It’s not just the mountains, it’s all of Siberia. Prior to the 17th century, it would have been completely impossible for a human being to travel on land from Europe to Asia without: (a) going through Turkey or (b) having the permission of the various steppe tribes, which was never available expect for a brief period during the peak of the Mongol Empire. For all practical purposes, Europe and Asia were connected only at the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus, and it’s perfectly reasonable to consider them separate continents in that light.
3 Likes
You could use a very similar argument to claim that North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa are two different continents.
I only know for sure Costa Rica is in North America because of soccer stuff so makes sense.
What continent is Israel on?
Actually, the idea of Europe and Asia being separate continents is defensible from a geographic POV but not from a geological POV.
That’s so annoying. FIFA’s lack of spine on that issue is absurd.
I never thought geological had anything to do with it.
Welcome to North America, Guyana!
1 Like
Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about
Official names in Spanish
USA = Estados Unidos de America
Mexico = Estados Unidos Mexicanos
Surely they have to be some cruizin types around claiming that they’re the real Estados Unidos.
Eurasia should be one continent, India should be a separate continent. I have spoken.
So we’re saying the Ural mountains are geographic but not geological?
I think the term Indian subcontinent is used a lot. That’s just about perfect, imo.
Continents are meaningless constructs except insofar as they usefully categorize places into easy to understand groups. (This is true of many types of geographic constructs.)
They are inherently a culturally derived ideas, as we as outsiders are forced to make groupings that are so small as to be trivial (Australian) or so broad as to be meaningless (Asian).
As a geographical construct, saying “Asian” does not tell us anything meaningful about what we’re talking about, whether it’s a country or a culture or a piece of food.
Conclusion: we shouldn’t learn about continents at all, except as a historical relic
Disclaimer: I am a drunk geography major
4 Likes
Defining continents in terms of things like tectonic plates is geology. Defining continents in terms of historical convention and cultural constructs is geography. The concept of a continent was first conceived by geographers without knowing the shape and size of the Eurasian landmass.
I guess I’m saying that some people don’t really know what geography is.
People are dumb. The world couldn’t function if we didn’t give people easy-to-understand groups to categorize things. This is why race is a meaningless construct that is nevertheless necessary for some people to survive.
What I’m saying is that if your definition involves the Ural mountains (which is a super-common definition; perhaps the most common), then it’s hard to say it is not related to geology.
If your definition isn’t based on that, then what I’m saying doesn’t apply to you.
I don’t disagree, although you’ll notice people define continents in useful ways rather than exact ways.
Calling USA/Canada “North America” has a very specific cultural meaning for Latin Americans. People say “Indian Subcontinent” because “Asian” doesn’t feel like an appropriate way to describe India et al—in the USA, at least. In the UK, where there are more subcontinent folks than East Asians (maybe?) suddenly Asian is the preferred way to describe Indians and Pakistanis.
In other words, simply being able to name the ~6 continents is enough, which is worth a mention in school, but it’s sort of like talking: people will pick up on the meanings of continents as they need to, and the meanings will always be in flux and mean different things to different people.
I, for one, refuse to acknowledge Australia is a continent. Come at me. I won’t even defend this position with facts or reasoning.
1 Like
I’m saying you have a fuzzy layman’s definition of geography and geology that’s technically incorrect.
There are different geographical and geological definitions of continents. Dividing Europe and Asia with the Ural Mountains uses a geographical rather than geological definition of continents.
So what’s the technically correct definition of geology that makes the Urals not related to geology?
1 Like