Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


View Poll Results: Do India and the Middle East Deserve Separate Continental Statuses from Asia?
Yes, both regions deserve the statuses. 16 48.48%
Only India deserves the status. 7 21.21%
Only the Middle East serves the status. 1 3.03%
Neither regions deserve the status. 7 21.21%
It is hard to tell. 2 6.06%
Voters: 33. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 29th, 2015, 08:59 PM   #11

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 15,110
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kormp View Post
You have a good point on the it's small affect, but it could still change how people view cultures. Common people view European culture very distinctively to the rest of Asian cultures than people view the Middle Eastern, Indian, and Far Eastern cultures. Further subidivisions will hopefully decrease the overgeneralization of the diversity of Asian cultures present.
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.
tornada is offline  
Remove Ads
Old July 30th, 2015, 03:31 AM   #12
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: EARTH
Posts: 955

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kormp View Post
I once thought about your division pattern, but I thought there would be too many then. Southeast Asia could be separated, but their Sinic influences and geographic location would be okay for them to be conjoined with East Asia.
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.

Quote:
For Central Asia, their similar culture with the Middle East. I think following the general similarities of cultures is fine enough for continental divisions. We don't have to subdivide Western, Central, and Eastern Europes just because of their slight cultural differences, do we?
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.


Quote:
Culturally, the whole Russia might be European, but you cannot ignore some of the Central Asian and indigenous Siberian influences in the regions. Do we have to make East Thrace Asian and Sinai African just because of their nationalities' continental status? That sounds geographically incorrect to me...
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tornada View Post
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.
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).

Last edited by Moloc; July 30th, 2015 at 03:54 AM.
Moloc is offline  
Old January 1st, 2018, 12:16 AM   #13
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2017
From: America
Posts: 126

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.
Dzmeka is offline  
Old January 1st, 2018, 12:22 AM   #14

Aupmanyav's Avatar
Atheist, Advaitist, Hindu
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: New Delhi, India
Posts: 2,924

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.
Aupmanyav is offline  
Old January 1st, 2018, 12:33 AM   #15
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2017
From: America
Posts: 126

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aupmanyav View Post
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.
Were there any Dravidian-origin names for India?
Dzmeka is offline  
Old January 1st, 2018, 12:40 AM   #16

Aupmanyav's Avatar
Atheist, Advaitist, Hindu
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: New Delhi, India
Posts: 2,924

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

Last edited by Aupmanyav; January 1st, 2018 at 12:48 AM.
Aupmanyav is offline  
Old January 1st, 2018, 01:29 AM   #17

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 15,110
Blog Entries: 2

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
tornada is offline  
Old January 1st, 2018, 11:26 AM   #18
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2017
From: America
Posts: 126

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aupmanyav View Post
Probably "Jambudweepa" itself was Dravidian. There is no "Jambudweepa" in RigVeda.
The dvīpa in Jambudvīpa is from the Sanskrit dvīpa which means "island".
Dzmeka is offline  
Old January 2nd, 2018, 12:36 AM   #19

Dreamhunter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Malaysia
Posts: 5,140
Blog Entries: 1

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 is online now  
Old January 2nd, 2018, 12:38 AM   #20

Dreamhunter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Malaysia
Posts: 5,140
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzmeka View Post
The dvīpa in Jambudvīpa is from the Sanskrit dvīpa which means "island".
I believe a longish peninsula was also called a dvipa, e.g. Malayadvipa.
Dreamhunter is online now  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
continental, east, india, middle, middle east, separate, status



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Status and consolidation of Hinduism in the North East India greatstreetwarrior Asian History 17 November 26th, 2015 07:16 AM
No Oil in the Middle East Commander Speculative History 27 July 19th, 2014 05:33 PM
India in the middle east. Terranovan Asian History 4 March 15th, 2013 01:36 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.