Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Europe is often described as a 'continent' with boundaries. However, I object to this for this reason.
There's no justification for the Ural Mountains as a boundary between Europe and Asia. How is Novisibirsk any more 'Asian' than Perm, or Perm any more European than Novisibirsk? They seem pretty much the same to me, equally Russian. Many of the natives of so-called 'European Russia' have an Asiatic appearance, the Kalmyks of the Caspian shore even practice Tibetan Buddhism. The Urals are not a plate boundary either so there's no geological justification either for them being a boundary. They aren't even very tall mountains. Same points as 1 with the Caucasus mountains, except that those mountains are fairly tall. Still, they aren't a plate boundary nor a cultural watershed.
The fact of the matter is there's no geologic reason to consider Europe anything but a part of Asia. There's not a solid cultural reason either, since the Balkans have a lot of continuity with the Middle East and European Russia with Siberia.
I'd rather say that Europe is a region of the greater continent of Eurasia. Arabia and India have more claim to being continents than Europe does since at least they have their own tectonic plates. Europe would even include a tiny bit of Africa because of the Spanish outposts of Ceuta and Melila and also the Canary Islands.
Europe is the collection of countries that grew out of Greco-Roman-Christian antiquity I would say, though inclusion of Russia and Turkey in their entireties is optional.
well, yes, even within a single country there may be regions that are not all that similar, or some kind of ethnicity may live in one region that is split between multiple countries. its not all white or black you know.
Ural mountains are not very high, but they are a trans-continenetal "border" that everyone agrees upon. it probably has to do with tectonic plates, but I am hardly expert on this...
what you are arguing in your post is whether or not Russians or Turks belong to Europe in cultural sense. not so sure about Turks, but Russians are fairly European in more ways than one - cultural heritage (Orthodox Christianity they adopted from Byzantine Empire), Slavic ethnicity (if Russians aren't European, then how about Poles, Serbians, Ukrainians or Slovaks? where does one draw the line?), extensive historic ties. the fact that Russian czars colonized Siberian territories and Far East pretty much tells you the reason why Russian cities are the same on both sides of the Urals. but prior to 1600s Russia has been 100% European.
PS: Europe is part of Eurasian continent. does this make sense?
PPS: I just came back from Singapore. it sure looks hell of a lot more Western and more developed than majority of European cities. what do you suggest we call it ?
Last edited by pzrOrange; 07-24-2012 at 11:21 AM..
Europe is often described as a 'continent' with boundaries. However, I object to this for this reason.
There's no justification for the Ural Mountains as a boundary between Europe and Asia. How is Novisibirsk any more 'Asian' than Perm, or Perm any more European than Novisibirsk? They seem pretty much the same to me, equally Russian. Many of the natives of so-called 'European Russia' have an Asiatic appearance, the Kalmyks of the Caspian shore even practice Tibetan Buddhism. The Urals are not a plate boundary either so there's no geological justification either for them being a boundary. They aren't even very tall mountains. Same points as 1 with the Caucasus mountains, except that those mountains are fairly tall. Still, they aren't a plate boundary nor a cultural watershed.
The fact of the matter is there's no geologic reason to consider Europe anything but a part of Asia. There's not a solid cultural reason either, since the Balkans have a lot of continuity with the Middle East and European Russia with Siberia.
I'd rather say that Europe is a region of the greater continent of Eurasia. Arabia and India have more claim to being continents than Europe does since at least they have their own tectonic plates. Europe would even include a tiny bit of Africa because of the Spanish outposts of Ceuta and Melila and also the Canary Islands.
Europe is the collection of countries that grew out of Greco-Roman-Christian antiquity I would say, though inclusion of Russia and Turkey in their entireties is optional.
Location: Near Tours, France about 47°10'N 0°25'E
2,825 posts, read 5,264,432 times
Reputation: 1957
Well, technically Europe is not really a continent if we consider the purely geographical definition (it is not a landmass surrounded by waters). And the feature that separate it from Asia is quite arbitrary (a low and discontinous 'moutain' range).
That said Europe has been describe as a continent for centuries and it has been accepted a such.
But I agree that strictly speaking it is a just a loosely defined area (sine 'European' and 'asian' cultures are not following the ifficially defined borders of Europe. Europe is a clear concept For the westernmost parts, but as long as we go to the east it begins to be not so clear (Russia, caucasus countries, turkey, kasakstan, cyprus... part of Europe ? No easy answer.
I find it funny that Europe is it's own continent apart from Asia for cultural reasons, but then Asia itself has different cultural regions. Israel is nothing like Cambodia, yet they're still considered the same continent. Eurasia should have been split up into even more continents if they wanted to use the cultural excuse
I find it funny that Europe is it's own continent apart from Asia for cultural reasons, but then Asia itself has different cultural regions. Israel is nothing like Cambodia, yet they're still considered the same continent. Eurasia should have been split up into even more continents if they wanted to use the cultural excuse
Exactly! I would even say the Middle East has far more in common with Europe than it does with the Orient.
Europe is often described as a 'continent' with boundaries. However, I object to this for this reason.
There's no justification for the Ural Mountains as a boundary between Europe and Asia. How is Novisibirsk any more 'Asian' than Perm, or Perm any more European than Novisibirsk? They seem pretty much the same to me, equally Russian. Many of the natives of so-called 'European Russia' have an Asiatic appearance, the Kalmyks of the Caspian shore even practice Tibetan Buddhism. The Urals are not a plate boundary either so there's no geological justification either for them being a boundary. They aren't even very tall mountains. Same points as 1 with the Caucasus mountains, except that those mountains are fairly tall. Still, they aren't a plate boundary nor a cultural watershed.
1.Novosibirsk is not any more "Asian" than Perm, because both are Russian cities, on both sides of the Ural mountains.
2. Many "natives" of "European Russia" have Asiatic appearance, because people of Asian origin moved to European part of the country, but that doesn't mean that there was no original separation between Europe and Asia, and there was no original definition of Asians and Europeans.
3. Kalmyks from "Caspian Sea" are a group of people whose origin is in Asia - Siberia to be more exact.
Quote:
The fact of the matter is there's no geologic reason to consider Europe anything but a part of Asia. There's not a solid cultural reason either, since the Balkans have a lot of continuity with the Middle East and European Russia with Siberia.
Balkans have no "continuity" with Middle East - for couple of centuries they were under Turkish ( Islamic) dominance, and Turks originally are Asiatic people.
Quote:
I'd rather say that Europe is a region of the greater continent of Eurasia.
Read what Ruth said.
Quote:
Europe is the collection of countries that grew out of Greco-Roman-Christian antiquity I would say, though inclusion of Russia and Turkey in their entireties is optional
You don't know much history, do you?
Russia is automatically included in "Greco-Christian" antiquity ( which makes it "Eastern European," culturally,) instead of "Roman Christian" antiquity, which defines the Western Europe.)
Turks on another hand are ASIATIC people who accepted Islam and conquered European countries with "Greco-Christian" antiquity. So Turkish "entirety" in Europe is purely optional, if not to say imposed on Europe by the US.
I hope this clears your confusion on a subject.
Geographically, Europe is a peninsula, or actually a series of relatively tiny peninsulas and a few islands, off the extreme western edge of the Eurasian landmass, sandwiched between Africa and the Arctic, the Mediterranean Sea and the North/Baltic Seas. Take a globe or Google Earth or similar and turn it different ways, sideways, upside, etc., and view it from different perspectives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by french user
No easy answer.
In terms of human sociology, no easy answer, its fractal geometry, so to speak, defies an easy answer, any answer can only be politically skewed, depending on who asks the question and why, and who gives an answer and why, and both sides of the question will change given the circumstances and over time.
I.e.: A rose by any other name still smells the same.
Last edited by NomineMalum; 07-25-2012 at 04:17 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
?
