"America" is now offensive to N and S America

[MoreCoffee]

Hmm...but you asked me "Do you think Trump would have stopped the war?" That's a what if. So how do I answer then if you don't want a what if answer after asking a what if question?

It was a what if.
I wasn't being too serious with it.
It was rhetorical.
Donald Trump couldn't influence a virus to stay in bats or whatever.
Donald Trump didn't influence Vladimir Putin to be a nice chap.
So we have COVID and we have the war in Ukraine.
Not that Donald caused either one.
He just hasn't got that capability.
I suspect that one would need to be God to have that power.

 

[Albion]

Arguing "what if" scenarios isn't very productive is it?

Give it a rest. The cutesy anti-Americanism was not missed.

 

[Lees]

Consider this.

When Arab muslims immigrate to France and obtain citizenship there, are they 'French'? Of course not. They are Arabs who have citizenship.

Or, when Africans make it to England and obtain citizenship, are they English? Of course not. They are Africans who have citizenship.

America, the U.S, is different to a degree, because we are a nation founded on creed. The Constitution. But, that creed was created by the English people who were a God fearing people.

Lees

 

[MoreCoffee]

When Arab muslims immigrate to France and obtain citizenship there, are they 'French'? Of course not. They are Arabs who have citizenship.

Or, when Africans make it to England and obtain citizenship, are they English? Of course not. They are Africans who have citizenship.

The above looks wrong. Just wrong.

 

[Lees]

The above looks wrong. Just wrong.

Oh Gee...that is so persuasive. Makes you appear so caring and understanding of what is right and wrong.

But, 'appearance' and reality are two differnet things.

So, when you are willing to reply to 'reality', and speak to that which I said,....let me know.

For, I say the same of you. That just looks wrong. Just wrong. Isn't that 'deep'?

Lees

 

[MoreCoffee]

So, when you are willing to reply to 'reality', and speak to that which I said,....let me know.

Probably never ;-)

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Well, there is real oppression out there - nasty fellows! However, with "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" thing is going on - soon - nobody will believe the real oppression.

I believe you're alluding to the "person" who cried "animal species" - inclusive, you know?

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

America, the U.S, is different to a degree, because we are a nation founded on creed. The Constitution. But, that creed was created by the English people who were a God fearing people.

You know, as an American (living in Canada - I escaped!) America's "different-hood" (yes, I made that up...) is bordering on silly. America is not isolationist in being founded on, or following, 'creed'. The English were 'Crown' fearing (Church of England) people, of which the Founding Fathers no longer wanted to be a part. Canada has it's own Charter of Rights and Freedoms - a 'Creed' if you will - a fact that takes a bit of shine off the "different-hood" of the U.S.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Canada has it's own Charter of Rights and Freedoms - a 'Creed' if you will - a fact that takes a bit of shine off the "different-hood" of the U.S.

The UK (technically England at the time) has the Great Charter (Magna carta) from 1215 AD, about 550 years before the USA's constitution.

 

[Lees]

You know, as an American (living in Canada - I escaped!) America's "different-hood" (yes, I made that up...) is bordering on silly. America is not isolationist in being founded on, or following, 'creed'. The English were 'Crown' fearing (Church of England) people, of which the Founding Fathers no longer wanted to be a part. Canada has it's own Charter of Rights and Freedoms - a 'Creed' if you will - a fact that takes a bit of shine off the "different-hood" of the U.S.

All nations have a political constitution of sorts. The poitical upheaveals in Mexico which would result later in the war between the anglo settlers and the Mexicans in the area that we now call Texas, would not change the fact that the Mexicans were Mexicans and the Anglo-Saxons were still Anglos.

In other words, though the Anglos were Mexican citizens, they were not Mexicans.

Yeah, a lot of people 'escaped' or 'ran away' to Canada. There are many different words to describe them.

Lees

 

[MoreCoffee]

There are many different words to describe them.

Many words, yes. Words like sensible, calm, good people, godly, decent.

 

[Lamb]

Many words, yes. Words like sensible, calm, good people, godly, decent.

Those words describe peoples of all nations.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Those words describe peoples of all nations.

I think of them as applicable to imaginaryday2.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

All nations have a political constitution of sorts. The poitical upheaveals in Mexico which would result later in the war between the anglo settlers and the Mexicans in the area that we now call Texas, would not change the fact that the Mexicans were Mexicans and the Anglo-Saxons were still Anglos.

In other words, though the Anglos were Mexican citizens, they were not Mexicans.

Sure, agreed; however my response was regarding the suggestion that the U.S. was somehow "different" for being founded on a creed.

Yeah, a lot of people 'escaped' or 'ran away' to Canada. There are many different words to describe them.

What would you use?

 

[NathanH83]

America is offensive now?
What about if someone mentions the African country of Niger? Is that off limits? Looks too much like the “N” word. Might offend some people.

 

[Albion]

Yes, but you're expected to say "Neee-ZHER."

 

[MoreCoffee]

America is offensive now?
What about if someone mentions the African country of Niger? Is that off limits? Looks too much like the “N” word. Might offend some people.

Those are offensive in different ways
Niger is offensive when pronounced in a way that will offend.
America is offensive when used incorrectly, to designate one nation in America (the USA is normally the one) rather than using the full name United States [of America] for example or an abbreviated form such as USA.

 

[Andrew]

Those are offensive in different ways
Niger is offensive when pronounced in a way that will offend.
America is offensive when used incorrectly, to designate one nation in America (the USA is normally the one) rather than using the full name United States [of America] for example or an abbreviated form such as USA.

What if there was a north and south Australia, and the lower half of the north was called The United States of Australia, and you lived there, would you identify yourself as an Australian?

Nevermind the geographically correct details

 

[MoreCoffee]

What if there was a north and south Australia, and the lower half of the north was called The United States of Australia, and you lived there, would you identify yourself as an Australian?

Nevermind the geographically correct details

An imaginative "Australia" model that you've created, but you need not imagine a north vs south continent. Have a look at Africa.

Africa has many nations in it, one is named "South Africa". What do people from South Africa call themselves? Do they insist on being called "African" and "Africans" to the exclusion of all other Africans from the many nations of Africa? No? That's right, the answer is no. People from South Africa call themselves "South Africans" which seems fair enough, right? So why can't people from the United States call themselves "United Statesians" Of course that is a rather unpleasant sounding name, perhaps a better one could be found - maybe "USAers" or "United States Americans" the latter being adequate but a little long, one could try "USAn" since that would be adding the n from "America[n]" to the abbreviation for the "United States of America". In any case. Australia would divide more naturally into East/West than North/South. Australia has a state called "South Australia" and its inhabitants are usually called South Australians.

 

[Albion]

People from South Africa call themselves "South Africans" which seems fair enough, right? So why can't people from the United States call themselves "United Statesians" Of course that is a rather unpleasant sounding name..

...and a rather silly contention as well. The United States of America is the only nation in "the Americas" to have the word "America" as part of its official name, and it bears that name because it's taken from the name of one of early "discoverers" of this land--Amerigo Vespucci.

When we look at the country on which you chose to make your case for a name change (South Africa), none of these kinds of reasons apply. In addition, if "United Statesians" is your idea of a more sensible name, that logic would call for a bunch of other nations' citizens to be renamed "People's Republicans," "Transitional Islamic Staters," "Commonwealthers," "Co-operative Republicans," "Democratic Socialist Republicans," and lots and lots of just "Republicans." Yes, those are all the actual parallels to other nation states.