Subject: Re: Aztec Temple Feast

From: [email-masked] (Conrad Claus)
Date: Thu, 5 May 1994 18:02:46 GMT

Hmmm....I thought this was now being discussed via email - oh well - here 
is a repeat of my response.

>From [email-masked] Thu May  5 11:00:19 1994
Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 19:25:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Conrad Claus <[email-masked]>
To: Alejandro Quiroz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Aztec Temple Feast

Ok - I appolagize up front that this is going to be really short - I am 
terribly busy for the next week and 1/2 and dont really have the time to 
email alot right now./

On Mon, 2 May 1994, Alejandro Quiroz wrote:

> --------
> X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
> 
> 	Conrad,
> 
> > Not to jump into this little snit-fest, but...
> 
> 	Not to worry.  I guess it's all part of learning. ;-)
> 
> > Gimme a break.  Being a great admirer of mexican culture, and mexicans in 
> > general,
> 
> 	Thanks for the compliment!  Hope this "little snit-fest" doesn't
> 	change that admiration.

Not at all...As I said, this is something I have heard many times.  I 
just honestly cannot understand why it is such a big deal, and I do 
understand the motivations underlying it, I just dont find it as large an 
issue as some people do.

> 
> > it has always puzzled me that anyone would lower themselves to 
> > becoming upset over this.
> 
> 	The source of the discomfort is that we Mexicans learned that the
> 	name of the land stretching from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego is
> 	America.  When we find out that the people of the US refer to their
> 	country as America we think that it can only be in disregard and
> 	disrespect to the rest of America.  Especially since in Mexico I
> 	learned to consider myself as American.
> 
> > Everyone in the US who is not trying to prove 
> > some point knows EXACTLY what someone is talking about when the word 
> > "american" is used without something being attached to the front.  The 
> > meaning is clear to all who have spent any time in the US, whatever their 
> > culteral foundation.  People from many nations, including Mexico, dont 
> > get all turned out of shape when someone from Canada refers to the US as 
> > "the states."  Now, if one were trying to read some form of evil culteral 
> > bias into its usage, they might say "Gee, the US is not the only nation 
> > composed of many states.  Those nasty US-centric Canadians shouldn't be 
> > calling the US `THE states!'"  Instead, people know what is being refered 
> > to and go on with the conversation.  Now, when someone says "America," 
> > there seems to be a bunch of people who want to read something into the 
> > statement to show traditional US disregard/lack of caring for the other 
> > people of North and South America.  Please!  When someone says "american" 
> > they are not saying "the US is the only noteworthy nation with the 
> > name."  They are using a word that others understand, and even the most 
> > vehement protesters know this.  Nobody is copping an attitude, even 
> > unconsciously, when they use the word "american."
> 
> 	After posting my response to Dan I made some soul searching and
> 	realized that part of living in another country and learning its
> 	language includes using the expressions of common usage of that
> 	country.  The bottom line in learning a language is being able to
> 	communicate.  (I even say /'mek si co/ to refer to my country and
> 	not /'me khi co/ as pronounced in Spanish as I have heard some
> 	people do).
> 

Please dont.  I meant it when I said I am an admirer of Mexican culture.  
I would draw some stares speaking with a (very) southern accent so I 
dont.  But I do like to to hear it said correctly.

> 	So, I must admit that I use the adjective "American" to refer to
> 	anything related to this country (besides, I would sound pretty
> 	ridiculous to use terms such as "United Statian", "USian", or
> 	something along those lines).  However, when refering to the
> 	country I use United Stated or US.  This allows me to still be
> 	understood in the US, and still be consistent with my understanding
> 	of the geography and history of this continent.
> 

Yep.  Conversational shorthand is nearly inescapable for one living in 
the US.  I also try to avoid it unless the situation calls for it.  The 
connotations of the word "America" or "American" are such that it is very 
usefull to use in some conversations.

> >: 	what a "continent" is.  Even my Webster defines it as "one of the six
> >: 	OR seven great divisions of land on the globe" (although it doesn't
> >: 	list the names of them :-( ).  In Mexico,and probably in the rest
> >: 	of America :-), we learned that the American Continent expands from
> >: 	Alaska all the way down to Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego.  And to
> >: 	me it makes sense, even historical sense.  This land was named
> >: 	America after the Italian navigator 
>                                   ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> > He was a mapmaker.
> 
> 	Please send your clarification to "Merriam-Webster Inc. Publishers".
> 	:-)
> 

Hmmm....well Amerigo Vespucci could kinda be called both.  He made a 
couple of voyages himself around 1500.  However, his efforts were largely 
administrative and scholarly.  (he was named the Chief Navigator for 
Spain for a period, but that was NOT a real job as a navigator - it was 
merely a title and no more described his job than the title of 
Chamberlain describes that job (as a butler no less...)  Many historians 
view Vespucci as a somewhat lackluster/talentless thief who stole the 
efforts of others and marketed them as his own.  Thus, many folks in the 
know do try to make the point by calling him a "mapmaker" rather than a 
"navigator" or "explorer,"  though I suppose Webster's is not technically 
wrong.

> 
> >:       Amerigo Vespicci realized that
> >: 	the land that Columbus encountered was not part of Asia, but a
> >: 	separate land mass (and as far as I know, Vespucci never even
> >: 	approached the USA coastline!).  I'm sure that the term "America"
> >: 	to refer to the whole land mass was commonly used in Europe much
> >: 	earlier than the independence of the USA.
> 
> > Have you seen the area Vespucci referred to in his maps as "America?"
> 
> 	No, have you?
> 

Well - all we have today are other people's copies of Vespucci's maps.  
However, Vespucci mapped farther north than Virginia and seems to have 
been under the impression that the land mass he was mapping was either 
1-part of Asia, or 2 - right next door.  Technically, he never actually 
called the landmass "America" or "Americci" or anything like that.  I 
mistyped (product of being cramped for time for the next few weeks.)

> 	It is my understanding that the land that he recognized as not being
> 	part of Asia is in what we currently know as South America.  When
> 	in Europe this fact was know, any of the lands discovered in this
> 	"New World" were recognized as part of America ("the land of
> 	[discovered by] Amerigo Vespicci").
> 
> 	By the way, was he selfish enough to refer to this new land as
> 	"America" in his honor?  Just curious...
> 

Hmmm.. actually, as I said above, folks copied down his maps and ascribed 
his name to it.  Sometimes they ascribed North America to Ptolemy and South 
America to Amerigo (calling it Americci or something similiar..I do forget the 
spelling.)  Now, I dont mean to push on this thread, because I really 
dont think it is all that relevant, but many of the old time map makers 
(once they had obtained some better maps of the area - a little after 
Vespucci's time) ascribed different names to what we now call North and 
South America.

> : 	We consider North America, South America, and Central America and
> : 	the Caribbean Islands as part of America.
> 
> : 	Now, people from the USA, in order to not get confused, and to
> : 	justify the continued use of "America" to refer to their country
> : 	have created the convention that there is a "North American"
> : 	continent and a "South American" continent.  However, please do
> : 	not expect the rest of us Americans to accept this convention since
> : 	for us there is no confusion.  By the way, it would be interesting
> : 	to know why this country was named "United States of AMERICA".
> : 	Was it ignorance about the existence of the larger American
> : 	continent?  Or was it a subliminal desire to make the American
> : 	continent part of the nascent country?  Anyone out there knows???
> :  
> 
> > Hmmm....History is replete with examples of the US not wanting to make 
> > the "American continent" part of the US.  (Cept for Canada)  Exploitation 
> > did go on, but as for annexation, it was not desired by most of the US 
> > population during most of its history.
> 
> 	The fact that "most" and not "all of the time" the US didn't have
> 	an annexation mentality is a fact painfully remembered in Mexico.  :-(
> 

Well, I cannot speak for "all the time" or even all the people.  Thus my 
caveat.  However, whenever the US has had the power to annex or conquer 
Mexico, the opportunity has been foregone.  Now I know it might be said 
that it *couldn't* be accomplished, but I am not sure that is true.  
Might have been more touble than it was worth, but any period after 
around 1864 I think the US had the manpower and military/technological 
ability to do so.  There just hasn't been a Mexican army that could have 
resisted effectively.  However, most of the folks in the US have thought 
of an annexation of Mexico as "buying" into Mexico's rather large 
problems.  (If I remember correctly, this was one of the reasons Baja is 
now part of Mexico.)  BTW - I am not trying to be inflammatory here, just 
speaking about realities. however unpleasant they may be.

> 	So, why is it that this country was called "United States of America"?
> 	If it's not because of expansionist desires or ignorance (I don't
> 	think the Founding Fathers were precisely ignorant), then why?
> 

Ummm....at the time of the founding fathers, there were no other 
independent states in America.  Further, the US was not far off at that 
point from trying to make the East Indies a state.  It is not unlikely 
that the founding fathers themselves did have annexation dreams...
it is certainly true that Burr did. 

> 	The best explanation I've heard is that the Founding Fathers wanted
> 	to stress the fact that the 13 individual colonies were closely united
> 	(United States) and that they were located in America (of America). 
> 	Subsequently, it became more practical to refer to the country as
> 	America...  Disregarding the people from the rest of the continent.
> 	
> >: 	In a ways I can appreciate your desire to choose any name you want
> >: 	to refer to yourself.  We Mexicans have a similar problem.  In Spanish
> >: 	we want the name of our country to be "Mexico" and the term to refer
> >: 	to ourselves to be "mexicanos", even though a large portion of the
> >: 	Spanish-speaking countries insist in using "Mejico" and "mejicanos"
> >: 	instead.  We ask them for our right to call ourselves as we want,
> >: 	pronounciation rules changes in Spanish not withstanding!
> >
> >: 	However, please understand our unwillingness to call this country
> >: 	and its people America and Americans.  I *really* does cause
> >: 	confusion.  I can use it as a sign of respect, but in my mind
> >: 	I will always think that it is used because of ignorance or arrogance.
> 
> 
> > It causes confusion?  Where?  Only in Canada and the US is the primary 
> > language English, yes?  Unless it causes significant confusion for folks 
> > who are primary english speakers in the US and Canada where is the 
> > confusion?  I understand that perhaps folks learning english as a second 
> > language might have some difficulty, but only a very small when looked at 
> > in relations to the huge problems of learning a new language.  Everyone I 
> > have ever spoke to from Mexico and Central America and Brazil has been 
> > VERY clear on what is meant in the US by "american," and become annoyed 
> > at its use.
> 
> 	You're right.  Of all places the US would be a place in which the
> 	use of "America" would *not* cause any confusion.  (People here get
> 	around the problem by claiming that there is not such as thing as
> 	the American continent, but only the North American and the South
> 	American continents).
> 
> 	I guess that although inconsistent, people have to learn that terms
> 	such as "North America", "South America", "Central America", 
> 	"Latin America", "the Organization of American States", "the Pan-
> 	American Games" and so on do *not* refer to the US exclusively.
> 	I'm curious... how do people here explain this inconsistency?
> 

Hmmm....language (and culture) is full of inconsistencies.  I have 
heard/read that one of the most powerfull things about the English 
language is simplicity and complexity of the language at the same time.  
Frequently, becoming acclimated to a culture includes eventual 
understanding of where that culture is hypocritical/inconsistent.  

> 	In Mexico we have other ways to avoid the inconsistency.  The
> 	name of this country is "Estados Unidos" and never is it refered
> 	to as "America" (America is the continent).  The adjective is
> 	"estadounidense".
> 

Well, ya.  Each culture has different names for the same thing, that can 
only be used in certain contexts.  If I say I am a "round-eyes" 
to someone in japan - most likely I will get a nod or a small grin.  If I 
say the same thing to a Japanese American I may very likely make them 
very mad (as they will assume I am mocking them.)  Context is very 
important.  In the Kingdom of Jerusalem (a kingdom set up by the 
crusaders in the Middle East during the Middle Ages - and an area of 
particular scholarly interest to me) there were about 1/2 dozen different 
names used to describe the Western European folks who settled.  using 
some of these names would get you knifed in some areas, whereas in others 
they were very appropriate. 

> 
> > I cannot say I dont try to avoid using "american" in 
> > conversations with these folks, but then again, if it is a major sore 
> > spot for them, they cannot really claim they dont know what is meant when 
> > it is used.
> 
> 	Thanks for your sensitivity, really!
> 
Not trying to be sensitive.  Trying to show respect for a (IMHO) very 
silly issue that bothers some folks out of respect for some of the folks. 

> > Conrad
> 	Alejandro..

*******************************************************************************
****       I am in the middle of a few weeks of heavy work                ****
****        I appolagize for delays and tersness in email                 ****
****                                                                      ****

--

---

From: Carlos Abron
Date: 8 May 1994 00:23:43 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> Frank Kurucz,
[email-masked] writes:
>As a "gringo" that lived 12 years in Mexico City (age 9 to 21) I would
>like to make an observation or two.

 I am sure you learned a lot about the people of Mexico living in Polanco
and going to the Colegio Americano.

>To this day Mexicans still feel great pain and resentment over the loss
>of territory to the US. However, most Mexicans admire the US. They go
>to college in the US (Like Carlos Abron). They go on vacations to the
>US. They go on shopping junkets to the US. They buy vacation homes in
>the US, etc.

 Wish I still were in college. In reality, I am a balding Portuguese 
sociologist with a bad temper and a foul mouth. What in the hell am I 
doing here? Performing a study of migratory issues for a well-known 
international organization.

>The love-hate attitude they have is interesting (and understandable). It
>is even reflected in humor. Example:
>
>What was General Santa Anna's greatest mistake?
>
>A: He only gave half of Mexico to the US.
>
>Yes, Mexicans actually tell jokes like this, and yet, at the same time,
they
>can be as bitter as Carlos when it comes to the real annexation.
>
>BTW, I always thought of the term "gringo" as being almost-affectionate.
The
>derogatory term was gabacho (gavacho?).

 That is precisely what irritates the excreta out of people: you and your
countrymen have a moronic sense of humor. To make matters even more
annoying, you think you know it all when in fact you are so ignorant that 
one can but feel like telling scatological and offensive remarks to you. 
It's your fault, in the end.

 The term "gavacho" is the fairly derogatory name given by the Spanish
to the French. It got picked up by the Mexicans during the French
intervention
in the XIX century.  When and how it began to be used to refer to the
gringos is something that nobody knows. Its use is fairly uncommon in
Mexico 
and, strangely enough, is usually limited to certain sectors of the
population 
living near the border with the United States.

 The Spanish happen to despise the gavachos just about as much as the 
Mexicans despise the gringos and for very similar reasons. I'm sure
you've no 
idea what I am talking about but I'm not going to explain it to you; go
and buy 
yourself a history book. I'm not even going to bother to explain the
origins of 
both the words "gringo" and "gavacho"; it would be like throwing flowers
at the 
pigs.

>My 2 (viejos) pesos worth.
>
>Frank Kurucz
>
>P.S. (P.D.) By the way, I love Mexico very much.

 Then show some respect and stop telling annoying jokes.