The funny thing is that it is not like this is some new discovery or new knowledge -- Webster's 1913 dictionary has five oceans: "Ocean: 2. One of the large bodies of water into which the great ocean is regarded as divided, as the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, Arctic and Antarctic oceans." https://www.websters1913.com/words/Ocean So you get to feel like you have a more up-to-date education than your grand parents, your kids feel like they have a more up-to-date education than you, and it all is just a cycle of fashion :-P
The 3rd edition of that document, which came out in 1953, lists four oceans - same as Webster's sans the Antarctic: https://iho.int/uploads/user/pubs/standards/s-23/S-23_Ed3_19...
The 4th edition of the document, which has been in draft since 1986, adds the Southern Ocean: https://legacy.iho.int/mtg_docs/com_wg/S-23WG/S-23WG_Misc/Dr...
Asian countries call those one way, European another, the US a different, some countries prefer their own, etc.
As the Wikipedia entry below says e.g.:
"Australasia is a region which comprises Australia, New Zealand, and some neighbouring islands. The term is used in a number of different contexts including geopolitically, physiogeographically, and ecologically where the term covers several slightly different but related regions."
This include continents, which, depending on the context, country, etc can be seen as being anywhere from 4 to 7.
It's a good case study in society's ability to believe things despite the fact that every single individual in the society has direct personal experience falsifying the belief. If you've ever eaten candy, you've experienced the taste of sugar all across your tongue.
It takes only a couple of seconds to run an experiment that conclusively disproves the tongue map. But there it is in the reference books.
> all taste sensations come from all regions of the tongue, although different parts are more sensitive to certain tastes
Give me a break, I'll determine the name for my own culture and how I identify myself, thanks
Then again I don't blame the US for calling itself a continent since United states really isn't a name. Like South Africa isn't a name. Very nebulous now that I think about it. On the other hand, the UK has too many names.
The United States of America is an embodiment of "manifest destiny", which is a declaration of intent to conquer the sovereign people of the continent.
It’s clearly not a grape!!!
It's quite presumptuous to demand the people of another country refer to themselves in a particular way. You are free to call us whatever you want amongst yourselves. We do it with Germany/Deutschland and they don't seem to mind that much. But we're not demanding that they refer to themselves by our name for them.
Not just Americans. In Portuguese, Americans (that is, those from and of the USA) are often called americanos. In French, américain is much more commonly used than États-Unien.
The Spanish meaning of americano that does not include Americans in this way is very unusual among major Western languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_%28word%29#Other_lang.... I don't mean to say that the equivalent of "American" in those languages is the only way to refer to those of the USA, or that equivalents to "USA" and such don't exist. In Portuguese, Italian, and German, however, saying Americano/Americano/Amerikanisch would generally be understood as referring to that of the USA without additional context, as opposed to a Brazilian or Argentinean, in a way that Americano wouldn't in Spanish.
From the outside that can seem the case (understandably). In reality it only has one (UK), and the other terms have different meanings:
- England, Wales, and Scotland are the 'mainland' countries individually
- Great Britain (Britain) is the name for the larger island group that contains those countries
- UK (the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) is what you get when you add in Northern Ireland
- British Isles is the/a name for both major island groups combined (so that includes the Republic of Ireland)
Not all of these terms are liked by all parties to them (especially British Isles), but they do each have a distinct geographical meaning which often confuses even the locals.
While Mexico is the only such country today other than the USA, it alone is good enough reason for people to avoid using "United Statesians" or the local equivalent thereof to refer to those of the USA. (Even worse is "norteamericanos". Why aren't Canadians and Bahamians constantly marching in the streets to protest against Spanish speakers' use of such a term to refer solely to denizens of the USA?)
The US, on the other hand, is the only country with the word "America" in its name. All the more reason for the use, in every major Western language other than Spanish, of America/American to refer to the US and its inhabitants.
In Spanish, yes. In Portuguese, Americans (that is, those from and of the USA) are often called americanos. In French, américain is much more commonly used than États-Unien.
The Spanish meaning of americano that does not include Americans in this way is very unusual among major Western languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_%28word%29#Other_lang.... I don't mean to say that the equivalent of "American" in those languages is the only way to refer to those of the USA, or that equivalents to "USA" and such don't exist. In Portuguese, Italian, and German, however, saying Americano/Americano/Amerikanisch would generally be understood as referring to that of the USA without additional context, as opposed to a Brazilian or Argentinean, in a way that Americano wouldn't in Spanish.
Continent is a poorly defined term.
FWIW, I don't hate or love the new way, it's just pretty radically different from what I was taught.
That was the first case of something my child learning contradicting my own outdated education. I'm sure there will be plenty more to come.