How about Celts…with a hard “C”?
Because that is an ethnic/linguistic/cultural description that rules out the descendants of Angli-Saxons, Norse, Danes, Normans and all the other subsequent immigrations that have produced the British and Irish of today.
“Anglo-Celtic” is sometimes used in Australia to cover people descended from migrants from either Britain or Ireland or both.
However in Ireland (or, SFAIK, in Britain) the term is not much used, and it’s a bit loaded, having been coined in the mid-19th century to express/project a Unionist perspective which emphasised the commonality of British and Irish people and, therefore, the necessity, inevitablity and rightness of a political union between them.
FWIW, there is a local newspaper published in Co. Cavan called the Anglo-Celt. It was founded in 1846 and, I’m guessing, was originally a Unionist newspaper.
I’ve never heard the term until this thread, although I’ve heard Anglo-Irish (particularly, the Anglo-Irish Agreement).
Anglo-Celtic actually ‘sounds’ quite appropriate, as the Celtic would also cover Wales and Scotland. Anglo-Celtic in reference to northern Ireland seems odd considering so many of the unionists are Scottish descendants.
But that’s still focussing on some linguistic/cultural/ethnic notion rather than the geographic, which is what the OP asked for,
Well as we’ve all agreed that ‘British Islers’ is rather insulting to the Irish, it’s all we’ve got.
A similar challenge arises when referring to “America”. As a Canadian - I assume “America” to mean the mega-continent of North, Central, and South America. But Australians (for example) will say that they want to visit “America”, and in that case I will assume they mean the United States (or America). I (or any Canadian I know) never visit “America” - we visit “the US” or “the States”.
Should “American” refer to anyone in the mega-continent - or only to anyone in the United States?
iswydt (and how cool is it that if I accidentally type “uswydt,” my phone offers to put “iswydt”?)
It SHOULD refer to inhabitants of the megacontinent[s] (subdivided into North Americans, Central Americans*, and South Americans). The Limeys probably have the right idea by calling us “Yanks,” Latin Americans, and . . . I wanna say - - subjects?
That terminology was dropped ages ago. In the UK, Canadians are Canadians or “Commonwealth citizens”.
“British subject” started out as the universal status for anyone from the UK, or its colonies, or (in time) the self-governing British dominions.
From the mid-1940s onwards the self-governing dominions started to develop their own distinct citizenships - Canadian citizenship, Australian citizenship, etc - and “British subject” became the umbrella status which embraced anyone who had citizenship of any Commonwealth country (including those who had citizenship of the UK and its colonies). At this point it was interchangeable with the term “Commonwealth citizen”, and the latter was mostly the preferred term.
As more and more colonies graduated to becoming independent countries, the number of different Commonwealth citizenships multiplied, and the residual citizenship class (“Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies”) got smaller and smaller.
All this changed again in 1983, when “British subject” became the term for a group of people who had certain historical or ancestral links to the Commonwealth, but weren’t entitled to citizenship in any Commonwealth country. The bulk of the remaining British Subjects are people born in Ireland before 1949 (when Ireland left the Commonwealth) and who hold only Irish citizenship. British subject status is in substance a closed class and it’s not normally heritable, so it will have all but disappeared in a generation or so.
In common parlance, clearly the latter. It’s not often that most folks need to collectively refer to everyone living from Mexico’s southern border all the way to the North Pole.
Surely, “American” wouldn’t stop at Mexico’s southern border? When I’ve heard the term collectively, it includes all the Americas.
few
Elendil’s Heir is correct. “Americans” commonly refers to US citizens, and I thought the indignant whining of the naysayers died out in the 1980s.
When referring to people in English, “American” most commonly refers to inhabitants of the United States. I have rarely if ever heard it used to refer to everyone living in the Americas.
Perhaps I didn’t explain clearly, as your cite is making the same point I am, that when it is used in its secondary meaning, it refers to both North and South America. (Also note that, oddly, that Merriam-Webster has the USA usage as the third listed. I don’t agree with that all in terms of popularity, but there you go.)
What I meant by “collectively” is when I hear the term used to mean something more than just USAians. Yes, the vast majority of time the word refers to the inhabitants of the USA. But when the word is being used in its expansive form (as Elendil’s Heir mentions), the word refers to all the Americas in my experience. I’ve never heard “Americans” when used in the more-than-US sense to mean only North Americans. And, yes, I do occasionally come across the word being used that way, typically from inhabitants of the rest of America reminding us that they are “Americans,” too, technically.
I’d go further than that, I agree with Colibri - I think the dictionaries are lagging, and that use of “American” alone to indicate anything other than the U.S. is pretty much obsolete. When a continent-wide meaning is intended, the usage you will see is always something like “The Americas”, or “North American”.
I agree. “American” refers either to US inhabitants, or to things from the Western Hemisphere, not to inhabitants of North America alone.
I think you are missing my point. Colibri has got it, though. I was pointing out that it was unusual for me to see “American,” when not meaning “of the USA” to mean what Elendil Heir suggested, i.e. " to everyone living from Mexico’s southern border all the way to the North Pole." It means anyone of the Americas in that context.
And while almost obsolete, it is not completely obsolete. See: the OAS, Organization of American States. That is all my point is. That when using “American” to mean something more expansive than “USA,” it means “of the Americas,” i.e. the whole super continent. And you will also sometimes see the word talking about the early history of the Americas (i.e., pre-Columbian, like in this recent National Geographich article.) It is not a completely esoteric use, but it is one that requires context to be understood beyond its usual meaning of “USAian.”