Yea, it's as silly as a country claiming to be the "United States of America" when lol, Canada and Mexico and all of South America would like a word...
I eventually figured out that this is largely an issue with terminology.
In Central/South America, it's generally taught that everything from Nunavut to Cape Horn is a single continent, America. When the US calls itself "America," that's seen as a deliberate attempt to claim primacy over the whole continent.
In English-speaking North America, it's generally taught that "America" is the country and "North America/South America" are the continents, so we're befuddled by the irritation.
This is why Canada, actually, doesn't appear to have an issue with the "America" thing.
>in English-speaking North America, it's generally taught that "America" is the country and "North America/South America" are the continents
aaaaaand you don't see any problem here, no?
Let's try again. With that logic, there'd be no problem with Germany calling itself "Europe":
"What's the problem? When we say 'Europe', we mean our home country, a large part of the region known as 'Western Europe', and disjoint from 'Eastern Europe' - everybody here is befuddled by why the Greeks are upset! The Austrians are totally on board with it, by the way."
Words can mean different things in different languages and different contexts.
In English-speaking cultures, North and South America are separate continents. "America" is understood to mean the USA. The polite term for someone from the USA is "American". Calling a Canadian "American" is impolite.
In Spanish-speaking cultures, América is a single continent. "Estados Unidos" is understood to mean "de América", not "Mexicanos". People from the USA are commonly called "estadounidense", "norteamericano", or "americano". It's polite for outsiders to use "estadounidense".
Neither language is indigenous to the Americas, so why not just use the polite words in each language?
However, United States of America does not claim in this situation historical figures of Canada, Mexico and rest of South America to be U.S.A. nationals, or publish maps with its aspired borders including Quebec or Mexico City. For instance, they claimed that Simon Bolivar was U.S. national.
The situation is way more complicated than people expect or are comfortable with. I am not objective in this situation to give you a full analysis, but I would suggest if you want to have a full picture to start by looking at Balkan Wars to get an idea about the imperialistic dreams of each country in the area and the events. WWI shows how things evolved afterwards. Just checking the alliances is enough.
Then read about WWII specifically in that area and about Josip Broz Tito [0] (for starters) and dig in why he introduced new history and an identity and what were the political aspirations after WWII and why Yugoslavia was created and the naming of its regions.
I tried to give an objective guide to read the situation. Again personally I am perhaps not objective, as I have a stake in the situation.
Except, lol, it’s the reverse of the Macedonia-Greece issue: the US was the only recognized independent state in the Americas when they chose their name. If “Canada and Mexico and all of South America would like a word” they should invest in time machines.
No, I don't see how you think it's opposite. Macedonia is a name for a large area. FYROM/Northern Macedonia is being used to name a country that takes up only part of this area. Similarly, the Americas are two continents, and USA is being used to name a country that takes up only part of this area. Neither the USA nor FYROM are granted any claim to the rest of their nominal superset.
Because you're misunderstanding the issue at hand.
Greece and Macedonia aren't having an abstract argument over sets. As the article explains, Greece has two specific objections to its neighbor using the name Macedonia: that the name (and certain actions) are thinly-disguised territorial claims against its own province of Macedonia, and are an attempt to lay lay claim to the historical/cultural legacy of the ancient Greeks.
This is why the US situation is the opposite, because the US as a separate nation predates all of the other nations you mentioned in the Americas. It therefore can't have been claiming territory of other neighboring states because there weren't any, nor were they claiming anyone's cultural legacy (except arguably the natives, but that's a charge that can be brought against every modern nation in the Americas).
It might help to recall that after the American Revolution the 13 colonies became 13 separate sovereign states that would only come together as a single nation in 1789 with the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. The new nation was a union of all then-extant states on an American continent, hence the United States of America. That other independent nations eventually came to be in the Americas has no bearing on what America chose to call itself at the time of its founding.
FYROM (UN designated name) and to be Severna Makedonija has been actively teaching they are the descendants of Alexander the Great, raised statues [0](random article googled, you can find more) etc. Extremist groups also post maps [1] (also random googling you can find more). So I would say the claims are disguised only in talks with other country officials.
Don't take this dispute lightly; recall that country policies trying to force the dispute to end created the whole Middle East mess and the Balkan's has been a hotpot with the last war happening in the 90's (also because they forced together two different people (I am skimming on the subject please read into Yugoslavia)).
(logged out, discovered last pass doesn't have the password for hn: new account to continue)
I think you skipped over the comment that I was responding to, which said this:
> They want to be named after a geographical region which is way bigger than their borders.
Sounds exactly like the USA at the time of their founding, and is in no way describable as "the opposite".
I think the implication is that 90% of the unsolicited requests are obviously garbage and are immediately ignored. The remaining 10% may still be mostly worthless, but it at least takes some investigation to identify them as such.
I flew from Geneva to London City Airport the other day. Check in closed 45 minutes before the flight, and it's so convoluted to get through the airport that after checking in right at the deadline, I had a brisk walk through the airport for 30 minutes to arrive halfway through boarding. I would not want to arrive any later, and anyone who didn't want to rely on short lines at security moving fast would be well off to arrive at least an hour before takeoff.
Unfortunately I've seen people much more eager to adopt a bad idea that is easier in the short term than a good idea that involves hard or boring work - like "should we refactoring and build on our existing code or throw it out and start again?", where people vote for throwing it out because "I don't even understand this code!"
Its like if a civil rights violation from one US city on any given day was elevated to the world stage. It would sound like much more of a nightmare than anything going on in the UAE.
People already discriminate against young women based just on the risk they could get pregnant, doesn't seem like it'd be that bad to spread it across to young men as well.
