Geography US vs Europe

[BeardofPants]

Bah, not this again.

There are many differing arguements on what constitutes a continent, and we can all buy into the one we like, which is great. It's all arbitrary anyways, huh?

*is now a big proponent of the five-continent argument

[BeardofPants]

Damn that new rolly eyes smily is cute.

<-----

*is gonna give the next person who uses a noogie

[Janny]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

It doesn't agree with you - they just didn't want six rings - because it would the rings would look lopsided - so they just combined South and North America. The two together are called THE AmericaS.

JD's right. And there's also the big tradition thing... I believe the Olypmic flag goes a long way back anyway.

Plus it was made by a Frenchman, of course it didn't recognise the USA...

[Dwarven Sen]

In geography i was told that there are

Australasia
asia
europe
north america
south america
antarctica
africa

Is that wrong? mind you, that was five years ago at least.

I really didn''t know that the olympic symbol had anything to do with continent number. you learn something new everyday. But the USA and North America are completely different. it's like saying that canada is part of the US, isn't it? i'm just asking, cos i don't know.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally Posted by Dwarven Sen

In geography i was told that there are

Australasia
asia
europe
north america
south america
antarctica
africa

Is that wrong? mind you, that was five years ago at least.

I really didn''t know that the olympic symbol had anything to do with continent number. you learn something new everyday. But the USA and North America are completely different. it's like saying that canada is part of the US, isn't it? i'm just asking, cos i don't know.

The list of the SEVEN continents is not exaustive, nor is it meant to be. It is a general way of defining the various areas of the world, with essential regard given to common sense and to a lesser degree ethnic backrounds, so as to allow for simpler discussion and navigation. Of course there are many, many countries that do not fall within the bounds of the defined seven continents. If you want to know where they are, get an atlas. The list of seven is not meant to cover every little island on the planet, and it is silly to think it is.

It is recanted in alphabetical order, so as to avoid any unpleasant jossling for position by some of the more, shall we say, insecure areas of the world.

It reads:

Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, South America.


And it was those lovable Americans (US) that insisted on the north and south of the new world being seperated. It had largley to do with social and political stresses at the time, and the Norths desire to be regarded as part of the "west", and not counted as one of those spaniards beneath (pun, or was it?) them.


Yep, good to be back.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Fenir_LacDanan

And it was those lovable Americans (US) that insisted on the north and south of the new world being seperated. It had largley to do with social and political stresses at the time, and the Norths desire to be regarded as part of the "west", and not counted as one of those spaniards beneath (pun, or was it?) them.

Oh really? I have never heard that explanation before. You say it like that's a fact, I for one would like very much to see your sources for this.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Fenir_LacDanan

And it was those lovable Americans (US) that insisted on the north and south of the new world being seperated. It had largley to do with social and political stresses at the time, and the Norths desire to be regarded as part of the "west", and not counted as one of those spaniards beneath (pun, or was it?) them.

It seems more logical to me than dividing Europe from Asia though, as those two share a long border and the land mass is so contiguous. Africa however, has only a narrow land connection to Asia, which seems akin to that between North and South America.

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by Fenir_LacDanan

The list of the SEVEN continents is not exaustive, nor is it meant to be. It is a general way of defining the various areas of the world, with essential regard given to common sense and to a lesser degree ethnic backrounds, so as to allow for simpler discussion and navigation. Of course there are many, many countries that do not fall within the bounds of the defined seven continents. If you want to know where they are, get an atlas. The list of seven is not meant to cover every little island on the planet, and it is silly to think it is.

I'm not sure that you're right; I believe every island is considered as part of a continent. While the islands in the Pacific Ocean are part of Australia usually, or Australia is part of another continent called 'Oceania'. (In Atlases in Israel I'd usually find it under 'Australia and Oceania'). For example, Mauritius is considered as part of Africa, and the Caribbean as part of North America.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally Posted by Valandil

It seems more logical to me than dividing Europe from Asia though, as those two share a long border and the land mass is so contiguous. Africa however, has only a narrow land connection to Asia, which seems akin to that between North and South America.

I agree. For one, Asia, as it includes Russia, is the biggest continent over Africa, causing many an unwary gamer to get that question wrong on trivia quizes.

Europe is doing the same thing as the North Americans, by seperating itself from Asia. It is, among other things, to do with imperialistic ideals and a sort of zenophobic racism.

The whole world map is afflicted by this, this hang over from the imperialist era. Europe and the US/Canada are drawn larger along with greenland, with south America and Africa being drawn considerably smaller than actual size. This is fact, and here is a good site with the proposed "Peters Projection" world map, a map that aleviates these imperialist mistakes.

http://www.odt.org/FreePeters.htm

If you compare it to some of the current maps in the world, it'll blow your mind.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

I'm not sure that you're right; I believe every island is considered as part of a continent. While the islands in the Pacific Ocean are part of Australia usually, or Australia is part of another continent called 'Oceania'. (In Atlases in Israel I'd usually find it under 'Australia and Oceania'). For example, Mauritius is considered as part of Africa, and the Caribbean as part of North America.

Well, then, what of Greenland? What of Matagascar? What of New Zealand?
I know you can say North America, Africa and "Australasia", but you cant easily include them anywhere. The Seven Continent system was invented before some of the islands your are refering to where even discovered. It was not intended to be an atlas. Thats what atlases are for.

[zinnite]

Originally Posted by Fenir_LacDanan

The whole world map is afflicted by this, this hang over from the imperialist era. Europe and the US/Canada are drawn larger along with greenland, with south America and Africa being drawn considerably smaller than actual size. This is fact, and here is a good site with the proposed "Peters Projection" world map, a map that aleviates these imperialist mistakes.

http://www.odt.org/FreePeters.htm

If you compare it to some of the current maps in the world, it'll blow your mind.

Spatial distortions on maps are not mistakes. All maps have distortion--it's simply an artifact of representing a roughly spherical object on a flat surface. The Peters projection really shouldn't be compared to the Mercator (the common "imperialist" world map most are familiar with)--the Mercator was intended for navigation (it preserves distance relationships), while the Peters is considered an "equal area" map (it preserves size relationships). Cartographically speaking, it's apples and oranges.

The Peters is still distorted, though; rather than the distortion becoming more marked closer to the poles, it's more pronounced closer to the equator. Distortions aside, it is a much better map projection for determining the relative sizes of land mases.

And always remember: maps are like statistics--you can make them prove any point you want, for better or for worse.

[BeardofPants]

Yep, what zinnite says is true. It's all a matter of *what* is being represented on the map, that justifies the projection.

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by Fenir_LacDanan

Well, then, what of Greenland? What of Matagascar? What of New Zealand?
I know you can say North America, Africa and "Australasia", but you cant easily include them anywhere. The Seven Continent system was invented before some of the islands your are refering to where even discovered. It was not intended to be an atlas. Thats what atlases are for.

Madagascar is in Africa, that's quite obvious. New Zealand is considered in Australia. I'm not really sure where Greenland goes, probably North America.
Perhaps, but since then the 'system' changed, it seems.

[Spock]

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/continents

[The Gaffer]

Or that it depends who you are or where you're from.

But which one is Iceland in? I went to Thingvellir last year and you can stand with one foot in Europe and one in North America.

[Valandil]

If one lumps the Americas together, it seems like you'd have as much cause to consider Europe, Asia and Africa as all one continent. Then we could have a two continent system - and Australia and Antarctica join Greenland, etc as 'big islands'.

But at this point, the whole concept of "continents" pretty much loses its meaning... doesn't it?

[Spock]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Or that it depends who you are or where you're from.

But which one is Iceland in? I went to Thingvellir last year and you can stand with one foot in Europe and one in North America.

Yeah, I loved that place. Hope you took a photo...I've one that shows the crack which is quite clear when you're on site, showing the two plates. It's weird.

[Spock]

[QUOTE=zinnite]Spatial distortions on maps are not mistakes. All maps have distortion--


Ahhhh, T ime A nd R elative Demensions I n S pace.

Sounds familiar.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Spock

Yeah, I loved that place. Hope you took a photo...I've one that shows the crack which is quite clear when you're on site, showing the two plates. It's weird.

It's fantastic. The combination of the geology and the history (the world's first parliament met there) is tremendous. The whole of Iceland is a geologist's dream. Everywhere you go you're gobsmacked by the amazingness of it. We found a cinema up a back street of Reykjavik run by some mental bloke who's devoted his life to making films of volcanos erupting. He had some awesome footage of one going off under a glacier: it melted about 600m thickness of ice before anyone noticed it was erupting. Eventually, the water burst out and created a kilometre-wide Sarn Gebir that tossed around boulders the size of houses and totally wrecked half the interior.

I've got loads of pictures somewhere, mostly with me and the Gammer with our jaws hanging open, including one of me standing at the bottom of the crack pushing the sides apart.

[Spock]

Why not upload one (without your smiling face) so we can see the plates.