Conquer Club

Kaplowitz wrote:

misterman10 wrote:

Kaplowitz wrote:

Whiteberry wrote:Why are black people called African Americans?

Because you touch yourself at night.

no, I touch him at night
I like your avatar Kap

the new one, or the 6 flags guy?

the new one

DAZMCFC wrote:shouldn`t all of you just be called Americans.

Shouldn't all Arabs and Jews just be called Semites?

Back on topic: good question, despite the trolls and flamers. But I do agree we should all just be called Americans. The problem is with integration and affirmative action which require stating your ethnic background.

Besides, according to DNA research, we all are descendants of Africans. So we're all African-whatevers when it really comes down to it.

Arbustos wrote:I personally identify people by their shirt color, although this can become a problem in nudist communities

Anyways, we're actually just U.S. citizens. Calling ourselves "Americans" is a little egotistic considering we share the landmass with Canada, Latin America and the whole of S. America.

The US needs a real name, seriously.

It would take some real dumbfucks to name a country after the continent its on. Since China is in Asia, from now on I will be calling China Asia.

Whiteberry wrote:If black people in America are called African Americans why aren't white people called European Americans?

i believe all whites are called caucasian. yet many of them have nothing to do with mount Caucasus.

america's population is divided into the 5 categories of white or Caucasian, black or African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, Asian American.

this terms are used only to help one describe another person's looks. we are all human anyways. if you put blackest man from negroid race to england and let his progeny multiply there for few thousand years every generation would became more and more white and you finally couldn't differentiate him from original whites. same would apply to whitest specimen of caucasian race put into central africa. skin color is simply adaptation to one's environment.

Shouldn't that be six?

Why do you call them black when most of them are brown?

2dimes wrote:Shouldn't that be six?

Why do you call them black when most of them are brown?

I don't know, but I would rather we all be called Americans here in the US.

It'll never happen. Labels are not all bad though.

Even if you got rid of racism, some people that immigrate take pride in their back ground.

You'll allways have someone proud to be Irish or what ever they see as an identity.

Arbustos wrote:I personally identify people by their shirt color, although this can become a problem in nudist communities

Anyways, we're actually just U.S. citizens. Calling ourselves "Americans" is a little egotistic considering we share the landmass with Canada, Latin America and the whole of S. America.

i don`t know where your going with this, but surely they are Canadians,Mexicans,Brazilians,Agentinains and so on and so forth. they do not call them selfs central Americans or Southern Americans now do they.

2dimes wrote:Shouldn't that be six?

Why do you call them black when most of them are brown?

Why do you call Caucasians white when most of them are tan, pink, or cream?

i think the terms and the people they discribe might be diverging from each other.

why do get called anglo when i'm not?

DAZMCFC wrote:

Arbustos wrote:I personally identify people by their shirt color, although this can become a problem in nudist communities

Anyways, we're actually just U.S. citizens. Calling ourselves "Americans" is a little egotistic considering we share the landmass with Canada, Latin America and the whole of S. America.

i don`t know where your going with this, but surely they are Canadians,Mexicans,Brazilians,Agentinains and so on and so forth. they do not call them selfs central Americans or Southern Americans now do they.

That's just it, as cawck pointed out (and at finding myself agreeing with him), they actually have country-names that can be easily transferred to nationalities. We don't, so we just go with the whole freaking continent.

By saying Latin America, etc., I just meant the countries contained therein. They could just as easily call themselves Americans as we do since they're on the same continent -- same way a German may be identified as a "European."

And it's Argentine.

don't worry. i'm sure all of us on the american continents will be "americans" soon enough. or maybe will be known as NAFTAcans.

Arbustos wrote:

DAZMCFC wrote:

Arbustos wrote:I personally identify people by their shirt color, although this can become a problem in nudist communities

Anyways, we're actually just U.S. citizens. Calling ourselves "Americans" is a little egotistic considering we share the landmass with Canada, Latin America and the whole of S. America.

i don`t know where your going with this, but surely they are Canadians,Mexicans,Brazilians,Agentinains and so on and so forth. they do not call them selfs central Americans or Southern Americans now do they.

That's just it, as cawck pointed out (and at finding myself agreeing with him), they actually have country-names that can be easily transferred to nationalities. We don't, so we just go with the whole freaking continent.

By saying Latin America, etc., I just meant the countries contained therein. They could just as easily call themselves Americans as we do since they're on the same continent -- same way a German may be identified as a "European."

And it's Argentine.

It's very common for people from Spanish America (not so much Brazil) to call themselves Americans (americanos, pues). This term is mostly used to distinguish Latin Americans from Spaniards. The accepted terms in the pan-American literature for people from the USA is "U.S. Americans" in English or "estadounidenses" in Spanish and Portuguese, though "norteamericanos" is still commonly and incorrectly used to mean the same.

of course latin american is sometimes argued to be a misnomer in itself.

btownmeggy wrote:

Arbustos wrote:

DAZMCFC wrote:

Arbustos wrote:I personally identify people by their shirt color, although this can become a problem in nudist communities

Anyways, we're actually just U.S. citizens. Calling ourselves "Americans" is a little egotistic considering we share the landmass with Canada, Latin America and the whole of S. America.

i don`t know where your going with this, but surely they are Canadians,Mexicans,Brazilians,Agentinains and so on and so forth. they do not call them selfs central Americans or Southern Americans now do they.

That's just it, as cawck pointed out (and at finding myself agreeing with him), they actually have country-names that can be easily transferred to nationalities. We don't, so we just go with the whole freaking continent.

By saying Latin America, etc., I just meant the countries contained therein. They could just as easily call themselves Americans as we do since they're on the same continent -- same way a German may be identified as a "European."

And it's Argentine.

It's very common for people from Spanish America (not so much Brazil) to call themselves Americans (americanos, pues). This term is mostly used to distinguish Latin Americans from Spaniards. The accepted terms in the pan-American literature for people from the USA is "U.S. Americans" in English or "estadounidenses" in Spanish and Portuguese, though "norteamericanos" is still commonly and incorrectly used to mean the same.

Yeah, I thought about adding some of that, but it would have seemed a little overbearing :\ At least I'm getting something out of Spanish!

mybike_yourface wrote:don't worry. i'm sure all of us on the american continents will be "americans" soon enough. or maybe will be known as NAFTAcans.

That just sounds wrong... I'm moving to Greenland if it happens

mybike_yourface wrote:of course latin american is sometimes argued to be a misnomer in itself.

Sure, there are many people in Latin America, about whom there is nothing Latin. Like this guy:

btownmeggy wrote:

mybike_yourface wrote:of course latin american is sometimes argued to be a misnomer in itself.

Sure, there are many people in Latin America, about whom there is nothing Latin. Like this guy:

whoo, a nasty case of the freckles......

Whiteberry wrote:

2dimes wrote:Shouldn't that be six?

Why do you call them black when most of them are brown?

Why do you call Caucasians white when most of them are tan, pink, or cream?

I don't but, agreed.

2dimes wrote:

Whiteberry wrote:

2dimes wrote:Shouldn't that be six?

Why do you call them black when most of them are brown?

Why do you call Caucasians white when most of them are tan, pink, or cream?

I don't but, agreed.

#

you would say that, creamy boy!

but what does latin even mean? it's so vague. in a lot of the romance languages latino means someone from lazio the region around rome or from rome as well as latin american. it's just a weird term. just like calling all white folk anglo.

mybike_yourface wrote:but what does latin even mean? it's so vague. in a lot of the romance languages latino means someone from lazio the region around rome or from rome as well as latin american. it's just a weird term. just like calling all white folk anglo.

well, the lazio region was occupied by the germanic gothic invasion, romantic relates only to the tone of accent with which they spoke.

Latino can mean a host of things...depending upon who you speak to.

finally, an odinist opinion.

mybike_yourface wrote:finally, an odinist opinion.

so true.

If all of these muppets listened to me a bit more often, we wouldnt be talking about this.

Anyways earth-boy, how are you? is mother earth treating you well?