Bar lounge

[Bowsling]

For example In Spanish (Magno and Yossa can correct me), "USA citizen" sounds like "Norte-Americano".

A lot of Canadian tourists get offended on vacation in Cuba when the revolutionaries discus North American imperialism. As you said, they refer to citizens of the USA as North Americans, and we use North Americans when talking about ourselves and the USA (and sometimes Mexico).

 

[Maga_R]

You're coming to Norway?

I actually may be coming very soon All depends on Russian Consulate now. If they will continue to pile problems with my visa application, I will not be able to travel on business to Moscow, as planned. We just have been brainstorming where to spend a week of compulsory stay in Europe (trans-atlantic tickets already bought), and my husband proposed to go and see Norwegian fjords, which I think is a brilliant idea

Is Stavanger a good starting points for hiking and kayaking in the fjords?

EDIT: Actually, Stavanger seem no be no more than 20km from where Arki lives After some research, we are thinking of flying into Stavanger and flying out of Bergen or vice versa. Does it sound like a good itinerary for the fjords?

 

[RegentMan]

This is weird logic of course. Canadians can be North Americans, Costa Ricans can be Central Americans, Brazilians can be South Americans and USA citizens can be simply Americans? Even those from Hawaii?

Yep. People from Canada are Canadians and North Americans.
People from Costa Rica are Costa Ricans or Central Americans (or North or South, depending how you do the geography south of the USA but north of Panama).
People from Brazil are Brazilians or South Americans.
People from the United States of America are Americans or North Americans. Hawaii is apart of the USA, therefore they are Americans. But they are not located in North America, so Hawaiians are not North Americans- rather they are Hawaiians- from Hawaii.

I had a friend from Nicaragua , who was teaching me Spanish and was correcting me when I used Americans for USA citizens, telling me: "I am from America too. I live in North America."

This is where your Nicaraguan friend and I disagree. If you tell me you're an American, I'll assume (and generally everyone you tell) you are from the USA. If you tell me you're a Columbian, I'll assume you're from Columbia.

For the country Australia it is normal to have the geographical name of the continent, as it is the only country over there. But USA are not the only country on the two Americas.

But the USA is the only country with "America" in its name, and we have used the term "American" to define someone from there. If "United Statesian" ever becomes the new norm, then we can talk about redefining "American."

What about the Incans? Or the Aztecs, or the Zapotecs, or the various Mayan states, or the Mississippians?

It looks like you named their adjectives correctly. Incans, Aztecs, Zapotecs, Mayans, Mississippians, Olmecs, Sioux, Cherokee...

So people from Canada, and Mexico are from North America, but the word "America" is not in the name of their country. If for example, Mexico was called "The Central States of America", then it would probably be common to hear Mexicans called Americans.

Makes sense.

Such a silly debate, but like I said, a big personal pet peeve of mine.

 

[Aivoturso]

Well, it is your Founding Fathers' fault anyway for not picking a real name for your country BTW, this debate should serve as warning for future. If EU ever transforms to a federation we have to remember to pick a better name for it. Otherwise it may lead to the same sillines in few decades when people start refering only EU citizens as Europeans. Sorry Caledorn, Arki and Tobias, you wouldn't count as Europeans anymore

 

[2metraninja]

It looks like you named their adjectives correctly. Incans, Aztecs, Zapotecs, Mayans, Mississippians, Olmecs, Sioux, Cherokee...

I think you did not got Bowsling's idea here. He was asking you why you miss those states and say USA were the first independent state in the Americas.

First of all, for me, as someone interested in history, it is obvious truth that America was called way before USA was even in someone's mind. Educational reading: http://www.uhmc.sunysb.edu/surgery/america.html

Taking for your country the name of the continent where it is formed is sweet, but dont deny it to the other inhabitants of the continent. Privatizing the name of a whole continent is not much nice. Or it is something like "claim" and predictions how USA sees America's future? North Koreans or South Koreans, they are all Koreans. Who can claim are the real true Koreans? Same with East Coasters and West Coasters. OK, who are simply "The coasters"? Just kidding, but you get the idea. The name USA suggests that all the states of America are united and whoever are not in this federation, they are not states or are not in America? Or simply they are not yet united under the USA flag? This slightly reminds me of how the ancient Romans called all the rest nations barbarians. If it is not Roman, then it is not civilized. Once become under Rome's rule, they became part of the civilized world.

Now, dont get me wrong. Everyone can call himself whatever he likes. But dont deny this to others too, who have no less right to call themselves such. Just "we first claimed the name of our continent in the name of our country so only we have right to call ourselves Americans" sounds narrow and arrogant at least. And this is to me, who live on the other side of the world. And I can imagine how arrogant, discriminative, separative or patronizing it may sounds to the other inhabitants of the Americas. I understand that the other alternatives of United States of America citizens coming strictly from the official name, to call themselves are Statesmen or Unionists, but I guess this derives from the fact that there is no real single nationality in the traditional sense (like Italians, Indians, Germans, Arabs, or whatever) of the citizens of the USA, so it can not be named after the nationality of the citizens of the country.

Please, dont make it a matter of national pride. Look at the matter more wide and broaden your sight of view on the matter, instead of knowing 1 truth you were told and used to from a child and defend it with all means. No one is attacking you

 

[RegentMan]

I think you did not got Bowsling's idea here. He was asking you why you miss those states and say USA were the first independent state in the Americas.

Ah I see. Well, the USA was the first independent state in the Americas when we're talking about states as seen in our world today, not just native tribes who had no nation-state (per modern norms).

First of all, for me, as someone interested in history, it is obvious truth that America was called way before USA was even in someone's mind...
Taking for your country the name of the continent where it is formed is sweet, but dont deny it to the other inhabitants of the continent.

There is no continent called "America." There is a "North America" and a "South America." If I were saying "'North American' means you're from the USA" then yes, you would be correct. However, I am saying "American means you're from the USA." Because there is no continent of "America" the USA is not denying anyone their ability to use it.

Because of this, I don't see myself as being "arrogant, discriminative, separative or patronizing." I am not denying to a Brazilian their ability to be called a "South American" or a Canadian to be called a "North American." Is it right to deny the USA the right to use the name "American" when the USA is the only nation with "America" in its name? Just because there are two continents which contain the word "America" the USA has to surrender its only usable adjective? How is this not arrogant, discriminative, separative or patronizing to the USA?

Please, dont make it a matter of national pride. Look at the matter more wide and broaden your sight of view on the matter, instead of knowing 1 truth you were told and used to from a child and defend it with all means. No one is attacking you

Just because the USA claims something, doesn't mean non-Americans have to be against it. It is okay for foreigners to agree with the USA without being any less Bulgarian, French, Chinese, etc. Broaden your point of view on the matter, instead of clinging to the one truth you were told as a child and defend it to the death. The USA isn't out to get you.

And I am having fun with this little back-and-forth. I doubt we are changing anyone's feelings with this, but I am enjoying myself. I don't want anyone to get any impression otherwise- this isn't a serious debate and should not be treated as such!

 

[Magno_uy]

the problem is that USA had no name

The as called name given for USA is actually a description of a political organisation . thats means "United states" its not the name, its actually just a very simplified description of the union of several states.
Brazil is also its formal name "United states" but its complemented with a name. "United states of Brazil" and so, it commonly called as just Brazil.

The problem is then that USA has no name at all. Mexico also its offcial name is "United States" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico

Uruguay is also other country with no name. As its formal name is "Oriental Republic of Uruguay" describing as the Republic in the oriental side of the Uruguay river... (the occidental side of the Uruguay river is Argentine)
So, its called Uruguay as that when actually the Uruguay river goes from the inner Brazil,going from the border of Paraguay and finally its the border of Uruguay and Argentine.
Therefore, 90% of those who live close to the Uruguay river do not live in the Uruguay country, and anywhay we make ourself call us as Uruguay.

So, If USA call them American even 90% of those live in American continent do not live in USA... its not a big deal. Context its apply

 

[Magno_uy]

If for example, Mexico was called "The Central States of America", then it would probably be common to hear Mexicans called Americans.

Mexico is in nort america, geographically talking.

Central States of America actually existed in the past, but it just goes running for 5 years or close to that. its was a try to formalize a Federation of the former spanish province once thay get their independence from Spain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Republic_of_Central_America

But it dont last for long, and they crack down in several countries that most of them are those we know nowdays.

 

[Bowsling]

Ah I see. Well, the USA was the first independent state in the Americas when we're talking about states as seen in our world today, not just native tribes who had no nation-state (per modern norms).

None of my examples were tribes. The Incan and Cherokee nations survived into the 19th century as westernized "nation-states".

 

[RegentMan]

None of my examples were tribes. The Incan and Cherokee nations survived into the 19th century as westernized "nation-states".

We might be disagreeing with definitions, then. I don't recall the Incans nor Cherokees having foreign ministers, legislative bodies- elected or appointed, ambassadors to Britain and France, etc. Perhaps this is a RegentMan-only definition.

 

[Bowsling]

There was an independent Cherokee state set up in Tenessee with the capital in Echota. They created their own alphabet and did all the latest European agricultural stuff. The model worked quite well under John Quincy Adams and his predecessor, until the godawful Andrew Jackson became president, destroyed it, and deported them to Oklahoma (the Trail of Tears). The Incan state survived in the Andes around Vilcabamba for a few centuries after Pizarro and almost shook off Spanish rule in the rest of Peru during the 1700s (granted, that's not as good an example, and I now next to nothing about it either.)

The Cherokee government had a foreign minister I assume, if anyone cared at that point.

Legislative bodies were not uncommon at all and existed in Precolumbian America.

I don't see how having ambassadors to Britain and France are qualifiers for a nation state. Is Canada not a nation state because we don't have an ambassador to Britain? Did the Japanese isolationism of the era make it any less of a nation state? I'm not even sure permanent diplomatic missions were widespread in the 18th century.

 

[RegentMan]

There was an independent Cherokee state set up in Tenessee with the capital in Echota. They created their own alphabet and did all the latest European agricultural stuff.

I don't see how having ambassadors to Britain and France are qualifiers for a nation state. Is Canada not a nation state because we don't have an ambassador to Britain?

Did the Japanese isolationism of the era make it any less of a nation state?

Fair point about the Japanese isolationism.

Britain and France were just examples- one could have picked any country and stuck it in there. Per Canada, I understand it is still part of the Commonwealth, therefore isn't 100% separated from Britain, therefore doesn't have an ambassador there by default (correct me if I'm wrong). But they have ambassadors to other nations which are outside the Commonwealth, yes?

Regarding the Cherokee, I remember them trying to maintain independence with their written language. However, on any maps of the period, there is not Tennessee colored green for the Cherokee and the rest east of the Mississippi colored blue for the USA. The world knew the Cherokee were there, but no one argued that Tennessee didn't belong to the USA. The same could be said for Japan- its isles would be colored red with red in the legend reading "Japan-" no one thinks anyone else but the Japanese owned those islands.

 

[2metraninja]

For someone who is interested in the case and used to argue about it as you say you are, I expected a bit more knowledge of the history. Try googling "The Miskito Kingdom" when speaking which was the first independent American state in the "modern" sense you try to put in it.

Claiming there is no continent America is tricky. America was used in singular form to describe the lands laying west of Africa around 1500AD, i.e. long before USA make claim on the name "America"

In 1507, Waldseemüller produced a world map, in which he placed the word "America" on the continent of South America, in the middle of what is today Brazil. He explained the rationale for the name in the accompanying book Cosmographiae Introductio,

...

Later, when other mapmakers added North America, they extended the original name to it as well: in 1538, Gerard Mercator used the name America to all of the Western Hemisphere on his world map.[7]

As for why there is no continent "Simply America" right now, but North America and South America, here is another educational quote for you:

North America and South America are treated as separate continents in the seven-continent model. However, they may also be viewed as a single continent known as America. This viewpoint was common in the United States until World War II, and remains prevalent in some Asian six-continent models.[13] This remains the more common vision in Spain, Portugal and Latin American countries, where they are taught as a single continent. This use is shown in names such as the Organization of American States. From the 19th century some people used the term "Americas" to avoid ambiguity with the United States of America.

So, the facts are that USA used the name of the continent America to describe themselves when they were created and 100's of years after it they called the continent "America" and called themselves "America". Which is patronizing from each possible angle and speaks for quite a self-esteem. And as result, the world needed to come with another way of calling the continent, because USA had decided to take the name of the continent America and put claims to own it. This means that if you were born and educated in school before WW2, you could not had your main argument "There is no continent called America", because you were going to be taught that the whole continent is called America. This is how it was officially called in USA. And they still call the continent America in the Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries (remember - they discovered America in the modern sense of it ) So you should be able to see why they get offended and feel patronized by USA claims for exclusivity of the name America.





If it is indeed just your favorite pet peeving and you are trolling people and try to intentionally irritate them, it is acceptable to repeat my words headed towards you Childish, but still OK. If it is a serious argumentation you are trying to put in serious mature argument, then it is not.

Anyway, I said what I had to say, you either get something or you don't.

In case you don't, still, I will be good sport and wish you Happy 2013 birthday America

 

[Sommerswerd]

Mexico is in nort america, geographically talking.

Of course this is correct, I know that Mexico is part of North America. I think you miss my point. My fault for using the word "Central" which is sometimes used (pejoratively IMO) to seperate Spanish speaking North America from English.

I did not know about the real-life "Central States" though, so thanks for telling me about it

Anyway, my point is that if any country used the word "America" in their name, then people would probably call them "Americans" too.

For example, we call North-Koreans "Koreans" because their nation is called Democratic People's Republic of Korea but we also call South Koreans "Koreans" because they call their county the Republic of Korea

So if Mexico instead called themselves the "People's Republic of America", then everyone might be calling them "Americans" too.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Another, more tangible example of this that actually applies to North America is The American Civil War in 1861.

During this war, one side called themselves the Confederate States of America (Confederacy), and they fought for independence from the United States of America (Union).

Now if the Confederacy had won the War, and gained independence, then (much of my family might still be slaves ... but that is a different conversation) the Confederacy would probably be called "Americans" as well, and we would have two countries called "America," the United States, and the Confederate States.

In fact I think Civ 4 actually comes with a playable American Civil War Scenario that starts in 1861... Its quite fun

 

[Magno_uy]

The use of "America" for the first union of several states in the America continent is completely razonable. I really don't get the point that USA cant use the American as its name... its all about context. I'm consider my self an American, but of course that this is a referral to the American continent.
But the problem is that most of the American countries citizen not even know that the continent where thiers country is its also called America.
Once I was talking with a guy in NewYork, He ask me where I was from and I answer "Uruguay" ... as his face shows that he had no a clue where thats was, I complement my answer with a "...SouthAmerica..."
His answer was very interesting... was something like "South America?... Florida?"



of course I answer with a "Yes of course, Uruguay, Florida"

Any way! Congrats for another Independence day!

 

[Magno_uy]

There was an independent Cherokee state set up in Tenessee with the capital in Echota. T

it this what are you talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_Nation_(19th_century)
Ididnt know this. I will read a little about , thanks

 

[Bowsling]

Yes, it was. It's quite an interesting (and sad) story.

 

[RegentMan]

For someone who is interested in the case and used to argue about it as you say you are, I expected a bit more knowledge of the history.

Nowhere did I say I used to argue it. I didn't research anything before I posted- I just went with what I thought was true. Something can be someone's pet peeve without being an expert in the topic.

If it is indeed just your favorite pet peeving and you are trolling people and try to intentionally irritate them, it is acceptable to repeat my words headed towards you Childish, but still OK. If it is a serious argumentation you are trying to put in serious mature argument, then it is not.

You had some decent points, but by reaching the end of your post and reading your conclusion I am tired of discussing this, and won't be anymore.

I do not like the statement that I am either a childish troll or doing something not okay by repeating your conclusion in a previous post. Let's look at what I did:

Please, dont make it a matter of national pride. Look at the matter more wide and broaden your sight of view on the matter, instead of knowing 1 truth you were told and used to from a child and defend it with all means. No one is attacking you

Just because the USA claims something, doesn't mean non-Americans have to be against it. It is okay for foreigners to agree with the USA without being any less Bulgarian, French, Chinese, etc. Broaden your point of view on the matter, instead of clinging to the one truth you were told as a child and defend it to the death. The USA isn't out to get you.

All I did was use your words in my argument. You thought I was being an arrogant American who thinks I'm superior to every other nation, and are telling me to broaden my point of view, because the American lies I've been taught since birth are not right. I merely turned it around- just because the USA says something, doesn't make it arrogant, bad, etc. I even added a to the end to show it was not to be taken seriously.

Is that not okay? That's what makes me a troll? Not you turning the argument from the "USA/American" debate to "RegentMan is a troll," but me doing a common debate tactic by using an opponent's words against him?

And the icing on the cake:

Anyway, I said what I had to say, you either get something or you don't.

In case you don't, still, I will be good sport and wish you Happy 2013 birthday America

You laid down the impossibly-wrong, straight from God facts, and I either get it or I don't. In case I was too stupid to get it, you will still be a "good sport" and wish my country a happy birthday, calling it by the name you disagree with, to show your superiority.

And I'm arrogant?

Like I said, I'm stepping away from this, as this has devolved into personal battle, and I don't want to bring the team down. My opinion is not any less of you, 2metra, and I still look at you as the leader of Team CFC who's doing a great job in a tough spot, but I do not wish to continue this debate.

 

[cav scout]

I'm a citizen of the greatest nation on this earth and we call ourselves Americans. Anyone who has a problem with this is just someone who has a chip on their shoulder. You don't hear Singaporeans complaining about citizens of the Federation of Malaysia being called Malaysians do you?