NationStates Jolt Archive

I was rather shocked to learn this.. and wonder now what other kids have been taught in their elementary schools. After atending my University I first heard my spanish professor adimatly proclaiming there were 5 continents in where North and south america were one single continent. At first I made little of it and just figured she was a die hard hispanic ... but after spending a month in Argentina I found out this is regularly taught and now wonder if my elitest North Easter education wasn´t flawed in some way. So im wondering mainly from Europeans, what they are taught to be true.. I understood there to be 7

North America
South America
Europe
Asia
Australia
Africa
Antarctica (who cares about spelling :) )

but for kids in south america its only 5

America(s)
Europe
Asia
Australia
Africa

not counting Antarctica either... So which is it ..

HMM.. CAN I HAVE MY POLL ALTERED TO INCLUDE THE OPTION 6 since many europeans are now using that option

The first.

The reason for the seperation between the North and south america is due to the inhabitants. Canda and America are primarily German, Irish, Italian, British, French. South america is primarily Spanish. The cultures are different so it's divided like eurasia is divided.

It is both, I'm am taking Spanish in school, and as part of this we learn the culture. Well we learned that in South America in most schools they have the view that North and South America anre one, and that Antarctica is just like the Arctic, not a real continent.

If you ask me there are six continents.

North America, South America, Africa, Australia, Antarctica and Eurasia.

Eurasia is of course generally divided into Europe and Asia, which would make it seven. But technically, if you look at it, its a single landmass.

Neither. There are six: Eurasia, Africa, North America, South America, Australia, and Antarctica.

Also, there are five Oceans: Pacific, Atlantic, Indian, Arctic, and Antarctic.

This is totally mind boggling for me... that something as simple as geography isn´t even a standardized idea O.o I was so taken back when i heard of something just other then the idea that there are 7 continents.. then 5 ... now 6 with a euroasia .. school education has changed so much from my time.. and im only 22 O.o

Eurasia would be a huge continent if it was one, thats why people say it is seperate. Also just for a bit of information, Australia is actuly called Oceania, and Australia is in Oceania.

Well,
although physically Antarctica is a continent, in elementary at least we were never taught that it was.
We were taught:
America (Sometimes as two, but often as just one)
Europe
Asia
Africa
Australia & Oceania (Australia and large amount of pacific islands)

In later education we always worked with America as two continents, but can't say I showed up much in geography, so not sure if we used Antarctica later on.

EDIT:
Ah yes, as a note to the ones with Eurasia, physically they are correct (but physically India is an own continent as well, it just happened to crash into asia).
Physically I can't remember, but I am pretty sure that America is also a single continent, divided by culture as was pointed out earlier.
Not sure if antarctica is on an own continental plate (or whatever it is called in English), but it is a landmass, which the arctic is not.

Also in Norway we deal with "world parts" and continents, and there is sometimes some confusion between the two, probably because in English there are just continents (or do you use "world parts" as well?).

neither, 6 continents. N. America, S. America, Eurasia, Africa, Antarctica, Australia

panama canal separates N and S america (close enough anyway) and the land bridge is quite small not to mention the distinct cultures.
if europe and asia were almost unconnected i'd say they were separate continents. but quite frankly, they are very very connected with land.

Neither. There are six: Eurasia, Africa, North America, South America, Australia, and Antarctica.

Also, there are five Oceans: Pacific, Atlantic, Indian, Arctic, and Antarctic.

And like you said I wonder why they make the Arctic an ocean if they don't make the Antarctic one.

Eurasia would be a huge continent if it was one, thats why people say it is seperate.

Actually, Europe and Asia are separate because the early mapmakers were European and saw their region as culturally distinct from Asia, so they arbitrarily made it a continent. Europe is actually a peninsula of the Eurasian continent.

Continents aren't any sort of physically defined term. It's a geographic term. You could decide there were 42 continents and you wouldn't technically be wrong. There's no definitive answer because it's entirely subjective.

I am Australian, and went to school over 20 years ago. We were taught that there are 7 continents, including Antarctica, as it is a landmass, not an icemass like the arctic.

We were also taught that Australia is both the worlds smallest continent, and its largest island, though that idea does'nt seem to have spread outside our country. I'm not even sure if Aussie school children are still taught that today.

Antarctica is an actual land mass, not just frozen ocean like the Arctic. And at least as large as Australia, therefore it is a real continent. I learned 7, but the Europe/Asia division always seemed somewhat arbitrary to me.

http://www.utexas.edu/depts/grg/hudson/grg301c/hudson_grg_301c/schedule/3_rocks_earth_images/7_quakes_volcanism/2.jpg

If you want to get technical, this is how the continents should be defined.

Crydonia, Greenland is the world's largest island, Australia is a continent, therefore not considered an island.
Continents is a physically defined term, it's based on the continental plates that the land masses are placed on,
but in english continents are what we call "world parts" in Norway,
while we work with continents in a whole different manner.
Therefore at least in Norwegian terminology, you couldn't define more continents unless a continental plate broke in two.
Also there are more oceans than mentioned:
I expect that the arctic is what we call the polar sea, but the north sea (or maybe it's norse sea in english???) was not mentioned.
There's also the mediterrenean (yes there's a misspelling there, but I'm tired).

7.

I, an Englishman, don't view myself as being on the same continent as Japan.

Also there are more oceans than mentioned:
I expect that the arctic is what we call the polar sea, but the north sea (or maybe it's norse sea in english???) was not mentioned.
There's also the mediterrenean (yes there's a misspelling there, but I'm tired).

The North Sea and the Mediterranean aren't oceans, they're seas (not big enough to be oceans). Actually, if you want to get really technical the med is more like a really big lake as it doesnt even have a tide...but it's classed a sea usually.

Crydonia, Greenland is the world's largest island, Australia is a continent, therefore not considered an island.
Continents is a physically defined term, it's based on the continental plates that the land masses are placed on,
but in english continents are what we call "world parts" in Norway,
while we work with continents in a whole different manner.
Therefore at least in Norwegian terminology, you couldn't define more continents unless a continental plate broke in two.
Also there are more oceans than mentioned:
I expect that the arctic is what we call the polar sea, but the north sea (or maybe it's norse sea in english???) was not mentioned.
There's also the mediterrenean (yes there's a misspelling there, but I'm tired).

Seas are not oceans. I don't know what the difference is, but as a rule the oceans are significantly bigger than seas. The North Sea and the Mediterranean Sea are seas, whereas the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean are oceans.

Continents are not defined by the tectonic plates. India and Australia are on the same plate, but they are not classified as a continent. The Arabian peninsula is its own plate, but it is not its own continent. Continents are an somewhat arbitrarily defined geographic term, not a physical one.

Crydonia, Greenland is the world's largest island, Australia is a continent, therefore not considered an island.
Continents is a physically defined term, it's based on the continental plates that the land masses are placed on

Yes, I understand and totally accept that. Should have mentioned in my post that I no longer believe Australia is an island. A continent makes us sound grander anyway, but we are the only nation to inhabit an entire continent. I think that line of teaching has been dropped from Australian schools, but am not sure. Maybe a younger Aussie member could confirm that.

Crydonia, Greenland is the world's largest island, Australia is a continent, therefore not considered an island.
Continents is a physically defined term, it's based on the continental plates that the land masses are placed on,
but in english continents are what we call "world parts" in Norway,
while we work with continents in a whole different manner.
Therefore at least in Norwegian terminology, you couldn't define more continents unless a continental plate broke in two.
Also there are more oceans than mentioned:
I expect that the arctic is what we call the polar sea, but the north sea (or maybe it's norse sea in english???) was not mentioned.
There's also the mediterrenean (yes there's a misspelling there, but I'm tired).

Australia would be an island because the name o fthe continent is NOT Australia, it's Oceania. And in English it is called the North Sea.

Australia would be an island because the name o fthe continent is NOT Australia, it's Oceania. And in English it is called the North Sea.

I think that depends on where you live, and what you are taught.

Australia has always been a continent. Its the island designation that has been in dispute. Oceania is a region, not a continent, take my word for it, I live here. Thats like saying the Middle East is a continent, when its just a region, or Western Europe, Scandinavia etc. Oceania was invented by geographers so they had a one word region to include Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific island countries.

Well if you did it by what land mass were seperate from each other and surrounded by water you'd have 5:

America's
Australia
Eurasia
Antarctica
Africa

Well if you did it by what land mass were seperate from each other and surrounded by water you'd have 5:

America's
Australia
Eurasia
Antarctica
Africa

Is Africa entirely seperated from Eurasia? :confused:

Is Africa entirely seperated from Eurasia? :confused:

Actluy yes the Suez Canal bisects the two, roughly.

I think that depends on where you live, and what you are taught.

Yeah you're probably right there.

Is Africa entirely seperated from Eurasia? :confused:

Ack, um, no ahh, maybe slightly! I don't know anymore *falls down and doesn't get up til a government official tells him it's all going to be fine.

Ack, um, no ahh, maybe slightly! I don't know anymore *falls down and doesn't get up til a government official tells him it's all going to be fine.

Ahem ahem, see above.

There are 6 geological continents.

N. America
S. America
Eurasia
Anartica
Africa
Oceania (Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand, and the south east asian islands)

If you ask me there are six continents.

North America, South America, Africa, Australia, Antarctica and Eurasia.

Eurasia is of course generally divided into Europe and Asia, which would make it seven. But technically, if you look at it, its a single landmass.
thats how i count them

europe is only a continent because they made up the idea but didnt want to be associated with those pootinky people to the east

Is Africa entirely seperated from Eurasia? :confused:

not entirely, you still have a small land bridge from africa to eurasia. so i guess its Eurafriasia.

Here's to global re-definition..let's all move to the gulf of mexico, since according to my algebra teacher, if every single human was given a 22 sq ft area of space, all humans in the world today (and their huge classroom size territories) would fit into the gulf of mexico.

and also according to my algebra II teacher, if each human had only 3.5 sq ft of space, all humans would fit into like ft lauderdale or some florida city...

how ish thish true??


hmph.


i wish i lived in my horses 14 ft box stall...then i would truely be happy!
(providing he was in it)


love Cardi :eek:

7.

I, an Englishman, don't view myself as being on the same continent as Japan.

That is exactly why Eurocentric mapmakers created an artificial barrier between the European and Asian regions (the Ural mountains? come on) and declared themselves a continent. Heaven forbid that they were just a geographic protrusion of the greater Eurasian landmass.

(You are not alone, Toujours-Rouge. Many Englishmen don't consider themselves as being on the same continent as France or Germany, either)

I believe there are six, but here in Panama(and all of Latin America) they say there are five, and in the States they tought me there were 7.

I believe that the continents are: North America, South America(Yes, they ARE seperated by both tectonic plates AND the Panama Canal, although that is half-way through Panama. Which is in North America), Eurasia(which I divide into four parts: The Indian Sub-continent, Europe, the Middle East, and the other parts), Oceania, and Antarctica.

Here's to global re-definition..let's all move to the gulf of mexico, since according to my algebra teacher, if every single human was given a 22 sq ft area of space, all humans in the world today (and their huge classroom size territories) would fit into the gulf of mexico.

and also according to my algebra II teacher, if each human had only 3.5 sq ft of space, all humans would fit into like ft lauderdale or some florida city...

how ish thish true??


hmph.


i wish i lived in my horses 14 ft box stall...then i would truely be happy!
(providing he was in it)


love Cardi :eek:

ps: here we go...back from my brief tangent..

*sighs and yawns*
where were we..?
ah.. yes
i guess there are 7 continents..
N amer.
S amer.
Europe
Asia
Antarctica
Australia
and hmm..OH africa.
africa ish my favorite.
Nelson Mandela is SO coming to elliott's and my wonder-box stall!
hes so awesome..
but anyways..
so i totally think there should be 8 continents...those afore-listed and Andorra!!
i love fuzzy ponies!
cheerio!

thats how i count them

europe is only a continent because they made up the idea but didnt want to be associated with those pootinky people to the east

Europe is only a political continent, just like these-

Europe (EUrinal)
Eastern Europe/Western Asia (Eastern European/ russain-slavic)
Middle East
India
Oriental
Northern American(Canada- like the EUrinal)
American (USA)
South America
Oceania (pacific islanders)
Austrilalian

Here's to global re-definition..let's all move to the gulf of mexico, since according to my algebra teacher, if every single human was given a 22 sq ft area of space, all humans in the world today (and their huge classroom size territories) would fit into the gulf of mexico.

and also according to my algebra II teacher, if each human had only 3.5 sq ft of space, all humans would fit into like ft lauderdale or some florida city...


This is true only so long as nobody wants to eat, drink or shit.

I'm from Argentina (sorry for do not write english so well, if i do) and we learnd that there are 7 continents, but many times we says 6, and sometimes 5, or 8

Australasia
Europe
Asia
Africa
Antartica (sometimes)
And America:
North America
South America

or

North America
South America
Central America (Panama, El Salvador, well all the countries of the Caribean Sea)

Are there 5 or 7 Continents?
I think that depends on where you live, and what you are taught..

Good answer.
There is 5, 6 or 7 continents...depending where you live.

Continents are not defined by the tectonic plates. India and Australia are on the same plate, but they are not classified as a continent. The Arabian peninsula is its own plate, but it is not its own continent. Continents are an somewhat arbitrarily defined geographic term, not a physical one.
exactamente.

AND the Panama Canal, although that is half-way through Panama.
LOL, that would make your country divided in 2 continents

Making Asia and Europe on continent is using the same logic as making North and South America one continent. Which of course no-one has done. It is a widely accepted fact in western geography that the two are seperate due to their largely differing cultures (Just as with North and South America). The major reason Eurasia has become relevant again is because the USSR disbanded, creating new former soviet states along the boundary.

Making Asia and Europe on continent is using the same logic as making North and South America one continent. Which of course no-one has done. It is a widely accepted fact in western geography that the two are seperate due to their largely differing cultures (Just as with North and South America). The major reason Eurasia has become relevant again is because the USSR disbanded, creating new former soviet states along the boundary.

Continents are geographic entities, not culture divisions. By your logic Mexico and Central America would more logically belong to South America, since they are culturally more similar than either is to Canada and the U.S.

Define the continents as if there were no people on the planet.

How far off a coast can an island be to still be part of a continent? Are Greenland and Iceland part of Europe even though they're pretty far away from it (Greenland particularly, although I know it's owned by...I want to say Denmark.) I think part of the point in saying "the UK isn't on the same continent as Japan" is in saying that both are island nations. I can say that as an American I always considered the UK to be part of Europe, but over here in England they consider themselves definitively separate from 'The Continent'.

Huh...funny, I've never heard North- and Southamerica being 2 different continents.
Interesting...

How far off a coast can an island be to still be part of a continent? Are Greenland and Iceland part of Europe even though they're pretty far away from it (Greenland particularly, although I know it's owned by...I want to say Denmark.) I think part of the point in saying "the UK isn't on the same continent as Japan" is in saying that both are island nations. I can say that as an American I always considered the UK to be part of Europe, but over here in England they consider themselves definitively separate from 'The Continent'.
Fog in the Channel - continent isolated. ;)

(PS: where in Kent?)

There are seven continents, don't argue :) :

Asia
Africa
Australia/Oceania
Europe
North America
South America
Antartica

Please have a look at this website, which has a few nice facts and pics about the seven continents:

http://worldatlas.com/geoquiz/thelist.htm#

If you want to be pedantic and talk about total land masses then Africa and Europe and Asia are all connected. But thats not helpful - e.g. adding in Eurasia. Tectonically, its a whole new story. But suffice to say, the world is categorised/divided into 7 continents.

I'm quite surprised to hear that North Americans consider there are 7 continents. I've always heard about only five in my entire lifetime

Africa
Europe
Oceania
Asia
America

and that's it...

... that's where the Olympic rings come from, you know?

http://www.janecky.com/olympics/rings.html
http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20020214.html

I'm quite surprised to hear that North Americans consider there are 7 continents. I've always heard about only five in my entire lifetime

Africa
Europe
Oceania
Asia
America

and that's it...


Perhaps in N.America they do teach that there are 7 continents. I know in the UK that 7 is the norm.

... that's where the Olympic rings come from, you know?

http://www.janecky.com/olympics/rings.html


its states "five major regions" not continents

yeah... Anyway, I care less if there are seven or five continents (i didn't even have an idea it was controversial, and I have only a vague notion of the definition of a continent), it's just funny to hear people talk about seven continents as something obvious because i've always been taught there were five.

yeah... Anyway, I care less if there are seven or five continents (i didn't even have an idea it was controversial, and I have only a vague notion of the definition of a continent), it's just funny to hear people talk about seven continents as something obvious because i've always been taught there were five.

Everyone is taught differently. I admit I had never really thought about having 5 continents. Its how you define the regions I suppose.

interesting thing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continents

The seven continent model is taught in the United States, while the six continent (combined Eurasia) model is also taught in North America. The five continent (combined Americas, no Antartica) model is commonly taught in Europe and South America including United Kingdom and Mexico. The continents of the "five continents" model (as shown by the five Olympic Games flag rings) are speculated to be the five permamently populated continents (viewing Antarctica as only temporarily populated, and all the Americas as one).

interesting thing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continents




Good site. Covers all views I think. It shows just how varied the classification of the grouping can be.

http://www.utexas.edu/depts/grg/hudson/grg301c/hudson_grg_301c/schedule/3_rocks_earth_images/7_quakes_volcanism/2.jpg

If you want to get technical, this is how the continents should be defined.

On the subduction zones, do the little hooks point towards or away from the plate going under?

I was taught that there were seven continents: Antartica, N. America, S, America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia. Though I think it makes sense to consider Europe and Asia one continent. Could be some sort of Eurocentrism by us westerners.
Of course my basic geography may be a little dated. When I was in high school one of my courses was Soviet Bloc Geography. Not of much use now.

We were also taught that Australia is both the worlds smallest continent, and its largest island, though that idea does'nt seem to have spread outside our country. I'm not even sure if Aussie school children are still taught that today.
I've learned that Australia is not an island because it's a continent. Otherwise you could say that Africa is an island. So the biggest island is Greenland.

And 6 continents.
But only 3 oceans. Indian, Atlantic and Pacific. Arctic and antartic sea.

What about the 7 seas? Is that a lie too? :(

This is really strange, I've never heard a lot of these continent definitions before.

As far as I know, plate tectonics has nothing to do with the definiton of a continent, and a continent is an area defined by humans, like a country.

Being English, I was taught that there were 7 continents.

Africa
Asia
Antarctica
S. America
N. America
Europe
Australasia (includes Australia, New Zealand, and the Islands to the North)

Anyone heard the name Australasia before? It's what I got taught here.

Also, I've never heard that Australia isn't an island. I'm sure it is. Maybe Africa is not considered an island because it's a region containing lots of countries, and because it's attached to Asia, whereas Australia is just Australia.

We were taught that there were 7, including Australia. I find it interesting that other countries get taught that we are part of a continent (Oceania) when we don't. I'm not sure how you can not count Antarctica as a continent if you count Australia.

Also, if you subscribe to the tectonic plate theory (which explains why india is on the 'subcontinent') then how does New Zealand (being on 2 different plates) properly fit?

It all depends in what sense you see things. I tend to think in geopolitical terms, hence there are 7 continents:

Europe
Asia
Africa
North America
South America
Oceania
Antarctica

(In whatever way you view it, though it makes no sense to leave out Antarctica. So you can only claim there are five continents if you see it as follows: Antarctica, Eurasia, America, Africa, Oceania.)

Also being English, Australasia was the name I was taught too.

Plate tectonics does have everything to do with the definition of a continent but not in terms of human/geographical contexts.

A geological continent and a geographical continent are thefore separately identified - giving rise to all the diffent continent groupings. As it stands, there are 7 continents, geographically.

Making Asia and Europe on continent is using the same logic as making North and South America one continent. Which of course no-one has done. It is a widely accepted fact in western geography that the two are seperate due to their largely differing cultures (Just as with North and South America). The major reason Eurasia has become relevant again is because the USSR disbanded, creating new former soviet states along the boundary.
hmm How do you define Europe? Is Russia in Europe or in Asia? Most of it is in Asia but I would say it's an european country which is partly (mainly) located in Asia. Ural mountains form the border in the east, seas and oceans in north, west and south. But is Georgia in Europe or not?

it would surprise most people to learn how much of science isn't standardised.

it's amazing that so many theories are taught as fact.
even though we mostly all accept Evolution for example, myself included, and it's taught in schools as "this is what happened"

in true science it's just a theory that fits the facts, you can't prove it.

thats just one example...
what caused the last ice age to start and stop?
when did the human race first appear? and where?
what killed the dinosaurs?

you can read the unproven facts about these events in most encylopedia but no one really knows. it's very educated guessing!

People are lucky I type much slower than I think. I'd have really long posts, but by time I finish typing a sentence I've forgotten what else I wanted to say. :D

We were taught that there were 7, including Australia. I find it interesting that other countries get taught that we are part of a continent (Oceania) when we don't. I'm not sure how you can not count Antarctica as a continent if you count Australia.

hmm, I have to say I'm confused with the terms too (hello norwegians). I'd say there are 6 continents (eurasia) and 6 "world parts". (europe, asia, australia, africa, s. and n. america).

For me Oceania means Australia, New Zealand and all those little islands in Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia. or something...

It depends. If you think in geopolitical terms you might say that North America and South America are separate. But then, what about Greenland? It's too different to Canada or the US but it's clearly in North America geographically. And, of course, in the other continents there are many cultural differences to guarantee several distinct continents.

Historically the continents, as identified by European mapmakers, have been five:

Europe - The states formed after the fall of Greece and Rome saw themselves as a somewhat similar entity. The definition later was extended to include Scandinavia and the Slavic countries, and Iceland.
Asia - The name originally given to Turkey, later extended to everything else that laid "beyond" it.
Africa - The land opposite the Mediterranean.
America - Since in the maps it's a single landmass it was taken as a single continent, along with Greenland and the Caribbean islands.
Antartica - Or Terra Australis Incognita, thought to be joined to Australia at some point.

You can say Australia is a continent separate of Asia or an island belonging to Asia. I think it looks better on its own, with New Zealand, Indonesia and the little islands around making the continent of Oceania.

I'm going to weigh in on the Africa, North America, South America, Eurasia, Antarctica, and Australia side of this thing. While the New World solidarity of the Americas is a good thing, I don't see how anyone could possibly claim that the Americas are a single continent while Europe and Asia are separate.

The first.

The reason for the seperation between the North and south america is due to the inhabitants. Canda and America are primarily German, Irish, Italian, British, French. South america is primarily Spanish. The cultures are different so it's divided like eurasia is divided.
What, and Mexico and the countries in what is sometimes referred to as Central America (!!) are just chopped liver...they outnumber the population of the U.S and Canada by a large amount.

It is both, I'm am taking Spanish in school, and as part of this we learn the culture. Well we learned that in South America in most schools they have the view that North and South America anre one, and that Antarctica is just like the Arctic, not a real continent.
After having lived in the Arctic for the last 3 years, I can tell you that it indeed is part of a continent. I think you're referring to the polar ice cap. The Antarctic as well is an actual land mass...not just floating ice.

This is a pretty political topic...it depends on what definitions you are working with..are you dealing just with land masses, or are you factoring in human inhabitants as well? I consider the Americas to be one continent, because they are not divided physically....but that leads me to wonder if indeed Eurasia is not also a part of Africa........sticky....

By all of our reasoning, we could say that there are FOUR continents:

The Americas
Eurasia
Africa
Oceana

How retarded, sorry but you're education sucks!

6 continents:
Africa
America
Antartica
Asia
Europe
Oceania

Why should North-America and Sout-America be seperate countries? :confused:
It's not like people are counting western and eastern Europe as two continents.

How retarded, sorry but you're education sucks!

6 continents:
Africa
America
Antartica
Asia
Europe
Oceania

Why should North-America and Sout-America be seperate countries? :confused:
It's not like people are counting western and eastern Europe as two continents.
Well A) North and South America largely lie on two different tectonic plates, so they have that division.
B) The cultural divide between North and South America is huge, with a major difference between the hispanic south, and...I have to say it...american north (sorry Canada, you fall under that umbrella).

Its the same reason you should divide Europe from Asia at around the Ural mountains (as was classically done), because after you pass east of the Urals, you enter a very different cultural zone than that of the lands west of the Urals. Its the same reason you divide Africa from Europe and Asia, except the connection isn't as large (Sinai connection is...small). Though in 30 million years, that won't be the case, and Italy won't exist, nor the Mediterranean for that matter.

How retarded, sorry but you're education sucks!

6 continents:
Africa
America
Antartica
Asia
Europe
Oceania

Why should North-America and Sout-America be seperate countries? :confused:
It's not like people are counting western and eastern Europe as two continents.

And Europe stops at the Urals... why?

Its the same reason you should divide Europe from Asia at around the Ural mountains (as was classically done), because after you pass east of the Urals, you enter a very different cultural zone than that of the lands west of the Urals. Its the same reason you divide Africa from Europe and Asia, except the connection isn't as large (Sinai connection is...small). Though in 30 million years, that won't be the case, and Italy won't exist, nor the Mediterranean for that matter.
If you divide by "cultural zones" there are enough to make Asia 5 or 6 different continents, while Africa should more realistically be 3 separate continents.

And these cultures are much more different than "North" and "South" America (after all, the UK and Spain lie in the same continent, don't they?)

And Europe stops at the Urals... why?
Mountains and seas make perfect continent-bourders.

@Tremalkier: Iztatepopotla is on top of that. ;)

Mountains and seas make perfect continent-bourders.

@Tremalkier: Iztatepopotla is on top of that. ;)

As opposed to the isthsmus of Panama? The only place on earth where the sun rises in the Atlantic and sets in the Pacific? I'd call that a boundry! :)

I think the wikpedia article's slightly inaccurate - having talked to a few people spread across the country i haven't heard anyone not taught there are 7 continents.

That is exactly why Eurocentric mapmakers created an artificial barrier between the European and Asian regions (the Ural mountains? come on) and declared themselves a continent. Heaven forbid that they were just a geographic protrusion of the greater Eurasian landmass.

(You are not alone, Toujours-Rouge. Many Englishmen don't consider themselves as being on the same continent as France or Germany, either)

Just to make myself clear here - i don't think so for any racist reasons (eg 'im not being on the same continent as those damn japs!'). I simply think that the idea of sepearting the world up into continents is to make it easier to group certian demographics. It's done by a mix of geographical and social features and the ural mountains make a convenient braking point. I feel that being as we're (insert massive number here) miles away from japan, and not even on the same landmass or tectonic plates (or sharing the same oceans) it's ridiculous to consider the two countries as 'one continent'.

Also being English, Australasia was the name I was taught too.

My understanding is that the grouping now known as the continent of Oceana was, for a period of time, known as Australasia. It's nothing to do with where you were born, just when. I'm English and i was taught both.

By all of our reasoning, we could say that there are FOUR continents:

The Americas
Eurasia
Africa
Oceana
That makes the most sense to me.

How retarded, sorry but you're education sucks!

6 continents:
Africa
America
Antartica
Asia
Europe
Oceania

Why should North-America and Sout-America be seperate countries? :confused:
It's not like people are counting western and eastern Europe as two continents.
So does YOUR education if you use you're (you are) as a possessive adjective and you spell south: sout.

hmm How do you define Europe? Is Russia in Europe or in Asia? Most of it is in Asia but I would say it's an european country which is partly (mainly) located in Asia. Ural mountains form the border in the east, seas and oceans in north, west and south. But is Georgia in Europe or not?

Basically it goes, as far as the borders of Europe and Asia are concerned, if the people are white, its in Europe, if not, tough for them I suppose. And Istanbul is part of Europe because white people had alot of fun and jollies there before the Turks had to be such meanies.

Africa is connected by land to Asia.

If you seperate it due to the Suez Canal, you need to seperate the Americas due to the Panama Canal.

There are 7 Continents:
Africa
Antactica
Australia (includes New Zealand)
Asia
Europe
North America
South America

So does YOUR education if you use you're (you are) as a possessive adjective and you spell south: sout.
English is officialy my fourth language (alright, I admit it's the second best I can speak ;) ). Seeing I'm not a native-speaker, as I believe you are (never forget Quebec) my languages are just fine thank you.

8, I count India.

So that makes it.

N. America
S. America
Europe
Asia
Africa
Australia
Antartica
India

Haven't read the whole thing, 'cause I'm doing my English homework ;), but in Primary school, our teacher told us there were 7 (Europe, Asia, Antarctica, N America, S America, Africa and Austrilasia. That last one I'm not even sure whether it's a real word or not, but that's what she said). When we got to first year secondary school they told us it was still 7, except this time Austrilasia was called Oceania (sp?). Couple of years later Oceania became just Australia, and I've never had a Geography lesson since. =)

If Antartica is a continent...

What about Artic? Is it considered part of Northern America because it's conjoined with Canada?

If Antartica is a continent...

What about Artic? Is it considered part of Northern America because it's conjoined with Canada?
There is no landmass in the Artic. There are some islands, like Baffin, Ellesmere, Franklin, there is Greenland, all of that is part of America (or North America, depends on who's counting) and then there's a lot of water with ice on top all the way to the North Pole. Then there's more water with ice and then the Svalbards in Europe, and Franz Joseph Land and Novaya Zeymla which I can't remember whether they're in Asia or Europe.

1. Americas
2. Eurasia and Africa
3. Antarctica.
:D

1. Europe
2. North America
3. South America
4. Asia
5. Africa
6. Oceana/Australasia
7. Antarctic

That is what I was taught, might have got some spelling wrong.

Mmm, good question apparently.

answer (http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzcontinents.htm)


How many continents are on the earth?
A continent is one of several major land masses on the earth. There is no standard definition for the number of continents but you'll commonly find that the numbers six or seven are used. By most standards, there are a maximum of seven continents - Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America. Most students in the U.S. are taught that there are seven continents.
In Europe, many students are taught about six continents, where North and South America is combined to form a single America. Thus, these six continents are Africa, America, Antarctica, Asia, Australia, and Europe.

Many geographers and scientists now refer to six continents, where Europe and Asia are combined (since they're one solid landmass). Thus, these six continents are Africa, Antarctica, Australia, Eurasia, North America, and South America.

Mountains and seas make perfect continent-bourders.

@Tremalkier: Iztatepopotla is on top of that. ;)

What about the Panama Canal?

Thats a water-border.

Not to mention, a few million years back there WAS no Panama(I know this because I LIVE there), so South and North America were seperate continents. This was VERY recent(in geological terms).

What about the Panama Canal?

Thats a water-border.

Not to mention, a few million years back there WAS no Panama(I know this because I LIVE there), so South and North America were seperate continents. This was VERY recent(in geological terms).

Ola! :)

That's what I mean, It's not really a natural bourder.

You're all wrong! There are 7 as follows:
North America
South America
Europe
Asia
Africa
Antarctica
Australasia. Australia is not a continent. It is a country. If it were, which continent would New Zealand be on?

If there's only North America and South America, then why is the name of the country "United States of America"? It should be "United States of North America" or "United States of the Americas", since that's where the country is, not in America, which doesn't exist, but in North America or the Americas.

Truth is, US people made up the division to justify popularly calling their country "America" and not being confused by the name of the continent. Since other countries didn't have to worry about that, they didn't make the change; until very recently due to US cultural dominance.

I put 5, but a different 5:
-N. America
-S. America
-Eurasia
-Africa
-Australia

Antarctica is a block of ice, not a continent. N and S America are too seperated to be one continent.

If there's only North America and South America, then why is the name of the country "United States of America"? It should be "United States of North America" or "United States of the Americas", since that's where the country is, not in America, which doesn't exist, but in North America or the Americas.

Truth is, US people made up the division to justify popularly calling their country "America" and not being confused by the name of the continent. Since other countries didn't have to worry about that, they didn't make the change; until very recently due to US cultural dominance.

Are you kidding?!? The name came about back in colonial times. The US's culture was hardly determinable from England's!
This is the biggest piece of historical revisionism I've seen on Nation States in... a solid 15 minutes!!

5:
Europe
Africa
North America
South America
Asia

with Oceania as a "subcontinent"
Don't remeber where or when I learned that but it's what I always thought.

I never thought of antartica, suppose it would come under subcontinent too

It's an evidence there r 7 continents!!!!!! (but im not angry, even if it seems i am)

Neither. There are six: Eurasia, Africa, North America, South America, Australia, and Antarctica.

Also, there are five Oceans: Pacific, Atlantic, Indian, Arctic, and Antarctic.

I thought that the Arctic and Antarctic (or Southern) oceans were divided among the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans.

There is one large body of water that is the world's ocean... to me, i guess, they could be divided in title to include three major oceans.

Mountains and seas make perfect continent-bourders.

@Tremalkier: Iztatepopotla is on top of that. ;)

From what I've always learned, that's because all the continents are on different continental plates that ran into each other (creating mountains) or splitting apart (creating seas). Of course that would mean that India is a separate continent as well, so there's a bit of a disparity there.

Antarctica is a block of ice, not a continent.

Anyway, I've always learned 7. And Antartica is a landmass, just completely covered in ice. The North Pole is just a floating block of ice.

Neither. There are six: Eurasia, Africa, North America, South America, Australia, and Antarctica.

Also, there are five Oceans: Pacific, Atlantic, Indian, Arctic, and Antarctic.
Where do you get this from?

I just looked at a map of Russia, and it looks like the Volga and other rivers completely separate what is called Asia from what is called Europe.

Where do you get this from?

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/xq.html

The Arctic Ocean is the smallest of the world's five oceans (after the Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, Indian Ocean, and the recently delimited Southern Ocean). The Northwest Passage (US and Canada) and Northern Sea Route (Norway and Russia) are two important seasonal waterways. A sparse network of air, ocean, river, and land routes circumscribes the Arctic Ocean.

I was taught seven continents, North and South America, Africa, Europe, Asia, Antarctica, and (drumroll) Australia, "the world's only island-continent". Until, of course, we realize that if Australia is an island-continent, then so too Antarctica must be.

I find the Eurasian distinction totally arbitrary and prefer to think in terms of six. Oceania is an arbitrary collective term for islands, usually it replaces Australia in continental lists because Australia is not on the same scale as the other continents.

I've also wondered why Greenland wasn't a continent (given that our geographic definitions aren't following the tectonic plates in other circumstances). It's of similar size to Australiam, albeit much less populated.

I think a case could be made for Americas, Eurafrasia, and other (Oceania/Antarctica), but that would render the continental distinction mostly worthless.

Edit to add: I also want to express my amusement at the guy who said our education "sucks" for dividing the Americas, saying that people don't divide west and east Europe, when that is EXACTLY what the difference between Europe and Asia is. And the distinction between North and South America has exactly the same validity in my mind as that between Asia and Africa: continents linked by a relatively small land bridge.

Australia is much larger than Greenland

Compliments of Dictionary.com (www.dictionary.com)

continent

adj 1: having control over urination and defecation [ant: incontinent] 2: abstaining from sexual intercourse; "celibate priests" [syn: celibate] n 1: one of the large landmasses of the earth; "there are seven continents"; "pioneers had to cross the continent on foot" 2: the European mainland; "Englishmen like to visit the Continent but they wouldn't like to live there" [syn: Continent]

EDIT:Fixed the tags

There are 8.

North America
South America
Europe
Asia
Africa
India (it is on a different continental shelf than asia)
Australia
Antarctica

Are you kidding?!? The name came about back in colonial times. The US's culture was hardly determinable from England's!
This is the biggest piece of historical revisionism I've seen on Nation States in... a solid 15 minutes!!
Which name? America? The British called their American colonies America, of course. What else were they supposed to call them? The Spanish called their American colonies America, and the French, the Dutch, the Portuguese and everybody called their American colonies America. Why? Because the name of the frigging continent is AMERICA!!!

Revisionism? Hardly. Lack of historical context? Totally.

5:
Europe
Africa
North America
South America
Asia

with Oceania as a "subcontinent"
Don't remeber where or when I learned that but it's what I always thought.

I never thought of antartica, suppose it would come under subcontinent too
subcontinents? :D

Which name? America? The British called their American colonies America, of course. What else were they supposed to call them? The Spanish called their American colonies America, and the French, the Dutch, the Portuguese and everybody called their American colonies America. Why? Because the name of the frigging continent is AMERICA!!!

Revisionism? Hardly. Lack of historical context? Totally.

Exactly! The name derived from Amerigo Vespuci, the guy who actually hit the (Central) American mainland.
And these States are United... before joining in union, they were all little nations, loosely bound by the Articles of Confederation. Thus why this yahoo's post calling the USA's name to be hubris is absurd.

Lack of context? Totally! Revisionism: actually yes. Because once something is said and people begin to believe, it changes what actually happened. Thus Holocaust deniers and folks that don't believe the US landed on the moon. :(

Exactly! The name derived from Amerigo Vespuci, the guy who actually hit the (Central) American mainland.
And these States are United... before joining in union, they were all little nations, loosely bound by the Articles of Confederation. Thus why this yahoo's post calling the USA's name to be hubris is absurd.

I'm not saying the name of the USA is wrong, technically it is precise, if unimaginative, and you can call yourselves whatever you want on top of that. Vespuci was the first to identify the new lands as a continent separate from the known three (supposedly, the name didn't appear in maps until some years after his travels).

But the question is whether it's North America and South America, or just America. And my argument is that it's just America, as the name of the country clearly reflects that back in those days people didn't think of two separate continents and, to this day, most other countries see it as one. And, as I mentioned in my last post, when saying America people didn't refer to a specific colony, or the Thirteen Colonies, in the case of the British, but to the idea of "that place over there" or "this place here."

What's hubris is to refer to the country as America (instead of USA or US) as if it were the whole continent and expect the rest of the world to follow suit.

Anyway, you could keep refering to your country as America; the continent can be called Greater America :)

And I'm not a yahoo! I'd rather google.

Officially, there are seven. However, going by the technical definition (An independant land mass that's too large to be considered an island) there are only four EurAsiCa, America, Austraila, and Antartica.

I'm not saying the name of the USA is wrong, technically it is precise, if unimaginative, and you can call yourselves whatever you want on top of that. Vespuci was the first to identify the new lands as a continent separate from the known three (supposedly, the name didn't appear in maps until some years after his travels).

But... The very name United States of America is exactly what is says it is. We are a Union of individual states. In theory, if (say) Peru wanted in, they could file. In fact, most of the Canadian Provinces did a decade ago should Quebec ever declare independence and Canada (by it's own Constitution) dissolve.


I'm not saying the name of the USA is wrong,
But the question is whether it's North America and South America, or just America. And my argument is that it's just America, as the name of the country clearly reflects that back in those days people didn't think of two separate continents and, to this day, most other countries see it as one.

My relatives in Poland and Slovakia refer to North and South America. I presume that much of Eastern Europe does likewise.


And, as I mentioned in my last post, when saying America people didn't refer to a specific colony, or the Thirteen Colonies, in the case of the British, but to the idea of "that place over there" or "this place here."

What's hubris is to refer to the country as America (instead of USA or US) as if it were the whole continent and expect the rest of the world to follow suit.


It is simple truncation. The World says "Americans", not "United Statesians". This has been going on since the founding of the colonies as well.

So is it wrong to say Spain instead of The Kingdom of Spain? How about Australia? As a continent, it technically includes New Zealand... Why not change it to the "Anzac Continent" or something?


Anyway, you could keep refering to your country as America; the continent can be called Greater America :)

And I'm not a yahoo! I'd rather google.

The world calls us America, we'll keep the brand name recognition. :)

Alta Vista. Still the best, once you learn how to actually use it.

Antarctica is a block of ice, not a continent.

Uh, no, absolutely wrong. Antarctica is a continent, made of solid ground like any other, and covered in ice. It's the Arctic that's just a stretch of floating ice, and thus not a continent.

As for the person who said Antarctica is a "subcontinent": care to elaborate on your reasoning? That doesn't make sense to me.

Uh, no, absolutely wrong. Antarctica is a continent, made of solid ground like any other, and covered in ice. It's the Arctic that's just a stretch of floating ice, and thus not a continent.

As for the person who said Antarctica is a "subcontinent": care to elaborate on your reasoning? That doesn't make sense to me.
That would mean that Antarctica is even more of a continent than the other ones are: it's made of solid ground just like all the others plus it's got ice all over it :D

Only North America, and the world is flat. All this "South America, Antarctica, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia" stuff is just a communist plot to steal our yams.

You guys come up with some funny ass names. There is a huge difference between a Region as in Oceania and a Continent as in Asia. I can not believe so many people wrote so much....... And Eurasia. I have heard it all now. They are separated by huge Mountians and a huge difference in Cultures and language. And India a Continent by it self. It is apart of Asia.

Africa Antarctica Asia Australia
Europe NorthAmerica South America

So 7 and always will be 7.

I have heard it all now. They are separated by huge Mountians and a huge difference in Cultures and language.

Had you not said language, I would have noted that by those standards, the West Coast is its own continent too. All those crazy Californians and Oregonians...

Duh, there are obviously only two continents:
Euramerica, Australasiasia and the others don't count.

dp

I have heard it all now. They are separated by huge Mountians and a huge difference in Cultures and language. And India a Continent by it self. It is apart of Asia.

If you're going to divide continents based on differences in language and culture, there'd have to be hundreds (yes, I'm exaggerating). See Switzerland, for example: there's 4 different languages spoken in different areas of the country. The Alps are seperating two of these areas and a river two others. According to your criteria it should be on different continents.


[bonus info: I'm still exaggerating. I don't honestly believe Switzerland should be 4 different continents.]

7, of course

And India a Continent by it self. It is apart of Asia.

India crash into Asia millenia ago. that's what makes it a subcontinent, if it was a peninsula it would have started out attached completely to asia and then started to move away, not the other way round! And what a continent is has nothing to do with whether or not there's a plate under it; there are a few plates under North America (which is distinguishable from South America by the fact that there's so little land connecting them. the same way that Asia and Africa are connected but not the same. you can walk from asia to north america in the winter 'cause of the ice bridge, does that mean that asia and america should be the same? I don't think so.

What do the five rings on the Olympic flag represent?

According to the Olympic Charter, the five-ringed symbol "represents the union of the five continents and the meeting of athletes from throughout the world at the Olympic Games."
http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20020214.html

Are there 5 or 7 Continents?
I think that depends on where you live, and what you are taught..

Good answer.
There is 5, 6 or 7 continents...depending what you are taugth.

in the Spanish speaking countries, they are Taught that there is 1 continent "AMERICA",

We (USA) prefer to keep that name(America) to ourselves, So We started teaching that there is separated North and South America "Continents"...

Our (American) Culture (TV and Hollywood) is very influential, specially in English speaking Countries.(and parts of Europe)

Antarctica's an iland.
Americas are the same continent because of a narrow land bridge.
Europe is a continent of it's own because we don't wan't to belong in the same landmass as those filthy f(¤)&=&s in many parts of Asia (read Russia).

Seven. You can't disregard Antarctica, and you can't call North and South America the same. You can, however, make an argument for six by combining Europe and Asia into Eurasia. I prefer my seven continents, though, because of the vastly different civilizations that exist in Asia and Europe.

The thing with the Americas is, even before the panama canal it was only a narrow land bridge that served as the connector. At any rate the civilizations differ greatly. Not one continent. Not continuous at all.

Antarctica's an iland.


antarctica's not an island because its not part of any other landmass.

But... The very name United States of America is exactly what is says it is. We are a Union of individual states. In theory, if (say) Peru wanted in, they could file. In fact, most of the Canadian Provinces did a decade ago should Quebec ever declare independence and Canada (by it's own Constitution) dissolve.

Er... yes. Again, there's nothing wrong with the name. It's technically correct and accurate. It is a collection of states that have decided to stand together instead of hanging separately and that is in America. But if, say, Venezuela, wanted to change it's name to United States of America, that too would be a correct and accurate name, since they too are in America.

See? There's nothing wrong with it per se. It's just confusing. That's why in the USA, where they use America to mean the country, they started using North America and South America to avoid the confusion. Still, it's not a perfect division because they often forget that Mexico, Cuba, Greenland, and others are in the northern part of the continent.


My relatives in Poland and Slovakia refer to North and South America. I presume that much of Eastern Europe does likewise.


Yes, after a while, and through the expansion of US culture the names have stuck. I should have said that in most other American countries they follow the old naming convention.


It is simple truncation. The World says "Americans", not "United Statesians". This has been going on since the founding of the colonies as well.


Actually, the Spanish speaking world (the other Americans, you may say) use United Statesians. The terms America and Americans have been in use since *before* the founding of the colonies that later became the USA. When the Spanish said "el Excelentísimo Don Venancio González Manríquez de la Tostada y la Enchilada just came back from America" they didn't mean Boston or Philadelphia, but Mexico, Peru or some of the others. The Portuguese also referred to their colonies in Brazil as America, and the people in it as Americanos.

And that's because they all are in the same continent: America.


So is it wrong to say Spain instead of The Kingdom of Spain? How about Australia? As a continent, it technically includes New Zealand... Why not change it to the "Anzac Continent" or something?


Again, it's not wrong. But imagine that at some point in history Spain had decided to call itself Kingdom of Europe...


The world calls us America, we'll keep the brand name recognition. :)

Alta Vista. Still the best, once you learn how to actually use it.

Yep, it's branding. That doesn't mean historically correct, though. I should take another look at Altavista. It's been a while since I last used it.

The thing with the Americas is, even before the panama canal it was only a narrow land bridge that served as the connector. At any rate the civilizations differ greatly. Not one continent. Not continuous at all.

Greatly? Say, more than the cultures of Saudi Arabia and Thailand? Or like the UK and Spain?

Actluy yes the Suez Canal bisects the two, roughly.



Yeah you're probably right there.

um.. if we are counting the Suez Canal as a division between Eurasia and Africa.. doesn´t the Panama canal seporate north and south America ?

Actually, the Spanish speaking world (the other Americans, you may say) use United Statesians. The terms America and Americans have been in use since *before* the founding of the colonies that later became the USA. When the Spanish said "el Excelentísimo Don Venancio González Manríquez de la Tostada y la Enchilada just came back from America" they didn't mean Boston or Philadelphia, but Mexico, Peru or some of the others. The Portuguese also referred to their colonies in Brazil as America, and the people in it as Americanos.

And that's because they all are in the same continent: America..

Actually the Spanish speaking countries in south america use several different words to refer to Americans.. one of the most commen being Norte Americano ... Now i realize that Spanish people despise the fact that Americans are called American but they are so desperate to fix this that they would make their own generalization calling americans north americans... while canadians retain title as canadian .. It is simply correct to accept the citizens of the United States as Americans because this is the title accepted world wide.. it is only those people in south america who are so desperate fight the idea that the United states is seporate from South america at all costs that they confront America on every front of its identity. Perhaps all people living withint he Americas should be known as Americanos for claritys sake rather then infringing on the Identity of the United States

um.. if we are counting the Suez Canal as a division between Eurasia and Africa.. doesn´t the Panama canal seporate north and south America ?If every canal makes up a Continent...then we have much more than 5 or 7 continents.

Australia would be an island because the name o fthe continent is NOT Australia, it's Oceania. And in English it is called the North Sea.

Austrilasia = Australia, New Zealand and Indonisea

Ociena = Pacific rim Island chains.

Actually the Spanish speaking countries in south america use several different words to refer to Americans.. one of the most commen being Norte Americano ...

I haven't heard norteamericano in a very long while. Might still be in use in some circles. Mostly it's estadounidense nowadays.


it is only those people in south america who are so desperate fight the idea that the United states is seporate from South america at all costs that they confront America on every front of its identity. Perhaps all people living withint he Americas should be known as Americanos for claritys sake rather then infringing on the Identity of the United States
I don't think everybody who doesn't live in the USA wants to get back at them. Don't be so paranoid. The thing is that the people in America have considered themselves Americans for far longer than there has been a USA, so for people in the USA to come along and say "you are not Americans, we are; you are South Americans (even Mexicans) or Latin Americans at best (even if you don't speak Latin)" is a bit arrogant. Don't you think?

Really, who's attacking whose identity?


Perhaps all people living withint he Americas should be known as Americanos for claritys sake rather then infringing on the Identity of the United States

Including Canadians and Greenlanders?

Nah, I propose the term Greater Americans, to distinguish ourselves. From the continent of Greater America.

The seporation from North and South America is clear simply from the Continental Plates.. Both North and South America exist on seporate plates which is a far stronger case for identifying them seporate continents then say Europe and ASia who exist on the same continental plate.. I really dont see any case to identify North and South America as one continent

Actually the Spanish speaking countries in south america use several different words to refer to Americans.. one of the most commen being ...The most common being ...Gringo, second comes Yanke...
Canadians,Estadounidenses and Mexican are NorteAmericanos...

Over there they declared NorteAmerica, CentroAmerica and SudAmerica as regions(subcontinent)

http://www.jpopulos.addr.com/apoyodigital/secundaria/sd/Imagessd/sdt51/maontinentes.jpg

http://www.jpopulos.addr.com/apoyodigital/secundaria/sd/sdt5.htm

Gringo is a term usually meant to be derogatory and is mainly used only in Mexico and several other Centeral american countries ... Yankee is clearly in correct because as a matter of history Yankees refer only to Americans living in the North East of the country.. which actually refers to me :) but... most of the rest of the country might find that term being used on them as largely insulting ... I realize that MExicans and Canadians are also Norte Americanos.. however.. When refering to the nationality of a person from America.. the word Norteamericano is often Used in place of Americano ... which i might add can be also found in any English spanish dictionary.

I really dont see any case to identify North and South America as one continent
Historical, mostly, like all the other continents. Spanish dominion extended from Oregon to Tierra del Fuego, and even parts of Alaska for a short time. The natives were treated pretty much the same everywhere, and there are many historical and cultural parallels.

If we are defining continents based on colonial influences wouldn´t there then be a vastly greater number of contients.. or farther spread out seeing how the most extenstive and influential empire to have existed was the British empire ? Australia would then have to be associated with the Eurasia continent seeing how it is all but part of the British common wealth now lacking a very national idenity because it is so close to Britian.

Historical, mostly, like all the other continents. Spanish dominion extended from Oregon to Tierra del Fuego, and even parts of Alaska for a short time. The natives were treated pretty much the same everywhere, and there are many historical and cultural parallels.

We are talking geographicly. Like Indea and the rest of Asia, they were not always combined.

The seporation from North and South America is clear simply from the Continental Plates.....tfor the hundredth time:That would make Saudiarabia their own continent, and put india within Australia/Oceania.

Tectonic Plates do not define Continents.

Gringo is a term usually meant to be derogatory and is mainly used only in Mexico and several other Centeral american countries ... Yankee is clearly in correct because as a matter of history Yankees refer only to Americans living in the North East of the country.. which actually refers to me :) but... most of the rest of the country might find that term being used on them as largely insulting ... I realize that MExicans and Canadians are also Norte Americanos.. however.. When refering to the nationality of a person from America.. the word Norteamericano is often Used in place of Americano ... which i might add can be also found in any English spanish dictionary.
Gringo used to be derogatory. I don't think it has been used that way since the eighties. It comes from a Spanish word that simply means foreigner. So it wasn't derogatory, then it was, now it's not again.

Differences between yankee and southerner is not very clear to most other people, you all look the same :)

And norteamericano is not that current anymore. Used to be some 20 years ago, although still used but more and more including Canada and Mexico. Maybe Spain still uses it. Estadounidense is preferred in any case, especially in formal writing.

If we are defining continents based on colonial influences wouldn´t there then be a vastly greater number of contients.. or farther spread out seeing how the most extenstive and influential empire to have existed was the British empire ? Australia would then have to be associated with the Eurasia continent seeing how it is all but part of the British common wealth now lacking a very national idenity because it is so close to Britian.
Yeah, but we aren't. Neither are we using geography. The way continents are divided is simply a European convention, and under that convention America is a single continent, while Europe and Asia are two. The reasons, again, are historical and mainly related to exploration and colonization.

Isn´t india on its on plate ? ... and Im not saying that tectonic plates have to be the defining point.. just that it shows a clear seporation between the two land masses.. and if we are speaking in geographical terms that should mean something. If your looking for a seporation you have to look no farther then the panama canal .. just like the suez canal seporates Africa from Eurasia.. seporately i would not say these things should cause one to think of North and South america as seporate .. but Brought together.. I think they make a strong case.. especially since there is no evidence suggesting that the Americas should be combined.. and the fact that it is largely accepted throughout the world that North and South America are seporate.. of course for South americans (who seem to have some sort of complex)

Gringo used to be derogatory. I don't think it has been used that way since the eighties. It comes from a Spanish word that simply means foreigner. So it wasn't derogatory, then it was, now it's not again.

Differences between yankee and southerner is not very clear to most other people, you all look the same :)

And norteamericano is not that current anymore. Used to be some 20 years ago, although still used but more and more including Canada and Mexico. Maybe Spain still uses it. Estadounidense is preferred in any case, especially in formal writing.

Well ive Been in Buenos Aries for the past month.. and im almost always refered to as NorteAmericano when speaking of my nationality.. So I have to question just a little how intouch you are with current trends..

Gringo is a term usually meant to be derogatory and is mainly used only in Mexico and several other Centeral american countries .Mexico in not another Central American Country,

Gringo and Yankee is used all over south, not only in Mexico.

Have you ever been down there(SA)?

Well ive Been in Buenos Aries.What neigborhood? street?

for the hundredth time:That would make Saudiarabia their own continent, and put india within Australia/Oceania.

Tectonic Plates do not define Continents.

Nothing "defines" continents. They are entirely arbitrary distinctions. Therefore, NO ONE IS WRONG. I can't believe so many people are arguing so vehemently about this. There are as many or as few continents as anyone wishes. Each island could be it's own continent if you wanted, or we could have the continents of Americaustralia and Eurasiafrica. It doesn't matter. There's no set amount. Yeesh.

So I have to question just a little how intouch you are with current trends..
I go once a year to South America for bussiness, and I have family down there.

Well ive Been in Buenos Aries for the past month.. and im almost always refered to as NorteAmericano when speaking of my nationality.. So I have to question just a little how intouch you are with current trends..
Well, in Argentina it would make more sense, of course. Since I'm from Mexico I use it differently. Ask them if a Mexican would be a Norteamericano or Sudamericano (they may decide neither).

And buy some CDs, there are some killer Argentinian rock bands.

Nothing "defines" continents. They are entirely arbitrary distinctions.Exactamemte,

Question: How many continents?
Answer: Depends where you live and what you are taugh.

Exactamemte,

Question: How many continents?
Answer: Depends where you live and what you are taugh.
....You mean to say that... that... there is no right answer? and that people who were taught other things are not ignorant because of that?
Aww, man... :p

Nothing "defines" continents. They are entirely arbitrary distinctions. Therefore, NO ONE IS WRONG. I can't believe so many people are arguing so vehemently about this.
Hey, it's the general forum on NS, what did you expect?

....You mean to say that... that... there is no right answer? and that people who were taught other things are not ignorant because of that?
Aww, man... :p
Question: Irak or Iraq?
Answer: Whatever suits you better.

Hey, it's the general forum on NS, what did you expect?

Arrrggghhh.

I hate you all.

Irak or Iraq?
I'd say it's Irak in German and Iraq in English. But that's just me.

There are 7, definitley.

I think continents also reflect cultural and economic differences in countries. Having Eurasia as one continent is ridiculous in my eyes!!!!

....You mean to say that... that... there is no right answer?
No, I mean to say they are BOTH rigth answers.

If Some country(USA) want to teach their Children that there is no continent "America"...i say whatever.

If some other country declares that Antartica is a Continent...I say why not, the more the merrier.
Arabian continent?...I say yeah, whatever.

Just do not Pretend that you are the sole owner of the truth. cos you are not.

Just do not Pretend that you are the sole owner of the truth. cos you are not.
That makes me sad :(

I think continents also reflect cultural and economic differences !!Then Europe has a dozen continents.
And Asia has even more.

Excluding islands seven.

North America
South America
Eurasia
Africa
Arabia
India
Anarctica


does this help?
http://geology.er.usgs.gov/eastern/plates.gif

I'm from the US and I would say 6. North and South America are separate, but Europe and Asia are only counted as 1. If you look at it geographically, Europe and Asia are joined more than North and South America are. India is more of a separate continenet from Eurasia than Europe is from the same landmass. I hope I'm not offending any Europeans here, but that's just the way I think it sould be.

Excluding islands seven.

North America
South America
Eurasia
Africa
Arabia
India
Anarctica


does this help?
http://geology.er.usgs.gov/eastern/plates.gif


Hmm...

If I were in charge of the worlds maps, I'd have to say 9:


North America
The Carribean/Central America
South America
India
Eurasia
Arabia
Africa
Australia
Antarctica


Baisically, unite Asia and Europe into Eurasia, and make India, Arabia, and Central America/the Carribean their own continents due to the fact that they are on seperate plates.

Nothing "defines" continents. They are entirely arbitrary distinctions. Therefore, NO ONE IS WRONG. I can't believe so many people are arguing so vehemently about this. There are as many or as few continents as anyone wishes. Each island could be it's own continent if you wanted, or we could have the continents of Americaustralia and Eurasiafrica. It doesn't matter. There's no set amount. Yeesh.
Gee Sdaeriji, you are such a spoilsport! Please stop making sense. It doesn't matter around here. :p

Hmm...

If I were in charge of the worlds maps, I'd have to say 9:


North America
The Carribean/Central America
South America
India
Eurasia
Arabia
Africa
Australia
Antarctica



Baisically, unite Asia and Europe into Eurasia, and make India, Arabia, and Central America/the Carribean their own continents due to the fact that they are on seperate plates.EGADS! YOU'RE RIGHT! :D

EGADS! YOU'RE RIGHT! :D

of course I am

Africa is connected by land to Asia.

If you seperate it due to the Suez Canal, you need to seperate the Americas due to the Panama Canal.

There are 7 Continents:
Africa
Antactica
Australia (includes New Zealand)
Asia
Europe
North America
South America

Likewise, Europe from Asia at the Volga river system, which completely separates the two continents.

Likewise, Europe from Asia at the Volga river system, which completely separates the two continents.

The Volga DOESN'T go from Ocean to Ocean, thus meaning it does NOT cut off the continent.

The Panama and Suez Canals, however, DO go from Ocean to Ocean.

Meh.

There are 8:

1. North America
2. South America
These two are only just connected so they don't count as one
3. Africa
4. Asia
5. Europe (This includes the Caucasus, occassionaly)
These two really should be one but, They really don't have much in common, and as continents are a human construct they should reflect humans as well as nature.
6. Antarctica
7. Australia/Australasia/Sahel (Includes Papua New Guinea and Irian Jaya, but Australia itself is still not an island)
8. Oceania (Everything left over in the Pacific Ocean)
These are important because Number 7 means that Australia dosen't hold the distinction of being only country on a continent (And is geologically correct too!) and Number 8 means that New Zealand is not on a continent that is named Australia.

There are 5 Oceans
1. Pacific
2. Atlantic
3. Indian
4. Antarctic
5. Arctic

And an indefinite number of oceans

Just to reiterate, there can be as many as you want. I say 42, because 42 is the answer to everything.

I say it depends on what kind of conitnent you're looking for: tectonic? Cultural? Eurocentric? USA-centric? Etc..

Dividing the continents using cultural/people basis is a bit tricky, since India and the Middle-east is a far cry from the rest of Asia. Or maybe they should have thier own continents, too?

The whole of Europe seems to vary a bit, but the distinction is a bit less apparent, after all, most of the Europeans looks alike(that is, they are Caucasian) whereas you cannot really lump an Arabian with a Korean. In fact, Arabs are more closly linked to Caucasians(as are some Central Asians).

I think a geographical continent should be any land mass that isnt an island(an island should be defined as Australia and everything smaller) surrounded by water. That should simplyfy the whole thing.

So therefore IMO, there are really only three major continents:

Eurasiaca
America
Antarctica

And yes, 42. Worship teh 42.

Indoceanieurasiafricamericaustraliantarctica.


Muwhahahahahahahaha, there's only one continent.

Indoceanieurasiafricamericaustraliantarctica.


Muwhahahahahahahaha, there's only one continent.
you're right!
...but still I'd vote for an alternate solution, just try to imagine all those poor kids at school having to learn the name of that continent by heart. Fun question for spelling bees, too ;)

Likewise, Europe from Asia at the Volga river system, which completely separates the two continents.

Europe ends at the Urals.

Indoceanieurasiafricamericaustraliantarctica.


Muwhahahahahahahaha, there's only one continent.

Gondwanaland. i think we need a Gondwanian outlook. ;)

Indoceanieurasiafricamericaustraliantarctica.


Muwhahahahahahahaha, there's only one continent.
Let's call it "Earth"

Let's call it "Earth"

hah! you and your radical ideas.

Likewise, Europe from Asia at the Volga river system, which completely separates the two continents.
Volga is completely in Europe. The border is Ural mountains which are further in the east.