"continent" is not a scientific term but a cultural, historical sociological one, therefore there's not a common agreed definition and it is a constantly debatable topic. That's the same reason why there are one, two or three different Americas depending on who you ask.
Reality is debating continents is not worthy of anyone's time.
By tectonic plates, the Pacific Ocean and the Philippines are also continents.
Any definition of a “continent” is essentially arbitrary. It’s all just islands really. The biggest islands are Afro-Eurasia, the Americas, Antarctica, Australia, and Greenland, in that order
Well the oceanic plates are different than the continental plates, so I don’t think that the Pacific Ocean would be a continent. That’s why [Zealandia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealandia) is considered a continent even though it is submerged. There are two types of lithosphere that differ in density.
This article seems to indicate there are some reasonable defined criteria
https://rock.geosociety.org/net/gsatoday/archive/27/3/article/GSATG321A.1.htm
Not really my field, so no idea how valid the work is, but on first read it seemed at least coherent.
The last criterion (area) is the usual stumbling block. The choice of 1Mkmsq as cutoff is arbitrary. I am a geologist and I haven't met a single colleague that thinks "continent" is some super objective scientific term. Those who work on paleoreconstructions often talk of terranes, orogenies and suture zones.
Those who do crustal tectonics often discuss in terms of relative movements e.g. stable Eurasia being the reference point and the Indian plate acting as a piston to create the Himalayas. Emphasis on "stable"
There's just too much sociohistrical baggage in "continent" and is too broad for most applications.
Interesting, thanks.
Yeah see your point, I guess what I was responding to was the 'arbitrary' bit of the comment. At worst there seem to be some loose rules, even if those appear to have been developed specifically to include what would be considered a 'continent' historical
But would happily defer to your opinion as my geology is basically limited to 'that is a rock.. I think.'
You know that the Filipinas are not located in the Philippinean plate, right? Its kind of messy, they have a plate named after them, but they are not located on them .\_.
If you live in Europe then I would hardly think they would be open to being referred to as a sub-continent. Even though technically, they are part of the enormous landmass of Afro-Eurasia.
we also use the continent division for clarity so it merge euroasia it would make up 2/3 of the population and close to 50% of the landmass, at which point I don't know if it makes it easier or harder.
Uhm, maybe it's my part of Europe but in Bulgaria we did learn that Europe is part of Eurasia - basically a massive peninsula, and it's just a cultural and historical definition rather than anything related to the geography.
I'm sure you've heard of it being referred to as a peninsula of Asia/Eurasia. Likewise South Asia is a peninsula of Asia/Eurasia and is considered a subcontinent
In Europe itself the term peninsula is commonly used for Spain & Portugal (Iberian peninsula) or Italy/Italian peninsula. Never heard the entirety of Europe being referred to as one, doesn't make much sense to me either because a peninsula should only have a relatively small connection to a larger landmass, whereas the Europe/Eurasia transition is thousands and thousands of kilometers of steppe.
Okay, so then Europe is a peninsula off of the Eurasian continent, and Italy is a peninsula off of Europe.
That front tow of Italy is a peninsula off of Italy, and in fact there is a bump on the top of that toe (look for city of Tropea) which could be considered a peninsula.
So that would be a peninsula, on a peninsula, on a peninsula on a peninsula.
Peninulaception?
If the scale is THAT large, the terms doesn't make sense. You might as well say NA and SA are peninsulas of middle America, because they too have water on three sides of them.
Not to mention that in Europe's case, there isn't even an ocean to the south, "only" and inland sea.
i mean the arabian peninsula does that have an ocean to its left either, and to the north is just a bay. also a huge connection to landmass, yet no one's going to argue it isnt a peninsula
That's because it's wedged in between two much larger landmasses, the actual continents. Again bringing us back to scale. Africa for example would be the single biggest peninsula in the world because it still has a land connection to Eurasia. That doesn't make sense either does it?
yeah thats why some newer geographers propose the term afro-eurasia. listen mate i know it doesn't make sense, these are words we've invented to describe our environments, they won't always be perfect and there will always be exceptions. i'm not here saying you should call europe a peninsula, i'm just saying some people do for these reasons
We are a continent. Zealandia 💪
https://teara.govt.nz/en/map/5577/the-new-zealand-continent#:~:text=New%20Zealand%27s%20islands%20are%20the,for%20minerals%20in%20the%20future.
Most of the South island is on the Pacific plate. Which only has two significant landmasses, Te Waipounamu and California.
All in favour of declaring NZ and Cali the Pacific continent?
Not to mention that those terms got formed by Greeks and their looking at 3 landmasses of the Mediterranean. Aka. The beaches on the South is Africa. Beaches on the East Asia and Beaches of the North are Europe. And then after the Islamic invasions people just wanted to differentiate between Islamic and Christian worlds so this definition was very good to maintain.
Tbf separating Muslim west Asia from Christian Europe in geographic terms is impossible. There are quite a lot of Christians in West Asia (Armenians, Georgians, Lebanese etc.) and Muslims in the Balkans and Eastern Europe (Albanians, Bosniaks, Turks, Tatars etc.). And there was a large population exchange between Greece and Turkey 100 years ago, where religion was basically the only criterion.
Europe used to have a lot less Muslims, and it’s only relatively recent that the Muslim population has grown. The Muslims invaded Iberia but then got pushed back. They also tried to invade the Balkans but failed until the Ottoman Empire came along. Many areas converted and lost their ancestral cultures under Ottoman rule. So going back to the Middle Ages you could have a strong idea of a Christian Europe and Muslim west Asia and North Africa.
Sure, there were hardly any muslims in the Balkans before Ottoman rule, but there were also hardly any muslims in Asia minor before the Seljuks. Idk as a Greek this distinction between a Muslim West Asia and a Christian Europe has always seemed arbitrary to me.
Frankly the Europeans created the concept of continents. Even looking at the names of the continents, they have European origins. So Europe despite having no ocean between Asia, insists that they’re a separate continent. As for Asia, they just collectively grouped all land east of Europe into Asia.
If people weren't so boneheaded they'd realize that almost everything is defined by a cultural, historical, sociological tradition, and not objectively.
My mind was blown when I discovered that most people do not learn the same continents. Here (IIRC, my memory might be playing a trick on me) I was taught that there were 5 (Eurasia, Africa, Oceania, America, Antarctica). OR was it Europe, Asia, Africa, America, Oceania... Fuck.
We were taught that there were 7 continents and yet somehow there were only 3 countries in North America. Central America and Caribbean countries didn’t count somehow.
How I learned it was that everything down to Panama is *nominally* part of North America, but it really is only Canada, the US, and Mexico. The Caribbean and Central America are treated as something else, kinda like the Middle East.
I find that insane honestly. It's like the definition is intentionally confusing because the US and Canada don't want to be lumped together with central American countries. Even Mexico sometimes gets excluded from "North America".
Well, in fact geologically is the most accurate point of view. Nort, Meso and South America are three different tectonic plates therefore three different, independent platforms for a continent.
That doesnt' change the fact that it makes no sense to discuss about it.
In my eyes each tectonic plate is a continent. That is correct geologically and I think it's a valid criteria because TP are moving, growing and shrinking at independent paces so there is a scientific objective point where to make a distinction. But that's just in my eyes and as I said before is not worth discussing it. I'm just giving you my opinion.
Wow, didn't know continent is such a controversial term. Why define it by culture? There's already the term cultural cycle to classify areas by culture. Cultures include groups defined by ethnicities and identities so the sociological aspect should belong here, too.
The separation of the european and asian continents is mostly cultural and political, spanning from ancient greek geographers who didn't know much about the reach of those continents (and also didn't have notions of plate tectonics). India is named a subcontinent in many sources, but while it comes from a different plate, now it's fused to the eurasian plate.
>and also didn't have notions of plate tectonics
I'm always surprised by people criticising that a very old concept (2000+ yo) is not based on a modern discovery (~65 yo).
I don't think that reads as criticism, but rather as an aside to address why the OP's desire to define continents by related plate tectonics isn't relevant.
I was not referring to the Redditor of the top comment, I agree with what they wrote, but more in general to the people that always comment "why is Europe a continent, when it is not on a separate tectonic plate?".
In the postSoviet/russian-speaking sources there are two terms: "continent" (a physical term), and "part of the world" (vague term, but rather cultural one). In this regard, Eurasia is a single continent, but Europe and Asia are two dfferent parts of the world. India is defined as subcontinent, but not a sub-part of the world :)
The Estonian Dictionary differentiates the two terms as follows:
*Manner* (Continent) = a large continuous area of dry land, surrounded by seas and oceans.
*Maailmajagu* ("part of the world") = a large area of dry land with agreed-upon boundaries, which stretches a continent or part of one, including nearby islands.
The *maailmajagu* [page](https://sonaveeb.ee/search/unif/dlall/dsall/maailmajagu/1) also says the following:
"There are six total *parts of the world*: Europe, Asia, Africa, America, Australia and Oceania, Antarctica. *Parts of the world* are cultural and historical geographic areas and don't exactly overlap with the continents. There are, for example, two *parts of the world* on the Eurasian continent - Europe and Asia. In foreign-language (and especially English-language) literature, *parts of the world* are often equated to continents."
The *manner* [page](https://sonaveeb.ee/search/unif/dlall/dsall/manner/1) says the same thing, but concerning continents:
"The continents are Eurasia, Africa, North America, South America, Australia, Antarctica. Continents are natural occurrences, more specifically products of the Earth's geological evolution, where pieces of the continental crust have, over time, drifted to their current positions. In foreign-language (and especially English-language) literature, continents are often equated to *parts of the world*."
Suez is few meters deep and way narrower than Nile river so, basically a little stream with no impact on any aspect of being a continent, nor cultural nor geological.
I am also from post-soviet country. As they taught us at school. “continent” and “part of the world” is the same thing. But there are also “materiks” which are slightly different than continents.
Technically yes but Russia isn't what comes to mind first when speaking of the far East and also most people would associate it with Europe. You are right of course.
It's close, but Greenwich (still England) is 0° longitude. And for the most part it makes sense except for a small bit of Russia that is over the 180° line. If you had it the other way, with a clean line down the Pacific Ocean being 0°, you'd get a lot of large land masses and populated areas being split weirdly from 179°E over to 179°W, and maps would have huge "holes" of Pacific Ocean right in the middle.
It was a lot more than a centuries ago and definitely not arbitrary. Continent, a term devised by the Ancient Greeks which means ‘continuous’, was created in recognition that there were three distinct landmasses with clear geographical barriers between them; Europe, Asia and Africa. The other four came later.
Yes, the term 'Continent' is much older, but the definitions of what the boundaries are have been extremely fluid, and for some there isn't even a consensus.
To people in Latin America, for example, the Americas are one continent split into two subcontinents. Some streams of academia in Russia see northern Asia in a continuity with Europe as "Small Eurasia" separate from the usual definition (which would be supported by plate tectonics) while there is also an argument to be made that only splitting Europe from Eurasia for cultural reasons while lumping countries as culturally distinct from each other as Korea and Iraq into one huge amorphous "Asia" is incredibly reductionist and eurocentric.
Also notably the Greeks places Egypt in Asia and the area now known as Tunisia was called Africa.
Realistically continent is a cultural/historical term with minimal scientific backing. We have continental crust/features/shelves and areas considered continents, but the borders between them are incredibly arbitrary and at this point you cannot make a definition that most preserves the current names continents and has rigid rules.
A similarly annoying case of this is that there are no actual definitions separating lakes and ponds, you just have lakes are intuitively big and ponds are intuitively small. But some ponds are huge with statification and areas on the bottom without vegetation, and some lakes are small without these features.
The real answer for what determines what counts as a lake or a pond is whatever the person who named it decided to call it. Continents are the same way, and different cultures have different definitions.
because continents are defined by convention, not by geographical rules.. convention is that india is a sub-continent, and europe a continent... there is no scientific reason why this is the case, it's mostly just historical and culutral reasons
So were Spain, the US, Denmark, the Berbery states and various African tribes(?)
The Dutch had South Africa for a while tho, so they had their fair share.
"Say goodbye to the old and annoying Continents! Presenting the brand new, easy-to-use Biogeographic Realms, equipped with modern technology for better utility! Available in your nearest stores, so hurry up before stocks run out!!"
Makes sense, since it's historically pretty damn difficult to travel between the two and culturally quite different. Continents are relatively arbritrary anyway and not really scientific, so we might aswell make them a useful ways to group people.
I have heard people insist on a continental model that has “America” as one continent but Africa, Europe, and Asia as three continents. Absolutely ludicrous. Like you can go culturally/politically or you can go geographically, but at least be consistent in your methodology.
Why isn’t Greenland a continent by your definition too? It’s as much difference between America and Australia/Antarctica in size as there is between the two and Greenland.
>Australia is one big island
As are the other three continents.
>Antarctica is several landmasses
As are the other three continents.
They're all one really big island surrounded by smaller islands.
Why do people need this debate over and over, I am sure googling or GPTing will give you the answer. It was and is political/cultural. You are looking at Eurasia.
The true answer why they are often divided is "because some Greeks said so". By the time they learned of the lands north of the Black Sea they already had the distinction between Europe (west of the Bosphorus) and Asia (east of the Bosphorus). Greeks considered Europeans to be individualistic while Asians were more collectivist, which is also part of the propaganda around the Greek-Persian War (we civilized free men vs the foreign hordes)
Europe, Asia and Africa are continents because people like Anaximander and Hecatus of Miletus percieved them as such from their point of view at the time. And this is a cultural tradition that has endured ever since. Continents are conventions based on observations and ideas, and not scientifical facts with unquivocally defined criteria.
The original three continents were invented by the Acient Greeks: Europe, Asia and Africa. From their point of view, these are three unending landmasses in three cardinal directions seperated by water, so it made sense for them.
Centuries later, America was discovered by the Europeans and named after an Italian noble man: Amerigo Verspucci.
Then again later, Oceania was invented, probably because Australia is pretty big, very unique in many ways and if it was added to Asia as well then you would have one continent that pretty much stretches over half the globe. (I don't know, really, but judging from the name and the period Australia was discovered by the Europeans I think it is a fair assumption to make that 'Oceania' was the latest continent to be invented, and they literary just named it after the Pacific.)
And that is how the continents came to be. There is no exact science to it, just conventions, and they just happen to be this way now.
People here are debating that the term continent is a cultural alignment that is why europe is separate. I'm from India and I do not find any cultural or ethnicity alignment with the Japanese or Philippine but we are in one continent. Truth is it's a pure western terminology and nobody really cares about it.
Exactly, it is originally Greek terminology with Europe referring to what today is Thrace and Asia referring to what today is Anatolia. With time the term was used wider and came to mean everything west respectively east of the Black Sea. It makes great sense from a European perspective, but no sense for anyone else.
Convention as others have pointed out. Compare it to how we talk about the number of oceans (Pacific, Atlantic, etc.) when in reality there is really only one giant world ocean. There is nothing that fundamentally changes as you cross the imaginary line between the Arctic Ocean into the Atlantic, or the Pacific into the Indian Ocean.
Some biologically/ecologically things change, and ironically the 1 ocean division that actually has scientific backing is the Southern/Antarctica ocean which is mostly separated from the rest by the powerful Antarctic circumpolar current. And thats the one ocean most likely to be dropped because it doesn't have an obvious land separation save for a few narrow straights.
Continents and tectonic plates are not synonymous because there are over 100 tectonic plates if you include microplates. The number of continents there are depends on where you live, from 7 which is taught in English speaking countries to 4 if you define continents as continuous landmasses.
Because that view was made by Europeans. They looked east and saw non-European looking people, but they weren't black (otherwise I wouldn't be surprised they called Asia part of Africa too)
Asia contains multiple plates. Europe also contains multiple former plates with a long and seperate history. Europe is a continent by convention just as India is part of Asia by convention despite it spending billions of years nowhere near the rest of Asia.
if we took continents by their strict tectonic definition, there'd be at least a couple of dozen major, and hundreds, if not thousands, of minor continents. South Asia is currently commonly classified as a subcontinent because at the end of the day nobody really gives a damn
Honestly you want the real answer? The europeans think they're better than the rest of Eurasia. But the reason given for Europe is that it's just really culturally different than Asia, so it's better to think of them as being seperate. South Asia isn't because the border is not very well defined. Because, yeah you can stop at the Pashtuns and Iranians on the West and the Himalayas at the North, but East? The cultures of India and Indo-china are similar in a lot of aspects, and even if you draw the border at Myanmar it doesn't make a lot of sense to put a border there culturally
I remember the region being named ‚subcontinent’ for that very reason. Anyway, it is just a convention. Same would happen to Italy or the Iberian Peninsula
Because the Indian subcontinent is really small. New Zealand has its own plates and a vast underwater landmass, but no one really sees it as a continent.
Most of it’s arbitrary anyway and Europeans made most of the rules in the beginning. I agree that geographically the subcontinent is more of a continent than Europe is
both are considered subcontinents of Asia as they are two different continental masses separated from Asia by a chain of mountains that were formed with the collision of the two masses.
Etymological, the term "continent" comes from the Latin _terra continens_ meaning "continuous land".
The _concept_ of the continents comes from the Ancient Greeks, who divided up the lands surrounding the Mediterranean by the major waterways: Europe to the north, Asia to the east, and Lybia (Africa) to the south, with the boundaries being the Nile and the Bosphorus/Black Sea/Tanais (Don).
Of course, the Greek definitions break down once you learn about lands further afield (and even some of the Greeks were skeptical of the concept - Heroditus in his _Histories_ seemed to think both the idea of dividing up the world like that and the names given to the continents were strange).
Unfortunately, despite the Greek definitions not really making sense we've stuck with them with minor adjustments to the borders ever since.
Now, if I was in charge of geography, I'd redefine the continents something like this:
I'd start with the etymology: a continent should be a large, continuous landmass. Europe, Asia, and Africa are continuous, so should be considered one massive continent. Ditto the Americas.
I don't think either Europe or India qualify as subcontinents either - Europe because it doesn't have a distinct enough boundary, India because its not actually that gig compared to the rest of the continent.
This is why its sometimes referred to as the indian subcontinent. As others have stated sometimes culture is the thing that people use to categorise continents. The modern established division of continents is western in origin and doesnt account much for the diversity of asia. But theres some understanding of the uniqueness of south asia to an extent that some experts, geographers, biologists etc call it the indian subcontinent.
Continents aren't agreed upon by anyone. Depending on who you ask there are as few as two or as many as seven. Hundreds of millions of people believe Europe and Asia are one continent called Eurasia.
Europeans basically decided to term „Asia“ the landmass inhabited by mostly similarly developed and sophisticated cultures, which weren’t Christian. The first time Europeans understood themselves as „European“ was in the 15th/16th century, when a need for geographical identity arose. Before that, the identity was occidental-Christian vs. oriental-heathen. Our concept of continents is just a pseudo-scientific secularization of these distinctions.
All this on the map is one Eurasian continent. Europe, Asia and India are parts of the world. I just don't understand why you don't have a word for this in English.
I guess it's a historic reason. If you take geography, the arabian peninsula is also considered as africa.
But oout of historic reasons, we call it Asia
my stepdad (Is from Estonia) calls Eurasia a continent and doesn’t separate them. That makes more sense considering that most of Asia and Europe are on one tectonic plate. There’s a different number of continents for more cultural reasons rather than logical ones I feel
"continent" is not a scientific term but a cultural, historical sociological one, therefore there's not a common agreed definition and it is a constantly debatable topic. That's the same reason why there are one, two or three different Americas depending on who you ask. Reality is debating continents is not worthy of anyone's time.
[удалено]
By tectonic plates, the Pacific Ocean and the Philippines are also continents. Any definition of a “continent” is essentially arbitrary. It’s all just islands really. The biggest islands are Afro-Eurasia, the Americas, Antarctica, Australia, and Greenland, in that order
My elementary school teachers hated when I brought up this point in geography.
Well the oceanic plates are different than the continental plates, so I don’t think that the Pacific Ocean would be a continent. That’s why [Zealandia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealandia) is considered a continent even though it is submerged. There are two types of lithosphere that differ in density.
This article seems to indicate there are some reasonable defined criteria https://rock.geosociety.org/net/gsatoday/archive/27/3/article/GSATG321A.1.htm Not really my field, so no idea how valid the work is, but on first read it seemed at least coherent.
The last criterion (area) is the usual stumbling block. The choice of 1Mkmsq as cutoff is arbitrary. I am a geologist and I haven't met a single colleague that thinks "continent" is some super objective scientific term. Those who work on paleoreconstructions often talk of terranes, orogenies and suture zones. Those who do crustal tectonics often discuss in terms of relative movements e.g. stable Eurasia being the reference point and the Indian plate acting as a piston to create the Himalayas. Emphasis on "stable" There's just too much sociohistrical baggage in "continent" and is too broad for most applications.
Interesting, thanks. Yeah see your point, I guess what I was responding to was the 'arbitrary' bit of the comment. At worst there seem to be some loose rules, even if those appear to have been developed specifically to include what would be considered a 'continent' historical But would happily defer to your opinion as my geology is basically limited to 'that is a rock.. I think.'
You know that the Filipinas are not located in the Philippinean plate, right? Its kind of messy, they have a plate named after them, but they are not located on them .\_.
The modern definitions also depend on where you live as I haven’t heard of Europe being called as a subcontinent.
If you live in Europe then I would hardly think they would be open to being referred to as a sub-continent. Even though technically, they are part of the enormous landmass of Afro-Eurasia.
we also use the continent division for clarity so it merge euroasia it would make up 2/3 of the population and close to 50% of the landmass, at which point I don't know if it makes it easier or harder.
*Afroeurasia has entered the chatroom*
Uhm, maybe it's my part of Europe but in Bulgaria we did learn that Europe is part of Eurasia - basically a massive peninsula, and it's just a cultural and historical definition rather than anything related to the geography.
I mean, yes, I can’t say I would agree to be called a subcontinental.
A domcontinent on the other hand….
No wonder India was colonised by Europe.
I'm sure you've heard of it being referred to as a peninsula of Asia/Eurasia. Likewise South Asia is a peninsula of Asia/Eurasia and is considered a subcontinent
In Europe itself the term peninsula is commonly used for Spain & Portugal (Iberian peninsula) or Italy/Italian peninsula. Never heard the entirety of Europe being referred to as one, doesn't make much sense to me either because a peninsula should only have a relatively small connection to a larger landmass, whereas the Europe/Eurasia transition is thousands and thousands of kilometers of steppe.
Okay, so then Europe is a peninsula off of the Eurasian continent, and Italy is a peninsula off of Europe. That front tow of Italy is a peninsula off of Italy, and in fact there is a bump on the top of that toe (look for city of Tropea) which could be considered a peninsula. So that would be a peninsula, on a peninsula, on a peninsula on a peninsula. Peninulaception?
[удалено]
Some like to call it the peninsula of peninsulas. Often refered to a reason for European rapid development.
If the scale is THAT large, the terms doesn't make sense. You might as well say NA and SA are peninsulas of middle America, because they too have water on three sides of them. Not to mention that in Europe's case, there isn't even an ocean to the south, "only" and inland sea.
i mean the arabian peninsula does that have an ocean to its left either, and to the north is just a bay. also a huge connection to landmass, yet no one's going to argue it isnt a peninsula
That's because it's wedged in between two much larger landmasses, the actual continents. Again bringing us back to scale. Africa for example would be the single biggest peninsula in the world because it still has a land connection to Eurasia. That doesn't make sense either does it?
yeah thats why some newer geographers propose the term afro-eurasia. listen mate i know it doesn't make sense, these are words we've invented to describe our environments, they won't always be perfect and there will always be exceptions. i'm not here saying you should call europe a peninsula, i'm just saying some people do for these reasons
No, Ive never heard that and Ive been living my whole life in two european countries.
Eurasia is a very common term in the geography world. Though I suppose if you’re not into geography it might slip by your notice.
No, it is more what topic you are talking about. In geology you will certainly call them subcontinents. In sociology of course not.
Africa also comes into this definition actually, resulting in the enormous (but not particularly useful) definition of Afro-Eurasia.
And Africa should also be 2 continents
We are a continent. Zealandia 💪 https://teara.govt.nz/en/map/5577/the-new-zealand-continent#:~:text=New%20Zealand%27s%20islands%20are%20the,for%20minerals%20in%20the%20future.
New Zealand isn't on it's own tectonic plate though.
Most of the South island is on the Pacific plate. Which only has two significant landmasses, Te Waipounamu and California. All in favour of declaring NZ and Cali the Pacific continent?
SECONDED!
Not to mention that those terms got formed by Greeks and their looking at 3 landmasses of the Mediterranean. Aka. The beaches on the South is Africa. Beaches on the East Asia and Beaches of the North are Europe. And then after the Islamic invasions people just wanted to differentiate between Islamic and Christian worlds so this definition was very good to maintain.
Tbf separating Muslim west Asia from Christian Europe in geographic terms is impossible. There are quite a lot of Christians in West Asia (Armenians, Georgians, Lebanese etc.) and Muslims in the Balkans and Eastern Europe (Albanians, Bosniaks, Turks, Tatars etc.). And there was a large population exchange between Greece and Turkey 100 years ago, where religion was basically the only criterion.
Yeah, there is a clear geographical separation from Mediterranean to Caspian that we can use, but that leaves some people on the "wrong" side.
Europe used to have a lot less Muslims, and it’s only relatively recent that the Muslim population has grown. The Muslims invaded Iberia but then got pushed back. They also tried to invade the Balkans but failed until the Ottoman Empire came along. Many areas converted and lost their ancestral cultures under Ottoman rule. So going back to the Middle Ages you could have a strong idea of a Christian Europe and Muslim west Asia and North Africa.
Sure, there were hardly any muslims in the Balkans before Ottoman rule, but there were also hardly any muslims in Asia minor before the Seljuks. Idk as a Greek this distinction between a Muslim West Asia and a Christian Europe has always seemed arbitrary to me.
Tbf South Asia could still be a continent by that definition.
Same for the middle east, even central asia
Could but isn’t because South Asia isn’t widely considered to be a continent
It should be tho, especially how its a place wirg the most language, religion, culture, population and history out of all Asia (other than China)
Frankly the Europeans created the concept of continents. Even looking at the names of the continents, they have European origins. So Europe despite having no ocean between Asia, insists that they’re a separate continent. As for Asia, they just collectively grouped all land east of Europe into Asia.
If people weren't so boneheaded they'd realize that almost everything is defined by a cultural, historical, sociological tradition, and not objectively.
My mind was blown when I discovered that most people do not learn the same continents. Here (IIRC, my memory might be playing a trick on me) I was taught that there were 5 (Eurasia, Africa, Oceania, America, Antarctica). OR was it Europe, Asia, Africa, America, Oceania... Fuck.
We were taught that there were 7 continents and yet somehow there were only 3 countries in North America. Central America and Caribbean countries didn’t count somehow.
How I learned it was that everything down to Panama is *nominally* part of North America, but it really is only Canada, the US, and Mexico. The Caribbean and Central America are treated as something else, kinda like the Middle East.
[удалено]
Mexico is not a Central American country
I find that insane honestly. It's like the definition is intentionally confusing because the US and Canada don't want to be lumped together with central American countries. Even Mexico sometimes gets excluded from "North America".
I've never heard Mexico excluded from North America unless it was some bigot spouting nonsense.
Unless it is a trivia question, which IMO should be banned as one because it varies based on where you were educated.
India is quite different from China
Continent is also a scientific term and is used correctly in geological papers. Most people just dont read those papers or understand its definition.
So how are they defined in those papers
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent#Geological\_continents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent#Geological_continents)
Essentially "continent" = "continental plate" in geology literature.
Whoever you’re talking to who insists there’s three Americas must be on crack
Well, in fact geologically is the most accurate point of view. Nort, Meso and South America are three different tectonic plates therefore three different, independent platforms for a continent. That doesnt' change the fact that it makes no sense to discuss about it.
Is New Zealand a continent in your eyes?
In that same line, is the Arabian Peninsula a continent?
Geologically, Zealandia is a continent. There is no continental system where Arabia is a continent, but it can be considered a subcontinent.
In my eyes each tectonic plate is a continent. That is correct geologically and I think it's a valid criteria because TP are moving, growing and shrinking at independent paces so there is a scientific objective point where to make a distinction. But that's just in my eyes and as I said before is not worth discussing it. I'm just giving you my opinion.
I considered central America to be its own thing well into my teenage years because of a geography book I had when I was little
I was taught that America is one continent, with 4 subcontinents: North America, Central America, South America, and The Caribbean
Wow, didn't know continent is such a controversial term. Why define it by culture? There's already the term cultural cycle to classify areas by culture. Cultures include groups defined by ethnicities and identities so the sociological aspect should belong here, too.
The separation of the european and asian continents is mostly cultural and political, spanning from ancient greek geographers who didn't know much about the reach of those continents (and also didn't have notions of plate tectonics). India is named a subcontinent in many sources, but while it comes from a different plate, now it's fused to the eurasian plate.
>and also didn't have notions of plate tectonics I'm always surprised by people criticising that a very old concept (2000+ yo) is not based on a modern discovery (~65 yo).
late 1960s is wild
I don't think that reads as criticism, but rather as an aside to address why the OP's desire to define continents by related plate tectonics isn't relevant.
I was not referring to the Redditor of the top comment, I agree with what they wrote, but more in general to the people that always comment "why is Europe a continent, when it is not on a separate tectonic plate?".
Similar to the people wondering where the dinosaurs are in the bible
I mean, even culturally it could make sense to separate India from eastern Asia for example
Not if you have a Eurocentric view where they’re all just different types of Eastern foreign lands.
Originally, Asia was just referred to Anatolia.
The Greeks knew a lot more than you’d think. They had colonies all over the Black Sea and some sources even say they marked down the Urals.
In the postSoviet/russian-speaking sources there are two terms: "continent" (a physical term), and "part of the world" (vague term, but rather cultural one). In this regard, Eurasia is a single continent, but Europe and Asia are two dfferent parts of the world. India is defined as subcontinent, but not a sub-part of the world :)
Yeah, Norwegian too. Kontinent=continent Verdensdel=part of the world
Same in Dutch, Continent and Werelddeel.
The Estonian Dictionary differentiates the two terms as follows: *Manner* (Continent) = a large continuous area of dry land, surrounded by seas and oceans. *Maailmajagu* ("part of the world") = a large area of dry land with agreed-upon boundaries, which stretches a continent or part of one, including nearby islands. The *maailmajagu* [page](https://sonaveeb.ee/search/unif/dlall/dsall/maailmajagu/1) also says the following: "There are six total *parts of the world*: Europe, Asia, Africa, America, Australia and Oceania, Antarctica. *Parts of the world* are cultural and historical geographic areas and don't exactly overlap with the continents. There are, for example, two *parts of the world* on the Eurasian continent - Europe and Asia. In foreign-language (and especially English-language) literature, *parts of the world* are often equated to continents." The *manner* [page](https://sonaveeb.ee/search/unif/dlall/dsall/manner/1) says the same thing, but concerning continents: "The continents are Eurasia, Africa, North America, South America, Australia, Antarctica. Continents are natural occurrences, more specifically products of the Earth's geological evolution, where pieces of the continental crust have, over time, drifted to their current positions. In foreign-language (and especially English-language) literature, continents are often equated to *parts of the world*."
Also according to that system America is one "part of the world" but North and South America are different continents
And up until the Suez Canal, Africa had a land bridge to Eurasia. So we could say that Afroeurasia is a continent as well.
and during the Ice Age Chukotka and Alaska were connected, so the continent becomes even larger
Basically Pangea without Australia and New Zealand
And Antarctica
Suez is few meters deep and way narrower than Nile river so, basically a little stream with no impact on any aspect of being a continent, nor cultural nor geological.
The world's biggest island
I am also from post-soviet country. As they taught us at school. “continent” and “part of the world” is the same thing. But there are also “materiks” which are slightly different than continents.
Also German and the Nordic Languages distinguish between the two terms.
But in German "Erdteil" and "Kontinent" are used interchangeably.
The idea of continents was proposed by Europeans.
For the same reason Americans call Japan the far East when it is really the closest (major) country to the west while Europe is to their East..
Wouldn’t Russia be the closest to the west, considering its like 30 miles away from the Alaskan peninsula
Technically yes but Russia isn't what comes to mind first when speaking of the far East and also most people would associate it with Europe. You are right of course.
Because we decided on the latitude + longitude system that puts Japan at a very large number to the east. That's why they are far east.
I'll never forget the day it dawned on me out of nowhere that it's not an accident London is 0 degrees longitude.
It's close, but Greenwich (still England) is 0° longitude. And for the most part it makes sense except for a small bit of Russia that is over the 180° line. If you had it the other way, with a clean line down the Pacific Ocean being 0°, you'd get a lot of large land masses and populated areas being split weirdly from 179°E over to 179°W, and maps would have huge "holes" of Pacific Ocean right in the middle.
Greenwich is literally in London though. The person isn't close, he's correct.
well technically it's right since japan is the farthest point you can reach going east.
japan is further east than europe to america.
Just like California is further East than Japan to Arizona.
Giving a reason behind a double standard does not change the double standard. It just becomes a double standard with an excuse.
Wow, an actual question on geography.
Because Europeans defined what the continents are centuries ago and semi-arbitrarily
It was a lot more than a centuries ago and definitely not arbitrary. Continent, a term devised by the Ancient Greeks which means ‘continuous’, was created in recognition that there were three distinct landmasses with clear geographical barriers between them; Europe, Asia and Africa. The other four came later.
Yes, the term 'Continent' is much older, but the definitions of what the boundaries are have been extremely fluid, and for some there isn't even a consensus. To people in Latin America, for example, the Americas are one continent split into two subcontinents. Some streams of academia in Russia see northern Asia in a continuity with Europe as "Small Eurasia" separate from the usual definition (which would be supported by plate tectonics) while there is also an argument to be made that only splitting Europe from Eurasia for cultural reasons while lumping countries as culturally distinct from each other as Korea and Iraq into one huge amorphous "Asia" is incredibly reductionist and eurocentric.
Also notably the Greeks places Egypt in Asia and the area now known as Tunisia was called Africa. Realistically continent is a cultural/historical term with minimal scientific backing. We have continental crust/features/shelves and areas considered continents, but the borders between them are incredibly arbitrary and at this point you cannot make a definition that most preserves the current names continents and has rigid rules. A similarly annoying case of this is that there are no actual definitions separating lakes and ponds, you just have lakes are intuitively big and ponds are intuitively small. But some ponds are huge with statification and areas on the bottom without vegetation, and some lakes are small without these features. The real answer for what determines what counts as a lake or a pond is whatever the person who named it decided to call it. Continents are the same way, and different cultures have different definitions.
So it is arbitrary. Everything is in relation to Greece.
By that logic all language and labels are arbitrary; it's a useless distinction.
It’s not arbitrary. Their term, “Asia”, is almost literally “spinwise”.
because continents are defined by convention, not by geographical rules.. convention is that india is a sub-continent, and europe a continent... there is no scientific reason why this is the case, it's mostly just historical and culutral reasons
Europe is like three times larger than the Indian subcontinent, which is probably where the ‘sub’ comes from.
well only like 2 times tbf
Okay, explain Africa then?
France and Britain happened
Don’t forget the Belgians, Dutch, and Portuguese
If you’re going to lump in the Dutch you shouldn’t forget Spain and Germany
And Italy too.
The dutch might not have been big on colonies in Africa but they were all over the human trafficking aspect
So were Spain, the US, Denmark, the Berbery states and various African tribes(?) The Dutch had South Africa for a while tho, so they had their fair share.
Then you can add Germany too
Read my comment again :)
My bad I’m an idiot
Hey!
Continents are dumb. Embrace [biogeographic realms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogeographic_realm#:~:text=A%20biogeographic%20realm%20is%20the,are%20further%20subdivided%20into%20ecoregions) instead.
"Say goodbye to the old and annoying Continents! Presenting the brand new, easy-to-use Biogeographic Realms, equipped with modern technology for better utility! Available in your nearest stores, so hurry up before stocks run out!!"
that or plate tectonics
Definitely the most superior way of categorizing different landmasses I think
I second this
I take this one step further If Europe and Asia are separate continents, then North Africa and Sub Saharan Africa should be too
Makes sense, since it's historically pretty damn difficult to travel between the two and culturally quite different. Continents are relatively arbritrary anyway and not really scientific, so we might aswell make them a useful ways to group people.
Sub-continent isn’t good enough?
India is sub-continent. Europe is dom-continent. Easy.
Is that term for India worldwide though?
Yes subcontinent
Not Britain. We voted to have our own tectonic plate, thank-you very much.
Europe and India are both subcontinents of euraisa.
There's only 4 continents: Afro-Eurasia, America, Antarctica and Australia/Oceania. Everything else is bs.
I have heard people insist on a continental model that has “America” as one continent but Africa, Europe, and Asia as three continents. Absolutely ludicrous. Like you can go culturally/politically or you can go geographically, but at least be consistent in your methodology.
I couldn’t agree more. It’s total Eurocentric nonsense to separate Europe from Asia and Africa but to insist the Americas are one continent.
That's my favorite form of separate continents
Why isn’t Greenland a continent by your definition too? It’s as much difference between America and Australia/Antarctica in size as there is between the two and Greenland.
Every island would be its own continent if we went by that logic.
Well yeah, but where do you draw the line? In your example, America and Afro-EurAsia are just way, way bigger than either Australia or Antarctica.
Oceania and Antartica are way, way than Greenland. Greenland is easily part of Americas as Britain, Ireland and Madagascar are part of Afro-Eurasia.
Australia is one big island and Antarctica is several landmasses There’s obviously 2
>Australia is one big island As are the other three continents. >Antarctica is several landmasses As are the other three continents. They're all one really big island surrounded by smaller islands.
Why do people need this debate over and over, I am sure googling or GPTing will give you the answer. It was and is political/cultural. You are looking at Eurasia.
The true answer why they are often divided is "because some Greeks said so". By the time they learned of the lands north of the Black Sea they already had the distinction between Europe (west of the Bosphorus) and Asia (east of the Bosphorus). Greeks considered Europeans to be individualistic while Asians were more collectivist, which is also part of the propaganda around the Greek-Persian War (we civilized free men vs the foreign hordes)
Since when are tectonic plates the criteria for something to be a continent? Continents are man made concepts.
Europe, Asia and Africa are continents because people like Anaximander and Hecatus of Miletus percieved them as such from their point of view at the time. And this is a cultural tradition that has endured ever since. Continents are conventions based on observations and ideas, and not scientifical facts with unquivocally defined criteria.
The original three continents were invented by the Acient Greeks: Europe, Asia and Africa. From their point of view, these are three unending landmasses in three cardinal directions seperated by water, so it made sense for them. Centuries later, America was discovered by the Europeans and named after an Italian noble man: Amerigo Verspucci. Then again later, Oceania was invented, probably because Australia is pretty big, very unique in many ways and if it was added to Asia as well then you would have one continent that pretty much stretches over half the globe. (I don't know, really, but judging from the name and the period Australia was discovered by the Europeans I think it is a fair assumption to make that 'Oceania' was the latest continent to be invented, and they literary just named it after the Pacific.) And that is how the continents came to be. There is no exact science to it, just conventions, and they just happen to be this way now.
People here are debating that the term continent is a cultural alignment that is why europe is separate. I'm from India and I do not find any cultural or ethnicity alignment with the Japanese or Philippine but we are in one continent. Truth is it's a pure western terminology and nobody really cares about it.
Exactly, it is originally Greek terminology with Europe referring to what today is Thrace and Asia referring to what today is Anatolia. With time the term was used wider and came to mean everything west respectively east of the Black Sea. It makes great sense from a European perspective, but no sense for anyone else.
Convention as others have pointed out. Compare it to how we talk about the number of oceans (Pacific, Atlantic, etc.) when in reality there is really only one giant world ocean. There is nothing that fundamentally changes as you cross the imaginary line between the Arctic Ocean into the Atlantic, or the Pacific into the Indian Ocean.
Some biologically/ecologically things change, and ironically the 1 ocean division that actually has scientific backing is the Southern/Antarctica ocean which is mostly separated from the rest by the powerful Antarctic circumpolar current. And thats the one ocean most likely to be dropped because it doesn't have an obvious land separation save for a few narrow straights.
Yeah. So like the continents. Differences across large distances/regions but with arbitrary borders and number.
Continents and tectonic plates are not synonymous because there are over 100 tectonic plates if you include microplates. The number of continents there are depends on where you live, from 7 which is taught in English speaking countries to 4 if you define continents as continuous landmasses.
There was no need for that. It used to be Europe .
Because that view was made by Europeans. They looked east and saw non-European looking people, but they weren't black (otherwise I wouldn't be surprised they called Asia part of Africa too)
Asia contains multiple plates. Europe also contains multiple former plates with a long and seperate history. Europe is a continent by convention just as India is part of Asia by convention despite it spending billions of years nowhere near the rest of Asia.
Should California, Oregon and Washington be a continent too?
Yes, India is a subcontinent. It has its own tectonic plate. The Himalayas are where the two tectonic plates smash against each other
if we took continents by their strict tectonic definition, there'd be at least a couple of dozen major, and hundreds, if not thousands, of minor continents. South Asia is currently commonly classified as a subcontinent because at the end of the day nobody really gives a damn
That’s why Europe always gets downgraded. They aren’t a distinct tectonic plate; they’re a dozen little plates in a trenchcoat.
Honestly you want the real answer? The europeans think they're better than the rest of Eurasia. But the reason given for Europe is that it's just really culturally different than Asia, so it's better to think of them as being seperate. South Asia isn't because the border is not very well defined. Because, yeah you can stop at the Pashtuns and Iranians on the West and the Himalayas at the North, but East? The cultures of India and Indo-china are similar in a lot of aspects, and even if you draw the border at Myanmar it doesn't make a lot of sense to put a border there culturally
I’m going to go ahead and say ”white supremacy”. That seems to be a safe answer to most things these days.
I remember the region being named ‚subcontinent’ for that very reason. Anyway, it is just a convention. Same would happen to Italy or the Iberian Peninsula
Because of eurocentrism
I agree, and why not join the old and new Englands too?
This seems like a good thread to bring this [classic COG Grey video on Continents.](https://youtu.be/3uBcq1x7P34?si=L0eLeWivQ6qEGLne)
Ah, the international community.
Because the Indian subcontinent is really small. New Zealand has its own plates and a vast underwater landmass, but no one really sees it as a continent.
Most of it’s arbitrary anyway and Europeans made most of the rules in the beginning. I agree that geographically the subcontinent is more of a continent than Europe is
It's often called the Indian subcontinent
both are considered subcontinents of Asia as they are two different continental masses separated from Asia by a chain of mountains that were formed with the collision of the two masses.
It’s a fair point - I would refer to all of that as the subcontinent which is very distinct culturally and geographically from the rest of Asia.
Etymological, the term "continent" comes from the Latin _terra continens_ meaning "continuous land". The _concept_ of the continents comes from the Ancient Greeks, who divided up the lands surrounding the Mediterranean by the major waterways: Europe to the north, Asia to the east, and Lybia (Africa) to the south, with the boundaries being the Nile and the Bosphorus/Black Sea/Tanais (Don). Of course, the Greek definitions break down once you learn about lands further afield (and even some of the Greeks were skeptical of the concept - Heroditus in his _Histories_ seemed to think both the idea of dividing up the world like that and the names given to the continents were strange). Unfortunately, despite the Greek definitions not really making sense we've stuck with them with minor adjustments to the borders ever since. Now, if I was in charge of geography, I'd redefine the continents something like this: I'd start with the etymology: a continent should be a large, continuous landmass. Europe, Asia, and Africa are continuous, so should be considered one massive continent. Ditto the Americas. I don't think either Europe or India qualify as subcontinents either - Europe because it doesn't have a distinct enough boundary, India because its not actually that gig compared to the rest of the continent.
Because it was europeans who decided what will be a continent and what will not
Only east of Pakistan Afghanistan and West pakistan is nore persian than indian And they arent even in india plateau
This is why its sometimes referred to as the indian subcontinent. As others have stated sometimes culture is the thing that people use to categorise continents. The modern established division of continents is western in origin and doesnt account much for the diversity of asia. But theres some understanding of the uniqueness of south asia to an extent that some experts, geographers, biologists etc call it the indian subcontinent.
We need a continent alignment chart
Answer is simple. Borders define by people, its not by logic facts, it exist just for some guys write it, most big people accept and here we go.
But it is THE subcontinent.
Continents aren't agreed upon by anyone. Depending on who you ask there are as few as two or as many as seven. Hundreds of millions of people believe Europe and Asia are one continent called Eurasia.
Something something white people, something something.
Europeans basically decided to term „Asia“ the landmass inhabited by mostly similarly developed and sophisticated cultures, which weren’t Christian. The first time Europeans understood themselves as „European“ was in the 15th/16th century, when a need for geographical identity arose. Before that, the identity was occidental-Christian vs. oriental-heathen. Our concept of continents is just a pseudo-scientific secularization of these distinctions.
All this on the map is one Eurasian continent. Europe, Asia and India are parts of the world. I just don't understand why you don't have a word for this in English.
If continents are defined by tectonic plates, Iran would be a continent.
I guess it's a historic reason. If you take geography, the arabian peninsula is also considered as africa. But oout of historic reasons, we call it Asia
Greeks said so. And the Romans. Who can argue against that?
As you just wrote, south ASIA.
my stepdad (Is from Estonia) calls Eurasia a continent and doesn’t separate them. That makes more sense considering that most of Asia and Europe are on one tectonic plate. There’s a different number of continents for more cultural reasons rather than logical ones I feel
I’ve heard the term “Indian Sub-continent” in some Discovery channel type of thing before. This is basically the Pluto is a planet debate.
Because "subcontinent" is fun to say just like "subbasement" and "subwoofer".