this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2025
66 points (93.4% liked)

Asklemmy

49226 readers
1382 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

From Spain here, when we want to speak about USA people we use the term "yankee" or "gringo" rather than "american" cause our americans arent from USA, that terms are correct or mean other things?

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

Its my understanding that in Spanish, "American" refers to anyone from the Americas. In some languages/countries, the Americas are taught as 1 continent (Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, Antarctica, and America), so a person from any country in the Americas would be called "American".

In most English speaking countries, we are taught that there are 7 continents, and north and south America are separate continents. In that context, you wouldn't really use a term to refer to people from both continents. It's similar to how, as a spaniard, I could not call you "eurasian", i would just say "european". In English, you would then have to refer to people as either "north american" or "south american".

In practice, we do refer to people from south America as "south american", but north america usually gets divided into "central american" and "caribbean", which only leaves the US, Canada, and Mexico.

People from Mexico and Canada have obvious demonyms, while the USA does not. "Gringo" also applies to Canadians (and it's specifically referring to non-spanish speaking european americans), so it doesn't really work as a demonym. "Yankee" doesn't really work, either, because it only applies to a subset of people from the US, so it's similar to calling everyone from Great Britain "English".

I haven't met any primarily English speaking residents of the americas with any problem with people from the US being called "american".

[โ€“] leaky_shower_thought@feddit.nl 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

imo, 'gringo' has no special meaning unless it was given one from a local group. like how "let's go brandon" only makes sense on a specific group.

'yankee' used to have a specific one before, i.e. north-eastern US bros, but it got saturated and now could be used generally. imo, 'yankee' usage has ye olde vibe to it, but maybe that's just me.

EDIT: corrected 'southern', thanks to Denvil

[โ€“] Denvil@lemmy.one 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

thanks! missed that one.

[โ€“] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[โ€“] jenesaisquoi@feddit.org 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

We say "USA" for the country and "US-American" for the people. Those arrogantly misusing the name of the continent can get rekt.

[โ€“] dessalines@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago

Usonian also works.

[โ€“] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Do you not have a term in Spanish?

If y'all use yank, yankee, or gringo, they're all fine.

But, American is fine too. If you're using English, everyone will know what you mean. It isn't like it hasn't been the term used in English for at least a century.

Here the thing. If you're referring to someone from one of the two/three americas, you specify north, central and south. That depends a little on whether you consider all three as discrete areas, or not, but that's the norm in English.

If you want to refer to all people from the americas at once, Americans is also fine. Context will carry which way you're using it. English is fairly easy to make contextual indicators like that.

An example: "oh, Americans love their flag". Which americans are we talking about? The ones with a specific American flag. Which, the statement isn't universally true, it's just an example.

If you aren't using English, it doesn't matter at all, use whatever terminology is the norm in that language.

The reason it doesn't matter is that there really isn't an "American" people in the continental sense. The cultures of the continents don't even have a unifying effect, though you do have some connection between Spanish speaking vs Portuguese, vs native, vs English, etc. The language links in South America are much more significant than the fact that they live on the same continent.

Any time you'd be referring to the entire Americas, or the peoples of them, you'd specify that because there's not a single American continent.

One nation out of all of them being america really isn't a difficulty in conversation. It's a non issue.

[โ€“] dessalines@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Most americans, the majority of whom don't live in the US, dislike the usurpation of that term. There's a longer history starting in the late 1800s of US politicians using "america", "greater america", to coincide with its imperial ambitions in Latin america and the carribean.

The USA even had a time when it had more people in its colonies living outside its contiguous borders, than it did inside.

There's a lot on this in the book, how to hide an empire.

[โ€“] throwback3090@lemmy.nz 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Sounds like that fight was lost 100 years ago.

[โ€“] dessalines@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago

Not really. Most americans aren't native english speakers, and still consider themselves americans. They don't roll over and let the US coopt that term.

[โ€“] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That has very little to do with the topic, which is colloquial language as it exists now, compared and contrasted between English and Spanish in specific.

And, tbh here, if you wanna talk populations, brazil is half the population of South America. And that total is still only 100million higher than the US. Since we're talking about mainly Spanish and English here, you can decide if you want brazil included or not, but even that's still not some kind of crazy difference.

Since Canada and Mexico are the other parts of North America, and don't generally give a flying fuck about the terminology, are we going to include them in the count too? Like, the Mexicans I know use their own Spanish terms for Americans, sometimes even when speaking English.

Like, dude, I get it, you wanna link everything into colonialism and imperialism, which is fine. But let's not pretend that Americans hasn't been the term used in English across the world for damn near as long as the US has existed. It was what, 1788? 1789? That one of the French diplomats used it in writing the first time? Might have been before that, but that's the one I remember. The term was certainly in use before that.

Now, using "Americans" to refer to everyone over here did exist before the U.S., going back to at least the 1500s. I think that was only in use in English, I've never looked up what was used in French and Spanish back then. But since the USA came into being as country, it has been the default term for US citizens colloquially.

Even some of the other languages use variations of it. There's Mexicans and Nicaraguans at least that use Americanos rather than other terms. I swear the Guatemalans near here default to that as well, when they aren't using gringo or race specific terminology, but I don't have as much interaction with them.

All of which goes back to the point that the whining about it online is a fairly recent thing, and it was definitely not a thing back far as the nineties irl for the general population. That may be biased by my exposure to Latinos being almost exclusively people that live here, rather than visitors.

If people wanna try to shift language into something else, all it takes is coming up with a replacement term that's not unwieldy or stupid sounding (like usians), then getting people to use it.

But nobody has come up with a realistic english replacement. Usians isn't going to happen. You might run into it online because it's easier to type, but you won't see it used in speech because it sounds stupid. It would be like calling brits ukians.

Hell, go find something in another language, English is great at adopting words. Beikoku-jin (japanese) or Usanano (Esperanto) are cool as hell, flow off the tongue, and beikoku would definitely get the weebs on board. Give it a go, see what happens.

[โ€“] dessalines@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Now, using "Americans" to refer to everyone over here did exist before the U.S., going back to at least the 1500s. I think that was only in use in English, I've never looked up what was used in French and Spanish back then. But since the USA came into being as country, it has been the default term for US citizens colloquially.

Confidently wrong. US leaders didn't start referring to its citizens as americans or its country as america until ~1900.

I know you won't read the book I linked, and are going off of white-supremacist vibes, so here's an article for everyone else about the history of this imperialist usage.

load more comments (5 replies)
[โ€“] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

If I want to come off as a pseudo-intellectual I call them Yankee for east-north and Dixie for south-west (but also Florida and the bible belt) and gringo for hispanic Americans. I don't know if any of those terms are really correct to use in that context and my definitions are entirely vibes-based.

load more comments
view more: โ€น prev next โ€บ