I think the only time EU citizens see ourselves as Europeans is when we play golf against the US in the Ryder Cup. Particularly when we win.
Most of the time, it does not arise. I think the American identity was a key unifier in the early days of the USA, when so many cultures were trying to find a common theme. It became important to be American first, Californian second.
The EU will continue to expand over the next few years, as former communist countries join. In future, there will be few European countries outside the Union. When that happens, I suspect that people will not distinguish between the EU and the continent in ordinary conversation.
This will be unfair on the non-EU Europeans who are left. Western Russians may object just as the Canadians do about exclusion from their own continent. But like most Canadians most will not care very much about it.
[nitjack]
BTW, Colibri: although Brazil is a union of states, it has officially styled itself “Republica Federativa do Brasil” for a long time. Venezuela also dumped its “U.S. of…” styling back in the early-to-mid 20th century. USA and Mexico are the sole holdouts.
[/nitjack]
The meaning of “state” seems to have faded, probably especially since the “American” Civil War. Each state is supposed to have sovereignty. Unless it’s a person I really don’t want to talk to, I say I’m Montanan, rather than American. Though the structures of the United States of America and the European Union are different (one a confederation, the other a republic), the idea of sovereignty within the union is important.
I’ve heard Latin Americans speak of America and Americans in reference to the nation and people of the United States. I think it’s more people who like to think that they have superior knowledge of things south of Texas that like to make the argument that we are all Americans. Sure, we are, from Chile to Canada, all Americans, but that distinction is almost always clear in the context.
Yeah, I’ve made contradictory arguments here, so shoot me. I’m Montanan first, American second, and they can have my fly rod when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
The new word for “Native Americans” is Amerindians. Very hip…
Using “American” to mean “someone from the United States” rather than “someone from North or South America” is no different than using “British” to mean “someone from the United Kingdom” rather than “someone from the British Isles”.
Ireland is - geographically speaking - part of the British Isles, but the majority of people south of the border would not take kindly to being called “British”. In fact, they’d probably be almost as upset as a Canadian would be if you called him an American.
The term “British Isles” refers to the time when the islands of Ireland and Great Britain were one kingdom. It is used by the British, but by few people in Ireland. The word “British” means “of the island of Great Britain”, or by application “of the United Kingdom”. We are not British in either sense, nor do we want to be. We are proud to be Irish.
Canadians actually live in North America, and are indeed Americans.
That is not quite correct. When GB and Ireland were one Kingdom, it was called “The United Kindgom of Great Britain and Ireland”. The UK is now “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.
The term “British Isles” is a geographical one, and refers to the islands of Great Britain, Ireland and the other little 'uns sat around us.
That’s my point. Canadians are only Americans in the sense that Irish are British - i.e. they are not, in the accepted usage of the word.
I agree and this is where the old name British Isles came from. It did not mean that the inhabitants of Ireland or the Isle of Man were British, but that they were RULED by Britain. The USA and Canada were once part of the British Empire, but that does not make their citizens British.
You are welcome to use the term, if you wish, and its meaning is certainly as above. However, applying it to our islands does not make Irish or Manx people British in any accepted sense. Irish and Manx are not subsets of British, anymore than French or German are, and I do not think that has ever been seriously asserted.
So, the parallel is not valid. Canadians are truly Americans, since they are on the continent of America. The Irish are not British, since they are not on the island of Britain. We are of course Europeans, being part of the continent of Europe.
No, it means that they are on the archipelago that is called the British Isles.
Actually, they were for a while, but that is a different point. They are not British now because they do not hold British passports. Much like how Irishmen don’t hold British passports… and Canadians don’t hold American passports.
Which is exactly what I said.
Not by me, anyway.
No, they are on the continent of North America, just as Irishmen are on the British Isles.
!!! There’s a beautiful bit of double-speak ;). Note, however, that the label “European” is different from “American” in that “European” is commonly taken to mean “from Europe” whereas “American” is taken to mean “from the United States”.
You seem to be missing my point by quite a margin, so here it is again:
A Canadian could be called American since he comes from the Americas. However, the accepted use of the term “American” is to mean “someone from the United States”, so the Canadian might get annoyed and make his moose bite you.
An Irishman could be called British since he comes from the British Isles (not a political term, remember!). However, the accepted use of the term “British” is to mean “someone from the United Kingdom”, so the Irishman might get annoyed too and berate you angrily whether you’d actually said this or not.
A Canadian is American as much as an Irishman is British.
It seems to me that using the term “American” to refer to citizens of the U.S.A. isn’t leaving out the Canaidians or Mexicans as denizens of this continent.
The continent isn’t named America, it is North America. Thus to refer to the denizens of the continent as a whole, you would refer to them as “North Americans”.*
Because the United States of America is the only country whos name ends with the word “America”, it is wholy appropriate to refer to us as “Americans”. ** The other countries have their own, non “America” containing names by which to refer to themselves.
*(As with South Americans.)
**(Altho I suspect the rest of the world more often refers to us with someting rude.)
Particlewill,
Apparently (and I just learned this in this thread), parts of the world (France and Argentina are mentioned specifically) teach in their schools that “America” is a single continent, consisting of what you and I would think of as North America and South America.
Personally, I have trouble seeing that. But maybe that’s my estadounidense bias speaking.
I think it is fairly obvious that Kuroashi got his characterisations in the wrong order. He means to say that the EU is a confederation and the USA a republic.
What is undoubtedly true is that the USA is a much more centralised entity than the EU, and for most purposes the fact that Kuroashi is from the USA will be of more significance than the fact that his is from Montana, while in your case the fact that you are from Sweden will usually be of more significance than the fact that you are from the EU. Nevertheless Floater does not have to choose between being from Montana and being from the US, and you do not have to choose between being from Sweden and being from the EU. Somebody who wishes to discuss Kuroashi and his place in the world will need both the concepts of “Montanan” and “American” (in the sense of from the US) in order to give a full account of him; somebody wishing to discuss you will need both the concepts of “Swedish” and “European” (in the sense of from the EU).
By contrast somebody wishing to discuss DonJorge will need the concept of “Canadian” but will not make much use of the concept of “American” in the sense of from the Americas, and sombody wishing to discuss me will need the concept of “Irish” but will not make much use of the concept of “British” in the sense of from the British Isles, because being from the Americas or from the British Isles do not, in themselves, tell us very much about somebody’s place in the world.
OK, but even then it’s not correct as I see it. As I have stated earlier in this thread the EU is a cooperation between fifteen sovreign nations. It might just be a matter of semantics, but the way I use the word confederation I mean one nation consisting of several more or less autonomous parts like the USA or the then USSR.
I think it is to an extent a matter of semantics. Switzerland describes itself as a conderation, but as far as the rest of the world is concerned it is one country. Also I think you’re assuming that either the consituent parts of the entity are sovereign and the entity is just a co-operation between them, or the entity is sovereign and the elements which make it up have no existence except as parts of the whole entity; in other words, that sovereignty is indivisible. In point of fact sovereignty can be shared between the centre and the regions, and in both the US and the EU (and, for that matter, Switzerland) this is the more realistic view of the situation. The balance of sovereignty as between the centre and the regions may differ between the three confederations (yes, they are all confederations) and in any one confederation it may differ over time.
But all of this is a bit of a red herring. The real issue here is - is there an word meaning “person from the European Union”? Your position, as I understand it, is “no, there is no such word, because the fact that a person is from the European Union is not of sufficient significance to make such a word a practical necessity; what matters is that he is from Sweden, Ireland, or wherever, and we have words for this ”. My position is that the fact that a person is from the European Union is of sufficient practical importance to require such a word. We have a word; it is “European”. The word also means a person from the geographic continent of Europe. It is not often required to be used with that meaning but, when it is, it is usually clear from the context what meaning is intended.
