The nine nations of North America--which are you from?
Poll
 | 2 votes (5.4%) | ||
| | 2 votes (5.4%) | ||
| | 4 votes (10.81%) | ||
| | 5 votes (13.51%) | ||
| | 13 votes (35.13%) | ||
| | 5 votes (13.51%) | ||
| | 3 votes (8.1%) | ||
| | 1 vote (2.7%) | ||
| | 1 vote (2.7%) | ||
| | 1 vote (2.7%) |
37 members have voted
February 8th, 2011 at 9:58:24 AM
permalink
In another thread, the OP asked people what region of North America they had come from--which created some predictable questions about which region a given state or province lies in.
In 1981, Joel Garreau wrote "The Nine Nations of North America," in which he divided up the continent into nine regions, delineated more by cultural and geographic boundaries than political ones:
New England — an expanded version including not only Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut (although omitting the Connecticut suburbs of New York City), but also the Canadian Atlantic provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Capital: Boston.
The Foundry — the by-then-declining industrial areas of the northeastern United States and Great Lakes region stretching from New York City to Milwaukee, and including Chicago, Indianapolis, Cleveland and Philadelphia as well as industrial Southern Ontario centering on Toronto. Capital: Detroit.
Dixie — the former Confederate States of America (today the southeastern United States) centered on Atlanta, and including most of eastern Texas. Garreau's "Dixie" also includes Kentucky (which had both a Union and a nominal Confederate government); southern and southeastern portions of Missouri, southern Illinois, and southern Indiana; and the "Little Dixie" region of southeastern Oklahoma. Finally, the region also includes most of Florida, as far south as the cities of Fort Myers and Naples. Capital: Atlanta.
The Breadbasket — most of the Great Plains states and part of the Prairie provinces: Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, the Dakotas, almost all of Oklahoma, parts of Missouri, western Wisconsin, eastern Colorado, the eastern edge of New Mexico, parts of Illinois and Indiana, and North Texas. Also included are some of Northern Ontario and southern Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Capital: Kansas City.
The Islands — The South Florida metropolitan area, the Everglades and Florida Keys, and the Caribbean. Capital: Miami.
Mexamerica — the southern and Central Valley portions of California as well as southern Arizona, the portion of Texas bordering on the Rio Grande, most of New Mexico, northern Mexico, and the Baja California peninsula. Capital: Los Angeles.
Ecotopia — the Pacific Northwest coast west of the Cascade Range and the Coast Mountains, as well as several Alaskan Pacific Coast Ranges, stretching from Alaska down through coastal British Columbia, Washington state, Oregon and into California just north of Santa Barbara. Capital: San Francisco.
The Empty Quarter — most of Alaska, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana and Colorado from Denver west, as well as the eastern portions of Oregon, California, Washington, all of Alberta and Northern Canada (including what is now Nunavut), northern Arizona, parts of New Mexico (mainly the area controlled by the Navajo Nation), and British Columbia east of the Coast Ranges. Capital: Denver.
Quebec — the primarily French-speaking province of Canada, which held referenda on secession in 1980 and 1995, the latter of which the "separatists" lost narrowly. Capital: Quebec City.
So which one are you from? What do you think of these divisions?
In 1981, Joel Garreau wrote "The Nine Nations of North America," in which he divided up the continent into nine regions, delineated more by cultural and geographic boundaries than political ones:
New England — an expanded version including not only Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut (although omitting the Connecticut suburbs of New York City), but also the Canadian Atlantic provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Capital: Boston.
The Foundry — the by-then-declining industrial areas of the northeastern United States and Great Lakes region stretching from New York City to Milwaukee, and including Chicago, Indianapolis, Cleveland and Philadelphia as well as industrial Southern Ontario centering on Toronto. Capital: Detroit.
Dixie — the former Confederate States of America (today the southeastern United States) centered on Atlanta, and including most of eastern Texas. Garreau's "Dixie" also includes Kentucky (which had both a Union and a nominal Confederate government); southern and southeastern portions of Missouri, southern Illinois, and southern Indiana; and the "Little Dixie" region of southeastern Oklahoma. Finally, the region also includes most of Florida, as far south as the cities of Fort Myers and Naples. Capital: Atlanta.
The Breadbasket — most of the Great Plains states and part of the Prairie provinces: Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, the Dakotas, almost all of Oklahoma, parts of Missouri, western Wisconsin, eastern Colorado, the eastern edge of New Mexico, parts of Illinois and Indiana, and North Texas. Also included are some of Northern Ontario and southern Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Capital: Kansas City.
The Islands — The South Florida metropolitan area, the Everglades and Florida Keys, and the Caribbean. Capital: Miami.
Mexamerica — the southern and Central Valley portions of California as well as southern Arizona, the portion of Texas bordering on the Rio Grande, most of New Mexico, northern Mexico, and the Baja California peninsula. Capital: Los Angeles.
Ecotopia — the Pacific Northwest coast west of the Cascade Range and the Coast Mountains, as well as several Alaskan Pacific Coast Ranges, stretching from Alaska down through coastal British Columbia, Washington state, Oregon and into California just north of Santa Barbara. Capital: San Francisco.
The Empty Quarter — most of Alaska, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana and Colorado from Denver west, as well as the eastern portions of Oregon, California, Washington, all of Alberta and Northern Canada (including what is now Nunavut), northern Arizona, parts of New Mexico (mainly the area controlled by the Navajo Nation), and British Columbia east of the Coast Ranges. Capital: Denver.
Quebec — the primarily French-speaking province of Canada, which held referenda on secession in 1980 and 1995, the latter of which the "separatists" lost narrowly. Capital: Quebec City.
So which one are you from? What do you think of these divisions?
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
February 8th, 2011 at 10:23:45 AM
permalink
Unfortunately North America extends from Alaska to the North all the way down to the Mexican border with Belize and Guatemala to the south. So there are "nations" missing.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
February 8th, 2011 at 10:28:16 AM
permalink
Quote: mkl654321So which one are you from? What do you think of these divisions?
Twenty years later, they still hold up pretty well. Maybe move upstate NY into New England, and Vegas into Mex-America.
I seem to have lived in a lot of norder areas. Right now I'd say I'm Empty Quarter.
February 8th, 2011 at 10:31:59 AM
permalink
see below
February 8th, 2011 at 10:32:24 AM
permalink
Quote: NareedUnfortunately North America extends from Alaska to the North all the way down to the Mexican border with Belize and Guatemala to the south. So there are "nations" missing.
Alaska contains parts of both Ecotopia and EQ. Mex-America was intended to extend at least most of the way into Mexico; if there are culturally different regions in Central America which transcend national boundaries I'm interested in hearing what they are.
February 8th, 2011 at 10:35:57 AM
permalink
Quote: NareedUnfortunately North America extends from Alaska to the North all the way down to the Mexican border with Belize and Guatemala to the south. So there are "nations" missing.
Ecotopia includes southeast Alaska and the Interior ranges; eastern Alaska is in the Empty Quarter. Southern Mexico is part of The Islands (Caribbean).
Garreau was aware of the map. In the case of southern Mexico (which is what is bothering you), he was acknowledging that the southern part of Mexico has more in common, culturally and geographically, with the Caribbean than with the rest of Mexico. Probably less true for Oaxaca and Chiapas.
He also considered several regions to be "aberrations" that didn't really belong in any of the Nine Nations--those included New York City and its suburbs, Washington, D.C., Hawaii, and the Northern Slope of Alaska.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
February 8th, 2011 at 11:00:57 AM
permalink
I like Garreau's book. "The Foundry" definitely exists. Most people call it The Rust Belt. The Empty Quarter has experienced a population boom -- it's no longer "empty" anymore. I don't know where I would put the Bos-NY-Wash megalopis -- maybe we need a new "nation" for that. Chicago and Pittsburgh have moved outside the Foundry for the most part. Everything else still holds pretty much true.
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
February 8th, 2011 at 11:09:45 AM
permalink
Quote: 7outlineawayAlaska contains parts of both Ecotopia and EQ. Mex-America was intended to extend at least most of the way into Mexico; if there are culturally different regions in Central America which transcend national boundaries I'm interested in hearing what they are.
My apologies, that was not my point.
The point is that while there are regions that, culturally and economically, are linked even beyond borders, they are not nations. They remain regions. Meanwhile the list ignores parts of mexico, which are in North America. Just try to walk from Reynosa in Mexico to Hidalgo in Texas.
This exercise would work better in the European Union, where nations don't control their borders between each other the way they used to.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
February 8th, 2011 at 12:09:22 PM
permalink
I'd say that Ecotopia really covers two areas : Cascadia and NorCal/Oregon. Cascadia's capital would be Seattle. Or Vancouver.
54/40 or fight and Manifest Destiny got it wrong... the Pacific Northwest would have made sense as it's own seperate entity (covering BC, the Yukon, Alaska and Washington, plus part of Idaho and Western or even all of Alberta and some of the current North West territories). Of course, the Alaska purchase would never have happened in that situation where such a an area grew up.
54/40 or fight and Manifest Destiny got it wrong... the Pacific Northwest would have made sense as it's own seperate entity (covering BC, the Yukon, Alaska and Washington, plus part of Idaho and Western or even all of Alberta and some of the current North West territories). Of course, the Alaska purchase would never have happened in that situation where such a an area grew up.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
February 8th, 2011 at 2:27:01 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitI'd say that Ecotopia really covers two areas : Cascadia and NorCal/Oregon. Cascadia's capital would be Seattle. Or Vancouver.
54/40 or fight and Manifest Destiny got it wrong... the Pacific Northwest would have made sense as it's own seperate entity (covering BC, the Yukon, Alaska and Washington, plus part of Idaho and Western or even all of Alberta and some of the current North West territories). Of course, the Alaska purchase would never have happened in that situation where such a an area grew up.
You could make that point about the US-Canada border in general, in that it makes very little political or geographic sense. The Pacific Northwest should, as you note, include BC and the Yukon. Alberta resembles Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado more than it does any other Canadian province. Saskatchewan and Manitoba are just colder versions of the Dakotas, Nebraska, and Kansas. Ontario is like the US Rust Belt/Great Lakes region, and the Maritimes are cultural and geographical sisters to the New England states. Quebec....well, Quebec is Quebec.
I think you're right about the Alaska Purchase never happening in your scenario--it would have been the Alaska War between Northwest America and Russia (what would we have called such an entity? Columbia?).
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
February 8th, 2011 at 2:49:11 PM
permalink
Quote: NareedUnfortunately North America extends from Alaska to the North all the way down to the Mexican border with Belize and Guatemala to the south. So there are "nations" missing.
Geographically, North America extends to the Isthmus of Panama. Mesoamerica is a subcontinent, just like India and Southeast Asia are for Asia. Better stop using Mercator projections and add another half-dozen nations.
February 8th, 2011 at 3:17:29 PM
permalink
Quote: SanchoPanzaGeographically, North America extends to the Isthmus of Panama. Mesoamerica is a subcontinent, just like India and Southeast Asia are for Asia. Better stop using Mercator projections and add another half-dozen nations.
Geographically, designations are as arbitrary as politically ;)
But consider, you have a continious land mass from Alaska to Yucatan, which then narrows until it passes the equator. I'd call the first mass North america, and the rest South America. Designtaing the land in between as Central America or not is optional.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
February 8th, 2011 at 4:34:46 PM
permalink
"You could make that point about the US-Canada border in general, in that it makes very little political or geographic sense. The Pacific Northwest should, as you note, include BC and the Yukon. Alberta resembles Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado more than it does any other Canadian province. Saskatchewan and Manitoba are just colder versions of the Dakotas, Nebraska, and Kansas. Ontario is like the US Rust Belt/Great Lakes region, and the Maritimes are cultural and geographical sisters to the New England states. Quebec....well, Quebec is Quebec."
No no no, the Dakotas as warmer versions of Manitoba and Saskatcherwan... and Alberta may have in the past been like Montana et al, but the rise of oil in that region has turned it into a very different beast. There is one school of thought that says the provinces should have been vertically stacked in the middle, not horizontally (upper Alberta is different to lower Alberta".
The PNW should have been called Cascadia. There is a semi-serious "Cascadian People's Front" - http://cascadianow.org/ but a lot of those movements end up being fronts for various white power and White Home Nation groups... there's certainly a lot of that sort around these parts. I have no idea if Cascadia Now IS such a front.
The part of me that likes the Napoleon of Notting Hill also likes the idea of a small set of states in North America.
You also miss out that Quebec actually ISN'T Quebec... parts of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia fall under the francophone and French cultural nation, while parts of Southern Quebec are Anglophone, and a huge swathe of the North of Quebec says they would immediately vote to cede back to the Canadian Union if Quebec tried to declare independence... this is the part with a large section of Inuit and other First nations. And a lot of the Quebec Hydro.
Then again, the Acadian Francophones are a different breed to the Quebecois, and while culturally French, they definitely identify as Canadian. Rather pissed of at the British, but definitely Canadien. But the Acadians were a very different group of settlers to the those who settled in lower Canada.
No no no, the Dakotas as warmer versions of Manitoba and Saskatcherwan... and Alberta may have in the past been like Montana et al, but the rise of oil in that region has turned it into a very different beast. There is one school of thought that says the provinces should have been vertically stacked in the middle, not horizontally (upper Alberta is different to lower Alberta".
The PNW should have been called Cascadia. There is a semi-serious "Cascadian People's Front" - http://cascadianow.org/ but a lot of those movements end up being fronts for various white power and White Home Nation groups... there's certainly a lot of that sort around these parts. I have no idea if Cascadia Now IS such a front.
The part of me that likes the Napoleon of Notting Hill also likes the idea of a small set of states in North America.
You also miss out that Quebec actually ISN'T Quebec... parts of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia fall under the francophone and French cultural nation, while parts of Southern Quebec are Anglophone, and a huge swathe of the North of Quebec says they would immediately vote to cede back to the Canadian Union if Quebec tried to declare independence... this is the part with a large section of Inuit and other First nations. And a lot of the Quebec Hydro.
Then again, the Acadian Francophones are a different breed to the Quebecois, and while culturally French, they definitely identify as Canadian. Rather pissed of at the British, but definitely Canadien. But the Acadians were a very different group of settlers to the those who settled in lower Canada.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
February 8th, 2011 at 5:44:32 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspit... You also miss out that Quebec actually ISN'T Quebec... parts of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia fall under the francophone and French cultural nation, while parts of Southern Quebec are Anglophone, and a huge swathe of the North of Quebec says they would immediately vote to cede back to the Canadian Union if Quebec tried to declare independence... this is the part with a large section of Inuit and other First nations. And a lot of the Quebec Hydro.
Then again, the Acadian Francophones are a different breed to the Quebecois, and while culturally French, they definitely identify as Canadian. Rather pissed of at the British, but definitely Canadien. But the Acadians were a very different group of settlers to the those who settled in lower Canada.
Jumping a little farther afield, perhaps you could clear up one item for me. Back when Quebec was considering independence, someone told me that there was sentiment that if such independence did occur, the Atlantic provinces might attempt an affiliation with the US rather than be part of but geographically separated from the rest of Canada. That somewhat fits with the idea of NB, PE, NS, and NL being part of a region with New England, but I don't know whether there was any truth to existence of a widespread sentiment like that. Comments from any Canadians? (Particularly those far to the east.)
I suppose I should also as other folks from the USA how they would have felt about that.
February 8th, 2011 at 5:57:43 PM
permalink
I don't know, as I've never heard, but I am not a Canadian and don't live in the East. I've spoken to a fair number of Francophones, which is how I know a bit about the independence, and also read a fair amount.
I can't imagine Newfoundland and Labrador going for that though... they barely accepted federation with Canada. New Brunswick is the only truly bi-linngual province, and if there was an independent Quebec, the western part of NB especially would have been drawn to Quebec, not the US. I don't know anyone from PEI or down in the region bordering Maine etc... I don't see it, but who knows (I heard a rumour that a way way back, there was some sort of land claim that Canada/The British Dominions of North America had on Maine).
I can't imagine Newfoundland and Labrador going for that though... they barely accepted federation with Canada. New Brunswick is the only truly bi-linngual province, and if there was an independent Quebec, the western part of NB especially would have been drawn to Quebec, not the US. I don't know anyone from PEI or down in the region bordering Maine etc... I don't see it, but who knows (I heard a rumour that a way way back, there was some sort of land claim that Canada/The British Dominions of North America had on Maine).
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
February 8th, 2011 at 6:53:33 PM
permalink
mkl did you mean for the poll to have that shape? If so that was well done!
February 8th, 2011 at 7:30:16 PM
permalink
Here is a link to another idea that divides the US up into 38 states:
38 States
It was created by a geography professor in California and supposedly would help reduce government costs. I didn't get too far into it, so I can't really speak for it, other than to say it really changes the boundaries!
38 States
It was created by a geography professor in California and supposedly would help reduce government costs. I didn't get too far into it, so I can't really speak for it, other than to say it really changes the boundaries!
"Bite my Glorious Golden Ass!" - Bender Bending Rodriguez
February 8th, 2011 at 9:33:52 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitI don't know, as I've never heard, but I am not a Canadian and don't live in the East. I've spoken to a fair number of Francophones, which is how I know a bit about the independence, and also read a fair amount.
I can't imagine Newfoundland and Labrador going for that though... they barely accepted federation with Canada. New Brunswick is the only truly bi-linngual province, and if there was an independent Quebec, the western part of NB especially would have been drawn to Quebec, not the US. I don't know anyone from PEI or down in the region bordering Maine etc... I don't see it, but who knows (I heard a rumour that a way way back, there was some sort of land claim that Canada/The British Dominions of North America had on Maine).
Nova Scotia still has a very established Francophone population as well. The bulk of what are now the Canadian Maritime provinces were once the French province of Acadia thus the French of this area are still identified as Acadians. Much of Maine was also part of Acadia. The British expelled a large percentage of the population for security reasons after winning the war for that part of North America. The French population based in Quebec did not fall to the British until much later. After the expulsion many of the Acadians made their way to Louisiana and became known as Cajuns.
Be careful when you follow the masses, the M is sometimes silent.
February 8th, 2011 at 11:43:40 PM
permalink
The security reasons where rather crap, as the Acadians themselves didn't really want any part of the French rule... they also didn't want to give fealty to the British crown either... so they were rather harshly done by at the end of that fight.
I knew the Cajuns were the displaced Acadians. Was a pretty typical British tactic of that era... displace and cleanse those you don't like (see Highland clearances around the same era).
I know my Acadian friend is rather proud of heritage and culture.
I knew the Cajuns were the displaced Acadians. Was a pretty typical British tactic of that era... displace and cleanse those you don't like (see Highland clearances around the same era).
I know my Acadian friend is rather proud of heritage and culture.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
February 9th, 2011 at 12:32:11 AM
permalink
We in the Northeast find he rest of the country delightful.
I have a bewitched egg that I use to play VP with and I have net over 900k with it.
February 9th, 2011 at 10:31:08 AM
permalink
Quote: Wavy70We in the Northeast find he rest of the country delightful.
Hey Wavy since Gerry is no longer and I haven't finished my AP training could I rent your egg. You can have 10% of all my winnings.
Be careful when you follow the masses, the M is sometimes silent.
February 9th, 2011 at 10:39:02 AM
permalink
Quote: kenarmanHey Wavy since Gerry is no longer and I haven't finished my AP training could I rent your egg. You can have 10% of all my winnings.
I'll have to ask the egg.
I have a bewitched egg that I use to play VP with and I have net over 900k with it.
February 9th, 2011 at 10:55:51 AM
permalink
Either the highest percentage of Americans are originally from the foundry or the highest percentage of gamblers are from there.
February 9th, 2011 at 5:22:03 PM
permalink
Well, when you include Chicago and New York City in it you are accounting for a large chunk of the population right there.Quote: clarkacalEither the highest percentage of Americans are originally from the foundry or the highest percentage of gamblers are from there.
I would actually posit that The Foundry begins in northern New Jersey and extends to the South Side of Chicago, or at least Gary. Chicago proper and New York City are excluded.
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
February 9th, 2011 at 5:37:47 PM
permalink
Quote: NareedGeographically, designations are as arbitrary as politically ;)
Only for obscure agendas, as we have seen with meterology.
Quote: NareedBut consider, you have a continious land mass from Alaska to Yucatan, which then narrows until it passes the equator. I'd call the first mass North america, and the rest South America. Designtaing the land in between as Central America or not is optional.
First, the continuous land mass does not "narrow until it passes the Equator." It narrows a rather large distance north of the Equator and then widens.
Here is geographical consensus, not "I'd call." The penultimate entry is the relevant one in this discussion:
Which Continent?
On Which Continent Will You Find...
By Matt Rosenberg, About.com Guide
I often receive questions about on which continent one can find a certain place. Below are some of the most frequent questions. I define there to be seven continents - 1) Europe, 2) Australia, 3) Africa, 4) Antarctica, 5) North America, 6) Asia, and 7) South America. Those places which are not part of a continent can be included as part of a region of the world.
On which continent are the islands of the Caribbean?
The islands of the Caribbean are not on a continent. They are usually considered to be part of the geographic region known as North America or Latin America.
On which continent is Greenland?
Greenland is part of North America even though it is a territory of Denmark (which is in Europe).
On which continent is the South Pole?
Antarctica.
On which continent is the North Pole?
None. The North Pole is in the middle of the Arctic Ocean.
On which continent is the Prime Meridian?
The Prime Meridian runs through Europe, Africa, and Antarctica.
On which continent is the International Date Line?
The International Date Line only runs through Antarctica.
On which continent is the equator?
The equator passes through South America, Africa, and Asia.
On which continent is the deepest point on land?
The deepest point on land is the Dead Sea, located on the border of Israel and Jordan in Asia.
On which continent is Hawaii
Hawaii is not on a continent as an island chain far from a land mass.
On which continent is Egypt?
Egypt is mostly part of Africa although the Sinai Peninsula in northeastern Egypt is part of Asia.
On which continent is Australia?
Australia is its own continent.
On which continent is New Zealand?
New Zealand is an oceanic island far from a continent and thus, like the Caribbean, it is not on a continent but is often considered to be part of the "Australia and Oceania" region.
On which continent is Panama?
The border between Panama and Colombia is the border between North America and South America so Panama is in North America and Colombia is in South America.
On which continent is Turkey?
While most of Turkey lies geographically in Asia (the Anatolian Peninsula is Asian), far western Turkey lies in Europe.
February 9th, 2011 at 6:48:43 PM
permalink
Quote: SanchoPanzaFirst, the continuous land mass does not "narrow until it passes the Equator." It narrows a rather large distance north of the Equator and then widens.
Read again. I said the mass goes to Yucatan and then narrows until it passes the Equator. meaning it narrows after Yucatan and continues that way until it passes the Equator. Actually it widens before reaching the Equator, so all of Central America is north of it.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
February 9th, 2011 at 7:20:29 PM
permalink
Quote: NareedRead again. I said the mass goes to Yucatan and then narrows until it passes the Equator. meaning it narrows after Yucatan and continues that way until it passes the Equator. Actually it widens before reaching the Equator, so all of Central America is north of it.
It reaches its narrowest point at the Panamanian Isthmus, which is well north of the Equator, then widens considerably almost immediately. But a country south of Mexico is part of Central America, not North America. The division of the Americas into North, Central, and South doesn't mean the three regions aren't one contiguous landmass.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
February 10th, 2011 at 8:44:22 AM
permalink
Quote: mkl654321It reaches its narrowest point at the Panamanian Isthmus, which is well north of the Equator, then widens considerably almost immediately.
"Distance between Panama City, Panama, and Quito, Ecuador, as the crow flies:
635 miles (1022 km) (552 nautical miles)"--indo.com
Quote:A country south of Mexico is part of Central America, not North America. The division of the Americas into North, Central, and South doesn't mean the three regions aren't one contiguous landmass.
If you or anyone else can find a professional geography source that designates Central America as a separate continent, please post it.
February 10th, 2011 at 9:04:52 AM
permalink
DISCLAIMER: I did very well on geography at school. It was a subject on its own for three years in junior high school.
That said, who cares how continents are divided and whether or not an island chain is or isn't part of a particular continent?
The question has some geological relevance, but even then there are more important things like plate boundaries and fault lines. Geographically national borders matter most. About the only country whose location continent-wise has any relevance is Turkey, because if it is part of Europe then it has some claim for admitance in the Europen Union (not a great claim, mind)
That said, who cares how continents are divided and whether or not an island chain is or isn't part of a particular continent?
The question has some geological relevance, but even then there are more important things like plate boundaries and fault lines. Geographically national borders matter most. About the only country whose location continent-wise has any relevance is Turkey, because if it is part of Europe then it has some claim for admitance in the Europen Union (not a great claim, mind)
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
February 10th, 2011 at 9:34:05 AM
permalink
Quote: NareedWho cares how continents are divided?
The misleading title of this thread has clearly sparked a number of comments, not the least of these are:
"In another thread, the OP asked people what region of North America they had come from--which created some predictable questions about which region a given state or province lies in."
"Unfortunately North America extends from Alaska to the North all the way down to the Mexican border with Belize and Guatemala."
Quote:The question has some geological relevance, but even then there are more important things like plate boundaries and fault lines. Geographically national borders matter most.
No expert has ever declared the Isthmus of Tehuantepec the division between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. It is more than 1,400 miles north of the Equator.
Tectonic plates rarely follow specific continental divisions, unless you now want to say the Motagua Fault is a dividing line.
And national borders can often be highly aribitrary. Witness Woodrow Wilson and Arthur Balfour, as well as some of their free-wheeling successors. Viz Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.
February 10th, 2011 at 9:51:23 AM
permalink
Quote: SanchoPanzaTectonic plates rarely follow specific continental divisions, unless you now want to say the Motagua Fault is a dividing line.
So? They're relevant because the boundaries between plates often produce things like earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. I'd rather find out abut that, than argue whether this or that island is or is not part of a continent.
Quote:And national borders can often be highly aribitrary. Witness Woodrow Wilson and Arthur Balfour, as well as some of their free-wheeling successors. Viz Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.
Again, and so? They're still relevant be they fairly or unfairly drawn. How many wars have been started out of a dispute over borders?
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
February 10th, 2011 at 10:08:09 AM
permalink
Quote: SanchoPanza"Distance between Panama City, Panama, and Quito, Ecuador, as the crow flies:
635 miles (1022 km) (552 nautical miles)"--indo.com
If you or anyone else can find a professional geography source that designates Central America as a separate continent, please post it.
No one ever said that it was--only that it is NOT part of North America, as in the original topic of this thread.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
February 10th, 2011 at 12:24:43 PM
permalink
Quote: mkl654321No one ever said that it was--only that it is NOT part of North America, as in the original topic of this thread.
OK. In that case can you or anyone else here find a professional geography source that designates Central America as part of South America?
February 10th, 2011 at 1:50:37 PM
permalink
mkl not sure why you don't include Central America and the Caribean as part of North America. If your source is more established than National Geographic I would be glad to see it since NG includes all of the Caribean Islands and everything, north of and including Panama, as North America.
Be careful when you follow the masses, the M is sometimes silent.
February 10th, 2011 at 2:01:33 PM
permalink
They are all part of CONCACAF, which is good enough for me as a description of which countries are in which continent.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
February 10th, 2011 at 4:22:41 PM
permalink
Quote: SanchoPanzaOK. In that case can you or anyone else here find a professional geography source that designates Central America as part of South America?
I don't care if it's part of the moon, for the purposes of this discussion.
The designation is, of course, arbitrary. You could define "The Americas" as a single landmass, as you could Europe+Asia. But it makes sense to treat North and South America as separate landmasses, given that the land connection between them is tenuous (and practically impassable, even today). Central America is free to consider itself part of either continent, as it wishes. It is also free to consider itself part of neither. The question isn't all that important, given that there is no political designation based on within which continent a given nation lies.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
February 10th, 2011 at 4:25:11 PM
permalink
Quote: kenarmanmkl not sure why you don't include Central America and the Caribean as part of North America. If your source is more established than National Geographic I would be glad to see it since NG includes all of the Caribean Islands and everything, north of and including Panama, as North America.
"I" don't include or exclude any area. The book that was the original topic of this discussion considered the Caribbean to be part of North America, but Central America to be separate.
I doubt very much that any National Geographic map, or any other of their sources, designates Panama as part of North America. Keep in mind that there are landmasses, such as Greenland, Hawaii, etc. that are not considered part of any of the seven continents; Central America would seem to qualify in this regard.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
February 10th, 2011 at 5:19:18 PM
permalink
Quote: mkl654321I doubt very much that any National Geographic map, or any other of their sources, designates Panama as part of North America. Keep in mind that there are landmasses, such as Greenland, Hawaii, etc. that are not considered part of any of the seven continents; Central America would seem to qualify in this regard.[/q
Look it up and then appologize for your arrogance (oh I forgot you are a teacher and know everything) . Since since this is a gambling site we can also make a bet that NG's map of North America includes the areas I identified as being in North America. You pick the amount of the bet, anything up to $100 and I will provide the link. It is not hidden and is on the website.Be careful when you follow the masses, the M is sometimes silent.
February 10th, 2011 at 5:40:05 PM
permalink
Blah blah blah.
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
February 10th, 2011 at 6:10:44 PM
permalink
Quote: mkl654321The question isn't all that important, given that there is no political designation based on within which continent a given nation lies.
Continental identification carries political, economic and social ramifications. Witness the African Unity organizations, SEATO, NATO, OAS, ANZAC and on and on and on.
Quote:it makes sense to treat North and South America as separate landmasses, given that the land connection between them is tenuous (and practically impassable, even today).
Someone who has not been in the region for years might make that uninformed statement. People familiar with the region know that in terms of the developing world, it has superior roadways, especially in view of extremely rugged terrains and especially in countries like Guatemala, El Salvador and Costa Rica.
February 10th, 2011 at 6:11:57 PM
permalink
Quote: mkl6543210Keep in mind that there are landmasses, such as Greenland, Hawaii, etc. that are not considered part of any of the seven continents.
That is not true as a clear post in this thread pointed out.
February 10th, 2011 at 7:16:04 PM
permalink
Quote: SanchoPanzaContinental identification carries political, economic and social ramifications. Witness the African Unity organizations, SEATO, NATO, OAS, ANZAC and on and on and on.
Someone who has not been in the region for years might make that uninformed statement. People familiar with the region know that in terms of the developing world, it has superior roadways, especially in view of extremely rugged terrains and especially in countries like Guatemala, El Salvador and Costa Rica.
I meant the distinction specifically between "North America" and "South America".
The impassability I refer to is nowadays more in terms of the terrain, the lack of decent roads, and the necessity to pay bribes, evade armed gangs, and to not be in a particular country when the next regularly scheduled coup or revolution breaks out.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
February 10th, 2011 at 7:17:20 PM
permalink
Quote: SanchoPanzaThat is not true as a clear post in this thread pointed out.
The "clear post" was completely full of it. What "continent" is Greenland part of? Europe? Antarctica? What about Hawaii? Africa, perhaps?
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
February 10th, 2011 at 7:18:56 PM
permalink
Quote: teddys
Oooooooo...Wikipedia! A definitive source if dere ever wuz one!
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
February 10th, 2011 at 7:22:35 PM
permalink
Quote: kenarmanQuote: mkl654321I doubt very much that any National Geographic map, or any other of their sources, designates Panama as part of North America. Keep in mind that there are landmasses, such as Greenland, Hawaii, etc. that are not considered part of any of the seven continents; Central America would seem to qualify in this regard.[/q
Look it up and then appologize for your arrogance (oh I forgot you are a teacher and know everything) . Since since this is a gambling site we can also make a bet that NG's map of North America includes the areas I identified as being in North America. You pick the amount of the bet, anything up to $100 and I will provide the link. It is not hidden and is on the website.
I doubted that the map said that; however, it's certainly possible that National Geographic has decided that there's no such place as Central America.
And I'm not going to "apologize" for my "arrogance" in thinking that Central America exists. (And I am a teacher, yes. I do not know everything. But I do know a bit about geography--such as the fact that Central America exists, even if some website says it doesn't. Even if that website is sponsored by National Geographic.)The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
February 10th, 2011 at 10:08:57 PM
permalink
Cute, but the point was that the border has been alternatively drawn either in the middle of Panama or on the Panama/Colombia border, so there isn't a definitive answer. I'm not sure what National Geographic says.Quote: mkl654321Quote: teddys
Oooooooo...Wikipedia! A definitive source if dere ever wuz one!
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
February 11th, 2011 at 6:46:44 AM
permalink
Quote: mkl654321The "clear post" was completely full of it. What "continent" is Greenland part of? Europe? Antarctica?
The answer was crystal clear in the post. It is increasingly clear that you refuse to read or utterly ignore what is posted and that you refuse to look at all at standard Web sources. That is contrary to a basic tenet of any intellectually curious individual. It is an especially problematic characteristic for a teacher presenting as a role model.
February 11th, 2011 at 6:57:45 AM
permalink
Quote: mkl654321I doubted that the map said that; however, it's certainly possible that National Geographic has decided that there's no such place as Central America.
You don't have to "doubt." You can take a 5-second search and come up with results like this:
Travel Library - Central & South America - National
Planning a trip to the National Parks? Submit your questions and get expert advice from the Park Rangers themselves.
traveler.nationalgeographic.com/ travel-books/ central-and-south-america-text - Proxy
National Geographic Adventure Travel Guides: Central America
How to plan your own itinerary for a two-week, two-month, or one-year trip in Belize, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama.
www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0210/trips_33_centamer.html - Proxy
National Geographic Maps | Central America
Our most detailed wall map of Central America, extensively updated with new National Parks in Guatemala, new administrative boundaries in Guatemala and Panama, and revised elevation figures...
www.natgeomaps.com/central_america - Proxy
North America -- National Geographic
A guide to North America with articles, photos, facts, videos, and news from National Geographic.
travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/continents/north-america/ - Proxy
Video -- Central America -- National Geographic
Watch the people and cultures of the region come alive in thrilling videos.
video.nationalgeographic.com/ video/ player/ places/ regions-places/ central-america/ - Proxy
Caves, Caves Information, Karst Facts, News, Photos -- National Geographic
Interactive tour of Chiquibul, Central America by National Geographic photographer Stephen Alvarez.
www.nationalgeographic.com/chiquibul/ - Proxy
1939 National Geographic map of Central America #MAP25
1939 National Geographic map of Mexico, Central America and the West Indies. Includes insets of Panama, Puerto Rico, Saint Thomas, Jamaica, Cuba, Berm
www.ecrater.com/ p/ 10516736/ 1939-national-geographic-map-of-central-america - Proxy
Geographic Map of South America | www.DestinationThere.com
Amazon.com: National Geographic Map of South America (9780528849343): ... National Geographic Map | Central & South America and More
www.destinationthere.com/Geographic_Map_of_South_America - Proxy
Quote:And I'm not going to "apologize" for my "arrogance" in thinking that Central America exists. (And I am a teacher, yes. I do not know everything. But I do know a bit about geography--such as the fact that Central America exists, even if some website says it doesn't. Even if that website is sponsored by National Geographic.)
For whatever reason (presumably a bad experience) that someone has with the topic of this sub-thread, that still does not fully explain the distortions, spurious implications and outright misstatements.
February 11th, 2011 at 10:12:21 AM
permalink
Quote: SanchoPanzaThe answer was crystal clear in the post. It is increasingly clear that you refuse to read or utterly ignore what is posted and that you refuse to look at all at standard Web sources. That is contrary to a basic tenet of any intellectually curious individual. It is an especially problematic characteristic for a teacher presenting as a role model.
I don't let my students use or quote so-called "standard Web sources" because there is no provenance or independent fact-checking done for those sources. Doubtless, most of the material on those sites is, in fact, accurate. But a LOT of it is not. Yes, my students whine and complain about my prohibition.
Refusal to look at some anonymous person's blog or website on the internet isn't a lack of intellectual curiosity; it's a disinclination to waste one's time. When someone tells me, "I looked on the internet, and it says there's no such place as Central America!!!!!!", I'm not inclined to see which goofball website that person is quoting, any more than I would bother to verify a student's claim that South Dakota borders China, because the internet told him so.
And the only way I'm presenting myself as a "role model", as you put it, if at all, is when I say, "Don't believe everything you read on the internet."
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
February 11th, 2011 at 10:20:29 AM
permalink
Quote: SanchoPanzaFor whatever reason (presumably a bad experience) that someone has with the topic of this sub-thread, that still does not fully explain the distortions, spurious implications and outright misstatements.
You presume incorrectly. I've been to the region twice, and each time my experience was very enjoyable.
Look, I realize what's going on here. I quoted SOMEONE ELSE'S book, and "The Nine Nations of North America" didn't include the nations of Nicaragua, El Salvador, etc. in any of those nations. You perceive that as some kind of slight, and have been riding to the defense of those poor left-out nations. The recent attempt by many to include Central America in North America is due to a burst of PC-ness; "Central America" is somewhat pejorative these days, denoting "region of politically unstable, impoverished republics mostly ruled by strongmen." So why not just say that there is no such place as Central America? Panama is now part of North America! Problem solved!
In any case, this non-issue seems to have profoundly upset you, so I will allow you to include Panama, Costa Rica, etc. as part of North America if you wish. You may also include Brazil, Norway, Japan, and Neptune. I won't mark you down as a result--after all, ANY nation or planet can be part of North America IF IT WANTS TO.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
