NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is it a problem for some people that residents of the U.S.A. to refer to themselves as Americans?
Let me correct you in one tinsy, winsy detail. The fact that you're assuming the US is the only place that has a right to call itself "America", is such a mistake. America, the Americas include Green Land, Canada, The US, Mexico, Central and South America and the Caribbean. If you're from Chile, you're American. If you're from Aruba, you're American. Not because you're from Mighty USA does that give you the sole right to call yourself an American. Ask why, simple. These places are called America for the mere fact that the person who drew the maps outlining the shores of this new Continent was called Americo Vespucci, an Italian cartographer.


I am fully aware that the U.S. isn't the only nation in the Americas, however, unless I'm mistaken (I might be) it is the only one with America as part of its name.

Why is it a problem for some people that residents of the U.S.A. to refer to themselves as Americans?



I am fully aware that the U.S. isn't the only nation in the Americas, however, unless I'm mistaken (I might be) it is the only one with America as part of its name.

You are not mistaken. NS is merely full of "nitpickers".

I am fully aware that the U.S. isn't the only nation in the Americas, however, unless I'm mistaken (I might be) it is the only one with America as part of its name.

Yes, but pointing that out somewhat misses the point.

No country has the name "Earth" in its name. But if a country were founded with that name, wouldn't it be a little arrogant for its inhabitants to refer to themselves exclusively as "Earth residents"?

If people protest a resident of the USA calling him- or herself an American, they are being silly.

If people protest a resident of the USA alleging that someone from, say, Brazil cannot use the term "American," they are bringing up a reasonable point.

(I would, however, tread carefully with this thread - I don't think anyone wants to see yet another "USian" debate.)

If people protest a resident of the USA calling him- or herself an American, they are being silly.

If people protest a resident of the USA alleging that someone from, say, Brazil cannot use the term "American," they are bringing up a reasonable point.

(I would, however, tread carefully with this thread - I don't think anyone wants to see yet another "USian" debate.)

I do, which would be the reason why I started the thread.

Plus there's the whole, America-is-built-on-immigration-and-so-they're-not-really-Americans argument.

Which is rather silly, since that can be applied to so many other countries as well.

I do, which would be the reason why I started the thread.

Wasn't there an officially-declared moratorium on that debate?

Plus there's the whole, America-is-built-on-immigration-and-so-they're-not-really-Americans argument.

That's what makes them American, really.

That they choose to identify more with the United States than their native land.

Plus there's the whole, America-is-built-on-immigration-and-so-they're-not-really-Americans argument.

Because everyone's too lazy to say "United States of Americans".

I believe the official name of the country is "The United States of America". This is because it is a country, on the North American continent, made up of many 'states' which are united under a federal government. Hence the people in the "United States of America" are 'Americans'. I don't see the problem.

Pwnd.
/thread

Because everyone's too lazy to say "United States of Americans".

That may be a point...though I don't believe citizens of England call themselves "Great British" either. Though they may well think it...:)

My point regarding this issue is not why you can't call yourselves "Americans", it is your language and you can call yourselves in it as you like it.

My point is why can't we call you "United Staters", as a direct translation from the "Estadounidenses" we use in spanish.

After all, you call us "Hispanics" when no country is called "Hispania", at least not anymore, (and no, hispanic is not a race, not at all), call deutsch people "germans" and so forth.

I think it is a little bit arrogant to be called "Americans" in the first place, but of course, that is a tradition of centuries, and more likely the english started called you that, instead of yourselves.

Nothing wrong with calling yourselves "americans", as long as you don't force us to call you "americanos" in spanish, that brings another different meaning.

I believe the official name of the country is "The United States of America". This is because it is a country, on the North American continent, made up of many 'states' which are united under a federal government. Hence the people in the "United States of America" are 'Americans'. I don't see the problem.

My point regarding this issue is not why you can't call yourselves "Americans", it is your language and you can call yourselves in it as you like it.

My point is why can't we call you "United Staters", as a direct translation from the "Estadounidenses" we use in spanish.

After all, you call us "Hispanics" when no country is called "Hispania", at least not anymore, (and no, hispanic is not a race, not at all), call deutsch people "germans" and so forth.

I think it is a little bit arrogant to be called "Americans" in the first place, but of course, that is a tradition of centuries, and more likely the english started called you that, instead of yourselves.

Nothing wrong with calling yourselves "americans", as long as you don't force us to call you "americanos" in spanish, that brings another different meaning.

Oh, what the hell, you call us all "Gringos" anyway. What more do you want? :D

It has something to do with spiting the big, mean yanquis.

Yanquis, gringos, Mr. Dangers...

We have a lot of despective terms for you in our languages, (I am speaking about the other half of America that can call themselves americans and usually argue about the term), and yet you seem to be offended by either the term "USian", (that I do not use because I find it rather silly), or the term "United Staters".

Care to elaborate why?

Yes, but pointing that out somewhat misses the point.

No country has the name "Earth" in its name. But if a country were founded with that name, wouldn't it be a little arrogant for its inhabitants to refer to themselves exclusively as "Earth residents"?

No, its not the full name of the country is the United Sates of America.

Why is it a problem for some people that residents of the U.S.A. to refer to themselves as Americans?
I am fully aware that the U.S. isn't the only nation in the Americas, however, unless I'm mistaken (I might be) it is the only one with America as part of its name.That's pretty much why - that the U.S. isn't the only nation in the Americas.
With that said, I'm not sure why other nations on these two contients are so eager to embrace the name that European imperialists gave the continents.

There's no other alternative.

Yes, there is. You can expand your usage of "United States" and "US" as an adjective. You can refer to "US residents" or "US citizens" instead of "Americans", for instance.

It's funny that people suggest an alternative is USian, because that's even more general than American. US is of course short for United States. Does that mean USians claim to be the only inhabitants of united federation of semi-autonomous states? How arrogant!

No, but "the United States" pretty much has one, exclusive meaning. Nobody outside of the US claims to be "United Statesian."

That's pretty much why - that the U.S. isn't the only nation in the Americas.
With that said, I'm not sure why other nations on these two contients are so eager to embrace the name that European imperialists gave the continents.

It has something to do with spiting the big, mean yanquis.

When the Americas were named Imperialism hadn't been put in the cradle!

As for the Immigrant point, true, but they're new in America.

Yes, but pointing that out somewhat misses the point.

No country has the name "Earth" in its name. But if a country were founded with that name, wouldn't it be a little arrogant for its inhabitants to refer to themselves exclusively as "Earth residents"?

It wouldn't be arrogant to call them Earthlings, because that's the name of their country. There's no other alternative.
It's funny that people suggest an alternative is USian, because that's even more general than American. US is of course short for United States. Does that mean USians claim to be the only inhabitants of united federation of semi-autonomous states? How arrogant!

(Just as an aside: the best possible alternative for American I have seen comes from Frank Lloyd Wright, who proposed the term "Usonian." It comes from United States of North America.)

My point regarding this issue is not why you can't call yourselves "Americans", it is your language and you can call yourselves in it as you like it.

My point is why can't we call you "United Staters", as a direct translation from the "Estadounidenses" we use in spanish.

After all, you call us "Hispanics" when no country is called "Hispania", at least not anymore, (and no, hispanic is not a race, not at all), call deutsch people "germans" and so forth.

I think it is a little bit arrogant to be called "Americans" in the first place, but of course, that is a tradition of centuries, and more likely the english started called you that, instead of yourselves.

Nothing wrong with calling yourselves "americans", as long as you don't force us to call you "americanos" in spanish, that brings another different meaning.

So I should be able to call you a Bolivarian then...

As far as calling Deutsch people germans, that would be because that is the english translation.


Also, I personally don't care if people call me a United Stater or USian.

Wasn't there an officially-declared moratorium on that debate?

Meh, I don't really care.

After all, you call us "Hispanics" when no country is called "Hispania", at least not anymore, (and no, hispanic is not a race, not at all), call deutsch people "germans" and so forth.

Actually, Spain is called Hispania in Spanish and Germans call themselves Deustchlanders, which would mean "German". Because we live in America, and we speak English, we call Roma Rome, Munchen Munich, etc. Also, the US is in the Americas, thus people therein are Americans.

There is absolutly nothing wrong with an american calling himself an american. As pointed out, the nation, United States of America, is included wholey in the area known as the Americas. I am an american in that I reside in the Americas and am a citizen of a nation within the Americas.

A brazilian, by the same basis, would have, technical, the same ability to call him accurately an American.

The problem is, however, that words change over time. And the word "american" has come to mean a citizen of the United States of America. If I call someone a "faggot" I can't claim mock surprise at his offense and claim I merely intended to call him a pile of sticks.

Yet the argument that "american" doesn't just mean "a citizen of the united states" and instead refers to someone from "the americas" argues with the same veracity that "faggot" means a pile of sticks.

It used to. The meanings of words, however, change

I personally think America has been here long enough to be identified as a race.
The rat race?

EDIT: Ooh, time-warp.

I personally think America has been here long enough to be identified as a race.

This really raises the most significant question: where do we get "Dutch" from "The Netherlands"?

Seriously:

Why don't citizens of Oceania refer to themselves as Oceanians? Perhaps because Australians, Malaysians, Indonesians (et al) derive from the names of their countries...and not their geographic designation?

(On a less related note...what exactly is the proper term for citizens of New Zealand?)

Actually, Spain is called Hispania in Spanish and Germans call themselves Deustchlanders, which would mean "German". Because we live in America, and we speak English, we call Roma Rome, Munchen Munich, etc. Also, the US in in the Americas, thus people therein are Americans.

Erhm, no.

Spain is called "España" in spanish. And "Español/Española/Españoles" is the proper term for the nationality.

For my response on the rest, check my other answers.

So I should be able to call you a Bolivarian then...

As far as calling Deutsch people germans, that would be because that is the english translation.


Also, I personally don't care if people call me a United Stater or USian.

Bolivarian I think is the term for people of another country, (Bolivia), so that would be wrong, as I am not from Bolivia, although I think you call them "Bolivian" in english.

And yes, we the rest of "americanos" doesn't like the term per se, but I, for one, understand it is traditional in your language, as is "german", or "spanish", or "chinese", so no problem with that. I have no bias against the term "American", as long we are speaking english.

Yes, but pointing that out somewhat misses the point.

No country has the name "Earth" in its name. But if a country were founded with that name, wouldn't it be a little arrogant for its inhabitants to refer to themselves exclusively as "Earth residents"?

Not really, no. Furthermore I would lobby for them to call themselves "Earthlings".

I personally think America has been here long enough to be identified as a race.

The Native Americans yes. (even if they are all from East Asia originally).

Other wise, there is no American race.

Obviously the US isn't the only country in the Americas, but as far as I know it's the only one who's citizens almost exclusively refer to themselves as Americans. People from Brazil call themselves Brazillian, people from Chile Chileans, from Argentina Argentines, ect. Unless people in other countries on in the Americas commonly (At least commonly enough to cause confusion) refer to themselves as American, I don't see what the problem is.

Apparently some Latin Americans don't like the term 'American' when used to refer to residents of the United States: they find it too exclusive.

It may seem petty to people here, but it's part of the standard information given to anyone in my company travelling to Brazil or Venezuela on business.

Bolivarian I think is the term for people of another country, (Bolivia), so that would be wrong, as I am not from Bolivia, although I think you call them "Bolivian" in english.

República Bolivariana de Venezuela or in english: Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, so why would it not be appropriate? (I am remembering correctly that you are from Venezuala, yes?)

Why is it a problem for some people that residents of the U.S.A. to refer to themselves as Americans?



I am fully aware that the U.S. isn't the only nation in the Americas, however, unless I'm mistaken (I might be) it is the only one with America as part of its name.

The other countries are on the North American continent, and therefore the people can call themselves American if they so choose.

Of course, I'm much happier calling myself Canadian!

Yankees?

Thats my shorthand for them.

That or "major danger to the civilised world"

I call northern and urban United States people "Americans."

I call southern and conservative United States people "crazy" or just "Christino-fascists," depending on what outrageousness they're spouting at the time.

República Bolivariana de Venezuela or in english: Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, so why would it not be appropriate? (I am remembering correctly that you are from Venezuala, yes?)

True, although I'd go for "Bolivarian Republican", as sounds more like "United Stater"!

Sorry, the change on the name is fairly new. I was born in the Republic of Venezuela, the Bolivarian was applied later.

But well, regarding that, I wouldn't mind, I am pretty proud of Bolívar, so it would be good.

You can call me "Bolivarian" if you want to.

"United Staters" is cumbersome to say, why don't we call them "Cowboys" instead.

Yankees?

Thats my shorthand for them.

That or "major danger to the civilised world"

This thread is pointless; it's just "omfg america iz so not K00l omg dey shud die"
thread. And, at the bitter end, all we will have accomplished is NOTHING!

It entertained me. That's something.

This thread is pointless; it's just "omfg america iz so not K00l omg dey shud die"
thread. And, at the bitter end, all we will have accomplished is NOTHING!!!! You might as well have a problem with English people saying they're United Kingdomers! So are the Welsh and Scots! Morturi te salutamus!

Why is it a problem for some people that residents of the U.S.A. to refer to themselves as Americans?



I am fully aware that the U.S. isn't the only nation in the Americas, however, unless I'm mistaken (I might be) it is the only one with America as part of its name.

Because some find the idea of the 's' one adds to Americas to mean North, South and Central America as a whole to be too difficult to understand.

You know, "the state" not being the same as "the states"
"America" not being the same as "the Americas"...
Instead, they have this need to be irritating and give names to Americans that Americans don't recognize and find annoying.

You might as well have a problem with English people saying they're United Kingdomers! So are the Welsh and Scots! Morturi te salutamus!
You picked a bad example; there's a lot of anti-Union sentiment floating around Britain right now.

Instead, they have this need to be irritating and give names to Americans that Americans don't recognize and find annoying.

As you do with most other people in the planet?

Accepting that American refers to people from the United States of America reveals a quirk in the English language.

If you describe someone as North American others will understand the description to include Americans and Canadians.

So: you add a qualifier and expand the field. Weird.

To answer an earlier question, someone from New Zealand is a New Zealander.

My point regarding this issue is not why you can't call yourselves "Americans", it is your language and you can call yourselves in it as you like it.

My point is why can't we call you "United Staters", as a direct translation from the "Estadounidenses" we use in spanish.

After all, you call us "Hispanics" when no country is called "Hispania", at least not anymore, (and no, hispanic is not a race, not at all), call deutsch people "germans" and so forth.

I think it is a little bit arrogant to be called "Americans" in the first place, but of course, that is a tradition of centuries, and more likely the english started called you that, instead of yourselves.

Nothing wrong with calling yourselves "americans", as long as you don't force us to call you "americanos" in spanish, that brings another different meaning.

Funny, I call people Brazilians, or Mexicans, or Italians, or French, or German, or Austrian or Swiss... you know, the name of their country.... you know, calling them the direct translation of what they call themselves, not something some other language has invented for them. No one in the US calls themselves United Statesers.

Yanquis, gringos, Mr. Dangers...

We have a lot of despective terms for you in our languages, (I am speaking about the other half of America that can call themselves americans and usually argue about the term), and yet you seem to be offended by either the term "USian", (that I do not use because I find it rather silly), or the term "United Staters".

Care to elaborate why?

I don't know, Aloysius, why do you think?

Question: if I talked about American vultures does that include the Andean condor?

So I should be able to call you a Bolivarian then...

As far as calling Deutsch people germans, that would be because that is the english translation.


Also, I personally don't care if people call me a United Stater or USian.

Germany comes from Germania, which was Latin, not English.

<snip> Yankee refers exclusively to New Englanders

Try telling that to people in Northern New South Wales.

I personally think America has been here long enough to be identified as a race.

How?
You have people from every corner of the planet here, of Africa, Asian, European and every other kind of descent. In my own family there are people who are fair-haired and blue eyed (from the Northern Italy heritage) to cafe au lait dark haired brown-eyed descendants from the Caribbean.

How can you possibly call such a disparate group a race? (Not to mention there's only one human race anyway.)

This really raises the most significant question: where do we get "Dutch" from "The Netherlands"?

Seriously:

Why don't citizens of Oceania refer to themselves as Oceanians? Perhaps because Australians, Malaysians, Indonesians (et al) derive from the names of their countries...and not their geographic designation?

(On a less related note...what exactly is the proper term for citizens of New Zealand?)

New Zealanders, I would imagine, though I have playfully called my friends from there Kiwis and Neo-Zeds.

My point regarding this issue is not why you can't call yourselves "Americans", it is your language and you can call yourselves in it as you like it.

My point is why can't we call you "United Staters", as a direct translation from the "Estadounidenses" we use in spanish.Because "United States" is an adjective used by more nations than just the USA...namely the United States of Mexico, as well as several historical and proposed ones.
Additionally, naming protocal does not name the people after the political description (citizens of the Peoples Republic of China are Chinese, not Peoples Republicans). The political designation can change (the US could become confederated or what have you).

After all, you call us "Hispanics" when no country is called "Hispania", at least not anymore, (and no, hispanic is not a race, not at all), call deutsch people "germans" and so forth.Deutschland is called Germany in England...ergo, Germans. "Hispanic" referes to the whole of the Latin world, not just those from Spain, who are Spanish.

Yes, there is. You can expand your usage of "United States" and "US" as an adjective. You can refer to "US residents" or "US citizens" instead of "Americans", for instance.



No, but "the United States" pretty much has one, exclusive meaning. Nobody outside of the US claims to be "United Statesian."
Wrong. Mexico is officially "The United States of Mexico". They are equally "United Statesian". Moreover, we do not name people based off of political designations. Should we start calling the French "Republicans" or people from the United Kingdom "United Kingdomites"?

Yankees?

Thats my shorthand for them.

That or "major danger to the civilised world"
Yankee refers exclusively to New Englanders

Yankees?

Thats my shorthand for them.

That or "major danger to the civilised world"

Hmm, I think that my name for you might be flamebaiter.

Question: if I talked about American vultures does that include the Andean condor?

Yes, and a great deal of lawyers.

Funny, I call people Brazilians, or Mexicans, or Italians, or French, or German, or Austrian or Swiss... you know, the name of their country.... you know, calling them the direct translation of what they call themselves, not something some other language has invented for them. No one in the US calls themselves United Statesers.

German is a word that some other language invented for them. And, they do not call themselves "german". Same with the french, that is not really a direct translation. Plus, "americans" is not exactly a direct derivation of "United States of America", as much is as derived as "United Staters".

Noone in Germany call themselves "germans"

I don't know, Aloysius, why do you think?

I get the main point, Kagonatán, pretty obvious, but there isn't a further point than "it is not the name we choose"? That was my question. That is why I asked "to elaborate", and not to "answer", or "explain".

Because "United States" is an adjective used by more nations than just the USA...namely the United States of Mexico, as well as several historical and proposed ones.
Additionally, naming protocal does not name the people after the political description (citizens of the Peoples Republic of China are Chinese, not Peoples Republicans). The political designation can change (the US could become confederated or what have you).

Wrong. Mexico is officially "The United States of Mexico". They are equally "United Statesian". Moreover, we do not name people based off of political designations. Should we start calling the French "Republicans" or people from the United Kingdom "United Kingdomites"?


That is a better answer to what I meant when I asked someone to "elaborate". Yet, as other people also could, and actually do, call themselves a more or less direct translation of "american", isn't "United Stater" in the same ground?

Yet I do accept the second point.

i think an American is a great thing to be...it's when people start hanging on the desciptive verbs that i have trouble with it.I do not like being called an:
Black American
White American
Gay American
Latino American
Japenese American
Jewish American
Native American
ect...ect...ect......can't we all be JUST AMERICANS?:confused:

i think an American is a great thing to be...it's when people start hanging on the desciptive verbs that i have trouble with it.I do not like being called an:
Black American
White American
Gay American
Latino American
Japenese American
Jewish American
Native American
ect...ect...ect......can't we all be JUST AMERICANS?:confused:

Yeah, I'd love to be called that, but I have to be called "Latinoamerican" because someone else already had taken the word :(

I don't mind calling the people of USA American. But I dislike it when they call their country America.

the only ones who really have a right to claim they are americans
are the native american indians, but any one born in the north or south americas can call themselves americans. besides does it really matter.:confused:

German is a word that some other language invented for them. And, they do not call themselves "german". Same with the french, that is not really a direct translation. Plus, "americans" is not exactly a direct derivation of "United States of America", as much is as derived as "United Staters".

Hm, let's see:

Êtes-vous français ? Oui, je suis la France.

What do you know -- in French, people call their country France. It IS their own name!

Regarding USians or United Statesers, as I have explained, no one here calls themselves. Some find it offensive. Why is it necessary to go out of one's way to be offensive? If I were speaking to a person from Germany in German, I would certainly call them a deutchlander, as I would call an Austrian an Österreicher. I would not call the Austrian a "republikan".

Noone in Germany call themselves "germans"
Blame the Roman Empire, then, who called the region Germania. Or Great Britain, from whence the English translation "Germany" came.

I get the main point, Kagonatán, pretty obvious, but there isn't a further point than "it is not the name we choose"?....

And as has also been pointed out, we are not the only United States in the world, Mexico, our close southern neighbor, being another. Oh, but we call them Mexicans and not United Staters.... so by the same logic, we should be left alone to be called Americans as well.

I'm not at all telling you that you should stop referring to this country as los estados unidos in Spanish -- but if you are going to refer to it in English to a resident of the country, it would be polite to use the name they choose.

A resident of the United States of Mexico may call himself Mexican, American, North American, or Latin American. All of these are accurate and conform to standards of identity. They would not refer to themselves as a "United Stater", "United Statesian", or any dozen other variants, as it does not conform to naming standards.

A resident of the French Republic may call himself French, European, or Western European. All of these are accurate and conform to the standards of identity. They would not refer to themselves as "Republican", as that does not conform.

A resident of the United States of America may call himself American or North American. Just because someone else can use it does not make it improper. Few, if any, people I've ever met from other countries of the Americas refer to themselves as "American"...it is a phenomenon of the Old World to identify oneself by continent.

I am curious...let's say that Australia breaks up into seperate countries, one of which calls itself "The Republic of Australia", while the other regions take up vastly different names (say we get "The Democratic Republic of Victoria"). Would people then demand that people from the Republic of Australia call themselves Republicans, just so people from Victoria can call themselves "Victorians" and "Australians" without any confusion?

You followed my point exactly.

On my previous post, I said I accepted your second point, that being that political descriptions aren't at all used in the nationality terms. That is, I accept entirely the argument you used again in this post. I still accept that as an extremely right and rational explanation.

Perhaps it is more clear now?

Try telling that to people in Northern New South Wales.
Try telling someone from Georgia they are a Yankee.
Yankee refers to New England and parts of New York at best, derived from a small group that originally settled in the area.

That is a better answer to what I meant when I asked someone to "elaborate". Yet, as other people also could, and actually do, call themselves a more or less direct translation of "american", isn't "United Stater" in the same ground?

Yet I do accept the second point.
I'm not sure I fully follow your point.

A resident of the United States of Mexico may call himself Mexican, American, North American, or Latin American. All of these are accurate and conform to standards of identity. They would not refer to themselves as a "United Stater", "United Statesian", or any dozen other variants, as it does not conform to naming standards.

A resident of the French Republic may call himself French, European, or Western European. All of these are accurate and conform to the standards of identity. They would not refer to themselves as "Republican", as that does not conform.

A resident of the United States of America may call himself American or North American. Just because someone else can use it does not make it improper. Few, if any, people I've ever met from other countries of the Americas refer to themselves as "American"...it is a phenomenon of the Old World to identify oneself by continent.


I am curious...let's say that Australia breaks up into seperate countries, one of which calls itself "The Republic of Australia", while the other regions take up vastly different names (say we get "The Democratic Republic of Victoria"). Would people then demand that people from the Republic of Australia call themselves Republicans, just so people from Victoria can call themselves "Victorians" and "Australians" without any confusion?

I do it for the lulz.

If you say American, one assumes citizen of the U.S. - but it could also mean someone from both continents.

If you want to be more specific, say U.S. Americans.

Cheez this again?

When the Canadians want to be called Americans; then we can talk about it. ;)

Official Nation Name: Kingdom of Spain
Shortened Name: Spain
Citizens: Spanish

Official Nation Name: The Peoples Republic of China
Shortened Name: China
Citizens: Chinese

Official Nation Name: Republic of South Africa
Shortened Name: South Africa
Citizens: South African

Official Nation Name: Commonwealth of Australia
Shortened Name: Australia
Citizens: Australian

Official Nation Name: United States of Mexico
Shortened Name: Mexico
Citizens: Mexican

Do we notice a pattern in English naming and identity standards? Good. Now apply it to the nation currently known as "The United States of America"

Official Nation Name: United States of America
Shortened Name: America
Citizens: American

Of all those you said, the shortened form of "America", is the only one that has another meaning for other people. Noone else calls "Mexico", "Spain" ,or "China" something else. For others, America is a continent, not a country.

The exception being "South Africa", but then I'd have to ask people from other countries in the South Part of Africa how do they call themselves.

The point of that shortened form of "America" for the "United States of America", is only comparable to South Africa being shortened to "Africa". I bet the rest of the africans would be pissed.

I am not opposing per se that you call your country that way, but at least accept it is confusing for others, and can be seen, with a little amount of bias, as arrogant that a country called "America" is contained in "North America", that then is contained in "America"

I don't mind calling the people of USA American. But I dislike it when they call their country America.
Official Nation Name: Kingdom of Spain
Shortened Name: Spain
Citizens: Spanish

Official Nation Name: The Peoples Republic of China
Shortened Name: China
Citizens: Chinese

Official Nation Name: Republic of South Africa
Shortened Name: South Africa
Citizens: South African

Official Nation Name: Commonwealth of Australia
Shortened Name: Australia
Citizens: Australian

Official Nation Name: United States of Mexico
Shortened Name: Mexico
Citizens: Mexican

Do we notice a pattern in English naming and identity standards? Good. Now apply it to the nation currently known as "The United States of America"

Official Nation Name: United States of America
Shortened Name: America
Citizens: American

if tomorrow, we became a monarchy, it would look like this:
Official Nation Name: Kingdom of America
Shortened Name: America
Citizens: American

...Why don't y'all just do what we did! Become overly proud of your state then you can refer to yourself as a New Yorker, Georgian, Floridian...Just another example of how great Texas and Texans are... :D

Official Nation Name: Kingdom of Spain
Shortened Name: Spain
Citizens: Spanish
SNIPPY
Do we notice a pattern in English naming and identity standards? Good. Now apply it to the nation currently known as "The United States of America"

Official Nation Name: United States of America
Shortened Name: America
Citizens: American

if tomorrow, we became a monarchy, it would look like this:
Official Nation Name: Kingdom of America
Shortened Name: America
Citizens: American
But if there were a continent called North Spain and one called South Spain, I would say "Kingdom of Spain" instead of just Spain.

We have a ton of Koreans where I live and we (and them too) always refer to them as Koreans regardless of their country of origin, or, more typically, the more general "Asian" I'm talking about the name of the country not the name of the people. If you said that Kim Jong-Il is the leader of Korea, what would a person from South Korea (or anyone) say to that?

Yes, but pointing that out somewhat misses the point.

No country has the name "Earth" in its name. But if a country were founded with that name, wouldn't it be a little arrogant for its inhabitants to refer to themselves exclusively as "Earth residents"?

We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

But if there were a continent called North Spain and one called South Spain, I would say "Kingdom of Spain" instead of just Spain.

We have a ton of Koreans where I live and we (and them too) always refer to them as Koreans regardless of their country of origin, or, more typically, the more general "Asian"

Of all those you said, the shortened form of "America", is the only one that has another meaning for other people. Noone else calls "Mexico", "Spain" ,or "China" something else. For others, America is a continent, not a country.So a word can't have two meanings and senses? Why not? Because it is therefore ambiguous and might require someone to actually say something more than "I'm American"? Who else feels the need to identify themselves as such, but can't take the extra word to say "I'm North American" or "I'm Latin American"?

The exception being "South Africa", but then I'd have to ask people from other countries in the South Part of Africa how do they call themselves.

The point of that shortened form of "America" for the "United States of America", is only comparable to South Africa being shortened to "Africa". I bet the rest of the africans would be pissed.Considering the fact that most Africans align themselves not by continent, not by nation, but by tribe, I doubt it.

Citizens of American nations identify themselves not on the continental level, as do Europeans, but on the national level.

I am not opposing per se that you call your country that way, but at least accept it is confusing for others, and can be seen, with a little amount of bias, as arrogant that a country called "America" is contained in "North America", that then is contained in "America"
I consider it arrogant that they feel the need to denigrate my national identity just so they can identify themselves in more ways (untrue, but the essence is the same as what you said).
The ambiguity of words is not my problem. If you are confused, fine, I'll explain further: I'm from Boston. That dude? Yeah, he's from La Paz. Her? Sao Paulo.

Not to mention, it is widely accepted that "America" refers to The United States of America...unless I'm missing something from all those chanting "Death to America". No one can honestly state that they are so incredibly confused when someone says "I'm American" that they are unable to either a) assume meaning or b) ask.

I'm terribly sorry that 13 colonies broke away and established themselves as 13 states that were united that happened to be on the American continent. Blame the British for the distinction that lead to colonists thinking of themselves as "American" and not something else (they created the dicotomy of American or British). It isn't arrogance, it's a nations name. If people are really that desperate for something to be offended over, I suggest being offended by the situations of Kenya, Chad, Sudan, or any other actually relevant issue.

Oh, don't worry...I'm a New Englander first ;)
Doubtful. People are inherently lazy.
Hence why people refuse to call themselves "North Americans", "South Americans" or "Latin Americans" when choosing to identify by continent. There is no need for ambiguity. People just choose to make this non-issue into something.
I call myself North American all the time. Especially when I'm talking about a video game and when its coming to North Am., or when I'm pointing out differences between the way British and North Americans talk.

...Why don't y'all just do what we did! Become overly proud of your state then you can refer to yourself as a New Yorker, Georgian, Floridian...Just another example of how great Texas and Texans are... :D
Oh, don't worry...I'm a New Englander first ;)
But if there were a continent called North Spain and one called South Spain, I would say "Kingdom of Spain" instead of just Spain.Doubtful. People are inherently lazy.
Hence why people refuse to call themselves "North Americans", "South Americans" or "Latin Americans" when choosing to identify by continent. There is no need for ambiguity. People just choose to make this non-issue into something.

I don't mind calling the people of USA American. But I dislike it when they call their country America.

Why?

I'm talking about the name of the country not the name of the people. If you said that Kim Jong-Il is the leader of Korea, what would a person from South Korea (or anyone) say to that?

The OP was debating about calling someone a USian or a United States of American or something ridiculous like that.

EDIT: Using America as a word for the entire country doesn't happen too frequently. Sure, it's used colloqially or simply to save breath, but a lot of people say : The United States of America or the United States, especially in official documents. I prefer "The United States" over "America"-- it sounds more sophisticated and intimidating.

Of all those you said, the shortened form of "America", is the only one that has another meaning for other people. Noone else calls "Mexico", "Spain" ,or "China" something else. For others, America is a continent, not a country.

The exception being "South Africa", but then I'd have to ask people from other countries in the South Part of Africa how do they call themselves.

The point of that shortened form of "America" for the "United States of America", is only comparable to South Africa being shortened to "Africa". I bet the rest of the africans would be pissed.

I am not opposing per se that you call your country that way, but at least accept it is confusing for others, and can be seen, with a little amount of bias, as arrogant that a country called "America" is contained in "North America", that then is contained in "America"

Only to those ignorant of geology, as North and South America are on separate tectonic plates and thusly 2 different continents.

I call myself North American all the time. Especially when I'm talking about a video game and when its coming to North Am., or when I'm pointing out differences between the way British and North Americans talk.

So you deliniate a difference between the nation of America and the continent of North America...what's the issue? Why do you have a problem with me saying "I'm American" to refer to my nationality, and others saying "I'm North American"? It seems clear that, in your mind, there is a distinction to be made.

So you deliniate a difference between the nation of America and the continent of North America...what's the issue? Why do you have a problem with me saying "I'm American" to refer to my nationality, and others saying "I'm North American"? It seems clear that, in your mind, there is a distinction to be made.

How dare you have the audacity to include yourself with the Canadians. It should be, "I'm North American-excluding-the-northern-wasteland".;)

So you deliniate a difference between the nation of America and the continent of North America...what's the issue? Why do you have a problem with me saying "I'm American" to refer to my nationality, and others saying "I'm North American"? It seems clear that, in your mind, there is a distinction to be made.
I don't have a problem with "American", I have a problem when you say your country is "America". When I say North American I am implying that the economy or culture is similar in Canada and the USA in this instance. But, when some one asks "what country are you from?" and you say "America" that is incorrect, or ambiguous.

I call southern and conservative United States people "crazy" or just "Christino-fascists," depending on what outrageousness they're spouting at the time.

Oh, look, it only took three pages for someone to stereotype the South. Thank you, we needed your negative image so much.

Oh, look, it only took three pages for someone to stereotype the South. Thank you, we needed your negative image so much.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

I don't have a problem with "American", I have a problem when you say your country is "America". When I say North American I am implying that the economy or culture is similar in Canada and the USA in this instance. But, when some one asks "what country are you from?" and you say "America" that is incorrect, or ambiguous.

Why is it 'incorrect or ambiguous'?

For others, America is a continent, not a country.

Except it's not "a continent". You're a North American (if you live on that continent), a South American (if you live on THAT continent), or a Central American (variously described as part of North America or a region in its own right).

I'm a North American who is also an American.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

And may I also point out they all have the definition of Yankee wrong? (I'm assuming you're from the South, too.)

Yankees= people north of the Mason-Dixon. So New Yorkers are Yankees, too. Silly Northerners. :p How anyone can live where snow plows are a winter necessity is beyond me...

I'm talking about the name of the country not the name of the people. If you said that Kim Jong-Il is the leader of Korea, what would a person from South Korea (or anyone) say to that?

We wouldn't say that. We would say he is the leader of North Korea. That is the name of his country.

And may I also point out they all have the definition of Yankee wrong? (I'm assuming you're from the South, too.)

Yankees= people north of the Mason-Dixon. So New Yorkers are Yankees, too. Silly Northerners. :p How anyone can live where snow plows are a winter necessity is beyond me...
That definition, while more accurate and considered acceptable, still isn't the fully accurate one (New England, usually extended to the City area of New York). Someone from PA isn't a Yankee (hence the Yankee-Pennamite Wars...a series of wars between CT and PA

So a word can't have two meanings and senses? Why not? Because it is therefore ambiguous and might require someone to actually say something more than "I'm American"? Who else feels the need to identify themselves as such, but can't take the extra word to say "I'm North American" or "I'm Latin American"?

It can have two meanings and two senses, yes.

So, instead of asking the people from the United States to add something else to their nationality, you are asking everyone else in the continent?

Who else feels the need?

All the rest of the americans, meaning, all the rest of the people living in the continent. Why they can take the extra word and you don't?

Considering the fact that most Africans align themselves not by continent, not by nation, but by tribe, I doubt it.

Not pertinent to the hypothetical situation. Lots would be still pissed, I bet. African Cup, African Union, take those examples.

Citizens of American nations identify themselves not on the continental level, as do Europeans, but on the national level.

Yes we do, when we talk about the continent as a whole. when we talking in the national level, we identify ourselves with national terms. In the continental level, we identify ourselves as such, be "latinoamerican" or "american".

I consider it arrogant that they feel the need to denigrate my national identity just so they can identify themselves in more ways (untrue, but the essence is the same as what you said).

I consider it arrogant that they feel the need to denigrate my continental identity just so they can identify themselves in more ways.

That argument goes both ways.

Not to mention, it is widely accepted that "America" refers to The United States of America...unless I'm missing something from all those chanting "Death to America".

It is widely accepted in the United States of America.

I don't chant that, not a lot of people from where I live, and yet we do not widely accept that.

Blame the British for the distinction that lead to colonists thinking of themselves as "American" and not something else (they created the dicotomy of American or British). It isn't arrogance, it's a nations name. If people are really that desperate for something to be offended over, I suggest being offended by the situations of Kenya, Chad, Sudan, or any other actually relevant issue.

I already stated that the british were more likely the ones to blame. Read my previous posts on the issue.

Why is it 'incorrect or ambiguous'?

If you look up the definition of America, it has multiple meanings.

That definition, while more accurate and considered acceptable, still isn't the fully accurate one (New England, usually extended to the City area of New York). Someone from PA isn't a Yankee

All depends on who you ask. Ask someone from up North, they'll say one thing. Ask someone from the South, they'll probably repeat what I said. (Also debated: Is Maryland a Southern state? Probably, but by definition of some of my friends once you leave sweet tea & grits country you're out of the South.)

Only to those ignorant of geology, as North and Couth America are on seperate tectonic plate4s and thusly 2 different continents.

Totally impertinent.

Do you say Eurasia, I guess?

Plus, Part of Venezuela lays over the Caribbean plate, that means that if I live in that part I am caribbean and not South American?

I don't have a problem with "American", I have a problem when you say your country is "America". When I say North American I am implying that the economy or culture is similar in Canada and the USA in this instance. But, when some one asks "what country are you from?" and you say "America" that is incorrect, or ambiguous.

No more incorrect, or ambiguous, than you calling yourself Canadian.

Except it's not "a continent". You're a North American (if you live on that continent), a South American (if you live on THAT continent), or a Central American (variously described as part of North America or a region in its own right).

I'm a North American who is also an American.

America is a continent...Divided in three sub continents, according to standard political divisions. North America, Central America, (that sometimes is comprised in one of the other two), and South America.

You are an American who is also a North American who is also an American.

And may I also point out they all have the definition of Yankee wrong? (I'm assuming you're from the South, too.)

Yankees= people north of the Mason-Dixon. So New Yorkers are Yankees, too. Silly Northerners. :p How anyone can live where snow plows are a winter necessity is beyond me...

And yet Virginia is in the south and needs snowplows, too.
Silly Southerners!

Yes we do, when we talk about the continent as a whole. when we talking in the national level, we identify ourselves with national terms. In the continental level, we identify ourselves as such, be "latinoamerican" or "american".

It's not one continent though, 'North America' and 'South America' two seperate continental plates

I consider it arrogant that they feel the need to denigrate my continental identity just so they can identify themselves in more ways.

I consider it ridiculous that you don't realize that you live on a separate continent from 'United Staters'

I'm from US America and like the term 'USian' and think that the term 'American' to just refer to those that live in the United States a bit ambiguous. But since so many people get all butt hurt over the term for some reason, I just say 'US American' on these boards now.

It's not a new debate nor is 'USian' a new term. Since the 1800's there have been citizens of the US that have argued that it is arrogant and ambiguous.

I recently heard the term 'Merkin' to refer to US Americans, now THAT sounds derogatory, although I think it's funny personally.

America is a continent...Divided in three sub continents, according to standard political divisions. North America, Central America, (that sometimes is comprised in one of the other two), and South America.

You are an American who is also a North American who is also an American.

No, it isn't...
Once again two separate continental plates, thusly two continents.

It's not one continent though, 'North America' and 'South America' two seperate continental plates

I already answered to this.

I consider it ridiculous that you don't realize that you live on a separate continent from 'United Staters'

In a different sub continent, yes.

I have no qualms considering you "Americans", although, I have already said that.

No, it isn't...
Once again two separate continental plates, thusly two continents.

Read my point on that issue, please...

Please remmeber the time warps...

I already answered to this.
In a different sub continent, yes.
Sorry, but your just wrong... 2 continental plates means 2 continents, not 1. It's not your fault that you were taught something that is wrong.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Plate_tectonics_map.gif/800px-Plate_tectonics_map.gif
I have no qualms considering you "Americans", although, I have already said that.

Acknowledged

Read my point on that issue, please...

Please remmeber the time warps...

see this: post 101 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13469295&postcount=101)

I call myself an American and if you have a problem with that you can go #*!$ yourselves. :upyours:


I think that's the reaction a select few of you were searching for. :p
As always, I cater to an elite group.

Sorry, but your just wrong... 2 continental plates means 2 continents, not 1. It's not your fault that you were taught something that is wrong.
*Image edited*

As I said, given the issue at hand, that point is impertinent. Geological information doesn't translate like that.

Should be say that the french are "Euroasians", then?

Because well, they call themselves "Europeans".

And may I also point out they all have the definition of Yankee wrong? (I'm assuming you're from the South, too.)

Yankees= people north of the Mason-Dixon. So New Yorkers are Yankees, too. Silly Northerners. :p How anyone can live where snow plows are a winter necessity is beyond me...

I live in that vague area south of the Mason-Dixon line, but north of "the South"

Though I do I eat grits once a week. I guess I count :p

Oh, look, it only took three pages for someone to stereotype the South. Thank you, we needed your negative image so much.

I'm sorry, but every time I see a southerner on TV they're being asses. The only southerner I know that isn't crazy is my boyfriend, and his family is.. crazy.

I live in that vague area south of the Mason-Dixon line, but north of "the South"

Though I do I eat grits once a week. I guess I count :p

It's a tough call for some places, though I believe if you can actually FIND grits and sweet tea, you're probably in the South.

Or Heaven. If there is no sweet tea in Heaven, count me out. I need my sugar fix, dammit.

And for this "American"/"USian"/"USer" foolishness, can't this be just another standard of self-identification? I choose to identify myself as a North American/American/Southern/(insert state)ian. But usually I just pick the most specific identifier. If you want to say people residing in the United States of America are USians, you can have at it, but when talking to me I'd prefer you use "American". Wouldn't that be the easiest way to go about it?

America is a continent...Divided in three sub continents, according to standard political divisions. North America, Central America, (that sometimes is comprised in one of the other two), and South America.

You are an American who is also a North American who is also an American.

No... it is not merely a political division. They are on separate tectonic plates.

http://geography.about.com/od/geographyglossaryc/g/Continents.htm

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Continents

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/continents

No... it is not merely a political division. They are on separate tectonic plates.

http://geography.about.com/od/geographyglossaryc/g/Continents.htm

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Continents

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/continents

Don't bother Kat, I've pointed that out to her several times.

All depends on who you ask. Ask someone from up North, they'll say one thing. Ask someone from the South, they'll probably repeat what I said. (Also debated: Is Maryland a Southern state? Probably, but by definition of some of my friends once you leave sweet tea & grits country you're out of the South.)

I'd say if they're northern, it's only because they were held there at gunpoint.

No... it is not merely a political division. They are on separate tectonic plates.

http://geography.about.com/od/geographyglossaryc/g/Continents.htm

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Continents

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/continents

Should I repeat again what I said about geological information?

It IS impertinent.

Call me when you hear about the Eurasian Union, or the Eurasian Parliament, and I'll accept that argument.

Don't bother Kat, I've pointed that out to her several times.

And I answered, and answered again, and you just repeated and repeated.

As I said, given the issue at hand, that point is impertinent. Geological information doesn't translate like that.

Should be say that the french are "Euroasians", then?

Because well, they call themselves "Europeans".

Europe and Asia being two different continents, no.

Should I repeat again what I said about geological information?

It IS impertinent.

Call me when you hear about the Eurasian Union, or the Eurasian Parliament, and I'll accept that argument.

So, basically what you're saying is facts have no effect on you?
That the fact that North and South America are on two separate continental plates doesn't make your assertion that the distinction is political completely false.

Europe and Asia being two different continents, no.

"Those who consider there to be seven continents refer to a separate Europe and Asia (divided at the Ural Mountains in western Russia) while those who prefer six continents refer to the joined land mass (and single tectonic plate) as Eurasia. In some countries, the Americas are combined into one continent."

"Europe - the 2nd smallest continent (actually a vast peninsula of Eurasia); the British use `Europe' to refer to all of the continent except the British Isles"

"One of the six or seven great divisions of land on the globe"

Taken from each of your links, by the way.

So, America can be one continent, and also Eurasia.

Yet, I am talking about political divisions.

So, your are favouring one theory over other just because it is convenient for your argument or I am lost?

Europe and Asia being two different continents, no.

Actually Kat, geologically speaking, no they aren't...
The Europe/Asia distinction is a geopolitical distinction based on past misconceptions. The majority of both continents rest on one tectonic plate.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Plate_tectonics_map.gif/800px-Plate_tectonics_map.gif

"USian" sounds silly. And the "United States of America" is hardly the only collection of "United States" there is, so "United Staters" also fails.

Also, no one usually refers to the continents as a singular "America." The term "The Americas" is used most often when talking about the large land masses, as they are two continents, North and South America. There is no geographical location of "America" singular.

Furthermore, "The United States of America" was the first nation to become independent of Europe after colonization on either of the two continents to decide they wanted the name. I guess you could say they got dibs on it first, sort of like calling shotgun I suppose. Or like copyrighting.

See, I can nitpick too.

In any case, I refer to myself as an American, though the country I never refer to just as "America." If one wants to refer to me as something other than an American to indicate my nationality, one could say "United States Citizen" or "US citizen," or "US resident." Or one could get more specific and call me a Californian. Or even more specific, a Northern Californian.

Actually Kat, geologically speaking, no they aren't...
The Europe/Asia distinction is a geopolitical distinction based on past misconceptions. The majority of both continents rest on one tectonic plate.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Plate_tectonics_map.gif/800px-Plate_tectonics_map.gif

Shouldn't we apply the same distinction of Eurasia in Europe and Asia, GEOPOLITICALLY speaking, as I said before to America, then? Based on the same past misconception?

The term America well predates the current geological theories, I believe.

And then rendering the geological information impertinent to the GEOPOLITICAL relation?

Also, no one usually refers to the continents as a singular "America." The term "The Americas" is used most often when talking about the large land masses, as they are two continents, North and South America. There is no geographical location of "America" singular.

Actually in a lot of places they are taught that there is 1 continent called America
The seven-continent model is usually taught in Western Europe, Northern Europe, Central Europe, Southeastern Europe, China and most English-speaking countries. The six-continent combined-Eurasia model is preferred by the geographic community, Russia, Eastern Europe, and Japan. The six-continent combined-America model is taught in Latin America, the Iberian Peninsula, Italy, Iran, Greece and some other parts of Europe; this model may be taught to include only the five inhabited continents (excluding Antarctica)—as depicted in the Olympic logo.

The names Oceania or Australasia are sometimes used in place of Australia. For example, the Atlas of Canada names Oceania, as does the model taught in Latin America and Iberia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continents#Number_of_continents

Wrong. Mexico is officially "The United States of Mexico".

I'm aware of that.

They are equally "United Statesian".

No, they're not. This is not a technical matter, but a matter of convention.

Nobody refers to people from Mexico as "people from the United States." Nobody refers to the government of Mexico as "the US government."

It may have that title in its official name, but unlike here, it has not morphed into a name in itself.

"America" and "American" are a different matter. Millions of people who do not live in the US refer to themselves as Americans, because they live within the two continents sometimes called America.

Moreover, we do not name people based off of political designations.

Not generally, no. But as a simple matter of fact, we already do this with the United States.

I think the wikipedia quote solved the debate. We are just taught different models, and as long they do not concur, we can't agree on that matter.

I should also add that the wikipedia quote has a mistake, (unrelated). Both the Iberian Peninsula and Italy are considered to be in Western Europe, it should say "in most of Western Europe", or just put a specific list of countries.

Shouldn't we apply the same distinction of Eurasia in Europe and Asia, GEOPOLITICALLY speaking, as I said before to America, then? Based on the same past misconception?

The term America well predates the current geological theories, I believe.

And then rendering the geological information impertinent to the GEOPOLITICAL relation?

No.
I apply the same thinking to Eurasia as I do to the Americas. Any time when I do refer to 'Europe' as 'Europe' is because I have screwed up and fallen back to what I was incorrectly taught when I was in school.

I'm sorry, but every time I see a southerner on TV they're being asses. The only southerner I know that isn't crazy is my boyfriend, and his family is.. crazy.

Glad you've only met asshats, but your boyfriend's family isn't all of the population of the southern United States. And if I believed everything I saw on TV, everyone in New York is a cussing jerk, every female in California has fake boobs, and everyone in Texas is an idiot cowboy. I'm not that gullible.

It can have two meanings and two senses, yes.

So, instead of asking the people from the United States to add something else to their nationality, you are asking everyone else in the continent?

Who else feels the need?

All the rest of the americans, meaning, all the rest of the people living in the continent. Why they can take the extra word and you don't?I feel absolutly no need to add a term to either. I'm not the one complaining about the ambiguity. If I say "I'm an American" and someone is confused, I'll clarify. I feel no need to add another word, nor require others to. However, if you are refering to the continents, North America and South America are their proper names.



Not pertinent to the hypothetical situation. Lots would be still pissed, I bet. African Cup, African Union, take those examples.Very pertinent. "Africans" don't call themselves "Africans"...they are Hutu, Yoruba, etc.



Yes we do, when we talk about the continent as a whole. when we talking in the national level, we identify ourselves with national terms. In the continental level, we identify ourselves as such, be "latinoamerican" or "american".When, exactly, do you identify by your continent rather than your nationality? I'm really curious...



I consider it arrogant that they feel the need to denigrate my continental identity just so they can identify themselves in more ways.

That argument goes both ways.Which was exactly my point...



It is widely accepted in the United States of America.Really? And no where else? Because it was well accepted when I was in Europe, Central America, and Canada, and when my friends were in Africa and Australia, and now with my friend in Asia. I've yet to see anyone actually confused when someone says "I'm American".

I don't chant that, not a lot of people from where I live, and yet we do not widely accept that.I've never had someone say "Wait...by American, do you mean from the US, or just from the continent?" And no, I don't fit the stereotypes of the ugly American, nor do I have an "American" accent.

All depends on who you ask. Ask someone from up North, they'll say one thing. Ask someone from the South, they'll probably repeat what I said. (Also debated: Is Maryland a Southern state? Probably, but by definition of some of my friends once you leave sweet tea & grits country you're out of the South.)"Ask a foreigner what a Yankee is, they'll tell you "American". Ask an American and they'll say "Northerner". Ask a Northerner, and they'll say "A New Englander"."
Point taken...but really, it is a defined group.

Should I repeat again what I said about geological information?

It IS impertinent.

Call me when you hear about the Eurasian Union, or the Eurasian Parliament, and I'll accept that argument.
You're reversing the argument. We are arguing that North and South America are individual and independent continents. You are arguing that Europe and Asia are seperate. The two arguments don't follow the same logic. Your argument would have to be about how Europe and Asia are on the same plate and therefore one continent, not two.

The issue in question is if it is arrogant for citizens of the United States of America to refer to themselves as "American", due to the fact that other people are also accuratly refered to by the same title. How does refering to ourselves as "US" or anything else from "United States" solve this issue then, given that Mexicans can use this same title?

Actually the issue I raised was why do some people get upset/take offense to people from the United States of America being referred to as 'Americans'.

I feel absolutly no need to add a term to either. I'm not the one complaining about the ambiguity. If I say "I'm an American" and someone is confused, I'll clarify. I feel no need to add another word, nor require others to. However, if you are refering to the continents, North America and South America are their proper names.

As it was already clarified, according to your model.


Very pertinent. "Africans" don't call themselves "Africans"...they are Hutu, Yoruba, etc.

When they speak about the population of the continent, I bet they say "Africans". Which is my point entirely. when they speak aobut the population of their tribe, they say Swahili, Masai, Hutu, Yoruba, etc.

IWhen, exactly, do you identify by your continent rather than your nationality? I'm really curious...

"Are you american or european?"

For instance.

"¿Eres americano o europeo?"

When I ask that, I am not even considering the fact that you could understand that american, or americano, as "citizen of the United States of America".

Which was exactly my point...

IReally? And no where else? Because it was well accepted when I was in Europe, Central America, and Canada, and when my friends were in Africa and Australia, and now with my friend in Asia. I've yet to see anyone actually confused when someone says "I'm American".

I've never had someone say "Wait...by American, do you mean from the US, or just from the continent?" And no, I don't fit the stereotypes of the ugly American, nor do I have an "American" accent.

Travel through the rest of America. Not around Europe.

I mean, where the other americans live.


IYou're reversing the argument. We are arguing that North and South America are individual and independent continents. You are arguing that Europe and Asia are seperate. The two arguments don't follow the same logic. Your argument would have to be about how Europe and Asia are on the same plate and therefore one continent, not two.

Already explained, too. Different models, different theories.

If you can accept the model that America is indeed two continents, then I can argue back that Eurasia is also one continent, and not two, as other theory says.

My point about the impertinent argument is that nationality terms are based on geopolitical differences, not geological ones. If so, we would say "The Eurasian Union".

I was under the impression that the international political climate was pretty anti-American currently. I say if anybody would be proud to define themselves along with the majority of people who refer to themselves as American then more power to them, and I am sure if they are from somewhere other than the states they can easily explain that. Personally I would rather try and define my nationality while not remaining mutually exclusive to its political system.

I suppose if I referred to myself as a united states denizen that might be a step in the right direction.

Actually the issue I raised was why do some people get upset/take offense to people from the United States of America being referred to as 'Americans'.

I do not take offense/get upset by that.

I just find calling your country "America" rather funny, that's all, but I blame the british and the typical sillyness inherent to any language.

I hope I have answered now the initial question of my thread, from my part.

I'm aware of that.



No, they're not. This is not a technical matter, but a matter of convention.

Nobody refers to people from Mexico as "people from the United States." Nobody refers to the government of Mexico as "the US government."

It may have that title in its official name, but unlike here, it has not morphed into a name in itself.

"America" and "American" are a different matter. Millions of people who do not live in the US refer to themselves as Americans.



Not generally, no. But as a simple matter of fact, we already do this with the United States.

The issue in question is if it is arrogant for citizens of the United States of America to refer to themselves as "American", due to the fact that other people are also accuratly refered to by the same title. How does refering to ourselves as "US" or anything else from "United States" solve this issue then, given that Mexicans can use this same title?

How does refering to ourselves as "US" or anything else from "United States" solve this issue then, given that Mexicans can use this same title?

Because they can't. Of course, that "can't" is really just an extreme case of "don't", because any "rule" here is ultimately a matter of convention.

Again, "the United States" is routinely and exclusively used by people both in and outside of the US to refer to the United States of America. Nobody refers to Mexico by referencing "the United States", any more than people refer to Chile as "the Republic" (outside of limited contexts.) For Mexico, "the United States" is merely a title. For the US, it has morphed into another name.

I should also add that the wikipedia quote has a mistake, (unrelated). Both the Iberian Peninsula and Italy are considered to be in Western Europe, it should say "in most of Western Europe", or just put a specific list of countries.

Not a mistake, they used Iberian Peninsula rather than saying Spain and Portugal, saying most of Western Europe would have been inaccurate.



I think the wikipedia quote solved the debate. We are just taught different models, and as long they do not concur, we can't agree on that matter.

Or until you acknowledge that what you were taught is wrong, as what I was taught in school was wrong (I was taught the 7 continent model).

Also I'm not singly you out Aelosia (or at least not trying to) I'm referring to anyone who can't get past having been taught wrong.

I do not take offense/get upset by that.

I just find calling your country "America" rather funny, that's all, but I blame the british and the typical sillyness inherent to any language.

I hope I have answered now the initial question of my thread, from my part.

Yes you have, a while back now actually (like in your first post when you said as much).

And how is this different from the concept "America"?

It's quite simple.

Nobody outside the USA talks about being from the United States.

Plenty of people outside the USA talk about being from America.

Actually the issue I raised was why do some people get upset/take offense to people from the United States of America being referred to as 'Americans'.ah. my b.

When they speak about the population of the continent, I bet they say "Africans". Which is my point entirely. when they speak aobut the population of their tribe, they say Swahili, Masai, Hutu, Yoruba, etc.Yes. But what they identify as is tribal, not continental. Few, if any (with the strange case of some Europeans), identify by continent.



"Are you american or european?"

For instance.

"¿Eres americano o europeo?"

When I ask that, I am not even considering the fact that you could understand that american, or americano, as "citizen of the United States of America".

Which was exactly my point...That isn't at all ambiguous...Europe is a continent...so why would you be asking Is he from continent A or country Q? Context. Otherwise, the country could be Spain: Are you Spanish or European?"

The only time it would not be explicit is regarding Australia and America. Any other case would be implied. In the ambiguous case, it is a simple question to clarify.



Travel through the rest of America. Not around Europe.

I mean, where the other americans live.I wasn't aware that Canada and Central America were in Europe.

I was in Europe, Central America, and Canada




Already explained, too. Different models, different theories.

If you can accept the model that America is indeed two continents, then I can argue back that Eurasia is also one continent, and not two, as other theory says.

My point about the impertinent argument is that nationality terms are based on geopolitical differences, not geological ones. If so, we would say "The Eurasian Union".They are physically seperate, however. They aren't even touching since 1914

Because they can't. Of course, that "can't" is really just an extreme case of "don't", because any "rule" here is ultimately a matter of convention.

Again, "the United States" is routinely and exclusively used by people both in and outside of the US to refer to the United States of America. Nobody refers to Mexico by referencing "the United States", any more than people refer to Chile as "the Republic" (outside of limited contexts.) For Mexico, "the United States" is merely a title. For the US, it has morphed into another name.
And how is this different from the concept "America"?

What should Americans identify as, given the fact that we are essentially commiting the same foul with any title?

My point is why can't we call you "United Staters", as a direct translation from the "Estadounidenses" we use in spanish.

Which is somewhat odd, since the official name of Mexico is "Estados Unidos de Mexico". Shouldn't "Estadounidenses" mean "Mexicans"?

It's quite simple.

Nobody outside the USA talks about being from the United States.

Plenty of people outside the USA talk about being from America.

There's a good reason. We don't call ourselves by the political category a nation places itself in. Were we Confederaites before the current constitution? No. We were American, thanks to naming standards. When the political organization of "United States" disolves, will the residents of the successor state still be from the "United States"?
Few from America call themseves "USian" or what have you

It's quite simple.

Nobody outside the USA talks about being from the United States.

Plenty of people outside the USA talk about being from America.

Only due to ignorance.

We don't call ourselves by the political category a nation places itself in.

As a simple matter of fact, we do. We refer to "the United States" and "US citizens" all the time.

Were we Confederaites before the current constitution? No. We were American, thanks to naming standards.

I'm actually not sure when the term "the United States" became a valid term for general reference to this country, but it's worth noting that even under the Articles of Confederation the country was called "the United States of America."

When the political organization of "United States" disolves, will the residents of the successor state still be from the "United States"?

Of course not. So? That's true of any nation's name.

Only due to ignorance.

Nonsense. We do it because of convention. It has nothing to do with ignorance.

Of all those you said, the shortened form of "America", is the only one that has another meaning for other people. Noone else calls "Mexico", "Spain" ,or "China" something else. For others, America is a continent, not a country.

The exception being "South Africa", but then I'd have to ask people from other countries in the South Part of Africa how do they call themselves.

The point of that shortened form of "America" for the "United States of America", is only comparable to South Africa being shortened to "Africa". I bet the rest of the africans would be pissed.

I am not opposing per se that you call your country that way, but at least accept it is confusing for others, and can be seen, with a little amount of bias, as arrogant that a country called "America" is contained in "North America", that then is contained in "America"

Except Taiwan, being the Republic of China vs. The People's Republic of China...

As a simple matter of fact, we do. We refer to "the United States" and "US citizens" all the time.But the actual adjective is "American", not "USian" or "United Stater" US is one of our adjectives, yes...and improperly so by naming convention...however, it is the changing one. US is not permenent


I'm actually not sure when the term "the United States" became a valid term for general reference to this country, but it's worth noting that even under the Articles of Confederation the country was called "the United States of America."True. Poor example on my part.



Of course not. So? That's true of any nation's name.
Is it? Those in nations that have had revolutions...did their "calling" change? Did we stop calling them "Chinese" because they became a "Peoples Republic"? Did we stop calling North Koreans and South Koreans "Korean" because of the political divide?

Yes, you have a valid point on one level...If the Basques break away from Spain, they are no longer Spanish. But it is important to recognize that they are not a successor state, but a wholly new state. The successor state after the divide would carry the same name (In the case of the Koreas, both states are essentially successor due to the divide of the land)

I can't help but thinking this would be so much easier if all the nations of the world let go of their petty demands for self-governance and let Uncle Sam step in. Then we would all be Americans, with no ambiguity.

I can't help but thinking this would be so much easier if all the nations of the world let go of their petty demands for self-governance and let Uncle Sam step in. Then we would all be Americans, with no ambiguity.

Or 'Americans' could simply refer to themselves as 'n00bs'.

Yep. That could work.

Or 'Americans' could simply refer to themselves as 'n00bs'.

Yep. That could work.

pwnd

pwnd

Wow. That's the first time I've pwnd twice in the same thread. With completely opposing viewpoints as well.

US is not permenent

No name need be permanent.

Is it? Those in nations that have had revolutions...did their "calling" change? Did we stop calling them "Chinese" because they became a "Peoples Republic"?

No, but the country's name didn't change--the title did.

The weird thing about the United States, as I have been trying to emphasize, is that "United States" is both a title and a name.

Did we stop calling North Koreans and South Koreans "Korean" because of the political divide?

No, but we did start calling them "North Koreans" and "South Koreans" based on specific political lines.

The successor state after the divide would carry the same name

Not necessarily. What about the post-colonial countries that have changed their names?

Wow. That's the first time I've pwnd twice in the same thread. With completely opposing viewpoints as well.
triple pwnd.

No name need be permanent.No name need be, but generally, it carries longer than governments.



No, but the country's name didn't change--the title did.Exactly why we don't call nations/peoples by title, but name

The weird thing about the United States, as I have been trying to emphasize, is that "United States" is both a title and a name.nationally, sure. I'll give you that. But as far as calling the people, no. USians isn't the term used.



No, but we did start calling them "North Koreans" and "South Koreans" based on specific political lines.
Yes, but that division isn't any more important than "West German" and "East German"...people didn't come here and say "I'm a West German"...atleast not in my experience.


Not necessarily. What about the post-colonial countries that have changed their names?example please?

example please?
Rhodesia became Zimbabwe.
Although India did not change its nation's name, many of its cities had their names changed (or re-changed, to match their original ones.)
Ceylon became Sri Lanka.

Rhodesia became Zimbabwe.
Although India did not change its nation's name, many of its cities had their names changed (or re-changed, to match their original ones.)
Ceylon became Sri Lanka.

Well, that wasn't quite my point. By "successor state", I mean the one that continued the heritage.
Let's look at Rhodesia/Zimbabwe

Rhodesia was, iirc, colonized by the UK. Rhodesia ceased to exist as a state.
Rhodesia seperated...As a new state, they can rename themselves whatever they want. The UK, post split, was the successor state following the union, and did not change names.

A similar example would be the US during the Civil War...the North was the successor of the union, thereby keeping the name. The seceding states took on a new name.

*snip*
Hmm, I think I see. You mean that no state has ever changed its name just for the heck of it, without revolution or a coup? That seems true. If there are any exceptions, I can't think of them off the top of my head.

Glad you've only met asshats, but your boyfriend's family isn't all of the population of the southern United States. And if I believed everything I saw on TV, everyone in New York is a cussing jerk, every female in California has fake boobs, and everyone in Texas is an idiot cowboy. I'm not that gullible.

I'm not really sure why southern political officials would be trying to trick me into believing they're idiots, but if they are I've sure fallen for it.

So you know its inaccurate and do it anyways...

Fine for some it is not ignorance, it is stupidity.

It is a convention more based on geopolitics than is just raw geological information.

Thus, it is not ignorance, it's an accord not entirely based in scientific science.

Social agreements does not have to comply with scientific standards.

However, if you agree to renounce to the name of "Europe", and call the continents by the names of the plaques, you have a point for yourself. However, you can hardly impose that convention upon others. Convention means "agreement", and as it has been proven on this thread, there is hardly an agreement even within the scientific community over this one.

No.
I apply the same thinking to Eurasia as I do to the Americas. Any time when I do refer to 'Europe' as 'Europe' is because I have screwed up and fallen back to what I was incorrectly taught when I was in school.

Until there is an international convention over this one that combines both the geological and the geopolitical and historical stances on this issue, I don't think anyone is "wrong" on this one.

I think that the main problem here is that they picked a really crappy name for their country. I mean "United States of America" is even more bland and straightforward than "Snakes on a Plane", except without the intent for humour.

In conclusion, using the continent name as part of the country name. Bad idea. I mean imagine the confusion that would result from The People's Republic of Asia, or the United Kingdom of Europe.

I believe the official name of the country is "The United States of America". This is because it is a country, on the North American continent, made up of many 'states' which are united under a federal government.

That would define many other countries - including Mexico and Venezuela, for example. They are federal states in the Americas too.

So, yeah, even the name "The United States of America" is a problem, because there are others "united states of America". But at least in this case it's clear enough and there is no risk of misunderstanding, so it's acceptable.

Why is it a problem for some people that residents of the U.S.A. to refer to themselves as Americans?

Because how then do you call the residents of any part of the Americas ? When I see a question like "What do Americans think of..." what should I understand ? Such a confusion is not a good thing.

And I also understand that people living elsewhere in the Americas feel pretty bad this attempt of US citizen to "grab" the names "America" and "American" for them, as if the rest didn't matter... Especially those who were victim of US imperialism in Latin America (all those who suffered from Pinochet in Chile, from the Contra in Nicaragua, ...)

Well, there's also the Central African Republic and South Africa.

Yes, but pointing that out somewhat misses the point.

No country has the name "Earth" in its name. But if a country were founded with that name, wouldn't it be a little arrogant for its inhabitants to refer to themselves exclusively as "Earth residents"?

Finally, someone who understands what I was trying to convey.

Hmm, I think I see. You mean that no state has ever changed its name just for the heck of it, without revolution or a coup? That seems true. If there are any exceptions, I can't think of them off the top of my head.

Siam => Thailand
Persia => Iran

I think that both of these changes might have been without revolutions or coups, simply as recognitions that using the name of what was originally just a single province (from which the ruling dynasty originated?) for the whole nation was a bad idea.

Siam => Thailand
Persia => Iran

I think that both of these changes might have been without revolutions or coups, simply as recognitions that using the name of what was originally just a single province (from which the ruling dynasty originated?) for the whole nation was a bad idea.

While those may or may not have had revolutions (I really have no idea), the concept is the same: nations don't arbitrarily change names. They change to distance themselves from the past. Most nations strive to maintain that unity through a government shift (removing both the government and identity of the land is asking for revolt unless the government and identity have been abused already, and people have disassociated)

Well, there's also the Central African Republic and South Africa.
And then there were those Mormons... "Gee, this here lake is really salty, why don't we call it Salt Lake, and build a city?"
"But what are you going to call the city, Brigham?"

I believe the official name of the country is "The United States of America". This is because it is a country, on the North American continent, made up of many 'states' which are united under a federal government. Hence the people in the "United States of America" are 'Americans'. I don't see the problem.

Yeah, that's what I thought the reasoning was too.
Besides, every other county in the Americas gets a much cooler name than us - Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Chile, and then there's United States. We get pity points because our name's so boring XD That's also why our flag is so awesome, because if everyone else the better names we get the better flag =P

Siam => Thailand
Persia => Iran

I think that both of these changes might have been without revolutions or coups, simply as recognitions that using the name of what was originally just a single province (from which the ruling dynasty originated?) for the whole nation was a bad idea.
"Thailand" is actually the reverse: "Siam" was a generic term for the whole region, but "Thailand" emphasizes that the Thai people have the right to rule over all the other ethnicities.
"Iran" was made the official name not just because "Persia" was one province and "Iran" a more generic term, but because the Shah at the time (father of the Shah that we remember) wanted to emphasize to Hitler that "Iran" is cognate with "Aryan" and that the Indo-Iranian peoples were the original, trademarked "Aryans". This German alliance was broken up by an invasion in late 1941, but the name stuck.

Funny, I call people Brazilians, or Mexicans, or Italians, or French, or German, or Austrian or Swiss... you know, the name of their country.... you know, calling them the direct translation of what they call themselves, not something some other language has invented for them. No one in the US calls themselves United Statesers.

ignoring the strangeness of 'translating' a word that either is a proper name or just means 'the people' for the moment, what do you call people from montenegro?

There's a good reason. We don't call ourselves by the political category a nation places itself in. Were we Confederaites before the current constitution?
It should of course be pointed out that residents of the "Confederate States of America" from 1861-65 were, quite commonly, called "Confederates".

what do you call people from montenegro?
Montenegrins

As pointed out, the nation, United States of America, is included wholey in the area known as the Americas.

that's right hawaii, get out and stay out! you too, american samoa!

Yeah, I agree, who from the US doesn't call themself American though.

So I'm from nowhere? Am I United Statesian?

So Candians and Mexicans are americans now, but what am I? :confused::(:confused:
______________________
Besides "USians" or or "United Staters" are incorrect grammar. You wouldn't call someone a Californier or New Yorkian. Ever heard of of a Texer or Marylandian?

My point regarding this issue is not why you can't call yourselves "Americans", it is your language and you can call yourselves in it as you like it.

My point is why can't we call you "United Staters", as a direct translation from the "Estadounidenses" we use in spanish.

After all, you call us "Hispanics" when no country is called "Hispania", at least not anymore, (and no, hispanic is not a race, not at all), call deutsch people "germans" and so forth.

I think it is a little bit arrogant to be called "Americans" in the first place, but of course, that is a tradition of centuries, and more likely the english started called you that, instead of yourselves.

Nothing wrong with calling yourselves "americans", as long as you don't force us to call you "americanos" in spanish, that brings another different meaning.


Venga, esto lo voy a escribir en español porque ya me harté de que se me malinterprete (y el/la que no entienda, juas!), claro, también, quien así lo desee, puede traducir el texto a continuación.

Cuando comenzé el argumento de lo injusto que creo que es que los residentes de los EEUU acuñen el término de americano sólo para ellos (e imagino que pensareis "Y ésta qué? Si es española...") es porque creo que al César lo que es del César. Todo el Nuevo Continente es conocido por el nombre de América.

Es un hecho, peña, en los mapas así aparece. Y si ésto es así, porqué sólo se le llama a aquellos de los EEUU con ese gentilicio? Un venezolano tiene todo el derecho a que se le considere americano, o el que sea más papista que el Papa, suramericano, porque Venezuela está en Sur América. Si una chica me dice que es de Ecuador, porqué no puedo llamarle americana o centroamericana, si Ecuador está en América Central? Y un canadiense, no es norteamericano, al igual que una persona que venga de EEUU? Lo es, gente! Canadá está en América del Norte.

El sólo hecho de que pertenezcan a las Américas, los hace americanos (sin importar que alguien afirme este es el nombre que los europeos o "imperialistas" le dieran). Por eso es que creo es injusto que los estadounidenses sientan que son ellos los únicos con derecho a llamarse americanos.

Ahora bien, como respeto las nacionalidades, nunca me escuchareis o vereis que me atreva a llamar a un norteamericanos como "gringo" o el términillo ese de "USian". Creo que es despectivo. Y el mero hecho de que una persona crea en Simón Bolívar no me da el derecho de llamarle Bolivarista. Una vez más, al César lo que es del César...

Montenegrins

and what sort of relationship does that bear to what they call themselves?

"Thailand" is actually the reverse: "Siam" was a generic term for the whole region, but "Thailand" emphasizes that the Thai people have the right to rule over all the other ethnicities.
"Iran" was made the official name not just because "Persia" was one province and "Iran" a more generic term, but because the Shah at the time (father of the Shah that we remember) wanted to emphasize to Hitler that "Iran" is cognate with "Aryan" and that the Indo-Iranian peoples were the original, trademarked "Aryans". This German alliance was broken up by an invasion in late 1941, but the name stuck.
huh...that's pretty interesting.
It should of course be pointed out that residents of the "Confederate States of America" from 1861-65 were, quite commonly, called "Confederates".
Likely a result of both the North and South trying to distance themselves from one another. Of course, a confederation leads to people identifying by state, not nation (usually), and so it would have been "Texans", "Floridians", "Georgians", etc, rather than "Confederates" or "Americans"

Yeah, I agree, who from the US doesn't call themself American though.

So I'm from nowhere? Am I United Statesian?

So Candians and Mexicans are americans now, but what am I? :confused::(:confused:

You're American too. Just like a Mexican is American, or an Argentinian is American. I'm not debating the legallity of someone from the US using the term to refer to themselves, what I was debating was that not because you're from the US does that give you the sole ownership of the term "American". This is a common missconception. But that's what I think, I could be mistaken.:D

and what sort of relationship does that ["Montenegrins"] bear to what they call themselves?
That IS what they call themselves (except of course that -s is not the plural ending in their language, a Serbo-Croatian close to standard Serbian).

More trivia: the usage of "the Americas", let alone "America" in the singular, for North America + South America + the West Indies + Greenland etc. as a collective unit, is not very long-standing. Up until the 18th and early 19th centuries, the standard way to refer to all the Western Hemisphere lands as one unit was "Columbia" (Spanish-speakers preferred spelling it with two o's). That started to fall out of usage when Bolivar used it for the country he founded: originally called "Gran Colombia", it became less "Gran" as Venezuela, Ecuador, and Panama seceded.

Nobody seems to bitch that those Bogota-Regimians (or whatever you think they should properly be called) stole what had been a perfectly good generic term.

They are on separate tectonic plates.

how many continents was pangea?

also, is the russian far east part of north america?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Plates_tect2_en.svg/798px-Plates_tect2_en.svg.png

That IS what they call themselves (except of course that -s is not the plural ending in their language, a Serbo-Croatian close to standard Serbian).

really? are you sure it isn't something more like 'crnogorci'?

That IS what they call themselves (except of course that -s is not the plural ending in their language, a Serbo-Croatian close to standard Serbian).

More trivia: the usage of "the Americas", let alone "America" in the singular, for North America + South America + the West Indies + Greenland etc. as a collective unit, is not very long-standing. Up until the 18th and early 19th centuries, the standard way to refer to all the Western Hemisphere lands as one unit was "Columbia" (Spanish-speakers preferred spelling it with two o's). That started to fall out of usage when Bolivar used it for the country he founded: originally called "Gran Colombia", it became less "Gran" as Venezuela, Ecuador, and Panama seceded.

Nobody seems to bitch that those Bogota-Regimians (or whatever you think they should properly be called) stole what had been a perfectly good generic term.
Even more interesting considering the USA had already been in existance when Colombia seperated from Spain

how many continents was pangea?

also, is the russia far east part of north america?

The eastern-most part of Russia belongs to Russia, it isn't part of America. What an odd question...:confused:
http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/images/time/russia/european-russia.jpg

The eastern-most part of Russia belongs to Russia, it isn't part of America. What an odd question...:confused:
http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/images/time/russia/european-russia.jpg

He wasn't asking if it belonged to America...he was asking if it should be considered part of North America based on the fact that it is on the North American tectonic plate.

really? are you sure it isn't something more like 'crnogorci'?

Whether they most often prefer to use the Serbian form, or the Latin form (both are "Black Mountain"), I don't know, they are pretty interchangeable. It's like, in German you can say "Fernho:ren" or "Telefon", "Fernsehen" or "Television" (I believe "Telefon", but "Fernsehen", have pretty much won for more common usage; we would have to ask the Deutsche here).
How about it, any Black Mountaineers here? Do you prefer to say "Montenegro" or "Crna Gora"?

The eastern-most part of Russia belongs to Russia, it isn't part of America. What an odd question...:confused:

the claim was that continents are defined by tectonic plates, or at least that being on separate tectonic plates is enough to make things separate continents. part of the russian far east is on the same tectonic plate as i am on here in michigan. therefore it would seem to me that either the russian far east is in north america, or at the very least the russian far east is on a different continent than the rest of eurasia. which is silly.

The eastern-most part of Russia belongs to Russia, it isn't part of America. What an odd question...:confused:

Your map is the WESTERNMOST part of Russia. The easternmost part includes some islands in the Aleutian chain (the "Komandorskiye" islands), and whether to assign them to the North American continent or the Asian is a bit arbitrary.

Whether they most often prefer to use the Serbian form, or the Latin form (both are "Black Mountain"), I don't know, they are pretty interchangeable. It's like, in German you can say "Fernho:ren" or "Telefon", "Fernsehen" or "Television" (I believe "Telefon", but "Fernsehen", have pretty much won for more common usage; we would have to ask the Deutsche here).
How about it, any Black Mountaineers here? Do you prefer to say "Montenegro" or "Crna Gora"?

kat said that she calls things by "the direct translation of what they call themselves, not something some other language has invented for them". which means that she should either call them the serbian form of the word or black mountaineers. i actually vote the second, because that is awesome and makes me want to move there.

The eastern-most part of Russia belongs to Russia, it isn't part of America. What an odd question...:confused:
http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/images/time/russia/european-russia.jpg

Bullshit. Eastern Russia is on the same continental plate as Canada and America (take that, hippies!). Same continental plate, same continent.

Bullshit. Eastern Russia is on the same continental plate as Canada and America (take that, hippies!). Same continental plate, same continent.
Cool! where is the plate boundary, running down Kamchatka or something?

Your map is the WESTERNMOST part of Russia. The easternmost part includes some islands in the Aleutian chain (the "Komandorskiye" islands), and whether to assign them to the North American continent or the Asian is a bit arbitrary.

its not just the aleutians. a huge mass of land that includes several russian krais/oblasts/whatevers is part of the north american tectonic plate.

Cool! where is the plate boundary, running down Kamchatka or something?

nah, all of that is included. the boundary is west a bit more, along the chersky range.

its not just the aleutians. a huge mass of land that includes several russian krais/oblasts/whatevers is part of the north american tectonic plate.

I'm confussed, but ok. I think I didn't catch the part about the tectonic plates.:p Oh, and sorry about the Russian map, but if I were to use the one I had, it would completely unhinge the forum. I did and had to erase the post.

Sorry, but your just wrong... 2 continental plates means 2 continents, not 1.

how many continents are there in the world?

Because how then do you call the residents of any part of the Americas ? When I see a question like "What do Americans think of..." what should I understand ? Such a confusion is not a good thing.

And I also understand that people living elsewhere in the Americas feel pretty bad this attempt of US citizen to "grab" the names "America" and "American" for them, as if the rest didn't matter... Especially those who were victim of US imperialism in Latin America (all those who suffered from Pinochet in Chile, from the Contra in Nicaragua, ...)

So for 231 years everyone's been terminally confused, or for the past four or five years people have been being obtuse and annoying about it? Because I really don't see any problem with someone saying, "I am Venezuelan" or "I am South American", or "I am Canadian" or "I am North American" to clarify where on the planet they exist.

The fact is that, no matter how much others would like to break chops about it, when one says, "I am an American" the FIRST definition that pops into most minds is "the United States of America". I have never said I was American to anyone on five continents and had anyone ask, "What nation?"

That people feel they need to complain about us using our nation's name, and whine about how 'arrogant' we are to use a name we've have a couple of centuries when they have perfectly good national names of their own is petty beyond belief -- especially since we don't tell them they can't call themselves whatever brand of American they happen to be. Criticize something important -- like the effect the United States has on the world economy, or America's foreign policy, or that you think America should pay a larger share to the UN -- but whinging about the name of the country? Infantile.

how many continents are there in the world?

6

North America
South America
Africa
Eurasia
Australia
Antarctica

I can't help but thinking this would be so much easier if all the nations of the world let go of their petty demands for self-governance and let Uncle Sam step in. Then we would all be Americans, with no ambiguity.

No thank you. One World Orders may look good when Gene Roddenberry put Star Trek on tv, but oddly enough, real life and tv aren't the same at all.

Cultural differences would make that impossible.

6

North America
South America
Africa
Eurasia
Australia
Antarctica

what about central america/the carribean, arabia, and india? i mean, they've got their own plates, and that is allegedly what makes n and s america different continents.

That would define many other countries - including Mexico and Venezuela, for example. They are federal states in the Americas too.
Which might stem from the ambiguous meaning of 'state' in the 'United States'. It does not refer, obviously, to a nation-state.
So, yeah, even the name "The United States of America" is a problem, because there are others "united states of America". But at least in this case it's clear enough and there is no risk of misunderstanding, so it's acceptable.
Big difference between the two. Also, no other country refers to itself as "The United States of America" capitalized or not. Whether there are other countries that are federal states and 'united' in the Americas is actually irrelevant. So yes, it is acceptable.

what about central america/the carribean, arabia, and india? i mean, they've got their own plates, and that is allegedly what makes n and s america different continents.
Those are "subcontinents". I know that sounds kind of demeaning, but that is actually the official term.

Those are "subcontinents". I know that sounds kind of demeaning, but that is actually the official term.

i'm trying to get clear on d's use of terms. i'm not sure that what he has said thus far would allow him to make that move.

(Just as an aside: the best possible alternative for American I have seen comes from Frank Lloyd Wright, who proposed the term "Usonian." It comes from United States of North America.)

I like that. Usonian. Seems a little unclear. USian is quite clear, in my opinion.

...snip neo's typically intelligent stuff...Yet the argument that "american" doesn't just mean "a citizen of the united states" and instead refers to someone from "the americas" argues with the same veracity that "faggot" means a pile of sticks.

It used to. The meanings of words, however, change

And now we're trying to change it again. Game on!

República Bolivariana de Venezuela or in english: Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, so why would it not be appropriate? (I am remembering correctly that you are from Venezuala, yes?)

Bolivarian implies a follower of Bolivar. Like Aelosia, I would gladly take on that title.

Instead, they have this need to be irritating and give names to Americans that Americans don't recognize and find annoying.

Oh, is that why I do it? Thanks for explaining my motives to me. Here I was thinking it's because my particular history and community need some sort of vocabulary for differentiating between people from the Americas and people from the USA. I'm glad to know that it's just my 'need to be irritating'.

Question: if I talked about American vultures does that include the Andean condor?

Yes, it could mean that.

Now, I use the word USian to refer to US Americans. I do it because I think that I am an American, but I am definitely not USian. Many other people in my family and community are in the same boat.

I have lived in North and South America, am fluent in three of the languages of the Americas, and my children have native blood from both continents. We are neither solely North American nor solely South American. Quite frankly, we are from the Americas. Thus, we are Americans.

If it bothers you that I identify myself as an American rather than a Latino-Canadian Metis Quebecois, I can only reply that I will not let it bother me if you identify as yourself as American.

It is an argument without merit.

The origin of a term is irrelevant to its current usage.

No one gets upset by the fact that when someone says "Shuttle" they are not talking about a loom.

We say that someone in a coma is in a "vegetative state" but vegetable is from the same root as "vigorous" meaning "Growing".

The current usage of "American", here, now, is "person from the United States." How and why the word came to be is not important. Or, if it is, perhaps we should start complaining about the Russians, who are not actually Red. (Russian comes from a Germanic-Scandinavian root meaning red). In fact, their nation is not red. It's kind of brownish green, except in winter when its mostly white. Nor are Argentines silver.

So we call ourselves Americans. It is a name and nothing more, it has no intrinsic claim. Yes, we know North and South America are continents, and that the name America is taken from that root, but, unimportant.

Besides, if you think we Americans are arrogant for naming ourselves after the continent, you have a real problem with Germans, as their name for themselves comes from a root meaning "People".

ignoring the strangeness of 'translating' a word that either is a proper name or just means 'the people' for the moment, what do you call people from montenegro?

That would depend on whether you were speaking in English, or to an ethnic Serb in his language, or to an ethnic Albanian in his, now wouldn't it?

That would depend on whether you were speaking in English, or to an ethnic Serb in his language, or to an ethnic Albanian in his, now wouldn't it?

i dont see why it should

Oh, is that why I do it? Thanks for explaining my motives to me. Here I was thinking it's because my particular history and community need some sort of vocabulary for differentiating between people from the Americas and people from the USA. I'm glad to know that it's just my 'need to be irritating'.
If you are one of those people who say that the people in the United States of American can't call themselves Americans and should call themselves USians or whatever term it is they want to apply, then yes.

I've never said other people in South America, Central America or North America can't refer to themselves as Americans -- I say they are being petty when they insist we should not use our nation's name. See the difference?

i dont see why it should

Then that is your problem.

Then that is your problem.

looks to me as though it is your problem, since you are the one that claimed that we should call people "the direct translation of what they call themselves, not something some other language has invented for them"

It's all very simple: First independent, modern nation-state on the American continents = first dibs on the demonym "American". Our timing was better, that's all.

Correct. So in English, speaking to an American, call them American.
In Spanish, speaking to a Mexican, call them "Mexicano".
In German, speaking to a German, call them "Deutsch".

What's the difficulty in understanding? Unless you just enjoy being obtuse?

which language do you think 'montenegrin' is?

looks to me as though it is your problem, since you are the one that claimed that we should call people "the direct translation of what they call themselves, not something some other language has invented for them"

Correct. So in English, speaking to an American, call them American.
In Spanish, speaking to a Mexican, call them "Mexicano".
In German, speaking to a German, call them "Deutsch".

What's the difficulty in understanding? Unless you just enjoy being obtuse?

And now we're trying to change it again. Game on!
That's completely useless.

Usonian! That one does sound pretty cool.


Kat it's not a debate that has only been around for the past few years just to get under the skin of US Americans. It's been around since the late 1700's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_(word)



Alternative adjectives for U.S. citizens

Main article: Adjectives for U.S. citizens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjectives_for_U.S._citizens)

There are a number of alternatives to the demonym "American" (a citizen of the United States) that do not simultaneously mean any inhabitant of the Americas. One uncommon alternative is "Usonian," which usually describes a certain style of residential architecture designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. Over the years, many other alternatives have also surfaced, but most have long fallen into disuse and obscurity. Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage says, "The list contains [in approximate historical order from 1789 to 1939] such terms as Columbian, Columbard, Fredonian, Frede, Unisian, United Statesian, Colonican, Appalacian, Usian, Washingtonian, Usonian, Uessian, U-S-ian, Uesican, United Stater."[20] Nevertheless, with the exception of "U.S." or "U.S. citizen", no alternative to "American" has been seriously considered.[21]

What language is American in?

it is a proper name in english. the same cannot be said for montenegro, which is a direct translation into a different language.

Honestly, people argue over the most idiotic thing. Focus on the real issues and not just the name of a country.

...That being said, I believe that it was suggested that the name of the United States of America be "Columbia" (sic).

Usonian! That one does sound pretty cool.


Kat it's not a debate that has only been around for the past few years just to get under the skin of US Americans. It's been around since the late 1700's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_(word)

As they say, except for US Citizen, really, there is no other accepted alternative.

which language do you think 'montenegrin' is?

What language is American in?

As they say, except for US Citizen, really, there is no other accepted alternative.

Still, the alternative terms are brought up by people who think it is ambiguous to call US Citizens 'Americans' and have thought so for over a hundred years.

It may be widely accepted in other countries but you keep saying it isn't ambiguous at all.

If it wasn't why would US Citizens be the ones proposing the change for such a long period of time? Self loathing? Teenage rebellion?

When I first though I had come up with the word on my own, I just thought it was a cool sounding and more descriptive word. Then it turned into a huge debate with friends of ours like Eut saying it's a pejorative term. Why is everyone getting so worked up about it anyway? What is so wrong with language changing over time?

What is so wrong with language changing over time?

change=bad!

I don't much care what term is used, but I must note that those on this forum who insist on using "USian" are not really doing so because "it's more accurate", despite what they claim. They are doing so specifically to offend others, and for no ther reason.

I don't much care what term is used, but I must note that those on this forum who insist on using "USian" are not really doing so because "it's more accurate" despite what they claim. They are doing so specifically to offend others, and for no ther reason.

tweeking usians is fun, but that's mainly an added benefit rather than the main point.

I don't much care what term is used, but I must note that those on this forum who insist on using "USian" are not really doing so because "it's more accurate", despite what they claim. They are doing so specifically to offend others, and for no ther reason.

So I use it to offend myself? :confused:

I don't really care what you say you are posting on NSG for. You are doing it to raise money for lunch and no other reason.

tweeking usians is fun, but that's mainly an added benefit rather than the main point.

Exactly! I too get a little joy each time someone is offended by a term not meant to offend.

If you are one of those people who say that the people in the United States of American can't call themselves Americans and should call themselves USians or whatever term it is they want to apply, then yes.

I've never said other people in South America, Central America or North America can't refer to themselves as Americans -- I say they are being petty when they insist we should not use our nation's name. See the difference?

You may call yourselves Americans if you wish. It would be arrogant of me to keep that name all for myself. And everyone knows what you mean by American. So Kat, I apologise. I thought you meant something like this, which is pretty explicit about ascribing such motives to me and my community:

I don't much care what term is used, but I must note that those on this forum who insist on using "USian" are not really doing so because "it's more accurate", despite what they claim. They are doing so specifically to offend others, and for no other reason.

Kat it's not a debate that has only been around for the past few years just to get under the skin of US Americans. It's been around since the late 1700's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_(word)

I wonder why it didn't mention "United States of American" shortened to USAn/USan. It seems to follow from the country name better than anything else they thought about.

I do, which would be the reason why I started the thread.

:rolleyes:

Kat it's not a debate that has only been around for the past few years just to get under the skin of US Americans. It's been around since the late 1700's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_(word)
Your link doesn't work (somehow the right parenthesis got cut off from the url), and more importantly, the article does not in any way support your claim that any such "debate" existed any earlier than the day before yesterday.

Maybe "US Americans" would work? Seeing as "American" is so ingrained into society within the US (tempted to say "American Society"), I doubt the term and US definition of "American" will change anytime soon.

Why is it a problem for some people that residents of the U.S.A. to refer to themselves as Americans?



I am fully aware that the U.S. isn't the only nation in the Americas, however, unless I'm mistaken (I might be) it is the only one with America as part of its name.

Empty barrels make the most noise.

"USian" and similar acts of violence against the English language and common sense are a very pronounced form of sniveling.

"

Your link doesn't work (somehow the right parenthesis got cut off from the url), and more importantly, the article does not in any way support your claim that any such "debate" existed any earlier than the day before yesterday.

strange


also, did you miss the part in the short paragraph that I quoted from the article that said "The list contains [in approximate historical order from 1789 to 1939] such terms as Columbian, Columbard, Fredonian, Frede, Unisian, United Statesian, Colonican, Appalacian, Usian, Washingtonian, Usonian, Uessian, U-S-ian, Uesican, United Stater."?

Seeing as "American" is so ingrained into society within the US (tempted to say "American Society"), I doubt the term and US definition of "American" will change anytime soon.

it might, if we keep using it. at the very least, there are lots of people who understand what is meant by 'usian' now, so it's a start.

it might, if we keep using it. at the very least, there are lots of people who understand what is meant by 'usian' now, so it's a start.

Yeah, but it pisses most of us off. Try actually saying it aloud. It sounds ridiculous, it's far too cumbersome.

I would feel differently if the governments of the other countries in the Americas were raising a fuss about this, or if they would have when the Americans started calling themselves Americans (which they have every right to do). However they did not, and it isn't really the United State's fault that everyone (or almost everyone) else in the world now associates the term American with the US. As you can see from some of the other earlier posts, the alternatives are, to put it plainly, either unwieldy or stupid.

Exactly.

I would feel differently if the governments of the other countries in the Americas were raising a fuss about this, or if they would have when the Americans started calling themselves Americans (which they have every right to do). However they did not, and it isn't really the United State's fault that everyone (or almost everyone) else in the world now associates the term American with the US. As you can see from some of the other earlier posts, the alternatives are, to put it plainly, either unwieldy or stupid.