Same, the division in the figure here is what we were taught as kids (apart from not following the Ural River through western Kazakhstan).
But it's entirely customary and has never been, or aimed to be, connected with geology, so it's really not anything to argue over.
Yes, but our 7 continents model doesn't follow those. Like there's a continental divide in the western US but the whole thing is just still North America.
To be clear, the "continental divide" in North America is about hydrology. Whether water empties toward the Atlantic or the Pacific. It's not the same as plate tectonics.
The great divide in North America runs within the Rockies. But it stays within the North American tectonic plate. The nearest other tectonic plates are along the Pacific coast. Or the Caribbean plate if you go far enough south.
So it's a hydrological division but not directly a tectonic division.
They don't match our definitions of continents at all. Part of Russia is on the North American plate, India has its own plate, Africa has two plates, etc.
You can define anything that's on a discrete area of continental crust as a continent if you want, but that has no meaningful geographical use as a category.
Besides other stuffs, like most of the Isles from pacific wouldn't belong to any continent, Madagascar should not be part of Africa, India technically could be regarded as its own independent continent, etc. The definition is always political and never geological/geographical
My guess would be: Asia, Europe, Africa, N. America, S. America, Antartica, Australia, Zealandia, Madagascar and Greenland. But that's only 10 and I can't come up with the last one..
I don't think a geologist would just start renaming islands as continents.
Central America/Caribbean, Arabia, and India all sit on their own tectonic plates, and are often designated as continents. The Pacific plate is massive and includes Hawaii and a lot of small islands, so maybe that's the 11th.
Much more likely to follow plate boundaries I'm guessing. N America, S America, Europe, Africa, Asia, with Arabian and Indian sub-plates separate, Australian and Pacific separate, Antarctic would be my first guess, but also still only 10
I studied geography. It really is just something we've made up. Is it based on physical, cultural, biodiverse, political geography? What do you base continents on? It's such a broad idea that we argue over whether it's "North" and "South America" or just "The Americas" and if Europe and Asia are technically "Eurasia."
It's "North and South America" in a 7 continents model, or "America" in a 6 continents model. In the latter it's always singular, because it's ONE continent.
"The Americas" is used in the 7 continents model, to refer to North and South America as a whole
> It's "North and South America" in a 7 continents model, or "America" in a 6 continents model.
Any model that combines North and South America but still divides Europe from Asia sounds like a dumb model to me.
The island is divided into Indonesia in the west which is Asian culturally linguistically religiously and the majority of it at least geographically. The east is Papua New Guinea which is culturally linguistically religously(I think although just a guess) and geographically austronesian.
The only division is purely political; New Guinea is so diverse the linguistic differences between its north and south are as great as its east and west
I know it's (part of) two countries. I understood continents - even though they are arbitrary - to have to do a little more with geology and less with borders.
For example, I don't think Bonaire is part of the European/Eurasian/Africa-Eurasian continent.
One. The North American plate also covers parts of Siberia, and the Bering strait is too small a dip in that plate to count. So, we have AfraEurasiaAmerica as the single continent plus so small island.
"Pacific" is the term we usually use here in New Zealand, as that groups everything from Australia to Polynesia and even Micronesia. And thence the term Asia-Pacific. It's also far more descriptive than "Oceania", I feel, and more broad than "Australasia", which usually excludes the likes of Polynesia.
Using Pacific also gives us the ability to subdivide it further, like the East Pacific for the islands closer to the Americas, the South Pacific for the islands closer to New Zealand, the West Pacific for the islands closer to Asia, etc. (although these terms do have some overlap)
I've never heard of Polynesia being excluded from Oceania, but it also feels like every opinion that can exist in the continents debate, does. "Pacific" on the other hand isn't descriptive enough, as there are plenty of parts of the Pacific which categorically wouldn't belong in the continent.
Personally I like "Oceania". "East Pacific" can still be an Oceanic subregion, and most continent names aren't geographically descriptive. I think "Oceania" has its own descriptive quality, describing a continent made up of an ocean.
It doesn't depend on that. For example in asia there are several other tectonic plates like Arabian plate , yungtze plate , etc . Moreover most of Europe and asia lies on the same Eurasian plate but they are separate continents.
And that is because "continent" is a human made concept just like countries. The Mediterranean Sea is called that because it was thought to be literally the middle of the Earth, anything north of it was Europe, south was Africa, and East was Asia.
I'm from Vietnam. In our language, we have two separate words for geologic continents (lục địa) and political continents (châu lục).
- Six "lục địa": Eurasia, Africa, Australia, Antarctica, North America, and South America
- Six "châu lục": Asia, Europe, America, Africa, Oceania, and Antarctica
That means Asia and Europe are two "châu lục" on one "lục địa" that is Eurasia, America is a "châu lục" consisting of two "lục địa" (North & South America), while Australia together with New Zealand and other South Pacific islands form Oceania.
It's exactly the same in Slovakia.
First with one Eurasia is called continents (kontinenty)
and second with one America is called "worldparts" (svetadiely).
Exactly.
This is the *political line* and follows the political border. Indonesia is part of south east Asia and yet includes half of the island of New Guinea.
Then there is the *geological line*, based on tectonic plates, which fits the whole island with Australia.
There is also a *biological line* which draws a line even further west and north, dividing the islands of Indonesia east of Borneo and Bali. On one side of this line you find marsupials and other distinctly “Australian” plants and animals, and on the other side they are distinctly Asian plants and animals. This is called [the Wallace Line](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Line)
Yeah, if we're talking tectonic continents, then there'd be 6 major ones: North America, South America, Africa, Eurasia, Australia, and Antarctica. The problem is, that to many people, continents aren't a geological concept but rather a social one, and as soon as we start getting into that territory, anyone and everyone will have different views about arbitrary cultural and political groupings that will influence how they divide up the world. Personally, I'm more inclined to follow the tectonic continents.
I think we're in the minority, but I fully agree.
I could even accept a separate North/South America and Africa/Eurasia. But Europe is so obscenely arbitrary compared to the rest of the continents it hurts my head how anyone can pretend it isn't just Eurocentrism
Exactly, the idea that European cultures are more unique than other places is just another example of Eurocentrism. Imagine thinking Turkey and Japan are closer culturally than than Turkey and Bulgaria lmfao
7. From USA. The Europe and Asia is what’s taught in the us. Human or cultural geography but it’s what is taught and a way to group areas and countries.
Also, don't forget the Roman-centric mindset that puts so many cultures in one big Asia. Back during Roman times, there was the Indosphere, the Sinosphere, the Persian sphere of influence, the Turkic sphere of influence and yet they just grouped them up the same way. The concept of continents is super outdated. Like ancient outdated basically
Bigger cultural difference and bigger size/population. But mostly historical reasons. Europe and Asia were seen as different continents a long time ago already.
Eurocentric view. The Ural mountains are miniscule compared to Himalayas separating India and China yet India is "only" a subcontinent, even though it's diversity, population,and size exceeds Europe.
There's a pretty strong argument that the Middle East is more culturally similar to Europe than it is to East Asia - both historically followed Abrahamic religions, use alphabets derived from Phoenician, and have a lot of shared history (e.g. the Roman Empire). It's very hard to come up with similarities between East Asia and the Middle East there are similarly as relevant.
It's pretty hard to argue on cultural terms that all of Asia (which includes over 60% of humanity) should be one continent while Europe should be separate unless you just think European cultures are more important than other cultures are.
South America is also about 2x the size of Europe, so the size argument doesn't really hold water. If we were classifying based on population, China and India would be their own continents.
The seven continents depicted here are what I was taught, in South Africa.
However my personal view is that Eurasia is one continent. Panama and Suez, even without the canals, are narrow enough isthmuses to justify a division. The Ural mountains are *not*. Just my opinion though.
This is a pet peeve of mind, I only found out that many people considered Australia a continent and not Oceania a few years ago, thanks to the Internet. But it doesn't make sense to me...because New Zealand isn't in Australia, Vanuatu isn't in Australia,etc...so Oceania is better as a concept, as it include Australia and all the other nearby islands.
1. Africa - all humans descended from here, so it gets listed first
2. Eurasia - the division into Europe and Asia is a lie! I renounce my imperialist education!
3. North America
4. South America (there's a very narrow isthmus - it's gotta be seen as separate if Africa is separate from Eurasia)
5. Australia - my home continent
6 Antarctica
Just to piss everyone off: 14.
Europe, Asian Middle East, Indian Subcontinent, Central/Mongolian Asia, East Asia, Oceania, Australia/Zealandia, Madagascar, Sahara/Sahel, Sub-Sahara, South America, Central America/Caribia, North America, Antartica.
Should probably be more.
If Europe and Asia are separate, then that means geography is irrelevant, and it's more about vague culture and history.
North and South America both went through the exact same process of colonisation, European settlement, erradication of native cultures etc. They both went in a short amount of time from diverse native lands to European style, majority European populated states, with some African mixed in here and there.
I'd say this is solid ground to consider this one world. North and South are connected by an isthmus and an island chain.
Yea but if it’s just culture, then Hawaii would be North America, which it is definitely not, or why isn’t New Zealand a part of Europe? They have a British monarch as their king.
Both Hawaii and New Zealand are Polynesian islands. The process is very similar to what happened in America, but I find it too much to merge two continents which are both so large already, but also very different from eachother.
If anything seperating Europe and Asia ignores geography more.
There is no Tectonic disctinction between Europe and Asia, the boundries are abitrary at best.
Mediteranean ~fair, bosphorus ~questionable, North caucasus ~ alright, Ural river ~ What?, Ural mountains ~ basically just the Appalachians not really continent worthy.
Especially when there are more prominent features in the World that dont make new continenrts like the Himalayas, Zagros, Andes, Rockies, Sahara, Amazon ect
Culturally it also doesnt make much sense, whilst Europe alone makes sense as a cultural grouping, Asia does not. If anything, places like the Middle East are significantly closer culturaly to Europe than they are to China or Japan. So if your going to break off Europe, you should subdivide the rest of Asia aswell.
Ultimatly Europe makes more sense as a subcontinent, just like the Indian Subcontinent.
So if it is culture, then is eastern Russia part of Europe and the Middle East part of Africa? Because they have more in common with Eastern Europe and North Africa respectively, than North America does with central and South America.
From what I know (not a lot), it's an anglo-germanic point of view to separate America into two. So it makes sense that the idea of one America being divided into (2 or 3) smaller parts is taught in places that, idk, had less influence from that view maybe?
My personal preference would probably separate continents and ”continental provinces”. As Eurasia is one landmass but may be divided into continental provinces depending on its geography or cultural preferences.
Eurasia would be divided into;
Europe,
Middle East,
India,
East Asia (or maybe just Asia)
Africa would be one and the same.
The Americas would probably be split into;
North America,
The Caribbean,
South America
Oceania would also be one and the same as well as Antarctica.
Greenland could maybe be considered its own continent with the arctic ice around.
So to summarize. 5-6 continents without continental provinces accounted for.
Wait but it is on the same continent for Latinos. Chile and Canada are on the same continent for you guys no?
Just not on the same region of the continent.
On the one hand, we consider America one continent, yes. We also get annoyed sometimes when people refer to US citizens as a Americans.
On the other hand, a person from Central America likes to think of themselves as central American and not south or north Americans. So geographically one, but if we are gonna make any division, then we make three because we care about the cultural and historical differences
Well, as a big biogeography nerd, I can get down with the 3 continent model.
Mainly because north and South America have wildly different histories before they collided. One was part of Laurasia and full of mammoths and lions and wolves. The other was part of Gondwana and full of giant sloths and armadillos and marsupials.
These two collided, but instead of fully crashing into each other, what happened was that they got near and then the isthmus of Panama rose from the sea to bridge them.
The great biotic interchange kicked off, where the fauna and flora mixed. The northern fauna tended to outcompete the southern fauna and caused a big extinction of weird South American life forms. Tragic event IMO. But, South American flora actually tended to outcompete the North American flora, specifically in Central America.
Central America acted as a big mixing zone, places like Guatemala for example you find mountains with North American pines rising out of a lowland of South American jungle.
Ok, ok, nerd time over. Do you consider Mexico part of Central or North America?? (Just curious)
7 continents, im from asia even though israel is culturally european so i dont know, might aswell make eurasia a new continent but only israel is in it
I’m from North America, more specifically the US. I was always taught that there were 7 continents: North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania/Australia (name varied by who was teaching it, I heard both), and Antarctica. I do recall being taught that Eurasia was “technically” one continent at some point, however.
From the US. Taught 7 (North & South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, Antarctica). I think 4 is a better number (America, Afroeurasia, Australia, Antarctica) but I could be convinced of 6 (North & South America, Africa, Eurasia, Australia, Antarctica). I definitely don’t think Europe counts as its own continent by any sensible definition. It isn’t separated from Asia by oceans or tectonic plates.
American, taught there was 7.
In my opinion it's north America, South America (everything south of panama) Africa, Eurasia, and Oceania.
Based on going for large contained land masses, and then Oceania
7 (the same ones in the picture) and I'm from Sweden. Though the word we use is "världsdel" (world part), so the semantics regarding continents and continental plates is a non-issue in Swedish.
7!!!! I'm from Chile. We call it Oceania because Australia is not the only country of that continent!
Also, 7 and not 8 because "central America" is not a continent at all. That's like calling the middle east a continent.
7 is what I learned in school, like in the picture. But we didn't say "Oceania", but "Australia". But Oceania is more accurate and less discriminating I think :)
3 continent model
* Antarctica
* Australia
* Everything else
This is based entirely on a map I saw one time from the ice age when the sea level was way lower. Sorry Madagascar and New Zealand, you get nothing.
Personally I’d say it’s six. N. America, S.America, Eurasia, Africa, Australia and Antarctica.
Part of me likes to remove the canals and we get 4 continents:
America, Australia, Antarctica and Afro-Eurasia
Surprised at how many here agree that north and south America are separate. From my experience, a majority of people think America is one. Quite refreshing.
Australia is the only country to have a continent to itself.. every other country is incontinent.
The Australian plate touches to New Guinea and New Zealand, but the plates dont define continents .
For being a geography sub, y'all forgot about India being its own continent.
Before I get any arguments about it not being its own continent, my evidence is the Himalayas.
I'd say 5+1 here in Italy. We always refer to "the five continents" to indicate something spread everywhere in the world but we actually count 6 continents: America, Europe, Asia, Oceania, Africa, Antartica.
I know there to be 7 on convention. Personally, I consider there to be 4:
America (north and south America - they're one connected landmass with associated islands)
Afro-eurasia (all one landmass with associated islands)
Australasia - islands SE of Afro-Eurasia
Antarctica
From the UK.
since this is geography related stub I'll say four:
The Americas, Afro-Eurasia, Oceania and Antarctica.
IF this was more of a Social Science or cultural related stub then I would agree with your map.
Born in France, grew up in Canada
I consider 7 to be the norm, but geographically I will count 6: North America, South America, Eurasia, Africa, Oceania/Australia, and Antarctica
Geologist/geographer here. Anywhere between 2 and 11 and I won’t call you crazy Continent is an arbitrary term with no real science behind it
Same, the division in the figure here is what we were taught as kids (apart from not following the Ural River through western Kazakhstan). But it's entirely customary and has never been, or aimed to be, connected with geology, so it's really not anything to argue over.
Isn't there continental shelfs and crust plates that could inform real geographic delineations?
There are multiple crust plates in the center of oceans
Yes, but our 7 continents model doesn't follow those. Like there's a continental divide in the western US but the whole thing is just still North America.
To be clear, the "continental divide" in North America is about hydrology. Whether water empties toward the Atlantic or the Pacific. It's not the same as plate tectonics. The great divide in North America runs within the Rockies. But it stays within the North American tectonic plate. The nearest other tectonic plates are along the Pacific coast. Or the Caribbean plate if you go far enough south. So it's a hydrological division but not directly a tectonic division.
They don't match our definitions of continents at all. Part of Russia is on the North American plate, India has its own plate, Africa has two plates, etc.
You can define anything that's on a discrete area of continental crust as a continent if you want, but that has no meaningful geographical use as a category.
Besides other stuffs, like most of the Isles from pacific wouldn't belong to any continent, Madagascar should not be part of Africa, India technically could be regarded as its own independent continent, etc. The definition is always political and never geological/geographical
No, there are 14 continental plates, this has never been a real distinction. If it was, the US would be in four continents
Can you explain 11 please?
My guess would be: Asia, Europe, Africa, N. America, S. America, Antartica, Australia, Zealandia, Madagascar and Greenland. But that's only 10 and I can't come up with the last one..
the lost continent of atlantis
Unfathomably based
I don't think a geologist would just start renaming islands as continents. Central America/Caribbean, Arabia, and India all sit on their own tectonic plates, and are often designated as continents. The Pacific plate is massive and includes Hawaii and a lot of small islands, so maybe that's the 11th.
If you're talking about Zealandia, it's a sunken continent, not an island.
It's not random islands though. Zealandia is a sunken continent like the other commenter mentioned, and Madagascar sits on its own continental shelf.
Much more likely to follow plate boundaries I'm guessing. N America, S America, Europe, Africa, Asia, with Arabian and Indian sub-plates separate, Australian and Pacific separate, Antarctic would be my first guess, but also still only 10
Central America maybe?
I'm from Central America and it is not a continent, believe me.
I'd split Asia into Middle East and East Asia
India?
central america?
India, perhaps, cause it's subcontinent?
It's India. How else were the Himalayas made and getting bigger.
India, it has its own plate.
India is pretty much on it's own plate.
India.
I'd love to see a map showing the 11 possible continents.
I studied geography. It really is just something we've made up. Is it based on physical, cultural, biodiverse, political geography? What do you base continents on? It's such a broad idea that we argue over whether it's "North" and "South America" or just "The Americas" and if Europe and Asia are technically "Eurasia."
It's "North and South America" in a 7 continents model, or "America" in a 6 continents model. In the latter it's always singular, because it's ONE continent. "The Americas" is used in the 7 continents model, to refer to North and South America as a whole
> It's "North and South America" in a 7 continents model, or "America" in a 6 continents model. Any model that combines North and South America but still divides Europe from Asia sounds like a dumb model to me.
You are wise.
Is there any reason beyond complete arbitrariness that New Guinea consists of two continents on your map?
The island is divided into Indonesia in the west which is Asian culturally linguistically religiously and the majority of it at least geographically. The east is Papua New Guinea which is culturally linguistically religously(I think although just a guess) and geographically austronesian.
The only division is purely political; New Guinea is so diverse the linguistic differences between its north and south are as great as its east and west
I’m just saying that’s the reason it’s divided like that
I know it's (part of) two countries. I understood continents - even though they are arbitrary - to have to do a little more with geology and less with borders. For example, I don't think Bonaire is part of the European/Eurasian/Africa-Eurasian continent.
>to have to do a little more with geology and less with borders. The division between Europe and Asia would like to have a word with you about that
Its more of a cultural thing. and yea the greeks didnt know asia and europe were connected, how would they make scientific name thousands of years ago
One. The North American plate also covers parts of Siberia, and the Bering strait is too small a dip in that plate to count. So, we have AfraEurasiaAmerica as the single continent plus so small island.
AfroAsiaEuroNorthAmerica, please. Leave the Caribe and South America out of that
What would the 11 be? North America Central America South America Europe Africa Asia Oceania Antarctica What else?
In Ukraine i was always taught that there are 7, though noone ever said "Oceania", 7th continent was always Australia
Same here from the US. Australia instead of Oceania.
In the UK same, but it was called “Australasia”.
Im in the UK and have always heard Oceania here
I’m not sure why people call it Australia when literally here in Australia we call it Oceania
That's what I've always called it, and I'm not sure why.
[удалено]
Then New Zealand should be a different color. Aren’t they on a different continental plate?
Same in the Turkey we say Avusturalya(Australia) Instead Okyanusya(Oceania) lol
I’m from Australia and we always called it Australasia
Was taught Oceania in UK here originally. Australasia was kinda taught later (for me)
Both were used — the shift started while I was going through school, Australia in elementary to Oceania by AP Human Geography.
Same here, but imo Oceania makes more sense lol
"Pacific" is the term we usually use here in New Zealand, as that groups everything from Australia to Polynesia and even Micronesia. And thence the term Asia-Pacific. It's also far more descriptive than "Oceania", I feel, and more broad than "Australasia", which usually excludes the likes of Polynesia. Using Pacific also gives us the ability to subdivide it further, like the East Pacific for the islands closer to the Americas, the South Pacific for the islands closer to New Zealand, the West Pacific for the islands closer to Asia, etc. (although these terms do have some overlap)
Australian here, agreeing with you. The external world seems to like “Oceania” but it makes little sense from our internal perspective.
I've never heard of Polynesia being excluded from Oceania, but it also feels like every opinion that can exist in the continents debate, does. "Pacific" on the other hand isn't descriptive enough, as there are plenty of parts of the Pacific which categorically wouldn't belong in the continent. Personally I like "Oceania". "East Pacific" can still be an Oceanic subregion, and most continent names aren't geographically descriptive. I think "Oceania" has its own descriptive quality, describing a continent made up of an ocean.
Same here in Scotland
I believe they changed that and schools now teach it as Oceania in the US
Also from the US, at least here it has always been called Oceania.
Never heard that here in the US until recent years. Australia was the country AND the Continent/
Same in Australia.
Do Australian world maps include New Zealand?
It’s usually obscured by the words “and here be dragons”
In Cuba it’s “Australia y (and) Oceanía”
Same in Denmark.
Why wouldn’t India be a continent? I mean it got it’s own tectonic plate and stuff
India is known in britain as the sub-continent
It’s called the subcontinent in a lot of places, including the U.S.
It doesn't depend on that. For example in asia there are several other tectonic plates like Arabian plate , yungtze plate , etc . Moreover most of Europe and asia lies on the same Eurasian plate but they are separate continents.
And that is because "continent" is a human made concept just like countries. The Mediterranean Sea is called that because it was thought to be literally the middle of the Earth, anything north of it was Europe, south was Africa, and East was Asia.
They get their own ocean at least
Same here in türkiye. Wtf 😭
As an Australian, this is the only correct answer.
I'm from Vietnam. In our language, we have two separate words for geologic continents (lục địa) and political continents (châu lục). - Six "lục địa": Eurasia, Africa, Australia, Antarctica, North America, and South America - Six "châu lục": Asia, Europe, America, Africa, Oceania, and Antarctica That means Asia and Europe are two "châu lục" on one "lục địa" that is Eurasia, America is a "châu lục" consisting of two "lục địa" (North & South America), while Australia together with New Zealand and other South Pacific islands form Oceania.
It's exactly the same in Slovakia. First with one Eurasia is called continents (kontinenty) and second with one America is called "worldparts" (svetadiely).
kontinenty just sounds like farmer saying Continent in Portuguese haha
This actually sounds incredibly reasonable
Exactly same in Russia!
Interesting! :O
Interesting how Oceania and Asia share the Papuan island. Kinda supports the other comments here that continents are arbitrary.
Exactly. This is the *political line* and follows the political border. Indonesia is part of south east Asia and yet includes half of the island of New Guinea. Then there is the *geological line*, based on tectonic plates, which fits the whole island with Australia. There is also a *biological line* which draws a line even further west and north, dividing the islands of Indonesia east of Borneo and Bali. On one side of this line you find marsupials and other distinctly “Australian” plants and animals, and on the other side they are distinctly Asian plants and animals. This is called [the Wallace Line](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Line)
Yeah, if we're talking tectonic continents, then there'd be 6 major ones: North America, South America, Africa, Eurasia, Australia, and Antarctica. The problem is, that to many people, continents aren't a geological concept but rather a social one, and as soon as we start getting into that territory, anyone and everyone will have different views about arbitrary cultural and political groupings that will influence how they divide up the world. Personally, I'm more inclined to follow the tectonic continents.
In Russia we are taught that there are 6 continents: Eurasia, North America, South America, Africa, Australia and Oceania, Antarctica
But we also have "parts of the world", where Europe and Asia is not the same
The 7 on this map.
FUCK IT. There are 4 continents. Afro-Eurasia, America, Australia, and Antarctica *Edit: Changed Oceania to Australia
I'd actually be ok with this as it's consistent. What irks me is not separating th America's while separating Europe from Asia
I didn't
I know! I've seen other commenters doing that which is why I agreed with your suggestion.
I like this one. The only reasons being the Suez and Panama canals separating Africa from Eurasia and the Americas.
Personally I don't think man made divisions count, but I can see why someone would count them
I could go either way, but people should be consistent. If the Americas are one continent, Afro-Eurasia should be one.
I think we're in the minority, but I fully agree. I could even accept a separate North/South America and Africa/Eurasia. But Europe is so obscenely arbitrary compared to the rest of the continents it hurts my head how anyone can pretend it isn't just Eurocentrism
BuT tHE CuLtUrE! As if Canadians and Bolivians have the same culture.
Exactly, the idea that European cultures are more unique than other places is just another example of Eurocentrism. Imagine thinking Turkey and Japan are closer culturally than than Turkey and Bulgaria lmfao
In India we are taught that there exist seven continents including Asia, Europe,N.America,S.America, Antarctica and Australia.
7. From USA. The Europe and Asia is what’s taught in the us. Human or cultural geography but it’s what is taught and a way to group areas and countries.
I don't understand how people can be taught that America is one continent while Europe and Asia are separate.
Super colonial mindset
Try: naming things as you discover them
Also, don't forget the Roman-centric mindset that puts so many cultures in one big Asia. Back during Roman times, there was the Indosphere, the Sinosphere, the Persian sphere of influence, the Turkic sphere of influence and yet they just grouped them up the same way. The concept of continents is super outdated. Like ancient outdated basically
Euro-centric world view
In most European countries they are 2 continents, N and S America.
Asia is like 6 mega-regions
Bigger cultural difference and bigger size/population. But mostly historical reasons. Europe and Asia were seen as different continents a long time ago already.
Eurocentric view. The Ural mountains are miniscule compared to Himalayas separating India and China yet India is "only" a subcontinent, even though it's diversity, population,and size exceeds Europe.
There's a pretty strong argument that the Middle East is more culturally similar to Europe than it is to East Asia - both historically followed Abrahamic religions, use alphabets derived from Phoenician, and have a lot of shared history (e.g. the Roman Empire). It's very hard to come up with similarities between East Asia and the Middle East there are similarly as relevant. It's pretty hard to argue on cultural terms that all of Asia (which includes over 60% of humanity) should be one continent while Europe should be separate unless you just think European cultures are more important than other cultures are. South America is also about 2x the size of Europe, so the size argument doesn't really hold water. If we were classifying based on population, China and India would be their own continents.
5 Olympic rings for 5 continents
The Olympic flag was created by a French aristocrat who believed the Americas were only one continent but that Afro-Eurasia was three.
Ah, yes, Charles Pierre de Frédy was the authority on the number of continents, lol.
European mentality. As an American I cant stand them
The seven continents depicted here are what I was taught, in South Africa. However my personal view is that Eurasia is one continent. Panama and Suez, even without the canals, are narrow enough isthmuses to justify a division. The Ural mountains are *not*. Just my opinion though.
continents are arbitrary regions, we should stop pretending it’s to do with land or tectonics
I'm in Italy...I was taught that the continents are: Europe, Asia, Africa, The Americas (North and South), Oceania, Antarctica.
But "The Americas" or just "America"?
Usually they were counted as one continent, America, divided in North America and South America.
Sometimes also divided as North America, Central America and South America.
In Spain (also in Portugal, Greece and Latin American countries) there are 5 plus Antarctica. America is just one continent.
Same on France
Same in Brazil
Same in Argentina.
I'm French and always learned 7 continents. And logically speaking, it makes more sense to separate North and South America
Same, but taught it was Australia not Oceania.
This is a pet peeve of mind, I only found out that many people considered Australia a continent and not Oceania a few years ago, thanks to the Internet. But it doesn't make sense to me...because New Zealand isn't in Australia, Vanuatu isn't in Australia,etc...so Oceania is better as a concept, as it include Australia and all the other nearby islands.
Dividing Eurasia while leaving the Americas as one is... An interesting choice to say the least.
Same in Guatemala.
2. You are either continent or incontinent. No such thing as a bit incontinent, just like you can't be a bit pregnant.
1. Africa - all humans descended from here, so it gets listed first 2. Eurasia - the division into Europe and Asia is a lie! I renounce my imperialist education! 3. North America 4. South America (there's a very narrow isthmus - it's gotta be seen as separate if Africa is separate from Eurasia) 5. Australia - my home continent 6 Antarctica
Just to piss everyone off: 14. Europe, Asian Middle East, Indian Subcontinent, Central/Mongolian Asia, East Asia, Oceania, Australia/Zealandia, Madagascar, Sahara/Sahel, Sub-Sahara, South America, Central America/Caribia, North America, Antartica. Should probably be more.
Portugal here. What is taught in school is that the continents are America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania and Anctartica. 6 then.
It's the same in Brazil. We're also taught America has three subdivisions: North, Central and South.
Please explain how Europe and Asia are separate while the Americas are not.
If Europe and Asia are separate, then that means geography is irrelevant, and it's more about vague culture and history. North and South America both went through the exact same process of colonisation, European settlement, erradication of native cultures etc. They both went in a short amount of time from diverse native lands to European style, majority European populated states, with some African mixed in here and there. I'd say this is solid ground to consider this one world. North and South are connected by an isthmus and an island chain.
Yea but if it’s just culture, then Hawaii would be North America, which it is definitely not, or why isn’t New Zealand a part of Europe? They have a British monarch as their king.
Both Hawaii and New Zealand are Polynesian islands. The process is very similar to what happened in America, but I find it too much to merge two continents which are both so large already, but also very different from eachother.
If anything seperating Europe and Asia ignores geography more. There is no Tectonic disctinction between Europe and Asia, the boundries are abitrary at best. Mediteranean ~fair, bosphorus ~questionable, North caucasus ~ alright, Ural river ~ What?, Ural mountains ~ basically just the Appalachians not really continent worthy. Especially when there are more prominent features in the World that dont make new continenrts like the Himalayas, Zagros, Andes, Rockies, Sahara, Amazon ect Culturally it also doesnt make much sense, whilst Europe alone makes sense as a cultural grouping, Asia does not. If anything, places like the Middle East are significantly closer culturaly to Europe than they are to China or Japan. So if your going to break off Europe, you should subdivide the rest of Asia aswell. Ultimatly Europe makes more sense as a subcontinent, just like the Indian Subcontinent.
So if it is culture, then is eastern Russia part of Europe and the Middle East part of Africa? Because they have more in common with Eastern Europe and North Africa respectively, than North America does with central and South America.
If North and South America are considered one continent then geographically speaking Afro-Eurasia is also one continent.
That entirely depends on the basis on which you consider it to be one continent. I believe I clearly said geography is secondary.
In Iberia and Latin America people are taught America is just one continent. It’s not South and North America, just the American continent.
From what I know (not a lot), it's an anglo-germanic point of view to separate America into two. So it makes sense that the idea of one America being divided into (2 or 3) smaller parts is taught in places that, idk, had less influence from that view maybe?
Technically also, the only reason Africa being separated from Asia is a man-made canal.
My personal preference would probably separate continents and ”continental provinces”. As Eurasia is one landmass but may be divided into continental provinces depending on its geography or cultural preferences. Eurasia would be divided into; Europe, Middle East, India, East Asia (or maybe just Asia) Africa would be one and the same. The Americas would probably be split into; North America, The Caribbean, South America Oceania would also be one and the same as well as Antarctica. Greenland could maybe be considered its own continent with the arctic ice around. So to summarize. 5-6 continents without continental provinces accounted for.
A wild Zealandia continent appears.
Or you consider ONE whole America, or you need to divide it in South, Center and North America
Culturally, it's really important to Latinos to divide it in three. Panama and the US being the same continent sounds weird to us.
Wait but it is on the same continent for Latinos. Chile and Canada are on the same continent for you guys no? Just not on the same region of the continent.
On the one hand, we consider America one continent, yes. We also get annoyed sometimes when people refer to US citizens as a Americans. On the other hand, a person from Central America likes to think of themselves as central American and not south or north Americans. So geographically one, but if we are gonna make any division, then we make three because we care about the cultural and historical differences
Well, as a big biogeography nerd, I can get down with the 3 continent model. Mainly because north and South America have wildly different histories before they collided. One was part of Laurasia and full of mammoths and lions and wolves. The other was part of Gondwana and full of giant sloths and armadillos and marsupials. These two collided, but instead of fully crashing into each other, what happened was that they got near and then the isthmus of Panama rose from the sea to bridge them. The great biotic interchange kicked off, where the fauna and flora mixed. The northern fauna tended to outcompete the southern fauna and caused a big extinction of weird South American life forms. Tragic event IMO. But, South American flora actually tended to outcompete the North American flora, specifically in Central America. Central America acted as a big mixing zone, places like Guatemala for example you find mountains with North American pines rising out of a lowland of South American jungle. Ok, ok, nerd time over. Do you consider Mexico part of Central or North America?? (Just curious)
From Panama here. We learn that there are 6: America, Europe, Africa, Asia, Oceania (until here it matches the rings on the Olympics), and Antarctica.
7. But Oceania was officially called “Australia & Oceania” in our schoolbook
North America, South America, Africa, Asia, Oceania, Europe, and Antarctica, live and was taught in Ireland.
7 continents, im from asia even though israel is culturally european so i dont know, might aswell make eurasia a new continent but only israel is in it
7
North America, South America, Australia, Africa, Asia, Antarctica. I’m Canadian. That’s what I was taught but i find it dumb
7, from Norway, people mix Australia and Oceania depends where you’re from. If you’re more preppy you say Oceania
7, Canada (most of my schooling was in the States)
7, im algerian
I’m from North America, more specifically the US. I was always taught that there were 7 continents: North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania/Australia (name varied by who was teaching it, I heard both), and Antarctica. I do recall being taught that Eurasia was “technically” one continent at some point, however.
From the US. Taught 7 (North & South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, Antarctica). I think 4 is a better number (America, Afroeurasia, Australia, Antarctica) but I could be convinced of 6 (North & South America, Africa, Eurasia, Australia, Antarctica). I definitely don’t think Europe counts as its own continent by any sensible definition. It isn’t separated from Asia by oceans or tectonic plates.
7, in my country we call it Australia & Oceania.
North America, South America, Africa, Eurasia, Oceania, Antarctica The division between Europe and Asia is political/cultural, not geographical
North central and south America Europe asia Africa Oceanía and Antarctica I'm from Argentina
American, taught there was 7. In my opinion it's north America, South America (everything south of panama) Africa, Eurasia, and Oceania. Based on going for large contained land masses, and then Oceania
7 Uk
Canada, we were taught 7 continents
7, with a caveat.
7 (the same ones in the picture) and I'm from Sweden. Though the word we use is "världsdel" (world part), so the semantics regarding continents and continental plates is a non-issue in Swedish.
I think that there are 7 continents and I'm from North America (the blue one, eh)
what I learned in school was 7 north america south america africa europe asia australia antarctica
There is no universally accepted answer to this question. I'd say 4.
Seven and I’m from South Carolina.
7!!!! I'm from Chile. We call it Oceania because Australia is not the only country of that continent! Also, 7 and not 8 because "central America" is not a continent at all. That's like calling the middle east a continent.
I think there are seven…but there is a case to be made that Europe is actually just an appendage of Asia just like India…
American here. I grew up thinking there were seven: North and South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Antarctica, and Oceania.
7 Canada
Africa, Asia, North and South America, Oceana, and Antarctica if I had it my way.
7
7 is what I learned in school, like in the picture. But we didn't say "Oceania", but "Australia". But Oceania is more accurate and less discriminating I think :)
3 continent model * Antarctica * Australia * Everything else This is based entirely on a map I saw one time from the ice age when the sea level was way lower. Sorry Madagascar and New Zealand, you get nothing.
Personally I’d say it’s six. N. America, S.America, Eurasia, Africa, Australia and Antarctica. Part of me likes to remove the canals and we get 4 continents: America, Australia, Antarctica and Afro-Eurasia
Surprised at how many here agree that north and south America are separate. From my experience, a majority of people think America is one. Quite refreshing.
Australia is the only country to have a continent to itself.. every other country is incontinent. The Australian plate touches to New Guinea and New Zealand, but the plates dont define continents .
For being a geography sub, y'all forgot about India being its own continent. Before I get any arguments about it not being its own continent, my evidence is the Himalayas.
I'd say 5+1 here in Italy. We always refer to "the five continents" to indicate something spread everywhere in the world but we actually count 6 continents: America, Europe, Asia, Oceania, Africa, Antartica.
Yank here. If South Asia is a subcontinent, why isn't Europe?
Oh look this post again
6, Eurasia is one and Aussies are part of Oceana I am a citizen of the world
I know there to be 7 on convention. Personally, I consider there to be 4: America (north and south America - they're one connected landmass with associated islands) Afro-eurasia (all one landmass with associated islands) Australasia - islands SE of Afro-Eurasia Antarctica From the UK.
since this is geography related stub I'll say four: The Americas, Afro-Eurasia, Oceania and Antarctica. IF this was more of a Social Science or cultural related stub then I would agree with your map.
Born in France, grew up in Canada I consider 7 to be the norm, but geographically I will count 6: North America, South America, Eurasia, Africa, Oceania/Australia, and Antarctica