# "Americans" shouldn't be a synonym for USA-native people



## Gustavoang

Hello.

I've never liked to say "American" when I'm talking about an USA-native person... I'm venezuelan, thus I'm american too!

Is there other word/phrase that means the same?

Beside this common mistake (at least from my point of view It's a mistake, what about yours?), I often heard people to say "America" instead of USA... Could somebody explain me where does that country is located at? I can only find a *continent* named "America".

American = USA-native person  
America = USA   

Please post your point of view because It'll be interesting, even if you don't agree with me.

Cheers!

--------------------------------

Hola.

Nunca me ha gustado decir "Americano" cuando estoy hablando acerca de una persona estadounidense... Yo soy venezolano, así que también soy americano!

¿Existe otra palabra/frase que signifique lo mismo?

Además de este error común (por lo menos desde mi punto de vista es un error, qué tal desde el tuyo?), frecuentemente oigo a la gente decir "América" en lugar de EEUU... Podría alguien explicarme en dónde se encuentra ese país? Yo sólo encuentro un *continente* llamado "América".

Americano = Estadounidense  
América = EEUU  

Por favor escribe tu punto de vista porque será interesante, incluso si no estás de acuerdo conmigo.

Saludos!

========
EDIT: I'd like to set to private the option for the people to participate on this poll.


----------



## Markus

As a Canadian, I have no problem with people from the USA being referred to as Americans. It's what I call them. After all, they're from the United States of America, so it's just a shortening. What other options are there? USAers? Sounds awful.  When I'm referring to a continent, I call it North (or South) America. Therefore, I'm North American, but Canadian (not American).

Just my $0.02.


----------



## cuchuflete

We have had more threads on this topic than I can count. If you would like to see what dozens of people have had to say about it, use the Search function. You will find buckets of opinions, diatribes, rants, resentments, and perhaps even a few facts scattered among the words.

Also, be sure you understand your own question. The terminology in English and that in Spanish have potentially distinct meanings, and evoke rather different feelings among the native speakers of the two languages.

If you try to generalize the question, and whatever answer you prefer, to work equally in both languages, the results will be....let us say...interesting.

Your poll is bound to create lots of controversy, as it does not allow for the reality that 'American' is used to mean many things, and not only one of the choices your present.


----------



## irisheyes0583

I absolutely think that "American" refers to someone from the United States. Our country name _is_ the United States of America, so we shorten it and call ourselves American. 

The problem is that many Americans call themselves "americano/a" when they translate their nationality into Spanish. American does not equal "americano"! In Spanish, "americano" refers to anyone form North or South America, not just someone from the USA. I believe the correct term is "estadounidense". Even "norteamericano" isn't specific enough, as it includes Canadians & Mexicans.

So, Gustavoang, while I don't think that americano=someone from the USA, I do believe that American=someone from the USA.


----------



## GenJen54

Hi Gustav,

Maybe you should take a look at this thread, where the issue was recently, and rather hotly, debated.

I have always been, and always will be "American."  Perhaps this is seen as arrogant on my part, but I have no other means of describing who I am in relation to my nationality.  

At this point in time, my mother tongue, American Standard English, has no other word to describe my nationality.  "United Statsian" simply does not exist. 

The name of my country is the United States of America.  As Markus noted, "America" is a shortened version of the same, even though it also refers to the *two* American continents - "North America" and "South America."

To be frank, we (Americans) never speak of the singular continent "America," because _*it*_ *does not exist*.  If geography serves, there are actually *two *American continents, North America and South America.  So, depending upon where one is lives in relation to the equator, one is either *North American* or *South American*. 

I don't mean to claim that United Statsians Americans should have exclusive claim to the word American, simply that when calling a spade a spade, one should make the geographical distinction between North and South.


----------



## cuchuflete

What should the people of Mérida, Barcelona and Valencia call themselves, in order not to offend the people of other cities with the same names?  These are all names of Venezuelan cities.  If a Venezolano calls himself a Valenciano, is he committing an afront against the Spanish people who live in their own Valencia?  

There is no grammatical prescription or proscription in English which limits the use of the term American to residents of the U.S.  Customs are a matter of common usage and choice.


----------



## Swettenham

Mira aquí también.


----------



## Swettenham

Gustavoang said:
			
		

> I'm venezuelan, thus I'm american too!


Well, you're _Americano_, in Castellano.  In English, you're _Central American_.  As Chuchu, JenGen and others have pointed out, this is largely a linguistic issue.  What is known as "America" in Spanish is known as "The New World" or "The Americas" in English.  Hence, in our language, it is not at all confusing.  



> Is there other word/phrase that means the same?


No 



> I often heard people to say "America" instead of USA... Could somebody explain me where does that country is located at?


Sure.  It's just north of Mexico and south of Canada. 

We also call ourselves the United States.  Now that's a confusing title.  Which "United States?"  Several other nations— Mexico, Brazil— call themselves the United States.  Who are the Americans to claim that they are the _"true"_ United States?  On the other hand, no other nation in the world (that I know of) calls itself America.



> Please post your point of view because It'll be interesting, even if you don't agree with me.


The way I see it, the United States of America was formed as a nation in the late 18th century. At the time, the rest of the New World was colonies of Portugual and Spain.  I hate to say it, because I guess it sounds arrogant, but we did kind of have first dibs.  I realize that in this day and age our name can be irritating, but historically, it's not all that illogical.


----------



## BasedowLives

> We also call ourselves the United States. Now that's a confusing title. Which "United States?" Several other nations— Mexico, Brazil— call themselves the United States.



interesting point.

in my experiences with people from other countries saying my nationality, they refer to me as American.


----------



## Whisky con ron

Swettenham said:
			
		

> Well, you're _Americano_, in Castellano. In English, you're _*Central American*_.


 
Venezuela es parte del sub-continente de *América del Sur*.

La pregunta de si son dos o es un continente, a mí desde pequeña me enseñaron que son 5 continentes en total: América, Asia, África, Europa y Oceanía. Los Europeos a quienes les he preguntado dicen que son cinco (por ende, el continente Americano es UNO). Los únicos que parecen sostener que son dos son, ehmm... los estadounidenses!


----------



## Gustavoang

Hello.

I wasn't talking about if It's a good/bad idea to translate "American" into spanish as "Americano"... What I was saying is that in any language "American" shouldn't be a synonym for an USA-native person, at least that's what I think.

I also think that in any language in the world I am *american* because I was born in Venezuela.

What's a continent? According Wikipedia.org: It is a large *continuous* land mass. Are the United States of America, Canada and Mexico separate from other countries? No, they are not, therefore It's wrong to say that North America is a continent.

Take a look at the spanish definition for "América" in wikipedia.org:


> América, llamado malamente también en la actualidad en plural las Américas, debido a que Estados Unidos se hace llamar América, lo que es más bien una señal de imperialismo, y llamado en la antigüedad el Nuevo Mundo, es un continente que se extiende en el hemisferio occidental de la Tierra desde el Océano Ártico por el norte hasta casi el Océano Antártico por el sur, y está a su vez cercado por el Océano Pacífico al oeste, y por el Océano Atlántico al este.



The *American continent* consists of North America, Central America and South America.



			
				GenJen54 said:
			
		

> I have always been, and always will be "American."


Yes, me too.



			
				GenJen54 said:
			
		

> Perhaps this is seen as arrogant on my part, but I have no other means of describing who I am in relation to my nationality.


I don't think it's arrogant on your part because I agree with you... That's why I wanted to know if there's other way to say "USA-native person".



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> What should the people of Mérida, Barcelona and Valencia call themselves, in order not to offend the people of other cities with the same names? These are all names of Venezuelan cities.  If a Venezolano calls himself a Valenciano, is he committing an afront against the Spanish people who live in their own Valencia?
> 
> There is no grammatical prescription or proscription in English which limits the use of the term American to residents of the U.S.  Customs are a matter of common usage and choice.


The ploblem here is that USA-native people and I belong to the same continent, and people uses *our* title of Americans to talk especifically of USA.



			
				Swettenham said:
			
		

> Well, you're _Americano_, in Castellano.  In English, you're _Central American_.  As Chuchu, JenGen and others have pointed out, this is largely a linguistic issue.  What is known as "America" in Spanish is known as "The New World" or "The Americas" in English.  Hence, in our language, it is not at all confusing.


I think there're 2 wrong things here:

1.- According the second WordReference's definition for American: It's a native or inhabitant of a North American or Central American or South American country. Therefore, *in english I'm american too*.
2.- In english, I'm South American (or American).

I know that the whole continent is known as "The Americas" by much persons because they're talking about North America, Central America and South America. However, I think we have to say "America".



			
				Swettenham said:
			
		

> Sure.  It's just north of Mexico and south of Canada.


It was regarding America, not North America.



			
				Swettenham said:
			
		

> We also call ourselves the United States.  Now that's a confusing title.  Which "United States?"  Several other nations— Mexico, Brazil— call themselves the United States.  Who are the Americans to claim that they are the _"true"_ United States?  On the other hand, no other nation in the world (that I know of) calls itself America.


Alright, I understand your possition, but understand this: no other nation in the world (that I know of too) calls itself America, but the whole continent where USA belongs to does call itself America.

BTW, "The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela" was officially named "The United States of Venezuela" and Venezuela-native people were (are and will be) venezuelans, and It was (is and will be) no problem because no nation nor continent called itself Venezuela.


----------



## Gustavoang

Whisky con ron said:
			
		

> Venezuela es parte del sub-continente de *América del Sur*.
> 
> La pregunta de si son dos o es un continente, a mí desde pequeña me enseñaron que son 5 continentes en total: América, Asia, África, Europa y Oceanía. Los Europeos a quienes les he preguntado dicen que son cinco (por ende, el continente Americano es UNO). Los únicos que parecen sostener que son dos son, ehmm... los estadounidenses!


Totalmente de acuerdo contigo.


----------



## Swettenham

Whisky con ron said:
			
		

> Venezuela es parte del sub-continente de *América del Sur*.


Thank you.


----------



## Whisky con ron

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> We have had more threads on this topic than I can count. If you would like to see what dozens of people have had to say about it, use the Search function. You will find buckets of opinions, diatribes, rants, resentments, and perhaps even a few facts scattered among the words.
> 
> Also, be sure you understand your own question. The terminology in English and that in Spanish have potentially distinct meanings, and evoke rather different feelings among the native speakers of the two languages.
> 
> If you try to generalize the question, and whatever answer you prefer, to work equally in both languages, the results will be....let us say...interesting.
> 
> Your poll is bound to create lots of controversy, as it does not allow for the reality that 'American' is used to mean many things, and not only one of the choices your present.


 
Después de este "corte" me siento totalmente aterrada de seguir con la conversación, ya que me parece que enfuria a su majestad comandante en jefe... sin embargo, me gustaría leer lo que se ha dicho "tantas veces que himself no las puede contar".  Hice una búsqueda sin éxito, podría Vd. poner el link de las incontables discusiones?

Agradecida...


----------



## cuchuflete

Gustavo,  

Thanks for the clarifications and the reasoned statements.  I may have to break the reply into pieces, due to vBulletin size limits.  





			
				Gustavoang said:
			
		

> Hello.
> 
> I wasn't talking about if It's a good/bad idea to translate "American" into spanish as "Americano"... What I was saying is that in any language "American" shouldn't be a synonym for an USA-native person, at least that's what I think.  If using 'American' in English were mutually exclusive of any other use of the term, I would quickly agree with you.  However, the word is used in English, to denote residents of a nation, as well as of one or more continents.  Given that multiple usage, I find no problem.
> As to what people do with the term in their own languages, that is a matter of their own choice.  Nobody suggests, much less requires, that a Paraguayan or Peruvian use the term americano to refer to an estadounidense.  If such people freely choose to use the term in parallel to the way it's used in English, to signify both a national of one country, and all peoples and places in a continent, that's their choice.  Context normally clarifies the intended meaning, so there is no difficulty with precision.
> 
> I conclude that there is no linguistic problem here.  If there is a problem, it's political, and should be discussed openly as a political, and not a linguistic issue.  That way, we won't waste time discussing the obvious over and over again.
> 
> I also think that in any language in the world I am *american* because I was born in Venezuela. Of course you are!
> 
> The ploblem here is that USA-native people and I belong to the same continent, and people uses *our* title of Americans to talk especifically of USA.  And people from New York City call themselves New Yorkers.  In so doing, they typically do not trouble or offend the many millions of other New York State residents who are also New Yorkers.  What exactly is "the problem"?
> 
> 
> I think there're 2 wrong things here:
> 
> 1.- According the second WordReference's definition for American: It's a native or inhabitant of a North American or Central American or South American country. Therefore, *in english I'm american too*. Absolutely correct! You and all the Brasileiros and Chilenos etc. are american.
> 2.- In english, I'm South American (or American). Also correct.  This identifies you with greater geographic specificity.  I'm an American, and a Mainer.  I'm also a northeasterner, just as someone from Bahía is a nordestino.
> 
> I know that the whole continent is known as "The Americas" by much persons because they're talking about North America, Central America and South America. However, I think we have to say "America". Why do we "have to"?  These are nothing more than customs of popular speech.  The meaning of "the Americas" to a resident of the U.
> S., and 'América' to a Venezuelan, are identical when referring to the continent(s).


----------



## GenJen54

> Originally posted by *Whiskey Con Ron*
> La pregunta de si son dos o es un continente, a mí desde pequeña me enseñaron que son 5 continentes en total: América, Asia, África, Europa y Oceanía. Los Europeos a quienes les he preguntado dicen que son cinco (por ende, el continente Americano es UNO). Los únicos que parecen sostener que son dos son, ehmm... los estadounidenses!


 
In a sense, this entire argument is moot, as our respective educational systems and governments accept different numbers of continents. 

In the "American" (US) education model, there are *no fewer than seven continents*: Africa, Antarctica, Australia (Oceania), Asia, North America, South America and Europe. According to Wikipedia.org, this education system is taught in the US, Australia, Western Europe and much of Asia. Canada also subscribes to the "seven-continent" model, although with a slight variant regarding Australia/Oceania which is irrelevant to this arguement. 

The *six-continent* "combined America" model is taught in Japan, Iran and *Latin America*. 

This is where the discrepancy comes in, and why the argument regarding the use of "America/American" to describe someone from the United States is strongest from those who were raised in Latin America - and thus followed the 6-continent model. 

Call us "isolationist" (we've been called worse), but those in North America believe that none other than the Panama Canal - a mere fifty-one mile stretch of water - is enough to separate us geographically from South America. As such, we believe that the two continents are separate.

In a way, this is an arguement between "North Americans" and "South Americans." 

I do not deny you your right to consider yourself an "American" as in "person from the Americas." Egalement, I should not have to concede my right as an "American" from the United States, since I am from the "United States of America," nor bow to the whims of "political correctness" by declaring myself a "United Statesian." (aren't you proud of me, cuchu?)  After all is said and done, it all boils down geographical semantics.


----------



## Alundra

I totally agree with cuchu... 



They aren't synonyms for me.

One thing is to be American: From American continent

And other thing is to be Estadounidense, Canadiense, Venezolano, Mexicano, Puertorriqueño, Colombiano, etc... 

Can't you be the two both? American and Venezolano? 

Same that I'm Spanish, European, Manchega, Albaceteña, etc...

I think it's very easy... for me... all of you are americans, and every one is american, and besides he is Venezuelan, Canadian, and so on... 

Don't you like to be named like your continent? Do you prefer like your country?

Do you think the europeans aren't named europeans, but Spaniard, French, Portuguese?... 
I'm named european sometimes... and I like it... no matter... *I'm european*

I'm european, but besides, I'm Spaniard, Manchega, Albaceteña, etc...

What's the matter? I have seen many threads about the issue and I'm amazed...

Do you think we don't know where your country is? When I say American, I think you are from American Continent... not only from USA.

Thanks and correct me, please.
Alundra.


----------



## Whisky con ron

I have no problem with people from the USA calling themselves Americans.  My problem is that the name should not be kidnaped for that nationality only.  It is the not accepting that people from the American continent are Americans too....  And I have seen that kind of ignorance many many times...  "*I *  am American, *you  * are Hispanic"


----------



## *Cowgirl*

If you are Venezuelan does that mean you are a native of Venezuela? America is just a shortened version of United States of America. So, if I'm a native of the USA what am I if I'm not an American........


----------



## Alundra

Whisky con ron said:
			
		

> I have no problem with people from the USA calling themselves Americans. My problem is that the name should not be kidnaped for that nationality only. It is the not accepting that people from the American continent are Americans too.... And I have seen that kind of ignorance many many times... "*I *am American, *you *are Hispanic"


 
Luckily, I don't think it so... and I think Spanish people (the most) either.


Alundra.


----------



## GenJen54

> Originally posted by *Whiskey Con Ron*I have no problem with people from the USA calling themselves Americans. My problem is that the name should not be kidnaped for that nationality only. It is the not accepting that people from the American continent are Americans too.... And I have seen that kind of ignorance many many times... "I am American, you are Hispanic"



I don't disagree with you.  However, I don't think that "American" has necessarily been kidnapped for the US nationality only.  The sad truth is, most "Am'ur-kins" don't have a broader cultural understanding that is inclusive of our Central, South and Latin "American" bretheren.  Thanks in part to our own government the countless census- type forms where people must check off their "ethnicity" - many people tend to assume that "ethnicity" equals "nationality," even when this is not true.


----------



## Alundra

*Cowgirl* said:
			
		

> If you are Venezuelan does that mean you are a native of Venezuela? America is just a shortened version of United States of America. So, if I'm a native of the USA what am I if I'm not an American........


 
Cowgirl, for me, you are american because you are from American continent, and you are "estadounidense" because you are from USA.

Don't you like to be named "estadounidense"? Is it an affront for you?

Alundra.


----------



## cuchuflete

Whisky con ron said:
			
		

> I have no problem with people from the USA calling themselves Americans. My problem is that the name should not be kidnaped for that nationality only. It is the not accepting that people from the American continent are Americans too.... And I have seen that kind of ignorance many many times... "*I *  am American, *you  * are Hispanic"



Kidnapped?

Show me the kidnapper. If millions or tens of millions of Spanish speakers choose, of their own free will, to use--or if you prefer, misuse-- the word 'americano' to refer to residents of the U.S., by all means tell them how wrong they are, and guide them to enlightenment. 

If you read the posts of any of the U.S. residents in this and the other threads that have been cited in this one, you will find that the term, in English has multiple meanings, one of which--and not the only one--refers to a country. English language dictionaries whether of the AE or BE variety are uniform in specifying multiple meanings also. 



> *My* problem is that the name should not be kidnaped for that nationality only.


 *I fully agree with you.*  And it has not been.  

This obviously isn't a discussion of language...rather it's about nationalism and emotional reactions to the way a word is used some of the time.


----------



## cuchuflete

> It is the not accepting that people from the American continent are Americans too.... And I have seen that kind of ignorance many many times... "I   am American, you   are Hispanic"



Well, obviously this is what's really on your mind, and a use of the word 'american' is just a pretext to vent about it.  I don't blame you a bit for being very angry at such ignorance.  I would call it arrogance as well, and stupidity.  And it does exist.  Many of my countrymen are quite thoroughly ignorant of what goes on in the next state, and don't seem to know or care about the names of other countries.  

Can I come to their defense?  Only in a small but perhaps meaningful way.  Generally it is ignorance and nothing inherently malicious.  But sometimes there's a lot of pride mixed in, and then it is just as bad as if it were malicious.  

Big countries, mine absolutely included, pressure and meddle in the affairs of other nations.  That causes resentments, many of which are justified.  So the big, strong, proud U.S., in great measure through its own actions, becomes a target.  
So I not only understand, but agree with, those who are provoked and resentful.

My plea is that if you want to talk about policy matters, by all means do so.  If your indignation and hurt stems from economic and political interference or bullying, then come right out and discuss it directly.   

If all the feelings get tangled up with what is supposedly a discussion about the use of a word, then be prepared for opposing viewpoints.  If you have facts to back up your assertions, you will be persuasive.


----------



## Gustavoang

Cuchuflete, regarding your post:

I wasn't talking about if It's a good/bad idea to translate "American" into spanish as "Americano"... What I was saying is that in any language "American" shouldn't be a synonym for an USA-native person, at least that's what I think. If using 'American' in English were mutually exclusive of any other use of the term, I would quickly agree with you. However, the word is used in English, to denote residents of a nation, as well as of one or more continents. Given that multiple usage, I find no problem.
As to what people do with the term in their own languages, that is a matter of their own choice. Nobody suggests, much less requires, that a Paraguayan or Peruvian use the term americano to refer to an estadounidense. If such people freely choose to use the term in parallel to the way it's used in English, to signify both a national of one country, and all peoples and places in a continent, that's their choice. Context normally clarifies the intended meaning, so there is no difficulty with precision.​Yes, I do agree with you here because that's the point: The common usage of the "American" and "America" words.

The ploblem here is that USA-native people and I belong to the same continent, and people uses our title of Americans to talk especifically of USA. And people from New York City call themselves New Yorkers. In so doing, they typically do not trouble or offend the many millions of other New York State residents who are also New Yorkers. What exactly is "the problem"?​That's a good point.

We could say that we got different cultures in a set of several countries which I've ever known as America, and one of them takes *our* name to use it for itself. I feel excuded with this situation.

Regarding New York City and New York State, I think that there's no problem because It's the same culture, as well as in Venezuela with: Mérida State and Mérida City, Barinas State and Barinas City, among others. I think that if I was a "La Culata" native person (It's in Mérida State, but out Mérida City), I would have no problem for the Merida State people to call themselves Merideños.


----------



## Swettenham

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Well, obviously this is what's really on your mind, and a use of the word 'american' is just a pretext to vent about it.  I don't blame you a bit for being very angry at such ignorance.  I would call it arrogance as well, and stupidity.  And it does exist.  Many of my countrymen are quite thoroughly ignorant of what goes on in the next state, and don't seem to know or care about the names of other countries.


I'm guilty.



> Big countries, mine absolutely included, pressure and meddle in the affairs of other nations.  That causes resentments, many of which are justified.  So the big, strong, proud U.S., in great measure through its own actions, becomes a target.
> So I not only understand, but agree with, those who are provoked and resentful.
> 
> My plea is that if you want to talk about policy matters, by all means do so.  If your indignation and hurt stems from economic and political interference or bullying, then come right out and discuss it directly.


In other words, please advise us to stop making war.  But leave the name alone.  We have a right to call ourselves as we please.


----------



## Gustavoang

Alundra said:
			
		

> I totally agree with cuchu...
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't synonyms for me.
> 
> One thing is to be American: From American continent
> 
> And other thing is to be Estadounidense, Canadiense, Venezolano, Mexicano, Puertorriqueño, Colombiano, etc...
> 
> Can't you be the two both? American and Venezolano?
> 
> Same that I'm Spanish, European, Manchega, Albaceteña, etc...
> 
> I think it's very easy... for me... all of you are americans, and every one is american, and besides he is Venezuelan, Canadian, and so on...
> 
> Don't you like to be named like your continent? Do you prefer like your country?
> 
> Do you think the europeans aren't named europeans, but Spaniard, French, Portuguese?...
> I'm named european sometimes... and I like it... no matter... *I'm european*
> 
> I'm european, but besides, I'm Spaniard, Manchega, Albaceteña, etc...
> 
> What's the matter? I have seen many threads about the issue and I'm amazed...
> 
> Do you think we don't know where your country is? When I say American, I think you are from American Continent... not only from USA.
> 
> Thanks and correct me, please.
> Alundra.


Alundra: That's what I mean.

The definition you have about America and American are the right ones for me, but much people got a wrong definition of these words.


----------



## Gustavoang

Alundra said:
			
		

> Cowgirl, for me, you are american because you are from American continent, and you are "estadounidense" because you are from USA.


And that's what I think too.


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Gustavo,

We seem to have plenty of gounds for agreement, but there is one area remaining where we are not in accord.





			
				Gustavoang said:
			
		

> We could say that we got different cultures in a set of several countries which I've ever known as America, and one of them takes *our* name to use it for itself. I feel excuded with this situation.  That you "feel excluded" would be easier for me to understand if the English uses of the word were only a single use,  that referring to one country.  But in fact, there are multiple common and equally valid uses of the term.  American describes a geographic area.  It also describes all of the people living in that geography.  And, yes, it certainly is commonly used to describe the people of one country.  I haven't grasped how any one of these uses excludes any of the others.
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding New York City and New York State, I think that there's no problem because It's the same culture,   This is perhaps a minor point to you and to many others reading this thread, but it is not the same culture.
> A farmer from Utica feels no affinity with one of the 10+ million city dwellers in and near New York City.  They speak with different accents, live totally different kinds of lives, and often have very different fundamental values.  Imagine that Caracas was the name of a small city and surrounding province in the interior of your country, in addition to the very large, cosmopolitan city of the same name.  This would be a fair parallel.
> 
> Of course we are talking about smaller political sub-divisions, without questions of national pride involved.  Still, people from Albany, NY and Binghamton,NY would be troubled if someone from Maracaibo thought they were from NY City.   Words can carry a lot of emotion with them.



regards,
Cuchu


----------



## Swettenham

Gustavoang said:
			
		

> Alundra: That's what I mean.
> 
> The definition you have about America and American are the right ones for me, but much people got a wrong definition of these words.


A wrong definition?    I don't agree that anyone can decide that a culture's own self-image is wrong.     

What do you call the Chinese?  Los Chinos?  And what do they call themselves?  The Zhongguoren?  Will you tell them that they are wrong; they are not Zhongguo; they are Chino, because that is what you call them?

Does water taste different when you call it agua?  Moreover, are Americans of the United States wrong to call it water?  Is your name the right one?


----------



## GenJen54

> Originally posted by *Gustavoang*
> The definition you have about America and American are the right ones for me, but much people got a *wrong* definition of these words.


This is your opinion.  This is *not* fact. Even Spanish-only dictionaries have multiple meanings of the word, which is inclusive of the use of "Americano" to mean "person who is a native of the United States."

This is from the *Real Academia Espanola* website (which is linked to WordReference).

 1. adj. Natural de América. U. t. c. s.
     2. adj. Perteneciente o relativo a esta parte del mundo.
     3. adj. indiano (ǁ que vuelve rico de América).
     4. adj. *estadounidense*. Apl. a pers., u. t. c. s.

This is from diccionarios elmundo.es.
 
 americano, na
1. adj. y s. De América o relativo a este continente: países americanos.
2. Suele aplicarse restrictivamente *a los naturales de Estados Unidos* y a todo lo relativo a este país: costumbres americanas.
 
Do you not accept *the fact* that there is more than one meaning to this word?  Neither culture claims exclusivity on "American."

As cuchu said, there are perhaps other cultural biases or resentments that come into play.  Otherwise, this is just a word.

The fact remains that there exists no other word for me to describe my own nationality in my language. In this case, I'm afraid we must just "share and share alike."



> Originally posted by *Alundra*
> Don't you like to be named "estadounidense"? Is it an affront for you?


I cannot answer for *Cowgirl,* but I will say that I am not personally offended by "esatounidense" because that is a word your language has to describe my nationaliy; just as my language has the word "Spanish" to describe someone from your country.  

However, I still do not believe it is necessary to change my own language and create a new word that is mutually exclusive to those of us from the United States simply because the existing word has more than one meaning.


----------



## MiriamArg

After reading the entire thread, I think all that can be said about this topic has been said here, so my opinion won't contribute anything original.

Anyway, here it goes: I think we all know that literal translations may have unhappy results. I am Argentinian, and when I am speaking Spanish I say "soy argentina", and I can also say "soy americana" because I live in what we call the "continente americano". When I'm speaking English, I say "I'm Argentinian", BUT I don't say "I'm American" -not even when I am "americana", if this makes any sense to you. I know it does to me. If, in English, you say you're "American", most people will believe you were born in the USA.
In Spanish, "americanos" are all the people born in "Am*é*rica" (I'm using the Spanish word here, hence the stressed "é"), and that comprises North, Central and South America. In Argentina's "rioplatense Spanish", when we say Am*é*rica we're referring to all three parts of the continent.
Now, when I refer to people born in the USA, I call them "Americans" if I'm speaking English, because that's what they call themselves and, if I want to be understood by someone who speaks a different language, then it's only logical that I will use those people's "code". When I refer to people born in the USA, in my first language, I always say "estadounidenses". I understand the difference, and don't have a problem with it.
If the people from the USA call themselves "Americans", then why should I call them something different if I'm speaking THEIR language and if I am trying to get my message -whatever it may be- across?

I'm fussy and touchy about a million things, but not about this one in particular. Let people call themselves what makes them happy and, at the same time, do keep in mind that different "cultures", different peoples, may have different meanings for words that may look and sound alike in different languages.

Let the people from the USA be "Americans" in English and "estadounidenses" in Spanish. I don't feel "Americans" are robbing me of anything. And, as long as *I* am not called something I am not, I'll be happy.

BTW, I'm not voting here because whatever the people born in the USA call themselves *in their own language* doesn't make a difference to me. If it's ok with them, then it *is* ok. I've never heard anyone complain about my calling myself "Argentinian" or "argentina".

This is, after all and in my opinion, only a matter of labels.

Miriam


----------



## Gustavoang

Hi, cuchuflete.

We could say that we got different cultures in a set of several countries which I've ever known as America, and one of them takes our name to use it for itself. I feel excuded with this situation. That you "feel excluded" would be easier for me to understand if the English uses of the word were only a single use, that referring to one country. But in fact, there are multiple common and equally valid uses of the term. American describes a geographic area. It also describes all of the people living in that geography. And, yes, it certainly is commonly used to describe the people of one country. I haven't grasped how any one of these uses excludes any of the others.​
I don't think that the English uses that word to talk of USA only, actually I quoted the WordReference's english definition for American because I agree with it. What I think is that a lot people think that, which is wrong (at least from my point of view).


But in fact, there are multiple common and equally valid uses of the term. American describes a geographic area. It also describes all of the people living in that geography.​
That's what I think.

Regarding New York City and New York State, I think that there's no problem because It's the same culture, This is perhaps a minor point to you and to many others reading this thread, but it is not the same culture.
A farmer from Utica feels no affinity with one of the 10+ million city dwellers in and near New York City. They speak with different accents, live totally different kinds of lives, and often have very different fundamental values. Imagine that Caracas was the name of a small city and surrounding province in the interior of your country, in addition to the very large, cosmopolitan city of the same name. This would be a fair parallel.

Of course we are talking about smaller political sub-divisions, without questions of national pride involved. Still, people from Albany, NY and Binghamton,NY would be troubled if someone from Maracaibo thought they were from NY City. Words can carry a lot of emotion with them.​
It was an hypothesis, I don't know very well these situations. I also agree with what you said.


----------



## QUIJOTE

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> In the "American" (US) education model, there are *no fewer than seven continents*: Africa, Antarctica, Australia (Oceania), Asia, North America, South America and Europe. According to Wikipedia.org, this education system is taught in the US, Australia, Western Europe and much of Asia. Canada also subscribes to the "seven-continent" model, although with a slight variant regarding Australia/Oceania which is irrelevant to this arguement.
> 
> The *six-continent* "combined America" model is taught in Japan, Iran and *Latin America*.


 
Am I missing something here? I always thought there were only five continents in the world...America, Asia, Australia, Africa and Europe, please either update my education or correct me....Never mind I am answering my own question, I guess it comes down to the way you look at it.

*Continents of the World *
*The Definition of a Continent *
A continent is a large body of land, above water, that has a natural geological border. 

*How Many Continents Are There? *
Depending on how you count them, there are anywhere from 4 to 7 continents. The difference of opinion arises because some people consider Europe and Asia to be one continent, some people consider North and South America to be one continent, and a few people even consider Europe, Asia, and Africa to be one huge continent called Eurafrasia. 

*What are the Names of the Continents? *
As mentioned above, not everyone agrees on exactly how the world is divided into continents, but these are the entities you will sometimes see referred to as continents: 

Africa 
Asia 
Eurasia 
Eurafrasia 
Antarctica 
Europe 
Oceania 
Australia 
America 
North America 
South America 

*Five Ways to Count Continents *
*#1 - Seven Continents *
Africa - Antarctica - Asia - Europe 
North America - South America - Oceania 

*#2 - Six Continents *
Africa - Antarctica - Eurasia - Oceania 
North America - South America 

*#3 - Six Continents *
Africa - America - Antarctica 
Asia - Europe - Oceania 

*#4 - Five Continents *
Africa - America - Antarctica 
Eurasia - Oceania 

*#5 - Four Continents *
Eurafrasia - America - Antarctica - Oceania 

*More About Continents *
Wikipedia.org - Continents Defined 
Wikipedia.org - Countries by Continent 
WorldAtlas.com - Countries by Continent


----------



## Outsider

Hi.

Even though I have "played Devil's advocate" in other threads, I do not, personally, object to the U.S. and U.S. citizens being called 'America' and 'American', respectively.

As a matter of fact, I would be a bit hypocritical if I did. My own country is now a part of a political entity which has unabashedly decided to call itself "the European Union". The media around here often call it and its citizens simply "Europe" and "Europeans", even though over half of the continent is not included in this Union. I didn't like it when they started doing that (it was called the European Economic Community, before, as you might remember), and I know other "E.U.-ians" who think it's inappropriate, too. But, honestly, _in practice, with the context before you_, this ambiguity never causes any confusion. We are perfectly aware that our "Europe" is not the whole continent. So, although I'm not a fan of the term, I don't think it's a big deal to use it.

In any case, trying to change the designation from 'America' and 'Americans' into something else (for those who do feel strongly about this) seems like a lost cause. Even if all the other languages in the world come up with other words, Americans will keep calling themselves 'American'.

Some comments to previous posts:



			
				Swettenham said:
			
		

> We also call ourselves the United States.  Now that's a confusing title.  Which "United States?"  Several other nations— Mexico, Brazil— call themselves the United States.  Who are the Americans to claim that they are the _"true"_ United States?  On the other hand, no other nation in the world (that I know of) calls itself America.


To be fair, although other countries have called themselves the "United States of" something, the U.S.A. are the only country in the world known simply as "the United States". And with good reason: they were the first.



			
				Gustavoang said:
			
		

> What's a continent? According Wikipedia.org: It is a large *continuous* land mass. Are the United States of America, Canada and Mexico separate from other countries? No, they are not, therefore It's wrong to say that North America is a continent.


There is no unique definition of continent. Different authors, and different schools of thought, use different definitions. The definition you cited is interesting; have you noticed that, according to it, Africa, Asia and Europe are not continents on their own, but a single continent? (Eurafrasia.) Is this what you were taught in school?



			
				GenJen54 said:
			
		

> In the "American" (US) education model, there are *no fewer than seven continents*: Africa, Antarctica, Australia (Oceania), Asia, North America, South America and Europe. According to Wikipedia.org, this education system is taught in the US, Australia, *Western Europe* and much of Asia. Canada also subscribes to the "seven-continent" model, although with a slight variant regarding Australia/Oceania which is irrelevant to this arguement.


It seems that the Wikipedia has changed its entry. I honestly don't remember how they taught me this in school.


----------



## LV4-26

Not a linguistic problem at all ?

Then how come I can't be totally sure what the following sentence means ?

_The rate of unemployment is about 10% in Europe. It's slightly less in America.

_(fictional figures)


----------



## Outsider

Rates of unemployment should be analysed country by country, in Europe.


----------



## Whisky con ron

I won't fall into the teenager argument of "you say that because you hate us... you hate us you hate us why don't you say it and cut the crap and blah blah blah..."

I have said, I have no problem with USA natives calling themselves Americans.  The only problem is if this then excludes everybody in the continent from being called American too (without "central, north, south" being put in front).  I mean, no-one can argue with the fact that Belgians are Europeans, correct?  But why when a Venezuelan says he's American, he is quickly "corrected" into "no, you are South American" (assuming they get the sub-continent right, eh?).

That's all... Use it but don't claim exclusivity.  Full stop.


----------



## Whisky con ron

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> Not a linguistic problem at all ?
> 
> Then how come I can't be totally sure what the following sentence means ?
> 
> _The rate of unemployment is about 10% in Europe. It's slightly less in America._
> 
> (fictional figures)


 
Beautifully explained - Thank you.


----------



## cuchuflete

Whisky con ron said:
			
		

> Use it but don't claim exclusivity.  Full stop.



Sounds like a reasonable proposition.  I've just re-read many of the threads on this topic.  Nowhere did I find anyone advocating for exclusivity.

Not a single post by any person, from any nation, suggests that the word be used to describe a single country's people to the exclusion of anyone else...
You have given, earlier in this thread,  an example of a way to mis-use the term, and have said that's not good.  Agreed.


----------



## Brioche

When the terrorists hijack a aircraft, 
and they start shooting the "Americans",
it wil be only the US passport holders.

In ordinary English, unadorned "America" = USA,  unadorned "American" = citizen of the USA

Like it or not, that's the fact of the matter. The likelihood of it changing is infinitesimal.


----------



## Swettenham

Whisky con ron said:
			
		

> I won't fall into the teenager argument of "you say that because you hate us... you hate us you hate us why don't you say it and cut the crap and blah blah blah..."
> 
> I have said, I have no problem with USA natives calling themselves Americans. The only problem is if this then excludes everybody in the continent from being called American too (without "central, north, south" being put in front). I mean, no-one can argue with the fact that Belgians are Europeans, correct? But why when a Venezuelan says he's American, he is quickly "corrected" into "no, you are South American" (assuming they get the sub-continent right, eh?).
> 
> That's all... Use it but don't claim exclusivity. Full stop.


I may be guilty of making that kind of teenager argument. I realize that it weakens my position, so I do try to abstain from such emotional histrionics.

I just don't understand what the big deal is. In Spanish, you are americano and I am estadounidense. In English, I am American and you are South American (or an American from South America). I'm sorry if you feel disenfranchised. And I won't deny, for the sake of political correctness, that we use the term exclusively. Since this discussion began here (threads and months ago), I have honestly tried to remember instances in which something outside the USA was referred to as simply "American," _a secas_. I know that such examples exist, but they are extremely rare. I can't think of one. That doesn't mean that I personally believe that you cannot call yourself American-- it's just a word to me. But I'm sure you understand that if you do call yourself American, I will assume that you mean estadounidense, so you will have to explain that you mean "of the New World," not "of the United States."

United States of Americans have not stolen or kidnapped any words. For instance, we do not tell Spanish-speakers how to use the word "americano." That is your word, and you are free to use it as you please. You are also free to call us whatever you like-- "gringuito" is my favorite term. "American," an English word, is ours to use as we like. Don't kidnap it from us, please. We've already found a home for it, thank you.


----------



## GenJen54

> Originallly posted by *Whiskey Con Ron*
> But why when a Venezuelan says he's American, he is quickly "corrected" into "no, you are South American" (assuming they get the sub-continent right, eh?).


Because that is how those "Americans" from the United States of America LEARNED it. It is our accepted belief because we were taught that North America and South America are *two separate continents*. Via our education, you are South American, even though you are also "American."

_Your_ education follows the model that there is only one "American" continent. 

People who correct you do so because they are assuming, based upon the education model under which they have been taught, that what they are saying is correct. Just like you assert that you are correct, based upon the education model you have been taught.

Neither is more "right" than the other. They both just are.


----------



## Outsider

Whisky con ron said:
			
		

> I mean, no-one can argue with the fact that Belgians are Europeans, correct?  But why when a Venezuelan says he's American, he is quickly "corrected" into "no, you are South American" (assuming they get the sub-continent right, eh?).


Why not just say that he is Venezuelan, though? It would avoid any confusion.

Edited to add: _Nevermind. Rereading the thread, I think I misinterpreted Whisky con ron's point._


----------



## cuchuflete

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> Not a linguistic problem at all ?
> 
> Then how come I can't be totally sure what the following sentence means ?
> 
> _The rate of unemployment is about 10% in Europe. It's slightly less in America.
> 
> _(fictional figures)



Of course there is a linguistic problem in your example Jean-Michel:  Lack of context.

By 'Europe', do you mean to include part or all of Russia?  What about 'Europe' as an ever more frequent synonym for the EU?   Shall we start to think that 'Europe' includes Turkey?  Yes, free of context, the sentence is quite ambiguous.  

"Rate of unemployment" could be the percentage of the workforce who have held jobs, but do not at present. Alternatively, it might mean all those of working age who now do not have jobs reported to local authorities.  Are those who work at home, raising children and maintaining households, for no wages, considered unemployed?  More ambiguity.


----------



## Roi Marphille

Swettenham said:
			
		

> But leave the name alone. We have a right to call ourselves as we please.


Well, I'm with you here.  
We may all remember that it is much _worse to be named as you do not like_, isn't it? 
If they are happy to be called Americans, it's OK with me. What it is not OK with me is when people IMPOSE against others will. 

Roi


----------



## cuchuflete

Hello Roi,

You make an excellent point.  I know you and your people were subjected to decades of imposed will.  Just let us know how you prefer to be addressed.  I assume most foreros will be happy to show their courtesy to you.

Cuchu


----------



## Swettenham

> But why when a Venezuelan says he's American, he is quickly "corrected" into "no, you are South American" (assuming they get the sub-continent right, eh?).


If South America is a "subcontinent," then so is Asia. Please see Outsider's above comments on this matter.


----------



## nycphotography

Gustavoang said:
			
		

> What I was saying is that in any language "American" shouldn't be a synonym for an USA-native person, at least that's what I think.


 
When discussing language, once you use the word "should", you are almost always going to be wrong.  Oh you can be right all you want, in theory.  But in practice, you'll be wrong every time?

You can't argue with language and usage.

It is what it is, and it is not going to change based on what anyone thinks it should be.  Um.  Excepting communist china, of course.  ;-)

My favorite?  Portugal having a national referendum on whether "Bue" should be added to the official language / dictionary.  Um.  Guys?  If enough people know the word to be ABLE to have enough informed voters, then by definition it al already in the language.  And if they don't know, the frikkin dictionary is where they should be ABLE to find out!!


----------



## Swettenham

Entonces, ¿de qué exactamente trata esta discusión?

¿Nos mandan a los estadounidenses cambiar nuestro punto de vista? ¿Creen que nuestras palabras han de cambiar?

¿O nos recuerdan que ustedes tienen un punto de vista diferente? ¿Que tienen palabras diferentes?

Claro que es importante recordarles a nuevos foreros estadounidenses que no se llamen americanos en español excepto cuando se refieran a sí mismos como habitantes del nuevo mundo. Personalmente yo nunca me he llamado "americano" (en español), ni como ciudadano de los Estados Unidos ni como habitante del nuevo mundo.  No la encuentro una palabra muy útil. 

En todo caso, soy orgullosamente estadounidense, o humano, o como les guste, a sus órdenes.


----------



## Everness

Swettenham said:
			
		

> Claro que es importante recordarlos a nuevos foreros estadounidenses que no se llamen americanos en español excepto cuando se refieran a sí mismos como habitantes del nuevo mundo. Personalmente yo nunca me he llamado a mí mismo "americano" (en español), ni como ciudadano de los Estados Unidos ni como habitante del nuevo mundo. Soy orgullosamente estadounidense, o humano, o como quieran, a sus órdenes.



This is an important reflection. When we switch languages, we should avoid literal translations and take into account cultural context and usage of terms. Someone who is learning Spanish, might introduce himself/herself as "americano" o "americana." Later on, he/she will read a long thread like this one, and choose to use another word, i.e. "estadounidense" o "norteamericano." It's almost impossible to learn a language without learning a culture. They inform each other.


----------



## Outsider

_Off-topic question taken to private message._


----------



## cuchuflete

I am happy to respectfully disagree with my colleague Swettenham. For me, and based on my education, the word is not exclusive in AE. I'll leave BE to the natives. Likewise Canadian English, though we have already heard from at least one Canadian.

I was taught that 'American' refers to a broad geographic area..whether you prefer to call it one or two or three continents. When the word is used in context, it is clear: "The american nations include those in which French, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish and English are spoken." I believe the meaning of 'american' in this sentence would be clear to any reasonably educated American from the U.S. 

I was also taught that it may be used to refer to the people--all of them--who inhabit this geography. In fact, however, in AE this is an infrequent usage. Because we are taught that there are three continents in the hemisphere, we normally are more geographically specific, and refer to the inhabitants as North or South or Central Americans. We do the same in speaking of nations. 

Lastly, there is the most common use of the word: an inhabitant or the U.S. and the adjective used to describe the nationality of anything associated with the country.

Thus for me, and my own educational baggage, there are two common meanings, and a third that is little used, based on a different set of geographic conventions than are used in some other places.


Dictionaries report usage.  Most report such usage in order of frequency.
The larger ones often include etymology. The term American was coined by a Dutchman, I believe, in the first years of the 16th century. It is derived from an Italian first name. It was in use in English, by Europeans, before there was a United States of America. It was most often used to refer to non-European natives of the continent or continents.

It was also used before the creation of the U.S. to refer to residents of the then British colonies which became the U.S.

As far as I know, none or at best very few of the other countries of the americas existed as countries at that time.

Anyone who doesn't care for this linguistic state of affairs really ought to get in a time machine, and return to 1507-1765 and argue with the Europeans who began using the term in these ways. 

If an American citizen--using the word in its most common usage--misunderstands when a Chilean or Ecuadorian refers to himself as an American, it shouldn't be too taxing to educate that person with a few gentle words. To call him a kidnapper or usurper gives a sense of intent which really isn't there. It's also wrong.

When a national of any American country [is that sufficient context to make the usage clear?] tells the indigenous population that they are Argentine, or Columbian, or Mexican, or Bolivian, or American [enought context?] then that may be arrogant kidnapping of someone's identity. 

What did many, if not most, of the Peruvian people call their disgraced ex-president? El Chino? Yes, it is possible for words to be mis-used.

From the RAE:



> *chino**3**, na**.*
> 
> 
> * 1.* adj._ Am._ Dicho de una persona: De ojos rasgados. U. t. c. s.
> * 2.* adj._ Arg._,_ Chile_,_ Par._,_ Ur._ y_ Ven._ Dicho de una persona: *aindiada.* U. t. c. s.
> * 3.* adj._ Col._ Dicho de un indio: No civilizado. U. t. c. s.



After enough years of usage, they find their way into dictionaries.


----------



## Swettenham

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I was taught that 'American' refers to a broad geographic area..whether you prefer to call it one or two or three continents. When the word is used in context, it is clear: "The american nations include those in which French, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish and English are spoken." I believe the meaning of 'american' in this sentence would be clear to any reasonably educated American from the U.S.


Fair enough.


----------



## *Cowgirl*

Brioche said:
			
		

> When the terrorists hijack a aircraft,
> and they start shooting the "Americans",
> it wil be only the US passport holders.
> 
> In ordinary English, unadorned "America" = USA, unadorned "American" = citizen of the USA
> 
> Like it or not, that's the fact of the matter. The likelihood of it changing is infinitesimal.


 
_I totally agree with you Brioche_


----------



## cuchuflete

Brioche has given all of us a BFO:  Blinding Flash of the Obvious.

I suppose those terrorists are just not sensitive to the nuances of our discussion.


----------



## Terry Mount

I believe I am sensitive to the issue of the use of the word American.  However, as someone said earlier "What can you do?"  It is, after all, derived from the offical name of the country.  In fact, I believe the USA is the only country that has the word "America" in its official name.  The British referred to the people living in the colonies as Americans and these were the American colonies.  It should perhaps be taken simply that this is a peculiarity of the English language.  American means one thing.  Americano means another.  So, we're estadounidenses when we speak Spanish, but Americans when we speak English.

Having said all this, I must say it bugs me a little to hear the politicians refer to the country as America when we do have another perfectly good term (United States) to refer to the country itself.  So I'd say "American" as a reference to the people is here to stay; but without too much trouble we might shift from calling the country "America" to calling it simply "the United States."

Hope this doesn't ruffle to many feathers.


----------



## Swettenham

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Brioche has given all of us a BFO:  Blinding Flash of the Obvious.


Yeah, Brioche is right: we're all gonna die anyway! 

What do you call that?


----------



## Gustavoang

Outsider said:
			
		

> Why not just say that he is Venezuelan, though? It would avoid any confusion.


Talking about continents, Spanishs, Italians, Frenchs and many others usually say: I am european.

Why should not I say "I am american"?

Why don't you say "I'm from USA" instead of "I'm from America"? It would avoid any confusion.


----------



## Swettenham

Gustavoang said:
			
		

> Talking about continents, Spanishs, Italians, Frenchs and many others usually say: I am european.
> 
> Why should not I say "I am american"?


Fine, say it.  It will cause confusion.  You will have to explain yourself.  Most native English speakers will misunderstand you at first, until you make your meaning clear.

But I can't tell you what to say.  You wanna call yourself American, go right ahead.


----------



## Outsider

Gustavoang said:
			
		

> Talking about continents, Spanishs, Italians, Frenchs and many others usually say: I am european.
> 
> Why should not I say "I am american"?


But how often do people discuss their continent of origin? It seems more common to simply state one's nationality.



			
				Gustavoang said:
			
		

> Why don't you say "I'm from USA" instead of "I'm from America"? It would avoid any confusion.


I really shouldn't.


----------



## Gustavoang

Swettenham said:
			
		

> Fine, say it.  It will cause confusion.  You will have to explain yourself.  Most native English speakers will misunderstand you at first, until you make your meaning clear.


Yes, I agree with you because I know you're right... That's the point! It should not cause any confusion because it's not an exclusive word!


----------



## Gustavoang

Alright, my opinion has changed a bit if I compare it with what I thought when I started this thread. Now this what I think:

In spanish and english (perhaps in other languages), *America* is a *homonym* term which can mean: a *shortening* for USA or the whole continent where USA is located at.

In spanish and english (perhaps in other languages), *American* is a *homonym* term which can mean: A person from America (both the continent and USA) or an adjective for something coming from America (both the continent and USA).​
Thus, now I do think that America=USA, American=USA-native person, America=The American continent, American=People from the American continent, América=EEUU, Americano=Estadounidense, América=El continente Americano, Americano=La gente del continente Americano , and so on...

But the reality is that in english, people use to think that "America" is exclusive for USA and "American" is exclusive for people and things coming from this nation, which is wrong to me.

Why do I think that? Beside some posts in this thread, because of...

WordReference's definition of "America":

North American republic containing 50 states - 48 conterminous states in North America plus Alaska in northwest North America and the Hawaiian Islands in the Pacific Ocean; achieved independence in 1776.
North and South America.

Merriam-Webster's definition of "America":

either continent (N. America or S. America) of the western hemisphere
or the Amer·i·cas /-k&z/ the lands of the western hemisphere including N., Central, & S. America & the W. Indies
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Dictionary.com's definition of "America":

The United States.
also the A·mer·i·cas (-kz). The landmasses and islands of North America, Central America, and South America.

DRAE's definition of "Americano":

adj. Natural de América. U. t. c. s.
adj. Perteneciente o relativo a esta parte del mundo.
adj. indiano (ǁ que vuelve rico de América).
adj. estadounidense. Apl. a pers., u. t. c. s.
f. Chaqueta de tela, con solapas y botones, que llega por debajo de la cadera.

WordReference's definition for "American" (only adjectives):

of or relating to or characteristic of the continents and islands of the Americas; "the American hemisphere"; "American flora and fauna"
of or relating to the United States of America or its people or language or culture; "American citizens"; "American English"; "the American dream"

Merriam-Webster's definition of "American" (the noun):

an American Indian of No. America or So. America
a native or inhabitant of No. America or So. America
a citizen of the U.S.
AMERICAN ENGLISH

Dictionary.com's definition of "American":

Of or relating to the United States of America or its people, language, or culture.
Of or relating to North or South America, the West Indies, or the Western Hemisphere.
Of or relating to any of the Native American peoples.
Indigenous to North or South America. Used of plants and animals.

Compact Oxford English Dictionary's definition of "American":

adjective relating to the United States or to the continents of America.
noun a person from the United States or any of the countries of North, South, or Central America.

So, please USA-native people don't claim exclusivity of these words, not even in your own language.

This thread has been a bit tense, but I like it because It has help me to open my mind regarding this definition.

Cheers!


----------



## GenJen54

Gustav,

I'm glad you now understand that there is more than one way to skin a cat! If one of our goals as foreros is to help bridge a mutual understanding across cultural boundaries, then I say we've rightly succeeded.


----------



## cuchuflete

Gustavo,

I find ever more to agree with, and less to quibble with... We are very close to total agreement...





			
				Gustavoang said:
			
		

> But the reality is that in english,  *some ignorant *people use to think that "America" is exclusive for USA and "American" is exclusive for people and things coming from this nation, which is wrong to me.  *It's wrong to me also.  *
> 
> 
> So, please USA-native people don't claim exclusivity of these words, not even in your own language.  *We have total and absolute agreement here.
> *
> This thread has been a bit tense, but I like it because It has help me to open my mind regarding this definition.
> 
> Cheers!



 The way to overcome the mis-use of the words as 'exclusive' is to educate people.  Education cannot be dictated.  It requires effort, and patience.



 Un saludo respetuoso a todos los americanos de todos los países americanos. 

 Cuchu


----------



## Swettenham

Gustavoang said:
			
		

> In spanish and english (perhaps in other languages), *America* is a *homonym* term which can mean: a *shortening* for USA or the whole continent where USA is located at.
> 
> In spanish and english (perhaps in other languages), *American* is a *homonym* term which can mean: A person from America (both the continent and USA) or an adjective for something coming from America (both the continent and USA).​


The real problem with our name is that it's completely unimaginative.  Either we're the Americans (along with the rest of the New World), or simply citizens of the "United States" (could any title be more bland?).  You're lucky: your country has a real name!


----------



## Swettenham

chuchuflete said:
			
		

> But the reality is that in english, some ignorant people use to think that "America" is exclusive for USA and "American" is exclusive for people and things coming from this nation, which is wrong to me. *It's wrong to me also.*


It's not wrong to me.  Many citizens of the United States use the term "American" exclusively.  They are not wrong; they have a different point of view.  Call it ignorance, but remember, we are _all_ ignorant.  Just as long as you don't call it stupidity.

I'm sorry if I get overly emotional about this issue, but:

A) There's no reason to suggest that citizens of the United States don't have the right to call ourselves Americans.  Honestly, I don't like our name either— I would prefer something different.  However, it's our name, and neither I nor anyone else is going to change that.  I do understand your point about exclusivity.  As I said much earlier, examples in which "american" is used to describe something outside the United States do exist, but they are very rare.  If you use it that way without plenty of context, you will have to explain yourself.  Anyway, I think we are in agreement now.

B) I think people should be more careful about calling others "wrong."  Saying "I disagree" is a more effective way to disagree.


----------



## bongbang

Gustavoang said:
			
		

> But the reality is that in english, *some ignorant* people use to think that "America" is exclusive for USA and "American" is exclusive for people and things coming from this nation, which is wrong to me. *It's wrong to me also.*
> 
> So, please USA-native people don't claim exclusivity of these words, not even in your own language. We have total and absolute agreement here.



Those people are not ignorant. They don't even think "America" is "exclusive" in a sense that they do recognize its other meaning as a continent as well. Indeed, the English term "the Americas" always refers to the continent.

Still, if people use "America" mostly to refer to the country, because that's what they do, who are you to say it's wrong? Well, I guess you're entitled to your opinion, but then they -- or rather, we -- are also entitled not to agree with it.

Please notice that I'm not American (I'd rather not say "a USA native", thank you very much), so it would be inaccurate to describe me as trying to "claim" anything. I'm fortunate enough to have met many people from various Asian and European countries. They're ignorant about some things, not so about other things, but every single time they use the English word "America" in my presence, they refer to the United States of America. And they're neither wrong nor ignorant for that.

Now what they say in their own respective languages may be different. I guarantee, however, that English will not be the only battle ground if anyone wants to take this fight from the Spanish turf to the world at large ("even in your own language" as Gustavoang said). In the Thai language, for example, the situation is the same as in English, if not worse from his point of view. "America" can be either the country or the continent, but is the former 99% of the time. Indeed, when that latter meaning is intended, we always say "Continent America" or specify "America North", "America Central" or "America South" to avoid confusion.

Derivatives of the word are even less debatable. In the English language, Jewish Americans, American English, Americanized, pro-American, anti-American, American multinationals, American-led coalition, American-Born Chinese (ABC), always refer -- for good or ill -- to concepts related to the USA, not the American continent. I must say I like it that way. And while I can imagine a context where the modern-day natives of the Americas are called "Americans", I can't say I've actually witnessed one. ("South Americans", yes, but not simply "Americans".)

In Thai, "American", both the noun and the adjective, are linked _exclusively_ to the country, not the continent. In Chinese, "Meiguo" refers to the country and "Meizhou", the continent, but when the abbreviated form "Mei" is used in a compound noun, it always denotes America the country (e.g. "Zhong Mei Guanxi", Sino-US relations). In French, people usually call the USA "les Etats-Unis" (which "Etats-Unis", one wonders. Should the "États-Unis mexicains" protest? And what if one day the dream of the "États-Unis d’Europe" comes true?), but they also use "américain" to talk about its people and culture, and sometimes even as a stand-alone noun for American English.

I once had a conversation with a Québécois lady who considers calling the USA "America" a unique provincial idiocy committed only by, well, "the Americans". This oh-so-worldly lady (married to a Belgian, splits her time in Thailand, Europe, and Canada, doing nothing much) not only has little sense of irony, she's also incredibly ignorant in believing the practice _exclusive_ to Americans.

Lastly, I wonder if we’re all barking up the wrong tree:



			
				LV4-26 said:
			
		

> Not a linguistic problem at all ?
> 
> Then how come I can't be totally sure what the following sentence means ?
> 
> The rate of unemployment is about 10% in Europe. It's slightly less in America.
> 
> (fictional figures)



As a regular reader of business and economics literature, I know _exactly_ what "America" means in that sentence. It's always America the country that is compared and contrasted with Europe in such a context. Once in a while "North America" may come up, and will be explicitly referred to as such. But measuring the entire (two) American continent(s) as a whole against Europe? Never!

Ironically, what's not clear in that sentence is in fact "Europe". It has become all too common to refer to the EU as "Europe", even before the latest accession of ten Eastern European countries. Should Switzerland -- as European a country as any other -- be protesting? What about Norway and the Balkans? And in the context of unemployment, how much sense does it make to average out the UK's sub 5% with Germany's 10% plus, when the former doesn't even belong to the Eurozone? Ah, the Eurozone, that's another entity, isn't it? And we're not even talking about Russia and Turkey yet. What's _Europe_ exactly? 

_America_ is downright simple by comparison.


----------



## cuchuflete

Bongbang,

I think it's wrong to write a well-constructed diatribe based on an incorrect reading of a quote with which one begins a post. 

Although the word 'exclusive' appeared twice... your post argued argued about something completely different.



> some ignorant people use to think that "America" *is exclusive for* USA and "American" *is exclusive* for people and things coming from this nation



You say that  





> Those people are not ignorant. They don't even think "America" is "exclusive" in a sense that they do recognize its other meaning as a continent as well.



You really ought to help us out here.  Many posts back Gustavo objected to people who* did *use the word in an exclusive way. I agreed with him. He and I have met such people. They do exist. I offered an opinion, not a statement of ineluctable fact: "It's wrong *to me* also."  

Your statement seems to refer to people who "do recognize its other meaning". Gustavo and I were talking about different people who do NOT recognize its other meaning. 

Let's repeat this, so nobody gets tangled in interpretations.
1. There are ignorant people who use the term to mean U.S. residents, and they use it exclusively in this sense.
2. Gustavo objects to this.  He calls it wrong.
3. I agreed with him:   "It's wrong *to me* also." 

In short, you are disagreeing with something I did not say, and which you appear to be attributing to me. Of course you are welcome to do so, but I don't see the point, other than to create confusion. I am entitled to note the logical problems that result from this. 

I have no issue with me or anyone else using the word American to refer to U.S. residents and citizens. I have done it for years, and intend to continue to do so. I do object to the ignorant assumption by some of my countrymen that this word can and should only be used in this one way. 

You continued on, setting up and knocking down a straw man:



> Still, if people use "America" *mostly* to refer to the country, because that's what they do, who are you to say it's wrong?



*Who am I to say it's wrong?   I wouldn't know.  I didn't say it's wrong!  

You did.  *

My objection is not to "mostly", as is quite clear in my prior posts in this thread. It is to those who use the term with one and only one meaning. That is not "mostly" anything. It's not even mostly ignorant. It is ignorant. 

This thread shows many examples, from native speakers and dictionary citations, of the multiple valid uses of the word. Some are used more frequently than others. You may disagree 'til the cows come home, but those who act as if there were only a single meaning are wrong.


----------



## Gustavoang

Swettenham said:
			
		

> Citizens of the "United States" (could any title be more bland?).


Yes, the one you have always used: American.

I just said that because of several reasons, I realized that It's right to use "American" in that context.

Now I do accept "American" instead of "Citizens of USA", however, what I cannot accept is the exclusivity of that term.


----------



## Gustavoang

Hi, bongbang.

Even I'm an ignorant of a lot of things related to my culture, country, city, *language*, family... as well as anyone in the earth.

I agree with cuchuflete in that that's ignorance. Take this into account:

We could say that the Oxford Dictionary is the *Official* English Dictionary (almost), and what's the definition it has of "American"? I quoted above.

Is the Oxford Dictionary wrong? Then a lot of english dictionaries are wrong too.

I think all the foreros know that when someone says "American" It's only to talk about people or things from USA, not about latinamericans, canadians, etc... And that's wrong, at least IMO.

Regards.



			
				bongbang said:
			
		

> Those people are not ignorant. They don't even think "America" is "exclusive" in a sense that they do recognize its other meaning as a continent as well. Indeed, the English term "the Americas" always refers to the continent.
> 
> Still, if people use "America" mostly to refer to the country, because that's what they do, who are you to say it's wrong? Well, I guess you're entitled to your opinion, but then they -- or rather, we -- are also entitled not to agree with it.
> 
> Please notice that I'm not American (I'd rather not say "a USA native", thank you very much), so it would be inaccurate to describe me as trying to "claim" anything. I'm fortunate enough to have met many people from various Asian and European countries. They're ignorant about some things, not so about other things, but every single time they use the English word "America" in my presence, they refer to the United States of America. And they're neither wrong nor ignorant for that.
> 
> Now what they say in their own respective languages may be different. I guarantee, however, that English will not be the only battle ground if anyone wants to take this fight from the Spanish turf to the world at large ("even in your own language" as Gustavoang said). In the Thai language, for example, the situation is the same as in English, if not worse from his point of view. "America" can be either the country or the continent, but is the former 99% of the time. Indeed, when that latter meaning is intended, we always say "Continent America" or specify "America North", "America Central" or "America South" to avoid confusion.
> 
> Derivatives of the word are even less debatable. In the English language, Jewish Americans, American English, Americanized, pro-American, anti-American, American multinationals, American-led coalition, American-Born Chinese (ABC), always refer -- for good or ill -- to concepts related to the USA, not the American continent. I must say I like it that way. And while I can imagine a context where the modern-day natives of the Americas are called "Americans", I can't say I've actually witnessed one. ("South Americans", yes, but not simply "Americans".)
> 
> In Thai, "American", both the noun and the adjective, are linked _exclusively_ to the country, not the continent. In Chinese, "Meiguo" refers to the country and "Meizhou", the continent, but when the abbreviated form "Mei" is used in a compound noun, it always denotes America the country (e.g. "Zhong Mei Guanxi", Sino-US relations). In French, people usually call the USA "les Etats-Unis" (which "Etats-Unis", one wonders. Should the "États-Unis mexicains" protest? And what if one day the dream of the "États-Unis d’Europe" comes true?), but they also use "américain" to talk about its people and culture, and sometimes even as a stand-alone noun for American English.
> 
> I once had a conversation with a Québécois lady who considers calling the USA "America" a unique provincial idiocy committed only by, well, "the Americans". This oh-so-worldly lady (married to a Belgian, splits her time in Thailand, Europe, and Canada, doing nothing much) not only has little sense of irony, she's also incredibly ignorant in believing the practice _exclusive_ to Americans.
> 
> Lastly, I wonder if we’re all barking up the wrong tree:
> 
> 
> 
> As a regular reader of business and economics literature, I know _exactly_ what "America" means in that sentence. It's always America the country that is compared and contrasted with Europe in such a context. Once in a while "North America" may come up, and will be explicitly referred to as such. But measuring the entire (two) American continent(s) as a whole against Europe? Never!
> 
> Ironically, what's not clear in that sentence is in fact "Europe". It has become all too common to refer to the EU as "Europe", even before the latest accession of ten Eastern European countries. Should Switzerland -- as European a country as any other -- be protesting? What about Norway and the Balkans? And in the context of unemployment, how much sense does it make to average out the UK's sub 5% with Germany's 10% plus, when the former doesn't even belong to the Eurozone? Ah, the Eurozone, that's another entity, isn't it? And we're not even talking about Russia and Turkey yet. What's _Europe_ exactly?
> 
> _America_ is downright simple by comparison.


----------



## Gustavoang

Hi, cuchuflete.

Well, I think It's right the correction you did. I shouldn't say that whole set of english speakers thinks so.

Cheers!


----------



## Gustavoang

Swettenham said:
			
		

> There's no reason to suggest that citizens of the United States don't have the right to call ourselves Americans.


You got two reasons to call yourselves "Americans".



			
				Swettenham said:
			
		

> I think people should be more careful about calling others "wrong."  Saying "I disagree" is a more effective way to disagree.


I use to use that word, but when I use it, I always say "In my opinion" or "from my point of view".

I think that "I disagree"="It's wrong IMO", Isn't it?

Regards.


----------



## Benjy

Gustavoang said:
			
		

> I think all the foreros know that when someone says "American" It's only to talk about people or things from USA, not about latinamericans, canadians, etc... And that's wrong, at least IMO.
> 
> Regards.



WHY? i have read almost all of the posts in this thread with a least a degree of interest. why do you feel so strongly about this word? it's an english word (and when i say it's an english word i mean we use it in the english language, it's not a comment on it's roots before anyone beats me up and steals me lunch money for saying that), and the right is reserved to people who speak english to use it as they please.

when i say american, and i mean people from the usa that doesn't imply that i am ignorant of the existence of the rest of the continent. i can use the word any way i please and no offence, that's no one's business but my own.

there is no wrong and right when it comes to language usage. there are only norms.


----------



## Swettenham

Gustavoang said:
			
		

> You got two reasons to call yourselves "Americans".
> 
> I use to use that word, but when I use it, I always say "In my opinion" or "from my point of view".
> 
> I think that "I disagree"="It's wrong IMO", Isn't it?
> 
> Regards.


No, actually you can disagree while recognizing that the other person's opinion is valid for their own purposes.  

Anwyay, this has all been a disagreement over terms.  Despite my confusing and poorly chosen words, I never believed "American" was exclusive: 



			
				swettenham said:
			
		

> Since this discussion began here (threads and months ago), I have honestly tried to remember instances in which something outside the USA was referred to as simply "American," a secas. *I know that such examples exist*, but they are extremely rare. I can't think of one. That doesn't mean that I personally believe that you cannot call yourself American-- it's just a word to me. But I'm sure you understand that if you do call yourself American, I will assume that you mean estadounidense, so you will have to explain that you mean "of the New World," not "of the United States."


That was my whole point.  It's not exclusive, but it's frequently used as if it it were, so use it at your own risk.

However, our agreement on this point is largely immaterial.  So what if everyone _did_ use it in an exclusive sense?  As Benjy has pointed out, it's just a word.  Se usará como se usará.  It's not that big a deal.


----------



## Whisky con ron

Give it a rest.  If it is not that big a deal, let it be.... With all due respect, stop repeating yourself over and over.

Ta.


----------



## Swettenham

Whisky con ron said:
			
		

> Give it a rest.  If it is not that big a deal, let it be.... With all due respect, stop repeating yourself over and over.
> 
> Ta.


Good, if you see that I'm repeating myself, then you've gotten my message.  I just hate to be ignored. 

I'm like a child in many ways.  Thanks for being patient.


----------



## Gustavoang

Benjy said:
			
		

> WHY? i have read almost all of the posts in this thread with a least a degree of interest. why do you feel so strongly about this word?


I'm about to write a song about this. Anyway, here I go again:

"America" doesn't only is a shortening for USA, It also is the New World. "American" doesn't only represents a person or a thing coming from this nation, It also represents a person or a thing coming from the American Continent (the New World).



			
				Benjy said:
			
		

> it's an english word (and when i say it's an english word i mean we use it in the english language, it's not a comment on it's roots before anyone beats me up and steals me lunch money for saying that), and the right is reserved to people who speak english to use it as they please.


Yes, I agree with you and that's why I remind you what the Oxford Dictionary, WordReference Dictionary, among others, state about these two words.



			
				Benjy said:
			
		

> when i say american, and i mean people from the usa that doesn't imply that i am ignorant of the existence of the rest of the continent.


Of course that's right.

The problem comes when people exclude us from the definition of American.



			
				Benjy said:
			
		

> i can use the word any way i please and no offence, that's no one's business but my own.


Sure, and people shouldn't tell me "You are not american, you are south american"... Of course I'm South American and It means that I am American too!



			
				Benjy said:
			
		

> there is no wrong and right when it comes to language usage. *there are only norms*.


I agree with you, so what's the definition of America and American in a lot of dictionaries?

Regards.


----------



## Gustavoang

Well, I did what I wanted to do: State that the "America" and "American" words are not only for USA, and many people agree with me, so I think I did my task. Anyway, I welcome more replies.

This have been an interesting thread, in my opinion.

Regards.


----------



## bongbang

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> You really ought to help us out here.  Many posts back Gustavo objected to people who did use the word in an exclusive way. I agreed with him. *He and I have met such people*. They do exist. I offered an opinion, not a statement of ineluctable fact: "It's wrong to me also."
> 
> Your statement seems to refer to people who "do recognize its other meaning". Gustavo and I were talking about different *people who do NOT recognize its other meaning*.
> 
> I have no issue with me or anyone else using the word American to refer to U.S. residents and citizens. I have done it for years, and intend to continue to do so. I do object to the ignorant assumption by some of my countrymen that this word can and should only be used in this one way.
> 
> [Emphasis mine]



I know who you're talking about, cuchuflete, and I contend that they are, in fact, not as you describe them. Rather, they fit _my_ description.

Put differently, the people you describe (and complain about) don't exist.

If they did, you couldn't have just "met" them, you must have had them monitored 24/7.

Even so, you can't be sure until you put this question to them: _What is the collective name of the landmasses that sit between the Atlantic and the Pacific?_

If they answer "India", then do call me. I've always wanted to meet Columbus.

Now, moving away from "America" and the adjective "American", if you're talking about the exclusive use of the noun "American" to refer to a native of the USA, then please reread my previous post. People will get bored if I repeat myself.


----------



## cuchuflete

Contend away! 

Your question would evoke confused looks, and monosyllablic replies, such as "Huh?"  I'm referring to people for whom words like "collective" and "landmasses" would evoke blank stares or consternation.  There are many such persons in this country.  

If you haven't had the pleasure of monitoring or meeting them, that may be your own good fortune.  They are often found seated in front of televisions, munching junk food _(sic), _and watching what they call America's Team.  They may have many fine human qualities, excellent job skills, and good character.  That does not mean that they have an extensive vocabulary.  

Regards,
Cuchuflete



			
				bongbang said:
			
		

> I know who you're talking about, cuchuflete, and *I* *contend* that they are, in fact, not as you describe them. Rather, they fit _my_ description.
> 
> Put differently, the people you describe (and complain about) don't exist.
> 
> If they did, you couldn't have just "met" them, you must have had them monitored 24/7.
> 
> Even so, you can't be sure until you put this question to them: _What is the collective name of the landmasses that sit between the Atlantic and the Pacific?_
> 
> If they answer "India", then do call me. I've always wanted to meet Columbus.
> 
> Now, moving away from "America" and the adjective "American", if you're talking about the exclusive use of the noun "American" to refer to a native of the USA, then please reread my previous post. People will get bored if I repeat myself.


----------



## nycphotography

nycphotography said:
			
		

> My favorite? Portugal having a national referendum on whether "Bue" should be added to the official language / dictionary. Um. Guys? If enough people know the word to be ABLE to have enough informed voters, then by definition it al already in the language. And if they don't know, the frikkin dictionary is where they should be ABLE to find out!!


 
OK, the Portuguese/Angolan person I heard this from appears to have used the word "referendum" rather than "debate/argument".

There WAS a something of a ruckus, and there still is as the purists wish to "define" the language while the pragmatists are busy "creating" it.  

But I cant find any evidence of any "referendum".   So, on futher review, I turn out to be completely FOS on this point.  blah.

I apologize.


----------



## LV4-26

bongbang said:
			
		

> _The rate of unemployment in Europe is about 10%. In America, it's slightly less._
> * I know exactly what "America" means in that sentence.*


Me too. But what if...for once....it meant America ?

PS : I didn't vote because I couldn't find the "I don't care" option ...which doesn't mean I don't understand, consider and respect the arguments on both sides.


----------



## bongbang

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Your question would evoke confused looks, and monosyllablic replies, such as "Huh?" I'm referring to people for whom words like "collective" and "landmasses" would evoke blank stares or consternation. There are many such persons in this country.
> 
> If you haven't had the pleasure of monitoring or meeting them, that may be your own good fortune. They are often found seated in front of televisions, munching junk food _(sic), _and watching what they call America's Team.



I don't want to get into that debate, having already had my earful from the Quebecois lady I mentioned earlier.

Wait, actually, it's been two years and I'm ready for another such conversation again. Why don't I start a new thread on that subject in couple of days and announce it hear also? Cool?


----------



## LV4-26

I don't think we should worry too much about this issue as it is clear that the derivation of this kind of nouns doesn't follow a strict rule. 
Just look. 
The inhabitants of Africa, Asia, Oceania and Europe are respectively Africans, Asians, Oceanians and Europeans. But then the inhabitants of the U.S. are the Americans, the inhabitants of Arctica are the Eskimos and the inhabitants of Antarctica are the Penguins.


----------



## GenJen54

> The inhabitants of Africa, Asia, *Oceania* and Europe are respectively Africans, Asians, Oceanians and Europeans.



Therein lies another debate about the continents. In the US education model (I'm talking basic elementary geography here, not university-level classes), only Australia in and of itself (with New Guinea thrown in for good measure) is considered a "continent," that being defined as a "large, continuous land mass."

New Zealand and the other peripheral island countries are simply that, countries.

Perhaps our "ignorance" or "short-sightedness" on the issue has more to do with the fact that our school systems themselves are culturally biased and do not present geography from a more wordly perspective. Of course, that does not excuse the aforementioned "couch potatoes" who choose not to open their minds to things going on beyond their own front porches.

Language classes may carry the same bias. It has been ten years since I studied basic Spanish (in college), but we learned "americano/a" as the right way to describe "American" (yes - even those of us who hail from the US.) "Estadounidense" either did not exist at that time, or we were simply not taught it.


----------



## timpeac

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> Therein lies another debate about the continents. In the US education model (I'm talking basic elementary geography here, not university-level classes), only Australia in and of itself (with New Guinea thrown in for good measure) is considered a "continent," that being defined as a "large, continuous land mass."
> 
> New Zealand and the other peripheral island countries are simply that, countries.


 
I'm not sure about this. Yes, a continuous land mass, but not necessarily just that part sticking above the water. I think the continents are synonymous with the plates of land mass sliding around the earth (and each partly covered in water). (I hope you'll agree that I'm still talking at an elementary level, what I know about plate techtonics can be written on a small gnat).


----------



## GenJen54

> Originally posted by *timpeac*
> I think the continents are synonymous with the plates of land mass sliding around the earth (and each partly covered in water).



I would agree, as from an "evolutionary" standpoint, the plates have shifted and changed over the past several eons so that land masses by today's standards are far different from those many millenia past. 

How else could you explain that according to the basic geographical principals as taught in US geography classes, "North America" and "South America" can be "separated" by something as small as a mere fifty-one mile stretch of water.

If one is to believe the experts on evolutionary geography, then at one point in our collective history, we all started out as one big happy family.


----------



## timpeac

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> I would agree, as from an "evolutionary" standpoint, the plates have shifted and changed over the past several eons so that land masses by today's standards are far different from those many millenia past.
> 
> How else could you explain that according to the basic geographical principals as taught in US geography classes, "North America" and "South America" can be "separated" by something as small as a mere fifty-one mile stretch of water.
> 
> If one is to believe the experts on evolutionary geography, then at one point in our collective history, we all started out as one big happy family.


 
I don't quite follow you Jen - I suppose you would explain it that the two plates met somewhere beneath that stretch of water.  I agree there isn't quite a one to one correspondence for practical purposes. For example since there is a fault line in California I presume there is a small part of California that isn't really part of the north American continent strictly speaking, but it would be silly practically speaking to consider that to be a different continent. I'm feeling a bit out of my depth with this...


----------



## cuchuflete

This thread remains open to all those who might take the trouble to read the first post and say something about it.

We have suffered a bit of continental drift in the last few posts....

Or is that 'incontinent'?


----------



## asm

With this invitation, I will try to say what I think.

I agree that the term American for the USA is a mistake; however, I think that this historical mistake was not intentional. The founding fathers were very creative on planning a new country and on setting the norms to rule a new kind of country (a society not available at the time). However, they were not creative (at all), to name the country. The long and generic name was that, too long and too generic. Now the inhabitants of this land do not want to refer to their country with the whole name.
If everything stays to this point, I have no problem. Somebody said "let them call themselves as they want ...". However, my problem is exclusivity. If you want to call yourself in such a way, that's OK, but do not deny others the same right. To me America is the continent, and to me Argentinians and Chileans are as American as George Bush and any other person from the USA.
I like when people in the USA accept this, I do not like when people in the USA just do not care about others. Exclusivity, as I said before, is my problem.





			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> This thread remains open to all those who might take the trouble to read the first post and say something about it.
> 
> We have suffered a bit of continental drift in the last few posts....
> 
> Or is that 'incontinent'?


----------



## Outsider

asm said:
			
		

> The founding fathers were very creative on planning a new country and on setting the norms to rule a new kind of country (a society not available at the time). However, they were not creative (at all), to name the country. The long and generic name was that, too long and too generic.


I'm not going to disagree with you; just make a side remark. A while back in this thread, Terry Mount wrote that the English themselves were the ones who started calling Americans 'Americans', even before independence. If that was so, then, in a way, the responsibility for the term doesn't even lie with the Founding Fathers. They merely kept a tradition which had already been established. I do wonder about what they called the Canadians back then, though...


----------



## Everness

asm said:
			
		

> I like when people in the USA accept this, I do not like when people in the USA just do not care about others. Exclusivity, as I said before, is my problem.



If you read most of the answers Americans (or norteamericanos or estadounidenses) have given, you realize that deep down we couldn't care less about what other people think or feel about this topic. At best we think it's a way people from other countries have to vent their frustration towards a powerful country that some feel is bullying its way around the world. This is exactly what is keeping this conversation and thread alive!


----------



## Outsider

(Putting my Devil's advocate cap on again...) 



			
				Everness said:
			
		

> If you read most of the answers Americans (or norteamericanos or estadounidenses) have given, you realize that deep down we couldn't care less about what other people think or feel about this topic. At best we think it's a way people from other countries have to vent their frustration towards a powerful country that some feel is bullying its way around the world. This is exactly what is keeping this conversation and thread alive!


Of course they don't care. They're not the ones who get told they're not American.


----------



## Everness

My point is that two conversations are going on at the same time but at two levels, one apparently intellectual and the other rather emotional. We are using one topic to discuss another one. Rereading the thread I'm surprised with the tolerance that some people have to being treated with condescension.


----------



## Gustavoang

Hi, asm.



			
				asm said:
			
		

> I agree that the term American for the USA is a mistake; however, I think that this historical mistake was not intentional.


I disagree with you here.

Now I think that "America" can be used to refer to USA, because It's a shortening for the name of this nation. Take this into account:

"The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela" use to be called "Venezuela" (It's a shortening). Since It's called "Venezuela", citizens of this nation are called "Venezuelan".
"The Kingdom of Spain" use to be called "Spain" (It's a shortening). Since It's called "Spain", citizens of this nation are called "Spanish".
"The United States of America" use to be called "America" (It's a shortening). Since It's called "America", citizens of this nation are called "American".



			
				asm said:
			
		

> Somebody said "let them call themselves as they want ...". However, my problem is exclusivity. If you want to call yourself in such a way, that's OK, but do not deny others the same right. _(...) _Exclusivity, as I said before, is my problem.


Yes, that's what I think the problem is.

Cheers.


----------



## Gustavoang

Hi.

Please take a look at this thread.

Cheers.


----------



## Synclaire

No he leído todo el thread pero casi todo, uufff, *tanto* inglés, no estoy acostumbrada ... 

Gustavo y Whisky explican perfectamente la situación  

Quería contar brevemente un par de cosas : 

- Un amigo argentino aquí en Alemania tenía siempre un cartelito pegado en su auto : "Bitte ! Amerika ist ein *Kontinent* - nicht ein Land ! " = "Por favor !: América es un *continente* y no un país !"  
_(Digo "tenía" porque ya no tiene auto)._

- Me acuerdo que en la Argentina cuando yo era chica realmente se hablaba de los estadounidenses como "americanos" !!! En algún momento cambió eso, algunas personas empezaron a decir : "nosotros tambien somos americanos", en fin, explicaron como es la cuestión. Y a partir de ahí la gente fue empezando a decir: "los norteamericanos", "los estadounidenses" y "Ee Uu" y "los yanquis"  
Me pregunto como será hoy en día: si es que siguen hablando así o si es que retrocedieron volviendo a decir "América" a los Ee Uu, como si nosotros fuéramos .. qué ? Espero que no sea así. Este pensamiento no lo tengo sin razón sino porque ...

- ... aquí en Alemania hace 30 años, cuando llegamos aquí, se decía "US-Amerika" etc. O sea que se distinguía muy bien, bueno por lo menos una gran parte de la población (o tal vez serían mas los intelectuales y los medios  ? ) se expresaba correctamente. Me acuerdo que una amiga alemana se reía un poquito de gente que decía "Amerika" al referirse a USA, ya sea por verlos como anticuados o como un poco ignorantes o que se yo).
Bueno, el caso es que hubo en los últimos años un retroceso grande !  De repente la gran mayoría de la gente, justamente tambien la radio y TV y algunos de los intelectuales dicen "Amerika" refiriéndose a los Ee Uu. Yo no lo pude creer cuando empecé a darme cuenta ... 

Cambios políticos traen consigo cambios en la lengua ...


----------



## Gustavoang

Hola, Synclaire.

Me parece bien interesante lo que cuentas, principalmente lo que comentas de que no es algo nuevo que otras personas del continente americano se hayan manifestado al respecto.

Yo pienso que esto no sólo se trata de que en el habla inglesa se tenía que considerar que la palabra "America" no aplica sólo a asuntos relacionados con EEUU, sino también que los de habla española tenemos que considerar que cuando en nuestra lengua se dice "América" para hablar de EEUU, no se están tomando ambas palabras como sinónimos, por el contrario, "América" representa una abreviación o diminutivo (como diríamos coloquialmente) de "Estados Unidos de América".

En fín, pienso que en ambas partes, tanto *algunas* personas de habla inglesa como *algunas* personas de habla española, tenemos que considerar la posición del otro en este asunto, es decir: En inglés se debería aceptar el término "America" como también aplicable a los países de tal continente, y en español, deberíamos aceptar que "América" es válido que se use específicamente para hablar de EEUU.

Saludos.



			
				Synclaire said:
			
		

> No he leído todo el thread pero casi todo, uufff, *tanto* inglés, no estoy acostumbrada ...
> 
> Gustavo y Whisky explican perfectamente la situación
> 
> Quería contar brevemente un par de cosas :
> 
> - Un amigo argentino aquí en Alemania tenía siempre un cartelito pegado en su auto : "Bitte ! Amerika ist ein *Kontinent* - nicht ein Land ! " = "Por favor !: América es un *continente* y no un país !"
> _(Digo "tenía" porque ya no tiene auto)._
> 
> - Me acuerdo que en la Argentina cuando yo era chica realmente se hablaba de los estadounidenses como "americanos" !!! En algún momento cambió eso, algunas personas empezaron a decir : "nosotros tambien somos americanos", en fin, explicaron como es la cuestión. Y a partir de ahí la gente fue empezando a decir: "los norteamericanos", "los estadounidenses" y "Ee Uu" y "los yanquis"
> Me pregunto como será hoy en día: si es que siguen hablando así o si es que retrocedieron volviendo a decir "América" a los Ee Uu, como si nosotros fuéramos .. qué ? Espero que no sea así. Este pensamiento no lo tengo sin razón sino porque ...
> 
> - ... aquí en Alemania hace 30 años, cuando llegamos aquí, se decía "US-Amerika" etc. O sea que se distinguía muy bien, bueno por lo menos una gran parte de la población (o tal vez serían mas los intelectuales y los medios  ? ) se expresaba correctamente. Me acuerdo que una amiga alemana se reía un poquito de gente que decía "Amerika" al referirse a USA, ya sea por verlos como anticuados o como un poco ignorantes o que se yo).
> Bueno, el caso es que hubo en los últimos años un retroceso grande !  De repente la gran mayoría de la gente, justamente tambien la radio y TV y algunos de los intelectuales dicen "Amerika" refiriéndose a los Ee Uu. Yo no lo pude creer cuando empecé a darme cuenta ...
> 
> Cambios políticos traen consigo cambios en la lengua ...


----------



## JLanguage

asm said:
			
		

> With this invitation, I will try to say what I think.
> To me America is the continent, and to me Argentinians and Chileans are as American as George Bush and any other person from the USA.
> I like when people in the USA accept this, I do not like when people in the USA just do not care about others. Exclusivity, as I said before, is my problem.


 
But the fact is that in American English, when someone says they're an American, we immediately assume they're referring to the United States. From a descriptivist standpoint, we would never refer to anyone from Central, South America, Mexico or Canada as American. It would sound strange to my ears to hear a Mexican describe himself as American. It's not really an issue of sensitivity, but rather it's an issue of prescriptivist vs. descriptivist linguistics.


----------



## cuchuflete

Hola Synclaire,



> - Un amigo argentino aquí en Alemania tenía siempre un cartelito pegado en su auto : "Bitte ! Amerika ist ein *Kontinent* - nicht ein Land ! "



¿Su amigo se ha equivocado?  No hablo mucho alemán, pero me parece que él era o es otro excluvista.  Como Gustavo ya ha explicado harto bien, en inglés la palabra tiene al menos dos significados.  No sé si en alemán tiene uno sólo.  

Si es verdad que el uso de una palabra cambia con los cambios políticos...me parece bastante lógico esto...entonces la solución nos va a llegar de los mismos buenachos que nos proporcionan guerras e impuestos siempre más altos.  

A ver...la academia mundial de la lengua --- Jorgito Bush, Jorge Videla, Clinton, Menem, Don Nestor, Berlusconi, Cháves, Castro, Blair.....

Prefiero seguir a la gente que habla un idioma que a estos estimadísimos caballeros.


----------



## me82

if we had to correct ourselves everytime we use a word for a "wrong" meaning, i can't imagine how much time it would take.  

What matters is we understand each other as we say 'American' and if we don't, we can just ask the person who said this word to make sure of what they meant. That is as simple as that, isn't it?

But it's just my opinion.


----------



## JazzByChas

In referring to the original statement of this thread, "Americans" are, IMHO, peoples who reside in any of the American countries in the American Continent.

Now, I have always called myself an "American" from "America." Does that mean I am not open to more input on the matter...no. It just means, that after gathering a few more facts, I would now refer to myself, as they say in the Spanish-speaking American countries, "estadounidense." In AE, I guess one could say, "UnitedStatesian."  But regardless, to be precise, the suggestion makes more sense to me, regardless of my upbringing. And we have to be careful even then, because I am really a citizen of the United States of (North) America. 

What is right...just depends on who you are speaking to, and in what context. I can't see any reason to get hung up on who are really true "Americans," especially when you are in the context of a multicultural, multinational forum, where one must be a little more clear about what one means by "America/American."

My $.02(USD)


----------



## Synclaire

Leo mucho, la mayoría en alemán pero de vez en cuando tambien en castellano. 

Un par de veces he visto que autores españoles, cuando dicen "América" se refieren a Latinoamérica (o "Hispanoamérica"), lo cual es lógico.

Porque tanto Norteamérica como Centroamérica como Sudamérica son parte del continente llamado "América."

Además existe tambien un país llamado "Estados Unidos de América" o como decía la persona anterior a mí " (...) de Norteamérica."


----------



## BasedowLives

I'll give my opinion i put in another one.


I say I'm American when I talk to people because of laziness, not ignorance. There's not a word for estadounidense in english. I think it's a linguistical difference. I'm not going to use made up words or longer explanations when a simple word will suffice. And when I was in spain and at a market someone asked where I was from, and i told him the united states, and he replied, " ooh, americano!" . i don't think i heard the term estadounidense one time while i was there.

Generally speaking, American, in American English means person from the USA. Canadians generally identify themselves as Canadians, as they definately don't want to be taken as people from the USA, and if they were to say they were American, most people would probably think USA. Another example:  The people of Honduras have a spot in english, they're called Honduran. We (the USA) do not.

para resumir, i think the most important aspect is the *linguistic difference*. And the common assumption that American in english carries the same sense as Americano in spanish.


----------



## blancalaw

I don't mind being called an American that much even though I know it is incorrect. I also like the terms "gringa", "yanki", and "guerita". I don't, however, like the word "estadounidense"

There really isn't a word in English that would be "politically correct" to describe us so I am all for inventing a new system of labeling. How about forgetting the nation as a whole and labeling us by our particular state? 
Therefore, I am a Michigander.


----------



## gonzalovalenzuela

I write a post in my personal blog few time ago (not very decent , but the idea is the same) about the same thing, btw is in spanish, but I claim the right to call me an American and not from United States of America.
I thinkt that the point is why the word confuse people, If I say to any "Hi, I'm American" they think no other option like U.S.A.

Regards.


----------



## Soy Yo

Hi, I understand what you are saying Gonzalo.  And you certainly have the right to call yourself an American.  Within your language and, especially Spanish American, culture, there will be little if any confusion about what you mean.  The problem is that the English-speaking world uses the term almost exclusively to refer to someone from the United States of _America._  So if the person you are speaking to is a native English speaker, you can avoid being misunderstood by saying "I am a Spanish American" or "I am a Venezuelan" (or whatever).  You will not be misunderstood.

This probably doesn't help your sensibilities any.... but just think, when I speak Spanish I have to remember to say "Soy norteamericano (estadounidense)... which isn't always easy to remember since I say "American" when I speak my own language.


----------



## Fernando

Vox populi, vox Dei.

Most English-speaking people say "American", meaning "US citizen". I dislike that, but it is what the people do.

Most (most?) Spanish-speaking people say "americano", meaning "America continent unhabitant".

Let it be that way, then. America <> América; American <> americano


----------



## tvripper

Para mi lo correcto sería llamar a las cosas por su nombre, el país se llama "Estados Unidos" (E.E.U.U) y el gentilicio es "estadounidense".

God bless America USA.
I come from America USA.
I`m proud to be american from USA.


----------



## don maico

Its is mostly latin Americans that resent US citizens being refered to as Americans, they prefer to call them, either estadosunidenses or the coloquiol, gringo. English speaking people the world over are quite happy calling them Americans  (or the coloquiol Yanks) - maybe we should use the term Unitedstatesiders( bit of a mouthful though)


----------



## GenJen54

tvripper said:
			
		

> Para mi lo correcto sería llamar a las cosas por su nombre, el país se llama "Estados Unidos" (E.E.U.U) y el gentilicio es "estadounidense".


 
Welcome to the Forums tvripper. 

First of all, the United States is not the only country to claim United States as a part of its "title." Mexico falls into that as well. 

Secondly, the word "estatounidense" is fine if one is speaking Spanish, and one should learn and use that word if speaking with a native Spanish speaker. 

The problem is that the word "United Statesian" does not exist in English. The word "American" does exist. It's all we have linguistically, I'm afraid, and to be honest, there's not much push to change it.



> God bless America the USA.
> I come from America the USA.
> I`m proud to be american from the USA.


----------



## Gustavoang

don maico said:


> Its is mostly latin Americans that resent US citizens being refered to as Americans, they prefer to call them, either estadosunidenses or the coloquiol, gringo. English speaking people the world over are quite happy calling them Americans  (or the coloquiol Yanks) - maybe we should use the term Unitedstatesiders( bit of a mouthful though)



Or united statesians  . See also: Adjectives for USA citizens.

But as I already said: It's a valid adjective for USA citizens... However, that I define myself as an american shouldn't lead to any confusion, but this happens because of the "de facto" meaning of these terms, this is, its exclusivity to USA-related stuff.

Cheers.


----------



## PedroAznar

An American is someone from the US. A Canadian is someone from Canada. Maybe it's not "technically" correct but that's the way it is. Who would say "United Statian"?


----------



## tvripper

GenJen54 said:


> First of all, the United States is not the only country to claim United States as a part of its "title." Mexico falls into that as well.
> 
> Secondly, the word "estatounidense" is fine if one is speaking Spanish, and one should learn and use that word if speaking with a native Spanish speaker.




Yes, you are right. I was thinking in the spanish way.

In spanish we don´t say "de los Estados Unidos", igual que no decimos "de la Alemania".
We call the country "United States", not "The United States".

Tampoco conocemos otros paises con el nobre "Estados Unidos", yo no había oido nunca que Mexico fuera "Estados Unidos de Mexico",  o algo parecido.

Supongo que el problema está en la traducción, yo suelo traducir "american" como "estadounidense".

Saludos.


----------



## timpeac

You're all colonists. There we go problem solved.


----------



## .   1

I have been using U.S. American for quite some time and it would appear that I have confused nobody.
It is easy to say and easy to type.

.,,


----------



## Reina140

Well . . . I love this topic and I have read almost the entire thread and it relates to a topic that I was discussing earlier . . . the gringo word . . . now what kills me . . . is that all the latin american countries suggest that this isn't an offensive word . . . it's just a nickname for "americans"=anyone from the United States . . . WHAT AMERICANS?  I'm now even more confused then earlier . . . but not really.
When being called a GRINGO . . . no one is american but the US . . . It seems, we as AMERICANS and I emphasize AMERICANS . . . are indeed obligated to accomodate EVERYONE ELSE'S needs and desires


----------



## Tsoman

It's simply a language thing. 

When I speak English, I will say America for the USA and I will say The Americas for the continents.

When I speak Spanish, I always say "estados unidos" for the USA.

Can you really criticize a language for what words is uses?

The United States of America is an awkward name! It's logical that we call ourselves Americans. Besides, when the United States of America was formed, the rest of the Americas were known as New Spain, New France, etc etc.


----------



## hedonist

Tsoman said:


> It's simply a language thing.
> 
> When I speak English, I will say America for the USA and I will say The Americas for the continents.
> 
> When I speak Spanish, I always say "estados unidos" for the USA.
> 
> Can you really criticize a language for what words is uses?
> 
> The United States of America is an awkward name! It's logical that we call ourselves Americans. Besides, when the United States of America was formed, the rest of the Americas were known as New Spain, New France, etc etc.





> Besides, when the United States of America was formed, the rest of the Americas were known as New Spain, New France, etc etc.


http://criticamedicina.blogia.com/2005/071201-mitos-de-los-conquistadores.php



> "La conquista completa"
> 
> La frase "conquista española" y todo lo que ésta implica, ha seguido
> utilizándose a lo largo de la historia porque los españoles estaban
> muy preocupados de describir sus logros y conquistas como contratos
> *concluidos*, como voluntad de la providencia o hechos consumados. A pesar de estas pretensiones la conquista siguió y sigue todavía
> incompleta.


Just because someone say it is, doesn't make it true.  The so-called property  of and claim of foreing land by invading nations and  its "control" is largely exaggerated.  History is not as simplistic as it is often re-told.


----------



## hedonist

GenJen54 said:


> Welcome to the Forums tvripper.
> 
> First of all, the United States is not the only country to claim United States as a part of its "title." Mexico falls into that as well.
> 
> Secondly, the word "estatounidense" is fine if one is speaking Spanish, and one should learn and use that word if speaking with a native Spanish speaker.
> 
> The problem is that the word "United Statesian" does not exist in English. The word "American" does exist. It's all we have linguistically, I'm afraid, and to be honest, there's not much push to change it.



"States" is a generic term for several united territories that when joined together  form a country. It could as easily have been "Provinces" instead of States. In any event Mexico is a unique identifiable distinct name.  Their inhabitants weren't as presumptuous and/or lazy to name themselves after a whole continent.


----------



## don maico

hedonist said:


> "States" is a generic term for several united territories that when joined together  form a country. It could as easily have been "Provinces" instead of States. In any event Mexico is a unique identifiable distinct name.  Their inhabitants weren't as presumptuous and/or lazy to name themselves after a whole continent.


  Maybe if they were to join  up with their northern neighbours  they could become the United States of Canada How's about it folks?


----------



## cuchuflete

hedonist said:


> Their inhabitants weren't as presumptuous and/or lazy to name themselves after a whole continent.



It's rather presumptuous, from the perspective of 2006, to call people in the late 1700s "presumptuous and/or lazy" for applying what was, at that time, an accurate title for a confederation of thirteen former colonies.

For those who haven't bothered to research the topic, even to the extent of reading all the material contained in, or referenced in, this very thread... the word America was used by Europeans at the beginning of the 16th century, and had been in very widespread use long before the existence of the USA.

I have no idea how geography was taught in the 1770s, but whether the English geographers and schoolteachers used America to refer to the land mass of a hemisphere, or further subdivided that into regions, the states/former colonies/provinces were (1)independent in the sense that each had its own laws and government, (2)united and federated into a single national entity, and (3)of America, by whatever definition you prefer.

Therefore, the country title was accurate, descriptive, and of no offense to any other nation, country, province, colony of the time.  That other countries were subsequently formed from former colonies also in America raises an interesting question:   Should country X rename itself, decades after it is founded, to avoid the possible indignation of a resident of country Y when country Y comes into existence as an independent political entity, or to avoid ruffled feathers on the part of a citizen of country Z some hundreds of years later?

Not picking on any country or citizen, but just giving an example here...

Once upon a time a new country was formed, about a half century after the USofA became a country.  It was called the
_República de Gran Colombia_.  What we today call Venezuela was part of it.  However, what we call Venezuela, is really, officially called La República Bolivariana de Venezuela.  Following the illogic of the indignant, if another country chooses to consider itself Bolivariano or Bolivariana, that country's residents would have just cause, after the fact, to wail and complain that Venezuela had stollen, usurped, robbed, taken reference to Bolívar.   How about La República de Bolivia, for example?

What do we do with a country that changes its name often in a short time span?  Departamento de Cudinamarca became Nueva Granada and then the Confederación Granadina, but less than a decade later it was renamed the Estados Unidos (United States) de Colombia, and just three years after that, 
La República de Colombia.  This may have been a point of contention with the other former members of La República de Gran Colombia, which included Ecuador and Venezuela, and Panamá.

Now, many years later, I suppose that somebody could find a cause for politically correct, or at least politically fashionable, indignation at one or more of these names.


----------



## timpeac

Wasn't the original status of the states in the USA different from the provinces of Mexico? I thought that pre-USA the states were very much like separate countries, rather like the countries of Europe (and "state" is just a synonym of "country" after all (isn't it?)). I thought that you might as well have called the new political animal "the united countries of America". I could be completely wrong though - I must admit I've never been formally taught any American history.


----------



## Soy Yo

tvripper said:


> Para mi lo correcto sería llamar a las cosas por su nombre, el país se llama "Estados Unidos" (E.E.U.U) y el gentilicio es "estadounidense".
> 
> God bless America USA.
> I come from America USA.
> I`m proud to be american from USA.


 

El nombre del país es "United States of America"... el gentilicio adoptado en el mundo anglohablante se basa en la última parte...y esto data de la época colonial cuando los ingleses se referían a los colonistas como los _americanos.  _Además creo que en español se dice "*los* Estados Unidos" y "Estados Unidos" a secas.  Normalmente en inglés decimos "*the* United States" siempre con "the".

No me gusta mucho que el presidente de EE.UU. (y sus predecesores) se refiera al país como "America"...porque podría decir (y quizás pronunciar) mejor "the United States."  Que diga "Americans" para referirse a los habitantes pues...ya vemos que es el único término que tenemos (siendo tan feo algo inventado como Unitedstatesian) y se basa en el nombre del país.


----------



## hedonist

> I have no idea how geography was taught in the 1770s, but whether the English geographers and schoolteachers used America to refer to the land mass of a hemisphere, or further subdivided that into regions, the states/former colonies/provinces were (1)independent in the sense that each had its own laws and government, (2)united and federated into a single national entity, and (3)of America, by whatever definition you prefer.
> 
> Therefore, the country title was accurate, descriptive, and of no offense to any other nation, country, province, colony of the time.


I was under the impression that a territory somewhere in what is now known as Brazil was the first place to be christened as America. At the very least those in the north surely had to be aware in those times that America was an inclusive term meant for the entire land mass. It's strange that a country thousands of miles away eventually hijacked the term America. Nevertheless we have to put it into perspective, it's not like it's a crime against humanity. It's just unfortunate that as time elapsed it inadvertently appropriated it, denying other "Americans" the right to be referred as that as well. I think the simple reason why the USA is known almost exlusively as America today it's because having no proper name it "lazily" (for want of a better word) shortens it to AMERICA and being the most prosperous, notorious and powerful country in the continent it is not surprising that that the first thing that pops into the heads of people around the world when they hear or think of America is the USA.


----------



## cuchuflete

hedonist said:


> I was under the impression that a territory somewhere in what is now known as Brazil was the first place to be christened as America.  What is the source of this impression?  As noted in one of the many diatribes on this topic, the term America was used as early as 1507, by a European.  It was used to refer to a continent, rather than to any specific point or place within a continent.   At the very least those in the north surely had to be aware in those times that America was an inclusive term meant for the entire land mass.  Your suppositions about the scope of knowledge of those who formed the USA are probably correct, though neither I nor you have adduced any fact to support this.  That said, as I pointed out just above, the term United States of America was, and remains, accurate.  It did not then nor now preclude the use of the word America in any other country's name.  It's strange that a country thousands of miles away eventually *hijacked* the term America.  *I've given up trying to find a polite, neutral way to characterize such utter bunk as calling this theft, usurpation, hijacking, or any other childishly emotional and thoroughly inaccurate characterization.   From whom was it "hijacked"?  Was America in use as part of any other country name at the time? NO.  Did its inclusion in the name of one country stop any other country that wanted to use it as part of an identifier from doing so?  NO.   Did the use of the word America specify whether America refers to a single continent, or a sub-continent? NO.
> 
> There was no hijacking.  There was an accurate description of some former British colonies, located in America, when they chose to form a federation.  They were independent and federated states; they were in America.   The revisionist accusation of hijacking doesn't hold water.  * Nevertheless we have to put it into perspective, it's not like it's a crime against humanity. It's just unfortunate that as time elapsed it inadvertently *appropriated it*,   *Appropriated it?  From whom?  Was it in use by another country at the time?  Mexico and Brazil chose to use  "united states" as part of their country names, and nothing and nobody ever prevented any other country from incorporating America into their titles.    *denying other "Americans" the right to be referred as that as well.  *As many times as this nonsense is stated, it will still be a falsehood.  * I think the simple reason why the USA is known almost exlusively as America today it's because having no proper name it "lazily" (for want of a better word) shortens *it to AMERICA* *Wrong yet again!* *Take time out from the  pc rant and read the etymology of the word.  It was in use by Europeans to describe residents of the colonies hundreds of years before the USA came into existence.  *and being the most prosperous, notorious and powerful country in the continent it is not surprising that that the first thing that pops into the heads of people around the world when they hear or think of America is the USA.



Your attempts to blame are fact free.   Read the history of the country and the continent and the word.   Then try to claim hijacking.  Then try to claim appropriation.  Then try to claim that anyone was denied anything.

If facts get in the way of the argument, just continue to "lazily" ignore them.


----------



## cuchuflete

For anyone who hasn't bothered to wade through the other threads on this topic....  here again is a very brief etymology of the word America, from Online Etymology Dictionary.




> 1507, in Cartographer Martin Waldseemüller's treatise "Cosmographiae Introductio," from Mod.L. Americanus, after Amerigo Vespucci (1454-1512) who made two trips to the New World as a navigator and claimed to have discovered it. His published works put forward the idea that it was a new continent, and he was first to call it Novus Mundus "New World." Amerigo is more easily Latinized than Vespucci.



Regards from Vespucciland,
aka Gringolandia del Norte.


----------



## cuchuflete

> The name _America_ had been current ever since a German cartographer, Martin Waldseemüller, named the continent after explorer and navigator Amerigo Vespucci in 1507. Colonists from England, a century later, at first reserved the designation _Americans_ for the original native inhabitants. Soon, however, the descendants of English settlers felt native enough to call themselves _Americans_, thereby to distinguish themselves from English visitors or immigrants. By 1700, writers on both sides of the Atlantic were discussing what it means to be an American--referring this time to the descendants of those who came from Europe.


 source: Houghton Mifflin Word Origins,
http://www.answers.com/topic/american#after_ad1

It's pretty clear that the term American was in use, in both America and Europe, long before the USA became a country.
How very convenient it would be, hundreds of years later, to ignore that and change the name (to what?) for the emotional satisfaction of citizens of countries that did not exist in 1700 or in 1776.   Claims of pernicious intent and laziness are just so much uninformed hogwash.


----------



## ireney

hedonist said:


> Their inhabitants weren't as presumptuous and/or lazy to name themselves after a whole continent.



You mean that the fact that they wanted the name of their country to reflect that in was a union of states (located in America) was either presumptuous or lazy?

What would be the non- presumptuous or lazy way to go about naming their country? I'm just curious. Should they start thinking, come up with a name that meant nothing to anyone and then impose it to everyone up to and including  the citizens of the U.S.A.?


----------



## PedroAznar

So what sould we call movies like American Beauty and American Pie?

U.S. Beauty?

Come on. This whole conversation is ridiculous.


----------



## cuchuflete

There is an elephant in the living room.  

Many people, both in the US and other American countries, don't like past and current US interventionist foreign policy.  The harping on a term that was in widespread use hundreds of years before the creation of the US is a way to say, in effect, "I don't like the US, its arrogance, its (fill in whatever else is disliked_______)."   

Many, if not most, of those who shoot at this bit of language are from countries that didn't come into existence until decades after the Declaration of Indepence was issued.  Yet they use terms like "theft, hijacking, usurpation, appropriation".  It's pretty clear what the motives are.  It's also pretty clear how thin the logic is.

It would be more direct to just open a thread or hundreds of threads to discuss the real complaints, and there are many genuine ones to discuss, instead of trying to hang all the resentments on a phoney linguistic issue.  


Ah, there is a simple solution:  Rename the US as the 
United and Federated Former Colonies of European Imperialism.  Then somebody could complain that this is unfair to Peru, Chile, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia, Panama, El Salvador and many more, which are also Former Colonies of European Imperialism.


----------



## timpeac

How about "the holy American empire"? After all the Roman empire had a supposedly democratic system which was a thinly disguised aristocracy and interventionist policy in world affairs seems to be spookily similar. Let's not forget that both the Roman and American empires have given us much to be pleased with and they should be proud of too.


----------



## maxiogee

Is this the thread where panjandrum and I get to go at each other about who has the right to the word "Irish"?

Seriously, I find this whole topic daft. Those who would deny people from the USA the use of the word "American" are not using the word in the same way as they are. The other people who are entitled to use it are only entitled to it in the same way as I am entitled to call myself "European". I am an Irish European,  X might wish to be called a Brazilian American, Y might desire to be termed a Canadian American, but it doesn't matter a lot to the rest of us. 

Do many people proclaim their continentality in the same way that they proclaim their nationality? One way or another its a divisive procedure to seek to claim some form of superiority over other humans. It's all a load of tosh.


----------



## Swettenham

In the early days of the USA, there was actually an active debate over the naming of our country.

Writing in the early 19th century, one Dr. Mitchill commented, "It was a great oversight in the convention of 1787, that they did not give a name to the country for which they divised a frame of government. Its citizens are suffering every day for lack of such a generic term. Destitute of a proper name for their own soil and region, they express themselves vaguely and awkwardly on the subject.-- By some it is termed 'United States;' this, however, is a _political_, and not a _geographical_ title. By others it is called 'America,' and the inhabitants 'Americans.' But these epithets equally belong to Labrador and Paraguay and their natives.... What are we to do? Are we never to have a geographical distinction? Is the land to be forever called 'United States,' and its people 'United-States-men?' And even then, on a supposition that the union should cease must the region it occupies be nameless?"  

Mitchill suggested "Fredonia," from "freedom."  We would call ourselves the "Fredes."

Another suggestion was "Secessia."

The Hon. W. Tudor proposed "Columbia."

On another note, during the War of Independence, the U.S. army was called the "Continental Army."  Did they imagine that they were fighting for an entire continent?  Of course not.  They were fighting for a strip of land along the eastern shore of the northern continent.  And yet the name "Continental" made sense to them, because they defined themselves in opposition to far-away England. Maybe the country could have been called "The United States of the Continent."  The people would be called the "Continentals."  Which continent, you ask?  You're right, it's better to be specific.


----------



## spakh

Although I have no relation with America I think America is not to be used just for the USA.


----------



## maxiogee

To all those who think that the country shouldn't use the name "America"

*What is the point of this thead?*
The name is out there.
It is used internationally by all and sundry.
It is understood internationally to mean what people use it to mean.

Are you planning to demand that they (and the rest of the world) change their ways and stop using the name?


----------



## cuchuflete

spakh said:


> Although I have no relation with America I think America is not to be used just for the USA.



Thanks for that opinion Spakh.  I have stated numerous times, in this thread and the many other threads on this topic, that I agree with you.   Anybody who wants to use the term to refer to a continent, or the people of a continent, should just go right ahead and do that.   American dictionaries also agree with me and with you.

They give more than one meaning for the words America and 
American.  Context normally makes clear the intention of the writer or the speaker.

I repeat yet again, there is nothing in the use of the word American to signify a citizen of the US that can or should prevent others from using the word to indicate something else.

If Spanish speakers prefer to say estadounidense, they should just do that, and get on with life, or campaign in their own countries to stop everyone who disagrees with them from using 'americano' to mean estadounidense.  Telling English speakers that they don't like the term, in one of its principal usages in English will accomplish absolutely nothing.  


And, for those who haven't waded through page after page of this thread, the term was coined and first used by a European  in 1507, hundreds of years before the USA came into existence as a country, so blaming current or former citizens of the USA is both uninformed and silly.


----------



## dtcarney

No one wants to be told how to call themselves.  In spanish, people refer to people from the US as estadounidenses.  So, when US citizens go to a spanish speaking country, they should refer to themselves as estadounidenses, not americanos.  For spanish speakers, america refers to the whole continent, not just USA.  The US citizens need to recognize that and respect that when speaking spanish.  

Now on the other hand, in english when someone hears america, (depending on the context of course)  the most likely meaning for that is the USA, not the entire continent.  I guarantee that no one from the US will call themselves a United Stateser or a United Statesian.  They will call themselves an American.  Spanish speakers need to recognize and respect that.  This is not being arrogant anything of the sort, its the way it is.  The problem is that Americans (US) aren't taught that there are other ways of viewing these words.  Education is the key to understanding.


America and American in AE are just shortenings of The United States of America.  

America and American have different meanings in Spanish and in English (American English at least)   Context is the key and will a little patience and understanding, problems can be solved.


----------



## cuchuflete

> In spanish, people refer to people from the US as estadounidenses.


  In fact, estadounidense is by far less common in Spanish.  Most Spanish speakers say, rightly or wrongly, depending on one's viewpoint, 'americano' to refer to a citizen of the US.   This may not be the most accurate word to use, but it is very commonly used, and equally commonly understood.

Reflecting usage, the RAE acknowledges the use of Americano to signify estadounidense, although it is not the primary definition.



> *americano**, na**.*
> * 1.* adj. Natural de América. U. t. c. s.
> * 2.* adj. Perteneciente o relativo a esta parte del mundo.
> * 3.* adj.indiano
> * 4.* adj. *estadounidense.* Apl. a pers., u. t. c. s.
> * 5.* f. Chaqueta
> _Real Academia Española © Todos los derechos reservados_


----------



## papagainho

Alguien podría dar ejemplos de como se llama a los estadounidenses en otras lenguas. ¿Existe el mismo porblema de llamar al país y al continente del mismo modo en otros países no angloparlantesni hispanoparlantes? Quizá eso ayudaría.


----------



## divina

To all U.S. natives:

Go to any Spanish-American country and you won't be considered "americano/a". It's "estadounidense". I've lived with argentinos and costarricenses while studying abroad, and I see why some people might get offended at U.S. natives calling themselves "American"...after all, there are THREE Americas: North, Central and South.


----------



## cuchuflete

No sé como va a ayudar, pero he aquí algunos ejemplos de sinónimos en varios idiomas--



> Diccionario Espasa Grand: español-francés français-espagnol © 2000 Espasa-Calpe S.A., Madrid:*americano*
> 
> I adj américain(e). II m, ƒ Américain m, -e ƒ
> *estadounidense*
> 
> I adj américain(e). II mƒ Américain m, -e ƒ





> Gran diccionario español-portugués português-espanhol © 2001 Espasa-Calpe S.A., Madrid:*americano,a*
> 
> Iadj m, ƒ americano(a)
> *estadounidense*
> 
> Iadj mƒ estadunidense


----------



## cuchuflete

divina said:


> To all U.S. natives:
> 
> Go to any Spanish-American country and you won't be considered "americano/a". It's "estadounidense". I've lived with argentinos and costarricenses while studying abroad, and I see why some people might get offended at U.S. natives calling themselves "American"...after all, there are THREE Americas: North, Central and South.



No doubt some Argentines and Ticos would take offense. Yet, if you scan the leading newspapers in both countries, you will find plenty of uses of americano, meaning estadounidense.

Other members of this forum, from Spanish-American countries, have stated that the word americano is commonly used in their countries.

Since this thread is--supposedly--about the English word American, we should really focus on that, but I can't help but wonder what politically kerrect Spanish term might be suggested as a substitute for "antiamericanismo", which is a central sub-text to this thread conversation.


----------



## papagainho

Gracias Cuchuflete por tus ejemplos. Mi idea era demostrar que si en muchos idiomas ser efieren a ellos como "americans" o algo semejante, quizá no deberíamos pedirles a ellos que lo cambiaran.

De momento no tengo una opinión clara sobre el tema, porque está claro que una palabra puede tener varias acepciones, y eso puede ocurrir con los nombres de paises y continentes.


----------



## divina

cuchuflete said:


> No doubt some Argentines and Ticos would take offense. Yet, if you scan the leading newspapers in both countries, you will find plenty of uses of americano, meaning estadounidense.
> 
> Other members of this forum, from Spanish-American countries, have stated that the word americano is commonly used in their countries.
> 
> Since this thread is--supposedly--about the English word American, we should really focus on that, but I can't help but wonder what politically kerrect Spanish term might be suggested as a substitute for "antiamericanismo", which is a central sub-text to this thread conversation.



Newspapers, yes. But after watching a few of my U.S. classmates say "americano" to the wrong person (some people would get PISSED OFF at the term american), I just play it safe and say estadounidense. 

As for a politically correct Spanish term for antiamericanismo, I don't think there is one. I think (and anybody, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) some refer to themselves with the name of whatever political figure's beliefs they agree with. Ex. zapatista, chavista, etc.


----------



## roxcyn

"I traveled through *the Americas*" = (I traveled through *North, Central and South America*.)

I think it becomes confusing because they all have the same name!  I think that may people accept that *American* = USA, but I am not sure if it should be that way because *The Americas* refers to North, Central and South America.  It is very egocentric, but what other options are there to say "from the USA/The States"?


----------



## cuchuflete

roxcyn said:
			
		

> It is very egocentric...



Have you not read any of the prior posts?  Who's ego is in play?
The term has been in use for over 500 years.


----------



## hedonist

maxiogee said:


> To all those who think that the country shouldn't use the name "America"
> 
> *What is the point of this thead?*
> The name is out there.
> It is used internationally by all and sundry.
> It is understood internationally to mean what people use it to mean.
> 
> Are you planning to demand that they (and the rest of the world) change their ways and stop using the name?



Well you can make an analogy with say a boy being told that he cannot have the surname of his father because he's an illegitimate child and therefore not worthy. That's how a lot (not all I don't want to generalize) of "Latin" Americans feel, that they're less than the "real" Americans (US citizens) to be called *AMERICANS* and should get over it, move on and stop acting like spoiled resentful brats.


----------



## cuchuflete

I beg to differ Hedonist,

From the dozens of posts I've read in this thread and others on the same topic, in these WR forums, I wouldn't use the spoiled brat analogy.  I think the resentment comes from two things--

1- ignorance of the etymology of the 
English word;
2- disagreement with US foreign policy.

The pouting, by native Spanish speakers, and a few fellow travellers with other native languages, including English, is about as effective as howling at the moon, but it's not spoiled or bratty, just uninformed and futile.


----------



## maxiogee

hedonist said:


> Well you can make an analogy with say a boy being told that he cannot have the surname of his father because he's an illegitimate child and therefore not worthy. That's how a lot (not all I don't want to generalize) of "Latin" Americans feel, that they're less than the "real" Americans (US citizens) to be called *AMERICANS* and should get over it, move on and stop acting like spoiled resentful brats.



I'm a European, but I'm primarily Irish.
Are not these "Latin" Americans primarily something else —> say, Hondurans? Why do they need to use "American"? And anyway, are they not, when using it like I use European, actually North-, Central-, or South-Americans?


----------



## gaer

cuchuflete said:


> I beg to differ Hedonist,
> 
> From the dozens of posts I've read in this thread and others on the same topic, in these WR forums, I wouldn't use the spoiled brat analogy. I think the resentment comes from two things--
> 
> 1- ignorance of the etymology of the
> English word;
> 2- disagreement with US foreign policy.
> 
> The pouting, by native Spanish speakers, and a few fellow travellers with other native languages, including English, is about as effective as howling at the moon, but it's not spoiled or bratty, just uninformed and futile.


I always refer to this country as "the US". No exceptions. It's quicker to type "US president", "the states in the US", "US foreign affairs", etc.

The point at which I become confused is this: how do people expect us to refer to ourselves?

Am I expected to replace "I'm an American" with "I'm a citizen of the US"? Should we all suddenly call ourselves "USAers" or "USers"?

I'm by no means the first person to raise this point, but I have never seen it answered reasonably. 

I would be glad to use a different term to describe my US citizenship if someone could come up with a suggestion that works!

Gaer


----------



## .   1

gaer said:


> I would be glad to use a different term to describe my US citizenship if someone could come up with a suggestion that works!
> 
> Gaer


Does U.S. American work?

.,,


----------



## timpeac

gaer said:


> I always refer to this country as "the US". No exceptions. It's quicker to type "US president", "the states in the US", "US foreign affairs", etc.
> 
> The point at which I become confused is this: how do people expect us to refer to ourselves?
> 
> Am I expected to replace "I'm an American" with "I'm a citizen of the US"? Should we all suddenly call ourselves "USAers" or "USers"?
> 
> I'm by no means the first person to raise this point, but I have never seen it answered reasonably.
> 
> I would be glad to use a different term to describe my US citizenship if someone could come up with a suggestion that works!
> 
> Gaer


Thing is, if they get round to forming a united states of Europe, which is clearly the goal whatever the official line is, then even "US" won't be specific enough!


----------



## maxiogee

timpeac said:


> Thing is, if they get round to forming a united states of Europe, which is clearly the goal whatever the official line is, then even "US" won't be specific enough!



Why?
A united states of Europe will probably just call itself "Europe" and tell any Swiss who get stroppy about the misappropration of the word to shut up and join in! 

Frankly, I don't see a need to change the name from "The European Union", no matter how it is constituted - as now, as a more 'federal' body, or as a discrete political entity.

And anyway isn't US actually _less_ specific than USA?


----------



## timpeac

maxiogee said:


> Why?
> A united states of Europe will probably just call itself "Europe" and tell any Swiss who get stroppy about the misappropration of the word to shut up and join in!
> 
> Frankly, I don't see a need to change the name from "The European Union", no matter how it is constituted - as now, as a more 'federal' body, or as a discrete political entity.
> 
> And anyway isn't US actually _less_ specific than USA?


Yes, but more specific than just America since now that the USSR is no more there aren't many united states to confuse it with.

I suppose it is silly to speculate on what a united Europe might be known as, but I suppose as long as all the countries in the continent of Europe aren't members it would have the same naming problems as the USA.


----------



## cuchuflete

timpeac said:


> I suppose it is silly to speculate on what a united Europe might be known as, but I suppose as long as all the countries in the continent of Europe aren't members i*t would have the same naming problems as the USA.*



Point of fact: The USA doesn't have any naming problems. It has a name that, however unpoetic, is an accurate description of its political nature and location.  Some people would like to undo 500 years of English to suit other motives, and that is their naming problem.  The overwhelming majority of the English speaking world has no issue with the sundry names used for the USA and its citizens.  

The Spanish speaking world is more than welcome to choose among the options available in that language.  That too poses no naming problem for the USA.  Just as English prefers Lisbon for the Portuguese Lisboa, if many, most or all Spanish speakers should prefer to use estadounidense or anything else in lieu of American, and estados unidos for US, that should be no cause for the slightest upset for any English speaker.


----------



## gaer

. said:


> Does U.S. American work?
> 
> .,,


No. 

If you are waiting for something like "the average US American worker", don't hold your breath!


----------



## maxiogee

timpeac said:


> Yes, but more specific than just America since now that the USSR is no more there aren't many united states to confuse it with.


The demise of the USSR didn't change that,   they were the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics — CCCP in Russian, Soyuz Sovyetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik.


----------



## GenJen54

Gaer said:
			
		

> I would be glad to use a different term to describe my US citizenship if someone could come up with a suggestion that works!


You are far more charitable on the matter than am I. 

As history has proven, the name "American" to describe "a citizen/citizens of the United States of America" has been around for more than 200 years. I do not feel it necessary to change the description of my nationality simply because it peeves off several individuals who also share the same continent. 

As far as I see it, someone who is from the continent of "America" (North, South or Central) is _American_. Someone who is from the country of the US of A is also _American_. That's the way my language expresses it and I do not feel I should be forced to change, for reasons that appear important only to the "politically kerrekt."

If continental Americans, in _their respective languages_, want to change the word to "estadounidense" or "etats-unisien," that is fine. I will gladly comply with this since that is what is standard for these other languages, and I will gladly use the word, _when speaking that language._

I don't, however, feel the need to change my own language to accommodate their grievance. 

In English, I am, and always will be, American, plain and simple.


----------



## timpeac

maxiogee said:


> The demise of the USSR didn't change that,  they were the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics — CCCP in Russian, Soyuz Sovyetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik.


Oh, I didn't mean to suggest they were called a united states, just that they were a collection of united states.


----------



## .   1

GenJen54 said:


> In English, I am, and always will be, American, plain and simple.


You may be American but I doubt that you are plain and I know that you are not simple.

.,,


----------



## gaer

GenJen54 said:


> You are far more charitable on the matter than am I.


Not really.

The whole matter of using "US", "USA" or "America" is simply not important to me, and it is fastest for me to type "US". It's as simple as that, and I may be influenced by German, which either uses "USA" or "die Vereinigten Staaten".

Seeming "diplomatic" or "PC" does not bother me when it also is convenient. 


> As history has proven, the name "American" to describe "a citizen/citizens of the United States of America" has been around for more than 200 years. I do not feel it necessary to change the description of my nationality simply because it peeves off several individuals who also share the same continent.


Hold on a moment. I could not agree more. That's why I wrote:


> Am I expected to replace "I'm an American" with "I'm a citizen of the US"? Should we all suddenly call ourselves "USAers" or "USers"?


If someone asks me what my nationality is, I will say: "I'm an American". Period. 

Gaer


----------



## RAPHUS CUCULLATUS

. said:


> You may be American but I doubt that you are plain and I know that you are not simple.
> 
> .,,



Very well said.
 

RC


----------



## gaer

roxcyn said:


> I think it becomes confusing because they all have the same name! I think that may people accept that *American* = USA, […]


No. I don't think anyone would accept that.

American means a person LIVING in the US, a US citizen.

I live in the US. I am an American.

I tried to make the point, humorously and politely.

Obviously it did not work.

There is no other way to say: "I am an American."

This has nothing to do with being ethnocentric, arrogant or inflexible—or rude.

It's a grammatical fact—as MANY people have tried to point out.


----------



## cuchuflete

gaer said:


> No. I don't think anyone would accept that.
> 
> American means a person LIVING in the US, a US citizen.
> 
> I live in the US. I am an American.
> 
> I tried to make the point, humorously and politely.
> 
> Obviously it did not work.
> 
> There is no other way to say: "I am an American."
> 
> This has nothing to do with being ethnocentric, arrogant or inflexible—or rude.
> 
> It's a grammatical fact—as MANY people have tried to point out.



Hi Gaer,

Regarding the words I've highlighted, in fact there is another way, but it would do little to assuage the aggrieved:

I am a citizen of the United States of America, whose name represents a political affiliation of states in America, and don't get your knickers in a twist because you too can incorporate the word America into your country's name if you and your fellow citizens so desire. 

That could be shortened, of course, but if one is to go to the trouble of swapping "American" for "a citizen of the United States of America", why show any restraint at all?


----------



## hedonist

gaer said:


> No. I don't think anyone would accept that.
> 
> American means a person LIVING in the US, a US citizen.
> 
> I live in the US. I am an American.
> 
> I tried to make the point, humorously and politely.
> 
> Obviously it did not work.
> 
> There is no other way to say: "I am an American."
> 
> This has nothing to do with being ethnocentric, arrogant or inflexible—or rude.
> 
> It's a grammatical fact—as MANY people have tried to point out.





> There is no other way to say: "I am an American."


I like the word YANKEE. It has a nice ring to it, don't mind it.


----------



## Adel Montevega

> I like the word YANKEE. It has a nice ring to it, don't mind it.


 
Although I hesitate to enter this heated (though respectful) discussion with a late digression, I hasten to note that "yankee" is NOT a good synonym for "American" (in the sense of US citizen). Born in Texas and living in Florida, I'm not a "yankee", since for me it indicates people from the northeast US (especially but not exclusively New England), and people from the South region are not part of that. (As far as Western states go, it may depend on the specific person.) I think most people in South region states would not like to be called yankees or "yanks", even if they understand why people from other countries might do it. 

In English I am an American and a US citizen, and in Spanish I prefer _estadounidense _(for nicknames, _gringo_ is sometimes okay if used respectfully and not pejoratively, since it indicates, I think, a US citizen/resident). 

Adel


----------



## gaer

cuchuflete said:


> Hi Gaer,
> 
> Regarding the words I've highlighted, in fact there is another way, but it would do little to assuage the aggrieved.


I should have said that there is not way to say "I am an American" without a great deal more typing. 

Gaer


----------



## gaer

gaer said:


> I should have said that there is no way to say "I am an American" without a great deal more typing.
> 
> Gaer


----------



## Soy Yo

Adel Montevega said:


> Although I hesitate to enter this heated (though respectful) discussion with a late digression, I hasten to note that "yankee" is NOT a good synonym for "American" (in the sense of US citizen). Born in Texas and living in Florida, I'm not a "yankee", since for me it indicates people from the northeast US (especially but not exclusively New England), and people from the South region are not part of that. (As far as Western states go, it may depend on the specific person.) I think most people in South region states would not like to be called yankees or "yanks", even if they understand why people from other countries might do it.
> 
> In English I am an American and a US citizen, and in Spanish I prefer _estadounidense _(for nicknames, _gringo_ is sometimes okay if used respectfully and not pejoratively, since it indicates, I think, a US citizen/resident).
> 
> Adel


 
I think that in the U.S., we recognize that Yankee has lots of meanings and may even refer to 'non-southerners', no matter what part of the U.S. they are from).

I don't mind being a yankee or a yank, when we are viewed from a foreigner's perspective or extend ourselves in to some reference "abroad".

Example: I always sang "Yankee Doodle [went to town]" with great pride. I get a good feeling when I hear or sing "I'm a Yankee Doodle Dandy [Yankee Doodle-do or die}" and "Over There" [The yanks are coming! The yanks are coming! The drums rum-tumming everywhere!]. Great rallying songs...and God bless George M. Cohan!

By the way, born and raised in the Heart of Dixie! {Swanee, how I love you, how I love you, my dear ole Swanee!)


----------



## vlazlo

slap me in the face before you call me a yankee...  A yankee is a person from the north.  yank is a general term (from the brits?) for americans,  and yes, in english, that is what people from the u.s. are called, get over it. p.s. my caps aren't working, sorry.


----------



## cuchuflete

Mod note: We are drifting far off topic.  Please have a look at post #1 before continuing.  Thanks.


----------



## PandaX

Gustavoang said:


> Hello.
> 
> I've never liked to say "American" when I'm talking about an USA-native person... I'm venezuelan, thus I'm american too!
> 
> Is there other word/phrase that means the same?
> 
> Beside this common mistake (at least from my point of view It's a mistake, what about yours?), I often heard people to say "America" instead of USA... Could somebody explain me where does that country is located at? I can only find a *continent* named "America".
> 
> American = USA-native person
> America = USA
> 
> Please post your point of view because It'll be interesting, even if you don't agree with me.
> 
> Cheers!



I know this is a somewhat dead thread but I was told to post in this thread as I was told I was being off-topic in another thread, though I certianly didn't think so.

Anyway here goes.

Gustav the name America, and of course American, was applied, used, by the colonists even before America, yes the country, became a country. Even the current theory and more plausible origin of the name has it being derived from a British trader, Richard Amerike, which he apparently used to refer to the original colonies and not the traditional story of Amerigo Vespucci, in regards to the continent. 

That said, of course there are two continents named North and South America, though not one named simply America, but historically and traditionally America and American have applied only to the United States of America. That is our countries full and correct name as it is also correct to say simply America, as has been the case for hundreds of years, and before the formation of our country. Some people apparently don't like that but it is historically correct.

People from the nations north and south of America, and abroad, haven't had a problem with that it seems until recently. In the other thread I mentioned that I have seen a very strong connection to this relatively recent bizarre situation of referring to Americans as "US Americans" and "US citizens," and some South Americans demanding to also be called American, to simple anti-Americanism, or at best some off-the-wall kind of PC. 

Invariably, people that I have questioned doing that, even say Europeans, have been quite anti-American. It's as if they want to now take our nationality away from us or dilute us by sharing it with others. It's quite bizarre but also quite offensive. 

Why not just be proud to be Venezuelen? 

By the way, the full and correct name for Mexico is the United States of Mexico, as it is correct to simply say Mexico


----------



## cuchuflete

As the previous post demonstrates, it is possible, if not at all useful, to come to a long thread, omit reading it, and repeat what has been said many times previously in that same thread.

This is a capability not limited to Americans, _by whatever definition of that word one prefers.  _


----------

