Why is the "United States of America" called "America" in itself?

RiseToTheTop

Plus their citizens called "Americans". Shouldn't an "American" technically be someone from any country in North/Central/South "America"?

Today, when people say "America" it is automatically thought to be the US, but not the continent. Is there a reason for why this is?

Plus When did people from the US become "Americans" and other people from the American continent become known by their own countries name. (Brazlian, Mexican, Canadian, etc.)Plus why?

Victor

A number of factors, mostly cultural.

1. There is no other convenient name that collectively describes the people of the USA. Contrast "British", "Emirati" and "Soviet".

2. Cultural dominance - the Irish connection with the USA is the strongest we have with anywhere in the Americas, hence out idea of the Americas is very "American".

3. Media dominance - American media companies sell their view of the USA. Often that view ended at the border.

Peregrinus

1. It's convenient, just like "Britain" for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. You can quibble about it's accuracy but, in most contexts, there is no confusion about what is being referred to.

2. Priority. The US was the first sovereign state on the continent, so phrases like "the American Ambassador" were unambiguous, and became well established before any other entity on the continent started sending out ambassadors.

Manach

It could the concept of Manifest Destiny. The citizens of the US believe that they were called to dominate the continent. To call themselves Americas lends this credence. Hence they took that name. (at a guess)

Killer Wench

Peregrinus wrote: »

2. Priority. The US was the first sovereign state on the continent, so phrases like "the American Ambassador" were unambiguous, and became well established before any other entity on the continent started sending out ambassadors.

I agree with this. It was a first in time and last to remain issue.

This was discussed on another board that I am on. Hopefully, it is permitted to post to other threads but this is from Americans perspective:


http://www.city-data.com/forum/world/1334213-usa-america-whats-name.html

mikemac1

Simpler and shorter and as Victor states, their culture and media have influence around the world.

Did any of us say Federal Republic of Germany and German Democratic Republic?
I didn't anyway, I knew them as West and East

Words and places get links and associations over time, if you hear something enough times it become the dominant one

There are multiple Fifth Avenues around various cities but it's New York that people think of first.

Now what I want to know is why are the winners of the National Football League called World Champions?

And does this mean I can call Kilkenny World Champions of hurling?

pedroeibar1

mikemac1 wrote: »

Now what I want to know is why are the winners of the National Football League called World Champions?

Because it's known as the 'World Series', no doubt because our American friends are rather limited in their view of what constitutes the 'real' world - a xenophobia fuelled by a fear of the PTSD that would be caused by leaving the comfort of their own shores.

mikemac1 wrote: »

And does this mean I can call Kilkenny World Champions of hurling?

No; not while Tipp people are present.:p

LordSutch

Well closer to home there a a raft of anomolies when refering to our own neighbours, with many people mixing up England with the UK, some people forget that there is more to the UK than just England, or what about calling Britain England, or going to England when they're actually going to Scotland? Years ago I herd a friend of mine claimed that she took the train from Scotland down to Britain! in recent years Irish people tend to substitute England for UK (even though they are talking about England) . . .

What a mess )

eire4

mikemac1 wrote: »

Simpler and shorter and as Victor states, their culture and media have influence around the world.

Did any of us say Federal Republic of Germany and German Democratic Republic?
I didn't anyway, I knew them as West and East

Words and places get links and associations over time, if you hear something enough times it become the dominant one

There are multiple Fifth Avenues around various cities but it's New York that people think of first.

Now what I want to know is why are the winners of the National Football League called World Champions?

And does this mean I can call Kilkenny World Champions of hurling?

Funny I have always thought the same. Real cultural arrogance calling the NFL champions the "World Champions". They do the same for whoever wins the NBA Basketball title and the baseball final is called the World Series. Pretty pathetic really.

MarchDub

OK as this is the history forum let’s get some history on here.

Amerigo Vespucci was an Italian explorer who travelled over to the new lands that Columbus had ‘discovered’ and found that there was in fact a large continent there and it was not part of Asia – as Columbus had thought. Columbus did not in fact ever set foot on the actual continent.

After Amerigo returned in the early 1500s – he did a few voyages - reports of his ‘new world’ were circulated and so the name given was a derivative of the female version of his own first name, hence – ‘America’.

When the first map of the ‘New World’ was drawn by the German cartographer Waldseemuller in 1507 the new continent was given the name ‘America’.
So later on when Europeans went there to settle – especially those of the expanding British Empire - they increasingly described themselves as “American’ especially getting to the time of the Revolutionary War.

When the American Revolutionary War began the revolutionaries, who were all from individual states, made the point of saying ‘I am a Virginian etc. but an American first’ i.e. we are a national people and they were cutting the political and even the cultural ties with Europe. They then took the name of the ‘United States of America’ as their country's name in the Declaration of Independence. - the document was drawn up in 1776 by The Continental Congress as "A Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled."

Obviously the term American came from this - and the original 13 colonies were not particularly powerful, world dominating or even wealthy. But with expansion the country became the present day 50 states spanning the width of the continent. So the notion of it being a 'new world' and the title 'American' predates all of the present day reality.

Victor

eire4 wrote: »

Funny I have always thought the same. Real cultural arrogance calling the NFL champions the "World Champions". They do the same for whoever wins the NBA Basketball title and the baseball final is called the World Series. Pretty pathetic really.

Named after "The world" newspaper apparently.

MarchDub wrote: »

Amerigo Vespucci was an Italian explorer who travelled over to the new lands that Columbus had ‘discovered’ and found that there was in fact a large continent there and it was not part of Asia – as Columbus had thought. Columbus did not in fact ever set foot on the actual continent.

You mean he didn't set foot on the mainland. Continents include their islands.

MarchDub

Victor wrote: »

Named after "The world" newspaper apparently.

Newspaper? In 1500? -can you supply your source for this?

The term is first found in a letter of Vespucci's about his discovery of this new continent which he called a 'new world'.

Victor wrote: »

You mean he didn't set foot on the mainland. Continents include their islands.

I mean Columbus didn't even know that he had stumbled on a new continent because he never saw the large landmass - he presumed that he was in Asia.

Skerries

He's talking about the Baseball world series which was named after it's sponsor as opposed to a global dominance at a sport which no one else plays except Japan

MarchDub

Skerries wrote: »

He's talking about the Baseball world series which was named after it's sponsor as opposed to a global dominance at a sport which no one else plays except Japan

OK - I see what you mean. I was being historic about the etymology of the term.

Edit: Found this on the Baseball League "World' reference:

Although the "Fall Classic" as we know it didn't begin until 1903, Major League Baseball had several versions of a post-season championship series before that. In 1884, the Providence Grays of the National League outplayed the New York Metropolitan Club of the American Association in a three game series for what was originally called "The Championship of the United States." Several newspapers penned the Grays as "World Champions" and the new title stuck.

In 1894, Pittsburgh's owner William C. Temple offered a championship trophy to the winner of a best-of-seven-game series between the National League's first and second-place teams. In addition, he stated that the winning franchise would receive 65% of all ticket sales and the losing team would pocket 35%. Temple's novel idea would last for the next three years and helped to build the foundation for baseball's post-season popularity. More changes were on the horizon and in 1901, the American League was established much to the dismay of the senior circuit. Suddenly, baseball found itself engaged in a "civil war" as both rival leagues competed separately for the fan's loyalty and attention. Two years later a truce, previously known as the "National Agreement", was redefined outlining baseball's employment, salary and travel requirements. The 1903 compromise produced the business blueprint for major-league baseball and resulted in a merger that has lasted to this day. Once again Boston and Pittsburgh, the top American and National League teams, found themselves competing against one another in the first official "World Series".

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/ws/wsmenu.shtml

getz

LordSutch wrote: »

Well closer to home there a a raft of anomolies when refering to our own neighbours, with many people mixing up England with the UK, some people forget that there is more to the UK than just England, or what about calling Britain England, or going to England when they're actually going to Scotland? Years ago I herd a friend of mine claimed that she took the train from Scotland down to Britain! in recent years Irish people tend to substitute England for UK (even though they are talking about England) . . .

What a mess )

sure so is it ireland or republic of ireland or eire or the state,or the irish republic or southern ireland,we all do it,and when you are as old as me ,its the free state

ResearchWill

MarchDub wrote: »

OK as this is the history forum let’s get some history on here.

Amerigo Vespucci was an Italian explorer who travelled over to the new lands that Columbus had ‘discovered’ and found that there was in fact a large continent there and it was not part of Asia – as Columbus had thought. Columbus did not in fact ever set foot on the actual continent.

After Amerigo returned in the early 1500s – he did a few voyages - reports of his ‘new world’ were circulated and so the name given was a derivative of the female version of his own first name, hence – ‘America’.

When the first map of the ‘New World’ was drawn by the German cartographer Waldseemuller in 1507 the new continent was given the name ‘America’.
So later on when Europeans went there to settle – especially those of the expanding British Empire - they increasingly described themselves as “American’ especially getting to the time of the Revolutionary War.

When the American Revolutionary War began the revolutionaries, who were all from individual states, made the point of saying ‘I am a Virginian etc. but an American first’ i.e. we are a national people and they were cutting the political and even the cultural ties with Europe. They then took the name of the ‘United States of America’ as their country's name in the Declaration of Independence. - the document was drawn up in 1776 by The Continental Congress as "A Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled."

Obviously the term American came from this - and the original 13 colonies were not particularly powerful, world dominating or even wealthy. But with expansion the country became the present day 50 states spanning the width of the continent. So the notion of it being a 'new world' and the title 'American' predates all of the present day reality.

An old article on the two possible people America was named for http://articles.latimes.com/1991-05-08/news/vw-1246_1_richard-ameryk

My own view is for Richard Ameryk, due to the convention that only kings and queens give their forenames to land. Victoria Georgia etc Van Diemen's Land being an example of a non royal giving name to land.

MarchDub

ResearchWill wrote: »

An old article on the two possible people America was named for http://articles.latimes.com/1991-05-08/news/vw-1246_1_richard-ameryk

My own view is for Richard Ameryk, due to the convention that only kings and queens give their forenames to land. Victoria Georgia etc Van Diemen's Land being an example of a non royal giving name to land.

Yes, I know - historical makeovers are everywhere. But Wallseemuller's map of 1507 is the evidence for Vespucci so I'll stick with that one.






http://www.loc.gov/rr/geogmap/waldexh.html

dave2pvd

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

Plus their citizens called "Americans". Shouldn't an "American" technically be someone from any country in North/Central/South "America"?

Today, when people say "America" it is automatically thought to be the US, but not the continent. Is there a reason for why this is?

Plus When did people from the US become "Americans" and other people from the American continent become known by their own countries name. (Brazlian, Mexican, Canadian, etc.)Plus why?

Hold on though - there is no continent called 'America'. Or is there?

From that great font of truth, Wikipedia:

Number of continents

There are numerous ways of distinguishing the continents:

7 continents: North America South America Antarctica Africa Europe Asia Australia
6 continents: North America South America Antarctica Africa Eurasia Australia
6 continents: America Antarctica Africa Europe Asia Australia
5 continents: America Antarctica Africa Eurasia Australia
4 continents: America Antarctica Afro-Eurasia Australia

The seven-continent model is usually taught in China, India and most English-speaking countries.

The six-continent combined-Eurasia model is sometimes preferred in the former states of the USSR[citation needed] and Japan[citation needed].
The six-continent combined-America model is sometimes taught in Latin America[citation needed] and in some parts of Europe including Greece (equivalent 5 inhabited continents model (i.e. excluding Antarctica) still also found in texts), Portugal and Spain.

Using this latter model as a starting point, the Olympics use only inhabited continents (excluding Antarctica) and thus a five-continent model as depicted in the Olympic logo.

The terms Oceania or Australasia are sometimes substituted for Australia to denote a continent encompassing the Australian mainland and various islands of the Pacific Ocean not part of other continents. For example, the Atlas of Canada names Oceania, as does the model taught in Italy, Greece and in Latin America, Spain and Portugal.

Reekwind

MarchDub wrote: »

Amerigo Vespucci was an Italian explorer who travelled over to the new lands that Columbus had ‘discovered’ and found that there was in fact a large continent there and it was not part of Asia – as Columbus had thought. Columbus did not in fact ever set foot on the actual continent.

After Amerigo returned in the early 1500s – he did a few voyages - reports of his ‘new world’ were circulated and so the name given was a derivative of the female version of his own first name, hence – ‘America’

It's worth noting that historical opinion is pretty divided on Amerigo, with current academic consensus being that at least two of his four journeys (including one that supposedly pre-dated Columbus' trip) in fact never happened

dave2pvd wrote:

Hold on though - there is no continent called 'America'. Or is there?

Hence the use of the term 'Americas'

MarchDub

Reekwind wrote: »

It's worth noting that historical opinion is pretty divided on Amerigo, with current academic consensus being that at least two of his four journeys (including one that supposedly pre-dated Columbus' trip) in fact never happened

Don’t know about the pre-Columbus voyage claim but Amerigo is a quiz really because his writings became more popular than those of Columbus to the point where he became a 'personality' during his lifetime. He did of course make voyages but like you say, when and how often - two now seems to be the consensus. His supposed ‘first’ voyage in 1497 was questioned about 100 years after the event for lack of evidence and perhaps forgery – not by him – but by his ardent admirers. Some historians do however make the case for his being on ship - maybe as a deck hand or something lowly - but not as captain as was the claim. The descriptions of land, sea etc in the ‘forgery’ sound too much like that in a later voyage to be authentic. But his name became magic with the naming of the New World and his nephew, Juan Vespucci, made a good living as the chief Royal master for Spain’s hydrographics.

I was in the States back in 1976 when they had their bicentennial – 200 years since the Declaration of Independence of 1776 - and I remember seeing a ship called the Amerigo Vespucci sailing up the Chesapeake Bay in replica of the ‘tradition’ of the voyage of Vespucci there. I can’t find any video on line for this. I see one for 1951 – but that’s not the one I saw.

Images of his adventures also became popular and here is a stylised image of his landing on the New World. It's called "The Landing of Amerigo on the Continent". Love the clothes - men in tights :eek: must have scared the natives off.

Mr. Presentable

Common usage -that's all. Like people calling a vacuum cleaner a Hoover. Or a cola drink Coke

pedroeibar1

MarchDub wrote: »

When the American Revolutionary War began the revolutionaries, who were all from individual states, made the point of saying ‘I am a Virginian etc. but an American first’ i.e. we are a national people and they were cutting the political and even the cultural ties with Europe. They then took the name of the ‘United States of America’ as their country's name in the Declaration of Independence. - the document was drawn up in 1776 by The Continental Congress as "A Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled."

That is a very interesting period in American economic history. The thirteen states were not willing to cede control to a central government so the Second Continental Congress could borrow very little for the war (France & Holland gave it some loans primarily to cause difficulties to Britain). It could not set tax rates so, having ‘guesstimated’ its monetary needs it had to ask the individual states for the money. It got some, but not enough, so the ‘Americans’ did then what they are doing now – they printed money. To get cash for the war the Continental Congress printed negotiable bills – called Continentals – to the extent of $200-odd million, a monstrous amount relative to the then size of the American economy. Inflation was massive with prices doubling every year - between 1776 and 1781 prices rose by more than tenfold. Congress tried to stop the spiral by devaluing the bills to a mere 2.5% of face value, but they soon dropped further and gave us ‘Not worth a Continental’.

WindSock

I'd say it's convenience too and cultural dominance. Sure it is a massive country and what are the alternatives to call them? United Statesians? :pac:
Any citizens from other countries in the America's are called by the name of their country, Canadians, Brazilians, Mexicans etc so it is not easy to confuse when you say 'American'.

goose2005

WindSock wrote: »

I'd say it's convenience too and cultural dominance. Sure it is a massive country and what are the alternatives to call them? United Statesians? :pac:
Any citizens from other countries in the America's are called by the name of their country, Canadians, Brazilians, Mexicans etc so it is not easy to confuse when you say 'American'.

North Koreans are called North Koreans; East Timorese; South Koreans, etc. Latin Americans call U.S.A. people "estadounidenses"

Although before 1867 only people from Quebec/Ontario were "Canadians", because the whole area was "British North America" until Canada was formed.

pedroeibar1

goose2005 wrote: »

Latin Americans call U.S.A. people "estadounidenses"

Maybe they do in some places, but I never heard that mouthful. Anytime I was there (most places except Venezuela) throughout the 1990's it was 'los americanos' or pejoratively 'los gringos'; the latter was often used when talking about those with an Uncle Sam connection.

MarchDub

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

That is a very interesting period in American economic history. The thirteen states were not willing to cede control to a central government so the Second Continental Congress could borrow very little for the war (France & Holland gave it some loans primarily to cause difficulties to Britain). ... To get cash for the war the Continental Congress printed negotiable bills – called Continentals – to the extent of $200-odd million, a monstrous amount relative to the then size of the American economy. Inflation was massive with prices doubling every year - between 1776 and 1781 prices rose by more than tenfold. Congress tried to stop the spiral by devaluing the bills to a mere 2.5% of face value, but they soon dropped further and gave us ‘Not worth a Continental’.

But also a major problem for the Americans was that the British printed counterfeit money and widely distributed it in order to destabilise and devalue the American currency.

Moreover the British in an effort to destroy the funding system of the Continental Congress had undertaken a covert program of counterfeiting the Continental dollar. These dollars were printed and then distributed throughout the former colonies by the British army and agents loyal to the Crown (Newman, 1957). Altogether this expansion of the nominal money supply in the colonies led to a rapid depreciation of the Continental dollar (Calomiris, 1988, Michener, 1988).

Worsening Inflation and Financial Problems
As the American military situation deteriorated in the South so did the financial circumstances of the Continental Congress. Inflation continued as Congress and the states dramatically increased the rate of issuance of their currencies. At the same time the British continued to pursue their policy of counterfeiting the Continental dollar. In order to deal with inflation some states organized conventions for the purpose of establishing wage and price controls (Rockoff, 1984).
With few contributions coming from the states and a currency rapidly losing its value, Congress resorted to authorizing the army to confiscate whatever it needed to continue the war effort (Baack, 2001, 2008).

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/baack.war.revolutionary.us

As the war progressed the states did agree to donate funds but this donation was difficult for some to meet and there was never enough money for the war. Washington's army practically starved at some stages in the war. Here is the method that New York employed in order to try to meet its obligations.

New York State used a variety of methods to finance its Revolutionary War expenses. These included taxes levied on real and personal property, loans from wealthy individuals to the United States that were administered by a Loan Office of the State of New York, loans from individuals to the State that were administered by county loan offices, and the confiscation and sale of the real and personal property of certain loyalists. s

Two officials were responsible for managing the State's funds. The treasurer, first appointed by the Provincial Congress in 1775 and continued by the constitution of 1777, was empowered to collect revenues as necessary and disburse funds in payment of the State's obligations. The auditor general, appointed by the Provincial Congress in 1776 and established by law as the auditor in 1782, was responsible for maintaining and reconciling the public accounts of the State.

http://www.archives.nysed.gov/a/research/res_topics_mi_revwar_finance.shtml