Yea, it's as silly as a country claiming to be the "United States of America" when lol, Canada and Mexico and all of South America would like a word...
I eventually figured out that this is largely an issue with terminology.
In Central/South America, it's generally taught that everything from Nunavut to Cape Horn is a single continent, America. When the US calls itself "America," that's seen as a deliberate attempt to claim primacy over the whole continent.
In English-speaking North America, it's generally taught that "America" is the country and "North America/South America" are the continents, so we're befuddled by the irritation.
This is why Canada, actually, doesn't appear to have an issue with the "America" thing.
>in English-speaking North America, it's generally taught that "America" is the country and "North America/South America" are the continents
aaaaaand you don't see any problem here, no?
Let's try again. With that logic, there'd be no problem with Germany calling itself "Europe":
"What's the problem? When we say 'Europe', we mean our home country, a large part of the region known as 'Western Europe', and disjoint from 'Eastern Europe' - everybody here is befuddled by why the Greeks are upset! The Austrians are totally on board with it, by the way."
However, United States of America does not claim in this situation historical figures of Canada, Mexico and rest of South America to be U.S.A. nationals, or publish maps with its aspired borders including Quebec or Mexico City. For instance, they claimed that Simon Bolivar was U.S. national.
The situation is way more complicated than people expect or are comfortable with. I am not objective in this situation to give you a full analysis, but I would suggest if you want to have a full picture to start by looking at Balkan Wars to get an idea about the imperialistic dreams of each country in the area and the events. WWI shows how things evolved afterwards. Just checking the alliances is enough.
Then read about WWII specifically in that area and about Josip Broz Tito [0] (for starters) and dig in why he introduced new history and an identity and what were the political aspirations after WWII and why Yugoslavia was created and the naming of its regions.
I tried to give an objective guide to read the situation. Again personally I am perhaps not objective, as I have a stake in the situation.
Except, lol, it’s the reverse of the Macedonia-Greece issue: the US was the only recognized independent state in the Americas when they chose their name. If “Canada and Mexico and all of South America would like a word” they should invest in time machines.
No, I don't see how you think it's opposite. Macedonia is a name for a large area. FYROM/Northern Macedonia is being used to name a country that takes up only part of this area. Similarly, the Americas are two continents, and USA is being used to name a country that takes up only part of this area. Neither the USA nor FYROM are granted any claim to the rest of their nominal superset.
PhasmaFelis|7 years ago
In Central/South America, it's generally taught that everything from Nunavut to Cape Horn is a single continent, America. When the US calls itself "America," that's seen as a deliberate attempt to claim primacy over the whole continent.
In English-speaking North America, it's generally taught that "America" is the country and "North America/South America" are the continents, so we're befuddled by the irritation.
This is why Canada, actually, doesn't appear to have an issue with the "America" thing.
romwell|7 years ago
aaaaaand you don't see any problem here, no?
Let's try again. With that logic, there'd be no problem with Germany calling itself "Europe":
"What's the problem? When we say 'Europe', we mean our home country, a large part of the region known as 'Western Europe', and disjoint from 'Eastern Europe' - everybody here is befuddled by why the Greeks are upset! The Austrians are totally on board with it, by the way."
eftychis|7 years ago
The situation is way more complicated than people expect or are comfortable with. I am not objective in this situation to give you a full analysis, but I would suggest if you want to have a full picture to start by looking at Balkan Wars to get an idea about the imperialistic dreams of each country in the area and the events. WWI shows how things evolved afterwards. Just checking the alliances is enough.
Then read about WWII specifically in that area and about Josip Broz Tito [0] (for starters) and dig in why he introduced new history and an identity and what were the political aspirations after WWII and why Yugoslavia was created and the naming of its regions.
I tried to give an objective guide to read the situation. Again personally I am perhaps not objective, as I have a stake in the situation.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josip_Broz_Tito
Sangermaine|7 years ago
newfoundglory|7 years ago