In a lot of US articles, newspapers, broadcasts, etc., people living in America are constantly referred to as "Americans" (bear with me on this)... i.e. "A lot of Americans will dump their securities... in exchange for ...I.E.F." in the prevoius item, or the reports on 9/11 when it was constantly reported by the White House that "x number of Americans died in...". I maintain that, unless a direct comparison is made between one ethnicity and another, as in "40% of Brits prefferred sausage and mash, whereas 60% of French said they preffered Frogs legs," or "60% of English respondents said that the recent rugby world cup win was good for British rugby/sport in general, whereas only 20% of Scots expressed the same view", the normal world used to describe people living in Britain as "people". (word, !world). What, if anything, does this say about our respective cultures?36 responses total.
1. You can't just call people living in Britain "people" unless you're there when you say it, and not always then. "People are reluctant to talk openly about Prince Charles's homosexuality" makes sense only if you're saying it in the UK, and then only if everyone understands you're referring only to British subjects. If you said it in the UK at a gathering of Americans, somebody might give you a blank stare and then say, "Oh, you mean people *here*." If you said it in the US, you'd get the same blank stare and then, "Oh, you mean *you* people." 2. Americans do not, in fact, constantly refer to each other as "Americans." They say it only if they're specifically referring to some American thing, and not always then. "Americans love their big cars." But also "People love their big cars." 3. That said, lets assume for sake of discussion that your false impressions are accurate. What it says about our respective cultures is that Americans think of themselves as citizens of the world, and are always careful not to say "people" when what they really mean is "American people"; whereas Brits are insular and provincial, and refer to themselves simply as "people," as if all people loved clotted cream, kidney pie and homosexual royalty.
We are NOT amused.
1. I was referring to the practice of people in Britain referring to themselves as "people", vs. the apparent practice of people in the states referring to themselves as "Americans" passim. 2. That's what I wanted to know. 3. Givenm my response to 1, the reverse of three is assumed.
I don't think 3 was referring to 0
Oh, and four the record, (a) I don't like clotted cream, indeed it's limited to the West Country (Southwest) - and I avoid clotted cream in general. (b) Assuming yo mean "steak and kidney pie", the pudding variety is much nicer, imo. (c) In common with most *British* people, I'm neither besotted with royalty, nor do I believe that Prince Charles is a homoswexual. Given his longstanding relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles (who is, as far as anyone can tell, female), assuming hte rumours are true he is most likely to be bisexual; however, given that the allegations you refer to were made by someone described by Scotland Yard as an unreliable and somewhat unhinged source whose allegaqtions have in the past been proven demonstrably false, it's unlikely that he's either bi- or homosexual. (d) The fact that the current form of the Brtish state is a monarchy does not require that I be besotted with the monarchy; (e) Nor does it require that I believe that monarchy is a good institution, or that I believe the holders of the office of King/Queen are necessarfily virtuous; (f) i see no impediment in being homnosexual to being a responsible head of state,or anything else; (g) I believe that the current Head of state of the UK is a successful and wise one, unlike some Presidents I could mention; (h) I would like to see the abolition of the monarchy as sooin as possible; (i) Any person currently serv ing or in line to serve as Queen or King should be entitled to serve as Preisent if a republic is declared, provided they are elected as such by the People. Pick the bones outta that.
The responses in #3 and #5 were in response tyoo #1. #4 slipped ahead of #5.
I think there is something to the notion that American culture considers "Americans" to be slightly more important than "people". How many times have you seen a news story like this? <huge print> 5 Americans Killed in Bomb Blast </huge print> <small print> 492 people and 5 Americans were killed when a bomb exploded in downtown Jerusalem today...
I think that's just a recognition that people relate to news stores, especially catastrophes, based on how likely they are to affect them or someone they know.
This response has been erased.
The story would run "497 people, including 5 Americans, were killed when a bomb exploded in downtown Jerusalem today"; or maybe "5 Americans were among the 497 people killed when a bomb exploded in downtown Jerusalem today." I guess journalists in other countries never do stuff like that?
I just read an Agatha Christie novel in which 'the four men' and 'the women' went upstairs while Mr. Rogers (the butler) stayed downstairs to set the table. Some characters don't even qualify as people.
All media coverage focus in on news perceived to be of interest to their readership. To watch the Nagano and Lillehammer Olympics here in Japan, you would have thought that the only event on offer was the ski jump and the only medal winners were Japanese. I've never heard the phrase "the americans" or "you americans (yanks)" so much as I have since moving abroad. Within the US, I only tend to hear "americans" in sentences trying to contrast "americans" with some other country or with non-americans. Most times, however, references might be more like "we", "us", or "everyone". I think the default assumption in the States, in fact, is that everyone is in the same boat until the situation specifically forces people to think in terms of nationality, "us" vs. "them". In fact, this tendency is what often leads people from other nations to accusations that Americans assume "everyone is an American" or "thinks like Americans do".
"us" vs. "them" -- Yes. Typical American fists-up attitude. Confirms everything we thought. Thank you. ;-)
Brings up the side issue: when are Americans actually "Americans"? Some politician on TV a couple of nights ago made the point that, outside of the marginally useful areas of geography and simple citizenship -- as in "5 Americans were killed" -- there is no such place as "America" and no such people as "Americans." "5 Americans" tells nothing useful about the Marine MP from Alabama, the drug smuggler from Vermont, the Burger King sales exec from NYC, the rock musician from Seattle and the liberal humanist from Ann Arbor, except for their country of citizenship. There isn't even some lowest common denominator. (Lots of different possible *lows* in each case, with which I'll be happy to satisfy twenex's simple prejudices if he likes, but no one common low.) We -- whoever "we" are -- can't even get Michigan and Ohio to stop despising each other. So, apart from being a citizen of the USA, what is it that unquestioably makes a person an "American"?
[Spot USA quiz. What does this headline mean? "Angels Win Pitcher Colon for $51 Million" That's not bad, but the all-time champ is: "Sox Beat Yanks on Chapman's Homer."]
Pottery and bowels are selling high.
Calling yourself an "American" doesn't even narrow it to being a citizen of the USA. It refers to the entire continent. Someone from Peru, living in Peru, is American.
Really? I would have thought they would be a "Peruano" or "citzen de Perú", assuming their passport is that of Peru. I've been asked many times in the countries I've visited "are you an American?" meaning from the United States but no one ever asked me "are you a South/North/Central American?". Then again, I often get asked whether I'm a Canadian. Go figure.
Right. Peruvians don't call themselves "Americans." The idea is ridiculous, but is often used to show how arrogant Americans are by preempting the name of two entire continents for themselves. As if there weren't enough *truly* arrogant Americans around, so we have to make up this pretend argument.
You know, it might be more of a thing if the name of our country wasn't The United States of AMERICA.
Accusing me, md, of "simple prejudices" (as opposed to what? complex prejudices?), which may or may not be true, ignores the factg you betray your own prejudices by equating monarchy (and Englishness?) with evil, or support for it with a defective state of mind, etc.) As I indicated in my response above, it is possible to have a monarch who can be looked up to, or a president who is a loser, without necessarily agreeing with monarchy in general, or disagreeing with republicanism. Kemal Ataturk, the 20th century Turkish "benevolent dictator", is the person we have to thank in large part for the fact that Turkey is a member of NATO and perhaps the only current example of a Muslim state where the government is secular and truly republican.
Re resp:17: What are we supposed to call ourselves, then? United-Statesians? Re resp:21: Uhm...could you point out where md equated monarchy with evil? I must have missed it.
Response #1 implies "monarchy bad".
"Russ fat"
I suppose, if you also assume clotted cream and kidney pie are works of evil. But really, people's interest in the British royal family isn't about a monarchy any more than people's interest in Michael Jackson is about music. It's about celebrity and fame. There's a certain set of people that are famous for being famous, and not much else, and people love to read tittilating stories about people like that.
This response has been erased.
Chuck? rotflmao. Who needs to spend 10,000 quid on a wedding anywa? I believe that's the average figure round here. Re: 26: Yeah, I would agree with that.The Monarchy these days is hiugh drama. People blame the newspapers/tabloids, but seem to forget that if people didn't want to be able to read the drivel that gets painted about Royals/Jackson/JFK Conspiraciy Theories/Little Green Men/Faked Moon Landings, the papers wouldn't be able to sell copy with those stories in.
This response has been erased.
I've known a Peruvian who when asked what he was would answer, "American". I thought it was a good response. And USian would be fine in my book.
[You've known a native Peruvian, who was a citizen of Peru living in Peru, who when asked what he was said, "I'm an American"? I mean, for reasons other than to be tedious?] The first people to be called Americans were the aboriginal inhabitants of the Americas. (My ancestors, or at least some of them.) They were always, until at least the beginning of the 18th century, the only "Americans." Then, in the early 18th century, people in England started referring to the denizens of their colonies across the Atlantic as "Americans." I've always thought there was something a little ironic about the usage, maybe even condescending. But the name stuck, which ought to suprise no one. The colonists began referring to themselves as "Americans." After they declared their independence, they continued to be called "Americans," by themselve, by the Brits, by the continental Europeans, and by just about everybody else except my ancestors. And here we are, stuck with the usage. It will change with time, as language always does, but not in the lifetime of any of the peeved non- readers of history posting here.
I don't think anyone here is peeved. The Peruvian I knew who had fun with the usage wasn't peeved. He was mostly just having fun with the responses he'd get. He would have loved yours, by the way.
If only "Unitedstatesian" rolled easily off the tongue, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Frank Lloyd Wright created the name "Usonian" for some of his "local United States" designs. OK, that covers my daily elitist reference requirement. Except that Wright actually intended the Usonian houses to be affordable, which of course they weren't. Hah! Extra credit.
Maybe you could all use hte Spanish term, "estadounidense". Sounds quite nice, too. Interestingly, I was watching an episode of the 60s Estadounidense comedy "Bewitched", today. It was the one about the Stevens' baby daughter, Tabitha, being able to speak "The King's English", as they called it on the tv. Which suggests that at that time, America stil thought of British English as the standard, and is also interesting because, when there is a Queen (as there has been since 1953), just about everything that was called "King's" is then referred to as "Queen's", - "the Queen's English", etc. (names of pubs, universities, and regiments dedicated to a particular king being exceptions).
Re: Estadounidense. I think it would be generally more fitting to drop the 'estado' part, and just call us Unidense. Of course, the fact that some of us are more unidense than others goes without saying... ;)
Heh.
You have several choices: