I’ll bet most Americans don’t realize that part of France is in North America too. Yep, flys the flag northeast of the US border with Canada.
BTW, Liberal has the right of it gramatically, because origins are expressed with ser. Yo y Pablo somos norteamericanos, soy angloamericano, y Pablo y Diego son latinoamericanos. Y todos nosotros somos americanos. But, I would say Yo, Pablo, y Diego somos americanos – yo soy anglo, y son latinos los dos, and drop the “American” altogether.
When speaking, I get around the “American” difficulties by saying “Soy de los Estados Unidos” and leaving “americano” out completely, because “americano” doesn’t mean exactly the same thing as “American” in English, the same way that Spanish “equivocar” and English “equivocate” aren’t the same thing.
"America, called in antiquity the New World, is a continent in Earth’s western hemisphere that stretches from the Arctic Ocean in the north almost to the Antarctic Ocean in the south, and is surrounded in turn by the Pacific Ocean to the west and by the Atlantic Ocean in the east.
It is formed by two subcontinents, North America, which in turn includes Central America, and South America."
So, yes, the English Wikipedia disagrees; however, CBEscapee was referring to Spanish usage, in which I have always heard América to mean the whole shebang.
While the colors aren’t assigned to a specific continent, the rings themselves represent the five continents.
Maybe it isn’t quite that simple. Take a close look at the Panama-Colombia border: Panama stops short of the main mass of the South American continent, and Colombia occupies the easternmost end of the isthmus.
Either Colombia is partly in North America, or the boundary between the two continents is undefined. The political boundary between Panama and Colombia was arbitrarily drawn when the USA incited Panama to secede from Colombia so they could strike that canal deal. I don’t see how it corresponds to any natural geography.
Yes, you are quite right. I was merely speaking of the conventional delimitation of the continents. The boundary between the two continental land masses should probably go through the area of the Panama Canal, which is a low saddle between mountain ranges to the east and west and also one of the narrowest places on the isthmus (although the lowest point in the Central American isthmus I believe is in Nicaragua, and the absolute narrowest point is a little to the east). This actually corresponds with the regional biogeography, since many basically North American plants and animals get only as far south as the Canal area, and many South Amerian forms reach their northern limits here.
In terms of geology, the status of eastern Panama/westernmost Colombia is somewhat indefinite. Western Panama, although of volcanic origin, has at times had connections to the main North American landmass as far back as the Oligocene. Eastern Panama is much more recent, and its core is mainly composed of uplifted oceanic crust (ophiolites) with some volcanics. Therefore eastern Panama and westernmost Colombia in geological terms don’t belong to any continent. The last oceanic straits between the Atlantic in the Pacific were in southern Nicaragua, the Panama Canal area, and westernmost Colombia, and it is somewhat uncertain which one closed last. The final closure happened about 3 million years ago.
The boundary between North and South America is conventionally fixed at the Panama-Colombian boundary simply for convenience. It does not correspond to geological or biogeographic reality. But then again, the Arabian peninsula is universally considered to belong to Asia, when in reality it is geologically part of Africa.
As has previously been mentioned, the boundary between the North America and Central American regions is sometimes considered to be at the political boundary between Mexico and Guatemala/Belize. However, it is also oftehn considered to be at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, the narrowest point in the region. By this view Chiapas and the Yucatan peninsula are in Central America.
Uhh…yeah. I guess I wasn’t clear. What I’m disputing (well, asking for a cite) is the assertion that anyone considers “from Mexico south [to be] one continent called América.” Every place I’ve seen either divides into three – North America, Central America, or South America. OR, Central America is part of North America. Who groups is with South America and calls it América? The cite above, just claims that the whole shebang is America.
I believe that you misinterpreted what CBEscapee was trying to say. He meant that the people* living* from Mexico south, than is, Latin Americans, consider North and South America to be a single continent, not that anyone considers the region from Mexico south to be a single continent.
When Pangea drifted apart, wasn’t North America (with most of Central America) part of Laurasia and South America part of Gondwanaland?
Ahh, OK. Perhaps I’ve parsed his sentence wrong.
Yes. There is some question as to where exactly the blocks of continental crust that make up parts of Mexico and Central America came from, but they probably were attached to Laurasia originally. Northern Central America as far as Nicaragua is a block of continental crust known as the Chortis Terrane. The rest was once a volcanic island arc to the south of it. (And at one time the present Greater Antilles seem to have been positioned as an archipelago where Central America is now; they later drifted eastward to be replaced by the new island arc that formed southern Central America).
Yes, thanks Colibri, that is what I meant but I can see Jayrot’s misinterpreting it. My fault for not making myself understood.