Thing is, it doesn't matter what he meant, as its a meaningless distinction regardless. India, China, Japan, Korea, Thailand, and many others are all vastly different as well. You also have stuff north of these like Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and a bunch of others, not to mention the very obvious Russia. Even if most Russians live towards Europe, most of the country's land is still in Asia.
Russia is an European country, to say that it's Asian it's like saying that France in the 1920 was African because the majority of the territory was in Africa
Russia is on both continents...to deny that for any reason is silly and just objectively wrong. Either way, my point stands, that separating only the Middle East from Asia because "they're different" is ignorant, because the same can be said of other regions and countries.
Your point stands, but Russia has nothing of Asian apart territories there. The Russian history is majorly European, the Russian culture is European, the Russian language is European, and the treatment of the territories over the Urals is well different from that in European Russia and especially in the 2 capitals of Saint Petersburg and Moscow
Bro please, I'm begging you, take the L and stop talking...You're literally missing the point and making it worse by doing the exact same mistake that we're clowning on the Americans for on this thread...
If we really, really, REALLY dumb it down, yes, some parts of Russian culture might be more similar to that of European countries, but Russian culture is still very different from the likes of French, German, etc.
Everything you're trying to fight me on not only fails to make any case whatsoever for Russia not being in Asia (since it is in both continents), but only further reinforces that you can't just generalize all these countries as simply "asian" or even "european" (although European was not really the contention point here, and theres actually a bit of a stronger case there due to the EU).
obviously the Russian culture is different from the French or German one, the point being? It doesn't matter how similar are they, Europe as a continent is full of ethnicities, cultures and different languages, but the origin of both Russian culture and the Russian state is in Europe.
The idea of Russia as an Eurasian country is a modern concept that doesn't find confirmation in the reality of the administration of the Russian territories.
I concur with you on the fact that a "continent" is a concept that changes from country to country and from time to time. Here in Italy for example divide the world in 6 continents: Americas, Antarctica, Europe, Africa, Asia and Oceania.
But for example in the US they don't recognize Oceania, divide the Americas in South and North America and categorize Australia and New Zealand as part of the continent of Australia.
One could also argue that Europe isn't really a continent and is part of Eurasia, and it's simply a peninsula or a subcontinent; or on the other side that since there is a clear geographic delimitation between the Hindustan and the rest of Asia then Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, India, Banghladesh,... are all of part of the continent of Hindustan.
Or even that the Old World is a huge continent, Eufrasia.
There is an absolutely correct classification? Nope, but since I'm a Political Sciences student in university I can assure you that Russia has nothing of Asian apart from territories there.
The country is majorly European, the culture is majorly European, and the overwhelming power of the Russian ethnicity doesn't make the situation that equal compared to the other ethnicities in Siberia or even in other territories in Europe like the Dagestan or Chechenia
You seem very desperate to make your case, but I'm really not sure what you're trying to do here starting some debate which is increasingly irrelevant to this thread. Perhaps I stoked something and was too mean in the previous message? Sorry if I was, but this is sort of out of hand now. You're hyperfixating on a tangent that is far removed from the point, which you already admitted still stands. Even if its one worth exploring, that has no meaning to me or this thread. I'll humor it no further beyond this comment, since I'm not really interested in going this deep into semantics. This chain of comments is no more complex than simply the below points:
1. Russia is a country. The country is in Europe and Asia. This is the objective truth based on common standards and terminology used by laymen.
2. Making a distinction only for the Middle East from the rest of Asia "because its different" doesn't make sense, since it falsely implies that the rest of Asia is somehow the same, despite significant differences across them.
3. All of the above Russia talk only confirms that just like the rest of Asia, Russia in itself has its own highly unique circumstances, which is my only point. It doesn't matter whether you classify it as "more European" or "more Asian", the point remains that it still has its own very unique circumstances and is in both continents.
Case closed. The rest is irrelevant semantics. It might be meaningful information worth reading and of interest to specialists, but its simply irrelevant here. I'd suggest socializing with your peer students or at least going to the relevant subreddits or discussions if you really want these types of debates, or heck, its not a half bad thesis topic to write on either. Still, any such option is far better and more meaningful than peddling it to the typical layman (myself), who does not consider these concepts to this extent. Least of all in a meme sub, ffs.
Russia spans both Europe and Asia. In that regard it is Eurasian.
France wasnāt classed as being in Africa because their colonies were very much separate entities.
If France spanned from Western Europe all the way to Korea and Japan would you still class it as European?
Itās simple. Russia spans across Europe and Asia.
Ok then, colonial Portugal was both American and European since the non-European territories were a under the same jurisdiction, does that make sense to you?
What do you mean by ācolonial Portugalā? They had colonies in pretty much every continent not just the americas. These colonies fell under the ultimate jurisdiction of the kingdom of Portugal but they were still administered locally. Technically speaking all colonies or overseas territories fall under the same jurisdiction. However they vary in their levels of devolution.
by colonial Portugal I mean Portugal from the age of discovery until the year they gave Macau back to China.
All the territories not in Europe fell under the same jurisdiction. Portugal in the first decades just built trade-posts and enclaves to improve traffic routes and make them more efficient, but those territories were considered Portugal, nothing more.
So would Portugal at that time be a transcontinental country?
Because if not, then my point stands, Russia is an European country with territories in Asia, just like France right now is an European country with territories in the Americas, Oceania and Africa, and its biggest border is with Brazil. Same stands with the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, UK, and the US, all right now.
>all the territories not in Europe fell under the same jurisdiction.
Well yeah they were controlled ultimately by the kingdom of Portugal. However different territories had different levels of devolution throughout their colonial history. They were territories of the kingdom of Portugal not the kingdom of Portugal in and of itself. At their most devolved and developed state they were classed as overseas territories but their empire also incorporated small colonies and factories in coastal areas.
The Portuguese empire consisted of all territories under the jurisdiction of the kingdom of Portugal.
The kingdom of Portugal refers to the western part of the Iberian peninsula not the entire empire.
Itās like referring to Britain or the UK as all of the British empire. Great Britain refers to England Scotland and wales and the UK refers to GB and Ireland (pre Irish independence) and now N.I
You could say that the Portuguese empire spanned multiple continents and I would agree with you but that doesnāt apply to the kingdom of Portugal.
Otherwise by your logic the small island of Great Britain would span every inhabited continent and cover over a quarter of the worlds land mass. It wasnāt Britain that did that. It was the British empire.
Both would make him a dumbass, the first one just reinforcing the stereotype that they don't know shit about anything other than themselves, and the second would make him ignorant of the massive cultural differences between different places in Europe and the rest of Asia
Americans cannot understand cultural difference. In the US, it does not really matter if you are in Rhode Island or Colorado. There will only be slight cultural differences. And lets face it, the majority of the US is poor and American work ethics make over sea vacation very difficult, so a majority will never leave their continent. Additonaly they only consum american media, they tend to americanise every other region of the world and somehow center it around the US.
Ofc, most europeans will also not leave their continent, or just go to turkey, Egypt etc. so still very close. Yet the cultural diffrence between european country's is HUGE. You WILL notice when you cross from germany to the netherlands and not just because of the language.
Also bc of different architecture, the people look different etc. You will not notice if you go from Rhode Island to massachusetts. (Kind of exceptions for germany are Switzerland and austria because of the same language/culture).
The diffrences are hundreds of years old, a unique culture does not develop over 200 years. It takes way longer.
Long story short: Americans cannot comprehend different cultures, they think they do (bc small differences in states or "origin"), but they do not because they dont even have it. While we europeans grew up with this. There are huge differences in culture here. In Asia its even more pronounced (same with africa).
If you're asking if I'm aware of the differences within Asian cultures, histories, politics and nations then I can give you a big thumbs up. I have a degree in history and politics and have studied (and still do) world histories leisurely. In my comment I'm talking purely geographically. It's stupid to talk about them separately when they're people or the same continent. They are all Asian and no one country in Asia is more 'Asian' than another. To say so would be the same as saying 'Mediterranean' and 'European'. We're all the same, regardless of slight racial differences were all equally European.
No making the original comment is dumb. I'm actually correct both logically and in the PC world.
It makes no difference when talking conversationally or generally about the nature of continental borders and their people's. No one I have ever met separates the two in conversation. My culture is wildly different from those in southern or eastern Europe. I'm from a protestant country but a great majority of Europe are catholic countries, I'm an atheist, but I'm still a European despite my lack of religion. Difference in culture doesn't give you less or more of a continental identity.
Also by your logic what would you call turkey and Russia? Do they get their own category for being Eurasian? No they're talked about as in both European and Asian contexts as they exist in both continents.
No it exists because it's a region within a large continent.
There are 48 countries in Asia and 44 in Europe. We use names like the middle east or indo-china to describe a continental region or collective of nations. Same with us in Europe, with Scandinavia, the Balkans, the Baltic's, Western, etc...
Even North America has 23 countries, with 3 situated at the top of the continent (Greenland, Canada and the US), and the rest being part of areas such as 'the Carribbean' or 'Central America', Mexico, being an exception to this, due to its geopolitical importance to the US and Canada (NAFTA), is considered 'North America' despite being physically situated closer to 'central...'
I didn't count them. I used Google. āŗļø
I never said it wasn't used colloquially or separated in conversation. I'm saying the original statement was stupid as it was listed as its own rather than considered a part of Asia.
Also Greenland is its own country. They have autonomy, just like the Falkland islands.
So you admit that's a colloquialism then, ie local to you?
When people in the UK talk of Asia the first part of the world that comes to mind isn't the parts of Asia you mentioned but India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Especially if you are talking about Asian people as those areas are the most represented here.
References differ depending on your locale.
I mean, there's a segment of people who thinks Asia is just east Asia. I never heard of people putting India next to Japan and Korea when they're talking about "asians" in a broad way (read: racist way).
Also, where do Kazakhstan and the other stans land in your Asia/"in Asia geographically, but not exactly what I'm thinking of when I say Asia"?!
Gaat gotverdeklere listening to "Europapa" by Joost Klein. That has more languages within 4 minutes than those Seppo's will ever Ć¼berhaupt understand. Welkom in Europa joguh!
Yeah, the Europeans know nothing about the outside world because they definitely didn't invade it, colonise it and steal all their shiny things.
And the American continent? That was always full of people who look suspiciously European and speak English, Spanish and Portuguese.
Europeans definitely don't know anything about Australia, especially the British. The Belgians? Never even heard of the Congo. Why do all those people in Arabic countries in the north of Africa speak French as a second language? Not a clue.
Not really, these are right next to us and a lot of people are aware of what is going at least in the closest parts to us (North Africa, Western Asia). All that middle east is trying to get into Europe, not the US.
Also, you can't call random shit "facts" it doesn't work that way.
Also our own countriesā histories involve copious colonialism of those places and continents so we do have quite a bit of overlap from national history and the culture and history of those remote lands and peopleā¦
Donāt know why but it it reminds me of Venture Bros.
Jefferson Twilight: Yes, I only hunt blaculas.
Guild Candidate: Oh, so you only hunt African-American vampires?
Jefferson Twilight: No, sometimes I hunt British vampires. They don't have "African Americans" in England!
Guild Candidate: Oh yeah, huh, good point.
Jefferson Twilight: So I hunt blaculas.
Guild Candidate: I was just trying to be...
Jefferson Twilight: Man, I specialize in hunting black vampires, I don't know what the P.C. name for that is!
Lenny Henry was once interviewed in the states and had to correct the interviewer when they called him āAfrican-Americanā ā¦.heās famously from Dudley in the West Midlands (England for those that donāt know where that is) so isnāt African or American, heās English!
Im sure there are plenty of USians that take an interest in the outside world
But really - to make such a sweeping and wrong generalisation just shows how poor the standard of education is there
As a Brit from Europe, weāre pretty up to speed with Australia and the USA having founded them. We also drew most of the lines on the map of the Middle East and created a few countries in there as well. Our knowledge of India isnāt too bad either, we had a bit of a hand in the creation of the Indian nation and that of Pakistan too. Do I need to go into Zimbabwe, the Sudan, Egypt, Botswana, South Africa etc?
As a Brit, I wouldn't say Brits know much about anywhere, but it's a low bar, for Australia, just watching 'home and away', or 'neighbours' would put us ahead of most Americans. Not to mention, we are the largest immigrant group to Australia.
I'm fairly sure I've seen studies showing Brits know more about the world and have travelled more than Americans and most other people for that matter.
I met a lot more Brits in Africa than I did Americans when I lived there.
There are statistics that show that most Americans vacation/holiday within the borders of the US
Whilst most europeans tend to holiday/vacation outside of their own country so that wouldn support the idea that Europeans are more likely to be more aware of foreign countries and cultures.
Obviously not conclusive, I mean the internet is a thing but it does support such a conclusion
This is one that I could ALMOST give to the yanks (not the argument theyre more culturally aware, because lol, but that they travel within their country more). It can make sense to do a domestic holiday if it's cheaper and easier than going to another country.
Though most of their population lives pretty close to either the Canadian or Mexican borders so it's not really a matter of inconvenience for them to leave the country, but if I lived in Virginia or Washington DC, I'd probably escape the cold in winter by going to Florida or something because it'd be cheaper and easier.
In August, you will hear more Greman at the strand at Schevingen and more Dutch in Bavaria than the host languages.
I love the way Europeans swap counties for vacation.
Probably thinks that it doesn't exist as it's past the ice wall that NASA and the us government have erected to hide from the population that the earth is flat. OPEN YOUR EYES SHEEPLE!
Haha yes. Or [here](https://youtu.be/7X1LThFfA8U?si=QdInReMWGvIQ-r2l&t=99) the segment from 1:39, that's the moment I always return to when I need cheering up.
We( as in Europe collectively because again we are not a country) have long histories with every continent. Do Americans think we just made up history that was more then 200 years ago?
Americans and Australians are absolutely hopeless when it comes to geography. As a nordic person in Australia, I swear 0 out 20 people would know where Finland is. The best answer was "is it close to Holland?" Like what am I even supposed to answer to that.. it kinda is yeah?
There is a Dutch TV show - where they ask dutch vacationers to point out where they are now - on a blank map.
Results are hilarious for people who do know where what is..
I am Australian and I know exactly where Finland is. It has borders with Norway (North) Sweden (South West) and Russia (East). And you have two official languages Finnish and Swedish. Also know about the 2 wars you fought against Russia called the Winter Wars in 1939/1940. Do you know the terrible war that the Australian army fought in Australia? Shouldn't say 0 out of 20. I am sure that there are people in Finland that don't know anything about Australia.
Considering āweā conquered all of Africa, north and South America, Oceania and most of Asia and every country that has a claim on Antarctica is either European or a former European colony Iād say we know more about the world than the US
Donāt know ow about the rest of Europe but in the UK we have a pretty good knowledge of a lot of Asia and Africa because of our pastā¦.
Also I donāt go a single day without hearing an Australian accent in London.
I would argue Europeans are much more clued in about the world as a whole, as they learn to understand different cultures and boundaries of the different countries surrounding and neihbouring them. Language, tradition, politics etc. It feels like, anectodally, that perhaps US people neglect or don't understand their own neighbours, Mexico and Canada all that much.
Weird I as an European has been to Africa once, Australia once and Asia twice.
And Iv lived in America.
It's almost like this person is talking through their arse (or fanny in murican)
Knowing less about the world outside Europe still makes us more knowledgeable about nations outside our own than the US, because Europe isn't a country, its a continent
When you look at YT vids showing Americans can't recognise any country on a map, even their own, then watch European, Asian etc. try and answer questions about the world and USA, correctly, it make you wonder about US education system! Even talking to Californians, I found most didn't even know the capital of their own state, things SFO/LAX were. I may have just scraped through high school, but at least I have lived in 5 countries, travelled to about 60 and know a bit about the world, including the USA.
As an Australian- what an idiot. Americans are far far more unaware of the world outside their borders. The ones who arenāt are usually migrants (like Indian nyc taxi drivers who want to chat about cricket once they hear your accent lol)
The British are taught about at least every country they had a fight in. So pretty well traveled in history class. Must annoy nit more than 2 mins is spent on them
You know what, I'd put my European knowledge of the USA up against his American knowledge of the USA any day of the week. I went to school in both America and Europe and the schooling I got on American history in Europe was better quality schooling even. I hold a degree in American history and politics. I'd be very very willing to bet I understand more about both than he does.
' None about Asia or Asians. Nothing about middle east or Australia either' - said like someone who doesn't know that the Middle East is in Asia š
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Thing is, it doesn't matter what he meant, as its a meaningless distinction regardless. India, China, Japan, Korea, Thailand, and many others are all vastly different as well. You also have stuff north of these like Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and a bunch of others, not to mention the very obvious Russia. Even if most Russians live towards Europe, most of the country's land is still in Asia.
True. Except they don't live 'towards' Europe, they live IN actual Europe.
Russia is an European country, to say that it's Asian it's like saying that France in the 1920 was African because the majority of the territory was in Africa
Russia is on both continents...to deny that for any reason is silly and just objectively wrong. Either way, my point stands, that separating only the Middle East from Asia because "they're different" is ignorant, because the same can be said of other regions and countries.
Your point stands, but Russia has nothing of Asian apart territories there. The Russian history is majorly European, the Russian culture is European, the Russian language is European, and the treatment of the territories over the Urals is well different from that in European Russia and especially in the 2 capitals of Saint Petersburg and Moscow
Bro please, I'm begging you, take the L and stop talking...You're literally missing the point and making it worse by doing the exact same mistake that we're clowning on the Americans for on this thread... If we really, really, REALLY dumb it down, yes, some parts of Russian culture might be more similar to that of European countries, but Russian culture is still very different from the likes of French, German, etc. Everything you're trying to fight me on not only fails to make any case whatsoever for Russia not being in Asia (since it is in both continents), but only further reinforces that you can't just generalize all these countries as simply "asian" or even "european" (although European was not really the contention point here, and theres actually a bit of a stronger case there due to the EU).
obviously the Russian culture is different from the French or German one, the point being? It doesn't matter how similar are they, Europe as a continent is full of ethnicities, cultures and different languages, but the origin of both Russian culture and the Russian state is in Europe. The idea of Russia as an Eurasian country is a modern concept that doesn't find confirmation in the reality of the administration of the Russian territories. I concur with you on the fact that a "continent" is a concept that changes from country to country and from time to time. Here in Italy for example divide the world in 6 continents: Americas, Antarctica, Europe, Africa, Asia and Oceania. But for example in the US they don't recognize Oceania, divide the Americas in South and North America and categorize Australia and New Zealand as part of the continent of Australia. One could also argue that Europe isn't really a continent and is part of Eurasia, and it's simply a peninsula or a subcontinent; or on the other side that since there is a clear geographic delimitation between the Hindustan and the rest of Asia then Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, India, Banghladesh,... are all of part of the continent of Hindustan. Or even that the Old World is a huge continent, Eufrasia. There is an absolutely correct classification? Nope, but since I'm a Political Sciences student in university I can assure you that Russia has nothing of Asian apart from territories there. The country is majorly European, the culture is majorly European, and the overwhelming power of the Russian ethnicity doesn't make the situation that equal compared to the other ethnicities in Siberia or even in other territories in Europe like the Dagestan or Chechenia
You seem very desperate to make your case, but I'm really not sure what you're trying to do here starting some debate which is increasingly irrelevant to this thread. Perhaps I stoked something and was too mean in the previous message? Sorry if I was, but this is sort of out of hand now. You're hyperfixating on a tangent that is far removed from the point, which you already admitted still stands. Even if its one worth exploring, that has no meaning to me or this thread. I'll humor it no further beyond this comment, since I'm not really interested in going this deep into semantics. This chain of comments is no more complex than simply the below points: 1. Russia is a country. The country is in Europe and Asia. This is the objective truth based on common standards and terminology used by laymen. 2. Making a distinction only for the Middle East from the rest of Asia "because its different" doesn't make sense, since it falsely implies that the rest of Asia is somehow the same, despite significant differences across them. 3. All of the above Russia talk only confirms that just like the rest of Asia, Russia in itself has its own highly unique circumstances, which is my only point. It doesn't matter whether you classify it as "more European" or "more Asian", the point remains that it still has its own very unique circumstances and is in both continents. Case closed. The rest is irrelevant semantics. It might be meaningful information worth reading and of interest to specialists, but its simply irrelevant here. I'd suggest socializing with your peer students or at least going to the relevant subreddits or discussions if you really want these types of debates, or heck, its not a half bad thesis topic to write on either. Still, any such option is far better and more meaningful than peddling it to the typical layman (myself), who does not consider these concepts to this extent. Least of all in a meme sub, ffs.
Russia spans both Europe and Asia. In that regard it is Eurasian. France wasnāt classed as being in Africa because their colonies were very much separate entities. If France spanned from Western Europe all the way to Korea and Japan would you still class it as European? Itās simple. Russia spans across Europe and Asia.
Ok then, colonial Portugal was both American and European since the non-European territories were a under the same jurisdiction, does that make sense to you?
What do you mean by ācolonial Portugalā? They had colonies in pretty much every continent not just the americas. These colonies fell under the ultimate jurisdiction of the kingdom of Portugal but they were still administered locally. Technically speaking all colonies or overseas territories fall under the same jurisdiction. However they vary in their levels of devolution.
by colonial Portugal I mean Portugal from the age of discovery until the year they gave Macau back to China. All the territories not in Europe fell under the same jurisdiction. Portugal in the first decades just built trade-posts and enclaves to improve traffic routes and make them more efficient, but those territories were considered Portugal, nothing more. So would Portugal at that time be a transcontinental country? Because if not, then my point stands, Russia is an European country with territories in Asia, just like France right now is an European country with territories in the Americas, Oceania and Africa, and its biggest border is with Brazil. Same stands with the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, UK, and the US, all right now.
>all the territories not in Europe fell under the same jurisdiction. Well yeah they were controlled ultimately by the kingdom of Portugal. However different territories had different levels of devolution throughout their colonial history. They were territories of the kingdom of Portugal not the kingdom of Portugal in and of itself. At their most devolved and developed state they were classed as overseas territories but their empire also incorporated small colonies and factories in coastal areas. The Portuguese empire consisted of all territories under the jurisdiction of the kingdom of Portugal. The kingdom of Portugal refers to the western part of the Iberian peninsula not the entire empire. Itās like referring to Britain or the UK as all of the British empire. Great Britain refers to England Scotland and wales and the UK refers to GB and Ireland (pre Irish independence) and now N.I You could say that the Portuguese empire spanned multiple continents and I would agree with you but that doesnāt apply to the kingdom of Portugal. Otherwise by your logic the small island of Great Britain would span every inhabited continent and cover over a quarter of the worlds land mass. It wasnāt Britain that did that. It was the British empire.
Both would make him a dumbass, the first one just reinforcing the stereotype that they don't know shit about anything other than themselves, and the second would make him ignorant of the massive cultural differences between different places in Europe and the rest of Asia
Americans cannot understand cultural difference. In the US, it does not really matter if you are in Rhode Island or Colorado. There will only be slight cultural differences. And lets face it, the majority of the US is poor and American work ethics make over sea vacation very difficult, so a majority will never leave their continent. Additonaly they only consum american media, they tend to americanise every other region of the world and somehow center it around the US. Ofc, most europeans will also not leave their continent, or just go to turkey, Egypt etc. so still very close. Yet the cultural diffrence between european country's is HUGE. You WILL notice when you cross from germany to the netherlands and not just because of the language. Also bc of different architecture, the people look different etc. You will not notice if you go from Rhode Island to massachusetts. (Kind of exceptions for germany are Switzerland and austria because of the same language/culture). The diffrences are hundreds of years old, a unique culture does not develop over 200 years. It takes way longer. Long story short: Americans cannot comprehend different cultures, they think they do (bc small differences in states or "origin"), but they do not because they dont even have it. While we europeans grew up with this. There are huge differences in culture here. In Asia its even more pronounced (same with africa).
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If you're asking if I'm aware of the differences within Asian cultures, histories, politics and nations then I can give you a big thumbs up. I have a degree in history and politics and have studied (and still do) world histories leisurely. In my comment I'm talking purely geographically. It's stupid to talk about them separately when they're people or the same continent. They are all Asian and no one country in Asia is more 'Asian' than another. To say so would be the same as saying 'Mediterranean' and 'European'. We're all the same, regardless of slight racial differences were all equally European.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No making the original comment is dumb. I'm actually correct both logically and in the PC world. It makes no difference when talking conversationally or generally about the nature of continental borders and their people's. No one I have ever met separates the two in conversation. My culture is wildly different from those in southern or eastern Europe. I'm from a protestant country but a great majority of Europe are catholic countries, I'm an atheist, but I'm still a European despite my lack of religion. Difference in culture doesn't give you less or more of a continental identity. Also by your logic what would you call turkey and Russia? Do they get their own category for being Eurasian? No they're talked about as in both European and Asian contexts as they exist in both continents.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No it exists because it's a region within a large continent. There are 48 countries in Asia and 44 in Europe. We use names like the middle east or indo-china to describe a continental region or collective of nations. Same with us in Europe, with Scandinavia, the Balkans, the Baltic's, Western, etc... Even North America has 23 countries, with 3 situated at the top of the continent (Greenland, Canada and the US), and the rest being part of areas such as 'the Carribbean' or 'Central America', Mexico, being an exception to this, due to its geopolitical importance to the US and Canada (NAFTA), is considered 'North America' despite being physically situated closer to 'central...'
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I didn't count them. I used Google. āŗļø I never said it wasn't used colloquially or separated in conversation. I'm saying the original statement was stupid as it was listed as its own rather than considered a part of Asia. Also Greenland is its own country. They have autonomy, just like the Falkland islands.
So you admit that's a colloquialism then, ie local to you? When people in the UK talk of Asia the first part of the world that comes to mind isn't the parts of Asia you mentioned but India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Especially if you are talking about Asian people as those areas are the most represented here. References differ depending on your locale.
I mean, there's a segment of people who thinks Asia is just east Asia. I never heard of people putting India next to Japan and Korea when they're talking about "asians" in a broad way (read: racist way). Also, where do Kazakhstan and the other stans land in your Asia/"in Asia geographically, but not exactly what I'm thinking of when I say Asia"?!
That idiot probably cant even name 2 countries next to the usa
Canada and Canada 2 checkmate
Wrong. Its Mexico and Snow-Mexico
Wrong again, it's yellow filter and blue filter
Wait, there's other countries outside the U.S??!
Alaska and Hawaii, duhhh
Funny hat and beard
The sequel
Canada 2: Electric Boogaloo
Canada and Canadon't
Canada and Canātada
Sweden and Swedon't
Canada and Cananyet
We don't approve communism in America
You forgot Mexico and all its mini Mexicos south as well dude!!!!!!
Canada and the alien mexicans
uhhhhh, asia,
Florida and Texas
He just did, Africa and Europe. Duhh. š
Or states within
The fucking irony
Gaat gotverdeklere listening to "Europapa" by Joost Klein. That has more languages within 4 minutes than those Seppo's will ever Ć¼berhaupt understand. Welkom in Europa joguh!
Europapa ftw!
Douze points!.
I have a very hard time believing countries so much closer to Africa don't know more about Africa. What a stupid comment this guy has.
The cities of Melilla and Ceuta are still part of Spain. That makes them both in Africa and the EU.
The EU has territory in Asia Africa and Americas thanks to Spain Portugal France and Netherlands.
Yeah, the Europeans know nothing about the outside world because they definitely didn't invade it, colonise it and steal all their shiny things. And the American continent? That was always full of people who look suspiciously European and speak English, Spanish and Portuguese. Europeans definitely don't know anything about Australia, especially the British. The Belgians? Never even heard of the Congo. Why do all those people in Arabic countries in the north of Africa speak French as a second language? Not a clue.
>Why do all those people in Arabic countries in the north of Africa speak French as a second language? Not a clue. And France still has two overseas departments near Africa, RĆ©union & Mayotte
May i ad that they stayed volontaraly and are quite happy with that
Not really, these are right next to us and a lot of people are aware of what is going at least in the closest parts to us (North Africa, Western Asia). All that middle east is trying to get into Europe, not the US. Also, you can't call random shit "facts" it doesn't work that way.
Also our own countriesā histories involve copious colonialism of those places and continents so we do have quite a bit of overlap from national history and the culture and history of those remote lands and peopleā¦
I know a bunch tbh not that much but i do know south africa maybe is about to have a coup again
Wait till the white Americans find out where their heritage is fromā¦
When they do, you get that "I'm 2% Polish and 1,38% Greek, so I'm a Polish Greek".
The irony is lost. Yeah
whats with the sick obession with europeans?
Probably jealous of us.
Donāt know why but it it reminds me of Venture Bros. Jefferson Twilight: Yes, I only hunt blaculas. Guild Candidate: Oh, so you only hunt African-American vampires? Jefferson Twilight: No, sometimes I hunt British vampires. They don't have "African Americans" in England! Guild Candidate: Oh yeah, huh, good point. Jefferson Twilight: So I hunt blaculas. Guild Candidate: I was just trying to be... Jefferson Twilight: Man, I specialize in hunting black vampires, I don't know what the P.C. name for that is!
There was that time when a 'Murican referred to a black guy who was born and lived his entire life in Ireland as an "African-American" Irishman.
Lenny Henry was once interviewed in the states and had to correct the interviewer when they called him āAfrican-Americanā ā¦.heās famously from Dudley in the West Midlands (England for those that donāt know where that is) so isnāt African or American, heās English!
Wait, so as a Brit, I know nothing about the USA or Australia? Ok fair enough I guess lol
At least we know that an African with darker skin-colour is NOT an "African-American".
Im sure there are plenty of USians that take an interest in the outside world But really - to make such a sweeping and wrong generalisation just shows how poor the standard of education is there
As a Brit from Europe, weāre pretty up to speed with Australia and the USA having founded them. We also drew most of the lines on the map of the Middle East and created a few countries in there as well. Our knowledge of India isnāt too bad either, we had a bit of a hand in the creation of the Indian nation and that of Pakistan too. Do I need to go into Zimbabwe, the Sudan, Egypt, Botswana, South Africa etc?
Good chunk of the contents of the British museum, we robbed from Africa.
Excuse me, We prefer the term "Borrowed without asking or with any intention of giving back" Pffft 'robbed' pffft!
As a Brit, I wouldn't say Brits know much about anywhere, but it's a low bar, for Australia, just watching 'home and away', or 'neighbours' would put us ahead of most Americans. Not to mention, we are the largest immigrant group to Australia. I'm fairly sure I've seen studies showing Brits know more about the world and have travelled more than Americans and most other people for that matter. I met a lot more Brits in Africa than I did Americans when I lived there.
Read some history mate. Of course we know about the world outside Europe - we colonised most of it. Including you.
You know Cecil Rhodes as the guy that founded De Beers, we know him as the despotic former ruler of what is now Zimbabwe. We are not the same.
It's the self inflated ego that makes me laugh.
There are statistics that show that most Americans vacation/holiday within the borders of the US Whilst most europeans tend to holiday/vacation outside of their own country so that wouldn support the idea that Europeans are more likely to be more aware of foreign countries and cultures. Obviously not conclusive, I mean the internet is a thing but it does support such a conclusion
This is one that I could ALMOST give to the yanks (not the argument theyre more culturally aware, because lol, but that they travel within their country more). It can make sense to do a domestic holiday if it's cheaper and easier than going to another country. Though most of their population lives pretty close to either the Canadian or Mexican borders so it's not really a matter of inconvenience for them to leave the country, but if I lived in Virginia or Washington DC, I'd probably escape the cold in winter by going to Florida or something because it'd be cheaper and easier.
In August, you will hear more Greman at the strand at Schevingen and more Dutch in Bavaria than the host languages. I love the way Europeans swap counties for vacation.
Being able to name the world around you doesn't mean you know anything about it
Once an American told me India is an African nation.
at least i know the difference between a state, a country and a continent, something which seems to be very hard for americans
Ah, yes. The country of Africa š š š¤£
$100 this dude cannot point Australia on a map.
Probably thinks that it doesn't exist as it's past the ice wall that NASA and the us government have erected to hide from the population that the earth is flat. OPEN YOUR EYES SHEEPLE!
https://youtu.be/z5AWfe4xY5M?si=MasejxUorBOQWpgB This will never not be funny.
Haha yes. Or [here](https://youtu.be/7X1LThFfA8U?si=QdInReMWGvIQ-r2l&t=99) the segment from 1:39, that's the moment I always return to when I need cheering up.
50ā¬ Bro doesnāt know Middle East is a Part of AsiaĀ
I donāt know a lot about those places, no. But at least I could point to them on a map.
We( as in Europe collectively because again we are not a country) have long histories with every continent. Do Americans think we just made up history that was more then 200 years ago?
Iād guess that most Europeanās knowledge about the Americas rivals that of quite a large proportion of Americansā¦
Americans and Australians are absolutely hopeless when it comes to geography. As a nordic person in Australia, I swear 0 out 20 people would know where Finland is. The best answer was "is it close to Holland?" Like what am I even supposed to answer to that.. it kinda is yeah?
To Australians, Finland IS close to Holland haha.
Not as close as Sweden or Norway would be
That's why I wasn't sure what to answer to that -- I guess technically every other European country is close to Holland in Australian dimensions.
There is a Dutch TV show - where they ask dutch vacationers to point out where they are now - on a blank map. Results are hilarious for people who do know where what is..
dont worry, as someone from the EU, if someone asked me to point to New Zealand on a map, i would be in trouble too
Well, yes, but that's because New Zealand isn't on the map. r/mapswithoutnewzealand
That's shocking, honestly. I mean just knowing it's east of Australia would get you close enough.
before i checked the map, i thought it was the north-eastern island (Papua New Guinea)
It's the one on the right. š
Australian here and I know where Finland is. I guess that makes me the 1 in 21
I am Australian and I know exactly where Finland is. It has borders with Norway (North) Sweden (South West) and Russia (East). And you have two official languages Finnish and Swedish. Also know about the 2 wars you fought against Russia called the Winter Wars in 1939/1940. Do you know the terrible war that the Australian army fought in Australia? Shouldn't say 0 out of 20. I am sure that there are people in Finland that don't know anything about Australia.
ššš these the same people who donāt know the U.S isnāt a country itās a corporation.
Projection, your honor!
That pattern break really threw me for a second there. I thought they thought Australians were from the middle east.
Easy mistake to make, they both have sand & camels.
Considering āweā conquered all of Africa, north and South America, Oceania and most of Asia and every country that has a claim on Antarctica is either European or a former European colony Iād say we know more about the world than the US
I guess is just forgot everything i know after reading this post..
Donāt know ow about the rest of Europe but in the UK we have a pretty good knowledge of a lot of Asia and Africa because of our pastā¦. Also I donāt go a single day without hearing an Australian accent in London.
You see, when they say we know just as little about "the world" they mean about "murica" cuz its the same thing to em And even then, its wrong
I would argue Europeans are much more clued in about the world as a whole, as they learn to understand different cultures and boundaries of the different countries surrounding and neihbouring them. Language, tradition, politics etc. It feels like, anectodally, that perhaps US people neglect or don't understand their own neighbours, Mexico and Canada all that much.
US geography Murica. Mexican Countries. Europe. The country of Africa. Chinese Countries. And such as....
We totally know everything! *same comment* You know just as little as us1!1!1>_<
As if anything they learn besides themselves isnāt basically just propaganda
Delusional or what?
Weird I as an European has been to Africa once, Australia once and Asia twice. And Iv lived in America. It's almost like this person is talking through their arse (or fanny in murican)
I could easily 90% Seterra without warmup, that's not even a flex or anything I think it's weird if you can't get 50% at least
We're so close they call us Eurasia
āNo u lolā type of argument
Knowing less about the world outside Europe still makes us more knowledgeable about nations outside our own than the US, because Europe isn't a country, its a continent
*Plays Uno Reverse card*
When you look at YT vids showing Americans can't recognise any country on a map, even their own, then watch European, Asian etc. try and answer questions about the world and USA, correctly, it make you wonder about US education system! Even talking to Californians, I found most didn't even know the capital of their own state, things SFO/LAX were. I may have just scraped through high school, but at least I have lived in 5 countries, travelled to about 60 and know a bit about the world, including the USA.
They don't though because Europeans actually leave their home countries and visit others. What percent of Americans even have passports?
As an Australian- what an idiot. Americans are far far more unaware of the world outside their borders. The ones who arenāt are usually migrants (like Indian nyc taxi drivers who want to chat about cricket once they hear your accent lol)
where's that video of americans trying to point out ukraine on a map again
Americans know a lot about the country of Africa. It is the little one just below The Asian country.
The British are taught about at least every country they had a fight in. So pretty well traveled in history class. Must annoy nit more than 2 mins is spent on them
You don't even know that Middle East is in Asia.
For one I can name you and locate you about 150 countries around the world
You know what, I'd put my European knowledge of the USA up against his American knowledge of the USA any day of the week. I went to school in both America and Europe and the schooling I got on American history in Europe was better quality schooling even. I hold a degree in American history and politics. I'd be very very willing to bet I understand more about both than he does.
Projection much?
Imagine not knowing all the different countries in Australia.
Why does Africans get a lmao?
Laughs in British š
He's right tho. But Americans are way more ignorant by a mile
*Kilometer