Re: OT: Renaming the continents

Padraic Brown writes:
 > --- Tim May <butsuri@...> wrote:
 >
 >
 > > There's nothing "antieuropean" about it.
 >
 > Unhappily, I'm not convinced. You're either
 > unhappy that some European named it or that
 > Europe is even a continent.
 >
Ekh.  The naming of the continents by Europeans is a minor point.  My
principle objections... actually, objection is too strong a word.  The
principle factors of the current names which I see no reason to
perpetuate are the following.

    *  Europe and Asia are considered to be continents on the same level as
       the rest.
    *  America is named after a fairly minor historical figure, for no
       very compelling synchronic reason.
    *  While Australia was a perfectly reasonable name when it was first
       applied, we are now aware of the even more austral Antarctica.

So, if we take it that I consider these problems (none of which have
anything in particular to do with Europe) worthy of reectification -
which for the purposes of this thought-experiment I do - Australia and
the Americas at least need new names.  To this I add the newly
continentalized Eurasia.  Eurasia suggests a combination of Europe and
Asia.  Now I have nothing against Europe, which is very definitely a
real region which it makes sense to speak of as a unit.  Asia, on the
other hand, is a fiction.  Iran has virtually nothing in common with
Kamchatka that it does not also have in common with Spain.  Once the
idea of Europe as a continent is abolished, so is the need for any
term to cover the rest of Eurasia.  If "Asia" is obsolete,
there is no reason for it to accompany Europe in "Eurasia".

So of our six remaining continents, four require new names.  Where are
they to come from?  If appropriate native terms exist, I do not see
why they should not be used.  (There is no particular reason why a
European term for Eurasia should not be used, but so far as I am aware
we have only "Eurasia" which I have already rejected. "Asia" would be
too confusing.  In fact, I doubt anyone has a term for Eurasia,
although the idea of extending a Yupik term for the Chukotskiy
(Chukotka?) Peninsula is intriguing.)

If we're changing all the other names, I'd certainly consider a
new name for Africa, although there's no particular need for one.

And how is it anti-European to argue that Europe should not be counted
as a continent?  What benefit do Europeans derive from an imaginary
line drawn down the Urals?

 > > And that's how I understand
 > > the term "continent" in English,
 >
 > Then that's a point of confusion. I quoted a
 > dictionary definition, which is how I understand
 > the word. How that land is divvied up is a matter
 > of history and practicality; and that history and
 > practicality have divided the lands seven ways.
 >

I don't see anything particularly practical about a system that groups
Kazakhstan and Vietnam within one member, and Hungary in another.
Historically, yes, but part of the point of this is to try to do away
with accidents of history.  The current division is a convention
which can in principle be changed.

I was perhaps unclear when I said "understood in English" - what I
meant is that that is the definition of a _prototypical_ continent.

 > > and according to Andreas it's the
 > > meaning of _kontinenter_ in Swedish*.  In any
 > > case, it's a less
 > > arbitrary set than the existing one.
 >
 > I would disagree by saying that the very idea of
 > a "continent" is a bit arbitrary. The continents
 > don't entirely jive with the underlying plates;
 > and there are clearly only three or four great
 > land masses anyway. And a bunch of larger or
 > smaller islands.
 >
I agree that it contains some arbitrary elements, but I maintain that
the set of Eurasia, Africa, N. America, S. America, Australia and
Antarctica is less arbitrary than the present system.  For more on
this point, see below.

Incidentally... "three or four"?  Four I can see, but how would you
reduce it to three?

 > > If you were to to come across an
 > > Earthlike planet (without any existing
 > > population with their own names
 > > for things, what criterion would you use to
 > > decide which landmasses
 > > should be considered continents?
 >
 > Just like I'd do here. Start with the biggest one
 > and work down. Were I seeing Earth for the first
 > time I'd call Afroeurasia, America, Antarctica
 > and most likely Australia continents. You _might_
 > be able to convince me that the Americas are two
 > continents, but not that Africa Europe and Asia
 > are separable. It's one bid landmass with some
 > interesting inland seas.

Well, I'd find that perfectly acceptable also.  I did suggest in my
original post that it might be preferable to regard each of the two
Americas, and Africa and Eurasia, as subdivisions of larger units.
I'm not entirely clear why you're willing to divide up the Americas,
but not Africa from Eurasia - Suez is a pretty narrow isthmus, if not
as narrow as Panama.

(One could claim that the construction of the Panama and Suez canals
has split previously unitary continents, but this would seem to make
things unnecessarily complicated.)

But in any case, you'd use use the word continent to describe these,
which suggests that your idea of a prototypical continent is a large
island.

 > > I don't know what you mean by "fail".
 >
 > Because you can't quantify continent. I.e., how
 > big an island can be or how small a continent can
 > be.
 >

You can if you like.  The decision will be arbitrary, but that doesn't
prevent it from being useful.  This is _exactly_ analogous to the
situation with respect to the term "planet".

There's a difference between a system that categorizes something by
arbitrary divisions of an objectively measurable quantity, and one
that makes completely arbitrary categories which can only be described
by listing their members.  A precise definition of "continent" as it
is currently understood is of the latter type.  By replacing Europe
and Asia on the list of continents by Eurasia, we convert it to the
former.  In my opinion, this would be an improvement.

Replies