My child came home from kindergarten this year and told me that there were five oceans. I only knew four. I quickly pulled up Wikipedia and confirmed that the Southern Ocean was a thing.
That was the first case of something my child learning contradicting my own outdated education.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.
That was the first case of something my child learning contradicting my own outdated education.
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
I wouldn't go to Webster's for definitive information about hydrography. The definitive source is "Limits of Oceans and Seas" by the International Hydrology Organization.
My 7-year-old came home recently with several maps with a continent on them marked, variously, either as "Australia" or "Oceania". My wife and I were both confused since we had been taught that this was called "Australasia". Apparently people don't call it that nowadays!
A lot of these divisions and names are country or culture-specific.
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.
I don't think I've thought of the name Oceania outside of references to 1984 (the book). I knew the word didn't originate from there but it's all I think of when I hear the term used.
When I was a kid in the 90s we were taught that the tongue had specific zones that tasted specific tastes. There was a diagram and everything. I think it was long debunked even then.
I have a dictionary with the tongue map printed in it. It's also in a Magic School Bus book.
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.
(Related: one of Phil Plait's pet peeves is apparently the large number of people who tell him that you can't see the moon during the day. Again, all it takes to falsify this belief is occasionally looking up.)
I wouldn't call it outdated. With imprecise things like oceans and continents people are always going to disagree, like how US Americans and South Americans disagree about the number of continents in America.
This is a thing? I didn’t realize people tried to loop North America and South America together into a single continent. What’s the driving force behind that?
"Continent" has no consistent definition and is largely a cultural construct. Ergo different cultures will have different things that they consider "continents".
I've only heard this from Argentinians. They think that because we refer to our country as "America", that we are disputing the existence of, or are unaware of, or are somehow slighting, South America. They want us to refer to ourselves as USAers so that we are more accurate. I don't think that one is going to stick in the USA anytime soon.
To be fair, they have a point. Besides, It's not so much America thats the issue but "Americans".
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.
No, they don't have a point. The names are what they are. "Americans" are citizens of the United States of America. Insisting that's not correct is just petty whining, not a valid point.
It's not valid to want to acknowledge the fact that not all of your continent is part of the USA?
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.
If you come up with an actually pronounceable name (so not USAer or USAian), we'll consider it before dropping your suggestion in the paper shredder.
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.
>It's quite presumptuous to demand the people of another country refer to themselves in a particular way.
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.
It's just etymology at this point -- a lot of words have a history or literal meaning that wouldn't make them a good choice if we were starting from scratch today.
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.
Not only not really a name, but also used by other countries in the area, like the United Mexican States (full name to this day) of the Republic of the United States of Brazil (full name in the First Republic era, 1880s to 1930)
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.
>To be fair, they have a point. Besides, It's not so much America thats the issue but "Americans".
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.
I was in school in the 70s - 80s. The first time having kids come home from school and needing help with their math homework was a real shocker. Back when I was in school, you "carried" and "borrowed" when doing addiging and subtraction. Now they "regroup", and some other terminology I can't remember.
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.