5 ms·

//America was first a single continent. Only out of ignorance of where they landed, and what it was. As we learned more this evolved, at least it did in the An

//America was first a single continent. Only out of ignorance of where they landed, and what it was. As we learned more this evolved, at least it did in the Anglosphere. No one was ever ignorant of the fact that Europe and Asia were one. That's a very different historical origin as to why each is divided and referred to as they are today. It would be like naming all bodies of water the Atlantic, at one point that would have been accepted. It would not only be wrong, it would also be as culturally imperialistic to do to everyone else as forcing North and South America to be 'America'. This is the first map of the New World, and at the time I would have agreed that America would have made sense. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Map_Juan_de_la_Cosa_outline_Davies_1976.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Map_Juan...

jolmg 2y ago
> It would not only be wrong, it would also be as culturally imperialistic to do to everyone else as forcing North and South America to be 'America'. That logic is kind of backwards. To probably almost all of South America and a good portion of North America, their continent has been named "America" since before the U.S. was born. There isn't any forcing, since that's already how it is and always has been. If anything, from that perspective, it's the taking of the term "American" by one country to the exclusion of others and then denying the existence of the single continent from which their own name is derived what can seem "culturally imperialistic". > Only out of ignorance of where they landed, and what it was. As we learned more this evolved, at least it did in the Anglosphere. No one was ever ignorant of the fact that Europe and Asia were one. That's a very different historical origin as to why each is divided and referred to as they are today. My point was that you care about geological definitions of continents only with regards to America. With Europe and Asia, you're willing to accept their being defined as separate continents because of historical reasons. If I look up geological continents right now[1], Eurasia is a single continent and Australia and Zealandia are separate. Yet, the U.S. doesn't recognize the continents of the world like that. That's picking and choosing where you care about geology. It's kind of hypocritical. In the end, continents, at least in everyday speech, is determined a good bit more from history rather than geological features, because people identify themselves from them, and historically America has always been a single continent, at least for likely most of its inhabitants. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent#Geological_continents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent#Geological_continent...
- BuckRogers 2y ago
  //If anything, from that perspective, it's the taking of the term "American" by one country to the exclusion of others and then denying the existence of the single continent from which their own name is derived what can seem "culturally imperialistic". You have a very imperial hispanic perspective as far as I can tell. The natives in present-day Canada didn't know if South America was even there or who the Incans were. Your description of North and South America being 'America' is the imposition of hispanic imperialism on Anglo-America and the natives. I don't find this acceptable as that is unjust. //Yet, the U.S. doesn't recognize the continents of the world like that. That's picking and choosing where you care about geology. It's kind of hypocritical. I don't impose my Anglo views on Eurasia as you are upon me. I've only made strong statements about my own continent. You do have strong views on Europe and Asia, and I doubt they appreciate hispanic imperialism either. //and historically America has always been a single continent, at least for likely most of its inhabitants. You keep repeating this but it doesn't make it true. There are no records that the Inuit ever knew about the Incans, but assuming they did, do you have records indicating they considered them part of the same continent? I think in absence of such records, we can assume they would be sensible people that would agree with the North and South American distinction. As they are not a part of the world that lives within their heads an era of peak hispanic imperialism such as 1492.
  - jolmg 2y ago
    > Your description of North and South America being 'America' is the imposition of hispanic imperialism on Anglo-America and the natives. I don't find this acceptable as that is unjust. This first sentence seems unintelligible. You had already agreed that the Anglosphere saw America as a single continent. Here's your quote: > Only out of ignorance of where they landed, and what it was. As we learned more this evolved, at least it did in the Anglosphere. What does hispanic-imperialism have to do with anything? Angloamericans adopted the term of their own accord, at least as far back as the American Revolution. The Spanish Empire no longer exists. I don't think any country that was subject to it want anything to do with empires. > You do have strong views on Europe and Asia I don't. You're the one that brought them up: > There's a better argument that Eurasia is a single continent. I've been pointing you on how you're willing to ignore your own argument: > I don't impose my Anglo views on Eurasia [...] You respect their own denomination, rightly so, but then you don't do the same for hispanoamericans. I can quote you on this, too. Here's the very first thing you said: > This is not true, as there is no continent called ‘America’. Then when shown that hispanoamericans continue to use the original meaning of "America": > Consulting with people's opinions in the Spanish-speaking world really does not matter, because they're still wrong. Whatever happened to "I don't impose my Anglo views"? That's what you've been doing from your first comment. At first, it was probably just ignorance, but from the above you really just give lower regard. I've pretty much lost hope of you being able to see your double-standard. This is my third attempt. > I've only made strong statements about my own continent. As have I. I don't find it acceptable nor just for you to say that my people's opinion on what our own continent is "does not matter". > As they are not a part of the world that lives within their heads an era of peak hispanic imperialism such as 1492. Right, we daydream to be recolonized. /s Based on your language and attempt to give this a ridiculous imperialism spin, when it's just about respecting other peoples' demonyms, I don't continue to believe you're engaging this conversation in good faith.

jolmg 2y ago

> It would not only be wrong, it would also be as culturally imperialistic to do to everyone else as forcing North and South America to be 'America'. That logic is kind of backwards. To probably almost all of South America and a good portion of North America, their continent has been named "America" since before the U.S. was born. There isn't any forcing, since that's already how it is and always has been. If anything, from that perspective, it's the taking of the term "American" by one country to the exclusion of others and then denying the existence of the single continent from which their own name is derived what can seem "culturally imperialistic". > Only out of ignorance of where they landed, and what it was. As we learned more this evolved, at least it did in the Anglosphere. No one was ever ignorant of the fact that Europe and Asia were one. That's a very different historical origin as to why each is divided and referred to as they are today. My point was that you care about geological definitions of continents only with regards to America. With Europe and Asia, you're willing to accept their being defined as separate continents because of historical reasons. If I look up geological continents right now[1], Eurasia is a single continent and Australia and Zealandia are separate. Yet, the U.S. doesn't recognize the continents of the world like that. That's picking and choosing where you care about geology. It's kind of hypocritical. In the end, continents, at least in everyday speech, is determined a good bit more from history rather than geological features, because people identify themselves from them, and historically America has always been a single continent, at least for likely most of its inhabitants. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent#Geological_continents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent#Geological_continent...

BuckRogers 2y ago
//If anything, from that perspective, it's the taking of the term "American" by one country to the exclusion of others and then denying the existence of the single continent from which their own name is derived what can seem "culturally imperialistic". You have a very imperial hispanic perspective as far as I can tell. The natives in present-day Canada didn't know if South America was even there or who the Incans were. Your description of North and South America being 'America' is the imposition of hispanic imperialism on Anglo-America and the natives. I don't find this acceptable as that is unjust. //Yet, the U.S. doesn't recognize the continents of the world like that. That's picking and choosing where you care about geology. It's kind of hypocritical. I don't impose my Anglo views on Eurasia as you are upon me. I've only made strong statements about my own continent. You do have strong views on Europe and Asia, and I doubt they appreciate hispanic imperialism either. //and historically America has always been a single continent, at least for likely most of its inhabitants. You keep repeating this but it doesn't make it true. There are no records that the Inuit ever knew about the Incans, but assuming they did, do you have records indicating they considered them part of the same continent? I think in absence of such records, we can assume they would be sensible people that would agree with the North and South American distinction. As they are not a part of the world that lives within their heads an era of peak hispanic imperialism such as 1492.
- jolmg 2y ago
  > Your description of North and South America being 'America' is the imposition of hispanic imperialism on Anglo-America and the natives. I don't find this acceptable as that is unjust. This first sentence seems unintelligible. You had already agreed that the Anglosphere saw America as a single continent. Here's your quote: > Only out of ignorance of where they landed, and what it was. As we learned more this evolved, at least it did in the Anglosphere. What does hispanic-imperialism have to do with anything? Angloamericans adopted the term of their own accord, at least as far back as the American Revolution. The Spanish Empire no longer exists. I don't think any country that was subject to it want anything to do with empires. > You do have strong views on Europe and Asia I don't. You're the one that brought them up: > There's a better argument that Eurasia is a single continent. I've been pointing you on how you're willing to ignore your own argument: > I don't impose my Anglo views on Eurasia [...] You respect their own denomination, rightly so, but then you don't do the same for hispanoamericans. I can quote you on this, too. Here's the very first thing you said: > This is not true, as there is no continent called ‘America’. Then when shown that hispanoamericans continue to use the original meaning of "America": > Consulting with people's opinions in the Spanish-speaking world really does not matter, because they're still wrong. Whatever happened to "I don't impose my Anglo views"? That's what you've been doing from your first comment. At first, it was probably just ignorance, but from the above you really just give lower regard. I've pretty much lost hope of you being able to see your double-standard. This is my third attempt. > I've only made strong statements about my own continent. As have I. I don't find it acceptable nor just for you to say that my people's opinion on what our own continent is "does not matter". > As they are not a part of the world that lives within their heads an era of peak hispanic imperialism such as 1492. Right, we daydream to be recolonized. /s Based on your language and attempt to give this a ridiculous imperialism spin, when it's just about respecting other peoples' demonyms, I don't continue to believe you're engaging this conversation in good faith.