←back to thread

606 points saikatsg | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.618s | source
Show context
afavour ◴[] No.43929124[source]
> "Cardinal George of Chicago, of happy memory, was one of my great mentors, and he said: 'Look, until America goes into political decline, there won't be an American pope.' And his point was, if America is kind of running the world politically, culturally, economically, they don't want America running the world religiously. So, I think there's some truth to that, that we're such a superpower and so dominant, they don't wanna give us, also, control over the church."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-pope-could-it-be-american-c...

replies(6): >>43929272 #>>43930430 #>>43930746 #>>43932503 #>>43932802 #>>43934298 #
bbor ◴[] No.43929272[source]
For what it’s worth, I was just reading that Leo wasn’t seen as “completely” American due to his many years in Peru — he’s even a citizen. Take that as you will.
replies(9): >>43929321 #>>43929934 #>>43930040 #>>43930174 #>>43930642 #>>43931332 #>>43931534 #>>43931541 #>>43933011 #
rootsudo ◴[] No.43929321[source]
For what it's worth, Peru is in South America. Still American, Technically.
replies(3): >>43929441 #>>43929507 #>>43930610 #
bitshiftfaced ◴[] No.43929441[source]
From reading online comments, I'm starting to believe that those who reside outside the US are more strident defenders of the idea that "US citizens only" = "American" than US citizens themselves.
replies(6): >>43929514 #>>43929600 #>>43929616 #>>43929735 #>>43930377 #>>43930422 #
bee_rider ◴[] No.43929735[source]
I think most people worldwide basically know what you mean when you say American, but are actually referring to a person from the US, via context. It is pragmatic label. They aren’t from the US so they don’t have to worry about some identity based thing or feeling like they are stealing the name from two continents, for their one country.

On the other hand, some of more conscientious people in the US are feeling a little awkward about the name these days. So it isn’t surprising that we’d be the ones objecting.

replies(3): >>43929794 #>>43930185 #>>43930627 #
1. JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.43929794[source]
> some of more conscientious people in the US are feeling a little awkward about the name these days. So it isn’t surprising that we’d be the ones objecting

If the folks who got us into this mess with label obsession move on to something less charged like USian, that’s probably for the net good.

replies(1): >>43929922 #
2. dingnuts ◴[] No.43929922[source]
if the language police want to tell Americans what they're allowed to call themselves and expect any actual adoption they had better come up with a better word than "USian". How do you even pronounce that? Oosh-an?

But also sure, telling Americans to rename things, that hasn't caused ANY backlash now resulting in the renaming of huge bodies of water to stupid things, keep up the cultural dictates, it's totally working!

replies(2): >>43929958 #>>43930236 #
3. JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.43929958[source]
The whole enterprise of constantly renaming things is stuoid. But there are groups on the idiot left (LatinX, USian, xey/xem) and right (freedom fries, Gulf of America) who enjoy it. Between gender and race-based language policing and a nationality-based one, I think the latter is a safer place to constrain them.
4. bee_rider ◴[] No.43930236[source]
I think ultimately we won’t be able to refer to anything without offending somebody, given how polarized the US is. Of course my side’s backlash is totally reasonable, actually, it is an inevitable response that was caused by the other side trying to force some top-down change via the language police.