Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by ishouldstayaway | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

ishouldstayaway

In English, "America" means the USA specifically.

But you knew that already and decided to just post bait.

View on HN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humour

Seems too subjective. I don't think it'll take off.

Hey look judging from how this thread evolved in the last several hours, at least it turned out that the bait worked and a bunch of people were dumb enough to take it?

ha ha

or, perhaps, they are wryly pushing back against the USA capturing a generic geographic term for themselves

To be fair though, that horse bolted a couple of centuries ago. What other name would you call it by? There's another "united states" on the same continent. The country to the immediate south is formally known as the "United Mexican States".

But the whole hemisphere is not "Mexico". USA and Canada are not also "North Mexico". Their harmless little reminder is more correct than any of the attempted arguments against it.

It was the first group of united states on the continent. North America was, relative to the land that became Mexico, thinly peopled. Unlike in Mexico there was no pre-colonial, indigenous empire that had ruled and named the land which eventually became the 13 colonies. So there wasn't necessarily a better alternative to put after "United States of" at the time. Do you know of one?

>Unlike in Mexico there was no pre-colonial, indigenous empire that had ruled and named the land which eventually became the 13 colonies.

Actually, there were multiple indigenous political entities both along the Eastern Seaboard (where we find those 13 colonies) as well as across what is now the US and Canada[0].

We just took their land and killed most of them, but they were still pretty organized -- with political groupings of various types.

[0] https://scholar.flatworldknowledge.com/books/32177/ourhistor...

Where's the Tenochtitlan of the 13 colonies?

Of course colonists committed genocide against indigenous people everywhere they went. No one's denying that. I'm addressing precisely what you yourself said

> there were multiple indigenous political entities both along the Eastern Seaboard

They were fragmented and smaller than the Aztec empire. That doesn't make it right to take their land. It does explain why their names didn't apply to the entire land. Because none of them was so big and centralized. If you look at the geographical features of the Eastern seaboard - mountains, lakes, streams, rivers, cities and towns, even 2 states (Massachusetts, Connecticut) - native names abound.

The lands that became the US and Canada really did have fewer people living on them than the lands that became Mexico. [1] Again because Mexico had centralized states and large-scale agriculture capable of supporting large populations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_Indi...

>They were fragmented and smaller than the Aztec empire.

So what? Portugal was smaller than the Aztec Empire too. As was the Netherlands. And England. Should we pooh pooh them as unimportant as well?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salish_peoples

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cree

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestral_Puebloans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algonquian_peoples

And many others.

Just because they had brown skin and often didn't engage in wholesale slaughter doesn't make them unimportant -- or not political entities.

You're putting words in my mouth. I don't see the point in continuing this conversation.

>You're putting words in my mouth.

Are you sure you responded to the right comment?

>don't see the point in continuing this conversation.

Works for me.

What about all the non-western colonists?

What about Iran? Iran was conquered by muslims. So should we conquer it and kick muslims out because it wasn't ok to take that land? What about every muslim country? Muslims stole mecca from the Jews, as is extensively detailed in muslim history books. Should it be conquered and returned?

What about China? The kingdoms did most of the conquering of course, then "unification" took their land and then communists did ethnic cleansing until Han Chinese were in most places all that's left. Hell, a number of the people they cleansed aren't even gone yet. There are still Tibetans. There are plenty of original Hong Kong'ers still alive.

What about Russia? What about North Africa? What about ...

If I'm not mistaking the name "United States of Mexico" appeared in 1824, whereas "United States of America" appeared earlier in 1787.

How about its real name, the USA? Crazy idea I know

The level of arrogance some western-hemisphere Spanish speakers have, trying to tell foreigners that the name they use for their own country in their own native language is wrong, demanding that they translate the Spanish name and use that instead, is so absurdly entitled that it's just... hilarious.

> The level of arrogance some western-hemisphere Spanish speakers have

It’s almost exclusively Western Europeans doing this IME

It's so wierd to perceive that as arrogance. Actually "wierd" is being too nice.

In your world, then, is it normal to complain about other people's names, and expect them to change what they call themselves to better suit your preference?

Again, wierd. No one is doing that. But for some reason you decide that someone has done something to you, or done anything at all to anyone.

I am sure it sounds bizarre, if you have never encountered it before, but people really do this. A few quick examples - all in English:

https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/a96v93/am...

https://www.reddit.com/r/asklatinamerica/comments/fwp0aj/doe...

https://www.reddit.com/r/asklatinamerica/comments/15zlo42/is...

https://www.reddit.com/r/asklatinamerica/comments/fwp0aj/doe...

Let them have it. 'America' is so loaded with horrible things that I don't really think the rest of the continent cares

This is the point: in English, it is not a generic geographic term.

It is in Spanish, though, so I get where the confusion comes from (at least when that confusion is genuine and not just boring troll shit). In Spanish, "América" refers to what in English is "the Americas", because in English we use separate terms for North, South, and (sometimes) Central America.

It's not pushback. It's just dishonest ragebait bullshit.

So was Trump being inclusive or exclusive when he renamed the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America?

Instead, try commenting in good faith.

Times are a changing. We can change the English language on this matter too (or more accurately, it might end up changing).

It is something that needs correcting tbh. The USA does not own the Americas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com