tornada

We already have such divisions. Terms like Middle East, South Asia, Far East/East Asia, South East Asia, Eurasian Steppe, Central Asia, etc are all continental subdivisions. You're using the term Middle East in your OP, and India aren't you? They themselves represent subdivisions, since "India" represents a historical culture that is significantly wider and greater than the modern political entity.

Moloc

I don't think so. I am using Europe as a standard. They have Sinic influences, but they have extremely strong native traditions along with much stronger influences from India and even the Middle-East. It has less influence from the Sinic region than does Europe from the Middle-East and much less than the latin Americas from Europe (both ethnically and culturally). It is also additionally historically, culturally and ethnically/racially a melting pot. I would compare it to Latin America if it had been influenced not only by Europe, but by India, and the Middle East. (P.S: the Latin Americas are obviously not part of the European continent as they're not in physical proximity and due to the obvious fact that it had a drastically different historical background until recently. It was just an analogy for culture and ethnicity only.)
Southeast Asia deserves its own status as much if not more than Europe.

Yes, the Central Asia division was one which I was slightly hesitant. But although these people are (mostly) nominally Muslim, they retain a large part of their nomadic custom. This is why I would hesitantly give them a separate status in addition to their different historical backgrounds. History as well as recent statuses should be taken into account. But I wouldn't mind either way, really.


I never said to divide the entire Russia into Europe. I would make Russia to be a country that spans multiple continents. There would be many multi-continental countries like Vietnam. If the British Empire survived today, it would have been one of them.
edit: nvm, ignore this. You were not replying to me for this part of the comment.

The thing is that these already existent subdivisions are only used in certain context unlike Europe. Else, it would be "Asia" did this. "Asia"'s situation is this. "Asia" culture. etc, etc, etc... which seems to keep suggesting to the layman that they're a division at the same level as Europe - which it is not. Count how many times Asia is used compared to South Asia, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, East Asia, etc... This stems from the non-recognition of these ethno-cultural-historical-geographical entities as being on equal footing with Europe.

As for India (you could rename this continent if you want to avoid political controversy esp. from Pakistan), this is where the "continental" borders between the Middle-East, Central Asia and India would get blurry and some controversy might arise. But we see the same situation for large tracts of the Near East (the most obvious case is Turkey).

Dzmeka

India definitely should be considered it's own continent.

Regarding the Middle East (West Asia), that is a more tricky situation. Northwest Iran is more Central Asian than Middle Eastern but the country it belongs to (Iran) is seen as part of the Middle East. Calling Iranian Balochistan as part of the Middle East is also a very contentious issue. Iran also has strong linguistic and ethnic ties to southern Central Asia as well. I think the Middle East should be left as part of Asia (the term 'Asia' originally referred to the Middle East) whereas India and maybe the Far East (Southeast Asia, East Asia, North Asia) as well should be cut off from Asia, although the latter may prove difficult to do.

Aupmanyav

Well, we had "Jambudweepa", which included territories beyond the undivided India. The mantras say "Jambudweepe, Bharat Deshe". Bharat was only one of the countries in it. But the mantra continued "Nepala Rajye" - Nepal was only a kingdom in Bharat Desha and not a separate country as it is now.

Dzmeka

Were there any Dravidian-origin names for India?

Aupmanyav

Probably "Jambudweepa" itself was Dravidian. There is no "Jambudweepa" in RigVeda.

tornada

Since this is the season for rise of the living dead threads, I might as well post something that might be of interest
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...53107456B1D25A

Dzmeka

The dvīpa in Jambudvīpa is from the Sanskrit dvīpa which means "island".

Dreamhunter

Umm, it's like, what difference does it make, to India for example, whether it's called a sub-continent or a full continent?

Dreamhunter

I believe a longish peninsula was also called a dvipa, e.g. Malayadvipa.