What is the reason for deleting this answer at Since the inception of the United States, has the term "America" ever referred to something more than simply "the United States"?

Where the question specifically asks

Would the term America have been at that time a larger concept, not precisely synonymous with the United States?

the answer is affirmative: "america" can be interpreted as four words "a" "me" "ri" "ca" is four words that predate the United States by several centuries.

Do the individuals whom deleted the answer disagree with the fact that the word "america" is a combination of the four words ancient words "a" "me" "ri" "ca"?

  • 3
    They are certainly four syllables, and these syllables have all been found as words in ancient languages (tbh, it would probably be difficult to find a syllable that hasn't!). However, personally, I think you would need to show an example of those four words combined together, in order, as a-me-ri-ca for it to be considered the term "America" , which is what is asked for in the question. Jun 1, 2018 at 19:43
  • @sempaiscuba It is both startling and revealing how easily persons use the word as if the word appeared from the primal ether and every person is supposed to simply accept that the word is there, without ever having researched the etymology of the word or even asked what the roots of the word are; especially at a site where the subject matter is supposedly history. Jun 1, 2018 at 23:55
  • 3
    Indeed. Many have probably never even heard of Martin Waldseemüller! Jun 1, 2018 at 23:59
  • @sempaiscuba The origin of the word is Ancient Egyptian. "a" (pronounced "ah" in english): pregnant; big; "me" ("meh"): pyramid; "ri" ("ree") sun; ca ("kah", not to be confused with "ba"); vital essence. Meaning "big pyramid in the sun that is alive". There are no vowels in the Ancient Egyptian alphabet, "a", "e", "i" can be substituted for any other vowel by the speaker. Note the pyramid on the US dollar and the Washington Monument (phallic vital essence). Jun 2, 2018 at 0:25
  • 1
    That's certainly a novel theory. Do you have an example from any surviving Ancient Egyptian inscriptions where that sequence of hieroglyphs was used? Jun 2, 2018 at 0:52
  • @sempaiscuba When one or meanings of the word is understood, from the perspective of antiquity, we can perhaps better appreciate the works of Manly P. Hall relevant to The Secret Destiny of America, and simultaneously set aside the western academic criticisms of Ivan Van Sertima. This world is finite; has been traveled to and fro by two-leggeds, including before and after the continents were formed, and before the so-called "discovery" of a me ri ca. Jun 2, 2018 at 0:54
  • 3
    I note the disclaimer at the top of that page states: "Ascension Research Center does not guarantee the accuracy of any content on this site ..." Jun 2, 2018 at 1:04
  • @sempaiscuba Whom can guarantee the absolute accuracy of anything? That is simply a link to a site containing the text of the material intended to be conveyed. Read the physical books. Draw your own conclusions. Cheers. Jun 2, 2018 at 1:12
  • @sempaiscuba "Do you have an example from any surviving Ancient Egyptian inscriptions where that sequence of hieroglyphs was used?" No, not yet. Consider all of the geographic locations which contain the word "ca"; several are in the western hemisphere alone. "ra" or "ri" is well known in ancient times. As to travel from the eastern to the western hemisphere (and back) in ancient times we have the Olmecs as an example; which critics of Van Sertima state were not African; the so-called "pale" or "red head" Maori oral history and DNA prove such travel possible. Jun 2, 2018 at 15:44

2 Answers 2


An assertion like that would need to be supported by evidence.

  • @MarkCWallace Done history.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3756/…. The onus is on the persons who use the word while ignorant of its origin and meaning. You have not demonstrated any evidence yourself that you have actually researched the word. Not doing the research for persons that use the term without actually questioning anything as to the etymology of the word is no reason whatsoever to summarily delete a valid answer to the question. You argue for pure censorship founded in ignorance. Jun 2, 2018 at 0:31
  • 7
    @guest271314 If you want your non-answer to be restored, you can edit it into real (however dubious) answer by including your reasoning and evidence, and nominate it for undeletion. Soapboxing in the comments on meta will not accomplish that.
    – Semaphore
    Jun 2, 2018 at 0:43
  • @Semaphore The answer is a real answer right now. It is not this users' fault that people simply have not looked into the meaning of a word they have been spoon-fed and yet still utterly ignore the responsibility to research the meaning of the word; they just use the word arbitrarily and expect everyone to join in their oblivious ignorance. Stop censoring content. Jun 2, 2018 at 0:56
  • @Semaphore All facts are random assertions. We cannot go back in time to prove anything in "history". No answer at that question asked what the word means. They just sing along in ignorance creating secondary questions where the primary question is entirely ignored. That is their and your issue. Drops some jewels. It is up to the user to vet the idea. No matter what this user posts you people will have something to say. Jun 2, 2018 at 1:02
  • @Semaphore Your reasoning is flawed. The answer contributed novel ideas to the question. Users are well suited to researching the etymology of the terms themselves. They can then draw their own conclusions. You would have something to say if this user used the word Albion to refer to a de jure name. Really do not care about what you consider "quality" or not. Am only concerned with the data, not your personality or belief system. Just the facts. Vet every fact equally, here. Take it or leave it. Jun 2, 2018 at 1:09
  • 6
    @guest271314 Very well, we'll leave it deleted.
    – Semaphore
    Jun 2, 2018 at 1:10
  • 6
    OP asserts that "America" can be interpreted as four words. That assertion is novel, and novel interpretations require evidence. I don't have the tools (context, historiography, etc.) to understand this answer. I was merely asking OP to give me the tools to understand this interpretation.
    – MCW Mod
    Jun 2, 2018 at 12:33
  • @LangLangC What question and answer are you referring to? Jun 2, 2018 at 15:45
  • @MarkC.Wallace The context is provided in the answer itself. The word "america" is broken down into four individual words "a" "me" "ri" "ca" which comprise the single word "america". Cursory etymology of the four words confirm that each word is indeed an individual word predating the word single word "america". That is evidence. Whether you agree with that evidence or not is a separate matter altogether. The point is that persons use terms in modern times which they either 1) are not aware of the origin of the word (and do not research the term beyond modern usage); 2) defend their ignorance. Jun 2, 2018 at 16:06
  • 6
    It is not evidence, any more than I can make the same assertion that the old English word "rime" derives from "ri" and "me". If there is any stronger evidence than your assertion that this is any more than an uninteresting coincidence, you haven't presented it, and your not going to convince anyone.
    – PhillS
    Jun 2, 2018 at 17:53
  • @PhillS All data is evidence. Whether that evidence is valuable or not depends upon what you are investigating. Am not attempting to "convince" anyone of anything. Only relayed the raw data. Some time ago looked into the meaning of the word "america", as millions, if not billions of people use the term frequently, though few actually ask what the word means - where the word originated. Shared what found. Vet the data yourself, as any user should as to any question or answer. Draw you own conclusions following your own due diligence, within the scope that you define. Jun 2, 2018 at 23:14

As far as I can see, the "deleted answer":

"america" could be interpreted as four words
a me ri ca
where the etymology of each word leads to a distinct meaning in antiquity, surviving today.

does attempt to do the following: breaking up the word into its syllables, treating each syllable as a distinct word, with ancient origin/etymology. And ascribing each of theses syllables/"words" a nondescript meaning, "surviving to this day".

So far, so good.

But this "deleted answer" is not really an answer.

It may have been the start of an answer, even a good one? But it falls short of actually answering the question.

First, there is no explanation given to what these "ancient words" might mean, what their etymology might mean/reveal. Wheter their meaning/etymology in separation or in combination. You are the curator of your sources and references. You give us none.

each word leads to a distinct meaning in antiquity

to which the vast majority of your readers (who are "spoon fed" the wrong ideas, as you wrote) will retort: "and this distinct meaning is: what, exactly?"

Then, I have to assume, you claim that these syllables were used way before Amerigo/Waldseemüller to refer to anything, in the conjunction as they are used now ("today"). That might be the case, I do not know either way, but we do not get any evidence for that, either. And since I already had to assume this motive, my reading might have gone off the rails already.

There is a certain contradiction in the way you claim that these small facts you present are somehow self-evident and at the same time too obscure for most people to even know and even to strange to write down in the answer?

If you really care about the undeletion of this question:

  1. cite and quote your evidence, your scholarly sources or literature (if they are, ahm, let's say: "obscure"/"contrarian"/"revisionist" etc, you have to do that within your post. People need to be able to read and check that for themselves and obscure books are not readily available in every library or elsewhere.)
  2. explain what thee syllables/words did mean in antiquity or do mean now (quotes welcome again)
  3. describe, analyse, explain: how, where, when, by whom these words were connected to the very roughly interpreted frame of the question –– or whether that usage has demonstrably changed some point in time

This History:SE is a question and answer site.

In it's currently deleted form the "deleted answer" is not an answer.
All I see in this "deleted answer" is an allusion based on, well, I don't know, since this is just not a real answer (cf Semaphore's comment above), no facts, no explanation, no references, no evidence.

This site is not intended to give a reader of answers only vague incentives for a wild goose chase on some search terms. That is the job of an answer.

As stated in Mark's comment above:

OP asserts that "America" can be interpreted as four words. That assertion is novel, and novel interpretations require evidence. I don't have the tools (context, historiography, etc.) to understand this answer. I was merely asking OP to give me the tools to understand this interpretation.

Please note: Nothing I wrote here is definitively qualifying the (possible?) content of your post on main. Whether that may end up as horrible, debatable or brilliant – or already is, I do not comment on here. The current format and the rudiments of a methodology are just unsuitable to begin with.

  • "I have to assume, you claim that these syllables were used way before Amerigo/Waldseemüller to refer to anything" That is correct. That was the result that deduced when researching what "america" means, as the word is used frequently, though few, if any, actually first ask what the origin of the word is. As to the critique of the answer, so be it. If the raw data is useful to you, look into the matter further, if not, simply discard the data, as this site has done. Raw data itself should not be deleted, no matter what your critique is. Vet the data yourself and draw your own conclusions. Jun 2, 2018 at 23:20

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .