Yes. Well, four if you count France’s overseas departmente, St Pierre et Miquelon.
Yes but we’re looking for a term for citizen of the United States, and cotus is sure to bring snickers.
I’ve not heard any Canadians objecting, but maybe I don’t move in the right circles of offenderati. 
The name of the country is The United States of America. Referring to it’s citizens as Americans is absolutely correct. There is no need to make up some silly word to placate a handful of idiots.
Tell that to the handful of idiots who insist on calling my purse a man-purse.
When the Thai government clerk prepared my child’s birth certificate, she wrote “America” (in Thai) for Father’s Nationality. The supervisor made her use white-out and replace it with “American.” :rolleyes:
Functionally and politically, it’s a division that makes some sense. Even grouping everything south of Mexico and along the top coast of SA makes some sense over arbitrarily deciding the Canal divides things.
Technically, it’s not the canal that divides things, it’s the Panamanian border.
“…Canal Zone…”
Happy NOW? 
She couldn’t just write “n” on the end? (Oh, you said “in Thai”. :smack: Nevermind.)
Personally, we’re the US of America, so I don’t have a problem with “American”. There’s no rule saying it has to be unambiguous. Native Americans and people from India are both “Indians”. People from the southern state of Georgia and people from the former SSR are both “Georgians”. People from England and people who aren’t Amish are both “English”.
However, while I have no problem with “American”, I don’t mind if someone wants to start a movement for another term, as long as it’s catchy enough. “Yankee” seems derogatory, if only slightly.
I kind of like “Rotus” as it goes with SCOTUS and POTUS. But it doesn’t have the familiar “-er” or “-an” suffix, and that will limit the rate of adoption.
Certainly no other country would object if we started calling ourselves “Columbian”? It’s even spelled differently than people from Colombia.
Or how about “Vespuccians”? Or other historical terms. “Puritans”? “Pilgrims”? “Know-Nothings”? “Cowboys”? “Pioneers”? “Whigs”? “Rough Riders”?
We could adopt the moniker of an extinct (to avoid offending existing tribes) Indian tribe like the Pawtuckets, Yazoos, Palaches or Koyeti. I’m just trying to be thorough.
According to my wife (sample size: one), in Peru pretty much everyone just says americanos except for a few select cranks who insist on estadounidenses just to make a point.
I think a bunch of us qualify as Yahoos. Does that count? 
Just wanted to chip in that the analogous problem applies to the United Arab Emirates. The common usage here is to base the demonym on the entities that have united, i.e., the emirates (even though there are other Arab countries that are emirates), so a national would normally be called an Emirati.
Historically, the same problem also applied to the Federal Republic of Central America, whose constitution referred to the nationals as centroamericanos, analogous to what is commonly done in the case of the United States of America.
Except that the Canal Zone ceased to exist in 1979 (and even at that was always technically part of Panama).
Five, if you also include Greenland.
Isn’t that a Jewish thing?
“Étasunien(ne)” is sometimes seen in French newspapers articles. I don’t think anyone uses it in everyday conversation.
That was my point. Jews (or at least the subset of Jews for whom it’s a thing) have an actual reason for doing so. When Goyim do that, it’s nothing but a pointless affectation. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it is not a Jewish belief that Christians have any Noachide responsibility for deleting a letter from a Germanic deity name formed of electrons. Or ink, even.
I don’t think I’ve ever encountered that, but then I don’t read Evangelical blogs.
The way it works is that the old laws are invalid if they’re inconvenient, like those that prevent you from eating a cheeseburger, unless it’s something you disagree with and then they are a-ok. :dubious:
This, right here, is the entirety of the issue. Spanish-speaking countries are inexplicably taught that Argentina and Canada are on the same continent. They think there’s such a continent as “America” when there clearly isn’t. Even in Spanish, it’s plural, so I don’t really follow their chain of logic.
Why did this happen? Because the British settled one area and saw that Amazonian area as “other”. The Spanish colonized the top and bottom, and so came to view them as the same area.
But good luck trying to explain that there’s no such continent as “America” to anyone descended from a Spanish school system. No amount of personal testimony will displace what their schoolhouse taught them.