« Reply #60 on: July 20, 2013, 11:13:11 PM »
Being part of the European Union is not the same as being a part of Europe. Russia is part of European Continent, and I don't think they'll ever become a member of the EU.
Geographically speaking, Europe and Asia are traditionally separated by the Bosphorus and the Urals. Every frontier is a political convention, though, and I don't think it's better being a European or an Asian country. It just bugs me to read "Turkey really isn't Europe".
a slight variation on the above and a thread highjack.
not being in the EU does not mean you are not european. you can european and not part of the EU. before england was admitted it was no less european. and being a member did not make it "more european", whatever that would be.
now, does being in the EU make you european? doubtful. if for what ever reason japan were to join (hey, it might happen) would they become european? not in my mind.
turkey is part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). on the maps i use, i dont see turkey as remotely close to the northern atlantic. but there you go.
now then, "is turkey a european country" may not be a "map fact" question. turkey does lie in BOTH supposed continents. it seems more a call of preference than "fact" is involved. often, facts are simply beliefs about the world that we all agree are "true".
for europeans for centuries, the world was flat. for many people from east asia at the same time, they would have laughed at that thought and shown you maps of the world and europe demonstrating the world is a sphere.
but now to double hijack the thread. continents themselves are not actual "facts" that exist outside human contrivances and conventions. that is, people created the concept of a continent long ago and we today inherited it, often unquestioningly.
where does europe end and asia being...and why? it has nothing to do with geography since if you look at the map there is one, huge chunk of land, all connected. the "line" exists only because people decided to draw it...and mostly for cultural reasons.
and by the way, the ural mountains are not key to dividing europe from asia. after all, the himalayas are a lot more imposing than the urals. the himalays kept the mongols from whomping the snot out of india. the urals didnt save the europeans from the mongols beating them like gongs did they?
but we dont seriously say india is its own continent because of mountains do we.
there you go. your post-colonialish geography lesson for the day. 
I hope you guys can find a way to forward this discussion to Colton, so he can familiarize himself with the full spectrum of geopolitical considerations involved in his decision.
There's more heat than light on this thread.
http://www.textbookleague.org/26flat.htm
and now let me really complicate all this and conflate it with the "europe" debate. your article cites ancient greece's knowledge of the earth, which is accurate. about the only folks who were clueless on the earth's shape were mostly western europeans from the middle ages or there about. not all europeans, but many.
but what my friend who hails from greece often likes to mention is that while today europeans look to greece for its intellectual traditions and roots, the greeks view their ancient history differently.
they view themselves and their traditions, then, as being tied more to what we now call the middle east and the eastern mediterranean and NOT western europe.
the world is just so much interesting than many schools lead us to believe.
now i just hope the iverson is taking notes on all this.
nice read, and yes, it's all about conventions, which are a product of historical processes. The cities in the Anatolia coast were considered as Greek as Athens or Corinth, but now that's the Asian part of Turkey.
'European' identity was built as opposed to the 'Evil Eastern Enemy'. From Felipe II to Vlad the Impaler to the Empires that coveted the Balcans in the late 19th Century, the Ottomans were like Mordor (I find that Tolkien's obsession with the eastern, non-white enemy disturbing).
War and peace treaties always draw the lines in the map, we should use them as they're useful, unlike in this case 
And the big deal about calling a country European or not isn't geographical, it's more about considering that country worthy of being European (because it's clear Turkey, just like Russia, is both a European and Asian country). For years, Spain was despectively called out as African and non European, and many people took offense in that. I don't see anything wrong in being considered North African, because we have a lot of culture in common, and ultimately, Africa is everybody's motherland.
I'm sure Sahara didn't meant it as disrespect to Turkish people, maybe it's just prejudice or ignorance, but there's some extreme kind of Ethnocentrism that considers one Continent better than the others. An early example of Ethnocentrism is the Greek calling the non Greek 'barbarians', because their non Greek languages were all 'bar-bar'. Civilization at its finest, right?
And by the way, yes, the Urals are considered (just another convention) a part of the limit between Europe and Asia. But I couldn't care less about limits, I think respect is what matters.
Back to Colton, any news on him?
a well deserved tp. gosh i like history and the writing of it....but still no news on the history of the colton era in boston.
Logged
I believe Gandhi is the only person who knew about real democracy — not democracy as the right to go and buy what you want, but democracy as the responsibility to be accountable to everyone around you. Democracy begins with freedom from hunger, freedom from unemployment, freedom from fear, and freedom from hatred.
- Vandana Shiva
Topic: Colton Iverson may be going to Turkey? (Read 15274 times)