LL-L "Names" 2005.10.19 (03) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.net
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West) Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

19 October 2005 * Volume 03
=======================================================================

From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at WORLDONLINE.NL>
Subject: LL-L "Names" 2005.10.18 (10) [E]

I think the Spanish speaking people(s) of Central American would have more
rights historically to call themselves just Americans than the inhabitants
of the USA, because the first part of the New World that was "discovered"
by Columbus c.s. was of course the island Hispaniola, and named after
Americo Vespucchi(?). But I guess (hope) that is tought in school with
history class in the US, too, or is the country so self centered that they
just leave that kind of details out? Regards, Ingmar

>From: Ben J. Bloomgren <Ben.Bloomgren at asu.edu>
>Subject: [LLL] Names
>
>Hello, all. Whenever I see someone mention the United States of America
>among speakers of Spanish and Portuguese, I hear them call us
>Norteamericanos or Estadounidenses, but never just Americanos. They say
that
>"America" is the whole new world from Greenland to Cape Horn. When did
>America become this whole huge area instead of the one country? What is
the
>history behind that. I don't know why, but it's a bit annoying to always
>have to stop and say, "Okay, I'm North American."
>Ben

----------

From: David Barrow <davidab at telefonica.net.pe>
Subject: LL-L "Names" 2005.10.18 (10) [E]

> From: Ben J. Bloomgren <Ben.Bloomgren at asu.edu>
> Subject: [LLL] Names
>
> Hello, all. Whenever I see someone mention the United States of America
> among speakers of Spanish and Portuguese, I hear them call us
> Norteamericanos or Estadounidenses, but never just Americanos. They
> say that
> "America" is the whole new world from Greenland to Cape Horn. When did
> America become this whole huge area instead of the one country? What
> is the
> history behind that. I don't know why, but it's a bit annoying to always
> have to stop and say, "Okay, I'm North American."
> Ben

Ben,

The question should be: when did 'America' become one country rather
than the whole huge area? The term 'America' originally applied to the
whole land mass and islands, not to just one part of it.  All  native
inhabitants south of the US - Mexico border consider themselves
American. (OAS = Organisation of American States = continental version
of the United Nations).  Both Mexico and Brazil are 'United States of
.....'    If the US had been called something else after the 'United
States of ..'. , you wouldn't be so annoyed;  Canadians are also North
American.

To distinguish English speaking countries often use the term America v
the Americas

David Barrow

----------

From: Paul Finlow-Bates <wolf_thunder51 at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Names" 2005.10.18 (10) [E]


   When did
  America become this whole huge area instead of the one country? What is 
the
  history behind that. I don't know why, but it's a bit annoying to always
  have to stop and say, "Okay, I'm North American."
  Ben

It was the "huge area" long before it was a country.  It is named after 
explorer Amerigo Vespucci, who managed to pre-empt Columbus and have his 
name applied to two continents (at that time though, it wasn't clear how 
many continents there were).  The whole "New World" was America, and the 
fledgeling revolutionary republic called itself the United States of 
America, because they were United States, and they were in America.  The USA 
has no more claim on the name "America" than the Republic of South Africa 
does on "Africa".
Incidentally, Columbus has to content himself with a South American 
republic, a Canadian province, and a few towns across the USA!

Paul

----------

From: Brooks, Mark <mark.brooks at twc.state.tx.us>
Subject: LL-L "Names" 2005.10.18 (10) [E]

Ben wrote: "When did America become this whole huge area instead of the one
country?"

It didn't.  It was the whole Western Hemisphere first (and still is), then
it got appropriated by the people of the United States.  My individual "folk
etymology" says that instead of saying United States of America, people just
began shortening it to America.  Perhaps, not an appropriate analogy, but
it's like the  hamburger becoming burger.

Mark Brooks

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Names

Hey, Mark!  Good to hear from you.

> Perhaps, not an appropriate analogy, but
> it's like the  hamburger becoming burger.

But a contributing role in this one could have been the fact that people 
thought, "No ham in this ... burger."  ;-)

Let's face it, folks.  What's in a name?  Sure, maybe remnants of initial 
hopes, ignorance and delusions of grandeur ... and self-centered attitudes. 
And, yes, some of that may still persist.  But if you go and change the 
names and try to change people's views along with them, this would be 
poo-pooed as "politically correct," which is the usual reaction.  And it is 
not as though the United States of America have a monopoly on what we are 
talking about here -- not to make excuses for stupidity in international 
politics.

Just look at the inherent Eurocentric attitude revealing itself in the use 
of the name "New World," which is very offensive to the indigenous 
population of these parts, but which is understandable from the point of 
view of early European colonists.  Again, attempts to stop people using it 
are laughed off as "politically correct."

And then there's the myth of Columbus having "discovered" the "New World," 
... never "rediscovered," just as Marco Polo did not "discover" China, just 
happened to leave a travelogue that survived.

Don't get me started about Europe having delusions of grandeur in passing 
itself off as a continent, which is a continent of Christian mindsets only 
(as becomes clear in the current debate about Turkey's ambitions to join the 
club).

Yes, there's a lot of weird thinking going on, always has been, and names 
reflect some of that.  But does the person using the name (for lack of a 
viable alternative) have the mindset that goes along with what seems to be 
an inappropriate name?  Not necessarily, I think.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

==============================END===================================
* Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
  to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at
  http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
======================================================================