I know that it gets *some* people's hackles up when people from the US of A refer to themselves as "Americans". People from Canada, Central, and South America claim they are every bit as much American as the citizens of the United States.
But what do they suggest we call ourselves instead? UnitedStaters? That just sounds silly.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
How about:
"The most hated people on the planet."
The subtitle, "with good reason" is optional.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Not really Bev - Germany and France are on the same land mass, but they have no problems keeping their names seperate.
Just because Canada is on the continent of North America doesn't mean they could or should refer to themselves as "Americans."
However, since "America" is incorporated into the name of our country as defined by political boundaries - we can certainly lay claim to the title.
What gets my hackles up - when some idiot says, "Gawrsh, you speak American good!"
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
To both:
But neither the Germans nor the French claim sole right to the title "Euopeans". And the names of their countries transfer well into the title of the citizens.
[ August 28, 2004, 02:03 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: Just because Canada is on the continent of North America doesn't mean they could or should refer to themselves as "Americans."
Well, yes, they can. Just like someone who lives in Europe can refer to him or herself as a European.
quote: But what do they suggest we call ourselves instead? UnitedStaters? That just sounds silly.
But that just brings up another question. The full name of Mexico is Estados Unidos Mexicanos (United Mexican States). Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
True, RRR, but "Mexicans" sounds fine and "Unitedstatans" doesn't.
My question is, if not "Americans", then what? I don't like to hear people criticize it if they won't offer a decent solution to the problem.
[ August 28, 2004, 02:05 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
In Brazil, they call us Americans, but they also get annoyed by it. When they are annoyed, they call us North Americans, with the idea that it's more specific.
The funny thing is that it's actually less specific, as it also refers to Canadians. Everybody knows who is referred to as Americans, even when they are being snarky.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Just because Canada is on the continent of North America doesn't mean they could or should refer to themselves as "Americans."
They are perfectly in line in calling themselves "North Americans", since that's the continent they live on.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
They should criticise anyway... There's a lot of things people don't often know about their countries...
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
To be technically accurate, you would have to claim "North American" or "South American", depending on which land mass you live on.
But as the name of "American" has been, for all practical purposes, assigned to citizens of the USA, I don't think citizens of Canada or Mexico really care enough to fight through the confusion it would create to have a more uniform naming system.
I'll chalk it up to one of life's inequities and not lose any sleep over it.
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Like the hotdogs and hotdog buns being sold in different sized groups? Or do they still do that?
This lil' chickie ain't loosin' sleep over it neither. Without further ado, I'm off to bed.
[ August 28, 2004, 02:16 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Actually, they sell different quantities of hot dogs and buns because if you have excess of one or the other, you're more likely to buy more hot dogs or buns in order to each a hot dog "properly".
-Trevor
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Selling more hot dogs than buns is just so United States of North American. USONA-that's it, Beverly, we are Usonans.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
'American' is not a misnomer.
The full name of the country is "The United States of America". It is called that because it is a united federation of states on the American continent. Specifically, the portion known as North America. Because "United States of America" is unwieldy in casual conversation, and because the shortened form "United States" does not lend itself to a legitimate adjectival form, "America" has, from the very beginning, been used as an alternative shortened form.
The forms "North American" and "South American" are still available to anyone who wishes to use them. When citizens of the United States call themselves "American", we are not claiming ownership of an entire continent. We are using the only valid adjectival form our country's name allows.
Complaints from pissy Canadians or Brazilians or whomever overlook the fact that their countries have names that lend themselves much more conveniently to adjectival forms. They were able to name their countries things like "Canada" and "Brazil" and "Mexico" and "Peru" and so on. "You should have given yourselves such a name, too," I can hear them already starting to say. But what? This country was an amalgam of separate colonies. To give the whole nation the name of any one of them, in those early days when independence and unity were still uncertain, would have caused bad feelings and resentment among the others. To call the whole country "Virginia" or "New York" or even "New England" would have jeopardized the Union. Since they were states uniting on the American continent, and since there was never a separate name to distinguish those thirteen colonies specifically, "the United States of America" was the only reasonable name available.
The name is now too old and established to change it. And even if we wished to, there are still no valid alternatives to the name we already have. So, if you don't mind, or even if you do, I'm going to go right on calling this country "America" and myself "American", as are the rest of us. Canadians are not Americans, they are "North Americans". Brazilians are neither; they are, in fact, "South Americans". If an adjective is needed to distinguish the inhabitants of this entire landmass ("The Americas") from the inhabitants of all the other landmasses in the world, we have the word "pan-American", the "pan-" prefix meaning "all".
quote:Selling more hot dogs than buns is just so United States of North American. USONA-that's it, Beverly, we are Usonans.
Aside from the fact that I hate when people treat acronyms as though they were real words, and aside from the fact that the word "North" is not a part of the country's name, I would still strongly oppose the form "Usonan". Because inevitably, patriotism on the part of this country's own inhabitants, that is to say, national self-love, would then be called "Usonanism". No thanks.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
OK, fine, Verily, I will take out the "N."
Usoan.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
*applauds Verily* Well done!
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Hmmm... My opinion? People who complain about this should find something better to do with their time...
And I think too that Verily pretty much nailed it. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The full name of Mexico is United Mexican States, and the full name of Brazil is Republic of the United States of Brazil. If they can get away with being called Mexico, Brazil, and Mexicans and Brazilians, then surely we can be called America and Americans.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I have never, in a lifetime of living in Canada, heard of this issue. Not even an inkling that anyone out there could possible care about the word "Americans" being used to represent people from the "United States of America." I humbly submit, Bev, that this just isn't a problem at all.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
It certainly isn't my problem, but I assure you there are people who are quite put out about it.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Bev, seriously, I think these people can be safely ignored. If you've got an anti-American chip on your shoulder large enough to get mad at them over calling themselves "American" there are other issues that need to be worked through.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
There are people that really get in a tizzy about this down in Brazil. IIRC, OSC even mentions it in passing in his short story America, found in Folk of the Fringe.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Mind you, if you want to debate it, be my guest. It certainly isn't up to me to dictate what problems you focus on. Though, you'll have to forgive any mild chuckling and slight rolling of eyes that may come from my direction.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Bob -- I agree. The people that get snarky about this seem to be looking for something to be offended by.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
All the Canadians I know never use the term 'Americans' to describe themselves. North Americans is used when Canada and the US need to be lumped together, but 'Americans' definately refers to those people 'south of the border'.
I think Americans is a perfectly applicable term. Very rarely are the north, central, and south Americans lumped together, which would be the only time 'Americans' could have another meaning.
EDIT: What everyone else said.
[ August 28, 2004, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:Complaints from pissy Canadians or Brazilians or whomever overlook the fact that their countries have names that lend themselves much more conveniently to adjectival forms.
There may be citizens of Canada or Brazil who raise this as an issue, but then there are citizens of the US who are upset that the rest of us don't believe Phelps has a direct pipeline to God. I hear much more concern from non-US-citizens about our coveting of their free water and natural energy resources than I ever do about the name "American" -- which is, actually, nil.
[Edit: What BtL and others said. "What problem?"]
quote:They were able to name their countries things like "Canada" and "Brazil" and "Mexico" and "Peru" and so on. "You should have given yourselves such a name, too," I can hear them already starting to say. But what? This country was an amalgam of separate colonies.
FWIW (and for completeness' sake), there are 10 provinces and 3 territories of Canada, 26 states and 1 federal district of Brazil, and 24 territoral departments and 1 constitutional province of Peru. We are not unusual in being a federation of independents.
[Edited for tone, as I still haven't gotten this "being out in public thing" back down yet. My apologies and my promise to keep working on it.]
Nonetheless, I still think of this "nominal" concern as a non-issue, though I'm amenable to being persuaded. It concerned me -- as an American -- when I first realized that it was inconsistent, but I never got anyone else from any other country to give a hoot with me.
[ August 28, 2004, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: then there are citizens of the US who are upset that the rest of us don't believe Phelps has a direct pipeline to God.
Then there are some of us who don't even know who Phelps is. Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
[PS: I apologize for bringing Phelps into your life. He's become my reference for out-there-ism.]
[ August 28, 2004, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
And here I'd figured that our Olympic swimmer had made some off-putting comment. And he seems like such a nice guy....
Beverly, can I take credit for the existence of this thread, or did you come by it naturally?
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
What bothered me initially when I came to think about this was that it was as if a settlement of colonies in, say, Australia, who wanted to come together as a unit, did so and claimed the name "United Colonies of Australia," even when there were other colonies of Australia not included. Then suppose that USA were to go on to claim the name "Australians" exclusively for its own members, because -- of course -- they could not have called themselves anything else (despite the fact that the other colonies managed to find another name for themselves, rather than appropriating the whole continent).
[Sorry for the evil twisting of grammar. It was messy.]
So it seemed off and arrogant to me, and I became stilted in referrin' to my citizenship. Then I finally raised it as a specific issue, ready to deal with it head on -- and found that nobody else I knew really cared.
Papa Moose, mph, and beverly, I'm very sorry that your experience is otherwise. It really is such a weird thing to make another feel miserable over, since none of us had much to do with establishing the custom, anyway.
[ August 28, 2004, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Gee, thanks for bringin a little more hate into my life. Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
(The internet has opened up a whole new world.)
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote: If an adjective is needed to distinguish the inhabitants of this entire landmass ("The Americas") from the inhabitants of all the other landmasses in the world, we have the word "pan-American", the "pan-" prefix meaning "all".
By the way, Verily, I like this a lot. It seems quite a useful insight. Thanks.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Papa, I so rarely turn on the TV, and I am slightly ashamed to admit that I have seen naught but a snippet of the Olympics. So unfortunately, the reference sails over my head.
*whistling sound*
I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I am in a tizzy over this. I don't know why the thought came to my mind. Just my random musings at midnight. The first time I became aware of this conflict was in some school class where the teacher brought it up. At the time it bothered me that people were upset at something which had no good solutions. I have since noticed cases of annoyance here and there.
The point of this thread is to make fun of people who are annoyed at us calling ourselves "Americans". No need to take it too seriously. I have, though, enjoyed the comments made.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
What Verily said. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: So it seemed off and arrogant to me, and I became stilted in referrin' to my citizenship. Then I finally raised it as a specific issue, ready to deal with it head on -- and found that nobody else I knew really cared.
Just want to propose that this may be because you associate primarily with Americans. It would be difficult to find much evidence for the sentiment within this country since it is an issue with people who are *not* citizens of this country but live in the Americas.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Back in the day when we were a collection of soveriegn nations, we would refer to ourselves as "Virginians" or "Arkansans" or "Georgians"
But now we are mearly provences in a larger country. Our name is meaningless. We are no longer united "states", just one big country named "America". What name can we lay claim to other than "American"?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I like that, Pixie. We are a country called "America" within the American continents. Much like New York is the name of a city within the state of New York.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:Just want to propose that this may be because you associate primarily with Americans.
Hmmm, this was when I was in Canada. At that time, most of my friends were Canadians. (And most of my clothing consisted of a variety of parkas, ranging from light to heavy to immobilizing. And I wore the cutest knee-boots from Germany. I love those boots!) It was being in another country that led me to even consider this -- I would never have thought of it on my own, unlike you, beverly. My mind just wasn't there.
I haven't had many friendships with persons south of the US border, but at times in my life I had primary residence in Canada, in fact if not in name. Canadians make sense to me. I think I was an errant seed that blew too far south in the planting.
Dave and I are thinking about moving back up to Canada, maybe sooner than later. A lot depends on the state of his mother's health. She's diabetic and in her mid-70s, but she is quite active in maintaining her own state of health. I gave her a PDR for Christmas, as she was riled at having to sneak peeks when her physician was out of the room. Sweet and buzzardly, and mind like a steel trap. Hope I'm half the woman at her age.
You are certainly correct that when I did broach this issue with my American friends, they looked at me like I was completely crazy. The Canadians just looked at me as if I were misguided. Reference to my citizenship only came up in other countries, though. Here in the US, it is assumed that I am an American.
[ August 28, 2004, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Snicker - has anyone seen "Hero" yet?
It provides an interesting social and political commentary on the subject.
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
My bro-in-law saw it last night, Trevor, I will have to ask him.
Sara, considering you lived in Canada, you are probably far more qualified than I to know if it concerns the general populace there. Perhaps it doesn't and I just heard from a very vocal minority. I am glad that people tend to be sensible about these things.
I don't blame you for wanting to return to Canada. I hear good things about the people there, and the Canadians I have met have supported that opinion. Though, it is true that I view the USA as my home.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
beverly, I can only speak for the Canadians I met. Who knows for sure? (Likely BtL, twinky, and others here can give a more thorough assessment.)
I'm at a loss as to how to assess my own feelings about my citizenship. I feel that in growing up here, I took advantage of the resources of my country, and I owe a debt to this society in order to pay it back. Also, my family is now American (the immigrations occurred generations ago), and I was raised American, so I must be American.
But when I started hanging out in Canada, I found myself unbearably happy not to have to explain why responsibility to my community was as important to me as my own sense of liberty. I didn't feel like a hippie-freak for believing in societal responsibility, but rather like a Good Citizen. I felt at home in a place where politics is much more issues-oriented than personality- and sound-bite-oriented. And as a physician, I finally realized how much more I could enjoy just walking on the street or sitting in a cafe and people-watching, knowing that those I saw (and shared with) around me didn't have to worry about having their health needs addressed.
That was soooo huge for me. Walking down any city street in the US means seeing poverty, seeing what the lack of health care does to people, and in my mind always saying a constant I'm-sorry-I'm-so-sorry-I-haven't-done-more.
So much is the same, and yet so much is different. Not only does Canada has the full equivalent of the Miranda law, there is a daily Question Period where the Prime Minister and his Cabinet Ministers get pinned down in public and held responsible by members of the opposition party. (No "unable to hear questions because of the sound of the helicopter" excuses, here.) Not only does the Canadian Charter guarantee essentially the same rights and freedoms (freedom of speech, the press, right to assemble, etc.) as does the US constitution, but this country also recognizes that one cannot exercise such freedoms if one cannot provide for one's own health care.
In that sense, making my home in Canada would be a bit of a cop-out. However, I have less of a sense of invincibility than I did when I was younger, and a whole lot stronger drive toward my own happiness.
The weaknesses of the spirit and the flesh.
[ August 28, 2004, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Maybe I was cryptic, and so confused a number of others, and thus I'm confused about the responses. When I said something about the Olympic swimmer, I was simply referring to the name Phelps. I know nothing of him saying anything negative, nor anything negative being said about him.
I've never had a bad experience using the term "American," or hearing it used, and if that was part of the hurt feelings that happened while I was on vacation, well, I was on vacation. Asking if I was the cause was just because I'd posted
quote:Am I a bad American (national American, not continental American) because . . .
As a side note, anyone know where the term "continental breakfast" came from? Continents are huge, and continental breakfasts are kinda pathetic even to be referred to as a meal. Just sayin'.
--Pop
[Edit -- typo]
[ August 28, 2004, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: Papa Moose ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: As a side note, anyone know where the term "continental breakfast" came from? Continents are huge, and continental breakfasts are kinda pathetic even to be referred to as a meal. Just sayin'.
"Offering free continental breakfast"
Read: "Offering free sub-par breakfast, more like a weenie snack"
Nope, Pop, I missed that reference. I must have been picking up on your vibes.
Sara, Canada does sound like they have a lot of things figured out pretty well. But I guess the thing I still don't quite get the adoration for the monarchy. Monarchy-love is a concept that quite escapes me. Except maybe in fairy tales that I grew up with chock-full of princesses and whatnot.
[ August 28, 2004, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Hey, Papa Moose.
BTW, I don't mean to suggest above that Canada is some paragon of purity. Certainly their State treatment of the aboriginal population rivals the US State treatement of our African-American population in injustice and unrighteousness. They have a history of exploitation just as much as we do.
For me, though, it's the sense that even if there are problems, they are problems I don't have to fight an uphill battle even to initially address. There, we agree on enough common ground that energy can be spent attacking the problem, not wasted away on trying to change a fundamental mindset.
And I'm getting lazy that way. I'm old and tired and I don't want to waste my breath, short as it is.
[ August 28, 2004, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Sara, the fact is you feel more at home in Canada. There is nothing wrong with that. One of the reasons I carry such a lingering love for the Philippines was the common resonance I felt with the souls of the people there. When I came back home to the States, I felt like I was leaving home.
Consequently, I just realized that it is my awareness of the vagueness of the term "America" that I choose to say "The States" instead most of the time. Very much as I choose to say "LDS" instead of "Mormon" because "Mormon" is also a misnomer. As a missionary so many of the people I talked to called The Book of Mormon "The Book of the Mormons" assuming the book is named after the church. Not that it matters to most of you on either the Mormon or the America count, I'm just ramblin'.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
beverly, in travelling across Canada, the only monarchy-love I saw was in British Columbia, where they pulled out the "Queen" thing in Victoria for the tourists. Lots of enchanting British bric-a-brac and tea houses, but it was pretty clearly an artifice to address what the Yanks expected to see.
Nobody, in general, seemed to pay any attention whatsoever to the English monarchy. (BtL? twink? other Canadians?) It was actually quite interesting to remember the US's fascination with Princess Diana, when it was more a blip on the radar up there.
I think of it as the two-kids phenomenon. One boy rebels outrageously when growing up, spit and fire and throwing the tea off the wharf. For the rest of his life, he continues to deliberately resist his upbringing, but in that resistance, he defines himself, and so he ends up both more aware of and more defined by his upbringing than by anything else.
The other son (maybe because of a different upbringing, maybe because of a different temperament, maybe some mix of the two) never actively rebelled. Instead, he grew up, left for college, got married and lives on his own. Now he only sees the 'rents when it's a formal occasion and there's a wedding or a funeral, or some Christmas ham that needs to be carved. In his daily life, though, his 'rents affect him just about as much as his toaster, and he thinks about them just as often.
That really was the sense I got from being in Canada, although I expected a much different experience before I went.
Edit: Yes, I think we understand one another, beverly. I tend to use "the States" too, but given the full names of Brazil and Mexico revealed above, perhaps we are both still further misguided? (When does it end?! )
PS: Directly because of this forum, I am much more sensitive about referring to the LDS or the Church of the LDS, rather than "the Mormons." Thanks, guys.
[ August 28, 2004, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Huh. I may be misinformed then. The media does so much to shape our attitudes about things, and I had gotten the impression that Canadians love the English monarchy and still hold allegience to it deep down. But again, I am not at all qualified to know this sort of thing for a fact.
Yes, Sara, I find it very interesting what was said above and that perhaps "America" is not such a misnomer after all! Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I wonder if MacLean's or some other Canadian media has an article on this? I'm off to look.
*still an American, FWIW, and very much a Rebel Child at this point in my life
[ August 28, 2004, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
I have encountered Canadians who got pissy on this issue. On another message board I occasionally visit, there's a Canadian who absolutely insists that "American" can't be used to describe a United States citizen as opposed to a Canadian. Instead he's made up some ridiculous non-term like "US-ian", or something equally inane, and insists that it is the correct term. He even tried to "correct" my usage once when I was saying something or other about Americans. You can bet I treated that with the disdain that it deserved.
I'm glad to learn he is in the minority, though. I was actually worried that it might be a common complaint over there. (I'd say 'up there', but Canada isn't north of where I live; it's east.) Good to know the majority of Canadians don't even bother with this one.
quote:There are people that really get in a tizzy about this down in Brazil. IIRC, OSC even mentions it in passing in his short story America, found in Folk of the Fringe.
That was a different, though equally specious, issue. The argument there was that only Native peoples have a right to call themselves "Americans", and that white people, regardless of whether they are from the United States, or Canada, or Brazil, or anywhere else, must call themselves "Europeans". Thankfully, I've never heard anyone in real life try to make that claim.
quote:Consequently, I just realized that it is my awareness of the vagueness of the term "America" that I choose to say "The States" instead most of the time.
If "America" is a vague term (and I still say that it is not), then surely "The States" is even more so. The USA is not the only country in the world that has states. As has already been pointed out, Mexico and Brazil have states. So do many countries not even in the Americas, such as Australia and Germany. I'm not saying I object to the term "The States". It doesn't bother me at all, actually. I'm just saying that, taken out of context, it is less specific than "America", not more.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
At any rate, the few people in the world who actually concern themselves with this issue should thank whatever deity they believe in that the North won the Civil War. Can you imagine if the Confederate States of America had survived? Then there'd be two countries laying claim to exclusive use of the terms "American" and "The States".
No doubt they'd end up being called "The Union" and "The Confederacy", with "Union" and "Confederate" as adjectives. But what about the inhabitants themselves? "Confederates" is easy enough, but "Unionists" doesn't quite work. It sounds more like a philosophy than a national identity. Aside from the fact that they'd both probably call themselves "Americans" and each other "Yankees" and "Rebs", when they could restrain themselves from profanity, the whole issue would still be a lot more complicated and a lot less easy to ignore.
(Edited to fix a bizarre grammatical typo.)
[ August 28, 2004, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Verily the Younger ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Another very good point, Verily. Maybe my motivation is that while saying "The States" is not more accurate, it is less likely to offend.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
True. I understand that the Canadians themselves often say "The States". That wouldn't be offensive in Canada, because Canada has provinces and territories instead of states. Of course, given the rest of the issue, I'd say it opens up a whole new can of worms that conveniently "offends" only people that aren't Canadian.
But since no one is actually offended, and the percentage of people who care about any part of this issue is so miniscule, I'm certainly not going to bother getting heated up about it. Still, it's good to keep in mind in case I ever meet a Canadian who is offended by our use of the word "America" and then proceeds to call it "The States". I now have an argument to use in that contingency. I can bust this hypothetical Canadian on hypocracy or chauvinism. Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
For its historical value:
The term USONA is an acronym for New Union of South Africa. I'm not quite sure how it fits, but it is.
Frank Lloyd Wright coined the term "Usonian" in about 1910, to identify the United States of North America, hence, "Usonia."
The term still exists but it refers specifically to the style of architecture Wright invented for the American middle class. In my opinion Usonian architecture is superior to Leavit's cheapo cracker boxes, but it is more expensive and requires more skilled laborers to construct, thus the Leavittown style is the dominant style.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I feel the need to bring this up again because it was soooo well done:
quote: Because inevitably, patriotism on the part of this country's own inhabitants, that is to say, national self-love, would then be called "Usonanism".
::snicker::
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
You learn something new every day. Or at least something is moved from the periphery of your knowledge to the forefront. Someone is an LDS not a Mormon. Who knew?
Anyway, as far is the initial post on this thread goes I'm just going to give a shout back to my original posts. There are loonies in every country about every issue. Case. Closed. Although, if we're going to be picky, we’re not actually called Canada: From the British North America Act, created "one Dominion under the name of Canada". So it's actually The Dominion of Canada. Mind you, the 1982 Canadian Constitution doesn't use the term, but neither does it amend it. (The government started phasing out the word "Dominion" in the 50s and "Dominion Day" was changed to "Canada Day" some time within the last 20 years. But the word still floats around to differentiate between the federal and provincial governments). I'd wager that the vast majority of Canadians don't realize this though, so keep on calling us Canada (and flaunt how you know more about Canada than the upstart who takes issue with “America” should you ever find one).
The only other question, as it were, seems to be about Canada and the monarchy. Booooy howdy, Bev. You sure weren't paying attention two years ago when then Deputy Prime Minister Manley suggested we do away with the whole monarchy thing. And he certainly isn't the only government official to suggest such a thing in recent years. There was a fair amount of fallout from such a suggestion, but a heck of a lot of support as well.
You have to remember that Canada is a really young country. We gained full control over our affairs in 1931 with the Statute of Westminster and the Canadian Constitution was adopted in 1982 (a much different document than the American iteration. Much of the Canadian one isn't actually written but is rather inferred from tradition and precedent. Not only that, but Quebec never actually ratified the thing. Anyway, to continue) There are still a lot of people alive who remember the British influence fondly and would hate to see it go. As well there was a non-negligible brain drain from the UK to Canada around 30 years ago and a lot of them are still very keen on the monarchy.
The rest of us? Couldn't care less. Think it's pretty antiquated. Axe it (and the senate in my opinion, but that's another kettle of fish). My guess sees us sever ties with the British monarchy within my lifetime. Probably in another 20 or 30 years. The Queen’s role is filled "by proxy" by the Governor General. Which is to say, the Governor General works and the queen sits around and looks pretty. The role of the Governor General, and actually the whole Canadian government is actually a tangled, non-functioning mess that has been smoothed out over the years. I just wish someone would write down these "traditions" and make them "official". But this is probably a much longer look at Canadian politics than anyone really wanted.
Oh, and yes most Canadians refer to America as "The States." That's probably the most common way of referring to your country, actually. By a long shot.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Has anyone here seen the Kids in the Hall sketch where the Queen of England reads an article in the paper about the Canadian's apathy?
Then she goes on to talk to the screen saying, "Canada, I love youuuuuuu". Ah, that was a good one. Posted by DarkWizard (Member # 6186) on :
I'm sure I can't speak for all of the Canadians but I would say that we have a basic respect for the Monarchy as they relate to our history. We do still require it to pass laws but that is in signature alone. On the other hand when the Queen was gave birth to Charles we did give her a piece of Canada downtown Ottawa.
So maybe we do love them?
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Porteiro...to tell you the truth, I don't know any brazilians who are annoyed that Americans are called thus.
What we do is calling the U.S. "Estados Unidos" (United States), and not "America", to avoid further confusion. Ok, ok...Brazil is "República dos Estados Unidos do Brasil", but nobody else uses the "Estados Unidos", so...
But yes...if someone is worried about that, the person in question must have much idle time in his/her hands.
[ August 29, 2004, 07:46 AM: Message edited by: Eduardo_Sauron ]
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"Frank Lloyd Wright coined the term "Usonian" in about 1910, to identify the United States of North America, hence, "Usonia." "
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
"What problem?"]![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
My apologies and my promise to keep working on it.]![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)