Why people native from U.S. are get to called Americans? (America, Mexican)

[Kahsennakeniate]

Well first of all from my point of view the group of people that truly, because of their history and origin, that should have the name "American" is the native people that live on this continent. As they were the original inhabitants of the continent. Theories have been come up with to go against such FACTS, but that's all they are are theories. Everytime the scientist and Archaeologist look further and further into the remains in Canada and the United States, the find more and more evidence that native people were there thousands upon thousands of years before the theories that they come up with. They say that we came over from Asia via the Bering Strait. That theory has been disproven many times: (1) because the ice age only dates back 10,000 thousand years ago(this is when it ended) they say when it ended the native people followed the animals into canada, this has been disproven because they've come to find artifacts that dated back to 12,000 years ago, which was called "Clovis Culture". As they went further in trying to prove their point they found more evidence that native people were here going as far back as 34,000 years ago. It is true though that they have found the oldest remains of a human being in Africa. That doesn't prove that native people weren't here first. The native people thousands didn't bury their dead relatives in the ground. What they did was make little "coffins" in which they suspended in the air and this is where they put the dead. Whenever they would leave on settlement due to the lack of nutrients in the soil, they would bring those dead bodies with them and once again build those "coffins" up in the air and put the bodies in them. Then in the 1500's when white man first came to Canada, they burnt all the villages, all the settlements that the native people had had. They burnt all the crops, all the longhouses, everything that belonged to the native people. In mentioning this, their is no way that Archaeologists will ever find remains of native people because they were the ones that burnt them in the first place. They try so hard to prove that native people weren't here first and yet they were the ones who destroyed all the evidence that they were (in fact) here thousands upon thousands upon thousands of years before white man every even set foot on what they thought was Asia. It was a mistake that they made from their first baby step onto already inhabited land. All these theories and all the ciritism towards the native people saying that they weren't here comes down to the white man's belief. For years it has been put into white man's brain that the native people were scum and that they were just here to create problems with the white man and complain about everything. It was put into the white man's head also, that we were just "dirty savages" and we meant no good to the white man. But look at this, the United States "constitution" is based upon the Haudenosaunee or better known "Iroquois" Kaianere'ko:wa(Great Law). In the 1970's the president at the time, "Richard Nixon" admitted to a delegation of native people who approached the white house, that they had in fact used the Haudenosaunee constitution to create their constitution. George Washington had in fact taken the Haudenosaunee Constitution and created the "Constitution of the United States of America"...how are the native people of Canada and the United States "savages" and "no good people", if the whole of the United States Constitution is based off of something that the Haudenosaunee had created thousands of years before white man even set foot in the "americas" in 1492, when Columbus first came? A question I would like to have an answer to.

[Cornerguy1]

how are the native people of Canada and the United States "savages" and "no good people", if the whole of the United States Constitution is based off of something that the Haudenosaunee had created thousands of years before white man even set foot in the "americas" in 1492, when Columbus first came? A question I would like to have an answer to.

You should start a thread on that topic in the Politics forum because your question is beyond the scope of this thread to answer.

[StPete2Charlotte]

In Spanish if you were to say.

"I'm from America" or "I'm from the United States." you would say...

"Soy Norte Americano."

People in Mexico consider themselves obviously Mexican, but also American. They consider people from the US and Canada Norte Americanos, or North Americans.

Whenever I go somewhere I always try to respect the culture of the people, and yes I do agree that it is stupid how we act like we are the only Americans.
The US is just a part of the Americas.

[yayoi]

^^^^^

I think it's stupid that people are complaining about this over 200 years later. BTW, Mexicans are also North Americans and not just Americans if we are going to get specific.

[jamesh]

Originally Posted by yayoi

^^^^^

I think it's stupid that people are complaining about this over 200 years later. BTW, Mexicans are also North Americans and not just Americans if we are going to get specific.

Yeah, I'm a tad surprised this thread has gone on so long, especially as it seems several different people have provided perfectly logical answers to the OP's question. I guess I'm not really one to talk as I'm adding my voice to the mix.

I would think we get the moniker "Americans" because, as repeatedly pointed out, the country's name is "United States of America". "United States" or "The States" are a convenient nicknames but the name still ends with "America". "United States" can be thought of as a descriptive phrase referring to the collection of states, and "America" as the proper noun, but we know that's vague as the official name for the country is "United States of America" and therein lies the confusion.

A potential problem with communicating in English is the lack of specification as to whether you are referring to a country name or a geopolitical area when using a proper noun (actually I don't know of any other languages that solve this problem either, so I'm not bashing English).

Is an Irishman a European? You betcha, in a geopolitical sense that is. In the context of nationalism, no way. Same with a Swede. If there was a way in English to specify that when you are referring to an Irishman as a European that it was in the context of describing him geopolitically then I think there were would be less upset feelings or sense of outrage. Of course, it could be argued that better communication would fix a whole host of bigger problems, but until we figure out how to do telepathy, we've got to use the language systems that we're given.

Is a Canadian an American (in a geopolitical sense)? Nope. A Canadian is a North American. A Honduran is a Central American (or Latin American). Neither is "American" (word used without a modifier).

Japan is not attached to the Asian mainland, and the Japanese are rather fond of stating that they aren't "Asian"-- however it's wrong, the geopolitical convention is that Japan IS in Asia, therefore Asian. I think most of us Westerners would agree with that, but it's a small point of contention in Japan.

A previous poster stated that he/she learned in school that the entire western hemisphere is "America" and therefore everyone in it is an "American". That's wrong too. The western hemisphere is collectively referred to as "The Americas", but not in the singular sense. A person is still a North American (i.e. Canadian, American, and depending on who you talk to, Mexican), or Central American, or South American. But citizens of the United States of America are "Americans".

I'm just a small voice in the crowd and I am sure more people will pitch in their opinions but I hope I have conveyed my own sense of the matter logically.

[Kangaroofarmer]

In regards to Australia being a continent or not?


Australia is the largest land mass on the Australian tectonic plate, Though it does share the plate with the other islands?, Meaning that the term "Continent", Can refer to The combined land mass of all the islands, Or Australia itself?, Both are correct interpretations

"Oceania" is a series of Geographic/Geopolitical zones covering most of the Pacific Islands....These zones are organised as...Australiasia, Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia, Many of which are governed by other countries, Like France, The UK and the USA

Tasmania is an oddity, As it's considered to be part of the mainland (It's an island state and included in Australia's land mass measurements) , But still a seperate and unique island geographically.




A US citizen Being called "American!", Would have more to do with the political context of the United States, Rather than the fact that you reside on the American continent.

[orangeapple]

I can't believe people are seriously suggesting "United Staters" as an alternative name. That sounds like some horrible mangle of the language to me. Can we call people from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland "United Kingdomers" then? . I guess if you want to sound like a moron you can...

And if you call us "US Citizens" then are you going to refer every other country's people that way, by tacking "citizen" onto the name of their country? That just sounds ridiculous & robs people of any cultural identity as well. I mean, think about referring to "American culture" and calling it "US Citizen culture". Not only does it sound cold, but it would be inaccurate, as many people could immigrate & become a citizen without really defining the overall culture that has developed over time. "American" has a warmer & less formal sound to it. "United States Citizens" does not sound personal or descriptive of a people and their culture. It sounds uptight & text-bookish.

If someone asks what country are you from, and you say "America", well, there is no other country with America in its name. It is clear what you are speaking of. I thought people usually say "North American" or "South American", not "American", when referring to people from one of the American continents, because it is more clear that way. However, many words have several meanings, and I can't see why "American" can't refer to both a citizen of the US and a person from the Americas. Context will clarify which one it is. One definition doesn't have to slight the other.

The full name of the US may not be particularly eloquent or imaginative, but it's accurate. There are states in the Americas that became a united country, therefore they are the United States of America. As pointed out, the term "Americans" seemed to be coined by the British to refer to people living in the new world colonies even before the USA was formed.
It seems nearly everyone around the world is "guilty" of referring to people from the USA as "Americans". It wasn't some badge we applied to ourselves to impart some sense of superiority over other people, as seems to be implied by some. That's their own inferiority complex that they need to deal with.

Most Americans I know identify themselves more by their state. Personally, I would say I am from California and am a Californian before I am an American.
However, I have heard other people say that when Americans travel & say "I'm Californian" or "I'm Texan" that it is "arrogant" also because now you're assuming that everyone must know all the states in the US.

There is no winning basically. It is just another bandwagon for people to jump on to criticize the US so they can feel better about themselves. It's so much easier to point fingers & get hung up on trivialities than deal with your own issues I guess.

[texdav]

I thing that the term american came about by foreigners using it to identify people from the usa and the USA in general when immigrating.Another word was Yank;popular during both wars.

[Wandering_Spirit]

This is a very interesting thread and one that was brought up to me many years ago from a co-worker. And like most others it was one I always just took for granted without much thought to it. But I think we also need to look at the different historical aspect of it. While technically the name "American" when referring to people of the United States, is a misnomer it is one that is accepted and well known wolrd wide. If one were to travel in Europe (any of the countries there) and say they are American there would be little question as to reference to the United States. One might ask which state but the name will definitely imply the USA just because it has been done for so long.

From what I know at the time that this country was being formed we were 13 colonies of the Great British Empire located in the New World towards the west. I am not sure what Mexico comprised of at that time but I know it was being settled by Spain. Canada was basically two cities amidst a large trek of land, which is why it was considered at the time of the American Revolution to take over Canada then. Something that would never be thought of now. The point is our name comes from the product of the era. When we broke away from England we stopped being colonies and became states, in time united states. Since the area we lived at was named America we called ourselves the United States of America and in short - Americans. As Canada and Mexico grew in population, settlement, and cities they respectively called themselves after their part of the continent - Mexicans and Canadians. In regards to Central and South America I believe (and I could be wrong here) these people refer to themselves as El Savadorians, Guatamalens, Columbians, Brazilians, and so forth. But keep in mind that at the time we were just 13 states with hopeful plans to expand but I don't think anyone knew by just how much at the beginning of the 19th Century. I don't think it is arrogant of us as we don't use the name in an arrogant way nor would "we" complain if a Canadian or Mexican or someone from the lower parts of the American continent referred to themselves with that name. But it is assumed, and kind of expected nowadays, that if you say "American" you are referring to the USA. The name stuck and it seems to work. Just consider the thought process of the founding fathers and the people of that time. Mexico was controlled by Spain, Canada was being settled by both the English and the French. The other part of the land (which was the big concern back then) left the colonists that broke away from the British so they certainly were not going to refer to themselves in any way that gave back to that. They just fought hard for their independance and so wanted a name to reflect that. Thenceforth the term "Amercan" came to be born. I don't think it was arrogance as much as it was self indentity. At least this is my theory on the matter and someone better informed on history may prove me wrong but it seems logical. And lastly as someone at the beginning of this thread pointed out - any other name just doesn't seem to "fit well".

[camping!]

Great, another reason for American self hatred....or is it United Stater self hatred? UStatesian self hatred? If even our name offends half the globe, is there any hope that we will be liked by Europeans and Central and South Americans again?