Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: September ::
Re: American Stage Tour
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2096  Tuesday, 4 September 2001

[1]     From:   Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 3 Sep 2001 15:05:24 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2084 Re: American Stage

[2]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 03 Sep 2001 09:05:32 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2084 Re: American Stage T

[3]     From:   Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 03 Sep 2001 17:55:00 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.2084 Re: American Stage Tour


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 3 Sep 2001 15:05:24 +0100
Subject: 12.2084 Re: American Stage Tour
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2084 Re: American Stage Tour

>  It's more a question of how many countries, isn't it?
>
> Terence Hawkes

More than a country but less than a continent?

To follow Professor Hawkes, and be precisionist, an *American* tour
would have to take in South America as well as North.  A *North
American* tour would have to take in Canada. If you toured the Nation,
you might just legitimately omit Texas.

Robin Hamilton

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 03 Sep 2001 09:05:32 -0700
Subject: 12.2084 Re: American Stage Tour
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2084 Re: American Stage Tour

Stevie Gamble writes,

>I don't think that 'states' are the issue here; my own view would be
>that it requires countries, in the plural. The USA is one country, not a
>continent.

Yes, but at least in the adjective form, things and people associated
with that country are usually referred to as "American".  As far as I
can think of, there isn't another current adjective to describe things
American.  "United Statesian"?

Let's put it this way:  no one would talk about Cuba's relations with
outside countries as "American foreign policy".  In this case, the word
"American" clearly means "of the United States".  Since there is no
other adjective to describe things and people as associated with the US,
using the term "American" to indicate two whole continents seems to
succeed less in correcting a strangely narrow appropriation of the term,
than in robbing all other countries on these continents of their
distinct identities.

I would hazard to guess that the this strange term results as much from
the laziness of Europeans and others who didn't bother to figure out
geography except in its broadest outlines, as it did from the arrogance
of Americans who assumed the whole continent to be their manifest
destiny.  It's so much easier to talk about "Americans" than to learn
the names of dozens of individual cultures, just as it's much easier to
call everyone in the United Kingdom "English", or to refer to all Asians
as Chinese.

Cheers,
Se

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.