Regardless, in most languages and countries, it is just "America" so that ship has sailed. Either way, America or United States, everyone knows which country is being referenced.
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
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 other freeborn Englishman..."
Rupert Brooke: "If I should die, think only this of me: That there's some corner of a foreign field That is for ever England."
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).
England is a country (part of Britain, together with Wales & Scotland)
The United Kingdom [of Great Britain and Northern Ireland], is an alliance of countries.
I'd hope that most citizens of the UK wouldn't regard these as interchangeable, and just because an Englishman waxes poetic about England doesn't mean he's unaware that it's part of the UK, etc.
No, it is not. The UK is ONE sovereign state/country, the rest are states/provinces/whatever, even tho some people living in this country might disagree and wish to separate themselves to become a full sovereign state.
(United States of) America -> America
(Federal Republic of) Germany -> Germany
(United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern) Ireland -> Ireland
Would have tried, perhaps.
But of course Dutch people don't really care what foreigners call the country, they can use whatever name they come up with it doesn't matter. Although it's nice that Germany gets it right. These kind of arguments speak to the fragile ego of some nations.
I also now hear America now from younger people (< age 30) and people now also use the "word" y'all too.
Even US football which never got a second look even Canadian football was mocked (two of nine total teams had the same name) now people have Superbowl parties.
Culture creep is causing USization more rapidly in Canada.
Once people saw that slaves and their descendants might be compensated in some way, or treated in a special way by government in lieu of compensation, they all wanted to become black. So after 1965 (the end of legal segregation in the US) they started hyphenating their ethnicities, or in the case of "hispanic," making up new ethnicities from whole cloth.
Compensation for slavery isn't "free stuff." You should give up your inheritance.
As a generally "white" person (of roughly western European descent), I will happily use any set of labels that keeps people from glaring at me. I feel pretty strongly that unpleasant language is a symptom of prejudice, not a cause. If changing words could change hearts and minds, I think we would have seen it happen by now.
Eh, this is a little inaccurate - I don't think anyone but white people worked themselves up about this, and the distinction between "black" and "african american" was made because Americans with slave ancestry are not the only people who have dark skin color. It's also still in use and hasn't gone anywhere. AFAIK you've always been able to refer to a black person as black without offense, but of course, people have used that as a mild slur or with insulting connotations.
It’s an outsider combining in and saying “no, people can’t call you black” [or “Indian”] that is weirdly controlling and oppressive.
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.
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.
- Russell Means, a Lakota activist, wrote in his 1998 essay, “I Am An American Indian, Not a Native American!” https://compusci.com/indian/
See also: https://www.fair360.com/medialib/uploads/2020/11/Native-Amer...
This was a hard push from white people toward other white people, about being offended on the behalf of black people. Black people have never liked the term African-American, and most don't use it. The reasons why white people on either side of the "debate" wouldn't notice this or would operate as if this weren't true are left as an exercise for the reader.
-----
1991: Poll Says Most Blacks Prefer 'Black' to 'African-American' https://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/29/us/poll-says-most-blacks-...
2021: New Poll Shows Black People Prefer to be Called Simply ‘Black’ Over ‘African American,’ Hispanics Aren’t Keen to Newly-Formed Label ‘LatinX’ https://atlantablackstar.com/2021/08/11/new-poll-shows-black...
Here's a stupid article pretending that black people who still call themselves black in 2012 are space aliens or Amish, when there was never a point when black people didn't call themselves black: Some blacks insist: 'I'm not African-American' https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna46264191
Doesn't matter because that's not the point of my comment. The person I was responding to said:
> and the distinction between "black" and "african american" was made because Americans with slave ancestry are not the only people who have dark skin color.
My point is there was no distinction. At the time, in the US, those two terms referred to the same group of people. The push was to replace "black" with "African-American", not to use whichever term was more appropriate.
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".