Should a list of countries located on the continent of South America include France?
- Yes.
- No.
- Other (please explain).
0 voters
If you’re talking about France as a geographical entity, no. France is in Europe.
If you’re talking about France as a state, a sovereign political entity, well, part of France is located in South America.
The thread title refers to “countries” and I would primarily understand that in the geographical sense. But YMMV.
I understand the question. It’s certainly a political anomaly and not something that Americans have experience with. However, does any map of South America show France as a country?
Is this a trick question? Everybody knows that French territory is not topologically connected, so some of it is in South America, and some of it is outside.
How so?
I know it is a very gross simplification, but nobody is currently forcing, e.g., Mayotte or Guiana to stay attached to France–there are democratic referenda.
BTW Americans certainly have experience taking over countries like the Philippines (not currently part of the U.S.) and Hawaii (currently part of the U.S.), for instance.
Many countries have territories, colonies, or other political divisions. AFAIK, few of these are considered to be part of country proper. The British Isles are part of the UK; the colonies, now known as the United Kingdom Overseas Territories are not. Many former colonies work this way.
The U.S. has never had colonies, but has fourteen territories. Four of them are unincorporated and organized, nine of them are unincorporated and unorganized; one of them (Palmyra Atoll) is incorporated and organized. What is the difference? The US Constitution does not apply fully to an unincorporated territory. Only five of the territories are populated, and anyone born in them is automatically a US citizen - except for American Samoa. Despite all the legal intricacies, none of the territories are part of the US. Most countries with a history of colonialism by any name work this way.
France is divided into regions and departments. It has five overseas regions that have the same legal status as the mainland regions and departments - French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte, and Réunion - and nine that do not.
So French Guiana is France but is not called France. It has its own government, an assembly, but is part of the EU. Or technically it is one of 32 special territories of members of the European Economic Area (EEA). Two of them are Spanish autonomous cities in Africa, Melilla and Ceuta. Does that mean Spain is a country in Africa?
It’s a trick question and a political anomaly. If you ask me to vote, France is not a country in South America, even though it has a political region there.
As others have said. This is a simple categorical question applied to a complex nuance situation.
France has parts of itself in South America. France is not a South American country. Next question?
While you’re at it, is Panama a North American or South American country? Yes.
IOW, its both.
The canal is the “official” division between the continents. The capital city (Panama City) is wholly within South America. But the country is thoroughly in both, and the vast majority of everyone and everything man-made in the country outside the capital is on the North American side. You only have to get a few miles south / east of Panama City and substantially the rest of South American Panama to the Colombian border is trackless human-less virgin jungle. Substantially all the farms, factories, other cities, towns, and villages, are on the other side of the canal in North American Panama.
Note also that the title asks, “What countries are in South America?” — but the body carefully asks about “countries located on the continent of South America”
I did not say that the U.S. fully assimilated or retained control of every single one (neither has France), but the U.S. has taken over plenty of “territories” that are now part of the U.S., sometimes as multiple states (especially in the case of huge territories like Louisiana) including territories disconnected from the mainland (Alaska, Hawaii), which is why I questioned the claim that Americans have little experience with the process or the phenomenon.
This should be incorporated and unorganized. Fingers bad. Thanks to you-know-who-you-are.
Yes, and I’m dismissing that process just as I am dismissing the experiences of many of the rest of the world’s countries as they filled out their present borders. I’m referring to the processes of the modern nation state mostly after WWII. The world changed and the way nations claimed legal rule over non-contiguous areas changed with it.
Hawaii and Alaska would seem to fit the bill exactly - remote dependent territories incorporated into the metropolitan state some years after WWII because continuing to assert sovereignty over remote dependent territories was increasingly untenable.
Fortunately for this argument, neither Alaska or Hawaii are situated on any continent that the United States already doesn’t occupy.
Alaska is unquestionably part of the North American continent. As is CONUS.
I genuinely don’t know which continent, if any, to apply to the Hawaiian islands. I do not think it’s a slam dunk part of North America, though I claim no expertise and I’m too lazy at this hour to go searching for a definitive answer.
Recognizing that “continents” are actually kind of vague woolly notions once you get past the gradeschool verities / lies to children. As this cite will explain to all.
Hawaii is generally considered to form part of Oceania, and certainly isn’t in North America.
There is definitely some of France in South America, so I said “yes,” but like Panama, Spain, Turkey, Russia, etc., the nation’s multi-continental territory should be accounted for.
Nobody thinks France is a South American nation, because it mostly isn’t and historically isn’t. But it is certainly a nation of South America, because French Guiana.
If we add France to the list of South American countries should it also be added to the list
of North American countries? France owns a couple of islands off the east coast
of Canada - Saint Pierre and Miquelon.
Not quite…
Arguably, although the relationship of S. Pierre et Miquelon to metropolitan France is not the same as that of French Guiana.
French Guiana is fully integrated into the French Republic and the European Union. S. P & M. is a “overseas collectivity” with its own legislature and a higher (but not complete) degree of self-government, and some ability to represent itself internationally. It has a slighlty more detached relationship with the Republic than Guiana does, so you could argue that it’s not so much a part of France as a separate state which is something like a French protectorate.
I don’t know how common this is but one Irish-American neighbor bristled at the term British Isles.
She also did not like the term “first generation” immigrant. Because although she was born in Ireland and came to the US as an adult in the 1970s, her grandfather did the same 60 years earlier but he returned to Ireland in the 1930s. So she claimed to be a THIRD generation American.
Heck, by some definitions, Manhattan isn’t part of the continent of North America.