Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Naming of America (2023)

jonathancohenweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 119 posts

Re: The Naming of America (2023)

#81

Post by AlbertCory »

freetime2 wrote: post #75
Cupertino95014 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think his use of "it has been argued", "have been credited to", and "purportedly" in this context are not weaselly, and are fine in reference to unsubstantiated arguments that people have made. No, it IS weaselly. Unless there is any substance to the argument at all, it's like saying "it has been argued that the earth is flat." Maybe say "it has been argued without evidence" like journalists do /s

On its own, "it has been argued that the earth is flat" is simply a factually correct statement. There is nothing weaselly about it. What would make it weaselly would be the context that it is used in, and the deceptive intent of the person saying it. Similarly, in this article the author simply mentions - almost as an aside - that "a black African discovery of America, it has been argued, took place around 3,000 yea…

There are lots of other opinions in this thread that it's a false thing to say. It implies that the theory is respectable just by listing it. The fact that someone said something ridiculous is not worth mentioning.

I don't know what other arguments would make an impression on you, so why don't we just drop it?

Re: The Naming of America (2023)

#82

Post by zerocrates »

xVedun wrote: post #15
freetime2 wrote: post #11

> Not surprisingly, the notion that America was named for Vespucci has long been universally accepted, so much so that a lineal descendant, America Vespucci, came to New Orleans in 1839 and asked for a land grant "in recognition of her name and parentage." I found this little aside in the opening paragraph interesting. Who did she ask? And was she successful? A quick google search didn’t turn up much about America Ve…

There doesn't seem to be a ton of information easily accessible about America Vespucci, but this [1] except from the Washington Democratic Review for February 1839 notes the following: > The object for which she had specially come to America, was to obtain, if possible, a grant of land from the Congress of the United States, as a means of honourable and independent support and the failure of her application, as well…

The Senate report that's referenced [1] is clear on the matter: they didn't give her anything.

Immediately after the quoted part, this follows:

"The petitioner desires the donation to her of a small tract of land by Congress. With every feeling of respect and kindness for the memorialist, a majority of the committee deem it impossible for this Government to make the grant. They think such a grant without a precedent, and that it would violate the spirit of those compacts by which the public domain was ceded to this Government. It is the unanimous and anxious desire of the committee that the petitioner should receive all the benefits and recognition that this Government can bestow. What this Government cannot do is within the power of the American people. They feel at least an equal pride and glory with us in the name of America. Throughout our wide extended country, among all classes, this feeling is universal; and in the humblest cottage the poorest American feels that this name, the name of his beloved country, is a prouder title than any that adorns the monarch’s brow, and that if he has no other property, this name, with all its great and glorious associations with the past and hopes for the future, is an all-sufficient heritage to transmit to his children. This generous, patriotic, and enlightened people will take into their own hands the case of America Vespucci. They will procure for her that home which she desires among us. They will do ail that Congress is forbidden to do, and infinitely more than she asks or desires, and demonstrate to the world that the name of America, our country’s name, is dear to us all, and shall be honored, respected, and cherished in the person of the interesting exile from whose ancestor we derive the great and glorious title."

[1] S. Doc. No. 264, 25th Cong., 3rd Sess. (1839) https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/SERIALSET-00341_00_00-01...

Re: The Naming of America (2023)

#83

Post by freetime2 »

AlbertCory wrote: post #81
freetime2 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On its own, "it has been argued that the earth is flat" is simply a factually correct statement. There is nothing weaselly about it. What would make it weaselly would be the context that it is used in, and the deceptive intent of the person saying it. Similarly, in this article the author simply mentions - almost as an aside - that "a black African discovery of America, it has been argued, took place around 3,000 yea…

There are lots of other opinions in this thread that it's a false thing to say. It implies that the theory is respectable just by listing it. The fact that someone said something ridiculous is not worth mentioning. I don't know what other arguments would make an impression on you, so why don't we just drop it?

Ok - I was hoping to get you to engage with the actual content of the article, but I'll just get to the point:

* Mentioning that a belief exists is not the same thing as endorsing it. And arguing that they are the same is an affront to open and rational discourse.

* A major point of the article is that many historical claims are fiction that are based more on speculation, and political, cultural, or national agendas than hard evidence. So it goes double that mentioning a historical claim in this context is not an endorsement of its accuracy.

* The fact that people are so hung up that they would call the author a weasel based on the mere mention that "a black African discovery of America, it has been argued, took place around 3,000 years ago" - regardless of the context in which it is used - says a whole lot more about their own beliefs and biases than the author's. They are basically reinforcing the whole point of the article.

Or, to quote the article one last time:

> To hear Americus in the name; to hear the Amerrique Mountains and their perpetual wind; to hear the African in the Mayan iq' amaq'el; to hear the Scandinavian Ommerike, as well as Amteric, and the Algonquin Em-erika; to hear Saint Emeric of Hungary; to hear Amalrich, the Gothic lord of the work ethic; to hear Armorica, the ancient Gaulish name meaning place by the sea; and to hear the English official, Amerike — to hear such echoes in the name of our hemisphere is to hear ourselves.

Re: The Naming of America (2023)

#84

Post by fuzztester »

shiroiushi wrote: post #26
meiraleal wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have some sympathy for Brazil getting pissed off about Amazon (the company) too. I never met a Brazilian that cares about it tho. There was a big national uproar a few decades ago when some Japanese company tried to patent the use of the Açaí fruit and trademark. now about America and Americans. South Americans and North Americans are as much "Americans" as Northern and Southern Europeans are Europeans. Calling t…

>Calling themselves THE Americans and the rest latinos "Latinos" are what Spanish and (to a much lesser extent) Portuguese-speaking people living in the USA call themselves (and their relatives still living in other Latin-American countries). They seem to prefer it to "Hispanics". And the term only applies to people speaking Latin-derived languages (i.e., Spanish and Portuguese). So the people living in Belize, for i…

>People in the USA are called "Americans" because it's (part of) the name of their country, and there's no other convenient and pronounceable demonym to describe them

There is another demonym, although much less used:

USian.

It's quite convenient and pronounceable. Some HNers use it:

>https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Also see the Wikipedia definition of the word you used - demonym:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonym

The first two sentences at the above link:

>A demonym (/ˈdɛmənɪm/; from Ancient Greek δῆμος (dêmos) 'people, tribe' and ὄνυμα (ónuma) 'name') or gentilic (from Latin gentilis 'of a clan, or gens')[1] is a word that identifies a group of people (inhabitants, residents, natives) in relation to a particular place.[2] Demonyms are usually derived from the name of the place (hamlet, village, town, city, region, province, state, country, and continent).

Re: The Naming of America (2023)

#85

Post by mkl »

Izkata wrote: post #64
sbassi wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it is not appropriate for non-US people since the name "America" clash with how they name the continent (America), so they believe that Americans are "stealing" the name of the continent for themselves. While Americans don't think so because they don't even think there is such a continent, there are 2 continents for them.

> since the name "America" clash with how they name the continent (America) There are two continents, "North America" and "South America". To refer to the whole, you pluralize it as "the Americas".

The number of continents and their names vary between cultures and languages. In Latin America, the Americas are considered a single continent called America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent#Number

Re: The Naming of America (2023)

#86

Post by graemep »

rgblambda wrote: post #36
dleary wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling the UK “England” is a different class of error, though. England is a part of the UK. Analogous would be calling the USA “Texas”. Calling the UK “Britain” is a much more direct comparison. United States of America -> America United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland -> Britain

It's not helped when England, Britain and United Kingdom have been viewed as interchangeable terms by UK politicians, famous writers and the general public. Boris Johnson: "If I am ever asked on the streets of London, or in any other venue, public or private, to produce my ID card as evidence that I am who I say I am, when I have done nothing wrong and am simply ambling along and breathing God’s fresh air like any ot…

No, they are not used interchangeably, even in your examples.

Johnson is giving London as an example of a place in the UK. It is a very apposite example because it is where any power the police are given would be used most heavily (as stop and search is). He is using the the phrase "freeborn Englishman" to evoke associations with the use of the phrase that is far older than the UK. The phrase in its literal sense also excludes women and serfs and I do not think Johnson is aiming for that.

Brooke was writing a poem. He was evoking an effect and a particular sense of place and identify. "England" evokes different associations and and a different emotional response to "the united Kingdom". It is more local, and cosy, and has visual associations (the "English countryside" vs "the Scottish countryside" for example).

Re: The Naming of America (2023)

#87

Post by suzzer99 »

thechao wrote: post #39
jmclnx wrote: post #38

>A black African discovery of America, it has been argued, took place around 3,000 years ago , and influenced the development of Mayan, Aztec, and Inca civilizations This is a new one on me. Maybe it could it have happened, but I very much doubt it. This seems to go back to the usual thing of "Native Americans were too dumb to build a civilization". If anyone got to the Americas before people crossing the Atlantic, i…

This is due to the Olmec heads.

Which actually look like the people who still live in the area. https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/1c5tumx/olmec_hea...

Re: The Naming of America (2023)

#88

Post by graemep »

adastra22 wrote: post #76
JohnMakin wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These narratives were not driven by black people. I know what you are referring to. It was never considered an offensive term by anyone who had any stake in it, it was purely contrived and performative nonsense for being “aware” when it was signaling only that they absolutely were not. Just my 2c as a PoC

Same goes for Indian vs Native American, which this thread started off with. Few Indians are offended by the phrase “Native American”, but it is cumbersome and not used to describe themselves. They’re perfectly fine with the term “Indian” and prefer it, even if it is etymologically wrong (sorry to the South Asians out there). It’s an outsider combining in and saying “no, people can’t call you black” [or “Indian”] tha…

I wondered about how the majority of people belonging to those two groups felt about it.

I am quite surprised that "Indian" is still acceptable in a country as sensitive about vocabulary as the US - its very much a colonial term. Then again "America" is, if named after Vespucci, is named after a slave owner and trader which does not seem to bother anyone (which is odd in an age when other things are being renamed).

I prefer "Native American" because, as British Sri Lankan (lived in both countries) Indian just has a different meaning to me.

> It’s an outsider combining in and saying “no, people can’t call you black” [or “Indian”] that is weirdly controlling and oppressive.

Yes, and we have that problem in the UK too. I find it very amusing that South Asians (particularly those actually in South Asia who are not much subject to western influence) will use phrases about themselves (e.g. "coloured") that would shock westerners.

We are also getting a lot more policing of language in the UK. It is actually quite oppressive, and disadvantages recent immigrants (and people from the wrong background) who do not know the right vocabulary.

Re: The Naming of America (2023)

#89

Post by graemep »

mkl wrote: post #85
Izkata wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> since the name "America" clash with how they name the continent (America) There are two continents, "North America" and "South America". To refer to the whole, you pluralize it as "the Americas".

The number of continents and their names vary between cultures and languages. In Latin America, the Americas are considered a single continent called America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent#Number

I assume someone from one of those cultures would not call it America.

Major places (and IMO it is a mark of the importance of a place) have different names in different languages. London does, Germany does, Japan does,....

Post reply on HN