←back to thread

606 points saikatsg | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
afavour ◴[] No.43929124[source]
> "Cardinal George of Chicago, of happy memory, was one of my great mentors, and he said: 'Look, until America goes into political decline, there won't be an American pope.' And his point was, if America is kind of running the world politically, culturally, economically, they don't want America running the world religiously. So, I think there's some truth to that, that we're such a superpower and so dominant, they don't wanna give us, also, control over the church."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-pope-could-it-be-american-c...

replies(6): >>43929272 #>>43930430 #>>43930746 #>>43932503 #>>43932802 #>>43934298 #
bbor ◴[] No.43929272[source]
For what it’s worth, I was just reading that Leo wasn’t seen as “completely” American due to his many years in Peru — he’s even a citizen. Take that as you will.
replies(9): >>43929321 #>>43929934 #>>43930040 #>>43930174 #>>43930642 #>>43931332 #>>43931534 #>>43931541 #>>43933011 #
javiramos[dead post] ◴[] No.43931541[source]
[flagged]
losvedir ◴[] No.43932740{3}[source]
Not in English. I know in the Spanish speaking world there's a single American continent, but as far as I know across the English speaking world it's taught as two continents, North and South America. We have the term "the Americas" to refer to both.
replies(3): >>43933721 #>>43934712 #>>43935426 #
neves ◴[] No.43933721{4}[source]
Geographically speaking, America was a single continent till the Panama channel was built
replies(1): >>43933849 #
Jedd ◴[] No.43933849{5}[source]
Accurately speaking, that wasn't true before the Panama canal was built, and remains not true subsequently.
replies(1): >>43934848 #
AdhemarVandamme ◴[] No.43934848{6}[source]
How would you argue such claims, geographically and/or accurately speaking? — Other than: that’s how I was taught it is; or that’s how my favourite teacher/book/source-with-some-authority says it is.

There is no generally-agreed-upondefinition for “continent”, in the same way that there was no generally-agreed-upon definition of “planet” prior to the IAU 2006 General Assembly.

Continents are identified by convention (and there are a few competing conventions) rather than any strict criteria.

I was taught (in Europe) that there are 6 continents, 1 of which close-to-uninhabited: Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania, America, Antarctica. This convention is the same as the one for the UNSD “continental regions”. The five interlocking rings of the Olympic flag represent these five inhabited continents.

There’s another convention that considers Eurasia to be a single continent. And another that even considers Afro-Eurasia to be a single continent.

replies(1): >>43935841 #
1. Jedd ◴[] No.43935841{7}[source]
> And another that even considers Afro-Eurasia to be a single continent.

Well, as per parent's logic, that claim is out the door ever since the Suez was dug out.

replies(1): >>43939530 #
2. neves ◴[] No.43939530[source]
Yes. A continent is a big contiguous mass of land. There were 3: Eurasia-africa, America, Oceania and Antarctica.

Suez and Panama channels created other continents.

replies(1): >>43945300 #
3. Jedd ◴[] No.43945300[source]
As an Australian, inculcated with the orthodoxy that this was the largest island while also being the smallest continent - how does 'Oceania' fit with your quite technical 'big contiguous mass of land'?

If we made another small rut parallel to either Suez or Panama, would we add 1 to the count of continents?

replies(1): >>43962153 #
4. neves ◴[] No.43962153{3}[source]
No, it wouldn't be a big mass
replies(1): >>43968721 #
5. Jedd ◴[] No.43968721{4}[source]
Oceania is a big mass?