> Not surprisingly, the notion that America was named for Vespucci has long been universally accepted, so much so that a lineal descendant, America Vespucci, came to New Orleans in 1839 and asked for a land grant "in recognition of her name and parentage."
I found this little aside in the opening paragraph interesting. Who did she ask? And was she successful?
A quick google search didn’t turn up much about America Vespucci. I did find one article about her that makes her sound very interesting [1], but no mention of the above request. I’m guessing from the way she moved around after 1839 her request was not granted, though.
There doesn't seem to be a ton of information easily accessible about America Vespucci, but this [1] except from the Washington Democratic Review for February 1839 notes the following:
> The object for which she had specially come to America, was to obtain, if possible, a grant of land from the Congress of the United States, as a means of honourable and independent support and the failure of her application, as well as the grounds on which it was deemed necessary to decline compliance with the request, are fully and fairly stated in the following Report made to the Senate of the United States, by Mr. Walker, of Mississippi.
Where a report names that she seems to be worth of the name, but fails to mention any actual land grant, which I would assume is a nice way to say no.
> She feels that the name she bears is a prouder title than any that earthly monarchs can bestow; She asking us for a small corner of American soil, where she may pass the remainder of her days in this land of her adoption. She comes here as an exile, separated for ever from her family and friends; a stranger, without a country and without a home; expelled from her native Italy, for the avowal maintenance of opinions favourable to free institutions, and an ardent desire for the establishment of her country's freedom. That she indeed is worthy of the name of America —that her heart is indeed imbued with American principles, and fervent love for human liberty, is proved in her case, by toils, and perils, and sacrifices, worthy Of the proudest days of antiquity, when the Roman and the Spartan matrons were ever ready to surrender life in their country's service.
It's not particularly rigorous in places. One that I'm familiar with is the names: German "Amal-" is completely unrelated to Latin "[A]emil-". And for both of them the original meaning is at best suspected, not "known".
"America" is the only name the country has. Other countries are also called "United States of $FOO", so the USA does not own title to "United States" in the same way no one owns "Democratic Republic" as the name of their country.
Regardless, in most languages and countries, it is just "America" so that ship has sailed. Either way, America or United States, everyone knows which country is being referenced.
The name of the country seems to be the equivalent of either "United States" or "United States of America" in pretty much every language I can read. "America" is an informal name people usually understand, much in the same way they understand when you call the UK "England".
America being the name of the country isn't a problem, the problem is the people from this country calling Americans "latinos". Or Native-Americans, or Whatever-Americans because the only Americans are themselves.
The main reason people call themselves $HYPHENATION-americans is because they want some free stuff from the government for their particular $HYPHENATION
The source of this terminology difference is that continents have no universal definition, only societal convention. Romance language–speaking countries tend to teach the six‐continent model with a single America, whereas Anglophone countries like the UK, Australia, and USA teach the seven‐continent model with North and South America. Neither side is wrong, since there’s no universally agreed upon idea of what the continents are, only convention (and neither convention matches the current geological consensus either). The equivalent term to Spanish “America” in English is “the Americas,” not “America.” My Brazilian friends consider themselves “American,” but I’ve never met a Canadian who did.
That's fine. You have your terminology and others have theirs.
It might (not) surprise you to learn that what I call Cyprus is called "Zypern" by Germans and there are a lot more copper related names for the place.
Closer to my home, what I call London is Londres in France and London in German. The city in question was named by a bunch of what would become Italians (Romans) - Londinium was named by a murderous bunch of colonial invaders.
I have insinuated an awful lot from your comment and "replied" to those insinuations as best I can.
I am somebody and I use the term America routinely to describe the USA and the term Americas for the entire continent. North America is US + CA and Southern America is Brazil, Argentina, Peru, Paraguay, Chile, Uruguay and ... oh there are rather a lot more. There is also Central America which is the countries that join the north to the south.
I get that you have an axe to grind about which America is which and who owns which name. I have some sympathy for Brazil getting pissed off about Amazon (the company) too.
I try to understand all points of view - its quite interesting.
> I have some sympathy for Brazil getting pissed off about Amazon (the company) too.
I never met a Brazilian that cares about it tho. There was a big national uproar a few decades ago when some Japanese company tried to patent the use of the Açaí fruit and trademark.
now about America and Americans. South Americans and North Americans are as much "Americans" as Northern and Southern Europeans are Europeans. Calling themselves THE Americans and the rest latinos (what do they call Canadians? I guess just Canadians) lowers our history and culture. North-Americans or US-Americans or whatever-Americans shouldn't be the ones defining who is American, who is Latino-American, who is Native-American, Afro-American. Not surprising, there isn't a Euro-American tag.
>Calling themselves THE Americans and the rest latinos
"Latinos" are what Spanish and (to a much lesser extent) Portuguese-speaking people living in the USA call themselves (and their relatives still living in other Latin-American countries). They seem to prefer it to "Hispanics". And the term only applies to people speaking Latin-derived languages (i.e., Spanish and Portuguese). So the people living in Belize, for instance, are not "Latinos" at all.
Similarly, African-Americans were named that way by themselves, to distinguish themselves from the majority white Americans, since they had a very different and unique culture and history. It wasn't some kind of pejorative they were stuck with by outsiders; they came up with it on their own because they were tired of being called "negroes", "colored", or much worse.
You seem to have a very warped perception of who thinks what, and as the other poster said, you obviously have an ax to grind.
People in the USA are called "Americans" because it's (part of) the name of their country, and there's no other convenient and pronounceable demonym to describe them, and there's no other country in the world that has the word "America" in it.
The name of our country is the United States of America. Sometimes we call it the US, or United States, sometimes we call it America.
Much as yours is called la República Federativa do Brasil, which you call Brasil for short. Do you ever call it the RF I wonder? Real question, I have no idea.
Whatever you call America, the country, in your language, that's up to you. The Chinese call us 美國, the few of us aware of that are not even slightly bothered by it. Your language, your rules.
You have no right, and no ability, to dictate to Americans how we refer to ourselves and our nation, in our main (but not official) language. We do not care what your name for us is, and we do not care at all what you think about how we refer to ourselves.
For the record, in America we do not think of the Americas as one continent, but rather, two. So Brazilians, as we style you, are South American. Canadians, Mexicans, and Americans, are North Americans. If we need for some reason to refer to the people of both continents we might say "people of the Americas" but this doesn't come up much, just as we might say "Old Worlders" to refer to the megacontinent of Europe, Asia, and Africa.
The chip you carry around on your shoulder does you no credit at all. The notion that because we use a word in the name of our nation to refer to ourselves in some way denigrates the other inhabitants of the two continents, North and South America, which happen to share that word with the name of our nation...
That is 100% a you problem, not an us problem, and not a US problem. Get over it. Or don't.
“Why Do We Call It 'America'?" [C]. American Heritage 68.7.”
That links to an essay at https://www.americanheritage.com/why-do-we-call-it-america which says in an editor’s note that “Portions of this essay originally appeared in The American Voice.” The americanheritage.com version looks very similar to this one.
I agree it seems unlikely. On the other hand there’s a reference to “ the current (fifth) edition of Webster's New World College Dictionary” and that seems to be from 2016 - so perhaps the article was mostly done in the late eighties / early nineties but got some updates here and there.
> Not surprisingly, the notion that America was named for Vespucci has long been universally accepted, so much so that a lineal descendant, America Vespucci, came to New Orleans in 1839 and asked for a land grant "in recognition of her name and parentage."
I found this little aside in the opening paragraph interesting. Who did she ask? And was she successful?
A quick google search didn’t turn up much about America Vespucci. I did find one article about her that makes her sound very interesting [1], but no mention of the above request. I’m guessing from the way she moved around after 1839 her request was not granted, though.
[1] https://jeffcowiki.miraheze.org/wiki/Marie_Helene_America_Ve...
There doesn't seem to be a ton of information easily accessible about America Vespucci, but this [1] except from the Washington Democratic Review for February 1839 notes the following:
> The object for which she had specially come to America, was to obtain, if possible, a grant of land from the Congress of the United States, as a means of honourable and independent support and the failure of her application, as well as the grounds on which it was deemed necessary to decline compliance with the request, are fully and fairly stated in the following Report made to the Senate of the United States, by Mr. Walker, of Mississippi.
Where a report names that she seems to be worth of the name, but fails to mention any actual land grant, which I would assume is a nice way to say no.
> She feels that the name she bears is a prouder title than any that earthly monarchs can bestow; She asking us for a small corner of American soil, where she may pass the remainder of her days in this land of her adoption. She comes here as an exile, separated for ever from her family and friends; a stranger, without a country and without a home; expelled from her native Italy, for the avowal maintenance of opinions favourable to free institutions, and an ardent desire for the establishment of her country's freedom. That she indeed is worthy of the name of America —that her heart is indeed imbued with American principles, and fervent love for human liberty, is proved in her case, by toils, and perils, and sacrifices, worthy Of the proudest days of antiquity, when the Roman and the Spartan matrons were ever ready to surrender life in their country's service.
[1] http://portraits.allenbrowne.info/Vespucci/Buckingham/
Interesting that the article is so rigorous/long even though there turns out to be clear historical evidence showing where the name came from.
It's not particularly rigorous in places. One that I'm familiar with is the names: German "Amal-" is completely unrelated to Latin "[A]emil-". And for both of them the original meaning is at best suspected, not "known".
A less rigorous but more entertaining treatment of this topic is available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfXoUaeLcDU
Intersting. In Brazil we argue that the US isn't America. Great to know that Brazil was first called America, not the US :)
"America" is the only name the country has. Other countries are also called "United States of $FOO", so the USA does not own title to "United States" in the same way no one owns "Democratic Republic" as the name of their country.
Regardless, in most languages and countries, it is just "America" so that ship has sailed. Either way, America or United States, everyone knows which country is being referenced.
The name of the country seems to be the equivalent of either "United States" or "United States of America" in pretty much every language I can read. "America" is an informal name people usually understand, much in the same way they understand when you call the UK "England".
England is not the UK.
I think that's the point?
Calling the UK “England” is a different class of error, though. England is a part of the UK.
Analogous would be calling the USA “Texas”.
Calling the UK “Britain” is a much more direct comparison.
United States of America -> America
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland -> Britain
America being the name of the country isn't a problem, the problem is the people from this country calling Americans "latinos". Or Native-Americans, or Whatever-Americans because the only Americans are themselves.
The main reason people call themselves $HYPHENATION-americans is because they want some free stuff from the government for their particular $HYPHENATION
What free stuff do Jewish Americans, Italian Americans, Asian Americans, get?
Brazil? Do you mean the Federative Republic?
The USA, you mean?
Nobody would be taken seriously calling the US "America" in South America.
The source of this terminology difference is that continents have no universal definition, only societal convention. Romance language–speaking countries tend to teach the six‐continent model with a single America, whereas Anglophone countries like the UK, Australia, and USA teach the seven‐continent model with North and South America. Neither side is wrong, since there’s no universally agreed upon idea of what the continents are, only convention (and neither convention matches the current geological consensus either). The equivalent term to Spanish “America” in English is “the Americas,” not “America.” My Brazilian friends consider themselves “American,” but I’ve never met a Canadian who did.
That's fine. You have your terminology and others have theirs.
It might (not) surprise you to learn that what I call Cyprus is called "Zypern" by Germans and there are a lot more copper related names for the place.
Closer to my home, what I call London is Londres in France and London in German. The city in question was named by a bunch of what would become Italians (Romans) - Londinium was named by a murderous bunch of colonial invaders.
I have insinuated an awful lot from your comment and "replied" to those insinuations as best I can.
I am somebody and I use the term America routinely to describe the USA and the term Americas for the entire continent. North America is US + CA and Southern America is Brazil, Argentina, Peru, Paraguay, Chile, Uruguay and ... oh there are rather a lot more. There is also Central America which is the countries that join the north to the south.
I get that you have an axe to grind about which America is which and who owns which name. I have some sympathy for Brazil getting pissed off about Amazon (the company) too.
I try to understand all points of view - its quite interesting.
Mexico is part of North America, interesting you left it out.
> I have some sympathy for Brazil getting pissed off about Amazon (the company) too.
I never met a Brazilian that cares about it tho. There was a big national uproar a few decades ago when some Japanese company tried to patent the use of the Açaí fruit and trademark.
now about America and Americans. South Americans and North Americans are as much "Americans" as Northern and Southern Europeans are Europeans. Calling themselves THE Americans and the rest latinos (what do they call Canadians? I guess just Canadians) lowers our history and culture. North-Americans or US-Americans or whatever-Americans shouldn't be the ones defining who is American, who is Latino-American, who is Native-American, Afro-American. Not surprising, there isn't a Euro-American tag.
>Calling themselves THE Americans and the rest latinos
"Latinos" are what Spanish and (to a much lesser extent) Portuguese-speaking people living in the USA call themselves (and their relatives still living in other Latin-American countries). They seem to prefer it to "Hispanics". And the term only applies to people speaking Latin-derived languages (i.e., Spanish and Portuguese). So the people living in Belize, for instance, are not "Latinos" at all.
Similarly, African-Americans were named that way by themselves, to distinguish themselves from the majority white Americans, since they had a very different and unique culture and history. It wasn't some kind of pejorative they were stuck with by outsiders; they came up with it on their own because they were tired of being called "negroes", "colored", or much worse.
You seem to have a very warped perception of who thinks what, and as the other poster said, you obviously have an ax to grind.
People in the USA are called "Americans" because it's (part of) the name of their country, and there's no other convenient and pronounceable demonym to describe them, and there's no other country in the world that has the word "America" in it.
The name of our country is the United States of America. Sometimes we call it the US, or United States, sometimes we call it America.
Much as yours is called la República Federativa do Brasil, which you call Brasil for short. Do you ever call it the RF I wonder? Real question, I have no idea.
Whatever you call America, the country, in your language, that's up to you. The Chinese call us 美國, the few of us aware of that are not even slightly bothered by it. Your language, your rules.
You have no right, and no ability, to dictate to Americans how we refer to ourselves and our nation, in our main (but not official) language. We do not care what your name for us is, and we do not care at all what you think about how we refer to ourselves.
For the record, in America we do not think of the Americas as one continent, but rather, two. So Brazilians, as we style you, are South American. Canadians, Mexicans, and Americans, are North Americans. If we need for some reason to refer to the people of both continents we might say "people of the Americas" but this doesn't come up much, just as we might say "Old Worlders" to refer to the megacontinent of Europe, Asia, and Africa.
The chip you carry around on your shoulder does you no credit at all. The notion that because we use a word in the name of our nation to refer to ourselves in some way denigrates the other inhabitants of the two continents, North and South America, which happen to share that word with the name of our nation...
That is 100% a you problem, not an us problem, and not a US problem. Get over it. Or don't.
Anybody know the year of this essay? I put 2001 above because it's the latest date I could find in the text.
Might be 2023. A look through the author’s list of publications (https://www.jonathancohenweb.com/jc-pubs.html) gives a citation under 2023:
“Why Do We Call It 'America'?" [C]. American Heritage 68.7.”
That links to an essay at https://www.americanheritage.com/why-do-we-call-it-america which says in an editor’s note that “Portions of this essay originally appeared in The American Voice.” The americanheritage.com version looks very similar to this one.
I guess that's the best evidence we have so I went with 2023 above. Thanks!
(Seems likely to me that it was written earlier, or the most recent reference wouldn't have been 2001, but that's only a hunch.)
I agree it seems unlikely. On the other hand there’s a reference to “ the current (fifth) edition of Webster's New World College Dictionary” and that seems to be from 2016 - so perhaps the article was mostly done in the late eighties / early nineties but got some updates here and there.
1988 according to Google Scholar.
https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=related:KEG9SnudRCsJ:...
At the bottom of the article it says “An early version of this essay appeared in The American Voice (1988) and a section in Encounters (1991).”
I think they know, but the problem is that they wouldn't be able to cite 2001 in 1991/1988.