Posted                      

quote:

---

lilBuddha: Which either alienates Canada and Mexico or damns them by inclusion?

---

quote:

---

lilBuddha: The point is that citizens of the US and, ahem, others who refer to one country when saying American are not slighting any other the other countries on the American continent(s).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

lilBuddha: Which either alienates Canada and Mexico or damns them by inclusion?

---

Which is why I don't use the term norteamericanos, as I've explained before on this thread.

quote:

---

lilBuddha: The point is that citizens of the US and, ahem, others who refer to one country when saying American are not slighting any other the other countries on the American continent(s).

---

I never said they were. I only said that I don't use the term.

---

I for one am happy to handshake on that one.

Since you are in Brazil, I am gonna bet you hear my last name pronounced with two syllables, too. Which is A-OK. But my dad's people came from the Azores, and if i pronounce it with a silent E, let that stand if you want the Shipmeet to go well.

--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Kelly Alves: Since you are in Brazil, I am gonna bet you hear my last name pronounced with two syllables, too.

---

quote:

---

Kelly Alves: But my dad's people came from the Azores, and if i pronounce it with a silent E

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

lilBuddha: Le Roc,

Apologies. I suppose the second part should have been more addressed to the thread general rather than you.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Kelly Alves asks:

quote:

---

And what does "de-Americanizing" mean?

---

A taking away of legitimate status on the continent. Again, we refer back to an historic context where extensive if unsuccesful efforts were made by Benjamin Franklin and others to recruit the francophone settlers during the War of Independence, followed by one major military effort bring in the northern provinces, and a century of speeches advocating manifest destiny. The assumption was that Canada would, if the locals could but see the light, fall into the Union. Several presidents opposed this, including Lincoln and Grant, but this was a strong strain in political discourse for many years-- out of business for almost a century now, the idea only now raises its head in discussion of control and exploitation of resources, and alternative history aficionadi.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Dave W.: That's as may be

---

quote:

---

Dave W.: *Why stop at Alaska? What's Ellesmere Island then, chopped liver? Delegitimizer!

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

you still seem to be asking me to understand that using this commonly used word for a group to which I belong can possibly designate someone who might support horrific, racist, ethnic cleansing policies from two centuries ago.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I just wanted to add that I'm not bothered too much by being inaccurately identified. Most people here in Brazil say that I'm holandês. I'm from the Netherlands, but not from the historical region of Holland. To give you an idea: this would be equivalent to calling someone from Wales or Scotland 'English' just because he's from the UK.

If I were a purist, I could insist on being called neerlandês or something like that. But I really can't be bothered.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
This has nothing to do with (IIRC my previous statement) any real or imagined wrongs of the USA.

---

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:

---

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?

---