Should Europe Be Considered A Seperate Continent?

[Silverbackman]

[SOLVED] Should Europe Be Considered A Seperate Continent?

It barely makes the subcontinent standard as it belongs to the Eurasian plate (where as Arabian and Indian subcontinent are on different plates!). The European subcontinent should be merged with Eurasia and treated like so by all standards. But instead of teaching children in school there are only 6 continents, the lie of 7 continents is told.

Why is Europe so strongly classified as a different continent? It might have to do with White or European Supremacy but I doubt (Europe is to liberal socialist for this!).

 

[matthyaouw]

It's a political boundary that has been recognised long before the discovery of plate tectonics. Why change it?
The definition of subcontinent is quite hazy anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcontinent

 

[Silverbackman]

Because its a misnomer. Europe is very much apart of Asia. Therefore it should be called Eurasia.

If Europe is going to be a separate continent so should Indian and Arabia .

 

[Mk]

Guys guys guys, just like countries are not always derived from where the rivers and mountains are, continents are not always derived just from the tectonic plates. Europe's general culture is much different from the cultures of Asia.

There are also many different continent systems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent

 

[Silverbackman]

Yes that is true that the definition of continent varies but it always has one common root in all definations: a contiguous land mass. Europe is definitely connected to Asia by far more than just a tiny piece of land (as with Africa and Asia on the other hand).

Does Europe really have such a different culture than the rest of Eurasia? Or was that idea brought by white supremacists? Middle Eastern culture is far closer European culture than it is to East Asian culture.

 

[Neonerdy]

European culture is very different from most Asian cultures. The Middle East has become a great deal more like Europe, but again, the culture is vastly different. Plate tectonics do not identify continents, quite often other factors take precedent.

 

[scott1]

It is a conteint.It may be part of asia but it's big enough to be coniserd a conteint.You can possible put Europe asia and africa togther to from a super contient called Afro-Eurasia.
Can you Europe be conised a Peninsula if it is aprat of aisa?

 

[Silverbackman]

European culture is very different from most Asian cultures. The Middle East has become a great deal more like Europe, but again, the culture is vastly different. Plate tectonics do not identify continents, quite often other factors take precedent.

European culture is far more similar to middle eastern culture. So why don't we consider the Middle East a separate continent too? Continents are not divided by culture and even if they are Europe is close enough to middle eastern or russian culture than it is to East Asian culture.

Europe is not a continent if we go by the traditional defination or even the newer ones. It is barelly a subcontinent (it shares the same tectonic as most of Asia, where as Arabia and India have a different one!).

 

[Mk]

Continents are not only determined by their determination of contiguous landmass, but also by how different the cultures, mindsets, races, and religions are of the continents. Look at France, Spain, Finland, Italy, Ireland, Bulgaria, and compare their races, religions, and ideologies and values to the Chinese, Afghani, Indian, Cambodian, Azerbajiani, Iranian. I know it maybe difficult for those of you that look like you have mainly a background in geology, and a lacking background in social studies and geography.

There are also different systems of continents and defintions depending on what field you are in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent#Models

 

[Silverbackman]

Continents are not only determined by their determination of contiguous landmass, but also by how different the cultures, mindsets, races, and religions are of the continents. Look at France, Spain, Finland, Italy, Ireland, Bulgaria, and compare their races, religions, and ideologies and values to the Chinese, Afghani, Indian, Cambodian, Azerbajiani, Iranian. I know it maybe difficult for those of you that look like you have mainly a background in geology, and a lacking background in social studies and geography.

There are also different systems of continents and defintions depending on what field you are in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent#Models

Yes, but if we were to make continent different because of culture the Middle East and Russia would easily be its own continent. They are far closer to European culture (you can't deny that). Asia is extremely diverse. If we were to talk about Eurasia it just adds one more culture.

Why isn't Northwest Africa a separate continent. Its culture (around the old Carthage Republic) is very much different and more like Europe.

You just can't lump Middle Eastern, Russian, East Asian, South Asian, South East Asia, Central Asia, ect. into one branch of cultures. They are far too different. Few of those I mentioned are closer to European culture than to other Asian cultures.

 

[Bystander]

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/anim2.html
Looks like a separate plate to me.

 

[Silverbackman]

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/anim2.html
Looks like a separate plate to me.

So is the Indian subcontinent. So why is it considered a separate continent.

The traditional defination of a continent is a large continuous landmass. I Europe a large landmass? No it isn't, it is connected to Asia.

From wikipedia;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent#Models

The 6-continent/region Eurasia model is preferred by the geographic community, while the geologic community forgoes local differences by classifying based on tectonic plates.

From a modern perspective, the continent with the least reason for separate recognition is Europe, and in scientific circles people generally prefer to subsume Europe and Asia into Eurasia. This appealed to Russia, which spans Eurasia, and in Russia and (at least formerly) in Eastern Europe, Eurasia is or was taught as being one of six continents.

Also from wiki,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tectonic_plate

Europe doesn't even have its own tectonic plates! Where as India and Arabia do. And even if they found out that Europe did have its own tectonic plate, it still doesn't change the fact that is a single landmass with Asia.

I don't see how you can view it any other way. It is sort of life the primary colors. In the past it RYB was considered the primary colors when in fact is either RGB(Additive) or CMY (Subtractive). No fiction is safe, no matter how many people are fooled. Whether it be cultural or not it is still a fiction.

 

[Ophiolite]

It should be considered a continent for historic, not geographic reasons.

 

[Silverbackman]

It should be considered a continent for historic, not geographic reasons.

Why do we have to consider it a continent even for historic regions? We can consider Europe a region of Eurasia for historic regions, but continent wise would matter or make much sense.

Europe is like East Asia, South Asia, Middle East, ect. regions of Eurasia. A region yes but not a continent.

 

[matthyaouw]

Can I ask why this seems to bother you so much?

 

[Silverbackman]

Can I ask why this seems to bother you so much?

It doesn't bother me that much.

However it does sort annoy me that people teach such misconceptions. I would be equally annoyed if creationism was thought in biological classes when it isn't science. That isn't how things are and major misconceptions like this should be spread.

If people started claiming the sky was purple, it would get sort annoying because that isn't the truth.

 

[Ophiolite]

That has the appearance of a truly dumb comparison.

Science in its present guise evolved in Europe. Technology evolved in its present expression evolved in Europe. The Industrial Revolution, the Enlightenment, The Renaissance, all took place in Europe.

Geologically Europe is extremely complex.

It is not a misconception, it is a historically derived reality. Accept it.

 

[Silverbackman]

That has the appearance of a truly dumb comparison.

Science in its present guise evolved in Europe. Technology evolved in its present expression evolved in Europe. The Industrial Revolution, the Enlightenment, The Renaissance, all took place in Europe.

Geologically Europe is extremely complex.

It is not a misconception, it is a historically derived reality. Accept it.

Your not making much sense.

 

[Mk]

Science in its present guise evolved in Europe. Technology evolved in its present expression evolved in Europe. The Industrial Revolution, the Enlightenment, The Renaissance, all took place in Europe.

Geologically Europe is extremely complex.

It is not a misconception, it is a historically derived reality. Accept it.

This is why Europe is considered a separate continent. Like I said, its based on culture. Europe's culture developed quite separately of Asian cultures. (Compare:Irish, and Chinese culture). Its not a misconception.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes, MK, I know that's why Europe is considered a separate continent. I think these are good reasons for considering it so. I am repeating and rephrasing them in an effort to demonstrate to Silverbackman that they are valid justifications for continuing to consider Europe a continent.

I am bemused as to why you are repeating my observations, which support your earlier ones. Perhaps Silverbackman was right, and I was not making very much sense.

SBM,
Europe is different from Asia on these grounds:
History
Culture
Geography
Geology
Structure
Language
Ethnicity

These differences merit it being considered as a continent.

 

[Mk]

I'm sorry, I was not trying to inform you, I was trying to inform Silverbackman. I am saying what you are saying, I am on your side.

just like countries are not always derived from where the rivers and mountains are, continents are not always derived just from the tectonic plates. Europe's general culture is much different from the cultures of Asia.

European culture is very different from most Asian cultures. The Middle East has become a great deal more like Europe, but again, the culture is vastly different. Plate tectonics do not identify continents, quite often other factors take precedent.

Continents are not only determined by their determination of contiguous landmass, but also by how different the cultures, mindsets, races, and religions are of the continents. Look at France, Spain, Finland, Italy, Ireland, Bulgaria, and compare their races, religions, and ideologies and values to the Chinese, Afghani, Indian, Cambodian, Azerbajiani, Iranian. I know it maybe difficult for those of you that look like you have mainly a background in geology, and a lacking background in social studies and geography.

I may seem like I'm saying the same thing over again, but that is because that is what there is to say.

 

[-Job-]

The Geological definition of continents should rely on the plates, but then we might find ourselves calling them very different names as sometimes it isn't clear what to call them, so we probably would abstain from calling them "continents" in the first place, to avoid confusion. It is more of a cultural thing. In europe there were times where people din't know how the Earth was laid out, and for many people, for a long time, Europe was pretty much all there was, apart from "myths" about faraway lands. So a definition grew of the kind: where we are is Europe, where we are not, at the south, is Africa, where we are not to the east is Asia, etc. As such, the naming procedure didn't follow rigorous science. The reason why we learn it in school is because people, whether you like it or not, are not just going all agree to stop using the words Europe, Africa, Asia... and use them differently, or use other words altogether, so it is relevant to your education to know how people routinely name the continents. It is also very tied to world history, the evolution of the arts, etc. It's not the most adequate, geologically speaking, but do you think it's worth changing?

 

[Ophiolite]

MK, I thought so. It just seemed confusing in context. Thanks.

 

[Silverbackman]

This is why Europe is considered a separate continent. Like I said, its based on culture. Europe's culture developed quite separately of Asian cultures. (Compare:Irish, and Chinese culture). Its not a misconception.

SBM,
Europe is different from Asia on these grounds:
History
Culture
Geography
Geology
Structure
Language
Ethnicity

Yes this is true. At the same time Middle Eastern culture developed indepentently and is actually closer to European culture than East Asian culture. Should the middle east be considered a separate culture too? (Compare: Arabia and Chinese culture). I find it rather racist to dump Europeans in their own continent considering all Asians the same when in fact Siberia, East Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East are as different with each other than Europe is to the rest. Siberia is also far far closer to European culture as well, more so than the Middle East.

It is as bad a misconception as tomatoes being considered fruits. A continent is a continuous land mass that can be connected to other land masses only by a small land bridge. This is seen in Eurasia, Africa, North America, and South America. Australia being a large separate landmass altogether fits the defination as well.

Many people think humans aren't apes. Humans are very much apes when it comes to science. We should be basing our definations on facts not misnomers.

Read my post carefully this time.

 

[Mk]

It is as bad a misconception as tomatoes being considered fruits.

I like how you chose the tomato, although I understand what you are saying I must add:

Tomato - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Botanically speaking a tomato is the ovary, together with its seeds, of a flowering plant, i.e. a fruit. However, from a culinary perspective the tomato is typically served as a meal, or part of a main course of a meal, meaning that it would be considered a vegetable (a culinary term which has no botanical meaning).

This argument has led to actual legal implications in the United States. In 1887, U.S. tariff laws which imposed a duty on vegetables but not on fruits caused the tomato's status to become a matter of legal importance. The U.S. Supreme Court settled this controversy in 1893, declaring that the tomato is a vegetable, using the popular definition which classifies fruit by use, that they are generally served with dinner and not dessert. The case is known as Nix v. Hedden.

In Europe, the tomato is considered correctly, a fruit.

Depending on what field you are working in you will see this argument from different sides.

 

[Ophiolite]

Exactly so, MK. Silverbackman, you appear to be falling into the trap of believing that classification systems have some underlying reality. They do not. Classification systems are a wholly artificial construct.

In short, a classification system is exactly what you choose it should be: nothing more, nothing less. Europe was classified as a continent, for all the reasons noted above, therefore it is most certainly not a misnomer. There is nothing wrong with you proposing an alternative classification system, but please don't claim some inherent superiority for this alternative when none exists.

 

[Silverbackman]

Exactly so, MK. Silverbackman, you appear to be falling into the trap of believing that classification systems have some underlying reality. They do not. Classification systems are a wholly artificial construct.

In short, a classification system is exactly what you choose it should be: nothing more, nothing less. Europe was classified as a continent, for all the reasons noted above, therefore it is most certainly not a misnomer. There is nothing wrong with you proposing an alternative classification system, but please don't claim some inherent superiority for this alternative when none exists.

So should we in that case consider South Asia, East Asia and the Middle East to separate continents as well? I think classification systems needed to be philosophically accurate. But if we are going to change the defination of continent to culture and history I am fine with it, as long as this is done. If we do this to Europe though, it is fair we give the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia their own continent. Don't you agree?

 

[Ophiolite]

The current system is 'philosophically accurate'. It is self consistent. It follows a set of rules that are non-contradictory. There is no pressing need to change it. This does not mean that novel classifications cannot be introduced, but it also means it is perfectly acceptable to use the old one.

Look, do your really think there were only seven wonders in the ancient world? I hope not! Yet would you argue that we should now speak of the thirty four wonders of the world, or the seventeen wonders of the world. That would be ridiculous. It is equally ridiculous to require a change in the classification of Europe to sub-continent status, or the elevation of India to continental status, just because Europe doesn't fit all the many possible definitions of a continent.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I think the classification should be useful. In this case, we are talking about what? - Natural geographical boundaries, contiguous landmasses, plate tectonics, territorial boundaries, cultural boundaries? The word continent is defined as a large, contiguous landmass. Under this definition, we could have a Eurasia, the Americas, Africa, and Australia/Oceania, Antarctica as continents. Or maybe Africa should be included with Asia in some way. Or maybe, if the connection between two landmasses fluctuates and is very small, we classify them as separate, eg North America and South America, North America and Asia (via Bering Land Bridge) [edit: saw the above post on this about bridges].

It hinges on what kind of use you want to get out of it, what kind of meanings you want to construct. In the case of Europe being separate from Asia, I would say that's rooted in a desire to see European cultures, races, territories as significantly and qualitatively different from Asian ones. Perhaps it's useful for history. But whose history? Europe's only?

In the end, what do you want to teach your children? Realize that conceptions of divisions, even geographical ones, have impacts on ideas about culture and nation and their divisions. Do you want your children to use this model as a scientific one, for geography, geology, other Earth sciences; or for social science and cultural beliefs? Both are helpful in different ways, but we might want to come up with a cultural counterpart for the term "continent," as Europe does not count as one under the current definition.

Didn't read all the previous posts, sorry if this has already been said.

 

[Silverbackman]

The current system is 'philosophically accurate'. It is self consistent. It follows a set of rules that are non-contradictory. There is no pressing need to change it. This does not mean that novel classifications cannot be introduced, but it also means it is perfectly acceptable to use the old one.

Look, do your really think there were only seven wonders in the ancient world? I hope not! Yet would you argue that we should now speak of the thirty four wonders of the world, or the seventeen wonders of the world. That would be ridiculous. It is equally ridiculous to require a change in the classification of Europe to sub-continent status, or the elevation of India to continental status, just because Europe doesn't fit all the many possible definitions of a continent.

The 7 wonders comparison makes little sense. It is called the "7 Wonders in the Ancient World" while continents are just called continents (not the 7 continents of the ancient world).

In my opinion words shouldn't be so reletive but if you think continent has many definations then that's fine. But I have one question for you. Do you think India, East Asia, and Arabia can also be considered a separate continent as well (if we were to go by the culural/historical defination)?

I think the classification should be useful. In this case, we are talking about what? - Natural geographical boundaries, contiguous landmasses, plate tectonics, territorial boundaries, cultural boundaries? The word continent is defined as a large, contiguous landmass. Under this definition, we could have a Eurasia, the Americas, Africa, and Australia/Oceania, Antarctica as continents. Or maybe Africa should be included with Asia in some way. Or maybe, if the connection between two landmasses fluctuates and is very small, we classify them as separate, eg North America and South America, North America and Asia (via Bering Land Bridge) [edit: saw the above post on this about bridges].

The real definition of a continent is a large continuous landmass that can only be connected to another continent via land bridge (or a sliver of land) or not at all. We can easily see that Eurasia and Africa are only connected by a small land bridge, but considering them one is considered a supercontinent. Same goes with North and South America. North America is connected to South America by a small land bridge, thus considering them one would be called a supercontinent.

Australia and Antarctica makes the definition as well by being large continuous land masses with even no land bridge to other continents.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Yes, I posted that above - "edit: saw the above post on this about bridges." I understand what the definition of continent is.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

It is as bad a misconception as tomatoes being considered fruits.

Actually, they're considered http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fruitandveg.png" a fruit and a vegetable. Fruit - the ripened ovary of a flowering plant; vegetable - any part of the plant consumed by humans, or part of a main course of a meal.

 

[Silverbackman]

Yes, I posted that above - "edit: saw the above post on this about bridges." I understand what the definition of continent is.

Yea I knew you did. I was just clearing up the real defination of continent from what others were trying to claim was the defination of continent.

Actually, they're considered http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fruitandveg.png" a fruit and a vegetable. Fruit - the ripened ovary of a flowering plant; vegetable - any part of the plant consumed by humans, or part of a main course of a meal.

Yes, this is true. As we can see basing continent on "other" definations is even worse than saying a tomato is one or the other.

Perhaps a better analogy would be the popular myth that evolution is just a theory even though it is scientific fact accepted by nearly all scientists. Or a sometimes believed myth that whales are fish because they swim in the water, lol. That is how out of place Europe being a continent is IMHO.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Yea I knew you did. I was just clearing up the real defination of continent from what others were trying to claim was the defination of continent.
Yes, this is true. As we can see basing continent on "other" definations is even worse than saying a tomato is one or the other.

Perhaps a better analogy would be the popular myth that evolution is just a theory even though it is scientific fact accepted by nearly all scientists. Or a sometimes believed myth that whales are fish because they swim in the water, lol. That is how out of place Europe being a continent is IMHO.

Oh, gotcha.
And about the tomato, just had to post that pic (it's LYN's fault)
I agree with you about Europe being considered a separate continent, that is just redonkulous! Equally absurd is the claim that Europe is the birthplace of nearly all modern beliefs That's actually posted http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=europe&r=f" at urbandictionary.com (this is what we teach the kids today!), along with the rampant misuse of the word continent, though one definition of Europe correctly employs the term "subcontinent."

 

[Ophiolite]

Silverbackman:
the comparison with the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World is not irrelevant, since there were considerably more than Seven Wonders. It just so happens that the phrase was used historically and caught on.
The definition of continent that holds Europe to be one falls into this same kind of category.

I repeat, classification systems are artificial. There is no right or wrong way. I am happy to accept your definition as one of several options that might be considered. It is regretable you are not prepared to extend the same consideration. I see nothing to be gained by further discussion.

Swerve, if I were a sensitive sort who objected to cheap debating tricks, then I would be really pissed off by your deliberate linkage of two wholly independent notions: one, Europe is a separate continent; two, Europeans are superior. Since I am not sensitive, and generally laugh at such a transparent technique, I'll drop the topic.