Usage of the word "American"
- Thread starter t0rek
- Start date
smegforbrain
New member
2fast4u said:
I would say that it isn't so much the USA, as NAFA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and the EU, since the EU isn't a nation, per se, but more like a commonwealth.
Moose Jr.
Raging Moose
2fast4u said:
AFAIK, the EU is only economic in scope, so borders and passports are still very important to maintain national sovereignty (correct me if I'm wrong). in addition, the civil government of the U.S.A. would degenerate without borders, because of the higher and lower levels of legal jurisdiction assigned to the Federal and State governments, respectively.
I response to the first post: This sounds like a simple case of equating a word with a single interpretation, or non-deliberate equivocation (for lack of a better expression). With reference to international semantics, you are definitely American, since you live in Central America. But in the U.S.A., we use the term "American" freely to describe a socialized U.S. citizen. From what I could understand from your post, when you use the word "America", it's a regional term (North, Central, South America). When your friend used it, however, he was most likely referring to the first definition. In that case, it's not selfish, nor were his subsequent remarks even ethnocentric, for assuming that you are a native Central American, born and raised in Costa Rica, you're nearly bound to think differently that someone born in a different, far-away society.
2fast4u
New member
Moose Jr. said:
given the current state of the eu this is 100% correct. mind you there is no borders in europe besides for switzerland though. however the eu is becoming more than just a european free trade area. see consitution and eu army that is upcoming. however id be much more positive about this if they would finally get off their asses and educate their peoples about the content and what will actually change with the constitution, not just discussing it in private and over our heads. talk about elititsm...but im getting carried away. anyway, the idea behind the eu has always been a unified europe, in terms of econonomy, military and friendship between the peoples of our continent, i dont need to point out that this is a long way.
no arguments here.
sytaylor
Sy
There is a tight line between making travelling easy and denying soverignty, and most importantly culture. As Brits and westerners we're constantly lambasted for our history of tainting african cultures etc, why should we then do the same to ourselves?
We can live in peace together, while keeping an identity, as the world becomes smaller borders will diminish by themselves, there is no need to force the issue.
We can live in peace together, while keeping an identity, as the world becomes smaller borders will diminish by themselves, there is no need to force the issue.
madmonkeyboy
New member
there would be much more difference than just the second ammendment imho
including things like capital punishment and gun laws etc.
also i believe the situation in the E.U. will change in terms of borders when 10 eastern european countries join (and even more in the future) as there is a small immigration problem from these ex soviet states, removing some or all of these controls could be disasterous at this time with many western E.U. countries allready with high unemployment and government overspending.
btw the European defence force (as it is being called) is hottly contested by many people who think it would undermine N.A.T.O.
including things like capital punishment and gun laws etc.
also i believe the situation in the E.U. will change in terms of borders when 10 eastern european countries join (and even more in the future) as there is a small immigration problem from these ex soviet states, removing some or all of these controls could be disasterous at this time with many western E.U. countries allready with high unemployment and government overspending.
btw the European defence force (as it is being called) is hottly contested by many people who think it would undermine N.A.T.O.
I do not believe a EU and USA is the answer to the people of this planet, as this continues to perpetuate the "them"and "us" mentality.
If we all can start understanding and respect one another then maybe we as mankind stand a chance for survival in the future.
Perhaps we need to seriously look at ways of improving the UN for all our people.
If we all can start understanding and respect one another then maybe we as mankind stand a chance for survival in the future.
Perhaps we need to seriously look at ways of improving the UN for all our people.
AlphaWolf
I prey, not pray.
madmonkeyboy said:
Well, that was just a joke, but the US constitution doesn't specify capital punishment anywhere (actually the opposite, the eighth amendment strictly forbids cruel and unusual punishment), and "gun laws" are what the second amendment deals with.
Last edited:
Moose Jr.
Raging Moose
Briann said:
I guess you've been reading Thomas More...
In <I>reality</I>, a worldwide government today would be absolutely impossible. Unifying 200(?) nations and their respective customs, morals, religions, languages etc. would require a government of enormous proportions, with dictatorial powers. When that much power is centrally concentrated, as History tells us--most notably in the examples of Athens and Rome, or more recently Communist Russia, Germany, and (guess who) :saddam: --the results can be horrible.
sytaylor
Sy
2fast4u said:nothing of that is happening, its just a constant fear of yours. no one is taking british (or english
That strikes me as akin to saying, by taxing you more, you'll have more money. I cant see why anyone would want to identify themselves as european unless they felt it was the only way to counteract the sheer size of the USA. In doing so trying to proove two wrongs make a right and failing. (not that i have anything against the USA or its people).
sytaylor
Sy
Moose Jr. said:I guess you've been reading Thomas More...
In <I>reality</I>, a worldwide government today would be absolutely impossible. Unifying 200(?) nations and their respective customs, morals, religions, languages etc. would require a government of enormous proportions, with dictatorial powers. When that much power is centrally concentrated, as History tells us--most notably in the examples of Athens and Rome, or more recently Communist Russia, Germany, and (guess who) :saddam: --the results can be horrible.
Bingo, it would cause more conflict than it solved... people are different and forcing larger centralised powers on them wont change that. We have to work with out differences to live together, not pretend they dont exist and wave some concocted flag.
2fast4u
New member
sytaylor said:
interesting question. personally i cant see how you can identify yourself with the state you live in anyway. so the real question here should be: how can you identify yourself as english? once you answer that one, you already have the answer to your question.
sorry to answer your question with another question, but thats how life is
Moose Jr.
Raging Moose
2fast4u said:interesting question. personally i cant see how you can identify yourself with the state you live in anyway. so the real question here should be: how can you identify yourself as english? once you answer that one, you already have the answer to your question.
sorry to answer your question with another question, but thats how life is
One possible answer can be found in physical anthropology. You're English today if you descended from one or more of three Germanic tribes that settled in present-day England: the Angles, Jutes, or Saxons.
Another can be found in sociology. You belong to a society (such as the English society) if you belong to:
A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.* - (Dictionary.com)
And since a nation is nothing but:
A relatively large group (a society for example) of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country. - (Dictionary.com) (Parentheses mine)
<I>Sequitur</i>, to be "English", you can become a member of the English society as specified in the first definition, become a citizen of England by birth or immigration according to the second definition, or be English by heritage.
With reference to previous posts and the above definitions, this is where the EU can be dangerous to Europe's sovereign nations. If the EU assimilates too many of the distinguishing characteristics, shared institutions, and cultures of the nations that join it, they will be in effect creating a new nation with the result. I doubt that will happend anytime soon however, if the "English" have anything to say about it.
*Note: It seems to me that language falls into both the "shared institutions" and "common culture" categories. Keep this in mind.