The war of words is a culture war. Two sides using the edifice of meaning to construct a language that serves their political means. As in any culture war, it is a battle not between values or ideologies, as these flimsy structures rarely actually venture out of philosophical treatises. But instead, it's a battle of identities: the very construct of the political individual.
As part of this war, a new battlefield has arisen full of blood and tears. It's the very nature of the legal name of our country, the United States of America. Many contend that this name is, like our history, a product of jingoistic destruction and invasion that claims the entire mantel of a continent for our national recognition. I retort, yes, of course it is.
Instead of “America” and “American," these brave warriors contend that “US” and “USian” should be the official definitions that we as people (who live south of Canada and north of Mexico) should use to describe ourselves. To this I say, no, that’s dumb.
First off, “USian” is horribly idiotic as “US” refers to a political system, not a national designation. “United States” clearly refers to a specific style of government: a federal system of individual states that operate together in a cohesive political union. It does not refer to any one group of people or nations. It is a political title like “Republic of” or “Kingdom of.” To say “USian” is to say that the British are “UKians” or the Germans are “Federal Republicans.” Pretty absurd, right? Not to mention, the other nations that use the United States title as their government such as Mexico. Are Mexicans now to be called “USians” too?
Second off, those who propose the use of the term “USian” are confusing a geographical construct with a national one. America is not a continent. North and South America are indeed continents. America is a nation: a collection of people united by culture, geography, religion, language, or history. Confusing our nation-state with that of the geographical construct of the Americas built largely out of the backyard of late day empires is absurd. It would be like saying that South Africa should call itself “RSAians (Republic of South Africa)” because there is a geographical construct of South Africa. Should both Koreas change their names as well since there is a Korean Peninsula? Geographical context can inform a national designation, but the two aren’t incompatible. You can have a nation named after its geographical location.
There is an old saying that meaning emerges out of use. If we use a specific word for something, then that’s what the word refers to. By confusing the context in which we use specific words and ignoring the slew of absurd ramifications that result from our good intentions, we doom to bastardize our modes of communication. Not to mention, our attempts to recognize genocide and imperialism run deeper than using different words. Just saying “USian” won’t restore the lost Native American tribes run over by the West. It won’t reverse the horrible destruction of African culture and sovereignty by white colonial powers. It will just make you look like someone who doesn’t understand how maps work.
