![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Apr. 23rd, 2009 01:09 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hatmanNew debate topic:
Should Europe be considered a continent?
I'm taking the negative position.
A continent is a continuous distinct landmass (with the addition of nearby islands) of particularly large size.
Europe is separated from Asia by the Ural mountains, not an ocean. Furthermore, the area of Europe is only 18% of the Eurasian landmass. It's roughly equivalent to that of the United States - big as countries go, but certainly not a continent unto itself.
Yes, it's had a disproportionate effect on Western history, but that's no excuse to go rewriting geography.
(As a side note, it's appalling to me that North and South America have to share one of the five Olympic rings, whereas Europe gets its own. The Americas are two distinct landmasses. Barely connected even before the Panama Canal cut them apart.)
Should Europe be considered a continent?
I'm taking the negative position.
A continent is a continuous distinct landmass (with the addition of nearby islands) of particularly large size.
Europe is separated from Asia by the Ural mountains, not an ocean. Furthermore, the area of Europe is only 18% of the Eurasian landmass. It's roughly equivalent to that of the United States - big as countries go, but certainly not a continent unto itself.
Yes, it's had a disproportionate effect on Western history, but that's no excuse to go rewriting geography.
(As a side note, it's appalling to me that North and South America have to share one of the five Olympic rings, whereas Europe gets its own. The Americas are two distinct landmasses. Barely connected even before the Panama Canal cut them apart.)
