(what do you call people in the United States anyway? 'Staters'? The name American would apply for Canadians in the north up to Argentinians in the south).
Personally I use the term "USAians", though they rarely appreciate it. Seems the most common thing is "Americans", wrong though it is. I always facepalm at "America is the best country" and similar statements because, you know, it's no more a country than Asia, Europe or Africa for instance.
My geography teacher went off on me about this. When you say american everyone knows what you're talking about, regardless of what it technically means. The Americans things is one of my pet peeves. I hated my geography teacher.
Well technically they are American, and most people from thr United States, refer to themselves from the state they are from. Texan, Okie, New Yorker, etc.
Yankee is also suitable, if you want to steer clear of American.
Well technically they are American, and most people from thr United States, refer to themselves from the state they are from. Texan, Okie, New Yorker, etc.
Yankee is also suitable, if you want to steer clear of American.
I wouldn't use "Yankee" anywhere near somebody from the South.
"American" seems fine to me because the other possible meaning isn't something we even need a word for. A word meaning "North American or South American person" isn't any more necessary than a word meaning "European or African person." I know "Eurasian" is a word, but it isn't often used as a descriptor for people.
My point was that Asia, Europe, and Africa are all single continents. The equivalents of those adjectives are are "North American" and "South American," not "American."
My point was that Asia, Europe, and Africa are all single continents. The equivalents of those adjectives are are "North American" and "South American," not "American."
What separates them besides the man-made Panama Canal? I think ultimately, either way works, but I don't know of many people who self-identify as specifically North or South American.
What part of the Americas does Meso-America (Mexico to Panama) belong to I wonder? Is it North America, with the Panamian 'waistline' as the division between the two Americas? Are Latin America (Spanish speaking America) and South America different designations?
What separates them besides the man-made Panama Canal?
The Darién Gap. In general, Panama impresses me more as a continental boundary than the Urals do, with or without the canal. But yeah, the number of continents is just a convention. I count seven.
I don't know of many people who self-identify as specifically North or South American.
Me neither. Most people seem to self-identify by something more specific than a continent. Do you know anyone who isn't from the USA who primarily self-identifies as American?
Its more useful to divide things into MORE continents, rather than less, but certain continent-related terms are useful, IE Eurasia, Oceana, and America. Or Occident vs Orient (IE Western Europe contrasted with the Turkic/Arabian/Mongolian/Persian cultures to the nearer East) Vs Africa Vs Far East... I heartily agree the exact status of what is and is not a continent is kinda empty, other than Australia, the rest are far too big and not sufficiently united.
If you want to be purely 'useful', dividing out culture and geography from a non-Eurocentric perspective would be very handy. As you noted, the Urals are a really, really crummy dividing line. Obvious candidates for continent status would include India (which would include Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and India), probably China (which would include Korea and Japan), Near Asia (aka the Middle East), Spanish America (Mexico and all but 4 countries in South America), British America (...which would presumably have to include Guyana, and many Caribean Islands), French America (Quebec, bits of northern Ontario and probably into the Prairies, parts of Atlantic Canada and perhaps even Louisiana), Pravoslavia (Everything more or less from Poland to Kamchatka, including the Balkans, but not the Caucasus), Caucasia (...which in the height of irony includes no 'white people'), Western Europe (that which is not Pravoslavia or Near Asia), North East South and West Africa, also Central would need to be thought of seperately, and then there is Indonesia, Phillipines, and Malay lands, each would qualify ultimately. I'm almost certainly leaving some out, perhaps Himmalaya? You could also have Carribea, which would presumably include the Carribean, the Guiannas and quite probably Brasil.
My point though, is our use of the term 'continent' has been taken exclusively from Western European teachings, and as a result, its a bit meaningless for everywhere BUT Western Europe. Nobody in their right mind would argue that the Urals is even remotely a dividing line on par with the Himmalayas, yet there we go. The most egregious 'continents' are probably Africa and Asia, both being incredibly vast and diverse. I think would do better to look at regions more as they see themselves in the future, rather than from a European Supremacist perspective.
As for @Son_of_Imoen 's point, I would say Mexico has very few ties culturally with Canada and the parts of the USA that was never part of Spanish America. In geography we learn 'North America is Canada, USA and Mexico', which ignores Greenland which could be tied in with Northern Canada, and kinda ignores the huge culture shift you'd find if you crossed the US's southern border. Many people do put Mexico in Central America, which includes everything through to Panama. Central America in various Atlas' will be lumped into either North or South America usually, or even left free floating. Same with the Caribbean.
Latin America is kinda a wishy-washy term I've always felt, afaik its SUPPOSED to mean all of the Spanish and Portuguese territory in the Americas... and I sure don't see how that could possibly be associated that strongly with Italy. Iberian America?
I quite like to split things up by plates, that way everything has a definite physical boundary rather than a line drawn on a map.
Well, there are quite a few plates, and sub-plates that may become active later, so thats not exactly perfect either, but I agree many plates clearly make sense to look at that way. Look at Madagascar! Bloody confusing all those Lemurs were, Europeans had to invent a continent for awhile until we figured out Plate Tectonics.
India (which would include Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and India), probably China (which would include Korea and Japan)
Calling those "the subcontinent" and "east Asia" seems safer. But you're right, names for different granularities of geographic regions are useful, and we should be careful not to assume homogeneity across huge, diverse areas.
To be fair, Greenland has like 56,000 people. We ignore Kettering, Ohio, too. And "Latin America" are the parts of the Americas where the primary languages are Romance languages, i.e., languages that evolved from Latin.
...@joluv , never have I ever heard anyone refer to the Quebecois as Latin Americans.
They might get violent, you never know... As a Lobster once said, "You Latins are so hotblooded!"
Regarding India, all of it was India until pretty recently when the British decided to divide it up semi-arbitrarily. It didn't exactly work out well, and from the actual Pakistani and Indians I have known, the 'bad blood' the region is know for is not really personal. You might be right that we'd need to find a better term for the 'Indian Sub-Continent', but unless they have one they aren't sharing with us, India is probably as historically safe as you're going to get. Heck, lumping China, Korea and Japan together might be uglier, they have more hostility boiling away in that area than many people realize in the West; its said Japan is always a few flippant remarks from being steamrolled by China over it's WW2 war crimes. However, the cultures are very very closely related.
Ignoring Greenland is a strange choice if you're Canadian... Our Northern Territories are no less sparsely populated, and Greenland possesses both considerable potential wealth and cultural ties with the native peoples of Northern Canada, while ultimately not possessing that strong of ties with Denmark and Europe, at least culturally. Of course, Canada is not exactly doing a good job of winning allies on the international scale these days, so maybe we should just keep harping at the USA to let us put in those damn pipelines already.
still, if it is, that's good for you and I'm glad for American internet-users (what do you call people in the United States anyway? 'Staters'? The name American would apply for Canadians in the north up to Argentinians in the south).
Canada's equivalent to the FCC (which is the CRTC) ruled earlier this year in favour of net neutrality. Granted that was regarding mobile service, but so far that seems to be the direction they are taking.
Instead of looking at how continents are divided by land, you should consider how continents are divided by water.
Everything North of the Caribbean Sea is considered North America Everything South is considered South America (and of course west of the Atlantic)
South of the Mediterranean Sea is Africa North of the Black Sea, and West of the Caspian Sea (south) and White Sea (north) is considered Europe. Asia is everything east till you hit the Pacific excluding the islands East of the Indian Ocean, those being considered Oceania.
Then of course Antarctica which is easily to spot as it is south of the Southern Ocean.
Dividing by water is at least consistent I agree, but the value of it is what I question. Cultural divisions tend to follow geographical barriers of some kind anyways, and cultural division is pretty important.
Dividing by water is at least consistent I agree, but the value of it is what I question. Cultural divisions tend to follow geographical barriers of some kind anyways, and cultural division is pretty important.
except where immigration overrides the geographical barrier, such as Australia to the rest of Oceania, Quebec to the rest of Canada (All of the Americas themselves being heavily influenced by immigration) as two of the bigger examples.
You can't say Quebec (or French Canada) by itself is a continent, the most you can say is that it is a nation.
Countries and territories themselves, will have different cultural divisions though and is usually how borders are drawn (when done correctly by anyone but the British but that is another derail, for another thread).
Most people recognize themselves from a country or nation first, rather than the continent they originated from. It is only when someone is stereotyping another from appearance does continental recognition happen (He's Asian, He's African, etc).
@DreadKahn: in your subdivisions you treat continents as cultural entities, but continents are geographical entities first and foremost, where cultures as a secondary effect tend to be quit homogenous because of the physical barriers. The continent that started the discussion being an obvious exemption, with the original immigrants being marginalized, making the dominant culture in both the Northern and Southern America European cultures instead of Indian (the last word being an incentive for yet another diversion from the color of the dress of course).
Immigration has a habit of not overcoming geographic barriers until pretty recently, when technology imbalances allowed a small number of foreigners to displace a large number of less advanced population. If you look at most European countries, the populations are usually a BIT mixed, but are dominated thoroughly by 'their' people. These countries are almost always divided along what used to qualify as a defensible order, IE mountains or rivers. Or in the case of Netherlands, marshes and rivers.
Besides, you're both missing my ACTUAL point, that being that the division we refer to as continents now (the Western European construct) has literally no value or significance. It's a waste of encyclopedia space. It's the most irrelevant division one can imagine.
Quebec is a reasonably large territory, and remember I mentioned a very significant amount of the REST of Canada and even part of the USA as following under the same heading. Only Louisiana would not be coterminous. There are lots of communities outside Quebec where the primary language is French. If you're dividing continents up into useful divisions, that territory would probably end up close in size to Western Europe.
There is no reason to keep using the term continent as it is, it ought to be revised to be something significant, and those cultural divisions I was mentioning are ones that are ACTUALLY pretty significant, AND are not dealt with by countries; Many culturally related countries are rivals, and in the West people are prone to forgetting the complexities of the world.
People in the USA very freely use the terms African, European, or Asian (separate from South Asian, or Russia/Former Soviet) to refer to origins of people. Even North American born individuals are associated with Africa, IE African Americans who may have not even had an ancestor visit Africa for 300 years. Don't tell me people only use these terms pejoratively, that is clearly not true. The fact that most people refer to their country first and foremost is no reason we should cling to a useless concept like 'geographic continents'. It's extremely Eurocentric the way it is set up now, and more than a little bit racist. Europe is tiny, smaller than Canada, yet is a full fledged continent? I wonder why, other than people in Europe wanting to emphasize their Special Snowflake status.
... Darn it. When I first saw that picture, I swore it was going down the stairs. This time I see it coming up. Curse you internet pictures, must you continuously break my brain!?
The correct answer is neither. The cat isn't 'going' anywhere, it is 'coming' towards the viewer. Thus the question is fundamentally flawed and therefore invalid. P.S. As you can see from the risers the cat is coming down the stairs - all in all a rather sloppy question.
Comments
A lot.
Also its my thread so its not hijacking.
Yankee is also suitable, if you want to steer clear of American.
Or maybe, irony, that's an Americanism, referring to folks by their continent?
I think ultimately, either way works, but I don't know of many people who self-identify as specifically North or South American.
@Son_of_Imoen: Yes and yes.
If you want to be purely 'useful', dividing out culture and geography from a non-Eurocentric perspective would be very handy. As you noted, the Urals are a really, really crummy dividing line. Obvious candidates for continent status would include India (which would include Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and India), probably China (which would include Korea and Japan), Near Asia (aka the Middle East), Spanish America (Mexico and all but 4 countries in South America), British America (...which would presumably have to include Guyana, and many Caribean Islands), French America (Quebec, bits of northern Ontario and probably into the Prairies, parts of Atlantic Canada and perhaps even Louisiana), Pravoslavia (Everything more or less from Poland to Kamchatka, including the Balkans, but not the Caucasus), Caucasia (...which in the height of irony includes no 'white people'), Western Europe (that which is not Pravoslavia or Near Asia), North East South and West Africa, also Central would need to be thought of seperately, and then there is Indonesia, Phillipines, and Malay lands, each would qualify ultimately. I'm almost certainly leaving some out, perhaps Himmalaya? You could also have Carribea, which would presumably include the Carribean, the Guiannas and quite probably Brasil.
My point though, is our use of the term 'continent' has been taken exclusively from Western European teachings, and as a result, its a bit meaningless for everywhere BUT Western Europe. Nobody in their right mind would argue that the Urals is even remotely a dividing line on par with the Himmalayas, yet there we go. The most egregious 'continents' are probably Africa and Asia, both being incredibly vast and diverse. I think would do better to look at regions more as they see themselves in the future, rather than from a European Supremacist perspective.
As for @Son_of_Imoen 's point, I would say Mexico has very few ties culturally with Canada and the parts of the USA that was never part of Spanish America. In geography we learn 'North America is Canada, USA and Mexico', which ignores Greenland which could be tied in with Northern Canada, and kinda ignores the huge culture shift you'd find if you crossed the US's southern border. Many people do put Mexico in Central America, which includes everything through to Panama. Central America in various Atlas' will be lumped into either North or South America usually, or even left free floating. Same with the Caribbean.
Latin America is kinda a wishy-washy term I've always felt, afaik its SUPPOSED to mean all of the Spanish and Portuguese territory in the Americas... and I sure don't see how that could possibly be associated that strongly with Italy. Iberian America?
To be fair, Greenland has like 56,000 people. We ignore Kettering, Ohio, too. And "Latin America" are the parts of the Americas where the primary languages are Romance languages, i.e., languages that evolved from Latin.
They might get violent, you never know... As a Lobster once said, "You Latins are so hotblooded!"
Regarding India, all of it was India until pretty recently when the British decided to divide it up semi-arbitrarily. It didn't exactly work out well, and from the actual Pakistani and Indians I have known, the 'bad blood' the region is know for is not really personal. You might be right that we'd need to find a better term for the 'Indian Sub-Continent', but unless they have one they aren't sharing with us, India is probably as historically safe as you're going to get. Heck, lumping China, Korea and Japan together might be uglier, they have more hostility boiling away in that area than many people realize in the West; its said Japan is always a few flippant remarks from being steamrolled by China over it's WW2 war crimes.
Ignoring Greenland is a strange choice if you're Canadian... Our Northern Territories are no less sparsely populated, and Greenland possesses both considerable potential wealth and cultural ties with the native peoples of Northern Canada, while ultimately not possessing that strong of ties with Denmark and Europe, at least culturally. Of course, Canada is not exactly doing a good job of winning allies on the international scale these days, so maybe we should just keep harping at the USA to let us put in those damn pipelines already.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/crtc-backs-net-neutrality-in-ruling-against-apps-that-favour-certain-content-1.2936358
Instead of looking at how continents are divided by land, you should consider how continents are divided by water.
Everything North of the Caribbean Sea is considered North America
Everything South is considered South America
(and of course west of the Atlantic)
South of the Mediterranean Sea is Africa
North of the Black Sea, and West of the Caspian Sea (south) and White Sea (north) is considered Europe.
Asia is everything east till you hit the Pacific excluding the islands East of the Indian Ocean, those being considered Oceania.
Then of course Antarctica which is easily to spot as it is south of the Southern Ocean.
You can't say Quebec (or French Canada) by itself is a continent, the most you can say is that it is a nation.
Countries and territories themselves, will have different cultural divisions though and is usually how borders are drawn (when done correctly by anyone but the British but that is another derail, for another thread).
Most people recognize themselves from a country or nation first, rather than the continent they originated from. It is only when someone is stereotyping another from appearance does continental recognition happen (He's Asian, He's African, etc).
Besides, you're both missing my ACTUAL point, that being that the division we refer to as continents now (the Western European construct) has literally no value or significance. It's a waste of encyclopedia space. It's the most irrelevant division one can imagine.
Quebec is a reasonably large territory, and remember I mentioned a very significant amount of the REST of Canada and even part of the USA as following under the same heading. Only Louisiana would not be coterminous. There are lots of communities outside Quebec where the primary language is French. If you're dividing continents up into useful divisions, that territory would probably end up close in size to Western Europe.
There is no reason to keep using the term continent as it is, it ought to be revised to be something significant, and those cultural divisions I was mentioning are ones that are ACTUALLY pretty significant, AND are not dealt with by countries; Many culturally related countries are rivals, and in the West people are prone to forgetting the complexities of the world.
People in the USA very freely use the terms African, European, or Asian (separate from South Asian, or Russia/Former Soviet) to refer to origins of people. Even North American born individuals are associated with Africa, IE African Americans who may have not even had an ancestor visit Africa for 300 years. Don't tell me people only use these terms pejoratively, that is clearly not true. The fact that most people refer to their country first and foremost is no reason we should cling to a useless concept like 'geographic continents'. It's extremely Eurocentric the way it is set up now, and more than a little bit racist. Europe is tiny, smaller than Canada, yet is a full fledged continent? I wonder why, other than people in Europe wanting to emphasize their Special Snowflake status.
Apparently, the dress meme has already been replaced by a new illusion:
Truthfully, he is going down. His one paw is on the step (not raised) as a give away.
P.S. As you can see from the risers the cat is coming down the stairs - all in all a rather sloppy question.