I really struggle to comprehend the "Cyprus is not in Europe" drama. Continents are, by definition, arbitrary. There is no scientific definition of continents that would be completely objective. The line is even blurrier when we talk about the islands as parts of continents. So, you can say "we at JetPunk don't consider Cyprus to be a part of Europe", that is completely fine. But to proclaim as an absolute truth "Cyprus is not in Europe" is just wrong, at least as much as to say it is in Europe. For example, this article: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-continent-is-cyprus-in.html says: "If anything, the country has an interesting story here as to whether it should be placed in Europe or Asia. If we talk about the geographical location of the country, it is very close to Asia in terms of the border, but its history, stories, and cultural heritage have more of a European influence." How did you come to completely ignore one arbitrary definition and vehemently stick by another?
I've copied my comment on another quiz, since I haven't got my answer there... I won't spam other quizzes with this comment, I am just curious and I can't understand what makes this arbitrary convention so important we all have to be convinced it is indisputably true. It is just a convention, there is no definite answer because there is no universally accepted definition of a continent, why is that so hard to grasp.
Continents are physical geography, and there are rather strong conventions on their definitions. So yes, Cyprus is in Asia, just like the Anatolian peninsula is.
Historically and culturally ? Well, Asia was originally the name of the... western part or Anatolia, a Roman province of Greek heritage. There are still many Greek buildings to be seen in Turkey, and if we talk of the Hellenistic culture, it also was in Syria, in Egypt, etc., the whole Levant, which is indeed a part of Asia nowadays.
And one last thing, never forget that half of Cyprus is held by Turkish people.
Continents are definitely not exclusively physical geography, they are, more than anything, a cultural construct. Otherwise, Europe would be nothing but a peninsula of a much, much larger Asian continent. And if you find a precise definition of a continent from the physical geography point of view, I'd be more than happy to hear it, since I have never heard one that would fit our standard (culturally established) set of seven continents.
Either you think that Eurasia is the true continent and the question is pointless.
Either you admit the general convention : Urals, Caucasus, Black Sea, Marmara Sea as the physical separation between the two. As for the Mediterranean Sea, my understanding is that you trace a line from the south of the Aegean coast of Turkey to the Suez canal and you have its Asian part, which indeed contains Cyprus.
Really, I just can't understand the reluctance of some to admit the fact, which IS even more obvious when you really know the region's history.
Which fact? These are all absolutely arbitrary conventions, which are the consequence of historical differences between ancient Greeks (Europeans) and the peoples of the Middle East (Asians). There is absolutely no reason not to include all the islands of Greek influence into Europe, since that was the primary reason for the division at the time when no one knew what Europe and Asia exactly should consist of. As for the physical geography, that line through Mediterranean is absolutely arbitrary and very loosely defined without any reasoning but to find a way to include Cyprus into Asia. And all of that just to say that something that is not even a part of the continuous Eurasian landmass should definitely be included into one part of Eurasia, which is historically differentiated from the other one for cultural reasons, and not into the other one.
But Hawai'i is often considered part of North America, based on the common understanding that its most salient trait is that it is one of the 50 states of the United States. But of course, it's not in North America. It's not even close to North America. It would most properly based placed in Oceania based on location, indigenous population, and native culture, but not many people speak of it that way. I think people could say Hawai'i is part of North America or Oceania, depending on which traits they think matter most, and neither is wrong.
I'll add that the premise that "continents are physical geography" falls apart when considering Pacific Island countries. Papua New Guinea shares New Guinea with Indonesia. Yet Indonesia, also an island country, is considered Asian, and Papua New Guinea is considered Oceanian. How? What physical basis is there to consider anything south of mainland China and the Malay Peninsula "Asia" instead of "Oceania"? Why are countries like Palau and Tuvalu grouped with Australia, which has a totally different culture, physical geography, and ethnicity? Kiribati is so far away from everything that it can't seriously be assigned a continent based on physical geography, unless we consider Polynesia and Melanesia continents (which we don't). To lump Kiribati in with Australia is merely convenience for the sake of an organizing principle. So we each take all that we know about a place, considering but not relying exclusively on physical geography, and assign where we think it should go.
I've never really given a lot of thought to the issue one way or the other, but you've thoroughly sold me on your position, vitriden. Cyprus is not on a continental landmass, and there are cultural, political, and geographic reasons for placing it in either Asia or Europe, so I guess it just depends which of those reason seems most compelling to one person, and they can place it accordingly. Another person can place it somewhere else, and neither is wrong. I'm with you.
I grew up in a community with hundreds of Cypriot families, the debate never came up because they only ever considered themselves European. In fact when I mention that in America there are people who consider Cyprus to be part of Asia my Cypriot friends are baffled.
A caveat, nearly all of the Cypriots I knew (and know now) are Greek, it would be interesting to know if Turkish Cypriots think differently
Many Turks want to be considered European as well don't they?
On JetPunk, the continental borders are not decided by culture, but by latitude and longitude coordinates. If it was about culture, we'd also have to consider Georgia and Armenia as part of Europe.
Historically and culturally ? Well, Asia was originally the name of the... western part or Anatolia, a Roman province of Greek heritage. There are still many Greek buildings to be seen in Turkey, and if we talk of the Hellenistic culture, it also was in Syria, in Egypt, etc., the whole Levant, which is indeed a part of Asia nowadays.
And one last thing, never forget that half of Cyprus is held by Turkish people.
Either you admit the general convention : Urals, Caucasus, Black Sea, Marmara Sea as the physical separation between the two. As for the Mediterranean Sea, my understanding is that you trace a line from the south of the Aegean coast of Turkey to the Suez canal and you have its Asian part, which indeed contains Cyprus.
Really, I just can't understand the reluctance of some to admit the fact, which IS even more obvious when you really know the region's history.
A caveat, nearly all of the Cypriots I knew (and know now) are Greek, it would be interesting to know if Turkish Cypriots think differently
On JetPunk, the continental borders are not decided by culture, but by latitude and longitude coordinates. If it was about culture, we'd also have to consider Georgia and Armenia as part of Europe.
A pretty sloppy statement by QM
noun
a person who is proficient in sports and other forms of physical exercise.
BRITISH
a person who is skilled in competitive track and field events (athletics).
Just wondering @samd195, if maybe you are British.
You get a point,
EVERYBODY GETS A POINT!