The Controversy of Splitting Asia

[Coolguy66]

There seems to be a lot of controversy when it comes to sectionizing and labeling Asia. Much of the reason to this is because of two things. 1) how vast asia is, being the largest continent in our planet. 2) cultural linguistic and ethnic diversity. Although for the most part Asia is made up of two of the major human sub races. mongoloid genes are prevelant in the east and central parts of Asia whereas southern and western parts of Asia are predominantly caucasoid, with the exception of Partial negroid admixture with caucasoids in Southern Asia (Dravidians).

The countries of modern day South Asia (Pakistan, India, Nepal, bangladesh, Bhutan) in terms of plate tectonics belong to the “Indian plate”. It is to be noted that the Indian plate collided with the Eurasian plate some hundreds of million years ago. For these reasons, it is acceptable and appropriate to give south Asians their own category due to their vast cultural and geographical distinctions from the Middle East. The Himalayan mountain rage and the Hindu Kush are environmental barriers that also give natural borders between South Asia and everywhere else.

Another challenge we have is figuring out what the Middle East really is... first off the name is slightly Eurocentric as it considered that region in the middle between “east and west”. However the issue with this term is that It only applies if we are looking from a European perspective. “Middle East” can actually be “middle West” for a Japanese person..
In order to correct this we have to acknowledge that no matter what, this region known as the “Middle East” is without doubt located in Asia. “Western” Asia, which includes turkey, the Caucasus, Iran, and Afghanistan seems like a more appropriate term. “Western Asia” is culturally and ethnically more homogenous, and also the major landscapes (the Anatolian plateau, the Caucasus Mountains, the Iranian plataeu) being mainly mountainous and part of the “Eurasian plate” creates a distinction from other surrounding regions.

What we are left with is the land south of Anatolia and the Iranian plataue. First off, the Arabian plate collided with the Eurasian plate millions of years ago. This concludes that the Arabian peninsula has a much different landscape to its surrounding areas, being that it is also mostly desert. Because we have to consider that there already is a “South Asia” and that “west Asia” lies north of the Arabian peninsula, it makes sense to call this region “Southwest Asia”.

As for the remaining regions, I feel they are pretty accurate with modern date depictions. So I will leave it at that for now..


Thoughts?

[StonyArabia]

Seems accurate

[Coolguy66]

Seems accurate

Very very very glad you think that. I was a little worried that Arabs would find it offensive since it “separates” the Middle East. I just think “Middle east” is just so outdated and needs to be updated

[Gangrel]

Looks priti gud

[Dragoon]

There are different takes on:

What the races are,
the continents are,
the regions are.

Using continents there are 5-7 continent models. I grew up with the 7 continent model.
They all make sense in some ways.

Using the plates... (at least from picture I have)
Major ones: Eurasian, North American, South American, African, Indo-Australian, Antarctic, Pacific Plate
Smaller ones: Indian, Caribbean, Philippine, Arabian, etc

The UN has their own geographical subregions.

Recently ive been thinking to myself if the Eurasian model could make sense for continents.
Europe would still be a major region. Something similar like South Asia or Central America.
Also Iran is sometimes grouped with West Asia and sometimes as South Asia.

Fairly open to this stuff.

[Coolguy66]

There are different takes on:

What the races are,
the continents are,
the regions are.

Using continents there are 5-7 continent models. I grew up with the 7 continent model.
They all make sense in some ways.

Using the plates... (at least from picture I have)
Major ones: Eurasian, North American, South American, African, Indo-Australian, Antarctic, Pacific Plate
Smaller ones: Indian, Caribbean, Philippine, Arabian, etc

The UN has their own geographical subregions.

Recently ive been thinking to myself if the Eurasian model could make sense for continents.
Europe would still be a major region. Something similar like South Asia or Central America.
Also Iran is sometimes grouped with West Asia and sometimes as South Asia.

Fairly open to this stuff.

In my humble opinion I don’t believe Europe should be a separate continent from Asia.. despite the fact that there are many cultural differences and many bodies of water, mountains, and rivers that create “borders” between Europe from Asia, the region is still very much a part of Asia. India is separated from the rest of Asia and has actually had less contact throughout history with surrounding regions. in the same respect we still refer to India being “South Asia” it makes geographical sense to refer to “Europe” as “north-west Asia” or even simply “North Asia” but due to fairly recent European colonialism, I doubt we are close to that sensible realization. I didn’t want to include Europe in this map As I feared it would start a lot of controversy and I don’t want to offend anyone.

As for Iran, it still blows my mind how people could consider it south Asian. Afghanistan and Pakistan are separated by the Hindu Kush. If you don’t include the western portion of Pakistan (where many ethnic afghans reside). The Hindu Kush for thousands of years have kept South Asians from traveling west towards Afghanistan. There are theories that the very word “Hindu Kush” comes from Persian meaning “Hindu kill”. Hence the mountains are so cold and elevated that anyone who tried to cross it would die. Although this theory has been proven wrong, there is some truth behind it. the countries of Iran and Afghanistan have always been part of the Eurasian plate. The Anatolian and iranian plataeu are very mountainous as a result of the collision from the Arabian and Indian plates, however they are still native to Eurasia. Therefore they should be given their own category. Not to mention that South Asia has many cultural/ethnic differences than west Asia. The only connection they have is from the recently Mughal empire, when Persian Kings ruled South Asia for a long period of time. However this does not mean that modern day Iranians and Afghans are related to Indians. Some North Indians do have west Asian ancestry due to the Mughal empire but it is definitely not the other way around as Indians have seldom traveled west.