Pages: 1 2 3  Next -- Posted by Bud2400 at 8:28 pm on Aug. 27, 2008 When looking at a map of the world, I often wonder why Europe is considered a continent. After all, the most common definition of a continent are "large, continuous, discrete masses of land, ideally separated by expanses of water." (Source for the definition) Indeed, Africa fits that definition. It is surrounded by water on all sides, except the small isthmus connecting it with the Sinai Peninsula to the rest of Eurasia. North America and South America fit that definition, being connected only by the small isthmus of Panama and the rest of Central America. Australia and Antarctica most clearly fit that definition by not being connected to any other landmass, but being large enough to contain more than one climate as in Australia's case (or just being a gigantic frozen landmass, as in Antarctica's case). But WTF is up with the split between Europe and Asia.   Many people often consider the Ural Mountain range (just northeast of the Caspian Sea) to be the divider between Europe and Asia, but look at the Urals - they're puny mountains as they were formed aeons ago, around the same time the relatively small Appalachian Mountains were formed. Moreover, immediately east and west of the Urals has no real differences in climate; they both have that typical steppe characteristic. What makes the Urals a convincing boundary to divide Eurasia into Europe and Asia? Let's also take a look at plate tectonics: The Middle East has its own plate and India has its own plate, but Europe happens to be joined up with the rest of Eurasia. The cities of England and France lie on the exact same plate as the cities of China and Vietnam! Obviously, given these maps, you cannot use geography as a method to divide Europe into its own continent. So why is Europe divided into its own continent? Is it just another result of a eurocentric outlook on the rest of the world, where Europe is divided between the rest of Eurasia (while the dramatically different cultures of China and India are still considered "Asian" and not divided)? Should Europe even be considered a continent at all, or just another subcontinent / region of the greater continent of Eurasia, as India and the Middle East usually are? -- Posted by madrascal32 at 8:29 pm on Aug. 27, 2008 yes -- Posted by Ryan Potter at 8:29 pm on Aug. 27, 2008 Physically, Europe is not its own continent, but politically, it is.   -- Posted by bluenight at 8:30 pm on Aug. 27, 2008 yes -- Posted by Silenced Warrior at 8:30 pm on Aug. 27, 2008 I don't think Europe should be it's own continent. -- Posted by Bud2400 at 8:31 pm on Aug. 27, 2008 Quote: from Ryan Potter at 8:29 pm on Aug. 27, 2008 Physically, Europe is not its own continent, but politically, it is. And why should Europe politically be considered a separate continent, while India, China, and the Middle East should all be lumped into one? -- Posted by Takinam at 8:32 pm on Aug. 27, 2008 It is a political continent and a geographical sub-continent. Why does this matter? -- Posted by Googoie at 8:36 pm on Aug. 27, 2008 Quote: from Ryan Potter at 8:29 pm on Aug. 27, 2008 Physically, Europe is not its own continent, but politically, it is. ...indeedo -- Posted by piemaster at 8:40 pm on Aug. 27, 2008 I think it has somewhat to do with the history. When Europeans first started trading with Asiatic countries they just looked at them all the same, Non-Europeans. This then became refected in many European maps as Asia being a single contient. Europeans did not want anything to do with the foriegners and be classified with them. This later has becomed widely used here today and we have used the seperate Asian and European contients. -- Posted by Bud2400 at 8:44 pm on Aug. 27, 2008 Quote: from piemaster at 8:40 pm on Aug. 27, 2008 I think it has somewhat to do with the history. When Europeans first started trading with Asiatic countries they just looked at them all the same. This then became refected in many European maps as Asia being a single contient. Europeans did not want anything to do with the foriegners and be classified with them. This later has becomed widely used here today and we have used the seperate Asian and European contients. I believe that to be the case as well (though do remember that ever since Herodotus first wrote about a contest between "Europe" and "Asia" (ie. between Greece and Persia), this division has been around for a lot longer than the Age of Discovery, though lost for awhile during the Roman era only to be picked up again during the Carolingian Renaissance around 800 AD). But Europeans distancing themselves from the cultures of the orient certainly didn't help any.  If you ever read Edward Said's "Orientalism," you'll notice that he explains the process whereby those among Western societies often distance themselves from societies (primarily societies of the Islamic Middle East), and as a result, they see these societies as all the same. The same, I'd imagine, occurs with India, China, Siam, and Central Asia, too. The question, then, is not so much about the differences among these societies, but whether they're European or not European. And as a result of defining Eurasia in such a way, seeing the "continental" division between Europe and Asia seems only natural. -- Posted by The Artful Dodger at 8:51 pm on Aug. 27, 2008 Similar cultures? -- Posted by Bud2400 at 8:55 pm on Aug. 27, 2008 Quote: from The Artful Dodger at 8:51 pm on Aug. 27, 2008 Similar cultures? Christendom has always been the unifying feature of Europe (at least untile about 500 years ago), and those who were historically a part of Christendom share quite a few similarities. Thing is, if you're going to use the argument that culture is the primary division of Europe from the rest of Eurasia, then why focus only on Europe?  The cultures of the Middle East, India, and China are no less different from each other than Europe is to them.  Why should Europe make its own "political continent" or "cultural continent" while they do not? And if you want an even starker contrast, I'd suggest looking at the differences between North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa.  Despite that, they're still considered the same continent. Is it just me, or are there a few inconsistencies here? -- Posted by jakelong at 8:57 pm on Aug. 27, 2008 Not sure if it should be or not but I agree. the division between europe and asia is a bit artificial. Good call. -- Posted by The Artful Dodger at 9:03 pm on Aug. 27, 2008 Quote: from Bud2400 at 8:55 pm on Aug. 27, 2008 Quote: from The Artful Dodger at 8:51 pm on Aug. 27, 2008 Similar cultures?   Christendom has always been the unifying feature of Europe (at least untile about 500 years ago), and those who were historically a part of Christendom share quite a few similarities. Thing is, if you're going to use the argument that culture is the primary division of Europe from the rest of Eurasia, then why focus only on Europe? The cultures of the Middle East, India, and China are no less different from each other than Europe is to them. Why should Europe make its own "political continent" or "cultural continent" while they do not? And if you want an even starker contrast, I'd suggest looking at the differences between North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa. Despite that, they're still considered the same continent. Is it just me, or are there a few inconsistencies here? You forget its Europeans making the divisions. You're right though. Europe; that's where all the civilization's at. All the land in the West, lets just call that America. Australia's down. Africa's where all the black people are (easy enough). And what's left is Asia. That was likely the thinking. Does that work for a reason? -- Posted by scalywag66 at 9:24 pm on Aug. 27, 2008 yes some argue it should still be considered Eurasia, or something like that, but IMO, that would be a SUPER CONTINENT -- Posted by The Artful Dodger at 9:26 pm on Aug. 27, 2008 Quote: from scalywag66 at 9:24 pm on Aug. 27, 2008 yes   some argue it should still be considered Eurasia, or something like that, but IMO, that would be a SUPER CONTINENT   Not Eurasia. Please. Thats how it starts. Then Oceania. Then Eastasia. Totalitarian governments whose soul purpose is to enslave and maintain power through perpetual warfare and dehumanization; no thankyou -- Posted by jakelong at 9:41 pm on Aug. 27, 2008 War is peace freedom is slavery ignorance is strength   -- Posted by The Artful Dodger at 9:51 pm on Aug. 27, 2008 Quote: from jakelong at 9:41 pm on Aug. 27, 2008 War is peace freedom is slavery   ignorance is strength NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! I think thats reason enough to keep Europe and Asia nice and separate, lol -- Posted by Shaknbake at 10:10 pm on Aug. 27, 2008 Europe is considered a continent, but no, it shouldn't be. If we decide to distinguish it from Asia based on cultural/racial/whatever differences, the same hand should be applied everywhere. India and Pakistan should form a continent of their own, and Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa should be considered separate continents as well. -- Posted by nigeltheoutlaw at 5:29 am on Aug. 28, 2008 I think that Europe should be absorbed into Asia. There is no reason to keep them seperate. -- Posted by Mattie17 at 6:49 am on Aug. 28, 2008 europe is a continent -- Posted by wOlF at 9:26 am on Aug. 28, 2008 Quote: from Ryan Potter at 11:29 pm on Aug. 27, 2008 Physically, Europe is not its own continent, but politically, it is. Yea, that's what I was thinking.  Society probably broke it that way due to demographics or whatever.  Now it is socially acceptable. -- Posted by snowfish at 9:37 am on Aug. 28, 2008 it's a straight up religious split. -- Posted by getforless at 9:59 am on Aug. 28, 2008 yes -- Posted by babygurl 2008 at 1:19 pm on Aug. 28, 2008 I would say it is -- Posted by kidd rune at 4:54 pm on Aug. 28, 2008 Seriously, why does it matter? -- Posted by The Artful Dodger at 6:48 pm on Aug. 28, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 4:54 pm on Aug. 28, 2008 Seriously, why does it matter? Says the dude who posts a gazillion word essay here on nigger-(i mean, congoid)-hair. -- Posted by airemaye at 9:52 pm on Aug. 28, 2008 Geographically and technically, Europe is part of the larger landmass of Eurasia. But politically and culturally, Europe is most certainly a distinct continent. It all depends on how you're talking about it, in what context. -- Posted by kidd rune at 3:11 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 Quote: from The Artful Dodger at 6:48 pm on Aug. 28, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 4:54 pm on Aug. 28, 2008 Seriously, why does it matter? Says the dude who posts a gazillion word essay here on nigger-(i mean, congoid)-hair. People don't know of that. Europe wouldn't be treated any differently if it was Eurasia. The only thing that would change is that it would be called Eurasia, but still probably referred to as Europe. -- Posted by Shaknbake at 12:18 am on Aug. 30, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 3:11 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 Europe wouldn't be treated any differently if it was Eurasia. The only thing that would change is that it would be called Eurasia, but still probably referred to as Europe. It's about methodical, rational, scientific distribution of labels. Something utterly foreign to the way we actually do things, but you know it's a party. Pages: 1 2 3  Next