News:

Welcome to the Desert!  Register, post, and have fun.  Why not introduce yourself in the
Welcome Thread?

Main Menu

Seven or Eight Continents

Started by Mysterious F., May 13, 2007, 05:26:18 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Should the Middle East/North Africa be a seperate continent?

Yes, it should be a seperate continent
4 (36.4%)
No, it should be part of Asia
7 (63.6%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Mysterious F.

Well, do you think that the Middle East and North Africa should be part of the Asian Cnotinent or be a seperate continent?

I say it should be. Throughout history, it has had a completely different culture, and unlike Asia, which has several different religions, the Middle East only has Muslim as a notable one today, with minor Jewish and Christian populations, mainly Jewish. It's environment is nothing like that of the rest of the continent (Russia being cold and European-like, East Asia being mountainous and full of many people and living creatures, Southeast Asia being mainly island and jungles) except India and Pakistan. It's past historical culture has been more along the lines of western compared to Eastern countries like Japan and China. They have little in common.

Fishalicious

It'd be a lot easier if it were; it's always been "the middle-east," no one ever mentions it's in Asia.

I don't think much would change if we did change the continents...

Mysterious F.

Actually, it's only been 'Middle-East' since around 1900. They should think of a name that sums up the region. Mesopotamia might be good, seeing as how it's in the middle of the Middle East, excluding all of North Africa except Egypt.

Commodore Axilon

Since when are continents relegated by culture? In fact, I'm not even sure Europe and Asia should be separate continents.

Mysterious F.

Actually, alot of the times they are (why Europe and Asia are seperate). Europe is actually a very long peninsula from Asia. Throughout history, many parts of the world have been seperated into many different continents. India was once considered a continent. Only recently have we summed them all up into a few large continents. Oceania is not considered part of any continent.

kjcollins

con·ti·nent
n.
One of the principal land masses of the earth, usually regarded as including Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America.

There. Direct definition. And I completely agree with Commodore about Europe and Asia. Continents are a genneral land mass area. If you want to separate a part of a continent, you make a Country.

Darth Wyndisis

Yeah, I agree with Commodore too.  Hasn't Europe and Asia been refered to sometimes as "Eurasia?"  I rarely hear that term though, and always hear people regarding them as two different continents, which makes no sense.

alical

Eurasia is the actual landmass I think.
And it's a place in "Big Brother".

And I don't see the point in joining Europe and Asia, it wouldn't achieve anything, and what about the EU, and the Euro? A lot would have to be changed for no real point.

Commodore Axilon

How would changing how it's classified affect any of that?

DW

I don't even see why it matters...this is just like saying Pluto's not a planet anymore, what's the point?
­

MasterKeyX

It should not be a continent. If you were to classify a continent based on differences in culture, then we wouldn't have just 7, we'd have like 100 continents. Same goes for if we were classifying by weather.

And if the Middle East is a continent, why not make India a continent? It has a unique culture and climate too.


RIP my LeafGreen team: 2005-2010

darkphantomime

India is a subcontinent, which means that India was once a seperate landmass, it even has its own tectonic plate. But due to continental drift, the Indian subcontinent slammed into the Asia continent, forming the Himalaya mountain range.

alical

Quote from: Commodore XIII on May 14, 2007, 12:17:46 PM
How would changing how it's classified affect any of that?

Well it depends what you ment by saying they should be merged. If you meant purely geographically, then no, of course it wouldn't have to be changed but if you wanted to make them work together etc. then yeah. Because it can't be the European Union if there is no such place as Europe.

collaboration

Well...I'm middle-eastern, and when I'm not busy referring to myself as middle-eastern, I refer to myself as asian. :D Because you're considered part of Asia so long as you're west of the caucasus mountain range. And, judging by where my family comes from, I am, or rather, was.
Although, anthropologically, skull classification runs a little differently, although that (debatably) has nothing to do with ethnicity, to be honest.
And in the united states, the government has misinterpreted that fact and used it to its advantage. Since the 1970's, middle easterners and indians have been considered caucasian, thanks to the gov't not wanting to shell out any more minority money than it already is forced to...This is where they omit "middle-eastern" from the agenda and on documents am forced to select "asian." It's incorrect, really, but I refuse to choose "caucasian." :B Which is far more incorrect, in my opinion.
Anyhow, that's rambling a bit.

The middle-east doesn't need to be its own continent. I think it's considered an unofficial sub-continent, but really...it's either "the middle-east" including all parts you've described, or it's just part of Asia and Africa.
The middle-east, anyhow, is allegedly defined by culture. Even though all middle-eastern cultures are quite different, their similarities are what have brought it to be grouped into one solid area.