Well, everybody born in the american continent is technically “american” too, including Central and South America. Is there a specific term in english for these people?
Edit: Thanks for all your answers, especially the wholesome ones and those patient enough to explain it thoroughly. Since we (South Americans) and you (North Americans) use different models/conventions of continent boundaries, it makes sense for you to go by “Americans”, while it doesn’t for us.
There’s not a clear and conscience alternative to “American.” If you’re trying to differentiate us from other people from the Americas you’d just say US Citizen. And while yes the entirety of this hemisphere is some variation of America be it North, Central, or South the other countries here have distinct names and we really don’t.
At the risk of sounding like a typical US asshole, here goes nothing. This is how I’ve explained it to friends from Europe and it seemed to help.
If Brazil had decided to go by the name “United States of Brazil” we would still call them Brazilians because there is another country with the title “United States” that also exists. Similar to how we call people from the Peoples Republic of China, Chinese. We don’t call them “People’s Republicans” because that’s a title not a unique identifier or name. What if that same country decided to go by the name the Peoples Republic of Asia instead, would we call them Peoples Republicans or would we call them Asians?
The title “United States” is telling you that this area is united together and the borders represent states, not country’s. “America” tells you where those united states are, the continent of America. The term “American” is generalized and honestly doesn’t accurately represent the vast cultural differences within the United States. The states often have their own rights and laws separate from the US government and also unique cultures. Ideally we would be called by our states name for its citizens like Californian or New Yorker, for example. Similar to how you would refer to people from Europe as European unless you wanted to be specific to Italy, then you’d say Italian. But sometimes you need a general term, hence “American.”
All that being said, it is problematic and a massive reminder of this country’s bloodthirsty and genocidal colonization of a large part of North America. Looking at the country’s past shows that they were very much trying to also get central and south America as part of the United States. What better way to propagandize and make it look like they had every right to the rest of the Americas than to make it appear as though this country or that country already was America and therefore should be part of these United States? But however problematic it is this is the name we have now, for better or worse.
As an addendum of sorts. We Indigenous Americans would often much rather be called by the names of our sovereign Nations yet everyone calls us Native American. Why is that? Food for thought that might help with understanding the problematic struggle we have here. It’s not simply us as citizens that perpetuate the issue, it’s a global colonization effort whether the others realize they are participating or not. (Spoiler: they realize)
tldr: because colonization + United States is a title not a name
First off, thank you for your great response.
And yeah, I kinda get that “United States” is just a title, but in my native language (portuguese) we have a specific word for americans: “estadunidense”, which basically means “person born in the USA”
I was just wondering if there was a similar word in english that could be used specifically to these people, just like we have in portuguese. But again, thanks for your answer.
Also, fun fact: Brazil was actually called “United States of Brazil” for a short period, and our flag looked like a copy of yours, but in yellow and green. But then our king (thankfully) decided to go just by “Brazil”
That’s so interesting! I didn’t know that Brazil was also a “United States.”
I wish that there was a name for US Citizens in the same way but with English being such a shit show combination of too many different languages, I don’t know if that’ll be possible. The only way I see it happening is if the US just “adopts” a word from someone else’s culture, that’s usually how English gets a new word or term.
They’re not; they were using that as an example. They’re actually officially called the Federative Republic of Brazil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil?wprov=sfla1).
Edit: They used to be, though. See below comments.
Yes, we used to be.
Source: I’m Brazilian
Huh… I stand corrected.
Sorry about that. 👍
No problem bro, most people here don’t know that because it lasted for about 4 days or so. Our first president liked our flag and national anthem from the imperial era, so he said it was bullshit to change them. That’s why this “Republic of the United States of Brazil” didn’t catch on (thankfully), and got forgotten.
Appreciate the education. 👍
Can’t spell “ustadunidense” without “dense”, can you?
You dont have to make up an example. Mexico’s real name is United states of Mexico, and we call it mexico and Mexicans.
Source: am mexican
(And I hate Americans as much as the average person)
deleted by creator
No problem, I’m always happy when someone is interested in learning more! I’m Muscogee Creek, specifically Thlopthlocco but Creek or Muscogee is preferable and easier for everyone lol. I’d recommend some books. One is not too long and it’s the one I would start with, it will help reframe a person’s understanding of who indigenous people are which I think is essential. Otherwise all further learning is being done behind a false idea of who Indigenous people are. Something I remember most from this book was along the lines of, “for many people Indians don’t exist and if they do exist it’s outside of their preconceived notion of who they are so to them they aren’t real Indians. They have placed themselves as the experts on what it is to be Indian.” The books, All the Real Indians Died Off: And 20 Other Myths about Native Americans by Dina Gilio-Whitaker and Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz. The second would be,
by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz
Id you’d like something quick and dirty online the War of 1812 was also the
, the first one. The Northern Creeks, my people, were fighting against being colonized further by the US, we didn’t want to be Americans or give away anymore of our country. Jackson, the president on the $20, and his army 
some still living and used our skin to make leather reigns for their cavalry horses. They then went to a nearby village slaughtered who they could and locked the remaining women, children, and elderly in their homes and burned them alive. He saved one baby, a boy, who he 
, which is what he wrote in a letter to his wife. He meant to make an example of how we could be “civilized” and was going to send the Creek boy to West Point but the political climate had changed. Americans didn’t want to see Indians “civilized” anymore they wanted us gone. He was never going to be able to pass the Indian Removal Act if people saw we were just like them so he sent the Creek boy to be a saddler instead. He died of TB not long after. Then Jackson sent thousands of us, starving and freezing, on a death march across the country to Oklahoma. (I had links in here for you. For the books and the pages about the war but they didn’t seem to work. It’s an easy wiki dive though.)
Totally more than you asked for but I got on a roll. It’s rare someone asks so I try to post as much as I can so people don’t have to go far to learn a bit more of the real history of the US. It’s important we know so we all can heal and move forward, together.
I’m Canadian, so I didn’t learn about Andrew Jackson at all, and only was aware of his existence because he’s on some money or something. But WOW what an ASSHOLE!!! Imagine how fucking full of yourself you’d have to be to wipe out a whole village, find one tiny sole survivor, and then give him to your child to be a fucking pet.
Unbelievable!!! And then to act like you’re some kind of benevolent savior when you were the cause of the goddamn genocide to begin with. I can’t even.
I’m sorry this happened to your ancestors. I’m sorry all of it happened. People are horrible.
Edit: wait, this was the guy responsible for the Trail of Tears as well?! Wasn’t he the inspiration for Hitler?!? Holy fuck.
What the fuck, America!!!
Yea Jackson was a real piece of work. And yes you are also correct that he was a massive inspiration for Hitler, most Americans don’t know that. Hitler would quote portions of Jackson’s speech to Congress about the Indian Removal Act during his own speech about the Jewish people. In fact, Hitler didn’t actually come up with very much on his own in terms of the annihilation of the Jewish people and conquer of Europe. In Jackson’s speech to Congress he called it the “the final solution to the Indian problem” which should sound quite familiar to those who know WWII history. Everything from ghettos, work camps, mass extermination, medical experiments, stolen children, sterilization, and death marches were straight out of Jackson’s playbook.
In one of Hitlers speeches he says that he wanted to “make Germany greater than even the great American empire which had succeeded in creating a perfect society for God’s chosen race, chaining any of the savage native inhabitants still alive in camps to work and starve.” He would also go on to say, “the East will be our Redmen and the Volga our grand Mississippi.” When Nazi Germany did finally invade Poland the German newspapers quoted their head general (iirc), “Go East young men, go East!” His plan wasn’t just war, it was settler colonialism à la USA style and all of his top generals were aware.
If anyone is ever in any doubt about how horrifying the conquest of hundreds of Indigenous Nations really was just remember this. As absolutely and indescribably evil as Hitler was, he wasn’t completely successful, Jackson and the United States were. (In regard to the conquest of a continent. Genocide is genocide, there’s no competition for the greatest evil this world has to offer.)
I would argue against the annexation on central and south American and this would be purely a pedantic note.they want a hegemonic influence but not the responsibility of dominion over latin america. For instance They had backed an early coupe against mx that dethroned French backed mx emperor and conquered mx not too long after. They did not annex mexico. They backed a coupe to separate panama from its previous governing body, wrote extremely factorable terms for the canal, did not annex panama. Backed revolt against Spain in Puerto Rico and Cuba and didn’t annex either. Backed militants in Nicaragua and didn’t annex. Basically they want the resources but not want to build and maintain the roads, schools, police. Which is in my opinion is different than a complete land grab.
What do you call someone from Panama?
Panamanians IIRC
“vast cultural differences within the United States” 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣😂😂