Stu -

I don't get why you did not quote the sentence of mine directly before the one you quoted—the one in which I said the exact opposite of what was in your reply.

I think you're trippin', man...gotten off on this hair-splitting tangent about "Yank", and all the specious arguments about intention and century-old songs. Look at the early posts in the thread. Even just the first post. Just look at the name of the thread and the nationality of most of the discussants. "Hint of cultural imperialism" indeed. Hint of, "We know what's best for others." It's easy enough to ask some of the over 300 million people of the USA what they like to be called. When they tell you, you've got your answer and there is no need to challenge and debate the answer you got. Just take it on board, "ok, cheers, good to know" and go on doing as you feel appropriate in the various contexts.

As for not getting how some people can feel when called by a term that they don't identify with or that they dislike(1), which you, nonetheless, see nothing disrespectful about...I don't know how I can help any more there. You get it or you don't. You've just got to put yourself in their position, let go of the ego, and empathize.(2)

Footnotes.
1. Registering dislike for a name a person/thing is called does not equate with being a drama queen, throwing a tantrum, having thin skin, inability to live with "reality", etc.
2. In my view, compromise, self-adjustment, or bending to others does not mean loss of pride, honour, etc. It does not indicate weak principles, but rather displays specific principles of adaptability and respect. I can change myself, my ways, etc without feeling that I have given in, become submissive, lost my identity, etc.