just as a European is a person who has a similar bond to Europe.

Besides, it's the rest of the world's problem because the USA came before the other Colombian nations.

Are you actually ignorant enough to believe the U.S. is an island? Has September 11, 2001 taught you nothing? Besides the US did not come first. Tribal nations existed before the arrival of British immigrants and they frequently migrated across the imaginary lines that divide Canada and Mexico from the Fifty Colonies.

And while Canadians may scream at me for saying this, the US and Canada (at least the English-speaking part) have essentially the same culture, with only minor variations.

Our cultures are quite different actually, considering Canadians tend to support the diversity of its population, whereas the Americans assimilate everyone so that they can all be marketed to equally. The only reason we have similar cultures (or so it may be confused) is the complete dominance of American media. It's arrogant to assume we're basically the 51st state.

He's Native American from Colombia. But I do know people who are Native American from Canada and Ecuador. Those who can trace their roots refer to themselves as Chibcha, Algonquin, Sioux, Embera or Incan. With regards to those who can't trace their roots, does this mean they should not refer to themselves as Native Americans? If you want to impose this upon the indegenous people of the Americas what collective name would you give them?

Landbridgers. Maybe Landbridge Westhemians. They aren't any more indigenous than I am; their ancesters just happened to migrate here before mine did. Or, your friend might be a Native Colombian. America's the butchered name of some German guy; why does everyone care about it?

And all this time I thought it was a reflection of the egocentric attitude demonstrated by people from the U.S. who think they have exclusive rights to the term "American".

That wouldn't explain "World Series". No, it's sports. ;)
Or American ego-centrism. But, gosh darn it, it's AMERICAN ego-centrism.

And how would you distinguish yourself from someone else who was born and raised in the Americas?

I usually say that I live in the States, actually, but that's vague. So I'd have to say American. How would you distinguish yourself from someone else who was born and raised in the Western Hemisphere?

Considering you were both born and raised here, are you both Native Americans?

Why appeal to national unity?
If this is the case why should Texans call themselves Americans to find some sort of unity with Bostonians?

Because we share the same government and hence the same head of state/government, domestic concerns, foreign entanglements, national legislation, etc.

Now. Why appeal to continental unity?

I don't recall claiming that the term "American" being a language-religion issue. The term "American" refers to a person who has been born or has acquired citizenship to any of the countries in the Americas. Just as a European is a person who has a similar bond to Europe.

What BOND? What connects Antofagosta to Calgary, other than both being cities of Earth? They're not even on the same CONTINENT!

Does the western portion of Russia share a closer bond to England than the eastern portion of Russia does? Is Bulgaria closer in spirit to Portugal than Turkey, because Turkey is in Asia? Do Syrians and Mongolians revel in their Asian unity, just like Egypt and Madagascar?

May I point out at this moment (for no particular reason) that Oceana cannot be a continent, considering that it is not a mass of land? It has nothing to do with your argument; it's just something that bugs me.

Are you actually ignorant enough to believe the U.S. is an island? Has September 11, 2001 taught you nothing? Besides the US did not come first. Tribal nations existed before the arrival of British immigrants and they frequently migrated across the imaginary lines that divide Canada and Mexico from the Fifty Colonies.

No, the U.S. is a country. We started calling ourselves 'Americans' before other independent Westhemian nations did so, so the term stuck.

The term still sticks because of that. We have no problem with it being stuck where it is. Therefore, it is the problem of anyone who wishes to change it.

Oh, and the tribal nations. None of them exist anymore, so the U.S. is the first Westhemian nation that still exists independently today.

Really? I thought it was because there's no way to speak of the people of the country other than that (or yanks, but bleh). People of Great Britain are Brits, Polish people are Poles, Australian people are Australians, and I don't think anyone can be fucked saying United states of Americans.





miks=irish,cannucks=canadians,nips=japs=japaniese.....come on guys its fun.....Quiker=man who fears god......join in anytime lol.....

We're called Americans because that's the name of our country. Calling us USians is the same as calling Germans "Federal Republicans" or residents of Spain "Kingdomians".

Nah. Name of your country is USA. We can call you US-citizens, USians, usanians. We can also call you americans, but that could we also call the venezuelians. America is a continent, atleast for most people outside USA. I will use the term usanians when I want to be precise.

Same problem goes for the citizens of the European Union; EU-citizens, EUians, eurunians, or what?
I am an european, from Europe, but I am not an EU-citizen.

Ofcourse we are all free to use the terms we want.

Landbridgers. Maybe Landbridge Westhemians. They aren't any more indigenous than I am; their ancesters just happened to migrate here before mine did. Or, your friend might be a Native Colombian. America's the butchered name of some German guy; why does everyone care about it?

I thought it was the butchered name of an Italian guy. But if you're going to refer to American Natives as Landbridgers maybe the rest of the world should refer to those ancestors of British Colonials as "British Expatriates"?

That wouldn't explain "World Series". No, it's sports. ;)
Or American ego-centrism. But, gosh darn it, it's AMERICAN ego-centrism.

The World Cup is also sporting event but, unlike the World Series, teams from outside of North America can participate.

I usually say that I live in the States, actually, but that's vague. So I'd have to say American. How would you distinguish yourself from someone else who was born and raised in the Western Hemisphere?

You find the States to be vague but not "America"? I usually tell people I'm American because I have lived in more parts of America than most people from "The United States of British Expatriates". ;)

Considering you were both born and raised here, are you both Native Americans?

Clearly. I guess that means you'll be referring to me as "American" from now on.

Because we share the same government and hence the same head of state/government, domestic concerns, foreign entanglements, national legislation, etc.

Now. Why appeal to continental unity?

Because we share a common territory and history and we should share the same environmental, economic and political concerns.

What BOND? What connects Antofagosta to Calgary, other than both being cities of Earth? They're not even on the same CONTINENT!

Does the western portion of Russia share a closer bond to England than the eastern portion of Russia does? Is Bulgaria closer in spirit to Portugal than Turkey, because Turkey is in Asia? Do Syrians and Mongolians revel in their Asian unity, just like Egypt and Madagascar?

May I point out at this moment (for no particular reason) that Oceana cannot be a continent, considering that it is not a mass of land? It has nothing to do with your argument; it's just something that bugs me.

Continents are given names to make them easier to identify. Same thing goes for nations and pretty much everything else on the planet. People from the U.S. just happen to be at a loss for something descent to call themselves because the founding fathers didn't have the foresight to give the land they stole a catchy title.

No, the U.S. is a country. We started calling ourselves 'Americans' before other independent Westhemian nations did so, so the term stuck.

The term still sticks because of that. We have no problem with it being stuck where it is. Therefore, it is the problem of anyone who wishes to change it.

Hardly a problem, seeing as people from the U.S. are also known as "Yank" or "Gringo".

Oh, and the tribal nations. None of them exist anymore, so the U.S. is the first Westhemian nation that still exists independently today.

Seeing as how the British Expatriates didn’t have much respect for these nations when they were around I don’t find it surprising that those who have been produced by a society based on murder and slavery continue to fail to recognize the value of other cultures.

I thought it was the butchered name of an Italian guy. But if you're going to refer to American Natives as Landbridgers maybe the rest of the world should refer to those ancestors of British Colonials as "British Expatriates"?

You're right, it was Italiano. And we can be called British Expatriate Americans instead of European Americans, if you fancy. Whatever.

The World Cup is also sporting event but, unlike the World Series, teams from outside of North America can participate.

What can I tell you? American ego-centrism.

You find the States to be vague but not "America"? I usually tell people I'm American because I have lived in more parts of America than most people from "The United States of British Expatriates". ;)

Do you say North American or South American? They aren't the same continent, so that doesn't work if we're arbitrarily dividing continentally. "The states" is a vague term because there are other united states, such as those in Mexico.

Clearly. I guess that means you'll be referring to me as "American" from now on.

Well, if I refer to you as a "Native American", then we definately do need to call the other group "Landbridge Americans", don't we?

Because we share a common territory and history and we should share the same environmental, economic and political concerns.

The North and South American continents do not all share a common history. Look at the different means of independence in America, Canada, Colombia, Brasil, Panama, Jamaica.

We do not share the same environmental concerns; in fact, many states/provinces in the same nation do not share the same environmental concerns.

We only share the same economic and political concerns in the sense that all global nations share these concerns. There is the Monroe Doctrine, but that's just more American ego-centrism.

Continents are given names to make them easier to identify. Same thing goes for nations and pretty much everything else on the planet.

The difference is that, while both are given names, continents have been divided arbitrarily and have no real cohesion. Nations actually have their own government that unites them.

People from the U.S. just happen to be at a loss for something descent to call themselves because the founding fathers didn't have the foresight to give the land they stole a catchy title.

Oh, we're not at a loss for anything. Our founding fathers apparently chose a popular name, considering everyone else wants it now.

Hardly a problem, seeing as people from the U.S. are also known as "Yank" or "Gringo".

Ah, but southern folk might not consider themselves Yank, and only the whites are Gringos.

Seeing as how the British Expatriates didn’t have much respect for these nations when they were around I don’t find it surprising that those who have been produced by a society based on murder and slavery continue to fail to recognize the value of other cultures.

Actually, the Landbridge Americans probably wouldn't have wanted to call themselves "America" anyway. Like you said, it was a butchering of an Italiano name, and the Landbridgers already had their own names for places. So, even if those tribes were still sovereign today, there would probably be little competition with the Six Nations or the Aztec Empire over the term "American".

[QUOTE]Do you say North American or South American? They aren't the same continent, so that doesn't work if we're arbitrarily dividing continentally. "The states" is a vague term because there are other united states, such as those in Mexico.

And "America" is a vague term because there are other countries in America, such as Mexico. Also, I say I am an American because I have lived in countries in both the northern and the southern continents.

Well, if I refer to you as a "Native American", then we definately do need to call the other group "Landbridge Americans", don't we?

Calling me "American" will suffice. You would have to ask a someone who is, what you refer to as, a "Landbridge American" what they would prefer to be called.

The North and South American continents do not all share a common history. Look at the different means of independence in America, Canada, Colombia, Brasil, Panama, Jamaica.

Are you saying there are no common links between the history, culture, environment, economics, politics of these nations you have listed? If so, what is NAFTA? What is NATO? Who is credited with discovering America? Who is America named after? Why are there cities in the U.S. with the same names as cities in Mexico, Colombia, Panama, Jamaica and Canada? What religions are common to these nations? What languages?

We do not share the same environmental concerns; in fact, many states/provinces in the same nation do not share the same environmental concerns.

We only share the same economic and political concerns in the sense that all global nations share these concerns. There is the Monroe Doctrine, but that's just more American ego-centrism.

Reread my post, the word you seem to have misunderstood is "should".


The difference is that, while both are given names, continents have been divided arbitrarily and have no real cohesion. Nations actually have their own government that unites them.

Yet as you stated earlier, many states/provinces in the same nation do not share the same environmental concerns. Is this also true for gun, drug, prostitution and other civil rights legislation?

Oh, we're not at a loss for anything. Our founding fathers apparently chose a popular name, considering everyone else wants it now.

Read history or talk to a grade school teacher. The term "America" was being used long before the war for independence.

Ah, but southern folk might not consider themselves Yank, and only the whites are Gringos.

In that case, southerners who haven't realized the Civil War is over can always be called "Rebs"

Actually, the Landbridge Americans probably wouldn't have wanted to call themselves "America" anyway. Like you said, it was a butchering of an Italiano name, and the Landbridgers already had their own names for places. So, even if those tribes were still sovereign today, there would probably be little competition with the Six Nations or the Aztec Empire over the term "American".

I don't see much competition for the name today. As I mentioned already, the issue is not how to distinguish Brazilians, Colombians, Jamaicans or Canadians from other Americans. The question is how to distinguish people from the U.S. from other Americans. But the term "Yank" does seem to work nicely. ;)

Calling me "American" will suffice. You would have to ask a someone who is, what you refer to as, a "Landbridge American" what they would prefer to be called.

But preference only goes so far! The whole issue starts because British Expatriates prefer to be called Americans.

Are you saying there are no common links between the history, culture, environment, economics, politics of these nations you have listed? If so, what is NAFTA?

NAFTA's just the USA, the EUM, and Canada, right? That leaves out quite a bit of the two continents.

What is NATO?

Trans-continental.

Who is credited with discovering America?

Which brings us back to the point about that Repúblican de Colombia trying to call themselves... umm... whatever "Colombians" would be in Español.

But the USA generally has English-breakaway heritage, as opposed to Spanish-breakaway or Portuguese-secessionist or English-dominionization or what all else.

Who is America named after? Why are there cities in the U.S. with the same names as cities in Mexico, Colombia, Panama, Jamaica and Canada?

Perhaps so, but Español-speaking nations share as many city names, if not more, with España than the USA. Santiago, Cartagena, the other Santiago...

What religions are common to these nations?

Predominantly Protestant in the United States, with a smaller Episcopal/Anglican community than Canada. Predominantly Catholic in the Iberian-breakaways. Different local influences depending on the region and level that the settlers interbred with the "natives".

What languages?

We may have Español-speakers in the USA, and we may have no official language, but our government is predominantly English. Canada has an interesting Anglo-French balance it has managed to maintain. And of course, the Spanish and Portuguese ones have their mother tongues. Does Surinam speak Dutch, predominantly? (I really don't know)

Reread my post, the word you seem to have misunderstood is "should".

But the "should" extends globally, probably. At least it should.

Yet as you stated earlier, many states/provinces in the same nation do not share the same environmental concerns. Is this also true for gun, drug, prostitution and other civil rights legislation?

Bah, I mispoke. I was thinking environmental concerns in the sense of hurricane threats, rainforest issues, national forests, Grand Canyon preservation, etc. Whenever the federal government passes a piece of environmental legislation, however, it affects everyone. If it doesn't affect them, then it doesn't happen to be an issue there, in the same way that prostitution legislation would have no effect on an area that happens to be bereft of prostitutes.

Hey, stop laughing!

Read history or talk to a grade school teacher. The term "America" was being used long before the war for independence.

Yes, but not by the Landbridge Nations. The United States of America was the first independent Westhemian nation to use that term. The local terms were all in the states: Virginia, Massachusetts, whatnot. Other states are allowed to join the union if they wish. ;)

In that case, southerners who haven't realized the Civil War is over can always be called "Rebs"

Agreed! Though I do consider myself a Texas Yank...

I don't see much competition for the name today. As I mentioned already, the issue is not how to distinguish Brazilians, Colombians, Jamaicans or Canadians from other Americans. The question is how to distinguish people from the U.S. from other Americans. But the term "Yank" does seem to work nicely. ;)

You can say Yank and most will know what you mean, but we're just going to keep saying "American".

And, try as you might to avoid it, you will also know what we mean.

But preference only goes so far! The whole issue starts because British Expatriates prefer to be called Americans.

And if these British Expatriates were intelligent enough to realize that the title of the nation to which they share a common military (the only common bond I can see between the 50 states) was the United States of America. They would find something more appropriate to call themselves.

NAFTA's just the USA, the EUM, and Canada, right? That leaves out quite a bit of the two continents.

It demonstrates a common link between the U.S. and other American nations. Also, don't forget they are pushing for trade throughout the Americas. (But that's another thread.)

Trans-continental.

But again NATO demonstrates a common link between the U.S. and Canadian military.

Which brings us back to the point about that Repúblican de Colombia trying to call themselves... umm... whatever "Colombians" would be in Español.

Using Colombia as an example might be appropriate if the continent you live in was called North Colombia.

But the USA generally has English-breakaway heritage, as opposed to Spanish-breakaway or Portuguese-secessionist or English-dominionization or what all else.

So the method by which your country became an independant nation is the only relevant aspect of your history? If this is the case why don't you try calling yourselves the "Tea Dumpers"... Try it out. The United States of Tea Dumpers.

Perhaps so, but Español-speaking nations share as many city names, if not more, with España than the USA. Santiago, Cartagena, the other Santiago...

I'll take this to mean you concede my point.

Predominantly Protestant in the United States, with a smaller Episcopal/Anglican community than Canada. Predominantly Catholic in the Iberian-breakaways. Different local influences depending on the region and level that the settlers interbred with the "natives".

Does this mean there are no Anglicans or Catholics in the U.S.?

We may have Español-speakers in the USA, and we may have no official language, but our government is predominantly English. Canada has an interesting Anglo-French balance it has managed to maintain. And of course, the Spanish and Portuguese ones have their mother tongues. Does Surinam speak Dutch, predominantly? (I really don't know)

What is the predominant language in Jamaica, Trinidad/Tobago, Guyana?

But the "should" extends globally, probably. At least it should.

Again, I'll take this to mean your conceding my point.

Bah, I mispoke. I was thinking environmental concerns in the sense of hurricane threats, rainforest issues, national forests, Grand Canyon preservation, etc. Whenever the federal government passes a piece of environmental legislation, however, it affects everyone. If it doesn't affect them, then it doesn't happen to be an issue there, in the same way that prostitution legislation would have no effect on an area that happens to be bereft of prostitutes.

Hey, stop laughing!

I don't amuse easy, but keep trying.

Yes, but not by the Landbridge Nations. The United States of America was the first independent Westhemian nation to use that term. The local terms were all in the states: Virginia, Massachusetts, whatnot. Other states are allowed to join the union if they wish. ;)

Then if you are a non-centralized Republic why not maintian your local identity and refer to yourselves as Virginians or Texans?

Agreed! Though I do consider myself a Texas Yank...

See that, your getting the hang of it. Now try saying that ten times fast.

You can say Yank and most will know what you mean, but we're just going to keep saying "American".

And, try as you might to avoid it, you will also know what we mean.

Clearly, a Yank is someone from the U.S. An American is someone from the same part of the world as me. :D

Europe isn't a country, and neither is America! :rolleyes:

Well, America's been around for the longest of any break-away countries, and we just decided to call ourselfs the United States of America. Nobody else really wanted to be called Blahblahblah of America, and if they did, it eventually it dissolved anyhow (something to do with Columbia and Central America, I can't remember). Anyhow, we call ourselves Americans, everybody liked it, so thats what we're called. Almost like how the Finns of Finland are called Finlanders or something by every language I know, but they call themselves Suomi. Everybody liked it, and ran with it.

As for Europe, another 200+ years from now, when we're hopefully colonizing Mars or something, there'll be a bunch of guys standing around the water cooler and someone will ask, "Where ya come from?" Then some guy will be like, "I'm European." And then someone goes, "Where in Europe?" Its kinda like asking where someone's from in Russia, United States, Canada, or China, or any really big country. Then everyone will know how we feel, err...felt.

Europe isn't a country, and neither is America! :rolleyes:

Well, America's been around for the longest of any break-away countries, and we just decided to call ourselfs the United States of America. Nobody else really wanted to be called Blahblahblah of America, and if they did, it eventually it dissolved anyhow (something to do with Columbia and Central America, I can't remember).

If you are talking about the country it is spelt Colombia.

Anyhow, we call ourselves Americans, everybody liked it, so thats what we're called. Almost like how the Finns of Finland are called Finlanders or something by every language I know, but they call themselves Suomi. Everybody liked it, and ran with it.

So the fact that you like something must mean everyone is in accordance with you. :rolleyes:

As for Europe, another 200+ years from now, when we're hopefully colonizing Mars or something, there'll be a bunch of guys standing around the water cooler and someone will ask, "Where ya come from?" Then some guy will be like, "I'm European." And then someone goes, "Where in Europe?"

Is there a country in Europe named Europe? And how do you think colonizing Mars will prove your point?

Its kinda like asking where someone's from in Russia, United States, Canada, or China, or any really big country. Then everyone will know how we feel, err...felt.

What, in your obviously educated opinion, distinguishes a really big country from a country that isn't really big? And how is this pertinent to the issue?

1)If you are talking about the country it is spelt Colombia.
2)So the fact that you like something must mean everyone is in accordance with you. :rolleyes:
3)Is there a country in Europe named Europe? And how do you think colonizing Mars will prove your point?
4)What, in your obviously educated opinion, distinguishes a really big country from a country that isn't really big? And how is this pertinent to the issue?
1) Thanks, I've never been a good speller. Now, back to the post.

2) "Everbody." I'm not sure that I'd go that far, but for most English speakers, yes. Anyhow, you're conforming to "my" tastes by referring to the country we know and love: Columbia. Thanks! Now, bow before me and lick the dirt off my feet! (that is a joke)

3) No, I clearly stated that "in 200+ years." As in, NOT NOW, NOT PRESENT. I'm not yelling, just putting emphasis on the words in caps, kind of like slowly annunciating them, but no so slow as to require hyphens.

Mars doesn't help prove my point, it was my attempt to add a sort of weak narrative to my post, and revealing a shred of my person, by showing what I hope will happen between now and 200+ years, my personal fantasy. Colonizing Mars, and a United Europe. Both can happen, in time.

4) Big, in this context, refers to countries that are much larger than a majority of all other countries on Earth, generally in square meters or miles, but they could also be measured in other units of constant, reliable measure if prefered.

Ask an American where they come from. They'll say America, just to make sure the person knows, and assuming this is a totally random encounter, if you believe in that stuff (random). They'll say America, but then you'll have to find out where in America, or Canada, or China, or Russia, or Brazil. Its not all the same, unless, of course, if a person thinks it is all the same. It's not such a problem in, say, Panama. Or one of the Pacific Islands. Why? They are small. In a now fictitional country dupped "Europe" it would be much the same problem.

I'm not going to get into the people that say their native State, city, county, block, or street. That just makes everything way too complicated for me to explain this late at night.

It was my thinking process. You asked. No, its not really pertinent, but it got in my post, kind of like your uncalled for attack on my education. See, we're all a little tainted, aren't we?

And if these British Expatriates were intelligent enough to realize that the title of the nation to which they share a common military (the only common bond I can see between the 50 states) was the United States of America. They would find something more appropriate to call themselves.

We have a much more common bond than military. The same-constitution federal government system is a big one. We also have a cultural affinity for "bigness" and consuming. The same-wars military history is only part.

((NAFTA)) demonstrates a common link between the U.S. and other American nations. Also, don't forget they are pushing for trade throughout the Americas. (But that's another thread.)

A common link between the USA and two other North American nations.

But again NATO demonstrates a common link between the U.S. and Canadian military.

A common link between the USA, one other North American nation, and other European nations. Trans-atlantic unity, not continental(s) unity.

Using Colombia as an example might be appropriate if the continent you live in was called North Colombia.

Well, it's not the region I personally live in, but Venezuela, Panamá, Ecuador, and Perú have all been parts of what was once called "Colombia". That's the one named after Colón (aka Colombo, aka Columbus), who, after all, discovered America for the continental Europeans.

Perhaps so, but Español-speaking nations share as many city names, if not more, with España than the USA. Santiago, Cartagena, the other Santiago...
I'll take this to mean you concede my point.

Not at all. :)
Sharing more city names, etc., with Spain than the USA is an argument for linguistic unity, or perhaps even trans-atlantic or global unity. Not North-South Westhemian unity.

Does this mean there are no Anglicans or Catholics in the U.S.?

No, it means that it's not as predominant. It also doesn't appear quite as much in the politics of the nation. There are exceptions to every rule.

The bottom line is we don't have any more of a religious tie with other Westhemian nations than we do with other nations of the world, such as those in Europe.

What is the predominant language in Jamaica, Trinidad/Tobago, Guyana?

Real English, unless I miss my guess. "American English" has its own peculiar idioms and even spelling to distinguish it from other, more commonwealthy English-breakaways.

Anyway, the language of Jamaica, Trinidad/Tobago, Guyana is different from that of Brasil, which is different from that of French Guiana (which is still a department of France), which is different from that of the España-breakaways. Therefore, even if Jamaica, Trinidad/Tobago, Guyana, and the USA were united linguistically, this union would divide them from the rest of North Westhemia and South Westhemia.

But the "should" extends globally, probably. At least it should.
Again, I'll take this to mean your conceding my point.

Eh, I would argue that global unity detracts from continental unity, in a similar way as it detracts from nationalism. Perhaps that is our main point of disagreement.

I don't amuse easy, but keep trying.

I thought the idea of a region completely "bereft of prostitutes" was entertaining, myself. But ah well.

Then if you are a non-centralized Republic why not maintian your local identity and refer to yourselves as Virginians or Texans?

We are centralised, though, which is what I think you were implying. Our nation pounded in its centrality in the American Civil War, and each state is united much more with the others than it is with any other nation in the continent(s) or world.

See that, your getting the hang of it. Now try saying that ten times fast.

Texas Yankee Texas Yankee! We should've stayed in the Union and tried to absorb some land from Louisiana and Oklahoma! But I've strayed from the topic, haven't I?