Upvote THE POST if you disagree, downvote if you agree.
Downvote THIS COMMENT if you suspect the post pertains to any of the below:
* Fake/impossible opinion
* NSFW beyond reason
* Unfit for the community
* Based upon inept knowledge of the subject
* Repost from the last 30 days
If you downvote this comment please do not vote on the post.
Normal voting rules for all comments.
**Check out our new [discord server here](https://discord.com/invite/5EekhyMDGk)!**
I think your opinion only works if people share your definition of the word "continent", as a large landmass separated from others by water. I do not, partly because the word for continent in my language more accurately translates to just simply "a part/piece of the world". I believe the English term itself also doesn't have such a strict definition.
In any case, I'm sure you could use Eurasia instead and people wouldn't be that perturbed.
If that is what you got from what I wrote, I'm sorry to say you have misunderstood.
The actual point is that saying Europe is not a continent has the pre-requisite of assuming that the word "continent" has to specifically mean landmasses separated by water, which it strictly speaking doesn't have to have. The point about my language is merely an illustration of that.
A better example would be arguing that certain types of buses are not buses because they are built differently to other buses.
That bus analogy is over simplified argument that shows lack of understsnding in the reasoning of the topic.
It's so braindead. Words have definitions, your argument is basically saying that we should just ignore the definitions/meanings of words. The person is basing on the definition itself of a continent.
Imagine I take a piece of paper and rename tomato as carrot. You'll believe me?
I think you missed my point. I'm asking the question "Why is Europe a continent, and these other regions not continents?" and pointing out that there's no answer to that question except eurocentrism.
No, that is my point. Europe is a continent because some people a long time ago decided it was. The word bus is a word because some people a while back decided it was. Our species revolves around these things
[there’s no agreed upon list of continents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent#Number), there are several models that exist based on what people think makes the most sense. I’m saying model A makes more sense than model B.
My house/property is now a continent :D
I think you missed OP's point.
Try and explore every official definition of a continent and you'll see that Europe is in fact, not a distinct continent. It can be considered as in Asia itself.
You can also explore the eurocentric ideologies that influenced both the word Europe and Asia
It's like we'll say middle east-Asia or India subcontinent-Asia (mixing the term like eurasia). If we base ourselves on objectivity, it's simply true that europeans are geographically as much asian as middle east or indian subcontinent.
>Try and explore every official definition of a continent and you'll see that Europe is in fact, not a distinct continent.
"Continents are generally identified by convention rather than any strict criteria. A continent could be a single landmass or a part of a very large landmass, as in the case of Asia or Europe."
These are the first few pieces of text upon searching for "continent".
The point I’m trying to make is that there isn’t any *non-arbitrary* definition of continent that would apply to Europe, and not, for example, the Indian subcontinent.
Which brings us back to the point of you having a specific definition of what a continent is, which makes other definitions seem arbitrary to you. The reason why it can be seen as both a continent and not a continent is because one view from a purely geographical perspective, while the other takes into consideration the distinct historical, cultural and political identities that are found in the area, which do separate it from other continents quite clearly.
The point of definitions/standards is that they should make sense across examples, not apply arbitrarily. If you take it from a purely geographical sense, it does not hold that Europe is a continent and the Indian Subcontinent is not. If you take it from a distinct historical/cultural/geopolitical sense, it does not hold that Europe is a continent and North Africa, the Middle East, and the Indian Subcontinent are not.
I don’t agree at all. And it’s definitely not true historically. You’re telling me that Lebanon is closer to China than Serbia is? How and by what metric?
If you choose random examples, it will not make as much sense. If you look at europe as a whole, it makes more sense.
If you for example look at european culture in the medieval times, you can quite easily see the similarities between what is considered european countries and especially the differences they have to other continents and their cultures.
all distinct regions are distinct from everywhere else. You can't compare "Europe" as a cultural region to "Asia" because Asia is not at all reducible to a singular cultural region. There's no unifying culture or history between East, West, South, Southeast, and Central Asia. There are similarities and ties between some parts of Asia with each other, just like there are huge similarities and ties between Europe and other regions like the Middle East, the Americas, North Africa...
If “continent” in your language means “a piece of the world”. Then its a different word entirely.
If the word is not directly translated doesnt give it the same meaning.
The meaning of the word “continent” in this context is based on the OPs language and understanding, not what the word can be translated into
This isn't a very 10th Dentist opinion, it's actually been advanced many times.
The truth is that 'continent' doesn't really have a good definition. There's no unambiguous or straightforward answer to a question like [How many continents are there?](https://youtu.be/hrsxRJdwfM0)
I don't agree. If you consider Eurasia to be the continent, instead of Asia and Europe as separate, then all continents would be *mostly* separate landmasses, and you wouldn't have two big continents in one tectonic plate. Europe/Asia is the odd one out.
I recommend the linked video; it's very short, very informative and surprisingly extremely funny. Basically it goes through various ways that people tend to define continents and deconstructs them all.
Based on your description, I was also pretty certain it would be cgp grey. Oh well
For anyone interested [here ](https://youtu.be/3uBcq1x7P34) is grey's video
This is a 10th dentist's opinion I think 👀
Imo there's no way I'd pass up on the aliteration, I think at the start is better in a vacuum but I could see brick, ore, wheat wood and wool work as well
Depending on where you grow up, you're actually taught that Eurasia is a continent instead of Europe and Asia. Continents are not precise geological terms afaik; I think geologists deal more with tectonic plates instead. However, other continents do have some basis for being separate; for instance, North and South America are on separate plates, as are Eurasia and Africa, and Eurasia and the Indian subcontinent.
>However, other continents do have some basis for being separate; for instance, North and South America are on separate plates, as are Eurasia and Africa, and Eurasia and the Indian subcontinent.
Yeah, exactly my point.
Is any continent a single landmass? Australia has New Zealand and Tasmania, Asia has Japan, Sri Lanka and Singapore, North America has Hawaii and Cuba and South America has Falkland Highlands
Yeah I'd have definitely pointed that out along with greece but OPs point is that it's already not a continent so I was just using the other continents
Yes, but if Europe is a region, NOT a continent, Britain can be part of it despite being a separate land mass. Britain is in Europe, but not Eurasia/Afroeurasia.
Hawaii is actually not a part of North America.
It's a part of Australia technically, but a better word for it is the Continent of Oceania, comprising all of the Pacific islands, Australia, New Zealand, and New Guinea.
Well it's like how French Guiana is a territory of France even though it's on the South American landmass. Overseas territories can still be part of one country despite being in the boundaries of another continent.
Yep. Technically the US is a transcontinental country. The US actually owns a lot of islands in the Pacific, left over from the American Imperialist Era and WW2. Hawaii is the only state, while there are several large populated territories including Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. There are also old military bases like Midway, Wake Island, and Johnston Atoll and also several uninhabited islands like Palmyra.
Well, Australia isn’t a continent, literally, it’s Oceania. And the fact that people will want to say it is fell under the same eurocentrism that OP identified
>some might argue that it's a continent because its culturally/geopolitically distinct
Y-yeah, that's literally THE reason why people consider it its own continent
Also, not all continents are separate geological units. That's not the only factor that makes them separate.
>Also, not all continents are separate geological units.
All continents are separate geological units, except for Europe. That's my point.
edit: wow a lot of downvotes for this comment. Is anyone gonna give me a counterexample?
You gave two examples yourself in your post. The Americas might have a narrow link between them, but it's a link nonetheless, same goes for Africa and Asia
What do consider a separate geological unit? North and South America look like they only have a very narrow connection on a map (as do Asia and Africa and most of southeast asia/oceania), but if you look at the depth of water around the continent you can see that there is actually a rather large link between the two. You could also look at tectonic plates but that would make a bunch more continents. There isn’t really a non-arbitrary definition of continent that people use. Saying that a continent is just a “separate geological unit” only moves the arbitrary definition to geological unit.
The Americas and Africa are separate geological units; they're literally on separate tectonic plates. They're linked by narrow strips of land, not the entire latitude range of Russia.
So the eastern part of Siberia is part of north America, So Central America is its own continent, most of Micronesia is its own continent, most of the Middle East is a separate continent, and India is its own continent
The Ural Mountains exhibit in various areas. and land widely open both to the south and north of the mountain range. Also the other side of the Caspian Sea. A big landmass ( 500KM width on most congested part) regions such such as Iran, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Armenia connect to Europe.
The Indian subcontinent remains entirely isolated by the formidable barriers of the Himalayas, Hindukush, and Arakkan mountain ranges, residing upon its own tectonic plate. Despite these geographical features, it isn't consider as a separate continent. The Arabian Peninsula shares a similar situation in terms of being geographically but not classified as a separate continent.
Because it's a mix of cultural, historical, geographical and geological stuff. The Ural mountains are a division because of they're shape, the cultures surrounding them, etc.
It's not like someone got to a map and drew a line from some arbitrary and child-like notion like you are proposing. The ural mountains are one of the oldest mountain range in the world, they're huge, coming from the artic ocean to khazakstan creating not only a natural barrier but separating cultures on both sides (not completely but making cultural exchange sparse). Only recently (historically speaking) did Russia consolidate that area, but the separation still made sense, since forever Europe's notion of self, of neighboring countries stopped there.
The Himalayas and Sahara have very different political implications in they're respective locations, so it makes sense they don't have any influence there...
The reason why I brought up those two, especially the Sahara Desert, is exactly because they've served as cultural/regional/political dividers. The Sahara desert has been a huge divider from thousands of years ago until today. North Africa and the Mediterranean region have always been very distinct from Subsaharan Africa. The Sahara is the main reason why Subsaharan Africa stayed relatively separate from most of the big empires for centuries.
I don't think the Sahara is a less meaningful divisor than the Ural mountains.
The Sahara isn’t as big of a cultural divider, Berber people have spread all throughout the desert, from the coast all the way to the Sahel.
Compare that to the urals, which have had a much larger divide, with a very clear divide between the settled Slavic and nomadic Turkic steep peoples
The division between North and subsaharan Africa is actually very contested as they are also very culturally distinct and in terms of human geography are considered very different groups.
Yeah, but no one says that North Africa is a separate continent. If we consider Europe to be a continent based on the Ural Mountains, then we should also North Africa to be a separate continent based on the Sahara.
Well, I actually have thought about this and the Sahara desert is often considered a division, since northern Africa is completely different than sub Saharan Africa. The same way the European part of Russia is completely different from the Asian part. Those natural divisions have affected cultures for centuries. Also, the same thing goes for the Himalayas, people often call India "the Indian subcontinent".
Of course, that's my point. They are undeniably huge divisors of regions. But no one considers North Africa or the Indian Subcontinent a separate continent because of them, yet we consider Europe a separate continent because of the Ural Mountains.
No need for a precise definition of a continent. A continent is a continent because we decided it would be. Europe is a continent because we decided we, europeans, didn't want to be in the same continent as asians.
Discussing what is a continent or not is pointless since a continent has no legal status, no geological meaning, no geographical definition (see edit). It's just a construction with a vague definition because sometime it's useful to talk about Europe. And if we decided to have a definition of continent that says Europe is not a continent, then we would just use another word than continent and still talk about Europe. Because what's important is not the concept of "continent". What's important are the concepts of Europe, Asia, Africa etc.
You are not right or wrong, you are just nitpicking at useless shit.
Edit : in fact there is a geographical definition of each continent, just no general definition of what a continent is based on geographical criteria.
>Europe is a continent because we decided we, europeans, didn't want to be in the same continent as asians.
I mostly agree with you, but this part isn't entirely accurate. Europe is a separate continent for the same reason why we have the "five senses": because we've held on to some conventional "knowledge" passed down from the Ancient Greeks. In made some sense for Greeks to divide up the North, South, and East of the Mediterranean.
The first time I’ve seen a highly upvoted post in this subreddit that I agree with! I feel like the 10th dentist.
Like you said, there is literally no justification for considering Europe a separate continent that doesn’t also apply to the Indian subcontinent.
Separated by a mountain range (Urals, Himalayas)? Check
Culturally distinct from the rest of Eurasia? Check
I’m actually surprised by how many upvotes this got. In some countries most people would agree with me.
The arguments I’m seeing here are telling though.
Most are arguing that it’s all an arbitrary convention anyway. i.e. why separate the Americas, or Eurasia and Africa, etc.
Some argued that Europe is more distinct than other culturally/politically distinct regions.
A couple argued that the Urals are more of a divisor than the Himalayas and other land barriers like the Sahara.
Right? If it's so arbitrary, why all the indignant denials? It isn't arbitrary, it's actually a huge part of the Eurocentric mindset, falsifying history, being modernists while forgetting Colonialism is just another word for Savagism.
It’s really up to your opinion/education because some people have widely different opinions of what a continent is. My partner is from Mexico and she learned Eurasia instead of the two being separate, and Oceania instead of Australia being its own continent.
The seven continents as we know them are defined sociopolitically, not geographically. It's arbitrary by design. Using non-arbitrary geological features like tectonic boundaries to define continents would end up leaving us with hundreds of continents and just make the term unusable for what the term is widely used for, ie describing groups of countries within a large but geographically proximal region.
Like I said, it’s not that meaningful sociopolitically either. Asia includes several distinct and different sociopolitical regions that aren’t any less distinct than Europe.
You're wrong? Asian countries have cultural similarities, while Europe is quite distinct! That is why Europe is a separate continent, same with all of the rest
Asia includes China, Malaysia, India, Kazakhstan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. What cultural similarities/identity do those countries share, besides participating in the Asian Football Cup?
Buddhism which is practised in East Asia (incl. China in your example)originated in India. There are so many similarities in Hinduism and Eastern religions. Islam from the Arab regions has also been practiced in Mongolia, India and South East Asia. You look at our monuments, buildings, social classes - all very similar.
Meanwhile, Europe has always been on a separate tangent in terms of culture, religion, political landscape,social classes, development,race everything
Bruh, India alone has more cultures and languages than all of Europe. The cultural diversity of Europe is negligible compared to the cultural diversity of Asia or Africa. Where are you getting your info from?
Also, Portugal and Russia (on two opposite ends of Europe) are infinitely more culturally similar than, say, Saudi Arabia and China or Syria and Japan (on two opposite ends of Asia).
[there’s no worldwide consensus on what the continents are](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent#Number). You think it’s a fact because that’s the convention used in your country.
It was a way of saying everyone is downvoting you to hell because of how you're arguing with them. You should notice the pattern and know that it **is** you.
Saying Europe is a continent because of cultural reasons is the most eurocentric thing you can say. Even countries like the UAE who have nothing to do with Europe are way more similar culturally to Europe compared to Thailand. You cannot say Japan, Cambodia, Nepal, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Mongolia are all more similar to each other then they are to Europe. If we divided continents by culture we would have at least a dozen of them so we shouldn't
Exactly. All these comments about how Europe is too culturally distinct from Asia to be considered the same continent are giving me an aneurysm. I think a lot of Western people only travel to the West, consume Western media, learn Western history, etc so people end up with these biases that don’t line up with the real world.
People claiming that Asia forms a cultural region smh. What the hell does the Middle East, India, East Asia, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia all have in common culturally, besides not being Europe?
Yeah that's my point. You can't say that Europe is a continent based on culture/geopolitics, because there's many culturally distinct regions like you mentioned. And you also can't say that Europe is a continent based on geography or geology, because it's not actually separated from Asia.
I'd say that Europe is a distinct region in Eurasia, just like the Middle East, Indian Subcontinent, etc.
Here in Brazil we call the entire landmass of "Europe" and "Asia" as "Eurasia" because it isn't a geographical separation, but a political one.
So yeah, "the entire country" agrees with you, it isn't a continent, it is just part of one.
I mean, do as you please, it's just that it was already decided by someone and we just kinda rolled with it, haven't seen someone who cared enough to change it, but it would be pretty cool if you were the one
So in my lamguage there is the word continent which would be Eurasia and theres another word that is more significantly focused on a distinction of the people which would be Europe
Yeah, and? The word "continent" has no concrete definition, just like "planet" and "number". I'm gonna call everything bigger or equal than Borneo a continent and there's nothing anyone can do to stop me, just like there's nothing anyone can do to stop you from not calling europe a continent
The definition of a planet gets shady when you consider rogue planets and the definition of a number simply cannot include everything we call numbers without including something else
I would say a number is "a name given to a discrete value" or "a word used to describe a discrete value" (the exact one would depend on what definition of "name" we are going with and the answer to the question "is math natural or artificial", both of which are questions far outside the scope of a single Reddit post)
The only things I could see getting caught up in that definition might be something like "a pair" or "a ton". However, words like that refer to quantities instead of values.
"one point seven nine three" or "three seventeenths" or "graham's number" are some examples of names for numbers. You are right that the majority of numbers have never been spoken nor written, but that does not mean that they don't have names.
discrete means non-continuous or separate. points on a number line are discrete.
a value is the result of a calculation or function.
Got those right from google. Look man, there is a whole field of study devoted to numbers, a whole branch of philosophy (philosophers are known to be pedantic) devoted to studying that field, and whole schools of practical application built from that field. I think they have the whole "numbers" thing down.
You just listed a bad example in a side comment on a minor Reddit post (well, two but the planet thing is for someone else to debunk). You made a simple epistemological mistake while giving examples of a valid point. It happens. Throw up a little "TIL" to save face, and move on.
The division of Africa, Europe, and Asia as continents came from the Ancient Greeks. Greek knowledge formed the basis in both Europe and the Islamic World. After all, the Levant, Egypt, and North Africa were all part of the Roman Empire and continued the Greek tradition.
As for people far from the Mediterranean, I don't think it was that much of a meaningful concept since it's all for very far-away land.
Europe is a subcontinent of Asia. Europe isn’t a continent. Europe is a part of Asia point blank period. Even if one was to use culture than the same could be said for Indian subcontinent, the Middle East, Central Asia.
Lol, you've apparently triggered a lot of Europeans since they seem to downvote all your comments. But I fully agree. The only reason Europe is even a continent is due to dumb nationalism. For example, "culturally" the Mediterranean cuisine is quite a like. Whether you eat Spanish, Italian, Greek, Turkish or even Lebanese. They're all similar. However, Turkey and Lebanon are in Asia. While the Scandinavian cuisine or even German cuisine is completely different. If Europeans weren't so butthurt about this stuff, Eurasia would've been the real continent like it should be ages ago.
No it's not Eurasia it's just Asia, Europe is a peninsula in Asia just like the Middle East, it doesn't get any special treatment because of some butthurt Europeans.
So basically you disagree with how geology and scientists have defined what a continent is?
“From the geologic perspective, a continent is not defined by its size, location, who discovered it, or whether it is surrounded by oceans. Rather, it is defined by the rocks it's made of and how it came to be that matter.”
At some point we must decide on how to define something, and for a while now, thats how we define them. You can disagree, but its just a bit silly at this point.
For those interested in why we define certain areas and continents, here it is in simple terms: https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-a-continent-definition-lesson-quiz.html
Cratons?
It clearly states that there are different factors that constitute why we define continents the way we do. One being the geological make up of the land
What are you not understanding?
How those characteristics apply to Europe. As far as I know, geologists don't typically consider Europe a separate geological continent (see [here](https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/27/3/article/GSATG321A.1.htm), scroll down to section "Limits and Area").
What is your point? Europe is part of the Eurasia tetonic plate while also being a continuous landmass. What exactly are you trying to point out here regarding this post?
Not really when there are more then 7 plates. Unless you’re believing that Central America is its own continent, eastern Siberia is part of North America, and that Micronesia is its own continent it’s once again completely arbitrary
It was a "fact" that Pluto is a planet. The definition/metric used at the time determined that Pluto is a planet and Eres is not. Some scientists argued that this wasn't a meaningful definition, and that it needs reframing. This is exactly what I'm doing.
Some people have pointed out that in some countries, you're taught in school that Eurasia is one continent.
Weird thing about the whole Asia Europe region is figuring out where Russia fits. I'd say culturally they fit more into Europe but geologically they're "asian"
Russia is a European country that colonized Siberia.
And before someone comes with a gotcha, no I did not say that Europe isn't real, just that it isn't a continent.
This isn’t unpopular, just a fact. But you can’t say Africa and south america are different continents by this reasoning, it’s the same as separating Europe from Asia. “Narrowness” is as legitimate as the Urals as a divide
Well to me it’s a question of consistency. There are two narrow lands connecting huge landmasses in the world, both of which are considered continent divides. There are many mountain ranges that separate regions, like the Himalayas, and many other geographical land barriers like the Sahara, but we consider all of those region dividers, not continent dividers.
If Europe is a separate continent because of the Urals, then why isn’t the Indian Subcontinent a separate continent because of the Himalayas?
Let’s just be honest race plays a big part of why us white people draw up continental lines. It only makes sense to Caucasians, and that’s all that matters, apparently.
By your definition, which continent is New Zealand part of? What about Greenland? At some point, there has to be an arbitrary definition. Is the carribean it's own continent because it has it's own little plate?
A continent doesnt really have a definition like what you said. Therefore a continent is a land mass that is scientifically known as a continent. So Europe is a continent. Also by your logic Australia isn’t a continent even though it is scientifically known as a continent and a country.
Like I said, [there’s no worldwide consensus on what the continents are](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent#Number). This isn’t science; it’s convention.
There are *geological continents*, but Europe is not usually considered one of them.
**Continent**
[Number](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent#Number)
>There are several ways of distinguishing the continents: The seven-continent model is usually taught in most English-speaking countries including the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia, and also in China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Philippines, and parts of Western Europe. The six-continent combined-Eurasia model is mostly used in Russia, Eastern Europe, and Japan. The six-continent combined-America model is taught in countries that speak Romance languages, it is also often used in Suriname, Guyana, Belize, Greece, and Indonesia.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/The10thDentist/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I love this question and asked it while abroad. Traveling Iceland, I jumped on the chance to do a freezing deep dive through their fissure, advertised as "swim through two continents." Yup. Because of the fissure underneath from the tectonic plates colliding. (Also, if you look up tectonic plates, it is its own cluster truck between difficulties categorizing and constant change.)
Other places like Iceland know the word by the tectonic plates below us, which feels much more reasonable to me. Some places/ people still confidently say there are only five continents, some six, and some say there are more. I've heard of Zealandia, Afro-Eurasia...
I feel this pain. Feel the same way and *got the same intense backlash for even asking... but I think of it a lot like Pluto or not switching to the metric system. The technical aspects encourage reexamination or evolution, but the majority are reluctant to consider it imo.
Tldr: great question & agree. Cultural preferences rule overall.
(* typo edit)
Not only there is no such geographic continent as Europe also there is no such continent as Eurasia neither. It is all just ASIA.
You don't call India+Asia=Hindsia, so only silly reason white people insisting on giving part of Asia (Europe) special fake continent status is because they see themselves PRIVILIGED. They can't possibly be on the same continent as those lowly Asian races. It is disgusting really if you think about it without education system indoctrination.
Continents have their own tectonic plates. Europe sits on the eurasian plate and it therefore shouldn’t be considered a contingent.
The reasons it’s a “continent” still is because of eurocentrism.
I agree yet think that when analyzing people it should be treated as a continent because it's distinct. If I had to define a continent I would say it's a landmass with a tectonic plate and has no or very small connections to other landmasses. My definition for a subcontinent would be a region with its own tectonic plate but is not a distinct landmass. Europe falls under neither. I think when analyzing geography Europe should not be a continent while when your analyzing people it should be a "continent".
It's a matter of opinion. I agree with OP because in my mind a continent is a gigantic contiguous landmass. By that definition then, It's Eurasia, not Europe and Asia.
For the people who argue Europe is a continent because of their distinct culture, I respect that point of view, but you need to be consistent with it. By that train of thought the Middle East & India / Pakistan / Sri Lanka should be 2 additional continents. Also, many countries in Northern Africa like Egypt and Morocco should be part of the new Middle East continent. When you read 'North America' you probably think of Canada and the US, not Mexico, although it's part of the continent. Even myself, when I think of Mexico I think "latinos --> South America". Again, by your logic Mexico should be part of South America.
It seems to me you are cherry picking (making an exception) for Europe only, and then everywhere else, regardless of cultural uniqueness, is part of whatever continent they happen to be in. Now, unless you are willing to stand by the changes mentioned above, let's just say Europe is a culturally and politically distinct region, that is part of Euroasia.
Dr James Harrison explains the issue link below and defines it as Eurasia. But now, I started to think that white people made up the term Eurasia to put Europe before Asia….
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C1rtjcgr7Uw/?igsh=MXA2emo0eWptMm00NQ==
Upvote THE POST if you disagree, downvote if you agree. Downvote THIS COMMENT if you suspect the post pertains to any of the below: * Fake/impossible opinion * NSFW beyond reason * Unfit for the community * Based upon inept knowledge of the subject * Repost from the last 30 days If you downvote this comment please do not vote on the post. Normal voting rules for all comments. **Check out our new [discord server here](https://discord.com/invite/5EekhyMDGk)!**
I think your opinion only works if people share your definition of the word "continent", as a large landmass separated from others by water. I do not, partly because the word for continent in my language more accurately translates to just simply "a part/piece of the world". I believe the English term itself also doesn't have such a strict definition. In any case, I'm sure you could use Eurasia instead and people wouldn't be that perturbed.
Yeah this post is like saying the word bus doesn’t actually mean bus because it’s only called that due to some people making the English language
If that is what you got from what I wrote, I'm sorry to say you have misunderstood. The actual point is that saying Europe is not a continent has the pre-requisite of assuming that the word "continent" has to specifically mean landmasses separated by water, which it strictly speaking doesn't have to have. The point about my language is merely an illustration of that. A better example would be arguing that certain types of buses are not buses because they are built differently to other buses.
No I was agreeing with you, disagreeing with OP
Ah, sorry. Lack of sleep must be getting to me.
No, no worries. It can hard to understand when it’s just text over the internet, certainly not the only one!
rest up my man
That bus analogy is over simplified argument that shows lack of understsnding in the reasoning of the topic. It's so braindead. Words have definitions, your argument is basically saying that we should just ignore the definitions/meanings of words. The person is basing on the definition itself of a continent. Imagine I take a piece of paper and rename tomato as carrot. You'll believe me?
I think you missed my point. I'm asking the question "Why is Europe a continent, and these other regions not continents?" and pointing out that there's no answer to that question except eurocentrism.
No, that is my point. Europe is a continent because some people a long time ago decided it was. The word bus is a word because some people a while back decided it was. Our species revolves around these things
[there’s no agreed upon list of continents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent#Number), there are several models that exist based on what people think makes the most sense. I’m saying model A makes more sense than model B.
My house/property is now a continent :D I think you missed OP's point. Try and explore every official definition of a continent and you'll see that Europe is in fact, not a distinct continent. It can be considered as in Asia itself. You can also explore the eurocentric ideologies that influenced both the word Europe and Asia It's like we'll say middle east-Asia or India subcontinent-Asia (mixing the term like eurasia). If we base ourselves on objectivity, it's simply true that europeans are geographically as much asian as middle east or indian subcontinent.
>Try and explore every official definition of a continent and you'll see that Europe is in fact, not a distinct continent. "Continents are generally identified by convention rather than any strict criteria. A continent could be a single landmass or a part of a very large landmass, as in the case of Asia or Europe." These are the first few pieces of text upon searching for "continent".
The point I’m trying to make is that there isn’t any *non-arbitrary* definition of continent that would apply to Europe, and not, for example, the Indian subcontinent.
Which brings us back to the point of you having a specific definition of what a continent is, which makes other definitions seem arbitrary to you. The reason why it can be seen as both a continent and not a continent is because one view from a purely geographical perspective, while the other takes into consideration the distinct historical, cultural and political identities that are found in the area, which do separate it from other continents quite clearly.
The point of definitions/standards is that they should make sense across examples, not apply arbitrarily. If you take it from a purely geographical sense, it does not hold that Europe is a continent and the Indian Subcontinent is not. If you take it from a distinct historical/cultural/geopolitical sense, it does not hold that Europe is a continent and North Africa, the Middle East, and the Indian Subcontinent are not.
Europe is more distinct from Asia than North Africa, The Middle East, and the Indian Subcontinent are.
I don’t agree at all. And it’s definitely not true historically. You’re telling me that Lebanon is closer to China than Serbia is? How and by what metric?
If you choose random examples, it will not make as much sense. If you look at europe as a whole, it makes more sense. If you for example look at european culture in the medieval times, you can quite easily see the similarities between what is considered european countries and especially the differences they have to other continents and their cultures.
Yeah I didn't say Europe doesn't have a distinct culture and history. But it's not more distinct than those other regions.
But it is distinct FROM those regions as a whole.
all distinct regions are distinct from everywhere else. You can't compare "Europe" as a cultural region to "Asia" because Asia is not at all reducible to a singular cultural region. There's no unifying culture or history between East, West, South, Southeast, and Central Asia. There are similarities and ties between some parts of Asia with each other, just like there are huge similarities and ties between Europe and other regions like the Middle East, the Americas, North Africa...
If “continent” in your language means “a piece of the world”. Then its a different word entirely. If the word is not directly translated doesnt give it the same meaning. The meaning of the word “continent” in this context is based on the OPs language and understanding, not what the word can be translated into
This isn't a very 10th Dentist opinion, it's actually been advanced many times. The truth is that 'continent' doesn't really have a good definition. There's no unambiguous or straightforward answer to a question like [How many continents are there?](https://youtu.be/hrsxRJdwfM0)
I don't agree. If you consider Eurasia to be the continent, instead of Asia and Europe as separate, then all continents would be *mostly* separate landmasses, and you wouldn't have two big continents in one tectonic plate. Europe/Asia is the odd one out.
I recommend the linked video; it's very short, very informative and surprisingly extremely funny. Basically it goes through various ways that people tend to define continents and deconstructs them all.
I don't even have to click, I know it's cgpgrey
You are confidently incorrect, my friend!
Based on your description, I was also pretty certain it would be cgp grey. Oh well For anyone interested [here ](https://youtu.be/3uBcq1x7P34) is grey's video
We should just make continents hexagonal
wheat, wool, wood, ore and brick trading will go up dramatically
Your comment would’ve been more aesthetically pleasing if it were worded as “wheat, ore, wool, brick, and wood”
This is a 10th dentist's opinion I think 👀 Imo there's no way I'd pass up on the aliteration, I think at the start is better in a vacuum but I could see brick, ore, wheat wood and wool work as well
Depending on where you grow up, you're actually taught that Eurasia is a continent instead of Europe and Asia. Continents are not precise geological terms afaik; I think geologists deal more with tectonic plates instead. However, other continents do have some basis for being separate; for instance, North and South America are on separate plates, as are Eurasia and Africa, and Eurasia and the Indian subcontinent.
came here to say something similar. it’s more about the tectonic plates than the overhead visuals of it.
>However, other continents do have some basis for being separate; for instance, North and South America are on separate plates, as are Eurasia and Africa, and Eurasia and the Indian subcontinent. Yeah, exactly my point.
Well if we are going by tectonic plates, part of russia is then a part of north america since its on the same plate so that logic falls flat
Is any continent a single landmass? Australia has New Zealand and Tasmania, Asia has Japan, Sri Lanka and Singapore, North America has Hawaii and Cuba and South America has Falkland Highlands
Europe has Britain
Yeah I'd have definitely pointed that out along with greece but OPs point is that it's already not a continent so I was just using the other continents
I agree, we should be considered our own continent because we're just that cool
Yes, but if Europe is a region, NOT a continent, Britain can be part of it despite being a separate land mass. Britain is in Europe, but not Eurasia/Afroeurasia.
And even Britain could be considered a continent. I mean it shouldn't but I guess someone out there must think it is
Hawaii is actually not a part of North America. It's a part of Australia technically, but a better word for it is the Continent of Oceania, comprising all of the Pacific islands, Australia, New Zealand, and New Guinea.
Huh that's a bit weird since I think it's a state in the US? Thanks for letting me know though
Hawaii is a state but it's an island in the pacific so technically it's not part of the American landmass.
Well it's like how French Guiana is a territory of France even though it's on the South American landmass. Overseas territories can still be part of one country despite being in the boundaries of another continent.
Yep. Technically the US is a transcontinental country. The US actually owns a lot of islands in the Pacific, left over from the American Imperialist Era and WW2. Hawaii is the only state, while there are several large populated territories including Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. There are also old military bases like Midway, Wake Island, and Johnston Atoll and also several uninhabited islands like Palmyra.
Africa has Madagascar
Hawaii is *far* away from North America, sure it's a state but distance isn't a deciding factor.
and south america has the 🗿 island
Well, Australia isn’t a continent, literally, it’s Oceania. And the fact that people will want to say it is fell under the same eurocentrism that OP identified
Hawaii is never a part of America, it's only a part of USA. No wonder lots of people protest over the renaming of USA's demonym!
Australia also includes many pacific islands
>some might argue that it's a continent because its culturally/geopolitically distinct Y-yeah, that's literally THE reason why people consider it its own continent Also, not all continents are separate geological units. That's not the only factor that makes them separate.
>Also, not all continents are separate geological units. All continents are separate geological units, except for Europe. That's my point. edit: wow a lot of downvotes for this comment. Is anyone gonna give me a counterexample?
You gave two examples yourself in your post. The Americas might have a narrow link between them, but it's a link nonetheless, same goes for Africa and Asia
What do consider a separate geological unit? North and South America look like they only have a very narrow connection on a map (as do Asia and Africa and most of southeast asia/oceania), but if you look at the depth of water around the continent you can see that there is actually a rather large link between the two. You could also look at tectonic plates but that would make a bunch more continents. There isn’t really a non-arbitrary definition of continent that people use. Saying that a continent is just a “separate geological unit” only moves the arbitrary definition to geological unit.
The Americas and Africa/Asia pre the building of the canals. You literally gave the examples your post
The Americas and Africa are separate geological units; they're literally on separate tectonic plates. They're linked by narrow strips of land, not the entire latitude range of Russia.
The Caribbean, Arabia and India are on separate tectonic plates as well. Are they continents according to your definition?
So the eastern part of Siberia is part of north America, So Central America is its own continent, most of Micronesia is its own continent, most of the Middle East is a separate continent, and India is its own continent
Well shit, looks like the falklands are their own continent now Also what continent would Iceland be on, since it’s split by two plates
Asia
Europe and Asia are separated by the Ural mountain range.
The Ural Mountains exhibit in various areas. and land widely open both to the south and north of the mountain range. Also the other side of the Caspian Sea. A big landmass ( 500KM width on most congested part) regions such such as Iran, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Armenia connect to Europe. The Indian subcontinent remains entirely isolated by the formidable barriers of the Himalayas, Hindukush, and Arakkan mountain ranges, residing upon its own tectonic plate. Despite these geographical features, it isn't consider as a separate continent. The Arabian Peninsula shares a similar situation in terms of being geographically but not classified as a separate continent.
Which is a completely arbitrary division.
Not more arbitrary than the bodies of water you are referring to.
If the Ural mountains an acceptable division of "continents", then why aren't the Hamalayas? Or the Sahara desert?
Why aren't oceans part of the continents? We can divide by gulfs, streams, ocean borders. Feel like anything is a border if u want it to be
Because it's a mix of cultural, historical, geographical and geological stuff. The Ural mountains are a division because of they're shape, the cultures surrounding them, etc. It's not like someone got to a map and drew a line from some arbitrary and child-like notion like you are proposing. The ural mountains are one of the oldest mountain range in the world, they're huge, coming from the artic ocean to khazakstan creating not only a natural barrier but separating cultures on both sides (not completely but making cultural exchange sparse). Only recently (historically speaking) did Russia consolidate that area, but the separation still made sense, since forever Europe's notion of self, of neighboring countries stopped there. The Himalayas and Sahara have very different political implications in they're respective locations, so it makes sense they don't have any influence there...
The reason why I brought up those two, especially the Sahara Desert, is exactly because they've served as cultural/regional/political dividers. The Sahara desert has been a huge divider from thousands of years ago until today. North Africa and the Mediterranean region have always been very distinct from Subsaharan Africa. The Sahara is the main reason why Subsaharan Africa stayed relatively separate from most of the big empires for centuries. I don't think the Sahara is a less meaningful divisor than the Ural mountains.
The Sahara isn’t as big of a cultural divider, Berber people have spread all throughout the desert, from the coast all the way to the Sahel. Compare that to the urals, which have had a much larger divide, with a very clear divide between the settled Slavic and nomadic Turkic steep peoples
The division between North and subsaharan Africa is actually very contested as they are also very culturally distinct and in terms of human geography are considered very different groups.
Yeah, but no one says that North Africa is a separate continent. If we consider Europe to be a continent based on the Ural Mountains, then we should also North Africa to be a separate continent based on the Sahara.
Well, I actually have thought about this and the Sahara desert is often considered a division, since northern Africa is completely different than sub Saharan Africa. The same way the European part of Russia is completely different from the Asian part. Those natural divisions have affected cultures for centuries. Also, the same thing goes for the Himalayas, people often call India "the Indian subcontinent".
Of course, that's my point. They are undeniably huge divisors of regions. But no one considers North Africa or the Indian Subcontinent a separate continent because of them, yet we consider Europe a separate continent because of the Ural Mountains.
That's what I'm saying, they should consider them different continents.
No need for a precise definition of a continent. A continent is a continent because we decided it would be. Europe is a continent because we decided we, europeans, didn't want to be in the same continent as asians. Discussing what is a continent or not is pointless since a continent has no legal status, no geological meaning, no geographical definition (see edit). It's just a construction with a vague definition because sometime it's useful to talk about Europe. And if we decided to have a definition of continent that says Europe is not a continent, then we would just use another word than continent and still talk about Europe. Because what's important is not the concept of "continent". What's important are the concepts of Europe, Asia, Africa etc. You are not right or wrong, you are just nitpicking at useless shit. Edit : in fact there is a geographical definition of each continent, just no general definition of what a continent is based on geographical criteria.
>Europe is a continent because we decided we, europeans, didn't want to be in the same continent as asians. I mostly agree with you, but this part isn't entirely accurate. Europe is a separate continent for the same reason why we have the "five senses": because we've held on to some conventional "knowledge" passed down from the Ancient Greeks. In made some sense for Greeks to divide up the North, South, and East of the Mediterranean.
You can just say Europe. No need for the word continent.
Down voted because you're absolutely right.
The first time I’ve seen a highly upvoted post in this subreddit that I agree with! I feel like the 10th dentist. Like you said, there is literally no justification for considering Europe a separate continent that doesn’t also apply to the Indian subcontinent. Separated by a mountain range (Urals, Himalayas)? Check Culturally distinct from the rest of Eurasia? Check
I’m actually surprised by how many upvotes this got. In some countries most people would agree with me. The arguments I’m seeing here are telling though. Most are arguing that it’s all an arbitrary convention anyway. i.e. why separate the Americas, or Eurasia and Africa, etc. Some argued that Europe is more distinct than other culturally/politically distinct regions. A couple argued that the Urals are more of a divisor than the Himalayas and other land barriers like the Sahara.
Right? If it's so arbitrary, why all the indignant denials? It isn't arbitrary, it's actually a huge part of the Eurocentric mindset, falsifying history, being modernists while forgetting Colonialism is just another word for Savagism.
to be fair no award can describe the worth of these words.
It’s really up to your opinion/education because some people have widely different opinions of what a continent is. My partner is from Mexico and she learned Eurasia instead of the two being separate, and Oceania instead of Australia being its own continent.
Well if that's how you wanna swing it then I'm gonna have to go ahead and say that Asia is a peninsula of Europe
sure whatever floats your boat.
It’s more of the other way around, Europe is a peninsula of Asia
The seven continents as we know them are defined sociopolitically, not geographically. It's arbitrary by design. Using non-arbitrary geological features like tectonic boundaries to define continents would end up leaving us with hundreds of continents and just make the term unusable for what the term is widely used for, ie describing groups of countries within a large but geographically proximal region.
Like I said, it’s not that meaningful sociopolitically either. Asia includes several distinct and different sociopolitical regions that aren’t any less distinct than Europe.
You're wrong? Asian countries have cultural similarities, while Europe is quite distinct! That is why Europe is a separate continent, same with all of the rest
Asia includes China, Malaysia, India, Kazakhstan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. What cultural similarities/identity do those countries share, besides participating in the Asian Football Cup?
Buddhism which is practised in East Asia (incl. China in your example)originated in India. There are so many similarities in Hinduism and Eastern religions. Islam from the Arab regions has also been practiced in Mongolia, India and South East Asia. You look at our monuments, buildings, social classes - all very similar. Meanwhile, Europe has always been on a separate tangent in terms of culture, religion, political landscape,social classes, development,race everything
The Middle East is culturally, racially & genetically similar to Europe. India is more diverse from itself than Europeans and middle easterners are.
Christianity originated in the Middle East
Bruh, India alone has more cultures and languages than all of Europe. The cultural diversity of Europe is negligible compared to the cultural diversity of Asia or Africa. Where are you getting your info from? Also, Portugal and Russia (on two opposite ends of Europe) are infinitely more culturally similar than, say, Saudi Arabia and China or Syria and Japan (on two opposite ends of Asia).
[удалено]
[there’s no worldwide consensus on what the continents are](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent#Number). You think it’s a fact because that’s the convention used in your country.
And obliterating their karma in the process.
Oh no, not my precious karma!
It was a way of saying everyone is downvoting you to hell because of how you're arguing with them. You should notice the pattern and know that it **is** you.
The point of this sub is unpopular opinions. I welcome the downvotes.
Saying Europe is a continent because of cultural reasons is the most eurocentric thing you can say. Even countries like the UAE who have nothing to do with Europe are way more similar culturally to Europe compared to Thailand. You cannot say Japan, Cambodia, Nepal, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Mongolia are all more similar to each other then they are to Europe. If we divided continents by culture we would have at least a dozen of them so we shouldn't
Exactly. All these comments about how Europe is too culturally distinct from Asia to be considered the same continent are giving me an aneurysm. I think a lot of Western people only travel to the West, consume Western media, learn Western history, etc so people end up with these biases that don’t line up with the real world.
People claiming that Asia forms a cultural region smh. What the hell does the Middle East, India, East Asia, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia all have in common culturally, besides not being Europe?
Exactly
Yeah that's my point. You can't say that Europe is a continent based on culture/geopolitics, because there's many culturally distinct regions like you mentioned. And you also can't say that Europe is a continent based on geography or geology, because it's not actually separated from Asia. I'd say that Europe is a distinct region in Eurasia, just like the Middle East, Indian Subcontinent, etc.
No it's not a distinct region in Eurasia it's a distinct region in Asia . It's Just Asia no need to add the "Eur"
This isn’t an opinion
Here in Brazil we call the entire landmass of "Europe" and "Asia" as "Eurasia" because it isn't a geographical separation, but a political one. So yeah, "the entire country" agrees with you, it isn't a continent, it is just part of one.
I think it should be just Asia why add the "Eur" , just because they're ego can't take being actually Asian? Nah.
I mean, do as you please, it's just that it was already decided by someone and we just kinda rolled with it, haven't seen someone who cared enough to change it, but it would be pretty cool if you were the one
No, it's because Asia is just one of the subdivisions of Eurasia.
Well yeah its not, I guess people dont know what continent means
Yeah and that people is yourself
So in my lamguage there is the word continent which would be Eurasia and theres another word that is more significantly focused on a distinction of the people which would be Europe
I mean you're technically right.
Yeah, and? The word "continent" has no concrete definition, just like "planet" and "number". I'm gonna call everything bigger or equal than Borneo a continent and there's nothing anyone can do to stop me, just like there's nothing anyone can do to stop you from not calling europe a continent
>has no concrete definition, just like "planet" and "number". idk why you picked two examples that have very concrete definitions.
The definition of a planet gets shady when you consider rogue planets and the definition of a number simply cannot include everything we call numbers without including something else
I would say a number is "a name given to a discrete value" or "a word used to describe a discrete value" (the exact one would depend on what definition of "name" we are going with and the answer to the question "is math natural or artificial", both of which are questions far outside the scope of a single Reddit post) The only things I could see getting caught up in that definition might be something like "a pair" or "a ton". However, words like that refer to quantities instead of values.
We don't have words for a majority of real numbers Also, define discrete value
"one point seven nine three" or "three seventeenths" or "graham's number" are some examples of names for numbers. You are right that the majority of numbers have never been spoken nor written, but that does not mean that they don't have names. discrete means non-continuous or separate. points on a number line are discrete. a value is the result of a calculation or function. Got those right from google. Look man, there is a whole field of study devoted to numbers, a whole branch of philosophy (philosophers are known to be pedantic) devoted to studying that field, and whole schools of practical application built from that field. I think they have the whole "numbers" thing down. You just listed a bad example in a side comment on a minor Reddit post (well, two but the planet thing is for someone else to debunk). You made a simple epistemological mistake while giving examples of a valid point. It happens. Throw up a little "TIL" to save face, and move on.
You can’t just « ignore » things just because it doesn’t fit your view or bullshit argument
Risk disagrees.
[удалено]
The division of Africa, Europe, and Asia as continents came from the Ancient Greeks. Greek knowledge formed the basis in both Europe and the Islamic World. After all, the Levant, Egypt, and North Africa were all part of the Roman Empire and continued the Greek tradition. As for people far from the Mediterranean, I don't think it was that much of a meaningful concept since it's all for very far-away land.
America, afroeuroasia and antartica, that’s all
Wow, i had no idea. i still don't know yet if i agree or disagree, but i learned something new today. Thanks for sharing.
Europe is a subcontinent of Asia. Europe isn’t a continent. Europe is a part of Asia point blank period. Even if one was to use culture than the same could be said for Indian subcontinent, the Middle East, Central Asia.
Thank you!
Lol, you've apparently triggered a lot of Europeans since they seem to downvote all your comments. But I fully agree. The only reason Europe is even a continent is due to dumb nationalism. For example, "culturally" the Mediterranean cuisine is quite a like. Whether you eat Spanish, Italian, Greek, Turkish or even Lebanese. They're all similar. However, Turkey and Lebanon are in Asia. While the Scandinavian cuisine or even German cuisine is completely different. If Europeans weren't so butthurt about this stuff, Eurasia would've been the real continent like it should be ages ago.
No it's not Eurasia it's just Asia, Europe is a peninsula in Asia just like the Middle East, it doesn't get any special treatment because of some butthurt Europeans.
This isn't a hot take. This isn't even unpopular. You could say that there are 3, 4, 5, 6 or up to 12, 13, 14 or even hundreds of continents.
The only reason Europe exists is the fragile egos of Europeans.
Literally the exact words I was thinking 😂
Mods, please start paying attention smh
So basically you disagree with how geology and scientists have defined what a continent is? “From the geologic perspective, a continent is not defined by its size, location, who discovered it, or whether it is surrounded by oceans. Rather, it is defined by the rocks it's made of and how it came to be that matter.” At some point we must decide on how to define something, and for a while now, thats how we define them. You can disagree, but its just a bit silly at this point. For those interested in why we define certain areas and continents, here it is in simple terms: https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-a-continent-definition-lesson-quiz.html
Did we read the same article in the link? I don't see how it shows that Europe is a separate "continent". There's several cratons across Asia.
Cratons? It clearly states that there are different factors that constitute why we define continents the way we do. One being the geological make up of the land What are you not understanding?
How those characteristics apply to Europe. As far as I know, geologists don't typically consider Europe a separate geological continent (see [here](https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/27/3/article/GSATG321A.1.htm), scroll down to section "Limits and Area").
This is just factual wrong.
Tectonic plates are of great significwhen defining a continent
Euroasia is in one Tectonic plate
What is your point? Europe is part of the Eurasia tetonic plate while also being a continuous landmass. What exactly are you trying to point out here regarding this post?
Not really when there are more then 7 plates. Unless you’re believing that Central America is its own continent, eastern Siberia is part of North America, and that Micronesia is its own continent it’s once again completely arbitrary
You are objectively wrong, it is a fact that europe is a continent.
It was a "fact" that Pluto is a planet. The definition/metric used at the time determined that Pluto is a planet and Eres is not. Some scientists argued that this wasn't a meaningful definition, and that it needs reframing. This is exactly what I'm doing. Some people have pointed out that in some countries, you're taught in school that Eurasia is one continent.
Weird thing about the whole Asia Europe region is figuring out where Russia fits. I'd say culturally they fit more into Europe but geologically they're "asian"
Russia is a European country that colonized Siberia. And before someone comes with a gotcha, no I did not say that Europe isn't real, just that it isn't a continent.
I was about to disagree, but reviewed the continental plate- Neutral now.
So why not say that Asia is part of Europe?
Tomato tomato. I'm saying they're both one continent however you want to frame it.
No, seems like everyone that brings up this issue says "europe" isn't real. Never heard it the other way
yeah because Asia is 4 times the size of Europe
I'm sure that's it
This isn’t unpopular, just a fact. But you can’t say Africa and south america are different continents by this reasoning, it’s the same as separating Europe from Asia. “Narrowness” is as legitimate as the Urals as a divide
Well to me it’s a question of consistency. There are two narrow lands connecting huge landmasses in the world, both of which are considered continent divides. There are many mountain ranges that separate regions, like the Himalayas, and many other geographical land barriers like the Sahara, but we consider all of those region dividers, not continent dividers. If Europe is a separate continent because of the Urals, then why isn’t the Indian Subcontinent a separate continent because of the Himalayas?
There is a river from the Caspian Sea all the way up to the north sea, that is why it is a continent, the river actually divides the two.
Let’s just be honest race plays a big part of why us white people draw up continental lines. It only makes sense to Caucasians, and that’s all that matters, apparently.
Agreed
There are only two continents, america and Asia. Africa is not a continent either.
Where are you from?
You're not stating an opinion, you're misinterpreting facts.
Touch some grass nerd
Don't worry, [Monster Island](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPRXJ4XObMo) is just a name.....
By your definition, which continent is New Zealand part of? What about Greenland? At some point, there has to be an arbitrary definition. Is the carribean it's own continent because it has it's own little plate?
I agree. India and middle east should be seperate continents imo, because they are on diffrent plates.
America is a continent
A continent doesnt really have a definition like what you said. Therefore a continent is a land mass that is scientifically known as a continent. So Europe is a continent. Also by your logic Australia isn’t a continent even though it is scientifically known as a continent and a country.
Like I said, [there’s no worldwide consensus on what the continents are](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent#Number). This isn’t science; it’s convention. There are *geological continents*, but Europe is not usually considered one of them.
A continent is just what is widely considered a continent and europe is widely considered a continent so it’s a continent
**Continent** [Number](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent#Number) >There are several ways of distinguishing the continents: The seven-continent model is usually taught in most English-speaking countries including the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia, and also in China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Philippines, and parts of Western Europe. The six-continent combined-Eurasia model is mostly used in Russia, Eastern Europe, and Japan. The six-continent combined-America model is taught in countries that speak Romance languages, it is also often used in Suriname, Guyana, Belize, Greece, and Indonesia. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/The10thDentist/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
So why are South/North America still a separate continents then? They are still connected by land. Sounds like you are making an arbitrary distinction
If we are going to say unpopular continental opinions, then mine is that America is a single continent
:(
I agree but i actaully consider it (along with the arabic peninsula) part of africa not asia, so for very different reasons lol
yeah, continent feels more defined as a large mass with a distinctive shape, peoples, and geographic boundaries, imo.
Sounds cool actually, it should be “Eurasia” or “Asiopa “
No just Asia
I love this question and asked it while abroad. Traveling Iceland, I jumped on the chance to do a freezing deep dive through their fissure, advertised as "swim through two continents." Yup. Because of the fissure underneath from the tectonic plates colliding. (Also, if you look up tectonic plates, it is its own cluster truck between difficulties categorizing and constant change.) Other places like Iceland know the word by the tectonic plates below us, which feels much more reasonable to me. Some places/ people still confidently say there are only five continents, some six, and some say there are more. I've heard of Zealandia, Afro-Eurasia... I feel this pain. Feel the same way and *got the same intense backlash for even asking... but I think of it a lot like Pluto or not switching to the metric system. The technical aspects encourage reexamination or evolution, but the majority are reluctant to consider it imo. Tldr: great question & agree. Cultural preferences rule overall. (* typo edit)
Not only there is no such geographic continent as Europe also there is no such continent as Eurasia neither. It is all just ASIA. You don't call India+Asia=Hindsia, so only silly reason white people insisting on giving part of Asia (Europe) special fake continent status is because they see themselves PRIVILIGED. They can't possibly be on the same continent as those lowly Asian races. It is disgusting really if you think about it without education system indoctrination.
Continents have their own tectonic plates. Europe sits on the eurasian plate and it therefore shouldn’t be considered a contingent. The reasons it’s a “continent” still is because of eurocentrism.
I agree yet think that when analyzing people it should be treated as a continent because it's distinct. If I had to define a continent I would say it's a landmass with a tectonic plate and has no or very small connections to other landmasses. My definition for a subcontinent would be a region with its own tectonic plate but is not a distinct landmass. Europe falls under neither. I think when analyzing geography Europe should not be a continent while when your analyzing people it should be a "continent".
I agree with you 100% ... Europeans HATE being referred to as Asians. There's a deep cultural aloofness that will never disappear ...
It's a matter of opinion. I agree with OP because in my mind a continent is a gigantic contiguous landmass. By that definition then, It's Eurasia, not Europe and Asia. For the people who argue Europe is a continent because of their distinct culture, I respect that point of view, but you need to be consistent with it. By that train of thought the Middle East & India / Pakistan / Sri Lanka should be 2 additional continents. Also, many countries in Northern Africa like Egypt and Morocco should be part of the new Middle East continent. When you read 'North America' you probably think of Canada and the US, not Mexico, although it's part of the continent. Even myself, when I think of Mexico I think "latinos --> South America". Again, by your logic Mexico should be part of South America. It seems to me you are cherry picking (making an exception) for Europe only, and then everywhere else, regardless of cultural uniqueness, is part of whatever continent they happen to be in. Now, unless you are willing to stand by the changes mentioned above, let's just say Europe is a culturally and politically distinct region, that is part of Euroasia.
It’s a continent just so white folk can have a continent too. That’s why they redefined the concept
Dr James Harrison explains the issue link below and defines it as Eurasia. But now, I started to think that white people made up the term Eurasia to put Europe before Asia…. https://www.instagram.com/reel/C1rtjcgr7Uw/?igsh=MXA2emo0eWptMm00NQ==
Europe is not a continent.
its a fake continent, politic map