Also, I respect your insistence on using a term other than American to describe people from the US.
Growing up in the US, calling ourselves American is a hard habit to break, but I recognize how dismissive and insulting it is to the rest of the people living in North and South America.
It’s interesting, in Puerto Rico I’ve often heard the term “North Americans” used to refer to inhabitants of the 50 states, even though North America is a region that includes other countries and even PR itself.
Its not a perfect term. Changing language is difficult and messy.
Do you have suggestions for something better (not meant to be snarky, I genuinely would like to find a good alternative and I bet cowbee would like input as well)?
Yep, thanks! I’m a Statesian myself, and see settler-colonialism as the primary contradiction domestically. Calling myself an “American” is, as you said, dismissive and insulting to the rest of the Americas, most of which aren’t settler-colonies.
Much of latin and south America are predominantly indigenous, whereas the USA and Canada in particular wiped out the vast majority of the indigenous populations. Mexicans, for example, are largely a mix of Spanish and indigenous, ie mestizo, with around 20% identifying as indigenous. This is in stark contrast to the US and Canada.
Just my own perspective, but I don’t think it’s really accurate to say that latinos of mixed descent always stop being settlers. Some are indigenous as you say, but I think most of us still count as settlers. We definitely aren’t indigenous (except in the context of the colonial relationship between our countries and the imperial core) in the strict political sense, and we live in (predominantly) unceded territory. I don’t know if there’s a single country in LatAm that isn’t a settler colony as a result of these facts, I’d probably hazard to say no but there’s a few I’m pretty ignorant about.
It’s definitely a contested subject, and I have the “benefit” of falling squarely into undisputed settler territory so there’s no ambiguity. This is just the perspective I have heard so far on the subject, I know mestizo aren’t indigenous directly but it’s not the same as the sheer obliteration of indigenous populations at mass scale as in Canada and the US. I still support indigenous movements throughout south and latin America, of course, as I do in the US/Canada.
I’d also like to add that, as far as I know, USA (and to a lesser extent Canada) are the only two states in the Americas that are still actively colonizing other places, including other parts of the Americas.
Also, I respect your insistence on using a term other than American to describe people from the US.
Growing up in the US, calling ourselves American is a hard habit to break, but I recognize how dismissive and insulting it is to the rest of the people living in North and South America.
It’s interesting, in Puerto Rico I’ve often heard the term “North Americans” used to refer to inhabitants of the 50 states, even though North America is a region that includes other countries and even PR itself.
Because no one else belongs to a state and so calling ourselves “statesians” is therefore better?
Its not a perfect term. Changing language is difficult and messy.
Do you have suggestions for something better (not meant to be snarky, I genuinely would like to find a good alternative and I bet cowbee would like input as well)?
Usonian is another term I’ve heard, but it sounds even worse.
It’s not quite as easily understood as statesian or usonian, but I quite like what Erika3sis uses: Seppo
What’s the background in that one?
Actually, by this chart, seppos are those materially aligned with the hegemony, and she also uses usonians and americans.
Ah, understood! Yea, seppo seems like a term for labor aristocrat.
Yep, thanks! I’m a Statesian myself, and see settler-colonialism as the primary contradiction domestically. Calling myself an “American” is, as you said, dismissive and insulting to the rest of the Americas, most of which aren’t settler-colonies.
All of America’s are settler colonies. Or are they not to you because they are not White.
Much of latin and south America are predominantly indigenous, whereas the USA and Canada in particular wiped out the vast majority of the indigenous populations. Mexicans, for example, are largely a mix of Spanish and indigenous, ie mestizo, with around 20% identifying as indigenous. This is in stark contrast to the US and Canada.
Just my own perspective, but I don’t think it’s really accurate to say that latinos of mixed descent always stop being settlers. Some are indigenous as you say, but I think most of us still count as settlers. We definitely aren’t indigenous (except in the context of the colonial relationship between our countries and the imperial core) in the strict political sense, and we live in (predominantly) unceded territory. I don’t know if there’s a single country in LatAm that isn’t a settler colony as a result of these facts, I’d probably hazard to say no but there’s a few I’m pretty ignorant about.
It’s definitely a contested subject, and I have the “benefit” of falling squarely into undisputed settler territory so there’s no ambiguity. This is just the perspective I have heard so far on the subject, I know mestizo aren’t indigenous directly but it’s not the same as the sheer obliteration of indigenous populations at mass scale as in Canada and the US. I still support indigenous movements throughout south and latin America, of course, as I do in the US/Canada.
I’d also like to add that, as far as I know, USA (and to a lesser extent Canada) are the only two states in the Americas that are still actively colonizing other places, including other parts of the Americas.
Yep, that’s also true!