Using the Word "American"

[Atlantos]

And this is why, as a Brit, I refer to US nationals as "Yanks", with an optional "Bloody" prefix.

This way we get:
American: Of the super-continent of the Americas
North-American: Pertaining to North-America
South-American: Pertaining to South-America
A Mexican: A citizen of Mexico
A Canadian: A citizen of Canada
A Yank: A citizen of the U.S.A.
A Bloody Yank: Someone who behaves like a stereotypical citizen of the U.S.A.

Also, as an English speaker, I feel qualified to confirm that yanks do indeed speak a strange language that, while it may superficially resemble English, was in fact concocted from a pre-schooler's impression of said language. At least, that is the best reason I can come up with to explain the fact that a speaker of this mysterious tongue seems utterly incapable of spelling properly.

"Yank" as a British term for American is acceptable, just not "Yankee" for Southerners. It's just...one of those things.

And I agree, Americans don't really speak English. They speak American.
I primarily speak American but with a heavy slant towards actual English, and occasionally I'll switch to outright Texan. They're related languages, clearly not the same.
An Englishman and a Texan could easily have a conversation where neither can understand the other.

Good grief, a yank with an actual sense of humour! - I've seen it all.

Well met, Sir.

 

[StarCecil]

And yes it IS against the United States flag code to fly any flag on U.S. soil at the same height or higher than the American flag. It is not penalized, which is why ignorant Texans do it, thinking they have special rights. Technically anyone can do it and get away with it, but most people actually realize what the flag code is. It's an embarrassment to put your state at the same level as the United States.

Hey just fyi, if you look at Texas government code, Title 11, section3100.055, it states that "If the state flag and the flag of the United States are displayed on flagpoles or flagstaffs at the same location:

(1) the flags should be displayed on flagpoles or flagstaffs of the same height;"

Here [http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.3100.htm] is the link.

Again, that is in the Texas flag code. The United States flag code says a flag should not be flown at the same height as the U.S. flag, but this is now taken as "guidelines" and does not impose any penalties to deviant behavior. Texas, having the ability to be rather bigoted, took advantage of that and decided to make it seem as if their State was special in some way when really any state can do it and get away with it. My points above were that
1. It goes against the U.S. flag code
2. It is not penalized, therefore anyone can technically do it
3. Texas makes the incredibly arrogant statement with this that they hold their state equal to the entire national government which they serve, and if given the chance would likely put their flag above the U.S. flag to hold themselves above said government

I had a relative get in trouble for putting a Mexican flag over a US flag once. They were told that, legally speaking, if they are on the same pole, then the US flag has to go on top. If they are on different poles then they can be of varying heights.

 

[Rheinmetall]

Let's be honest, the word American, is used exclusively from those who feel that are the rulers of the American continent. If the Brazilians, or the Argentinians had the same influence in the world they would probably use the word American for themselves and leave to the Northerns the noun Anglosaxonic America, or whatever.

That's a really...twisted view.

You have to look at it this way. Ignore the idea that the USA are a single entity.just ignore the term USA for a minute completely and regard the 50 states as countries in their own right.
That's what people aren't getting here, and what people in general just fail to realize.
States did NOT join "Eaglelandia" with the intention of becoming subsumed into a single massive entity known only as "Eaglelandia". They were not agreeing to simply bow down to an existing country and become part of it.
The States were individual entities(actually British colonies) that were mostly not powerful enough to have their own say on the world stage. They wanted to be heard and they wanted to do things their way. They were tired of being run by European empires.
In order to claim the sway, the power to be heard, and be recognized by other world powers as a legitimate force to be respected, these colonies had to figure out how to operate on a scale beyond their own means.
So, what they did was work together. They formed an alliance between them. The separate governments began to work together to create a legal framework shared between all the colonies so that the various colonies could operate on equal footing.
The colonies were still separate entities with separate laws and customs and traditions, but they did have a set of laws developed from that legal framework that they agreed to use between all the allied colonies to make sure everyone was equal.
They went through various phases of solidarity until they finally used their combined might to declare their independence from the British, thereby no longer being "colonies" and now instead being confederated "states".

These were now basically 13 separate countries acting together with the intent on being unified in their objectives.
What would you call a bunch of separate North American political states that unified together to wield the same power as a single massive political entity? You'd call them something like "united states of North America", and so that's basically what they became known as.
When the phrase "These United States" was first used, it likely was not intended to be a proper noun forever labeling a single homogeneous political entity. Had they been looking to do that, they'd probably named it after George Washington or something. No, they weren't shooting for the idea of all the states being subsumed into a single monolithic entity.

If you want a modern version of the exact same story, look at the European Union. You don't think of the whole thing as "The European Union". No, you think of it as Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, Spain, etc etc etc.
That's how you have to think of the United States Of America if you want to understand why the naming developed to work the way that it works.
You call the people of the EU "Europeans" just as you call the people of the USA "Americans".

"Americans" is a catch-all term that includes Texans, Californians, New Yorkers, Virginians, Hoosiers, etc etc etc.
You don't use it to refer to Mexicans because Mexicans have their own name specific to them.
You call people from Norway "Norwegians" and I'll bet they won't really notice if people stop calling them Europeans when the term "European becomes widely associated with meaning "citizens of EU countries", but, if they do notice and care, they still have a far more legitimate complaint as to why the term "Europeans" should apply to them too. Their continent is actually CALLED Europe. The same logic applied between Mexico/Canada/etc and the USA doesn't hold up. Our continent IS NOT simply called "America". It's "North America".
Honestly, the USA ALREADY uses a modified form of the continent name to avoid confusion.
If it was called "The United States Of North America" and its citizens were referred to as "North Americans" and THAT annoyed people from Mexico/Canada/etc, THEN they would have a complaint somewhat worth making.

I know that nowadays most people have lost track almost entirely of what the United States were/are actually meant to be, but that's what the whole damn Civil War was about. That's what all this never ending business delineating and battling over the difference between Federal Rights and State's Rights has been all about.

So no, it's not a matter of "We're the rulers of the American continent", it's a matter of "Our name has derived from a phrase describing the nature of our states and the location they happen to occupy".

I'm surprised, pleasantly surprised, that you took all that time to answer to me. I appreciate it. It was a very interesting and informative text. Still I don't understand why you consider my opinion as twisted. Your explanation doesn't exclude the reality that the noun American is used by those who are dominant in the American continent. I will try to explain it bringing the same analogy that you used, European Union. Europe is not just the 25 countries that form the EU, but all the countries of the continent. Often when we refer to the nations and the people of the European Union, we call them "Europeans". It is not wrong, because the EU members are also Europeans, but they are not the only ones. Russians, Ukrainians, Swiss, Serbs, Albanians are Europeans too. The "heart" of Europe has always been Germany, Britain and France, from a historical, cultural and political influence point of view. A European Union can still exist without the Eastern countries, or the Balkans in the South, or the Skandinavians in the North. But without the countries of the Western Europe the EU doesn't have a meaning anymore.

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

It would be pretty cool if we could refer to ourselves as Columbian. America is just a geographic term; Columbia is poetic. Unfortunately, a certain South American nation decided to take the name Colombian for themselves when they revolted from Spain.

 

[Ieyke]

Let's be honest, the word American, is used exclusively from those who feel that are the rulers of the American continent. If the Brazilians, or the Argentinians had the same influence in the world they would probably use the word American for themselves and leave to the Northerns the noun Anglosaxonic America, or whatever.

That's a really...twisted view.

You have to look at it this way. Ignore the idea that the USA are a single entity.just ignore the term USA for a minute completely and regard the 50 states as countries in their own right.
That's what people aren't getting here, and what people in general just fail to realize.
States did NOT join "Eaglelandia" with the intention of becoming subsumed into a single massive entity known only as "Eaglelandia". They were not agreeing to simply bow down to an existing country and become part of it.
The States were individual entities(actually British colonies) that were mostly not powerful enough to have their own say on the world stage. They wanted to be heard and they wanted to do things their way. They were tired of being run by European empires.
In order to claim the sway, the power to be heard, and be recognized by other world powers as a legitimate force to be respected, these colonies had to figure out how to operate on a scale beyond their own means.
So, what they did was work together. They formed an alliance between them. The separate governments began to work together to create a legal framework shared between all the colonies so that the various colonies could operate on equal footing.
The colonies were still separate entities with separate laws and customs and traditions, but they did have a set of laws developed from that legal framework that they agreed to use between all the allied colonies to make sure everyone was equal.
They went through various phases of solidarity until they finally used their combined might to declare their independence from the British, thereby no longer being "colonies" and now instead being confederated "states".

These were now basically 13 separate countries acting together with the intent on being unified in their objectives.
What would you call a bunch of separate North American political states that unified together to wield the same power as a single massive political entity? You'd call them something like "united states of North America", and so that's basically what they became known as.
When the phrase "These United States" was first used, it likely was not intended to be a proper noun forever labeling a single homogeneous political entity. Had they been looking to do that, they'd probably named it after George Washington or something. No, they weren't shooting for the idea of all the states being subsumed into a single monolithic entity.

If you want a modern version of the exact same story, look at the European Union. You don't think of the whole thing as "The European Union". No, you think of it as Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, Spain, etc etc etc.
That's how you have to think of the United States Of America if you want to understand why the naming developed to work the way that it works.
You call the people of the EU "Europeans" just as you call the people of the USA "Americans".

"Americans" is a catch-all term that includes Texans, Californians, New Yorkers, Virginians, Hoosiers, etc etc etc.
You don't use it to refer to Mexicans because Mexicans have their own name specific to them.
You call people from Norway "Norwegians" and I'll bet they won't really notice if people stop calling them Europeans when the term "European becomes widely associated with meaning "citizens of EU countries", but, if they do notice and care, they still have a far more legitimate complaint as to why the term "Europeans" should apply to them too. Their continent is actually CALLED Europe. The same logic applied between Mexico/Canada/etc and the USA doesn't hold up. Our continent IS NOT simply called "America". It's "North America".
Honestly, the USA ALREADY uses a modified form of the continent name to avoid confusion.
If it was called "The United States Of North America" and its citizens were referred to as "North Americans" and THAT annoyed people from Mexico/Canada/etc, THEN they would have a complaint somewhat worth making.

I know that nowadays most people have lost track almost entirely of what the United States were/are actually meant to be, but that's what the whole damn Civil War was about. That's what all this never ending business delineating and battling over the difference between Federal Rights and State's Rights has been all about.

So no, it's not a matter of "We're the rulers of the American continent", it's a matter of "Our name has derived from a phrase describing the nature of our states and the location they happen to occupy".

I'm surprised, pleasantly surprised, that you took all that time to answer to me. I appreciate it. It was a very interesting and informative text. Still I don't understand why you consider my opinion as twisted. Your explanation doesn't exclude the reality that the noun American is used by those who are dominant in the American continent. I will try to explain it bringing the same analogy that you used, European Union. Europe is not just the 25 countries that form the EU, but all the countries of the continent. Often when we refer to the nations and the people of the European Union, we call them "Europeans". It is not wrong, because the EU members are also Europeans, but they are not the only ones. Russians, Ukrainians, Swiss, Serbs, Albanians are Europeans too. The "heart" of Europe has always been Germany, Britain and France, from a historical, cultural and political influence point of view. A European Union can still exist without the Eastern countries, or the Balkans in the South, or the Skandinavians in the North. But without the countries of the Western Europe the EU doesn't have a meaning anymore.

Aye, I get that. It's not a perfect analogy. It'd be a more perfect analogy if Europe was called "North Europe" and people from the continent should be referred to as "North European", while the EU is stil simply called the "European Union" and the people from it are called "Europeans".
Europe and the European Union lack a built-in differentiation between their names the way that NORTH America and the United States Of America do.
"European" logically applies to someone from Europe OR the EU.
"American" logically applies to someone from the USA, while "North American" applies to someone from the North American continent. "North" already being a necessary part of the demonym in order to specify that the people in question are from North America, rather than South America.

If you wanted to give the USA and North America the same differentiation issue that the EU and Europe's demonyms have, they'd have to be called either:
"North America" and "United States Of North America" - in which case the demonym for both would be "North American"
or
simply "America" and "United States Of America" - in which case the demonym for both WOULD indeed be simply "American"

As it stands, "North" being properly appended to refer to someone from North America who is not from the USA should be more than enough to avoid confusion.


If you take the logic train allllll the way back to step one, the only people who should really be called simply "American" are the Native Americans, and then every other faction has a lesser claim to being outright "American" and should be given variant names. ....but that's not how history named them. They didn't come to be called ANY type of "Americans" until long after simple "American" had already been applied to people of the USA. ....cuz apparently they make convincing people from India...and got stuck being called "Indians" for a looong looong time (still are, really).
Nonetheless, the Native Americans have their own variant demonym that keeps anyone from getting confused, so it's not a problem. No one else is called "Native" American, after all.

 

[Lilani]

Stop calling us all Europeans and we'll stop calling you all American

That's the thing, though--I've never heard of people having a problem with the people being called Americans. The complaint I always hear is about the country being called "America" instead the US, as though there are so many countries in the Americas that could be referring to. But then those same people go and refer to the residents of the US as "Americans," and I can't think of any other feasible way to refer to us, so why there's even an issue at all I don't know.

Oh, and I've never heard of an American having an issue with being called an American.

 

[Rheinmetall]

"Our name has derived from a phrase describing the nature of our states and the location they happen to occupy".

Ther nature of the states is: United, and the location that they occupy is: North America. Then in that case the demonym should have been: United Northern Americans, or simply United Americans, since there isn't any other similar union of states in South America to differentiate it from. However, "United", and perhaps "United states" should not be removed, as it is the term that differentiates this particular American country from the rest of the American countries. If you must have "America" as part of your demonym, then you must use some kind of adjective, or attribute to separate it from the rest of the inhabitants of the continent.

Anyway, the factor that we both seem to have forgotten from this discussion is the right of every nation, or union of people to self-identify. The demonym "American" for the people of the USA is clearly a very loose interpretation of the rules for demonyms, but the US Americans have the right to call themselves Americans, in the same way that the citizens of United Arab Emirates can call themselves simply Arabs.

 

[Ieyke]

But there is no reason to differentiate Americans with any additional words. The demonym is perfectly clear as is because all other types of "American" are already differentiated by their own suffixes specifying the region(s) they belong to.

Adding "United" or some such suffix would just be overly pedantic, even for me.

 

[6SteW6]

Hey I'm from Scotland and live in America and ignorant American's constantly refer to the UK as England. It works both ways man.