/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Trouble between identifying America from the Americas?



Darkseid
03-30-2007, 03:30 AM
I bet most of us have had a hard time trying to associating an exact word for American that doesn't spin off into something else.

But what's funny is that the Native American or American Indians have already established their own names for those two continents to differ them from the United States of America.

The Native American name for South America is Abya-Yala.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abya_Yala (actually it just Kuna Native Americans that want it to be changed to Abya Yala, none of my Cherokee Native American relatives want it to be changed to a Kuna term)

The Native American term for North America is Turtle Island. It could be shorten to Turtleland as to keep the association of Islands away from being the names of Continents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_Island



It's Turtle Island, yo!

Anyways it quite interesting.

What is your opinion on this subject?

Should the United States of America retain its name, should North and South America change their names, or should everything stay the same?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Woodrow
03-30-2007, 05:07 AM
Not much sense in changing it. There were several hundred different american Indian tribes and for many of them the Area still retains the original name . Such as Manhaatna Island in new York was the named for the Manahtta tribe who called it Manahatta. Same goes for Massachusets, etc and many other State that still have names that go back hundres of years either to the Native American names or to the French, Britiss and spanish colony names they carrid for Hundreds of years. Keep in mind that North America is 3 seperate countries. Each with its own name. What is called the USA was at one time 48 seperate nations for the 48 contiguous States. The name USA is the reflection that those 48 separate countries united together to form one Nation. Alaska and Hawaii joined the Union in 1958 and 1959.

No sense in changing it unless we want to use several thousand different names to recognise each group.
Reply

Pygoscelis
03-30-2007, 07:40 AM
I always thought it kind of funny that the United States of America has yet to choose an actual name for their country. The "name" they now use is a description, not an actual name, and it isn't even a very specific description.

I always find it funny that Castro and Chavez are both Americans. The USA can't deny that they are :)

I also always thought it'd be funny if Brazil, Argentina and Chile unite and call themselves the United States of America.
Reply

Woodrow
03-30-2007, 08:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I always thought it kind of funny that the United States of America has yet to choose an actual name for their country. The "name" they now use is a description, not an actual name, and it isn't even a very specific description.

I always find it funny that Castro and Chavez are both Americans. The USA can't deny that they are :)

I also always thought it'd be funny if Brazil, Argentina and Chile unite and call themselves the United States of America.
You are right we don't have a name, just a description and like you said not even an accurate one, cause Hawaii is not in America and it is still a State of the USA.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Keltoi
03-30-2007, 12:21 PM
The U.S. started as a voluntary union of states with a constitutional republic. It didn't make much sense at the time to create an overall title for a union of what was for all intents and purposes separate countries in themselves.
Reply

omar_2133
03-30-2007, 02:07 PM
It would prove a lot of trouble and hassle trying to change it - especially to a word outside the English language.
Reply

MTAFFI
03-30-2007, 03:18 PM
lets just call it mexico
Reply

Darkseid
03-30-2007, 06:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Not much sense in changing it.
Not much ability in changing it. You have like over a dozen countries with a good majority of the populace highly admiring the name, "America."

However the name is not official amongst the original inhabitants. It is like Iran still be called, "Persia." Do Iranians call themselves Persians? Do Iraqis call themselves Mesopotamians? Do people from Bangladesh call themselves East Pakistanis? Do people from Turkey call themselves Anatolians or Asia Minors? Do people from Palestine or Israel call themselves Canaanites or Levantines? Do people from Lebanon call themselves Phonecians? Well the Lebanonese do consider themselves the descendents of Phonecians, but they don't call themselves Phonecians. And do Kurds call themselves Turks, Iranians, Iraqis, or Syrians?

These are just mere examples of what I am talking about when it comes to being subjected by a foreign entity.

There were several hundred different american Indian tribes and for many of them the Area still retains the original name.
Nope. (I'm part Cherokee and I disaagree with the term American Indian. I find it harassive and incorrect. I find American Indian to be correct term for people from America that come to live in India. Just as they would be called Indian American if they came from India and settled into America.) Native Americans have always refer to America as the whiteman's land and never as their own. They have associated North America as Turtle Island, because of its shape. That was their initial word for that entire continent. However there are specific words that are associated in each Native American language.

Such as Manhaatna Island in new York was the named for the Manahtta tribe who called it Manahatta. Same goes for Massachusets, etc and many other State that still have names that go back hundres of years either to the Native American names or to the French, British and spanish colony names they carrid for Hundreds of years.
That is irrelevant.

Keep in mind that North America is 3 seperate countries.
You forgot about Central America which is a part of North America, Greenland, and the Caribbean (another part of North America).

Each with its own name. What is called the USA was at one time 48 seperate nations for the 48 contiguous States.
The United States is comprised of 50 states with 1 federal district and several territorial lands like Puerto Rico.

The name USA is the reflection that those 48 separate countries united together to form one Nation.
Actually it is 13 states that came together to form one country. Each of them hardly was a seperate country, especially Delaware. England and Wales were more seperate than were the any of the 13 original states. The 48 states are the continental mainland of the United States, which comprises of the original 13 and the additional 35 which were admitted later in history.

Alaska and Hawaii joined the Union in 1958 and 1959.
They were a part of the country as territories much earlier than that.

Alaska was admitted into the Union in early January of 1959 and Hawaii was admitted into the Union in later August of 1959.

No sense in changing it unless we want to use several thousand different names to recognise each group.
You are aware this was talking about the continents and just the United States right? There is no direct discussion about Canada or Mexico.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I always thought it kind of funny that the United States of America has yet to choose an actual name for their country. The "name" they now use is a description, not an actual name, and it isn't even a very specific description.

I always find it funny that Castro and Chavez are both Americans. The USA can't deny that they are :)

I also always thought it'd be funny if Brazil, Argentina and Chile unite and call themselves the United States of America.
The best way to make a name for that area is to have the original inhabitants democratically establish several names they didn't disapprove and then let the Americans as a majority vote on those names on which one the mostly favored.

And that would establish a true name for the United States at least with the exception of Hawaii and Alaska.

Which would kind of make it sound like "the United States of Masapupu (an unlikely but funny hypothetical term for the Continental United States), Hawaii, and Alaska." Where the term United States associated with all three and United Statesman as the noun to identify the union of people from all three lands. Meanwhile, Masapupuan would be the term to associate people from the 48 states. Alaskan and Hawaiian would associate as people from Alaska or Hawaii.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-14-2009, 08:21 AM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-21-2009, 06:14 PM
  3. Replies: 29
    Last Post: 10-15-2008, 12:55 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!