It’s all arbitrary. Personally, this is how I see it: India is widely considered a subcontinent, and has an ancient and diverse cultural impact just like Europe as well as three times the population. Further, it is even on its own tectonic plate. Meanwhile, Europe has all those things except the tectonic part, yet is considered a whole continent? It’s clearly Western bias. So if I see someone saying glory to Europe, the greatest continent ever, then of course I’m going to attack the ridiculous notion that Europe has a unique right to being called a continent unlike India or Arabia.
Moreover, in the Mercator map, Europe is too big comparing to Africa than it is in reality. Maybe this is no intentional, and simply geometrical, but I am sure that westoids likes it that way.
It is unintentional since the Mercator map is designed for accurate sea navigation, and its very easy to reproduce and print on a flat paper map, so the size of the continents is just due to mathematics. However there is definitely an anglo-centric influence as to why the map is propagated to the degree it is.
Also if you want to have a Mercator map that doesn’t split any continents in half, I think centering it close to the Atlantic or the Pacific are the only ways to go.
I definitely agree that there is an “anti-oriental” bias as to why Europe is considered a continent, but at the same time it does make sense to have a distinction between the continents. Basing continents simply off of tectonics plates gets rough very quick, as Asia itself is divided into several plates (especially in Siberia, Eastern China, and Southeast Asia) and a large part of Siberia is itself located on the North American plate.
Plus there is a very decent natural “land border” in the form of the Urals and Western Steppes, both of which are very very lightly populated where the European border is drawn.
It’s all arbitrary. Personally, this is how I see it: India is widely considered a subcontinent, and has an ancient and diverse cultural impact just like Europe as well as three times the population. Further, it is even on its own tectonic plate. Meanwhile, Europe has all those things except the tectonic part, yet is considered a whole continent? It’s clearly Western bias. So if I see someone saying glory to Europe, the greatest continent ever, then of course I’m going to attack the ridiculous notion that Europe has a unique right to being called a continent unlike India or Arabia.
Moreover, in the Mercator map, Europe is too big comparing to Africa than it is in reality. Maybe this is no intentional, and simply geometrical, but I am sure that westoids likes it that way.
It is unintentional since the Mercator map is designed for accurate sea navigation, and its very easy to reproduce and print on a flat paper map, so the size of the continents is just due to mathematics. However there is definitely an anglo-centric influence as to why the map is propagated to the degree it is.
Behold, Nipponcentrism
Also if you want to have a Mercator map that doesn’t split any continents in half, I think centering it close to the Atlantic or the Pacific are the only ways to go.
I definitely agree that there is an “anti-oriental” bias as to why Europe is considered a continent, but at the same time it does make sense to have a distinction between the continents. Basing continents simply off of tectonics plates gets rough very quick, as Asia itself is divided into several plates (especially in Siberia, Eastern China, and Southeast Asia) and a large part of Siberia is itself located on the North American plate.
Plus there is a very decent natural “land border” in the form of the Urals and Western Steppes, both of which are very very lightly populated where the European border is drawn.
All good points, but I choose to be an opportunistic hater in this instance. 😈