Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Would you consdier Mexico to be in North America or Central America, or seperate altogether??
Academically, Mexico is considered part of Middle America, so I'll go with that standard.
The definitions are murky. --Middle America is usually considered to be the southern part of North America.--Middle America is usually considered to contain both Mexico and Central America. --Central America is usually considered to be the nations located between Mexico and Columbia.--Geopolitically, Mexico is generally not considered part of Central America.--Mexico is part of Latin America.
Wikipedia: MexicoThe geography of Mexico entails the physical and human geography of Mexico, a country situated in the Americas. Comprising much of southern North America or of Middle America, Mexico is bounded to the north by the United States (specifically, from west to east, by California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas), to the west and south by the Pacific Ocean, to the east by the Gulf of Mexico, and to the southeast by Belize, Guatemala, and the Caribbean Sea. The northernmost constituent of Latin America, it is the most populous Spanish-speaking country in the world.Almost all of Mexico is on the North American Plate, with parts of the Baja California Peninsula in the northwest on the Pacific and Cocos Plates. Some geographers include the portion east of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec including the Yucatan Peninsula within North America. This portion includes the five states of Campeche, Chiapas, Tabasco, Quintana Roo, and Yucat?n, representing 12.1% of the country's total area. Alternatively, the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt may be said to delimit the region physiographically on the north. Geopolitically, Mexico is generally not considered part of Central America.[Emphasis mine.]Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: Central America Southern portion of North America (pop., 2006 est.: 40,338,000). It extends from the southern border of Mexico to the northwestern border of Colombia and from the Pacific Ocean to the Caribbean Sea. It includes Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama. Some geographers also include five states of Mexico: Quintana Roo, Yucat?n, Campeche, Tabasco, and Chiapas.[Emphasis mine.]Encarta: Central AmericaCentral America, region of the western hemisphere, made up of a long, tapering isthmus that forms a bridge between North and South America. Central America, which is defined by geographers as part of North America, has an area of about 521,500 sq km (about 201,300 sq mi) and includes the countries of Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama. The region has a population of approximately 36.4 million (2000 estimate).[Emphasis mine.]Wikipedia: Latin AmericaIn most common contemporary usage, Latin America refers only to those territories in the Americas where the Spanish or Portuguese languages prevail: Mexico, most of Central and South America, plus Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico in the Caribbean. Often, particularly in the United States, the term may be used to refer to all of the Americas south of the U.S., including such countries as Belize, Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, Antigua and Barbuda, St. Lucia, Dominica, Grenada, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and the Bahamas, in all of which English prevails.[Emphasis mine.]We'll have to wait a couple of years to have the answer. At the beginning of the Great Depression only those with money in stock market were impacted. A few years later 1/3 the nation lacked jobs and thousands had to stand in soup kitchen lines to eat. Hopefully in this depression things won't get so bad.
Don't discard something just because it is metaphorical. Metaphors can teach the truth just as much as history can.
I want to start by saying I believe in God and consider the Bible to be a sacred text. I think the Bible is very useful in studying ancient history, but I can't go so far as to say it's 100% accurate in a literal sense. Aside from the parts that are metaphorical, ancient historians had different practices than those followed by modern historians. Take Isaiah: He places the Assyrian invasion (chapters 36-37) before the visit of the Babylonian envoys (chapters 38-39), which is the reverse order of how things actually occurred. Note that in chapter 38 Isaiah prophesies that Jerusalem will be saved from the Assyrians. This would not be possible, of course, if these chapters were not out of chronological order. (Yes, Isaiah had a reason for using this order, but that doesn't negate the fact his account creates an incorrect chronological order.) He uses King Hezekiah as a "type and shadow" for Christ. Doing so, however, requires him to omits from the historical record many of Hezekiah's "negative deeds" resulting in a misleading (if not false) biography of Hezekiah.Look at the chronological details of Christ's life provided by Matthew and Luke. They can't both be correct. (Yes, Luke had a reason for using this order, but that doesn't negate the fact his account creates an incorrect chronological order.) So yes the Bible contains a lot of useful historical information. But it's historical record isn't 100% accurate.What explains the discrepancy in civilization advancement?
Europeans excelled at warfare. The horse and firearms gave them tremendous advantages over the peoples in the New World. And later in Asia.It's really hard to know how far advanced were the peoples of the New World. So much of their culture and knowledge was destroyed to spread Christianity.
the aztecs ruled more people and territory...
The Inca empire went from Equador to Chile. That's a lot of territory.The thing about the Inca empire is the Spanish destroyed it while it was still in its ascendancy. It's hard to know what it would have been like if it had fully blossomed.
In terms of empire building/land management I'd put the Incas first. I'd put the Aztecs first militarily. I'd put the Mayans first in cultural/educational areas.
Culturally, I would consider Mexico to be a part of Latin America, which is closely associated with Central America. Obviously Mexico is part of the continent of North America, but the cultural divide between Canada and the United States, and Mexico, is significant enough to merit categorizing them differently.
For what it's worth, I'm an Anglo who speaks fluent Spanish and spends a lot of time in Mexico. (I have property there and in a couple more years I'll be eligible for dual citizenship.) I also lived in South America during some of my college years. I only agree with part of the above.Geographically Mexico is part of North America and there is definitely a cultural divide between Mexico and the US/Canada. It's also fair to say Mexico is culturally part of Latin America. I would not, however, say Mexico is closely associated with Central America or any other region of Latin American.Mexicans and the peoples of Central America do not get along. Mexico goes so far as to run what Central Americans call "death trains" to keep out Central Americans. Central Americans found to be in Mexico illegally are promptly deported--in a most unpleasant manner--if they survive. The Mexican army has been known on numerous occasions to shoot on sight Central Americans caught illegally entering Mexico. If you're into Latin American culture you'll see numerous cultural and linguistic differences between Mexico and Central America, Mexico and South America, etc. Mexico is something like a distant cousin within the family of Latin American countries.
There?s a different between a war of independence and a revolution. A total revolution makes political, economic, and religious changes. Look at the Russian revolution. Russia went from being ruled by monarchy to being ruled by an oligarchy (the communist party). Economically it went from capitalism to communism. In religion it switched from Christianity to atheism.The biggest change in the French revolution was political. They went from being ruled by an aristocracy to being ruled by the middle class. Economically in essence they went from feudalism to modern capitalism. Religious changes were not as drastic, but the church lost power and influence.Although it was a period of anarchy, events were controlled by the middle class. While France has made changes in its form of government over the years the middle class has never lost the power in seized during the French Revolution. And economically France has never abandoned modern capitalism. Why did the French Revolution give rise to such an unstable regime? Because they French don't care as much about their form of government as they do about which social class controls the country.
Do you think the Earps were acting as lawmen of sorts when they had their shoot out with the clantons or was this more of a gang war, a power struggle if you will. To me it seemed like a tug of war betweeen two factions trying to get control of the money that was flowing through Tombstone at that time. Kind of shoots down the Wyatt Earp honest lawman myth.
A power or gang war is the better fit.
Did someone show up at your door with telegraph in hand? I'm not quite sure how they work.
As I remember we got a telephone call from Western Union. As I said, the long distance circuits were busy. It might be this was the least expensive of various options.
I think he “driven only by his desire to have a son.” England had just emerged from a long period of civil war (War of the Roses) and his father, Henry VII—and the House of Tudor–had a very weak claim to the throne. Arthur, the older brother of Henry VIII, died or Henry would never have been king. England had never been successfully ruled by a queen; that had alway ended in civil war. I think Henry VIII feared–with good cause–that without leaving a male heir the nation would return to civil war. I think he actually wanted to play it safe by leaving more than one male heir.
The following is a letter to the editor of the Albany Herald(Ga). Actually, the war of 1861 was not a civil war. A civil war is a conflict between two or more factions trying to take over a government. In 1861, Confederate President Jefferson Davis was no more interested in taking over Washington than George Washington was interested in taking over England in 1776. Like Washington, Davis was seeking independence. ?Shortly after Lincoln?s election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs. ?That?s when the South seceded
H.H. Buggfuzz?Your friend needs to check his facts. The Merriam-Webster On-line dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil+war) and others define civil war as: ?a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country.? Your friend is in denial; ?The War Between the States? was indeed a civil war. Succession was well under way before either the passage of the Morrill Tariff or Lincoln?s inauguration. In January 1861 South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, and Florida all seceded from the union. The Morrill Tariff was adopted on March 2, 1861--well after succession began. Additionally, it was signed into law by Buchanan, not Lincoln. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff). Lincoln was not inaugurated until March 4, 1861. ---Furthermore, I disagree with your friend?s overall theory. That he resulted to using ?false facts? does not surprise me. (I hear this sort of thing from my sister, who lives in South Carolina, together with her in-laws and friends all the time. They do and say similar things, plus they are totally unwilling to accept the South had any culpability for the Civil War.)Throughout most of U.S. history Americans have been willing to settle their differences through compromise. There would not have been a civil war had the ?fire eaters? been as willing to compromise as was Lincoln. The Civil War resulted far more from a ?my way or the highway? Southern attitude fostered by the fire eaters than it did a Southern dislike of big government. (As witness the constitution the South adopted which created a big government very similar to that of the United States, albeit one with more states rights than existed in the U.S. Constitution.)
Websters 1913 Dictionary definition of Discover includes:1. To uncover.2. To disclose; to lay open to view; to make visible; to reveal; to make known; to show (what has been secret, unseen, or unknown).
What Columbus did was make the existence of the "New World" known to those in the "Old World." And, of course, those in the "New World" learned of the "Old World."Commerce and travel between the "worlds" came into existence. In Latin American Columbus Day is called the Day of the Race as they consider the Mesitzo a new race through into existence by Columbus action. The results of his actions are truly extensive. His "discovery" changed the history of the world in a way very few other events can match. So I have no problem with crediting him with the discovery of America. Although doing so is not politically correct.
