Whenever I watch the news, or read something about current events, I always end up getting confused by the use of the word 'America', claiming some action or attitude on the part of 'America' in geopolitics, or whatever.
I wonder if these people know that America is a big continent with very many different countries, all of which have their own differing, often conflicting, positions on just about anything, be it politics, economy, ecology, etc.
"You're missing the point, America refers to the United States". Of course, I know this. I realize it made a lot of sense, in the past, to use America to mean the US, back when it enjoyed world hegemony and it had managed to impose it's own interests on the greatest part of the continent.
But not anymore.
This decade it has become patently clear that not every country in America aligns anymore with the interests of the US, that their hegemony in world politics is rapidly becoming a thing of history, and that new economic powers are rising both in North and South America. Moreover, the economic capacity of the US is declining as rapidly as it's geopolitical dominance.
And yet, the word America still seems like a shorthand for "The United States of North America", and anyway, old habits die hard. It makes sense, historically, to refer to the US as 'America', particularly when, in the fading world order, "The World" means "Europe and the US", especially for the mass media that is still using terms relevant to the Cold War, if not the French Revolution.
So it is that I propose an alternative spelling, to more usefully differentiate the two meanings given to this term: the continent, composed of very different countries speaking about 3 european languages and hundreds of indigenous languages, is America. It is divided in North, Central, and South America.
A certain English-speaking country in North America, located between Mexico and Canada, for shorthand, is to be called Murica. I am sure hardly anyone would raise an objection to this spelling. I think it also reflects the linguistic character of this specific region in it's geographical, and even historical, context.
This extends to other words so derived. Americans, for example. Consider the notion of alien immigrants to the US. Given that it is a region in America, it makes sense that Americans should be the rightful inhabitants of that region. Understand Americans, of course, to be the very many different peoples who have for a long time inhabited America. Europeans should be seen as what they are: alien immigrants who have settled, more often than not by force, in this region.
This presents a little problem, I am well aware: Nearly all of us in America have european descent. On the other hand, nearly all of us in America also have indigenous descent. A lot have African descent, too, I am well aware. There are a lot of people of Asian descent as well. Given the very complex and colorful admixture of ethnicities in this continent, it makes little sense to make any distinctions based on that. There are plenty of arguments, I am sure anyone with some brain matter can think of one, to disregard genetic inheritance as the unique, or primary, measure for land inheritance.
I think the measure should be a cultural one, and while the boundaries here may still be blurry, I think it can provide for a more straightforward question of who can be considered to be "American". I am talking about cultural identity. Of course, America is, by and large, heavily, more than heavily, influenced by European culture. I would say it is a question of self-identification. Here is the question I propose to determine one's "American-ness":
Do you identify yourself as American, or European?
This is of course, not an "either/or" question, but a continuum of sorts. If the subject is a mestizo who engages in local traditions, say, dia de muertos, and can trace a number of elements of their cultural heritage as natively American, then this person can consider themselves, American. If a person not only has mostly pure-european genes, but can not trace native elements in their cultural heritage, _How can such a person consider themselves to be American?_, let alone consider themselves a rightful heir, more so than other, more identifiably American peoples?
In this light, I may be excused for advocating for the preference for Americans to occupy American soil, and for alien immigrants to clear the way for them, or at least respect the rights of the rightful American heirs of the land.
In short, I propose we distinguish between America, and Murica, and, as James Munroe would have it: America for the Americans.