You’re not the only one. I too thought exactly that until I was around 40 or 45 or so.
And now that I know that it is merely ON the coast of Spain instead of OFF of it, I keep on wondering: What is the big freaking deal? Okay, it is very large and tall, but is it really cool enough to be so famous?
I remember as a very young child, hearing legends of how the ancients thought of The Rock as a “stopper”, preventing the Mediterranean from leaking out into the Atlantic. This made a lot of sense me until I found out that it was merely a humongous version of the New Jersey Palisades.
Yes, that is a great example. Are there no other examples like that within the USA? No other states such that in order to traverse all parts of the state one must go through another state?
The deal is that Spain wants it and the UK won’t let it go - it’s of tremendous naval strategic importance, since it controls the entrance to the Mediterranean sea.
In a way it does act as a stopper - the straits of Gibralter are so narrow that there are no tides in the Mediterranean, even thousands of miles away.
I’ll take your word for it, but from what I can see on the map, Gibraltar is about 20 miles northeast of where its reputation would put it. There are a lot of places further south in Spain, and lot of places at the northern tip of Morrocco, which would be approximately as good as Gibraltar, or even better – to my totally ignorant eyes.
In Spain, yes, to both. Now if you ask about Gibraltar that may bring up “¡Gibraltar español!” - until you ask whether Ceuta and Melilla are Maroc.
If Puerto Rico isn’t part of the USA what the heck is it then? They don’t have full rights and duties, but they aren’t an independent country: they’re part of one country, the USA, like California, Texas or Argentina used to be part of Spain.
There are tides in the Mediterranean, who ever came up with that piece of stupidity? They may not be as large as in other places but heck yeah there’s tides!
Ok, I realised I should not have said there were no tides at all after I’d typed it. However tides in the Mediterranean are barely noticeable (and to me not noticeable at all) compared with tides in the Atlantic, the North Sea, etc, thanks to the Straits of Gibraltar.
Puerto Rico probably wasn’t the best example I could have used when I was trying to show why, in my opinion, UK Overseas Territories aren’t part of the UK. As I say, if they are, then Hong Kong in the past and Gibralter were a discontinuous territory, but I don’t feel that is really what the OP was looking for. (Also, if the British Antarctic Territory is part of the UK then I reckon the UK is the third largest country in Europe, after Russia and Norway, but only if Greenland isn’t part of Denmark:)).
There are still many cases throughout the world (although many fewer than there were 100 years ago) where a non-sovereign territory is a possession of another country without ever being part of it. This was never a matter of semantics, but a matter of (often quite arbitrary) law. South Africa, to take one of hundreds of examples, was not part of the United Kingdom, although it was part of the British Empire. Ireland, on the other hand, was part of the United Kingdom.
Gibraltar is certainly not part of the UK; neither are the Isle of Man or Jersey. However the Canary Islands and Ceuta are unquestionably part of Spain. They elect deputies to the national parliament in Madrid and are subject to the laws enacted by parliament. The legal status of Gibraltar is not parallel to that of Ceuta and Melilla.
True, but again, a lot depends on definitions. All those places can be reached internally by swimming. I think the coolest ones are the ones which. like Kentucky Bend, are TOTALLY surrounded.
Still looking for maps of those. The best example I’ve found so far is South Hackensack, NJ.
An exclave of the first kind is a parcel of land belonging to political unit X which is surrounded by political uint Y or units T, Z, W, etc., with no contiguous link between them.
An exclave of the second kind, which seems to be what the majority of discussants in this thread are debating the definition of, is a parcel of land belonging to one political unit which is located on the same land mass (continent, island, etc.) as the rest of that political unit, but which is not accessible by land from the rest of the political unit without either going through a different political unit or taking to water. A bridge linking the two parcels ‘breaks’ the exclave status – while the Upper Peninsula of Michigan is on the same land mass as the Lower Peninsula but requires going through either Ontario or Indiana/Illinois/Wisconsin to get there, there is a bridge (the Mackinac) connecting them. In contradistinction, you must go either through Manitoba by land or by boat to get from most of Minnesota to the Northern Angle; you must go through Canada or by boat to get from the 48 contiguous states to Alaska – but both are accessible by land. Similarly, Kaliningrad and Cabinda are separated from the main portion of their respective nations by parts of (an)other nation(s). Louisiana is, similarly, divided from north to south by the Mississippi River, but numerous bridges link the two halves, so Louisiana-east-of-the-Mississippii is hardly an exclave. On the other hand, the example of Timor-Leste works; the district of Oecussi-Ambeno is part of Timor-Leste, located like (most of) the rest of the nation on the island of Timor, but physically separated from the main part of the nation by Indonesian Timor – and hence is an exclave.
Added note to Keeve – technically, you could swim or boat from the main part of Kentucky to the Bend without setting foot on any non-Kentucky land, though nobody would be likely to except to prove the point it can be done, as a publicity stunt or something similar.
London is made up of 32 boroughs and the City of London. The City of London is nearly all in the area around Fenchurch St, but it also owns Hampstead Heath, several miles to the North. That might not count, since residents there vote for the borough of Camden, but it does change some of the park’s regulations, and it’s just interesting to know - I think it is, anyway.
I don’t think having a monarch is what makes a difference. After all, Australians and Canadians also share the Queen of Great Britain and so on, but nobody would claim they’re part of the UK. The Falklands and the other examples aren’t part of the UK because they are, well, technically not part of the UK; however, they are British overseas territories and can get British passports, so the definition is a little blurred.
Yes, but you’d have to swim in Tennessee or Missouri waters to get to it.
Bottom line for the Kentucky Bend: You have to leave the state of Kentucky to get to this piece of Kentucky. Such is not the case for Point Roberts, the Northwest Angle, or Elm Point. Or any other state geography, I think.
Is there any other portion of a US state that is so separated from the rest of its state as is Kentucky Bend?
Ellis Island: The original, natural island is part of New York, but it’s completely surrounded by landfill that the Supreme Court ruled is part of New Jersey. The entire island is itself in New Jersey waters.
Note that Norfolk County, MA is actually in three sections: (1) the main section, (2) Brookline, and (3) a little bit out on the coast at Cohasset.
Another local example is St Martin Parish in Louisiana. As far as I know, these are the only two discontinuous counties in the US not countng places where the state is discontinuous (discussed elsethread).
