I chose the 36th parallel, because well, that’s how the europeans questionably divided themselves from what they deemed the southern half of the world which they deemed inferior back during the age of exploration to the russo japanese war. also, as far as i know, They used “asia” and put the entirety of it as a medium of africa to disconnect themselves from that continent. Just wanted to show that i could go with their preverse logic on the eastern side of eurasia…
my definition of “central eurasia” was a product of using irrational imperialist logic onto another side of the world in which it was applicable to show how ridiculous our FALSE concept of the existence of region of europe really is.
If we added mountains, deserts, tectonics, into the geography of eurasia we’d end up with more “continents” than we could chew. Not only that, but that would absolutely destroy the accepted continental models we already have, so it’s pretty much contradicting alot of things you’ve said.
As for culture? Culture doesnt divide geography, geography divides culture. Geography is absolute as of now. Culture is ever changing in this globalized world.
Tectonics doesnt matter. it’s about Oceans to divide continents and isthmuses to divide regions. If europe (aka west eurasia) exists, welp, so does east eurasia - all the conditions are met there.
As long as such as such a irrational division exists, im going to have a hard time reasoning out logically why i should call japan part of east asia when it’s connected by the first island chain to the malay archigapelago when Africa apparently is it’s own continent.
Let’s talk geographically. there are 3 mega continents. Afro eurasia, the americas, and a mass of achigapelagos in the middle of these continents - and i think that this mass of archigapelagos should be considered one continent as they have no continents to be a part of, and islands as we know are not mega continents. Why make the exception for japan geographically even though they are divided by water? if divisions of water dont define continents, then there are no continents in the world. Japan is seperated by water and is part of afro eurasia, while africa is connected and yet it’s not?
Anything that has no access to the waters of the industrial hearth ( AKA britannia, anglo america) are not the west. i will repeat again:
The most common acceptance of the west is not only having a CULTURAL rooting of socio political reforms of the renaissance, scientific revolution, and enlightenment, (WHICH POLAND HAS BUT COUNTRIES LIKE RUSSIA DO NOT), but independently abolishing feudalism by transitioning a mercantilist society into a fully capitalist mode of production via industrialization, And during the transition from feudalism to proto capitalism to full capitalism participating in mercantilism through INTERCONTINENTAL, UNCONTINUOUS GEOGRAPHICALLY, MARITIME colonialism - ( As there is no traditional european mercantilism without the expansion of territory in which to extract resources for the motherland) (which poland did not do sadly.) - this condition needs to be met to replicate the west and with cultural ties to the renaissance, scientific revolution, and enlightenment - to be considered the “west”.
And if you see the nations that fit this critera, they all have direct access to the waters of the northern pacific , northern atlantic, west mediterannean and north sea above the 36th parallel. (Russia, italy, spain, etc.)
And as a actual european, it’s really disgusting what you americans write. you think judeo christianity is our pride, what makes our identity - even though it made us stagnate into barbarism and removed us from starting where the intellectual secular ancient greeks and romans faltered during the dark ages. when in reality our identity is the region which brang about the first mercantile globalization through cultural rootings in logic, science, and secularism.
What makes the west “the west”? To me and many scholars, the west a distinct geographic region adopted and started where the ancients collapsed by developed secular greek philosophy, logic, and science since the rediscovery of the ancients in the rennaissance after the crusades, which developed as it went by into the reformation, scientific revolution the age of enlightment and discovery as it spread west starting from italy into germany, iberia, france, and finally reaching britain
Economically it transformed from feudalism and mercantalism during all these changes in knowledge and social reforms.
And as it spread west starting from italy into germany, iberia, france, and finally reaching britain - where it culminated into the industrial revolution and the capitalist mode of production, where the spread regurgitated itself from britain and anglo america to the seas of the north pacific, north sea, kattegat, atlantic, west mediterannean to the countries of russia, france, italy, japan, korea.
And the conclusion in the most generalized terms? The application of these developments ie: intercontinental MERCANTALIST olonies, capitalism, abolishment of feudal structures, industrialization.
judeochristianity is not the reason why the renaissance started. It’s the rediscovery of ancient greco-roman texts of ancient secularism that reappeared after the crusades that reformed and chipped away at the centralized catholic church. As the influx of knowledge came known to the clergy - it instigated reforms and revolutions - the most notable being the reformation.
Why would something that advocated for rationalism, grow out and spread because of a authoritarian empirical tradition?
Geography was important. There are reasons as to why portugal and spain begin to transition to feudalistic proto capitalistic mercantalism and why poland was stuck unable to integrate itself to feudalistic proto capitalistic mercantalism and extract resources from colonies (to be traditionally memrcantalist and meet the standards, you needed colonies) - Both were catholic, why? BECAUSE OF IT’S GEOGRAPHY, IT HAD NO ACCESS TO MARITIME FREEDOMS! ESPECIALLY FOR THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND IT’S SPREAD like i said: which developed as it went by into the reformation, scientific revolution the age of enlightment and discovery as it spread west starting from italy into germany, iberia, france, and finally reaching britain. Economically it transformed from feudalism and mercantalism during all these changes in knowledge and social reforms. And as it spread west starting from italy into germany, iberia, france, and finally reaching britain - where it culminated into the industrial revolution and the capitalist mode of production, where the spread regurgitated itself from britain and anglo america to the seas of the north pacific, north sea, kattegat, atlantic, west mediterannean
Japan is also not part of afro eurasia. like i said, there are 3 continents - afro eurasia, americas, and the pacific archigapelic continent all seperated by water I chose the 36th parallel, because well, that’s how the europeans questionably divided themselves from what they deemed the southern half of the world which they deemed inferior back during the age of exploration to the russo japanese war. also, as far as i know, They used “asia” and put the entirety of it as a medium of africa to disconnect themselves from that continent. Just wanted to show that i could go with their preverse logic on the eastern side of eurasia…
my definition of “central eurasia” was a product of using irrational imperialist logic onto another side of the world in which it was applicable to show how ridiculous our FALSE concept of the existence of region of europe really is.
If we added mountains, deserts, tectonics, into the geography of eurasia we’d end up with more “continents” than we could chew. Not only that, but that would absolutely destroy the accepted continental models we already have, so it’s pretty much contradicting alot of things you’ve said.
As for culture? Culture doesnt divide geography, geography divides culture. Geography is absolute as of now. Culture is ever changing in this globalized world.
Tectonics doesnt matter. it’s about Oceans to divide continents and isthmuses to divide regions. If europe (aka west eurasia) exists, welp, so does east eurasia - all the conditions are met there.
As long as such as such a irrational division exists, im going to have a hard time reasoning out logically why i should call japan part of east asia when it’s connected by the first island chain to the malay archigapelago when Africa apparently is it’s own continent.
Let’s talk geographically. there are 3 mega continents. Afro eurasia, the americas, and a mass of achigapelagos in the middle of these continents - and i think that this mass of archigapelagos should be considered one continent as they have no continents to be a part of, and islands as we know are not mega continents. Why make the exception for japan geographically even though they are divided by water? if divisions of water dont define continents, then there are no continents in the world. Japan is seperated by water and is part of afro eurasia, while africa is connected and yet it’s not?
So rules being set: The industrial hearth is Anglo America and Britannia, (britannia is north america being geographically closer to ireland than continental europe, connected to north america via the island chain that includes green land, iceland, faroes, shetland - all in north america)
The receivers of modernity are for the peripheries of the industrial hearth, The land north of the 36th parallel and directly accessing north pacific, north sea, kattegat, atlantic, west mediterranean, and sea of japan - east eurasia and west eurasia These two regions connect at the russian norwegian border, forming the belt of modernity: this being:Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Austria Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, east eurasia
userdebater@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I chose the 36th parallel, because well, that’s how the europeans questionably divided themselves from what they deemed the southern half of the world which they deemed inferior back during the age of exploration to the russo japanese war. also, as far as i know, They used “asia” and put the entirety of it as a medium of africa to disconnect themselves from that continent. Just wanted to show that i could go with their preverse logic on the eastern side of eurasia…
my definition of “central eurasia” was a product of using irrational imperialist logic onto another side of the world in which it was applicable to show how ridiculous our FALSE concept of the existence of region of europe really is.
If we added mountains, deserts, tectonics, into the geography of eurasia we’d end up with more “continents” than we could chew. Not only that, but that would absolutely destroy the accepted continental models we already have, so it’s pretty much contradicting alot of things you’ve said.
As for culture? Culture doesnt divide geography, geography divides culture. Geography is absolute as of now. Culture is ever changing in this globalized world.
Tectonics doesnt matter. it’s about Oceans to divide continents and isthmuses to divide regions. If europe (aka west eurasia) exists, welp, so does east eurasia - all the conditions are met there.
As long as such as such a irrational division exists, im going to have a hard time reasoning out logically why i should call japan part of east asia when it’s connected by the first island chain to the malay archigapelago when Africa apparently is it’s own continent.
Let’s talk geographically. there are 3 mega continents. Afro eurasia, the americas, and a mass of achigapelagos in the middle of these continents - and i think that this mass of archigapelagos should be considered one continent as they have no continents to be a part of, and islands as we know are not mega continents. Why make the exception for japan geographically even though they are divided by water? if divisions of water dont define continents, then there are no continents in the world. Japan is seperated by water and is part of afro eurasia, while africa is connected and yet it’s not?
Anything that has no access to the waters of the industrial hearth ( AKA britannia, anglo america) are not the west. i will repeat again:
The most common acceptance of the west is not only having a CULTURAL rooting of socio political reforms of the renaissance, scientific revolution, and enlightenment, (WHICH POLAND HAS BUT COUNTRIES LIKE RUSSIA DO NOT), but independently abolishing feudalism by transitioning a mercantilist society into a fully capitalist mode of production via industrialization, And during the transition from feudalism to proto capitalism to full capitalism participating in mercantilism through INTERCONTINENTAL, UNCONTINUOUS GEOGRAPHICALLY, MARITIME colonialism - ( As there is no traditional european mercantilism without the expansion of territory in which to extract resources for the motherland) (which poland did not do sadly.) - this condition needs to be met to replicate the west and with cultural ties to the renaissance, scientific revolution, and enlightenment - to be considered the “west”.
And if you see the nations that fit this critera, they all have direct access to the waters of the northern pacific , northern atlantic, west mediterannean and north sea above the 36th parallel. (Russia, italy, spain, etc.)
And as a actual european, it’s really disgusting what you americans write. you think judeo christianity is our pride, what makes our identity - even though it made us stagnate into barbarism and removed us from starting where the intellectual secular ancient greeks and romans faltered during the dark ages. when in reality our identity is the region which brang about the first mercantile globalization through cultural rootings in logic, science, and secularism.
What makes the west “the west”? To me and many scholars, the west a distinct geographic region adopted and started where the ancients collapsed by developed secular greek philosophy, logic, and science since the rediscovery of the ancients in the rennaissance after the crusades, which developed as it went by into the reformation, scientific revolution the age of enlightment and discovery as it spread west starting from italy into germany, iberia, france, and finally reaching britain
Economically it transformed from feudalism and mercantalism during all these changes in knowledge and social reforms.
And as it spread west starting from italy into germany, iberia, france, and finally reaching britain - where it culminated into the industrial revolution and the capitalist mode of production, where the spread regurgitated itself from britain and anglo america to the seas of the north pacific, north sea, kattegat, atlantic, west mediterannean to the countries of russia, france, italy, japan, korea.
And the conclusion in the most generalized terms? The application of these developments ie: intercontinental MERCANTALIST olonies, capitalism, abolishment of feudal structures, industrialization.
judeochristianity is not the reason why the renaissance started. It’s the rediscovery of ancient greco-roman texts of ancient secularism that reappeared after the crusades that reformed and chipped away at the centralized catholic church. As the influx of knowledge came known to the clergy - it instigated reforms and revolutions - the most notable being the reformation.
Why would something that advocated for rationalism, grow out and spread because of a authoritarian empirical tradition?
Geography was important. There are reasons as to why portugal and spain begin to transition to feudalistic proto capitalistic mercantalism and why poland was stuck unable to integrate itself to feudalistic proto capitalistic mercantalism and extract resources from colonies (to be traditionally memrcantalist and meet the standards, you needed colonies) - Both were catholic, why? BECAUSE OF IT’S GEOGRAPHY, IT HAD NO ACCESS TO MARITIME FREEDOMS! ESPECIALLY FOR THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND IT’S SPREAD like i said: which developed as it went by into the reformation, scientific revolution the age of enlightment and discovery as it spread west starting from italy into germany, iberia, france, and finally reaching britain. Economically it transformed from feudalism and mercantalism during all these changes in knowledge and social reforms. And as it spread west starting from italy into germany, iberia, france, and finally reaching britain - where it culminated into the industrial revolution and the capitalist mode of production, where the spread regurgitated itself from britain and anglo america to the seas of the north pacific, north sea, kattegat, atlantic, west mediterannean
Japan is also not part of afro eurasia. like i said, there are 3 continents - afro eurasia, americas, and the pacific archigapelic continent all seperated by water I chose the 36th parallel, because well, that’s how the europeans questionably divided themselves from what they deemed the southern half of the world which they deemed inferior back during the age of exploration to the russo japanese war. also, as far as i know, They used “asia” and put the entirety of it as a medium of africa to disconnect themselves from that continent. Just wanted to show that i could go with their preverse logic on the eastern side of eurasia…
my definition of “central eurasia” was a product of using irrational imperialist logic onto another side of the world in which it was applicable to show how ridiculous our FALSE concept of the existence of region of europe really is.
If we added mountains, deserts, tectonics, into the geography of eurasia we’d end up with more “continents” than we could chew. Not only that, but that would absolutely destroy the accepted continental models we already have, so it’s pretty much contradicting alot of things you’ve said.
As for culture? Culture doesnt divide geography, geography divides culture. Geography is absolute as of now. Culture is ever changing in this globalized world.
Tectonics doesnt matter. it’s about Oceans to divide continents and isthmuses to divide regions. If europe (aka west eurasia) exists, welp, so does east eurasia - all the conditions are met there.
As long as such as such a irrational division exists, im going to have a hard time reasoning out logically why i should call japan part of east asia when it’s connected by the first island chain to the malay archigapelago when Africa apparently is it’s own continent.
Let’s talk geographically. there are 3 mega continents. Afro eurasia, the americas, and a mass of achigapelagos in the middle of these continents - and i think that this mass of archigapelagos should be considered one continent as they have no continents to be a part of, and islands as we know are not mega continents. Why make the exception for japan geographically even though they are divided by water? if divisions of water dont define continents, then there are no continents in the world. Japan is seperated by water and is part of afro eurasia, while africa is connected and yet it’s not?
So rules being set: The industrial hearth is Anglo America and Britannia, (britannia is north america being geographically closer to ireland than continental europe, connected to north america via the island chain that includes green land, iceland, faroes, shetland - all in north america)
The receivers of modernity are for the peripheries of the industrial hearth, The land north of the 36th parallel and directly accessing north pacific, north sea, kattegat, atlantic, west mediterranean, and sea of japan - east eurasia and west eurasia These two regions connect at the russian norwegian border, forming the belt of modernity: this being:Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Austria Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, east eurasia