What is a Continent?

[Jmayer20]

The current definition of a Continent is a large land mass. This however is a very weak definition. Large is a relative term and land mass is just a area of land.

Under the current definition why is Greenland not considered a Continent? Why is Europe and Asia considered to be two separate Continents instead of one big Continent? (Some people have suggested that we combine the two and call it Eurasia.)

So my question is what do you think would be a better definition for a Continent? What do you think should define a Continent? If we discovered a new planet with Oceans how should we decide which land masses are Continents and which are not?

[Angry-Hatter]

Answer: How many do you want there to be?

[Jmayer20]

Your video did not answer the question. If anything all it did was better state the problems with the current definition of a Continent. The tectonic plate idea sounded pretty good. That would make there be 13 Continents is the World.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 5/14/13 05:13 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: Your video did not answer the question.

It did, actually. There is no way to find a consistent definition of what makes up a continent that isn't contradictory or redundant in some way. A "continent" is whatever you want it to be.

[HibiscusMallow]

There is no strict definition, just use common sense.

Eurasia
Africa
North America
South America
Malay Archipelago + Australasia

[Fisplen]

What the things needed to have the status as a continent In my view are a number of things , such as having its own and interconnected history and culture , it's only been within the last 100 years or so , and espacially with the rise of the Internet that the world has become interconnected as such , If You notice each continent has its own unique history up to a point , after the 19th Century and the rise of the British Empire on places such as Africa this blurred the line a little bit.
Anyway what I define a continent is as such...

1. It must have it's own unique and special culture and history.
2. It must have multiple country's.
3. It must be Atleast bigger than Greenland.

Although for the first 2 Antartica fails , well Antartica is unique in the sense that its the only continent that DOSEN't have a history and DOSEN'T have any cultural heritage , it's a unique and special place and to be honest I don't think we should
be placing settlements and messing around with it in the future , IMO it's the most beatiful place in Earth and peaceful.

Anyway that concludeds my message.

[Lumber-Jax12]

No a Continent is just that a large mass of land, and it's not relative because all you need to do to define one is to establish borders.

For example, you could never call Texas a continent because to the south is Mexico to the West and North is America, It doesn't stand alone.

I mean look at Africa with the exception of the middle east, and again even that is a small amount of distance, the Sinai that is, it might as well be an island sure it would be pretty damn close to Europe but an Island none the less.

Now same for North and South America they're so large a landmass but only connected by such a small isthmus, Panama, that you can't truly call them a single land piece, hell give it 200 years and they might be separate entirely.

Now Antarctica and Australia while smaller are certainly large enough and separate enough from other landforms to be continents.

Myself, personally I consider Europe and Asia to be one, but since cultural ties separate the two that would never happen.

I couldn't tell you about islands, though, especially those in the Pacific, I'd say they're just independent of a Continent all together.

[Warforger]

At 5/14/13 08:04 PM, Profanity wrote: Europe and Asia are separated by the Ural Mountains and somewhat the Himalayans.

The Himilaya's separate India and China, the Urals and the Caucusus mountains are what border Europe and Asia. The actual continent borders are largely arbiitrary, what exactly puts a Jewish man and a Turkish man on the same continent as a Japanese or Indonesian man is beyond me. Or at least why Europe is arbitrarily separated is beyond me.

[Camarohusky]

I wouldn't call it arbitrary, but I would call it heavily antiquated.

The Americas, Africa, Oceania and Antarctica are pretty geographically sound. The Europe-Asia divide is very logical...

... If you were living in the 19th Century.

The rationale for Europe and Asia being separated is partially geographical (with the black Sea, Caucasus, Caspian, and Urals) and partially cultural. It separates out the white and civilized Euorpean world of the 19th Century (Western Europe, Baltic, and The settled parts of Russia) from the exotic worlds of the East. Now we could seaprate Asia into three cultural continents: Arab/Turkish areas of Central Asia and the Middle East, South Asia, and East and SE asia. But back then all of the exotic part of the world were considered one and the same (not specifically, but in a zeitgeist sort of way).

Geographically, Asia could be two continents: West (eveything from Europe to the Himilayas and north), and East.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

large individual landmasses by means of tectonic plates.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 5/14/13 10:20 PM, Profanity wrote:

At 5/14/13 10:03 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: large individual landmasses by means of tectonic plates.

Do you post just to remind us all how stupid you are?

A continent is one of several very large landmasses on Earth. In geology, continents are described by means of tectonic plates

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 5/14/13 10:28 PM, Profanity wrote: The theory of tectonic plates arose long after the continents were described.

of course

Europe and Asia are considered separate continents though they are on one plate.

The modern border between Asia and Europe remains a historical and cultural construct, defined only by convention.

India is considered to be part of Asia, though it's a separate tectonic plate.

india is part of asia (I guess from what scientist say) is because collision and division of continents, known as continental drift.

[Warforger]

At 5/14/13 09:39 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I wouldn't call it arbitrary, but I would call it heavily antiquated.

The Americas, Africa, Oceania and Antarctica are pretty geographically sound. The Europe-Asia divide is very logical...

... If you were living in the 19th Century.

The rationale for Europe and Asia being separated is partially geographical (with the black Sea, Caucasus, Caspian, and Urals) and partially cultural. It separates out the white and civilized Euorpean world of the 19th Century (Western Europe, Baltic, and The settled parts of Russia) from the exotic worlds of the East. Now we could seaprate Asia into three cultural continents: Arab/Turkish areas of Central Asia and the Middle East, South Asia, and East and SE asia. But back then all of the exotic part of the world were considered one and the same (not specifically, but in a zeitgeist sort of way).

The problem here is the influence of Turkic and Mongol people's on Eastern Europe, well Europe in general. The language we're speaking is part of the Indo-European language family, which originates in Central Asia and streches from Bangladesh to Britain (I'm just excluding English outside of England for now). Hungary for example gets its name from the Huns, which came from Central Asia and would also go on to fight the Chinese as well as the Romans. They call themselves Magyar and speak a Uralic language, which originated in the Ural mountains. Bulgaria is named after the Bulgar Turks, which were a Turkic tribe which migrated from Central Asia. Thus there was alot of influence and interaction between Central Asian Cultures and Eastern Europe. On top of this there is the issue of including Armenians, Chechens, Georgians and Azeri's as Europeans or not. Which is interesting because when you used the Ural Mountains as the divider between Europe and Asia, Kazakhstan is then part of Europe. Thus it's hard to tell if what you're saying is true if the Ural Mountains are an accurate delineation.

[orangebomb]

The way I think of continent is a large land mass, and how they draw it up is completely subjective. {at least with Europe, Asia, and Oceania} The general rule of thumb is there has to be some sort of waterway between the continents, such as the Suez Canal between Africa and Asia, Panama Canal between North and South America, and so on.

Now with Europe and Asia is where it gets a little tricky. Personally, I view them as separate continents, because their cultures are far different from each other and there are bodies of water that do separate them to a small extent, and because Russia is so large, it can pass off as both European and Asian. Speaking of which, Asia is a huge continent that has totally different cultures and boundaries because of it's large size as a continent, it's better off to break them into two pieces, the Middle East and Central Asia {Afghanistan, Pakistan and maybe India} and the rest.

Aside from sharing the same continent, the Japanese certainly has little in common with Iraqis, and similarly with Israelis and the Vietnamese. You would think that someone would've notice this in the last thousand years or so, but just didn't bother or care.

[Lumber-Jax12]

No offense but culture has no role in defining a continent sure I completely understand where you guys are coming from and I agree Europe and Asia should be one.

Which is why it's stupid to only further the separation of landmasses solely by culture. If tomorrow North America was divided into distinct different areas of the country where only certain ethnic groups lived (If all the white went to the Mid-east and Blacks to the North, etc.) that still would not change the fact that North America is North America and nothing more.

The whole Indian subcontinent while yes true tectonic(ly?) is separate from the rest of Asia, isn't so on the surface and for several hundred miles deep, and will continue to be a part of Asia for years to come, hell isn't it stabbed/smashed into the Landmass.

So give it a few million years and couldn't it simply fall under/merge with it, thus eliminating as a single entity? So for the most part India is Asia. and Asia is part of Europe, It's Eurasia.

[Camarohusky]

At 5/14/13 10:39 PM, Warforger wrote: Thus it's hard to tell if what you're saying is true if the Ural Mountains are an accurate delineation.

You have two problems with your analysis: you missed the whole point of what I said about the delineation being dated; you are splitting too many hairs for a macro issue.

My first point was that the current idea of the continents is a very old idea, born in the day when much of ethnic and anthropological history was still relatively unknown and when it was known it was not widespread.

The bigger problem with your points is that you're using micro example to dispute what is essentially a macro term. Are there cross continental cultural influences? Absolutely. Parts of Spain hare more in common with North Africa than North Europe. Egypt shares more in common with Arabia than with 90% of Africa. Chunks of Indian and Pakistani culture were born from Alexander the Great. Mexico has far more in common with South America than it does with the US and Canada. But these are not the point. The point is generic similarity. In such areas where geography alone is not enough to make a continental division, the general culture should be used. As far as cultures go European locales (for the most part) have more in common with other European cultures than with Asian ones. A single, or even a hand full of cultural crossovers isn't enough to make the Balkans part of Asia or Pakistan part of Europe. Your points are good in the determination of ethinc regions, but even large ethnic regions are hardly large enough to be considered continents.

[Jmayer20]

OK I have several things to say.

To Camarohusky, you said "even large ethnic regions are hardly large enough to be considered continents." Now this indicates that you have an idea of how big a land mass needs to be to be considered a Continent so could you please tell us the size a Continent needs to be?

To Everyone, a lot of people have said that Europe and Asia should be separated because the cultures in the two are so different. Now for this definition there are two issues that need to be addressed and accepted. First you would need to accept that the borders of Continents would be constantly changing due to the change and spread of cultures. Second you would have to accept that there are a lot more Continents in what we know as Asia and Europe alone. Most countries have there own unique culture and many counties have more then one culture within it. Based on this most countries would have to be their own Continent and many countries would have to be divided up into more then one Continent. Most of you are probably thinking oh come on those areas are too small to be considered Continents but keep in mind none of you have said exactly how big a land mass needs to be in order for it to be a Continent so until you define the size then that statement is meaningless. If you can accept these two facts then fine but if you can't then you will need to come up with a better definition or at the very least add more to your definition. Remember when creating a definition you need it to be consistent.

To Tony-DarkGrave so far your definition is the most consistent. Your definition would indicate that there would be 13 Continents in the world.

[Lumber-Jax12]

This is getting a little ridiculous a continent isn't something subjective, you guys can't claim to define something as another when there is already a text-book (literally) definition of what defines a continent, we have 7 and possibly a sixth the only reason there's discrepancies is because Eurasia is one land-mass with-out the necessary separation.

Just look up continent it will say "continents are understood to be large, continuous, discretemasses of land, ideally separated by expanses of water"

Most of the general understood continents fit that definition. It is ideal to be separated by water, but not necessarily the only criteria.

The three that are troubling, are North and South America, and Africa. But as I said before they are so large a landmass and are only held together to another by such a small amount of land (Panama, the Sinai) relative to them that it's almost (not entirely) negligible.

The only reason Euraisa has been split is because of ethnic reasons though of by the proud European cartographers who probably couldn't deal with the thought of Europe being part of the "inferior" continent.

And hell even today it's under contest as to whether or not it should remain separate.

[Jmayer20]

At 5/15/13 03:06 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: This is getting a little ridiculous a continent isn't something subjective, you guys can't claim to define something as another when there is already a text-book (literally) definition of what defines a continent, we have 7 and possibly a sixth the only reason there's discrepancies is because Eurasia is one land-mass with-out the necessary separation.

Just look up continent it will say "continents are understood to be large, continuous, discretemasses of land, ideally separated by expanses of water"

Most of the general understood continents fit that definition. It is ideal to be separated by water, but not necessarily the only criteria.

The three that are troubling, are North and South America, and Africa. But as I said before they are so large a landmass and are only held together to another by such a small amount of land (Panama, the Sinai) relative to them that it's almost (not entirely) negligible.

The only reason Euraisa has been split is because of ethnic reasons though of by the proud European cartographers who probably couldn't deal with the thought of Europe being part of the "inferior" continent.

And hell even today it's under contest as to whether or not it should remain separate.

You pretty much pointed out the whole reason why we are discussing this subject in the first place. The definition is weak and flawed. The current definition says it has to be large. Well what size is large. Large is a relative word. The definition does not say the exact size it needs to be. Based on this fact why is Greenland not considered a Continent. Compared to most islands its very large. So why cant it be the smallest Continent, after all it does fit all the other criteria for a continent.

Then there are other issues like the separation of Europe and Asia. You yourself mentioned that the only reason they were separated was due to a cultural factor. However the definition that you showed does not even mention culture as even being a factor and whats more if you read my previous post it explains the problems with adding culture to the whole thing.

Also you say this is ridiculous and that you guys can't claim to define something as another when there is already a text-book. This statement shows complete ignorance on your part. Definitions DO change or maybe you have not heard of the change in definition of what a planet is. The previous definition for a planet was very weak. With the previous definition a lot more things fit under the category of planet. That's why it was changed and made more clear and this is only one example of how definitions change.

The same is with Continent its a weak definition that fits under a lot of things the we don't traditionally think of as Continents. That's why we are discussing this topic.

[leanlifter1]

What USA rapes, pillages and destroys to feed it's own fat ass. "Just as long as the mother land never get's molested"

[Jmayer20]

At 5/16/13 12:25 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: What USA rapes, pillages and destroys to feed it's own fat ass. "Just as long as the mother land never get's molested"

What does that have anything to do with this topic?

[Camarohusky]

At 5/15/13 11:39 AM, Jmayer20 wrote:

You're making this more confusing than it has to be. Continets are a way of cutting the world into a handful of regions based on an older Euro-centric view of the world, hence why Asia is all one continent and not the same as Europe and why Greenland is placed with North America.

To Camarohusky, you said "even large ethnic regions are hardly large enough to be considered continents." Now this indicates that you have an idea of how big a land mass needs to be to be considered a Continent so could you please tell us the size a Continent needs to be?

It has to be a macro size, as continent is a macro term. Splitting hairs like Warforger was doing is a micro concept so in cases where georgrphy isn't good enough generic culture was used to make a continent. Warforger was trying to say that Weastern Europe should be part of Asia because they share a scintilla of culture. If there were 50 continents, the temr continent would lose its current meaning in almost every sense. The sort of hair splitting that he wanted would do just that.

[Dawnslayer]

Perhaps there needs to be a differentiation between a geopolitical continent and a geological one. By such a measure, Europe and Asia could continue to be different geopolitical continents, whilst also part of the same geological continent of Eurasia.

Simple solutions.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 5/16/13 12:25 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: What USA rapes, pillages and destroys to feed it's own fat ass. "Just as long as the mother land never get's molested"

and Canada is next just wait till we Annex you and make the United States of North America

[VicariousE]

Well, I'm pretty sure Antarctica isn't a continent. It's just a floating mass of porous sandstone (in the distant past, from India and Australia) and ice, fixed in place, by frozen fresh water, stalagmiting to the bottom of the ocean. Calling Antarctica a continent, is one of the biggest lies of modern times (or so my old science teacher said). Probably, to keep people from fleeing coastal cities, in favor of the high ground....
Are there any ancient cities near the ocean.. at all? Where did the water from the Dead Sea come from? History suggests, that this floating demon, occasionally falls apart, and wreaks havoc on our planets surface (water displacement from large sections breaking off, and either bobbing around or sinking).
The the rotation of the Earth, carries these undulations, deep into the Eastern shores of our world (given enough time, and depth to build the wave). It's not unlike cannon balling into the shallow end of a large Olympic sized pool. The quick violent action at one end, travels along the bottom of the ever deepening pool, where it crashes in high waves, at the deep end. This scares the hell out of me :|

[Ceratisa]

At 5/14/13 04:57 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Answer: How many do you want there to be?

Video uses a false definition to bullshit on and on.

[VicariousE]

At 5/19/13 08:46 AM, Profanity wrote:

At 5/19/13 01:48 AM, VicariousE wrote: Well, I'm pretty sure Antarctica isn't a continent.

I've never heard any of that. If Antarctica isn't part of the Antarctic Tectonic Plate, then why don't we hear anything about submarine exploration of the underside, rather than drilling through miles of ice to research amcient lakes and study the atmospheric evidence in ice cores?

I'm not denying Antarctica is connected to the tectonic plate, but it's mostly fresh water ice that's keeping it in place. Not just a few structures of icicles, but square miles of it... that's why the Russians and others are drilling own from the surface (with many gallons of anti-freeze, to prevent refreezing of the hole), to get at some of the fresh water lakes that are inside of Antarcticas base. Some of the perimeter underwater structures, have already been videoed by submarines, and have shots of the miniscule life that survive there (which I saw on TV about a decade ago, fascinating stuff!)