Better Name for the U.S. and her states?

That's not a thing any American would call themselves. We don't need any "better" name America is ours everyone knows it's us we they talk about America. Saying we should feel somehow guilty about a name is laughable, if you're going to criticize America there are so many more real thing we have done worthy of complaint.

You're sort of missing the point, which is not whether we should want to change the name now or feel "guilty" about it, but whether a better name was available *in the eighteenth century.* (This goes as much for "United States" as for "America." George Stewart's argument that by putting "States" into the very name of the new country, the seeds of nullification and secession were sown, may overrate the importance of words, but it is not frivolous. And note John Calhoun's argument that slavery must be allowed in the territories: "How, then, do we stand in reference to this territorial question--this public domain of ours? Why, Sir, what is it? It is the common property of the States of this Union. They are called “the territories of the United States.” *And what are the “United States” but the States united?* [my emphasis--DT] Sir, these territories are the property of the States united; held jointly for their common use. And is it consistent with justice--is it consistent with equality, that any portion of the partners, outnumbering another portion, shall oust them of this common property of theirs--shall pass any law which shall proscribe the citizens of other portions of the Union from emigrating with their property to the territories of the United States?" http://www.founding.com/founders_library/pageID.2283/default.asp)

Alternate history includes all sorts of things we cannot change *now* (and wouldn't want to if we could) but which might have been done profitably in the past.
 
That's not a thing any American would call themselves. We don't need any "better" name America is ours everyone knows it's us we they talk about America. Saying we should feel somehow guilty about a name is laughable, if you're going to criticize America there are so many more real thing we have done worthy of complaint.

I agree with this. I'm as anti-nationalist as they come but the name thing is a non-starter in my book. I wonder if the EU evolved into a superstate would, say, the Swiss be equally huffy about a United States of Europe? Of all the unconscionable things that the US has done in Latin America this is the one that people get upset about? Honestly.

You're sort of missing the point, which is not whether we should want to change the name now or feel "guilty" about it, but whether a better name was available *in the eighteenth century.* (This goes as much for "United States" as for "America." George Stewart's argument that by putting "States" into the very name of the new country, the seeds of nullification and secession were sown, may overrate the importance of words, but it is not frivolous. And note John Calhoun's argument that slavery must be allowed in the territories: "How, then, do we stand in reference to this territorial question--this public domain of ours? Why, Sir, what is it? It is the common property of the States of this Union. They are called “the territories of the United States.” *And what are the “United States” but the States united?* [my emphasis--DT] Sir, these territories are the property of the States united; held jointly for their common use. And is it consistent with justice--is it consistent with equality, that any portion of the partners, outnumbering another portion, shall oust them of this common property of theirs--shall pass any law which shall proscribe the citizens of other portions of the Union from emigrating with their property to the territories of the United States?" http://www.founding.com/founders_lib...83/default.asp)

If this is the standard, the no, there wasn't really a better name available because there was no need for one. It's only an issue now because there are citizens of other independent countries in the Americas who want to use the term Americans as well. And there's really no reason they can't tbh, as in Spanish, I believe the term for USA persons is Estado Unidenses as opposed to Americanos.
 
Last edited:
I recall either reading or being told in lecture that the use of America for the country intended to also refer to the entire continent, as it was assumed all other colonies in the Americas would eventually rebel from their Metropole to join the USA. Whatever source this was, it implied that the original strain of Manifest Destiny was similar to the USSR idea of exporting the Communist Revolution, in that ideology of "For the people" would unite various different people. The Articles of Confederation had a clause that invited Canada to join at any time, reflecting the idea that early Americans saw the rebellion of other colonists as inevitable and wholly intended to unite the entirety of North and South after this/these revolutions, however not through annexation but by the different colonies applying for statehood in order to gain the rights afforded to the American people.

I do not know the source of this, so I may be recalling something I learned in High School and wasn't aware was bs at the time(25% of public history lessons). However it is an interesting idea if this was a mindset some people had at the time. If true, many would have thought the use of the name to be entirely proper as it was a reference to the USA being the first colony to shed it's Metropole and showed the nation's interest in freeing the rest of the continent from colonialist oppression.

And now that theory time is over we can quickly discuss how absolutely rediculous the idea that so many Spanish speaking Catholics would be interested in a union with English speaking Protestants, when Cath/Spanish would be majority and yet not a founding part of the country. The Spanish colonies weren't even interested in uniting with each other, and Haiti definelty threw a huge wrench in that idea.
 
Top