'America' vs. USA

[I think not]

The War of Jenkin's Ear? Jenkin's Ear?? Never heard of it, and that's gotta be the strangest name for a conflict I've ever heard. You have strongly piqued my curiosity, as you often do (bless the Web and its colourful denizens!), I'll check that out and get back to you.

It is a very oddly named war, the name of the war derived from Spanish mistreatments of British soldiers. Spanish boarded the British ship Rebecca, tortured Captian Jenkins and eventually cut off his ear (Hence the name) and sent it to the British King as an example of what would be done to him. Eventually the war transferred to Europe which became the War of Austrian Succession.

I couldn't really find anything online for you other than a small reference in wikipedia.

However, something did change as a result — for the first time the British began referring to "Americans" rather than "colonials".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Jenkins'_Ear

 

[#juan]

There is nothing wrong with Americans

calling themselves Americans. There is also nothing wrong with Canadians, Brazillians, Panimanians, etc. calling themselves Americans either.

 

[I think not]

And one last comment, the usage of the word American “annoys” those who are already “irritated” (putting it mildly) with the US.

 

[#juan]

And one last comment, the usage of the word American “annoys” those who are already “irritated” (putting it mildly) with the US.

Not true

Those who are annoyed, are annoyed because of the U.S.'s attempt to hyjack the name of the continent.

I am from Canada, which is in North America, so I am American.

 

[I think not]

So you will just ignore history #juan for the sake of your bias, right? All you have is an opinion not based on any historical facts, I gave you the reasons why, you choose to ignore them. Your choice, but I need not point out how it makes you and others look.

 

[#juan]

What history?

I have no problem with United States of America. Nor do I have a problem with you calling yourselves Americans. By the same token, I, as a Canadian, have as much right to the term, "American" as you do.

 

[I think not]

Make up your mind #juan. I gave you historical reasons why US citizens call themselves Americans. The British started using it, Europeans picked it up, and that's how it happened. We didn't hijack anything, rather it was "forced" upon us by the world. If you want to called an American, that's fine by me. And I stand by what I said. The rest is drivel.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

However, something did change as a result — for the first time the British began referring to "Americans" rather than "colonials".

What a curious little historical footnote Jenkins' ear is. I found that Wikipedia article, and several mentions of Jenkins' ear in some offline sources (yes, I still use paper-based reference materials :wink: ). The war was just a skirmish on the fringes of the War of Austrian Succession, as various Hapsburg relatives tried to take over most of Europe. Britain thought it could sneak in and steal Spain's New World possessions while the Spanish were looking the other way. It pretty much petered out without much result as resources were withdrawn to Europe for the larger struggle.

I wonder, however, who the British thought they were talking about when they referred to Americans. That was well before the founding of the United States, and British colonial territory at the time included fairly large bits of what is now Canada. I would assume they meant the people in all the New World colonies, but the word's meaning has mutated since. Frankly, this thread is the only place I've ever encountered anyone claiming the word American means anyone other than a citizen of the United States of America.

 

[#juan]

Hey, it could be a lot worse

Amerigo Vespucci could have named the continents with his family name. We could be living in North Vespucia, South Vespucia, etc. :roll: :wink:

 

[I think not]

I wonder, however, who the British thought they were talking about when they referred to Americans. That was well before the founding of the United States, and British colonial territory at the time included fairly large bits of what is now Canada. I would assume they meant the people in all the New World colonies, but the word's meaning has mutated since.

The occupants of the original 13 colonies clearly identified themselves as a distinct "continental society" in the early to mid 18th century. During the War of Jenkin's Ear, the British needed to distinguish between the conscriptions of the original 13 colonies and the British in England. The British came up with the term Americans (smugly I might add) to identify the "continentals", they did not use "continentals" becuase Thomas Jeffersons work began redefining colonists to continentals giving them an "indentity".

Back in Europe, "America" was being referred to a place with contempt. Harsh climate where nothing would grow, people being born "shorter" than Europeans etc... So the British figured, Americans was an appropriate word to use for the "lower life forms" inhabiting meso-America (Meso-America of the that day).

There you have it.

 

[Naci_Sey]

Unlike Juan, I don't want to call myself an 'American', specifically because that name has been taken by USians. There is a large minority of USians, for heaven's sake, who think Canada is part of the USA. Let's not encourage them! Further, as I stated in my OP, there are non-Westerners who suppose Canadians to be Americans and thus under the governance of the president of the US.

 

[unclepercy]

First of all,

A lap is not a length. A lap is a movement once around a course. A length is just that a single traverse of the length of a track or a field.

North America is the continent. The continent contains several countries, Canada, the United States, and Mexico.

The citizens of the U.S. can call themselve whatever they want but the citizens of all three countries are "Americans".

I'm very surprised to hear you say this, Juan. Most of the Canadians I've seen on this forum are so intent of making a BIG
deal of how Canada is so different from the USA. Notice: USA.
In a way, it's just a simple method of giving a geographical reference point to where you are in North America.

Canada is in the north, remember? The USA is in the middle, and yada-yada. It's something like the term "SoCal." So, why don't you use the term, "Canada of America?"

Uncle

 

[jimmoyer]

There's only one country I can think of that would
have semantic stumbling other than USonians and
that's the country of Serbia and Montenegro.

Imagine the peeves people have for labels
talking to a citizen of that country, and requiring
some technically correct terminology that defies
the common sense of popular usage ?

It's so horrible for Canadians and Mexicans or
anyone in this hemisphere NOT to be able to say
they are Americans without confusion or the
attendant distaste the world has for Americans.

I forget who took Amerigo Vespucci's name for
this hemisphere's continents, but it started there.

And then as ITN indicated, the British arrived upon
the term to avoid semantic difficulties or awkward
phrasing to denote the US colonies.

It's an assumption that most Americans don't know
about this peeve, which is quite an apt way to describe it, and it wasn't us who first used that word to
describe it in this thread.

 

[#juan]

Unlike Juan, I don't want to call myself an 'American', specifically because that name has been taken by USians.

I don't either, but that is the side of the argument I picked. Next time maybe I'll pick the other side.[/quote]

 

[Machjo]

According to the Oxford dictionary, the primary definition for America isas a synonym for "the Americas", which likewise is a synonym for "Pan-America". A secondary definition is as a name for the United States.

Thus one certainly has a right to apply it to apply to the United States, as long as he remembers that the primary definition is as "Pan-America".

On the other hand, the adjective American has as a primary definition of, relating to or characteristic of the United States or its inhabitants. And a secondary definition as relating to or denoting the Continents of America. And as a noun the primary definition is as a native or citizen of the United States. And its secondary definition is as a native or inhabitant of any of the ations of the Americas.

A second primary definition is as the English language as used in the United States.

Confusing! So it would seem best to use the word America in the sense of Pan-America, while using the word American in the sense of Usonian!? Man English is messed up. So obviously this term can be confusing and misleading, and thsu it would be preferable to avoid these terms altogether unless obvious from context, such as "American English", General American", etc. Otherwise, when precision is of the essence, especially with non-native speakers who have to look it up in dictionaries, it might be preferable to use:

A Usonian is of the USA.
A Pan-American is of Pan-America.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

That would be the British edition of the Oxford Dictionary, Machjo, and perhaps a fairly old one?

The 2001 Canadian edition says this:

America

1 = THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (see UNITED STATES).
2 (also the Americas) a land mass of the New World or western hemisphere, consisting of the continents of North and South America, joined by the Isthmus of Panama.

And this:

American

adjective:

1 of, relating to, or characteristic of the US or its inhabitants.
2 (usu. in comb.) of or relating to the Americas (Latin-American).
3 designating plants or animals native to the Americas (American elk).

noun:

1 a native or citizen of the US.
2 (usu. in comb.) a native or inhabitant of the Americas (North Americans).
3 the English language as it is used in the US.


The primary definitions, you will note, relate consistently to the United States, and that's how everybody I know uses those words. It's also the usage I find in books, movies, and television programs, both fiction and non-fiction, from Canada, the United States, and Europe.

 

[Machjo]

That would be the British edition of the Oxford Dictionary, Machjo, and perhaps a fairly old one?

British, 1998.

 

[Machjo]

I've seen all of these words used in both senses, sometimes in obvious, sometimes not so obvious, contexts.

Add to that taht a non-native speaker will rely on a dictionary to figure it out. Obviously if different dictionaries can't agree on this, or give multiple definitions, unless the non-native is already attuned to a particular dialect, or unless it's obvious from context, it can be confusing. usually it is clear, but it does happen on some rare occasions that it can be confusing. Just something to watch out for with non-natives, depending on their English level.

 

[jimmoyer]

So I guess these dictionaries oughta peeve off
non-USonains too.

You'll notice dictionaries trying to be faithful to the
popular usage of the time, and to document the use of a
word.

....he said with a grump...

 

[Machjo]

So what do you think, guys? Should the US and the British Commonwealth set up an "English Accademy"? Yeah, yeah, I know, it's been tried a thousand times before for at least over a century now, and it's failed every time 'cause no one would ever be able to agree on just what would be considered "Standard International English". Could you just see the politics involved? They'd probably spend moths of heated (and I mean HEATED) debates on whether it's color or colour, if lieutenant is pronounced with an "f". We'd never get to the important stuff becore the members of the Accademy would already have started stabbing one another in the back... literally!

Oh well, I guess the languae will just continue to fall apart.