Posted                      

quote:

---

Golden Key: Ah! I didn't know it was a matter of different regions. My long-time understanding (from school? travel shows?) was that "Holland" was something of an insult. Or is it that, too?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

And my understanding is the phrase began to be invoked any time Americans wanted to expand anywhere, even if the end result might be war. And this included clearing out the Midwest territories for American settlers to populate.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

And my understanding is the phrase began to be invoked any time Americans wanted to expand anywhere, even if the end result might be war. And this included clearing out the Midwest territories for American settlers to populate.

---

(just to add) even leaving the Native Americans out of it, do you still not see how the average American might see this period in history as ugly and shameful, and might not want to have their permanent cultural identity associated with it?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

And my understanding is the phrase began to be invoked any time Americans wanted to expand anywhere, even if the end result might be war. And this included clearing out the Midwest territories for American settlers to populate.

---

(just to add) even leaving the Native Americans out of it, do you still not see how the average American might see this period in history as ugly and shameful, and might not want to have their permanent cultural identity associated with it?

---

I would say that they're in the same boat as Spaniards with the reconquista, French with the annexation of Brittany, Russians with the expansion into the Caucasus, Canadians and Australians with the marginalization of aboriginal populations, or Germans with the doings of the Hohenzollerns. We are all inheritors (and often beneficiaries) of unpleasant histories.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Heh. The 'Merkins be tetchy.

.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
In Canada, Manifest Destiny refers to the annexationist sentiment intended to include the northern provinces in the USA. I recall references in the Ontario standard history texts and there are a thousand places to find such references; type "Canadian history manifest destiny" into google. From wider reading, I am aware that it involved expansion into Mexican territory, but I don't think that many Canadians know this-- and while I read pretty widely in US history, I actually was not aware of its application to the involuntary movement and transportation of Indian tribes.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Heh. The 'Merkins be tetchy.

.

---

One of the things that makes me suspect I have spectrum issues is my compulsive need to address things that are clearly a joke with a serious answer, so off I go..

Everybody be techy about something. But sometimes it seems like one of those " I am righteously affronted, you are tetchy, he/ she/ it is a defensive reactionary" things, when it comes to who gets to articulate their techiness.

For example: Humor, humor, humor, humor! Suck on my American Standard Spelling! SUCK IT!

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

As various of we Americans have pointed out on various related threads, American mythology is a large chunk of the problem. There are variations, but IMHO the main theme is something like this:

{Note: I DO NOT ENDORSE THIS!!!}

Our European ancestors were facing trials, tribulations, and persecutions back there. They couldn't follow their God-given faith. (Christianity, of course--nothing else counts.) So these Pilgrims bravely sailed to the New World, guided by the Manifest Destiny that God prepared for them. (Light to the world, etc.)

They bravely built settlements. They met and mingled with the local savages, who initially helped the Pilgrims learn how to live on this continent. But there was a falling out: the Indians didn't want to accept our clearly superior ways, nor acknowledge that God Had Given US This Place To Tame. So we fought them, which was unfortunate; but they clearly had it coming, because they weren't following God's will. Darn it, we tried to help the survivors out with education. We even gave them land to live on. We couldn't have been any fairer than that.

We civilized this country, with guns, determination, and grit, pushing ever westward. We cleared the land, and made it useful. We were pioneers. A man could work hard, get his own land, build a house with his own hands (and, sometimes, help from the neighbors). He had a God-given right to protect it from varmints, thieves, Injuns, and meddling governments. No one has the right to interfere with that--ever.

We're still pioneers. We're still manifestly destined. We lead the world in democracy, innovation, and military strength. We won't start a war (unless it's in our best interests); but, by gum, we will finish anyone who brings war to us.

May God bless and keep the United States of America, and may we always kick the asses of anyone who gets in our God-given way.

Does that make the situation a little clearer??

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Well, if you had a sense of humour....

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
In Canada, Manifest Destiny refers to the annexationist sentiment intended to include the northern provinces in the USA. I recall references in the Ontario standard history texts and there are a thousand places to find such references; type "Canadian history manifest destiny" into google. From wider reading, I am aware that it involved expansion into Mexican territory, but I don't think that many Canadians know this-- and while I read pretty widely in US history, I actually was not aware of its application to the involuntary movement and transportation of Indian tribes.

---

My understanding, educated in Canada is the same your's.

I recall well Manifest Destiny being included during general discussion of colonialism in university history courses 35 years ago, carelessly eliding the 20th century European wars and traducing current American economic hegemony.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Kiss my arse.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Dave W.: There's no continent called "America"

---

I don't think there is a universal convention about how many continents there are and how they are named. If I call everything from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego 'America' (Latin Americans sometimes do), then you may disagree with me, but there is nothing on which you can base that your understanding of the continents is the right one.

---

That's as may be, but Augustine the Aleut was explaining the objection to US citizens calling themselves "Americans", and they do not refer to everything from Alaska* to Tierra del Fuego "America". Latin American usage would be irrelevant to his explanation (unless the objectors are really desperate to find a rationale for their objection.)

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You simply cannot, with any equity, require people who are from parts of the world where "America" means the whole continent to only use the word "America" the way you would use it. Your usage is NOT correct, it's just yours.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

RuthW: All I'm saying is that you should call us what we call ourselves: Americans.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Dave W.: There's no continent called "America"

---

I don't think there is a universal convention about how many continents there are and how they are named. If I call everything from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego 'America' (Latin Americans sometimes do), then you may disagree with me, but there is nothing on which you can base that your understanding of the continents is the right one.

---

That's as may be, but Augustine the Aleut was explaining the objection to US citizens calling themselves "Americans", and they do not refer to everything from Alaska* to Tierra del Fuego "America". Latin American usage would be irrelevant to his explanation (unless the objectors are really desperate to find a rationale for their objection.)

---

Aha. THEY do not refer to everything as "America".

I'm amazed at the failure to grasp the point.

Because, you see, apparently, when English-speakers say "America" and mean the USA, it's important that this bit of self-determination be exercised and no-one can tell you that it's not the usage they would use.

Whereas, when a Spanish or Portuguese-speaker says "America" and means the whole (double) continent, including the part that they themselves live in, that's just their peculiar idiosyncratic approach and really they should use the word 'properly'?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Golden Key: Ah! I didn't know it was a matter of different regions. My long-time understanding (from school? travel shows?) was that "Holland" was something of an insult. Or is it that, too?

---

Nah, not really. 'Holland' is the legitimate name for part of the country. Etymologically, it means 'wood-land'.

Holland is the more urbanised part of the country, where the larger cities are: Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague ... It is also the part from which the country is governed.

As in many countries, there is some ressentment in the more rural parts towards people from the urban regions (calling them things like 'arrogant loud-mouths'), but when people say they feel insulted when someone from abroad says they're from Holland, they're just nagging.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

JoannaP: In the UK, some people from Wales or Scotland would regard being called "English" an insult.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:

On a different tangent, most people in the UK seem to cope with "Europe" having two meanings, one including Britain and one excluding it. We can generally work out which one is meant from context. It may not be ideal, but it works fine in practice. I don't see why "American" can't be similar; the same term has different connotations in different contexts. It's hardly unknown in the English language.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
On a different tangent, most people in the UK seem to cope with "Europe" having two meanings, one including Britain and one excluding it. We can generally work out which one is meant from context. It may not be ideal, but it works fine in practice. I don't see why "American" can't be similar; the same term has different connotations in different contexts. It's hardly unknown in the English language.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Confused here: the US hasn't the same government as what/whom?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
(a) annex

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
(a) annex

---

What? That's the first time I've ever heard that suggested by anyone, anywhere. Are you being serious here?

And I'm half-serious when I ask, what makes you think we'd want either country?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
(a) annex

---

What? That's the first time I've ever heard that suggested by anyone, anywhere. Are you being serious here?

And I'm half-serious when I ask, what makes you think we'd want either country?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
What I am suggesting is that the term "American" is ambiguous and has two separate (but overlapping) meanings:
(a) of, from or relating to the United States of America
(b) of, from or relating to The Americas.

It may be used more often with one meaning than the other, but that does not mean that the second meaning is invalid. "Washington" may be used more often to denote the eastern city but it still refers to the western state as well. Similarly the existence of two different meanings does not necessarily suggest any confusion between The Americas and the USA; they remain distinct concepts.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
What I hear you saying, John Holding, is that " the Americans" are somehow being selfindulgent to point out that use of the word "American" in reference to a US national began internationally 250 years before any if us got here, but that holding those same Americans accountable for stuff an entirely different group of Americans did those same couple hundred years ago is reasonable.

if one really wanted to play that game, one could point out that most of those Americans were probably first generation immigrants themselves, and got all their ideas about how to establish territorial prestige from England, France, Spain, and Portugal. They sure weren't getting them from the Cheyenne.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
In the UK, some people from Wales or Scotland would regard being called "English" an insult.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
What I hear you saying, John Holding, is that " the Americans" are somehow being selfindulgent to point out that use of the word "American" in reference to a US national began internationally 250 years before any if us got here, but that holding those same Americans accountable for stuff an entirely different group of Americans did those same couple hundred years ago is reasonable.

if one really wanted to play that game, one could point out that most of those Americans were probably first generation immigrants themselves, and got all their ideas about how to establish territorial prestige from England, France, Spain, and Portugal. They sure weren't getting them from the Cheyenne.

---

Nope .

I'm saying that if its fair to base your arguments on something that happened 250 years ago, then it's fair for those with a different point of view to base their arguments on a somewhat less remote period of history.

No one on this thread, so far as I can see, is accusing all US citizens, or even most US citizens, and certainly not those alive today of any crime or other sin.

What I can't understand is why it is so offensive to have a perspective different from yours, which is certainly the way it looks from here. But I'm not going to follow that thought, even in Hell.

John

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
I'm often embarrassed about admitting that I live on Earth. It's where all the small-minded petty people live.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Not good to annex Canada, either. If we did, developers would probably go up there and tear down nature to put up high-rises.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:


That's beside the point, though. The point is, according to my poking around, that Europeans quickly began using using the word " American" to refer to the former colonists even before they were former colonists, that the most commonly used word used for a US resident in-- oh, pick a language-- is some cognate of "American" (even, as it turns out, in the places where the use of the word is most loudly protested), that the word " American" is used to refer to people and things pertaining to the US in many treaties, UN documents, and other formal writing, that even the damn BBC US affiliate has " America " in the title, but despite the fact that most of the fucking world is calling US residents "American' "when Americans call themselves what they been called for 250 years, that is arrogance and cultural domination.

---

quote:

---

do notice that various members of the Ship have no problem using that supposedly inaccurate word as a perjorative, though. Try bringing up cheese or beer. You can have half a dozen US shipmates chiming in on a foodie thread about the great blue cheese variety put out by their local dairies, or recommending nice porters put out by craft breweries, and someone will invariably scroll past all that and say, " It's a pity Americans only have that one variety of bland yellow cheddar available." Or " that cheap dishwater piss that Americans seem to prefer. "

Reading through the thread, it is happening from the beginning-- certain negative traits are called out as. " american" and when it is pointed out that whole states or entire regions of the US do not generally carry those traits-- oh, well, those areas are not really. "American. "

Bullshit. Yes, they are. Why is it such poisonous idea to some people that the US might contain the occasional good person, good place, good idea?

<snip>

Maybe it would be better to say that it seems like most Shipmates are interested in learning about each other's experience, viewpoints, and general lives. But it's like a record scratch when ( for instance) in a friendly discussion about the variety of ways people are celebrating Pancake Day, one group of people are told they can't call their variation a pancake. ( " ") Or when people are told that the evolution of language in migration that happens to all languages in migration is uniquely offensive when it happens in their country.
Whatever about US politics and cultural trends-- I am willing to bet I hate exactly the same things about those topics that the average Brit does. <snip>

This isn't about what y'all think about the American nation, it's about what you think of your fellow Shipmates who are American. And as I have said before, we have prayed with you, argued with you, wept with you, rejoiced with you, formed policies with you, teetered on the brink of destruction with you since 1998. Check the Archives yourselves-- Murricans have bern here from the beginning. It would be nice, is all, if whatever insight and knowledge you have gotten from us about American life would dominate over the tired old sketchy tropes that keep coming up.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
but the rest of what I said is what constitutes the real problem to me, and nobody's really picked up on it:

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
I'm often embarrassed about admitting that I live on Earth. It's where all the small-minded petty people live.

---

At least the only ones we know about. How disappointing it will be when we finally contact other intelligent species and find they're just as fucked up as we are.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
As a Canberran I'm completely bloody sick of the way I get equated with "Canberra", as in the federal politicians, which is probably one reason I enjoy international forums - it's only other Australians who are liable to (a) talk as if the locals make decisions, rather than the 200 people the rest of the country voted in, or (b) indicate at the first opportunity that I live somewhere freezing cold. But complaining doesn't seem to stop anyone doing it.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I have never heard the word America used in any other sense than meaning the USA. Americas clearly refers to North, Central and South America as a group.

American, however, could easily refer to anyone living in the Americas, but I don't hear that, except when someone is choosing to argue the point.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
Well, you know, 150 years or so ago, some folks thought annexing the both of them would be a Good Thing.

Proof positive that we Americans, here in 2015, are an existential threat to both of our neighbors. We obviously covet their...

...I forgot - what do we covet of theirs, exactly?

[x-post]

---