Asturian-American Migration Forum

A few weeks ago reading an article on New Scientist I noticed they made a rather small but disturbing mistake, and so, I sent them an e-mail letting them know.

My e-mail

Message: On the article ‘Tsunami risk of asteroid strikes revealed’ the
following statement is made "Hurricane Katrina became America's worst
natural disaster in living memory"

I would like to point out some of America's natural disasters in living
memory;

Peru: earthquake, 1970, 70,000 deaths
Haiti: hurricane Flora, 1963, 7,200 deaths
Honduras: hurricane Fifi, 1974, 8,000 deaths
Mexico: hurricane Mitch, 1998, 10,000 deaths

According to estimates of the 'Sistema de Integracion CentroAmericana'
over 5,000 people die each year in hurricanes in Central America.
Hurricane Mitch in 1998 alone caused over 10,000 deaths and losses of
more than 5 billion dollars.

Please check basic facts like these before you publish, if New Scientist
meant to say "Hurricane Katrina became United States worst natural
disaster in living memory" it would've been accurate, but that is not
what New Scientist said.

Link
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9 ... eroid-stri
kes-revealed.html

Thank you for taking the time to read this,

Eli xxx Xxxxx

Their response

Dear Eli,

Thank you for your email. You are absolutely right, of course. I am
afraid that was an oversight on my part. I have corrected it now.

Thank you for taking the time to write and let me know.

Kind regards,

Sean (edited out to comply with forum rules)
Online Sub-Editor
New Scientist
Email: (edited out to comply with forum rules)
Web: www.newscientist.com

America = 50 states situated N of Mexico and S of Canada.

North America = continent
South America = continent.

Well, congratulations, Elí. Is that your first major score?

Maybe (if immigration trends continue and Elí remains persistent) in 50 years, Elí will be an old guy telling his bored grandkids about how he got us thinking about what the word 'America" means. They'll say, "Geez, gramps, everyone knows that!"

Interestingly enough you are correct Xose, from a geological point of view North and South America sit on two different continental plates, South America broke off of Godwana eons after North America did from Laurasia. (You can see a .gif animation of continental drift here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangea ) Eventually North America got stuck when it ran into the Asian plate and South America caught up with it, the first collision produced the islands we know as the Caribbean, South America kept on going and eventually a second collision produced the land mass we know as Central America that incidentally doesn’t sit on either continental plate but on the Atlantic plate. So, the land mass we know as America in reality is composed of three different continental plates the North American, the Atlantic and the South American plate. Although from a geological point of view we have three plates hence three continents, from a socio-political point of view there is only one, as the continents were named/defined a long time before we knew of continental plates when continents were defined simply by continuos land masses surrounded by bodies of water.

All of my life I’ve been arguing that America is one continent, basically for sentimental reasons really, I like it that way. For the same reason I’ve been a supporter of keeping Pluto as a planet although clearly it is not (smaller than the moon and the likely composition resembles that of the objects in the kuiper belt). I’m starting to think more like you though, however much we may like Pluto as the ninth planet it is not, therefor, it should not be classified as one. The same holds true with our own planet, we should amend our notions to include new scientific knowledge even though the old notions were just so comfortable. So regrettably I will agree with you and say that North, Central and South America are three continents and we should think of them as such. We should also change the name of two of these continents to reflect this new status. I wouldn’t be opposed to the idea of keeping the name America for what today we know as South America, naming Central America as Atlanta (since it rests on the Atlantic plate), and giving the land mass we know today as North America the new name of Colombia in honor of Colon / Columbus the man that discovered ‘America’ for the Europeans.

Ha! Ha! no Art, it’s not the first, but the first that not only acknowledge it but actually changed it. I’ve written in the past to the same magazine and gotten replies that pretty much said “you are correct, but what can we do about it? That’s the way it is” this one actually went back and edit the content to reflect what I had said, so that kinda felt good I’ve written similar stuff to others as well and many agree but you get pretty much the same response ‘you are right, but...” one of the most memorable responses was when I wrote to the O’Reilly factor in CNN, their response “it will be a cold day in hell the day Mr. O’Reilly calls himself a United Statesian” lol

If I tell two people and they tell two people and they... The Chinese have a saying I like “in a battle between might and patience, always bet on patience...”

... from a geological point of view we have three plates hence three continents, from a socio-political point of view there is only one, as the continents were named/defined a long time before we knew of continental plates when continents were defined simply by continuos land masses surrounded by bodies of water.

My public school education taught me that the Americas were two continents. It's interesting that Central America didn't get included in that formula. I'm not sure whether it was just tacked on, ignored, or what. Maybe kids are learning something different today.

I'm interested in the fact that our assumptions are so different, and that each side sees theirs as the obvious truth. The fact is that either is arbitrary, mostly the result of historical events and accidents.

Now we have two huge masses of people who have been using the same word in different ways. The issue only arose only because we're colliding through trade and immigration. So now this conflict over "America" could become an issue.

Yesterday, I even imagined that in the 22nd Century, the U.S. usage could shift to the South American (and Elí's) version because of the sheer numbers of Latin Americans living in the US. Today I don't think so. Immigrants are working too hard to bother with that, and their kids will be educated in Anglo schools, so they'll learn the dominant (Anglo) usage.

For me, the core questions are:
1. Is it rational or reasonable to ask people to change the way they name themselves?
2. When two masses of people inadvertently come to have different ways of using the same word, does either group have any moral authority or precedence?

On both counts, I don't think so.

But, I do think that Elí is doing good by pointing out the problem. (And he's also having fun! I love the "I'm from the American Southwest" joke.) At the very least, when we're talking in a global context (with peoples from around the world), it helps me to know that I'll need to clarify which meanings of the word I'm talking about. I can see how academics would also want to be clear in their writings when they use the word "America", too.

By the way, Elí, you've introduced another conflict just like this one by suggesting that we call North America "Colombia" I don't think the Colombians of South America would appreciate that. Complex, isn't it?

By the way, Elí, you've introduced another conflict just like this one by suggesting that we call North America "Colombia" I don't think the Colombians of South America would appreciate that. Complex, isn't it?

lol actually I was just playing a little poking fun at Xose if you read between the lines I was saying “not only should you call yourself a United Statesian but now, instead of calling yourself an ‘American’ you just may end up being a ‘Colombian’” ha ha! I crack myself up sometimes lol (Although poking fun at the name choices I believe that in principal the concept of three names for three continents is still sound)

For me, the core questions are:
1. Is it rational or reasonable to ask people to change the way they name themselves?
2. When two masses of people inadvertently come to have different ways of using the same word, does either group have any moral authority or precedence?

On both counts, I don't think so.

I agree with you on both counts as well. However, in the long run I don’t think the term American as the denomination for United Statesians will come out ahead. My logic being that the world has changed. In the past the US and United Statesians could live isolated from the world and the US is so big that (for the most part) it’s culture would influence the rest of the world since most of the interactions were on a one on one basis. That is no longer the case, in today’s world the entire world interacts with each other, in this new world the net is still clearly dominated by United Statesians, however as more and more Americans come on line US dominance of the web will subside, simple numbers game 800 million Americans but only 300 million United Statesians. Immigration to the US will be severely slowed in the future to 200k per year, if you take Hispanics out of the mix the US has a population growth similar to the rest of the industrialized countries. According to http://www.npg.org/popfacts.htm “An NPG demographic analysis of age distribution, fertility, and mortality data shows that if there had been no immigration to the U.S. since 1990, the population in 2000 would have been 262 million–19 million less than the 281 million counted. Thus, post-1990 immigrants and their children accounted for 61 percent of population growth during the last decade.”. Although not an official website http://dieoff.org/page54.htm if you take immigrants (mostly Hispanics) out of the picture, by 2050 the US will have a negative population growth, pretty much in accordance with the rest of the industrialized nations. While at the same time the rest of America will see their numbers explode, so, by 2050 United Statesians will be a much smaller number of Americans on a percentage basis.

I see it as a simple numbers game, one that will play itself over many decades. Certainly the use of the word wont change in time for my xmas list this year, but in time it will happen. Interestingly enough I think that the most important component will not be Americans ourselves, but when the Europeans migrate to the correct usage of the word as they become less and less of a US protectorate.

You're definitely right that the world is changing and that the US won't be able to dictate the terms of the changes. The funny thing is that G.W. Bush has actually encouraged this shift by charging ahead with unilateral pigheadedness. The alienation he's generated will have long shadows and surprising consequences. What a legacy! I don't understand why thinking Republicans aren't complaining loudly.

Art wrote:...thinking Republicans...

Well....nah, I won't say it.

I don't understand why thinking Republicans...

huh! Holly politicians Art! The riddler himself couldn’t have made it more difficult to decipher.