When
speaking of the nationality of a people, the descriptive term
"American or Americano" is generally accepted to only refer
to those citizens of the United States of America. There are
some people, for whatever reason, who would like to deny to
"Americans" the right to use that name under the rationale
that all peoples from the "Americas" are also "Americans".
These same people would describe "Americans" (as I use the
term) as "Norte Americanos" or Estado Unidenos".
Let's see how this holds up under some type of logical test other
than just some attempt at political correctness.
First, let's set aside the fact that 5 billion of the world's population unquestionably understand that when someone is described as an "American" that they are being referred to as citizens of the United States of America, and limit our discussion strictly to the western hemisphere which is referred to as "The Americas" (note the plural).
Depending on one's point of reference, we can view the western hemisphere as one continent, "America"; two continents, "North and South America"; or three continents by including "Central America". These terms, however, are only descriptive of geographical areas and have nothing to do with citizenship.
Now let's get to the nitty gritty of it. To use the term "Norte Americanos" to describe those peoples from the USofA, does an injustice to our Canadian (or Canadiene) friends to the north and our Mexican friends to the south because they, too, are Norte Americanos. So while Americanos are also Norte Americanos, that term is not definitive enough to describe citizenship. Actually by some definitions Norte Americanos would also include Panameños.
Well that didn't work very well, so let's take a look at using the term "Estado Unidos" to see if that will be descriptive enough to define those peoples of the USofA. Now the problem here is that there is both The United States of America and Los Estados Unidos de Mexico. OOOPs, you say, there are two "Estados Unidos", how do we resolve this quandary? It would seem to me that dropping the "Estados Unidos de" and simply using "Mexico" and "America" makes good sense to differentiate between those two countries, certainly Mexico has not had a problem doing that, but for some reason when Americans want to do the same thing there is a hue and cry from some segments of society.
O.K., it seems that we still have a problem satisfying everyone, so let's look at the complete names of countries and see if we can find some guidance there. For instance, in Panama (as I'm sure it is throughout most of Latin America) citizenship for Americans is shown on documents as "EEUU", which, of course, refers to "Estado Unidos" (although it would seem to be more descriptive of the European Union), but then we saw the problem that that had in regards to Mexico. However, if we use the same nomenclature in describing countries then Panama would be known as "La Republica de" and would not be allowed to include the name by which it is known throughout the world, Panama. That is ridiculous, of course, but no more ridiculous than denying America the right to be called by the name it is known throughout the rest of the world. I might further add that while there are numerous countries in the world which are known as "The Republic of xxxxxxxxx", there are at least two that are known as "The United States of xxxxxxxxxx", but only one which includes the name "America" and, if memory serves me correctly, it is the oldest continuous government in the western hemisphere.
One thing I would like to add is that for those who would deny to Americans the right to describe themselves as Americans by stating that they, too, are Americans, go to any other part of the world and make that claim. I'm afraid that people will only laugh at you, at best, or call you a liar and ridicule you at worst.
So when I say: "Soy Americano" most people understand and accept that.
First, let's set aside the fact that 5 billion of the world's population unquestionably understand that when someone is described as an "American" that they are being referred to as citizens of the United States of America, and limit our discussion strictly to the western hemisphere which is referred to as "The Americas" (note the plural).
Depending on one's point of reference, we can view the western hemisphere as one continent, "America"; two continents, "North and South America"; or three continents by including "Central America". These terms, however, are only descriptive of geographical areas and have nothing to do with citizenship.
Now let's get to the nitty gritty of it. To use the term "Norte Americanos" to describe those peoples from the USofA, does an injustice to our Canadian (or Canadiene) friends to the north and our Mexican friends to the south because they, too, are Norte Americanos. So while Americanos are also Norte Americanos, that term is not definitive enough to describe citizenship. Actually by some definitions Norte Americanos would also include Panameños.
Well that didn't work very well, so let's take a look at using the term "Estado Unidos" to see if that will be descriptive enough to define those peoples of the USofA. Now the problem here is that there is both The United States of America and Los Estados Unidos de Mexico. OOOPs, you say, there are two "Estados Unidos", how do we resolve this quandary? It would seem to me that dropping the "Estados Unidos de" and simply using "Mexico" and "America" makes good sense to differentiate between those two countries, certainly Mexico has not had a problem doing that, but for some reason when Americans want to do the same thing there is a hue and cry from some segments of society.
O.K., it seems that we still have a problem satisfying everyone, so let's look at the complete names of countries and see if we can find some guidance there. For instance, in Panama (as I'm sure it is throughout most of Latin America) citizenship for Americans is shown on documents as "EEUU", which, of course, refers to "Estado Unidos" (although it would seem to be more descriptive of the European Union), but then we saw the problem that that had in regards to Mexico. However, if we use the same nomenclature in describing countries then Panama would be known as "La Republica de" and would not be allowed to include the name by which it is known throughout the world, Panama. That is ridiculous, of course, but no more ridiculous than denying America the right to be called by the name it is known throughout the rest of the world. I might further add that while there are numerous countries in the world which are known as "The Republic of xxxxxxxxx", there are at least two that are known as "The United States of xxxxxxxxxx", but only one which includes the name "America" and, if memory serves me correctly, it is the oldest continuous government in the western hemisphere.
One thing I would like to add is that for those who would deny to Americans the right to describe themselves as Americans by stating that they, too, are Americans, go to any other part of the world and make that claim. I'm afraid that people will only laugh at you, at best, or call you a liar and ridicule you at worst.
So when I say: "Soy Americano" most people understand and accept that.
Soy Americano, pero soy Colombiano en mi Corazon.
No comments:
Post a Comment