Referring to people from USA as "American"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I could see North and South America being separated. The strip of Central America is quite small. But they should then have two completely different names. Not North and South something. Its like if there was North EurAsia and South EurAsia. Europe/Russia/China etc being north and Africa being South. They also have a small strip of land that connects them.

They shouldn't have America in their names at all. Nonetheless, they do, and unless there's an effective worldwide campaign to give them different names (for example, Laurentia and West Gondwana), North America and South America is what we're stuck with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I would say that when you (plural you) are speaking English, the correct word is "American", and when you're speaking Spanish, the correct word is "estadounidense".

Especially since there is no continent called "America". The continents are North America and South America. People from Canada, the US, Mexico, and the countries in Central America are all North Americans. People from the countries in South America are South Americans.

You have been taught that there is no continent called America. Most people in the world, and all Latin Americans, are taught differently.

How do you know that "most people in the world", and all Latin Americans, are taught that the continents are Asia, Africa, Australia, Antarctica, and America?

Also, geologically and biogeographically it does not make sense to lump North America and South America into one continent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent
It says that Asia goes with 7 continents and most of the English speaking world. Doesn't say anything about Africa.
We've already established that most people in Central and South America are taught that there are 5 continents. Excludes Antarctica and combines North and South America to just America.

Most of Europe is taught that there are 6 continents- again America, no North or South.

Now we know that doesn't equal most of the world yet.

I'd be interested to know how it's taught in Asian and African countries. My best guess would be the same way it's taught in England or France for most of those countries.

Kids in Egypt learn there are six continents. North and South America are separate. Europe and Asia are combined.

But speaking of demonyms....Egyptians call their country Misr and they are Misreen. Nothing close to Egypt, as most of the world knows them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we are distinguishing continents by pure geography, there should be North America and South America. And there wouldn't be Australasia, there would be just plain Australia.

Okay, I could see North and South America being separated. The strip of Central America is quite small. But they should then have two completely different names. Not North and South something. Its like if there was North EurAsia and South EurAsia. Europe/Russia/China etc being north and Africa being South. They also have a small strip of land that connects them.

For whatever reason in my head, I don't like Australia as a continent name. I don't think it should be the country name and continent name. It leaves out the surrounding close by islands that way. While if we went by the strict definition of large land mass this would work, but I'm thinking more as the large land mass and also encompassing the close islands around it. The islands should also have some identification with a continent to place themselves geographically and one from New Zealand shouldn't have to say they are Australian to identify themselves by which continent they are from.

Just musings...

Isn't it more common to identify by the country one is from than the continent? I find people more commonly say that they are Mexican, Canadian, Chinese, Peruvian, Swiss, Kenyan, Greek, Korean, Irish, etc. than to state the continent they are from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we are distinguishing continents by pure geography, there should be North America and South America. And there wouldn't be Australasia, there would be just plain Australia.

Okay, I could see North and South America being separated. The strip of Central America is quite small. But they should then have two completely different names. Not North and South something. Its like if there was North EurAsia and South EurAsia. Europe/Russia/China etc being north and Africa being South. They also have a small strip of land that connects them.

For whatever reason in my head, I don't like Australia as a continent name. I don't think it should be the country name and continent name. It leaves out the surrounding close by islands that way. While if we went by the strict definition of large land mass this would work, but I'm thinking more as the large land mass and also encompassing the close islands around it. The islands should also have some identification with a continent to place themselves geographically and one from New Zealand shouldn't have to say they are Australian to identify themselves by which continent they are from.

Just musings...

Isn't it more common to identify by the country one is from than the continent? I find people more commonly say that they are Mexican, Canadian, Chinese, Peruvian, Swiss, Kenyan, Greek, Korean, Irish, etc. than to state the continent they are from.

Yes it is more common, but people still identify by continents as well. For example, some will say they are European, they are Asian, they are African, they are South American, etc. It's also used sometimes as general terms when asking questions about the area, such as how many continents are taught in Europe or Asia. We could say Australia, but are we then also referring to New Zealanders and people from the islands nearby? I would think not.

If someone asks where is Papua New Guinea or Indonesia, saying it's in Australia doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Latin Americans are taught that the continent called America is divided into three parts -- south, central (or "meso") and North America.

The funny thing is that, for South Americans, Mexico is part of Central America, while Mexicans are adamant that they belong to North America.

No, South Americans know full well that by America and say "Yo soy Americano" you mean you are from the U.S.A. But they pull that bs like well we are all Americans to try to force some silly point.

I was born in South America and it annoys me when I go back on vacation and everyone is so "offended" if you say American. Offended by what? It is the country's name!!!!!

AMERICANO= USA

The country's name is not America. It is the United States of America. But it is reasonable for US people to use "American"; unfortunately, that creates confusion with the fact that a Latin Americans regard "American" as "someone from the American continent."

I meant to say it is IN the country's name. I obviously know the country is not "America". It is United States of America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we are distinguishing continents by pure geography, there should be North America and South America. And there wouldn't be Australasia, there would be just plain Australia.

Okay, I could see North and South America being separated. The strip of Central America is quite small. But they should then have two completely different names. Not North and South something. Its like if there was North EurAsia and South EurAsia. Europe/Russia/China etc being north and Africa being South. They also have a small strip of land that connects them.

For whatever reason in my head, I don't like Australia as a continent name. I don't think it should be the country name and continent name. It leaves out the surrounding close by islands that way. While if we went by the strict definition of large land mass this would work, but I'm thinking more as the large land mass and also encompassing the close islands around it. The islands should also have some identification with a continent to place themselves geographically and one from New Zealand shouldn't have to say they are Australian to identify themselves by which continent they are from.

Just musings...

Isn't it more common to identify by the country one is from than the continent? I find people more commonly say that they are Mexican, Canadian, Chinese, Peruvian, Swiss, Kenyan, Greek, Korean, Irish, etc. than to state the continent they are from.

Yes it is more common, but people still identify by continents as well. For example, some will say they are European, they are Asian, they are African, they are South American, etc. It's also used sometimes as general terms when asking questions about the area, such as how many continents are taught in Europe or Asia. We could say Australia, but are we then also referring to New Zealanders and people from the islands nearby? I would think not.

If someone asks where is Papua New Guinea or Indonesia, saying it's in Australia doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.

I didn't think of this parallel before! There is also a country and a continent called Australia!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I could see North and South America being separated. The strip of Central America is quite small. But they should then have two completely different names. Not North and South something. Its like if there was North EurAsia and South EurAsia. Europe/Russia/China etc being north and Africa being South. They also have a small strip of land that connects them.

They shouldn't have America in their names at all. Nonetheless, they do, and unless there's an effective worldwide campaign to give them different names (for example, Laurentia and West Gondwana), North America and South America is what we're stuck with.

Maybe we can start this campaign for different names. We can use the same people from the 70s who tried to convince everyone that we would all be using the metric system exclusively in 20 years. Fail.

[Anonymous]

The Latin American clasificación of continent is based on history as well as geography. Since there is no human history in Antarctica, it is not considered a continent. Since South, central and north America share deep historical links, the continent is called America. Most importantly, it is called America because that it the name that the first explorers and cartographers called it America. It is the original name if the continent.

By the way, did you know that the poetic name for the United States, used extensively before the 20th century, was Columbia (which explains the district's name)? Perhaps US people can call themselves Columbians?

It is not really that complicated. People from the US call themselves American because there is no better way to call themselves. People from the American continent call themselves American because they are from the American continent. The former is about nationality. The latter is about continental belonging. It is just a convention.

That said, technically this country's name refers to a political organization (13 states that are united) in a vague geographical referencendido (these 13 states that are united are situated in the northeastern part of the American continent). If the 13 colonies had become provinces and had been located in, say, Korea, the country would likely have been called "United Provinces of Asia".

[Anonymous]

The continent is called Oceania. It is Australia plus all the nearby islands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The continent is called Oceania. It is Australia plus all the nearby islands.

A continent is a land mass.

[Anonymous]

I was born in South America, with Eurooean blood and became USA citizen. I am American in any way.
I think we all are Americans in this big continent and that US citizens should not consider themselves the only Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The continent is called Oceania. It is Australia plus all the nearby islands.

A continent is a land mass.

A continent contains a land mass but it is only only that.

[Anonymous]

^^ I meant, not only that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I speak Spanish as a second language and realize that people from Central America get upset when Americans call themselves "American" since they call us "United Statesers." It's not a word in English though. I've always been slightly annoyed at them referring to themselves as "American" too when they're really Mexican or whatnot. People will write into the editor that they were offended by an "America the beautiful" slideshow because it only showed the USA.

Today I read an article where Canadians called themselves "American" too because they're from North America. What?!

Seriously world, what should people from USA call themselves?

Maybe they are butt hurt because the scandanavians are more inclusive?

[Anonymous]

Yawn.