> Mayans and I are by now part of the greater western world
"Western" is used as short-hand for the cultures "that have some origin or association with Europe. The term also applies beyond Europe to countries and cultures whose histories are strongly connected to Europe by immigration, colonization, or influence."
Modern Mexican culture could be argued to be "Western". It would be difficult, on the other hand, to argue Maya culture is Western.
> I feel much more like a Canadian or a USian
Linguistically, the use of "USian" strikes back at your argument. There is no ambiguity when someone says "I am American," as people from only one country identify themselves as such. Using the term "USian" thus explicitly rejects one's affiliation with the United States.
> difficult, on the other hand, to argue Maya culture is Western.
At this point, many of the younger generation of Maya are quite western, at least in Mexico (go to university to become doctors or engineers, live in the city (or are urbanizing their communities), wear blue jeans and makeup and basketball shoes, listen to rap music, build houses with flush toilets and big TVs, drive SUVs, post to facebook from their smartphones, etc.), and their children absolutely will be. Their grandparents who only speak their indigenous language, are illiterate, spent their careers as migrant agricultural workers, etc. were not “western” except insofar as the broader western political system shaped their society and economy and ruthlessly exploited them.
> Using the term "USian" thus explicitly rejects one's affiliation with the United States.
In Mexico, the USA is called the Estados Unidos or EE.UU. The Mexican word for what you call “American” is “estado-unidense” (or maybe more commonly, “gringo”), and when writing in English, USian seems like a reasonable translation. Calling US citizens “americanos” sounds unnatural and presumptuous in Spanish [it doesn’t help that there is a lot of bad blood between Mexico and the USA, what with us starting an unjustified war and conquering/stealing half their country, something which is discussed thoroughly and bitterly in Mexican schoolbooks].
I think you are misinterpreting the grandparent poster intended based on your own biases. What the term “USian” rejects is not “one’s affiliation with the United States”, but rather it rejects the United States’s perceived imperialist claim to the whole western hemisphere. But the grandparent poster did not necessarily intend this rejection consciously, but may just be mirroring his own cultural context.
> many of the younger generation of Maya are quite western
"Western" is a cultural label. One can be modern, educated, affluent and something to aspire to without being Western. Many modern Maya are Western. Maya culture is not.
> Calling US citizens “americanos” sounds unnatural and presumptuous in Spanish
I am making a point about a comment's English diction in a discussion we have carried out entirely in English.
> there is a lot of bad blood between Mexico and the USA
I don't object to the term in general. Just its usage in this argument. OP argues for a single cultural umbrella existing over Mexico and the United States. In the context of that argument, highlighting the divide isn't helpful.
"There is no ambiguity when someone says "I am American," as people from only one country identify themselves as such."
That's... not really true? I mean, it's true in the sense that everyone "knows" that when you say American, you mean "someone from the US". But that doesn't mean it doesn't bother people from other countries in the Americas. And even if they speak e.g. Spanish, they will tend to also speak English, so it's not like they aren't exposed to this concept.
I think a reason this is less noticeable to people from the United States is because our continental model is different from the model taught in Latin America (7-Continent vs 6-Continent). In Argentina, for instance, you're more likely to learn there is one continent called 'America' that encompasses what people from the US consider two continents - North and South America. So for a person from the United States there is no conflict in referring to people from a continent vs. their own country because they are all distinct. A person could be 'North American', 'South American', 'American' or even 'Latin American' and the terms are completely clear and distinct to someone from the United States. There is no term that groups people from both North & South America together in English (that I am aware of). This naturally causes problems for people that don't think about continents that way and feel that 'American' referring solely to people from the US is condescending because it uses the continental term they are accustomed to and also excludes them from it. While I agree it is condescending, I think it is unintentionally so, and it is rooted more in language and geographic convention. While I try to be aware of it and avoid using the term 'American' where it might cause offense there isn't a widely adopted alternative in English. The opposite is the case in Spanish, where it would be quite rude to refer to oneself as American when one means Estadounidense because thats the term that matches the culture, language, and convention.
Indeed, when people try to refer in English to the concept of "the American continent", they usually have to say "the Americas".
I think some people's Spanish has adopted this habit, saying e.g. "los pueblos de las Américas" or "las culturas de las Américas" more than "los pueblos americanos" or "las culturas americanas", but I don't have a broad enough exposure to Spanish to understand its prevalence and connotations clearly. (Maybe it's most common in the U.S. due to influence from English?)
That's actually not a bad point, and probably one of the reasons "American" caught on, together with the fact that "United States" is 1) ambiguous (other countries are/were called "United States of X", I believe and 2) very hard to turn into a catchy name for the people.
Doesn't negate the point of how some people feel about this.
So to demonstrate you're from the USA, culturally, you have to be so self-obsessed as to imagine USA is the only country in the whole of the American continent?
I don't necessarily doubt it; but it's kinda hilarious.
Like if a friend said "I'm a lot like you" and you say "you can't be, I'm an arrogant asshole".
> Linguistically, the use of "USian" strikes back at your argument. There is no ambiguity when someone says "I am American," as people from only one country identify themselves as such. Using the term "USian" thus explicitly rejects one's affiliation with the United States.
There is ambiguity to me, because I consider myself as American as the US does. What does America mean to the US? It usually means things like the beauty that Luis Miguel sings about,
new opportunities for immigrants, such as for Salma Hayek's or Shakira's ancestors, and freedom, such as when Morelos wrote "prohibit slavery forever, as the distinction of caste, being all equal and only vice and virtue distinguish an American from the other."
The good associations that the US has with "America" are also associations that the rest of the continent has with the term too. Thus, I want to share the broader term. I and all Mexicans are American first like the US, and more specifically Latin American. A Latin American is a kind of American, not something completely different.
I use the term American more broadly to point out our shared affiliation, not to exclude the US. But to someone who wants a shared term all to themselves, asking them to share feels like exclusion to them.
>new opportunities for immigrants, such as for Salma Hayek
Of course she was getting pigeon-holed by Harvey Weinstein and the Hollywood machine who were trying to limit her opportunity to take on roles that didn't rely solely on her beauty and ethnic background.
It is still a country of some opportunity but much of that opportunity comes from fighting against the existing power structures.
I was talking about the Lebanese diaspora in Latin America, in case that wasn't clear. They were aiming for "America" and landed in Mexico, Colombia, Brazil and the rest of Latin America. Well, this is America too, they thought, let's make a new life here.
I am USian. I have never liked the ambiguity of "American".
Also, are Greeks "Western"? Are Italians? Croations? Austrians? What is "Western"? As a child it was confusing to me that those east of the Bering Sea are westerners and those west of the Bering Sea are eastern.
To be very USian, I was also puzzled as a child why Ohio was midwestern. It seems mideastern to me. I would call Utah midwestern.
>> There is no ambiguity when someone says "I am American," as people from only one country identify themselves as such.
Well, they have the right to do so when talking among themselves. When talking within an international audience, good manners suggest sticking to definitions that are internationally agreed upon.
America is a continent, and US citizens are not more American than any Canadian, Argentinian or Peruvian is.
But it's not. North America and South America are just as separate as Africa and Eurasia.
>sticking to definitions that are internationally agreed upon.
"American" is used as the demonym pretty much everywhere in the world other than Central America and South America. So that advice is backwards.
And try to empathize by imaging that you can't call yourself a demonym, and you have to either go by a bizarre acronym like "RAian" for the Republic of Argentina, or when someone says "I'm French, what about you?" you have to say "Well, I am living in the Republic of Argentina"
Then turn around and direct this at Australians. They apparently have no right to their demonym either, because New Guinea is part of the continent. And in their case, it's actually part of the continent.
Papua New Guineans and Indonesian Papuans already have their own names for themselves, but what if they also want to say they're Australian? Let's have everyone switch from "Australian" to "CAian" for the Commonwealth of Australia.
San Marino is literally on the Italian Peninsula, so "italiano" is off completely. They need to start going by "RIano" or something.
And how many countries are in the South of Africa?
> "American" is used as the demonym pretty much everywhere in the world other than Central America and South America.
Solely by misappropriation. America was world-wide known as a continent before England sent their colonizers. Somehow migrating to America was misappropriated as meaning "migrating to the English colonies in America". Somehow the United States of America became the only America.
I have the theory that if their name had been less generic, say United States of New England, The word America would have retained its original meaning.
Of course the only reason we use the term "American" is because of the USA! It's a natural term for residents of the USA, and has become ingrained in English by virtue of America being the largest English speaking country for nearly 200 years. Do non-English speakers have a problem with this? In Spanish the term for USA is "Estados Unidos" which isn't problematic at all.
It has nothing to do with language, it's about regional identity. Imagine if the French told Europe that France is now Europe, and what was Europe will now be called the Europes. It wouldn't matter if they say it in French or German.
In English (which is the language being used here), American is the demonym for citizens of the US, while Canadian, Mexican, Argentinian, Peruvian, and Brazilian are the typical demonyms of citizens of Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Peru, and Brazil.
I'm aware that there are some continent categorizations that group North and South America as one continent called America, so one could use American to mean people who live in one of what are understood in other categorizations as North or South America. (Is that the continent categorization that you're familiar with? I just recently came across this, so if you wouldn't mind sharing where you learned this, and whether you're familiar with categorizations that count North America and South America separately, I'd be interested to hear more about it.)
That doesn't, however, mean that the usage of American to mean citizen of the US is wrong: it's very widely used in English worldwide. USian is assuredly not widely agreed upon as an alternative, at least in English which is the language of discourse here. Words have multiple meanings that need to be understood in context. Sometimes that context needs to be clarified.
In Italy we use the word "americani" (Americans) but we can also use the word "statunitensi" (that would be Unitedstaters). It's not as common but everybody understands it. IMHO the latter term is more appropriate but I agree that when speaking English one
should use whatever the English speakers use (the same for any other language.) If you guys will change the way to refer to the citizens of the USA, I'll do it too.
good manners suggest sticking to definitions that are internationally agreed upon
Who came to the agreement that "American" is only a denonym for someone who lives in the continents of North and South America and doesn't refer to someone from the US?
Look at how people from the US are referred to in some international languages: un américain, Amerikaan, Amerikaner, amerika-jin, Amerikano, etc.
America is a continent, and US citizens are not more American than any Canadian, Argentinian or Peruvian is.
Someone telling a Canadian they aren't American is a completely different concept from referring to someone from the United States of America as an American. Quite frankly, your argument doesn't follow.
And the internationally agreed upon definition is that people from the United States are "Americans." I'm sorry, the real world isn't perfectly logical, one must adapt to irregularity.
"Western" is used as short-hand for the cultures "that have some origin or association with Europe. The term also applies beyond Europe to countries and cultures whose histories are strongly connected to Europe by immigration, colonization, or influence."
Modern Mexican culture could be argued to be "Western". It would be difficult, on the other hand, to argue Maya culture is Western.
> I feel much more like a Canadian or a USian
Linguistically, the use of "USian" strikes back at your argument. There is no ambiguity when someone says "I am American," as people from only one country identify themselves as such. Using the term "USian" thus explicitly rejects one's affiliation with the United States.