Referring to the USA as "America"

[1st Mate Bob]

What do you mean by "the official word?" The english language is spoken in multiple countries throughout the world. In terms of talking about "official" use, you might even say there are multiple English languages, or at least acknowledge there is no one official English language. Some of them probably have a certain degree of legislation requiring its use, but I would be rather surprised if even American states with official English policies have an official word for referring to a US citizen.

I meant that the Oxford English dictionary defines the word "American" as someone who is a citizen of the United States of America.

[peener weener]

If we can refer to the People's Republic of China as China (ignoring the fact that there is also the Republic of China, I don't see why we can't shorten up our references to the United States as well.

Because China is not a continent.

I don't really care one way or the other, but I want the official nationality of the US to be "yank." It's what we all call you anyway.

[Vorena]

I prefer America simply because I think names like 'United States of America" is really stupid. "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" or "Republic of the Congo" are all rather long winded and are horrible names. I do no see too much of an issue with the term since I doubt anyone really uses america except in the form of the plural, in which they refer to the continents. Now I am curious how it got to be called North and South america.

[Inactive Account]

I tend towards using US (or "'MURICA" when sarcasm levels are running high). I've met a few people from elsewhere in the Americas who are varying degrees of irritated by the implication that the US is the only bit of the Americas that matters, and I figure it's not like I actually lose anything by changing my word choice slightly.

[Balcerzak]

Because China is not a continent.

Neither is America.

[Rewjeo]

Going back to the Al-Awlaki stuff, I would say that he was called a US citizen precisely because people identify as American citizens. You want to make it sound great that we killed this bad guy? Well then you don't help the people identify with him. Then, when Ron Paul was saying it was bad that we had done it, he called him an American citizen because then people would identify with Al-Awlaki and agree that we shouldn't have done it.

[Bryan]

I've thought about this recently, but I almost always say America(n). When I write, I normally use USA, or spell it out.

[Wist]

As Hawkeye stated, the USCIS prefers the term U.S. citizen. Quoting directly from my United States Certificate of Naturalization, I am referred to in different instances as a "citizen of the United States" and a "citizen of the United States of America". My U.S. passport also lists my nationality as "United States of America".

But obviously these documents are written in a formal register. When I naturalized I also received a ceremonial letter signed by Barack Obama which opens "Dear Fellow American". There's no reason it couldn't have opened "Dear Fellow Citizen of the United States" except that it sounds awkwardly distant for a letter with a friendly and welcoming tone. One could make the rather unhelpful and misdirected argument that because "America" describes two continents, it should only be correctly interpreted as such, but the meaning of the opening I cited is clear given the context and in no way unusual.

I think that these nuances are only really important in international contexts where the intended meaning may be cloudy... except that "American" as a convenient alternative to "U.S. citizen" is universal enough in English that, though it may invite some resentment, it really isn't cloudy as long as there is no popular awareness among the Anglosphere of some hypothetical Canadians, Mexicans, and others throughout the American continents adamant about a preference for being considered "Americans" in extranational English language conversation.

This is different and separate from the England / Great Britain / United Kingdom issue, primarily because the distinctions between these terms are of actual legal and social significance, and are upheld by sizable populations within the region.

Imagine that I'm from Vermont and I tell somebody I'm from New England and they respond "Oh, you mean Massachusetts, yeah, I've heard of that place before"; they are wrong because they have mistakenly or in ignorance taken Massachusetts to mean all of New England, or perhaps think New England is an alternative name for Massachusetts. In either case, this conversation partner clearly doesn't understand where I'm from (I could be from Massachusetts, but not necessarily). This is the equivalent of people misunderstanding United Kingdom to mean England (much to Raven's chagrin).

If I instead tell someone I'm from the U.S. and they respond "Right, America", in most all cases I would feel secure in the knowledge that they haven't completely forgotten their geography because America is so widely understood to mean the United States. It also helps that, as Balcerzak said, there is no continent or other country called simply "America".

I don't think there are any problems with America being used as a casual name for the United States (though I wouldn't oppose any movement to change that, and I personally prefer to avoid the term "America" and its derivatives in my writing). I do think it's problematic when people take England, Great Britain, and United Kingdom to be interchangeable because when they do it's often unclear what they mean to refer to (because they are all distinct entities), but I'm British so admittedly I'm biased.

Edited June 13, 2012 by Wist

[Phoenix Wright]

Don't care. It's just another example of people over-thinking something popular and being anal about it.

Yep.

People getting upset over this is almost as dumb as people getting upset over referring to Great Britain as "England".

Same principle, yes, but the English get VERY upset when people do this, as Raven has below.

It's not hard to remember that Great Britain is N. Ireland, Wales, England, and Scotland, Britain is the isle itself, and England is England (as well as Scotland being Scotland and so forth), if I remember correctly myself hahaha. Technically, someone who is British is from the Isle of Britain, not necessarily English, I think.

Get out.

I always wanted to be called a United Statesian.

oh god, canadia, how I miss thee~

Me too. It sounds cooler than "American" to me...

Edited June 13, 2012 by Phoenix Wright

[Shuuda]

It's not hard to remember that Great Britain is N. Ireland, Wales, England, and Scotland, Britain is the isle itself, and England is England (as well as Scotland being Scotland and so forth), if I remember correctly myself hahaha. Technically, someone who is British is from the Isle of Britain, not necessarily English, I think.

Actually, the isle is Great Britain, and if you add Northern Ireland then it's the United Kingdom.

I guess we know where the other stands on this. Carry on not understanding nationalism, while I carry on being proud of my Welsh heritage.

It honestly feels like you've been trying to troll me the whole time. Very well done.

I don't know anyone who would become violent over such a thing. My statement "tear a new asshole" was meant in the verbal sense - as a figure of speech - not meant to be taken literally.

In general, the Celtic nations of the UK have a very strong sense of pride. We don't like being compared to England, and the divide is especially emphasised during sporting events. I personally see the three as allies, and all are rivals of England.

You have any idea how tempting it's been for me to make a wisecrack about all this? You might as well give me a bit red button with the words "Do not Push" labelled on it. That said, whenever I think of nationalism, I tend to think of the BNP. So it's a hard thing for me to take seriously. But then again, I do come from the north of England... where there be nothing to take pride in.

Edited June 14, 2012 by Shuuda

[Raven]

You have any idea how tempting it's been for me to make a wisecrack about all this? You might as well give me a bit red button with the words "Do not Push" labelled on it. That said, whenever I think of nationalism, I tend to think of the BNP. So it's a hard thing for me to take seriously. But then again, I do come from the north of England... where there be nothing to take pride in.

Not really sure what anyone could really say other than "sheep shagger", but we're used to that.

And lol, the BNP (British National Party, for those who don't know but are reading this) is probably one of the least popular political parties in Wales. The BNP are simply racist and want everyone who isn't British out of Britain, and if they were in power (they are gaining popularity since they are apparently the "only right-wing government in the UK"), that is what would happen. To be a nationalist doesn't necessarily mean racist and unaccepting towards other nations and their people. Just proud of who we are and where we're from, without hating on others. BNP, definitely not.

There's some truth in the following video:

I found it amusing.

[Phoenix Wright]

Actually, the isle is Great Britain, and if you add Northern Ireland then it's the United Kingdom.

;)

I knew that "it's not hard to forget" bit would come back to bite me...goddamn haha.

[Raven]

Yep. Passport says "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" across the top.

[Rewjeo]

But... aren't the "United Kingdoms" England and Scotland?

Edited June 14, 2012 by Rewjeo

[Esau of Isaac]

But... aren't the "United Kingdoms" England and Scotland?

No. England is merely the largest and most populous of the powers. The United Kingdom's full name is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland," Great Britain being made up of England, Scotland, and Wales. But since England has the most land and is the most populous and the largest economic power between them, it is not uncommon to hear the UK referred to as England, or the isle of Great Britain itself. I would chalk it up to a lack of education on changing history. I always though Britains and English were interchangeable because I was never taught a damn thing about geography. I still wouldn't be able to find Malaysia on a map if it weren't for the fact that I decided to teach myself where most things are.

Edit: To make it more helpful for those confused:

The green, blue, and red all make up Great Britain. When you include Northern Ireland on the left you come up with the United Kingdom.

Edited June 14, 2012 by Esau of Isaac

[Raven]

Thanks for that Esau.

As for Rewjeo

[Esau of Isaac]

I wouldn't be surprised if he were serious. Over here there's not a lot of differentiation between the terms United Kingdom, England, and Great Britain. If you ask a random person on the streets they would probably know that there is supposed to be some difference between the two of them, but I'd be willing to bet a number of them would be incapable of naming what the difference is.

Man we all gotta learn fifty states and their capitals, don't make our brains hurt with more words n' stuff. :P

[Raven]

One thing I did assume years ago was that New York was the capital of the USA, however I eventually found out it is actually Washington DC, much to my surprise.

As you said, it's all about knowledge. We can't expect everyone to know everything about everything. Hopefully this thread has helped people learn something they don't know.

Ignorance is not acceptable to me. If you know it, show it.

Knowledge is power.

...

How much more shit can Raven spout in a single post?

[Rewjeo]

I meant that I thought the United Kingdoms came from when the kingdoms of England and Scotland were merged when King James (right?) succeeded Queen Elizabeth I in ~1600, although the name didn't officially change until the 1700s, IIRC, so I was confused as to why it is called the United Kingdoms of Britain and Northern Ireland. I realize I worded that very poorly. If I'm not mistaken, that James would be James I, succeeded by Charles I, who was killed in the English Civil War (take that, French Revolutionaries!) where Oliver Cromwell eventually became Lord Protector and basically became a new king even though Parliament was supposed to take power from the revolution. Then, when Cromwell died, his son briefly took power before Charles II was invited back, who was succeeded by James II. After that was the Glorious Revolution, where William of Orange (who was Dutch) and Mary (I believe she was the tie to James II, but she was married to William) were invited over because they were Protestant and most of the possible heirs to James II were Catholic. They also accepted a loss in royal power as part of the deal. If I remember correctly, and I didn't bother to fact check any of this. See, I know plenty about British history, in fact I am 1/4 English and something like 1/16 Scottish, I just made myself sound like an idiot above.

Edited for typos

Edited June 15, 2012 by Rewjeo

[1st Mate Bob]

As you said, it's all about knowledge. We can't expect everyone to know everything about everything. Hopefully this thread has helped people learn something they don't know.

Ignorance is not acceptable to me. If you know it, show it.

I hope you know you just contradicted yourself a little there. Ignorance concerning things that you deem important isn't a realistic expectation of people.

Now if other members of the UK didn't know the difference between the UK, Great Britain, and England, then I would say you have a right to find it unacceptable.

[Raven]

I meant that I thought the United Kingdoms came from when the kingdoms of England and Scotland were merged when King James (right?) succeeded Queen Elizabeth I in ~1600, although the name didn't officially change until the 1700s, IIRC, so I was confused as to why it is called the United Kingdoms of Britain and Northern Ireland. I realize I worded that very poorly. If I'm not mistaken, that James would be James I, succeeded by Charles I, who was killed in the English Civil War (take that, French Revolutionaries!) where Oliver Cromwell eventually became Lord Protector and basically became a new king even though Parliament was supposed to take power from the revolution. Then, when Cromwell died, his son briefly took power before Charles II was invited back, who was succeeded by James II. After that was the Glorious Revolution, where William of Orange (who was Dutch) and Mary (I believe she was the tie to James II, but she was married to William) were invited over because they were Protestant and most of the possible heirs to James II were Catholic. They also accepted a loss in royal power as part of the deal. If I remember correctly, and I didn't bother to fact check any of this. See, I know plenty about British history, in fact I am 1/4 English and something like 1/16 Scottish, I just made myself sound like an idiot above.

Edited for typos

Lol, I'm really not big on history... One of my least favourite subjects at school other than French.

I hope you know you just contradicted yourself a little there. Ignorance concerning things that you deem important isn't a realistic expectation of people.

Now if other members of the UK didn't know the difference between the UK, Great Britain, and England, then I would say you have a right to find it unacceptable.

Hmm. What I meant by that statement was that if people know something is wrong yet they keep doing it anyway just because they can, I deem it as ignorance. Like, if you know something is correct, then just stick with the correct thing. Take Anouleth's posts a while back as an example of what I mean. I only use the word 'ignorant' for such occasions, where the true meaning of 'ignorant' is simply "lack of knowledge of information". What's the word to use for people who know they are wrong but don't change direction on the matter? I hope this makes sense. I guess I was ignorant for using the word 'ignorant' incorrectly...!

As for people living in the UK, I would not be surprised if some adults who have left education cannot tell the difference between England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom.

[Original Alear]

But then again, I do come from the north of England... where there be nothing to take pride in.

Ain't Richy the III and the House of York from N England?

Knowledge is power.

Plowedge is now(h)ere.

[Rewjeo]

Well, I did some quick research, and although Ireland and England shared a king starting with Henry VIII in 1542, they were technically different kingdoms. The same thing happened with Scotland and England, but in 1707 they united into the Kingdom of Great Britain, and then in 1801 the kingdoms of Ireland and Great Britain united, creating the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, whose name then changed when the Republic of Ireland broke off.

[Anouleth]

Yep.

Same principle, yes, but the English get VERY upset when people do this, as Raven has below.

It's not hard to remember that Great Britain is N. Ireland, Wales, England, and Scotland, Britain is the isle itself, and England is England (as well as Scotland being Scotland and so forth), if I remember correctly myself hahaha. Technically, someone who is British is from the Isle of Britain, not necessarily English, I think.

Pssh, way to show off your ignorance of the histories. England is Wessex, Mercia, Essex, Sussex, Kent, and East Anglia. And also part of Italy?

And depending on what era of history, Wales can mean different things. If the Welsh ever try for independence, will they claim West Wales too?

[1st Mate Bob]

Pssh, way to show off your ignorance of the histories. England is Wessex, Mercia, Essex, Sussex, Kent, and East Anglia. And also part of Italy?

And depending on what era of history, Wales can mean different things. If the Welsh ever try for independence, will they claim West Wales too?

He's talking about now. England is a country, I don't see how he is wrong in stating that.