Grab Bag

Better get used to it. You guys don't like that, yet you blithely call British people "Brits" and/or call Britain 'England'. And that's just one example. (Here's another: calling anyone who has not got Old Glory sticking out their ass and tied to their dick a 'liberal'. This makes you a target for 'USian'.)

Even Michelle was finally proud to be an American - the night her husband was first nominated to be President.

So much for Affirmative Action.

it's been in use as a tag here for about a decade

not sure why you're just noticing the usage

or objecting to it

****, I may have to start reading jtt. Well, that'll pass.

the thing is that we have often agreed, and sometimes differed, he us much louder, but that I can't stand his battering of threads and posters, oh, an the US. I'm not a complete fan of the acts of my country, as anyone who has read me knows, but

Well, I'm still reading.

For now, I think we should keep our feet well away - which seems unlikely.

actually that's not right

the use of Usian predates the use of tags here

I can easily find threads back to 2006/2007 that use the word - including (oddly?) cooking discussions

I saw it in the late 1990s when I first started using the Web, but it has been around far longer. It was in HL Mencken's list of alternatives to 'American' proposed between 1798 and 1939: Columbian, Columbard, Fredonian, Frede, Unisian, United Statesian, Colonican, Appalacian, USian, Washingtonian, Usonian, Uessian, U-S-ian, Uesican, United Stater. Frank Lloyd Wright tried to popularise Usonian, without much success, as far as I can see, except in Esperanto, which calls the country Usono and the citizens Usonanoj. Some people suggest that USian is used to distinguish between inhabitants of the United States and other parts of the American continent, but I can see its attraction for those who want an English equivalent of 'Gringo'.

contrex hoisted:





Sorry , what was the question?

Oh yeah, you are correct they are undeserving.

I'm neither just noticing it nor objecting to it, and I'm not sure how you would conclude that I am.

ha!

your tone is as easy to read as Set's

sometimes I have to look around the house to be sure it's not him posting under your name

I would disagree with you there, but your assumptions are still wrong. The use of USians is not unknown to me, if for no other reason than I have been posting in this forum for years, and I don't object to it's usage (although I'm not particularly fond of the overwhelmingly consistent intent behind it).

What I'm really not sure of is why I feel the need to explain to you why I made the comment, but apparently I do.

JTT and I have developed a relationship over the last year or so, which is probably unique in terms of those he has with other members. I would not expect him to acknowledge this because he enjoys keeping me on, and maybe even at the top, of his list of lying, soulless A2K cowards. This not to suggest that we have anything like a relationship that could be described as cordial, or even marked by a mutual respect for one another's positions and while I think he does enjoy viewing me in the stark terms I've described, I'm not trying to suggest that he doesn't firmly believe they are accurate. As I said, it's a unique relationship that I wont attempt to define further.

This somewhat explains why I continue to engage him in discussion whether it be through one-liners or more substantive posts: Exhibit A

Be that as it may, it served my purposes to needle him about his obsessive hatred of America which he has ridiculously denied at times. "USians" was merely an opportunity that he presented me with.

yup

you're Set

I was going keep the following opinion to myself, but I've changed my mind.

Finn, you're one of the most civil members of this forum. (At least you've been civil to me.) I've enjoyed reading your posts, and I consider you to be an asset to this forum. You're clearly an intelligent, successful man. I'm surprised you're not a syndicated columnist. You'd be a good one.

As usual, the disclaimer (before I continue): If I were to be ideologically categorized, "early '60s liberal" would come closer to describing my political and social views more than anything else. But the political culture has changed since the time when I was a young man. I happen to be pro-life, and I don't support same-sex marriage -- positions which are anathema to today's left and, incidentally, account for my unpopularity in this forum. Anyone and everyone who doesn't support same-sex marriage is viewed as a hateful bigot who wants to hurt gay people. There's no room for nuances in politics. I'm not a supporter of President Obama; so, please don't go barking up that tree.

Now here's where I make you mad instead of people on the left. I suspect that McDaniel is a racist. Indeed, the political conservative movement has always had a white racist element in it. Always has and probably always will.

If I may digress for a moment, Senator Rand Paul's statements on race-related issues have to be some of the dopiest comments I've ever heard. "I would have marched with Martin Luther King Jr., but I would have opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act" (words to that effect). Oh, please! "The Republican Party has always been opposed to racism." A lie, and a big one at that. The truth of the matter is that the Republican Party turned its collective back to black freemen when Grant left the White House. Black Americans didn't have a friend in the White House until Truman became President. In that period of time lasting generations, both parties were steeped in racism. I could go on, but why bother talking about the lightweight (Rand Paul, that is) who doesn't seem to have a clue. Just another silly, conniving politician.

Just look at history. From the inception of the civil rights movement through the 1970s, the political conservative movement defended Jim Crow and consistently opposed the civil rights movement. (I'm referring to the leaders of the conservative movement -- not indivduals unknown to the public such as my dear, sweet mother-in-law, a Herbert Hoover Republican who was courageously condemning racial discrimination in Texas before there even was a civil rights movement. She certainly was not a typical conservative Republican.) It's a matter of record. Just look at William F. Buckley's record, for example.

In 1964 almost every single one of the Republican members who voted for the Civil Rights Act were moderates or liberals. Today there would be no room for them in the Republican Party. They would be denounced as RINOs.

In the years that followed, conservative Republicans recruited the white conservative Southern segregationist "Democrats." Actually, most of them didn't need to be recruited. They flocked to the Republican Party. (Incidentally, my wife was very much a Republican ever since she was a kid. But a few years ago she finally left the party and became an independent because of all the "Southern Democrats," as she called them, who had taken over her party.)

I could go on and on, but this post is already way too long, IMHP both of the major parties are royally messed up, but I have no answers. I fear for this country. I'm worried about our country's future. I fear we may be in store for some extremely rough times. I hope I'm proven wrong.

Finn, I'm not a debater. I shouldn't even be here. You're a nice guy, but I just don't want to play politics. Sorry. All I've done is to express my opinion, and I have nothing more to say.

I'm sure someone (not necessarily you, perhaps) will now make a snarky remark; but I won't read it. Good will to all, with malice toward none. But I'm tired physically and spiritually. . . .

I really couldn't care less whether or not someone uses the term "USian," although their usage is very often a reliable indicator of their general attitude towards The United States of America and Americans.

The term itself is not offensive, it's just plain silly and particularly so when the "U" and "S" are captitalized. I'm not sure why "Usians" is preferable to what would be the more accurate, "Usaians," but they are both absurd.

Notwithstanding the quixotic attempts of Mencken and Wright, the coinage of this term is based on the notion that Americans have, with their enduring pathological sense of self-importance, misappropriated the term "American" for self description, or (to be charitable) the foolish yet less acrimonious belief that there is actually some demographic or taxonomic confusion engendered by its use. Those who use the term are reflecting either their anti-American attitude or blithering inanity.

The fact of the matter is that the use of "America" in describing the citizens of the United States of America has been common practice for hundreds of years and adopted, without complaint, around the world. There are no other nations in the world that use "America" in their official name, and no other peoples ever expressed the deeply felt desire to use the term for self-description, if only those bullies in the Unites States of America hadn't seized it for themselves.

When someone in the UK refers to "Americans" no one genuinely wonders whether the person means people who live in the US, or actually Canadians, Mexicans, Chileans, Cost Ricans or any other peoples living in North or South America. If they are genuinely confused by the usage, they alas are probably also confused by dogs barking and the color of the sun.

The continents related to the matter are called North America and South Americas, not America 1 and America 2, and Americans make no greater claim for describing themselves as North American than might Canadians or Mexicans. While the term The Americas is used to refer to both continents, the nations of "Central America" and various island nations within the region, this has not created any credible source of confusion, nor does it offer credible proof that Americans have misappropriated the term either.

What is amusingly ironic about the choice of USian to reflect an essentially anti-American sentiment, is that while no other nation utilizes "America" in it's name, America is not the only one to use "United States"

Mexico's offical name is Estados Unidos Mexicanos, and as many as 10 governed entities have, at one time or the other, used the term "United States" in their official name, including Columbia , Indonesia, Brazil and Belgium. Therefore if any term might lead to "confusion" it would be "United States" and not "America."

So no, I don't dislike the term or find it offensive, I just think it is ridiculous and a particularly fatuous way to express the resentment, envy or contempt that is most often behind anti-American sentiment.

As for use of the term "Brit," if it's generally thought to be considered offensive by the British people, that's news to me, as I'm sure it would be to the Brits I know personally who also use it and to the considerable number of Brits, whom I don't know, but I have heard or read their usage of the term. Never-the-less, if I was convinced that a fair amount of the British found the term offensive, I would cease using it as it's never been my intent to use it in a perjorative sense, anymore than I think most Brits use "Yanks" as a pejorative.

I am certain as well that just about no one in America intends offense when they refer to Britain as England. (I hesitate to use the absolute "no one" in instances like this because as soon as I do, someone pops in with a link to a crack-pot website as evidence otherwise). It's a common and understandable error, and to be offended by it is too reveal the same thinness of skin possessed by say a Texan taking umbrage at a Brit referring to Texas as part of the South.

Not surprisingly, you continue to mistakenly infer that the Pew survey, the article presenting its results, my inclusion of it in this thread, and my comments define liberals as having no pride in or love for their country and assert that the only proof of such pride or love is ostentatious expressions of patriotism.

As I have already indicated in a reply to osso, if I had participated in the Pew survey I would have answered "no" to the question of whether or not I often felt proud to be an American, and since I know I don't question the degree of pride and love I have for my country, it would be difficult to do so with anyone else who answered "no" whether or not they could be described as a "Solid Liberal"

I take issue with a lot of positions held by those who I consider liberals (or progressives if they prefer), but not with the sincerity or nature of their patriotism or love of country. I think it's absurd to suggest that liberals hate America or that their positions are in any way traitorous, and you won't find anything in this thread to even suggest that I don't.

I understand that some Brits find American displays of patriotism (at levels far less intense than those you've so cutely described) to be irritating. I really don't understand why anyone in the UK would, reasonably, care how ostentatious American expressions of patriotism may be, but I certainly don't swallow nonsense about how it's some sort of worrisome indication of a dangerously aggressive nationalism. Barrack Obama, early on, took to refusing to place his hand over his heart during the playing of our national anthem (he since has changed his ways as apparently political optics are more important to him than any principle he was trying to demonstrate with the practice) and I doubt very many people in the UK, or anywhere, see him as someone, who on July 4th has a flag sticking out of his ass or tied to his dick. Yet he is responsible a significant increase in the usage of unmanned drone attacks against foreign nationals in foreign lands and often without the permission of the foreign governments. If this isn't behavior ripe for an accusation of American arrogance, I don't know what is.

Since "USians" is employed by a select few, and I find it laughable, in any case, I don't think I'm going to take your admonition that I had better get used to it to heart. That you consider me a target for the use of USian and that it is an attractive equivalent of Gringo only confirms what I knew about the term. It also confirms that you're an obnoxious jackass, whether that's a Brit, Britisher, Briton, Brittinculi, Tommy, Pom, Inselaffe, Limey, English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, Rosbif, Anglik, Rooinek, Khaki, Soutie, Angrez, Englandi, Yeongguk, Sassenach, Les Goddams, Chinless Wonder, Crumpet Stuffer, Fog Horn, Teabag, Feb or just plain British obnoxious jackass

Of course she might have responded to the survey with "Hell no!"

In fact, that's the only way I have ever heard it used. Always with the pretense of it being an enlightened and clarifying term of endearment. Since every one knows exactly which country is home to Americans, it clarifies exactly nothing. In any case, if Asians prefer to be referred to as Asians instead of Orientals, I am comfortable of saying 'Asians' unless I am speaking of a specific country. To do otherwise is offensive as those who insist on 'Usians'.

To me "pride" is just a self-absorbed emotion. I think of myself as lucky to be an American. I am lucky to be an American because except for a few other western nations, me and my family could have a life that would have tremendous limitations, not to mention a lack of many of the benefits of living in the U.S., such as knowing that the females in my family, now and in the future, have a better society than many other cultures to be optimizing their intelligence.

Really?

Many in the U.S. know that all British are not English; however, in my opinion, the English are the Brits that managed the island during the days of its Empire, and therefore get the credit for all that is good about Britain (i.e., the language, the manners, the compendium of Commonwealth countries, the Royalty). It's all bloody English, old chap!

Well, not proud, but I was thankful that our President was married to an American with roots in the country.