View the h-latam Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in h-latam's March 2002 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in h-latam's March 2002 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the h-latam home page.
Enviado el: jueves, 28 de marzo de 2002 03:52 A couple points: the term United Statian doesn't work well even in English (is that something like a statian wagon?). I have always used the term USers for citizens of the US in speaking, and then to modify some other word I follow the suggestion already made to call things "US economics," "US policy," etc. I never use the word American in writing because I think it is simply not specific, and I really hate to see it in a book title when US is meant. Especially when writing about the Wars of Independence or early national period, as others have pointed out, the term American was very often used by Latin Americans, so the historian uses it in that sense. Remember that the definition of "Mexican," "Peruvian," etc. took some time to develop after independence (assuming it did ever), and of course "Mexico" is not the name of that particular country formally anyhow. In formal documents in the colonial period the Spanish crown often referred to America Meridional and America Septentrional, but we can probably agree it is good that those terms did not become common usage. A second point: the rest of us will call the US and its citizens whatever we jolly well feel like calling them, so the debate does really only refer to self-definition. Nonetheless, self-definition is probably the most important kind. Isn't it, though, indicative of the hegemonic power that it simply assumes without checking that the rest of the world will adopt its own terms and definitions for itself? I hope you've noticed that doesn't always happen. Timothy E. Anna History Department University of Manitoba