Originally posted by Garfee
What has that to do with being a citizen of earth?

I thought it was obvious, so I didn't go further.
In the same way any person that was born on Earth is a citizen (in the sense of a human being, I whould have used that instead, probably) of the Earth, anyone born in Europe is an European, anyone born the UK is British, etc.

Some people act as if Europe wasn't a real place.

Originally posted by EvanB
And Britain is a physical and historical entity too...

But a physical and historical entity that is part of Europe.

One which has done more than most nations combined..

Yeah, right.

We do not class ourselves as European..

So, where is the UK, in America?

we have NOTHING in common with Europeans accept the wars we have fought to liberate them...

That is one of the most ignorant answers I have ever read. The British Islands were populated by people from the rest of Europe, and while we (the ones that got help from the British, as Portugal did during the Peninsular War) thank you for that (even if the UK, some time latter, issued the British Ultimatum, menacing a country with which they signed the oldest international alliance still in force, and from which Portugal gave access to the Azores during WWII), you should know that no country exists just by itself.

Why??

Because we are British.... Land of Hope and Glory... MOTHER of the free..

Yes, we all can see that, right?

NOT Euro continental citizens..

Excuse us, poor second class humans that were not born on that "land of hope and glory".

We fought for OUR land.. Many many times...

So did all other European countries, sometimes against your "land of hope and glory"

What I say to Europe is bring your sh"t on...

You WILL lose

I think we just have to wait and see.

Originally posted by EvanB
The English channel and North Sea will attest to us not being physically part of Europe..

Then you are part of what? The Arctic?

There is enough Spanish and Portugese vessels who tried it on with us at the bottom of those seas who will attest to that too..

That's because Portugal was under Spanish rule at the time, Portugal has always honoured (as far as I know) the Treaty of Windsor.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by EvanB
The English channel and North Sea will attest to us not being physically part of Europe..

Then you are part of what? The Arctic?

Herein lies the problem... Notions of convention. The Arctic is not a physical continent, it is an arbitrary region of the Earth's surface and parts of the US, Russia and Canada are in the Arctic. Greenland is also in the Arctic yet it is also considered as part of Europe, so go figure.

If Greenland indicated that they no longer wished to be considered as part of "Europe" would anybody raise an eyebrow? Probably not. Yet if the citizens of Britain say that they do not wish to be considered as part of "Europe" then everybody starts saying, "touch, you're in Europe whether you like it or not!"

Not so, the notional borders of Europe are arbitrary. It is not defined by specific tectonic plates. It is not defined by a specific sea/land mass distinction. It is largely a cultural collective. There is a clear distinction between the British Isles and the Continental Mainland. Europe is a misnomer.

At one time, southern "Spain" was not considered as Europe because it was a Muslim region - I'm not talking about about an "EU of antiquity", I'm talking about the definition of Europe. Historically, the British Isles have simply *not* accepted the yoke of foreign nations or collectives. Just because the Continental Mainland says that we're part of Europe does not make it so.

... and just because we lost our Empire to politically correct lilly-livered pseudo-progressives does not mean we won't get it back again

Originally posted by RawkMan
In addition to EvanB's worthy attention to the segregation of the British Isles from the European Mainland via a maritime separation, it is also worthwhile noting that Europe itself is a purely arbitrary and convenient distinction from its continental neighbours.

That's true.

The definition of Europe and its geography has changed throughout the ages and even now is simply a convenient form of scoping for geopolitical or cultural purposes within the broader scope of a clearly defined and contiguous landmass.

The definitions of the continents are geographic definitions.

Put it this way, Britains are citizens of Earth since there is no question over whether we are *on* Earth or not, however, Europe is a 'notion', is has no sovereign boundary apart from arbitrary lines defined by cartographers rather than citizens, culture or national borders.

The Earth doesn't have sovereign boundaries either, only natural bounds, as Europe.

While it is appropriate to say that Europe is effectively the western peninsula of Eurasia, this is only a convention and open to interpretation and it is also appropriate for a nation at one of the limits of that convention to indicate that it is not part of Europe as such.

But the British Islands have, as far as I know, always been considered part of Europe, even by the British.

As an example, Greenland is considered part of Europe by convention because of its cultural heritage and relationship with some of the Nordic lands, however, it is rather a long way away and closer to North America.

Geographically, it's in North America, not Europe.

As such, it may be argued that if the British Isles are no longer culturally associated with Europe, then it would be appropriate and legitimate to accept that they are *not* in Europe - no matter the protestations of those dudes that simply look at a map and think they know on what side of the border the bear sh*ts.

To me, it doesn't work that way, as I see continents as a way of defining geographic regions, not cultural regions. Did the Iberian Peninsula stopped being part of Europe during the Muslim rule?

And, as far as I know, the British Isles are still culturally associated with Europe, as we can see by their language, religion, etc..

As far as personal identity is concerned, I am my county first, then my country, then my nation!

So I am, but why stop there?

Does this mean that I don't recognise my ancestral descent, of course I do, my county was regularly invaded by continental Nordic warriors, however, you have to draw a line somewhere or we'd be looking at Robert Mugabe as president of the world due to the original migration and expansion of the human race from the sub-Saharan African continent.

That's different from saying "we have NOTHING in common with Europeans".

Is that what you want?

No.

Originally posted by EvanB
We are not a part of Europe.. We are an island nation... Have been for a few millennia.. Our shores are named accordingly along with the sea...

That doesn't mean you are not part of Europe, physically you are.

We remain an island.. Just like Ireland... Who even now regret the very minute they signed the paper that says otherwise..

What paper did they signed that says that they are not an island?

Originally posted by RawkMan
Herein lies the problem... Notions of convention. The Arctic is not a physical continent, it is an arbitrary region of the Earth's surface and parts of the US, Russia and Canada are in the Arctic. Greenland is also in the Arctic yet it is also considered as part of Europe, so go figure.

Yes, I know that the Arctic is not a continent, but unless the British Islands are floating in space they must be part of one of the Earth's continents, as any other country.

If Greenland indicated that they no longer wished to be considered as part of "Europe" would anybody raise an eyebrow? Probably not.

Greenland is not geographically part of Europe.

Not so, the notional borders of Europe are arbitrary. It is not defined by specific tectonic plates. It is not defined by a specific sea/land mass distinction.

That's true.

It is largely a cultural collective.

That's not, it's a physical definition, not a cultural definition.

There is a clear distinction between the British Isles and the Continental Mainland. Europe is a misnomer.

It depends of the context you are using "Europe". Using "Europe" instead of "European Union" is misnomer, as is saying "America" instead of "United States of America".

At one time, southern "Spain" was not considered as Europe because it was a Muslim region - I'm not talking about about an "EU of antiquity", I'm talking about the definition of Europe.

Could you point to a reference to that? And what about the time when the whole Iberian peninsula (except the mountainous regions of the Asturias), was it also considered as not being Europe? And by who (or is it "whom"?)

Historically, the British Isles have simply *not* accepted the yoke of foreign nations or collectives. Just because the Continental Mainland says that we're part of Europe does not make it so.

OK, so where are the British Islands? Europe? North America? Asia? Africa? Oceania?

... and just because we lost our Empire to politically correct lilly-livered pseudo-progressives does not mean we won't get it back again

OK, an imperialistic point of view, that's interesting. Following that idea, was India part of Europe when under the British rule?

Phew ArMaP, so many posts... Did you hit the character limit or just kick yourself for forgetting something and then posting again

Your whole premise is based on a misnomer and therefore, invalid. Firstly, continents are defined by convention as opposed to any strict indisputable criteria. Also, the definition of a continent is open to interpretation, for example, "continents are understood to be large, continuous, discrete masses of land, ideally separated by expanses of water."
Ref.: Lewis, Martin W.; Kären E. Wigen (1997). The Myth of Continents: a Critique of Metageography

That definition alone actually suggest that the British Isles should not be encapsulated within the concept of a existing continent since it is not part of a continuous, discrete landmass except in itself. In fact, that definition lends itself to suggesting that the British Isles should be defined *as* a continent in itself, notwithstanding the application of the adjective, "large".

I'm not being argumentative you understand, just trying to come to a common understanding - which leads me to my next point: "defined by convention". This basically means a "step out" - a group gets together and says, "Yes, we even though it is BS, we all accept this!" Note that this pertains to a group that then promulgates the information as the common understanding. Herein lies the issue again. The 'group' does not represent everybody and the 'common understanding' is not necessarily shared or agreed to by everyone. As an example, the official convention is that the military intervention in Afghanistan has made the world a safer place, however, I think that the majority of citizens around the world would disagree with that. The world did not accept 'Greater Germania' during WWII so why do it now for 'Europe' which is just as arbitrary? So much for conventions...

So, now that we have the 'misnomer' out of the way, let us work through your points, energetically provided as they were.

The definitions of the continents are geographic definitions.

Incorrect as I indicated above, they are conventions that effectively make use of lines 'drawn in the sand'. Generally they follow natural boundaries, e.g. the Urals, coastlines etc, however, the rules are often 'bent' for geo-political purposes. The geographic definitions are a means to an end, not the defining elements of the continent itself. As an analogy, reality is a photograph taken from a satellite, continents are lines drawn on the map with a permanent marker and a shakey hand and occasionally connecting bits that aren't really connected. We're then suppose to just accept that are we?

The Earth doesn't have sovereign boundaries either, only natural bounds, as Europe.

The Earth has obvious natural boundaries, but continents do not necessarily share them. I have already mentioned the Urals and coastlines, but there is an obvious boundary between the British Isles and the Continental Mainland called "The English Channel". This is conveniently overlooked.

But the British Islands have, as far as I know, always been considered part of Europe, even by the British.

Depends on which of the citizenry you are talking about. If it is pen-pushing Ministers who have egotistical visions of being classed as international statesmen, then yes, they probably think of themselves as 'European'. The rest of us don't. We are culturally entirely different from the Continental Mainland and this is perhaps easier to understand if you ask a 'continental' whether they are 'like' the British. I might ask a Portuguese whether they are really just Spanish... They're all on the same peninsula after all...

Geographically, it's in North America, not Europe.

Ahhh, the convenience of convention. That is the beauty of having 'conventions'. As an example, the European Union itself has stated that, ""Geographers and historians have never agreed on the physical or natural borders of Europe." Europe is amorphous. As such, one person may say that Greenland is in the North American continent, others may say that it is in Europe. I'm not being contrary, just pointing out the reality.

Did the Iberian Peninsula stopped being part of Europe during the Muslim rule?

Simple answer - yes! Herein lies the issue again and you raise a very valid point. You used the phrase, "To me, it doesn't work that way, as I see continents as a way of defining geographic regions, not cultural regions," but this is not the reality when it comes to Europe. You may say that for Eurasia, but Europe is not solely defined as "the western part of Eurasia starting at the Urals". Europe is more of a cultural rather than a geographical definition although the 'convention' is to indicate it as a distinct continent and imply physical boundaries (where I would refer you to my opening comments).

continued in next post... Damn this limit...

conitnued...

the British Isles are still culturally associated with Europe, as we can see by their language, religion

Hmmm, shakey territory there I am afraid. Culturally, the British are as different from the Continental Mainland as the resident Northern Irish, Welsh, Scottish and English are from each other, not to mention significant regional differences that are often glossed over. When it comes to religion, you may know of a previous ruler called Henry VIII and one of his most significant acts was to break away from the Catholic Church and create the Church of England. You may say, "well, it is all Christian" but that is like saying that we're all Europeans and so we should be in a single European super-state and ruled from Brussels." You're not saying that are you?

That doesn't mean you are not part of Europe, physically you are.

Again, this is a misnomer, the definition of Europe is amorphous and therefore the British Isles are not definitively within Europe - only by convention, or to put it another way, "by agreement". Lines on a piece of paper do not a continent make. If that were the case, any country could redraw a map to encapsulate neighbouring states on a whim. It has to be by agreement. Since that agreement is defined by wish-washy government personnel rather than a reflection of the citizenry, it is not what you might call the vox populi

unless the British Islands are floating in space they must be part of one of the Earth's continents

It is fair to say that we are part of Eurasia, but that does not mean we are part of Europe. All previous statements apply. Europe has always had a more signficiant cultural scope than a physical one (unlike Eurasia) and this is reflected in the way it has evovled. During the 8th century during the 'Christian World' was affected by the massive expansion of Muslim territory and not just restricted to the 'Holy Lands'. The 'line' of Europe were redrawn to reflect that only Northern Iberia was considered as 'Europe'.

where are the British Islands?

Eurasia... However, going back to my original statement in my previous post, there could be a case for making the significant islands continents in themselves. The British Isles for one, Greenland for another. There is a precedent for taking into account 'cultural' aspects for distinction since it has been done for years with 'Europe'.

The continent of the British Isles... I like the sound of that.

Ohhh... lastly, since Britain is not considered part of Europe by 'true Brits', that was never extended to India by patriots. You raise an interesting point though... Should the Falkland Islands be considered as part of the continent of the British Isles in my New World Order. I believe that a 'convention' is required, hahaha!

Lol, i'll be damned. The Antichrist is european after all.

second line.