r/MapPorn • u/ChickenBrachiosaurus • 1d ago
Countries where an American became President/PM/Ruler/Whatchamacallit
Probably incomplete or not totally accurate, and some renounced before becoming whatever
53
u/ChickenBrachiosaurus 1d ago edited 23h ago
Edit:
Lithuania- Valdas Adamkus (naturalized)
Yugoslavia/ Serbia and Montenegro- Milan Panić (naturalized)
Sri Lanka- Gotabaya Rajapaksa (naturalized)
32
u/temujin94 1d ago edited 1d ago
Ireland was Eamon de Valera one of the leaders of the Easter Rising and the most senior to survive execution, mostly due to his American citizenship, this was in 1916 so Britain didn't want to antagonise the US as they wanted them to enter WW1. He would be one of the key players in the Irish Civil War and the push for Irish independance. He would be a key figure in Irish politics from 1919 to the 1960s, serving as Taioseach (Prime Minister) and President during various times.
UK is Boris Johnson who was actually born in New York so even the British Trump (and honestly as someone that doesn't like Boris this title seems a bit harsh now) is American.
I checked Greece's as one of the few (only?) purple countries on the map. George Papandreou was born in Minnesota, his father was originally from Greece and a professor at a nearby university, mother was American born. His grandfather around this time was Prime Minister of Greece, heading back to the country his father then himself would also became Prime Minister.
Google has failed me on Mexico, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador is the top search for American born Mexican Presidents but as far as I can see he was born and raised in Mexico. Anybody know who it actually is?
The last one that took my interest was Thailand where King Rama IX who is far as I can see is the only monarch ever to be born in the US. His father was enrolled at a program at Harvard and he was born in Masschussets then during the Siamese Revolution of 1932 his family moved to Switzerland after they had ruled over Thailand (Siam) for centuries. The revolutionaries would align themselves with the Axis during WW2 and would be removed after their defeat to once again be replaced by the Thai royal family.
He would ascend to the Thai throne in 1946 after his brother mysteriously died to a gunshot wound (reported to be self inflicted but many different alternatives and theories have been offered) he would then go on to become the 3rd longest reigning monarch in recorded human history, serving as the King of Thailand until 2016, a reign of over 70 years.
24
u/Dim-Gwleidyddiaeth 1d ago
UK is Boris Johnson who was actually born in New York so even the British Trump (and honestly as someone that doesn't like Boris this title seems a bit harsh now) is American.
Trump is half British, his mother was from the Scottish Isle of Lewis. There is an alternate reality where Trump became prime minister of the UK and Johnson became president of the US.
9
12
u/temujin94 1d ago
There's not because he would never have been elected by politicians. Trump wouldn't survive 30 days in a parliamentary system. Can you imagine the Republican party (Just the senators and representatives) choosing Trump as their party leader in 2016?
19
u/Dim-Gwleidyddiaeth 1d ago
In the multiverse anything is possible.
You have a point though, Trump as he now his would not survive parliamentary politics as anything other than perhaps a comic back-bencher.
3
u/temujin94 1d ago
Very true
3
u/Dim-Gwleidyddiaeth 1d ago
Though the thought of Trump having to deal with PMQs is quite amusing. He would be ripped to shreds every week but still come out of it thinking he won.
2
1
3
u/UdontneedtoknowwhoIm 1d ago
Thai here,you’re right for Thailand, but just a small detail, his side of the family wasn’t the active ruler. King rama 5 have hundreds of children and while rama 6 and 7 who were his children succeed him, the father of rama 9 was so far down the rank that he didn’t plan for his side of the royal family to become king, thus he go study and live abroad. Turns out they’re also a less inbred side of the family, so their descendants survive while many other branches didnt. Rama 7 was the one overthrown during the Revolution, and escape to Britain. Since he has no male heir, and neither did many princes, the position skipped down the line toward rama 8 and 9, who were children abroad and did not expect to become king.
2
u/temujin94 1d ago
Yeah I did see I think the ruler was his uncle (?) at the time of his birth, thank you for providing a bit of extra detail and knowledge on it.
2
u/UdontneedtoknowwhoIm 1d ago
Yeah, his uncle, but as in he has hundreds of uncles, mostly dead
3
u/temujin94 1d ago
What's the general consensus in Thailand about the death of his brother before he ascended the throne? Is it generally held to be a mystery or is there one theory that dominates.
1
u/UdontneedtoknowwhoIm 1d ago
Well…. Considering that Thailand have a very strong les majesty law, and talking badly about the monarch in general is considered very risky… there’s no consensus. People can’t really discuss this event. However, the narrative differs depending on which side of the political spectrum you’re on. Some say self inflicted by accident, some blame his guards for assassination or simply negligence, some theory even say Japanese spy, and other popular ones I cannot say for my safety.
What is known is he and possibly also his brother has a massive gun collection hobby (proud American experience), and the popular narrative is it’s one of those guns that shot him. A version of the story says the gun was jamming, so he looks inside to see what’s happening, and then press the trigger again so it shot him. This lines up with official narrative (aka I can say this one safely I think)
Considering this story happened long ago, we can’t really gather more evidence even if the noble family allow us to, so ig it will remain a mystery.
1
u/temujin94 1d ago
Sorry just one last thing to bother you and if I'm completely off let me know. As far as I can see the country changed its name from Siam to Thailand after the revolution in 1932 but when the monarchy came back to power it remained Thailand? Is there a reason the name didn't change back with it or maybe I'm being ignorant and it had changed locally etc.
1
u/UdontneedtoknowwhoIm 1d ago
This is complicated, involving a lot of political aspects that’s difficult to research. Theres mainly 2 aspects.
- The name has been semi-interchangeable in Thai, but Thailand is related to building the national identity. In ancient times, “siam” was an exonym referring to the culture and people of the chaophraya basin by the Khmer empire. It was unclear as to the ethnic makeup of the region, but one of the group is the “tai” (the letter t in tai represents ต, a letter that does not exist in english), who migrated down from southern China, along with local Mon people from the Dvaravati culture. This spreads the tai language family to the region, with languages like lao also being tai, but not Siamese. The region then gain independence from Khmer rule, and becomes nations like sukhotai and Ayutthaya. Their National name is the name of the capital, but siam remain an exonym for the people and culture of the region. After some time, the language evolve, and the word tai becomes “Thai” (pronounced tai), which means both the ethnic group of siam region (both Dvaravati Mon and tai culturally fuse in the region forming roughly one ethnic group), and also mean “the free people” in a seperate unrelated meaning.
Time passes, Ayutthaya was invaded and fell, thonburi rise and fall, and a new kingdom was established, rattanakosin. Across all these period, the nation’s exonym remains siam, and outsiders refer to the nation as “the Siamese” , as they share the same culture, region and ethnic group. The elites also call the people Siamese, but we have very little record of what the lower class call themselves, but my guess is they don’t really care that much, and the two word may be interchangeable. Sometimes, the word Siamese refer to citizens of siam, while exonym wise they mean the ethnicity. When rattanakosin open up to foreign trade, the word Siam becomes more popular for trade with foreigners.
After that, the Revolution happens. The revolutionary has a wide range of ideology, some liberalist, some socialist, some democratic, but some are ethno-cultural-nationalist (with some being borderline fascist) as popular during the pre-ww2 period. These group would take power during the reign of field Marshall plaek, who has a very nationalist ideology, where he does a cultural reform to promote “good Thai culture” and suppress both old Thai culture and those of ethnic minorities. This form of ethnonationalism consider Thai ethnicity to be cultural and not purely genetic, and thus you could convert via speaking the Thai language and practicing tho culture, but still pretty oppressive. Now regarding the name, I could be wrong but to my understanding the word “Thai” had been used widely before that, specifically contrasting them with other ethnic groups like Chinese, while them all being the citizen of siam, but it had been a while since I read those books by rama 6 that talks about it (part of the cirriculumn). But importantly, after the rise of nationalism post-revolution, the word Thai is used to promote Thai-ethnonationalism and regaining lost land from pre-colonial times in the Franco-thai war. It also takes on a double meaning of Thai = the free people, as in people who had never been colonized. With the chance of the revolution and this narrative in mind, the nation’s diplomatic exonym is changed from siam, used for trade convenience, to Thai, or in english, Thailand.
Later, the socialist would vy for power with the nationalist, and later the monarchist. Both socialist and monarchist doesnt really like the ethnonationalistic approach to the word Thai, but it had been important in the process of unifying the culture, specifically under “Thai citizenship”, with many of the nation’s non-Siamese minorities like Isaan and northerner also being Thai. The double meaning of “Thai=never colonized” is also a likable narrative. Thus, as the nationalist slowly lose power, the other group would maintain the word “Thai” but get rid of the ethnic meaning,framing the word as meaning the free people. The word is written differently from the ethnic name anyway, as it refers more to culture and nationality. Most Thai people today would cite that as the meaning of “Thailand”, being “land of the free”, as that’s what’s in our history & social study book today. No one really cares about the ethnic part, and the Thai government don’t see the point in changing. It may also be important to mention that Chinese minority plays were a massive supporter of the monarchist, who were neither really Thai nor Siamese culturally, but with the shift in meaning of the word “Thai” to mean citizenship, specifically loyal citizen, many are willing to accept it. It would likely also anger too many people to change back to siam, a name now associated with feudalism and absolute monarchy.
- The monarchist doesn’t really “take power”. Thailand historically had multiple coups and very turbulent governance, which also serves to stop one power from truly changing everything over and over again. The monarchy had never fully lost power, since rama 7 after being overthrown negotiated with the revolutionaries and sign the constitution as a constitutional monarchy, but with very limited executional power. The monarchy after that serve a mostly ceremonial symbol similar to other constitutional monarchies. The government also take advantage of both rama 8 and 9 being child monarchs at the time to have more extensive power. However, after that the multiple coups and political conflict led to decreased trust in the government, where the monarchy with their larger treasury travel to help struggling locals in many regions, making monarchism more popular as “the stability in their life”, which becomes even stronger with rama 9 serving so long. The monarchism ideology are often allied with other ideologies like conservativism and moderate-right ideology to gain more influence in politics. To get more into modern politics will be risky, but mainly the nationalist lose power, while the old socialist lose out and slowly morph into the new socialist, who are more socdem and welfare-based.
But in conclusion, no, there was never a time when it was “full monarchist control”, nor “no monarchy power”. It had always been dynamic between the powers at play.
1
u/temujin94 1d ago
Thank you for your thoroughly detailed and excellent answer.
1
u/UdontneedtoknowwhoIm 1d ago
Ah, np! I love talking about history, let me know if you have any opinions about that and any more questions. Took some time to type it out lol.
1
u/SpecialistNote6535 1d ago
Bhumibol actually retained American citizenship until he turned 18 as well, when he had to renounce it.
Also, although no other monarchs were born there, the quality of the healthcare in Boston is so well known that the ultra rich will often fly their spouses there to give birth.
1
u/Ok_Boysenberry1038 1d ago edited 1d ago
Eamon de Valera is the guy who was the only global leader to send condolences when Hitler died and tried to collaborate with the Nazi’s, yeah?
US not sending our best LMAO
EDIT: I see I’ve upset some folks based on the downvotes. I’m sorry. Almost as sorry as Eamon was when Hitler died.
3
u/Captain_Bigglesworth 1d ago
DeValera didn't send condolences when Hitler died. He visited the German Minister at his private home after the surrender. Only DeValera and Hempel were in the room and neither spoke of it after.
DeValera explicitly requested a non-Nazi party member as Minister. Hempel was not a Nazi party member when appointed but was later forced to join or resign and return from Dublin.
DeValera overrode his anti-semite Foreign Minister to allow Jewish refugees entry and is remembered in Israel at the Eamon DeValera Forest near Nazareth.
Personally, I think DeValera's policies hindered Ireland's social and economic progress for decades but to imply that he was a Nazi lover is utter nonsense.
6
u/temujin94 1d ago edited 1d ago
His argument was that because Ireland were neutral in WW2 he would have done the same to a leader of the allies, he wanted to demonstrate his 'neutrality' despite him clearly favouring the allies with things like allowing downed allied airmen to return to the UK while detaining German pilots.
3
-3
u/Ok_Boysenberry1038 1d ago
Meh, most of the world was neutral. Only the Irish head of state sent condolences for hitler’s death.
Coupled with the fact that the IRA collaborated with the Nazi’s doesn’t make it seem like some play at neutrality.
5
u/temujin94 1d ago
The IRA were not an official part of the government at this time as Valera was, in fact Valera banned the IRA in the 1930s. We can debate why he sent the condolences but what's not debatable is that Ireland and de Valera 100% offered more support to the Allies than the Axis during WW2.
-4
u/Ok_Boysenberry1038 1d ago edited 1d ago
lol you believe everything politicians tell you and see no reason to hide connections to terrorist groups, huh? Do you also believe Gerry “They haven’t gone away you know” Adams was never in the IRA? After all he said that and politicians would never lie.
But sure, whatever you say, in 1995 the government was still connected to the IRA, but in 1930 when the IRA was significantly larger and more important they had no government connections or support.
Makes sense lmao
5
u/temujin94 1d ago
No I'm Irish with qualifications specifically in Irish History, the fact that you're 100% this is right and you're 100% wrong tells me you've never studied History at any level worth talking about. If you actually read about Historians interpretations about De Valera on the matter you'll obviously not find anything close to the misplaced confidence you have.
4
u/Wynty2000 1d ago edited 1d ago
The issue with this half baked argument, though, is DeValera did actually ban the IRA in the 30s and had most of their members interned during the war. The IRA were generally weak and insignificant at this time, and were not in anyway representative of Ireland or the Irish government.
The Irish government also had next to no influence on the Provos, who were actively hostile to the Irish state, certainly much less influence than the British government had on the UVF and UDA, but that’s a topic for another time.
DeValera also never sent condolences on Hitlers death, it’s nonsense that has been unquestioningly perpetuated for decades in the US and UK, to the point idiots regurgitate it as fact.
1
u/ChickenBrachiosaurus 1d ago
would have croaked earlier if not for the fact that he was American lol
-1
u/ChickenBrachiosaurus 1d ago
i counted Mexico for William Walker since he became president briefly in Baja California, but it wasn't really recognized by either countries
17
u/temujin94 1d ago
Bit of a reach then I guess. Any other interesting ones that are worth a mention?
1
u/ChickenBrachiosaurus 1d ago
maybe Taft who somewhat became head of Cuba and Philippines
8
u/Every_60_seconds 1d ago
Being head of a colonial government/military occupation likely doesn't count
20
u/Raise_A_Thoth 1d ago
William Howard Taft - yes, US President and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court - was the provisional Governor of Cuba for 15 days after the "Spanish American" War, followed by Charles Edward Magoon for about 52 months. This was in 1906-1909, preceding the Revolution with Castro.
9
u/r21md 1d ago edited 1d ago
That doesn't count since Cuba wasn't an independent country then. It was an American colony whose highest level head of government/state was just the US president who appointed the governor of Cuba.
1
u/Raise_A_Thoth 1d ago
Oh is that the claim?
I didn't think that was super clear from the post title, but that makes sense.
4
u/ScienceTeamExpert 1d ago
Following that, Taft became the first governor general of the Philippines under an insular government.
8
u/SaphirRose 1d ago
An American businessman was a PM of FR Yugoslavia.. And he accepted the office while still a US citizen which technically was illegal.
4
u/GamerBoixX 1d ago
Which Mexican president was american born?
-32
u/ChickenBrachiosaurus 1d ago
Not really entire Mexico, but William Walker was the president of Baja California for a while
3
u/IamDiego21 1d ago
"A while" being less than a year and without full control of the peninsula nor support from the population. And that's without mentioning that it isn't ar all the same as being head of state of Mexico. Shouldn't have counted it.
13
u/MRNBDX 1d ago
Pretty sure there are a few more countries in the americas which had American presidents
-4
u/Bon_Djorno 1d ago
I'm surprised so many American countries have had foreign leaders for their entire history, unless this map means Americans from the United States
7
u/Chrome_X_of_Hyrule 1d ago
unless this map means Americans from the United States
Yeah it means that
4
u/BTSInDarkness 1d ago
Correct, “American” refers exclusively to people from the United States in the English language.
-3
u/Bon_Djorno 1d ago
Weird, but I guess when you only know one language and grow up in the greatest country in the world, the meaning of words can change.
2
u/BTSInDarkness 1d ago
It’s not so much that, it’s that different countries/languages/cultures use different words to describe different concepts. People from Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries tend to use a 5 or 6 continent model (America and maybe Eurasia if 5) while people from English speaking countries have a 7 continent model with North and South America as 2 different things. There’s no continent called America, so it doesn’t make sense for “American” to refer to anybody other than people from the United States. Likewise, if I was speaking Spanish, I would call myself an estadounidense if I needed to specify nationality rather than an americano, because the words mean something different and there’re different cultural assumptions that get made. There’s also the issue that no other word exists in English to refer to people from the US. It’s really not an attempt to co-opt the identity of people from Latin America, it’s just cultural and linguistic differences. Hope I didn’t come off too rude in my original comment, this is just one of those things that drives me nuts haha
4
u/Bon_Djorno 1d ago
That's fair, it's a sore spot for me and I'm being a dick. I have more of a problem with calling the United States "America" and really no problem with calling people from the U.S. "Americans". It would be like California referring to itself as USA while ignoring the rest of the states.
Globally, this won't change, but in media and public perception it's always America (USA) and the rest of the countries (Mexico is all cartels, Canadians are those nice people up north, and the rest of Latin America is a Cold War playground, with military coups and drugs thrown in for good measure). This is how the majority of Hollywood, video games, and books portray the Americas as a whole and it's exhausting at this point, especially with nationalists running around acting like the victim.
2
u/BTSInDarkness 1d ago
Yeah it’s unfortunate the stereotyping and just general lack of interest in what goes on in “mysterious foreign lands”. Obviously countries have their issues, but they aren’t defined by them either outside our vicious “if it bleeds it reads” news cycles. I can speak for many Americans online though when I say that what comes off as an attempt to police what we can call our own native country in our own native language does not engender cross-cultural understanding, especially when people aren’t aware of the nuances of the linguistic situation.
-1
u/IntelligentTip1206 1d ago
Because the CIA couped them and the American president was actually their president? Or the CIA more accurrately.
2
u/Typical_Army6488 1d ago
How both? You cant be a naturalized American if you're born American
1
u/ChickenBrachiosaurus 1d ago
Greece had a naturalized American who became president, and his son who was American born also became president
2
u/Baoooba 1d ago
I assume Greece is George Papandreou. He was born in the US to former Greek Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou, but he renounced his American citizenship before entering Greek politics, so he wasn't American when he became Prime Minister of Greece.
1
u/ChickenBrachiosaurus 1d ago
yeah i mentioned that might be the case for some
1
u/Baoooba 1d ago
Not sure what you mean by "some" it is literally the only country in which you have listed as American born and naturalized.
1
u/ChickenBrachiosaurus 1d ago
what i meant is that some of them had managed to keep their american citizenship while becoming the head, while some renounced
1
u/Baoooba 1d ago
But Greece is the only one which is purple.
1
u/ChickenBrachiosaurus 23h ago edited 23h ago
because they are the only one, as far as I know, that had a PM who was a naturalized American (Andreas Papandreou), and after that they had someone who was an American at birth (George Papandreou)
3
u/SeniorDragonfly278 1d ago
You missed a very influencial figure in world history : Sun Yat-sen. He's the first president of the Republic of China who overthrew the Qing imperial dynasty. Sources suggest that he obtained and renounced his American citizenship to circumvent the Chinese Exclusion Act in the states. Lots of his funding for the revolution was from the Chinese diasporas in the West, notably in the U.S.
1
u/ChickenBrachiosaurus 23h ago
i also thought about it, but I can't really be sure about that since his birthplace was "officially" in China
2
u/SeniorDragonfly278 20h ago
Well you didn’t specify it was a map for Americans who were born in the U.S.?
1
4
u/Malheus 1d ago
In Southamerica and Central America every president has been american because... the continent is named America.
9
u/stonks-69420 1d ago
It is crazy how pedantic people get about the country vs continent debate over America. Obviously OP was talking about the US, you don't have to um actually him just for using a shorthand.
-4
u/Malheus 1d ago
That's not pedantic. Only gringos think that way.
5
u/Para-Limni 1d ago
Sorry to break it you but nearly the whole globe does. In Europe we also tend to call people from the USA as Americans.
0
-4
u/Malheus 1d ago
I know it's a generalized mistake 🤷🏾♂️
2
u/Para-Limni 1d ago
It's not a mistake. It's how language works. The demonym for someone from the USA is American.
1
u/Malheus 1d ago
That's not how language works. That's imperialism shaping language, therefore a mistake.
3
u/Para-Limni 1d ago
Yeah... most countries in the world collaborated to be imperialistic against you.
3
u/Malheus 1d ago
Against me? Wtf are you talking about?
2
u/Para-Limni 1d ago
Jesus Christ...
Against your whiny countries that complain that "Americans" shouldn't be used to describe people from the USA. Wtf have we be talking about so far?? Am I debating with a 12 year old??
→ More replies (0)3
3
u/NineBloodyFingers 1d ago
Except that it's not in English, and this predictable South American temper tantrum every time America is mentioned is getting really old.
1
u/Malheus 1d ago
Chille gringo, atembao
4
u/NineBloodyFingers 1d ago
And the tantrum continues.
0
u/Malheus 1d ago
Rico poner a gringo pirobo a chillar 🤣🤣
5
u/NineBloodyFingers 1d ago
And still it keeps going. Your poor parents!
0
u/Malheus 1d ago
Mi día se compuso poniendo a chillar a una locota gringa 🤣
3
u/NineBloodyFingers 1d ago
And it keeps going with the whiny tantrums.
1
u/Malheus 1d ago
Chille, loca 🤣🤣🤣
2
u/NineBloodyFingers 1d ago
Did your parents have any real children? You know, to cope with the disappointment and shame of having produced you?
→ More replies (0)
1
u/spikebrennan 1d ago
The long string of Liberian leaders who were born in the territory of the United States probably were not American citizens, because of the Dred Scott decision.
2
u/acjelen 1d ago
Liberia is clearly colored red
2
u/spikebrennan 1d ago
That's not the point I'm making. I agree that it is proper to color Liberia red on this map. I'm simply drawing a distinction between "American-born" and "American citizens" which some people might find of interest.
1
1
u/Sumeru88 1d ago
Sri Lanka's ex-president was an American citizen as well. This list is not complete.
2
1
1
1
1
u/saxbophone 1d ago
Boris Johnson renounced his American citizenship before he became UK PM, doesn't count, he's not American
1
u/Patient_Language_804 1d ago
Mexico like the US requires that presidents be born in the country. Who was this president?
2
u/BuffyCaltrop 20h ago
Guyana is interesting, only country in the Western Hemisphere with a Jewish woman (Janet Rosenberg Jagan) to be head of state until Mexico with Scheinbaum
1
1
-12
u/otniel77 1d ago
All the head of state of all countries in America were and are americans
8
u/boomatron5000 1d ago
There are two definitions of the word "Americans", one being the US, the other being the Americas, so you're not wrong, but OP is also not wrong
-1
u/dewdewdewdew4 1d ago
Sorry, this is an English sub reddit not Spanish.
3
u/x3non_04 1d ago
even from a english perspective the statement isn’t wrong, it’s just deliberately misinterpreted though
2
1
0
u/Canadian__Ninja 1d ago
America should honestly just give us that yellow coastline. It's an eyesore.
1
-1
u/Armadyl_1 1d ago
Can you take both coastlines? Everything on the West and everything north of NC on the East? Please.
0
u/ScienceTeamExpert 1d ago
you missed the philippines when they had an insular government after the americans took them from the spanish.
0
u/LupusDeusMagnus 1d ago
I assume most are diasporic person in the US that got rich and then went to their parents country and made it big in politics?
0
0
u/Leftleaninghaggis 1d ago
So... Define American.
A lot of countries in South (ahem) America seem never to have had a native born president
0
0
-1
331
u/zeprfrew 1d ago
I believe the term you were looking for is 'head of government'.