“Europe is a continent” (1600s- ) is a fallacy common in the West. Most seem to know it is Untrue In The Technical Sense but think it is harmless.
But it is not harmless: it leads to what I call the Continental Fallacy – the idea that most people on a continent are somehow alike:
- That one can speak of “Asians” even though most of mankind is Asian.
- That one can speak of “Africans” even though they speak a thousand different languages.
- That one can speak of “Indians” (natives of the Americas) even though they had 2,000 cultures, from the Cree to the Mayans to the Fuegians.
Unfortunately, just when the West learned how to cross the oceans in the late 1400s, “Europe”, Christianity and white skin all covered pretty much the same region.
Skin colour in 1450
Religion in 1450 – Christianity in purple
This has led to unsound conclusions about other parts of the world!
1500s:
The words “European” and “Indian” (meaning native American) enter English. Before 1500, the main way the English divided mankind was by religion, not by continent or race.
The English start calling mainland Europe “the Continent”.
1600s:
“Continent” now means one of the chief land masses of the world.
1700s:
Linnaeus divides the human species by continent, giving each a native skin colour: Europe is white, Africa is black, Asia is yellow and America is red.
Blumenbach takes the Continental Fallacy a step further: scientific racism, dividing mankind based on physical appearance, stereotyped by continent. This becomes known as “race”.
“Europe” too has changed through time:
700s BC: an ancient queen of Crete in Homer
600s BC: the northern shore of the Aegean Sea. “Asia” is the eastern shore.
194 BC: Map of Eratosthenes, using Anaximander’s division of the world
500s BC: Anaximander, a Greek, divides the known world into three parts: Europe, Asia and Libya (Africa in Latin). The eastern land border of Europe with Asia is the Phasis River (now called the Rioni), which flows from the Caucasus mountains into the south-eastern Black Sea.
AD 20. This map is turned to put north at top to make it easier to compare. The Romans put the east at top. So did most Westerners till about the 1400s.
AD 20: Strabo, a Greek, sets the eastern land border at the Tanais (Don) river, which flows into the north-eastern Black Sea. The Tanais is seen as the northern counterpart of the Nile, making Europe the north-western quarter of the known world.
700s to 1400s: The T-and-O or Beatine map common in the West back then. Jerusalem often appeared in the centre.
1400s: Map of Ptolemy. Europe in pink, Africa in brown, Asia in white
1607
1607: the eastern land border runs from the Don north to the Arctic Ocean. The Nile and the eastern edge of Europe still line up, as in Strabo’s map.
1700
1700s and 1800s: the eastern land border drawn according to taste. The Don and Volga rivers are favoured.
1861
1861: the eastern land border still a matter of debate, but begins to settle on the Ural mountains, Ural river and the Caucasus mountains.
2012
2012: Still no fixed land border through the Caucasus.
Europe is divided from Asia mainly by mountains – the only place where continents are divided that way and they are not even the tallest mountains!
See also:
A funny and insightful video from CGP Grey on the social construction of ‘continents’ (sorry about the ad): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uBcq1x7P34&feature=relmfu
@ abagond, if Europe is a continent, then Africa is also a country, like here:
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3vmg4raHf1rvo503o1_500.jpg
LOL!
“They”…”They” lied to me, ever since the fifth grade.
I think the medieval idea of Christianity as unifying thing created the “west” that is “Europe”. In early medieval times the border of Europe was always the limit of latin christianity in the east, from the west slavs of present day north Germany to Lithuania, the last organised pagan state, to the border between byzanthine christianity, later russian orthodox church. So churches basically defined what is Europe for a long time and that became the basis for even present day concept. The chinese saw “Europe” as the most western cape of landmass, sort of lands end, where crazy dirty natives were fighting wars all the time, when they were not engulfed in some plague or somethig.
“…The chinese saw “Europe” as the most western cape of landmass, sort of lands end, where crazy dirty natives were fighting wars all the time, when they were not engulfed in some plague or something.”
Hahahahahaah. That’s true – but funny!
@ Sam
@ Bulanik
Even Greeks and Romans perceived most Europeans as warlike, backwards and slow.
Vitruvius Polio: “…Those who are born in colder regions by their fearless courage are better equipped for the clash of arms, yet by their slowness of mind they rush on without reflection…”
Ptolemy: “They are cold in disposition, and wild in manners, owing to the constant code…designated by the general name of Scythians.”
Strabo (re: an island near Britain): “Concerning this island, I have nothing further to tell, except that its inhabitants are more savage than the Britons,
since they are man-eaters they count it an honourable thing, when their
fathers die, to devour them, and openly to have intercourse with their
mothers and sisters.”
The idea of a continent always seemed rather arbitrary to me. In school I always thought to myself: Islands are bodies of land completely surrounded by water, except for the ones they call continents. Since water dominates the Earth’s surface every land mass is ultimately in the midst of ocean. So I guess there’s an arbitrary decision that the larger ones be considered continents. Also a continent is usually the dominant landmass for a given tectonic plate.
But the division of Europe and Asia has always been a real mystery for me. Eurasia is very clearly one land mass. They don’t even narrow to an isthmus at the join. Europe is widest at its border with Asia. And, while India and Arabia form separate tectonic plates, there is one Eurasian plate. So it would seem that Europe is one continental boundary that is primarily political.
Maybe someone could trace the origin of the word “Europe”, and what caused it to be used to refer to “West Eurasia”.
@Jefe
Europa was the Cretan version of the African cow deity, Hathor, that was later adopted by the Greeks and others. As the story goes, she was abducted by Zeus, taken to Crete and birthed Minos, the first king of Crete. Minos is derived from Menes or Min, who, according to Greek historians Herodotus, Diodorus, Manetho, etc united the Nile Delta with the Thebaid.
Europa was also the name of the daughter of Philip II of Macedon c. 330 BC. Greek writers such as Strabo (c. 50 BC) therefore began referring to the land in present-day Macedonia/Bulgaria as Europa (not by mere coincidence).
Maybe someone else knows more than I do about how this term began to describe all of the W. Asian peninsula….
Yes, continents are a social construct, but you can tell there’s a logic behind them… Except for Europe.
The border is arbitrary. The last one, the one that’s considered official today, was established in the 18th century. Rumour (?) has it that Russians were the ones strongly encouraging this border, because it places them in Europe and not Asia.
@Resjan
Surely this Strabo (first time hearing of him) was engaging in good old fashioned demonizing of the hated enemy? Do we have reason to believe he was being honest and accurate?
SW6,
Strabo is important, but, unsurprisingly, he had his own world view. He was a Greek who lived in the period that’s generally considered the “Roman time” today. He was born in today’s Turkey. This info is not interesting per se, perhaps, but it’s interesting to note that a person born in Turkey wouldn’t be really considered European today.
Eh, why Europe is a continent is pretty well explained, even though implicitly, in Abagond post. The name history begins in Ancient times in Middle East, where, for all intents and purposes, Asia was divided from Europe as much as it was divided from Africa. In the latter case, Sinai and Red Sea, in the former, Hellespont, Bosphorus and Black Sea. That there were huge plains north to the Black Sea was mostly unknown.
Later the name simply stuck and today it has mostly cultural meaning. In geographical sciences there is Eurasia.
Also, i want to nitpick it so badly. There is no American continents. There is North America and South America, joined by Panama isthmus.
@SW6
Strabo was a geographer and historian, and much of what he told “matched up” with the accounts of older historians. For example, he retold, “Sesostris, the Egyptian…and Tearco [Taharqa] the Aethiopian advanced as far as Europe.” Since this statement does not contradict the accounts of older, knowledgeable historians, this can be perceived as historically “accurate.”
@ Mira
Anaximander was like that too: a Greek who lived outside of what he defined as “Europe”. He was from Miletus, in what we now call Turkey.
Europe is a Peninsula, Eurasia is the continent.
Turkey was once a Greek colony along the Black sea. Most Turks today are part Greek. Greeks lived all the way to India.
@Pentagon, you raise an interesting point.
“Turkey was once a Greek colony along the Black sea. Most Turks today are part Greek….”
Not sure about “most”, but many Turks are definitely part Greek.
)
But…. aren’t some Greeks actually part-Turk, too?
I am not sure if you’re saying ancient Greeks are non mixed Europeans?
(Like the way Jesus was white before Jews were perceived as “white” in America…..
Cypriot Greeks and Cypriot Turks definitely share the same DNA.
But the island of Cyprus is not mainland Turkey or mainland Greece.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1390250
AFAIK, before the Mongols and the Ottomans, the outer fringes of ancient “Asia Minor” was colonized by ancient Greece (Troy, for instance, is now a part of modern-day Turkey) but “Turkey” itself was never colonized and is a mixed population.
When the Turkic Ottoman ruled Greece, Greek Orthodox Christianity was the only Greek community; the Ottomans considered religion to be the defining characteristic of “national” groups. Greeks who adopted Islam during that period were considered ‘Turks’. To the best of my knowledge, in the eyes of the Greeks, anyone who converted to Islam was no longer a Greek, and now a Turk. This is why there is a large genetic similarity between SOME Greeks and Turks.
In western Turkic lands, such as Turkey and Azerbaijan a great many people look “Mediterranean” especially in along the western coastlines. in some parts around Turkey’s Black Sea area, I’ve seen a lot of blond and blue-eyed Turks, like their south-east European cousins in the Balkans nearby.
Other Turks, further South-East, might be mistaken for Arabs. Or even Indians!
And of course nearly 20% of Turks are in fact Kurds, who are closest, genetically, to Sephardi Jews. There are a few others Turkish minorities as well, including Afro-Turks.
The turks of present day Turkey are composite of many turkish people who came from the east and occupied present day Turkey in medieval times. They were fighting between themselves as often as with Byzanthine or other western forces. It was the ottomans, one turkish group, who united the turkish people under one flag BUT already by then there had been several centuries mixed marriages etc, among them.
At the height of the Ottoman empire they incorporated several european people so it is absolutely sure that mixed marriages and decedants were produced. Some of the most respected generals in Ottoman army were non turkish etc.
It was during Kemal Atatürks revolution and during his dictatorship that the modern idea of Turkey was born and hammered into the heads of the people. Today many turks consider themselves as europeans and are absolutely right on it. Just visit Istanbul. For many turks it is an grave insult to call them arabs or assume that they have anything to do with irakis or other people of the region. Turkish nationalism is also doing just fine.
As for the kurds, they see themselves as the oldest people of a certain region which includes south eastern parts of present day Turkey. A pretty sure way to get a fight going on is to call a kurd a turkish or vice versa except when it is about football. Many kurds support the biggest clubs of Turkey.
Resjan,
what an utterly curious response you gave me. And it must be called a response, for it was not an answer. Strange because my question was and remains such a simple one.(Simple on the same level as: “Is the sky blue?” or “Is a day 24hours long?”)
Your response:
@SW6 Strabo was a geographer and historian, and much of what he told “matched up” with the accounts of older historians. For example, he retold, “Sesostris, the Egyptian…and Tearco [Taharqa] the Aethiopian advanced as far as Europe.” Since this statement does not contradict the accounts of older, knowledgeable historians, this can be perceived as historically “accurate.”
This is all well and good (actually it isn’t but I don’t have time to go into why) but I asked you about the specific quote that you used regarding incest and cannibalism. Couldn’t you have just sourced the incest quote and then provided a context for it if one were needed?
Instead you bring up these dudes I’ve never heard of before, which is fine, but you provide no context for your forlorn reader, which is not fine. Confusing? You bet! So I did a little impromptu reading.
Mira (and others) I’m just gonna be ‘rough and ready’ in this thumbnail outline, my inaccuracies will be, I’m hoping, slight, also i am desperate to get back to my Sunday afternoon.
Strabo: yeah, a geographer, historian and i guess a philosopher (wiki says that anyway).
He was born in 63b.c. so by 43b.c. he was a young man of 20. In 44b.c. Ceasar
dies{ahem} is butchered to death. I’m going to assume that Strabo began his career at 20 and carried on from there. This makes him an intellectual figure during Octavian’s rule. But an inheritor of Caesar’s imperial legacy, which of course includes the fighting with the people of the British Isles. [Thumbnail sketch/context done.]So, now that we have a little context for Strabo it actually becomes more likely that he indeed was engaging in propaganda. He had an audience for it. Let’s have a second look at that incest quote from it’s original text. Book IV Chapter 5 of Geography:
Besides some small islands round about Britain, there is also a large island, Ierne, which stretches parallel to Britain on the north, its breadth being greater than its length. Concerning this island I have nothing certain to tell, except that its inhabitants are more savage than the Britons, since they are man-eaters as well as heavy eaters, and since, further, they count it an honourable thing, when their fathers die, to devour them, and openly to have intercourse, not only with the other women, but also with their mothers and sisters; but I am saying this only with the understanding that I have no trustworthy witnesses for it…
Source: paragraph 4
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/4E*.html
Strabo makes a serious, serious claim of hideous behavior, but adds that he is unable to back up his claim. He is a writer of an imperial power talking about the enemy. Convenient? Yes, or as Billie would say, “Nice work if you can get it.”
Resjan, you are definitely more familiar with Strabo than I am. Possibly you are more familiar with Strabo than most of the commenters to this blog site. I assume this because you have said you like to quote Strabo:
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2012/08/21/the-white-racist-guide-to-writing-history/#comment-143092
Resjan, when I asked about whether we could trust what Strabo was saying in his incest quote, why did you not source it? Why did you not point out that Strabo himself cast doubt on his own assertion? Why did you not point out that the veracity of the quote is at best dubious?
@SW6
Firstly, the only question I saw was “Do we have reason to believe he was being honest and accurate?” The other one was just a statement with a question mark behind it. Secondly, I can’t help not having answered your question the way you wanted it answered.
I responded with the reason why I believe he was being “honest and accurate”: his accounts “‘matched up’ with the accounts of older historians,” i.e., he was not the only one who stated these claims. He reported what he was told by historians. If you doubt his account, you should also doubt the historians from whom Strabo received that information.
BTW, you left out an important part of the quote, “I have no trustworthy witnesses for it; AND YET, as for the matter of man-eating, that is SAID to be a custom of the Scythians also, and, in cases of necessity forced by sieges, the Celti the Iberians and several other peoples are SAID to have practised it.”
You are free to believe he was “engaging in propaganda”– that’s your opinion. But, please let me know why he didn’t say the Persians, Egyptians or Ethiopians or any other Greco-Roman rivals were cannibals? Why on earth would he need to spew propaganda about some tiny island near Britain that was not historically insignificant and nonthreatening to the power of imperial Roman?
@Resjan
BTW, you left out an important part of the quote, “I have no trustworthy witnesses for it; AND YET, as for the matter of man-eating, that is SAID to be a custom of the Scythians also, and, in cases of…blah, blah, blah
Hahaha, yeah right! I left out an important part of the quote. Gee, I wonder why that could be, because I’m dishonest and I like to deceive people with subtle tricks. Oh wait! I’m also the guy who sourced the fuc#ing quote, in the interests of being forthright and letting everyone who wants to, see the full paragraph. You’ve got some goddamn nerve to say that I am the one who omitted an important part of the quote.
@SW6
Wow, you’re implying that I’m calling you dishonest because I said, “BTW, you left out an important part of the quote”. No, I meant exactly what I said–that’s it. If I wanted to call you dishonest, I would have said it explicitly.
@SW6
And perhaps it’s worth mentioning that I said “Even Greeks and Romans PERCEIVED most Europeans as warlike, backwards and slow” before I quoted Strabo. The quote was to demonstrate a perception of Greeks and Romans. I never said whether the perception was true or false.
@Resjan
*Groan*
unngh, jesus, what the hell do I say to you now…
Look, I know very well how you initially introduced that quote from Strabo. Notice I did not insist that you ought to have revealed the rest of the quote to Sam and Bulanik. From the quote, we can conclude that Strabo wanted to say horrid things about the Britons of his day. So, you are totally right that the veracity of the quote is not being discussed – YET!
But, you damn well know that incest is one of the penultimate acts of abomination that a human being is capable of carrying out. So, to be asked by some commenter (turned out to be me but it could have been anyone) if this Strabo was just running off at the mouth or whether we can trust what he said there, it was at that point that the veracity of his quote was on the table. And you picked this up off the table and decided to give a nod to Strabo’s honesty with his incest claim.
You then responded to the inquiry of Strabo’s accuracy by bringing in something totally unrelated as though that quote about the incest was some lost piece of papyrus. “Oh heavens to Betsy SW6, i guess it’s accurate because other stuff he said was true.” But then it turns out that that incest quote is not a lost piece of papyrus with no other sentences around it. We see the whole damn thing. And you, who we know as being very familiar with Strabo, had to have known the full quote.
It would have been perfectly logical and just plain sensible at that point to bring out the rest of the quote showing that Strabo himself said that he was unable to back his claim.
So, “perhaps it’s worth mentioning,” that you were highlighting a perception. No, you are just grasping at straws. I’ll tell you what the worth is of you mentioning that:
$00.00
@SW6
I get it now…you’re sensitive to ancient BRITONS being called incestual and cannibalistic. I never said they were, and frankly could care less. All I did was point to Strabo’s PERCEPTION based on WHAT HE WAS TOLD. That’s what you don’t seem to grasp.
I responded the way I did b/c I don’t believe he was just “running off at the mouth” as you say, but that he was actually TOLD this information.
To Bulanik:
Not sure about “most”, but many Turks are definitely part Greek.
But…. aren’t some Greeks actually part-Turk, too?
I am not sure if you’re saying ancient Greeks are non mixed Europeans?
The link below seems to indicate that Greek DNA plays a larger role in modern Turkey (at least with mtDNA..) than Turkic DNA. The explanation being the Turks were the conquerors and basically formed upper class. (and as conquerors likely more Turkic men heavily outnumber Turkic women…)
http://dnaconsultants.com/_blog/DNA_Consultants_Blog/post/Why_We_Put_Greek_and_Turkish_Together/
But as you have said modern Turkey has people from many backgrounds.
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/18/10244/F2.large.jpg
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/18/10244/F1.large.jpg
Greeks apparently have more eastern Asian lineage than Turks (M9 – Blue in the link just above..) and more lineage from the Iberian peninsula than Turks (M173)
It would appear that the Greeks and Turks are more closely related than the British and Czechs.
Granted such large scale population genetics, especially in areas where there has been substantial diffusion and mixing, are a guess.
@Milton
“…..Greek DNA plays a larger role in modern Turkey (at least with mtDNA..) than Turkic DNA. The explanation being the Turks were the conquerors and basically formed upper class. (and as conquerors likely more Turkic men heavily outnumber Turkic women…)
Indeed, yes.
Perhaps, to be more specific — Islamic marriage practices of that era (up to 4 wives, plus a good number concubines and female slaves, depending on the man’s status) played chief-enabler.
I’ve heard of several anecdotes from Turks about their Greek and Circassian fore-mothers from way back. Among Kurds of eastern Anatolia, reference to Armenian fore-mothers. The attendant Islamic custom of classing a child to be essentially a part of his/her father’s line may have also obscured the maternal genetic input that was non-Turkic.
And let’s not forget the impact of “Devshirme”, compelling non-Muslim families to surrender their sons to serve as personnel or soldiers of the Ottoman Empire…who, it seemed were not barred from marrying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dev%C5%9Firme#Ethnicity_of_the_dev.C5.9Firme.2C_and_exemptions
I’d also add that even as “Dhimmis”, under Ottoman rule, Greek women – in fact any Christian or Jewish woman – could marry a male Muslim Turk, regardless of his rank. I don’t know how many women did so to improve the status of families.
http://www.dhimmitude.org/