---

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.

---

---

It would be considered part of Eurasia, as Central America is part of North America, but still be called Europe.

---

Which is perfectly understandable. Kind of how so much of the Middle east is actually Western Asia, but called the Middle east anyway.

-------
"Hé! Donne-moi mon cadeau et on jasera après! Gros poilu!" - Asymptote

---

Quote: from kidd rune at 8:42 am on Aug. 30, 2008

---

It would be considered part of Eurasia, as Central America is part of North America, but still be called Europe.

---

Which is perfectly understandable. Kind of how so much of the Middle east is actually Western Asia, but called the Middle east anyway.

---

---

So, it wouldn't matter.

---

In any real and practical sense, it basically would not.  Think of what happened with Pluto - it was downgraded from a planet to a "dwarf planet."  It didn't change anything about Pluto, but it clarified and narrowed the definition of what a "planet" is and how we perceive Pluto.

For any kids who are studying geography, anybody who's looking at a world map, or anything like that, it will make a different, to a more psychological level.  You must realize that labels bring along much more than just what they label.  Labelling Europe as a separate continent and India and China as a part of the Asian continent implies that Europe is more different from India or China as India and China are to each other.  Given that this is not only bull but the fact that the region of Europe itself does not physically qualify as a continent is why I think Europe being labelled as a "continent" is silly at best, if not eurocentric, and why I'd advocate changing a few labels.

---

Quote: from kidd rune at 10:32 am on Aug. 30, 2008

---

So, it wouldn't matter.

---

 
In any real and practical sense, it basically would not. Think of what happened with Pluto - it was downgraded from a planet to a "dwarf planet." It didn't change anything about Pluto, but it clarified and narrowed the definition of what a "planet" is and how we perceive Pluto.

For any kids who are studying geography, anybody who's looking at a world map, or anything like that, it will make a different, to a more psychological level. You must realize that labels bring along much more than just what they label. Labelling Europe as a separate continent and India and China as a part of the Asian continent implies that Europe is more different from India or China as India and China are to each other. Given that this is not only bull but the fact that the region of Europe itself does not physically qualify as a continent is why I think Europe being labelled as a "continent" is silly at best, if not eurocentric, and why I'd advocate changing a few labels.

---

Eurocentric? Hardly. The Americas are also split. What about Africa+Asia+Europe? They are continuous landmasses, and could be once continent as America could be.

-------
"If you worship your enemy, you are defeated.
If you adopt your enemy's religion you are enslaved.
If you breed with your enemy you are destroyed."
-Polydoros

---

Yes, but the cultural boundaries are strong enough to justify the current boundary.

---

Then why do you not advocate North Africa into being separated from the rest of Africa into its own continent? Or the separation of China, India, Central Asia, Siam, Indonesia, and the Middle East from the Asian continent and into their own little continents?

Once you go that far, the term "continent" loses its meaning, hence why it doesn't happen. But still, why should Europe deserve the special treatment?

---

Eurocentric? Hardly. The Americas are also split. What about Africa+Asia+Europe? They are continuous landmasses, and could be once continent as America could be.

---

Hey doc, ever heard of an isthmus before?

Then again, did you even read my OP where I explained that and how Europe and Asia are not separated by an isthmus, but by a 1000 - 1500 mile land border?

Then again, how could I expect you to understand such simple concepts when you can't seem to grasp the fact that defining Europe as its own "continent" and thus different from the rest of the world while everybody who's not European is more or less the "same" is essentially eurocentric?

Post edited at 9:52 pm on Aug. 30, 2008 by Bud2400

Europe does not face the sea on only one side. It is a vast peninsula made of several large ones: Scandinavia, Iberia, Italy, Balkin, Crimea, Kola.

Europe faces two oceans, Atlantic and Arctic and is deeply indented with many large seas: White, Baltic, North, Black, Med etc. It is the most maritime of the continents.

But, the real reasons Europe is called a continent and India is a subcontinent are size, convention, and the fact that Europeans themselves invented the labels.

-------
"If you worship your enemy, you are defeated.
If you adopt your enemy's religion you are enslaved.
If you breed with your enemy you are destroyed."
-Polydoros

---

Europe does not face the sea on only one side. It is a vast peninsula made of several large ones: Scandinavia, Iberia, Italy, Balkin, Crimea, Kola.

---

Precisely.  Since when does a peninsula constitute as a continent?  Continents are generally defined as huge landmasses with water on all sides (which an isthmus wouldn't count as forming land on a complete other side), while a peninsula is usually defined as a narrow strip of land extending from a larger landmass, meaning it has water on three sides, not four, which is the requirement.

Notice the Europe has the Mediterranean bordering on its south (as well as the Black Sea as you go further east), the Atlantic Ocean on its west, the Arctic Ocean on its north, and what's this?  An entire landmass on its east!  How is it consistent to define Europe as a separate continent using a physical map?

---

Europe faces two oceans, Atlantic and Arctic and is deeply indented with many large seas: White, Baltic, North, Black, Med etc. It is the most maritime of the continents.

---

It matters little what activities the geography encourages, but rather, the actual geography itself.

---

But, the real reasons Europe is called a continent and India is a subcontinent are size, convention, and the fact that Europeans themselves invented the labels.

---

Exactly, which is why it's eurocentric.  Not that eurocentric is inherently bad as many would lead you to believe, but it is looking at the world in terms of what's European and what's not European.  This is a very limiting view and should be discouraged, in my honest opinion.

---

From a purely geographical standpoint I have to agree that it is NOT a continent.

---

I wonder.  Should anything beyond physical geography be put into consideration as to what constitutes as a continent or whatever?

---

I've heard more of a debate relating North and South America than I have heard with Europe and Asia.

---

So have I.  Personally, I believe this to be entirely the result of the perceived cultural unity of Latin America, as people who relate both North and South America do so by calling them both the "Americas" and refer to Latin American countries being in both North and South America to support that, as if the cultures of Mexico and Cuba are identical to the cultures of Argentina and Brazil (which, to be fair, they're largely of the same cultural origin, but the countries do have their differences in culture, ethnic makeup, foreign affairs and attitudes, etc.).

However, seeing how only the small isthmus of Panama connects North and South America, saying that they're one single "continent" would be wrong.  Calling them a single landmass, however, would be correct, just as Eurasia + Africa is one single landmass.  

---

Whether we like it or not, evidently the Ural mountains are enough of a geological barrier to divide Europe and Asia. I guess it has little to do with geology.

---

Eh, as far as geography and geology go, the Urals are a pretty piss poor division for a continent, given that continents are generally defined as a piece of land surrounded by water on all sides (which isthmuses don't count since they're too small to contradict the fact that the continent is surrounded by water on all four sides).  The piece of land between the Caspian Sea and the Arctic Ocean, however, is in no way an isthmus and totally contradicts the idea that Europe is a continent given that definition.

Culturally, though?  You'd have to make a case for many other cultural entities being their own continent if you're going to make Europe become a continent based purely on cultural differences from the rest of Eurasia.  If Europe is to be its own continent, then so is China, India, Siam, Persia (or Iran), Arabia, North Africa, Central Asia, etc.  Perhaps using culture as an indicator of what is and isn't a continent takes things a bit too far?

---

Many if not most L. Ams think north and south America are the same continent (not Europe, but similar idea).

---

Thing is, what one thinks isn't necessarily so.  I may think that I have more in common with other Americans than I would with Australians or Brits, but I could very well be dead wrong on that.

---

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?

---

Even non-Europeans are guilty of this. Having lived in African countries, I realized they do a massive amount of lumping. Generally they wouldn't distinguish between Frenchmen, Americans and Australians. To them we're just a continuum of white people, spread out in a vast diaspora. Of course the European peoples have largely shaped the modern world, which means that our OHB is more publicized than theirs.

Geographically, you are correct. The ural river is technically a water divide and we're surrounded by seas everywhere except east & NE. It could be argued that Europe is "more" of a continent than China for instance. But you bring up good points and I think I'll have to agree with you.

However "Continental Europe" is a common term used to distinguish, say, France and Germany, from the British isles. In most Scandinavian countries we also make this distinction. In this case we're not talking about Europe vs. other continents, but rather the mainland vs. the non-mainland.

Post edited at 7:39 am on Sep. 2, 2008 by Radon

-------
Pragmatism is all.