How would the continents be named if the world is dominated by non-Europeans

How would the world's continents be divided and named if the world is culturally dominated by people of non-European origins?

There is a CGPGrey video on the precariousness of continents, pointing out that Europe and Asia separates while the Americas combines all because of cultural preferences other than any valid geographical justifications.

And I've long been convinced that "Asia" is the most meaningless of all geographical concepts, it's basically Eurasia minus Europe.

It makes me wonder, if the world is dominated by, say, people from Indian Subcontinent, how would the "dvipa"s be drawn? Well, the Jambudvipa would be on its own, and "Eurasia minus Jambudvipa" gets its own name?

How about an Islamic-dominated world? Would West Asia and North Africa be counted as one continent?
 
I think the division of the Eurasian continent is really the only continental classification that seems to be culturally iffy. Africa and South America have very obvious dividing points (narrowest points at Panama/Suez) which can easily be used as boundaries for continents - especially if the initial classification of these continents are driven by maritime needs.
 
I personally like to define continents by the Tectonic plate, so North America and South America are separate, despite what people say, Africa is it's own, Eurasia is one, Australia and Antarctica are their own as well. I don't see India as it's own due to it's size and just how connected it is to Asia.

If it was Indians I imagine that it would be relatively similar, albeit with different names. Maybe Indonesia and Australia are considered the same.

Muslims may have Europe, Asia, and Africa one like was mentioned. They may also combine North and South America fro the same reason. That may mean a world with 4 continents,
 
I can see Eurafrasia being a continent, Africa 2 continents, Europe+North Africa+Levant a continent, and Arabia+Levant+Iraq+Kuwait+southern Khuzistan a continent in other timelines.

My scheme:

Continents: NA, SA, Eurasia, Africa, Antarctica

Sub-continents: Arabia, Europe, "India"

Island continent: Australia
 
Last edited:
I think the division of the Eurasian continent is really the only continental classification that seems to be culturally iffy. Africa and South America have very obvious dividing points (narrowest points at Panama/Suez) which can easily be used as boundaries for continents - especially if the initial classification of these continents are driven by maritime needs.

The Europe/Asia/Africa divide makes sense if you live in the Eastern Mediterranean because it neatly separates your three main directions of travel. That is about as far as it goes. But any classification that is based on classical writers (which would include a putative Islamic one) will likely copy it because it is traditional by that point. After all, tradition is the reason why India is a subcontinent and Europe a 'real' one.

I wonder if an Indian-derived one would pay more attention to non-maritime dividing lines. They would certainly spot the similarities between the bharat and that other big peninsula with its separate religion and cultural identity. And of course (greater) China would need its own classification. We could end up with a conception of there being the 'world' (Afroeuroasia) and the islands (Australia, the Americas, Oceania), and a second layer of subdivisions between 'continent' (relatively meaningless in this case) and countries (bharat, zhongguo, dar-al-Islam, Christendom, I have no idea how these would be appositely expressed in any INdian language).
 
Top