|
|
Re: Two Meanings in "American" (fwd)
Matthew Hill (mhill@WATARTS.UWATERLOO.CA)
Mon, 20 Feb 1995 02:08:26 -0500
> > Sorry Ben!
> > I was (and still am I suppose) merely being somewhat sarcastic with my
> > suggestion that "American" is easier than "United Statesian." I am aware
> > of course that there are other issues here,(at least to some people) but
> > as I said in my first posting, sometimes I think we take these things a little
> > too seriously. If memory serves me correctly, we are the youngest country in
> > the Americas (I just know someone's going to correct me on this!) thus logic
> > would dictate that if the other countries in the Americas wanted the name
> > "American" that they would use it. Did "we" make this term up, or did the
> > long arm of U.S. Imperialism actually "steal" this designation from another
Much deleted
I'll jump in and be that someone. Does not the Ffounding Ffiction of the
oldest, not the youngest, independent state in the Americas begin
We, the people of the United States of America, .....
Now that can hardly be stealing since there were no other states in America
at the time which were united except through their membership in external
empires.
The key point in this argument seems to me to be that common, not
technical, use by citizens of the U.S.of A. restricts Amurkin to
citizens of the U.S.ofA.. Does anyone know of a case in which the
Un-Amurkin Activities Committee worried about threats to the security
of Chile or Colombia?
The obvious solution is to rename the continents. I suggest
Lower Beringia and Still Lower Beringia. I freely acknowledge that
I am influenced by the practice of putting north at the top.
Matthew Hill (MHILL@WATARTS.UWATERLOO.CA)
Note: Ffounding Ffiction (not to be confused with either Founding Fiction
or founding fiction) originates with the author and my employer
deserves no credit for it.
|