Anti-British(isms)?

An author remarked to me recently that she was criticized by a reviewer for using the word loath--as in, to be disinclined to do something--on the grounds that it is a "British-ism." It appears in the piece as "academics are loath to point the finger at corruption for the problems..."

Would an educated American reader have trouble understanding this? Is this a legitimate complaint about the clarity of the writing, or is this something far more insidious? Perhaps this is some kind of a post-colonial backlash against a former imperial power? And might not it be unpatriotic for an American publication to use English that sounds like it originated from (gasp!) the English? Perhaps it is a reaction against what the reviewer percieves as pretentiousness? But how is this defined? One writer's pretentiousness might truly be another writer's natural voice. I would ask, then, whether the deliberate use of "plain" language or even the vernacular is any less pretentious as it reflects a self-conscious desire to be one of "the people" as only an intellectual (who is, one might say, inherently not "people") can express? Where, if not in academic circles, would formal language have a place? Certainly to use the synonym ("academics are disinclined to point the finger...") doesn't sound any less fussy! They are "reluctant" to...? They are "hesitant" to...? It loses its nuance of meaning--as an artist, I object!

In the interest of full disclosure, however, I must admit that I do insist on spelling grey with an "e" in my own writing because I think the word just looks wrong with the American spelling (gray). It's a soft and lovely color, and the "a" is downright ugly. I have also frequently been guilty of using the distinctly British structure of "I've no money" in favor of the cumbersome and more lengthy American construction of "I don't have any money." So sue me. Oh, but wait--I've no money...