The UN say that "continent" can refer not only to a geographical continent, but it may also be defined on grounds of culture and politics, and Europe's culture and politics is undoubtedly different from Asia.

Or as someone else said "because they made the first textbooks"

rpg70 said: the English are there own people. They alone stood up to Hitler while the whole of europe rolled over like a good dog. Being an American and serving with a few of Englands boys back in 1991 overseas, i can tell you the English are just better people than europeans.

do you really know THAT little about WW2?

Kasz216 said: Samus Aran said: No, we call it 2 continents, but It's easier to just call it America. The reason why it's called a continent has nothing to do with science, but with conventions. I may hope so that the Middle east is closer in culture then China. We've ruled over them for ages if you didn't know :) Ps: India and the Middle east are in Asia. That's very much the point though. If your making continets because of culture... The middle east and India WOULDN'T be in Asia. They'd be part of europe. With Asia only being China and Korea. Europe as a continent is really a subconsiously racist definition when you talk about culture because of it. A continent made more for white people so they can point to Asia, the middle east and India as "others".

If it makes you feel better I don't see the Asian part of Russia as Asian. I see it as a place were almost no one lives and is just ruled by a European state.

 

The fact that we call it the middle east by the way is proof that we do consider it to have a very different culture then India and China. The reason as to why Europe is a country is mostly because of the Romans. And as you most likely know, they didn't have great knowledge of geography or geology(no one in that time). 

 

I never considered people from the middle east to be Asian anyway.

Lord Flashheart said: The UN say that "continent" can refer not only to a geographical continent, but it may also be defined on grounds of culture and politics, and Europe's culture and politics is undoubtedly different from Asia. Or as someone else said "because they made the first textbooks"

I've already rebutted that point twice in the thread as to why Europe ISN'T culturally distinct from asia... to which nobody has offered a proper reply. If you were to divide Asia and Europe into two continents by culture... the Middle East and Indian areas would in fact be part of "Europe". Due to those nations being closer to Europe culturally then asia. When people make the cultural arguement... what they really mean is "White people live here! Non white people live in Asia!" It's an artificat of past racism.

Kasz216 said: Final-Fan said: Kasz216 said: Final-Fan said: Kasz216 said: Seriously guys... Europe's not really a continent. It has less claim then India or the Middle East would geographically and they have really just as much geopolitically. Wait wait, how does Europe have LESS of a geographic claim?  Europe is part of the Eurasia tectonic plate. The Middle East and India each have their own tectonic plates. Hence why both are considered sub continents while Europe is nothing more then a pennisula... like florida. Well, as I understand it it's considered one plate simply because there is no activity to indicate conflict.  "Europe" was actually a separate plate that mashed into what became "Asia" at one point, just like if India ever stops ramming into the Himilayas it'll probably just be part of the same big mass.  (This is where the Ural mountain range came from.)  The Arabian plate may be a different story.  But also you said geographically, which isn't the same thing as geologically.  Not true. Plate tectonics are taken into account by geographers as well as geologists.

I presume by the unelaborated remark "not true" you're referring to your second sentence, which means you haven't even addressed my larger point. 

Also, "geography considers plate tectonics" isn't the same as "plate tectonics dictates geography". 

pizzahut451 said: rpg70 said: the English are there own people. They alone stood up to Hitler while the whole of europe rolled over like a good dog. Being an American and serving with a few of Englands boys back in 1991 overseas, i can tell you the English are just better people than europeans. do you really know THAT little about WW2?

Well... he is American. They haven't had an invasion for quite a while there (and probably won't for a long time, if ever), so I guess it's easier to ignore certain things.

 

Final-Fan said: Kasz216 said: Final-Fan said: Kasz216 said: Final-Fan said: Kasz216 said: Seriously guys... Europe's not really a continent. It has less claim then India or the Middle East would geographically and they have really just as much geopolitically. Wait wait, how does Europe have LESS of a geographic claim?  Europe is part of the Eurasia tectonic plate. The Middle East and India each have their own tectonic plates. Hence why both are considered sub continents while Europe is nothing more then a pennisula... like florida. Well, as I understand it it's considered one plate simply because there is no activity to indicate conflict.  "Europe" was actually a separate plate that mashed into what became "Asia" at one point, just like if India ever stops ramming into the Himilayas it'll probably just be part of the same big mass.  (This is where the Ural mountain range came from.)  The Arabian plate may be a different story.  But also you said geographically, which isn't the same thing as geologically.  Not true. Plate tectonics are taken into account by geographers as well as geologists. I presume by the unelaborated remark "not true" you're referring to your second sentence, which means you haven't even addressed my larger point.  Also, "geography considers plate tectonics" isn't the same as "plate tectonics dictates geography".

Ok, i'll put it another way. Plate tectonics dictates geography. As for the "larger point" It's irrelevent. If India ever becomes part of the eurasian tectonic plate... it would then lose it's sub continent status.

Kasz216 said: Lord Flashheart said: The UN say that "continent" can refer not only to a geographical continent, but it may also be defined on grounds of culture and politics, and Europe's culture and politics is undoubtedly different from Asia. Or as someone else said "because they made the first textbooks" I've already rebutted that point twice in the thread as to why Europe ISN'T culturally distinct from asia... to which nobody has offered a proper reply. If you were to divide Asia and Europe into two continents by culture... the Middle East and Indian areas would in fact be part of "Europe". Due to those nations being closer to Europe culturally then asia. When people make the cultural arguement... what they really mean is "White people live here! Non white people live in Asia!" It's an artificat of past racism.

I was using that to show there are differing ways to judge what is a continent than what you're offering. I don't know what your way to judge a continent is. If we were to judge it culterally then I would have India and the Middle east seperat to asia and europe.

Nice generalisation of what people mean by the way.

Not racist from you at all.

Kasz216 said: Lord Flashheart said: The UN say that "continent" can refer not only to a geographical continent, but it may also be defined on grounds of culture and politics, and Europe's culture and politics is undoubtedly different from Asia. Or as someone else said "because they made the first textbooks" I've already rebutted that point twice in the thread as to why Europe ISN'T culturally distinct from asia... to which nobody has offered a proper reply. If you were to divide Asia and Europe into two continents by culture... the Middle East and Indian areas would in fact be part of "Europe". Due to those nations being closer to Europe culturally then asia. When people make the cultural arguement... what they really mean is "White people live here! Non white people live in Asia!" It's an artificat of past racism.

Isn't it true that, although people often think of Asia as "entire Eurasian supercontinent minus Europe", if you actually ask them about it they'll consider India and the Middle East separate entites from "Asia"?  IMO that both supports your point and undercuts your position. 

At the very least wouldn't you agree that when you say "part of Europe" you mean that only if forced to choose between "it's Europe" and "it's Asia"?  BTW I think this whole culture argument is a big mess you might well be underestimating; well, the Middle East is probably closer to Europe, but India ... I dunno, it's pretty different from both IMO. 

Kasz216 said: Lord Flashheart said: The UN say that "continent" can refer not only to a geographical continent, but it may also be defined on grounds of culture and politics, and Europe's culture and politics is undoubtedly different from Asia. Or as someone else said "because they made the first textbooks" I've already rebutted that point twice in the thread as to why Europe ISN'T culturally distinct from asia... to which nobody has offered a proper reply. If you were to divide Asia and Europe into two continents by culture... the Middle East and Indian areas would in fact be part of "Europe". Due to those nations being closer to Europe culturally then asia. When people make the cultural arguement... what they really mean is "White people live here! Non white people live in Asia!" It's an artificat of past racism.

 

Europe is culturally closer to the middle east then the other way around. We've borrowed more stuff about them then they did about us.

 

I can understand Middle east, but why India? I've been there and they DO NOT resemble us in any way. 

And well Islam is a big reason as to why the middle east is not part of Europe. 

 

Ps: Persians were white by the way.