They might have been new to fifteenth-century sailors, but primates have been in the Americas for millions of years.Credit: Konrad Wothe/Nature Picture Library
One of my happy childhood memories of growing up in Mexico City is singing along to a favourite ballad of my parents by the Spanish band Mocedades. We enthusiastically repeated, “… this is the new Spain, the one that smells like sugar cane, tobacco and tar, the one that is lazy and has golden skin.” Listening to this song today, I am unsure whether to be flattered or insulted.
The term ‘New World’ was first used by the Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci in 1503 while documenting his travels across the Atlantic Ocean. Of course, the land was not ‘new’ to those who already lived there. When Vespucci arrived in what are now named the Americas, there were hundreds of civilizations and a population of around 60.5 million. A century later, 90% of that population was gone — a result of infectious diseases introduced by European settlers and the violence and famines for which they were responsible.
Resources for mid-career scientists
Many of us have learnt the mistakes of the past, but the phrase New World has remained to describe what we call now the American continent. The term has been used in science to describe certain foods (New World crops or New World wine), animal species (New World monkeys) and ecosystems (New World mangroves). Even the global biogeographical classification of provinces of the world by the International Union for Conservation of Nature uses the terms Nearctic or New Arctic (to denote Greenland, Canada, most of the United States and the highlands of Mexico) and Neotropics or New Tropics (covering the rest of Mexico, plus Central and South America and the Caribbean islands). The term has been criticized by literary historians for being historically and geographically inaccurate, but it is still widely used in academia.
A world of difference
I am Mexican, and I do not understand why I should label the natural riches of my country on the basis of the subjective perspective of colonizers five centuries ago. I have no familial or cultural connection to Europe, and using the term New World feels offensive. It reminds me of being a child and feeling that Mexico was not as good as Spain, that we were just lazy people with the wrong skin colour. It makes me feel that we cannot find our own worth unless we are validated through the eyes of Europe.
How to include Indigenous researchers and their knowledge
Scientifically, it makes no sense to apply this term to describe a vast area with such variable climate, geomorphology and geological history. It is time to reconsider using it. Not only to improve accuracy in science but to respect and acknowledge the history of the colonized or exterminated cultures. Since I realized this term’s origin, I have avoided its use and suggested that other people do the same. At least once a year, I will review a paper on ‘New World’ species or ‘Neotropical mangroves’. I politely suggest that the authors reconsider this use of language and try another, more accurate term that reflects the climate, location or country of origin. For instance, Caribbean mangroves, fishes of the western Atlantic Ocean, or primates of southeast Brazil are better options.
This world is well worth singing about.
Source: Ecology - nature.com
