Would you call someone from New Zealand " Australian" because they are part of the Australian continent? No. Because they are not from Australia. Its the same thing. That's why I like kiwis. They understand Canadians because they get the same thing.
But I'm done arguing this now. Because it is off topic.
Calling everyone from the Americas American is no more arbitrary than calling anyone from Asia Asian or anyone from Africa African.
Also, British DOES work. Great Britain is the name of an island off the northern coast of Europe. United Kingdom is the name of the nation.
This really doesn't mean anything. Calling them "The Americas" is essentially calling them by their "last name". If you went to visit Tom Parker, his wife Samantha, and their two children Sally and Bobby, you would say "I'm going to visit the Parkers." Since it's shorter. They are still separate entites, just Like North America and South America being separate continents.
Well put.
I hope I shall possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.
- George Washington
Some would consider them british others would consider them Irish (Northern Ireland), Welsh or Scottish and some would be offended by be named british but not everybody.
The continent is called the Oceania not Australia so calling them Austrialians in both accounts would be wrong. The problem is that your national identity has the same name as the continent which can seam arrogant especially when you take USA's foreign politics which at times has felt like USA feels there are the centrum of the Earth and other contries are of less worth than you. With your neighbour contries it feels like your are the big brother who has never grown up an been able to have a discussion with an equal part of respect. One american once told me that the american people felt a sadness that USA hasn't expanded since you got Alaska. Which seemed weird to me. Why do you need to expand where can you be big enough. Never got the answer for that question other than it was a part of the American identity and pride.
Europe, Asia, South America or the Oceania doesn't have a "United states of...." (and no European Union doesn't count since it is only or at least should be a closed marked for some European contries. It isn't a country with a government or citizenship). If I addressed the people from the continent I would addressed them as North Americans. However having a country named United States of America, when not every part of America is include seems rather dismissive to other American countries.
This is just wrong. First, America HAS expanded since we got Alaska. Hawaii is our 50th state, Alaska is our 49th State. We have not expanded since then (in terms of territory). Any American should know this. Second, even if this were true, one "American" does not speak for the whole country.
I hope I shall possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.
- George Washington
Well, he kind of included Alaska and Hawaii into the same concept. I remember him saying it was Alaska that was the last state but he probably said Hawaii . He still said that a lot (not every single American) Americans had a hard time coping that USA hadn't expanded for almost 50 years (as you can tell the stor has some years behind it). Expanding was in the country's DNA for such a long time. He wasn't speaking about as his opinion but as a part of the American psyche. There is a difference between the two.
If you want to take the debate further from here you can either make a new topic or send me a PM. Point is my story isn't a lie.