Talk:Alternative words for American

Usage advice from User:65.196.41.130

I can understand the grief of citizens from other countries in the Americas when citizens of the United States hog the term 'American'. Really, it is not that hard to say 'I'm from the US' since people generally ask 'Where are you from' and not 'What are you?'

My suggestion: if someone persists on saying 'American', insist on asking 'in/from which country.' They will only change the word when it ceases to be convenient.

Or if your language has an alternative, use it. For example, Spanish has an alternative 'Estadounidense' which is little used. Given a choice, it is much preferable to 'Gringo' which someone has suggested. Gringo is imprecise and insulting to many, and the issue is not to use labels which could insult other people, even if your intentions are benign.

Which is how everyone should look at it. People calling themselves 'American' are not trying to be insulting or proprietory. They are just like anyone else in wanting to be called by the name they use to refer to themselves. Have a little sympathy: No one is demanding the Spanish to say 'I am a Loyal Subject of the Kingdom of Spain but Requesting an Independent Catalan State', for example. Are Venezuelans now Bolivarean Venezuelans? What would Mexican-Americans have to call themselves if they did not want to be confused with another group?

Finally, I bet there are many more grievous issues which could be taken up with the United States than this one. By the term United States I do not mean every single one of her citizens that you happen to meet.

Spanish also has the term norteamericano, but naturally that is noninclusive of Mexico, The Caribbean and Canada. I think context may be critical here, I find that within these communities it's rarely brought up. I.e. when bicultural people born in the US are speaking Spanish rarely does someone highlight the exclusive nature of the word American. It is often implied by their familiarity with Latino culture that they may be aware of critical postcolonial perspectives. I think although unwieldy compared to 'American' more precise terminology may be best for a consensus driven platform like Wikipedia. This is not a conversation between two individuals but rather a platform where we want to be inclusive. I would suggest that we include one sentence in the first paragraph that describes this. Something to the effect of "Many persons view the use of the term American to mean Citizen of the United States to be Amerocentric or Eurocentric.--Paolorausch (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usian

I have lived in the USA for 24 years and I have not heard of this word before. Since not many people in the U.S. has heard this word before, nor my dictionary has an entry for it. Can the person who made up this word specify how this "word" is pronounced?

I tried many variations, none sounded right.

Us-Sian as in one of "us".
U-Sian as in one of "you".
U-S-sian as in U.S. of A.
U-S-ian?

Easy - just like "asian" except with a "yoo" sound.

According to Webster's standard, the dictionary editors actually maintain a citation of new words as they appeared overtime. See http://www.m-w.com/about/wordin.htm. A word earns its place in the dictionary only when it is proven to have wide-spread usage. If Wikipedia is the only place this word is invented, I would suggest we remove it. Can someone quote some citations of the usage of this word? When and where was it first used? Where did this word come from? Is it from within the US? Or is it from Europe or other part of the world?

I like the article mainly because it deals with the real issue of "An adjectival form for Citizens of the USA" which has been an issue since the 1780's. Whether it stays under this particular heading is not that important, as long as the article stays in one form or another. I have heard the term used elsewhere, and there are 1200 page links to it in google. The word also gets a mention in the faq for alt.usage.english

From Usian: "There are various reactions to this concern."

I don't think this really adds content to the page -- there are various reactions to a lot of concerns. I'd say cut it or expand it to a few sentences discussing the details of these reactions. (27 September 2001)

Now that is actually a contentful article, and probably deserves to be linked-to from American. Thank you.

--LMS

Perhaps the information should reside at America, American, or alternatives to the word American. --LMS

The above comment refers to information that was removed from this page. --LMS

Colonican

I like "Colonican." I've often thought our government had many Colonic qualities...

Yes, but when Commonwealth people refer to the "Colonies" they usually mean Australia, South Africa and/or New Zealand. You've already hijacked "American" for exclusive use, don't try and take another one :)

I think "Colonic" refers to Colon, not to colonies. Not that this is much better... --Zundark, 2001 Nov 16

I've re-added the link to American. Since the whole point of the term "Usian" is that the term "American" is ambiguous, I find it wholly appropriate that there be a link that illustrates that very ambiguity. --Dante Alighieri

What about the (quite commonly) used words "yankee" (or "yank") and "gringo"? "Yankee" may be offensive to southerners and I'm not sure if "gringo" also covers canadians. I have also been called "gringo", which is odd. Since I'm from Europe the correct term would be "vichingo". // Liftarn

Usonian/Usonia/Usono

("Usono" came _from_ Esperanto; it did not "make its way into" Esperanto. It is older than Frank Lloyd Wright's books.)

Is there data available about the etymologies of and first citations for both "Usono" and "Usonian"? Are they clearly related, or independent coinings? --Brion 06:52 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

I've removed it, after creating Usonia. I've read Wright's work and I tend to doubt that etymology (if you've ever tried to read any of his stuff, you'd know what I mean). If it is indeed true, there must be a source for it, but for the time being I tend to think this etymology is an assumption by an esperantist . -- Decumanus | Talk 07:22, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I found an esperanto society page that suggests it was first used by Samuel Butler, the author of the utopian novel Erewhon. I'm going to go with that pending something more authoritative. -- Decumanus | Talk 08:02, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I found the section on the Esperanto country name Usono misleading and unclear, and rewrote it. Here is the original text I replaced:

The Esperanto term for the United States of America is Usono. This comes from the English abbreviation U.S., which in Esperanto is pronounced OO-soh. Uso in the accusative case is uson. Thus the name for the United States in Esperanto is Usono. In Esperanto, one forms the name of a citizen of the United States using the suffix "an" which means "member of." Therefore a citizen of the United States is Usonano. Esperanto terms for the American geographic regions and people living of them are Ameriko/Amerikano, Norda Ameriko/Nordamerikano, Meza Ameriko/Mezamerikano, and Suda Ameriko/Sudamerikano.

The stuff about embedding the accusative ending onto a hypothetical form *uso is just silly. Also, there is no evidence that the Esperanto term came directly from an acronym. Such an acronymic name, if it existed, would be *Uŝao or *Uŝnao (if from Esperanto words; "ŝtato", state) or *Usao. It's generally thought to be derived from the the Wright/(Butler?) term "Usonia." --Jim Henry 20:01, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Page rename

I renamed this page from Usian to Alternate words for American since it was being linked and redirected from numerous places for exactly that purpose. The more general name is more accurate as Usian is only one word covered on this page. It also makes it clear, from context, the word advocates of the terms wish to replace. Daniel Quinlan 20:26, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

Could you fix the double redirects your move has created? Thanks. Martin 23:18, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hey, I started fixing links and redirects, but there are a ton! (I wish there was a mass-edit to handle this sort of thing.) I'll get the rest later when I have a bit more time, but feel free to chip in. ;-) Daniel Quinlan 23:35, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

Done. Daniel Quinlan 04:42, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)

estadounidense?

What would estadounidense in Latin? Maybe the Latin equivalent of estadounidense should be adopted as the neutral, "non-Monroe doctrinistic" term for Americans

The Monroe Doctrine stuff is a not very subtle POV rant, most of these words were proposed for other reasons, mostly simple pedantry, not political protest about American foreign policy. The use of "American" predates the Monroe Doctrine and the US as a global power. Daniel Quinlan 04:42, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)

According to my Latin dict, USA is Civitates Americae Septemtrionalis Foederatae. Now give me the adjective -- Error 05:10, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In my experience, usually Americanus. Latin demonyms are generally directly after the country, and this country had the poor foresight to name itself after its continent. ("United States" is no country name any more than it is for the United States of Mexico.) That said, I have seen "Statunitensis", but not often. —Muke Tever 03:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC) (a couple years late)[reply]

Knowing the work of Samuel Butler quite well I think I can say "Usian" was not invented by him.

What about "Leftpondian" (and "Rightpondian" for england), which i've seen many times on Usenet - where would that fit in the article? --Random|832 01:44, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

True or false??

True or false: Wikipedia can also have a list of alternate words for American as a noun meaning "a citizen of the United States". 66.245.89.130 01:27, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Indigenous name(s)

I remember having read somewhere that some native american congress decided about a "common indigenous" word for america. Can someone point me to it?

Abya-Yala was the name given by the Panama Cuna to the mainland. Hence somebody decided to extend it to The Americas. -- Error 03:22, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Second question: Which names were used by native americans in their languages? I think it would be nice to put this information here, too.

--Schuetzm 22:34, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You'd be hard pressed to find "native" words for America (or Asia, or Africa, or Australia), since the naming of the continents, and even the concept of "continent" itself was a European conception (after all, Africa+Eurasia is a single landmass). Europeans were in an odd situation in that they didn't consider themselves to be at the center of the world. Instead, they thought Jerusalem was, so "Europe" needed a name, as did the other peninsulas of "the Continent", Africa and Asia. The Chinese, on the other hand, did think they were the center of the world, as most people do. And Americans and Australians had no concept of their continents as separate landmasses from the rest of the world until the European conquest. Any coinings in native languages since then are likely to be extremely local in distribution. Of course, if anyone can document such names, that would be fascinating! kwami 23:10, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

kwami wrote:

...after all, Africa+Eurasia is a single landmass...

Perhaps at one point it was, although there is that pesky Suez Canal separating the two. For that matter, if plate tectonics tears continental rifts between 'em, I'd put my money on their being separate continents in any event. --Ryanaxp 21:12, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

That's like saying the eastern US is a separate continent from the rest of North America because it's separated by the Mississippi River and St Lawrence Seaway (which are now connected by a canal). A canal is pretty superficial geologically. Besides, the geographic conception of Africa doesn't stop at the Suez Canal: it stops at the political boundary of Egypt, which is less than superficial geologically. kwami 05:15, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

Racist Term

I just want to point out that the term gringo - is used as a racist slang and is similar to a white person saying spic. This is from the Websters dictionary - "In Latin America the word gringo is an offensive term for a foreigner, particularly an American or English person." I can go in and edit it. By the way - I'm AMERICAN. This argument I have uncovered regarding what we should be called has seriously pissed me off. Europe and the world had no trouble distinguishing us from Canadians during WWII. There we were known as AMERICAN soldiers. By the way - I don't think that when immigrants came over to Ellis Island looking for the AMERICAN dream - they went to Colombia. --JerseyDevil 10:03, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Living in Brazil, I can tell you first hand that the term gringo is not used with such heavy meanings as you think. Yes, its a word used for foreigners and specially citzens from the US, but nowadays carries a lighter tone, a "friendlier" approach; think of it as nicknaming a German "Hanz", a Russian "Ivan", a Mexican "José" and so on. Yes, it carries a little sterotypical weight, but in a way that is not meant to make others feel unconfortable.

In the US, most Latinos and Chicanos would be offended if they were called "José" all the time (or worse, if there are two of them, for one to be called "José" and the other "Hose B"). It shows a lack of respect not to bother to learn someone's name. There are lots of "friendly" terms for foreigners that aren't explicitly racist, but wear thin after a while. "Gaijin" isn't so bad in Japan, only because the Japanese are generally so polite (Gaijin-san: "Mr Gaijin") and would be reluctant to accost you to ask your name without being properly introduced. And in parts of New Guinea it's considered rude to use someone's real name, so you even address your friends are "you in the corner" etc. In such a situation, calling someone Whitey can hardly be taken as offensive. But in West Africa there are various local words for Whitey (Yovo, Anasara, Tubab, etc.) that aren't racist but really get on people's nerves when they're used quite literally a thousand times a day — especially if you're Black and have darker skin than the Africans calling you "Whitey"! (Most West Africans will tell you the terms are harmless, until they accompany you for a day and realize how annoying it is.) But most white Americans are completely ignorant as to what racism is, not having ever experienced it themselves, and so tend to label anything racially based they find annoying as 'racism', and to equate e.g. "gringo" with "spic". But that's when someone addresses you as "gringo". I find it hard to see how it would be offensive for someone to talk about "what the gringos are up to" if there were no malice in their voice. kwami 04:53, 2005 July 28 (UTC)

As for being pissd off by finding this article, Im sorry for you, because Im very glad (and I believe most of other latinoamericanos are as well, to see that such a page exists, displaying correctly the view of the non-US people on this matter.

And by the last part of your comment, I take it that you didnt understand the article. Its widely accepted by the world today that when a citzien of the US ("american" to you) uses the term "american" he is reffering to members of his nation. However, in most other languages of the world, theres an specific term to call the citizens of US that is different to "american", because this adjective is used to refer to people who have been born in the continent of America, such as myself.LtDoc 03:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to join in, but here in mexico that's a ver y common way, not used in a racist intention but just informally. Just to inform you of another opinion. Besides, Wikipedia is not a 1% pollitically correct place, see Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer and if this entry discusses alternate words, then it's a proper place for gringo to be in. drini ☎ 03:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do people have it backwards?

(This is not a criticism of this article, but rather on the idea of affixing "American" to the hemisphere and not the country.) Instead of trying to find an alternative name for nationals of the United States, wouldn't it be more logical to come up with an alternate name for residents of the hemisphere? I mean, think about how often you have to refer to people/things from the U.S., and how rarely you have to refer to the entire Americas. Seems to me like people should focus on the latter; a new coinage might have a better chance of catching on. Funnyhat 04:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Historically the name "America" refers to the New World. You're asking all Americans to change their identity so that one American country doesn't have to bother coming up with a proper name for itself. I mean, imagine if the United States of Mexico decided to start abbreviating its name to the United States, and said that if Usonians didn't like it, they should change their country's name? There'd be a veritable fiesta of "outrage" across the USA. Or if the Third Reich had started calling itself "Europe", so that the French couldn't call themselves Europeans without implying they were German?

I doubt either choice has much chance of catching on with the general public. No US leader is going to refer to his country as anything but America, but there's no way all the other American countries are going to give it up either. This is going to remain something for the occasional individual. I just use Usonian in conversation and explain where needed. (I chose "Usonian" because I actually heard it on TV when I was a kid, and it's the only word I've ever heard.) kwami 23:25, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

What Funnyhat purposes is plain cultural imperialism; the phrase used implies that "since other people of the America (continent) have so little cultural value, economic strenght, military prowess, and nothing really that much important after all, why dont we just leave american to the people of the US and bring a whole new name to the people that live in the continent named America?". Im sorry, and I truly believe that you had no intention to, but Im highly offended by such statement.LtDoc 03:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

my opinion

hope i'll be clear enough not to be misunderstood, since english is not my mother tongue

but to me, america means the continent, and saying united states you only mean a federation of states, as e.g. brazil or mexico are, always in the american continent.

reading the name in this way, talking about the united states of america is not one way road, and can generate incomprehensions

when you come to think about it, sounds as "the nation with capital washington d.c." is a nation without a clear name, but this doesn't mean i'm calling the inhabitant in any other way than "americans", also if ethimologically doesn't seem to be (the most) correct (name you can use)

as in the title, only my opinion))))

have a nice day,--joana 00:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Étatsuniens

While I can`t speak for its use in france, articles that I have seen it used in in Québec were not as a whole meant as derogative. Usualy it was used in conjunction with "Les Amériques", [the americas] (plural) to refer to the whole of the continent (north, central and south) thus avoiding any ambiguity but not using the word américain [american] at all.

In the same vein, the adjective is often simply replaced by "des états-unis" (i.e. "un char des états-unis", an american car) which again avoid confusion with localy made (in a canadian plant) vs foreign made car (european, japanese, etc...).

A good example of this is its use by Radio-Canada, the state sponsored french language broadcasting society.

For these reasons, I will slightly tweak the wording use.--Marc pasquin 17:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Americans as "full of shit"

Here is a quote from the article:

"Cockney rhyming slang for Yank has produced the name septic tank or
septic; this is used in Australia, and is often modified to seppo.
This is to refer to the derogatory belief, by many, that Americans
are 'full of shit'."

Now, this may be true (I've never been to Australia, so I can't confirm it) as far as the root of the word "seppo." The part that I'm wondering about is the "...belief, by many, that Americans are 'full of shit'." Is this really a wideheld belief? I can perfectly understand that many are probably extremely angry with our government, but as far as my travels have gone I have not seen too many people whom actually felt that Americans, as a whole, are "full of shit." This smells of original research and/or personal opinion. If this is a common belief, there should be some verifiability. --Blackcap 17:12, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign. --Blackcap 17:12, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Another possibility is that this is thought of as a fun characterisation, without people actually believing it to be true. Rather like the characterisation of Americans in Monty Python. kwami 17:38, 2005 August 11 (UTC)

True. Still, it seems that it could at least be rephrased so that the entymology remains, but without it sounding like common bigotry. Maybe "...This is to refer to the stereotype of Americans as ignorant and 'full of shit'," or such like. --Blackcap 18:46, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, definitely better. But of course your point still remains: is this just random rhyming slang, or was it motivated by its connotations of BS? For much rhyming slang, however, the original motivations are lost, and all we have to go on are how overt the current connotations are. kwami

To get around whether or not this is the real entymology, here's a suggestion (I'll change it to this unless there are some objections):

A pejorative term for an American in Australia is septic or seppo,
which seems to have come from septic tank, Cockney rhyming slang for
Yank. This also connotes to the stereotype that Americans are ignorant
and 'full of shit'.

That way, it doesn't matter whether or not the entymology is accurate, while still showing the correlation between 'full of shit' and 'septic/seppo.' It might be appropriate to create a new section of pejorative names for Americans at the end of the article; there may even already be a page for that somewhere. --Blackcap 19:30, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

It has been done. --Blackcap 06:59, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Pejorative terms for Americans

Is an article whose (seeming) intent is to discuss the difference between the use of the word "American" vs. the variants of "U.S. citizen" the right place to list various insulting terms for Americans? I don't think that anyone takes the claim seriously that instead of "American" we ought to say Yank, gringo, septic, etc. Unless I've misinterpreted the article (which anyway was originally about the word Usonian) this content belongs in a seperate article called something similar to Pejorative terms for Americans. Otherwise, it's like saying that we ought to stop calling U.K. citizens "British," and start calling them limeys. --Blackcap 02:37, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyway there already exists an Offensive terms for citizens of the United States of America article in the Offensive terms per nationality page, so I suggest simply merging the insults into there and adding a link to the "See Also" section. --keith 03:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that if there's no objections in the next day or two. I'm going to be away until Wednesday; if you see fit, feel free go ahead and do that yourself. --Blackcap 04:59, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Looks good, Keith. --Blackcap 00:18, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

More bigoted shame for Wikipedia

"United Statian." What juvenile bigoted minds reside here. Positive or negative, a citizen of the United States of America is called an "American." When someone refers to "America" they mean the U.S. When they refer to "the Americas," they mean anywhere in the two continents.

It seems every nationality is entitled to self-describe except Americans. If someone asks what an American's nationality is, then the answer is "U.S." -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 15:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're a troll, but just in case you're serious, I'll answer your little rant. What you say is false. What some people mean when they say "America" is the US. However, many people mean the continent of America. The phrase "the Americas" is a US provincialism, an attempt to disambiguate America the country from America the continent. In other countries people use other provincial means of disambiguating the two. As far as the "entitlement" you feel you're being denied, anyone can call themselves anything they want, and everyone understands that most US Americans refer to themselves simply as Americans, so no one is denying you anything. kwami 20:44, 2005 August 14 (UTC)

Kwami, you seem to believe people are dumber than what they are. The meaning of the adjective "American" is clear from the context in which it is used. If the conversation is about people or countries, then it means "of the United States of America" If the topic of conversation is contienents then "American" means... Well it doesn't actually mean anything since there isn't a continent named "America." There are two continents, north and south, which are very different in almost every respect. So you see, the confusion doesn't actually occur. I, and many many others, believe that these claims of "clarification" are merely a smoke screen to mask anti-American sentiment.

The term "the Americas" refers the fact that are multiple continents with "America" in their name. Are you seriously proposing that everyone when refering to both continents always refer to them as "North and South America", or better yet, "North America and South America?" That seems very verbose.

Your claim that "no one is denying [Americans] anything" is specious. Throught this, and other discussions, the constant refrain is, "Americans should change their name." The very fact that this this discussion is happening shows that you, along with others, believe the term is somehow invalid. To turn around and claim otherwise is insulting. (Perhaps you thought you could get away with it because you thought Americans would be too stupid catch on.) This isn't about "avoiding confusion." It's about impotent group, singling out a people for a come-uppance. No one says, "Oh my God! Nunavut means 'our land!' If I use the word 'Nunavut', someone might get confused and think I was refering to my country/state/province/territory and not the Canadian territory! We better start an online campaign to try to delegimize the Inuit usage of the word 'nunavut!'" Why not? Because the Inuit aren't being demonized by some.

This whole "controversy" is a non-issue. The uncertainty simply doesn't exist. I challenge anyone to write a paragraph, or even single sentence, that uses the word "American" in a way that leaves the meaning of the text muddled.70.106.199.72 10:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may not believe that there is a continent called America, but yours is not universal usage. Geographic continents are social conventions, and the convention varies from country to country. In Russia there is no continent called Europe; Europe is a region of Eurasia, not a continent, just as India is a region and not a continent.

For most of "the Americas", America is a continent. North, Central, and South America are regions of America. This is also the usage in Japan and Iran, and probably other countries that I'm not aware of. This isn't bigotry, it's just how the words are used. Not everyone uses them as you do.

I never said that people were confused by the term American in general. However, people do find it necessary to disambiguate; out of context it can be confusing. Several times I've come across the term in writing and was unsure what it meant until I'd read further. How about this: "The American states hardest hit by the high cost of oil have set up a commission to ..."? Of course, further context will tell you if these states are Argentina, Cuba, the US, and Canada, or if they're California, Texas, and New York. But without such context the sentence is completely ambiguous. The word "Usonian" is one of my ways of disambiguating. I also use the term "the Americas", in order to disambiguate both ways, but this isn't universal usage, and in any case doesn't work as an adjective or a demonym.

As for being a smoke screen, I have no anti-American sentiment. I simply don't think that Americans are better or more deserving than anyone else. Since America means first and foremost the continent, I think the appropriate disambiguation involves using a specific name for the country of America. You may disagree. That's fine. I don't expect any such term to catch on; I use it for myself, not as part of some political campaign. I also avoid the word "Indian". Instead I use Amerindian and Hindian. That doesn't mean I'm on a crusade or anti-Indian in either sense of the word. People laugh when I say "Hindian", but it's a good natured laugh. They recognize that there's an ambiguity there that they've often struggled with themselves, and the term I use is immediately recognizable and unambiguous.

As for people who go on about what people "should" use, there are all sorts of prescriptivists out there, and their opinions rarely affect anything. What I don't understand is why you should become offended that other people don't speak as you do; that you are correct and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You think that I consider people "dumb" for recognizing an ambiguity, but you have explicitly called them "juvenile" and "bigoted" for not using words the way you do. The opposite argument could just as easily be made. In fact, this "anti-American sentiment" you describe is simply your attitude in someone elses hands.

When people have been taught in school that America is a continent, and the USA is a country, then of course an American is an inhabitant of America. But they recognize that inhabitants of the USA also call themselves Americans. Therefore they need to know what nationality someone is to understand what they mean by the word. It is done every day, of course, but I personally find it inconvenient. You evidently do not, and that's fine too.

Let me ask you this: when you say you're going into the City, are you referring to San Francisco? There's no confusion with that term either; it's always clear in context or with the appropriate disambiguation. I personally say "San Francisco" for the City; would you call me a bigot for that? Does the fact that San Franciscans use the term "the City" to refer to their city mean that you shouldn't use the term "the city" to refer to your city? Do they own the word? That's equivalent to what you're saying when you state that because US Americans call themselves Americans, no other Americans should call themselves that. Using the term Usonia for the USA, when its inhabitants don't normally use that word, is no different than using the term San Francisco for the City when its inhabitants don't normally use that word. kwami 17:50, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

You assume I'm a troll. OK. The whole article is an exercise in trolling. Let me give a few simple examples:

The crowd shouted anti-American slogans."
America out of Iraq."
American Imperialism."

Without qualification, you think people imagine that these phrases refer to Columbia or El Salvador? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At first I thought you were probably a troll; after your second comment I changed my mind. But are you purposely trying to misunderstand me? Your examples are all perfectly clear, because they contain within themselves the context necessary to understand them (no one is "anti-New World"; it is the US, not the Americas, that invaded Iraq; the Americas are not a single state to have imperial ambitions, etc.). But not all examples are so clear. Likewise, some people use "African" to mean "Sub-Saharan African", "Asian" to mean "East Asian" (a common usage in the US) or "South Asian" (common in the UK), "European" to mean an inhabitant of the EU or of Continental Europe, etc. Using "American" to mean an inhabitant of the US is similar to these: often clear, but potentially ambiguous. Some people prefer more precision in their language. If you don't, fine, but no need to squawk about those who do. kwami 19:43, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

It does seem pretty weakly based when the only reference is some mailing list (Electric Editors??), and beyond that all we have to go in is the personal opinions of people with obviously very strong anti-american (!) bias. yet another fun-filled page on the subject has as its sole refrence an opinion column. keith 19:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that people with different points of view hate you is either paranoia or bigotry. Sorry, can't help you there. There are several references, as you can discover by reading the article. kwami 19:43, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

The only thing I haven't read is your rambling thesis on this talk page. My characterization of the majority's "anti-american bias" is only my opinion and may well be wrong; I freely admit having a bias of my own. Your insults however, are unwelcome in either case. keith 21:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't take it, don't dish it out. kwami

I'm only suggesting you follow Wikipedia policy. thanks. keith 23:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might as well, keith.~~LtDoc~~

OK, ponder this... In the English speaking world, the continent that claims both the Commonwealth of Australia and the Commonwealth of New Zealand is known as Australia. Do the New Zealanders get P-O'd because on the subjects of the Commonwealth of Australia are the only ones known as Australians??? Something tells me they have more important things to worry about - but who knows in this day and age.