On a more realistic version, let's add 'of america' to every other country in North, South, and Central America.
Canada of America, Mexico of America, Peru of America, then the people of the US and the world would change the way they apply the term American.
Using the other countries as an example, the people of the United States of America, would be known as Statians or maybe Ustatians.
Statians, would work I think. It would take some time to catch on, but a lot of the "Americans" I've known, especially the military forces, drop the United, and of America, part and say they're from the "States" or they can't wait to be back in the "States". So I think it could work.
Realistically I wasn't suggesting renaming anything.
The areas are already named,
North, South, and Central America. Brazil is already Brazil of South America, they just felt no need to add where they were located to their formal name. Saying United States of America is like saying, France of Europe. Who does that? And why? USA is really not even a name, it's 'what' they are. But the founders failed to even come up with a specific name that was unique to them. Example, Russia, Mexico, France, could all have a union of states or united states but I'm sure they would use their country's name not their countinent of Europe, Asia, or Central America.
So the founders were either egotistical or ignorant.
You may be American but so are the people from Canada all the way down to the tip of South America.
Maybe your founders just had delusions of grandeur. Maybe they thought all the provinces of Canada and territories to the south would one day become states. Then the name would fit.
Don't kid yourself. If Constantinople could be renamed Istanbul after 1400 years, and Rhodesia could be renamed Zimbabwe, then this is possible, too. If Siam, Formosa, Ceylon, East Pakistan, Peking, Bombay, Calcutta, Almaty, Saigon, and Bangalore could all be renamed Thailand, Taiwan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Beijing, Mumbai, Kolkata, Nursultan, Ho Chi Minh City, and Bengaluru, then this is definitely possible. The forefathers didn't know jack shit about geography. Most people period didn't until a man by the name of Immanuel Kant came along.
I didn't say you couldn't rename it, just that there was no need too.
I'm just saying that the term American used as a title for a person from the USA is not really wrong. It just applies to all countries from Canada to Chile. So if something needs changed, the so call USA Americans should be referred to as Statians, or maybe just resurrect the old name of Yanks. That would probably not be acceptable to the southern people though.
What do you think would be a good name to rename the United States?
← View full post
On a more realistic version, let's add 'of america' to every other country in North, South, and Central America.
Canada of America, Mexico of America, Peru of America, then the people of the US and the world would change the way they apply the term American.
Using the other countries as an example, the people of the United States of America, would be known as Statians or maybe Ustatians.
Statians, would work I think. It would take some time to catch on, but a lot of the "Americans" I've known, especially the military forces, drop the United, and of America, part and say they're from the "States" or they can't wait to be back in the "States". So I think it could work.
--
Daugenstein2
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Sure, and while we're at it, let's just call Europe 'West Asia' and Africa 'South Europe' and get it over with.
--
darefu
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Realistically I wasn't suggesting renaming anything.
The areas are already named,
North, South, and Central America. Brazil is already Brazil of South America, they just felt no need to add where they were located to their formal name. Saying United States of America is like saying, France of Europe. Who does that? And why? USA is really not even a name, it's 'what' they are. But the founders failed to even come up with a specific name that was unique to them. Example, Russia, Mexico, France, could all have a union of states or united states but I'm sure they would use their country's name not their countinent of Europe, Asia, or Central America.
So the founders were either egotistical or ignorant.
You may be American but so are the people from Canada all the way down to the tip of South America.
Maybe your founders just had delusions of grandeur. Maybe they thought all the provinces of Canada and territories to the south would one day become states. Then the name would fit.
--
Daugenstein2
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Don't kid yourself. If Constantinople could be renamed Istanbul after 1400 years, and Rhodesia could be renamed Zimbabwe, then this is possible, too. If Siam, Formosa, Ceylon, East Pakistan, Peking, Bombay, Calcutta, Almaty, Saigon, and Bangalore could all be renamed Thailand, Taiwan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Beijing, Mumbai, Kolkata, Nursultan, Ho Chi Minh City, and Bengaluru, then this is definitely possible. The forefathers didn't know jack shit about geography. Most people period didn't until a man by the name of Immanuel Kant came along.
--
darefu
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I didn't say you couldn't rename it, just that there was no need too.
I'm just saying that the term American used as a title for a person from the USA is not really wrong. It just applies to all countries from Canada to Chile. So if something needs changed, the so call USA Americans should be referred to as Statians, or maybe just resurrect the old name of Yanks. That would probably not be acceptable to the southern people though.