Classification of nationality? (living, vs., title)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In Latin America many people call people from USA as "estadunidenses" - it makes sense in Spanish and Portuguese, but "United Statesian" or something like this is very ugly. The media in Germany often uses the word "US-Amerikanisch", which I think is good sounding and unambiguous.
Anyway, USA is amongst the countries with the most boring names, and I guess it would not be so difficult in the first times of the country to choose a better name - with some indigenous tribe, some particular feature of the land, or even some tree, like the Portugueses made here in Brazil (named after the Brazilwood), or we today would be called something like "Republic of the Central-Eastern South America".
It's surprising to know that people from british overseas territories are not considered as real brits. I know the people from the french overseas territories are full citizens of France.
Not sure that would work. The USA spans a continent. After a tree? How about "sequoias". Wait, that doesn't work for anyone in Virginia. We are the Appalachian people. Wait, I'm a Californian and would rather be called a Sierran. But Oregonians like the name Cascadians better. Splitting hairs can be fun.
Honestly, the only people in the USA who are always unambiguously "American" are blacks and whites. Anyway, I see them as Americans by nationality but culturally by where they come from. It's the same with Hawaiians and that's a state.
Honestly, the only people in the USA who are always unambiguously "American" are blacks and whites. Anyway, I see them as Americans by nationality but culturally by where they come from. It's the same with Hawaiians and that's a state.
Many of them prefer to be called by their varous tribal names. Also, there has been a movement among many of them to be called "Indian", NDN which is an acronym who's meaning I forget. They view "Native American" as a Eurocentric term thrust upon them in much the same way that many Mexicans don't like the term "Hispanic". Also, the average person does not know a Native American when they see one so again, they are generally not called Americans. Yes they are the original Americans but the world is a bit more complicated than that.
Well, it's true most won't be able to recognize if someone is Native American based on looks alone in the same way, but I'm sure if said person told someone their ethnic identity, they'd have no problem being unambiguously being accepted as American.
I'm sure though looks are only a small part of identifying someone as unambiguously American too. A solidly American accent that can't be confused with any other, say a southern drawl, establishes one as unambiguously American, while a British accent coming from a person's mouth, even if they are white or black, says otherwise.
At first glance, people would think of blacks and whites as the most unambiguous, since someone who looks black or white is more likely assumed to be descended from Americans going way back to colonial times. However, there are still places where there are many whites and blacks that could be recent immigrants (say in New York City or another large city) too so there people might not make an assumption that you can tell by looks but maybe accent instead, such as hearing a Greek or Somali accent and thinking "they're not American" and hear a Brooklyn accent and thinking they're American for sure.
I'd really say that it depends on the region of the US whether or not people only see blacks and whites as the archetypical American. I'm guessing in cities like San Francisco or other places in California or Hawaii, where there have been Asian-descended people for generations who are American, or in Alaska or New Mexico where native people and people of Spanish descent have been there for generations as Americans, they are less likely to think of just blacks and whites as unambiguously American, whereas more likely someone living in Alabama would think those two "races" make up the faces of the typical American.
Well, it's true most won't be able to recognize if someone is Native American based on looks alone in the same way, but I'm sure if said person told someone their ethnic identity, they'd have no problem being unambiguously being accepted as American.
I'm sure though looks are only a small part of identifying someone as unambiguously American too. A solidly American accent that can't be confused with any other, say a southern drawl, establishes one as unambiguously American, while a British accent coming from a person's mouth, even if they are white or black, says otherwise.
At first glance, people would think of blacks and whites as the most unambiguous, since someone who looks black or white is more likely assumed to be descended from Americans going way back to colonial times. However, there are still places where there are many whites and blacks that could be recent immigrants (say in New York City or another large city) too so there people might not make an assumption that you can tell by looks but maybe accent instead, such as hearing a Greek or Somali accent and thinking "they're not American" and hear a Brooklyn accent and thinking they're American for sure.
I'd really say that it depends on the region of the US whether or not people only see blacks and whites as the archetypical American. I'm guessing in cities like San Francisco or other places in California or Hawaii, where there have been Asian-descended people for generations who are American, or in Alaska or New Mexico where native people and people of Spanish descent have been there for generations as Americans, they are less likely to think of just blacks and whites as unambiguously American, whereas more likely someone living in Alabama would think those two "races" make up the faces of the typical American.
Well, I am in California. In San Diego, we have a large Somalian population and most of them have adopted the "Black American" way of speaking. However, most people can still tell just by their appearance that they may not be Black American. As far as Asians go, it's often assumed that many may in fact be immigrants. this is largely due to the fact that many of them still are. Then there are the Vietnamese and Cantonese, born and raised here who speak with their own accents. Perhaps accents are the key in many areas but not out here.
^ compared to Australians, it seems being 'American' isn't as much tied to being white (or black) as here in Australia. I guess America seems more culturally inclusive, while even many people who are of say Italian background will refer to Anglo-Celtic Australians as 'Aussies' and themselves as 'Italians' (even though they still identify as Australian). I don't think of say, a Korean American as less American than an African or British American if they were born in America, speak the accent and are culturally 'American.'
We classify a person as British if they are born inside the United Kingdom on the day of their birth.Its not about your heritage.
Thats why I can't fathom why someone from Puerto Rico who was not born in America is American.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.