black@pundit.DEC (America first, without apologies.) (10/22/85)
>Subject: Re: State Terrorism (Extradition for What?) >Posted: 17 Oct 85 01:54:48 GMT > >> > an act of "state terrorism" by the US Government? By the US legal >> > system, these people were guilty of NO crimes, yet were adbucted >> > without the due process of the law being followed. Yes, they were. Piracy, kidnapping, assault, battery, and murder are the same in everybody's lawbook. Only the penalty differs. >> >> try them under local law. But I don't understand what legal basis >> Mr. Reagan could have for extradition of the hijackers to the U.S. I believe you're correct there. The incidents took place on a vessel of Italian registry, in Egyptian waters. Italy and Egypt share jurisdiction, even though an American citizen was murdered. Oleg Kiselev writes: >I have no love for Arabs in general... I fail to see what's so bad about Arabs in general. Prejudice isn't authorized. >or Palestinian terrorists in particular. Amen. >But isn't it an act of piracy by US to force down a plane over the international >waters? From what I know US had no warrant for the arrest of the hijackers, or >even a firm knowledge of their presence on the plane! The US fighter pilots were justified in their acts. If nothing else, they made a Citizens' Arrest of persons for which there was probable cause that they committed a felony crime. How did the pilots know the criminals were on board? Simple. They were tipped off by an informant, a procedure recognized by the courts as giving sufficient probable cause. A warrant is not necessary in a Citizen's Arrest. >The proper steps would be : > 1) Locate the body of the man killed by hijackers. Done. > 2) prove beyond any reasonable doubt the palestinians had commited a > murder. To be done by a court, not by the arresting authorities. > 3) await (and help with) the trial of hijackers by PLO; > 4) petition with Tunisia (?) and PLO for their extradition. Be serious. >I don't think any of these steps are realisticly possible. 1 and 2 obviously are. >And I think the only >thing better than force-landing the Egiptian plane would have been a commando >raid on the ship while it was still in the hands of terrorists. I suspect it probably was in the works. But a vessel is difficult at best to assault with any degreee of surprise, particularly when it is underway. Unless, of course, you propose nailing it with a torpedo. These terrorists are getting smarter and smarter. And they're going for larger, more difficult targets. What would have slowed them down is a contingent of Marines on the ship to begin with. But some things are just not practical. >But as it is -- US is in the wrong, ... Isn't that always the case? People cluck their tongues because a bunch of criminals commit piracy, kidnapping, assault and battery, murder, etc. Then when the US uses its power to bring the perpetrators to justice, the US gets defecated on. I guess you can't please everybody. >and I'd love to hear what the Soviets ar going to say about >all of this! Apparently somebody is using their people as targets, too. --Don Black "...dec-vax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pundit!black" VAXmail: PUNDIT::BLACK ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "...the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that dis- regards the Eternal Order of Rules and Right, which Heaven itself has ordained." --George Washington, First Inaugural Address, 1789 ================================================================================ Posted: Tue 22-Oct-1985 10:10 To: ROLL::RHEA::DECWRL::"net.politics"
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (10/23/85)
> >Subject: Re: State Terrorism (Extradition for What?) > >Posted: 17 Oct 85 01:54:48 GMT > > > > I fail to see what's so bad about Arabs in general. Prejudice isn't > authorized. > > >or Palestinian terrorists in particular. > I fail to see what's so bad about Americans in general. Why do Arab terrorists single them out for torture and murder.
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (10/24/85)
> > > > I fail to see what's so bad about Arabs in general. Prejudice isn't > > authorized. > > > > >or Palestinian terrorists in particular. > > > > I fail to see what's so bad about Americans in general. Why do Arab terrorists > single them out for torture and murder. Who arms Israel? There's your answer. (Let's leave out our peaceful occupation of Lebanon.) Note that I by no means condone terrorism, but it is easy to understand the well from which it springs. Another thing that's wrong with ``Amurcans'' is their amazing ethnocentrism, nationalisticly speaking. The word ``American'' refers to someone born in this hemisphere. Very little pisses off Latin Americans more than this simple word slip, by which the US helps to emphasize its hegemony in the West. In Spanish, there is a special word for citizens of the US, estadounidense (eh-sta-tho-ooni-then-se). jeff m
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Kenneth Ada Arromdee) (10/25/85)
In article <1587@uwmacc.UUCP> myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) writes: >Another thing that's wrong with ``Amurcans'' is their amazing ethnocentrism, >nationalisticly speaking. The word ``American'' refers to someone born in >this hemisphere. Very little pisses off Latin Americans more than this simple >word slip, by which the US helps to emphasize its hegemony in the West. > >In Spanish, there is a special word for citizens of the US, estadounidense >(eh-sta-tho-ooni-then-se). > >jeff m So what. There is a country called "Ecuador", which is Spanish for equator, but nobody accuses Ecuadorians of ethnocentricism for this. (There are other countries on the equator, too)... Or Colombia--named after Columbus ("Colon"), but Columbus didn't just discover one country; nobody calls this ethnocentricism either. Furthermore, at the time the US got its name, there were _no other_ independent countries in this hemisphere. So the name was not an affront to any other countries. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- If you know the alphabet up to 'k', you can teach it up to 'k'. Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (10/29/85)
> [jeff m] > Another thing that's wrong with ``Amurcans'' is their amazing ethnocentrism, > nationalisticly speaking. The word ``American'' refers to someone born in > this hemisphere. Very little pisses off Latin Americans more than this simple > word slip, by which the US helps to emphasize its hegemony in the West. > > In Spanish, there is a special word for citizens of the US, estadounidense > (eh-sta-tho-ooni-then-se). ------ Very little pisses me off more than the mindless anti-Americanism (excuse me, anti-Unitedstatesism) of jeff m. Has it occurred to him that there is no word in the English language for inhabitant of the United States other than American. I can understand how Latin Americans and Canadians might not like this, but it is a fact. I'll be damned if I'm going to call myself a Unitedstatesian (ugh!). It is unfortunate that the same word, American, has more than one meaning, but it takes someone like jeff m. to convert this into a sign of US hegemony over the West. Spare us. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (10/29/85)
In article <1587@uwmacc.UUCP> myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) writes: >Another thing that's wrong with ``Amurcans'' is their amazing ethnocentrism, >nationalisticly speaking. The word ``American'' refers to someone born in >this hemisphere. Very little pisses off Latin Americans more than this simple >word slip, by which the US helps to emphasize its hegemony in the West. > >In Spanish, there is a special word for citizens of the US, estadounidense >(eh-sta-tho-ooni-then-se). Yes, but there isn't any such word in English. What are we supposed to call ourselves? Statesmen? Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (10/30/85)
> ------ > Very little pisses me off more than the mindless anti-Americanism > (excuse me, anti-Unitedstatesism) of jeff m. Has it occurred to him that > there is no word in the English language for inhabitant of the United States > other than American. I can understand how Latin Americans and Canadians > might not like this, but it is a fact. I'll be damned if I'm going to > call myself a Unitedstatesian (ugh!). It is unfortunate that the same > word, American, has more than one meaning, but it takes someone like jeff m. > to convert this into a sign of US hegemony over the West. Spare us. > -- > Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan Sorry, Bill, just pointing out a feeling that's out there. You can choose to ignore it if you prefer, but it won't go away. US invasion or occupation of various Latin American countries tends to breed ill will. Nicaragua, occupied by Marines, 1912-1933 Guatemala, invaded by CIA sponsored contras, 1954, overthrowing the elected Arbenz government Cuba, 1963, Bay of Pigs Dominican Republic, 1968, elected government deposed by US military Chile, 1970-1973, CIA sponsoring of counter-revolutionary activities Puerto Rico, 1968-present, Navy occupation and bombardment of the island of Vieques, destroying fish and other national resources
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (10/30/85)
> ------ > Very little pisses me off more than the mindless anti-Americanism > (excuse me, anti-Unitedstatesism) of jeff m. Has it occurred to him that > there is no word in the English language for inhabitant of the United States > other than American. I can understand how Latin Americans and Canadians > might not like this, but it is a fact. I'll be damned if I'm going to > call myself a Unitedstatesian (ugh!). It is unfortunate that the same > word, American, has more than one meaning, but it takes someone like jeff m. > to convert this into a sign of US hegemony over the West. Spare us. > -- > Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan Sure, it's occured to me. In English I refer to myself as a US citizen, which has one more syllable than ``American.'' As I mentioned in my previous, less thought-out note, there are alot more people than just me who stress this sign of hegemony (a hegemony which is very real, and has more to do with guns than words). I have very few original ideas, being addicted to eclecticism. Many others have very few original ideas because they are addicted to dogmatism. Cheers, Jeffrey D. Myers
zimmerm@ccvaxa.UUCP (10/30/85)
We are the United States of America. We mearly indicate in our name where the majority of our holdings are. We are not America, there are many of them. The point is we as a nation believed ourselves to define what the americas should be ignoring the rest of the americas. Canadians are americans as are Columbians but they have developed expressions indicating one who is a citizen of that country, we have not because we think of ourselves as the Americans. It is interesting that we feel it is reasonable to call citizens of the USSR soviets but is not ok to call ourselves uniteds or some other word indicating our true nationality rather than our preferred geographical discriptor. Bruce Zimmerman ihnp4!uiuicdcs!ccvaxa!zimmerm
mcgeer@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer) (10/31/85)
In article <1606@uwmacc.UUCP> myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) writes: [on the deparadations by the United States of various Latin American nations] >Puerto Rico, 1968-present, Navy occupation and bombardment of the island > of Vieques, destroying fish and other national resources ^^^^^^^^ Good God, even Myers can't possibly believe this. The last time I looked, Puerto Rico was part of the United States -- proposed for statehood by at least one US President (Gerald Ford, in the State of the Union address, 1977), and the statehood party consistently wins gubernatorial elections. It is, I suppose, reasonable to debate the Navy's choice of practice bombing ranges, but I hardly think that the United States is committing outrages on Latin America by bombing US territory. Myers might as well argue that the bombardment of Kahoolawe is an outrage upon the peoples of the Pacific. -- Rick.
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (10/31/85)
> > ------ > > Very little pisses me off more than the mindless anti-Americanism > > (excuse me, anti-Unitedstatesism) of jeff m. Has it occurred to him that > > there is no word in the English language for inhabitant of the United States > > other than American. I can understand how Latin Americans and Canadians > > might not like this, but it is a fact. I'll be damned if I'm going to > > call myself a Unitedstatesian (ugh!). It is unfortunate that the same > > word, American, has more than one meaning, but it takes someone like jeff m. > > to convert this into a sign of US hegemony over the West. Spare us. > > -- > > Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan > > Sure, it's occured to me. In English I refer to myself as a US citizen, > which has one more syllable than ``American.'' As I mentioned in my previous, > less thought-out note, there are alot more people than just me who stress > this sign of hegemony (a hegemony which is very real, and has more to do > with guns than words). > > I have very few original ideas, being addicted to eclecticism. Many others > have very few original ideas because they are addicted to dogmatism. > > Cheers, Jeffrey D. Myers Jeff, can you imagine for a second what it would have sounded like in WW 2 when the French people said of the Normandy invasion: "The U S citizens are coming!!"? Somehow "The Americans are coming" sounds more like an invasion by soldiers than an invasion by private citizens. America happens to be the name of a country in North America, the same as Canada happens to be the name of a country in North America. I don't believe you should infer anything else in the name 'America'. The name of our country should not and does not have to be an insult to other countries in this hemisphere, it is just simply the name we go by. There are of course, people who will look and find an issue with anything, but that does not mean that an issue really exists. If the North American continent had been named America long ago and we came along and called our country America, then we would have a problem. Oh well enough, I have to go out and trim my hegemonys. bye bye ray
goodrum@unc.UUCP (Cloyd Goodrum) (10/31/85)
In article <746@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: >In article <1587@uwmacc.UUCP> myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) writes: >>In Spanish, there is a special word for citizens of the US, estadounidense >>(eh-sta-tho-ooni-then-se). > >Yes, but there isn't any such word in English. What are we supposed to call >ourselves? Statesmen? Sounds good to me. > >Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka >Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108 Cloyd Goodurm III University Of North Carolina
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (10/31/85)
In article <1385@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: >there is no word in the English language for inhabitant of the United States >other than American. I can understand how Latin Americans and Canadians >might not like this, but it is a fact. I'll be damned if I'm going to >call myself a Unitedstatesian (ugh!). It is unfortunate that the same >word, American, has more than one meaning, but it takes someone like jeff m. >to convert this into a sign of US hegemony over the West. Spare us. >-- >Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan It's natural for people who are on top to defend ambiguities in language that favor them by saying "there is no word other than" the ambiguity. It's also natural for people who aren't on top to criticize ambiguities in language which they perceive as threatening. That there's "no other word than American" in English (I dunno, just use more than one word, maybe) for an inhabitant of the US means that there's very little rhetorical defense against people who use "American" as a buzz word for national destiny, etc.. Again, no surprise that the language is built so that anti-nationalistic sentiments can't be expressed in simple language. Languages in most countries are social constructions codified by national official agencies. Re hegemony: the weapons given by a language for rhetoric are often enhanced by some physical ammo. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (11/01/85)
> >Puerto Rico, 1968-present, Navy occupation and bombardment of the island > > of Vieques, destroying fish and other national resources > ^^^^^^^^ > > Good God, even Myers can't possibly believe this. The last time I looked, > Puerto Rico was part of the United States -- proposed for statehood by at > least one US President (Gerald Ford, in the State of the Union address, 1977), > and the statehood party consistently wins gubernatorial elections. It is, I > suppose, reasonable to debate the Navy's choice of practice bombing ranges, > but I hardly think that the United States is committing outrages on Latin > America by bombing US territory. Myers might as well argue that the > bombardment of Kahoolawe is an outrage upon the peoples of the Pacific. > > -- Rick. What is there not to believe? (Anyway, this was merely a minor aside to my point that Latin Americans have some reasons to love the US, but also many to despise the US.) Regardless of its legal status (which is best for many groups to leave in limbo), Puerto Rico is very much occupied territory since it was wrested from Spain several dozen years ago. There has always been an active movement, supported by UN resolutions, to make Puerto Rico independent, which the US is as eager to repress as it is to not allow successful progressive governments in the rest of Latin America. Every source I have ever heard of considers Puerto Rico part of Latin America, which trancends national boundaries. Having lived in San Jose, California (working for Big Blue) for a summer, it's clear that it is part of Latin America, too ;-) Vieques was taken over without any consultation with the people who lived there -- they were forceably moved en masse to the least desirable part of the island. Most of the people had been fisherfolk, but their livelihood has gone down the drain as their nets have been torn away by propellers and fish destroyed by constant practice bombardments. You might be interested to know that Vieques was where the invasion of Grenada was practiced a year or two before the actual event. What is Kahoolawe? Were there people there before it was bombarded? Myers (aka Jeff)
mroddy@enmasse.UUCP (Mark Roddy) (11/01/85)
> > Yes, but there isn't any such word in English. What are we supposed to call > ourselves? Statesmen? > Yanks. -- Mark Roddy Net working, Just reading the news. (harvard!talcott!panda!enmasse!mroddy)
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (11/01/85)
> > America happens to be the name of a country in North America, the same as > Canada happens to be the name of a country in North America. I don't believe > you should infer anything else in the name 'America'. The name of our country > should not and does not have to be an insult to other countries in this > hemisphere, it is just simply the name we go by. There are of course, people > who will look and find an issue with anything, but that does not mean that > an issue really exists. If the North American continent had been named > America long ago and we came along and called our country America, then we > would have a problem. > > Oh well enough, I have to go out and trim my hegemonys. > > bye bye > > ray Just to beat this dead horse a little longer (really what I'm interested in accomplishing is making people think a little bit about this; it's kind of like the debate about English neuter pronouns)... America is NOT the name of our country. It is the United States of America. You also seem to imply that our continent was named America following the naming of the nation, which I believe is incorrect. I believe that the continent was named for Amerigo Vespuci, an early explorer. I also recall that there was some thought to calling our nation Columbia, but it got grabbed before it could be made official. Perhaps in English it does not matter too much how you describe yourself, but in Spanish you should not use the word `Americano'; you can use gringo, norteamericano, yanqui, or estadounidense. Adios, jeff
mcgeer@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer) (11/02/85)
In article <1630@uwmacc.UUCP> myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) writes: >many to despise the US.) Regardless of its legal status (which is best for >many groups to leave in limbo), Puerto Rico is very much occupied >territory since it was wrested from Spain several dozen years ago. By that argument, all of the United States is occupied territory -- the east from Great Britain, the West from Mexico, and teh midwest from various chilled Indian tribes. Forget it! >There >has always been an active movement, supported by UN resolutions, to make >Puerto Rico independent, (1) There has always been an active small movement; and (2) The UN is more than happy to spend its time kicking around the world's decent nations and praising its more bestial organizations. UN resolutions have all the moral authority of the agreements of the local gangsters. >which the US is as eager to repress as it is to >not allow successful progressive governments in the rest of Latin America. EVIDENCE? The last time I looked, the independence party was running in the territory's elections. They kept getting drubbed, but they sure did try...periodically some people get tossed in the jug, but it's always for bomb-throwing and the like, which I hardly consider political crimes. And I don't know what you mean by "progressive" governments, but I suspect anti-American is a pretty good approximation. >Every source I have ever heard of considers Puerto Rico part of Latin >America, which trancends national boundaries. Having lived in San Jose, >California (working for Big Blue) for a summer, it's clear that it is part >of Latin America, too ;-) Again, by that argument, most of the southwest is Latin America, including East LA. > >Vieques was taken over without any consultation with the people who lived >there -- they were forceably moved en masse to the least desirable part >of the island. Most of the people had been fisherfolk, but their livelihood >has gone down the drain as their nets have been torn away by propellers and >fish destroyed by constant practice bombardments. You might be interested >to know that Vieques was where the invasion of Grenada was practiced a >year or two before the actual event. Were they compensated? If not, they certainly have a case. > >What is Kahoolawe? Were there people there before it was bombarded? Kahoolawe (pronounced cah-O-o-lah-v-ay) is an island ~10 miles southwest of Maui. It is uninhabited (and always has been, I gather), and from the mid-fifties to the present day has been used as a target by the US Navy. Some Hawaiians are upset about it: it is not clear to me that the number upset is anything like a majority of the peoples of the Islands: Hawaii is pretty much kept afloat by the military. Rick.
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (11/04/85)
In article <490@enmasse.UUCP> mroddy@enmasse.UUCP (Mark Roddy) writes: >> Yes, but there isn't any such word in English. What are we supposed to call >> ourselves? Statesmen? > >Yanks. There are a few people down in Alabama and thereabouts who do not much care to be called Yanks. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) (11/04/85)
Jeff, Jeff, Vieques has been a naval target range since 1912. The folks living on the island are squatters. The Navy has been trying to get them out for years. When the navy began using the area as a aircraft range in 1968, they wanted the squatters out so they wouldn't get wasted by stray bombs and missles. The squatters managed to stay, but were moved to another part of the island to protect them better. THERE WAS NO ONE ON THE ISLAND WHEN THE NAVY BEGAN USING IT AS A RANGE. At least get the story correct before condeming the government. T. C. Wheeler
mcgeer@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer) (11/05/85)
In article <490@enmasse.UUCP> mroddy@enmasse.UUCP (Mark Roddy) writes: >> >> Yes, but there isn't any such word in English. What are we supposed to call >> ourselves? Statesmen? >> > >Yanks. > >-- > Mark Roddy > Net working, > Just reading the news. > > (harvard!talcott!panda!enmasse!mroddy) I'll let you tell my Texan relatives that, bluebelly. (:->, if you didn't guess) Rick
sra@oddjob.UUCP (Scott R. Anderson) (11/05/85)
In article <1385@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: >there is no word in the English language for inhabitant of the United States >other than American. I can understand how Latin Americans and Canadians >might not like this, but it is a fact. I'll be damned if I'm going to >call myself a Unitedstatesian (ugh!). It is unfortunate that the same >word, American, has more than one meaning, but it takes someone like jeff m. >to convert this into a sign of US hegemony over the West. Spare us. Anyone from Latin America will tell you an inhabitant of the US is a yankee. And you better believe, that's an insult! -- Scott Anderson ihnp4!oddjob!kaos!sra
barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) (11/05/85)
The full name of the US is "The United States of America". As far as I
know, we are the only country whose name contains the name "America".
Just as residents of The Commonwealth of Virginia call themselves
"Virginians" and residents of The Republic of West Germany (I think
that's its full name, please don't flame at me if I am wrong) call
themselves "West Germans", residents of "The US of America" can call
themselves Americans. Indeed, some other collection of states could
unite themselves, and they might be The United States of Foobar; they
would call themselves "Foobarians", not "Unitedstatesians", just as West
Germans do not call themselves "Republicans".
Yes, it is a problem that there are several geographical and political
entities whose names are some variant on "America". But residents of
the United States of America have no more or less right than residents
of South America to call themselves "Americans". However, except for
residents of the US of A, all the other Americans have other
country-name-based designations (e.g. "Brazilians", "Mexicans",
"Canadians"); why do they want our name?
--
Barry Margolin
ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmarjcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (11/05/85)
> In article <1385@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: > >there is no word in the English language for inhabitant of the United States > >other than American. I can understand how Latin Americans and Canadians > >might not like this, but it is a fact. I'll be damned if I'm going to > >call myself a Unitedstatesian (ugh!). It is unfortunate that the same > >word, American, has more than one meaning, but it takes someone like jeff m. > >to convert this into a sign of US hegemony over the West. Spare us. > > That there's "no other word than American" in English (I dunno, just use > more than one word, maybe) for an inhabitant of the US means that > there's very little rhetorical defense against people who use "American" > as a buzz word for national destiny, etc.. Again, no surprise that > the language is built so that anti-nationalistic sentiments can't > be expressed in simple language. Languages in most countries are > social constructions codified by national official agencies. > Everywhere else in the world, they call us "yanks". -- jcpatilla
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (11/05/85)
> > Yes, it is a problem that there are several geographical and political > entities whose names are some variant on "America". But residents of > the United States of America have no more or less right than residents > of South America to call themselves "Americans". However, except for > residents of the US of A, all the other Americans have other > country-name-based designations (e.g. "Brazilians", "Mexicans", > "Canadians"); why do they want our name? > -- > Barry Margolin > ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics > UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar Hm...I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but remember that people who live in the CONTINENT of Europe are called Europeans; people who live in Asia are Asians; people who live in Africa are called Africans; if someone calls themself an American, things are less clear. Yow! I am having fun. Zippy the Pinhead
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/05/85)
> Jeff, Jeff, Vieques has been a naval target range since 1912. The > folks living on the island are squatters. The Navy has been trying > to get them out for years. When the navy began using the area as > a aircraft range in 1968, they wanted the squatters out so they > wouldn't get wasted by stray bombs and missles. The squatters > managed to stay, but were moved to another part of the island > to protect them better. THERE WAS NO ONE ON THE ISLAND WHEN THE > NAVY BEGAN USING IT AS A RANGE. At least get the story correct > before condeming the government. > T. C. Wheeler T.C., T.C., the Afghans are *squatters*! When the Soviets began using Afghanistan as a target range there WERE NO AFGHANS IN AFGHANISTAN! These Afghans have no title to their land, therefore they have no legal *right to be there*! At least get the story straight before condemning the Soviets! T.C., T.C., the Indians were *squatters*! When the United States began killing the buffalo and fencing the land for farming the Indians had *no legal title* to the land! Therefore whoever wanted could take it! Sound familiar? tim sevener whuxn!orb
breuel@h-sc1.UUCP (thomas breuel) (11/06/85)
> "Virginians" and residents of The Republic of West Germany (I think > that's its full name, please don't flame at me if I am wrong) call > themselves "West Germans", residents of "The US of America" can call The name of the western part of Germany is 'Bundesrepublik Deutschland' ('Federal Republic of Germany'), the name of the eastern part is 'Deutsche Demokratische Republik' ('German Democratic Republic'). A citizen of the FRG will refer to himself as 'German', without any qualifiers. The terms 'East Germany' and 'West Germany' are only used for postal purposes. They are practically never used in normal (German) conversation. Only if a German talks to an American, he may use them to refer to the FRG or the GDR, mostly because many Americans are fairly ignorant of the state of affairs and will get terribly confused otherwise... Thomas.
thill@ssc-bee.UUCP (Tom Hill) (11/06/85)
> > > > Yes, but there isn't any such word in English. What are we supposed to call > > ourselves? Statesmen? > > > > Yanks. > -- > Mark Roddy Obviously this man has never lived in the South! :-)
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (11/06/85)
> Jeff, Jeff, Vieques has been a naval target range since 1912. The > folks living on the island are squatters. The Navy has been trying > to get them out for years. When the navy began using the area as > a aircraft range in 1968, they wanted the squatters out so they > wouldn't get wasted by stray bombs and missles. The squatters > managed to stay, but were moved to another part of the island > to protect them better. THERE WAS NO ONE ON THE ISLAND WHEN THE > NAVY BEGAN USING IT AS A RANGE. At least get the story correct > before condeming the government. > T. C. Wheeler Hm. I'll look into this a little more formally, as my previous info was based on discussions with Puerto Ricans. It seems a little funny that people would want to squat on an island that had been declared a firing range unless they had been living there for a while. Time for a trip to the library. In the meantime, you might practice typing `condemning' ( <-- unwarrented personal attack ). ``...I reply that since war is not an occupation by which a man [or woman] can at all times make an honorable living, it ought not to be followed as a business by anyone but a prince or a governor of a commonwealth; and if he is a wise man, he will not allow any of his subjects or citizens to make that his only profession -- indeed, no good man ever did, for surely no one can be called a good man who, in order to support himself, takes up a profession that obliges him at all times to be rapacious, fraudulent, and cruel, as of course must be all of those -- no matter what their rank -- who make a trade of war.'' Niccolo Machiavelli, *The Art of War*, 1521, the first systematic expression of support for people's militias in modern times Para la defensa de la verdad, jeff
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (11/06/85)
Let's keep this out of net.nlang, where our ramblings are no doubt not appreciated. > > Anyone from Latin America will tell you an inhabitant of the US is a yankee. > And you better believe, that's an insult! > -- > > Scott Anderson > ihnp4!oddjob!kaos!sra Yeah, but it would be `yanqui' or `yanki'. It certainly is a derogatory term (unless you happen to be a member of my favorite major league baseball team). But just like `cabron' or `gringo', it could be used in a playful sense among friends. This comment reminds me of a guy we met in Nicaragua at the Mercado Huembes, where we were all eating at a particular table. When the Nicaraguan became aware that we were estadounidenses, he asked ``The good kind, or the bad kind?'' There wasn't much we could say directly. This was the WORST display of hostility (and virtually the only one) toward me as a US citizen in two weeks there. -- Jeff Myers The views above may or may not University of Wisconsin-Madison reflect the views of any other Madison Academic Computing Center person or group at UW-Madison. ARPA: uwmacc!myers@rsch.wisc.edu UUCP: ..!{harvard,ucbvax,allegra,topaz,akgua,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!myers BitNet: MYERS at WISCMACC
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (11/06/85)
> >[Me] > >there is no word in the English language for inhabitant of the United States > >other than American. I can understand how Latin Americans and Canadians > >might not like this, but it is a fact. I'll be damned if I'm going to > >call myself a Unitedstatesian (ugh!). It is unfortunate that the same > >word, American, has more than one meaning, but it takes someone like jeff m. > >to convert this into a sign of US hegemony over the West. Spare us. ------- > [Tony Wuersch] > It's natural for people who are on top to defend ambiguities in language > that favor them by saying "there is no word other than" the ambiguity. ------- I don't see how the ambiguity favors the U. S. If anything it hurts us by creating anti-U.S. resentment for no good reason. ------- > It's also natural for people who aren't on top to criticize ambiguities in > language which they perceive as threatening. ------- Correct. ------- > That there's "no other word than American" in English (I dunno, just use > more than one word, maybe) for an inhabitant of the US means that > there's very little rhetorical defense against people who use "American" > as a buzz word for national destiny, etc.. Again, no surprise that > the language is built so that anti-nationalistic sentiments can't > be expressed in simple language. ----- Come on. Anti-nationalistic sentiments can be expressed in much the same language as pro-nationalistic ones. How about "America Sucks." Is that simple enough for you? ----- > Languages in most countries are > social constructions codified by national official agencies. ----- Maybe so, but not in the U. S. You seem to think that the U. S. Govt. created American English. Not so. It doesn't even codify it. You are perfectly free to publicize an alternative to "American". If it catches on, it will make Webster's, and Ronald Reagan and his minions couldn't stop it even if they wanted to. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
suze@terak.UUCP (Suzanne Barnett) (11/07/85)
> > In article <1385@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: > > >there is no word in the English language for inhabitant of the United States > > >other than American. I can understand how Latin Americans and Canadians > > >might not like this, but it is a fact. I'll be damned if I'm going to > > That there's "no other word than American" in English (I dunno, just use > > more than one word, maybe) for an inhabitant of the US means that > Everywhere else in the world, they call us "yanks". I doubt you'll find many (American) southerners who will accept this name. The word "yankee" is usually used as part of the contraction "damnyankee" and refers to northerners, strictly. It has extremely negative connotations to the southern portion of the population of the US. -- ************************************************************** Suzanne Barnett-Scott uucp: ...{decvax,ihnp4,noao,savax,seismo}!terak!suze phone: (602) 998-4800 us mail: CalComp/Sanders Display Products Division (Formerly Terak Corporation) 14151 N 76th street, Scottsdale, AZ 85260
renner@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (11/08/85)
> T.C., T.C., the Afghans are *squatters*! When the Soviets began > using Afghanistan as a target range there WERE NO AFGHANS IN AFGHANISTAN! > These Afghans have no title to their land, therefore they have > no legal *right to be there*! > At least get the story straight before condemning the Soviets! > -- Tim Sevener (orb@whuts) What *are* you talking about? There have been people living in Afghanistan for a very long time. Of course, the Soviets have managed to kill and uproot more than 25% of them, but that's irrelevant. The Navy finds an uninhabited island, decides to use it for a target range, and *then* other people decide to live there -- and when the Navy wants them out, Tim compares this to the Soviet extermination policy in Afghanistan. I really wish I understood how the man's mind works. Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner
jsq@im4u.UUCP (John Quarterman) (11/08/85)
In article <36@utastro.UUCP> nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >> Anyone from Latin America will tell you an inhabitant of the US is a yankee. >> And you better believe, that's an insult! >> Scott Anderson > >Odd. They called me a "gringo" ... I assume that's a compliment? Actually, that's yanqui, unless the other is greengo. A common hispanoamericano term for the those of us north of El Rio Bravo del Norte (the Rio Grande to you) is norteamericano (sorry Canadians: we didn't choose it; they did). Furthermore, latinoamericano is considered inaccurate by most of those to whom it refers (they don't speak Latin, after all). They prefer hispanoamericano (Hispanic American). I think I've seen iberoamericano used to include Portuguese speakers. Many Mexicans object to norteamericanos calling their country The United States. You see, the official name of Mexico is Los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. And there are several other countries in this hemisphere which are "the United States of Whatever". Even The United States of America is considered to be in dubious taste, because of the multiple meanings of "America". I call it "the States," myself: there's a name that pleases no-one! Another good one is "The Country Without a Name." Wasn't it Edgar Allen Poe who proposed the name "Appalachia" (referring to the Appalachian Mountains)? The country was smaller then, though. I understand that in Argentina "gringo" means "italian". I would mention the origin of the word, but doubtless everyone knows it already. -- John Quarterman, UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo,harvard,gatech}!ut-sally!im4u!jsq ARPA Internet and CSNET: jsq@im4u.UTEXAS.EDU, formerly jsq@im4u.ARPA
fred@mot.UUCP (Fred Christiansen) (11/08/85)
> but remember that > people who live in the CONTINENT of Europe are called Europeans; not only that, but "European" is a generalized equivalent to Caucasian in many places. i grew up in India, with visits to various other Asian spots, and was frequently referred to as "European". so, while not totally accurate, "Americans" and "Europeans" can generalize to "Europeans" as in "Caucasians". if we take "American" to be a generalization for anyone inhabiting the Americas, then it is citizens of the US who are without a more specific term (as Margolin pointed out). any suggestions? ;-) of course, us Canajuns call them 'Mericans. -- << Generic disclaimer >> Fred Christiansen ("Canajun, eh?") @ Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ UUCP: {seismo!terak, trwrb!flkvax, utzoo!mnetor, ihnp4, attunix}!mot!fred ARPA: oakhill!mot!fred@ut-sally.ARPA "Families are Forever"
jsq@im4u.UUCP (John Quarterman) (11/09/85)
In article <858@terak.UUCP> suze@terak.UUCP (Suzanne Barnett) writes: >I doubt you'll find many (American) southerners who will accept >this name. The word "yankee" is usually used as part of the >contraction "damnyankee" and refers to northerners, strictly. It has >extremely negative connotations to the southern portion of the >population of the US. What this word means changes as you move northward. South of the U.S. (and in most of the rest of the world) people take it to mean an inhabitant of the U.S., especially as in "Yankee go home!" In the southern U.S., it is often used in the more formal :-) form mentioned above of "damyankee", which is more or less equivalent to "carpetbagger". In both places, the most pejorative uses are reserved for those yankees who have come from where they live to impose themselves on others. People from south of the border who want to refer to people from the states while in Dixie are likely to use "gringo" or even "norteamericano" or "American" as much safer words, lest they inadvertently use "yankee" to refer to a southerner. (While south of the border, they can probably get away with it, as long as they say "yanqui". :-) In the midwest and around New York State, Yankee means someone from New England, especially from Boston, and seems to have connotations of quaint and old-fashioned. In Boston, it refers to a particular variety of old stock and old money, and is more or less equivalent to "Boston Brahmin". (You know, those people who claim to be descended from the passengers of the Mayflower, the boat which was aiming for Jamestown but missed Virginia by half a thousand miles.) Note how the scope of the word not only narrows as you move northward, but also the connotations change from unfavorable to favorable at about the break between the above two paragraphs. -- John Quarterman, UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo,harvard,gatech}!ut-sally!im4u!jsq ARPA Internet and CSNET: jsq@im4u.UTEXAS.EDU, formerly jsq@im4u.ARPA
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (11/11/85)
> > > T.C., T.C., the Afghans are *squatters*! When the Soviets began > > using Afghanistan as a target range there WERE NO AFGHANS IN AFGHANISTAN! > > These Afghans have no title to their land, therefore they have > > no legal *right to be there*! > > At least get the story straight before condemning the Soviets! > > -- Tim Sevener (orb@whuts) > > What *are* you talking about? There have been people living in Afghanistan > for a very long time. Of course, the Soviets have managed to kill > and uproot more than 25% of them, but that's irrelevant. > > The Navy finds an uninhabited island, decides to use it for a target > range, and *then* other people decide to live there -- and when the Navy > wants them out, Tim compares this to the Soviet extermination policy in > Afghanistan. I really wish I understood how the man's mind works. > > Scott Renner > {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner Not very good at spotting sarcasm, are you Scott? Well, I would certainly be the last one to accuse knee-jerk rightists of excessive intelligence. Did the article which I posted which made it clear that TCWheeler's assertion that there were no people on Vieques in 1912 was incorrect (i.e. TC was dead wrong) not reach you, or did you choose to ignore it? In fact, my friend Jorge's grandmother is from Vieques, and her family has been there for a couple of centuries. Now, until recently the Navy used a DIFFERENT, smaller island for bombing purposes, and that may have been the island TC was thinking of. Cheers, jeff m
devine@asgb.UUCP (Robert J. Devine) (11/12/85)
> In article <36@utastro.UUCP> nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: > > I understand that in Argentina "gringo" means "italian". I would mention > the origin of the word, but doubtless everyone knows it already. I've never heard of answer to "where did 'gringo' come from?" that had any finality to it. One proposed source was that American (United States-ian:-) soldiers sang a song entitled "Green Grow the Rushes". Really!
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (11/13/85)
>Jeff, can you imagine for a second what it would have sounded like in WW 2 >when the French people said of the Normandy invasion: "The U S citizens are >coming!!"? Somehow "The Americans are coming" sounds more like an invasion >by soldiers than an invasion by private citizens. > Somehow, I think they might have been more likely to say "The Allies are coming." This response illustrates EXACTLY the kind of Yank thinking that Jeff originally sounded off about. Of course the Yanks won the war. There weren't any Brits or Canucks or Aussies or Ghurkas or whatever -- just "Americans". Wonderful! And to whoever said there isn't an English word to describe US citizens, note that the English is "Yank", a word which may not occur in the US version of the language, but has 1/4 as many syllables as the moderately offensive "American." (Yes, I know, "Yank" can be confused with "Yankee" which refers to only a few of you, but then English has lots of even more confusable word-pairs, so that shouldn't matter.) -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
dailey@cornell.UUCP (John Hudgins Dailey) (11/15/85)
> > I understand that in Argentina "gringo" means "italian". I would mention > the origin of the word, but doubtless everyone knows it already. I had heard that "gringo" came from the fact that in one of the U.S.'s confrontations in Latin America ( the Spanish-Am. war or perhaps Texas' fight for independence) the North American soldiers wore green uniforms. The other side would chant " Green(s) go (home)". Could someone let me know if this is correct ? |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | John H. Dailey | | Center for Applied Math. | | Cornell U. | | Ithaca, N.Y. 14853 | | {decvax,ihnp4,cmcl2,vax135}!cornell!amvax!dailey (USENET) | | dailey%amvax@CRNLCS.BITNET (Bitnet) | | dailey@amvax.tn.cornell.edu (ARPANET) | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
jsq@im4u.UUCP (John Quarterman) (11/16/85)
In article <817@asgb.UUCP> devine@asgb.UUCP (Robert J. Devine) writes: >> In article <36@utastro.UUCP> nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >> >> I understand that in Argentina "gringo" means "italian". I would mention >> the origin of the word, but doubtless everyone knows it already. Ed, did you know you wrote that? I thought I did.... > I've never heard of answer to "where did 'gringo' come from?" that >had any finality to it. One proposed source was that American (United >States-ian:-) soldiers sang a song entitled "Green Grow the Rushes". That's the story. Supposedly it happened just after Texas joined the Union, and the Mexicans wanted something other than "tejanos" to call the newcomers who were invading their country in the latest war. The song was popular at that time (1845?) and the troops from the north sang it as they marched. It's not proven, but it's pretty plausible. >Really! Now there's a cogent and well-reasoned rebuttal if I ever saw one! -- John Quarterman, UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo,harvard,gatech}!ut-sally!im4u!jsq ARPA Internet and CSNET: jsq@im4u.UTEXAS.EDU, formerly jsq@im4u.ARPA
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (11/16/85)
From Martin Taylor: > This response illustrates EXACTLY the kind of Yank thinking that Jeff > originally sounded off about. Of course the Yanks won the war. There > weren't any Brits or Canucks or Aussies or Ghurkas or whatever -- just > "Americans". Wonderful! And to whoever said there isn't an English > word to describe US citizens, note that the English is "Yank", a word > which may not occur in the US version of the language, but has 1/4 as > many syllables as the moderately offensive "American." (Yes, I know, > "Yank" can be confused with "Yankee" which refers to only a few of you, > but then English has lots of even more confusable word-pairs, so that > shouldn't matter.) > -- Jeff should look at his history books more often. Then he would'nt have that kind of yank thinking. Everyone knows it was an Allied effort. But in many instances, there were armies of a particular nationality liberating a town here and there in France and elsewhere. Under General Patton for instance, hundreds of towns and cities were liberated by American (U.S) forces, just as hundreds of areas were liberated by other nationalist forces. What I had stated in an earlier article was when one of these armies made up of entirely U.S. citizens made it's way towards an occupied area, it was well known that the statement "The Americans are coming" was well used. It just would not have sounded proper to say "The U.S. citizens are coming." That sounds like some lawyers and bakers and a few used car salesmen along with a plane full of tourists. Just because the English use Yank to describe us doesn't warrant the use of the word Yank by AMERICANS. regards, from an American ray
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (11/16/85)
> I had heard that "gringo" came from the fact that in one of the U.S.'s > confrontations in Latin America ( the Spanish-Am. war or perhaps Texas' > fight for independence) the North American soldiers wore green uniforms. > The other side would chant " Green(s) go (home)". Could someone let me know > if this is correct ? > > | John H. Dailey | I doubt it, as the Spanish for green is verde. The *Green Grow the Rushes* theory sounds plausible to me. ``One is one and all alone and ever more shall be it so.'' Every good Boy Scout should know that song, lots of good religious connotations, and fun to sing. Jeff M.
nunes@utai.UUCP (Joe Nunes) (11/18/85)
> Jeff should look at his history books more often. Then he would'nt have > that kind of yank thinking. > Everyone knows it was an Allied effort... I'm not so sure. When LIFE came out with a special issue commemorating the anniversary of D-day, it did not mention Canada's involvement in the war even once. I guess they couldn't avoid mentioning the British :-).
pete@ecrcvax.UUCP (Pete Delaney) (11/20/85)
Perhaps the reason the states havn't a unifying name is that it's only in the last 100 os so years that the unification has been so extensive. Before the turn of the century the states were united; now it seems they are dominated. Maybe we should call ourselves the Dominated States of America- DSA (Oh - Honeywell would like that). The world seem to going in the direction or centralization, unification, and standardization. Maybe, since we are discussing the history of the name of our nation, we should discuss what we want it to be, and why. But I doubt it would help, the trend will likely continue. -- -------------------------------------------- Pete Delaney - Rocky Mnt. Unix Consultant Phone: (49) 89 92699-139 European Computer-Industry Research Center UUCP: mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!pete ArabellaStrasse 17 UUCP Domain: pete@ecrcvax.UUCP D-8000 Muenchen 81, West Germany X25: (262)-45890040262 CSNET:pete%ecrcvax.UUCP@Germany.CSNET Login: <to be provided?> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
radzy@calma.UUCP (Tim Radzykewycz) (11/20/85)
In article <775@cornell.UUCP> dailey@cornell.UUCP (John Hudgins Dailey) writes: >I had heard that "gringo" came from the fact that in one of >the U.S.'s confrontations in Latin America ( the Spanish-Am. >war or perhaps Texas' fight for independence) the North >American soldiers wore green uniforms. The other side would >chant " Green(s) go (home)". I've also heard this version of the origin of "gringo". Unfortunately, I don't beleive any of the origins posted so far, including this one. That's not to say that I beleive they are all wrong, but rather, that I recognize them all as "folk etymology", and thus not to be trusted. If there is a linguist out there who has done research into this word (I know they used to get PhD's for thoroughly researching the history of a word, so asking this here isn't quite so crazy as it seems), could you please give us an enlightenment? Please include references, related words, and history, including phonetic changes and the phonetic rules which caused these changes. Also, include why you were researching it and your credentials (e.g. Master's study for AM degree, amateur study as hobby, etc). -- Tim (radzy) Radzykewycz, The Incredible Radical Cabbage calma!radzy@ucbvax.ARPA {ucbvax,sun,csd-gould}!calma!radzy
drg@rlvd.UUCP (Duncan Gibson) (11/22/85)
I have heard that the word Yankee comes from a time when there was a great influx of Dutch (?) settlers to the US, and that the typical Dutch (?) name of the period was "Jan Guy" or something similar, which was corrupted to Yankee. I notice that people keep spelling it Yanqui, so I was wondering what the derivation really was. I have also heard gringo is derived from "Green grow the Rushes..." -- UUCP: ..!ukc!rlvd![rlvc!]drg ARPA: drg%rl.vc@ucl.cs JANET: drg@rl.vc
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (11/24/85)
According to Webster's New World Dictionary (The dictionary? Gee, who would ever think of looking there?): [MexSp. < Sp., meaning gibberish, altered < Griego, meaning Greek, < Latin Graecus, meaning Greek] in Latin America, a foreigner, esp. American or Englishman: hostile and contemptuous term It's all greek/american/spanish/cobol to me. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
jim@ISM780.UUCP (11/28/85)
>I have heard that the word Yankee comes from a time when there was a great >influx of Dutch (?) settlers to the US, and that the typical Dutch (?) name >of the period was "Jan Guy" or something similar, which was corrupted to >Yankee. I notice that people keep spelling it Yanqui, so I was wondering >what the derivation really was. As with most of the subjects discussed on this net, there are better sources of information than hearsay. I know this is a radical thought for a bunch of libertarian/techie prima donnas who think that if they can't figure it out from their own current knowledge then it isn't true, but I really think that examination of the written knowledge database is a rather important way of acquiring or validating knowledge or at least increasing the reliability factor for your beliefs and suspicions. I find it rather sad that there are all these techno-sophisticates that never even learned to use a dictionary and do not own a good encyclopedia. Now the following is not *guaranteed* truth (there is no such thing in the empirical realm), but it does have a lot more reliability than any number of "yeah, I heard that too"'s or "well the way I heard it was ...". You may accuse me of moralizing, but that *reaction* won't affect the *reality*. If your process of acquiring and validating information is corrupt, then *all* of your conclusions are untrustworthy. If so many people can share and to some degree accept false info about "Green Grow" (not to mention the linguistic naivety that requires), just think what it says about political "fact" that people have a vested interest in believing and promoting independent of its truth. From Webster's New World Dictionary, Second College Edition, The World Publishing Company, 1970 (yeah, I should get a new one): Yankee [< ? Du. Jan Kees (taken as pl.) < Jan, John and Kees, dial. form of kaas, cheese; orig. (Jan Kaas) used as a disparaging nickname for a Hollander, later for Dutch freebooter; applied by colonial Dutch in New York to English settlers in Connecticut: cf. H. L. Mencken, Am. Lang. Suppl. I, pp. 192-197] 1) a native or inhabitant of New England. 2) a) a native or inhabitant of a Northern State; Northerner b) a Union soldier in the Civil War 3) a native or inhabitant of the U.S. and Yanqui Sp. American respelling of Yankee (sense 3) and Yank [Slang] a Yankee; esp., a U.S. soldier in World Wars I and II. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (12/01/85)
> From: drg@rlvd.UUCP (Duncan Gibson) > Message-ID: <942@rlvd.UUCP> > Date: Fri, 22-Nov-85 03:54:46 CST > Keywords: yanqui > > Yankee. I notice that people keep spelling it Yanqui, so I was wondering > what the derivation really was. The spelling 'Yanqui' is fairly recent (post 1960, say), and won't tell us anything about the origin of 'Yankee' in English. The spelling is a way of making the pronunciation clear to Spanish-readers; or perhaps is some gringo's attempt to convey a spanish accent. The original context, of course, was "Yanqui, !go home!" I've been following the gringo debate, and have been rather skeptical about the "Green(s), go!" story: why would they shout in English. But if "Yanqui, go home" was in English, why not this too? (I still like the "Green grow the rushes-o" story better.) Does anybody know the facts?: 1. Was "Yanqui, go home" ever in fact a popular cry of Latin American crowds, at U.S. official visitors? 2. If so, was it in English as quoted, or in Spanish? -- -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (12/01/85)
> > > > Yankee. I notice that people keep spelling it Yanqui, so I was wondering > > what the derivation really was. > > The spelling 'Yanqui' is fairly recent (post 1960, say), and won't tell > us anything about the origin of 'Yankee' in English. The spelling is > a way of making the pronunciation clear to Spanish-readers; or perhaps > is some gringo's attempt to convey a spanish accent. The original context, > of course, was "Yanqui, !go home!" Yanqui is how you spell Yankee in Spanish. You also sometimes see it spelled Yanki.
prl@ethz.UUCP (Peter Lamb) (12/04/85)
<Re: Earlier discussion about the origins of 'gringo' and 'yankee'> Re the etymological theories regarding 'gringo', looked in the Shorter OED & the Concise OED, which both have the word and an etymology, and they claim that 'gringo' is a Spanish word meaning 'gibberish'. I would like to say that this confirms speculation on the net about American English, but unfortunately the definition they give includes *all* English speakers. This definition, of course, does not necessarily contradict the 'Green grow the rushes, O' theory, I've never really understood the song either :-) Please do _not_ mail me explanations of Green Grow the Rushes, nor flame me about the OED editors (lack) of knowlege of either Spanish or etymology. Peter Lamb (...mcvax!cernvax!ethz!prl) ETH Zurich Switzerland
jsq@im4u.UUCP (John Quarterman) (12/06/85)
In article <259@ethz.UUCP> prl@ethz.UUCP (Peter Lamb) writes: ><Re: Earlier discussion about the origins of 'gringo' and 'yankee'> >Re the etymological theories regarding 'gringo', looked in >the Shorter OED & the Concise OED, which both have the word >and an etymology, and they claim that 'gringo' is a Spanish word meaning >'gibberish'. I would like to say that this confirms speculation on the net >about American English, but unfortunately the definition they give includes >*all* English speakers. The original discussion was about the Spanish word gringo, not what the same letters might spell in England. Anyone who's ever been to Mexico or points south knows that that is not the primary meaning of gringo. Here are some definitions from a relatively reliable but concise Spanish dictionary, the Peque~no Larousse Ilustrado. It ain't too scholarly, but it is Spanish (I know it's published in Paris, but the editor and contributors weren't). Sloppy English translations by me. GRINGO, GA adj. y s. Despect. Extranjero, especialmente ingl'es. || Amer. Nombre con que se designa a los ingleses o norteamericanos. || Fam. Hablar en gringo, hablar en lenguaje ininteligible. (Slang. Foreigner, especially English. || American usage. Name with which to designate English or North Americans. || Familiar usage. To speak in gringo, to speak unintelligibly. NORTEAMERICANO, NA adj. y s. Natural de un pais de Am'erica del Norte y especialmente de los Estados Unidos. (Native of a country of North America and especially of the United States.) YANKEE o YANQUI adj. y s. Norteamericano. I should point out that to European Spanish speakers the primary gringo nationality may be English but near and in the U.S. it's norteamericano. Otherwise, these definitions agree with every other Spanish dictionary I've ever seen. Etymologies are another question. I ran into a Catholic priest the other day who grew up in central and south America and spoke Spanish as a second language very early. Someone asked him what the origin of "gringo" was. He immediately broke into a rendition of "Green Grow the Lilacs". I told him the anecdote I had heard about U.S. troops singing the song as they invaded Mexico shortly after Texas joined the Union (1845). He agreed that was the same as he had always understood. I pointed out that some believed that the word was derived from griego, for Greek. He remarked that he could see how that could be plausible, if foreign were implied by griego. However, the song derivation more closely matched his observations of how nicknames and other appellations came about in Spanish: according to something a person said or did. (Has anyone considered parallels with "honky" or "barbarian"? They both come from impressions of the way people speak. Coincidentally enough, both, like gringo, were commonly applied by the people who originated them (American blacks and ancient Greeks) to people of northern European extraction, though at somewhat different times....) Maybe I'll mosey down to the local research library and see if any Spanish etymological dictionaries have anything interesting to say. -- John Quarterman, UUCP: {gatech,harvard,ihnp4,pyramid,seismo}!ut-sally!im4u!jsq ARPA Internet and CSNET: jsq@im4u.UTEXAS.EDU, jsq@sally.UTEXAS.EDU