Californio, actually. That was a real thing before California became part of the US.
Both are valid, but many people (certainly a chemist such as myself) identify californio with its second definition: the 98th chemical element. You tell someone with any kind of science background soy californio and they’ll answer with a joke about Geiger counters.
As a Canadian, regarding the use of “American” for people of USA, it doesn’t bother me in the slightest and I don’t give a rat’s ass:)
The rule I’m familiar with is that they are not valid unless affirmed by the New Testament. And that all dietary laws are irrelevant thanks to Paul and Romans 14.
I remember being taught the Portuguese word “norte-americano” before moving to Brazil, and being told that that word should be used for people from the USA, and that “americano” referred to someone from the Americas in general.
However, in practice, I found that absolutely no one in Brazil ever used the word “norte-americano,” and the word “americano” invariably was used to refer to someone from the USA.
I’m pretty sure that “American” for USians is fine as far as most people care. It seems to be mainly a concern of people trying to make a political point or of people who are overthinking things.
Yeah I’ve never thought about it before, but californiano to me sounds correct for the sense you were probably using it in i.e. a person of whatever ethnicity who happens to be from California. Whereas californio specifically means people of Hispanic background who settled in California before it was part of the US, and their descendents.
“Californio” and your definition is how the term was taught in California public school history class to me. I can’t say I’ve encountered californiano before, but my best assumption would be the same as yours.