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.
Does it really make sense to give Europe boundaries, when it is a cultural concept and not an actual continent?
IMO, what is and is not Europe actually shifts over the years depending on culture and politics. For example, Turkey is now part of Europe, but 100 years ago it was not.
The European portion of Turkey, encompasses 3% of the total area but is home to more than 10% of the total population. Istanbul is the largest city of Europe and Turkey. Turkish history is inseparable from Eurpean history. The Turks have been in Europe for the last 1,000 years. Even more so in modern history. Turkey is a member of every European organization, from Nato, the OECD, Customs Union etc.... but Turkey is a Middle-Eastern nation with traditionally Muslim values, which are not compatible with the European way of life.
Europe is obviously conceptual since its boundaries violate the geographic definition of a continent.
Being conceptual, its definition can be altered to encompass pretty much anything given the flexibilty of people's mindsets to accept what is and isn't 'Europe'.
Today Turkey, Tomorrow Greenland.
On the other hand, there is the cultural definition of Europe which takes in a suite of cultural and historical traits to define what is Europe: related languages, genetic relationships, religion, politics, etc.
Does it really make sense to give Europe boundaries, when it is a cultural concept and not an actual continent?
IMO, what is and is not Europe actually shifts over the years depending on culture and politics. For example, Turkey is now part of Europe, but 100 years ago it was not.
Thus, obviously, what "Europe" is dependent upon when you are talking about Europe.
Ditto something like "America." It's borders have changed often, its demographics frequently, etc.
And you could make various combinations of those by splitting up America again too. Maybe a hardcore geographer or someone might not consider Europe a continent, and probably with some good scientific reasoning, but I think Europe's history and culture is enough to define it as a separate continent. Isn't the main reason Americans percieve North and South America as separate continents due to a cultural divide? Lottsa other parts of the world teach that there's only one American continent.
And you could make various combinations of those by splitting up America again too. Maybe a hardcore geographer or someone might not consider Europe a continent, and probably with some good scientific reasoning, but I think Europe's history and culture is enough to define it as a separate continent. Isn't the main reason Americans percieve North and South America as separate continents due to a cultural divide? Lottsa other parts of the world teach that there's only one American continent.
No? If that were the case, how would we account for the inclusion of Latin American countries (more fitting in South America) as part of North America, such as Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama, etc.? I think it has more to do with physical geography and looking at the fact that a tiny isthmus is all that even remotely connects the two continents of North and South America and that they each have a very visibly distinct landmass. Europe and Asia? Where do you draw the line? And Africa? It's a lot more debatable in the Old World as to where the continents end and begin, or if they're even separate continents at all.
No? If that were the case, how would we account for the inclusion of Latin American countries (more fitting in South America) as part of North America, such as Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama, etc.? I think it has more to do with physical geography and looking at the fact that a tiny isthmus is all that even remotely connects the two continents of North and South America and that they each have a very visibly distinct landmass. Europe and Asia? Where do you draw the line? And Africa? It's a lot more debatable in the Old World as to where the continents end and begin, or if they're even separate continents at all.
Some people cut North America off at the Mexican border believe it or not. As dumb as that is, the whole concept of Central America is a lil weird. At what point does it split between North and South? Panama-Colombia? I bet some people might say the Panama canal, seeing as how that's an actual physical division. Anyway, alotta of the world outside the U.S. teaches it as one American continent.
Since there is no real definition, we really go by what makes the most sense to us. Africa and Asia are easy for me cause of Egypt and the Suez Canal. North America and South America are easy for me too cause of the distinct landmasses. Europe being a separate continent makes sense to alotta the world based on culture and history, and some loose boundaries like Istanbul and the Urals. That's good enough for me. Personally I prefer the seven continent model.
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.
