Re:   The word "American" as referring to citizens of the United States of America.

Well, if the purpose of language is to communicate meaning, I don't see that it constitutes much of a problem.   "Citizens of the United States of America" is a bit long and awkward. "United Statesians" fails to distinguish if one is referring to the United States of America or the United States of Mexico (hey, waitaminit! Isn't Mexico part of America?). All of the other permutations that come to mind are equally awkward, clunky, or verge on the downright silly.

As it stands now, it is not just citizens of the United States of America who refer to themselves as "Americans," but most of the rest of the world as well. But how, you ask, do you distinguish between the citizens of the various nations on the two American continents (and, of course, the isthmus connecting the two, generally referred to as "Central America")? Well, most people (including most or all of those who live in other parts of the world, including in the Americas other than in the United States of America) refer to those who live in Canada as "Canadians," in Mexico as "Mexicans," in Puerto Rico as "Puerto Ricans," in Peru as "Peruvians," in Brazil as "Brazilians," in Tierra del Fuego as "Tierra del Fuegans" (need I go on?). Almost all these people refer to the folks who live in the country that lies between Canada on the north and Mexico on the south as "Americans." And that, generally, without prompting or coercion from the country in question.

I don't see that the fact that the citizens of the United States of America also generally refer to themselves as "Americans" implies—per se—that the citizens of the United States of American are inherently arrogant, egotistical snob-slobs who took it upon themselves to usurp the word "American" to use exclusively in reference to themselves. When practically everyone else in the world does it. (After all, there are other reasons, far more to the point, why many of the world's peoples might regard many Americans [pardon my use of the term], particularly the government, as a collection of arrogant, egotistical snob-slobs.)

Now, some First Nations (or Native Americans) object to being called "Indians," cognizant of the fact that Christopher Columbus may have been one of the great explorers of the world, but he didn't know where in the hell he was. He assumed he was in "the Indies," and referred to the people he encountered as "Indians." Now, many First Nations folk (or Native Americans) don't mind being referred to as "Indians," and, indeed, refer to themselves with that term.

Now, how, I wonder, might this go down with someone named something like, say, Rajiv Brahmagupta, living in Bangalore, or, perhaps, Maharastra? When hearing someone born of aboriginal stock on the North American continent referred to as an "Indian," might he not, with some justification, say, "Hey! Now just a darn minute here!"

Life can get very complicated, if one chooses to make it so. . . .

Don Firth