NationStates Jolt Archive

South America is not a nation. Neither is Africa. Or Scandinavia. And Mexico is part of South America.

South America is not a nation. Neither is Africa. Or Scandinavia. And Mexico is part of South America.

Next you'll be saying Russia isn't the biggest and most powerful country in the world!!!

Have a heart, there was a genuine reason for a thread in there somewhere....

South America is not a nation. Neither is Africa. Or Scandinavia. And Mexico is part of South America.
*smack*

mexico is part of LATIN america.

it is in north america.

South America is not a nation. Neither is Africa. Or Scandinavia. And Mexico is part of South America.
I thought it was part of Central America?

There appear to be a number of geography fascists in this thread

Maybe we should start a separate "Where is Mexico located?" thread?!

I thought it was part of Central America?
central america (of which mexico is not a part) is also in north america

There appear to be a number of geography fascists in this thread
Seig Geography.

central america (of which mexico is not a part) is also in north america
Well, learn a new thing every day.

"Central America" may mean different things to different people in the world according to the context:

* In English, Central America is considered a region of the North American continent.[7] Geopolitically, it usually comprises seven countries – Belize, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama.[8] Mexico, in whole or in part, is occasionally included.[9] Some geographers include the five states of Campeche, Chiapas, Tabasco, Quintana Roo, and Yucatán,[8] together representing 12.1% of the country's total area.
* In Latin America, Iberia, and some other parts of Europe, the Americas are considered to be a single continent, and Central America is considered a region of this continent. In Ibero-America, the region is defined as seven nations – Belize, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama – and may occasionally include Mexico's southernmost region.[10] Geopolitically, Mexico is not considered part of the region.
* The UN geoscheme defines the region as all states of North America south of the United States; conversely, the European Union excludes Belize and Mexico from its definition of the region.[11][12]

Wikitastic!

*yawn*

Well, learn a new thing every day.
the more sticky question, to my mind, is whether or not the caribbean islands are in north america or if they are ...well, islands that are not part of the continent at all.

so does anyone have a clue as to what the OP is trying to say?

the more sticky question, to my mind, is whether or not the caribbean islands are in north america or if they are ...well, islands that are not part of the continent at all.

so does anyone have a clue as to what the OP is trying to say?

Never really thought about that...According to wikipedia: "Geopolitically, the West Indies are usually reckoned as a subregion of North America and are organised into 27 territories including sovereign states, overseas departments, and dependencies."

But, as to the second question, youd have to ask him...although it sounds to me like he was trying to justify not caring about Georgia...

Cant say i blame him...Its always in my way tryin to get to Carolina :D lol

South America is not a nation. Neither is Africa. Or Scandinavia. And Mexico is part of South America.

Isn't Mexico part of North America?:confused:

Isn't Mexico part of North America?:confused:

Yes, but one error by another poster doesn't change the fact that the OP had no sense of geography.

Isn't Mexico part of North America?:confused:

Not the way i do it, lol...

When you play as South America, you have to have Mexico as a Buffer Zone, or North America'll just rape your ass, lol...

South America is not a nation. Neither is Africa. Or Scandinavia. And Mexico is part of South America.

I believe you will find that Mexico is also part of North America.

I believe you will find that Mexico is also part of North America.

Let us settle this as: Mexicans are Americans. More so than USAians ;)

very true.

it would be stupid to start a war with russia.

It's a good job stupid people don't start wars then!

PS

Mexico is wherever the hell you want it to be (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas_(terminology))

It's a good job stupid people don't start wars then!

PS

Mexico is wherever the hell you want it to be (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas_(terminology))
and i WANT it to be in north america!

dont stupid people start wars all the time? it seems like john mccain's iq drops a bit every day he campaigns for president.

I believe you will find that Mexico is also part of North America.I believe Mexico is part of Latin America, but not South America. However, this is only my humble opinion.

and i WANT it to be in north america!

dont stupid people start wars all the time? it seems like john mccain's iq drops a bit every day he campaigns for president.

You, and a lot of Mexicans, apparently.

It doesn't matter if his IQ gradually drops, he can compensate by becoming gradually more right-wing. I'm pretty sure it correlates.

*smack*

mexico is part of LATIN america.

it is in north america.

I stand corrected. You are right.

I believe Mexico is part of Latin America, but not South America. However, this is only my humble opinion.

Latin America isn't a continent.

I believe you will find that Mexico is also part of North America.

OK, yes, some people already said that.

I am agreeing because I do recognize my different upbringing than yours. And because I meant to write Latinoamérica and a brain fart prevented me of writing it right, being more of a typo that a conscious mistake.

I remember a former discussion with the same people about this. For me, Mexico isn't usually in North America. Actually, America is a single continent for us.

Do you remember, americans?

Let us settle this as: Mexicans are Americans. More so than USAians ;)

Tell me, which country in America has the word: "America" in it's name, hmm?

Tell me, which country in America has the word: "America" in it's name, hmm?
dont start this stupid fight again. he's just being funny.

dont start this stupid fight again. he's just being funny.

We should get real technical and claim Columbia's nationality too, lol, its our traditional poetic name, the thieves :tongue:

We should get real technical and claim Columbia's nationality too, lol, its our traditional poetic name, the thieves :tongue:

....what?

central america (of which mexico is not a part) is also in north america

mexico is part of central america

We should get real technical and claim Columbia's nationality too, lol, its our traditional poetic name, the thieves :tongue:
yeah we should!

mexico is part of central america
no its not. its too big to be in central america.

no its not. its too big to be in central america.

Mexico is not in the Caucasus.

We should get real technical and claim Columbia's nationality too, lol, its our traditional poetic name, the thieves :tongue:

Of course, it isn't "Columbia", it is "Colombia", and for different reasons. There was a nation once called "Gran Colombia", that it isn't "Columbia"

Of course, you didn't have a way of knowing that, didn't you?

....what?

It was a joke, back when they were first trying to decide what to call the country, alot of people called us "Columbia" after Columbus...

Its where "Lady Columbia" and "District of Columbia" have their roots, lol...

dont start this stupid fight again. he's just being funny.
*Sniff* It's not stupid...

Mexico is not in the Caucasus.
thats very true.

"Central America" may mean different things to different people in the world according to the context:

* In English, Central America is considered a region of the North American continent.[7] Geopolitically, it usually comprises seven countries – Belize, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama.[8] Mexico, in whole or in part, is occasionally included.[9] Some geographers include the five states of Campeche, Chiapas, Tabasco, Quintana Roo, and Yucatán,[8] together representing 12.1% of the country's total area.
* In Latin America, Iberia, and some other parts of Europe, the Americas are considered to be a single continent, and Central America is considered a region of this continent. In Ibero-America, the region is defined as seven nations – Belize, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama – and may occasionally include Mexico's southernmost region.[10] Geopolitically, Mexico is not considered part of the region.
* The UN geoscheme defines the region as all states of North America south of the United States; conversely, the European Union excludes Belize and Mexico from its definition of the region.[11][12]

Wikitastic!

*yawn*

This should be stickied to avoid falling into this argument again.:hail:


We should get real technical and claim Columbia's nationality too, lol, its our traditional poetic name, the thieves

It's Colombia, not Columbia. Therefore they're different. Besides, you dumped the name Columbia for America in 1776 didn't you?

*Sniff* It's not stupid...
yes it is. they only say it to make us crazy.

yes it is. they only say it to make us crazy.

True, it may not be stupid...

But, it is Bait...And biting it only lets them reel us in...

*smack*

mexico is part of LATIN america.

it is in north america.

....just near that San Diego place.

....just near that San Diego place.
oh i thought it was near el paso

Latin America isn't a continent.Which would destroy my argument how exactly? I'm not arguing that Latin America is a continent, merely that Mexico is part of it. People tend to confuse South and Latin America despite the fact that they're different. Latin America consists of most of South America (Falklands excluded), Central America (Belize excluded), and North America (Canada and parts of the US excluded).

It was a joke, back when they were first trying to decide what to call the country, alot of people called us "Columbia" after Columbus...

Its where "Lady Columbia" and "District of Columbia" have their roots, lol...

that may well be, however "Columbia" is not the same thing as the nation of Colombia

that may well be, however "Columbia" is not the same thing as the nation of Colombia

It was a joke man...Gawd...

see why i place 'lol' in my posts, lol..

It was a joke man...Gawd...

No, I'm pretty sure you didn't know that one was Columbia and one was Colombia.

No, I'm pretty sure you didn't know that one was Columbia and one was Colombia.

I honestly didnt care...

I wasnt seriously arguing that Colombia stole our name...

I honestly didnt care...

I wasnt seriously arguing that Colombia stole our name...When in fact it was the other way around...

When in fact it was the other way around...

I almost started arguing that......

But, then i remembered Admiral Ackbar's great advice and didnt fall into that one, lol..

Which would destroy my argument how exactly? I'm not arguing that Latin America is a continent, merely that Mexico is part of it. People tend to confuse South and Latin America despite the fact that they're different. Latin America consists of most of South America (Falklands excluded), Central America (Belize excluded), and North America (Canada and parts of the US excluded).

Because you said:
I believe Mexico is part of Latin America, but not South America. However, this is only my humble opinion.
Which makes your statement rather random since South America is a continent. It's true that Mexico isn't on the South American continent, but it doesn't have anything to do with Mexico being part of Latin America. That's like me saying Belfast is in Ireland, not in Asia. Or that dog has fur, he's not a turnip.

Which makes your statement rather random since South America is a continent. It's true that Mexico isn't on the South American continent, but it doesn't have anything to do with Mexico being part of Latin America. That's like me saying Belfast is in Ireland, not in Asia. Or that dog has fur, he's not a turnip.

Laerod is right, I can't see what are you claiming.

Latin America is a political and cultural division, not geographic.

As Iberoamérica, for example. Brazil, although it is in South America, is not in Iberoamérica.

Mexico, although it isn't in South America, it is part of Latin america. And mexicans are latinoamerican, even if they are not south americans.

Laerod is right, I can't see what are you claiming.

Latin America is a political and cultural division, not geographic.

As Iberoamérica, for example. Brazil, although it is in South America, is not in Iberoamérica.

Mexico, although it isn't in South America, it is part of Latin america. And mexicans are latinoamerican, even if they are not south americans.

Because it's not an either/or proposition. He said that Mexico wasn't part of a geographical region that it wasn't part of, but it was part of a cultural region that it is part of. One statement has nothing to do with the other.

Because it's not an either/or proposition. He said that Mexico wasn't part of a geographical region that it wasn't part of, but it was part of a cultural region that it is part of. One statement has nothing to do with the other.

And why did you need that both statements were opposite or disyuntive?

They DID have something to do with the other. Both statements were about Mexico.

So if I tell you "He is black", my next statement must be "He's not white, by the way"?

Couldn't it be just. "He also likes the 9th symphony of Beethoven".

And why did you need that both statements were opposite or disyuntive?

They DID have something to do with the other. Both statements were about Mexico.

So if I tell you "He is black", my next statement must be "He's not white, by the way"?

Couldn't it be just. "He also likes the 9th symphony of Beethoven".

Psh, no, that song sucks...*head bangs to some Death Metal* :p

Laerod is right, I can't see what are you claiming.

Latin America is a political and cultural division, not geographic.

As Iberoamérica, for example. Brazil, although it is in South America, is not in Iberoamérica.

Mexico, although it isn't in South America, it is part of Latin america. And mexicans are latinoamerican, even if they are not south americans.
why wouldnt brazil be part of something called iberoamerica?

that seems very descriptive of all countries originally colonized by spain or portugal.

And why did you need that both statements were opposite or disyuntive?

They DID have something to do with the other. Both statements were about Mexico.

So if I tell you "He is black", my next statement must be "He's not white, by the way"?

Couldn't it be just. "He also likes the 9th symphony of Beethoven".

When the subject is the geographical region of a country, it makes no sense. Sure, he could have just said it was in North Americia, but he didn't. In his opinion, he says, Mexico isn't part of South America. That's a verifiable fact. What follows could be more open to interpretation. But once again, it's a total non-sequiter, especially given the discussion.

And your analogy isn't the same for two reasons. He didn't assert the positive first, so to use your example it would have been "He's not white, by the way, he's black." But that's not right either, because both statements pertain to skin color. It's like someone saying "Ralph is white" and someone replying "He's not white, he's a banker."

why wouldnt brazil be part of something called iberoamerica?

that seems very descriptive of all countries originally colonized by spain or portugal.

Quick question: Don't you think you should create a separate thread if you're only interested in Latin/South America? I don't think that was the point of this discussion.

Quick question: Don't you think you should create a separate thread if you're only interested in Latin/South America? I don't think that was the point of this discussion.
point taken

but since the OP never came back to his thread and it never made any sense to begin with, i dont feel guilty about derailing it.

Fair enough. Everyone wins.

why wouldnt brazil be part of something called iberoamerica?

that seems very descriptive of all countries originally colonized by spain or portugal.

My bad, I meant Hispanoamérica.

When the subject is the geographical region of a country, it makes no sense. Sure, he could have just said it was in North Americia, but he didn't. In his opinion, he says, Mexico isn't part of South America. That's a verifiable fact. What follows could be more open to interpretation. But once again, it's a total non-sequiter, especially given the discussion.

And your analogy isn't the same for two reasons. He didn't assert the positive first, so to use your example it would have been "He's not white, by the way, he's black." But that's not right either, because both statements pertain to skin color. It's like someone saying "Ralph is white" and someone replying "He's not white, he's a banker."

He answered, then he added further information about a topic that could dispel some confusion regarding the matter. Take the example of above, I said Iberoamerica instead of Hispanoamerica. Someone could had answered to my former post. "Hey, I think Brazil is part of Iberoamerica, as they are part of Latinoamerica, but not of Hispanoamerica", and it wouldn't be a non sequiter or a further argument. Just additional information.

He wasn't adding further arguments with the second part of his answer. It is not a non-sequiter.

Finally, this thread, and the ideas of the OP, didn't have any sense at all from the beginning. That was it was hijacked and derailed so easily. Plus, there are another threads that are already dealing with the Russia-Russia discussion.

Reality: USA is too busy deciding whether Mexica belongs to south, north or central America. Untill this dispute is solved, there can be no hope of military support against Russian "peacekeeping invasions". :D

My bad, I meant Hispanoamérica.

oh ok. that makes much better sense.

When did we dissolve MesoAmerica?

He answered, then he added further information about a topic that could dispel some confusion regarding the matter. Take the example of above, I said Iberoamerica instead of Hispanoamerica. Someone could had answered to my former post. "Hey, I think Brazil is part of Iberoamerica, as they are part of Latinoamerica, but not of Hispanoamerica", and it wouldn't be a non sequiter or a further argument. Just additional information.
But it wasn't clarifying anything. Saying Mexico isn't part of South America doesn't say where Mexico is. Again,
"Ralph is white"
"Ralph isn't white"
Okay, so what color is Ralph? That comment adds nothing to the discussion.

He wasn't adding further arguments with the second part of his answer. It is not a non-sequiter.
Just a random bit of info that lends nothing to the argument following a sentence that only says where a place isn't, but not where it is.

Finally, this thread, and the ideas of the OP, didn't have any sense at all from the beginning. That was it was hijacked and derailed so easily. Plus, there are another threads that are already dealing with the Russia-Russia discussion.
What on earth does that have to do with anything. Or are you illustrating the whole random bits of information that don't follow the original thought?

Laerod's comment added that although Mexico is a Latinoamerican country, it is not a South American country, marking the difference between the two divisions. Miss one or two meetings of the debate club, you are taking this to the extreme. Actually, to the extreme where it is not fun anymore, but boring.
And yet you continue to argue. No, I'm not taking it to the extreme, I'm just continuosly pointing out the nonsensical part of the argument.

It said where the country is.
It wasn't a discussion of cultural regions now was it?


Means I jumped to a different topic. Different paragraph. Should I add an empty quote space so you can distinguish the fact that I changed subject? Can you read normal, standard writing or should I add write:

1
1.1
1.2
1.2.1
1.2.2
2
2.1

Damn.

Just trying to figure out why you added a random paragraph entirely unrelated to the post you repsonded to.

I drink Diet Coke. Unless I drink Mexican Coke. But some Mexican Coke has fructose in it. I don't like fructose.

Tell me, which country in America has the word: "America" in it's name, hmm?

A few of them actually.

A few of them actually.


Errr... U.S.A. and.... ?

I am not an 'American' - I am a Minnesotan.

A few of them actually.

I am not an 'American' - I am a Minnesotan.

Well, I am an american, but I don`t live in U.S.A. (like other 550 millions)

Well, I am an american, but I don`t live in U.S.A. (like other 550 millions)

Do not press the issue. It has been argued to death. USA americans are educated with the notion that there is no American continent, but different continents, while we in most of the rest of América, (with an ´) believe there is a continent called América and that everyone in it is an american, as anyone in Europe is an european. Both views so far hold some valid arguments behind each, so it is not a solved issue. It is a cultural divergence based on different education standards. The only thing you can do is accept it, ask for respect to your own view, respect theirs, and move on.

Do not press the issue. It has been argued to death. USA americans are educated with the notion that there is no American continent, but different continents, while we in most of the rest of América, (with an ´) believe there is a continent called América and that everyone in it is an american, as anyone in Europe is an european. Both views so far hold some valid arguments behind each, so it is not a solved issue. It is a cultural divergence based on different education standards. The only thing you can do is accept it, ask for respect to your own view, respect theirs, and move on.

The point is that the use of "americans" by the people of U.S.A. is a total disrespect for the rest of us... No "education standards" can hide this fact.

A few of them actually.
arent you going to name them for us?

The point is that the use of "americans" by the people of U.S.A. is a total disrespect for the rest of us... No "education standards" can hide this fact.

It's their language and their tradition. I only refuse to use "americano" as their designation in spanish. As long as they accept your view, just accept theirs. And yes, education standards have everything to do with that. In spanish, we call germans "alemanes" (and in english, it is germans), when the name of the country is "Deutschland". It is a similar issue.

It's their language and their tradition. I only refuse to use "americano" as their designation in spanish. As long as they accept your view, just accept theirs.

TO accept our view, the should change the name. Nothing less. I know they won't, so they are not showing any respect...


And yes, education standards have everything to do with that. In spanish, we call germans "alemanes" (and in english, it is germans), when the name of the country is "Deutschland". It is a similar issue.

So, the nazi education standards justified Auschwitz... Great

You are kidding. Right?

TO accept our view, the should change the name. Nothing less. I know they won't, so they are not showing any respect...

If we force them to change it to accept their posture, we wouldn't be really accepting it. This issue has even scientific, geological reasons behind it. I told you not to press the issue.

So, the nazi education standards justified Auschwitz... Great

You are kidding. Right?

Godwin's law. I knew this was coming.

If we force them to change it to accept their posture, we wouldn't be really accepting it. This issue has even scientific, geological reasons behind it. I told you not to press the issue.



Godwin's law. I knew this was coming.

Sieg Hail!

We aren't changing our views. Neither are you. So stop with the threadjack.

Sieg Hail!

Anything else, master?

Or I don't deserve to speak anymore?


You're seriously comparing teaching genocide to teaching a commonly accepted name for a country? Really?

Really. It`s the same principle...

TO accept our view, the should change the name. Nothing less. I know they won't, so they are not showing any respect...
That's a ridiculous statement if I've ever heard one.

By the same measure, is me (as a British subject) calling Germany "Germany" rather than Deutschland not showing any respect?

That's a ridiculous statement if I've ever heard one.

Then you didn`t hear Blair repeating what Bush told him about the mass destruction weapons of Saddam?

By the same measure, is me (as a British subject) calling Germany "Germany" rather than Deutschland not showing any respect?

Let me tell you something: "Germany" is the same than "Deutschland". The first one is in english, the second one is in german.

Got it? Or you need further explanation?

Now: "America" in english or spanish means... "America"... Yes!!! In both of them!!! You can ask a canadian, a jamaican or any other if you want...

PD: Do you know the origin of the word "America"? Hint: Is not english...

arent you going to name them for us?

I've been down that road and got a warning for it, so I'm gonna go right ahead and stop the threadjack.

Suffice to say that US of A was a poor choice of name in my opinion but we're goig to have to live with it. I'm not going to be upset if someone says he's American and neither should they be upset if I say he's a USAmerican, USian or any other denomination so long as it's not done in order to provoke.

I'm done with this.

I've been down that road and got a warning for it, so I'm gonna go right ahead and stop the threadjack.

Suffice to say that US of A was a poor choice of name in my opinion but we're goig to have to live with it. I'm not going to be upset if someone says he's American and neither should they be upset if I say he's a USAmerican, USian or any other denomination so long as it's not done in order to provoke.

I'm done with this.
you mean there is a ban here on typing out the names of countries with AMERICA in their names?

i dont want to open up the stupid debate on whether or not the first independent country in the new world choosing to call itself the united states of america was a good choice or whether or not it is appropriate to then call its citizens americans.

those issues were only appropriate to discuss 230 years ago.

To accept your view, we agree to speak Spanish the way you speak Spanish. What you are doing is absolute and total disrespect to us.

- America is NOT an english word.
- America is the CONTINENT.

Any other use, is pure colonialism.

To accept your view, we agree to speak Spanish the way you speak Spanish. What you are doing is absolute and total disrespect to us.

- America is NOT an english word.
- America is the CONTINENT.

Any other use, is colonialism and an insult to inteligence.

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but is the title of this thread "Proper usage of the word 'America'"? I do believe that it's actually "Reality versus Georgia and the USA", and you're continuing to hijack the actual topic of discussion with your crusade against the name 'United States of America'. Please stop hijacking the thread. If you want so desperately to talk about the name 'United States of America', then may I suggest you create a new thread where this discussion would be relevant.

I didn`t bring the topic, so if you don`t like it, talk to who did.

I don`t need your permission to write all what I want. If you don`t like it, its your problem, not mine.

Noctambulandia - You are not going to respond to reason, are you? :)

Yay! At last, this important question has its own thread!

I can sleep soundly at night.

Yay! At last, this important question has its own thread!

I can sleep soundly at night.

And I'll continue to have hand cramps for splitting 85 posts (more than the original debate) here. :p

As Iberoamérica, for example. Brazil, although it is in South America, is not in Iberoamérica.

Brazil is in South America and in Iberoamerica. Suriname is in South America but not in Iberoamerica.

Laerod is right, I can't see what are you claiming.

Latin America is a political and cultural division, not geographic.

As Iberoamérica, for example. Brazil, although it is in South America, is not in Iberoamérica.

Mexico, although it isn't in South America, it is part of Latin america. And mexicans are latinoamerican, even if they are not south americans.

Huh? Wasn't Brazil colonized by an Iberian country (Portugal) and share their language, and some customs? Wouldn't than make them Iberoamerican?

Too many people seem to assume that a given definition needs to make sense etymologically. It doesn't. It just needs to be used in a particular way, by enough people, to mean whatever they want.

See: "bad = good"

Usage governs definition

Usage differs by culture.

Get over it?

Too many people seem to assume that a given definition needs to make sense etymologically. It doesn't. It just needs to be used in a particular way, by enough people, to mean whatever they want.

See: "bad = good"

Usage governs definition

Usage differs by culture.

Get over it?

Just because it's popular doesn't mean that it's right.

With that said, I'll choose to get over it and focus on important things, like dinner.

America means...

America is a synecdoche for the United States, the large country on the North American continent.
American is a demonym and synecdoche for a resident of the United States.
American is a term to describe anyone who lives on either of the North or South American continents.
'The' Americas means both continents combined, and all of the nations residing in there.
North America is...well...the North American continent, everything to the north of Colombia, basically
South America is everything south of Panama.
Chicago...is dirty.
Yankees are from New York. Quite calling us that.
Especially don't call us "Yanquis". Phonetic spelling of a word that doesn't describe 94% of us. Yankees are from New York. I'm from Ohio, I'm not a Yankee. That goes for you too, Alabama.

Just because it's popular doesn't mean that it's right.


It's one of the reasons we don't speak in the same way as our ancestors. And some words we consider used 'correctly' today, would be considered transgressions of meaning to someone from as little as 50 years ago.


With that said, I'll choose to get over it and focus on important things, like dinner.

Bon appetit!

Especially don't call us "Yanquis". Phonetic spelling of a word that doesn't describe 94% of us. Yankees are from New York. I'm from Ohio, I'm not a Yankee. That goes for you too, Alabama.

You're not a Yankee or a Yanqui. You're a damnyankee (all one word) :p

Just because it's popular doesn't mean that it's right.



It does with language. the simply fact is that the majority of English speakers refer to US citizens as Americans. and when you really look at the rest of the world the majority also refer to US citizens as Americans in their own language. of languages I am familiar with Hindi(Urdu by extension as well) and Chinese comes to mind when referring to Us citizens as Americans. Chinese in fact takes it a step further and basically calls the US the American country. You or you language group don't like this that is fine, but that is just a translation issue for you, not a whine and make a scene like your some great crusader against US imperialism.

Let us settle this as: Mexicans are Americans. More so than USAians ;)
Let us settle this: :p

Pain in the neck.

oh i thought it was near el paso
Mexico is very big. It borders California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, with the longest part of its border with the US being with Texas.

South America is not a nation. Neither is Africa. Or Scandinavia. And Mexico is part of South America.

Actually, Mexico is part of Meso-America (a.k.a. Central Amerca), NOT South America.

Chicago...is dirty.

Hey, watch it! We're only averagely dirty.

Yankees are from New York. Quite calling us that.
Especially don't call us "Yanquis". Phonetic spelling of a word that doesn't describe 94% of us. Yankees are from New York. I'm from Ohio, I'm not a Yankee. That goes for you too, Alabama.

"Yankees" are only exclusively New Yorkers if you base all of your demonyms on baseball teams; other than that, it depends entirely on where you're standing. Originally it meant someone from New England, though within New England it refers to someone of "old stock"; during the Civil War, Southerners started using it for any resident of the Union; English speakers outside the USA have used the term since the 1800s to mean any US resident. To deny your Yankeehood is to deny history! :wink:

The point is that the use of "americans" by the people of U.S.A. is a total disrespect for the rest of us... No "education standards" can hide this fact.


Actually we have been taught that there are "North America", comprising Canada, United States of America and Mexico, "Central America", comprised of Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama (the nations on the "land bridge" connecting the continent of North America to the continent of South America) and "South America", comprised of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, the Falkland Islands, French Guiana, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Suriname, Uruguay and Venezuela.

But don't let your ignorance and bigotry about "US American education" get in the way of your remarks.

PD: Do you know the origin of the word "America"? Hint: Is not english...

Yeah, it's Italian, named for Amerigo Vespucci. Your point?

Well. "America" as a synonym for the USA is corroborated by just about any english dictionary, as well as common usage when speaking the language. It can also refer purely to geography. Both definitions are acceptable. How about that, one word can have different definitions - amazing!

On the other hand, "USian" isn't in any English dictionary I can find and I've never even heard it spoken in English language conversations, leading me to believe it fails both the common usage test and the technical test.

I furthermore add that it's a stupid word, combining as it does an acronym (US) with a regular suffix. It's like instead of saying "FBI Agent" you'd say "FBIan." And get laughed at.

You're not a Yankee or a Yanqui. You're a damnyankee (all one word) :p
I thought we were damnyankees when we came down south and didn't know better that we should go back home. ;)

"USian" isn't in any English dictionary I can find and I've never even heard it spoken in English language conversations, leading me to believe it fails both the common usage test and the technical test.

I furthermore add that it's a stupid word, combining as it does an acronym (US) with a regular suffix. It's like instead of saying "FBI Agent" you'd say "FBIan." And get laughed at.

I don't mind American, of course, nor US citizen if someone's got a particular bug up their ass. But USian is stupid.

And I'll continue to have hand cramps for splitting 85 posts (more than the original debate) here. :p

Suddenly I understand!

It was really puzzling me the amount of passion in this "discussion" ... seemed to come out of nowhere ... though I probably should have noticed the repeated claims of "threadjack."

I hate Geography. (Am I allowed to say that?)

I hate Geography. (Am I allowed to say that?)
Yep. And Amen. ;)

This thread is so random I think some broccoli stole my car.

Never really thought about that...According to wikipedia: "Geopolitically, the West Indies are usually reckoned as a subregion of North America and are organised into 27 territories including sovereign states, overseas departments, and dependencies."

But, as to the second question, youd have to ask him...although it sounds to me like he was trying to justify not caring about Georgia...

Cant say i blame him...Its always in my way tryin to get to Carolina :D lol

Wait...I dont remember posting in this thread :confused:

someone's been moving my posts around *feels paranoid* lol...

The entire second half of that post was for the Georgia thread....

The term "America" refers to the US of A. The term American refers to citizens of the US of A.

That is generally accepted 'round the world.

The term "America" refers to the US of A. The term American refers to citizens of the US of A.

American may refer to:

. . .
* A person, an inhabitant, or attribute of the Americas, the lands and regions of the two continents of the Western Hemisphere, more commonly referred to as North American, Central American or South American.
* A person or attribute of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, commonly referred to as native American.


Well crap. I guess a word can have more than one definition. Who the fuck woulda thought it?

Well crap. I guess a word can have more than one definition. Who the fuck woulda thought it?

:eek:

You get them Commie Definitions away from me! :mad:

The term "America" refers to the US of A. The term American refers to citizens of the US of A.

That is generally accepted 'round the world.

While the term "American" tends to refer to the citizens of the USA because the alternatives all seem to be very clumsy, the term "America" does not exclusively refer to the United States, and is not generally accepted around the world. "United States", "US", or "USA" are all more commonly used terms for the United States of America. Frankly, I don't know why "US" isn't exclusively used, since it's perfectly descriptive and extremely brief.

As an aside, was it truly necessary to say "'round" instead of "around"? It's not even as though you spared any keystrokes. Was there a purpose to that?

dont stupid people start wars all the time? it seems like john mccain's iq drops a bit every day he campaigns for president.

Soon he will be done to Obama's level.

Ba-Zing.

No, no oh come on people tell me someone cracked a smile.

I don't know which is sadder, the fact the someone started this thread with four statement three correct and one incorrect and had no significant meaning behind it or that we have already reached 8 pages.

While the term "American" tends to refer to the citizens of the USA because the alternatives all seem to be very clumsy, the term "America" does not exclusively refer to the United States, and is not generally accepted around the world. "United States", "US", or "USA" are all more commonly used terms for the United States of America. Frankly, I don't know why "US" isn't exclusively used, since it's perfectly descriptive and extremely brief.

Well what US? Mexico? America? Please be more clear.

Yes we could say the USA which some people do in top of saying America. But if I said I am going off to America most people would assume the USA, if I said North America, South America or even the Americas then people wouldn't think that I am going to the USA exclusively.

And if they think I am even going to be in the USA when I say I am going to South America then they deserve a clip around (or is it 'round) the ear.

Well what US? Mexico? America? Please be more clear.

Yes we could say the USA which some people do in top of saying America. But if I said I am going off to America most people would assume the USA, if I said North America, South America or even the Americas then people wouldn't think that I am going to the USA exclusively.

And if they think I am even going to be in the USA when I say I am going to South America then they deserve a clip around (or is it 'round) the ear.

There is less confusion over which state the term "US" refers to than the term "America". There is only one country that refers to itself colloquially as "United States", and it's certainly not Mexico, whose name translates to English as "United Mexican States", not "United States of Mexico". So, D- at your attempt at deliberate obtuseness.