Also offensive: pointing out that English speakers do not use the word “American” to refer to people from Latin America. The term in our language is universally used to refer to people from the country America.
Also offensive: pointing out that English speakers do not use the word “American” to refer to people from Latin America. The term in our language is universally used to refer to people from the country America.
I do not. That was the whole point of my multiple comments in the original thread. America is the correct noun, in English, to refer to the United States of America.
We can get into definitions of continents if you like. I accept that people from Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking backgrounds primarily talk about a 6 continent model consisting of America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia/Oceania, and Antarctica. I can also accept that because there’s no real solid definition of a continent, it’s impossible to say that this is wrong per se. I will say that I find it an absolutely baffling grouping to use, and that I myself prefer 6 continents consisting of North and South America, Eurasia, Africa, Oceania, and Antarctica; it makes no sense to me that someone could group the Americas while considering Afroeurasia three continents: to me, either an isthmus like Panama and Suez separates continents, or it does not, and it’s weird to split over Suez but not Panama, and even weirder not to merge Eurasia who have no physical separation. (And IMO, once you start separating Europe and Asia, it becomes hard not to justify separating Arabia and India, if we’re trying to keep a logical definition.) But continents aren’t especially logical. In most of the English-speaking world, the 7 continent model dominates. We talk about North and South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia/Oceania, and Antarctica. Those are the 7 continents, and while you can disagree with them (as I do!), in most conversations you’re just being difficult if you bring up that disagreement in anything more than a very lighthearted way.
The use of the demonym America stems in part from that. Once you reject the notion that “America” is a single continent, it becomes far easier to understand that the demonym “American” can’t refer to people from two continents, and so it’s very normal to use it to refer to just one country. That country being the United States of America. It’s pretty normal to refer to countries by their short form. Czechia a few years back started a big campaign push to specifically ask people to call them that, rather than always using the formal “Czech Republic”. Australia rarely gets referred to as the “Commonwealth of Australia”, and the fact that Canada is officially “the Dominion of Canada” is rarely even acknowledged by official texts these days. Amusingly, America’s southern neighbour has an equally valid claim on the name “United States”, since Estados Unidos Mexicanos translates to United Mexican States, or, roughly, United States of Mexico. Latin Americans often get upset at this because in Spanish, the demonym is ‘estadounidense’, which roughly translates to ‘United Statesian’. But that’s not a word that exists in English. It’s not especially logical even in Spanish, given that logically speaking, estadounidense could also refer to Mexicans. But words are defined by their usage, and in common usage that word unambiguously means American. The same is true in English. American unambiguously, in English, means person or thing from the United States of America. It’s silly to get upset by that.
Two corrections:
[Info dump that sounds like an “ackshyually”, but doesn’t contradict what you said, nor tries to. It’s just that you touched a topic that I enjoy talking about.]
Under the territory controlled by the Brazilian most people do speak Portuguese but there are ~200 other languages; for example a good chunk of my family speaks a Venetian variety. Spanish is among those, and it’s actually spoken by a few people born in the territory controlled by Brazil due to border changes. Other varieties besides PT and ES can be roughly split into colonial (e.g. Talian, Hunsrik, Pommersch, Polish) and Amerindian (e.g. Mbyá, Kaingang, Laklãnõ).
On the other hand, Portuguese sometimes pops up even in territory controlled by other governments than Brazil. Ciudad del Este (Paraguay) and Puerto Iguazú (Argentina) are an example, but as well some northern chunk of Uruguay. And then there’s a bunch of “portuñol” mixed varieties that IMO should be protected by the statal governments (because the federation certainly won’t).
What I have seen suggests that Canada has not changed its legal name since confederation in 1867, and at that time they chose the Dominion of Canada. The name has been allowed to fade out of use and has not been used in a long time, but neither was the name ever officially changed. Its obscurity is precisely why I chose to bring it up.
Not sure what you put up point 2 for. I explicitly included one reference in my comment to acknowledge that, and at no time did I call out Brazil as speaking Spanish.
I typically just say “American” too but I don’t do all this when I get corrected. It comes across like you’re trying to justify being
racistethnocentric.It is weird to hear someone say “country of America” though when you could just say “the US(A)”
Edit: corrected language
I do not appreciate the accusation of racism. If that’s the kind of tenor this conversation is going to take, I’m not going to engage further.
This is commentary on a thread that was specifically created to get into the nuances of language surrounding America. So yeah, of course I went into a lot of detail about the origins and why we say what we do.
I said that’s how it comes across. I’ve said things in the past that came across as racist/xenophobic/ethnocentric, and I appreciate it when people point it out so I can adjust.
This just seems like one of those thing where if explaining and defending your position sounds racist/xenophobic/ethnocentric, you should consider changing your position or taking it less seriously
If you’re unwilling to consider that- yeah, it might be best not to engage further
Which part of what I said do you think is racist? Because I simply don’t see it. If anything, the ones being intolerant here are the ones who insist that the way they use words in their language is right and we have to all contort the definitions we’ve used for over a hundred years to match the etymological translation of words they use.
I’m intolerant of colonial language. The way “American” is used by English speakers to mean “USAmerican” is actually just US chauvinism. They think they are the center of the world and so of course American only refers to them, even though there’s a bunch of other countries in the Americas and the majority of Americans don’t actually live in the US.
The term “American” is colonial regardless of what you apply to it. There is no acknowledgment of the native peoples of the land today called the Americas, regardless of whether you call them all Americans or only those from the country America.
When faced with multiple different colonial options, I’m going to stick with the one that is short, easy to say, and most widely understood.
It’s really funny. Do they think people speak Spanish in the Americas for some reason OTHER than colonialism. Not to mention Vespucci himself not exactly being native. It’s wild out here.
Seems to me you’re the one policing others’ language, ultimately suggesting Latin Americans aren’t Americans.
For “Americans” to refer to only “US Americans” (and make sense), the term necessarily must exclude Latin Americans
Note: Another user pointed out, I should’ve said ethnocentric rather than racist
How on Earth do you think this suggests that?
The term excludes anyone not from the country of America. The term for people from the continent is either North American or South American.
If they want to use it, I’m not going to correct them. If they try to “correct” me for using my language in its most widely accepted manner, that’s when I start getting mad. The only one policing others’ language arethose insisting you cannot call Americans Americans.
So you’re caving to people who are trying to force their sociolinguistic ideas on the speakers of a different language?
It’s not you that’s being racist/ethnocentric/xenophobic/imperialist… If you were conversing in Spanish then sure, it’d be Estadounidense/Estados Unidos but in English it’s American/America and to try and force either one to change would be cultural imperialism
Do you think everyone in America is the same race? And what race do you think they are?
You’re right, I should’ve said xenophobic
Are you being xenophobic when you use the term American? Or is it just common parlance? What is it when you tell people how to address themselves?
*ethnocentric is a better term actually, after more thinking
Yeah, when I use the term “American” to refer to US Americans, I’m being ethnocentric. If I were to be corrected and then -instead of accepting the correction- double down and argue, that would certainly seem like I had a problem with being an equal to Latin Americans
I don’t believe ethnocentric is the correct term (I mean, clearly. I don’t believe there’s anything wrong with it. But if there has to be a label you can apply, ethnocentric isn’t it.). American is not an ethnicity. Asian Americans and African Americans are every bit as American as white Americans and Latino Americans. The only ethnicity with a better claim than all those others are Native Americans.
There is space for America to refer to the continents of North and South America, and also be short hand for the United States of America the same way that the United Mexican States is called Mexico.
Inferring that it makes anyone less equal is ethnocetric, if anything.