CDRLabs.com

What's the correct term to use when refering to a citizen of the United States of America? American, or United Statesian. Some asshat online keeps saying United Statesian.

Mispelled it, United Statsian should be United Statesian, vote United Statsian if you think it is United Statesian.

American refers to a person who lives in the Americas, therefor someone who lives in Canada, the United States, or anywhere in Central or South America. The fact that the United States has taken the term for themselves soley is unfortunate. Hence my preference for the term United Statesians, which is no less accurate then American, but more specific.

Without offense to Dolphinius, I'd go with American. Not because I don't think Canadians, and Mexicans aren't American if you go by a continental sense, but because the United States is short for the United States of America. If you go to another country and say you are American, it is assumed that you are from the US of A. If you are from Canada, you are not from the "Canadian Provinces of America".

I sort of feel that going from American to United Statesian is another attempt at political correctness gone awry. Also, it's a real mouthful.

Sure, LoneWolf, americans are lazy because they don't want to say the whole thing.

But in the same matter Mexicans are too, beacause the oficcial name of the country is Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Mexican United States) so we are even, but here we refer to you as estadounidenses (United Statesian) because our short name for your country is United States, and America is the continent.

I'm willing to bet that just about everyone that agrees with me will NOT be a member of the United States....

And of course, I'm not saying that calling citizens of the United States, United Statesians isn't long and combursome, I'm just saying that it's more specifically correct then just Americans, which should *literally* refer to any Citizen of the Americas. As always, what is, and what SHOULD BE, are two completely different things.

But this one I blame on United Statesians

A person from the USA is only "American" in the same sense that I am European. It's therefore completely correct to call someone from the US "American" but Dolph, you as a Canadian can (and perhaps should?) also call yourself American (should also serve to confuse some less intelligent US citizens ).

I often wonder, if some people turn out to be right and there is eventually a "United States of Europe" containing some or all of the countries of the EU, will the citizens of the USE refer to themselves as "Europeans" to the exclusion of the like of Norway, Switzerland etc.

A reversal of the same sort of thing happens here, when (mostly Americans) call me "English" or that my country is "England", when it is nothing of the sort (and even more annoyingly, Wales and sometimes Scotland is referred to as part of England as well). England is not a country as such, and hasn't been for many centuries. I'm British, my country is the UK and that is that. In fact, given that I'm in favour of the forthcoming devolution of the "Northern Region", I'd prefer to be called a "Northumbrian" really.

I'm just going to stop the confusion and refer to anyone from the U.S.A. as "American" and anyone from anywhere else to be "whiny bitches."

JamieW wrote:I'm just going to stop the confusion and refer to anyone from the U.S.A. as "American" and anyone from anywhere else to be "whiny bitches."

Irony rules

The U.S.A. is the ONLY country which has America in the title. Canada has no long formal name as far as I know, it is simply "Canada." Mexico is the "United Mexican States." El Salvador is "Republic of El Salvador." This list goes on without any other American continental country with America in the proper title. In this form it isn't a declaration of continent but instead a declaration of the land title. Do any European countries have "Europe" in their proper title? To refer to USA citizens as "united statesians" is completely and wholly improper. If that were the case, we would refer to the British as "united kingdomans" and the Australians as "Commonwealthians." The "United States" speaks to the organization of the country, not the name of the land. The proper name of the land in the USA is "America" while not at all speaking to the continent. Therefore, without a doubt, the proper title is "American."

Dolph. You have taken Retardation to a new level.

dolphinius_rex wrote:American refers to a person who lives in the Americas, therefor someone who lives in Canada, the United States, or anywhere in Central or South America. The fact that the United States has taken the term for themselves soley is unfortunate. Hence my preference for the term United Statesians, which is no less accurate then American, but more specific.

Also wanted to point out that on the American continent, excluding the Haitian slave revolt, the USA was the first independent country on the American continent. When there is no other country on the continent of America, it seems kind of natural to call yourself the United States of America.

JamieW:

The full name would be The Dominion of Canada, but most Canadians even wouldn't know that, so I won't poke fun at your ignorance this time

Claybuster:

Many poeple who question the validity of certain norms of society are branded such names, and I am not ashamed of my desire to question that which fools blindly follow. Not just in this case, but in many cases. My arguments against the simple K-Probe testing would be another example.

Too often people decide to do things one way over another because they are convenient, even if they are incorrect. Perhaps sometimes this is warrented, as it can facilitate certain aspects of life, or civilisation. But on other occasions it can lead to a pervision of language, culture, or in the case of K-Probe, accurate media quality assessment. These are the situations where I try to point out difficiencies. Remember, it was once lunacy to call the Earth round, or say that we revolved around the sun.

In short, I'm not asking you to agree with me, but I do hope you listen to some of the questions I put forth

I won't poke fun at your ignorance this time

Nor will you actually respond to the content of my posts which seem to contradict the conclusions of your posts.

JamieW wrote:

I won't poke fun at your ignorance this time

Nor will you actually respond to the content of my posts which seem to contradict the conclusions of your posts.

There's no point to it, it won't resolve anything, and if anything it'll result in some sort of flame war. Not really my goal or intent. I've made my argument, you've made yours. I'm content in leaving it like that

dolphinius_rex wrote:JamieW:

The full name would be The Dominion of Canada, but most Canadians even wouldn't know that, so I won't poke fun at your ignorance this time

That sounds to me very Star Trekkish

Alejandra wrote:Sure, LoneWolf, americans are lazy because they don't want to say the whole thing.

But in the same matter Mexicans are too, beacause the oficcial name of the country is Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Mexican United States) so we are even, but here we refer to you as estadounidenses (United Statesian) because our short name for your country is United States, and America is the continent.

Up here, I'm a "cowboy".

Down there, it's "vaquero".

Slim

jase wrote:A person from the USA is only "American" in the same sense that I am European. It's therefore completely correct to call someone from the US "American" but Dolph, you as a Canadian can (and perhaps should?) also call yourself American (should also serve to confuse some less intelligent US citizens ).

I often wonder, if some people turn out to be right and there is eventually a "United States of Europe" containing some or all of the countries of the EU, will the citizens of the USE refer to themselves as "Europeans" to the exclusion of the like of Norway, Switzerland etc.

A reversal of the same sort of thing happens here, when (mostly Americans) call me "English" or that my country is "England", when it is nothing of the sort (and even more annoyingly, Wales and sometimes Scotland is referred to as part of England as well). England is not a country as such, and hasn't been for many centuries. I'm British, my country is the UK and that is that. In fact, given that I'm in favour of the forthcoming devolution of the "Northern Region", I'd prefer to be called a "Northumbrian" really.

Actually, most "Americans" are ignorant of the correct terminology with respect to the British Isles. It might help to characterize the nomenclature in both political terms and geographical terms. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, Jase. Great Britain is the largest island and is comprised of three somewhat ethnically distinct regions: Scotland, Wales and England. Ireland is the second largest island and consists of two political entities: The Republic of Ireland (a nation) and Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom (a nation) is a political entity consisting of: Northern Ireland, Great Britain and the other, smaller islands (viz., Orkneys, Shetlands, Wight, Hebrides).

Slim

Right on all counts. I think you mentioned previously you are of Scottish descent, right? It would explain the accuracy, right down to not mentioning the Channel Islands or Isle Of Man, which although "crown dependencies" are essentially countries in their own right, with their own governments etc.

I think it's also relevant to point out that, although Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland all have fairly cohesive identities (although NI is a tricky one for obvious reasons), England, consisting as it does of multiple ancient kingdoms, many of which (particularly Cornwall, Yorkshire and Northumbria) still retain a very strong identity, doesn't have the same sense of nationhood. Indeed the three areas I've mentioned all have fringe groups advocating some level of or even total independence from England, Cornwall even having its own language. You don't even find many people celebrating St George's Day, in the same way as St Andrew, George or Patrick.

JamieW also makes some very pertinent points that I hadn't considered before. On reflection I think I would side with the "American" point of view here, even if it is still perfectly valid (and hence slightly confusing) to refer to a Canadian or Mexican as "American" as well.

From a Martin Kich review of Made in America: An Informal History of the English Language in the United States,
by Bill Bryson:

"A recurring story in the book involves what we have called ourselves and our nation. While every schoolchild learns that America was named spuriously for Amerigo Vespucci, few may know that it was forty years before the name on the map, "America," achieved any widespread usage, and then it was used primarily to refer to South America.

Indeed, for about two centuries in North America, the term "Americans" was used primarily to refer to Native Americans. It was not until the War of Jenkins Ear in the mid 18th century that the English began with any frequency to use "Americans" to refer to the people of the colonies along the North American seaboard.

The first recorded reference to the "United States of America" occurs in Thomas Paine's inflammatory pamphlet Common Sense. Between the adoption of the Declaration of Independence and 1778, the rebellious colonists referred to themselves variously as the "United States of North America" and the "United Colonies of North America."

Interestingly, as States' Rightists have often pointed out, the U.S. Constitution typically treats the "United States" as a plural form--as in "the United States are . . ."--not as a collective noun to be regarded as a singular.

Indeed, because "United States" seemed to some to require the adjectival form "United Statesian," the Founding Fathers considered all sorts of alternatives for the nation's name, including "Columbia," "Appalachia," "Alleghenia," "Freedonia," and the "United States of Columbia." The "United States of America" was chosen over the other names basically because they were unable to reach a consensus on any of the other suggestions, each of which may have had initially a good deal more support than the final choice."

@jmbrown12

A nice quote.

I'd like to rename Republic of Korea to Korean Republic of Asia and so use the new term Asians to address the people in KRA.

You know, the biggest opposition to the new term will come from North Korea because it's the closest. The next biggest opposing nations will be China and Japan.

Similarly, Canada and Mexico in general can't much approve the use of "Americans" to call the citizens of the United States of America.

I'm a South Korean national and an Oriental, both in blood and culture. I try to use terms like North Americans, Americas, the United States, Latin Americans, consciously to address what I think to be appropriate subjects. There are just too many Americans who don't live in the United States of America just as there are too many Asians who don't live in the Republic of Korea which is South Korea. The first is tolerated by the rest of the world and the other Americans living in Brazil and Mexico becaues the United States of America has a power that's larger than the rest of the Americas but the second cannot be possibly tolerated by the rest of Asians because South Korea not only occupies just 0.02% of the surface of the Earth and 0.2% of Asian surface, but also represents only a little percentage of Asian firepower and GDP. I often read the statistics to see the changes in population and average income among others in the 200 countries of the world mainly from South Korean and US sources. Countries like Nigeria, Iran, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico, the Philippines, Vietnam, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and several others have population of nearly 100 million to around 200 million for each and they are all rapidly increasing their population. None of them is as powerful as the State of California in the United States of America which has only about the same people as the "Greater" Seoul or Shanghai. When I post things like that, some people reply that the US can kill all people in the rest of the world with their bombs as if this were all just a race of genocide.

Here's another example:

http://www.cdrlabs.com/phpBB/viewtopic. ... 027#121027

I use South Koreans and Republic of Korea instead of Koreans and Korea. When one says Korea, just what does that person mean betwen North Korea and South Korea? Or both at once? Many South Koreans use the term "Hanguk" which sometimes means the entire Korean peninsula, excluding all parts of Manchuria and Siberia, but more often means South Koreans. The "Han" is for Korea and Koreans. Guk is nation, country, or state. It's not good to say Hanguk to mean South Korea only. It's not good to say Korea to mean South Korea only. To type South Korea instead of Korea doesn't take a minute more. There's also ROK to shorten a little. S. Korea is also for South Korea.

Some South Koreans hate me for saying South Koreans instead of Koreans. They often feel as if I were reducing their status and harming their pride. Using the term South Korea instead of Korea also reminds everyone of the painful and lasting division in the Korean peninsula. I do that with a strong intention for the sake of South Koreans.

jmbrown12 wrote:Indeed, because "United States" seemed to some to require the adjectival form "United Statesian," the Founding Fathers considered all sorts of alternatives for the nation's name, including "Columbia," "Appalachia," "Alleghenia," "Freedonia," and the "United States of Columbia."

Good, so Columbians you really are

Somos Norteamericanos.

Slim

American

According to Tilley residents of the USA are internationally known as "Americans".

It's listed under "People".

That link is similar to the CIA World Fact Book. Which also lists them as "American".

WoW this is a topic that gets under people's skin.