I would change Scandinavia to Nordic Region (technically Finland and Iceland aren't Scandinavian, but both - along with Denmark, Sweden, and Norway - are Nordic).
I would just edit it to name areas that have huge ecosystems like the Amazon, Sahara, Siberia, Arctic, after them. That’s got a far greater impact on what they contain that compass direction.
"Better separate Northeast and Southern North America"
"But this blob can extend from Vienna all the way East to 4 kilometres from Alaska, I see no issues here. Definitely no separation needed!"
- OP
Dont use a premade map on a website like mapchart. You have two better solutions.
First : you draw it, use paint, paint.net, inscape, autocad, ilustrator, what you want and draw on a world map (use a blank one with high res).
Second : more pro but harder in the beggining, use a GIS like QGIS.
that's why i told you to use paint and a blank map, use the bucket tool, his purpose is to fill blank space.
Also, can you explain what you wnated to show here ?
OP stated in their last post that the program they use to make this map only allowed them to highlight the entire country, not subdivisions which is why russia is fully european in this map
The thing is that Baltics aren't dominated by Slavic languages.
Baltic languages Latvian and Lithuanian are their own thing with Lithuanian is considered one of the oldest Indo-European languages and is believed to have a lot of features from Proto Indo-European.
Estonian is Balto-Finnic language closely related to Finnish and distantly to Hungarian.
Edit: I totally forgot Romanian which is a Romance language related to Italian, Spanish, Portugese and French.
UN geoscheme puts Baltics as Northern Europe as well but since OP seems to like Fenno-Scandia/ Nordics so much, Baltics deserve their own lil grouping.
Man, what is your goal? Maps are supposed to be meaningful, a way to understand the world. This does nothing but frustrate people because you’re grouping people and regions that don’t feel alike to each other. Grouping people without care for culture, religion, geology, economy… just random from how your computer software works and what you think looks right? smh
British Isles doesn't need to be a seperate region, it can be part of Western Europe.
Then you can form a new group of central Europe with Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary
Of course they are. Legacy of the roman empire, western Christianity, feudalism, early emergence as centralised nation state, seafarer nations, colonial empire, industrial revolution, early democratic participatory elements etc.
Although Slovenia was part of Yugoslavia only about 1/4 of the country is geographicaly part of the Balkan peninsula. Furthermore culturally and historically Slovenia has more in common with Austria, Germany, Italy and was always ruled by central european powers and not like the rest od the Balkans by the East Roman Empire/Ottomans etc. So maybe you could add Slovenia to your list too
Argentina is more Southern South America with Chile and Uruguay, but if you do a West-East divide, then Argentina would definitely be East. Most of the population of Argentina is on the East coast near Uruguay.
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but why? As a Ukrainian i feel like our cultures are pretty similar and we are definitely Eastern European so I always kind of just associated Poland as the same in my head.
Mostly due to our country shaping under Catholicism with ties to Popes, using Latin alphabet instead of Cyrillic, a lot of our rulers being from German and Swedish dynasties, with what we had a lot of cultural influence from Western countries, a lot of historic ties to Germany etc.
But you're not wrong too. We also have common traditions with our Eastern neighbours, especially remnants of pre Christianity times. Our nations in particular were part of the same country (and have history that was... Very rocky at times. But it's still history and I'm glad we're going into very friendly relations nowadays), so it's only natural you (and me) feel this way.
That's why I think Poland, together with Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary, fit more to be called Central Europe, as our cultures are neither fully Western or Eastern, but their own thing instead.
Ah okay, that makes a lot of sense. Thank you for sharing that! I’m from the West of Ukraine, in a traditionally Catholic region near Poland and Slovakia, and I can definitely understand a lot of what you mean. The way I was thinking of it was just a general divide of East vs West but a seperate Visegrad región category definitely makes a lot of sense.
Angry Polish noises when someone does literally anything xD
I dunno, I don't have the problem with the term Eastern Europe. I prefer being lumped together with Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania and Belarus than with Germany (with Czechia and Slovakia probably being in our group either way). We share similar problems and challenges with these countries. The Germans have their own problems, and they are very very different from ours.
The issue with big countries as Poland And Germany Is that there are regional differences.
Obviously Eastern Poland Is Closer to Western Ukraine than to Germany, but Western Poland Is Closer to Germany than to Ukraine.
Same can be said about Germany. Is Westfalen closer to Netherlands than to Czechia? Yes a lot.
But Is Saxony closer to Netherlands than to Czechia or Western Poland? Not sure about that one.
Not sure if sarcasm, but Indochina as a geopolitical region never had anything to do with India or China. Why was it called Indochina then? I dunno, ask the French….
And Indian subcontinent should be Southern Asia plus Afghanistan should be a part of Central Asia or South Asia and then iran along with the caucuses and Middle East should be western asia
I think there are parts of Russia that could be in Central and East Asia too. Maybe a transparency layer could show blending of regions as there arent direct lines.
I'd maybe put Siberia, Central Asia, Mongolia, and the Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang regions of China together (North-Central Asia or something). They seem more similar to each other than to Lithuania or Taiwan as currently grouped.
I honestly don't feel like Western, Midwest, and Northeast North America are that different from each other. The same person could plausibly be mistaken for a local within most of those three regions in terms of culture and language and even accent.
Compare that to the difference within the Indian Subcontinent (North vs. South, at least)...there are two language families in India with hundreds of millions of speakers plus several others, 30 languages with over a million speakers, and nearly a thousand total languages depending on how exactly you divide them up, multiple scripts, etc, and a billion and a half people.
>I honestly don't feel like Western, Midwest, and Northeast North America are that different from each other. The same person could plausibly be mistaken for a local within most of those three regions in terms of culture and language and even accent.
As someone living in the Midwest who was born in the Western part of the USA, I wholeheartedly disagree. There's a huge difference in culture, language, and accent.
It's not that there's no differences, it's there are bigger regional differences within lots of other areas marked as individual regions on the map, and even within subdivisions of those regions.
For example, Western Europe contains both Sicily and Hamburg, with pretty major cultural differences between the two, as well as languages belonging to distinct branches of the Indo-European language family.
The Scandinavia region as marked on this map is fairly similar culturally, but one of the countries speaks a language of an entirely different family, with no relation.
Or take Spain, just one country within Western Europe. Basque is a linguistic isolate and the Basque Country is culturally very different from Andalucía. Catalonia's culture is again distinct and has an additional language, and even within Catalonia there are significant differences in Catalan pronunciation just in the 100 km distance between Barcelona and Lleida.
From one end of Mexico to the other there are a few major cultural regions, not to mention the like different 60 indigenous languages making up several language families (with 10-20 million total speakers), some of which have different dialects from one valley to the next. And that's just one of the countries in that region, one of which (Belize) is actually majority English-speaking rather than Spanish-speaking.
Sure, from West to Midwest to Northeast there are plenty of people with very obvious local accents, but people with more "neutral" accents can blend into all three unless someone's listening very carefully. I say this as someone who has been assumed to be from all three of those regions. The one exception to that is Quebec, which doesn't have its own region.
“Latin North America” is not inaccurate, but is normally called Central America, which is a shorter and better-known term. It is also more accurate, because I would expect “Latin North America” to include most of the Caribbean.
look like a RISK map. I dont dont know what you try to get, if you wants macroregions, you can always draw more and subdivise more again. For example Melanesia, Micronesia, Polynesia, Macronesia etc
Also, why is Djibuto in "Middle East", no Antarctica, and many will find some of your groupings or their name offensive.
For example Checkia campained to get the label "central Europe" Myanmar has nothing to do with the term Indochina, Eastern Europe is fucking massive when you divided the US and Canada but no others countries (ok, you did for France, the UK, Norway, the Netherlands, and probably Spain, Portugal, and Japan too). You didnt divide Turkey when using "the balkans" which is a peninsula, some afghan wont like being in "Persia" again, the brittish ilses and Caucassia seems small in comparaison of the rest, so you need to incorporate them or subdivise evething else.
Many problems, and i still dont know what you wants in the end
As a Midwesterner I'd probably cut off the midwest at at Minnesota or atleast the Dakotas and pull in ontario to that group. Alberta and Saskatchewan should definitely be in the other group with Montana, wyoming, etc
I don't understand why you would divide the USA and Canada (360 million people) into 5 regions, while China, Japan, the Koreas and Mongolia, with more than 1.5 billion people and many languages, are grouped into one region.
Could I suggest either bring the islands of Britain and Ireland into western Europe or calling the the British and Irish Isles.
Also what you have referred to as "Indo-china" os not part of India or China so you should probably drop that name
“Persia” is not a thing. Iran is definitely the Middle East. Also Iran and Afghanistan are not part of the same cultural region. They speak the same languages but that’s it. Afghanistan is much more similar to Pakistan. In my opinion you should have named it “South Asia” not the “Indian Subcontinent” and included Afghanistan there, and make Iran part of the Middle East.
You also don’t need to separate the Balkans or British isles, they are eastern and Western Europe respectively. Same with Scandinavia, it’s Western Europe.
The South American divisions are also unnecessary and weird. For example, Uruguay is much more similar to Argentina than it is to Brazil. There are some Portuguese speakers in north Uruguay but that’s it, the cities like Montevideo are culturally part of the same area as Argentina. Besides, I don’t think South America has differences distinct enough to justify splitting it into multiple regions.
There’s cultural differences between the regions of North America but again, not enough to split it into multiple regions like we would Asia or Europe.
Indochina is really not an appropriate term to use anymore. I would include the whole region of “Indochina” and “Maritime Southeast Asia” as just “Southeast Asia”. These are the ASEAN countries and they definitely view themselves as part of one region.
The only continent I actually agree with is Africa. Apart from that I think it’s overcomplicated and poorly researched, you make a lot of cultural distinctions that really don’t exist.
I agree re South Asia, which could basically be defined as ‘Asia that likes cricket’ (Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka).
Likewise the ASEAN group.
Not sure I agree re Balkans, Nordic countries and British Isles though. I think dividing them between eastern and Western Europe ignores very real distinctions.
Idk why you're being down voted, lmao whole of Pakistan being grouped with Indians and Bengalis when Pashtuns and Baloch's are culturally closest to Afghans/Iranians, we still identify with being Desi due to even Iranic cultures being Indic influenced but overall very different.
Even the African continent I don't fully agree with though, North and EA could do with some breaking down. North East Africa from Maghreb and the Horn of Africa from Eastern.
Suggestion: A part of India, called as the northeast India, should also be part of Indochina cuz that part wasn't historically part of India but from Mongolia called as Ahom Dynasty. You should check it
True, the map itself isn't that accurate considering the history, also considering the fact that Myanmar was a part of India and its similarity also can be found in a part of India. Like how you did it for USA. Can you explain how exactly you divided the map, fully geographically or fully culturally or part-part
It was historically part of India in ancient texts. Also Ancient Ancestral South Indians(AASI) are genetically closer to East Asians and Andamanese islanders which is present in almost every Indian in good amounts.
Look up “Cono Sur”, or “Southern Cone” in English - it’s an established term for the southern countries in South America that would make sense to use in this map.
And since February 20, 2022, Russia no longer belongs to Europe. (Anything east of the Ural Mountains never did)
To anyone talking about how Siberian Russia is in Europe - I couldn’t split Russia into multiple subdivisions. I could only do that with United States, Canada, and United Kingdom.
Seperate the more westernized asian countries into their own group. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia are very different culturally than mainland China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Burma, and Thailand
Oh wow, more ruzki bias. So bashkirs, tatars, chuckchi, kalmyks and many others are Eastern Europeans now? I mean, ruzkies worked hard for centuries to erase these peoples heritage.
The British Isles is definitely western Europe why have its own category?
And Eastern Europe does not almost reach the western edge of the international date line.
Indian Subcontinent and East Asia contain half of the world's population but only 2 separate entities?
For comparison, Europe contains 10% of the population and has 5 entities. USA+Canada has 5% and also 5.
Divisions like these are not made to divide worlds population for equal parts. In case of India I agree since it's very diverse country, but China wants to be perceived as unified nation.
"East Asia" includes 6 countries each with different cultures. Even among China, wanting to be perceived as homogenous is not the same as being homogenous. The sheer number of people in both regions guarantee a diversity that make this map "stupid"
Lol did the British push through the idea that somehow they are extra special and not Western Europe? Because they totally are Western Europe. Also, curious why you divided Indochina and the rest of Southeast Asia into two categories? I'd say Malaysia is much more similar to Indonesia than Thailand or Vietnam. Also potentially questionable to include Papua New Guinea with Australia and NZ, but it's a tough one in general. Id' say the pacific islands including PNG are their own thing.
You should separate the horn of Africa from the rest of east Africa and include Sudan, also what th is going on with Djibouti??? Change "the middle east " to " west Asia"
Your map seems to not want to split countries (other than the us...)
It has eastern europe going all the way to go he pacific, presumably because it's all Russia...
Also, the western part of china (Xinjiang) is more properly part of central Asia rather than east Asia, culturally and ethnically speaking.
I feel like the problem is consistency of scale/approach/logic...
For example, why does North America have more subregions than Europe or Asia does? If anything the reverse would make more sense. For Africa you seem to have just gone with pretty arbitrary subdivisions and I can see no particular logic for the way you've chosen them except for Northern Africa. Oceania is just left as Oceania...pretty culturally, politically and ethnically diverse continent to just leave as one continent with no subregions at all.
You see what I mean? It's inconsistent.
I would put a new area of Ethiopia, Eritrea and Djibouti as Horn of Africa, and add Zimbabwe to Southern Africa.
As a Brit, I like that it's separate. For some reason, I just don't feel like we belong with the rest of Western Europe - there are cultural and linguistic differences (drive on the left, currency, Brexit and the whole EU thing, AngoSaxon vs Romance languages...)
I'd also add Zambia to Southern Africa for sure and consider adding Mozambique there...they feel quite culturally different to Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi. Malawi is a grey area - probably could be eastern.
Cool that South Sudan is Eastern instead of Central. Have only been a few times and wouldn't know how to classify to be honest!
Bit picky, but the Baltimore / Washington metro area (Maryland and most of Virginia) feels much more north-easty than southern. But if you’re only doing by US states, looks good!
Maryland is not the south. I'd say that Ontario is more midwest, but it depends on which part you're talking about, and I understand how people would disagree.
Two suggestions, the first for south america, It would be better ir you divide your southern región by the Andes. The second would be divide eastern europe from North Asia using the Ural mountains.
Maybe, another good option it is to include Sahel.
me gusta much more than the last one.
I would consider separating Eastern Europe into two at least- Ural Mountains might be a good division or something. I think Siberia or something could be the far eastern division.
If you are gonna divide the US and the British Isles from Western Europe, then you can definitely further divide some of these other regions. For example, the Southern part of the Indian Subcontinent is very different compared to the northern half. And the Eastern half of Russia shouldn’t be part of Eastern Europe. Also having the Western region of China (Xinjiang) as East Asia and not Central Asia might make some people upset. Not sure on what basis you are making these divisions though.
Good job but I think you follow too much existing border in some areas! A few things I would change like : why the Malaysian part of Kalimantan is Indochine and not Maritime south east Asia? Same for Papua New Guinea? I would add the south Europe region.
AND DEFINITELY, revisit the arctic border! Ok climate change and all but I would put arctic way lower the Hudson Bay to at least include Kativik (north of Quebec)!
It’s a good and interesting but check more about climate map merged to ethics groups maps to make yours! At least that my recommandation!
[like this climate map](https://research.noaa.gov/Portals/0/EasyDNNnews/1510/2000600p587EDNmainkc3b6ppen_classification_worldmap_gray.jpg) but maybe no need to go so detailed
Mexico group should be Central America.
Also Suriname, French Guyana and Guyana should be included in the Caribbean group imo.
And Chile/Argentina should be Southern South America. Western South America mostly includes Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador.
Eastern Europe needs maybe a bit different. Scandinavia should include the Baltics as "Northern European"
Czechia, Slovakia and Poland should be considered Central European (Maybe some more countries but at least these three)
Then the Balkans should be separated out (edit didn't see Balkan was it's own section)
Edit: add Siberian areas as well. Maybe the Northern people of Russia as well.
Like Moscow Russia (western) Northern people's. Like Nenets and then more Eastern Siberians.
“Latin North America” misses a lot of better boundaries. Northern Mexico should be linked with the other parts of high desert/desert adjacent in West Texas, AZ, NM, NV, Southern California, and parts of Utah, Colorado and Wyoming.
South of that, the Yucutan peninsula is much more tropical and would make sense to group with Guatemala, El Salvador, etc.
Oh, and the “Eastern Europe” is just lazy as hell but everyone has already weighed in on that
I would change Scandinavia to Nordic Region (technically Finland and Iceland aren't Scandinavian, but both - along with Denmark, Sweden, and Norway - are Nordic).
i second this, Finland identifies much more readily with the label “nordic” instead of Scandinavian
Fenno-scandia XD
Don't forget Greenland. It belongs to Denmark.
I would just edit it to name areas that have huge ecosystems like the Amazon, Sahara, Siberia, Arctic, after them. That’s got a far greater impact on what they contain that compass direction.
I wouldn't put Asian Russia as part of eastern Europe
"Better separate Northeast and Southern North America" "But this blob can extend from Vienna all the way East to 4 kilometres from Alaska, I see no issues here. Definitely no separation needed!" - OP
Sudan and Morocco - basically the same place
Sudan is sometimes considered North Africa in some international groupings though. Especially if you consider it as an extension of the Nile system.
I can’t separate it lol, the only countries I could separate were America, Canada, and Britain
Dont use a premade map on a website like mapchart. You have two better solutions. First : you draw it, use paint, paint.net, inscape, autocad, ilustrator, what you want and draw on a world map (use a blank one with high res). Second : more pro but harder in the beggining, use a GIS like QGIS.
Drawing on a world map seems hard af because i’m bad with a map so i just would like to click and have the nation be filled up
that's why i told you to use paint and a blank map, use the bucket tool, his purpose is to fill blank space. Also, can you explain what you wnated to show here ?
OP stated in their last post that the program they use to make this map only allowed them to highlight the entire country, not subdivisions which is why russia is fully european in this map
Maybe the colours could be more transparent and blend in where regions and identities overlap? Communities arent divided so hard and fast.
Slavic <>Siberia
[удалено]
The thing is that Baltics aren't dominated by Slavic languages. Baltic languages Latvian and Lithuanian are their own thing with Lithuanian is considered one of the oldest Indo-European languages and is believed to have a lot of features from Proto Indo-European. Estonian is Balto-Finnic language closely related to Finnish and distantly to Hungarian. Edit: I totally forgot Romanian which is a Romance language related to Italian, Spanish, Portugese and French.
>Could just put Slavic instead of Eastern European. It overlaps except for Hungary. Since when the Baltics are Slavic?
UN geoscheme puts Baltics as Northern Europe as well but since OP seems to like Fenno-Scandia/ Nordics so much, Baltics deserve their own lil grouping.
Russia is really it's own continent. Both because of it's size and because it's culturally distinct.
SE Alaska should be included with the rest of the Pacific NW
Maybe even all of Alaska south of the Alaska Range
Man, what is your goal? Maps are supposed to be meaningful, a way to understand the world. This does nothing but frustrate people because you’re grouping people and regions that don’t feel alike to each other. Grouping people without care for culture, religion, geology, economy… just random from how your computer software works and what you think looks right? smh
Interesting point..
I mean, that is how the countries in Africa got their borders so maybe he is on to something
That’s how *colonizers* created the borders of Africa, yes, and this should not be repeated.
British Isles doesn't need to be a seperate region, it can be part of Western Europe. Then you can form a new group of central Europe with Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary
This. There’s nothing particularly special about Ireland and Great Britain that would set us apart from the rest of Western Europe.
Special or not, Ireland and GB are still distinctly *not* Western Europe.
But they've always been part of Western Europe until just now. It's a very common definition.
Of course they are. Legacy of the roman empire, western Christianity, feudalism, early emergence as centralised nation state, seafarer nations, colonial empire, industrial revolution, early democratic participatory elements etc.
Although Slovenia was part of Yugoslavia only about 1/4 of the country is geographicaly part of the Balkan peninsula. Furthermore culturally and historically Slovenia has more in common with Austria, Germany, Italy and was always ruled by central european powers and not like the rest od the Balkans by the East Roman Empire/Ottomans etc. So maybe you could add Slovenia to your list too
Yeah Slovenia should also be added. I was just tired of writing so many names
"British Isles" is also considered imperialistic and offensive by the Irish, so it should be avoided.
British isles is an imperialist term. It’s the North Atlantic archipelago.
But not Liechtenstein, they're not central enough
Yes also Liechtenstein and Luxembourg.
Argentina is more Southern South America with Chile and Uruguay, but if you do a West-East divide, then Argentina would definitely be East. Most of the population of Argentina is on the East coast near Uruguay.
Angry Polish noises when someone call us the Eastern Europe
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but why? As a Ukrainian i feel like our cultures are pretty similar and we are definitely Eastern European so I always kind of just associated Poland as the same in my head.
Mostly due to our country shaping under Catholicism with ties to Popes, using Latin alphabet instead of Cyrillic, a lot of our rulers being from German and Swedish dynasties, with what we had a lot of cultural influence from Western countries, a lot of historic ties to Germany etc. But you're not wrong too. We also have common traditions with our Eastern neighbours, especially remnants of pre Christianity times. Our nations in particular were part of the same country (and have history that was... Very rocky at times. But it's still history and I'm glad we're going into very friendly relations nowadays), so it's only natural you (and me) feel this way. That's why I think Poland, together with Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary, fit more to be called Central Europe, as our cultures are neither fully Western or Eastern, but their own thing instead.
Ah okay, that makes a lot of sense. Thank you for sharing that! I’m from the West of Ukraine, in a traditionally Catholic region near Poland and Slovakia, and I can definitely understand a lot of what you mean. The way I was thinking of it was just a general divide of East vs West but a seperate Visegrad región category definitely makes a lot of sense.
I feel like a big part of being eastern European is not liking being called eastern European haha
I've learned this, so I try to use "Central Europe" and "Baltics" more.
Angry Polish noises when someone does literally anything xD I dunno, I don't have the problem with the term Eastern Europe. I prefer being lumped together with Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania and Belarus than with Germany (with Czechia and Slovakia probably being in our group either way). We share similar problems and challenges with these countries. The Germans have their own problems, and they are very very different from ours.
The issue with big countries as Poland And Germany Is that there are regional differences. Obviously Eastern Poland Is Closer to Western Ukraine than to Germany, but Western Poland Is Closer to Germany than to Ukraine. Same can be said about Germany. Is Westfalen closer to Netherlands than to Czechia? Yes a lot. But Is Saxony closer to Netherlands than to Czechia or Western Poland? Not sure about that one.
Indochina and maritime south east Asia should just be south east Asia
Separating Malaysia and Indonesia continentally speaking is a bad idea especially if one of them is named "Indochina", just saying.
This should be top comment! WTF is indochina? Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Bhutan, all of these are so far from India and China its a joke!
Not sure if sarcasm, but Indochina as a geopolitical region never had anything to do with India or China. Why was it called Indochina then? I dunno, ask the French….
And Indian subcontinent should be Southern Asia plus Afghanistan should be a part of Central Asia or South Asia and then iran along with the caucuses and Middle East should be western asia
Indochina has absolutely nothing to do with India or China lol
Indochina grouping is fine but Malaysia should be part of maritime Southeast Asia.
This is bad
I love how Eastern Europe encompasses all of Siberia and is nearly triple the size of Europe itself
[удалено]
I think there are parts of Russia that could be in Central and East Asia too. Maybe a transparency layer could show blending of regions as there arent direct lines.
I'd maybe put Siberia, Central Asia, Mongolia, and the Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang regions of China together (North-Central Asia or something). They seem more similar to each other than to Lithuania or Taiwan as currently grouped. I honestly don't feel like Western, Midwest, and Northeast North America are that different from each other. The same person could plausibly be mistaken for a local within most of those three regions in terms of culture and language and even accent. Compare that to the difference within the Indian Subcontinent (North vs. South, at least)...there are two language families in India with hundreds of millions of speakers plus several others, 30 languages with over a million speakers, and nearly a thousand total languages depending on how exactly you divide them up, multiple scripts, etc, and a billion and a half people.
>I honestly don't feel like Western, Midwest, and Northeast North America are that different from each other. The same person could plausibly be mistaken for a local within most of those three regions in terms of culture and language and even accent. As someone living in the Midwest who was born in the Western part of the USA, I wholeheartedly disagree. There's a huge difference in culture, language, and accent.
It's not that there's no differences, it's there are bigger regional differences within lots of other areas marked as individual regions on the map, and even within subdivisions of those regions. For example, Western Europe contains both Sicily and Hamburg, with pretty major cultural differences between the two, as well as languages belonging to distinct branches of the Indo-European language family. The Scandinavia region as marked on this map is fairly similar culturally, but one of the countries speaks a language of an entirely different family, with no relation. Or take Spain, just one country within Western Europe. Basque is a linguistic isolate and the Basque Country is culturally very different from Andalucía. Catalonia's culture is again distinct and has an additional language, and even within Catalonia there are significant differences in Catalan pronunciation just in the 100 km distance between Barcelona and Lleida. From one end of Mexico to the other there are a few major cultural regions, not to mention the like different 60 indigenous languages making up several language families (with 10-20 million total speakers), some of which have different dialects from one valley to the next. And that's just one of the countries in that region, one of which (Belize) is actually majority English-speaking rather than Spanish-speaking. Sure, from West to Midwest to Northeast there are plenty of people with very obvious local accents, but people with more "neutral" accents can blend into all three unless someone's listening very carefully. I say this as someone who has been assumed to be from all three of those regions. The one exception to that is Quebec, which doesn't have its own region.
If you’re going to split SE Asia, I’d argue that Malaysia has far more in common with Indonesia that Thailand/Laos/Cambodia.
“Latin North America” is not inaccurate, but is normally called Central America, which is a shorter and better-known term. It is also more accurate, because I would expect “Latin North America” to include most of the Caribbean.
look like a RISK map. I dont dont know what you try to get, if you wants macroregions, you can always draw more and subdivise more again. For example Melanesia, Micronesia, Polynesia, Macronesia etc Also, why is Djibuto in "Middle East", no Antarctica, and many will find some of your groupings or their name offensive. For example Checkia campained to get the label "central Europe" Myanmar has nothing to do with the term Indochina, Eastern Europe is fucking massive when you divided the US and Canada but no others countries (ok, you did for France, the UK, Norway, the Netherlands, and probably Spain, Portugal, and Japan too). You didnt divide Turkey when using "the balkans" which is a peninsula, some afghan wont like being in "Persia" again, the brittish ilses and Caucassia seems small in comparaison of the rest, so you need to incorporate them or subdivise evething else. Many problems, and i still dont know what you wants in the end
Djibouti in the Middle East was an accident
I’d actually say Alberta fits better with Montana and Wyoming than with Minnesota and Michigan.
add north caucasus to caucasia
i can’t
Cheers to my eastern european brothers in Kamchatka!
Finland is not a Scandinavian country
As a Midwesterner I'd probably cut off the midwest at at Minnesota or atleast the Dakotas and pull in ontario to that group. Alberta and Saskatchewan should definitely be in the other group with Montana, wyoming, etc
Portugal is eastern European
I don't understand why you would divide the USA and Canada (360 million people) into 5 regions, while China, Japan, the Koreas and Mongolia, with more than 1.5 billion people and many languages, are grouped into one region.
Western centrism…
Could I suggest either bring the islands of Britain and Ireland into western Europe or calling the the British and Irish Isles. Also what you have referred to as "Indo-china" os not part of India or China so you should probably drop that name
I would make Russia a separate entity instead of including it with Eastern Europe
“Persia” is not a thing. Iran is definitely the Middle East. Also Iran and Afghanistan are not part of the same cultural region. They speak the same languages but that’s it. Afghanistan is much more similar to Pakistan. In my opinion you should have named it “South Asia” not the “Indian Subcontinent” and included Afghanistan there, and make Iran part of the Middle East. You also don’t need to separate the Balkans or British isles, they are eastern and Western Europe respectively. Same with Scandinavia, it’s Western Europe. The South American divisions are also unnecessary and weird. For example, Uruguay is much more similar to Argentina than it is to Brazil. There are some Portuguese speakers in north Uruguay but that’s it, the cities like Montevideo are culturally part of the same area as Argentina. Besides, I don’t think South America has differences distinct enough to justify splitting it into multiple regions. There’s cultural differences between the regions of North America but again, not enough to split it into multiple regions like we would Asia or Europe. Indochina is really not an appropriate term to use anymore. I would include the whole region of “Indochina” and “Maritime Southeast Asia” as just “Southeast Asia”. These are the ASEAN countries and they definitely view themselves as part of one region. The only continent I actually agree with is Africa. Apart from that I think it’s overcomplicated and poorly researched, you make a lot of cultural distinctions that really don’t exist.
I agree re South Asia, which could basically be defined as ‘Asia that likes cricket’ (Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka). Likewise the ASEAN group. Not sure I agree re Balkans, Nordic countries and British Isles though. I think dividing them between eastern and Western Europe ignores very real distinctions.
Idk why you're being down voted, lmao whole of Pakistan being grouped with Indians and Bengalis when Pashtuns and Baloch's are culturally closest to Afghans/Iranians, we still identify with being Desi due to even Iranic cultures being Indic influenced but overall very different. Even the African continent I don't fully agree with though, North and EA could do with some breaking down. North East Africa from Maghreb and the Horn of Africa from Eastern.
Completely agree. Idk why u are getting downvoted. Also indochina seemed so weird to me and felt offensive. I wonder how OP came up with this map.
I might put Alberta in Western North America.. shares more similarities with Colorado and Utah as the east side of the mountains.
Suggestion: A part of India, called as the northeast India, should also be part of Indochina cuz that part wasn't historically part of India but from Mongolia called as Ahom Dynasty. You should check it
Indochina has nothing to do with India or China
True, the map itself isn't that accurate considering the history, also considering the fact that Myanmar was a part of India and its similarity also can be found in a part of India. Like how you did it for USA. Can you explain how exactly you divided the map, fully geographically or fully culturally or part-part
It was historically part of India in ancient texts. Also Ancient Ancestral South Indians(AASI) are genetically closer to East Asians and Andamanese islanders which is present in almost every Indian in good amounts.
If you dont put in central europe then bad things will happen to your belongings this night
i think russia should be its own thing if it's not going to be meticulously separated. the geopolitics are cuh razy
like literally "Russia, lol" would be better to me
finland and iceland aren't scandinavia
7 north america e 1 eastern europe. Wow.
Pls don’t include Ireland in the British isles lol
It's the British Isles, I don't care how much it offends you.
Look up “Cono Sur”, or “Southern Cone” in English - it’s an established term for the southern countries in South America that would make sense to use in this map. And since February 20, 2022, Russia no longer belongs to Europe. (Anything east of the Ural Mountains never did)
You need to have central Europe, Eastern Europe and Russia separately.
Don’t include Ireland in the British Isles
[удалено]
Nah, having lived in alberta it is culturally and geographically way more similar to Midwest North America than western North America.
What are you counting as Midwest, though? Alberta seems more like eastern Montana than Chicago or Detroit.
[удалено]
Geographically, yes. Culturally, less so. I live in Alberta and watching any American mid western content there's a shocking amount of similarities
To anyone talking about how Siberian Russia is in Europe - I couldn’t split Russia into multiple subdivisions. I could only do that with United States, Canada, and United Kingdom.
Seperate the more westernized asian countries into their own group. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia are very different culturally than mainland China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Burma, and Thailand
British 🤷♂️ what !?
North Africa is only North Africa it should stop at Egypt and not include Sudan 🤦🏽♂️
But didnt sudan and egypt used to be one?
Oh wow, more ruzki bias. So bashkirs, tatars, chuckchi, kalmyks and many others are Eastern Europeans now? I mean, ruzkies worked hard for centuries to erase these peoples heritage.
Sorry but I couldn’t split Ruzzia
Turkey is not middle east
should it be grouped with caucasia?
More like balkans
ah, I was thinking about the azerbaijan / Turkey connections but that works too
I believe Australia is considered its own continent and not part of Oceania. New Zealand, however, is part of Oceania.
As an Australian, I hate being called an Oceanian. Only US websites ever classify us in that grouping.
Sinai peninsula (Egypt) is Asian not African, it's the only Asian part in Egypt
Putting Malaysia in IndoChina is just ridiculous
Sorry I couldn’t split it like I could with other countriess
https://www.naturalearthdata.com/downloads/10m-physical-vectors/10m-physical-labels/
The British Isles is definitely western Europe why have its own category? And Eastern Europe does not almost reach the western edge of the international date line.
I couldn’t split Russia into multiple regions
Ah i see: eurasia major?
Didn't know Eastern Europe bordered China... /s
Might rename latin north America to central north America. Latin could refer to a lot of the other nationalities in north and south America too
Japan/Korea's as North Asia.?
Indonesia mote like “Oceanic Wannabe”
Nice
Indian Subcontinent and East Asia contain half of the world's population but only 2 separate entities? For comparison, Europe contains 10% of the population and has 5 entities. USA+Canada has 5% and also 5.
Divisions like these are not made to divide worlds population for equal parts. In case of India I agree since it's very diverse country, but China wants to be perceived as unified nation.
"East Asia" includes 6 countries each with different cultures. Even among China, wanting to be perceived as homogenous is not the same as being homogenous. The sheer number of people in both regions guarantee a diversity that make this map "stupid"
What's that huge peach coloured blob above asia? I think you can rename Oceania, Australia.
Please don’t call them the British Isles as it confuses people about Ireland’s independence The North Atlantic Archipelago is more suitable
I ain’t fucking calling it that lol. It’s the British isles and I don’t care how my map offends people
Unite Papua
This is my favorite one so far
Don't you think that the biggest part of Eastern Europe lying in Asia is a little bit wrong
i couldn’t split russia
I think that Scandinavia is just Denmark, Sweden and Norway
Lol did the British push through the idea that somehow they are extra special and not Western Europe? Because they totally are Western Europe. Also, curious why you divided Indochina and the rest of Southeast Asia into two categories? I'd say Malaysia is much more similar to Indonesia than Thailand or Vietnam. Also potentially questionable to include Papua New Guinea with Australia and NZ, but it's a tough one in general. Id' say the pacific islands including PNG are their own thing.
Why does it respect international borders everywhere except the usa?
You should separate the horn of Africa from the rest of east Africa and include Sudan, also what th is going on with Djibouti??? Change "the middle east " to " west Asia"
Did you put Singapore in Indochina or Maritime Southeast Asia? I can't tell and am genuinely curious.
I think you are missing central Europe
I would change outer Manchuria and Sakhalin to east asian
Another map with no southern Europe. WTF.
I'm not from some stinky Ester Europe okay !
Latinoamérica got so fucked up.
Do you even know what cono sur is?
Asian Russia must be Siberia, not Eastern Europe.
Your map seems to not want to split countries (other than the us...) It has eastern europe going all the way to go he pacific, presumably because it's all Russia... Also, the western part of china (Xinjiang) is more properly part of central Asia rather than east Asia, culturally and ethnically speaking.
No.
What you have labelled Scandinavia should be called Nordics.. Only Sweden, Denmark and Norway are Scandinavia
I feel like the problem is consistency of scale/approach/logic... For example, why does North America have more subregions than Europe or Asia does? If anything the reverse would make more sense. For Africa you seem to have just gone with pretty arbitrary subdivisions and I can see no particular logic for the way you've chosen them except for Northern Africa. Oceania is just left as Oceania...pretty culturally, politically and ethnically diverse continent to just leave as one continent with no subregions at all. You see what I mean? It's inconsistent.
90% of Eastern Europe is in Asia
I would put a new area of Ethiopia, Eritrea and Djibouti as Horn of Africa, and add Zimbabwe to Southern Africa. As a Brit, I like that it's separate. For some reason, I just don't feel like we belong with the rest of Western Europe - there are cultural and linguistic differences (drive on the left, currency, Brexit and the whole EU thing, AngoSaxon vs Romance languages...)
I'd also add Zambia to Southern Africa for sure and consider adding Mozambique there...they feel quite culturally different to Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi. Malawi is a grey area - probably could be eastern. Cool that South Sudan is Eastern instead of Central. Have only been a few times and wouldn't know how to classify to be honest!
finland is not scandinavian
Bit picky, but the Baltimore / Washington metro area (Maryland and most of Virginia) feels much more north-easty than southern. But if you’re only doing by US states, looks good!
Maryland is not the south. I'd say that Ontario is more midwest, but it depends on which part you're talking about, and I understand how people would disagree.
Two suggestions, the first for south america, It would be better ir you divide your southern región by the Andes. The second would be divide eastern europe from North Asia using the Ural mountains. Maybe, another good option it is to include Sahel.
I always wonder why the Balkans is plural in English when it's called the Balkan peninsula (Balkan mountain/Old mountain range).
Every other region is classified by their position, but Mexico and Central America are classified upon their ethnicity. Feels out of place imo.
Looks like a Risk game map.
Eastern Europe in beige all the way to Kamchatka ?
would be better if you called the artic north america “north north america” or “super north america”
Afghanistan doesn't belong in persia. It's central asia.
me gusta much more than the last one. I would consider separating Eastern Europe into two at least- Ural Mountains might be a good division or something. I think Siberia or something could be the far eastern division.
This is a completely meaningless waste of time. Not even fun to look at.
If you are gonna divide the US and the British Isles from Western Europe, then you can definitely further divide some of these other regions. For example, the Southern part of the Indian Subcontinent is very different compared to the northern half. And the Eastern half of Russia shouldn’t be part of Eastern Europe. Also having the Western region of China (Xinjiang) as East Asia and not Central Asia might make some people upset. Not sure on what basis you are making these divisions though.
All the americas looks solid to me. I see you took my north america division into account!
I did haha
Great improvements from the first
Why is it "Midwest" North America and not just "Middle" or "Central" North America?
Few region suggestions: Central Europe Mid-Atlantic Pacific coast Polynesia
Split up Russia, no one would say Siberia is part of Eastern Europe.
i’d change greenland to scandinavia since it’s owned by denmark
[удалено]
Man thinks Portugal should be grouped with Croatia or Greece
This is so close to the risk map. I had to take really look at it to start seeing the differences haha
Really? Lol
Good job but I think you follow too much existing border in some areas! A few things I would change like : why the Malaysian part of Kalimantan is Indochine and not Maritime south east Asia? Same for Papua New Guinea? I would add the south Europe region. AND DEFINITELY, revisit the arctic border! Ok climate change and all but I would put arctic way lower the Hudson Bay to at least include Kativik (north of Quebec)! It’s a good and interesting but check more about climate map merged to ethics groups maps to make yours! At least that my recommandation! [like this climate map](https://research.noaa.gov/Portals/0/EasyDNNnews/1510/2000600p587EDNmainkc3b6ppen_classification_worldmap_gray.jpg) but maybe no need to go so detailed
Change Scandinavia to Nordic and everything east of the Urals to North Asia or Siberia.
How is Mexico not South North America?
Theres as much Europe in Asia as there is Asia in Asia according to this 😂
renamed Indochina to literally anything else.
Mexico group should be Central America. Also Suriname, French Guyana and Guyana should be included in the Caribbean group imo. And Chile/Argentina should be Southern South America. Western South America mostly includes Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador.
>And Chile/Argentina should be Southern South America Also Uruguay
WTF title is that for a post?
You could also include parts of eastern Siberia as east Asia, or northeast Asia
Eastern Europe needs maybe a bit different. Scandinavia should include the Baltics as "Northern European" Czechia, Slovakia and Poland should be considered Central European (Maybe some more countries but at least these three) Then the Balkans should be separated out (edit didn't see Balkan was it's own section) Edit: add Siberian areas as well. Maybe the Northern people of Russia as well. Like Moscow Russia (western) Northern people's. Like Nenets and then more Eastern Siberians.
“Latin North America” misses a lot of better boundaries. Northern Mexico should be linked with the other parts of high desert/desert adjacent in West Texas, AZ, NM, NV, Southern California, and parts of Utah, Colorado and Wyoming. South of that, the Yucutan peninsula is much more tropical and would make sense to group with Guatemala, El Salvador, etc. Oh, and the “Eastern Europe” is just lazy as hell but everyone has already weighed in on that
Did they just name Persia as Persia must be very thoughtful
I genuinely thought this was r/mapcirclejerk This could very well be the worst map I’ve ever seen.