Dartboy wrote:dagmaraka wrote:in official geography, whatever that is, what CONTINENT does Australia the country belong to?
what CONTINENT does New Zealand belong to? I get that when they are called the same, that might rub some people the wrong way, but that don't make it officially wrong (emotionally maybe, but that's a separate subject).
Kinda like 'America' - that's the other way around. America is the whole continent but it's also how most of the world refers to USA colloquially.
I'm sure plenty of people hate that,too, but oh well. It's not going anywhere it seems.
So, I'm wondering...
If there was a rare bird that only lived in Slovakia, it would be correct to also call it a European bird, right? Since it's on the continent of Europe as well.
But if a Kiwi lives in New Zealand, it is also... what... Oceanian? Or Australian (the continent)? Is there any consensus on the official name of the continent? I remember being always taught it's Australia. Doing quick search now that's what I see most often, followed by Australia and New Zealand sort of slapped onto the side on some maps of continents, even though it's not listed among 7 continents when they are written out. Oceania does appear on maps, but not among the names of continents. I'm confused.
The thing with the Kiwi bird is that it is flightless and since austrilia is roughly 2500km(im not sure on that but its close) I dont think its the same as "If there was a rare bird that only lived in Slovakia, it would be correct to also call it a European bird, right? Since it's on the continent of Europe as well." Do you see what I mean
I think Australia the continent belongs to Oceania or Australasia.....though I think Craven convinced me that some people use Australia to cover the entire entity. I honestly do not know how commonly they do so...but Funk and Wagnalls sure doesn't cut it for me! It would be interesting if some geography types came and talked about it. I truly claim no real knowledge.
I had honestly never heard of such a useage, but Craven's research is usually good, so that is likely my lack of current geographical terminology. The thing is, that useage is obviously little known in the area concerned, and causes some people offence.
I was largely amused when I first saw it, and commented on Craven's ignorance, and was then interested by the explanation, which was new information.
I hardly see it as a big deal, but I think it unreasonable to be so dismissive to people about their reactions to what is seen to be ignorance, and patronising nomenclature, just as non USA people sometimes react to meaning only the USA when you say America.
I think that, given there is a perfectly good alternative name (two, in fact) that it was somewhat ignorant to use Australia, but certainly not something worth being as rude as Dartboy was about!!!
The kiwis (birds) being put under Australia as a general heading is utterly hilarious to we natives, and clearly a cause for concern for a number of kiwis (the people).
So....I hear that Australia is an accurate general heading, but I think one of the others would be a lot clearer, and cause less consternation. Given my dismissal of nationalism and patriotism, I have no leg to stand on re being personally irked, but I confess to a wee twinge of irkedness about it early on.
However, since we have Australia, and are likely stuck with it, the odd denizen of the south will be annoyed/amused/scornful from time to time.
My only reason for coming back to this discussion is that I think this irkedness is not all that unreasonable, and I think it unreasonable to be completely dismissive of it. The manner of expressing it on this occasion did, however, leabe a lot to be desired.
I can only put it down to little neighbour syndrome, as well as some deserved criticism...which must be why they all come to live over here :wink:
:wink:
)
