Live data from Hacker News

The Naming of America (2023)

jonathancohenweb.com

91–100 of 119 posts

Re: The Naming of America (2023)

#91
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Well that's the thing, you're not indigenous American, so you don't really get a say. Neither am I, btw. We're getting into moral discussions here, but if anyone should be granted one thing, it's the right to choose for themselves what group name they prefer. There wasn't, generally speaking, a common name in the indigenous American languages for the people of the americas, separate and distinct from the word for "people" which would have included the invading conquistadors from Europe. So “Indian” was as good as any, even though it was already the name of a people halfway around the world. [Although to be pedantic, it was meant to refer to the people of modern-day Indonesia, Malaysia, and South-East Asia, not the Indian subcontinent. He thought at first he'd landed in Indonesia. Then he thought maybe Japan or China. He was a confused dude.]

It is right and proper that people should be able to decide for themselves what they want others to call them, and the indigenous people of the United States prefer to be called "Indians." The clunky term "Native American" was repurposed from a very different meaning to apply to Indians during the civil rights era, not by Indians themselves but by misguided activists and civil rights fighters who patronizingly thought they were doing tribes a favor by decolonizing their language. Ironically, the very act of mandating what terms they should use to describe themselves is peak colonialism.

If you go to tribal land and talk to the people living there--and I've had some wonderful conversations with people on the Hopi and Navajo reservations--they'll tell you that they prefer that you use their specific tribal name to identify them, but if you must group multiple tribes together then they prefer the term Indian, they've always referred to themselves as Indian, and they have no desire to change that, thank you very much.

Re: The Naming of America (2023)

#92
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…

Both of these simply use the word england, they are not incorrect. Yes, some people are from a place called england, just like some people are from texas, and may write poetry or wax lyrical about how they like being from texas and what it means to them

Re: The Naming of America (2023)

#93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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: htt…

I'm going with this one for now on. Thanks!

Thanks also to all USians that commented. As a fellow American, I think we should be more United! :)

Re: The Naming of America (2023)

#94
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

England annexed Wales and Ireland and would have annexed Scotland if it didn't use marriage instead.

> would have annexed Scotland if it didn't use marriage instead

Would have tried, perhaps.

Re: The Naming of America (2023)

#95

> 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…

FamilySearch (free registration) has the passenger manifest of her arrival in New York, 28 Nov 1838 aboard the brig Sofia Eliza:

Americus Vespucius, female, age 26, Tuscany

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:939V-51SJ-FT

There are hundreds of newspaper stories from around the country about her in the U.S.

Re: The Naming of America (2023)

#96
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

"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."

I, personally, read into those final lines that she was, indeed, given land, but from private donors.

Re: The Naming of America (2023)

#97

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…

Mann’s introduction to (I think it was) 1491 has a section on his settling on “Indian” as his term in the book for (most of the—there’s some nuance) indigenous Americans and their decedents, and he doesn’t go into great detail, but it reads like he kept using “Native American” around… well, Indians, with whom he was speaking to learn more about topics for the book, and they consistently rolled their eyes and told him to just say “Indian”, so after a great deal of this he finally relented and settled on that as the most-OK term to use. I recall it because I found the passage amusing.

Re: The Naming of America (2023)

#98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an interesting coincidence that Armorica sounds like America but I don't think it's very indicative of anything more than that - there are probably a lot of places that sound like "America". There is a Georgia in the US and a Georgia in the Caucasus with totally different etymologies. There's also an Albania in the Caucasus and Scotland was known in ancient times as Albania - and neither is etymologically relate…

Also Iberia in the Caucasus and Iberian peninsula

Karnak, the ancien site in Egypt and Carnac, the ancient site in Brittany

Re: The Naming of America (2023)

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America being the name of the country isn't a problem, the problem is the people from this country calling Americans "latinos". Or Native-Americans, or Whatever-Americans because the only Americans are themselves.

There was a time when "Black" was considered offensive and "African-American" was the generally-approved nomenclature. You seem to be implying that the "-American" pattern emerged as some sort of white conspiracy to paint everyone else as less American, but my understanding is that the opposite is true. Language and social preferences evolve over time, and that one has simply come and gone as the "correct" option of…

> There was a time when "Black" was considered offensive and "African-American" was the generally-approved nomenclature.

This culminated in an epic television moment when an American interviewer asked Kris Akabusi, a black British 400m runner, what his victory meant "as a British African-American".

Re: The Naming of America (2023)

#100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, there’s a word in Spanish for people from the USA that’s “Estadounidense”, literally “Unitedstatian” which is widely used (at least in Spain) I find it a fascinating word and a way of precisely naming to keep the “American” word to be more broadly applicable, at least in theory

It is both less specific (there are many countries named “United States of …”) and unpronounceable in English.

IMO a better English translation of Estadounidense is United Stateser (like people in Maine are Mainers).
Post reply on HN