Interesting is how USAns and Australians chat "America's bashing" topic. Of course, USAns consider themselves being Americans, as they unaware that America is something beyond north of Main and South of Texas. But that's alright. While living in the US no one told me one is American. It was always half Irish and quater German and a little of Italian and..
Australians are probably claim something similar back to their home. Bastards. But somehow -- on this USA board all speak as a nation oversudden...how come? Is it common wealth..common language? Is that it? I love you, nevetheless.

This reminds me of an incident a few years ago when I was returning to Australia from a trip overseas. Now, I should first explain that I was born of French parents in Morocco, and we later immigrated to Australia. So anyway I had gone on a trip to the (former) Soviet Union on a delegation. On the way back, we had stopped in Bombay and Singapore. Arriving back in Sydney, I handed my passport to a customs' officer. He looks at it, flips the pages, and stares at me.

Well, I was wearing jeans with an Indian shirt (bought at a stop-over in Bombay Airport), a chinese hat (Singapore stop) and I had a balalaika over my shoulder.

Anyway, the officer asks me: "Where did you come from?"...to which I blurted out "Uh, France..uh...Morocco...uh...Russia...Singapore..uh .......what do you mean?"

He just wanted to know what had been my last stop. LOL

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman

It's common citizenship.

I don't think you'll find any American (citizen of the United States of America) on this board who is unaware that the continent of South America exists below Panama, or that we share the continent of North America with 22 other countries.

As far as countries go though, the United States of America is the only one of the 35 countries on the American continents which includes "America" in its name.

By convention we have, and likely always will, refer to ourselves as American.

I suppose that we could consider ourselves United Statesians, but at some point a few hundred years ago the citizens of the United States began calling themselves "Americans", and the name stuck.

I guess that in a strictly technical sense citizens of Aruba, or Honduras, or Ecuador, or Peru could begin calling themselves Americans and that they would have as much claim to the title as any other nation on either continent.

But I doubt very much that that'll ever happen because by doing so they would be foresaking the name that they, by tradition and convention, have identified with citizenship in their home country.

If you ask me what my heritage is I'll tell you that I'm Polish, Irish, and German. Those are the places my ancestors we're born. But those countries mean nothing to me in any official sense. I have no ties to them, I don't know if I have any distant relatives still living there or not, I don't live there, work there, pay taxes there, carry their passport, I am not subject to their laws, I have never served in their military. I have nothing against any of those countries, but I have no connection with any of them either.

I'm not Irish, Polish, or German in any sense.

I'm American.

__________________
...Old Europe, a once-dominant region now reduced to sucking at the geopolitical teat of America... they spent the better part of the last millennium conquering the world and taking the good stuff home with them... And what do they get for their troubles? Ungrateful colonies demanding their independence. And after you taught them how to play cricket!...

-Jon Stewart

It's not as simple as that either. I mean, I know a pretty large number of "progressives" who only can accept criticism of america in the sense that the criticism must enable america to better further "it's" or "her" goals. It's the "Saddam gassed his people and is a horrible dictator, but..." crowd. It's what prevents the entire left from having anything to say against Bush's rhetoric now. Because what he has argued, rhetorically at least, is a humanitarian argument indistinguishable from "the left's" general stance on expansive use of US clout.

For instance - harsh criticism of the war in Iraq is often based on the fact that if the war is not pulled off properly, it will lessen the international clout the US has to facilitate change in other regions of the world. Tim Roth is a brilliant example of this kind of thinking, and he is unfortunately representative for most, if not all, of those I have met when it comes to charitable work related to certain media- hotspots of total destruction and misery around the globe. And it's undeniable that, fundamentally, that view is shared by pretty much everyone who calls themselves american - i.e., that the US can be a driver for good in the world based on it's size and place in the world, and success and superiority alone.

As many say - that Idea of the US, is what the country is founded on.

But how that translates into knee- falling support for anything. And I really mean /anything/ the US government does, or anything the US somehow ends up doing - now that's a mystery to me.

Because - I've been a nationalist all my life, and I'm proud of my country (even though I fucking hate parts of it). But for crying out loud - that doesn't make me gloss over what's not good, or prevent me from questioning what some asshole in a suit claims is good for the nation. And that's what the problem is - that's what I'm so incredulous about. That's why I'm sincerely baffled to hear someone whose forefathers were willing to die for their freedom say something like - "well, you know, now that we have our freedom, we need to curtail it and outsource it to Iraq, because it's just too expensive to have in the most successfullest nation on the planet".

It just doesn't make sense to me. Because it's not a naive commitment to knit socks for all the poor children in Africa gone amok we're talking about here - it's a philosophical view that no matter how imperfect - the US must use it's force (not it's skill) to facilitate change in the world.

And frankly, you just don't defend that by saying - "well, not all americans are complete bastards, you know. Some even think a little bit about it before they support the latest escapade in military destructive demonstration. Why, some even think wars must be necessary to fight once in a while (a very rare and principled view, I might add) - so don't generalise about americans. We're a pretty diverse crowd, you know. (Now excuse me while I go back to the TV screen, just after I've used some hours of my time categorically justifying to myself and others why everything the US does fundamentally is correct and beyond reproach)".

So - explain to me - how come that critical thinking - that a nationalistic cesspool like for instance Norway in spite of everything still has - is virtually banned in the US. And - you know - if you can't do that, then you can take your "anti- americanism" and shove it. In fact, you can all keep bloody quiet.

scoot, while you've made a pretty decent point of USAns calling themselfs as is, I would, accourding to what I learned in schlool, still maintain that the crusaders of an Old Europe to the continent historicaly were on a suppression conquest mission and back then there were no one to counter yo until 21 century. Amazing, but yo could and still can say what ever yo think fits an empire agenda. Sort of a power trip if you will. Historicaly, yo have no moral right to dictate to begine with. Too young of a nation yo built to claim anything. Don't have that club membership. British do, for instance, French do too.

It's quite simple. In the English language, the proper word for a citizen of the United States of America is "American". "United Statesian" is not an English word, so it is not used.

In languages other than English, they do have words for Americans, such as estadounidense, US-Amerikaner, yanqui, etc., that distinguish us from other countries that also reside on the American continents.

For further reading:
Demonym - Information from Reference.com
Reference.com/Encyclopedia/American (word)

__________________
"Anyone that needs what they want, and doesn’t want what they need
I want nothing to do with
And to do what I want
And to do what I please
Is first on my to-do list"
-Gnarls Barkley, "Going On" lyrics

Indeed, if Canadians and Mexicans don't object to it (and they don't usually), then I don't see why so many Europeans have an issue with this usage of the term American meaning US citizens. Really, only the Canadians or Mexicans could rightly complain about it - but they don't (not on this issue anyways).

From what I've seen, the issue some Europeans have is they have this idea that Americans decided to use the term out of ignorance that there were other countries on the American continents or something. They view Americans calling themselves Americans as an extension of our ignorance and arrogance towards the 'outside world'.

In reality, the answer is pretty boring: it's simply the English word for people who live in the United States of America. If you were to call a Canadian or Mexican an 'American', they would quickly correct you.

__________________
"Anyone that needs what they want, and doesn’t want what they need
I want nothing to do with
And to do what I want
And to do what I please
Is first on my to-do list"
-Gnarls Barkley, "Going On" lyrics

I don't think Europeans have an issue with it. You're free to call yourselves what you want. We call you Yanks, anyway.

So what you're saying is that the citizens of a country don't have a "moral right to dictate" the name of their own country if their history as a nation doesn't stretch back to 14th century core European exploration and colonization?

Namibia doesn't have a right to call itself Nambia because it only became independent from South Africa in 1990?

Micronesia doesn't have a right to call itself Micronesia because it only became independent from the United States in 1991?

Eritrea doesn't have a right to call itself Eritrea because it only became independent from the Ethiopia in 1993?

East Timor doesn't have a right to call itself East Timor because it only became independent from the Indonesia in 2002?

Your premise is ridiculous.

The citizens of a nation have the right to name their nation whatever they want to name it.

And they have the right to call it whatever they want to call it.

And they have the right to refer to themselves however they want to refer to themselves.

If you don't agree with a people's name for their nation or themselves then thats your problem.

I honestly don't see where you get off questioning anything though, being from Moldova.

The United States of America is older than the Republic of Moldova.

In fact, Moldova only gained it's independance as a result of the Cold War defeat to the U.S.S.R. but the United States.

If it weren't for us arogant Americans you'd still be a Soviet satellite.

I think that that gives me the "moral right to dictate" the name of your nation.

But since I'm a nice guy I'll let you keep the name Moldova.

There, America has given you your freedom and we've even allowed you to keep that silly name.

__________________
...Old Europe, a once-dominant region now reduced to sucking at the geopolitical teat of America... they spent the better part of the last millennium conquering the world and taking the good stuff home with them... And what do they get for their troubles? Ungrateful colonies demanding their independence. And after you taught them how to play cricket!...

-Jon Stewart

Well, it's not a common complaint, but I have seen it brought up a number of times while on this board. And admittedly, it's not brought up by the most rational posters.

__________________
"Anyone that needs what they want, and doesn’t want what they need
I want nothing to do with
And to do what I want
And to do what I please
Is first on my to-do list"
-Gnarls Barkley, "Going On" lyrics

Indeed. I've seen that point brought up several times at this forum by Europeans - and like Speakeasy says, they usually aren't the most sophisticated posters as it is such a silly argument.

Well, it's not really an argument. For a poster, it's more like going into anaphylactic shock.

I would recommend James Pierson’s "Camelot and the Cultural revolution" as a good primer regards liberalisms changes and the development of the American boogeyman....

__________________
Obama-e fungis nati homines....

Yep. Now, I just usually bang my head against the wall until I fall unconscious, instead of posting. It's much less stressful in the end.