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.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,068,476 times
Reputation: 11862
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stumbler.
I've personally only heard the Indian subcontinent being called a subcontinent by convention (what examples of other subcontinents can you name off the top of your head? )
I'm not sure if there's a precise definition of a subcontinent (mostly seen it simply referring to a large, distinctive part of a continent, which doesn't really add much to the definition, because you still have the problem of defining a continent and then on top of that trying to find what are distinctive subsets of that continent). It'd be definitely an interesting idea and make people think perhaps a little differently if we starting using Eurasia as the standard name for the largest continent (it's mentioned already that some people use the term very often in Russia, and in many academic fields of study "Eurasia" already is commonly used too) and then divvy it up into subsets.
It's pretty much all cultural convention anyways. I'm not sure how many people are hung up on debating continent definitions, most are content to go with the convention they were taught in school (I personally haven't encountered that many people who personally care a lot, but I'm sure there are people who are quite vocal about it!).
So you're defining "Eastern" as underdeveloped. Not always the case.
No, of course not always, but we are talking modern times.
Quote:
I'm not aware of this aspect of Russian serfdom--that serfs could be bought and sold, killed, even. Normally under serfdom the serfs are only "sold" when the property on which they live changes hands.
This is one of the most notorious cases, ( but by all means not the only one)
As slavery was one of the causes of American civil war, the serfdom was one of the main reasons behind the revolt of some wealthy aristocrats against Tzar in Russia in 1825.
If they would have prevailed, the country would have had different history from that point on, and probably would have never turned to Communism out of desperation.
To be honest question is not understood, and then the Roman Catholics?
You've said that Protestant Church defined the culture of Western Europe, but Catholic Church was there first.
( Although I agree that when we are talking about "Western Europe" in political sense, we are talking most of all about Northern Europe, and its culture defined by Protestant Church of course.)
That's strange that officially I live in Europe, but I don't feel myself in Europe. The European policy and European lifestyle seem so far from my hometown. About Asia I can say the same thing...
The view that Europe is a continent is changing, though I don't know what they're teaching in schools. The term "Eurasia" is being used more often, though among Russia specialists it's sometimes used as a synonym for "Russia".
India's called a "subcontinent" possibly because geologically, it's not part of Europe, it actually was a separate continent at one time. I'm agreeable to demoting Europe to a "subcontinent", though, or a peninsula of Eurasia.
Exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
So you're defining "Eastern" as underdeveloped. Not always the case.
Exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyKarast
To answer the question of this topic, it is enough to examine the Coat of arms of Russia. This two-headed eagle, one head смортит to the West, the other to the East but is the very center of It, the West and the East and not the West and not East is its another
Exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stumbler.
It's pretty much all cultural convention anyways. I'm not sure how many people are hung up on debating continent definitions, most are content to go with the convention they were taught in school (I personally haven't encountered that many people who personally care a lot, but I'm sure there are people who are quite vocal about it!).
Exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentoo
Didn't the Roman Catholics play a role here?
Exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20
Exactly.
Exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bartonfly
That's strange that officially I live in Europe, but I don't feel myself in Europe. The European policy and European lifestyle seem so far from my hometown. About Asia I can say the same thing...
No, of course not always, but we are talking modern times.
By "not always" I meant that Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Korea and Singapore aren't underdeveloped. And parts of Latin America may be underdeveloped, but they're not "Eastern". So although I know what you mean, it isn't accurate to say underdevelopment = "Eastern". It's not fair to Japan, Taiwan, etc. Otherwise I'd tend to agree with you.
Thanks for the links, I'll take a look at them later. Interesting point about how Russian history may have turned out completely differently if the earlier revolt against the Tsar had been successful. That would be an interesting thread topic. We need a "Russia" sub-forum, because Russia doesn't fit in either the Europe or the Asia forums. It defies categorization.
That's strange that officially I live in Europe, but I don't feel myself in Europe. The European policy and European lifestyle seem so far from my hometown. About Asia I can say the same thing...
Exactly. Neither "here" nor "there", but somewhere in-between, or perhaps in its own alternate dimension. Which I happen to think is kind of cool. I mean, why should "The West" be the standard of ultimate achievement? For so long, The West, or more specifically, Amerika, were like these goals that Russia had to equal or surpass. Whether in standard of living, or steel production , or whatever. This is not necessarily a good thing, it can lead to a national inferiority complex. Why not, instead, embrace the uniqueness of Russia? One can still strive to improve, but by one's own measures, not by trying to imitate a different culture, not by trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole.
As soon as I wrote that, though, I wondered if this "uniqueness" might not be something Putin and others would use to justify the lack of democracy. That's a good subject for another thread, perhaps.
By "not always" I meant that Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Korea and Singapore aren't underdeveloped. And parts of Latin America may be underdeveloped, but they're not "Eastern".
No, but Japan wouldn't have been what it is today without Western involvement, so when I look at Hong-Kong on Wiki, it says right there;
Having its own legal system, Hong Kong Basic Law, which is formed based on the English common law,its own GDP and HDI, police force(still British-like), monetary systems (Hong Kong Dollars)
So former British colony, influenced by the West, all the same.
Overall I'd apply here a good French proverb "Cherchez la femme." The rule of a thumb - whenever you see "developed nations" in Asia or what's not, look for British/Western involvement and their interests.
If the area doesn't have any particular Western interest, it remains the regular underdeveloped country, be that Indonesia or Latin America.
Quote:
Thanks for the links, I'll take a look at them later. Interesting point about how Russian history may have turned out completely differently if the earlier revolt against the Tsar had been successful.
My bad by the way, it was a typo in one of my previous posts; the serfdom was abolished in Russia only in 1861, not 1825 of course.
1825 was the year of Decembrist's revolt.
Quote:
That would be an interesting thread topic. We need a "Russia" sub-forum, because Russia doesn't fit in either the Europe or the Asia forums. It defies categorization.
The way I see it - Russia doesn't really defies categorization. It's still clearly based on European culture, but shares a lot in common with other third world countries, not necessarily with Asia alone.
So Eastern Europe is a correct definition for Russia IMHO.
Are ethnic Russians (Русский народ) Easterners or Westerners? By what criteria would they be considered either one (or both)? Is Russia itself an Eastern or a Western country? Geographically, it's predominantly Asian. Does that make it Eastern? What about the worldview and traditions of the people as a factor? Are they different enough from the West European mindset to be considered quasi-Eastern?
Caucasian Russians are white. Part of Russia is in Asia and part is in Europe. Most Caucasian Russians who I know would define themselves as Europeans or Eastern Europeans although the country straddles two continents.
Obviously there are elements of both areas in Russia.
I don't know any Russians who would self identify as "Oriental" or "Asian", and yes; I am aware that "oriental" has to do with carpets and vases not people, and that "Asian" is a race.
I think if we consider Russian literature, that we would agree that it is not Eastern Literature, but European literature.
I have to say that it really does not make a world of difference.
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.
)
Are Russians Easterners or Westerners?
Exactly.
, or whatever. This is not necessarily a good thing, it can lead to a national inferiority complex. Why not, instead, embrace the uniqueness of Russia? One can still strive to improve, but by one's own measures, not by trying to imitate a different culture, not by trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole.
