I say “the UK,” mostly out of habit, and I don’t plan to change. After all, I don’t like it when I’m called a “Yank,” either, but if I can tolerate it, the rest of the world can tolerate “UK.”

(Perhaps not. A Google search shows that “londres, inglaterra” is much more popular than “londres, reino unido”.)

Cala: The United States of America adopted the name “United States” before the other countries of the Americas did. The other nations adopted the phrase out of admiration for the U.S. federal structure, strange as that might seem today. Only Mexico still retains the appellation. Brazil, Colombia, and Venezuela have abandoned it, and there is a half-serious movement to change Mexico’s name to the simple “Mexican Republic.”

Everyone: speaking as someone who taught at a Mexican university for seven years, I can tell you that you can’t win the America/United States battle. Nobody will ever accuse you of appropriating the name of their country when you say “estadounidense” to refer to Americans; but many will laugh at you and happily talk about “americanos.” On the other hand, for every person like that, there will be another ready to express irritation at the use of the continent’s name to refer to a single country. (And yes, people do, if relatively rarely, use “América” to refer to the entire Western Hemisphere.)

Usually I’d choose to be mocked by the former group rather than have to deal with the annoying irritation of the second. After all, the name “United States of America” came about because nobody could decide what to call the new federation—- viz “District of Columbia”—- and the expansive language about the “independence of America” in the Articles of Confederation. It is what it is; objections from Latin Americans rarely come across as particularly serious. If the U.S. becomes less dominant (or arrogant) in the future, I’d bet good money that the whole “controversy” will quickly seem fusty and incomrehensible.

Not at all like the England/Britain/U.K. controversy at all.

Estadounidense is a common term in Latin regions for UnitedStatesian, which is a silly, silly word. When the rest of the world stops calling us Americans, maybe we will, too. There isn’t a lot of ambiguity – do Brazilians really get frightened when they hear the “Death to America” chants? To be technically correct, it might have to be United States of American, which is equally silly. We used to refer to ourselves by our home state, but as the 19th and 20th centuries progressed, it became less of a federal republic and more of a unified national state despite the best intentions and efforts of the Constitutional authors.

Maria, you might be interested to know that in the Civil War, southerners referred to battles by the nearest town or city while the northerners used the nearest body of water. Today, they still don’t agree on it, if that’s any indication of how careful you might have to be when throwing that “Yankee” around. It’s always best to find out what people call themselves.

Is that merely a matter of your personal opinion, or…?

There are nine counties in Ulster, not six. Get yourself an atlas!

As for “England,” I have often wondered if this usage stems from the fact that Americans formed their linguistic habits with respect to the mother country prior to the Act of Union. I’m a New Englander (of mixed Scots, English, Irish, and Scandinavian parentage) – and we pretty much set the parameters for thinking and talking about these things. It has taken 20 years of conscious effort to minimize my usage of the term “England.” In the process, I noticed that I thought of Scotland and Northern Ireland as separate countries. When saying “England,” I was visualizing England and maybe Wales.

Two New England friends described hiking in the rain along Hadrian’s wall in the 70’s near the site of the last Scots-English battle and meeting an old Scot who manned a little guard house. He took them in and made a pot of tea. When he learned that they were Americans, he exclaimed, “Ah! Ye got away! Ye got away!” They understood instantly, just as I did in the telling.

But, rolling about the back of my mind is the idea that it’s Scotland that puts the “Great ” into Britain.

(Oh, and all those non-US “Americans” can go suck it. That’s what the Monroe Doctrine was all about – we get to be Americans, and you get to have your revolutions every 30 years and rename your countries to whatever is fashionable at the time. Of course, I’m ignoring Canadians here, but then, that’s what they’re there for…)

I perked up when you mentioned the N.Irish crew. Use of language in Ulster is very touchy indeed. From the Irish nationalist perspective, it is the dreaded Engerland rather than Britain that is the target. Scotland and Wales also have their own nationalists and so there is common cause against the Crown.

I was in the Slugger O’Toole blog the other day and there was a long thread underway debating the use of the term “Ulster”. It was generally agreed that Ulster approximates the celtic Ulaidh so can be regarded as a legitimate Irish term. This is not the case though with the term “Northern Ireland” which suggests British (read English) legitimacy. My Republican mates always opt instead for “the north of Ireland” which suggests a geographic entity rather a political domain.

In Ulster, the London word also comes up. Protestants generally keep “London” in Londonderry, whereas Catholics opt for “Derry”. Language does indeed have a lot of power.

I’m living in Canada now, but I have to admit to resenting the dominance of England when I was growing up in Belfast. Since you mentioned footie, it should be noted that N. Ireland put the boot to England when they played us at Windsor Park in Belfast prior to the world cup. We won 1-0 and Rooney was about ready to beat up the ref and Beckham!

Both Prods and Catholics experienced delicious schadenfreude at the dismay of the Engerlaaaaaand supporters. Its not that we don’t like you lot … just that we like to see you taking a pasting now and then :)

In any event: To foreigners the UK has always been a bit of a constitutional mess (I suppose that you may call this a typical English understatement).

One the one hand, it has traditionally been one of the most centralised European (sic!) countries being run from London, England.

On the other hand Scotland, Wales and (Northern) Ireland have not only had separate regional/national identities – they have also even before the present round of devolution been covered by separate legislation in a number of instances.

I think it is obvious why foreigners have a hard time distinguishing English from British even if we immediately recognise the Welsh, the … ahm … Scots and the Irish. It is perhaps one of the stranger ironies of having an empire that you lose part of your identity.