Despite my harsh criticisms of the continental model expressed in the preceding posts, I do think that it should be taught to young students. In my ideal scenario, first-graders would be shown, ideally by examining a globe, that there are six very large masses of land that are separated, or almost separated, from each other by waterways. The distinction between large islands and continents should also be discussed. Students also need to be informed that Eurasia is usually divided into two continents, Europe and Asia, for largely historical reasons. Coloring in and labeling the continents on a world map could then proceed. Everyone should learn the names of these landmasses and be able to identify them on a world map or globe.
My problem with the continental model is not that it is taught, but rather that it is usually the only lesson in dividing the world, other than by countries. Problems with, and alternatives to, the continental model should be introduced in the elementary grades. The model’s flaws, after all, are obvious to anyone who pays close attention to the world, leading to a slew of unanswerable questions. Since Israel and the Palestinian territories are in Asia, why are Israelis and Palestinians not considered Asian? If Tunisia is in Africa, why is a Tunisian immigrant to the United States not an African American? Why is there no appreciable significance to the division of Turkey and Russia between Europe and Asia? Such paradoxes go on and on.
The main alternative to the continental model is that of world regions (see the map posted below), which has been used by serious thinkers since the end of World War II. This model is not as formalized as the continental scheme, with more countries occupying uncertain or contested positions (see the second map below). It aims to divide the world not on a geological basis but rather in accordance with historical and cultural factors. The resulting model has many problems and controversies, and should never be taken-for-granted, much less regarded as definitive. But it is indispensable for anyone wanting to discuss world geography effectively.
Unfortunately, the world regional model is almost never taught at the elementary or secondary levels, at least in the United States. Even at the tertiary level, it is rarely introduced outside of a few geography courses, which are absent at many if not most colleges and universities. Beyond academic discourse, the outlines of world regionalization remain poorly known and deeply confused. Consider, for example, the top results of a Google image search for “world regions map,” which are posted below. Few of the maps in this illustration depict the standard world regions of the scholarly imagination.
Even many professors working on global topics have little understanding of the world regional model that guides global scholarship. Some are evidently determined to remain ignorant. I once gently corrected a professor of economics who kept referring to Singapore, Malaysia, and the Philippines as “East Asian” countries, informing him that they are in Southeast Asia, not East Asia. He was infuriated, screaming back that “In the discipline of economics, the Philippines is in East Asia!” I have found no evidence that this assertion is true, and, even if it were, economists have no warrant to idiosyncratically divide the world as they see fit. Suffice it to say that a scholar of the Philippines is never going to be considered for an academic position in East Asian studies or East Asian history.
The map posted above of “Countries & Dependencies With an Uncertain or Disputed World-Regional Position” needs explication, which will be given in the next GeoCurrents post.