Wally Kairuz wrote:
> 
> i was taught that there are 6 continents: africa, america, europe, asia,
> oceania and antarctica. i was never taught that australia was a continent
> but rather a country in oceania.

Very interesting. No wonder you've brought up the "America" thing a
couple of times. I've heard of Oceania, but only as the collection of
small oceans in the Pacific Ocean, places like Samoa and Tahiti. I'm not
sure what continent U.S. geographers consider it part of, Australia maybe.

> geologists define continents by geological features, such as the continental
> platform, the drift, the age of the geological components and strata, etc.
> the people of the united states of america might have called themselves
> unionists or north americans just as well as they chose to call themselves
> americans.

Union has different connotations than the word united does, and calling
people from the U.S. the Uniteds sounds almost militant. Calling people
from the U.S. North Americans seems strange, as though there's no
difference in history or culture between people from Canada, the U.S.,
Mexico, the Caribbean, Guatemala, Panama...

 everybody born in the american continent is an american.
> uruguayans and peruvians are americans. guatemalans and chileans are
> americans. and so forth. i don't think that it is a matter of what you WANT
> to be called, but of what you in fact ARE.

I'm trying to understand your point and the feelings behind it. The
closest I can come is to imagine that someone from Germany could be
called European, someone from Japan could be called Asian, and so
someone from Argentina (or any of the countries in North and South
America) could be called American, and yet they're not. (Whether anyone
would WANT to be identified with the larger area is another issue.)
Since we in the U.S. (and the world?) see the word American and think of
it only as being a U.S. citizen, it shows a disregard for millions of
other people. Am I close? 

I still think the label American comes from the fact that the word
America is part of the full name of the country, and isn't meant to be
dismissive toward anyone. But, that's from my limited point of view, is
what I'm used to, and most importantly, is based in thinking, not feeling.

I've heard people from Peru or Argentina or Brazil referred to as South
Americans, but to me that's grouping so many different people together
it's rude and is said only when people don't know the region well enough
to be more specific.

Anyway, thanks for your further explanation, Wally. Next time the
"America" issue comes up, I'll see it a bit differently, and avoid
having a hissy fit (maybe... I'd better not make any promises about that).

Debra Shea

Reply via email to