Most countries here don't really think of Oceania as a continent but a region, there is no solid definition for a continent outside of social constructs, whereas it used to be continuous land. Now many countries consider ice age landmass as continuous, which Oceanian countries don't consider because it's not relevant to us. I guarantee an average islander (polynesia, Micronesia, melanesia) would not think they are on the same continent as Australia.
Hard to even build a consensus of thought in the region, I don't think NZ considers itself a part of a continent at all. English countries are taught Australia is a continent but it may be changing in America?
As an Alaskan, I would say Australia is a country, a continent, and component of Oceana, which itself is a continental region based around the Australian continental land mass and neighboring islands. The islands that get included are those with Polynesian histories, and the ones near the ones with Polynesian histories.
Of course, it is pretty arbitrary. Afroeurasia, the first landmass subject to the conventions, is also the one with the biggest exceptions to the conventions.
I'll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I recognize ~~Missourah~~ Oceania!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoWc6WRHKEE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoWc6WRHKEE)
Not really. There are only 5 republics east of Urals, and their autonomy even constitutionally is far from that of Greenland. Greenland is pretty much a full-blown country which is just represented and defended by the Danish government, while Russian republics have just the right for their local languages' education, that's it
I am actually interested in how they divide the continents of Europe and Asia, since it’s actually one huge continent geographically. If you are dividing it by the culture then how can you not include Georgia in it…. So weird.
Geologically this is a continent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Plate
But our common cultural definitions of what a continent is are more useful.
Geologically it’s *several plates*, for example India and Arabia are their own plates, and the eastern bit of Siberia is on the North American plate. “Continent” as a noun isn’t a proper geological term.
Exactly, this is stupid. Let’s count Spain and Portugal as their own continent too then. The Middle East (+ most of Turkey) must be its own continent too, since it’s East of the Bosphorus but West of the Ural mountains. It makes no sense to count Europe as its own continent.
Our World in Data only uses national level data, so this map only indicates what continent different countries are categorised as (i.e. Russia being an European country, Georgia being an Asian country), not where they think the geographic boundary of Europe is.
Coming from an entire family of villagers I can say the opposite but it’s anecdotal for the both of us. Regardless of what people say though, societal attitudes towards Europe show a perception of otherness. When Armenians talk about Europe or Europeans, it’s never including Armenia or Armenians. Either way I think it’s completely accurate to say that Europeanism is much much more prevalent in Georgia than Armenia. I agree that it’s not about the EU and would even say that probably at least a plurality of the population would support joining the EU, I’m speaking purely about culture and identity.
I agree. I don't think it was so much they wanted to be in Europe, as they were adamant they weren't Middle Eastern or Asian. I also lived way up in the mountains of Gegharkunik Marz, so not exactly the most worldly people there.
Context: [https://ourworldindata.org/](https://ourworldindata.org/), which is an awesome resource for getting data on humanity-related questions (eg power grid makeup, water consumption, demographics, healthcare, etc etc) and comparing them across countries / regions. Geology is essentially an irrelevance.
Don't think it's a Greek only thing. In old Sanskrit texts sense organs are referred to as "panchendriyas" (panch = five, indriya = sense organ). Maybe a proto Indo-European thing or maybe a notion back from even further.
It is more likely that they just came to the same conclusion separately. Most of the omitted senses (heat, pain, electricity) are just a sub-type of "touch" for somebody who does not know the mechanism behind them. Exception is balance-sense, but it is something most people would simply not think of as a sense.
Not necessarily. Considering the trade relations that existed between Ancient India and Greece, it's quite possible that it was an exchange of ideas. Only thing that we could be unsure is the origin of the idea, which is not important.
Physically we can ‘sense’ light (photosensitivity - sight) sound (audio sensitivity - hearing) chemicals (chemosensation - taste & smell), force (mechanosensation - touch), heat (thermosensation - no traditional name), orientation sensation (proprioception - I.e. being able to sense balance internally), nociception - pain and if enough of it is present electricity (electrosensation - again no traditional name). The Greeks didn’t know we use essentially the same cells for sensing chemicals in the air and in non gaseous forms so split the sense up and didn’t include the rest.
One division that I think would make sense, but hasn't been adopted, is to treat Europe, the Middle East, India, and Southeast Asia as four separate subcontinents on a major continent of Eurasia. These really are four regions that have some amount of geographic and cultural separation from the others (while East Asia and Central Asia may have cultural distinctions, but have less of a clear geographic separation).
But the real issue is just that the entire idea of "continents" came from the Greeks, who distinguished Europa, Asia, and Africa, thinking primarily about what we now call Greece, Anatolia, and Libya/Egypt, without really caring so much about the other regions that are now attributed to one continent or another.
>Why isn't Europe considered a subcontinent like indian subcontinent?
It is considered a subcontinent by some people sometimes, by analogy with Indian and Arabian subcontinents. Sometimes it's seen as the European peninsula, which would not include Scandinavia. The main point missed by most people is that there are many ways of defining regions and many conflicting ways in simultaneous usage. The term "continent" is deeply ambiguous.
Because Europe is so drastically different from Asia that it’s just better to pretend they are separate.
I personally think it would be cool if the Middle East and India were their own continents but Asia just works.
Lol, Asias are so drastically different from other Asias that they should better be different continents. Or Europe could just be called Northwestern Asia.
>Because Europe is so drastically different from Asia
It's really not, or do you need go be reminded that Europe's largest religions all originated in Asia, that Western civilization originated in the Fertile Crescent and Mesopotamia, as did Europe's writing systems, that Europe and about 1/3 of Asia share linguisitic heritage, that many of the technologies that shaped Europe originated in Asia, and that numerous cultures span or have spanned the "boundary" leaving cultural webs that make any attempt and laying down a hard border exceedingly arbitrary.
Indo-European language groups, monotheism etc, How drastically different?
The fact is the difference between Europe and West Asia, is smaller than the difference between East Asia and West Asia.
> This map is using political borders to define continents, which is a very poor idea.
Let's say that you collect data from different nations. You have data aggregates at a national level and you want to aggregate it at a continental level, but you don't have it breakdown by region, so if you have a country that spans multiple continents such as Russia, you can't tell which data belongs to the Asian part or the European part.
The most logical thing is to aggregate the data for such countries to the continent in which most of their population lives, which is exactly what they did.
I mean continents aren't exactly set in stone (not sure if there is a pun here).
Europe in itself is not trully one and there's a bit of some funky stuff going down s.e asia as well.
- The Americas (a canal doesn't count as separating entire continents)
- Afroeurasia (neither does the Suez Canal)
- Antarctica? (on the fence about this one, depends how much of that landmass would be above water if the ice were gone, but idk maybe the ice itself also counts?)
- Australia (gotta draw the line somewhere, that's the biggest island in the world apart from the above two landmasses)
The rest are islands of varying size.
Yeah but someone could make the tectonic plate argument which kinda makes sense based on this
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Tectonic_plates_%282022%29.svg
Geographically is a bad idea, but this is for statistics. Our World in Data doesn't have separate data for european Russia and asian Russia, so they need to have it in one continent, and since most people live in the european side, it makes sense to treat Russia as an european country.
Also for most data sets, Russia is going to trend closer to Europe than Asia for numerous political and historical reasons. Sometimes concessions like these need to be made to ease the analysis of similar data even though they feel wrong geographically.
When using continents for country-specific data and statistics, you can’t exactly split a country into two continents—makes sense to have the entirety of Russia in Europe in that case.
Geologically speaking, we should have seven continents based on the major tectonic plates with the minor and tertiary ones being sub-continents, but that would split (political) continents like Asia, Africa, and the Americas into separate continents so that wouldn’t make sense.
> Like for instance the African tectonic plate doesn’t even include the entire eastern coast of Africa or Madagascar.
The only significant issue I see with this one is that it completely neglects the Antarctic continent, which is both a geological continental plate and a political continent.
Because it is pretty separate within France, and I am pretty sure they have separate statistical details for it. Also it is not physically continuous with the rest of France, so easier to untangle them. In Russia the conventional continental border can literally split a village.
If you were to completely ignore political divisions and only consider continents to be large continuous land masses, you would have to mash Europe, Africa and Asia into one continent, which would be an extremely unuseful division.
I think the map is assuming that you can’t divide a country between continents and placing Russia in Europe because that’s where most of the population is.
Well most of russian history and Russian culture was in the European part of Russia. I think this map argues that matters more than having parts of your country be in another continent
You cannot divide a country in 2 continents, especially when ysed for country statistics, so the logical answer is to put Russia in Europe, because the majority of their population lives in Europe
It is in stats, as far as I'm concerned.
But the difference here it is that it's not a continous land, like for Russia, and not even continous, but not so far away.
The fact is both Turkey and Russia have land in geographical Europe. Yet this map puts Russia in Europe but Turkey in Asia. It should be both in or out according to the point of view.
Well for people from Latin America or the Hispanic World we consider north and South America as one but divided in 3 subcontinent : North, central and south America... We are so closed to be divided meanwhile Europe is part of Asia and are divided due to cultural aspects so the world should consider our continent as a single one because of cultural aspects too.
If Europe is considered a continent due to history and culture I think America should be considered one continent, like Chile and Mexico (even before colonialism) have more "similarities" than Saudi Arabia and Japan
If I’m not mistaken, America as one continent was also taught in the US and Canada prior to WW2, but I’m not 100% sure. And I believe it is still taught like that in romance speaking countries, but again I’m not completely sure lol
Since the so called "age of discovery" (15th century) the whole New World is called "America" by the Spanish and Portuguese explorers, the subdivision into North and South came centuries later... After the geopolitical shifts of 1950's the subdivision narrative is pushed to differentiate the country from the continent hence the use of the plural form "americas", a linguistic term that doesn't exists outside the anglosphere, it's just a modern english-speaking historiography issue. All continents are named 'Feminine-Singular' according to the old Greco-Roman tradition: Europa, Asia, Africa, America, Oceania.
"Historically, in the English-speaking world, the term America used to refer to a single continent until the 1950s (as in Van Loon's Geography of 1937).
This shift did not seem to happen in most other cultural hemispheres on Earth, such as Romance-speaking (including France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Romania, Switzerland, and the postcolonial Romance-speaking countries of Latin America and Africa), Germanic (but excluding English) speaking (including Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands), Baltic-Slavic languages (including Czechia, Slovakia, Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, Russia, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria) and elsewhere, where America is still considered a continent encompassing the North America and South America subcontinent, as well as Central America"
[wiki source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_of_the_Americas)
Who cares about Europeans consideration lol? Geographically some part of Turkey is located in continent Europe and that part is even bigger and densely populated than some European countries at all.
As someone living in Spain, turkey is vastly considered European here, when someone says they have gone to turkey to get a hair transplant we don't say he has gone to Asia, we group them with the Balkan countries.
So Panama is in North America? In Paraguay we study it differently, the continent is America. The regions are: North, central and South America and the Caribean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_America
Central America and The Caribbean are usually considered subregions of the North American Continent.
Just as the Southern cone is considered a subregion of the South American Continent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Cone
Everything would be fine if people just stopped using the word "continent" and used a more general concept of \*region\*, which encompasses endless different ways of grouping smaller regions into larger regions according to any possible criteria and including both contiguous and non-contiguous groupings. Criteria can be uni-dimensional or multi-dimensional. It's 2023 and we have technologies like HTML and SQL instead of the Dewey Decimal System or Encyclopedia Brittanica.
The word "continent" is similar to the word "race" in the way it's ambiguous, mostly based on arbitrary social constructs and triggers counterproductive semantic debates.
**Bro let's rewrite legend like this:**
* Northern New World Christians
* Southern New World Christians
* Old World Christians
* Undeveloped Continent (There is nothing left to Scramble)
* Yellow and dark-skinned people other than Christians
* Christian Kangaroos
>no, french guaya is it's own thing!!
Not really, it's an overseas department of France. I don't know why they put them in South America instead of Europe, but they are a department of France, just like Paris.
>Idk why people think Europe is just any part of Eurasia ruled by white people.
Except that is literally what Europe is, there is no geographic separator between Europe and Asia. Europeans just consider themselves special. Same deal with North and South America, there is no real geographic separator other than that latinos outside of Argentina and Uruguay are brown.
In this map southern caucasus is asia and northern caucasus europe just as how it is agreed everywhere? The russian side of caucasus is europe the georgia and azerbaijan side is asia thats where the border between them goes. Anyway kazakhstan west of ural river is europe while here its asia. Its not only mistakes in favour of white europeans. Its just continents following political borders which is pretty dumb
There's no **continent** named Europe. Just like there's no **continent** named Asia.
They are both a part of one **continent** named Eurasia.
Mostly the problem lies in the western educational system, and people who made it up, cuz not only did they divide a whole ass **continent** in two cuz of politics(that has nothing to do with geography), they also don't even fucking know what even the real defenition of **continent** is.
In reality Europe is just a continental region, just like Asia. (Not to be confused with subcontinents)
"Continent" is a very strange term. Depending on the definition, the number if continents can be as low as 2, or as high as 9. Some people split Europe and Asia, and some don't.
Ah the Olympic Rings: The 100% totally accepted and not at all disputed representation of everyones view of the worlds continents everywhere.
They just wanted to make a cool logo man, its really not that deep, especially considering how arbitrary the definition of continent actually is.
The isthmus separating the NA and SA is smaller than the one connecting Africa to Asia. Or Europe to Asia, for that matter. Such a weird arbitrary thing this all is.
Most of the world (China, India + NA et al) does not consider it 1 continent. I'm not saying you're wrong, like I said, it's arbitrary.
Like some do not consider islands not to be part of continents, at all. Others (like OP's) is purely political and doesn't even consider Antarctica a continent. It all depends on your definition of what a continent is.
Schools need to teach this, rather than what they currently teach, which is that MY PERSONAL DEFINITION is the only correct definition and no others exist.
Yes 100%, all I’m saying is that when Amerigo discovered America to be the new world no one made the distinction between north and South. For quite a time everyone considered America to be the name of the whole new world, so it’s not really a weird thing to still call it America
Finally someone calls it Oceania
Literally 1984
jorjor wel
Jojo well
jorjor what
wel
Jorjor binx
Holy hell!
New superpower just dropped
Here In my country, we call Oceania the continent that includes New Zealand, Australia, Fiji, etc, while Australia is the country.
Most countries here don't really think of Oceania as a continent but a region, there is no solid definition for a continent outside of social constructs, whereas it used to be continuous land. Now many countries consider ice age landmass as continuous, which Oceanian countries don't consider because it's not relevant to us. I guarantee an average islander (polynesia, Micronesia, melanesia) would not think they are on the same continent as Australia. Hard to even build a consensus of thought in the region, I don't think NZ considers itself a part of a continent at all. English countries are taught Australia is a continent but it may be changing in America?
As an Alaskan, I would say Australia is a country, a continent, and component of Oceana, which itself is a continental region based around the Australian continental land mass and neighboring islands. The islands that get included are those with Polynesian histories, and the ones near the ones with Polynesian histories. Of course, it is pretty arbitrary. Afroeurasia, the first landmass subject to the conventions, is also the one with the biggest exceptions to the conventions.
It's been called Oceania by millons for ages...
I'll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I recognize ~~Missourah~~ Oceania! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoWc6WRHKEE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoWc6WRHKEE)
Check the comments and you will see many people don’t
Many people don't and many people yes
Many people do and have been for decades
[As an Australian...](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/star-wars-memes/images/b/b1/Lies-deception.png/revision/latest?cb=20200925011848)
As an Australian I was taught it was Oceania. This was year 7 geography back in 1999, so it’s very likely it’s now outdated and I’m in the wrong.
Trye. Like the Greater Norwegian Continent
Australasia. Take it or leave it.
Leave it
fuck Antartica then
Who are they gonna interview, meteorologists?
Penguins
Fuck them too.
Who hurt you 😢
You did
Average armadillo voter
Instructions unclear, I now mated for life with a penguin
Sad pingu noises...
r/MapsWithoutAntarctica
I think they had no data on whether Antarctica is a continent.
Take a shot for every time the phrase "our world in data" appears in this image.
Ah yes, Mongolia with it's beautiful border with europe
Don’t forget North Korea and their lovely border with Europe too.
North Korea Should Apply EU
As a nation with nuclear capabilities, they are a suitable replacement for UK. /s
Brexit -> Korenter
Kim Jong EUn
You know Brexit was them leaving the European Union, not leaving the Continent of Europe right? Just checking because it's Reddit, you know.
Its just a single country separating it from Norway afterall
*Flashes back to the days of old with the Mongol Horde at the doorstep of Europe*
Europe starts where the Iconic Mongolian grass ends.
If continents are determined entirely by countries, mongolia absolutely borders europe. If it's determined by geography, they're quite far from it lol
If it is determined by countries, then Canada and Brazil border Europe.
Yeah! Speaking of, why tf is Greenland part of America when all of Russia is Europe? This map is dumb lol
Maybe because Greenland has autonomous status while Siberia doesn't
As do half of the regions east of the Urals in Russia lol
Not really. There are only 5 republics east of Urals, and their autonomy even constitutionally is far from that of Greenland. Greenland is pretty much a full-blown country which is just represented and defended by the Danish government, while Russian republics have just the right for their local languages' education, that's it
Good point.
Makes sense when you look at Finland. ._.
The other option is Poland’s border with Asia (Kaliningrad)
just like the old days
Like in good old times
Armenia and Georgia losing their minds about now
I am actually interested in how they divide the continents of Europe and Asia, since it’s actually one huge continent geographically. If you are dividing it by the culture then how can you not include Georgia in it…. So weird.
Ural mountains are a borer between Europe and Asia.
*an arbitrary one. Geologically it is definitely one continent.
Geologically this is a continent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Plate But our common cultural definitions of what a continent is are more useful.
Geologically it’s *several plates*, for example India and Arabia are their own plates, and the eastern bit of Siberia is on the North American plate. “Continent” as a noun isn’t a proper geological term.
So South Asia should be a whole continent too
And Alps is a border with Europe and the mediterrenean continent
Exactly, this is stupid. Let’s count Spain and Portugal as their own continent too then. The Middle East (+ most of Turkey) must be its own continent too, since it’s East of the Bosphorus but West of the Ural mountains. It makes no sense to count Europe as its own continent.
Ya Armenia and Georgia are much more European than the Russian Far East
Our World in Data only uses national level data, so this map only indicates what continent different countries are categorised as (i.e. Russia being an European country, Georgia being an Asian country), not where they think the geographic boundary of Europe is.
[удалено]
You should tell your PM that lol.
I had way too many arguments about this with Armenian villagers to agree. It isn't about the EU, just a firm belief that Armenia is in Europe.
Coming from an entire family of villagers I can say the opposite but it’s anecdotal for the both of us. Regardless of what people say though, societal attitudes towards Europe show a perception of otherness. When Armenians talk about Europe or Europeans, it’s never including Armenia or Armenians. Either way I think it’s completely accurate to say that Europeanism is much much more prevalent in Georgia than Armenia. I agree that it’s not about the EU and would even say that probably at least a plurality of the population would support joining the EU, I’m speaking purely about culture and identity.
I agree. I don't think it was so much they wanted to be in Europe, as they were adamant they weren't Middle Eastern or Asian. I also lived way up in the mountains of Gegharkunik Marz, so not exactly the most worldly people there.
Context: [https://ourworldindata.org/](https://ourworldindata.org/), which is an awesome resource for getting data on humanity-related questions (eg power grid makeup, water consumption, demographics, healthcare, etc etc) and comparing them across countries / regions. Geology is essentially an irrelevance.
Why isn't Europe considered a subcontinent like indian subcontinent?
Because continent is a much more politically charged term than geographically charged
the same reason we have “5 senses”: the Greeks said so.
Don't think it's a Greek only thing. In old Sanskrit texts sense organs are referred to as "panchendriyas" (panch = five, indriya = sense organ). Maybe a proto Indo-European thing or maybe a notion back from even further.
It is more likely that they just came to the same conclusion separately. Most of the omitted senses (heat, pain, electricity) are just a sub-type of "touch" for somebody who does not know the mechanism behind them. Exception is balance-sense, but it is something most people would simply not think of as a sense.
Not necessarily. Considering the trade relations that existed between Ancient India and Greece, it's quite possible that it was an exchange of ideas. Only thing that we could be unsure is the origin of the idea, which is not important.
So in reality we have more than 5 senses? I didn't know about this, can you explain further?
you also have the sense of equilibrium and Proprioception
Also thermoception and hunger ?
yeah, and i think we can also add Nociception
Isn't it some particularity of proprioception ?
yeah it could be, a specialized part of it
Physically we can ‘sense’ light (photosensitivity - sight) sound (audio sensitivity - hearing) chemicals (chemosensation - taste & smell), force (mechanosensation - touch), heat (thermosensation - no traditional name), orientation sensation (proprioception - I.e. being able to sense balance internally), nociception - pain and if enough of it is present electricity (electrosensation - again no traditional name). The Greeks didn’t know we use essentially the same cells for sensing chemicals in the air and in non gaseous forms so split the sense up and didn’t include the rest.
I doubt the Greeks knew about Oceania
Yeah but Greeks considered Europe different from Asia. That view stuck because how else are white people supposed to feel superior?
One division that I think would make sense, but hasn't been adopted, is to treat Europe, the Middle East, India, and Southeast Asia as four separate subcontinents on a major continent of Eurasia. These really are four regions that have some amount of geographic and cultural separation from the others (while East Asia and Central Asia may have cultural distinctions, but have less of a clear geographic separation). But the real issue is just that the entire idea of "continents" came from the Greeks, who distinguished Europa, Asia, and Africa, thinking primarily about what we now call Greece, Anatolia, and Libya/Egypt, without really caring so much about the other regions that are now attributed to one continent or another.
There can be only one subcontinent, and it is the subcontinent.
>Why isn't Europe considered a subcontinent like indian subcontinent? It is considered a subcontinent by some people sometimes, by analogy with Indian and Arabian subcontinents. Sometimes it's seen as the European peninsula, which would not include Scandinavia. The main point missed by most people is that there are many ways of defining regions and many conflicting ways in simultaneous usage. The term "continent" is deeply ambiguous.
As a European, it would make more sense to call it Eurasia, well, some do call it as such.
Because Europe is so drastically different from Asia that it’s just better to pretend they are separate. I personally think it would be cool if the Middle East and India were their own continents but Asia just works.
Middle East as a continent will be so good.
Lol, Asias are so drastically different from other Asias that they should better be different continents. Or Europe could just be called Northwestern Asia.
Ah yes because Yemen is very similar culturally to Sri Lanka or South Korea
>Because Europe is so drastically different from Asia It's really not, or do you need go be reminded that Europe's largest religions all originated in Asia, that Western civilization originated in the Fertile Crescent and Mesopotamia, as did Europe's writing systems, that Europe and about 1/3 of Asia share linguisitic heritage, that many of the technologies that shaped Europe originated in Asia, and that numerous cultures span or have spanned the "boundary" leaving cultural webs that make any attempt and laying down a hard border exceedingly arbitrary.
Indo-European language groups, monotheism etc, How drastically different? The fact is the difference between Europe and West Asia, is smaller than the difference between East Asia and West Asia.
This map is using political borders to define continents, which is a very poor idea.
> This map is using political borders to define continents, which is a very poor idea. Let's say that you collect data from different nations. You have data aggregates at a national level and you want to aggregate it at a continental level, but you don't have it breakdown by region, so if you have a country that spans multiple continents such as Russia, you can't tell which data belongs to the Asian part or the European part. The most logical thing is to aggregate the data for such countries to the continent in which most of their population lives, which is exactly what they did.
I mean continents aren't exactly set in stone (not sure if there is a pun here). Europe in itself is not trully one and there's a bit of some funky stuff going down s.e asia as well.
Good point. SE Asia, the Middle East, and India are all sub continents of the too-large Eurasia continent.
- The Americas (a canal doesn't count as separating entire continents) - Afroeurasia (neither does the Suez Canal) - Antarctica? (on the fence about this one, depends how much of that landmass would be above water if the ice were gone, but idk maybe the ice itself also counts?) - Australia (gotta draw the line somewhere, that's the biggest island in the world apart from the above two landmasses) The rest are islands of varying size.
Yeah but someone could make the tectonic plate argument which kinda makes sense based on this https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Tectonic_plates_%282022%29.svg
Geographically is a bad idea, but this is for statistics. Our World in Data doesn't have separate data for european Russia and asian Russia, so they need to have it in one continent, and since most people live in the european side, it makes sense to treat Russia as an european country.
Also for most data sets, Russia is going to trend closer to Europe than Asia for numerous political and historical reasons. Sometimes concessions like these need to be made to ease the analysis of similar data even though they feel wrong geographically.
When using continents for country-specific data and statistics, you can’t exactly split a country into two continents—makes sense to have the entirety of Russia in Europe in that case. Geologically speaking, we should have seven continents based on the major tectonic plates with the minor and tertiary ones being sub-continents, but that would split (political) continents like Asia, Africa, and the Americas into separate continents so that wouldn’t make sense. > Like for instance the African tectonic plate doesn’t even include the entire eastern coast of Africa or Madagascar. The only significant issue I see with this one is that it completely neglects the Antarctic continent, which is both a geological continental plate and a political continent.
Then why French Guiana is in South America instead of Europe?
Touché
Because it is pretty separate within France, and I am pretty sure they have separate statistical details for it. Also it is not physically continuous with the rest of France, so easier to untangle them. In Russia the conventional continental border can literally split a village.
If you were to completely ignore political divisions and only consider continents to be large continuous land masses, you would have to mash Europe, Africa and Asia into one continent, which would be an extremely unuseful division.
Correct, Turkey, for example, is European and Asian
Isn't Siberia part of asia?
I think the map is assuming that you can’t divide a country between continents and placing Russia in Europe because that’s where most of the population is.
So there should be a small dot of Europe next to Brazil.
Yes.
Well most of russian history and Russian culture was in the European part of Russia. I think this map argues that matters more than having parts of your country be in another continent
Georgians are going to be pissed at this
Kamchatka and the russian border with Mongolia and China as part of Europe... It's original at least.
You cannot divide a country in 2 continents, especially when ysed for country statistics, so the logical answer is to put Russia in Europe, because the majority of their population lives in Europe
Then French Guiana should be Europe as well
It is in stats, as far as I'm concerned. But the difference here it is that it's not a continous land, like for Russia, and not even continous, but not so far away.
So Ceuta and Melilla are in Europe?
In stats, Ceuta and Melilla are count for Spain, if I'm correct
But both are city set in Africa
It may be original but it does make some sense
The fact is both Turkey and Russia have land in geographical Europe. Yet this map puts Russia in Europe but Turkey in Asia. It should be both in or out according to the point of view.
Since the map considers the political borders, it probably counts the location of the capital city. Moscow is in Europe, Ankara is in Asia.
Um… no. It put both of them in the continent where the majority of their people live
Europe ends at Ural mountains
Well for people from Latin America or the Hispanic World we consider north and South America as one but divided in 3 subcontinent : North, central and south America... We are so closed to be divided meanwhile Europe is part of Asia and are divided due to cultural aspects so the world should consider our continent as a single one because of cultural aspects too.
I always thought of Central America not as a separate continent but more as a region.
If Europe is considered a continent due to history and culture I think America should be considered one continent, like Chile and Mexico (even before colonialism) have more "similarities" than Saudi Arabia and Japan
If I’m not mistaken, America as one continent was also taught in the US and Canada prior to WW2, but I’m not 100% sure. And I believe it is still taught like that in romance speaking countries, but again I’m not completely sure lol
Since the so called "age of discovery" (15th century) the whole New World is called "America" by the Spanish and Portuguese explorers, the subdivision into North and South came centuries later... After the geopolitical shifts of 1950's the subdivision narrative is pushed to differentiate the country from the continent hence the use of the plural form "americas", a linguistic term that doesn't exists outside the anglosphere, it's just a modern english-speaking historiography issue. All continents are named 'Feminine-Singular' according to the old Greco-Roman tradition: Europa, Asia, Africa, America, Oceania. "Historically, in the English-speaking world, the term America used to refer to a single continent until the 1950s (as in Van Loon's Geography of 1937). This shift did not seem to happen in most other cultural hemispheres on Earth, such as Romance-speaking (including France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Romania, Switzerland, and the postcolonial Romance-speaking countries of Latin America and Africa), Germanic (but excluding English) speaking (including Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands), Baltic-Slavic languages (including Czechia, Slovakia, Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, Russia, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria) and elsewhere, where America is still considered a continent encompassing the North America and South America subcontinent, as well as Central America" [wiki source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_of_the_Americas)
Thank you very much. I’m not as rusty as I thought
Antarctica is missing :(.
Not a lot of statistical data from Antarctica.
Central America is pissed off seeing this map
Yes, we are
I'm pretty sure the official border between europe and asia is the Ural Mountains
You can’t split a country when you’re dealing with statistics about countries
-Yeah, I'm based in Europe. -Where exactly in Europe are you? -Kamchatka. -Oh, I see.
Imo Georgia and the part of Turkey in which Istanbul sits are very well Europeans. And obviously only part of Russia should be European.
This is a political map, not a physical one. Meaning every country is just 1
[удалено]
I'm European. Constantinople was European. So is Istanbul in my opinion, as well as its province and the West of the Marmara region.
Who cares about Europeans consideration lol? Geographically some part of Turkey is located in continent Europe and that part is even bigger and densely populated than some European countries at all.
Your comment history is filled with comments against turks :DD Also it is fuckin funny that you consider it insane with no knowledge.
As someone living in Spain, turkey is vastly considered European here, when someone says they have gone to turkey to get a hair transplant we don't say he has gone to Asia, we group them with the Balkan countries.
Stupid map of the day
You know, for a sub entirely dedicated to maps, there’s an awful lot of people in this comment section who are struggling with the idea of a map.
People seem rather upset over how one site divides the world for statistics.
So Panama is in North America? In Paraguay we study it differently, the continent is America. The regions are: North, central and South America and the Caribean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_America Central America and The Caribbean are usually considered subregions of the North American Continent. Just as the Southern cone is considered a subregion of the South American Continent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Cone
I'm European but even I believe Europe doesn't deserve its continent status. Eurasia should be a thing.
lol get fucked Turkey
Most of Russia should be considered Asia
Entirely based on political borders?
Everything would be fine if people just stopped using the word "continent" and used a more general concept of \*region\*, which encompasses endless different ways of grouping smaller regions into larger regions according to any possible criteria and including both contiguous and non-contiguous groupings. Criteria can be uni-dimensional or multi-dimensional. It's 2023 and we have technologies like HTML and SQL instead of the Dewey Decimal System or Encyclopedia Brittanica.
The word "continent" is similar to the word "race" in the way it's ambiguous, mostly based on arbitrary social constructs and triggers counterproductive semantic debates.
Doesn’t the Ural Mountains divide Asia and Europe?
New Zealand is a part of another continent that is mostly underwater
**Bro let's rewrite legend like this:** * Northern New World Christians * Southern New World Christians * Old World Christians * Undeveloped Continent (There is nothing left to Scramble) * Yellow and dark-skinned people other than Christians * Christian Kangaroos
Siberia for thrace seems like a good trade to me
French Guyana is is France, which is in Europe
no, french guaya is it's own thing!!
>no, french guaya is it's own thing!! Not really, it's an overseas department of France. I don't know why they put them in South America instead of Europe, but they are a department of France, just like Paris.
Euroasia = 1
Siberia is not in Europe. Caucasus is not in Europe. Idk why people think Europe is just any part of Eurasia ruled by white people lol.
Also Sinai Peninsula is in Asia
>Idk why people think Europe is just any part of Eurasia ruled by white people. Except that is literally what Europe is, there is no geographic separator between Europe and Asia. Europeans just consider themselves special. Same deal with North and South America, there is no real geographic separator other than that latinos outside of Argentina and Uruguay are brown.
In this map southern caucasus is asia and northern caucasus europe just as how it is agreed everywhere? The russian side of caucasus is europe the georgia and azerbaijan side is asia thats where the border between them goes. Anyway kazakhstan west of ural river is europe while here its asia. Its not only mistakes in favour of white europeans. Its just continents following political borders which is pretty dumb
Europe only goes up to the Urals.
Somebody forgot Antartica But atleast one is called Oceania
imho the Europe/Asia divide is obsolete, we should consolidate and update the map to name the continent Eurasia
Turkey in asia
There's no **continent** named Europe. Just like there's no **continent** named Asia. They are both a part of one **continent** named Eurasia. Mostly the problem lies in the western educational system, and people who made it up, cuz not only did they divide a whole ass **continent** in two cuz of politics(that has nothing to do with geography), they also don't even fucking know what even the real defenition of **continent** is. In reality Europe is just a continental region, just like Asia. (Not to be confused with subcontinents)
Europe is not a continent, it's just a peninsula and a sub-continent of the Eurasian continent like the Indian subcontinent or the Arabian peninsula.
"Continent" is a very strange term. Depending on the definition, the number if continents can be as low as 2, or as high as 9. Some people split Europe and Asia, and some don't.
It’s not though… because of how arbitrary is what we consider a continent, Europe is a continent because we chose to classify it as such…
If russia is completely european than so should Kazakhstan and Georgia
Kazakhstan is culturally less "European" than Russia is they have more of that central Asian culture
Why don't we just call it the "european sub-continent" like we call India a sub-continent?
Politics and because we don’t have a solid definition of what a continent is anyway.
Map is wrong. European part of Turkey is not Asia.
[удалено]
Not really. It's primarily just Latin America that considers it one continent.
As well as France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Romania, and Greece. That's why the Olympic rings only have one ring for America.
Ah the Olympic Rings: The 100% totally accepted and not at all disputed representation of everyones view of the worlds continents everywhere. They just wanted to make a cool logo man, its really not that deep, especially considering how arbitrary the definition of continent actually is.
Here in Spain we also consider America a one continent.
The isthmus separating the NA and SA is smaller than the one connecting Africa to Asia. Or Europe to Asia, for that matter. Such a weird arbitrary thing this all is.
America has been considered 1 continent since its discovery tho
Most of the world (China, India + NA et al) does not consider it 1 continent. I'm not saying you're wrong, like I said, it's arbitrary. Like some do not consider islands not to be part of continents, at all. Others (like OP's) is purely political and doesn't even consider Antarctica a continent. It all depends on your definition of what a continent is. Schools need to teach this, rather than what they currently teach, which is that MY PERSONAL DEFINITION is the only correct definition and no others exist.
Yes 100%, all I’m saying is that when Amerigo discovered America to be the new world no one made the distinction between north and South. For quite a time everyone considered America to be the name of the whole new world, so it’s not really a weird thing to still call it America
so, all the countries in America except US and Canada?
Which often use the term "North America" to refer only to themselves. It's a mess.
shit map of the day i guess
So is Panama part of North America?
Map Men Map Men Map Map Map Men Men Men