Redefinition of European

Remove all ads!

I'd like to begin by saying this is probably a thick-skulled American question, but it's something me and many of my fellow countrymen just don't get. We as Americans like clear lines of demarkation. We like to have a line and be able to say, "Everything on this side of the line is one thing, and everything on the other side of the line is another thing."

Which is also why trying to decide where Europe ends and Asia begins is so damn confusing to us. We fully realize that drawing a straight line discounts various cultural factors, that obviously play into it, but we don't have very much exposure to eastern European culture, and so we really don't know how to account for it.

The rule used to be pretty simple: Look at the Suez Canal, or if you prefer the Israel/Egypt border, mentally draw a line straight north, and everything east of that was Asia, and everything west of that was Europe. And that worked pretty well prior to the fall of the USSR. We realized that nearly the entirety of Russia was east of that line. Heck, even the capital was a little east of it, but we justified classifying Russia as both European and Asian, because the majority of the major cities and populatoin centers lie west of that imaginary line.

However, with the fall of Soviet Union, a whole lot of those major cities were no longer "Russian", and large segments of the population of the former USSR were not "Russian" either. They were Latvian, Estonian, Lithuanian, Belarusian, Ukrainian and Moldovian. Of course, they were always these nationalities, we just never really considered them individual parts prior to 1989 unless you happened to have ancestry from there. But that was OK, because with the exception of Ukraine, all of those nations were clearly west of that imaginary line. Even with the Ukraine, the vast majority of it, including Kiev, was west of that line. However, the problem here is that the Soviet Union lost most of what it had that made us Americans think of it as culturally European. There was hardly any Russian territory remaining that was west of that line.

Many of the other Russian Rupublics didn't cause nearly the same amount of consternation. Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhistan, Kyrgyzstan (sp?), and Tajikistan (sp?) could be safely relegated with all the other "Stans" as part of Asia. We were even OK with sticking Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan on the Asian side of the line.

Of course, that brings us back to Russia. Does Russia still count as both an Asian and European nation, or only an Asian nation? Turkey is problematic as well. If we draw the line to include Moscow, then clearly Turkey is west of the line too. Heck, there's even a piece of Turkey on the western half of the straight. It's not very big, but it's not like Turkey ends as soon as you reach Istanbul. Turkey shares a border with both Bulgaria and Greece, and those guys are definitely European. So is only a portion of Turkey part of Europe? And while we're at it, why don't we throw little Cyprus into the mix as well. It's south of Turkey in the Mediterranian Sea, so if Tukey is in, then Cyprus has to be in too.

So opening this discussion up to all the good people of SP, what's Europe, and what's Asia?

 

Russia's always been part of the Europe. When the iron curtain fell it didn't become part of the Asia, it was the Soviet Union and they thought that it would be the future of the humankind, where geographical demarcations would no longer be valid.

Now that Russia's back being Russia again, you could still say that it's just Russia. It takes a little time for them to become European again. Ties are being made, but as their resources are so vast and they span so lot of Eurasia, they'll never be a subject to any other culture.

Turkey is european. Islam in the Europe is on the rise again, so the ideological climate might shift a little towards what they had in Spain in the middle ages. For instance I found a lot of similarities in the way Don Quixote was written and with The Book of One Thousand and One Nights. But their population numbers and the size of the country poses the same question as with Russia.

I'd welcome Turkey and Russia to be part of Europe, would they have their human rights issues in better condition. That is if they'd like to be part of Europe.

Europe could be considered to be part of relatively small nationalities that live closely with one another in competition and trade. This would limit Europe mainly to the western part of it. I find 'West Europe' and 'East Europe' handy concepts.

 

Sheesh. Where's that line? Germany? Italy? Poland? And I still have no idea where East Europe turns into Asia.

 

I remember Russia being called "Eurasian"...

Anyway, you Americans are confused? I'm English, and still cannot work out why football (soccer) teams from Israel, Georgia, Armenia, Turkey and Kazakhstan play the UEFA Champions League and try to qualify for the World Cup in the "European Zone"...

 

I've thought that East Europe consists of countries ex USSR, like Poland and others all up to Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and those, while the muslim countries from Syria to Afganistan are part of Middle East. Russia could be a part of East Europe, but it's a little too big to be confined that way. Egypt could be a part of Europe, but it's close ties to Middle East countries makes it part of Middle East IMO.

 

Egypt is definitely is not a part of Europe.

Most of Turkey's population want to be considered as European but I don't care whether Turkey is called "European", "Asian" or "Middle-Eastern". It is like the case of the Pluton. Nothing changed in Pluton after it is decided Pluton is not a planet. Being called as Asian or European won't change anything.

But geographically, west of Bosphorus and Ural Mountains is Europe AFAIK. But this definition divides some countries and makes them half-Asian half-European. According to that definition, more than 90% of Turkey's lands and 70% of Turkey's population is in the Asia, so it is Asian( Also Israel, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan). But they are considered as European in sports events etc.

But I think geographical definitions won't work, because countries between Europe and Asia don't have natural borders. So you should draw the borders of Europe according to these countries' borders. But then some countries will say "Why are they European and we are not!". So I think your question better stays unanswered.

 

The real question would be: does it matter? It's not something that has kept me awake at night.

 

I thought "the line goes at Ural Mountains" instantly.

 

AND

I've heard as much before, but find that definition sorely lacking. As Argohir correctly points out, that divides countries into portions. MOST of Turkey lies east of the Bosphorus, and MOST of Russia lies east of the Urals. But not all.

The only part that isn't a problem (IMO) is the southwestern corner of Asia, as you have the convenient break at the water of the Red Sea, the Suez Canal, and the Mediterranean. No such convenient geographical feature occurs in Europe that simultaneously lies along a country's border. The Ural mountains run THROUGH Russia! That's not very helpful of a boundary, unless you want to talk about west Russia and east Russia. You can't even go by races. I'm sure people living in eastern Russia are genetically more similar to the people of Mongolia and northern China than Europeans, while to opposite is true for those living in more western areas of Russia. However, I do not know if there is a sharp divide between the two groups, or if there is a transitional area in between where both groups are represented.

[ September 27, 2006, 14:15: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

It does matter, tho mostly to Europeans and assorted nations at the (cultural/geographical) periphery. Just think of accession to the EU. The question of who is to be considered European leads to the prospects of who may join the EU club - and with whom the Europeans will have to share sovereignty of their very nations.

An intensely contested issue.

 

I have been taught that part of Russia is in Europe and part in Asia.

 

The border of EU goes right between Finland and Russia. Everything at the eastern side of it is russian and everything at west is european. After Russia comes Asia. Easy as that.

 

I'd say Georgia is in Europe, Armenia somewhere in between, -stans in Asia and, well, the Baltic countries (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) are clearly European. As is Ukraine.

 

Certain countries are called Transcontinental...

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

 

No, I said

So, most of Turkey lies east of the Bosphorus

 

Just Istanbul (or rather parts of it) and a scrap of Thrace for Turkey in Europe.

 

Ooops! My bad. I said the exact opposite of what I meant. I meant east in both cases. Most of Turkey is EAST of the Bosphorus and most of Russia is EAST of the Urals.

Editing previous response.

I'm willing to hear arguements for Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan being part of Europe. There a little far to the east for my liking, so I'm disinclined to call them no-brainers. However, if we include them it is even more geographic evidence pointing to Turkey being included as well.

And yes, all the -stans are clearly Asian, and all the Baltic Republics clearly European. I've no problem including Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldovia in the European club as well.

 

ugh... ok I cant read this whole thread, but I'v read the original post.
this is a tough thing to explain, and Im from belarus... but this europe/asia thing has little to do with the continent, much more so with people's identity. When you hear the word europe, what comes to mind? what historical events come to mind... probably the best two countries to give examples of europe are england and france... (in the sense of identity).. as we move east and hit, eastern germany, poland, belarus, things look less refined, gloomier, poorer(not so much germany), but, even in belarus you will see a touch of european culture. So now you ask the people, if they relate themselves to europe, and I will pesonally say I do. This same thing happens with aisia, you have china at the other end of the spectrum, and I know this sounds racial and to an extent it is... and as you move away from asia, to all the "stans", you have people relating themselves to asians, the otoman empire and whatnot (instead of the renesance).. and somewhere in russia these two cultures meet... I dont know where that is, Im prety sure it's not in moscow, though it could be...

 

Europe is the most diverse continent there is. That what makes me laugh when yanks say 'Europeans' as a collective. 'We're going to Europe, yeah dude!', er rght, would that be England, Scotland, Germany, Russia, Greece, France?

Nobody really cares who's in Europe and who isn't... except perhaps the Turks, but nobody likes them anyway.

 

^ Actually, many people view "being european" as part of their identity next (or after) their national identity. Much like an US-citizen would view of being an american first, californian second, and a westerner third.

Having thought of the issue, Turkey isn't exactly european, but it could be. If they are accepted to the union, I'm sure the next challenge will be of making them lean more towards european cultures -England being one among them. "Redefining being european", that too, but more importantly: "redefining being turkish."