More than once I’ve run onto someone that has gotten on their high horse about the fact that “American” is an imprecise term. After all, Canadians are Americans, too, because they’re from North America. And isn’t it just indicative of our arrogance that we think that we think we can just hijack the entire word for ourselves and blah, blah, blah.

Not that anything they say is technically untrue. The problem is the absence of an alternative. If the term “American” should be used to refer to someone from any nation in the Americas, what do we use to refer to citizens of the United States of America? And with the absence of an alternative, it’s not so much arrogance that keeps us referring to ourselves as Americans as much as it is inertia. If the rest of the world were to come up with some (non-lame) word to differentiate ourselves from the Americans of Canada and Brazil and whatnot, I wouldn’t be opposed to using it.

Thus far the only nation that I’m aware of that has done so is, not unsurprisingly, France, which has dictated that Americans should be refered to as Étatsunien, or as best as I can tell the equivalent of Unitedstatian. Doesn’t quite have a ring to it.

I have a Canadian friend that once made the mistake of referring to me as a “yankee”. He was apparently unaware that “yankee” is a regional designation. One that southerners don’t take too kindly to. He pushed back a little bit saying that Canadians use that term all the time and southerners shouldn’t have a problem with it, but I explained to him that there is a history there that he is unaware of. He relented, though he still didn’t have a term to use.

I honestly don’t think that the terminology comes down to Étatsunien arrogance. We’re called “Americans” because we put it at the center of our name. Had we called ourselves Columbia, it wouldn’t be an issue. Had another nation popped up at the same time called itself the Republic of America or something then we likely would have had terms to differentiate between us. Had the South won the Civil War and had there been a United States of America and a Confederate States of America, different terms would likely have popped up (possibly Yankees and Confederates).

So what is there to do? I think that the most logical explanation is the status quo. When it comes to the continental designations, go with North Americans and South Americans. North and South America may share that little strip we call Central America and Mexico may have more in common with South American than Canada and the US, but insofar as we need continental designations, North American and South American are sufficiently different.

Addendum: Apparently Italy has gone with the term Statunitense, which is the equivalent of Étatsunien.


Category: Coffeehouse

About the Author


22 Responses to The American Problem

  1. bobvis says:

    Remember, by the way, that we still persist in calling people who have been in the Americas the longest “Indians”. Ultimately, none of us really get to decide on our language. We are generally just swept up in the crazes of the masses.

  2. Willard Lake says:

    People from the United States of Brazil are called Brazilians. People from the United States of Mexico are called Mexicans. People from the United States of America are called Americans. The fact is, our country shares the name of two continents. So what? If one wishes to introduce confusion into the mix by saying that Bolivians are Americans, or that Chileans are as well, that’s fine, you have that right, but I doubt there are many Argentinians that want to be addressed as Americans. Many are proud of their countries name and the heritage that it represents. Should the USofA change its identity to be more politically correct, or is that a contradiction in terms?

  3. Gannon says:

    You are completely wrong Willard Lake. A German is not only German, but also European. In the same vein, most Argentinians consider themselfes Americanos (Americans). US citizens are called Norteamericanos (Northamercicans, too bad for Canada), Estadounidenses (like the Italians do) or gringos. Gringo is the most specific term together with Estadounidense. Most Latinamericans are proud to be Americanos (americans), just like the French, German and Spanish are proud to be Europeans.

  4. Brandon Berg says:

    The Spanish take on it is Estadounidense. Although she got mocked mercilessly for it, I think Miss Teen South Carolina’s “US American” actually works reasonably well. I’ve always assumed that this was something she was taught in school, rather than a mistake.

    There’s a similar issue with “Asian” being used to refer exclusively to people and things from the eastern part of Asia, which leads to absurdities such as “He’s Indian, not Asian.” I find it amusing that relegating the other Asians to second-class Asian status was seen as the politically-correct solution to the alleged offensiveness of the term “oriental.”

    Also, I believe that the term “African-American” is not used to refer to people of North African descent.

  5. Linus says:

    Damn, if it ain’t hard to classify every person on the planet into hierarchical categories!

    I think it’s great that we have this kind of confusion. The fact that we occasionally have conversations like the one Will mentions with the Canuck means that we keep the discussion going. If I could put everyone into some kind of category and there were never any question as to the accuracy of the classification, I’m one step away from bigotry.

    My last name comes from Sweden. The majority of my ancestors were German. I was born in Missouri, spent 11 years in {Delosa}, 4 years in Ohio, and 6 years in Wyoming. Call me whatever you want, I’m just…me.

    {modified by Trumwill}

  6. Gannon says:

    Call me whatever you want, I’m just…
    An Arian?

  7. trumwill says:

    we still persist in calling people who have been in the Americas the longest “Indians”.

    Yeah, we still haven’t figured that one out yet. I was raised to call them Native Americans, which isn’t particularly accurate but I was fine with until I moved out west. It’s hard to take the need to call them “Native Americans” or something other than Indians when the reservations call their wares “Indian” (as in “Indian Casinos!” and “Indian clothes!” and whatnot) on billboards. I’ve gone with calling them “tribes” and “tribespeople” since both Native Americans and Indians is incorrect, though that only works as a cultural marker and not an ethnic one. We should probably just all get together and decide to call them Amerindians as the CIA World Factbook does.

    There’s a similar issue with “Asian” being used to refer exclusively to people and things from the eastern part of Asia, which leads to absurdities such as “He’s Indian, not Asian.”

    Yeah. I’ve taken to using the terms “East Asian” and “South Asian” even though that’s not really bulletproof, either. When I was growing up it was Oriental. That went from the standard to completely disappearing from our vocabulary in just a couple of years as East Asians protested. It would be helpful if we came up with descriptors for each of the races that aren’t tied to broad geography.

  8. Gannon says:

    Yeah, when I say Indians I mean Amerindians, the Asian ones I call Hindu, to make the distinction.

  9. Linus says:

    Call me whatever you want, I’m just…An Arian?

    Not even that works. Skim Wikipedia’s Arianism article and consider the fact that I’m not a Christian.

    The point remains – you can group people all you want for your own purposes, but if you ask them, they’re unlikely to be comfortable with all the groups you put them in.

  10. trumwill says:

    Hmmm. I was under the impression that he had simply misspelled “Aryan” (or that they spell it differently in Argentina).

    Regarding grouping and categorization, I’m not sure that rejection of it is the norm. National, ethnic, and cultural pride are relatively common features. Depends on how it’s meant.

    I don’t mind being grouped with Americans, southerners, Anglicans, or any other group that I was born and raised in or have since chosen to identify with. That’s not to say I endorse every aspect of these groups or embrace whatever similarities may exist within the group, but it nonetheless informs who I am. It’s unlikely that my worldview and beliefs would be the same if I were born in some other country or region of the US or within some other faith. That being said, though my identity was influenced by these things it isn’t dictated by them. There’s kind of a line between grouping for context or reference and blunt stereotyping out of laziness or bigotry.

  11. Gannon says:

    Sorry, I meant Aryan.

  12. logtar says:

    You are all Gringos to me.

  13. Peter says:

    There’s a similar issue with “Asian” being used to refer exclusively to people and things from the eastern part of Asia, which leads to absurdities such as “He’s Indian, not Asian.” I find it amusing that relegating the other Asians to second-class Asian status was seen as the politically-correct solution to the alleged offensiveness of the term “oriental.”

    It’s quite the opposite in Britain. “Asian” means “South Asian,” namely Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi or Sri Lankan. People from East Asia are called “Chinese,” at least for census and other official purposes, even if they happen to be Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese or so on. Of course the British don’t always think too logically about race and ethnicity; until quite recently they had separate categories for “white” and “Irish” 🙂

    Actually, for census purposes in the United States there’s no Asian racial category, instead it’s called “Asian and Pacific Islander.” Technically speaking, anyone from Istanbul to Oahu is considered part of the same race.

  14. David Alexander says:

    France, which has dictated that Americans should be refered to as Étatsunien

    From what I’ve seen from the evening French news, the still preferred term is “Americain”. Hell, it’s probably less clunky even for the most accomplished Francophone. I suspect it may be a part of literary vocabulary which may be popular in use with certain circles of the French political establishment.

    Had the South won the Civil War and had there been a United States of America and a Confederate States of America, different terms would likely have popped up (possibly Yankees and Confederates).

    We already have a term for Southerners. It’s called “rednecks”, and I suspect we would have used “traitors” and “sellouts”.

    Also, I believe that the term “African-American” is not used to refer to people of North African descent.

    That reminds of a frequently made comment on my part. I generally reject the term “African-American”, and many Caribbeans of my age cohort and social class prefer the term “Caribbean American” since we view ourselves as a separate and distinct (and in some cases superior) culture from the African American population. I’ve met some older Caribbeans who periodically chafe at filing out racial questionnaires with a few choosing “Other” because they detest the term “African-American”.

  15. Nanani says:

    As a Canadian, I am surprised to hear of that conversation. I’ve only ever had the opposite interaction, that is to say explaining to non-North Americans (specifically, French) that “American” is not an appropriate word to describe Canadians since it is used to refer to people from the USA, which I am not.
    I don’t know about other countries but Canadians are mostly upset to be called American. By all means, keep the term.

    Maybe we should just rename the continent.

  16. bobvis says:

    Yeah, when I say Indians I mean Amerindians, the Asian ones I call Hindu, to make the distinction.

    Yes, that’s the best way to avoid confusion…

    (That was sarcastic. How do you refer to people who are actually Hindu?)

  17. trumwill says:

    Nanani,

    I’ve heard that complaint from Canadians before, but I thought that the issue with that wasn’t that people were calling Canadians “Americans” in the same way one might refer to Frenchman as European but rather because they implicitly think of Canada as being a part of the US. I know that’s an issue that Canadians get very antsy about being relegated to our 51st state. So I’m not sure that situation would be resolved by changing the name of the continent. Continentally speaking, I prefer using the North and South designations for our continental status and simply “American” for citizens of the US.

  18. trumwill says:

    David,

    I thought Carribeans, despite the dark pigmentation, were considered Hispanic.

  19. Peter says:

    I thought Carribeans, despite the dark pigmentation, were considered Hispanic.

    That would be true for Spanish-speaking Caribbeans: Puerto Ricans, Cubans and Dominicans. For instance, there are many Dominicans playing in MLB, and even though many of them are black in a physical sense they’re counted as Hispanic. Non-Spanish-speaking Caribbeans are not considered Hispanic. These would include French/Creole-speaking Haitians, English-speaking Jamaicans and Virgin Islanders, and so on.

    Interestingly, many of the people living along the Caribbean coast of the Central American countries are black and English-speaking, even though these countries are otherwise Spanish-speaking and populated by Indians and mestizos. I’ve known a couple of these people and both considered themselves Caribbean rather than Hispanic even though both were from Nicaragua.

  20. Gannon says:

    Let’s change the name of the continent to Columbia or Kolumbia; uhm no, name is taken: I propose Gannonia.

  21. trumwill says:

    Columbia was actually considered for the name of the United States, actually, way back when.

    But you’re right, at this stage of the game the name is taken… by several cities within the United States. Oh, and some country somewhere, though they spell it funny.

  22. David Alexander says:

    I thought Carribeans, despite the dark pigmentation, were considered Hispanic.

    Despite sharing the same region and ancestry, thanks to the bizzare racial classifications, Spanish-speaking residents of Caribbean are called Hispanic while their Francophone and Anglophone counterparts are Black or “African-American”. In my case as a Haitian, had one of my parents been born with the same skin colour on the Dominican side of the island, I would have been “Hispanic”.

    Let’s change the name of the continent to Columbia or Kolumbia; uhm no, name is taken: I propose Gannonia.

    I will not allow you to control Hyrule America!

Leave a Reply to David Alexander Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

If you are interested in subscribing to new post notifications,
please enter your email address on this page.