define " European "

That's because of the cold war mentality.
And that average person has to be in western Europe to think like that,if he is in the Balkans he would naturally think himself as being in Europe.

But i share the same opinion with you that west of the Urals and as east as Istanbul is Europe.

Originally posted by Temujin thats a good point and one that i already brought up before in this thread, that is Europe doesn't exist geographically. is there a question if Russia is european or not? Russia is Eruasian, like we all are, as simple as that. (actually the eastern most part of Russia is even North American.

If we're going to be "strictly continental" then I'd have to agree, and it's a nice way of circumventing the issue by making it irrelevant. Yet there are more layers to what Europe is (see my first post) than the geographic boundaries, and even if we conclude Europe isn't a continent it doesn't amount to anything more than semantics, as it would remain as distinct a region as the Middle East and the East Asia.


Edited by Reginmund - 23-Apr-2009 at 08:46

Whether something exists objectively is never really the question, and all borders are artificial. You can look at the Urals and call it a border, or you can look at them and say they are no such thing. The borders exist in our heads, then they are projected unto the world, and thus they become the closest thing to reality. The idea of Europe is very much a reality, indeed it's why we are having this conversation, and so Europe is far more real than Eurasia, a term few operate with and most have never heard of, so vast and all-including it's meaningless to anyone but pedantic geographers.

peopel talk about globalisation nowadays and forget about the silk road? can it even get more eurasian? the EU was foremost an economic union.

Originally posted by calvo Sometimes I often wonder that since when did the concept of "Europe" actually exist? Who defined Europes' borders? When? and why?   This is a subject that often intrigues me because today all European nationalities feel like we are like "one cultural entity", in contrast to neighbouring North Africa and the Middle East. A Spaniard or Italian would usually feel much closer to a German or Dane than to an Algerian or Tunisian. This was not the case 2000 years ago. Back then, all the Mediterranean coast was part of the "civilized", Roman, world, while north of the Danube, East of the Rhine, and south of the Sahara were the "Barbarian" world. Back then, a person living in Spain probably felt far closer to someone living in Algeria than to someone living in Germany or Poland.   It is strange how perceptions have changed over the centuries.

This is why I find the study of the middle ages to be of such crucial importance in understanding Europe. With the fall of the Roman Empire in the west there was an actual break in continuity, and the civilization that took its place over the following centuries was a completely different beast. The Renaissance scholars couldn't have been more wrong in dismissing the medio aevum as an intermediary millennium between antiquity and the Renaissance, on the contrary it was when their civilization was in truth born. The civilization of medieval Europe was partially built on the legacy of antiquity, to be sure, but it wasn't created by the ancients; it was created by those who destroyed the ancient world.

The renowned French medievalist Jacques Le Goff has written a book on the topic titled "The Birth of Europe". Its contents can be summed up as following:

"In this ground-breaking book, the great French historian Jacques Le Goff places the genesis of Europe firmly in the Middle Ages. He contends that it was in the Middle Ages that many of the institutions and beliefs we consider to be ‘European’ were defined and developed for the first time: ideas about a common Christian society, public spaces, courtship and marriage.

The Birth of Europe presents the historical facts and events that shaped the period, but also the formation of attitudes and concepts of a European ‘dream’. The Middle Ages manifested the combination of diversity and unity present in Europe today: the mixing of populations, West-East and North-South oppositions, but above all the unifying role of culture.

Le Goff shows that of all the periods that have contributed to our common European heritage, and will continue to shape Europe’s future, the Middle Ages are the most significant. The book will be enjoyed by loyal followers of Le Goff, as well as anyone interested in how ‘Europe’ was born."

Originally posted by calvo Originally posted by Frederick Roger I think you are all adressing the issue from a highly erroneous point of view - that of "Europe" being a clearly defined geographical space. That, to me, is an archaic and simply wrong conception that, misinterpreted, can generate all kinds of serious racist and xenophobous atitudes. Europe as continent is one of the most enduring unsupportable theories ever - it is nothing but an Asian peninsula. To call it a continent, a different, independent geographical space, makes as much sense as refering to Alaska or India in the same way. You're right that Europe is a peninsula of Asia, just like India, but there IS a geographical definition of Europe; whether it's man-made or not. As I said before: north of Mediterranean, Black Sea, and Caucasus, west of Urals. When I was visiting Istanbul I crossed a bridge that connected "Europe" and "Asia" because it crossed the Bosphorous. I don't see anything "xenophobic" or "racist" about quoting that because it's simple geography. For me, "European" refers to anything that pertains to this geographical peninsula, regardless of religion, ethnicity, wealth, or politics. Therefore, Morocco isn't European, neither is Canada, USA, Mexico, China, or India.

Edited by Ikki - 30-Apr-2009 at 23:37

"European" is mostly a cultural identity. That not always corresponds to geography.

Edited by Sarmat - 02-May-2009 at 17:37

yeah i think that's a good observation