Talk:American (word)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (US vs American), talk:Usian, Talk:List of people from the United States/naming

Use of the word American Archive 1.


Contents

[edit] change gringo

I changed "the word gringo is used in all South AMerica" for "it's used in parts of "South AMerica". The word gringo in Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil is used as a nickname for ash blonde Argentinians, Uruguayans and Brzilians. It was used in immigration times for the lighest immigrants from Europe mostly Polish, Escandinavians, Germans but also Nothern Italians. It has nothing to do with "american" and tho most Argentinians and Uruguayans understand what Central and Nother South AMericans mean when they said that, we don't use it in that way.

Could you please tell me what do you think we Central Americans mean by gringo? I only ask because I don't know if you mean to say we use it in a pejorative way, which we (normally) don't, or if we mean estadounidense, which we normally do. --SaulPerdomo

[edit] LOGIC AND REASON MUST PREVAIL

I find it very hard to believe that no one can find a middle ground on the topic. We all must keep in mind that this is a discussion between reasonable parties, so please refrain yourself from any offensive comments, and we may all come to an agreement over the topic.

First, the term “Americas” used to refer to the two continents is very unreasonable. One must ask the question, how many Americas are there? If the United States “of” America is America as a whole, then the people from the “South” would be “South Americans”, and it is then where the confusion starts. A South American is from South America, not from the southern states of the United States OF America.

So according to the term “Americas” there are more than two Americas. One “the USA”, two, North America, three, Central America, four, South America, five, Latin America, six, Anglo America…and all the other combinations one could probably think of when using the word America. That is extremely illogical.

There is only one, and no more than one, America. If you have an apple, and you cut it in half…do you have two apples? Or do you have two halves of an apple? Now, in the case of the USA hugging the name makes no sense. The fact that people from the United States of America do not have a “first name” does not justify the act of using the “last name” of all Americans as one. For example Canadians (regardless of whether they considered themselves Americans or not) don have to say “I am American” because they have a “first name”…Canadians, which implies AMERICAN. You won’t hear a German person saying to an Englishman “Hey, I am European, come to my country Europe.”

Now, Europeans born in America having children in another continent will have descendants of Europeans, not of Americans. Just like Indians, from India, born in the UK having children in America, will have Indian Americans, not English Americans.

I would like to close my argument with this: The tires OF a car does not mean that the tires are the car, though they are a very important part of it.

  • Unfortunately, when making an encyclopaedia, logic and reason are worthless. We must be strict empiricists, viciously pruning out any attempts to introduce logic and reason into the discussion. We are here to describe things as they are not as we wish them to be. You may find this unfortunate, but it's demanded by WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and almost every other policy here at Wikipedia. The Americas is the term used to refer to North America and South America collectively, whether this should be correct or not, it is correct, which is all we can address here, because Wikipedia, she ain't a soapbox. America is the country I see when I look across the lake, an American is a person born in that country. Canadians are not Americans, Chileans are not Americans, Colombians are not Americans. They may be Americaine, but that's an entirely seperate issue. WilyD 20:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Did I read clearly? Did you just write "when making an encyclopaedia, logic and reason are worthless"? After reading the rest of your comments, I have realized that you are a troll. A succesful one, too, judging by all the responses you got. Congratulations: you have succeeded in being a jerk. Whoop-dee-doo.
  • What you are saying is that America is a country, and that could not be a more erroneous statement. The key word is "OF" otherwise it would be redundant to have "The United States" in the name of the nation, for it would be America only. Now AMERICA existed way before the colonies came to existence, so the AMERICAN continent(s)has precedence over the US OF A. Now, the word "Americaine" is not even a recognized word(it does exist because we are talking about it, but that does not mean it belongs to a known recognized lenguage). If a person goes to England and "founds" a village called "The Village of England", that does not mean that such village will be England as a whole, or that any one outside of the village would cease to be English. *Trying to exclude reason and logic from any matter that involves us human beings would mean that we are just irrational beings. An encyclopedia must contain verifiable information not just the conjectures of a group of individuals. The proof I have to offer is that any where in the world North and South America are America in the end. Unless you can go back in time and change that, there is nothing that can be done without reinveinting the facts, thus, destroying the facts. Perhaps you still think that the world is flat, and that you are in India. Please do not take this offensively, it is just the only conclusion I can think of when you say you go from Canada to America every time you come here via the "Lake".
    • Well, yes and no, but mostly no. The usage of english dictates that American, when used in conversation, writing or whatever, refers to the United States of America - whether it should mean this is irrelevent. If I founded a village called England, and every english speaker took it to be the only place called england, never refered to anywhere else as england, then yes, it'd be england. That's simply how language works. English, like Wikipedia, operates by concensus. If you're looking for citable sources that the Americas are divided into two continents, North America and South America, I'm sure we could pile on refernces until we're blue in the face - this page contains links to a few, such as the government of Canada. If you say "I am from America" any other english speaker will instantly know you were born in the United States - there's no ambiguity. For what it's worth, the standard usage where I live refers to Americans coming from the States and the word America is almost never used alone. For instance, I might say Andy is an American meaning Andy is from the States. You might wish this wasn't true, you might find that this doesn't make sense, but that doesn't matter. What an encyclopaedia is about is documenting facts, not dictating facts. I live in Canada, in southern Ontario - on the other side of Lake Ontario is America - it's a country, which everyone anglophone recognises. What it should be doesn't really interest me, but I do find it unacceptable that this article is used to push Manifest Destiny WilyD 03:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
      • What do you mean when you say the article is being used to push Manifest Destiny? If you think that Brazil and Colombia want to join the United States I believe you are mistaken. If you think calling America, the continent, what it is, means we'd like for Canada to join the United States, then you need to explain how the article might be pushing that unlikely point of view and why any country would like to do so presently. ~~
        • Calling the two continents America is a denial of the soverignty and independence of all the countries in the Americas apart from the states. WilyD 11:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Not anymore than calling Europe Europe is a denial of the sovereignty and independence of European countries. Deepstratagem 02:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
            • The difference is that America is a country, whereas Europe is a continent. WilyD 03:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
      • That a map has labels for North and South America is no proof that the collection isn't also considered one land mass. Take the map presently in the article. North and South America are labelled as such, yet the entire map is a map of America, per the inscription.
        • One land mass, two continents - yes, that's right. The map called "Continents of the World" shows seven continents - additionally, books upon books can be added. Like "Rock Doves are a kind of bird" it's a statement that can be cited almost ad infinitum. WilyD 11:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Let's go with your definition of continent, then. According to Microsoft Encarta, "America, second largest isolated landmass of the earth, comprising the two continents of the western hemisphere" link. Deepstratagem 02:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
      • The village or city you live in in Canada may averse to calling anything but the United States America. Other Canadian locales may and do differ, otherwise you wouldn't have Canadians complaining in U.S. newspapers, personal blogs and and political Canadian message boards. Nor would they have complained sometime in the 1930s, when they were well aware of what Manifest Destiny meant.
        • There is a vocal minority of Canadians who are pro-Manifest destiny. The village or town I live is not averse to calling America America, why would we be? I think you're reading to much into this subtle point. Just that the usual term I use for America is the States - of course, a city with only a half native born population has a wide variety of speech patterns. WilyD 11:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Many of the people complaining don't like to be associated politically with the United States, so it's definitely not about "Manifest Destiny". Deepstratagem 02:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
            • I sincerely doubt you could find even a single such example. No one could conceivably use the word America and not know it refers to the States. WilyD 03:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Really? what geographical landmass are you talking about when you say "South America"? Deepstratagem 22:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
                • I've never heard or seen anyone use that word. I know what South America is, but it's in some sense a single word that can't be broken up as you're indicating. WilyD 11:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
                  • Then 1 + 1 might well equal 1. Deepstratagem 17:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
                    • Linguistics is not math. But I'm open to empirical evidence, if you've got it. WilyD 17:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
                      • When I open MS Word, Word Perfect or OpenOffice the word count function always counts 2 words for Latin America. Deepstratagem 18:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
                        • Deep, this is just a discussion page - you can let a little inaccuracy go to save a ton of explanation. For instance, consider the infinitive. Historically it's been said that you can't split an infinitive in essence because it's a single word, even though it has a space is the middle. Thus, to get was a single word in the sentence I have the ability to get wet and thus one was prohibited from inserting anything between to and get. North America is not a proper name America with a modifier North attached. It's a single proper name North America - in essence, a single word. WilyD 18:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
                          • In that case, United States of America, a proper name, is a single word, too. Deepstratagem 18:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
                            • In some sense, sure. Running capitalisation seems to give it away. It should at least be clear that it's indivisible fragment if you dislike my misuse of the word word. Such that if you rearrange the words, or otherwise alter it, you may not retain the original meaning (unlike a sentence, which gives you lots of such flexibility. WilyD 11:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Now, if 200 million people think the United States of America is called America and nothing else is, does that necessarily mean it is? Of course not. You'll find that those 200 million people are collectively oblivious to key facts. One such fact: 99+% of English dictionaries (including prescriptive U.S. ones) list the continent/landmass consisting of North and South America as one of the main definitions of America. Another fact is that when they say South America or Mesoamerica they are not speaking of the United States; when they say Latin Americans they are not speaking of the United States. Thus far, these 200 million people are oblivious to two key facts, both which they can confirm by simply looking in a dictionary or a simple mental exercise: Do I really mean Texas, when I say South America? A third fact, is that insisting that America is only the United States ignores a lot of important history, which, well, just isn't taught in the U.S./your town in Canada by the looks of it.
        • I'm aware of all sorts of certain qualified XXX Americans refer to non-Americans. Every single anglophone knows the word American means of or relating to the United States and there are ~ 350 million anglos. Deep, I know you're reasonably smart, so you should be able to see what's the case here. A couple Canadians may want to be Americans - but this doesn't reflect on the whole population anymore than the books of Toronto writer Ernst Zundel reflect the views of all Torontonians. WilyD 11:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
          • No, don't confuse Canadians wanting U.S. citizenship with Canadians recognizing that regardless of citizenship they are geographically, and to some extent culturally bound to America (Western Hemisphere). Deepstratagem 02:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
            • If a Canadian wants to be labelled an American, he (or she) is explicitly rejecting their nationality and endorsing assimilation of Canada by the States. Of course Canada has a strong cultural bond to America - they're our largest trading partner, our largest cultural exchange partner, right next to us with similar culture, language, et al. Half the TV stations I get are American stations - and so forth. WilyD 03:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Interestingly enough, when people think this through logically, without a shred of evidence, the mere name of the United States of America and the names of the continent/s is enough for intelligent people to come to the conclusion that something is wrong with the colloquial understanding of the word. Why are South and North America called so, if the United States is supposed to be America? When you repeat for the upteenth time that language isn't supposed to be logical, you might this time grasp that it is not the language that is the problem, but inconsistency in "facts". Deepstratagem 09:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, this may be my own bias, but it's one that's demanded by WP:NPOV and it's that when "logical" and "Measurement" conflict, you disgard logic. Not only do I do this at work, but in linguistics, its demanded. Anything else is a clear violation of WP:NPOV WilyD 11:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • If any Canadian(or anyone from AMERICA for that matter)accepts/knows the fact that CANADA is in North America, and that such fact makes him/her a North AMERICAN...then such individual is aknowledging the fact that indeed....HE/SHE is AMERICAN from the Northern part of AMERICA. That is a fact, not fiction, regardless of the lenguage used. 10:03pm, 31 August 2006
      • It is, in fact, wishful thinking. Canadians are North Americans but we are not North Americans. There's a difference. North America is not the north part of America, just as West Virginia is not the western part of Virginia. In contrast, you might be able to get away with north America to mean Michigan, Minnesoata, Montana & the Dakotas, given that the north qualifer there is not a proper name. It simply is the way the language is. This is an encyclopaedia, your logic and reasoning are excluded by WP:OR & by the fact that languages don't need to follow logical rules. WilyD 11:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, you just admitted being an American, a Norht American, see, there is progress...regardless of what kind of American you consider yourself( American or American). Now, here is just another example: if a group of individuals decide to call themselves human beings, does that mean you are no longer a human being?...I thought so. Are Catholics not Christians because they are not protestants?...thats just another one I hear a lot, even though Catholics were the first Christians. The AMERICAS is just a very undefined term, unpractical and confusing. There is only ONE AMERICA, and as it may be subdivided/sliced and diced at will, it will stay as America!!!...in fragments.
        • There's no need to make false statements to support your position. The Americas is a very precisely defined term, it is all of the land that is in either South America or North America. Collectively, that region is known as the Americas. I am not an American, to claim being a North American makes me an American is to ignore all geographic reality. My grandmother was born in New Jerusalem, New Brunswick, that doesn't mean she's from Jerusalem. To say so is plainly false on its face, but it follows from the same logic as your attempts to construe Canadians and Latin Americans as Americans (which we all know they are not). You do have one point correct. There is only one America, and it's a large country I can see when I look across the lake. The remaining hole in your argument is your impression that Americans staked a claim to the term causing others to abandon it. This isn't the way english works - english speakers collectively ascribed the adjective American to refer to people and things from the States. This may not be politically correct per se, but english is a marvelous language in that it doesn't submit to any authority, it plays by the collective will of its speakers. If you wish to change the meaning of American to mean of or relating to the Americas from it's current meaning of or relating to the country of America all you need to do is convince the english speakers this is the usage they ought to employ. But untilthat happens, all this article can really say is American used to refer to the Americas - it does not anymore as far as that goes. Nothing wrong with that. People in Detroit were once Quebeckers, they're not today ... language changes. Such is linguistics. WilyD 11:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't really have time to go through all of this, so someone might have made these points, but here we go anyway: first, it is appropriate for countries to have short names. Most every country has a short name -- think Germany, Britain, Spain, etc. The United States is stuck in a weird spot with the Czech Republic and a few others where it is often considered politically incorrect to use the proper short name of the country. Interestingly enough, nobody bats an eye when a person from Republic of Ireland says he is from Ireland or a person from the Federal Republic of Germany says she is from Germany. Why does it then make people so angry when a person from the United States of America says he is from America? The fact is, there are people who are from the island of Ireland who are not living in the Irish Republic and people who are of the German ethnicity who are not from the Federal Republic of Germany. Thus, it should be perfectly normal to say "America" when one means "The United States of America." There is really no issue with naming a country after a continent. Australia, for instance, is the name of a country and a continent, although depending on the definition of the continent of Australia, you might say that they are cosubstantial. Nevertheless, Geographical forms often overlap, and we must adapt.
  • My other point is simply that many, if not most formal names of countries include the word "of." This does not mean that they are only a part of that country. Examples: The Republic of Ireland, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island, The People's Republic of China, The Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis. -- Phil Bastian 21:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Its not like AMERICA is, or ever was, a country to begin with, so it is wrong to compare the two situations or names. We are talking about the name of a Continent which is used to represent a Nation. The Continent existed first, was named AMERICA first, so ...no, there is no way around it. You, or anyone, can start an infinity number of places with the word AMERICA included in the name, but the ONE AND ONLY AMERICA is the one that Christopher Colombus found and told the WORLD about. Why not just call the Northern part of the USA and Canada "Ericksland" or "IGORSLAND"?...I mean, it will be in America, Latin people whould not have a fair claim, and you wont be changing the significance of a LATIN derived word to make it ENGLISH. Either way, you will never be able to go back and change HISTORY....hmm, that would not be valid, since the Vikings never actually spread their "culture" in AMERICA and failed to settle in the land permanently. So, never mind, that would only create a bigger issue.

  • Again, no need to make verifiably false statements just because your position is untenable. Today there most definitely a country who's english name is America - ask any anglophone and they'll be able to tell you where it is. Old names are interesting for historical purposes, but they don't take precendence. Nor does anyone really "own" a name - it's simply an issue of language. People from London, Ontario are still Londoners, just as people from Toronto, Ohio are still Torontonians, even though both are named after larger, older cities. If you want to argue to change the name of North America, South America or the Americas, or even gives the States some new adjective other than American, feel free. Unforntunately, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. WilyD 11:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, WilyD, but re-stating a flawed argument doesn't validate it. You're starting from the standpoint that the one true meaning of a word is the one used in a single place and, thus, all other different uses of the word are invalid. This is not true. Although movies and books have made "American" an understood term for "from the United States" in most countries "American" is used for the landmass and not the country. In Latin America (which comprises far more people than the USA itself) the term "Americano" is used for the landmass and the continents, not for a country. This may sit well because as you've implied "America" has always been for you your country and while this is respectable it doesn't mean your opinion is more valid that the one from those that don't share it. Incidentally, stating that only your local opinion is valid is as much soapboxing as you're trying to lay on others. Unless the Wikipedia is suddenly defined to be formally U.S.A.-Centric (and being in english obviously doesn't count) then "rest-of-the-world" views are perfectly acceptable. This page exists, in part, to make it clear that "American" is not always a demonym of the USA and this is a fact. As much a fact as U.S. citizens believen it does. eduo 13:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's review that a) I don't have that viewpoint at all, and have in fact been arguing against it, and b) your representation of usage is in fact, false. American is used to mean Of or relating to the United States as its primary usage by the vast majority of english speakers. I, for example, am an anglophone but not an American ~ my country of origin is established several times in this discussion. I use American to mean of or relating to the United States in all contexts and registers, as do the vast majority of anglophones and other english speakers, whether they're American, Canadian, British, Chinese, Indian (and so on). I am not talking about a similar Spanish word Americano, but the English word American - because the article is not Use of the word Americano. I may well be an Americano (in fact, I'm fairly sure that I am), but I am not an American. How can this be? They're different words. WilyD 20:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Usage of the Spanish word "Americano" is irrelevant to a discussion about the English Wikipedia. Spanish speakers can use the word Americano in any context they deem fit, but what matters to the English Wikipedia is common usage in the English language.--RWR8189 18:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's stick to english then. According to the Webster then link: 1 : an American Indian of North America or South America, 2 : a native or inhabitant of North America or South America, 3 : a citizen of the United States. The American Heritage Dictionary gives the same definitions but in a different order (the U.S. one being the first instead of the third). All others do the same (same definitions, different orders). Leaving the fact clear that both meanings are, in english, equally valid (which should finish all arguments but we know it won't). The argument is not about the usage of the word in other languages (which has been brought up only to show that other languages differ in the definition, which is a valid argument). In English dictionaries (opposed as "english" dictionaries), "American" refers to both to the U.S. and the continent. I do raise the question, though, that this "English Wikipedia should pertain to common usage in the English language". I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that the Wikipedia used languages for accessibility and not for segregation. An article in english and an article in spanish should essentially be the same, except for the translation itself. I find it amazing that it's impossible for wikipedians to understand that a word may mean different things in different countries (and it's clear that "American" in english means more than "from the U.S.", as the dictionaries clearly state) and that this is reflected so. It's been mentioned that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" and this irks me, because failing to make it clear that the word has multiple meanings (as this discussion obviously demonstrates) is precisely that. The meaning is not common for all english-speaking countries, it's standard in the U.S. and is used by all those non-english-speaking countries that have a deep interaction with the U.S. It's irrelevant that the words refers to the continents or not (and I won't go into how wrong the Wikipedia has it in the continents article, as I know firsthand that the summary is completely incorrect for Latin America, Iberia and Western Europe). Let's settle on that the usage is that and it's used differently depending on the region and that'll be the truth. eduo 09:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Roughly speaking, the flaw with this idea is that translation is not exact. It is impossible to create articles that are identical except for translation. The word continent has a rough correspondance to a Spanish word - but they're not the same. The *whole* argument on this page is about translation - why? My question being rhetorical, I'll suggest it's because translation isn't exactly possible.
The continents article is exactly right. Why? Because it deals with continents - a word which (apparently) has no exact equivilent in Spanish. Although I'm not bilangue, I'm not totally mono-lingual either - not every anglophone is unable to read the backside of a box of cereal. I'm well aware that translations are inexact. And thus when we try to write an exact article about a specific word, if we try to incorporate other languages versions, we run into trouble. For the definite article the, we say it has no gender, yes le does have gender? How do we resolve this? Even though we translate le as the, they aren't the same word. Even though we translate Continente to Continent, they aren't the same word - they obviously don't have the same meaning (which can easily be verified by listing the seven continents, and the six (or five) continentes. We can all see with an easy visual inspection they're not the same word. The issue may be subtle, but it is the case that trying to write an exact article requires an attention to these subtleties. WilyD 11:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
My comment about the continents being incorrect was not focused on the definition, but on the table that specifies which countries use which system. The continent definition is the same for english and spanish and portuguese (the languages I know), even if the number of them doesn't match. But Iberia and Latin America use a 5-continent model (in the article it says a 6-continent model is used). Even though the definition is the same for all these languages the number isn't because no country follows the definition exactly. The Wikipedia article justifiable starts explaining precisely this and I agree with it. My comment referred just to the distribution of the models (and, in all countries, the model used exists for political reasons), the "Single landmass" definition of continent is not seriously defended by anyone anyway (even if it's the "grammatically correct" one). Still, the continents approach (as flawed as the mentioned table may be) is exactly the same I'm defending for this article. It should be stated what's the most common use of the word for the language but also noted that other uses may exist (and probably that some of these uses can cause confusion and/or negative reactions) and what they are. The dictionaries and encyclopedias do, so it's justifiable that the Wikipedia does so as well. We would all have to relent a little, though. eduo 12:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
This isn't actually true. English requires there to be seven continents - to the point where I can cite at least one dictionary that includes seven continents as part of the definition of the word. Thus if the Spanish speakers are saying there are six or five continents - the word they're using does most definitely not have the same meaning as continent. My guess is also that the continent models don't exist for political reasons, but for historical reasons. Things like the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny favour the idea that the Americas are a single continent - yet the Americans consistantly divide the Americas into two continents.
My actual problem with this article is that it essentially reads as an essay that endorses Manifest Destiny and it goes on to claim that most of the Americas endorses Manifest Destiny. The overwhelming usage of the word American means of or relating to the United States and yet the article places an undue emphasis on the unusual occasions when it's substituted for Pan-American. WilyD 13:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll stop now. Both because you've brought Manifest Destiny up again, which not only shows your real views about this issue (and miss the fact that the whole argument is precisely because of the opposite to Manifest Destiny and your failure to see this can only be construed as either a subconscious belief on your part or an intention of trolling), but also because it's clear this is an irreconcilable argument. en.Wikipedia must have become english-centric when I wasn't aware, when I was always under the impression that English was just the language it was written on. I'll make sure to edit the Spanish Wikipedia which, for once, has a global view of the subject and recognizes both usages of both "America" and "Americano" (American), explaining when and where are each used and provides a background on why this is the case. I'll edit it to leave only the Spanish definition, as this seems to be the new policy of the WP. eduo 14:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
You can't seriously be arguing that the people who are pushing America = continent, not country, everyone in the Americas is an American, et cetera are not pushing manifest destiny. Check out some of the comments at Talk:Canada for examples of this. That the article is pushing MD now is precisely why the arguments here get so heated about "apparently nothing". Language is naturally centric to that language - there is no exact conversion matrix between English and Spanish. These kind of nuances don't really carry across translation at all. Every word has a history that loads it with implication - that doesn't always cross to it's translation. WilyD 14:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
America is a continent, same as Europe or Asia. I say 'America' instead 'the Americas' because North America or South America are just subdivisions of one big continent (not different continents). People from Asia are Asians, and from Europe are Europeans, and it don't mean that they come from countries named 'Asia' or 'Europe'. So, people from America (from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego) must be Americans.--200.45.162.101 15:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More formally?

Deepstratagem, I'm puzzled by this [1] edit you made. Where the article read "Less frequently, the adjective 'American' also means 'of or relating to the Americas'" you changed "Less frequently" to "More formally" I don't think there's a difference in formal or informal speech, English speakers hardly ever mean "American" to be a resident of the Americas. Sumergocognito 21:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

formal (of spoken and written language) - adhering to traditional standards of correctness and without casual, contracted, and colloquial forms; "the paper was written in formal English". Deepstratagem 15:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Nonetheless, it's still an attempt to imply something that simply ain't true. If I told the Queen of Canada 'I would like to introduce you to an associate of mine, James Fauxnom. He is an American." the highly formal nature of the situation and my corresponding formal language would still not prevent 'American' from having its usual meaning. The tradional standard of correctness requires American to refer to only people and things from America, i.e. the United States. The usage seems to be universal in the anglosphere, which is still a problem of misleadingness in the article implying its a uniquely or primarily American feature, when it is not. WilyD 15:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The definition requires not only a traditional standard of correctness (btw, yours is arguable) but also requires no casual, contracted and colloquial forms. America as used in the U.S. is a contraction of United States of America - a colloquialism. The resulting adjective, American(country) is also colloquial. It does not adhere to historical/traditional standards of correctness. The technically correct form is reflected in scientific writings, thus making it formal. Deepstratagem 16:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
So, you're saying that English speakers the world over are using sub-standard English? Even though the words in question have an unambiguous meaning already? As far as "formality" goes you're using a fairly obscure sense of the word that's likely to be misread. It would be more comprehensible if you said "in principle" instead, however I don't concede that in principle, "American" can refer to people not from the United States. I don't think many English speakers conceive of the New World as a unitary landmass called "America". To English speakers the world over, "America" is the US, colloquial or not. Sumergocognito 17:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
See my response below to WilyD. Deepstratagem 09:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The claim that America is a colloquialism certainly doesn't fit the definition of colloquialism on wikipedia. I'll also suggest that the claim that America is a contraction of United States of America is undemonstated and potential false - as an example, please note that Canada is not a contraction of Dominion of Canada, even though it might appear so. America is certainly not strictly casual - the use can appear in fairly formal speech and writings, for some examples, please see the Globe & Mail articles I cited earlier for usage of the word American. Overall, the largest outstanding problem with this article is that it tries to create the impression that only Americans use American to refer to American, when this simply ain't the case - the usage is standard and proper throughout the anglosphere at the very least. But the additional attempts to rationalise that the use of American should be to refer to residents of the Americas is also dangerously POV. For the most obvious example, the continued use of 'American Continent' throughout the article is a clear attempt to push the the idea there is an American continent, when in fact English contains no such continent. WilyD 18:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't fit wikipedia's definition? - "Words that have a formal meaning may also have a colloquial meaning that, while technically incorrect, is recognizeable due to common usage." Deepstratagem 09:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
That's correct. The use of American to describe people and things from America is technically correct, in addition to being recognisable due to common usage. The issue seems to be fairly straightforward. WilyD 12:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
No, it's technically incorrect, yet recognizeable due to common usage. Deepstratagem 23:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not technically incorrect; it is just a sense derived from a different source. One word, two different meanings with two different origins. Nohat 23:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is a sense derived from a technically incorrect source. Deepstratagem 00:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Not really. The country is called The United States of America. The word "America" is legitimately part of the country's name. Nothing technically incorrect about it. Nohat 00:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I would say that "correctness" is a matter of of what seems correct to the majority of English speakers. Given that you can say "so-and-so is an American" and pretty much any anglophone anywhere will understand that so-and-so is from the US then that's all that counts, even if certain allophones would prefer the situation be otherwise. Sumergocognito 00:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The technically correct name is United States of America. Plus, America was already established to mean the continent, regardless of frequency. Deepstratagem 01:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Deep, official names do not make technically correct names. America is a technically correct name - a colloquial name would be something like "The States", to use the term I usually employ. Whatever historical usage may have been, it is the case now that there's no continent known as America - so the issue is moot. WilyD 15:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
America to refer to the U.S.A. is as colloquial a term as The States. There is a continent known as America. It is cited considerably in research papers. Take, for example, the following Linguistics article. American Spanish doesn't refer to Spanish in the United States. It refers to Spanish in the American Continent. Deepstratagem 25 May 2006 (UTC).
As far as I can tell, there's no word Continent in Spanish. There's a spanish word similar to, but not identical to the English word continent, which mandates that America is not one of the seven continents (per my dictionary example). That American can refer to the Americas for historical reasons in esoteric contexts is already covered in the article (although with a misleading focus) is not something I've complained about - only about the misleading focus. WilyD 20:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
This discussion thread is so old. If you read the latest posts you'll remember that it doesn't matter whether America is a continent or not, because encyclopedias like Microsoft Encarta have this to say on the topic, "America, second largest isolated landmass of the earth, comprising the two continents of the western hemisphere." Deepstratagem 00:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Most countries are not commonly called by their "official" names. We know that "Germany" in a modern context means the Federal Republic of Germany or "the UK" is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or "Mexico" is the United Mexican States, likewise "America" is the United States of America. As for what was "already established" even if it were true, it has been disestablished, languages change. Sumergocognito 01:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to agree with the assertion that "American" meaning "of the Americas" is more formal, but not for the reasons cited by Deepstratagem, contrasting the other usage as more colloquial. "American" to mean "of the United States of America" is not really marked as being formal or informal. That usage can be used unremarkably in nearly any register. However, I would argue that the sense of "American" meaning "of the Americas" is marked as being "formal" simply because that meaning has very little practical everday use and is only used in formal speeches, research papers, and the like, which tend to use a formal register. Nohat 19:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


I think this argument shows how important people consider the idea of framing and reframing at the current time. Many terms have attained their common usage through either a direct effort or unsuspecting misuage of regular terms to means additional things that are not contained in the basic idea of terms. I think it is time the was clarrify perhaps in the meaning of "American" that, although American has often come to mean specifically the USA (perhaps becuase of that nations influence on the land mass of North and south America) in the basic proper sense the term American properly means a person that lives on the contenent(s) of North or South American, and would include Canada, USA, Central and South America. If the idea is promote the USA and it's power I recommend continuing to push the idea that American means the USA, but if the idea is to take back the basic idea of language and words and having as basic and general meanings as possible, I think that emphasis should be on educating people that the term has been technically been being used incorrectly, and make an effort to have it used correctly into the future. So I would emphasis in the wiki article that both it's common morphmed usuage as meaning USA, but that is technically incorrect, and those that wish to use the word correctly should be aware.

  • We're not here to represent any agenda (we shouldn't be, nor do I think with this group of editor's it'd even be possible) - only to report the empirical truth. Thus what it should mean is right out, and only what it does mean and what it did mean are really discussable. WilyD 15:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atlas?

The article contains this sentence: "English language atlases display two continents—"North America" (which includes Central America and the Caribbean) and "South America"—while Spanish language atlases display one continent, "América", divided on the north, center and south." I would really be fascinated to see an example of this (and maybe one could be added to the article as well). —MiraLuka 07:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That is absolutely true. Look at this: http://es.geocities.com/aabenaes0/mapas/mapaamerica.html If you look at the link below of this webpage "Geografía de América" and "Historia de América" (American Geography and American History), this will explain you the geography and the history of the whole continent, including all countries, not only US geography or history.
Moreover, if you give an US or Canadian kid a plain map of the world and you ask him to paint "America" in red, he/she will paint the US. I you ask a kid of any other part of this continent to paint "America" in red, she/he will paint the whole thing, from Canada to Argentina. Did you know that? --201.227.50.22 18:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


FYI[2]WilyD 01:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
That's french, not spanish. 24.255.103.193 18:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I thought you were looking for an example of the English WilyD 19:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What remains wrong with the article

Rather than try to create an edit war, I thought it would be better to try and hash out my problems with the article here, which are basically twofold. Firstly, the article creates the impression that Americans use the word "America" to mean "related to America" while the rest of the world uses it to mean "related to the Americas", which is false. I think we've more or less established that anglophones use American to refer to America, which gets the goat of some Latin Americans (I've no idea how many actually care). Secondly, references to things like 'the American continent'. Since this is an english-language encyclopaedia, there is no such thing as an American continent. This is true in the most common form of english spoken in the western hemisphere, as well as the second most common form of english spoken here. As far as I can tell, this feature is overwhelmingly the standard among anglophones as well. If "the Americas" is also seen as POV (which I expect, but don't believe to be the case) a choice of words like "Western Hemisphere" is substitutable for better performance. While I'm ranting, the zoology section is at best misleading. The fact that the American Black Bear is also found in Canada no more implies that Canada is in America than the fact that the Canada Goose is found in America implies America is part of Canada. As for the European Starlings here ... well, the article is clearly trying to lead the reader to draw a conclusion that isn't true. Ultimately, I'll admit what gets me pissed off about the article is that the idea of refering to the Americas as America reeks of Manifest Destiny. Just thought we should bond while we're working together. WilyD 13:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If "the Americas" is also seen as POV (which I expect, but don't believe to be the case). I've been reviewing WP:NPOV and I couldn't find any distinction between the form and substance of articles under the NPOV policy. What I mean is certainly all opinions have to be represented fairly as to the substance of the information being presented. As to the form, the words we use to explain things, I suspect that the NPOV policy doesn't really apply, at least not in the same way that all major views have to be represented fairly. The reason is that in questions of English usage, there is right and wrong based on what makes sense to Anglophone readers. You can't say that grass is orange because certain people idiosyncratically believe that the color of chlorophyll should be described as "orange" because to them "green" is the color of tangerines. If a group of people actually believed this than the article about them should describe their belief in a reasonable way but generally speaking, we have to write articles in a way that will be understood by English speaking readers. Thus we can't say that "Fidel Castro in an American statesman" or "The Royal Canadian Mounted Police are an American Police force" because according to standard English usage neither one is American, readers will know better and think Wikipedia is weird or unreliable because we refuse to accept basic conventions of English.
I apologize for straying so far from the point of your post. I agree with your criticisms, this isn't just the way Americans speak but practically all Anglophones everywhere. The article is not only lacking for neutrality of view but factual accuracy and verifiable sources. Hopefully it can be improved without too much acrimony. Sumergocognito 15:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The article is still disorganized and has a lot of repetition. I made some minor edits to the intro, but the second paragraph of the intro about continents seems to me to be out of place in the intro. It informs the debate, but it is just stuck in the middle of the other two paragraphs, and it probably should be moved lower in the article. I'm not a Ph.D linguist, so I'm not going to take the bull by the horns here and go through the article to delete all the repetition and reorganize the article. But, people, what's the real debate here? Are there any native English speakers who seriously think that the word "American" is used to pertain to the Americas, except in a handful of specific instances? It may be unfortunate that using the term "American" to pertain to the USA has become the standard usage in the great majority of cases, but the *fact* is that it has. This entry is about current English usage--not, as one person noted, about what the usage "should be". We can note that the usage makes some people from non-English speaking countries feel bad, but that does not change what the usage *in English* is. As a matter of fact, the Canadian opinion about the usage of the term "American" is the opposite side of the coin: They object to people referring to "Americans" when they wish to *include* Canadians, and they think you should say "North American" or "Latin American", etc., if that is what you mean. I really don't think this topic should be all that controversial, because it is merely about what actually is standard usage. Also, the analogies to "British" are interesting but not really applicable. I would delete or reduce them. --Ssilvers 21:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
There is an American continent, and it has nothing to do with manifest destiny. The country was named for/after the continent and not the other way around. If you think the scientific contexts section is misleading, then you would agree that the cultural contexts section is misleading on the same grounds - perhaps both should be removed. I too think the article is misleading in that it smothers the non-neological traditional meaning of America. If we can't come to a consensus, then we could at least base the article on actual evidence supported by logic. Deepstratagem 22:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Come on, Deep. As a native speaker you should know that English often defies logic. Why does "public school" mean precisely opposite things in American and British English? How many words are exactly the same group of letters but are pronounced differently and mean different things depending on context? An appeal to pure logic in this situation is misguided. Sumergocognito 23:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Deepstratagem, rest assured that on the planet earth, there's no continent known as America. To pick an encyclopaedia and check "CONTINENT, one of the seven major land divisions on earth: Africa, Antartica, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, South America. These continents have evolved during the earth's history from a single landmass, Pangaea." Here I've quoted The New American Desk Encyclopedia, 1989 revision. The use of Australia instead of Oceania is of note, a widespread usage that might be argued to be colloquial. However, this is also the position of the government of Canada[3] for example. This is simply the meaning of the english word continent.
I don't mean to claim, by the way, that the usage of America to mean the Americas is a symptom of Manifect Destiny (though I do suspect as much), I was merely trying to illustrate why people might find this neologism highly offensive. WilyD 23:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with removing the paragraph that Deep removed. There is a good discussion later in the article regarding the "continent" issue. Therefore, I also took out the clause about the "American continent", which is discussed below. This leaves a better transition to the next paragraph which starts out by saying that, even in the US, there are instances where "American" pertains to the Americas. --Ssilvers 03:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too long?

Am I the only one who thinks the article is too long by half? We could easily get rid of all the "alternate terms for American" sections. They are either archaic or idiosyncratic terms that are not in use by practically anyone who speaks English. They are also mostly unverified. Sumergocognito 15:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I basically agree with you, given the recent disagreements by some people regarding this entry, and hoping that most of those disagreements have been resolved by the simplification of the intro, I would say that we should not delete sections at this time. However, there is still quite a bit of repetition, and I think you might be able to get rid of some of that (if you like) without stirring the waters up again. Other than that, I vote that we let the entry rest for a couple of weeks to see what fresh eyes and voices think. --Ssilvers 17:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Not sure about that. One of the things that bugs me about it is that it presents essentially unused terms side by side with somewhat used terms - "Statesider" is not unknown in general usage, for example. But I'm not sure that its an undesirable feature - perhaps what it needs is citations of who suggested these terms, for ones that aren't in the vernacular. WilyD 17:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the article is too long. The views sections could be condensed into a less argumentative style of writing. The contexts section appears to be there because someone thought they could persuade the readers with random examples of the usage. The same can be said of the alternative demonyms section, although some demonyms do belong there, as they are actually used or are in principle more accurate. However, as Ssilvers suggested, it might be a good idea to figure out what exactly to remove and justify it. In my opinion, the article should be an extension of the simplified opening paragraphs, and could be very complete, yet simple in nature by condensing and/or cutting out unnecessary arguments. Deepstratagem 06:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norteamericano?

The article translates Norteamericano as "North American" and states that it problematic in that it includes Mexicans and Canadians in addition to those 300 million people in between. Is this true in idiomatic Spanish (and Portuguese), that it is problematic and includes Mexicans? I ask because, as attested to roughly 300 million times on this talk page, Spanish does not recognize the Western Hemisphere as possessing two distinct continents while English does. As such, it seems like "northern American" is a reasonable translation, i.e. that part of America (~continent) above the Rio Grande. I ask because I have seen English speakers use norteamericano to indicate the U.S. and Canada, in distinction from Latin America, and because I think it is a really useful word that English provides no counterpart for. (Canadians please don't freak; I know you aren't Americans, but the U.S. and Canada share more commonalities among ourselves than either does with Latin America.) So... would Latin Americans be cool with using norteamericano exclusively for the U.S. and Canada, or would this be yet another thing that would cause annoyance with Yankee ignorance? 171.159.64.10 02:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm mexican and im not cool with calling norteamericano just to the people that live in Canda and U.S.A. Mexico is in North America, and i'm also Latin American so your point is not really coherent

[edit] Ethnic Americans

I edited up the "ethnic americans" census part as the "American" ethnic group is generally derived from people who's ancestory is uncertain, and may contain African or Indian descent. In North America, most of us people who are just vaguely "white" is descent oftain contain Non-European ancestory. WilyD 12:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USAmerican

I added "USAmerican" to unusual alternative adjectives for a U.S. citizen. I suppose it would go in unusual adjectives, however, it only seems unusual in the sense that it's uncommon - I don't really find it goes well next "Americanite" and such things. --A Sunshade Lust 22:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you cite an example of people using this term? Sumergocognito 21:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment from a blog. See the context here [4]
I think it's an effort on the part of we U.S. Americans to show that we do realize that there's lots of other countries in North America. Also, perhaps it's to show that we aren't like some of the other people in our country who have no respect for other countries. For example, in a recent conversation, I was talking to someone about our current president and how he's made the world a bad place for us, how lots of countries now hate us, and her response was "Who cares? We're Americans, our country is the best." If coining a term like USAians makes us feel less like people like her, all the better, I say.
posted by minda25 at 04:18PM UTC on December 08, 2004
Deepstratagem 09:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is another example from a Canadian community site discussing international politics. "America vs. USA", [5]:
Hey, what a great thread... because it is one of my pet peeves, too. Well, myself, I have some backers here in Europe regarding the whole American vs. US-American thing. It's a well know fact (contrary to what the general US-American public may think) that "America" is around half of the world. Two continents and some inbetween.
Jimmoyer seems to think this thread is absurd, but its really not.. and the problem doesn't simply lie in the usage of the word American by US-Americans.. but the fact that whenever I meet an American in a nightclub, a tourist location, a beergarden, a shopping centre, anywhere you can think of here, I always ask for clarification when they say (and they always do say) "I'm from America". You know I really don't need to normally ask for clarification, because they usually have this patriotic glow and a kind of bragging attitude when they say it.
Anyhow, my response is usually "Well, America is two continents and takes up the western hemisphere.. Can you please be more specific? South, North, Brazil, Mexico, Canada??".
I've noticed that German newspapers are increasingly referring to US-Americans as US-Americans... instead of just the blanket term of Americans.
Deepstratagem 09:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
And here is yet another one from a Floridian in the Internet Movie Database [6]:
"...Reading the annoyance in postings of Muslims from various parts of the world to this site has given me empathy. Imagine how U.S. citizens would feel if a Muslim humorist set up base in Mexico to do a study of humor in America. Yes, Mexico is in the Americas, so their inhabitants can be called Americans, too. Yes, there are many Americans from the U.S. living in Mexico. My research indicates that 12 per cent of India's 1.1 billion people are Muslim. Brooks says there are 150 million. Imagine how U.S. Americans would feel to see ourselves portrayed with guns quoting the 2nd Amendment guzzling beer or smoking pot as Muslims from Pakistan are portrayed with automatic weapons high on opium or something..."
Deepstratagem 09:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Deep. I wasn't questioning "U.S. American" or "US-American" but specifically "USAmerican" which, I tend to suspect, in that format, has no currency among English speakers. Sumergocognito 19:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Understood. Good to have some references for U.S. American, though. Deepstratagem 06:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is ok and correct for U.S. citizens to say they are from America or are American. A Canadian would not say "I'm from America", they would say I'm from Canada, same with Mexicans and Brazilians etc...

Umm, I think it is clear that at least some Mexicans, Brazilians, etc. *would* say "I'm from America" in the same way Germans, Italians, etc. would say "I'm from Europe". English lacks a good word (beyond pan-American) for continent-wide identity, but Spanish doesn't. Thus, this whole messy debate. 171.159.64.10 23:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't the equivalent to "I'm from Europe" be "I'm from North/South America?" To me, somebody saying "I'm from America (the continent(s))" would be like someone saying "I'm from the Eastern Hemisphere;" you don't really get a whole lot of information from that. 138.69.160.1 21:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid it wouldn't. To a Mexican or a Brazilian, 'America' is one continent, not two. Again, the English-speaking world sees two continents ('North America' and 'South America') where the Spanish-speaking and the Portuguese-speaking worlds see just one ('America'). Therefore, when someone from Mexico or Brazil wants to state what continent they are from, they will naturally use 'I'm from America', just like a Spaniard, a Dane or an Austrian would say 'I'm from Europe'. 67.186.35.201 17:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
My point was not that they would be wrong to answer "America" if asked what continent they were from, but rather that it would be pretty unhelpful to get a response of "America (meaning the continent(s))" to the question "Where are you from?" as America comprises the entire Western Hemisphere. I mean, if you asked a man from India where he was from and he answered "Asia" or even "Eurasia," wouldn't you want a little more information than that? 138.69.160.1

[edit] Decriptive

Descriptivists argue that the meanings of words are not under the control of any one person or group, there is no one who can issue edicts that America can only refer to geographical continents rather than a country—nor the opposite, and thus arguments about what words should mean are debates that can never have any practical effect on English usage.

This has been bugging me for a bit, and I think I've figured out why. It attempts to create a perspective that descriptivists are a group - but I believe that's incorrect. English is a descriptive language, and (I understand) that's fairly uncontested - no institute claims to be a prescriptive source of correct versus incorrect English. I plan to reword this substantially if no one objects - because it creates misleading impressions as it is - people who are "Descriptivists" while speaking English are probly "Prescriptivists" while speaking French, parce que English is a descriptive language, and a French is a prescriptive language. WilyD 14:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Well, in Argentina Us citizens are "Estadounidenses", people from the Americas are "Americanos". And we celebrate "America's Day" in October 12th.

I still remember when I was eight and I was in my English class my teacher said "people from United States are called "Americans" in english". I replied -What we are all americans they don't have a name for their nationality" How do they said when they want to refer to all the people from America?

[edit] Recap, a summary of most of the issues

1. Since no one has been paying attention, the Articles of Confederation does make mention of a nation called America without the United States. In the 1700's the use of the word primarily was used to describe colonists of New England and then citizens of the United States. It's a little too late now to complain about it.

2. No schools in the United States, and apparently most Western European countries, teach that there is one continent named America, but two distinct continents named North and South America. If schools teach differently in Latin countries, then that is there business. Spanish imperialism is over, so do not try and impose this upon other countries.

3. It is very obvious that there is hostility here against the United States. This is a POV violation.

4. Anyone has a right to call themselves anything they want. But beware when travelling abroad if you refuse to use your legal nationality. If Chileans and Brazilians call themselves Americans, be prepared to answer a lot of confusing questions in other countries.

5. It is not universal to use continental names in place of nationality. Egyptians do not call themselves Africans. Israelis and Arabs do not call themselves Asians. Australians do not call themselves Oceanians. And from personal experience Mexicans always call themselves Mexicans.

6. No one else calls themselves United Mexicans (United Mexican States), Federal Republicans (Germany), Federative State citizens (Brazil), United Arabians (United Arab Emirates), or United Kingdom citizens (Great Britain).

7. And yes, the United States has been somewhat imperialistic lately, and we might all be part of it some day. Then what? (This is meant as humor. If you think it's in poor taste, too bad. Freedom of speach prevails.)

1. Where's your evidence? In the 1700's American was used just as well to refer to colonials of Spain as well and the native people.
2. Your teacher was wrong. Where is Central America if not in America? What was the United States named after?
3. The reverse is quite apparent as well, what's your point?
4. "American" a legal nationality? The legal term is U.S. Citizen. U.S. Citizens already have to be prepared to answer confusing questions in other countries, especially throughout America.
5. From personal experience U.S. Americans almost always call themselves Americans, so?
6. No one calls themselves United Americans either... Not sure where you are going here with this, maybe it's the grammar.
7. Are you suggesting someday we can all call ourselves Americans? Because all we wanted was your permission. Deepstratagem 01:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
1 You're right to ask for citations here - they're good.
2 As has already been well established[7], this is the English Language standard. Central America is in North America, which is in turn part of the Americas, which make up the Western Hemisphere. The word continent is basically defined such that the Earth has seven, many dictionaries will include the seven with their definition. Whether it is mistranslated into other languages is a seperate issue. As for your second question, its widely (though not universally) believed that the country of America is named after Amerigo Vespucci.
3 Don't worry, there are some other anti-national sentiments here too - several of the Canadians have remarked about how rediculously offensive it is to claim they live in America, when they don't.
4 This point was poorly thought out and you're right to criticise it. Nobody when asked country of origin would identify their continents - if I'm on the rainbow bridge and the guard askes "Where're you from?" I'm not going to say "North America", as I don't enjoy invasive strip searches.
5 Americans call themselves Americans after the country of their origin, America. Just as Bermudians call themselves Bermudians and people from Holland call themselves Dutch.
6 Deep, there's not need to dodge the issue - the point remains well articulated (if debatable) that terms like "United States of " "Dominion of " "Kingdom of" don't result in countries called "Dominion" or "Kingdom", that under the usual english Grammar, the most likely name of the country south of 49 is "America"
7 He was demonstrating my earlier assertion that calling all residents of the Americas Americans reeks of Manifest Destiny. WilyD 15:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Number 2 caught my attention. Central America is in North America? I don't see how that makes any sense linguistically or geographically.
Also, I may not be a PhD in Geography, but why would the United States be named after Vespucci and not the continent? Unless there is something I don't know, it makes way more sense that it was named after the continent where the "united states" resided, as opposed to some arbitrary connection to Vespucci. Especially since the word America already meant the continent. Deepstratagem 02:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
It isn't a linguistic distinction - that'd be the Latin America vs ... what Wikipedia calls Anglo-America, though I've never heard that term anywhere else. It makes perfect sense geographically, though. Pull up a map of the Americas - you'll see there are two large land masses, two continents. Where does it make the most sense to draw the dividing line? It makes sense (though is by no means the only choice) to divide them where their connection is most tenuous - Panama. Thus Panama and all the areas north of there are part of North America - and the continent south of that would be South America - it parallels the division of Africa and Asia, for example.
Oops, forgot to address your second point - but you may have some reasonable point there. I may being historically or linguistically obtuse, I'm neither a historian nor a linguist (though I am cunning), and such. While the United States of America can't be named after the continent (what continent?), it can easily be named after the more nebulous idea of a region named "America" that roughly corresponds to where its located, whose meaning then changes to the modern one. Obviously what parcels of land fall under what name change through time - for example, what we now call Ohio would once have been considered to be Quebec, but of course today our definition of Quebec is very different, and generally the people of Cleveland are neither Quebeqois nor Quebeckers. WilyD 13:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)+13:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I can see how naming the United States after Vespucci is plausible - no question about that... it just seems way less likely given that the founding fathers of the United States considered America a separate entity to the United States. As for why Central America is in North America... that still doesn't make sense linguistically or spatially (geographically). Nevertheless, I do agree that the point of least continuity (or at least the narrowest) is a logical place to separate the continent(s) (although that doesn't mean there is no continuity). Deepstratagem 15:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Err, I meant only that if B is named after A, and C is named after B, then it's fairly reasonable to say "C is named after A". But the "point of least continuity" is the usual rough guideline for defining continents - North America and South America, Asia and Africa - ?Asia and Europe?. If Panama isn't the geographically logical place to divide the two, where is? That puts the land on the Caribbean Plate, plus most of the land on the North American plate as the continent of North America - with the continent of South America on the South American plate. WilyD 15:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I actually agreed with you regarding Panama as a logical place to separate the continent(s). Deepstratagem 03:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Responding to the above: 1, the evidence was already presented, and it part of the main article. It is also obvious in almost all American literature from the 1700's onward. Can you prove otherwise? 2. My teacher was wrong? Well, they were going off of their books, and every book in America reflects two American continents, not one. 3. The point is that it needs to stop for everyone. This is no place to vent one's jealousy or hatred against other nationalities. 4. Well, I was once asked my the Mexican Army if I was an American National, and I said yes. But that is an assumption. 5. The point was obvious. 6. Again the point is obvious. 7. No sense of humor, huh? That's too bad. Jcchat originally unsigned.
OK, 1. Hamilton in the Federalist Papers (cited in the article) and the 1701 Letter to Spanish Americans (cited earlier) indicate that "American" was used to refer to the continent in the 1700s. Your evidence doesn't contradict this. The single article you provided claims that there is no universally adopted alternative to "American" to describe U.S. Citizens even though it "may be arrogant and inaccurate that we [call ourselves American]". It does not go on to say that it is used primarily for this purpose since the 1700s. In fact it classifies the usage as informal. [8] Lastly, it is a guide to American English; not to the different varieties of English or language in general.
2. Your teacher was wrong because the books are wrong. As a counterexample, where is Central America? If it is in one of the "two American continents" then this is illogical. If it is in both, then what is it a part of if not America? That is, why call it Central America?
3. Thanks for clarifying. I agree. 4. If you had a young baby named Thomas Jefferson would you generally call him his familiar name (Tommy) or Thomas Jefferson (which would confuse the baby)?.
5. Not usual to use continental names for nationality? So why are U.S. Citizens doing it all the time? We don't call Germans "Europeans", even though they are. We don't usually call Mexicans or Canadians "Americans" either, but they are.
6. So you are asking why U.S. Americans should be called United Statians when no one else follows a formal name... that's a good point.
7. I got your sarcastic humor and responded with more sarcastic humor, but I guess you didn't catch that. Deepstratagem 04:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
C'mon Deep, your other points are pretty salient, but you gotta stop raggin' on the guy's teacher. The teacher was right - the English word continent almost requires there be seven - I own a dictionary that enumerates them - in a dictionary, not an encyclopaedia. The translation of words doesn't require or achieve exact equivilence - if the spanish word that's usually translated as continent has only five (et je ne sais pas ce mot - je ne parle rien d'espangol) then it isn't the same as the English word continent. En francais, il y a sept aussi[9] WilyD 13:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean it in an offensive way... I just don't think authority should be exempt from logic, whether it is Jcchat's teacher or the Canadian government. I always thought a continent was a contiguous mass of land protruding from the ocean. If we use a more technical definition going by continental plates, then there's more like 10 different continents and the plate directly west of the San Andreas Fault in California means part of California is not part of the North American continent.
Your point about semantic equivalence is well taken. In terms of prescription each language might have its own definition of continent, but when we start finding contradictions in its usage (within the same language) we cannot say that the official usage is accurate. For example, earlier usage (by the founding fathers of the United States of America) contradicts current usage. Sure, language evolves, but that doesn't explain the usage of Anglo America vs. Latin America which seems to trascend the 7 continental boundaries supposedly prescribed in the English Language. What are Anglo America, Latin America and Franco America derived from if not America? it would seem as though these are all descriptions of a particular area called America. Deepstratagem 00:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


Don't get me wrong Deep, I'm not trying to argue that authorities are exempt from logic - what I am saying is that English is subject to no authority. When the Canadian government says there are seven continents, it isn't deciding this - its merely reporting what's already known. It just happens to be fairly authoritative as far as citable sources (the Holy Grail of Wikipedia) go. It might be perfectly arguable that North America and South America should be considered a single continent - perhaps they're only been grandfathered in as two continents - I don't know. Language oft(en) follows variable or irregular rules. Given that Europe and Asia, Asia and Africa, and North America and South America are all seperate continents, the 'continuous piece of land' test easily fails as a definition of a continent, double so given that Greenland, Iceland, Bermuda and Tobago aren't their own continents. As for uses like Latin America, I'll again remind you that English doesn't need to be constrained by logic. Of course, you may value logic highly, but many of us don't - I myself am an empiricist. WilyD 14:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Experience and logic are not mutually exclusive. Anyway - the argument about Latin and Anglo America doesn't mean that the English language has to follow rules of logic - but it doesn't exclude the possibility that it does from time to time. Wouldn't it seem unlikely that names like Latin America, Anglo America and Franco America are all arbitrary and unrelated to each other? Especially given that they all parts complementing a well-defined contiguous geographical whole? So although English may not need to be constrained by logic, it is quite apparent that it has an affinity for it, at least in this case.
I will admit that this doesn't mean there is one continent named America, but it logically follows that there is a geographical area named America. Whether you want to call that area a continent or an imaginary boundary (imagined by imaginary Americans) is of little consequence because it is clear that it doesn't refer to the United States: Latin America is not in the United States, and Anglo America isn't either. Deepstratagem 11:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
You make a good point, Deep, that certain terms referring to subsets of the population of the New World are derived from America (or are the derived from "The Americas"?). But Anglo-America could just as easily refer to the English speaking population of the United States, or to those people in the U.S. of English descent. Given it's a neologism people might not know what to make of it outside the context of "Latin-America". Context is of course, the larger issue; I wouldn't deny that in some exceedingly esoteric contexts "America" and "American" might refer to the New World and all the peoples thereof, but per se they mean "The US" and "of the US". In extrapolating from a very specific context to a general context, I think you are kind of trying to squeeze a camel through the needle's eye. But at the conceptual level, you do have a point. Sumergocognito 06:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Not always mutually exclusive, no, but when push comes to shove ... Anyways - the point still remains that names need not take logical forms, especially if they have a historical source, but can also be abandoned. I wouldn't say the Empire State Building is in New Amsterdam, nor would I tell you I live in York, even though at one point in history those names refered to the relevent geographic locations. West Virginia was once part of Virginia, and that's where it derives its name from, but it would be inappropriate to refer to it as Virginia today. As for Anglo America and Franco America - I've never heard either term outside of Wikipedia (and the latter outside of our two posts).WilyD 13:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

First a clarification: I don't think most Canadians are being anti-American when they're called Americans; they just prefer not to be lumped in with Americans as if they were identical.

The point made at the beginning of this section about the complaints about how most languages in the world use American are largely POV is amply confirmed by the discussion here. When someone starts arguing that continents should be defined by diversity of culture, for example, and then that the Americas don't have cultural diversity because they've defined cultural diversity in a special way, too, they seem simply to be propagandizing for an idée fixe.

I agree with the proponents of a different term that America and American are often used inappropriately, and I change inappropriate uses when I see them. However, I'm still waiting for any evidence that substantial numbers of people find the English use of American to describe a citizen of the United States offensive, and so are the other people who've asked for it. And as I've said elsewhere, I could get offended at the way speakers of other languages use terms like anglosaxon, but I'm not going to go to the Wikipedias for those languages and demand they stop using terms which are useful to them and which are used without intent to offend. John FitzGerald 18:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to stop using the term as you like, but since this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, it should at least reflect the various meanings of a word, especially if they are politically or culturally significant. The meaning of American in Latin American countries isn't significant merely because it is grounded in semantics, but rather because it is grounded in history and culture. That U.S. citizens are not generally aware of this, is further justification for including it in the encyclopedia. Mexican culture/history is for example ~1000 years old and U.S. History is only 200+ years old. To deny representation of a historically significant term based on popularity or ignorance is an injustice to the weight it carries and what it stands for to so many people.
The following book is a guide on intercultural communication and while it tacitly implies that the word American(exclusive to country) is offensive and culturally inappropriate, the main thing I'd like to point out is the following: [10]
"One should note that Mexico is in North America and that residents of Mexico, Central America and South America all live in the 'Americas,' and are therefore Americans."
Deepstratagem 08:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

But what do you mean by "reflect the various meanings of a word" or "representation of a historically significant term"? Certainly an encyclopedia should discuss these issues, and the article we're discussing certainly belongs in the English Wikipedia. However, the various meanings of American in English are clear and identical to the meanings in most other major languages, as has been made abundantly clear here they are not intended to insult people outside the United States, and we still have been given no scholarly evidence of the extent of the offence which the the usage of English speakers and of the speakers of other languages has been said to cause. What reason is there to go further and abandon standard English usage in an English-language encyclopedia? That's not a rhetorical question. John FitzGerald 13:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't come across any "scholarly" articles on your specific request regarding taking offense to the use of American as exclusive to the United States, but there are many blogs and internet discussions as evidence to support that idea. What you do with words on a personal daily basis is up to you.
I'm not sure why the above quotations are so confusing. If the word American means two different things, or even three, then these should be elaborated on in the article. As for "representing a historically significant term," the word American in relation to America (the superset containing the U.S. Mexico, etc...) should be well represented in the article due to its relevance to history and Latin American culture.
Finally, you don't have to abandon standard American English usage no matter how informal, incorrect and arrogant the word you choose is, [11].
Deepstratagem 09:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has standards for evidence, and "blogs and internet discussions" don't meet them, for reasons which should be obvious. So far you have provided no adequate evidence for your repeated assertions that my usage is "incorrect and arrogant," which seems pretty incorrect and arrogant in itself. But perhaps we are arguing at cross-purposes. If the question is whether the issue should be discussed in the article then I agree with you. If the issue is whether the usage of most of the major languages of the world is offensive I await some persuasive evidence that it is. After all this time and all the discussion here I don't think that's much to ask, and it is also essential to the article. John FitzGerald 13:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

But the following isn't a Blog: [12]. Neither is this scholarly work: [13]

Unfortunately, evidence of ethnocentricity abounds in the United States, historically as well as in modern times. Rogers and Steinfatt (1999) document many examples of discrimination, and even genocide, on the part of the U.S. people and their government; the very notion of ‘manifest destiny’, or the perceived right of the U.S. to take possession of Native American and Mexican lands perfectly illustrates the ethnocentricity of our nation. But the U.S. didn’t discriminate only against people they found already living here: Each new generation of immigrants, after dissolving into the great ‘melting pot’, began discriminating against the next wave of immigrants arriving from a different part of the world (Rogers & Steinfatt, 1999). And today? It seems that anti-immigrant sentiment has not gone out of fashion (Ogulnick, 2000). Though many discriminatory practices have been made illegal, the cultural value that causes suppression of minorities in the United States has remained intact – it is a basic intolerance of difference (Schiffman, 1996). One has only to listen to students in a typical U.S. classroom talk to realize that Americans today have a fear of being overrun by immigrants who come to ‘steal their jobs’ and ‘get all the benefits intended for real Americans’. Even our use of the word American to describe ourselves is innately ethnocentric, “since culturally the ‘anglo’ culture is a minority among the nations of the Americas” (Condon, 1986, p. 86). It would seem that safe to conclude that most students enter foreign language classrooms in the United States sure of their superiority over the target culture.

In addition to a cultural superiority complex, though, it seems that U.S. foreign language students are prone to suffer from a linguistic superiority complex. Just as their society has taught them to view culturally different people in a negative light, it has taught them to depreciate the foreign languages they are studying.

Another journal article, [14]:

The terms “America” and “American” are extremely powerful, evocative and emotional terms. When an ethnic group is inaccurately given the exclusive use of these names, it gives them a privilege and preferential treatment of inestimable value. It also denigrates, insults, alienates, and disadvantages those Americans who are denied the right to be known by the name of our continent and our hemisphere.

...[quotations excerpted]...

Many other examples could be cited, but it should be crystal clear that the name “America” belongs to the entire continent and that people of indigenous American ancestry, such as Mexicans, have every right to be seen as and to be treated as “Americans.” Anglo-Americans do not have an exclusive right to the term any more than the Dutch have an exclusive right to the name of Europe. [...] In the same manner, the United States is “of America” but not all of America, as the name of the Organization of American States should tell us loud and clear.

And yet another journal documenting this issue. I don't have full access, but the objection with the appropriation is evident at the outset: [15]
There are several more that I don't have access to, but the last article should be fairly convincing in that at least indigenous Americans (throughout the Americas) have a problem with such use. Deepstratagem 18:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC).

There apparently seems to be a problem at Georgia State University. Kris Acheson's opinion is interesting, but unfortunately I have never experienced this elsewhere with students I know and have known from universities in Florida, New Mexico, or the Chicago area. I live among many American Indians, and they have never heard of being denied the right to call themselves Americans. If anything, Americans, regardless of cultural origin, are overwhelmingly tolerant of foreign cultures, since, after all, we Americans come from many cultures. We call ourselves Americans precisely because we want to DIVORCE ourselves from Europe and its incessant warmongering.

This article suggest that Americans feel that they are better than everyone else. Perhaps that is so, but probably not for the reasons they think. The American Revolution, after all, triggered the French Revolution and all the Latin American Revolutions as well. A few people showed the world that men and women could live freely without a king, and the idea spread quickly. Americans were also the first to attack the Barbary Pirates, notorious slave merchants, all the way in Northern Africa, right under the nose of the European empires of the day, and triggered those empires to end slavery in those regions. And then did Americans not spill their own blood to finally end slavery? Sorry, but Americans from the United States have a long history of challenging the status quo and changing things for the better when possible, not racism or oppression like the Nazis or Imperial Japan. Scottish colonists were notorious for living among the Indians and mixing with them, and I have seen the other Celtic cultures behave no differently. The USA have one ofthe best writen constitutions in the world. Americans have created more wealth than any other nation, mostly through hard work and inginuity. Yeah, so maybe many Americans do feel superior. Americans have a lot of history to be proud of. But if that is preventing them from learning other languages and knowing that Spain is in Europe and not in South America, then that is just plain stupid, not racism or ethnocentrism.

So, before anyone brings out the bad in something, let's think about the good too. That would be a NPOV. All of these articles appear to be baised, some quite considerably.

I quote from one of the above pastes: "When an ethnic group is inaccurately given the exclusive use of these names, it gives them a privilege and preferential treatment of inestimable value. It also denigrates, insults, alienates, and disadvantages those Americans who are denied the right to be known by the name of our continent and our hemisphere."

Wow, what a sharp point of view. Inaccurately given the exclusive use of these names? What??? Since when did anyone claim exclusive use? Denied the RIGHT to be known by the name of our continent and our hemisphere? We have a right to freedom of speech, not the right to be KNOWN by anything. That implies force against someone elese, making them KNOW you and forcing them to call you by a certain name, or forcing you to be called only by a certain name. Mm, kind of like the Nazis did with the Jews perhaps??? No, we have a right to call ourselves whatever we want, which does not entail force of any kind. And since when did anyone care about being called by their continent or hemisphere? Again, Israelis don't call themselves Asians, and Egyptians don't call themselves Africans. Mexicans don't call themselves Americans. They can if they want, but they don't.

What is the argument now? Have we not conceded that America and American can be used by both citizens of the United States and the citizens of all other Latin countries? That's fine. But tell Americans that they should not use the word American to describe their nationality is a serious breach of civility. It is the name of a nation as well as two continents, that is a fact, and no imperiaism or manifest destiny was intended in the 1700's when they decided to use the word in the Declaration of Independence, when former British subjects were busy fighting oppression and tyranny, and started calling themselves Americans. Jcchat66 23:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My intent in quoting this particular paragraph, is to finally respond to John Fitzgerald's request for evidence that offense is taken at exclusionary use. If you read the entire article you'll see that Jack Forbes, PhD. is arguing against racist/offensive language that permeates some aspects of political discourse and legislation regarding identity politics. Deepstratagem 01:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

But all you've done is provide evidence of a few individuals' opinions. Where is the empirical evidence that this term is offensive to a significant number of people? The section of the article about this question is on its way to being good. One way to make it good would be to provide some evidence that a significant number of people are offended by the term. But as we say in Canadian English, j'ai mon voyage – I've wasted enough time on this issue so I'll leave you to it. John FitzGerald 16:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean Quebec French. Anyway, I still fail to see the relevance in such evidence. The article doesn't have to claim that a significant number of people take offense to the American (country) sense of the word. Some day someone may conduct a study and you can be happy. In the meantime it will suffice to cite that it is considered ethnocentric and offensive by some. (This can be backed up by references). It is also clear from almost every English dictionary that one of the meanings of the word is American (continent). In fact, several of the sources presented also back this up. The reader can, if he/she is intelligent/open minded, figure it all out. Deepstratagem 17:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If it cannot be confirmed that a significant number of people are offended by the dual meaning of the word (No one has argued that American does not also mean from a continent or continents), then this is original research and against Wiki policy. The articles Deep has cited are clearly biased points of view with no foundation in everyday culture, mostly likely written by elitist scholars traditionally out of touch with everyday affairs, and lacking open-mindedness in their arrogant demeanor. A PhD has become a title of nobility and aristocracy in this age of confusion, and like medieval nobility that might have at first earned the title, the aristocracy that followed was anything but noble. Most Americans, sadly enough, don't even care, let alone have an ethnocentric point of view. The very word ethnocentric is just another abuse against freedom of speech and expression under the guise of political correctness ... a phrase with Marxist connotations. The primary culture of America is still very much rooted in the convergence of Celtic, Hebraic, and Greco-Roman ethnicity, which is the dominate ethnicity and culture of the Americas. The laws of all Latin American nations, their language, ideology, and religions is one general ethnicity. And like the USA, that ethnicity has been flavored and improved by the indigenous peoples, making all Continental Americans unique from Europe, but certainly not separated from Europe. So what ethnicity are you claiming is offended by the use of the word American to describe a nationality in ADDITION to the use as a continent? Jcchat66 17:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not claiming anything you've suggested or mentioned so far. Deepstratagem 17:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
In fact, the articles raise serious questions about the author's credibilities - even in the excerpt, it refers to Anglo-Americans hoarding the title American for themselves, whereas many Anglo-Americans (according to the Wikipedia article) includes many lands that are not America - regardless of the outcome, the Americanness of Canadians and Bermudians is certainly the same as the Americanness of Costa Ricans and Bolivians - regardless of whether you believe it to be unity or zero - we can all agree they're the same. Weasel words like some people are offended are poor, but there's little in the way of threshold established for this - as long as it says some it might as well read two or more. I agree with the call for a citation, but since we all agree that some people are offended, even if we have no idea how many, it ought not be removed. WilyD 18:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Right, if there are one or two citations for a claim and it is disputed, then the article should specify the attributions or the context. Nevertheless, remember that there are NO citations at all for the opposing view. As for "Anglo-Americans" in the article above, he is specifically arguing about "Anglo-Americans" in the United States. Check the context of the article... it is arguing against the way language is used in Californian legislation, and is using hyperbole to make a point (which I would argue is necessary given the subject of the article). Deepstratagem 20:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
No citation for which opposing claim? Since this comment is address to me, I have to guess that it's not Nobody is offended by this usage - a statement I would disagree with, and one I don't think can be honestly claimed. Similarly, I don't think we can claim Everyone in the Americas less the Americans is offended by this usage - at least, not honestly. It turns out its very hard to find people noting that they don't take certain uncontraversial positions - Most people don't find the normal English usage of the word pudding offensive is something you'd have a dilly of a pickle finding citations for. FWIW, I read The Promised Land; Settling the West 1896-1914 by Pierre Berton and he uses American in contrast to Canadian liberally - so I have good hope that when I obtain a copy of his Why we act like Canadians I can provide cites for the standard Canadian position on the issue. Like Canadians do not refer to themselves as Algerians, Canadians do not refer to themselves as Americans is hard to cite precisely because it's so obvious. But, of course, a book on the Canadian Identity wouldn't be complete without mentioning the rejection of the American identity, so I have high hopes. So, to sum up - what opposing view? WilyD 20:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
That no one finds use of American (country) offensive. What I am saying is we have these references and even some evidence online (which is fair grounds as primary sources go). The first part - agreeing with you regarding citations was addressed to you, everything after the first sentence was pretty much addressed to Jcchat... I'm just saying, OK, the sources may be biased (as any source can be) but they are the few sources available at this point, and no evidence has been presented to the contrary. So the fair thing to do would be to neutrally present what is available so far. Deepstratagem 21:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What Jcchat66 and WilyD said. Just want to note that I said j'ai mon voyage was Canadian English with a purpose – according to Deepstratagem if something is claimed on an internet discussion board then it's true, but in response to my assertion about Canadian English he immediately tells me I'm wrong. Incidentally, Canadian French is spoken outside Quebec as well, eh? John FitzGerald 15:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"according to Deepstratagem if something is claimed on an internet discussion board then it's true". No, I never said that. Deepstratagem 04:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof in debate is always on the one challenging the status quo. The status quo does not have to be qualified, because it was qualified before it became the mainstream. The theories of evolution and relativity are the status quo in the scientific community, and though it is healthy and necessary to challenge these theories to always explore new ideas, the burden of proof is always on the one challenging them. This is a universal process since before the Greeks.

Therefore, the fact that very few people have a problem with the use of the word American to describe both the continents of the Americas, and the nation and the name of its people’s nationality, is de facto, status quo, and been used as such for centuries. Thus American Revolution, not United States Revolution, or the United States Civil War. If someone demonstrated a few opinionated articles that suggest that others are offended by this dual meaning, (America only for continental use), then the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate this. Good luck.

The burden of proof is NOT on those that assert that America and American is rightful used by citizens of the United States to describe their nationality, regardless of the proof of the Declaration of Independence and countless books written about America. But the burden of proof would be on these same Americans asserting that America is not commonly used to describe two continent as one as seems to be the case in Latin America.

It is however possible for a minority of high position, such as professors and scholars, to assert their point of view in such a way as to suggest that the majority of people believe it as status quo. They were called sophists by the Greeks, the unique gift of arguing that facts are opinions and opinions are facts. These are the most dangerous minorities of all, and I think we may be dealing with them here. Jcchat66 16:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, we can't agree on the status quo. So it's your word against mine until you provide some evidence. Just to make things clear, I am not claiming America doesn't mean the United States. Or that American isn't used in reference to the United States. I'm claiming these words have multiple meanings in English even if one is used more often in the spoken word. It'd be nice if you quit being hypocritical and stopped applying double standards when it comes to producing evidence, even if your position is correct. Deepstratagem 04:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well we agree then that American has multiple meanings then, which is all I am trying to say to everyone else that claims to be offended by its use in America. So Latin Americans don't want to share the word? Is that what this is about? How am I being hypocritical? You want me to provide evidence to the obvious use of the word American in everyday usage since 1776? It's all around you. It's everywhere. Go to any bookstore in the USA and there you will find the evidence. Do a Google search. The use of the word American to describe citizens of the US is overwhelmingly evident. And you want ME to provide evidence? No, that's not hypocritical on my part, that's laziness on your part. But since we agree, why are we arguing? Jcchat66 05:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If it is so easy to provide scholarly, verifiable evidence, then produce it. It will make the article stronger. Deepstratagem 17:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I already have by including the Articles of Confederation into the main article. Jcchat66 02:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current state of the article

I do apologize for commandeering the top spot of the table of contents. If you wish, you may move me to somewhere else.

With that out of the way, I would like to point out several flaws with the article, as well as offer suggestions for fixing it.

First, the article is hopelessly repetitive. The problematic is fairly well defined in the opening paragraghs, and then repeated over and over and over. This is not necessary. The article should be fairly short.

Second, it is important I think to consider the purpose of the article. For most native English speakers, the question of the usage of the word American would not require a page, since while there is a certain ambiguity to the term, unless the context directs otherwise, an American is a resident of the United States. It would seem then, that the point of the article would be to clarify this problematic usage for speakers of other languages who are reading the English Wikipedia. Most citations in other articles that use the word American are clearly refering to the United States, and this is not marked or noted in any way.

This would be the point where I bring the citations in, but I don't have time.

Third, the debate over the right of people outside the United States to use the word is pointless. Everyone has the right to call themselves whatever they want. On September 12, 2001, the French said that they were Americans. The key is whether the term American will be understood correctly if it is used.

Fourth, the debate on which definition of the term is correct is also pointless. American can have both the one-country meaning or the whole-hemisphere meaning. It is only in particular contexts that one meaning becomes correct or incorrect, and that cannot happen in a page such as this one where the context is the meanings of a word. Again, the point is to have the article indicate which is likely to be correct in other articles, which do have a context.

I propose, therefore, the following plan for the article.

Intro bit. Explain the problem, potential for miscomprehension, and so on.

Use of the term in English. Where it almost always means of or pertaining to the United States. Justification: the only nation with America in the name bit.

Criticism: This would be where the continent or continents (another thing brought up in the article that doesn't matter) people have their say.

Usage of the cognate in other languages The German, Spanish, and so on bit. Also, it should be noted that in French, the term étatsunisien is almost always used in formal writing. In regular conversation, the term is pedantic.

If people want, I can fix the article myself, but I would like to get some sort of consensus first.

68.6.85.167 10:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Except for the bit about saying that there'ss a potential for miscommunication. I would guess that 99% of the time, any native English speaker would know precisely which meaning of "America" or "American" was intended by the context. If somebody (in any country) went to see the film called "The American President," I don't know of anyone who would think they're about to see a film about the leader of, say, Paraguay. Likewise, if I was in Japan and someone said to me, "That woman over there is an American," I find it unlikely that the speaker meant to say anything other than that the woman in question was from the United States. On the other hand, if I was chatting with an ornithologis who said "See that bird? It's from the South Pacific, and the one next to it is an North African species. But this one? It's an American bird," I could reasonably expect that the bird might come from, say, Brazil.
I think your proposed continent section is fine too, I suppose, although again I think it's misleading to imply that people can't always tell what's going on from the context. For instance a geologist would probably bristle at the idea that North and South America constitute a single continent, given that they are on completely different tectonic plates. But the same could not be said for the International Olympic Committee, which probably doesn't care much about geophysics. HowardW 15:30, UTC Apr 23, 2006
The current article does seem misleading, in that it claims that in most languages other than English, cognates of "American" have primarily the pan-American meaning, but then goes on to admit that in French, German, Italian, Japanese, Chinese, Hebrew, Russian, etc, the word "American" can refer to a US citizen, and while some of these languages do have words such as "etatsunisien", the article does not indicate whether such terms are in common use, and we know that in some (many?) cases, they are not, which means that the original statement (that the cognates have primarily the pan-American meaning) becomes highly questionable. -13:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


I think this argument shows how important people consider the idea of framing and reframing at the current time. Many terms have attained their common usage through either a direct effort or unsuspecting misuage of regular terms to means additional things that are not contained in the basic idea of terms. I think it is time the was clarrify perhaps in the meaning of "American" that, although American has often come to mean specifically the USA (perhaps becuase of that nations influence on the land mass of North and south America) in the basic proper sense the term American properly means a person that lives on the contenent(s) of North or South American, and would include Canada, USA, Central and South America. If the idea is promote the USA and it's power I recommend continuing to push the idea that American means the USA, but if the idea is to take back the basic idea of language and words and having as basic and general meanings as possible, I think that emphasis should be on educating people that the term has been technically been being used incorrectly, and make an effort to have it used correctly into the future. So I would emphasis in the wiki article that both it's common morphmed usuage as meaning USA, but that is technically correct, and those that wish to use the word correctly should be aware.

[edit] Breadth of the title covered or not?

Ok the major thing that seems to be ignored and forgotten in this debate is that the issue isn't if American can be used as an identifier for people from the United States of America. The issue that should be raised is whether the breadth of the title is covered within the article.

Although it does cover the ideals from the point of view of mostly English Speaking society, normally in the sense that United Statsian doesn't exactly sound too good, and that in normal usage of a full name it is the only country with America in its name (although many countries originally did have America as part of their full name). These people have a tendancy to at least admit that members of other countries in the American continents are part of the Americas, they deem it necessary to maintain American for people from the United States and refer to members of the Americas from other countries as either North Americans or South Americans respectively. This I believe is completely appropriate in terms of common vernacular.

Now as the title is worded it specifies that it is the word American which in terms of a completely world view and would need a lot more attention to detail and points of view to cover the breadth of the title. It would be interesting to have any of the "American for all people of the Americas" people to attempt to collaborate with the original author of the article in an attempt to, not contradict the views of most of the English speaking world for political/social agendas, but in an attempt to broaden peoples knowledge of the different uses of the word. It will be important to take into consideration especially since a lot of the arguements mentioned here are going to need to be resolved with respect to the influx of Latin Americans who are now speaking English and have a new vernacular English which is completley legitimate with their own experiences. This article will need to be edited soon either way to cut down on peoples personal opinions (including this one) and to focus more on all real uses of the word American regardless of the political/social arguements. All of the stated arguements could be made much more eloquently and succintly and still express everyones point of view respectively. Much care will need to be placed on the exact way that the points of views are presented and I personally believe they should be expressed in terms of their many different proponents from different backrounds in order to give it the air of legitimacy that the proponents see. As for my personal final conclusion that I really would hope would continue to be a prevalent theme in this article is that most English speaking people and to some extent most of the world recognize the term American as a term for people from the United States, whether they believe it to be socially fair or not, and on that basis cannot be disqualified as a legitimate use of the word. Also for terms of practicality and pronunciation I would hope that USian (which could become like US Navy, which in the form of the fluid word Usnavy, has become a name in some Latin Countries)and United Statsian as well as the others I've heard mentioned before, will not become the more prevalent nomenclature for people from the United States. User:Ycoco 21:41, 06 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asians call the country "America"

Just as a clarification, both the Japanese language and the Chinese language call the United States of America simply "America" or a reasonable semblance of that word.

In Japanese, the country is called "ah-meh-ree-kah." (I would use katakana symbols, but I believe most computers would only read questions marks). Americans, or people from the United States, are called "ah-meh-ree-kah-jin" with the word jin meaning person.

In addition, I noticed that a writer above commented that the Chinese called America the "beautiful country." This is correct, because the Chinese call America "Mei Guo," with Mei meaning beautiful and Guo meaning country. However, the Chinese name is an abbreviated from the full Chinese name, or at least the original Chinese name, which is/was "Ah-Mei-Lei-Kah Guo" which is their rough transiteration of "America Country." It is a coincidence that the "Mei" that is used in the transiteration also means pretty. The Chinese language has abbreviated the names of many nations, including England, France, and Germany, using only one syllable of the full name and then the word "Guo".

To be fair, though, the Chinese word for an American continent is Meizhou (美洲), which means "America continent". So, they have employed the tendency of their language to include suffixes to avoid confusion over the two senses of "America". That brings up another relevant bit of trivia, which is that I unaware of Chinese ever referring to "Meizhou" by itself, but always to "Bei Meizhou" (north America continent), "Nan Meizhou" (south America continent), or "Zhong Meizhou" (central America continent). That is, they agree with Americans that "America" is not a single continent. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
That's enlightening. I'd be curious to know, though - might Nan be part of the (proper) name of the continent or just an adjective? Deepstratagem 19:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
It certainly could be either (by the same token, I don't think that "Zhong Meizhou" is intended to refer to Central America as a separate continent). It's just that I've never heard anyone refer to Meizhou alone (granted, I am not the world's most proficient understander of Chinese). It's interesting to note that the Chinese Wikipedia does have a short article on "Meizhou" (linked to from Americas), which begins by saying "Yameilijia Zhou [note that Chinese speakers think "l" sounds like "r" and "j" sounds like "k"] (America), for convenience called Meizhou, located in the Western Hemisphere, is divided by natural geography into North America and South America, and divided by cultural geography into Latin America and Anglo-America." However, the Chinese article on "continent" lists Bei Meizhou and Nan Meizhou, but not Meizhou. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 20:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The term "American" doesn't have a one-to-one-correspondent Chinese word. When translating the word, what the Chinese uses really depends on context. If "American" means U.S. citizen, we use 美國人 (Méiguórén, America country person). If "American" means people from the continent of America, we use 美洲人 (Méizhoūrén, America continent person). Therefore that statement "The Chinese use American to refer to U.S. citizen." is simply incorrect. --Lorenzarius 10:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't speak chinese, but when I was in China, I was told that "mei guo" was used as the name for the US, because it sounds like America, and because America sounds almost like "beautiful country"/mei guo in chinese. (china by the way, is chung guo which means "central country") —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.152.123.123 (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] New discussion

New to the controversy, but I'd like to point out that:

1) What I have read on the talk page makes me think that some of you need to read this article:Wikipedia:No_original_research

2) It's ok for words to have more than one meaning

3) If the controversy itself merits an encyclopaedic entry, all that's required is a description of the controversy, not a demonstration of the controversy.

Dave 17:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If there's something you feel is original research, please feel free to slap it with a citation needed tag, that's good wikipediaing[citation needed] WilyD 19:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I placed the "This section may contain original research or unverified claims" tag under the entire disagreement/controversy section based on your advice. Some arguments are intelligent and probably valid, but most are the result of a live "demonstration of the controversy". As a result of the recently deleted sections by Uris, and added citations, I think the article is improved. Deepstratagem 15:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative Demonyms Section

It seems like the demonyms section takes away from from the article by suggesting change. If it should be there at all, there is no need for deep explanations of each term, and should probably be moved to a subsection on criticism of U.S. usage, as it is not that important of a section. Deepstratagem 09:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted Edits

OK, Uris, I agree with your deletion of the U.S. American usage in certain blogs. Blogs are not usually verifiable.

However, Why did you delete the section

==American in the Americas== Mexico is in North America and residents of Mexico, Central America and South America all live in the 'Americas,' and are therefore Americans, [16].

As a publication by a university (University of Texas) it is not only verifiable but authoritative. The author has a Master's degree in Communications and traveled extensively. Finally, unlike the rest of the sourceless paragraphs which you left standing, this statement was backed up by a citation. Deepstratagem 16:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

A publication by a university is not authorative; there's a lot of crap and debatable information that has been printed by university presses. Just because one person thinks that all members of both North and South America are Americans, doesn't make it a fact; words are defined by usage by speakers, not by fiat from above.--Prosfilaes 02:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, look at the credentials, the logic behind it and wikipedia policy. The other evidence in the article supports the statement. Deepstratagem 03:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Typically, one would look at a dictionary for authoritative information (nevertheless, descriptive, rather than prescriptive, information) about what words mean. In any event, if we have established as a fact that Mexicans, etc. are Americans, then there is apparently no real controversy on the matter. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 03:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
My difficulty with the citation is that the author makes such a bald claim in passing despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. To me, it almost seems like she is so out-to-lunch that she can't be taken seriously. Sumergocognito 03:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] paragraph to remove

In 1801, a document addressed to American Spaniards is considered to have directly influenced the Act of Independence and the 1811 Constitution of Venezuela [1]. This document was published in French and then Spanish under the titles of "Lettre aux Espagnols-Américains" and "Carta Derijida a los Españoles Americanos" in 1799 and 1801 respectively.

When was the letter published in English? This article concerns the use of the English word "American", if the letter doesn't provide an example of English usage, it's irrelevant. No one doubts what Americano means. Sumergocognito 05:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Why exactly is it irrelevant? The section discusses history of the word - look at the British maps - the word hadn't diverged yet. Deepstratagem 05:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
As I said above, it documents Spanish rather than English usage. There's no disagreement what the Spanish word means. If it wasn't translated contemporaneously into English then it doesn't tell us anything that we don't already know. Sumergocognito 15:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
It also documents historical usage (and French usage). At that point in time the word could probably be directly translated to the English word American. Deepstratagem 16:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, but without documentation, that'd be original research, nay? WilyD 15:40, 18 June

2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right given current circumstances. See my reply to Sumergocognito below. Deepstratagem 23:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This should probably also bite the dust:

In Latin America, American has cultural connotations of a pan-American sense of identity as popularly documented by old songs like "Si somos americanos", [If we are Americans] by Chilean songwriter, Rolando Alarcón, and more recent ones like "América" by José Luis Perales.

These would be usages of a Spanish word, no? Substituting "American" for Americano is seriously misleading. It's the same basic problem as in the passage above. Sumergocognito 22:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The lyrics for "If we are Americans" basically make the point for that particular translation (in context and meaning) and that the correct translation is ...Americans. So, no, it is not misleading. However, it doesn't add much to the article so feel free to delete.
As for the previous passage mentioned by Sumergocognito, it would be original reseach, except that a letter was contemporaneously published in English in 1811, and new supporting evidence shows that the present-day translation is "American Spaniards." Deepstratagem 23:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The 1811 translation then would be relevant to English usage of the word "America". Better to mention that in the article than the 1799/1801 eds. Btw. who wrote it?
...and new supporting evidence shows that the present-day translation is "American Spaniards." care to share that with us, Deep? IMHO, "American Spaniard", in modern English, is an oxymoron. Sumergocognito 23:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking for the actual English letter which I cannot find on the internet. I found a present day translation of the title in Encyclopaedia Brittanica listed as "Letter to American Spaniards," but it seems inadequate and particularly ironic to cite another encyclopedia. [17]. It doesn't mention the English publication of 1808 (it was actually 1808) but University of Montreal does (albeit in Spanish(!?)): [18], [19]. The reason the Encyclopaedia Brittanica article is relevant is because of the translation of the title. However, it would be much better to find the 1808 version of the letter.
BTW, I made the edit to compensate for the implications of the reference to the Articles of Confederation which appears to be valid. Deepstratagem 08:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] please delete more

In my view, this article is justified; if I as an American am going to piss people off, I'd at least like to know when and why I am doing so. However, the article as it currently stands is simply a debate over the meaning of the word, which does not belong in an encyclopedeaic article. All that needs to be said is "English speakers use 'American' to mean of or relating to the USA; some Latin Americans resent this usage". I've deleted some irrelevant info, along with citations which do not support what needs supporting. Please delete more; the less said here, the better. 171.159.64.10 20:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you please justify your deletions? You deleted the few things that are even sourced in the article. Deepstratagem 23:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. The cited material I removed generally contained citations that did not in fact support what was in question, and frequently was stated in way to beg the question, i.e. it assumed to be true what was in fact in question. For example "Mexico is in North America and residents of Mexico, Central America and South America all live in the 'Americas,' and are therefore Americans, [20]." - the citation merely goes to an English text containing the quote. I am not saying the quote is objectively wrong, and indeed I think it is relevant that some English sources take your POV, but it is nonetheless POV.

Or, "Many non-English speakers use the word American (or local variants of the term) to refer to any inhabitant of the Americas rather than specifically a citizen of the United States, and perceive the latter usage of American to be potentially ambiguous and even imperialistic, [21]. This is a rather widespread view in Latin America, [22]." - the first "citation" simply goes to the cover of a book about American imperialism, which has no clear connection to the use of the the word American. (And while it is neither here nor there, I note that Haiti could probably benefit from some Puerto Rican style U.S. imperialism.) The second citation goes to the book mentioned in my preceding paragraph, and again says nothing specifically to whether Latin Americans widely consider U.S. usage imperialistic, though admittedly it does nicely state the potential confusion.

And yes, I finally removed the whole taxonomy discussion. I think we can all agree it added nothing, amusing as migratory patterns are. I haven't justified all of my deletions, but I think you can see the general point. If you do want a point-by-point justification, I'll see what I can do.

I am not trying to delete or belittle the controversy here over usage of "American" in an exclusive sense. As I've said, the issue is one that anglophones (particularly norteamericanos) would do well to understand. I just think that by editing out the various non-salient points from the article the discussion can be clarified. Not trying to stomp on any toes. I haven't justified all of my deletions, but I think you can see the general point. If you do want a point-by-point justification, I'll see what I can do. And thanks for asking rather than just reverting (though now I've had my say, do as you will). 171.159.64.10 00:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You are correct in that some of the statements were not linked clearly to supporting citations. I figured someone would point that out, or modify the sentence. For others, I think the citation was pretty good, all that needed to be done is clarify that it might be non-NPOV (just like your point of view is not necessarily NPOV).
I realize one citation or two is like threading on thin ice and that I'm only advancing one point of view... but I think advancing the point of view that American means more than one thing brought balance to the page, and if I went beyond that balance, that this could easily be fixed by finding other citations. (In fact, I intended to provide citations for the other POV, too, at some point.)
As for the particular taxonomy discussion, I also agree it added little, like the entire cultural usage section. I guess directly quoting someone who says "Mexicans are Americans" is bold and the assertion should be qualified, but on the other hand, it is not very different from saying "U.S. Citizens alone are Americans," or "American cuisine can only refer to United States cuisine".
Then again, the case for both (or more) POVs can certainly be made stronger by finding relevant sources, and then we can collaborate more and argue less (I will admit I was resposible for some pretty deconstructive arguing earlier on). The main issue is that (at least on this talk page) there are a lot of people on all sides who honestly feel offended at the implication that a term which defines identity gets "misused" at the expense of their identity or belief structure.
I'm sure we'll find some common ground. Deepstratagem 07:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consider changing title to "Pan American uses of the word American"

I don't know if this has been brought up already, but it seems to me that an easy solution to some of these debates would be for the title to designate that the content is about Pan American uses and understandings of the word "American." The current title seems to allow citizens of "The United States of America," the only country designated as such in the continents of North or South America, to assume that their understanding of the phrase is the correct or only one. While the claim that "Canada and Latin American countries are also America" is true in a wider geographic sense, the "Americans," are the only modern nation to have the name of the continent explicitly affixed to their national identity. So, nationalistic people in the US will think their use of the term is correct, while in fact, there are multiple geographically oriented understandings of this, which to me the article provides an adequately thorough account of.--Amerique 17:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't adding "Pan-American" limit the sphere of the article, by excluding British, Irish, Australian, etc. usage?—Nat Krause(Talk!) 18:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
That's not actually true. By far the most common name in English for the continent where Australia resides is Australia - far more ambigious than America residing in North America WilyD 19:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't find that ambiguous at all. But would you find it ambiguous if I started a country in my backyard called Earth? Or Milky Way? Then, even though you live in "The Earths" you are not from Earth, but I and the people from my country are from Earth. And then to be clear, we'll officially have the following demonym: Human*. We, but not you, are Humans from Earth. Since we are the first sovereign country with the name Earth in it - "Earth" - it is our right. Oh but can you think of a better adjective? No because Earthling sounds weird. Just one thing, though, please don't be Anti-Human by telling me I can't call myself and my countrymen Human (we really resent that). We the people (Humans) of Earth are compassionate and you Mexicans and Brazilians can be Mexican-Humans and Brazilian-Humans if you enter the Earth legally (U.S. Americans too!) Sure, you'll never be as Human as us, but that's a small price to pay for the right to be Human. God Bless Earth! Deepstratagem 21:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Deep, we both know perfectly well that if one is being honest, Australia and Australia are ambigious since they refer to two different places. Anyone familiar with the meaning of ambigious will realise this. As for Earthling, there's no need to badmouth - it's a perfectly normal term for people from the planet Earth - probly more widespread (if somewhat less formal) than Terran. Your long sarcasm also misses the basic point that no people can dictate to the English language what they should be called. English bears no master. If tommorow the Americans changed the name of the country to Walamazoo and insisted the proper adjective for them is Nurple, the proper name of their country would still be United States of America and the proper adjective would still be American. Sorry, but your example doesn't make me want to endorse manifest destiny now any more than I did before I read it. WilyD 21:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, we are also Terrans by the way, and we already know what "Earth" and "Terran" mean in Canadian English, but what is relevant here is Earth English not substandard languages of "The Earths". Deepstratagem 22:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Based on what you're insinuating, are you suggesting this article shows a bias to a prefered version of English? I imagine that quite rightly the Wikipedia policy dictates it be written in a New World form of English, be it American, Canadian, Jamaican, Bermudian, Newfoundland, Barbadian or what have you. Otherwise, the usage of American is other forms of English (British, Australian, Indian, South African, et al) is reasonable fair game. It is true that the Americans have a lot of pull in determining what the word America means, because they speak the most widely used dialect of English, but that's coincidental. Americans don't decide what they get called in French, the Academy decides that. The case is the same in all languages, peoples don't get to decide what they're called, the language decides - its more formalised in French than in English, but the procedure is the same. You may argue that's unethical, but its the de facto standard. WilyD 22:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
No, Earth English is far different from Canadian or Australian English, it is an entirely different (and superior) language. It's like the difference between Australian English and Spain Spanish. So you can call yourself Human if you want, but that's Canadian English and this is Terran/Human/Earth English and in Earth English, you are not Human. We are. God Bless Earth! Deepstratagem 22:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Right, okay, but if Earth English is a seperate language from British English and its derivitives, then it's not appropriate for this encyclopaedia. Perhaps you prefer to start ee.wikipedia.org or some such equivilent site to have an encyclopaedia in Earth English?WilyD 22:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I'd prefer if you started tee.wikipedia.org in "The Earths" English, since Earth English easily conflates to just "English". Deepstratagem 22:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
While you are busy with this, I'm going to the [Spanish Wikipedia] Where I'm going to insist that they drop the ridiculous estadounidense and use the proper term for US Citizens: Americano. Obviously, when a similar sounding word exists in my native language, their language must defer to what seems reasonable to me. Who cares if Spanish usage makes sense to Spanish speakers? My national pride is much more important!Sumergocognito 23:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Currently, estadounidense redirects to United States of America. Why don't you go edit it? And while you are at it, can you ask them to delete quantum physics? Newtonian physics is more reasonable and conforms better to everyday experience, even though quantum physics might be more accurate. Deepstratagem 00:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Make sure to point out that American anarchists and other right-thinking folk find estadounidense offensive. This might fall under the category of mandatory political correctness.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 01:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure, that's just as good. As I don't speak The Earths' English, it's really none of my business. Frankly, my mind boggles that all these Latin Americans want to endorse American Imperialism, but hey, whatever floats your boats. WilyD 00:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, your statement is a prime example of why Latin Americans dislike the use of the word in the United States:

Frankly, my mind boggles that all these Latin Americans want to endorse American Imperialism

Because in political discourse it is used against them, when in reality being American is a part of their culture and history. Deepstratagem 00:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
And yet I'm not an American, and I can plainly recognise that using American to describe non-American residents of the New World is a surrendor of part of the soverignty of all of us in the Western Hemisphere who aren't Americans. Using American to describe Latin Americans is definitely biased against them - it contains the inextractable message that they don't have a culture of their own, or a history of their own - a charge oft levelled at my own countrymen, so it's one I know well. It's been almost 200 years since the Americans burnt my hometown to the ground - and I'd like to tack a few more years onto that. WilyD 01:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
If you feel that way... it's a shame from my point of view. It seems like you deal with distancing yourself from U.S. Americans by rejecting the concept of Americanism (country), while we distance ourselves from U.S. American "culture"/policy by reclaiming the concept of Americanism (continent). This actually makes sense in terms of cognitive dissonance since you really believe American is of the U.S. while we believe the US is of America. Anyway, just to be clear, my earlier response wasn't directed at you, but was rather satire based on some of the arguments I've heard most of my life on the subject. I figured some people might at least get a sense of why this matters to some. Deepstratagem 08:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, when you speak English, America invariently refers to the States, there's no way around it. America is a synonym for the States. Of course, it might be harder for Latin Americans to see, because they're widely believed to have their own culture and identity, whereas that's less true on the other side of America. Maybe it's just scarier when you look across the border every day. ;) WilyD 11:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
True, in English this invariably what is meant. But what about what isn't said, if you know what I mean? Lacunar concepts... Things that are not said but nonetheless are... I don't mean a linguistic lacuna, but rather a psychological lacuna or blind spot (psychological). Does a concept not belong in an encyclopedia because it doesn't map linguistically? Deepstratagem 14:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
No, but that doesn't it should be embraced without regard for how its presented. Your underlying premise that there's some proper use of America to refer to the Americas is wrong. While we can easily say Some Latin Americans resent the use of America to refer to the States, (obviously a percentage would be nice), the article keeps trying to say America should refer to all of the Americas - which is an unsupportable statement for an Anglophone. English is a language of de facto standards - there is no should, no ought in how she is spoken. Roughly speaking, the whole article needs to say
  • America is used in the english language to refer to the country known as the United States of America
  • America historically had a wider usage, refering to the whole of the western hemisphere, though that usage is now depricated
  • American is an adjective that refers to the country of America, but may in rare cases also be used to refer to the Americas
  • This pisses off some Latin Americans, who believe that America and American should be reserved exclusively for the Americas, and that America should find a new name for itself
  • Call me an American and I'll jersey you! ~ Johnny Canuck
Right? I mean, its the basic issue- obviously it can be jazzed up a bit, but all the Colloquially, Americans are sometimes called Statesiders, and their country is sometimes known as South of 49 doesn't really address the Use of the word America, but instead something like Terms for America and Terms for Americans. Maybe the article is just named poorly, I don't know. WilyD 14:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with everything above, except I don't know who Johnny Canuck is. Sure, I could google or Wikipedia him, but I'd rather spend my last minute online claiming I don't have time for it. ;) Deepstratagem 18:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Although I don't think that America "should" mean the Americas, I do think it is a less frequently used meaning in the spoken word and moderately used in writing. And as long this is done sensitively (more or less as you demonstrated above) and backed up by sources, it shouldn't be a problem. On the other hand, I do think the article would be different if the article were on the meaning or concept of America(n). I guess I lied about Canuck (decided to find out after all), but maybe Capitaine Kébec would hold a different opinion!? ;) Deepstratagem 18:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that - I think a lot of it comes from historical usage as well, that in the past America(n) was used to refer to a larger region, and whilst those writings persist, the conversations are lost. For what its worth, English Quebeckers are fairly indistinuishable from English Ontarians - the Canadas form a continum, not a divide. Quebeqois speak French (or Quebeqois, or Joual) and thus aren't really germane to the discussion, but the Government of Canada map I'm so fond of posting here shows the continents as Amerique du Nord et Amerique du Sud, so they at least back us in our continental definitions. Right now the article advertises in its name that its about the meaning or concept of America(n), which isn't really its content. WilyD 18:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Or how about reducing (and renaming) the article to the history of the word american? It would be more NPOV this way, and as the article stands, it is the only "factual" sourced section so far. Then a very small section can be dedicated to current usage which would logically follow from its history. Deepstratagem 20:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I only just walked into this debate, but apart from the usual Wikipedia problems with citations and references I don't see how this article is at all biased in content or intent. Granted, there could be more work done on the historical eptimology of the term, more work on the international uses or understandings of the term "American" as well as on intercultural understandings or identifications with the term within the US, but it seems to me that the article itself would be fine with only a brief modifier to the title to indicate it is about international and intercultural uses of the word as opposed to American exceptionalism.
One possible source to fill out the history section would be this essay by Jack Forbes, professor emeritus of History and Native American Studies at UC Davis.[23]--Amerique 00:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The article is a much cleaner today than it was 2 weeks ago. Nonetheless, Jack Forbes is a great source in this regard. Deepstratagem 00:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagreement not so recent

It has been said on this page that disagreement about the word American is a very recent phenomenon. Apparently it was already an issue in 1947: [24] according to American Speech Vol 22. No 4. "Names for Americans":

THE RIGHT of Americans to be so called is frequently challenged, especially in Latin America, but so far no plausible substitute has been devised.

Apparently it is not only Latin Americans who challenge this. Deepstratagem 06:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe we already established that - here it says especially, perhaps primarily would be better, but you quoted one jackass in Toronto who felt the same. There may be one or two more who feel the same... WilyD 14:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
No we hadn't established it with a citation (despite all the other evidence for it). I'd characterize the Torontian as an enlightened person, but the journal article is not specific about who else besides Latin Americans challenge the use of the word American as a national demonym. It could be Canadians, but it could also be Germans (with strong enough ties to Latin America, and cultured enough to know to use U.S. Amerikaner). It also hadn't been established how far back this disagreement goes back to. Certainly before 1947. Deepstratagem 22:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The first thing I thought of when I saw strong [German] ties to Latin America was The Boys from Brazil which makes me question the strength of the alleged ties between Germany and Latin America. There are also plenty of cultured Germans that would find US-Amerikaner meaningless except as an attempt to irritate Americans. Sumergocognito 08:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The main idea is that in 1947 Latin Americans and others frequently challenged the demonym and that it wasn't necessarily Canadians. Deepstratagem 09:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a great essay, Deep, but I would like to draw your attention to page 242:

John Pickering, in his American glossary of 1816, listed Fredonia, Fredonian, Frede and Fredish, but had only sneers for them. ‘These extraordinary words,’ he said, ‘have been deservedly ridiculed here as well as in England.’ He went on:

The general term American is now commonly understood (at least in all places where the English language is spoken) to mean an inhabitant of the United States, and is so employed except where unusual precision of language is required. English writers, in speaking of us, always say the Americans, the American government, the American ambassador etc.

In other words, in 1816, only 40 years after the Declaration of Independence, American was not only in general use throughout the English-speaking world as it existed at the time, and the need for and use of alternate demonyms (in English) was already being dismissed. Sumergocognito 10:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that. At least now were are getting somewhere. But the demonym was frequently challenged and if you read the rest of the article, you'll see that while the term American may have been commonly understood to mean of the United States (according to Pickering), it is apparent that that wasn't the only meaning in English, nor was it considered appropriate.
In fact, Canada had issues with this in 1927 (page 245-246):

Back in 1927 Miss Miriam Allen de Ford had said in American Speech:

A citizen of England is an Englishman, but a citizen of the United States cannot say he is United Statesman. He cannot be a United Stateser, a United Statesard, or a United Statesese. Had the government, after the separation from Great Britain, given this nation a name susceptible to such a derivative, it would have conferred a favor on posterity. Local jealousy and lack of cohesive feeling of course prevented this. But had they called the new federation Washington we might all be Washingtonians or had they given it some such amiable and optimistic cognomen as Liberty or Concord it would have been quite easy for us to be Libertans or Concordians. As it is, we have to remain Americans, despite the protests of Argentina or Canada*.

*Miriam Allen de Ford. 'On the difficulty of indicating nativity in the United States'. American Speech April 1927 p. 315.
Deepstratagem 11:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Without context, this makes it sounds as though it's the government of Canada protesting (obviously it isn't the land itself - land rarely speaks). I'm going to change the article to say some Canadians (read:some Canadians who need to be whump'd with an axehandle), without some more specific citation - as it reads above, it most naturally implies The government of Canada, but could also be The people of Canada, some Canadians, The rocks & dirt north of Canada, my dog, whom I named Canada, et cetera. WilyD 18:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
That's true. At some point I'll start moving the citations from this talk page to the article. But as there is no context to indicate what Canada is in reference to, your edit is more fair. Deepstratagem 19:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


I know I'm a bit slow on references - sorry,eh? WilyD 22:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In Colloquial English

I could find no support for the first sentence of the article in using the word colloguial. The use of the word America and American to describe things or people of the United States of America is not, and has never been, colloquial as that is defined. Look up colloqialism in Wikipedia. This has been editted. Jcchat66 15:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

From The Columbia Guide to Standard American English, [25]:

We of the United States of America, citizens of only one of many nations in the Americas, North, Central, and South, have preempted the informal name of our country, America, and our title, Americans.

Colloquial means informal among other things, dictionary.com - colloquial. As for colloquialism in Wikipedia:

A colloquialism is an expression not used in formal speech or writing. [...] Words that have a formal meaning may also have a colloquial meaning that, while technically incorrect, is recognizeable due to common usage.

American (national demonym) is not used in U.S. legalese (law), the most formal and technical form of speech or writing. That's because it is technically incorrect and does not suffice for the highly technical and precise language of law. Deepstratagem 09:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Go to LexisNexis and search for American in the US Reports I got 48 cases from the last six months. That's practically all the cases the US Supreme Court has decided in the last six months. Sumergocognito 10:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I suppose the supreme court is not formal enough. They are not drafting contracts, but rather interpreting the law... they can use flowery language if their hearts desire in writing opinion. From what I read, the majority of the instances of American were in names of organizations - like American Airlines or American Civil Liberties Union. Deepstratagem 12:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The above is true, the word American is not generally used in legal wording, but that is common in most countries that are not nation-states. America is not a legal entity, it is a nation, which exists regardless of what type of government organization. The United States is the legal entity, thus all laws are written using the United States, not America. Same with the United Arab Emirates, or any other non nation-state. Ever wonder why we don't have a United States Bar Asspciation instead of an American Bar Association? Could you imagine the confusion if we were forced to change the legal defintion of America?

However, America is not colloquially used even in Black's Law Dictionary, of which I have no online sources, but which is defined ONLY as "of pertaining to the United States." Colloquium, if which collogialism evolved, suggests slanderous use of a word, or improper use. So for one to suggest that the use of the word is colloquial would be biased, as they also suggest that the word is inproper, in writing or in language. Jcchat66 15:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"America is not a legal entity", "United States is a legal entity". Sounds like the United States does not equal America.
I suppose you might be right about Black's Law dictionary, I haven't seen it. As for American, I'm not sure how we go from colloquial to slander. If what you are saying were true, then The Columbia Guide to Standard American English would be biased for calling the words American and America informal. Deepstratagem 01:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Most dictionaries do not define the word as informal. I have many old and new dictionaries. Webster's Universal Unabridged Dictionary (C) 1936. "1. An aboriginal, or one of the various copper-colored natives found on the American continent by the Europeans; the original application of its name. 2. An American-born descendant of European settlers. 3. A native-born or naturalized citizen of the United States.”

And then it proceeds to add this: “The name American must always exalt the pride of patriotism. – Washington.” Well, was George Washington alluding to patriotism to the American Continent, or to the new nation he just helped make free? Or was he hoping all Latin Americans would join his revolutionary spirit, as they indeed did later against the Spanish Empire? Perhaps he had intended for everyone in the Americas to eventually join the United States in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, long before the coinage of the word Manifest Destiny. Or did George just mean the USA?

As I wrote, it is used formally to describe both the American continents and the name of a specific nationality. As far as "colloquium" is used, I was merely demonstrating its root meaning in Latin according to Black's Law Dictionary. And of course "United States" does not equal "America," they have two different meanings, just as Republic and France in the Republic of France have two different meanings. If the United States collapsed, and was replaced by a new government that called itself the Allied Republics of America, the name of the nation would remain America, not the Allied Republics. Americans would still be called Americans, only the government would have changed. If the United Kingdom collapsed and became the Republic of Great Britain, would they no longer be British? So yes, Deep, "United States" is a legal entity, and "America" is not a legal ENTITY, but a legal NAME. Does that make it clearer?

Of all the American related definitions the word colloquial is not used. It is not considered informal in any major work of literature concerning American culture. Being raised in Miami, in a public schools that was mostly Hispanic and Latin, I have never heard of any dispute of the word's use. That was in the 1980's.

I have a McCulloch’s Commercial Dictionary of 1844, a very old and dusty book of extremely fine print, printed in London. Throughout this vast volume the use of the words American to describe both North and South America (of which they clearly distinguish the difference) and describe the ports of the United States, is clearly evident. They also use Union, U. States, and States of the Union all interchangeably with America. On page 319, very last paragraph, they clearly used the word “American war” to speak of the War of 1812.

Now here is a real kicker, and exact quote from this same commercial dictionary on page 1145: “America abolished the slave trade at the same time as England.” This is a single paragraph-sentence following the lengthy process of trying to abolish slavery in the late 1700’s, and finally succeeding in 1807. At first I thought they must have meant the continents of the Americas, but alas, I read on to the second paragraph: “But not withstanding what had been done, further measures were soon discovered to be necessary. The Spanish and Portuguese continued to carry on the trade to a greater extent than ever; and British subjects did not hesitate, under cover of their flags, to become partners in their adventures.” It continued to state how the British Empire zealously pursued these slavers in Cuba and Brazil, of which they deemed pirates on the high seas, and suffer death without benefit of clergy.” (Pirates of the Caribbean anyone?) So when the commercial dictionary used America, it clearly meant the USA, as it mentions Spanish and Portuguese separately.

I am beginning to suspect that there is a more serious problem with this debate. Perhaps those that feel offended by the use of the word American to describe those of the United States have a political agenda to cause disunity and disharmony among the populations of the Americas. Is this the sentiment of Latin Americans? Is this what this is about? Because this is the only result that this debate will lead to, as has already proven to be the case on this article. Can’t we all just get along? Jcchat66 05:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The word means a lot of things. Latin Americans resent the appropriation of the word (Apparently Canadians did too. ) You keep suggesting bias and conspiracy against the United States as if it was a personal attack or some sort of subversion. The simple reason is that use of the word in the United States is ahistorical and the use passively excises the rest of the Americas from history. People get tired of hearing phrases like Anti-American used against Mexicans and other people who actually are Americans. It is a very lazy, ignorant, informal, incorrect use of the language. It has been documented and presented here as evidence. If you want to suggest we "have a political agenda to cause disunity and disharmony" back it up with real evidence, instead of making it up. Deepstratagem 17:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Quoting Deep above: American (national demonym) is not used in U.S. legalese (law), the most formal and technical form of speech or writing. That's because it is technically incorrect and does not suffice for the highly technical and precise language of law
I would say your argument does not follow. US Citizen is commonly used in preference to American or American Citizen in highly formal contexts but this has really nothing to do with precision. After all, a person could declare anywhere in the English-speaking world from Dublin to Delhi that they were "An American Citizen" and customs and consular officials would know precisely what their nationality was. Instead, I suspect, "US Citizen" is used in formal contexts because the American federal government is called "the United States" and as Jcchat66 says above, one is a citizen of a political entity.
You are right to say that "US Citizen" is more formal, but it is formal in style, not substance. Legal writing is full of highly affected terms which are used merely for the sake of form. Judges and lawyers for instance are enamored of the (ghastly) phrase inter alia even though the more common "among other things" is vastly superior in terms of readability. "United States Citizen" is much the same, Congress could pass a law striking every reference to it in the US Code and replacing them with "American Citizen" and no intellectually honest judge in the United States (or any intellectually honest reader in the English-speaking world, for that matter) could doubt what was meant. Thus "American Citizen" is not commonly used in legal settings, not because it is technically incorrect or at all imprecise but because "US Citizen" is preferred for reasons of (mere) formality. Sumergocognito 07:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I would then respond that my argument does follow, but perhaps is not the reason for the absence of American in legal contracts. Perhaps it is one of the reasons. Perhaps there is a better one. Perhaps causation is multifactorial. But under the assumptions presented, regardless of whether my statement is true or not, it does follow. Deepstratagem 17:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the absence of American in contracts is simply that it is not specific enough, and nor is US Citizen. The state of birth is used in affidavits and all contracts inside the USA. "I, John Doe, born in the County of Bernalillo, of the State of New Mexico, do hereby sign, seal, and deliver ..." Remember, the United States is not a nation-state, it is a nation of states.

My stand, which I have backed up with the above stated evidence and sources, is that the word American has not been appropiated outside the formal scope of its meaning. I did not suggest a conspiracy against the United States, but if you look up Anti-Americanism on Wikipedia, you will certainly get a sense that many people don't like Americans, and that these Anti-Americanists come up with creative ways to challenge American culture at every turn. I think this whole debate is rooted in Anti-Americanism, and people need to be honest about it. My stand is that Latin AMericans have no cause, whatsoever, to feel that the word has been appropiated. How many of them have read the Declaration of Independence, or can read Black's Law Dictionary? How fair is it that they feel offended when they probably have not read all the facts? Jcchat66 02:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What facts would you have them read? They know that American has applied to the New World since its discovery, and that Unites States Citizens started using it to refer to themselves in exclusion to everyone else in the New World. That usage has been challenged in Canada, Argentina, Mexico, Venezuela since 1812 (according to our scholarly articles). American came to mean the New World before it came to also "mean" the United States - so how is that not appropriation? Even The Columbia Guide to Standard American English agrees. [26]

We of the United States of America, citizens of only one of many nations in the Americas, North, Central, and South, have preempted the informal name of our country, America, and our title, Americans.

Preemption is a synomym of appropriation. [27]. So again, what facts would you have them read? Deepstratagem 02:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought we (Deep and I) already agreed that the meaning of the word, for centuries, has meant two things. Thus, not appropiated outside the scope of tis meaning. And yet you harp the Columbian Guide to Standard American English, when I could just as easilly harp on Black's Law Dictionary or Websters. What is your point? Are you suggesting that Colonial Americans intentionally did something to offend Latin Americans back in the 1700's? Despite Spain's support of arms for the Revolution, I doubt that. Were they being uncouth or insensitive?
What facts would I have Latin American's read? Go to any bookstore, pick a book and random concerning any kind of literature concerning the United States, and you will find the factual use of the word American. From Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, to Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, fiction or non-fiction, horror or history. Do a Google search for the word and you will find over three billion uses of the word, most of which are related to the United States or a company in the US. Check http://www.usembassy.org.uk/ This site is one of many that use "American Citizen."
But I content that Latin Americans are not offended, being that I grew up with them, married a Latina, and have emersed myself into Spanish culture at every opportunity. I love their strong sense of familia, which Anglos have utterly lost. I love their language and regret that I did not retain it more. I have never heard of ANYONE in Florida, New Mexico, or California, states full of Hispanics and Latinos of every nationality, show offense of your alleged appropiation of the word. My wife attended the University of New Mexico, and has friends who are members of La Raza, and again she has never heard of this debate about the use of the word American. Well, I don't have a citation for experience, does that disqualify the source?
So again, Deep, what are your intentions with this debate? What is your agenda? The facts are painfully clear. You agree, and then disagree, and I have no idea what point you are trying to make now. Jcchat66 06:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
My disagreement over appropriation is not incompatible with my agreement that there are multiple meanings of the word. The reason it has more meanings than just American (New World) is precisely because the word was appropriated.
I'm not sure what most Latinos in the United States have to do with this as they don't live in say, Mexico or Argentina. The vast majority immigrated to the United States without an education and are more than happy to forget their Spanish to fit-in in the United States. Generally, their culture is made up (see Chicano, Aztlan) as they have lost their ties to the old culture. In fact their Spanish is pretty broken up. I'm not sure what La Raza has to do with this.
And have you ever asked anyone besides your wife whether they had issues with the exclusionary meaning? For example, someone who lived the majority of his/her life in Latin America? Because a sample size of one is not significant - and asking your wife is probably not representative of opinion in Latin American countries.
I'm not suggesting U.S. Americans did anything to intentionally offend Latin Americans - but it just so happens that they did. None of the evidence you would have "them" read contradicts the evidence that the word was appropriated. Deepstratagem 08:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I asked all the Latin Americans I work with (A Colombian, two Chileans and an Argentinian) and none thought that the use of American to mean Of or relating to the United States of America was offensive, though one (the Colombian) said he found it strange when he first moved here (actually, he lived in Chicago first, but whatever). WilyD 13:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no exclusionary meaning, unless used on the context of nationality, The word has several meanings, and I thought we got past that. And I thought I made it clear that I grew up among Hispanics (meaning those born in the USA) and Latins (meaning those coming from outside the USA), and therefore not relying on my wife's opinion. I also mentioned La Raza, which is primarily made of of Mexican-born or first generation Mexican-Americans. Now you are just finding anything you can to undermine this debate. and again have not answered to what purpose or agenda you have.
I thought it would be obvious, but it appears that it is not. I will easilly contend that there may be Latin Americans that take offense to the so-called appropiation (and no, you have no given evidence substantial enough to warrant this) of the use of American. But just because someone is offended does not automatically qualify it! Many people are offended for many different things, but few have cause to be offended. Those again are two dofferent things!
Example: A thief steals your car. But you installed an anti-theft device that kills the engine and locks the theif inside. Police come and arrest him. That thief is naturally offended that you caused his capture with your device. Does he have cause to be offended??? Absolutely not! So, do Latin Americans have cause to be offended by Colonial Americans after centureis have gone by???? Absolutely not!
And sorry, but if offense was not intended, then that is an issue of misunderstanding, a common problem with those that speak different languages. In free societies that respect freedom of speach, it is inevitable that people will be offended unintentially by what others say. That gives no one to right or cause to do anything. I am offended that any Latin American would be offended by me calling myself an American as a nationality. So what? Where is your evidence that shows cause or injury for your so-called appropiation?
So what are you asking for? Americans to stop calling themselves Americans? Are the Latin Americans that take offense trying to pass a law or something? Is this effecting them in their countries in some negative manner? Again, I think this debate would be better if everyone just came out and stated what they really felt was the issue. Jcchat66 15:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
"There is no exclusionary meaning, unless used on the context of nationality"... So there is an exclusionary meaning.
"The word has several meanings, and I thought we got past that"... So why do you keep bringing it up? It has nothing to do with this.
"...That thief is naturally offended that you caused his capture with your device. Does he have cause to be offended???" No, but to correct your analogy, U.S. Americans are the thief (since they are the ones who appropriated the word). The person who should be upset is the owner of the car.
"And sorry, but if offense was not intended, then that is an issue of misunderstanding... I am offended that any Latin American would be offended by me calling myself an American as a nationality." And you can feel whatever you want... so let others feel what they want. It's not really an issue of misunderstanding, it is an issue of ignorance. Most U.S. Americans either don't know that they are the not the only Americans or refuse to believe it.
"So what are you asking for?" Ideally, for U.S. citizens to recognize they are not the only Americans. It's not the use of the word really, but the attitude behind it that bothers most people. For example, in sentences like: "Mexicans should not be entitled to take the jobs of us hard working Americans". It implies Mexicans are not Americans, belittles them, and denies them association with an identity they esteem. I suggest you read a couple of books on the effect of Labeling (Psychology) if you think that does not cause injury. But within the scope of the article, I think it should just be accurate. Deepstratagem 19:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Deep, but I don’t think you speak for most people. I grew up with many immigrants from Latin America, mostly Honduras, and most of them who worked for the government and lived in palatial haciendas. My best friend, half Puerto Rican himself, actually got to spend time there for several weeks. These were not poor immigrants as you assume, but well-educated and intellectual people that I spoke about many topics with. True, since I had never heard of this issue in the 1980’s and 1990’s, I would not have known to ask about it. But I find it strange that they never mentioned anything about this subject. I do not claim to speak for most people or for Latin Americans as you do.
You seem to take everything I write out of context anyway. But alas! We seem to be getting somewhere. It is not the use of the word, but the attitude behind it. Well, I wholeheartedly agree. Americans do have poor attitudes towards many things. They don’t care about anything beyond their own borders, or even states. They chirp on about Mexicans taking their jobs, or who the French are so arrogant, or how Canadians are a bunch of potheads, etc. etc. They have only one child, coddle them, smother them with affection, and then complain about the school system when their child fails a geography test because they thought Spain was in South America. Oh, I have no end to the complaint about my own countrymen, and their decline of culture and education, and the fact that they have all this money, freedom, and technology, and have no clue on how to raise their children. They speak only one language. They believe everything they see on TV. Most Americans will not admit it, but they are lazy, and very few are willing to take on those jobs Mexicans take. Families no long stay together. Democrats have become socialist instead of looking out for the working class. They have no sense of history, no idea where most of their beliefs come from, and don’t care anyway. They have become utterly polarized and divided by nonsense issues. Oh yes, lot’s of attitude, and ignorance. That’s why I debate with people, to make them think, to open their minds about their prejudices which we all share, to do my part in making the world better.
So you’re right, it has nothing to do with this, but you didn’t make that clear, which is why I asked questions of you and your agenda. It’s an anti-American sentiment, justifiably so perhaps. Educated, professional, neutral criticism of the real issues, instead of complaining about the use of the word American, would go much further. That’s all I ask. But I honestly do not think this is the article for that discussion. I, for one, do not call myself an American because of ignorance, or pride, or arrogance. I am an American because that’s where I was born and raised, because this land, this continent, is pleasantly different from the Old World in all its oppressive, warmongering glory. I think that one day the Americas will be united under one culture, and I welcome the day I can drive my car all the way to Chile from New Mexico, among a prosperous and free people without fear of bandidos, to behold the glorious achievements of the ancient Americans from the land of Quetzalcoatl to Viracocha. Being offended about the use of the word American is not going to unite us, it will divide us, and that is where the true ignorance lies. Jcchat66 22:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
No, it is not "anti-American"(U.S.) sentiment alone that fuels this discussion. If you look at the facts, you can see that this is one of the causes for the "anti-Americanism"(U.S.) you speak of.
As for taking things out of context, please give me an example, because you seem to take what I'm writing out of context and implying things I never wrote. For example, I never claimed all Hondurans were poor or uneducated (and how can they be immigrants if they still live in Honduras?)
People aren't generally going to come up to you and tell you they find they find the use of the word offensive. Especially if they are in your country. We can go off about our experiences forever, but these can't be directly verified. Some of the U.S. citizens I know, with dual citizenship, educated, usually tell me how as U.S. citizens we should denounce such "hard-wired" arrogance in the exclusive use of the demonym... Just for the sake of foreign relations with much of Latin America. It's hard to expound on how strong people feel about this.
Look at the facts: All of the Latin American countries have strong ties to the American civilizations (see National Geographic) from which they inherit their ancestry and culture. They also have strong cultural influence from European civilization, brought over by Spain and other contemporary European powers. They have since always been Americans. Their history is American history. Their literature is American literature. When we speak of poets, they are great American poets - Pablo Neruda, José Martí. In our foreign policy, we always refer to other countries as American... a symbol of and shared history and unity. When an U.S. president speaks of "America" as if the United States were all of America, and Latin America and its history never existed, it is certainly a big blow. And then, you wonder why anyone would take offense.
This isn't recent. Canada and other American nations have frequently challenged this since 1816 (according to the sources cited on this page). The name of the continent or geographical area has been America since the early 1500s. We are Latin Americans for a reason. Central America is also called Mesoamerica for a reason. The earliest continental maps of America do not even show north America (because South America was discovered first).
The correct use of the word American (New World) is based on precedent, and history and linguistics. This is all backed up by evidence. Even U.S. citizens have argued amongst themselves on what the demonym for U.S. citizens should be. Why would they do that? Why isn't Kansas in central America? Why should a nation that consistently fails geography [28] be entitled to take a name they don't even understand? Deepstratagem 16:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Deep, you never mentioned Honduras, and I never claimed that you did. Reread the comments we made. Perhaps we are having a communication problem?

And now you have lost creditability claiming that South America was discovered first, when it is well-established that John Cabot was the first person to set foot on the American mainland. Sorry, but I also find it too much of a coincidence that Cabot’s financer was named Richard Amerike, and if indeed the continent was named for him, which is a valid theory, then it would be the Latin Americans that appropriated the Welsh name. Columbus did not set foot on the mainland until his third voyage in 1498, when South America was finally discovered. You should also know that his first landings in Hispaniola and Cuba is considered part of North America, not South America, as we that grew up in Miami are well aware of.

Even worse is the Spanish attempt at monopolizing the discover by trying to excluded everyone else with a papal bull. The Spanish ruthlessly drove out every other attempt by France and England, despite England exploring as far south as Florida and being the first to set foot on the mainland. Perhaps you are right that Latin Americans are offended by the USA … Americans defied their church. Now that’s attitude!

No, it is quite obvious that the first part of the Americas ever called America was the present day United States and Canada. After all, Columbus used the legend of St. Brendan voyage to lands to the west to convince the Castilian monarchs to finance his voyage, acknowledging that the Irish might be on to something. It is even alleged that British fishermen knew of, and operated in, Newfoundland as early as 1480. All this information is just from Wikipedia alone. It seems that the English may have more of a claim to the continent and the name than all others, which even the BBC has noted.

Since you are eager to agree with my criticism of my own countrymen, and yet mention nothing of the negligent shortfalls of Latin American nations, you have demonstrated that you do indeed have anti-American sentiments. I believe this is clouding your judgment, and you facts about history. Jcchat66 07:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if you were more specific in your wording. Here is what you said:

"I grew up with many immigrants from Latin America, mostly Honduras, and most of them who worked for the government and lived in palatial haciendas. My best friend, half Puerto Rican himself, actually got to spend time there for several weeks. These were not poor immigrants as you assume[??????????], but well-educated and intellectual people that I spoke about many topics with."

and here is what I said:

"I never claimed all Hondurans were poor or uneducated..."

As for "And now you have lost creditability claiming that South America was discovered first". Why? Christopher Columbus reached the Bahamas, Cuba, Hispaniola (Dominican Republic and Haiti) in 1492, 1493 and 1494. John Cabot reached "Newfoundland" in 1497 (Historians aren't sure if John Cabot reached the mainland or not). Amerigo Vespucci through his voyages and letters popularized the term America and he certainly didn't touch the northern part of the continent. As for the "Amerike" theory... that was proposed in 1910, and there is no hard evidence to support the theory.
"Since you are eager to agree with my criticism of my own countrymen, and yet mention nothing of the negligent shortfalls of Latin American nations and yet mention nothing of the negligent shortfalls of Latin American nations, you have demonstrated that you do indeed have anti-American sentiments" I never agreed with you in your criticism. Besides, what kind of reasoning is that? You haven't mentioned anything about the shortfalls of communism or terrorism. Does that make you, Jcchat66, a communist, terrorist or anti-American? Through your omission of irrelevant sentiments to the topic at hand you have demonstrated that your are indeed a Hitler lover. Deepstratagem 12:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
All of the islands Columbus found are part of North America, just like the British Isles are considered part of Europe, that is textbook fact. Historian are not sure if Cabot made it to the mainland or not? Why is presented as fact by the BBC? Just because the idea was not widely known until the 1900’s does not mean that illiterate fishermen did not know about Amerike it in the 1500’s. Well, historians are not sure about Vespucci’s role either, as there seems to be a forgery involved, as the Spanish had motive to lay claim to everything American to try and keep the rival nations out.
I mentioned how blissfully ignorant Americans are of geography, and you provide a link! Sounds like you agreed with at least that. You're opinions sound anti-American only because you keep harping on one issue that is very much still in dispute ... the origins of the American name. You criticize Americans without offering any criticism of Latin Americans to try and keep it NPOV. What impression do you think that will leave? I contend that the name should be shared between a nation and two continents, and you continue to contend that it was appropriated.
It is quite clear that both the Spanish and the English used the word exactly the same way in both North and South America. And it is also quite clear that only one nation legally used the name for their nation. (Actually two if you count the Confederate States of America.) No one should be offended by that, and if they are offended, that offense alone gives them no justification to be offended. (Thus the analogy of a thief you seemed to have misunderstood.) Jcchat66 16:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
"All of the islands Columbus found are part of North America, just like the British Isles are considered part of Europe, that is textbook fact." So then Cabot reached America after Columbus.
"Why is presented as fact by the BBC?" It's not... there are a lot of weasel words. It says the land was "probably" named after Amerike. But then look at all the sources cited on BBC (none), and look at the related links, which all contradict the article.
"You criticize Americans without offering any criticism of Latin Americans to try and keep it NPOV." And that makes me anti-American? Besides I never specifically criticized "Americans" or U.S. "Americans". I criticized the use of the word in the United States, and I asked why a nation that consistently fails geography tests should be entitled to appropriate geographic terms. Do you really think saying something bad about Latin Americans is going to make things NPOV? That doesn't make sense. But if it satisfies you, here it goes: Latin American countries are highly corrupt when it comes to intra-governmental politics. Not sure why this is relevant to the discusssion. Now it's your turn: Say something bad about Hitler, otherwise (by your "logic") I'll continue to think you are a Hitler lover.
"No one should be offended by that, and if they are offended, that offense alone gives them no justification to be offended. (Thus the analogy of a thief you seemed to have misunderstood.)". I don't think I misunderstood the analogy. I think it is severly flawed. How is Latin America stealing the United States' car? What does that represent in real life and how is it related to the word American? Deepstratagem 06:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
There was no doubt that Columbus reached America first, but the continents are not named for him, and this has nothing to do with Columbus.
The BBC presents the landing of Cabot in America in 1497 as fact, not the naming issue. That is still a theory based upon that fact. The BBC was only one citition, there are more on the Internet and on Wikipedia if you look up Cabot or Amerike.
And did not say you were anti-American, and wrote that you sound anti-American. If one looks up your Wiki name, they will find that you are mostly involved in Latin American affairs. That makes you sound biased towards Latin issues, but that is not a fact. I don't know you well enough to make a factual statement about you. Oh, and Americans did not ALWAYS fail geography, so what kind of argument is that? There was a time when Americans were the most educated people in the world.
You definately misunderstood the analogy, because you think its about the literal theft of something. The analogy was meant to reflect the idea of someone being offended when they should not be. People get offended by things all the time, does that mean that are justified? The acts of being offended can be either logical or emotional. Some people get emotionally offended when they lose an argument or a game. Someone is logically offended when someone assaults them. Jcchat66 18:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm saying the BBC article doesn't cite sources. (And the articles on Wikipedia on Cabot and Amerike are not sourced from scholarly articles).
"The analogy was meant to reflect the idea of someone being offended when they should not be." In order for you analogy to be relevant the metaphorical theft by Latin America must map onto something real (even if roughly). The argument of the analogy is based on the very idea that someone did something bad (theft) and then got offended for being caught for it. You are implying Latin Americans did something bad and are offended for being caught. What was it?
"If one looks up your Wiki name, they will find that you are mostly involved in Latin American affairs" Sure, this can mean a lot of things not necessarily including bias - it could mean that when I find inaccuracies in articles about Bill Clinton, that I trust someone will fix them. It could mean that other articles I come across are better written. It could indicate that Latin American articles are lacking due to systematic bias related to editor representation and I feel they are POV. It could even mean I am biased if you so wish - but when I cite a good, relevant, verifiable source - that's NPOV.
Regarding POV and U.S-centrism - Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus. Deepstratagem 23:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
No, no, no, the analogy is not based on anyone doing anything bad. It's based on the concept of being offended. How else can I explain it? I NEVER suggested Latin Americans did anything bad. I am merely stating the fact that just because someone is offended by anything, does not mean that SHOULD be offended. Hasn't someone every become angry with you when they shouldn't have?
Look, Deep, you're obviously a pretty intelligent person. But you're getting defensive. I merely feel that your views are a little biased. If anything you have made me research more Latin issues online, and I thank you for that. What disturbs me about a lot of Latin American countries is that they seem to blame the USA for a lot of their problems, poverty, corrupt government, etc. They seem to think that US business is exploited them or something. Well, maybe those same Latins need to research the USA a little more before they jump to that conclusion, because its a horrible assumption. Stay treu to your convictions, but please made sure they have merit. Too many people do not. Jcchat66 06:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
"What disturbs me about a lot of Latin American countries is that they seem to blame the USA for a lot of their problems, poverty, corrupt government, etc. They seem to think that US business is exploited them or something." Well, I agree (that they believe these things). It is not too difficult to imagine where they got the idea, though, from coups d'etat through the 1900s to the arrogance and condescension displayed by some privileged U.S. tourists at hot Latin American destinations. (I've seen a tourist conspicuously harass a well-intentioned waiter because the waiter didn't speak English and couldn't understand the order - talk about being offended when one shouldn't be!).
In general, though, I don't feel the need to criticize people in third-world countries. I would defend people from the U.S. under unfair criticism (and I do) but there just isn't anyone to defend it from on this discussion page (except myself, right?). And I don't feel privileged people need to be protected when they are fueling their own problems. For example in the case of the word American. If you look at the article on Honduras and Bill Clinton, people loved him - perhaps because they thought he understood them. I can't see the current president having the same effect in Honduras, even while donating money, because he is too rigid on his view of the world. To paraphrase Stephen Colbert, "he believes on Wednesday the same thing he believed Monday, no matter what happened on Tuesday"...
Anyway, you got me on Cabot... I wasn't aware that he made his voyage to Newfoundland before Columbus made his third (to south American mainland). Deepstratagem 09:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from Deep, I think. But I cannot bring myself to blame an entire nation for the woes of another nation. It’s always individuals and groups of individuals that are responsible, an elite, an aristocracy, those that have become arrogant and lack any humility whatsoever. That is becoming a serious problem in the USA, and if that is what Latin Americans despise, then they are not alone, because so do most middle class US citizens, who are ever so slowly becoming poorer, not wealthier, while the aristocracy becomes richer. We will soon be a two-class society like Europe and most Latin American countries, and that will only lead to socialism, and people being shot in the back of their head for their convictions.

We all have free will whether we like it or not. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. Latin Americans need to look beyond their own borders too, and beyond history, and see what revolutions were the most successful. Instead of running across borders, or letting caudillos rule over them like kings, they need to fight for their freedom and learn how to keep it. Colonial Americans did, and I see no reason why Latins cannot do the same.

This is probably not the place to debate this, but it is the legal systems that above all else divide the Western World, not culture, religion, ethnicity or race. The rule of law is the backbone of all civilizations and cultures, period. What does the USA, UK, Hong Kong, Japan, Malaysia, India, Australia, Canada, Jamaica, (I’m sure I missed a few) have in common? Obviously the have no common religion, as Malay is Muslim and Japan mostly Buddhist. They have no common history, except in relation to the British Empire. Ah, but they have common law, to one degree or another, and that alone has made all of these nations more prosperous than civil law countries in general. What is civil law? It is the antiquated law of the Roman Empire that still dominates the rest of Europe and her former colonies, including all of Latin America. The American Revolution, though it threw off the tyranny of the king, did not abandon British common law at all. Common law does not care if a king owns the land, or an individual, because they are all equal under the law. A king is not tyrannical unless they act outside the law, and that is what triggered the revolution. The same event triggered the Latin American revolutions that swept away the Spanish Empire. But unlike the USA, they were still cursed by Roman law, stuck in an outdated system, trapped in history.

This is over-simplistic. Not all Roman and civil laws are bad. But there are enough defects to make a considerable difference. Well, the USA is becoming more and more a civil law country, and less and less common law. That means less justice and freedom for the people, and more elitism, more power to the government. In essence, the Latin Americans ironically hate the USA because it’s becoming more Latin! If the USA abided by its constitution to every word, it could not interfere with other countries at all. It could neither invade them nor assist rebels in a foreign revolution. But that is not the case.

So while liberals and conservatives blame each other for the woes of their country and other countries, while Latins blame the USA for their poverty instead of their own tyrannical governments, I look at the big picture of human history in its entirety when possible. Believe it or not, the war between the common law, free will people and the civil law, destiny-driven people have been at war since Sumer. Look at Jewish history since Abraham left Ur, and you will begin to see … maybe. They were persecuted time and time again because they defied the tyrants of history, fought for freedom, declared that free will is an axiom, and made people responsible for their own actions without blaming others.

But don’t take my word for it. I’ve studied world history now for twenty years, and the big picture does not lie. There are patterns, if you can ignore the BS. I don’t mind losing arguments because then I learn something new. I don’t mind winning, but it confirms that what I have learned is correct. That’s what debating is for.

It’s a far, far deeper problem than the use of the word American, or Cabot or Vespucci. Jcchat66 04:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "American" ancestry map

This map has no legend. The caption just says it's a map of "American" ancestry in U.S. counties. When you click on it, the file info provided unhelpfully says, "Map of Americans with the ancestry." I'm not entirely sure how relevant the map is to this article, but if it must be here, it ought to have a more enlightening caption. Perhaps one that interprets the colours? Does red mean a higher percentage of census forms returning "American" ancestry, or does it mean lower? For that matter, does the map represent precentage, or absolute numbers? Joel Bastedo 21:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The phrasing may be a little unusually, but it's grammatically correct to say Americans with the ancestory to mean Americans of American ancestory. I'll look at the caption on the image. WilyD 12:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
It is kind of unclear what that American ancestry is, too. Deepstratagem 19:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC).
The map is self-reported, so it doesn't really mean anything, other than how people self identify their ancestory. The map doesn't make it clear, but the article does - that may need to be cleaned up. WilyD 19:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I realize it is self-reported, but what do these people self-reporting use as a basis for considering their ancestry American. Native Americans of the U.S. are classified separately... so if they don't consider themselves Native Americans, what does this mean? That their ancestors founded the United States? Even here it is not clear. Deepstratagem 19:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, you'd have to ask them, but maybe I can give you a little insight if you're genuinely in the dark, with an example. In the last Canadian census, around 40% of people listed their ethnicity as Canadian. Around 5% of population here is what we'd term First Nations. But, as an added bonus, I'll add: I usually refer to my ethnicity as Canadian, for two reasons:
  • Most of it is unknown
  • That which is known is a long and pointless list. Although I'm known to have Norse, Scotch, English, Spanish, Protuguese, Indian, Hebrew, Irish and Welsh ancestory, the list has very little meaning ~ all of my ancestors arrived in Canada 3+ generations ago, and the only foreign born one I ever met moved to Canada at the age of 2.
I'm not sure if this helps, but it's not clear what you want to know - the map shows people who describe their ethnic group as American - because they live in America, as did their ancestors, et cetera, presumably. Their appearence could vary dramatically - probly the only think you can really guess safely is that their families have lived in America for several generations. WilyD 19:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
True, but how does that make them any different from the rest of the people in the United States? or in the Americas for that matter? It's not that I can't guess... it's that it is unclear and ambiguous in the article. Deepstratagem 20:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC).
I'm not sure what more you want ... what makes them any different from the rest of the people in America is that they describe themselves as ethnic Americans, rather than ethnic ________. People who describe themselves as Ethnically American are certainly of interest to an article entitled Use of the word American. WilyD 20:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course they are of interest, but there is almost an implication that native Americans aren't ethnically American - which of course doesn't make sense because they fit the same description as those who consider themselves ethnically American. Deepstratagem 20:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, it might well make sense. The only criterion here is that you proclaim yourself an ethnic American - something American Indians are free to do. If they choose not to, then they don't meet the same description as those who consider themselves ethnically American, under the guidelines we've established. And it does fit with the general use of ethnicity - the Cornish live in England, but it's perfectly reasonable to say they're not ethnically English, for example. Ethnic groups and countries can share names but not match borders. While you might imagine that they're somehow excluded, it's highly impropable - the average North American white has about a 1 in 3 chance of having Native American/First Nation/whatever you call indiginious Central Americans/Caribbeans ancestory anyways ... WilyD 21:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I just seriously doubt that a native American would not also self-describe as American ethnically. The different "ethnicities" are defined at different levels of abstraction, which obviously means some ethnicities will be under- or over-represented at the wrong level of abstraction. You should read the questions on the Census sometime. For example, some people can be both white and hispanic (in fact, this is the case for 60% of Mexicans), but in the census the implication is that these are mutually exclusive, just as native Americans and Americans in the census are probably (and erroneously) mutually exclusive options. Deepstratagem 21:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course, one might conclude that such things, but one might not - I'm not sure. As for the census, I've only ever filled out a Canadian one, which gives one infinite leeway in ethnic group - resulting in a nonzero number of martians for instance. But this is just us drawing conclusions, something we should be leaving to the reader. WilyD 22:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Deepstratagem 22:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, this answers the question. Census documentation for file 3:

The Census Bureau accepted ‘‘American’’ as a unique ethnicity if it was given alone, with an ambiguous response, or with state names. If the respondent listed any other ethnic identity such as ‘‘Italian-American,’’ generally the ‘‘American’’ portion of the response was not coded. However, distinct groups such as ‘‘American Indian,’’ ‘‘Mexican American,’’ and ‘‘African American’’ were coded and identified separately because they represented groups who considered themselves different from those who reported as ‘‘Indian,’’ ‘‘Mexican,’’ or ‘‘African,’’ respectively.

The question in the form is, "What is this person's ancestry or ethnic origin?".

Deepstratagem 23:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Deep, I'm not sure this quote jives with how you modified the main page. What I read here is that Native American, African American and Mexican American are coded as Americans - because they're supposedly ethnic groups indiginious to America, whereas Italian-American was coded as Italian because it's just a compound that means An Italian living in America. Am I missing something? WilyD 01:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
If you identified as Mexican American you are listed as Mexican American - not Mexican, and not American. If you identify as Italian-American, they drop the American. If you identify as Mexican-Canadian-German-American they drop German and they drop American, but leave Mexican-Canadian alone (supposedly). If you identify as Dakotan, they list you as American. Deepstratagem 02:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, isn't that unclear. Not sure how they'd choose that. I'd guess if you identify as Dakotan, you're not listed as American , but Native American, as the Dakotans are Indians, and there's no state called Dakota. Similarly, wouldn't Mexican-Canadian-German-America be listed as German, Mexican and Canadian seperately or such? Mexican-Canadian would mean you were an ethnic Mexican living in Canada - so you probly wouldn't fill out an American census. I sort of get that some _______-American are somehow seperate ethnicities, although we have no such concept here in Canada. I wa previously aware that African-American and Native American are somehow spcial ethnic groups in the States, but is Mexican-American also one? And in that case, shouldn't your example be listed as Mexican-American and possibly also as Canadian and German seperately? WilyD 13:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I didn't write the tabulation rules. If you have more questions read the context of the quotation. Deepstratagem 20:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This whole section and huge parts of this article should just flat out be deleted and rewritten without salvaging. What in the heck does "Nonhyphenated Americans have voted staunchly Republican since 1964 and voted for George W. Bush twice." mean? Where is the citation, this is just... not academic writing at all.

It's a little odd. The section seems quite irrelevant, especially the new additions. Deepstratagem 02:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

I've moved most of the older conversations (from about a month ago and before) to the archive. I hope that's okay with everyone. Sumergocognito 20:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Deepstratagem 20:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient American civilizations / National Geographic

National Geographic

In this lesson, students will review basic facts about two ancient American civilizations: the Inca and the Maya.

National Geographic would know.

Here is more: [29]

National Geographic Resources on Ancient American Civilizations:

News Stories:

Thousands of Inca Mummies Raised From Their Graves

Machu Picchu Under Pressure From Tourism

Machu Picchu Re-Created on Geographic Map

City Occupied by Inca Discovered on Andean Peak in Peru

Fall of Ancient Peruvian Societies Linked With El Niño

Pilgrimage Route Uncovered at South America's Lake Titicaca

Excavations Challenge Views of Maya Development in Yucatán

Ancient Peruvian Metropolis Predates Other Known Cities

Oldest Intact Maya Mural Found in Guatemala

Tomb of "Giants" Unearthed in Peru

Related National Geographic Web sites:

National Geographic Inca Homepage (interactive feature, photo galleries, and more): Inca Mummies: Secrets of a Lost World

National Geographic Magazine: Moche Burials Uncovered

All of these American civilizations are part of what is now Peru, Mexico and Guatemala. Deepstratagem 20:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Prominent Figures

Won't this rapidly spiral out of control? WilyD 22:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. The content could be moved to the section on Political-Cultural views under a new subsection: Honduras. Deepstratagem 01:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I mean, generally, if we go to Use of the word American by various individuals, that it would quickly become way too much content. WilyD
Well, it is not use of the word American by various individuals it is prominent figures on the topic of American. So far there are no problems. Deepstratagem 17:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I'm not making myself clear. Obviously only prominant figures would be included, but to avoid undue emphasis we'd need around 50 quotes using American in the normal way for each usage in the esoteric way. An article on Usage of American by prominant individuals also seems bad. WilyD 17:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Apart from which, the quote is horrendous, because we translate it into english. Clinton didn't use the word American in it whatsoever. WilyD 17:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure he did. That's what Americanos means. And that is what he meant - look at the context. Deepstratagem 18:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Lest we forget, he was speaking in Spanish to a Spanish speaking crowd, to say nothing of the fact he is a panderer sine pari. Besides which, do we want to mention all the famous people who use "American" in the proper sense? Wouldn't we be adding hundreds of quotes every day? Oh, and when John Kennedy said "I am a jelly doughut" (Ich bin ein Berliner) was he really a jelly doughnut? Sumergocognito 22:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
No, that was a mistranslation (and was widely understood as such). This isn't a mistranslation. It is also a very notable person speaking on a directly related topic - That is, who is American. Deepstratagem 01:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Right, he meant to say "I am a Berliner" but we wouldn't add him to the catergory People from Berlin, would we? WilyD 12:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, it is more important than that: Ich_bin_ein_Berliner. Deepstratagem 05:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I was amused by this recent quote, even if it does strengthen Deep's argument: "I've reminded the prime minister -- the American people, Mr. Prime Minister, over the past months that it was not always a given that the United States and America would have a close relationship." -- George W. Bush 171.159.64.10 00:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economic investment

No one bothered to raise the economic vested interest issue (the fact that "American" is used in a certain way on certain organizations' letterhead), so I did. Hope no one minds. The point is that it would be really hard to change people's minds away from "American" when hundreds of businesses and organizations would have to change their articles of incorporation, trademark registrations, letterhead, advertisements, livery, trade dress, etc. Too many prominent organizations and businesses are attached to the current usage to ever let go. --Coolcaesar 00:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It seemed a bit irrelevant at first, but I see what you mean. It might be interesting to note that a lot of Latin Americans probably think of these companies as "Pan"-American, and not just U.S. American given the wide brand-recognition and operation outside the U.S. Deepstratagem 05:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
About the "pan-American" perception, you're probably right with regard to the private companies like American Apparel, though regarding People for the American Way as pan-American would be rather funny! --Coolcaesar 00:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I mean private companies, notably, American Express and American Airlines which might be seen as continentally American even if mainly based in the U.S. Such perception is good for business. Deepstratagem 00:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, but it seems unlikely. Many (though not all) conduct themselves in Canada with parallel organisations called Canadian ____ to American _____ so American Airlines ran Canadian Airlines, the American Automotive Association led to the Canadian Automotive Association. WilyD 01:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course! Pan-American - I knew there had to be an adjective that refered to the Americas, but for the life of me I couldn't recall what it was. WilyD 17:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Disagreement over meaning of American" section

1. Why does this section contain Spain but not Latin America? The Spanish may disagree with the use of American exclusively for U.S. citizens, but I doubt they care even remotely as much as Latin Americans. 2. Under Canada, I am taking out the line "(s)ome Canadians... have protested..." because the "some" is totally weasel-wordy; some Canadians might disagree with U.S. usage, but I doubt there are many who go so far as to protest.

And 3. the entire "Justifications..." section really should go. It is obvious original research and besides, no justification is warranted, any more than justifying calling UK residents British. English usage is what it is, that's the only justification that is relevant and the point is already made in the article. I'm not deleting it myself, but vote for its deletion. 171.159.64.10 18:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it says some because that was precisely the reference we found. It's on the talk page here, so we can likely reference it up easy enough. Whilst most Canadians understand American to mean relating to the States, and would whomp you in the side of the head with an axe handle for calling them Americans, apparently some shit disturbers object to not being Americans. WilyD 18:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Goddamn it, now I gotta go take a bath, and maybe play a few games of hockey, apologise to everyone I see and then head down to Timmy Ho-Ho's and get a large double-double and a jambuster. I feel so dirty ... anyways, I restored it, with the reason it was undisputed. WilyD 18:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Why was the justification section deleted? Though I agree no justification may be needed, perhaps it would have been better to rename the title. Not all of that section was original research. The section was deleted on the same day a so-called vote was called? That's inappropiate. Jcchat66 05:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish vs. English

Would someone who is bilingual please help me create a table which relates the meanings of similarly-spelled words that mean different things in different languages?

English Español (Spanish)
"America" means United States América is a continent which extends [itself] over a large part of the Western Hemisphere.
"American" relates to the United States americano relates to the Americas (América del Norte, Central America and South America).
citizen of the United States of America estadounidense (same meaning)
"Northern America" - UN subregion which excludes Mexico América del Norte is a subcontinent; it includes Mexico

I've made a start above. --Wing Nut 17:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that's really the only one that's important here - are you looking for List of false friends? WilyD 17:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes!! ¡Thank you muchas! --Wing Nut 17:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

These aren't just false friends, they are also synonyms. Deepstratagem 02:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Does the term "synonym" apply when the two words in question are from different languages?Dictionary.com says:
A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language
A word or an expression that serves as a figurative or symbolic substitute for another.
two words that can be interchanged in a context are said to be synonymous relative to that context
I would think not because you can't interchange words from different languages in the same context, but that's just my opinion. Sumergocognito 00:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
You are probably right, although I saw less specific definitions of synonym elsewhere. What I mean to say, is that the words are false friends and they are also semantically equivalent (interlinguistic synonyms). Deepstratagem 06:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American = U.S., and comment on Canadian usage

Just skimmed over the last few months of archives. I feel the need to reiterate what others have already said: in my personal experience of written and oral English, in any context from approximately 1800 onwards when referring to a nation state or person's nationality, the word "American" refers uniquely and solely to the United States of America, never to the Americas as a whole.

One interesting tidbit I have observed, which has probably been commented on somewhere but hasn't been here, concerns Canadian usage. As mentioned earlier, when used by Canadians, the adjective and proper noun "American" refers uniquely to the U.S. This is the only adjective referring to the U.S. used in Canadian English, be it casual or formal.

However, we Canadians never (or almost never) use the noun "America" to refer to the United States. We will say "the United States" or "the States" or "the U.S.", but scrupulously avoid "America". Perhaps something about the use of "America" as a noun carries with it the whiff of Manifest Destiny and all that.

When one thinks about it, it's an odd and perhaps illogical compromise: we have consigned the term "American" to the U.S., and the unmodified noun "America" to the void, for we use it neither to refer to the U.S. nor the two continents. --Saforrest 01:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think most Americans probably use "The United States/US" when they describe their country. Personally, I picked up calling The US "America" from a German exchange student. Sumergocognito 08:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that's about right - this article is definitely one that values verifiability over factuality. Canadian typically usage is that Americans come from the States. But I think it's obvious that in Canadian English America refers exclusively to the States - and that the use of American as the adjective somewhat discredits the idea there's some deep reason for the aversion to America. It just isn't the most common term. There is a (rarely used) adjective to relate to the Americas - it's pan-american, but I'm not sure we're pan-americans. WilyD 11:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Pan-American is used for organizations and ideals, not people. Pan- implies or emphasizes a certain collectivity, where just American means of America.Deepstratagem 13:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, sure, there's no real used word for Peoples of North America and South America just as there's no real word for Peoples of Africa and Europe. But Pan-American is used to mean Across the Americas whereas American is not. WilyD 13:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


Apparently it depends on what part of the country one comes from, or perhaps what social class. My experience is that American and America are almost always used instead of US citizen or United States, as it's simply easier to say. From what I understand about linguistics, people generally use the easier or shorter term. My Canadian co-worker also said that most Canadians he knew used American, not US citizen, as it was simply easier. I think most people who have never thought about it assume (rightly so) that is the legal name of a country and nothing more. The media and literature seems to reflect this sentiment as well, not "values over factuality." Jcchat66 16:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to add my two cents here. In my experience, as a Canadian living in Ottawa, Canadian usage favours "American" for the noun (there are no good alternatives) but is increasingly using "US" (or "U.S.") for the adjective. The adjective seems to be in transitional state -- the usage is neither consistant nor universal, but merely trending towards "US" for reasons of brevity and a desire to reclaim "America" for rest of the continent, I suppose. (A big reason for the rest of N&S America's usage would be rooted in objections to Manifest Destiny & the Monroe Doctrine, whether we remember it or not). 216.58.91.21 03:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redemption

Is there any way this can be redeemed to make it say what the article claims is says?

Though a wide ocean separates the United States from Europe, yet there are various considerations that warn us against an excess of confidence or security. On one side of us, and stretching far into our rear, are growing settlements subject to the dominion of Britain. On the other side, and extending to meet the British settlements, are colonies and establishments subject to the dominion of Spain. This situation and the vicinity of the West India Islands, belonging to these two powers create between them, in respect to their American possessions and in relation to us, a common interest.

It's seems pretty obvious to me (after having read all the federalist papers) that Hamilton uses America in the modern understanding - at the time of his writing, parts of America were controlled by the Spanish (i.e. Florida) as well as the British, French, and what have you, and that's what he's referring to in this context. Now it's obvious that he buys into the manifest destiny idea, so this isn't particularly strange, but I was wondering if there's any way this can be handled well? WilyD 12:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this edit is necessary: [30], since it makes the sentence redundant and awkward. Deepstratagem 13:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It's awkward, but it's not redundant. The way it was perviously structured represented a very serious danger of deceiving the reader into thinking that Hamilton meant anything other than America when he said America. All throughout the Federalist papers Hamilton refers to the American republic, American citizens, the American government, et cetera - what he means is plainly obvious. When we write outside the United States of America we suffer from the problem that America stills exists, and unless a reader is highly critical, it's unlikely they'll realise outside of America means Florida and New Orleans. WilyD 13:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Florida and New Orleans? More like Mexico, Canada, and the West India Islands (Islands of the Caribbean). I think you are grossly misinterpreting the Federalist paper. The American possesions of Britain and Spain are not part of the United States - They are part of America, but not the United States.
It's awkward, but it's not redundant. The way it was perviously structured represented a very serious danger of deceiving the reader into thinking that Hamilton meant anything other than "America" when he said "America". (1) Your edit creates something that's not really there. There is nothing about "American borders" in the quotation and it confuses the matter. (2) Read the quotation, why would Alexander Hamilton speak of "their American possesions" if they are of the United States? They certainly didn't take Louisiana from the United States, nor did they take Florida from the United States - they basically colonized them independently of the United States. Manifest Destiny wasn't conceived of until the 1840's. (3) To clarify - Hamilton didn't say, "They have taken our American possessions." which would be infinitely more consistent with Manifest Destiny. Clearly, to Alexander Hamilton, America is a separate (but non-mutually exclusive) entity from the United States of America. Deepstratagem 15:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
If you read all of Hamilton's Federalist Papers, it's pretty obvious that he uses America to mean United States time and time again. When one is talking about inside and outside the idea of the border is implicity there. That's unavoidable. The extremely vague nature of this passage allows one to read into it what they like, I agree, but if you look at the context, it's much more obvious. Manifest destiny may not have been called that until the 1840s, but it was thriving well before that - see for instance, the War of 1812, which was rife with it. It would be goofy for Hamilton to say they have taken our American possessions because whilst he clearly feels America is entitled to them, the Americans never had them. In any event, to conclude he means Mexico, Canada and the like is not clear from the context, so it needs to be at least tempered so we're not deceiving people, or preferably cited from a clear source or removed. WilyD 15:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think you are right about America being used as the Confederate States or Union throughout a vast majority of the Federalist Papers. And American is probably meant as that "manifest destiny"-like ideal throughout most of the paper.
However, New Orleans never belonged to the British, only to the Spanish and French. So, Florida cannot connect to British possessions (As New Orleans wasn't one of them). So what Spanish possession "[extends] to meet the British settlements"? Only Mexico and California, then occupied by the Spanish as a single territory, would fit the description in the preceding paragraph. Therefore, Mexico (plus California and the Mexican cession all as a single territory) and Canada are the most likely candidates as American possessions by the two powers. If these are American possessions, how can they be outside the border of America? The answer is that they can't unless American here refers to the Continent and not the U.S. Republic (which would have been the only American republic at the time as Mexico was not sovereign). Deepstratagem 02:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dominicans and Congolese analogy

Is there really a problem with the usage? There are 2 nations with citizens called Dominicans and another 2 called Congolese. They do not have a problem with each other. Both Mainland China and the ROC(Taiwan) are officially called Chinese. There is growing usage of European to describe the EU exclusive of non-EU members. Ecuador means the equator but it isnt challenged by any equitorial nation. The only REAL political dispute is between Macedonia and Greece of the former's name. Shouldn't people have the right to name themselves as they please? It is better than to have a name imposed on them like the bushmen of the Kalahari. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.100.108 (talk • contribs)

This argument address what should be the case, not what is the case. There's only one country named China, even if Taiwan wants to pretend it's China. There's also only one country called Congo, even if a second country would like to pretend it's the Congo. Burma has basically been denied permission to change it's english name to boot. This kind of list goes on and on. Whether people should have the right to decide their own name is debateable (and it's be long), buth whether people do have the right to decide their own name is an obvious no. WilyD 12:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I for one was waiting to see if anyone would bring up the European Union. This new conglomeration will definitely come upon this very same issue sooner or later. Just think of it, a couple of centuries from now, when the EU member states have been part of the same nation for the about the same amount of time that the U.S. has existed at this point in history. The inhabitants of the USA stopped referring to themselves by their respective states such as "Virginians" or "Pennsylvanians" but as "Americans" collectively around one hundred years after the birth of the nation. If this holds true for the EU and Switzerland, Norway and Iceland remain steadfastly opposed to joining this Union, how are those non-Union sovereign states going to feel being excluded from being 'European'? Just a thought...

They probably will not care much, since they don't generally use "European" anyway to describe their nationality, and no European nation attempted to use the word as part of there nation until the EU. The EU now has first claim, and like America, will mean both a continent and a nation. Context is everything. Jcchat66 06:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

How does EU have first claim, if people were called Europeans before the EU was formed? Deepstratagem 04:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious Canada Section Citations

Long ago, a quote was requested in order to interpret the sources cited under the Canada section. It has been over a month, and the original editor did not provide such quotations. I don't have all the time in the world, but I read through the texts cited, and could not find any direct or unambiguous indirect support for what is claimed.

I didn't ask for an online source... Wikipedia doesn't require online sources... What is needed is a quotation on this talk page from this large offline text to show that the source actually supports the statements, or, for the citations to be removed (as I did). Deepstratagem 21:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Still the same problems

After not being here for awhile, I have returned to the discussion, and see it's in the same sad state as it was several months ago.

This article should discuss the use of the English word "American" as it is today. We aren't discussing the use of words that sound similar to "american" in other languages. We can discuss the origin of the word. We can discuss how it was used in the past. We could even discuss how some non-native speakers of English misunderstand how the word is used in English, we could even discuss the reasons why they don't like they way it's used. But still, if you google the word "american" you will see that it is used to refer to citizens of the USA, to things originating in the USA, etc. IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF CASES. The USE of the English word "American" is exactly what the VAST majority of native english speakers in this discussion are saying it is. Period.

--chad 10:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's in the same sad state it has been for YEARS, not just months. It is a common word with multiple meanings and various people who insist that their use is correct and the usage by others is wrong. -- Infrogmation 13:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
If the usage in the United States is incorrect, and has been documented as such, then an encyclopedia should reflect this and not simply Anglophone opinion. Keep a couple things in mind: (1) In the majority of cases, American, in English is used to mean of the United States of America. (2) Such usage is popular but incorrect.
Nobody has presented any legitimate scholarly evidence for (1) which is OK, but explains the sorry state of the article. We have plenty of sources to back (2).
Also, if a word has the same etymological origins as the English word American, then it belongs in this article regardless of the language of origin, especially if means what the English word is supposed to mean. English Wikipedia may be in English, but it can and does discuss other languages, especially when relevant. Given the documented and cited disagreements over the meaning of the word, discussion of the usage in other languages with similar etymological origins should not be omitted.
This is one of those pages that should be recommended to Wikipedia's Systemic Bias project. A definition should not be in an encyclopedia because it is popular. It should be in the Encyclopedia because it is correct. Deepstratagem 22:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I've never understood how a word can be "correct" or "incorrect" in a case like this. The word obviously has multiple meanings, but I don't find any of them better than the others. Linguistically speaking, a word only has meaning because it is popular, and many people use it to mean the same thing.--Cúchullain t/c 22:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Not the word, the use, is incorrect. When used to mean the United States of America, it is a shorthand or colloquialism. It is also inconsistent with the original definition used since the discovery of America (which is still in use today). Deepstratagem 01:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The use is not incorrect. The word is just used for several things. "American" to mean "of the United States" is not a colloquialism; as there is no other adjective for that in the language.--Cúchullain t/c 02:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
There are plenty, but they are unwieldy. U.S. American is more precise and arguably more formal. U.S. National is another as well as U.S. Citizen all which are less ambiguous. American to refer to U.S. Americans is colloquial and was already shown to be through "American" sources earlier in this talk page. Deepstratagem 02:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I looked through your sources, and I'm not convinced. "U.S. American" is no more formal or official than simply "American" ("U.S. National" and "U.S. Citizen" mean different things).--Cúchullain t/c 18:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
There is one more - simply U.S. It was used in NAFTA, and is part of U.S. National and U.S. Citizen. For example, U.S. Navy, U.S. Army... Now that's official. Deepstratagem 05:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'American' qualified and unqualified

The sentence in the intro, 'The word American, in English, is generally understood to mean "of or relating to the United States"' is surely inaccurate. Should it not read something like, 'The word American unqualified, in English, is generally understood ...'. The word American in the term "South American" rarely, if ever, relates to the US. Even in the term "North American", it refers as much to Canadians. Nurg 04:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Very insightful. Thank you for pointing this out. Deepstratagem 19:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strange deletion by Nurg

Nurg just deleted the list that I have been working on, without bothering to discuss the proposed deletion on the talk page. The reason the list is necessary is because there are a lot of people outside of the United States who are unfamiliar with the extremely widespread use of American as a trademark in the United States. The point is that moving away from that use would require massive investments of money by organizations that have already invested huge amounts of money in the existing usage. I'm thinking of several of Danny DeVito's rather infamous movie lines about the importance of money (you can find them on Google). --Coolcaesar 18:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

My edit summary said, "rm list of organizations - the point is made in the prec para; don't need umpteen examples". The preceding para says, "There are hundreds of prominent organizations and corporations that use "American" in their names to indicate that they are located in or serve the United States of America. Since all of them have a vested interest in their trademarks ...". As I said, the point is made - for the benefit of all, including all those outside the US who are unfamiliar with the facts. To then list all those hundreds of organizations (it was up to 58 and counting) is quite unnecessary and (I can say as one of those outside the US) quite tedious for the non-US reader. One or two organizations as examples would be ok. Turning the middle of the encyclopedia article into a directory of certain organizations is not appropriate. I suggest you pick one or two, at the most three, organizations which are particularly prominent and include them as examples in the text of the paragraph. regards Nurg 10:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
You must be nuts or acting in bad faith. First you delete the list that substantiates the assertion and then you add a citation needed tag at this diff! [31] But anyway, I just found a citation at Google Books. I hope this works for both of us. --Coolcaesar 19:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two comments

1) When the name "United States of America" was created, it referred to those states of America that were united in a federation as opposed to those states that were not part of the federation yet, but were also part of America. So the term was formally used as a whole block: "THE United States of America".

Later, "United States of America" became more of a promise than a reality as other countries became independent but did not join the initial federation of states (yes, there were talks about that). For instance, South America tried to create their own federation (see Bolivar, Gran Colombia, and his dream of creating a USA-style federation). Brazil had more success in this, and when it became a republic its 20+ states became "United States of Brazil", a name that stayed until 1967.

The truth remains about the name "United States of America" is that it became outdated, and today it is incorrect since the overarching idea it implies has not yet been fully realized. It is an unfinished program, waiting for another wave of reform both in the US and in Latin America so it can finally become real. This will only occur a long time after Hispanics become majority in the US.

2) Hopefully the final article will have better grammar and spelling than what I have seen in this discussion area. I wonder how people who do not even know how to write can claim they know what "America" and "American" are.

131.107.0.75 05:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, if one is going to make a comment, have the courtesy of reading all the above research that many have already spent time on, instead of making opinions in a factual manner. Talk about bad grammar! America has always been legally defined as a nation (countless sources already provided above and in article), and commonly used to describe the continents. Neither definition, continental or national, has ever been exclusively used. The use is clearly not outdated, which again is a very poor opinion.

And why would Hispanics have to be a majority in the USA for there to exist a United States of the Americas? Are not Hispanics and Anglos both from Western, Judeo-Christian, European culture? Spanish and English ethnicity is simply not different enough to warrant such a narrow-minded assault againt one for the sake of another, although the Jews that had to flee to America from Spain and its inquisition might disagree for good reason. The biggest difference between the two are legal systems. Jcchat66 03:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments about Mr. Jcchat66 comments:
1) Yes, they are opinions. If they weren’t, I would have published them in the article itself and not in the discussion page;
2) “Talk about bad grammar”: I have created an entire section based on this observation of yours (see at the bottom in “Comments about the grammar of this discussion area”);
3) The "United States of America" has always been legally defined as a nation. “America” has not;
4) It is my opinion that the usage is outdated, for the reasons I mentioned above. Now, if I have to explain those reasons in detail, I must then add that besides a little bit more of grammar, readers like Mr. Jcchat66 need lessons in text interpretation and logic as well. For the benefit of Mr. Jcchat66, here goes the detailed explanation:
a. After Hispanics become majority, it will be possible for officials elected out of this Spanish speaking population to add Spanish as another official language for the US, besides English;
b. As the Hispanic element becomes more prevalent in US culture, cross cultural influences will improve relations with Latin American countries (which by the way Mr Jcchat66, also include Brazil, a non-Spanish speaking country with about 185 million people);
c. This will make it more palatable for those countries to accept becoming part of the United States of America. If Hispanics would not become the majority in the US, then it would be more difficult for Latin American countries to even consider that;
d. When all countries from America willfully choose to become part of the United States of America, then a name that had become outdated will then again become attuned with reality.
e. This will all happen to compete with the European Union, China and India since America as a continent will have about 1.5 billion people by then.
f. In anticipation of Mr WilyD’s comments: no, this is not Manifest Destiny related; Canadians will have a choice to join United States of America or not.
5) Finally, I take Mr. Jcchat66’s comments about “Jews that had to flee to America from Spain and its inquisition” as out of place and one-sided at the least. What about the English-speaking populations that had to flee England from persecution (for instance, see the Quakers)? By emphasizing the Spanish related persecution, Mr Jcchat66 is showing his anti-Latino thinking, which has transpired in several of his statements in this discussion. Even if such racism is unconscious due to usage of mental categories embedded in his childhood, it does not justify its presence in careful, conscious rational discourse.
131.107.0.73 23:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


America has not always been legally defined as a nation. Even if by "always" you mean since 1776 or so, America has only been one name legally used (the lesser one at that -- "We the People of the United States" is the beginning of the primary legal document, I believe).

More to the point, sovereign states dictate what is legal in "their" territory. A legal name is assigned by the state. That name is legal in "their" territory. Why? Because sovereign states dictate what is legal in "their" territory. And, of course, the legal name is assigned by the state. That name is legal in "their" territory. Why? Because sovereign states dictate what is legal in "their" territory. And, of course, the legal name is assigned by the state. That name is legal in "their" territory. Cut-and-paste would make it easy for me to continue, but is it really necessary?

Of course other states may grant recognition of the state in question and, by extension, of the name. What source referenced here says that EVEN ONE other sovereign state legally defines "America" as a nation (except by extension) or grants legal recognition to "America" as a nation, a state, or a nation-state? What source anywhere?

On the other hand, according to sources cited here, "America" (or its variants) was exclusively used to label the "continent" for centuries before the United States became a sovereign state.

BTW, I'm not the above anonymous user.

.s

--X ile 08:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you want to get technical, states, nations, and country do not have the same meanings. Nations and countries endure for centuries, sometimes thousands of years, regardless of government, which general never endure for more than three centuries, regardless of what type of government (republic, family dynasty, etc). State and government are not the same either, which is why many nations have a head of state (meaning the land, thus the word estate) and head of government. Thus the queen of England is head of state, legally the owner of the land, but whom no longer controls the various governments governing her land. In America (the nation or country) and its people and culture who compose the nation, there is no head of state as their is no monarch, and there are several states. Nations are not always attached to the land, such as nomadic people like the Turks, or state-less people such as the ancient Celts. None the less they formed governments and nations, though not always countries or states.

And so now we come to it. There is no United States culture, though one could say there is Texan or Floridian culture. But since Floridians and Texans are so much alike, and are not inclined to civil war, they call themselves Americans as a matter of national culture. The United States is only a government, held together by a constitutional federal republic. It's legal territory is actually restricted, much like the Federal District in Mexico, to the District of Columbia and its enclaves, territories, and possessions. States are none of those.

By saying Americans have no name (United States is certainly not a proper name) is denying them their own culture. What happens when the United States no longer exists? Or if Americans had to move southward like Celts during an ice age? Would they cease to be Americans? Of course not. Just as the Jews still call themselves Jews, regardless of where they are, or what country tries to force them to convert.

Furthermore, if the majority of Americans call themselves Americans, whether it be proper or not, is a democratic right. Only an elitist, ruling class, pompous fool would dear deny millions of people the right to use a word to define their cultural heritage. It would be the same as trying to deny all Latin American countries to use anything but Spanish to define their culture. But in America's case, it has bene used for well over two centuries in various countries around the world to define a certain nation, well kown, well established, and fully qualified. And in case you haven't noticed, it is the people that dictate the name of their nation and culture, not the state ... unless you live in Latin America of course where dictators often reside. Jcchat66 01:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[Feedback/Assistance on formatting these pages properly would be appreciated on my Talk. Comments on content or tone would be appreciated, but less so. Thanks.]

I don't use state, nation, and country interchangeably. I use state, nation, and country, essentially as they are used elsewhere in Wikipedia: "country is the geographical area, nation designates a people, . . . state refers to [sic] set of governing institutions with sovereignty over a definite territory." (See State) If you have a problem with those definitions (which may or may not conform to legal definitions), go edit the respective pages so that we may all be enlightened by your wisdom.

To the extent that government "refers to [the] set of governing institutions with sovereignty over a definite territory" it is the same as state by the above definition. That's elementary, and that's how I used it (even including the word sovereign and linking it to territory).

Since you were talking about legal definitions, I thought you wanted to "get technical". You said that "America has always been legally defined as a nation", and that "countless sources" would back that up. I asked for a specific source, and it just ain't here.

An example of a legal document referring to the early state which effectively became the United States as something other than "America" is the treaty with the Delaware Nation (1778). [32] The Delaware had a common descent, language, religion, and culture as well as governing institutions with sovereignty over a definite territory, and were thus a nation-state. The other party to the treaty was "the United States of North-America", a collection of states subject (at the time) to "foreign" rule scattered in territories populated by people of numerous origins and cultures (including the Delaware Nation and the American state/British colony of Delaware, to further confuse things).

Another example is the Treaty of Alliance (1778) with "The most Christian King" of France. [33] The other party this time was "the United States of North America, to wit, New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhodes island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia"

[The National Archives and Records Administration] and the [Avalon Project] at Yale University are full of legal documents that refer to the people of the United States as Americans but few (if any, particularly since ratification of the United States Constitution) that refer exclusively to the land they occupy or occupied as "America".

Yes, now we come to it. Absent cohesive national forces such as common origins and culture, "Americans" define their "national culture" by law ("their" law) and the word "American". No wonder you're getting so worked up.

I challenged your claim that America was or is a legal definition of a nation and the nature of self-serving legal definitions. That doesn't mean your Americans have no name (and United States is a proper name -- isn't that why the words are capitalized?) "People of (or from) the United States" seems to work, though you do present interesting hypotheticals. Your Americans do have a name. "Americans" seems to work, though it applies to other people and the ambiguity may have to be worked out by the context. Are you suggesting that I'm denying your Americans their own culture? Poor Americans. Talk about turning history upside-down and blaming the victims. Your Americans wouldn't deny anyone their own culture, would they?

Again it was your false claim of a legal definition that I challenged. Your appeal to the majority is a distracting fallacy. Your comparison of denying a people their language with denying you one word (which is not necessarily what is being done) borders on delusional. Your attacks on "elitist, ruling-class, pompous fool(s)" and "Latin American" dictators are a pitiful smokescreen for your lack of evidence and reason.

Fine, the people dictate the name of their nation and culture (and people of other nations and cultures may give them other names), not the state. It was you that said otherwise, not me. Or do you mean that legal definitions are of the people and not of the state?

If it helps and for the sake of argument, I will use your definitions to restate the final point in my last message: America (or its variants) was exclusively used to label the continent for centuries before America became a nation. Are you any less wrong when you claim "neither definition, continental or national, has ever been exclusively used"? The people that lived on that "continent" were Americans in the same way that the people of "Africa" were Africans. Aren't you the one that wants to deny their descendants of the name "American" if they don't live within the current borders of the United States (or its constituents if you must)?

.s

--X ile 18:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you may be confused - no one here (as far as I can tell) is arguing that the legal name of the country is America - as far as I can tell, no one is really sure what the legal name of America is. But there is a country, a legal country, whose name is American and who residents are Americans. I've travelled to it on several occasions, and am quite confident it exists. Appeal to majority is not a linguistic fallacy in English, it is the exclusive way english usage is determined. WilyD 18:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Confused indeed, I never claimed that anyone should be denied the right to call themselves anything. I don't care what other people call themselves. Sorry you are so confused X ile. I merely defend Americans calling themselves Americans with all these other people trying to deny it. Most of your argument appears to have been based on this confusion.

As for legally defined? Um, check the Articles of Confederation and Black's Law Dictionary. I thought that would be enough, but apparently not. And it was called "These united States of America", not United. Yeah, it's a legal geographical name, sorry to disappoint. But I'm not going to debate something already acknowledged in the article, and already a well-established fact. Heck, I just read an official military document for a friend of mine that thanked him for serving his country as an "American Soldier." Jcchat66 01:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently having the Watch list enabled does not tell me every time someone makes a comment, so I missed the above personal attack against me. Since my children and my wife are Hispanic (if one insists that Hispanics are a separate race,) calling me anti-Latino is just plain ignorant and presumptuous.

Your response to my question, 131.107.0.73, of why Hispanics would have to be a majority in America for their to be a United States of the Americas is simply absurd. Spanish and English are the official languages of New Mexico, and always have been since it became a state. It’s probably the same in other states as well, and it is certainly not forbidden. Freedom of speech has always protected that! And what possible benefit would this offer anyway? The very essence of civilization is communication the desire to understand one another, not the Tower of Babel. If all Anglos suddenly spoke Spanish and not English at all, absolutely nothing would change. Nor would anything change in Latin America if they all spoke Chinese. Language and culture are very separate things culturally, though of course they compliment one another. (And yeah, I am including Brazil, since you assume for some odd reason that I don’t know they speak Portuguese.)

Until it is realized that it is law, not culture, that ultimately determines prosperity and higher standards of living in society, this whole debate is a farce. Latin culture unfortunately bears ancient Roman customs that supported slavery, oppression, and racism, of which the civil law does nothing to address, and never has. But Latin culture is beautiful in many, many ways, and as a resident of Miami and now New Mexico, I should know. It is the LAWS of the Latin American republics that need to be changed (and any other country whose people desire freedom), not the Anglos, not the Latin people, not a Hispanic majority in the USA, not anything else. Without just laws, the subservience of government to the law, free will and democracy, no culture will survive. Even China recognizes the common law of Hong Kong in their constitution, from which Hong Kong has prospered like no other city on Earth, exceeding both Anglos and Latinos when it comes to standards of living.

That, in a nutshell, is my argument, and assure you it is based upon many years of historical research and facts. And I do not appreciate the casual way you regard the Jewish experience with the Quakers. Two thousands (or more) years of persecution, primarily from Latin and Germanic cultures, is not comparable to the many petty Christian denominational disputes. Anti-Latino you call me? Well, how about Anti-Semitic right back at you. Please dispense with such personal attacks if you want to debate rationally. Jcchat66 01:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

A few more for Mr. Jcchat66 collection:
their to be should be spelled there to be
compliment should be spelled complement in this context
Some comments:
Since my children and my wife are Hispanic [...] calling me anti-Latino is just plain ignorant and presumptuous: Your argument does not follow - one can be married to a Latino and be anti-Latino. I knew your family was Hispanic, since you mentioned it ad nauseam. That's why I said "even if such racism is unconscious due to usage of mental categories embedded in his childhood".
Now even if you are not "anti-Latino", to use your own expression, your views of Latin culture are very distorted (your generalizations about Latin culture are condescending at the least). Here are some examples:
Latin culture unfortunately bears ancient Roman customs that supported slavery, oppression, and racism, of which the civil law does nothing to address, and never has. - Please read the Roman_law article. Considering that up to the 19th century most of continental Europe (including Germans, French and Italians) based their civil law in Roman law, your generalization borders the limits of prejudice.
Latin Americans have demonstrated, and continue to demonstrate genocidal behavior, not tolerance and integration. It's a Spanish-Roman Imperial tradition to wipe out civilizations, burn precious Mayan, Aztec, and Incan literature, force conversions of Jews, Muslims, and Indians, and countless other despotic crimes in the name of fanatics that hijacked religion to extend their power.
Again, such broad generalizations are the stuff that racism is made of. There was always resistance by some portions of Spaniards against this genocide - in the same way that there was resistance by portions of US society to the genocides that occurred in the Wild West. Should I apply your phrase to the whole of US Citizens and say that "Americans have demonstrated, and continue to demonstrate genocidal behavior, not tolerance and integration" because some led a genocidal war against Native Americans? (See Native_American_massacres) Or because slavery was abolished here very early but it de facto existed until recently since integration came a lot later than most Latin American countries?
Taking into account that you said you are not a racist – I am giving you the benefit of doubt - you should carefully choose your expressions because they have been really sounding like that.
Anti-Semitic right back at you - this is the most fundamental logical flaw so far - I did not defend the Inquisition in its attacks against the Jewish population. In fact I think that the Spanish Crown was barbaric, and their actions mark the start of the end of the Spanish empire. I merely implied that the US has been a haven for all persecuted people, not just those of Jewish ancestry as implied in several places of your discourse so far. This leads me to the next observation:
the remainder of the Jews that fled from Spain - You should research more on Jewish history. Most of the Jews that fled Spain went to Turkey, not the American continent. Read the following extract from Wikipedia in Sephardi:
"Following the 1492 expulsion from Spain and the subsequent forced conversions and expulsions in Portugal (1497), Sephardim settled mainly in Morocco, the Ottoman Empire (modern-day Turkey, Greece, Southwest Asia, North Africa and the Balkans), southern France, Italy, Spanish North America, (Southwest United States and Mexico), Spanish South America and Portuguese Brazil, as well as the Netherlands (from where a number of families continued onto the former Dutch possessions of Curaçao, Suriname and Aruba), England, Germany, Denmark, Austria and Hungary."
Notice they did not come to "United States of America", but Spanish North America, which was still part of the Spanish Crown at the time (now hopefully you will abandon the current article and will set foot on this other one to fix it). By the way, the first Jewish settlers that came to New York first established in Brazil, then the Caribe, and later in New York.
So far I have been trying to be strictly logical in these arguments, but I can't resist the delicacies of a final ad hominem: Yes, yes, I am presumptuous. So far I presumed that you would understand my reasonings, but now I realize my ignorance of reality.
But don't worry - this useless debate is going way over my mental Onanism needs. I will follow Cúchullain's request and shut up unless it's something on the topic of the article. Unless, of course, you wake up my appetite. As someone said, "I would be nicer if you would be smarter".
131.107.0.73 06:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This is not a place for this kind of debate, Jcchat. Please stick to discussing the article, and do not make personal attacks.--Cúchullain t/c 01:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Cuchullain, this was a defense AGAINST a personal attack, not a personal attack I began against someone else. Why are you esponding for someone else? It's as if you hadn't even read the dialogue between X ile and myself.

And I beg to differ. This entire article began as a debate about culture and cultural attacks. I have bee the one trying to keep other people's ficus on the article and the cultural attacks it harbors against Americans. Once again I am disappointed by your response, Cuchullain. Jcchat66 01:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

What I should have said was, "everyone refrain from personal attacks, and don't respond in kind to someone who attacks you." As for the analysis of Latin American vs. Anglo American culture, the talk page for "Use of the word American" is not the appropriate venue. This page is for discussing changes in the article, not for defending or attacking cultures.--Cúchullain t/c 18:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV must overcome!

There seems to me to be only two problems here: argumentative perfectionists as a generic problem and Deepstratagem as a particular problem. The reasons behind the first are obvious. However, Deepstratagem as a problem rather than merely a nuisance may be illustrated by the following quote from the first archive of this talk page: "We are not anti-American; we are pro-American. This is a serious question: Do you believe you are being more objective than the rest of us? If so, how? Surely we all have a POV, but what makes you different? Additionally, we are not all claiming you are stupid. Some of us are trying to be constructive in finding a way to accomodate everyone's views. --Deepstratagem 23:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)" Notice the 'pro-American', a clear violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. If you anti-American, then you are biased and out of line with the policy. If you are pro-American then you are also biased and even more out of line with the policy. Derogatory comments or negative opinions about views by members of the view in question (eg., a British citizen who feels negatively about the UK) are still biased, but they are much easier to understand and even, in some cases, let past than suspiciously heavy praise or positive opinions about views by members of the view in question. An example would be such as this: should an American citizen (at a risk of controversy, American being the commonly accepted term for a being whose origins lie in the United States of America) publish biased comments against the USA, it is easier to let go than an American citizen (again, going by the same definition) publishing biased comments for the USA. It is arguably tragic that patriotism is often viewed as nationalism, but in some cases even patriotism is too much (alas for me, a patriotic Briton and Englishman) from even a neutral observer's point of view. The point of this rather rambling discourse is that Deepstratagem has practically admitted that he is biased through the usage of the term 'pro-American'. Another point, taking his words literally and at a risk of playing devil's advocate, is his usage of 'we'. 'We' is a collective term; is Deepstratagem suggesting that the collective mass of Wikipedians arguing on this page are all advocates of American ways, American being determined by his own personal beliefs, is he suggesting that the collective mass is, indeed, pro-American? Taking it literally, yes, he is. And this is making an automatic assumption against all the evidence, all those people acting in concert against his and any other 'pro-American's' POV. This is just one user who is really getting on my thungas (to quote from Terry Pratchett's 'Night Watch') but he is not the only one; several of you, on both sides of the argument, are being out of line with the NPOV policy. Can't we all be reasonable and knuckle down to finish this article together, as a team, with terms which, if not necessarily in keeping with each person's view, at least are non-controversial enough that we can;t have long, rambling, biased arguments over? Hoping that my point of view has been made clear (being, in essence, that people don't seem to be in keeping with the NPOV policy and that this should be rectified), and hoping that it prevails as it is sufficiently neutral enough to merit this. --Lord Akria 20:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  • NPOV doesn't mean we have to have a neutral point of view. Such is essentially impossible. The article needs to have NPOV, but we don't. To be perfectly frank, if people only edited articles they couldn't give a flying shit about, very few articles would ever get made. Obviously as a Canadian I don't particularly like Deep's endorsement of Manifest Destiny, and push back pretty hard, make comments on this page that fail WP:NPOV- but ultimately I do want the final article to conform to WP:NPOV, even though my own opinions will never do so. That shouldn't matter. If we're all honest, NPOV should arise automagically. WilyD 20:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course I am biased. Please tell me who isn't. Actually, what I meant to point out when I used the term "pro-American" was the absurdity of labelling me or anyone "anti-American" based on any single matter, and the irony, given the different meanings of the word. Since you've quoted me, let me return the favor and quote you quoting me:" 'Surely we all have a POV, but what makes you different?' ".
  • In using "we" I meant people who aren't ignorant of certain key facts, including the inclusion of the continental meaning of America in English language dictionaries, the qualified usage of the adjectival form, and the long history behind the word. To be unambiguous, Latin Americans (or just Americans) generally fit the reference of "we" as I used it. Do you take Terry Pratchett's words literally? No. His work is satire, so I'm almost certain that if you are enjoying his novels you read between the lines.
  • If there was some particular piece of information that might persuade me, it would be much more helpful than to remind me I am biased. Now, when you say UK, you mean England? <irony intentional>.
  • As WilyD wrote, NPOV is for the article, not a compulsory mandate on the state of mind of the editors (an unrealistic demand). Deepstratagem 01:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disappointing, very disappointing

Deep, I thought we had come to an understanding in the past. We already debated the use of the word colloquial before unqualified was used. We have already both agreed that the use of the word American is fully qualified, as this debate has raged on long enough to prove that beyond the shadow of any doubt. It has been a legal and formal word for the USA for centuries. It is being deleted, and will continue to be deleted, as it is blatantly and utterly untrue. If you do not like it, then call on a third party. This is immature even for you, because I know you are better than such petty nonsense.

Please do not lower yourself to the Latin racism and hostility being levied against this article under the guise of some perceived arrogance on the part of Judeo-Celtic culture that is the United States of America. Jcchat66 02:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Uh - am I missing something? I understood "unqualified" here to mean "without a qualifier" so "South American", "Latin American", "Pan American" are all understood not to refer to American, but to other places (except Pan American, which includes America). Is something else being said? WilyD 03:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, okay, I think we're getting way off track here. For starters, Wily, this article is about the word AmericAN, not AmericA, which can have the meaning Deepstratagem is using (ie, "Columbus discovered America"). Manifest Destiny does not have anything to do with this, so far as we should be concerned. But the crux of the issue is this: "American" has several uses in the English language. Usually (and yes, unqualified), it means "someone from the United States". There is no better adjective or noun for that. This is not the case in Latin America, where "Estadounidense" is used. They may feel (US) Americans are unfairly appropriating the word, but that's not the way (US) Americans intend it. There is no right or wrong about it, no matter what anyone thinks. Though people may not like it, the word simply has different meanings.--Cúchullain t/c 05:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we came to some understanding on the uncertainty of which European historical figure arrived to America first, Jcchat, but I don't recall agreeing that American is fully qualified, which can't be the case since American written by itself, does not have a qualifier. Since you are going to keep deleting it, can you please provide an example that clearly rules out American as a having an alternate meaning when used with a qualifier? The third party who incited the qualification was Nurg, whose brilliant insight I greatly appreciate. Deepstratagem 12:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ack! I'm a new user here, and I've been looking over a number of the discussion pages on this and related topics. I don't even know where I should add my comments, but this page seems most appropriate (and interesting). I can't hold my tongue (or typing fingers) any longer. Besides, all this has distracted me so much from other things, I can't jsut call it a bad investment and move on.

Some people are using "continent" in a way that seems outdated and/or inappropriate. The discipline of geography is divided into two broad fields -- physical geography and human (or cultural) geography. There's also geographic applications (e.g. cartography, GIS, remote sensing), which is my field, though I necessarily have some knowledge of the others. In human/cultural geography, "continent" is passe'. Those working in or studying (postsecondary) the social science-oriented human/cultural fields refer to geographic realms. Those working in the natural-science physical fields (or geology (i.e. rock geeks)) may refer to continents. This debate involves human geography, so understanding geographic realms might clear things up. (Of course, it will probably just start a whole new round of arguments).

Unfortunately, the Wikipedia articles dealing with continents, geographic realms, regions, subregions, et al are a mess. http://members.aol.com/rhaberlin/images/pg3dblj.gif shows a map of geographic realms from DeBlij & Muller (Wiley, 2005(?)).

As I said, I'm new to Wikipedia, so I don't know how to fix the article on Geographic Realms. Besides, I generally don't write objectively or produce maps (the map referenced above is, presumably, copyrighted) for free under a pseudonym, which I feel would devalue my work.

The people who are really getting shafted by this whole "who are the real Americans?" controversy are not "Canadians", "Americans", "Latin Americans", or any of the other classifications that have been discussed, but "Native Americans"/"American Indians"/"First Nations"/"Indigenous People"/"Red Indians"/"Indio"/ad infinitum. They are the real Americans, and their essential racial (uh-oh) or genetic unity is undermined by appropriation of the term by these relative newcomers. Such appropriation has served and continues to serve governments that have imposed THEIR maps on stolen land.

Referring to the descendants of the invaders as American (regardless of their current "nationality") continues the dark tradition of pretending that America was an unpopulated land awaiting conquest and settlement by and for "Americans". Just because your language and your choice of "national" name provides no convenient term for your people doesn't mean that you MUST take an appropriate term for the collective name of the Americans from them.

Imposing the English word American (or the English word Indian for that matter) on the Americans, while not without its own problems, is no different from referring to people throughout the world by English words when speaking/writing in the English language.

[I noticed since writing this that the previously mentioned piece by Jack Forbes (http://nas.ucdavis.edu/Forbes/America_&_Americans.html) says much of what I'm trying to get across above.]

.s

--X ile 08:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree with you X ile, but unlike the English in the United States, the Spanish in Mexico and Latin America ultimately preferred integration to genocide. The Spanish and locals intermarried; that's why 70% of Mexicans are mixed. Jack Forbes also argues that American applies to others in America (Western Hemisphere). Deepstratagem 12:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, X ile, for implying that nearly a billion European Americans are thieves. You've somehow managed to insult both the Anglo and Latin world all in one shot. Good job. Perhaps we should all bow down to this collective guilt and move back to Europe. Of course that would involve warfare. The French might actually attempt to defend themselves ... maybe not.

Oh, but wait. No one is alive that committed any of those atrocities. None of the Romans that stole Celtic and Jewish lands are alive anymore. Nor are any of the Spaniards that drove the Jews from Spain alive anymore. Quit trying to twist history around for some political agenda. Anyone with any common sense knows that no one can be responsible for something they had no control over, and crime is not inheritable. Otherwise, everyone would be in deep trouble, including the American Indians with all the blood that once flowed like water down the Aztec pyramids.

Americans using the word American continues no dark tradition. Without Americans we might all be speaking German anyway, and the remainder of the Jews that fled from Spain exterminated. In case you haven't noticed, the United States of America was pretty much the only country defending freedom in the whole world. Apparently this article has become a lightning rod for elitists, tyrant-lovers, the PhD ruling class, sophists, anti-Semites disguised as liberals, narrow-minded fanatics, zealots, and warmongers. Those that protest against Americans using the word American are most likely either ignorant or one of the above mentioned. That's what this is about, and that's what it has degenerated into.

And no, Deep, you are quite wrong. Latin Americans have demonstrated, and continue to demonstrate genocidal behavior, not tolerance and integration. It's a Spanish-Roman Imperial tradition to wipe out civilizations, burn precious Mayan, Aztec, and Incan literature, force conversions of Jews, Muslims, and Indians, and countless other despotic crimes in the name of fanatics that hijacked religion to extend their power. So has every civilization, from Sumer to Inca, but lets all demonize Americans instead. Latin Americans still kill each other on a regular basis, every day, for various reasons. Children starve to death or are prostituted out in nearly every Latin American country. The list goes on and one and on. Get off your high horse, Deep. America has far more cultural integration than all the Latin American countries combined. Remember the Statue of Liberty? Yeah, that little thing. My own children have Mexican, Jewish, Turkish, and British in them. Americans even had a bloody civil war to correct the wrongs of slavery and intolerance. How many Latin Americans are kidnapped in the United States and held for ransom? How many Anglo Americans are killed, raped, or held for ransom in Latin American countries? The facts speak for themselves. Jcchat66 02:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, personal attacks, everyone misrepresenting history, et cetera, is likely to get us nowhere. WilyD 03:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Did someone forget to take their tangent and bias pills this morning? Deepstratagem 04:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Jesus fuck Deep, do you really need to respond to a diatribe by egging the guy on? Your misrepresentation of the colonisation of the Americas wasn't helpful either. Instead, it'd be preferable if we could just write the article, and ignore that we all take each other to be raving space loons. ;) WilyD 11:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Jc, If European-Americans are insulted by the truth, that's not my concern. (You might believe that I prefer it, but, no, I just don't care.) I said only that the term "American" has been appropriated and that the land itself was stolen. I did not imply that anyone IS a thief of anything but the term "American" and was fairly explicit at that (to the extent that appropriation=theft). The ascendants of European-Americans WERE thieves. I was explicit about that as well (you may want to look up the word "descendant"). Is this still a matter of debate? Sure it's not a pretty word, but some actions do not lend themselves to pleasant description.

You do have control over the "crime" of appropriation of the word "American", which you inherited (to some extent), but continue to this day. I needn't twist history for some political agenda; my political agenda is informed by history. If you want to bash liberals and pointy-headed intellectuals, there are blenty of so-called conservative blogs where your ad hominem attacks would be most welcome.

Am I wrong to infer that you believe the Aztecs are "American" Indians? Or do you just bring them up to serve your ends? Please don't evade this one, as it's about the only part of your tirade that has anything to do with this topic. If they WERE "American" and now they ARE NOT, when and how did that happen?

Wily, I don't mean to misrepresent history. Perhaps I should clarify. If you (not you, specifically) accept that something may be taken by force, fear, or deception against the will of another in such a way that it does not violate your definition of theft, then the word stolen does not apply. I don't generally accept that, but I guess it's no more than a matter of personal taste. As for editing the article, I'm still learning how to use the interface, and, as I noted above, I generally don't write objectively. I'll give it some thought though.

.s

--X ile 18:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

X ile, The word has not been appropiated, nor was anyone provided any historical evidence for such. Read my past inserts above. Something cannot be appropiated after being commonly used for centuries.

American has two meanings, continental and national. Only one nation has ever claimed it, and now it is cultural as well. Yes, I meant the Aztecs and the Incas as American Indians because its being used in the continental sense as it alweays has been.

Appropiation of a word is not a crime, if that had any merit, and that statement from you alone is alarming. Book titles cannot even be copyrighted, let alone national titles! No one has been victimzed in the past 3 centuries by the mere use of the word for national purposes. Over 280,000,000 Americans are not going to just suddenly stop calling themselves Americans because of your opinion. Every nation in the world, if it were a democracy, could elect to call themselves America and there is not a dang thing the USA could do about it. There are not monopolies of names. But would people around the world ever vote for that? Most likely not. The people decide what to call themselves, not individuals.

I do not bash liberals, nor am I conservative. You assume this as badly as you assume things about history. Whether Europeans "stole" America or not, why is this brought up and not all the rest of history? That's what makes it biased, because you mention that as if that were a greater historical crime than the Romans stealing Gaul. It is pointless to even mention it for the purpose of this article. You brought it up, did not not expect to be challenged? There are plenty of other articles to debate historical crimes. Jcchat66 05:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Given that the leading theories of the origin of the word American have it coming from Europe, wouldn't that make it not the Indians' to have stolen? I'm not sure - maybe the Europeans were just .... no, I won't crack that joke. I don't think it'll help. As for me, I live on land obtained through the Toronto Purchase - whether the price was fair, I have no idea - but it was paid for. But JC's claim that the Americans won WWII is clear historical revisionism, as is Deep's claim that the British were any worse to the Indians than the Spanish were, or that the British integrated less than the Spanish did (about a third of "white" North Americans have some Indian ancestry). As for the ascendants of the Europeans being thieves, that's perfectly true, but also not very interesting. The ascendants of the Indians were thieves too. Every culture, every nation has taken land & property from numerous others. I don't know about Aztec being American Indians, but in Canada it's definitely wrong to refer to Indians or Metis as American Indians, just like it's wrong to refer to Black Canadians as African-American. Because they're not American.
In general, though, I think you're putting too much weight on the shifting usage of words. Three hundred years ago, anyone living in what is now Chicago would have been called a Canadian. Today, they are not so called. People living in Newfoundland at that time were not Canadian, and yet today they are. It's simply the way language and geography evolve. WilyD 18:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Here are the statistics from the 2000 U.S. Census: "Native Americans" in the United States make up 0.8% of the population, while in Mexico "Amerindians" make up 90% (CIA World Factbook). Of the 90%, 60% are mestizos. I don't see how this is inconsistent with what I said. The crucial matter is, in Mexico, Amerindians are still Americans, while in the United States (according to Jack Forbes,) Native Americans are discriminated against on the basis of language. That is, they are not really considered Americans. But then this same linguistic tactic is used to misrepresent "Latin Americans". Deepstratagem 19:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Except that this really isn't true. Across Mexico, America, Canada (as well as the rest of the New World) the population is a mix of various ancestories - which a census doesn't adequately reflect. Indians may be 1% of the American population, but something like 35% of the American population that's identified as "white" has Indian ancestory - it's just the poluation mix is slanted more towards European ancestory in the north than it is in the south - but overall its still a mixed population. In general, people who don't speak the primary language(s) of a country get discriminated against, true. As for whether this hits Indians in some special way, I have no idea - every Indian I've every known has spoken flawless english. Try as I might, I haven't been able to figure out what you meant by But then this same linguistic tactic is used to misrepresent "Latin Americans".. Latin Americans aren't Americans, even if they speak english (though people of Latin American extraction can easily immigrate to the States. People who speak english often aren't Americans as well (Canadians, Jamaicans, Bermudians) where the language issue doesn't exist. WilyD 19:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
If 35% of the U.S. population has Native American ancestry, it wasn't reported to the U.S Census. Read the following study from the U.S. Census: link. It clearly says that everyone who identified as part native was included in the "Native American and Alaskan Population", even if they also identified as white. The entire population is only ~0.8%.
Besides, the history books confirm the genocide/intermarriage trends. "Native Americans" in the United States generally ended up in isolation, while "Amerindians" in Mexico intermarried with the Spanish.
As for the particular quote regarding misrepresentation, it means that it is convenient for the U.S. to call itself America, because of the pre-existing meaning of the word, it appears stronger and bigger than it is. Some people in villages in third world countries mistakenly think that Mexico and Columbia are part of the United States, simply because they know that Mexico and Columbia are in America. But when it it is important to distance the U.S. from other American countries, suddenly Latin Americans are no longer American, just as with "Native Americans" in the United States. If you still don't understand, read this page of the following book. Taking Haiti: Military Occupation and the Culture of U.S. Imperialism 1915-1940; Excerpt:

NOTE ON USAGE

I use the term "U.S. American" to acknowledge that the United States constitutes part but not all of America and to address the problem posed by the word "American" for students of the Americas. Not only in the United States, but also in some parts of Latin America, the word is used to designate people and things of, or from the United States. Yet, Latin Americans rightly call attention to the imperialism embodied in this gesture of nomenclature. These matters are especially pointed in this book because the ambiguities associated with the term "American" and with the name "America" are part of the story being recounted here. The slippage between various uses of these terms turns out to have had political efficacy for various people in, of, or from the United States.

You'll need a free google account to read further: link. The technique can be seen as Psychological warfare. Deepstratagem 20:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, the census isn't very interesting in this regard. People of only a small amount of Indian ancestory may not even be aware of it, but it's fairly easy to dig up in genetic studies. The European-Indian mix is far more tilted to the European end in the States than it is in Mexico, but both are just blends. Census is only self-identification, it doesn't deal with true ancestory. The way the mix worked out is the result of a number of factors, but mostly just where European settlers went, and when the Indian population density was. But it's just a qualitative difference between Mexico and America, not a qualitative difference.
While a few people (and not restricted to the third world) might think Mexico and Colombia are part of America, almost all english speakers know they're not. A few people with poor understanding do not a language make. Latin Americans are not Americans - they may once have been, but they're not today. The Imperialism shows up only when you try to call Mexico part of America, not when you rightly acknowledge its not American at all. When you rightfully acknowledge that Mexico is not part of America, you assert its independance, its culture, its soverignty. When you say it is part of America, you're saying it belongs to the United States, in one way or another. WilyD 20:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Since there's no evidence for any of what is mentioned directly above, I'm going to assume that the psychological warfare described in the book affected some Canadians, too. But I will agree that there are likely other factors besides genocide/intermarriage affecting the final percentage of native Americans.
Nevertheless, Microsoft Encarta, says America consists of two continents, and the Columbia Guide to American English says that American is an informal name preempted by U.S. Nationals. On top of that, Canadians and Latin Americans have incessantly complained about the use of the word American. The numerous sources presented, interestingly enough, are in the English language. We have books that choose to use U.S. American instead of "American". Legal international documents like NAFTA drafted with adjectives like "U.S. point", "U.S. Citizen". With a negligible possible exception or two, every dictionary in the English language contains America (the western hemisphere continent or continents) as a main definition for America. The history behind the word, including the documented imperialistic tactics, and the countless logical arguments made previously on this page are also consistent with all the evidence presented, including that Anglo America and Latin America are geographical subsets of the America heretofore described. Reality is very self-evident through simple questions like, "Do I really mean Texas when I say South America?". Deepstratagem 21:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Deep, don't be rediculous. Of course any position an infanticimal part of the population takes can be found in publications. And American does have synonyms that are occasionally used, like U.S. (especially in newspaper headlines, where it saves space). I'd rather spend my research time working on worthwhile articles for Wikipedia, rather than this propoganda piece. But huge swarths of "whites" across America and Canada are of mixed European-Indian ancestory. Feel free to disbelieve, but it is the case. To claim it's psychological warfare for me to know that I have some Indian ancestors is pretty far fetched. The ultimate reason the mix is more slanted towards Indians further south is largely that far more European immigrants came to the north (not surprising, since it best matches the climate they were used to) and the speed at which they could intermarry. Diseases spread across North America much faster than settlers did, so in most cases the land was already empty when settlers showed up in Northern America Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples - as for dictionaries, none present this fanciful synonym for the Americas as the main definition of America. That's already well established, and to claim otherwise is disingenuous. WilyD 14:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
See, for example http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/america as a counter fact to what WilyD stated about dictionaries:
Main Entry: Amer·i·ca
Pronunciation: &-'mer-&-k&, -'me-r&-
Variant(s): the Amer·i·cas
Function: geographical name
1 either continent (North America or South America) of the western hemisphere
2 or /-k&z/ the lands of the western hemisphere including North, Central, & South America & the West Indies
3 : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
On the other side, entries from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=america have the meaning "United States of America" as the main definition.
70.112.146.196 20:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
"any position an infanticimal part of the population takes can be found in publications" - yes, but Microsoft Encarta? The Columbia Guide to American English? NAFTA? Did it ever occur that they are not merely opinions, but rather facts firmly based on history?
"To claim it's psychological warfare for me to know that I have some Indian ancestors is pretty far fetched" - I'm not sure I ever claimed that. All I did was cite some sources that indicate the percentage of mixed people in Mexico and the United States indicated by the U.S. Census and the CIA, to counter your claim that I'm misrepresenting history.
"as for dictionaries, none present this fanciful synonym for the Americas as the main definition of America. That's already well established, and to claim otherwise is disingenuous." - Who established it? When? If that's the case, you shouldn't have trouble coming up with a sizable number of respectable dictionaries that don't define America as "the Americas," or "North and South America". Deepstratagem 01:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Comments about the grammar of this discussion area

Mr Jcchat66 made a comment about my grammar in a very short comment that I had made in this discussion area (“Two Comments”), which made me realize he is probably not aware of the dimension of the onslaught to the English language that is being made here. School children should not be allowed to read those pages, as the contamination of their minds might render them useless for the rest of their English speaking lives.

One of the biggest offenders is, of course, Mr Jcchat66 himself, but he comes in second place with around 40 offenses. Mr WilyD has so many misspelled words (around 88) that one would think he either does not speak English as a first language, or that he has invented another language himself.

Notice that some of the offenses are clearly just typos. However, others are not because of their recurrence. I learned that to find Mr Jcchat66’s and Mr WilyD’s comments in this thread, I just needed to look for the usage of their favorite neologisms:

- To find comments by Mr WilyD I just need to look for “ancestory”, “seperate”, “soverignty” or “probly”

- To find comments by Mr Jcchat66, I just need to search for “appropiated” or “inappropiate”

The third biggest offender is Mr. Deepstratagem, but an order of magnitude down way below the two biggest ones (just 9 offenses). In his case it seems they were all typos, and two of them (“discussion” and “severly”) were clearly made under the heat of discussion. Considering that he is one of the most prolific contributors here, the percentage of mistakes was actually very small compared to the number of contributions he made. On the other side, Mr. WilyD and Mr. Jcchat66 can’t help but make a spelling error almost every time they write something, although I have to admit that Mr. Jcchat66 has been improving.


Here is the complete list for your amusement. To create it I went over this discussion line by line, extracting mistakes by each author, and collecting them under the same alias, except the ones from several “anonymous” sources for obvious reasons. I took into account British and American spelling differences.

I also ignored grammar mistakes (except in a couple of phrases, where it was too funny to ignore), and the archived section; otherwise this intellectual onanism would take more than the reasonable time which made this analysis fun.

By WilyD: ambigious (3 times!); Americaine should be in italics, but that's OK; ancestories; ancestory (12 times!); Antartica; appearence; Argentinian; askes; automagically should be in quotes, but that's OK; buth; catergory; concensus; continum; debateable; Decriptive; depricated; derivitives; england; english; equivilence; equivilent; implicity; impropable; independance; indiginious (2 times); indistinuishable; inextractable (instead of inextricable); infanticimal instead of infinitesimal; invariently; irrelevent (twice); Manifect; Minnesoata; oftain; parce que should be in italics, but that's OK; perviously; poluation; prefered; probly (4 times); prominant (twice); propoganda; Protuguese; qualifer; rediculous; rediculously; refered (3 times); refering; refernces; relevent; seperate (3 times); seperately (2 times); soverignty (3 times); spanish; spcial; surrendor; swarths; the the; “to much” instead of “too much”; tommorow; uncontraversial; undemonstated; wa instead of was;

By Jcchat66: "Hasn't someone every become angry" instead of "Hasn't someone ever become angry"; "The USA have one ofthe best writen" instead of "The USA has one of the best written"; "This article suggest" instead of "This article suggests"; “the discover” instead of the discovery; againt; alweays; appropiated (7 times!); Appropiation; Asspciation – clearly a typo, that's OK; baised; bene instead of been; centureis; citition; collogialism; colloguial; colloqialism; definately; defintion; dofferent; easilly (2 times); editted; elese; emersed; imperiaism; inappropiate; inginuity; inproper; kown; not not; speach; theif (instead of thief); unintentially; victimzed

By Deepstratagem: tradional; recognizeable; trascend; from from; resposible; discusssion (under the heat of discussion :-); severly (under the heat of discussion :-); synomym; recognizeable;

By anonymous: Escandinavians; Argentinians; Nothern; Nother; Brzilians;

By anonymous: lenguage; reinveinting

By anonymous: in in; and and

By anonymous: aknowledging; lenguage; Norht

By Nohat: everday

By anonymous: speach

By John FitzGerald: the the

By HowardW: there'ss; ornithologis

By Ycoco: tendancy; completley; arguements (3 times); succintly; backrounds

By anonymous: transiteration (2 times)

By Prosfilaes: authorative

By 171.159.64.10: encyclopedeaic

By anonymous: eptimology

By Joel Bastedo: precentage

By Sumergocognito: doughut instead of doughnut

By 216.58.91.21: consistant

By anonymous: possesions

By 204.210.100.108: equitorial

By Lord Akria: accomodate

By X ile: jsut; passe' should be italics, but that's OK; blenty instead of plenty


One last comment: Someone mentioned that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. However, this discussion area definitely sounds like one, and day by day I watch it, eager for the next twist in the plot. So far Mr Deepstrategem is leading masterfully. I have to commend him on his patience to deal with all this uneducated riffraff in order to create a NPOV article. He is a true gentleman. I however have no qualms in putting my finger on the wound.

131.107.0.106 23:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Amusing. <Gasp> recognizeable twice!? Some of these misspelled words certainly look like neologisms :) Deepstratagem 03:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what an amazing waste of research on grammar. Who is making this claim? It is not my nature to complain about someone else's grammar on the dicussion pages. Grammar has nothing to do with this article. My only claims have been for defense of the legitimate use of the word American by Americans, instead of some Latin conspiracy theory about Washingtonian imperialism. Yeah, that would be NPOV, instead of the constant support of a minority opinion that Americans have no business using the word American for their cultural identity in addition to the original meaning of the continents.

So thank you, 131.107.0.106, for appearing immature enough to assume that everyone else is uneducated and uncooth. We need more aristocrats and Nietzsche supermen to support the ruling class like you. Did I spell the name right? Jeez, it would be so inappropriate if I did not. Jcchat66 04:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[...]assume that everyone else is uneducated and uncooth: Another two for your list: "uncooth" should be spelled "uncouth", and the adjective is “Nietzschean”. And no, I don't assume that everyone is uneducated and uncouth, I just can see that a few are.
[...]aristocrats and Nietzsche supermen: We don't need more aristocrats but we definitely need more Nietzschean supermen to elevate the level of this discussion. You could start to get to that level by simply running what you write through a spellchecker before posting.
Grammar has nothing to do with this article. To use your own words, jeez, it DOES have to do with this article - after all, we are talking about WORD USAGE here. Where do you think this topic should be included? Theology? Geography? Cooking? No one is denying the use of "American" to refer to a US Citizen (I personally don't care). This article merely states rules of current, formal and proper usage for a word - that's GRAMMAR! This has been my pet peeve: we have people trying to play the role of lexicographers but not even aware of it...
Apart from my rabid editorial remarks (you should see what they used to write in newspapers in the early days of this Nation), I want to say that no one should feel shy to contribute to the discussion - just be aware that you are making history, and that before pushing the "Save page" button that you should be ask yourself "Is this the best that I can contribute"?
131.107.0.73 06:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I make my edits directly into this site, not always through a spellchecker as I check this site from several different computers, most of which do not have a word processor. And to say nothing of all the different keyboard layouts I have to deal with! And as I already stated, this is the DISCUSSION PAGE, not the main article. This will evnetually be archived, compressed, and forgotten. The article, on the other hand, requires the atmost attention to grammar and detail. This is a debate about the a certain topic, not a grammar contest. OBVIOUSLY we all could use a spellchecker, but that adds nothing to a debate unless to avoid confusion. Have I made such horrible misspellings that you are confused about what I writing?

And no, if the use of the word American was as simple as an issue of grammar, then this discussion would be over. But it has become an attack against American culture in general, which is hardly NPOV. And yes, some have expressed that US Citizens should not call themselves Americans as it offends citizens of Latin American nations, or that the word has been appropriated, or so it is alleged.

So this issue about grammar is way off the topic. Jcchat66 05:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, it seems like most of us disagree with your reverting of the word "unqualified" in the intro, and find something more constructive to do.--Cúchullain t/c 06:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, quit adding the word that was not there before and come up with something better. I've already removed another word in its place, colloquial, which again confused and diminished the sentence. “Unqualified” is being removed for the same reason. I am merely reverting back. This article has been marked for clean-up for just such reasons.

It would be like saying "Unqualified, Caesar is the first Roman emperor, even though he never held such title, but rather was the first to own imperium." The fact that the word generally means something IS the qualifier. The fact that Caesar owned imperium made him emperor, that is the qualifier, would it not? Regardless of the intention of the insertion, it would be confusing to most people. Better to stick with “Caesar was made dictator for life” and “American generally means of or related to the United States.” Add an additional sentence and keep things professional and factual. The sentence already justifies itself. If you diminish it with the word unqualified, it could mean different things to different people. I am merely trying to keep it simple and to the point. Perhaps you could state with another sentence what you are trying to establish with your counter-reverts.

Perhaps the entire sentence should be reworded. “The word American remains generally used by most nationalities to describe North and South America, as well the United States of America and its culture.”

And yes, I would like to move on, Cuchullain. But the burden of proof in debate remains with the one challenging the status quo. The word was simply not there before. Your excellent repertoire and awesome contributions to Wikipedia should make this obvious.

But I would rather debate than go back and forth. Will you please leave it as it was before the word was added to the sentence until we have a concord? That would go much further than accusing me of reverting a revert. Thank you.

Whatever, I'm not screwing with it anymore.--Cúchullain t/c 15:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. national

Getting back to the article, we need to make the distinction between "U.S. citizen" and "U.S. national". Not everyone from the U.S. is a citizen; for instance if they revoke their citizenship. Someone born in American Samoa and certain other outlying possessions is not a U.S. citizen, but they are a "national" (all citizens are nationals, but not all nationals are citizens). I think we should use "U.S. national" as the substitute for simply "American" instead of "citizen" for this article. Coincidentally, American Samoa is an example of a formal and official use of the word "American" to mean "relating to the United States", which should interest Deep. The distinction between colloquial speech and "formal" speech is not clear cut.--Cúchullain t/c 04:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This is true, though according to WilyD, American Samoa is one word. Deepstratagem 05:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral?

Why is it neutral to delete "Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers, writes of 'the American republic', the only American republic at that time...", but not this: "Hamilton uses American to describe land outside the political borders of the United States of America at that time..." in this edit ?

The first sentence adds relevant information, while the second sentence attempts to pepper the words that are excerpted directly below, and adds highly redundant information: "at that time". Deepstratagem 05:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, mostly it's just because I reworded your sentence. Besides that, it seemed you were trying to make a point with your edit. But mostly, I think the edit improved the text (I did other things as well).--Cúchullain t/c 07:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, but isn't deleting words in a sentence... rewording the sentence? Or did you delete it to make a point about points? Deepstratagem 06:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I did it to improve the wording. If you just want petty bickering, you'll have to look elsewhere.--Cúchullain t/c 07:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I just wanted to know. Deepstratagem 07:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll see if I can explain this as best I understand it. Hamilton clearly uses American/America in the modern usage, i.e. the States. It's clear if you read his Federalist papers (of which I've now read all that use the word America that in almost every instance he's directly refering to the U.S. or it's government, a few are ambigious and one that's here where he seems to be refering to America as more of a cultural or geographical region than a country - however, in the larger context it seems clear he doesn't mean the Americas though this is hard to demonstrate in a way that's not original research, drawing conclusions from primary source documents (as we are with all the federalist papers) is extremely dicey, and it's better to be explicite than misleading. As for the only American republic at the time - what's the point? Are you afraid people might confuse it with the only other American republic to have ever existed, the Confederate States of America? Seems unlikely. So in some sense the old borders have changed, so historical context is important, whereas there's still only one American republic, so historical context is less important. WilyD 15:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there have been many other American republics. See Americas (terminology). And that doesn't include Mexico and other American countries that are also republics. Since it was the only republic at the time, we can't conclude that he used the word American only to refer to the United States of America. This is especially true since he uses the word American in a different context - the "American possessions" of two foreign powers. The reasoning for the intepretation is laid out at Talk:Use of the word American#Redemption.
I wasn't aware of the particular Wikipedia guideline on points until Cúchullain pointed it out. The point of adding redundant information was to show how lame it is. Deepstratagem 19:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Deep, I'm well aware there have only been two American republics as are you, and everyone else who speaks english. Yes, Mexico is a republic. No, it is not American. We all already know this. As for the second point, please don't violate WP:POINT. Being lame is preferable in an article to being deceitful. WilyD 20:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
So now you are going to accuse me of being deceitful? Obviously you didn't read the link on terminology. Even if you believed that Mexico is not a republic, there has been more than one American republic. So, no, I was not being deceitful at any level. Deepstratagem 20:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I did not, nor do I now, offer any statement or implication that you were deceitful. The information is presented in a deceitful way, but I have no reason to conclude that this is deliberate. I read the link on terminology, but I'm an honest man and thus am forced to admit Mexico is not American. There have been two American republics, there is only one now. WilyD 20:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
What makes the Confederate States of America American? How are you making the distinction? I don't get it. Deepstratagem 20:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
They came from America and were culturally American and the like. It's a lot like the pornography I know it when I see it argument, I realise. But the Americans are a cultural people in addition to being nationals of America - they're still recognisable outside of that - for instance Pierre Burten refers to ?Fort Whoop-up? as an American fort on Canadian soil - but the citizens and culture are still recognisable. WilyD 20:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not talking about the people, I'm talking about the "country". What makes the Confederate States of America American and what specifically, makes the United Mexican States, not American? Deepstratagem 20:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, that is part of it. The Confederate States of America were located in America, populated by Americans, with goverments (in some sense) decended from that of America, and so forth. Mexico is located south of American, populated by Mexicans, et cetera. Negatives are harder to demonstrate - how do I show that both East Germany and West Germany were German countries, while France was not? It seems obvious, but it's hard to pin down. WilyD 20:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Seems circular to me. Under your definition the United States of America is American because it has (U.S.) American people in it, who run the government. And the people are American because they are from the United States of America. Same for the Confederate States of America. But wait, isn't the Organization of American States American? And aren't the member states American? What about the pre-Columbian American civilizations, like the Aztec? According to National Geographic they are American. And weren't the Aztecs around long before the United States of America was conceived? Deepstratagem 21:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
So then, what exactly makes the Confederate States of America American, but not Mexico? Deepstratagem 21:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
You can ignore the case if you want, but it is almost circular. What makes a snake a snake? That's the word used to describe a snake. What makes an American an American - that's just the word used to describe people from the country/culture/region of America. As for OAS, I'm not sure how that happened, but the vast majority of pan-American organisations use the correct nomenclature, i.e. Pan-American games, or the usual "of the Americas" like the Council of the Americas. Given that the OAS has historically just been the arm of the American Imperialism anyhow, perhaps its very fittingly named ;) WilyD 21:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, but if it's just the word, then Latin Americans are American. Seems like all pan-American organizations are American too, by your definition of "snake is a snake". Deepstratagem 21:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
No, it doesn't work that way. A Latin American is no more an American than a Sea Lion is a Lion. WilyD 21:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
That's a pretty simplistic definition. So Himalayan Black Bears aren't bears? Deepstratagem 22:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
WiliD, (with all due respect) then how does it work? What are Latin Americans in your opinion? Asians? Africans? Or what? --AVM 17:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
That's a pretty vague question - I'm not sure they belong to a lot of supergroups. Obviously Humans or New Worlders apply. Otherwise, I don't know what they share. What are you looking for? The point is that in general a modified noun may or may not be a member of the group noun. Black bears are bears, Sea lions aren't lions - there's no inherent relationship here. I.e. you cannot infer from Latin American whether or not they are American, just as you cannot infer from Queen Anne's Lace whether or not it's lace. You need to determine this seperately. This is a fairly obvious language feature, I'm frankly flabberghasted it's the source of this much consternation. WilyD 18:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Wily, you continue to act surprized when others use the word "American" to refer to people from the Americas. You can obviously comprehend what they mean, you just like to think that the one and only definition of the word is the popular one. "American" is sometimes a synonymn for New Worlder. Obviously, if the Organization of American States uses it that way, it still can have that meaning.--Cúchullain t/c 20:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
It is surprising that such an obvious case is the source of so much difficulties. Sure, I can use American to mean of the Americas much as I can use doubt to mean not sure, without any opionion on trueness or falseness or quantum to mean money for paying a bill but in all these cases I will generally be misunderstood because the word does not really retain this meaning in general parlance. I'm not sure exactly what percentage of the population needs to recognise a word before it's really part of the language, but it's pretty clear to me that just a small number doesn't cut it. WilyD 13:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously Wily is using "American" to mean only the United States, or the breakoff CSA, which was once part of the US. By his use of the term, Mexico is not an American republic. By the other definition, the one used by the OAS, it is an American republic. The word has two meanings. Wily's is the primary use, but neither is wrong. I everyone would just accept that and move on, so we can get back to improving the article.--Cúchullain t/c 22:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I accepted that it has more than one meaning long ago. But if WilyD thinks I'm being dishonest, I'd like to know why. Deepstratagem 22:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Here I've only suggested that the presentation created a misleading impression - I've not commented on any motivation (or even stated I think it's anything other than accident). WilyD 22:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I realize that you didn't comment on motive. But the implication that Mexico is an American republic is no "accident". Deepstratagem 22:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
No, Himalayan Black Bears are bears. But are you seriously prepared to argue that Sea Lions are Lions? My point here is related to some above point, that in general language (at least, english) does not have to adhere to a strict logic about the way it's constructed. If you have the construction Adjective Noun where that pair constitutes a single, proper name, then Adjective Noun may not be a member of Noun - it's not a requirement for having the name Adjective Noun and there are plenty of examples of this. Sea Lion was just the first that came to my mind. WilyD 22:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course I'm not prepared to argue that Sea Lions are lions, but are you prepared to argue Latin Americans aren't Americans? You haven't given a satisfactory reason why they aren't. Deepstratagem 22:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Not only am I prepared to, but I've already done so several times. You may find it unconvincing, but the argument's essence is Very few people who speak english recognise America or American to refer to anything but the usual use, the United States. Dictionaries and Encyclopaedias occasionally carry an old, depricated use of the word that is no longer used, but as I'm not speaking in 1650, it would be inappropriate for me to refer to people not from the States as American. WilyD 22:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Your argument entails a lot of erroneous assumptions. American is still used all the time (American Spanish, Latin Americans...). Several dictionaries - not a few - still carry the definition. And 1650 wasn't the last time the word was used with that meaning. So I'm not convinced by your argument, nor am I being deceiftul when I say Mexico is an American republic. Deepstratagem 22:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, American Spanish is not I termed I've ever heard line, but American English contrasts to say ... Canadian English (or Newfoundland English, or British English) Latin American doesn't work the way you keep trying to insist it does. As for whether or not you're being deceitful, I haven't said word one on the topic. Statements can be deceitful in and of themselves if they lead a reader to make false conclusions (which Mexico is an American republic would, unless they were already familiar with the situation). WilyD 12:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Since you are not familiar with the principal (and more principled) meaning of America and American, I suggest you read through the article again. It has changed a lot in the past six months. Deepstratagem 16:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I am familiar with the principle meaning of American - it principly means Of or relating to the United States of America. Whether it's more principled or not, I have no idea (I suspect the phrase is meaningless in this context). WilyD 13:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose this bickering will continue until someone provides some facts for how much each definition is used. I don't think Wily's statement is accurate that the "pan-American" definition is archaic and virtually never used; for instance the OAS.--Cúchullain t/c 22:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Factually WilyD and Deep are both right, depending on various factors. It is perfectly fine to call a Latin American country an American republic, just as European or African republic would be appropriate. It may be confusion, but then so would calling Egypt an African republic, since they don't call themselves Africans. But technically it is correct. The question is, do citizens of an American republic (other than the USA) desire for their nation to called such? Or would they rather stay with their nationality? Jcchat66 03:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shift in meaning

Though I'm pretty sure there was a shift in meaning, there's no sources for it. The evidence that is out there points at early 1800s since Hamilton was still using the original meaning. U.S. presidents don't seem to start talking about American people in speeches until the mid-1800s with the Monroe Doctrine and all. But at this point it's all original research. Maybe somebody can find some sources. Deepstratagem 04:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this may be a vague area, but the Articles of Confederation is one of the first examples of a shift in meaning with "...independence of America." They were certainly not speaking of the continent being independent of Europe, as the Spanish Empire at this time still had very strong hold on the Americas. The late 1700's does indicate the beginning of the shift, though its widespread use may not have been till the early 1800's when a stronger sense of national pride seems to have taken root amongst the American states.

I know a lot of people seem to blame Manifest Destiny for this shift. But consider this. Without that sense of nationalism in the early United States, Texas would have probably remained independent, and the Confederacy would have remained so as well. North America may have very well had many more American republics, and slavery may not have been outlawed until much later. People do not support governments as well as they support nations and cultural. Soldiers do not fight for presidents, they fight for their country. The word American may have been the only glue to hold a nation together. Likewise, many Latin American leaders and cadillos tried to do the same in South America. Perhaps they lacked something. Jcchat66 19:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice intro edit

I'm concerned about this part, though:

Less frequently, the adjective American can mean "of or relating to the Americas," even when used in the United States, for example, "American Spanish dialects and pronunciation differ by country". A third use of the term pertains specifically to the Indigenous peoples of the Americas, for instance, "The ancient American civilizations of the pre-Columbian period were advanced in mathematics and astronomy"; this is related to the second usage.

In particular, what is the evidence for "of or relating to the Americas" being a less frequent use? People use it all the time in the spoken word without realizing it: North American, Central American, South American, Latin American, native American, etc...

As for the third use, I don't think it really takes a different meaning from the second. Deepstratagem 21:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I spent a lot of time thinking about your first question actually. What I'm trying to get across is that the word American, "unqualified", is also used in the pan-American sense (as I've said before, like in Organization of American States), but it is much less common. Maybe we should say something about how qualifiers alter the meaning? I mean, "South American" is essentially an inseperable phrase, meaning "of or relating to South America", but "Latin American" means someone from anywhere in the Americas with a Latin background (or, confusingly, a U.S. American who has a Latin American background). I just don't want to get too confusing to make any sense.
As for the third definition, it is slightly different; it refers to a specific group of people, rather than the continent they are from, just as "British" can refer to the indigenous Brythons but also anyone from the island of Britain (among other things). The Indian use appears in most dictionaries, and is important in anthropology and other fields, so I think we need to include it here.--Cúchullain t/c 21:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it seems that we should clarify "less frequently" and/or talk about qualifiers. As for the "third" and "second" meanings, An American civilization can refer to both a civilization in America or a civilization consisting of Americans. The example doesn't clearly show which one it is. I don't think we are in a position to say that archaelogists mean American (adjective) as referring to Americans in contrast to America (without sources).
I also don't think we can say whether South American is separable or not - How do you find out? the meaning suggests that it is, because if you take the meaning and reconstruct the term, it can be separated and still mean the same thing. For example, where do you draw the line for South America? Who is South American? Even opinion in the United States differs. (To an U.S. American) Mexicans might be South Americans, or Brazilians might be South Americans. Why? Because they live south. This is strong evidence that South American doesn't refer to a relation to a discrete landmass in de facto usage, but sometimes also depends on the point of reference.
I have no conclusive evidence to show that the term "South American" is separable but I can show you that if it was separable we wouldn't know (without further evidence) because the term is so consistent with frames of reference (a suggestion that it is separable). Deepstratagem 08:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
C'mon Deep, sure some Americans might think Mexico is South American - but these are the same Americans who think Europe is a good country (which they beat in World War II). The only real area that's disputed between North America and South America in common usage is Panama east of the Canal. Pick up any map any you'll clearly see [34] that South America is reasonably well defined (about as well as any other continent, most of which has slightly fuzzy borders). You can (and have) made a case that America is used to refer to the Americas in rare (primarily historical) circumstances - but making patently rediculous claims isn't helping your cause. WilyD 13:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
As to the Indian definition, Deep, I think the example is fine. There were no ancient American civilizations of the pre-Columbian period that were not Indian, and they'd kind of have to be in the Americas to be called American (just as one would not generally use the word "British" for Brythons who happened to live outside of Britain). As I said before, it's a definition used in anthropology, and it appears in most dictionaries. But if you can provide a clearer example, please do.
Also, the South American thing is stretching it. What I was trying to get at is that some of the qualified uses of "American" are separable, for instance "Latin American". I don't think "South American" is one of those; when you say in almost any circumstance people will know you mean South America (unless, as Wily points out, they don't know what South America is to begin with, but that's a different matter). Latin American, on the other hand, is anyone from any part of the Americas with a Latin background (even if they are from outside the traditional "Latin America", for instance if they live in Canada). Similarly, "Native Americans" means "someone from the Americas who is an Indian" (of course, it has other meanings as well). Both of these instances rely on the pan-American definition, they can be separated to "pan-Americans of Latin background" or "pan-Americans of Indian background".--Cúchullain t/c 17:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
"I don't think "South American" is one of those; when you say in almost any circumstance people will know you mean South America (unless, as Wily points out, they don't know what South America is to begin with, but that's a different matter)." Well, WilyD didn't know America wasn't a country, but does that mean it exclusively is? So, WilyDs faked ignorance based on de facto unqualified usage is acceptable, but real "ignorance" based on de facto usage is not good enough to say that Latin American is potentially separable? I think we are deep in double standards.
If I say WilyD is ignorant for believing America is not a continent, I'm told to look at unqualified de facto usage.
If I say in de facto usage (in the U.S.) South America sometimes refers to Mexico, suddenly I'm supposed see how ignorant U.S. Americans are. Deepstratagem 20:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The difference is that there is a country named America, recognised by the vast majority of english speakers, but only maybe three or four sigma outliers might think Mexico is South American. That's not de facto usage - which incidentally, in English is as good as de jure. So:
  • America is a country because and only because the vast majority of english speakers call the large country between Canada and Mexico America or at least recognise America as a name for that country (it has others).
  • America is not a continent because and only because the vast majority of english speakers do not call anything the Continent of America.
  • We're speaking English, not french. There's no academy, only popular consent.
  • If you say de facto usage of South America in America refers to Mexico, you're wrong. A few six sigma outliers do not constitute a language. We're writing an encyclopaedia based on empirical knowledge.
  • If you say I'm ignorant for believing America is a continent, you're again wrong. Saying something doesn't make it true.
  • If, and only if, english speakers (in appreciable quantity) began to refer to Mexico as South American, it would be. They don't, so it's not.
This really brings us to the crux of our whole debate. The prevalence of usage needed for something to be considered part of the English language. Your argument (as I read it) is that it requires one english speaker to use it, whereas I'd strongly disagree with that. People in South Ajax say knock up to mean Have sex with, but the english usage remains to make pregnant even though thrity thousand might recognise the other meaning. People in central Canada recognise Jambuster as a word for Jelly Donut but that doesn't make it a feature of english, even though perhaps a tenth of a percent of English speakers use it in conversation. Same goes for Dep as a convience store. WilyD 20:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point. The point is you are using the ad populum argument when it is convenient, and the ignorance argument when it is convenient. That's a double standard. Deepstratagem 22:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not. I never ignore ad populum arguments when it comes to english usage. That is the only argument that I will ever use. WilyD 22:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Then you will agree that U.S. Citizens think Mexico is in South America nearly as often as they believe it is in North America and Central America, and thus it is in all of them. Deepstratagem 22:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
What? That's ridiculous. I'm sure people might say that, because they don't have a real concept of what South America is. These people would be mistaken or ignorant of the concept, rather than the name of the concept.
But Wily, you do seem to have a firm opinion that "'America' is used to refer to the Americas in rare (primarily historical) circumstances". This is simply untrue. Have you never heard the phrase "Columbus discovered America"? Both definitions appear in every dictionary I've ever seen. And you're just flat wrong that no one considers the Americas as a single continent, which is also called America. I think you may be letting your own opinions about manifest destiny affect your judgement of how often the different definitions are used.--Cúchullain t/c 23:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
"What? That's ridiculous." Exactly. Deepstratagem 23:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Cuchullain, if I say Kaitlin is an American what do you know about here as an english speaker? Almost all english speakers will correctly deduce she's from the States. What percentage of the uses of American refer to the Americas? 0.1%? 0.01%? Less? Sounds rare to me. WilyD 07:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I would agree that if Americans thought Mexico was in South America as often as they thought it was in North America it would be South American. But they don't, so it isn't. 07:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
And what evidence do you offer in support of "But they don't, so it isn't."? Deepstratagem 10:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a talk page, and I'm free to make unsourced assertions we all know to be true. But I will also offer into evidence every atlas, textbook, encyclopaedia, scholarly paper, tv show, movie and radio programme ever made. Here's a sample:[35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] For South America - for Continents [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] WilyD 18:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
What does that prove about popular opinion in the U.S.? You pretend to go by popular opinion even when your metrics and reasoning are flawed. Deepstratagem 00:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that's not enough citations? Obviously as a scientist I scoff at the idea of proving anything. But the preponderance of the evidence is quite convincing. However, I may be subject to Descartes' demon. WilyD 01:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Your evidence doesn't support your argument. Deepstratagem 02:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you're thinking of someone else's evidence. The evidence I presented above showed that people know what is and isn't South America. I know sometimes it seems like the average American doesn't know enough geography to find their butthole with two hands and a map, but it really isn't the case. What constitutes South America is very well known. The continent of North America is equally well defined (the cultural region not as much). WilyD 14:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
No, what you presented above shows that some English-speaking cartographers who took the time to make maps (a very select population) like to divide the continent. Cutting and pasting maps of "South America" from google images doesn't show what the average U.S. American believes in the least. Deepstratagem 20:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Not really - this is the internet, where any and all jackasses are free to post whatever foolish ideas they have. Many of those maps don't exactly come from reputable geographers - if you'll look over it, but the point sticks. If I were to claim that most Americans thought a rabbit was a kind of tensor, you'd be hard pressed to dispute that assertion in an ironclade way. But a) we all know it isn't true, just as we all know very well that Americans don't consider Mexico South American (nor does anyone else) and b)All verifiable sources would indicate very little connections between rabbits and tensors, such that every talk about rabbits from an 6 year old's homework to a doctoral thesis on their breeding cycle would not accuse them of being tensors. WilyD 00:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The point is your metrics are flawed because they are not representative of your argument. Deepstratagem 01:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Flawed is clearly not the word you're searching for. They are representative of my argument, even if not perfectly. An opinion poll by Ipsos Reid would be usable as evidence in a wiki-article, even though it isn't perfectly representative. In any event, given that it outweighs the counter argument by an infinite amount, it's really not bad. WilyD 02:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
What you presented is not a poll by Ipsos Reid. And if you decided to present a poll by Ipsos Reid it would need to be carefully worded and relevant to the matter at hand, which again, your example is clearly not. Given that your example is inadequate by an infinite amount it doesn't really matter. The fact that you didn't know Mexicans are American should be telling enough. Deepstratagem 10:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
If you were to stop a typical english speaker on the street and ask him whether Mexicans were Americans, the vast majority would say no. An outdated definition no longer in general usage should be thought of as not being part of the language. The fact that having trouble with the idea that All instances of South American exclude Mexico, therefor a subset of them will also exclude Mexico is something I'm not sure how to make any clearer. To claim that my examples are infinitely inadequate is false on it's face, to claim that some evidence outweighs no evidence by an infinite amount is simple elementary school mathematics.
For the record, since you seem to have missed it the first few times I've said it: Mexicans can be considered Americans under an archaic definition of America. Since that usage is depricated it is correct to say Mexicans are not Americans - this is because Mexico is a country independant of America, no matter how much you assert the contrary. Under normal usage of the word American, Mexicans are not Americans. Incidentally, it's possible for Mexicans are Americans and Mexicans are not Americans to both be true statements (in fact, both are: the former is just incredibly misleading) WilyD 12:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

(resetting tabs) I'm mixing a mathematical metaphor in hyperbolic irony alluding to your comment. To say that your metrics are infinitely inadequate is to say they are very inadequate. I'm not going to respond to your other comments since they are non-sequitur. Deepstratagem 15:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Going from the general (South America never includes Mexico) to the specific (South American never includes Mexico when used by southern Americans) is not hard, not contraversial, not inadequate. To suggest otherwise is entirely untenable. I showed that all available sources show South America as what we all know is South America (glossing over the potential contraversial east half of Panama). You have made a conjecture based on upon premises we all know to be wrong that has zero supporting evidence (because thinking any substantial number of people would call Mexico South American is just plain silly) as a throwaway argument. It's entirely untenable and you might as well just drop it. WilyD 16:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
You might want to track back to "What does that prove about popular opinion in the U.S.?" about 12 tabs up. You are going in circles. Deepstratagem 16:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This aside, what does anyone think about clearing up the ambiguity in the intro, as pointed out by Deepstratagem a few days ago? As pointed out above, people use the pan-American definition fairly frequently when used with qualifiers, as in "Latin American". Without qualifiers, it is used much less frequently, though it is still used. How can we clear this up in the intro?--Cúchullain t/c 02:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Deep, I reverted your edits. First, America is a better place to direct the reader than Americas when discussing American. Second, I think your changes to the examples were confusing. "The mixed progeny of Spanish conquistadors and Americans were called Mestizos" does not disambiguate which definition you mean (from this example it could also mean, say, the child Spanish conquistadors and white settlers of the Americas). "Ancient American civilizations" is unambiguous, there were no other ancient American citizens that were not Indian.--Cúchullain t/c 06:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
You are right about the use of "qualified", I think. However, now the example is off. "American" in "American Spanish" is not qualified; I think a sentance about "Latin Americans" would be better there. However, I think we should point out that even when the word isn't qualified Americans still occasionally use "American" in the pan-American sense, as in "American Spanish". Thoughts?--Cúchullain t/c 06:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
In "...Ancient American civilizations..." American is an adjective, so it is perfectly consistent with the second meaning discussed in the article. If it were a noun it would be adequate for the "third" definition; But it is not; that's why another example is needed. Deepstratagem 06:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think the adjective form is much more common than the noun form when referring to Indians. In fact I can't think of an example where the noun form would be used for that, without a qualifier such as Native or Indigenous. If you can think of a good, unambiguous one, please do. --Cúchullain t/c 06:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I think I cleared up the pan-American definition in the intro, but perhaps Organization of American States would be a better example than the ones I've provided (Latin American and Indigenous American) I didn't want to use Native American to avoid confusion, because it often means Indians in the United States. But Latin American might still be confusing, since it can also mean someone from the region of Latin America rather than someone who is from the Americas and is Latino.--Cúchullain t/c 07:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
American in American civilization refers to the continent, not to the people. That's why it is a better example for the second definition. The third definition is the original which was always in reference the continent anyway... so there isn't really a third definition unless you mean the noun, in which case the third example is still inadequate. The natives were just referred to as Americans (plural noun). Deepstratagem 07:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
No, "American" in "Ancient American civilizations" means the indigenous civilizations. And if you don't think there's a third definition, check any dictionary. However, your new example is good and much less ambiguous than the previous one. --Cúchullain t/c 07:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I moved the "pre-Columbian" example to be back by Indian definition. Maybe we should just remove it entirely, but now we have both a noun and an adjective example by that definition. Also, what to you think about my OAS suggestion?--Cúchullain t/c 07:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Why do you keep moving the adjective example to try to fit the third definition? The third definition describes a noun, not an adjective. Check a dictionary: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary. Deepstratagem 20:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the offending line entirely:

"The ancient American civilizations of the pre-Columbian period were advanced in mathematics and astronomy."

It's caused too much confusion to be worth it. The adjective definition doesn't appear in some dictionaries, like Merriam-Webster. [63] Niether adjective nor nour appear in Encarta. [64] Both appear at Dictionary.com [65] and in the American Heritage Dictionary [66], as well as various textbooks I've read on Indigenous American history. But if it's going to cause this much confusion, it's perhaps best to just leave it with the one example.--Cúchullain t/c 22:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Your deletion doesn't make sense. It is better than adequate for the second definition, and that's how it has been until you moved it to the third defition where it absolutely did not make sense. If you want to make up a new example, go ahead, but please leave the other example where it was, as it was in the right place in the first place. Deepstratagem 23:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] America - continent

I do not understand why people on this page are fighting about the truth. Apparently the words are used differently in different countries, and the purpose of Wikipedia is not to find out which one is more true, but to constate the differencies.

Please help to build up this list:

Countries where America (South + North) is considered to be one continent:

  • Germany
  • Czech republic
  • Mexico
  • Spain
  • Indonesia
  • Brazil
  • Portugal
  • Honduras
  • EL Salavador
  • Costa Rica
  • Panama
  • Nicaragua
  • Colombia
  • Ecuador
  • Peru
  • Guatemala
  • Bolivia
  • Argentina
  • Chile
  • Paraguay
  • Uruguay
  • Venezuela
  • Cuba
  • Dominican Republic

Countries where America (South + North) is considered to be two continents:

  • United States of America

Languages (without a country) in which America is considered to be one continent:

  • Esperanto
  • Latin
  • Nahuatl
  • French
  • Spanish
  • German
  • Portuguese

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorn (talk • contribs)

  • This issue isn't about geography at all - it's purely about linguistics. What we're talking about is continents which only occurs in English, and which is tied to the idea of there being seven. Other languages may have similar words, with similar meanings, but English requires there be seven continents in modern usage. My dictionary specifically says there are seven continents and lists them under continent.
  • This, incidentally, is why we're fighting about it. Because of mistranslation. WilyD 20:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No, actually, even in English America is still one landmass, regardless of whether it's considered one continent or not: "America, second largest isolated landmass of the earth, comprising the two continents of the western hemisphere." Deepstratagem 20:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

    • Comprising two continents, exactly as I explained. Thank you for referencing my statements to prove them true. WilyD 20:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

First, it doesn't prove your statement true. Second, it counters everything else you've said on this page. Deepstratagem 21:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  • If you will read my comments on this page, you'll find that's not the case. WilyD 21:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I think, that it is not about linguistic, but about the meaning of the world "Continent". Now, it is not our mistake, that scholars in defined the meaning differently. BTW page Continent has it all ... I think we should only reflect the possible meanings. --Gorn 22:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion: let's make it a disambiguation page

I think, that wikipedia already has a perfect mechanism for dealing with such cases as this word. Let us agree on list of meanings which are distinct enough, and make a separate page for each of them. On some of them, there can only be a brief explanation why and where this word is used in place of XY and then reference to other article. Perfect example of this is [67]

If you agree with me, help me to make a list of separate pages needed:

America and American are currently disambiguation pages already. What do you mean?--Cúchullain t/c 23:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Back in X ile (Thankfully, and with Apologies to Readers/Editors)

I hadn't meant to do a hit and run here. I had to go to America for medical treatment. (I use the word here deliberately, as I was in the colony that has American in the name.) Besides learning that flight attendants find me "charming" when medically sedated rather than "annonying" when alcoholically sedated, I learned that when you have an opportunity to check a source you should go for it.

I checked the latest Black's Law Dictionary available (the 7th Edition, 1999) and it had no entry for "American". Page 81 has nothing but a bit of white space between the entries for "amercement" and "American Academy of Actuaries". Well, that's an old edition, so that may be no surprise. I made a fuss and had the librarian order an 8th Edition.

Before it arrived, though, I was bumped up the medical food chain to a more integrated U.S. colony. There I found the 8th Edition of Black's and found (this time on page 91) the same non-entry for American. Maybe I'm crazy (OK, there's no maybe about it), but when someone says that in a particular dictionary, . . . is defined as . . ., I expect to find an entry for that word in the alphabetical listing of definitions in that dictionary.

Unless the editor can elaborate on where Black's defines "American", I'm ready to make my first edit. Also, unless someone proposes an alternate theory, I'm inclined to think this is a brazen lie put forward to suggest that "American" has some meaning in law other than the common and ambiguous meaning in popular use.

Since I had access to some relics, here's what other legal dictionaries had to say. Ballentine's 3rd Ed. (1969): "American - Of the Western Hemisphere or, more particulalrly, the United States." Bouvier's 3rd Rev., 8th Ed. (1914): "American - Pertaining to the Western Hemisphere or, in a more restricted sense, to the United States." So much for this debate being an outgrowth of recent political correctness/anti-Americanism.

I'm sure I have much to respond to in the page above, but I had to let you all in on this. I invite others to verify what I say or explain how a dictionary defines a word when there is no entry for that word.

(edit by X ile) I should have noticed that the citation was bogus. The "quote" from Black's: "'American' is defined as 'of pertaining to the United States.'" is not something you would find in a professional publication. If there were such a definition would it not read "of OR pertaining to the United States"? (end edit)

.s

Ack

X ile 05:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that most literature you find nowadays will state, at some point, that "american" is an adjective reffering to US citzens exclusively. This only shows, however, that the inadequate appropriation of the term "America" is being reproduced by others. I believe it was a top Nazi official, in charge of the Nazi propaganda, that said that if you repeat a lie so many times, it becomes the truth. LtDoc 17:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
X ile strikes again! "The inadequate appropriation of the term "America" is being reproduced by others." It was bad enough that you made a bogus apology to readers because of a typo with Black's Law Dictionary, and erased (vandalized?) the whole thing, when a little research would have revealed it was the 6th, not the 8th. Now you state opinions as facts? It is alleged that the word was appropriated. It is not a lie to use the word exclusively. Uneducated perhaps, but not dishonest. But is this debate about whether people use the word exclusively regardless of context? Or whether Americans should be calling themselves American at all? Those are two different threads; for the first implies ignorance of the historical duality of the word, while the second could be construed as an attack againt American culture. Which is it? Jcchat66 02:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, did anyone bother to check ANY Black's Law Dictionary? The word American is on page 81 in the 6th Edition. "Of or pertaining to the United States." It is also in the Declaration of Independence, making its use very, very legal, not just cultural. And its dual meaning is not disputed. However, for legal matters, its meaning is very clear and always has been, since legally the United States of America was the only nation to use the word officially. That does not void its other more broad meaning pertaining to the continents of the New World. Jcchat66 03:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn. At first I thought X ile was playing troll or just being annoying or something. Then I actually looked at my copy of the 7th edition and it looks like X ile is right about there being no entry between "amercement" and "American Academy of Actuaries." But I think this may be a result of the new editor (Bryan Garner) being politically correct. --Coolcaesar 07:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
UM, since Jcchat cited [68] Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, I "checked" the 8th Edition. My apology was for coming on strong and then disappearing for several weeks. It had nothing to do with Jcchat's "typo". I hardly need to apologize for his "mistakes". As for erasing or "vandalizing", I did neither.
It's a little hard to follow you, Jcchat. It seems at first you are referring to me. Then you say I erased or "(vandalized?)" something that was incorrect in the article (you might check the edit history--"a little research".) Then you seem to be confusing me with another user.
You failed to notice that I gave you the benefit of the doubt ("Unless the editor can elaborate . . .", "Unless someone proposes an alternate theory . . .") I even e-mailed a Mercer University law librarian to see if he could check an online version of Black's, 8th Edition or an older edition to substantiate your claim. Had I seen only the 7th edition, I would have assumed that you were correct about the 8th Edition and said nothing, as the more recent definition is more relevant.
Checking a book that was pulled from U.S. library shelves when a new edition came out seven years ago (followed by an even newer edition two years ago) is hardly "a little research". This is a global forum, and some of us can't just stroll down to the courthouse to research U.S. law. Even in far-flung Pago Pago, the librarian was apologetic about having only the 7th Edition of Black's.
Since you have the 6th Edition, you have been able, all along, to cite case law that defines "American". The newer editions don't provide that information with the definitions. Please quote the complete entry for "American", including the citation. This way others can see the context for themselves, by consulting the decision online. With some effort, someone might even be able to figure out why the definition was dropped in subsequent editions (i.e. a more recent conflicting decision in the same field of law).
The only lie I was referring to is the lie ("Unless someone proposes an alternate theory") that Black's 8th Edition defines "American". Before you even proposed an alternate theory (a "typo") you asked us if we "bothered" to check an edition other than the one you cited, as if we all have old U.S. law books laying about. Then, you reinsert the reference in the article, knowing that it is out-of-date, without the disclaimer added by another editor. That tells me what I need to know of your integrity. Your alternate theory, thus, falls short in my opinion.
Suppose you and I were in business together selling products in the United States. Your contract specified that I use "American labor" only, and I had the product produced by Americans (Hondurans) in Honduras. If I made a tidy profit in the labor cost difference and you got sued for marketing the products as "American Made", you have no relief at law, unless "American" means "[o]f or pertaining to the United States" and only "[o]f or pertaining to the United States. (Or at least of or pertaining to anywhere but Honduras.) The law disdains ambiguous words like America and American for this very reason, and she or he who uses them in a contract in preference to more concrete terms may be in for a big and costly surprise.
A criminal law example: Suppose the U.S. Constitution is amended to prohibit desecration of "the American flag". I march up the steps of the U.S. Capitol and set a U.S. flag alight. My defense: I burned a U.S. flag, which is still protected speech, and "the American flag" was unharmed (and non-existent).
Some fine "American" Legislation: the Buy American Act [69] (Title III). Typical of U.S. legislation, the law starts with some definitions. The United States is defined; American is not. Not surprising since the statute does not generally require that the government "Buy American" products. The Buy American Act generally specifies that nonmanufactured inputs used for public use be "mined or produced in the United States" and that manufactured goods used for public use be "manufactured in the United States substantially all from articles . . . mined, produced, or manufactured . . . in the United States." Looking for the word American (or America) in U.S. legislation, is like looking for a needle in a haystack.
Disclaimer: X ile is not licensed to practice law in America.
But more to the point of the article, the word "American" is not in the U.S. Declaration of Independence[70]. Are you using an older edition again?
Coolcaesar, if you stuck with me this far, thanks. Ideally, the editor of a legal reference would cite some statute or court decision to justify an edit, but that's not gracefully done with a deletion (assuming the definition is even in the 6th Edition). But since we're just speculating on the editors' motives, might the older definition (of "American" as the United States alone--assuming it's true) also have been motivated by external politics? (world wars and the isolationist interim, the Cold War, McCarthyism, the Reagan era, etc.)

.s

X ile 18:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC) (Sorry about the minor edits)

Coolcaesar, I just did some research [71], and I think you're confusing Garner's advocacy of Plain English with political correctness. Two Amazon.com reviewers (one refers to himself as "very conservative and an opponent of political correctness", and the other raves about politically-incorrect fiction like Conan and The Passion of the Christ) have high praise for Garner's Modern American Usage and The Elements of Legal Style. (Yes, I am aware of the irony, in relation to this discussion, of Garner's use of the word American in his book titles.) This, by no means, settles the question, but it is more than the speculation you offered up.
I found an example of Garner criticizing a specific example of political correctness on my hard drive, but couldn't find an online source. From A Dictionary of Modern Usage: Undocumented immigrant and similar terms "have arisen as needless euphemisms, and should be avoided as near gobbledygook". Perhaps you have an example of politically correct language used by Garner that is not better explained as plain language.
For your consideration: David Foster Wallace, "Tense Present: Democracy, English, and the Wars over Usage" [72] and Joseph Kimble, "Answering the Critics of Plain Language" [73].
Now for more important business. Please provide a quote from Stephen Elias and Richard Stim, Patent, Copyright & Trademark: An Intellectual Property Desk Reference to justify your claim in the article that the use of the word "American" in a trademark indicates that an organization is located in or serves the United States.
My understanding (and it seems generally confirmed by WP's trademark) is that American is merely descriptive and not "inherently registrable" as a trademark in the United States. "American Airlines", for example, is a registered trademark in the United States because the mark, as a whole, has acquired secondary meaning. "American Airlines" is associated with the corporation d.b.a. American Airlines, and does not mean it is located in or serves the United States--in fact, it is located in and serves countries throughout the world.
In the enforcement of deceptive claims of U.S. origin, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission does not appear to care about brand names and trademarks that merely use the word "American". "Assuming that the brand name does not specifically denote U.S. origin (that is, the brand name is not 'Made in America, Inc.'), using the brand name by itself does not constitute a claim of U.S. origin." [emphasis added] [74]
A more obvious problem involves the registration of a trademark that uses "American" outside the United States (whether in America or not). Depending on jurisdiction, this might be seen as deceptively suggesting that a business is located in or serves the United States and the applicant could be denied registration on those grounds. Inside the United States, the word is not distinctive enough to register unless it has acquired secondary meaning or is used in a fanciful or arbitrary way ("American Eagle" as opposed to the descriptive "American Apparel").
I see no reason that any of these corporations or organizations you refer to would have to "consider a name change", even if the meaning of "American" were to change overnight by fiat, unless the trademark is not registered. If the trademark is not registered, the corporation or organization would have to seek relief outside intellectual property law (e.g., a Lanham Act claim).

Disclaimer: X ile is not licensed to practice law in America.

.s


X ile 14:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the Articles of Confederation, not the Declaration of Independence, as the article already states. Good comeback there, X ile. Am I using and older edition again, ha! By the way, I did cite the entire entry in Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition. I'm not surprised it was removed in later editions. As I have argued before, though it has a legal definition, or had one, the word has no use in legal terms inside a federation of states. The fifty states are legal entities, and so is the District of Columbia (aka the United States), but not America. That is nationality, or a country, regardless of which type of government governs. Few nations have this separation. The best example of this would be ancient Gaul or Britannia, or even Greece. These were countries, not states, or governments, or any legal entities. They were named so for the people and the land they owned or lived upon, recognized as such, by virtue of its people. Anarchy, monarchy, dictatorship, democracy, none of that matters in regard to the name of a country. France is France because of the Frankish people that occupied that region, not because of Charles the Great or any king. Hungary is named for the Huns. Bulgaria named for the Bulgarians. Britain named for the Britons, etc. And now, America named for the Americans, before the US existed, to distinguish themselves from Europeans ... not for some imperialist agenda as is suggested on this talk page.
And yes, there is an American flag ... many of them in fact. Fifty-one if you do not count the counties and cities. The Federal Government could not issue such a proclamation to forbid burning an "American flag" as it has no direct jurisdiction over the several states and who may or may not burn their flags. It's the United States, not the United State ... yet.
This is also the same problem with any corporation, which are creatures of the state, and therefore not "American." America, not being a legal entity, but a country (the land of the people), cannot make charters or contracts. Jcchat66 03:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, your argument has some major flaws. Even if I had a contract or law referring to something as "American" without any internal definition clauses, American law presumes that parties to a contract intend their agreement to mean something and will apply a saving construction to give meaning to the contract. That is, unless a party is shown to be insane, demented, or a child, parties are presumed to be intelligent enough to make a contract for some purpose which actually does something. Plus many states like California would allow extrinsic evidence to be admitted to resolve ambiguities in the contract. Same reasoning goes for laws; a court will not construe a law to be meaningless unless there no reasonable construction exists. Since "of or pertaining to the United States" is by far the most common meaning of "American" in American English, that is the reasonable definition that any court in the United States would adopt. Also, Black's Law Dictionary has been around for a century or so (long before the Cold War), so I doubt that its definition of "American" was motivated by external politics.
I would reply more, but it's getting late and I have a long day at work tomorrow.--Coolcaesar 08:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American = from the United States, but that's not important

In regard to the issues raised on this page...

"American" means from the United States simply because there is no other word. Every other country in the Americas (and if you ask me how many, there are two) has a name besides "America." For at least two others - Peru and (the United States of) Mexico - these are simply old names for the continents, yet no one objects to the words "Mexican" or "Peruvian." The fact that America, unlike the others, is still in use is irrelevant.

The United States are not the only nation to use a word that previously referred to a larger region. The Dutch, for example, take a word (in English) that once referred to a much larger region of Europe, simply because everyone else in that region has a different descriptor (Belgian, German, Luxembourgish, British, Irish). They do refer to themselves as something like "Netherlanders," but even this once included the Belgians and the Luxembourgish - even so, one of the two is the preferred term in nearly all languages, for both the country and its citizens, simply because there is no other term. You wouldn't prefer that they refer to themselves as "The Kingdom," would you?

Suppose that a state - for argument's sake, California - were to secede. It is sovereign unto itself, and the United States makes no effort to reclaim it. What would citizens of the United States be called? Americans, of course, as always. Would citizens of California be Americans? No, not to most English speakers. They are citizens of California, so they are Californians, just like citizens of Canada are Canadians, and citizens of Mexico Mexicans. ¿Serían estadounidenses los ciudadanos de la California? Claro que no - ya no serían de EE.UU. Pero ¿serían americanos los mismos? Por supuesto - sí serían de América. Serían californianos y americanos. But they would not be American. Why? Because we don't have "estadounidenses." Only Americans.

But I don't see what all this has to do with anything. The word is common - absolutely no one will argue with that statement. Precise or not, it is used in both formal and informal contexts. At least informally, it is used by most people who speak English. These are encyclopedic facts, and unless you can dispute that, this argument has no place here. Wikipedia is not a battleground.

Twin Bird 21:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Twin Birds, too many have already argued against the very point stated above, despite its obvious truth. I dare say there are many clever sophists here that will use whatever argument they can induce to attack American culture. It is the reason for those attacks that would have to be debated elsewhere, for that far exceeds the scope of this article. Jcchat66 02:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Ack. Could you have picked a worse example of a seceding state than California? Californian is an appropriation and a totum pro parte that denies the use of Californian to the people of Baja California. The people of (Alta) California are already citizens of California and are already referred to as Californians by English speakers. Californians, New Yorkers, and Texans really don't need "American" as much as, say, Montanans or Iowans.
That "America" is still in use to refer to the continent(s) is relevant. The ambiguity in meaning does not occur in the examples you cited. That some people would respond to, "I don't understand you when you use that word that way." with, "It's our word for the people of the United States, and we can't use any other word or phrase just to accomodate you. Besides it's our language." is, at the least, discourteous. Everyone writing here is writing to an international English-speaking audience (with varying degrees of fluency (writers and readers alike!)). A writer who desires to be understood by his or her readers should eliminate unnecessary ambiguity.
Referring to only the people of the United States as "American" is no necessity. Referring to the people of the United States only as "American" is also unnecessary. (And, unless we're being really naive or disingenuous, people in the United States actually do refer to their fellow "Americans" by any number of colorful words, particulalrly if they don't "look American".) "American" is useful, to be sure, but it is not necessary.

.s

X ile 18:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

California is not an appropriation, its people elected to join the United States freely. And I, for one, would also like to enjoy the use of Baja California. In fact, Baja Californians do not even get to enjoy the use of the land, since it can be taken from them under Article 27 of the Constitution of the United Mexican States for the purpose of "more equitable distribution of public wealth." But wait! Mexicans do come to enjoy the use of California, where they can own private property without such Marxist limitations like Article 27. In fact, isn't that why Mexicans come to America all the time? To enjoy the use of the land? Jcchat66 06:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
X ile, though you are correct in arguing that better language be used to avoid ambiguity, it remains an opinion whether the use of the word American in the context of the USA is unnecessary. Technical all citizens of the US should be calling themselves by the name of their state of birth; Californians, Floridians, New Mexicans, etc. But a problem arose that divided the USA, and a civil war ensued. It is indeed a pity that more Latin American nations did not attempt this in the past to create American federations of their own. Perhaps they were too proud at being Bolivians and Chileans to consider it, just as Texans and New Yorkers had been too proud during the civil war at one point. And though it is perfectly acceptable to be proud to be a Texan and a New Yorker, they also find pride in being American, especially when 9-11 occurred. Texans, and the rest of the country, were all equally as horrified by the atrocity that befell New York. Why? Because we are Americans in this context, not just Texans and Nebraskans and Washingtonians.
It is not ambiguous so long as the context is made clear. Many words have several meanings, but it us the context that determine which meaning is used. American citizen cannot be misunderstood to be of the American continents, because there are no citizens of continents, but only of states. A list of American snakes can only mean snakes of both continents, not just of the United States, as seldom is this misunderstood in the scientific and academic communities. American History would include the English colonists before the United States existed, as what led up to the existence of the USA is just as important as the USA in history. American culture is used because there is no such thing as United States culture, as the United States is primarily used in relation to the Federal Government, not the many and diverse cultures of America. The name of the government and the name of the people are not the same in the USA, unlike most other countries that enjoy the simplicity of being a single nation-state.
And that leads me to another idea? What of the Greek city-states? Where all of them not proud to call themselves Athenians, Spartans, and Corinthians? Even when they had their Delian League, they did not call themselves Delians, nor where they known as Delians elsewhere. But when they were invaded by Persia, they were suddenly proud to call themselves Greeks, by which the rest of the world new them collectively as. Let’s not forget that the USA is based upon this ancient Greek system. The Greeks were despised often for being different from the rest of the world as well. Will historians 2000 years from now refer to us as Americans or as United States citizens?
Now if the Latin American nations actually unite under a confederation, for example, the Latin United States of America, then we will have a problem of ambiguity, because they could call themselves American citizens as well. But until that happens … Jcchat66
"Technical all citizens of the US should be calling themselves by the name of their state of birth; Californians, Floridians, New Mexicans, etc.". Why is that? Don´t they all belong to a single nation? Lots of other coutries around the world have states. In Brazil, if you are born in Rio De Janeiro State, you are a 'carioca'. In São Paulo, a 'paulistano'. Nevertheless, both are Brazilians. So, I dont see your point.
"It is indeed a pity that more Latin American nations did not attempt this in the past to create American federations of their own." Well, indeed it is, but it just so happen historically that countries colonized by Portugal, Spain and France in America didnt have the "salutar indifference" the USA was given. "Perhaps they were too proud at being Bolivians and Chileans to consider it, just as Texans and New Yorkers had been too proud during the civil war at one point.". I'd urge you to read a little about the independence wars fought in the rest of the American continent, so that you understand better how costly and hard these were.
"American citizen cannot be misunderstood to be of the American continents, because there are no citizens of continents, but only of states". So you are saying theres no such thing as an european citizen? Or asian citizen? African citizen? I beg of you to educate yourself on your own language before stating absurds. And even if you would claim that citizen is only adequate do countries/states, a citizen from Barcelona is a Spanish citizen, and european, thus, an european citizen. He is a citizen, he is european, he is an european citizen. Period.
"A list of American snakes can only mean snakes of both continents, not just of the United States, as seldom is this misunderstood in the scientific and academic communities. American History would include the English colonists before the United States existed, as what led up to the existence of the USA is just as important as the USA in history." Dont you think thats double standart? Why doesnt American History refer to the history of the continent as a whole? Why doesnt it include, say, history of the Mayas, Incans, Aztecs, Argentinians, Mexicans, Canadians, Jamaicans, etc? American snakes englobes us all. American economy does not??
"And that leads me to another idea? What of the Greek city-states? Where all of them not proud to call themselves Athenians, Spartans, and Corinthians?" To the best of my knowledge, no one ever questioned the right someone from New York to call himself "New Yorker" or "Non-imperialistic name for USA citizen here". To use your example of the Greeks, a more adequate example would be if an Athenian said that all people born in Athens were Spartans. Youd imagine the degree of confusion (and angry disaproval) of the ones born in Sparta.
"Now if the Latin American nations actually unite under a confederation, for example, the Latin United States of America, then we will have a problem of ambiguity, because they could call themselves American citizens as well." It never ceases to amaze me how US citizens fail to grasp the simple concept that America is a name for the whole continent, Canada to Argentina. If there were such thing as the Latin United States of America, they would be the same they are today: Americanos.LtDoc 13:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The only reason why there are "European citizens" is because of the European Union, which has written down the concept of "European citizenship" in its treaty (and in the constitution) and because it is a government in the areas in which it has competences - which means that the citizens of the member states are also citizens of the EU. There is however still no such thing as an African or Asian citizen. And note also that an European citizen is a citizen of the European Union and NOT of Europe, which means that the linguistic situation of "European" is quite similar to that of "American". Sijo Ripa 22:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Even if there wasnt an European Union, those people would still be european citizens. They would still be citizens, they would still be european. What they wouldnt be is European (caps) citizens, since there woulndt be a notion of state (European Union)involved. And Im not referring only to the countries of Europe which belong to the EU, but to all of them; Heck, even a Moscovite is an european citizen. He is a citizen, he is european. Im not saying hes from the EU, mind, but being from the continent, its enough. And yes, there IS such a thing as an African/Asian citizen. Try and tell a japanese he is not an asian citizen.LtDoc 13:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
LtDoc, did you look up the word citizen? It absolutely tied to national origin, not geography. No, the Japanese do not call themselves Asian citizens. Egyptians do not call themselves African citizens. One can be an inhabitant of a continent, not a citizen, unless you are Australian, the closest thing to a nation-continent we have on Earth. And if you don't know the difference between a nation-state and a federation of states, then please look it up. A nation can be many things ... a group of nomadic tribe like the Turks, or an empire like the Mexicatl, or the city-states of Greece, or the Hebrew tribes moving through the Sinai Desert. Would you deny nationhood to any of these people? A United States does not need to exist for there to be Americans, a distinct cultural heritage seperate from all other nations such as Canada and Mexico, and nor is it a race. Even if there were no government at all within the boundries of the United States, a culture, a nation, and a people would still exist apart from that which would be called Latin American. Jcchat66 05:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In Portuguese

In Spanish, estadounidense and in Portuguese estado-unidense or estadunidense are preferred to americano for U.S. nationals[citation needed]; the latter tends to refer to any resident of the Americas and not necessarily from the United States.

This is definitey not true for Portugal. The most common words used for American are norte-americano and americano. Estadunidense/estado-unidense may exist, but you never hear them used around here. I don't know about Brazil and other lusophone countries... FilipeS 21:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted page to revision from November 10th - Vandalism

Reverted page again to correct version, after some vandalism from 200.147.97.12.

X ile: You may want to look here: Help:Page_history and here: Help:Reverting. Thanks for the heads-up, though.

I can't help but notice that arguing has kept on while the page stayed vandalized for half an hour. And almost two hours until I saw X-ile's notice. One would think arguing about an article would assume the article is opened somewhere. eduo 15:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Eduo, thanks for the link and revert. I think I was the only one but the vandal in these parts at the time. I had the talk page open for editing and lost the connection to my server in California and was logged off from WP (or maybe the other way around). When I reloaded the article tab, I saw the vandalism and was dismayed. I felt like someone waking up to see grafitti on the fence and had only a roller and mismatched paint to cover it up. From the edit history, it looks like I did catch the vandalism right away.
Unfortunately, it looks like part of the Talk page I was editing when I lost my connection was deleted. I don't know how to fix it, since it includes other editor's comments. Someone that knows what they're doing will have to fix it, and please archive this page. I have a lot of trouble loading the entire page and often just give up.
BTW, I have a pretty complicated dial-up connection that gets me here. I think I'll stick to saving pages and pasting my edits from an offline text editor rather than trying to do anything in "real-time". I hadn't realized the potential problems. Is there anything I need to know about editing these pages using an unstable dial-up connection that might not apply to you rich westerners? (I couldn't help myself.)
X ile 06:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind being a rich westerner. Pages like this I tend to edit in an offline editor. I have never used the (useless, to me) button bar in Wikipedia and in very long articles it's easier to search for, spellcheck and generally work in a dedicated text editor. I'd recommend Textmate for the mac and Ultraedit for Windows. I use Pico in Unix so I won't recommend it :) (Oh, how I wish WP had a preference for always inserting the signature and, if there is, to be pointed where) eduo 16:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

Deep, I saw you removed some sourced material. What was wrong with it? Also, I think the new Latin American section should be sourced if we are going to make those claims (ironically, the second paragraph seems to be a reflection of WilyD's point of view. I think this may give it undue weight. Are there any prominent sources arguing that using "American" in the pan-American sense supports manifest destiny or (US) American interests? It seems pretty ideosyncratic to me.)--Cúchullain t/c 21:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it absolutely agrees with WilyD's point of view. Except while WilyD sees perceived Manifest Destiny as a threat to his individuality, Latin Americans see American exceptionalism as a threat to the cohesiveness and pride that being American represents to them; that is they see it as unfairly exclusionary. There is a source listed somewhere on this talk page. I'll put it up. As for the "sourced" material, it didn't reflect the sources cited. Deepstratagem 06:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The book is Taking Haiti: Military Occupation and the Culture of U.S. Imperialism 1915-1940 and the relevant quote is listed on this talk page. Deepstratagem 06:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USian

USian redirects here. It doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere in the article (I did a search, if I missed it please excuse). I think it should be mentioned or explained in the article if there is going to be a redirect. --203.6.205.131 02:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous edit reasonable?

There was an addition by an anonymous user that though slightly presumptive, is probably true, and no more presumptive than the rest of the surrounding paragraph. In other words, perhaps the whole paragraph should go, or this edit by the anonymous user should be kept to be fair. Just a thought, I'm not deeply concerned. Deepstratagem 17:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It's unsourced, and probably false. As far as I can see, all it's trying to say is that ethnic Americans aren't really Americans, but something else. Apart from which, many of them likely have Indian/African/South or East European heritage. It's also a textbook case of original research - someone trying to draw their own conclusions. WilyD 05:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "American" in other languages

the intro claimed, in two different places, that "most languages" other than English use "American" to refer to the entire Americas. this is definitely false; AFAIK, Spanish is the *only* such language. i corrected the intro but i'm putting this notice here because someone may try to reinsert the false info. Benwing 07:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

French, anyone? LtDoc 00:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not exactly accurate either... one such counter-example is English, a language in which American also refers to the Americas.

Here is another counterexample in German taken from http://www.1globetravel.com/

Mexiko bietet so ziemlich alles, was der amerikanische Kontinent zu bieten hat und bei uns können Sie ganz nach Ihren Wünschen buchen.

Roughly translates to

Mexico offers just about everything the American Continent has to offer and you will be able to book anything you want with us.

So don't be surprised if someone reinserts the "false" info. Deepstratagem 03:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about most common usage. The info will need to be properly sourced, at any rate. I was under the impression that "Amerikaner" usually refered to "U.S. American" in German, but that it could also mean pan-American as a secondary usage. In the same vein French uses "Américain" primarily for the United States, but it can also be used in the pan-American sense. French also has another form, états-unien, but this is rarer. Both of these are more similar to the English usage than the Spanish one, where the primary meaning of "americano" is pan-American; however, especially in French, there may be national differences, for example in Quebec or Haiti. This should be referenced. On another note, I thought the Portuguese usage was similar to Spanish, meaning it's not only Spanish that uses "americano" in that way.--Cúchullain t/c 21:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
"One such language is English, in which 'American' refers to the Americas." According to the second adjectival definition in most dictionaries, and often nowhere as a noun. Looking at dictionary.com[75], not a single dictionary has put a "usage problem" flag on it, let alone marked it as incorrect or colloquial. According to the DRAE[76], the fourth definition of "americano" is "estadounidense," and it says nothing even about this being colloquial or incorrect, let alone the English. When you say "American" (in English), do you honestly mean "of the Americas"? If so, how often are you misunderstood? If you read the word "American" in an English-language anything, what do you think? Admittedly, it's used in a few contexts, but only when it's utterly absurd to think it means anything else. (For the record, English compounds often contain a space, so "North American," "South American," and "Latin American" are not the same at all.) Frankly, I imagine even "American Spanish" is on the way out as a neutral, American dialect starts to appear in more parts of the US. Twin Bird 00:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

My French teachers (most of whom were born and raised in France) taught me to say "je suis américaine" when asked my nationality. That tells me that most? French people use the word "américain(e)" to refer to people born in the US, like me. I had never heard of états-unien until now -- is that a more recent term? Karanacs 21:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Did you learn in the States? Learning French in Canada, we got Americain est de les Etates-Unie, which parallels our normal english Americans come from the United States. FWIW, this year's Canadian Oxford English Dictionary gives American = of the Americas as a primarily Latin American usage, and lists it after of the United States. WilyD 21:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
No clue how new it is, but some form of it appears in both dictionaries I looked at, and at the French Wiktionary. It's apparantly less common, though, and I don't know if there's any regional variation to it.--Cúchullain t/c 21:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)