Wordsmith.org: the magic of words

Wordsmith Talk

About Us | What's New | Search | Site Map | Contact Us  

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 11 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 10 11
#30802 - 06/14/01 01:38 PM Re: Speech/Pronunciation  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69
Bryan Hayward Offline
journeyman
Bryan Hayward  Offline
journeyman

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69
IL
Max wrote:

you will not object to my pointing out that most U.S. citizens are indeed Americans, as are Argentinians, Brazilians, and even your ruthlessly polite neighbours to the North.


Of course. My main objection to US citizens calling themselves "Americans" is that they tend to feel they somehow own the designation. The term American is so broad, as you point out, as to be meaningless. It means anyone in N, S, and Central America.

I am also not a fan of words that are so broad that they are very difficult to understand without extensive context - unless that context is already well understood. On an international forum such as this, it is unclear at best and arrogant at worst for a US citizen to insist on calling themselves Americans. On a streetcorner in Iowa, it is much more specific - they mean "born in USA."

Cheers,
Bryan

P.S. It is often fun to accuse the USA of being an "empire." I can't help but think this is tongue-in-cheek by critics. If the US had wanted an empire, we'd still own the Philippines and Cuba. We'd be "administering" places we occupied during WWII. Not to mention various and sundry banana republics. However, we looked at the British colonial model and decided we didn't want it. The US has been historically isolationist. Not even the harshest critics can deny that. So how do you square "isolationist" with "empire?" Answer, you can't.



Cheers,
Bryan

You are only wretched and unworthy if you choose to be.
#30803 - 06/14/01 02:21 PM Re: Speech/Pronunciation  
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
maverick Offline
Carpal Tunnel
maverick  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
We'd be "administering" places we occupied during WWII

Sure, amongst intelligent members of the world community it is a tongue-in-cheek joke at Americans we know to have broad shoulders and much to be proud of.

But the legacy of history can not be lightly airbrushed away. A great deal of America's founding wealth (like Britain's) was dependent upon the evils of the slave trade. The USA quite rightly avoided the model of social hegemony of the traditional 19th century empires - but it certainly chose to benefit from maintaining an economic choke lead around the throat of many territories in its power through the course of the first and second world wars.

The current context of this same argument is over the degree of indebtedness of so-called Third World countries. We are currently achieving a more disastrous effect on the states of Africa by financially bleeding them dry than by the worst byproducts of the imperial era.

But this is not much to do with words... so raise your glasses, all, to a fine and much abused word: justice!

[/rant]


#30804 - 06/14/01 02:46 PM Re: Speech/Pronunciation  
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Faldage Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Faldage  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
a tongue-in-cheek joke at Americans

Besides, we administer our empire, not through the heavy hand of the Raj, but through the ham hand of the CIA.


#30805 - 06/14/01 04:24 PM Re: Speech/Pronunciation  
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
maverick Offline
Carpal Tunnel
maverick  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Yes, that's a lot less scary nowadays! I guess my point is a slow way of explaining the popular tag of 'Coca-colonialism'.


#30806 - 06/14/01 05:03 PM Re: Americans  
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 428
Flatlander Offline
addict
Flatlander  Offline
addict

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 428
Cape Cod, MA, US
I probably should just keep my mouth shut, but I've always disagreed with people who have a problem with citizens of the United States of America calling themselves Americans. Often they argue that Canadians, Brazilians, and Nicaraguans are also Americans. I think that Canadians and Nicaraguans (and Americans) are North Americans, and Brazilians and Ecuadorians are South Americans. There is no continent named America. Just as I wouldn't call residents of either North and South Dakota, "Dakotans" -- I would call them "North Dakotans" or "South Dakotans." (Of course, I may be shouted down by any "Dakotans" or "Carolinians" out there...) There is no other single word to define citizens of the United States of America (quiet, you in the back), so what is wrong with using the "America" part of the country's name and calling us "Americans"?

I always feel so stupidly jingoistic when I have to explain this to people, but it's a linguistic argument for me, not a patriotic one. If the word "American" is really so vague as to be a problem for everyone else out there, I suppose I will have to relent, but the few times I have been abroad, when I have told people that I am an American I can't remember being met with a perplexed stare. Also, if it really offends other North Americans and South Americans, I guess I will purge it from my lexicon as well, but I just don't like the sound of "I'm a US citizen" -- too official.

Anyway, I have to go read a report that some citizens of the UK who were visiting the US left in our office when they were here.


#30807 - 06/15/01 01:20 AM  
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Max Quordlepleen Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Max Quordlepleen  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409



#30808 - 06/15/01 02:33 AM Re: Speech/Pronunciation  
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
WhitmanO'Neill Offline
Carpal Tunnel
WhitmanO'Neill  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Rio Grande, Cape May County, N...
words that are so broad that they are difficult to understand without extensive context

That's why I have such a problem witht the label Hispanic...I think it's deplorable to lump such ethnically diverse peoples as Mexicans, Cubans, Continental Spaniards, Agrentinians, Puerto Ricans, Filipinos, etc., etc., all under one heading...it just doesn't make sense to me.

However, in the same breath I am going to say that I think, despite all the literal and/or spiteful rhetoric, that the name American/Americans has come to be accepted as and equated with being a U.S. Citizen...it represents an ideal more than a region (an ideal we're still striving to acchieve). Besides, if we want to get really technical we can revert to the hackneyed, but true, argument that the only real Americans were the Iroquois, Delaware, Seminoles, Lakota, etc...and don't call them "Native" or "Indian", stick to the tribal names of their nations as they would prefer, and deserve, to have it.

I am an American. Of Slovak/Russo/Hungarian/German descent...with a drop of French/Italian/and Irish sprinkled in...but I am an American, second and third generation. What else would you have me call myself...a Mutt?

And, besides (and I know I'm going to catch it for this, I've got my flak-jacket on folks!) during the days of the British Empire did Englishmen living in India, South Africa, Australia, etc. call themselves Indians, South Africans, Australians.....or Englishmen? I rest my case (and ducking very low!).


#30809 - 06/15/01 02:45 AM Re: faith without works  
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
WhitmanO'Neill Offline
Carpal Tunnel
WhitmanO'Neill  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Rio Grande, Cape May County, N...
My faith is solid: that there are objective facts

I think, perhaps we need to differentiate between a concrete, scientific faith that says if I'm holding a stone in my hand and let go, I have complete faith it will fall to the ground due to gravity; and an abstract faith that believes if you let go of the stone it will defy the laws of gravity and levitiate or float. The first is guaranteed; the second could happen. I believe that "faith can move mountains,"...but you better have a lot of dynamite and good pick-axes handy, and be ready and willing to use them.


#30810 - 06/15/01 10:36 AM Re: Speech/Pronunciation  
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 609
rodward Offline
addict
rodward  Offline
addict

Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 609
Portsmouth, United Kingdom
during the british Empire did Englishmen living in India, etc. call themselves Indians, South Africans, Australians.....or Englishmen

It may be illogical and not strictly accurate, but I have no real problem with Americans=US'ns in common parlance. In that sense, Americans are also North Americans (but not necessarily vice versa), but not South Americans. Of course if one was discussing North and South and whole American continents, one would probably avoid the term.

But Whitman, I am not sure how your question above relates to the argument about what US citizens are called. Most (male) people living for a while in a country still refer to themselves as "an X-man living in Y-land". And in those times, the longer stay colonists still thought of themselves as "X-men". Or were you alluding to the confusion between Britain and England? I'm confused myself as to what you meant so can't start throwing rocks (yet )

Rod


#30811 - 06/15/01 01:57 PM Re: Speech/Pronunciation  
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
WhitmanO'Neill Offline
Carpal Tunnel
WhitmanO'Neill  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Rio Grande, Cape May County, N...
i.e. Brits livng abroad in the days of the Birtish Empire -- in reply to rodward

Yes, rod, I can see the confusion in my analogy...it was getting late and my logic was wearing thin. I guess I meant that, if we were sticking to strictly continental/regional strictures in describing citizenship, then by rights, during the days of Empire an Englishman (or maybe Brit is more accurate here; I guess English ladies take exception to that term these days, huh?) who was living elsewhere would have to describe themselves as an Indian, Australian, South African, etc. (or, at least, an Indian-Englishman...i.e. Rudyard Kipling)...And, of course, an Englishman would never consider doing that owning to national pride, etc. But these territories were considered part of a "Greater England" then, so perhaps the point is moot. On the other hand, because of the travel requirements in that era, most lived out the larger portion of their lives in the colony on another continent...so they weren't truly an "Englishman" either. Did I just create more confusion or more clarity? I'm not really sure?


Page 6 of 11 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 10 11

Moderated by  Jackie 

Forum Statistics
Forums16
Topics13,879
Posts224,252
Members9,033
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
Newest Members
Joyous, Amylzirklern, brork, santo, piostylist
9033 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 49 guests, and 1 spider.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Top Posters(30 Days)
Top Posters(All Time)
wwh 13,858
Faldage 13,803
Jackie 11,613
tsuwm 10,538
LukeJavan8 9,065
AnnaStrophic 6,511
Wordwind 6,296
of troy 5,400
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site. Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.

Home | Today's Word | Yesterday's Word | Subscribe | FAQ | Archives | Search | Feedback
Wordsmith Talk | Wordsmith Chat

© 1994-2017 Wordsmith

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.014s Queries: 13 (0.004s) Memory: 2.7454 MB (Peak: 2.8765 MB) Zlib disabled. Server Time: 2017-12-17 06:15:52 UTC