h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Equal protection isn't the same as giving a blanket federal right. Equal protection means improper discirimnation may not be used to disciriminate against people. The states are free to determine the qualifcation of voters as long as they don't disciriminate against protected classes.

Barring convicted felons from voting is the easiest example, but that involves a hearing, so that's easy. There might be other qualifcations that you could put in there. I'm having a hard time thinking of other examples. Most of the ones I can think of are a bit silly like disqualifying lawyers. That wouldn't be discriminatory. I'm having a hard time thinking of other examples.

Mental incompetence could also be a condition, but that would also require a hearing, with due process and proper legal representation.

You can't declare someone incompetent just because they want to vote for the side

FS

please add 'other' to above

>Mental incompetence could also be a condition, but that would also require a hearing, with due process and proper legal representation.


That strikes me as a nightmare to regulate. I wouldn't bother with it for voting. For gun ownership, it would be something to do though.

I think it would be reasonable for states to require a high school diploma or GED before allowing a person to register to vote. I'm sure some would claim that is disciminatory in some way, but I don't see how you could say it's unreasonable.

Regarding 'American' and 'The Americas'
Yes, of course South, Central and North America are, collectively, The Americas.

There are south americans, central americans and north americans and, collectively their inhabitants are americans.

To claim that 'american' is limited to inhabitants of the USA seems odd, at least. That would be rather like saying that the only people to be called british are the english (or the only europeans are german).

There are Argentinians, Brazilians, Canadians etc. All may also be legitimately called american, as with Asian, African etc (and not forgetting Antipodean!).

No sir, if you don't like the term USian then perhaps come up with a more acceptable term because you are not the only americans (even though it may be generally taken so in many conversations).

I am having a change of thought - basically I don't want to bug our american friends - so I am going to have to get used to thinking about two meanings for the same word american - one to represent someone from the USA and the other american term - more general. So I'll try and use it within context but it's a little difficult if you are not sure who you are "talking to" - but I am working it out - mainly Americans and Canadians on this thread plus the Europeans.

I would like a viewpoint from our Canadian friends - I assume they have no issue using the straight "american" term to indicate those from the USA.

>>No sir, if you don't like the term USian then perhaps come up with a more acceptable term because you are not the only americans (even though it may be generally taken so in many conversations).<<

I think if you called an Argentinian 'American' they would be rather annoyed and/or confused. American is the accepted demonym for someone from the United States of America, USAian doesn't get used anywhere except online. Might be different in other languages (isn't the Spanish something like Estado Unidian?) but in English it's American for the Yanks.

I can't see why anyone would want to claim otherwise.

I asked my Canadian friend this very question once. She said that she didn't like the idea of being called "american" because she was already "Canadian," and that having "American" only refer to the United States was just fine with her.

As for that film link--the obvious prejudice it harbored aside--she says it right in there herself: Brazilians are Brazilians, Mexicans are Mexicans, Canadians are Canadians, and so on. I honestly don't see why that bothers people in Europe so much. It's just a linguistic convention that makes conversation easier. To my knowledge, no one I've ever spoken to from an American country has ever actually cared. As far as I can tell it's just the French and certain Brits who make an issue out of it.

All that said though, if you want to call me a USian or something similar then I won't personally care. Just don't jump down my throat for saying "American" instead, then I'll be annoyed.

(Mexican) Spanish: Los Estados Unidos.

Literal Translation: The States United.

Never actually heard how they'd refer to an individual resident.

Upon further reflection, I think a Mexican would say "Americano" for an American citizen. But I'm not a Mexican, so what do I know.

Hmm, I'm sure a decent number of Mexicans would use something not writable here to refer to them


Perhaps we need to be the birthplace of a new term to refer to the denziens of North America as a whole

NAFTAns?

Mexicans call us Gringos.

South Americans call us Yanquis.

I tried to explain gringos in this Guide Entry: A87734497

The thing about 'Americans' is that the term predated the United States - which is a political entity. People in 'Great Britain' called their colonists 'Americans', and the name stuck.

When the US was first started as a political entity, some people wanted to called the place 'Columbia' in honour of that Italian dude. It didn't work, so another group took that name for a country they started in South America.

>>..assume they have no issue using the straight
"american" term to indicate those from the USA. <<

That's what we call them.
We are Canadians.
They are Americans.


~jwf~

>> When the US was first started as a political entity, some people wanted to called the place 'Columbia' in honour of that Italian dude. It didn't work, so another group took that name for a country they started in South America. <<

You make it sound like it was a complete carve up of the "new world" by the old ... was it? It seems that Africa was carved up in the 19th - early twentieth century but most colonies didn't stick (or there wasn't the same colonisation programme after the carve). The nation states that are the remnants of the "dash for africa" and the aftermath have left Africa impoverished and in constant conflict.

Getting back to the Americas I presume it is some European map-maker who is ultimately responsible for calling the "new world" America?

Yep. His name was Matthias Ringmann and he named it America as a sort of "high minded joke". http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/04/where_america_really_came_from/

>> That's what we call them.
We are Canadians.
They are Americans. <<

Fair enough.

I found this from wiki
The name Canada originated around 1535 from the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoian word Kanata meaning "village", "settlement", or "land"; another contemporary translation was "cluster of dwellings". So it seems that Canada was the name given by the locals to the settlement founded by the white men from across the seas. Eventually this small settlement would spread out to fill the native lands so that everywhere became Canada - the settlement of the white men from across the seas. The "age of discovery" was one of the first waves of globalisation.

>> Yep. His name was Matthias Ringmann and ... <<

Thanks for that. I'll have to try to commit to memory the label "Waldseemüller map" to memory
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/coma/images/issues/200701/large-map.jpg

OK, I retract. You win.

dammit