this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2025
350 points (95.3% liked)
Map Enthusiasts
6137 readers
12 users here now
For the map enthused!
Rules:
-
post relevant content: interesting, informative, and/or pretty maps
-
be nice
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's an odd way to divide it up. Without Mexico, the US would be much, much lower. Every continent map shows Russia as part of Asia.
For this specific purpose it probably does make sense to consider Russia part of Europe. If we go by the common Europe-Asia dividing line of the Ural mountains then a large majority of Russia's population is in the European half, so most Russian births are probably in the European bit
The weird thing about the Americas to me is that only Mexico, the US, and Canada are counted. I don't think I've ever seen anyone that draws a dividing line between North and South America do so anywhere except at the Darien Gap, nor have I seen anyone put all of the Caribbean islands in South America. Iberoamerica or similar cultural region terms, sure, but South America the continent?
It's a very mixed bag on this map, since it was labeled "continent" but they separated Russia.
Well, the person that made this is making russia very happy that they they are now European, lol.
As I understand it, Russia actually tends to reject the notion of a separate Europe and Asia. They prefer a six-continent model with Eurasia as one thing
I prefer to be a billionaire, but it's not how it is.
Maybe, as the capital of russia is in Europe, russia is counted as Europe, while Turkey is counted to Asia, as its capital is in its Asian part.
So every continent map is wrong?
Yes. Continent is a dubious cultural term, not geographical. See map men's genial video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrsxRJdwfM0
Or CPG Grey's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uBcq1x7P34
Well, yeah. The definition of "continent" is arbitrary.
I could argue that there are only four, for instance (America, Afro-Eurasia, Antarctica, and Australia).
And then at that rate, Greenland could be counted, or Australia and Antarctica left out.
Well yes, it is entirely arbitrary. One of the most agreed-upon factors is that "at least as big as Australia" is a requirement, but there's no hard reason for that requirement
Personally I think we should consider particarly big mountain ranges and deserts as continental boundaries more often, like we do with the Urals in nodels that separate Asia and Europe. "Asia" is such a huge concept as to be almost useless, and it's not like China and Arabia had much influence on each other historically
You do have "regions" already kind of filling that niche. MENA, Europe, Central Asia, East Asia and so on.
We just need better branding for them! Middle East and North Africa doesn’t roll off the tongue nearly as well as just Africa
and i would argue there are way more, because grouping all of africa and europe and asia together is kind of utterly pointless.
What makes sense to me is groupings very much like europe in size and cultural cohesion, something roughly like this:
(I can't intuitively figure out where to draw lines in america, aside from the fact that the northern part of the landmass is basically unpopulated and vastly more similar to greenland than it is to the populated parts)