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

I have only seen USAians used online;
can't imagine how it might be pronounced.

I don't see how it is derogatory.

It is clearly online txtspk and therefore
easy, lazy, sloppy, clumsy - but since it
only appears as a text shortcut and isn't
really a word anyone could or would say,
I just can't see the objection or how any
offense could be taken.

That said, because it is cybertxtspk, I can
very easily not use it.

I can always fall back to using Yanks when
looking for a shortcut.


~jwf~

At one time there were Yankees and the Confederates. If they are all called Yankee now, I suppose that is a reflection of the dominance and assimilation northern state coercion and "values" over the southern states.

I am not a Yankee, and I grew up in Pittsburgh.

Ask Florida Sailor if he's a Yankee. Or Baron Grim.

Colombia was named after Columbus, apparently by Francisco de Miranda, a South American revolutionary leader. Before that, the country was called Nueva Granada, which sounds pretty colonial to me. Bolivia, of course, was named after Simon Bolivar, the leader of the massive independence movement. (He was widely admired. My mom was born in Bolivar County, Mississippi - pronounced 'BAH-li-ver'.)

'Columbia, the Gem of the Ocean' comes from that old silly habit of drawing mythological babes as personifications of countries, like 'Britannia' and 'la belle France', she of the Phrygian cap and bare bosom.

I might be a yanqui, but never a yankee. Heck, I consider folks from Dallas yankees.

What exactly is a "yankee" - is it some sort of stereotype (a set of characteristics) for a "type of american"?

I'll bet a lot of them are.

Student in western North Carolina, at the campus radio station: 'That older lady called me up and fussed at me when I didn't run your programme on time. She was RUDE.'

Me: 'That lady wasn't being rude. She's from New York City.'

Student: 'Oh. That's different'.

>>If they are all called Yankee now...<<

No they are not, not correctly.

In the US itself the term Yankee is still mostly
used to refer to the Northern citizenry of the US.

The spanish speaking Central and South Americans
use the term Yanqui (Yankee) in the same way referring
to all USAmericans (usually in a contemptuous way as
did the Confederate southerners and their descendants).

The shorter term YANK is a British coinage from
WW1 and WW2 and is generally in ignorance of the
historic north/south differentiation. Brits still use it
to refer to all US citizens. (And sometimes quite
wrongly their meaning includes Canadians, who are
in fact loyal subjects of the Crown.)


I use Yank in the British inclusive sense and would
be unlikely to use Yankee except in specific cases
such as the New York Yankees (baseball team) or
Twain's A Conneticutt Yankee in King Arthur's Court.


~jwf~

Two Bit, I noticed you didn't answer the question I asked you. Of course you don't have to, but just in case you missed it, I'll ask again.


Do you accept that one of the effects of widespread gun ownership is that more people get killed as a side-effect of this?

I think the "side effect" argument has been countered some time ago (e.g. side effect of car ownership, smoking, drinking, having swimming pools in the back garden, living near to roads, eating meat, fast food etc).

I think it's blindingly obvious that there's a (causal) link. I'd just to hear what a pro-gun person thinks.

I would think they would have to say yes but would counter with
a) the car ownership / pool in the garden comparison
b) balance it with say the use of guns to prevent crime

then there would be arguments to counter a & b and the debate would go on and on (as it has been doing).

Yep. As has been said. But the pro-gun people have had a chance to say, 'Yes, tens of thousands of people are dead because our hands aren't cold and dead yet.'

I found it very telling that this question wasn't answered.

My main issue is with guns and arms as an industry - and with its spread throughout the world, fueling / intensifying conflict etc. Ultimately it comes down to what morals and ethics is selected.

That's weird, my main issue would be the utter carnage that Americans see as normal.

The words "utter carnage" seem a bit extreme.

Americans vs. USians

Rod: "OK, I retract. You win. dammit"

Mr. X: Yay! We win!!

Whee!!

There there, go ahead. Gloat. (dammit)

Be warned - my time will come...

Indeed. He has made a Rod for his own back

Dmitri Gheorgheni;

I am not a Yankee, and I grew up in Pittsburgh.

Ask Florida Sailor if he's a Yankee. Or Baron Grim.

Now that's a prime reason for private ownership of guns!

If you want call Snowbirds 'Yankees' that's fine, but after twenty or thirty years - 'Them's fightin' words'.'round here.

Seriously, if the primary purpose of owning a gun was shooting someone, we would all be dead or in prison and your worries would be over.

FS

>> Them's fightin' words <<

I'm so glad you used that expression.
It represents the essential conflict between
the First and Second Amendments which together
guarantee that you can say whatever you want
but someone might shoot ya for it.

But aint that America?

The moral then is to choose your words carefully,
remember you are judged by the company you keep
and keep your powder dry.


~jwf~