“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble.
It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.†—Mark Twain
A few nights ago I had a
45 minute long interchange over the instant messenger with a Latin American
Gentleman (LAG) on the subject of Continents.
No new ones having been discovered since I was in school, I thought I
was on pretty safe ground with the traditional seven: Asia, Africa, North America, South America,
Europe, Australia and Antarctica. WRONG!
It seems that in parts of
Latin America political correctness flows over
into geography and becomes Geographical correctness, but then, as the LAG said “you
are a gringo you don’t understandâ€. I
think what he was trying to say was I had not suspended my cognitive faculties in order to salve his Latin American feelings of insecurity.
Chris Kohl had mentioned
the subject to a successful (Latin American) internet entrepreneur in Buenos Aires, who
dismissed LAG’s opinion in this brief discussion:
Chris: will you agree that it makes more sense to have North and South
America as separated than Europe and Asia?
Successful Entrepreneur: yup, i would
Chris: well South Americans
teach that because of political reasons
Successful Entrepreneur: yeah, cuz we love getting cultural, moral
and political criticism and discrimination from northern countries, so called
first-world, right, that makes sense. guess the southern hemisphere just like
being masochistic
Chris: how about those who call people from the USA
norteamericanos and not Canadians or Mexicans?
Successful Entrepreneur: well, but then again, there’s a cultural
issue around that. norteamericanos just became a common word used by ignorant
people
The following is a transcript
of my interchange, edited only to correct spelling and take out HTML language. You may find it humorous—or just dead boring.
If you simply want to get
the gist of the argument, skip down to the red text at the very end.
If however, you are
REALLY BORED and want a detailed example of insecure Latin American logic, (which
many successful Latin Americans reject, by the way) read on and be amazed…
The Southron: the North
American continent goes all the way to the Panama canal
LAG: false
LAG: North America is
Canada, USA and Mexico
The Southron: then what
continent is Central America?
The Southron: there
are only 7
The Southron: and I don’t
think it fits in Antarctica
LAG: Central America
is from Guatemala
to North Americans
The Southron: what
continent?
The Southron: not sub
continent
LAG: look
LAG: America is divided
in 3 sections
LAG: North America : Canada, use and Mexico
LAG: Central America
from Guatemala to Panama
LAG: and South America
The Southron: I am
not talking about ethnicity, I am talking about geography
LAG: me too
The Southron: that
has nothing to do with being Latin or anything else
LAG: just geography
The Southron: Central America is part of the Continent of North America
LAG: nope
The Southron: just
like Iberia is part of Europe
The Southron: your
position is untenable it is based on national boundaries, not geographical
formations there is no natural boundary between North America and Central America, but if you don't want to see that, fine
LAG: my position is
that Central America is not part of North America because Central America was
formed millions of year later than North America.
in the age of the dinosaurs only South America and North
America existed..
LAG: Central America was created way later making a link
between both land masses
LAG: and that is a
scientific fact
The Southron: great
if it is that important to you have it your way
LAG: it is not my
way, it is just the truth
The Southron: the are
many references that would disagree with you, undoubtedly they are all wrong
and you have some cosmic lock on the truth
LAG: don’t be mean
with me
LAG: I’m just telling
you what I think and know
The Southron: you are
telling me what you think you know, I have been on 10 different references in
the last bit and they ALL include CA in North America. For example:
North America
The northern
continent of the Western Hemisphere, extending northward from the Colombia-Panama
border and including Central America, Mexico, the islands of the Caribbean Sea,
the United States, Canada, the Arctic Archipelago, and Greenland. So obviously, there are different points of
view on this…
LAG: well then why
does the term Central America exist?
The Southron: it is a
region within North America, just like the Iberia
peninsula or Scandinavia are regions in Europe or the Arabian peninsula is a
region within Asia
The Southron: I agree
it is a geographic entity, I lived there, I am sure it exists
The Southron: but it
is physically part of the North American Continent – if you go by the plates it
is on, that part of Mexico
is not part of NA as it is on the Pacific Plate
The Southron: Panama
seems to think it is the link between the two continents, the bridge over the
canal is called the “bridge of two continent”
The Southron: My
original point was simply that people from the US ought not be called
norteamericanos while Mexicans and Canadians are called by their country
name. Either we are all norteamericanos,
or we are not. I am perfectly happy
being called a gringo – at least it is not a misnomer
LAG: I know what you
mean
The Southron: I
always find it interesting the people from the US are supposed to be culturally
sensitive, but no one else is…
LAG: you are a
gringo, and a person from Mexico
is a Mexican
LAG: but both of you
are North Americans
The Southron: I have
no problem with that, what I object to is the standard use of the term
norteamericano to refer to someone from the US
LAG: but I bet you to
ask someone from Costa Rica
if he is from North America. he will tell you
that he is from Central America
The Southron: We call
ourselves simply Americans, and since we are the oldest nation in the
hemisphere, I suspect we have that right
The Southron: being a
Southron, what I really object to is being called a Yankee – I think the Spanish term for us is Los
Confederados
LAG: its funny to see
LAG: in most texts from
use they consider Central America part from North America
LAG: but in Spanish
texts they consider Central America
something outside from North America
The Southron: most Americans
would define Central America to include Mexico
LAG: yeah but you
know that Americans(from use) are not known from being very good at geography
hehe
The Southron: most
are not, I am an exception, geography is one of my passions, as is history
LAG: you are like me
The Southron: I was
chatting with someone from BA who was amazed I knew who Jose de San Martin El
Libertador was
The Southron: already
seen that
LAG: well you see there’s
is no an absolute truth about it
The Southron: if
there are 7 continents it is pretty obvious, of course if there are now 7 1/2 continents,
it's a new ball game
The Southron: I think
it is all based on anti-gringo feelings
The Southron: I don't
like the USA
one damned bit these days, but I am not going to redraw the continents
The Southron: it is
a sort of geographic political
correctness meant to convey a point of view rather than objective information
LAG: In British
schools, Central America is taught as being a separate continent (just as
Europe is separate from Asia).
The Southron: so
there are now 8 continents?
The Southron: In that
case I think we should start a movement to make Scandinavia a continent and Iberia
as well -
The Southron: it
makes as much sense
The Southron: maybe New Zealand will qualify or Greenland,
it is bigger
The Southron: is Madagascar next
LAG: it depends on the
model
The Southron: pretty
soon we'll have two dozen continents
LAG: you are a gringo
you don’t understand look this
LAG: The 7-continent
model is usually taught in Western Europe,
China, and most
native English language-speaking countries. The 6-continent combined-America
model is taught in Latin America. The
6-continent combined-Eurasia model is preferred by the geographic community, Russia, Eastern Europe, and Japan. In all
of these cases, the names Australasia or Oceania may be used in place of Australia; in Canada,
the government-approved world reference map names 7 continents and indicates Oceania instead.
LAG: that’s the
problem different schools of taught
The Southron: but
none of them consider Central America a
continent
LAG: for example in Peru they teach
the 6 continents model
LAG: I’m not telling
you that Central America is a continent
The Southron: which
one do you leave out
LAG: I’m telling you
that America
is divided in 3 sections
LAG: nothing more
The Southron: are we
talking about continents or sections?
The Southron: I agree
there are at least 3 sections
LAG: in America
sections
The Southron: I would
add the West Indies as a 4th section
LAG: here we use America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania and Antarctica
LAG: Oceania = Australia , New Zealand and other islands
The Southron: so you
use the Americas
as one continent
LAG: yes but, we
divide America
in 3 sections
LAG: North America, Central America an d south
The Southron: I can
see where someone would think the dividing line between Europe and Asia was more
defined than between North and South America,
especially if they had never been there
The Southron: if
you're going to have 6, Eurasia certainly
makes more sense
LAG: well the Urals
are the dividing line between Europe and Asia
LAG: as I’m telling
you, there are different models
LAG: you can use Eurasia
The Southron: I think
the only models that make sense are the traditional 7 or the aggregate 4 -
everything else is politically motivated
LAG: I think that the
correct type is that America
is one big super continent
LAG: that can be
divided in 3 sections
The Southron: that is
their traditional model in your culture
LAG: yes in the whole
Latin America culture
LAG: more than 550
million people
LAG: and that
includes funny enough Mexico
and Central America
The Southron: but Hungary agrees
with me
LAG: Hungary
is not American :p
LAG: this is American
business only :)
The Southron: I
thought we were talking about the continents, surely that is everyone's
business
LAG: yeah but Europeans
don’t see Central America as a continent so
they don’t care :)
The Southron: that's
because it's not–and I agree with them
The Southron: so you
want to exclude anyone who doesn't agree
LAG: I’m just telling
you the point of view of 550 million people, part of them that live in countries
that you describe as being part of North America
The Southron: the UN
agrees with me: North America has 3 sub
regions: North America, Central America
and the Caribbean
The
Southron: I think we will have to agree to disagree – but this is instructive. It certainly illustrates why North America
has more ties to Europe than Latin America. I thank you for that.
LAG: well
go out and ask any Uruguayan if they think that Costa
Rica is part of North America
The
Southron: I'll ask the UN instead
LAG: where
is the UN located?
LAG: New York?
The
Southron: words cannot describe how little I think of that response – as I said, your attitude has been
illustrative… good night
LAG: and
excuse me, Uruguay is a far
more European country than USA
LAG: as Argentina
LAG: don’t
be rude
LAG: we are
just talking
The
Southron: (42 minutes after starting)
no, you are lecturing and I am tired of it – maybe the UN should move to South America, as long as they pay for it…once again we
must agree to disagree, good night…
Boy, you really were bored, weren’t you?
Hi, I’m uruguayan and I just wanted to say that I kind of agree with LAG’s view. But don’t shoot the messenger! I’m just saying that’s how it’s taught here, at least that’s what they taught me in school. They taught me that there’re many ways too classify the continents. You can have 5 continents with Eurasia and America as 1 continent. Or, if we are to divide America, I have seen it divided in 3 continents or maybe in 2 (but having North America and Latin America…Central A. belonging then to the ‘south’ side). That’s how I’ve seen it at least.I don’t see this as a South American ‘insecurity’ or anything… it’s just the way it’s taught here. But everyone can have their own views.Greetings.
Left by ana on July 15th, 2006
I agree that everyone can have their own view. My problem with LAG was when he made snotty comments about not understanding because I was an American, as if that somehow made me a mental defective, AND his complete refusal to be a gentleman and “agree to disagree”. You display the Uruguayan national trait of reasonableness, so we can agree to disagree. Thank you for writing. I hope you liked the rest of the Blog.
Left by The Southron on July 15th, 2006
I did, thanks. Great site, keep it up!
Left by Ana on August 15th, 2006
Thank you kindly.
Left by The Southron on August 15th, 2006
What a boring waste of electricity. Might I ask the actual relivence of that? Perhaps you two should just sock each other in the keyboard and call it a day. THAT… was an argument, not a discussion. It is such things that produces warring nations. The bargatiens said: “I hate your God–besides, mine has a bigger dick”and the rigettions replied: “Oh yea! Well take this” and a fleet of bombers launched into the crimson western sky. We all see things differently. Can we learn that there are many opinions but few reasons to argue. Perhaps not.
Left by MexicoMan on August 27th, 2006
I am from the United States. My daughter & I lived in Mexico for 6 years. The public schools there taught that N. & S American were one continent. They saythat they are connected. True but by some swamp land. North & South seem like an obivous division to me. also, i believe that Mexico did not count Antartica as a continent.
So- in mexico there are only 5 continents.
Left by joanna on May 21st, 2008
Hi,
Just some interesting opinions:
Americans=Any inhabitants of the americas, north, central and south.
People of the U.S.A= in spanish we have a word that is ‘Estadounidenses’, i do not know in english if there is a word that will diferent from Americans, or Northamericans.
Latin Americans: Any person from a country in the Americas colonized by Europeans from a Latin country of Europe. Latin countries of Europe, are those that speak a romance language that came from Latin. That excludes the Anglo-saxon territories colonized by the British (let aside the dutch, to make things easier) and leaves spanish, portuguese and french occupied part as latin-america.
And on the other hand we have anglo-saxon America.
Conclusion:
Quebeq is a part of Latin America in North America, which is also true of Mexico.
British Guyana and Jamaica are part of Anglo-Saxon America.
Most people will be surprised at the categorization of Quebeq as Latin America, since the label in the average mind of a person of the north when thinking of Latinamerica is very different.
I hope those two examples help to understand how we use unapropiate labels and names. Usualy our own cultural background attaches to labels a lot of more than just simple geography to names.
It is good to have a fresh look from time to time, and realize that there are as many ways to see the world as people on it.
Martin
Un Americano, Latinoamericano y Uruguayo
Regards
Left by martin1homas on February 13th, 2009
I have always been interested in the astoundingly one sided view taken by so many in Latin America. You have gone to great lengths to eloquently explain your point of view, and then undercut it entirely by your use of the term “Anglo-Saxon America”.
While I am an Anglophone, I am NOT an Anglo-Saxon, and neither are many, if not a majority of people from the USA Anglo-Saxons. I am no more Anglo-Saxon than most people in Latin America are Romanians–though the Romanians consider themselves Latins.
Secondly, I agree that in a “continental” sense, everyone who is a native of the North and South American continents are “Americans”. That being said, historically, when US citizens started calling themselves “Americans”, no one else wanted the title: everyone else was either an Indian, or Spanish, Portuguese, French, Dutch or British.
Citizens of the Federative Republic of Brazil are Brazilians,
Citizens of the Republic of Argentina are Argentines, citizens of the United Mexican States are Mexicans, therefore, citizens of the United States of America are indeed Americans.
Nevertheless, gentlemen can disagree without being disagreeable. Thank you for writing.
Left by The Southron on February 14th, 2009
I agree, Yes they are Americans, but not the only ones!! This is the problem. The problem is about set theory, it is a Mathematical fact, they colloquially name themselves as a subset of a wider set of Americans, and they try to call the subset (the U.S.A) as the whole (America) , it is logically a contradiction.
Luckily their official name is United States of America, so there is an easy politically correct workaround they can say they are from the U.S.A.
Regarding the first, I agree that there are a lot of non Anglo-Saxons in Anglo-Saxon America, so there are a lot of natives or other origins people in Latin America that are not ‘Latin’, since they had nothing to do with the European Invaders/Settlers.
So the name is related with the European Countries that initially conquered the territory and the language they imposed.
So of course not all inhabitants of Latin America are Latin in culture or all inhabitants of Anglo-Saxon America are Anglo-Saxons in culture.
So if the label pretends to describe the current inhabitants of the continent it will be inadequate. It is just a gross approximation.
But at least it is right regarding the origin of the most widely spoken languages in the Americas.
Not to say they are the only languages here, for example Paraguay speaks also Guarani , a beautiful Indian language (By the way, Uruguay is plenty of Guarani names in its Rivers and countryside, as Uruguay is a guarani name as well).
So I think if we agree that the division is based ONLY in the main language spoken in the countries, we can somehow agree in the division between Latin and Anglo-Saxon America.
Probably the most politically correct option is to mention only the geographical name of the part of the world people is born/grew or consider them to belong.
Hope this exchange will enrich reader’s views….
Thank you
Martin
>>From the Southron:
I still strongly object to “Anglo-Saxon” as it is tied to an ethnicity. Latin refers to a whole family of languages, not an ethnicity. While I am happy to be called an “anglophone” I will never assent to being called a Anglo-Saxon, neither will I accept being called a “North American” in the same context as as someone else would be call “Uruguayan”.
The only worse epithet for me would be “Yankee”, which I find downright insulting–roughly the equivalent of calling a Uruguayo a porteño.
And then we come to the latest version of Latin American political correctness, “estadounidense” which is just plain silly and would be the equivalent of calling Brazilians “republicafedeativodense” or something equally bizarre.
The Southron
Left by martin1homas on February 16th, 2009