印度应该从“亚洲”中分离出来，归为一个独立的洲吗?
Should India be separated from "Asia" and categorized as their own?
译文简介
“印度次大陆”(或者简单地说“次大陆”，就像美利坚合众国被称为“合众国”一样)的概念应该得到更多的推广，而不是把印度想象成一个完整的独立大陆。
正文翻译
Should India be separated from "Asia" and categorized as their own?
印度应该从“亚洲”中分离出来，归为一个独立的洲吗?
评论翻译
很赞 ( 2 )
收藏
I think the idea of ‘Indian Sub Continent’ (or to put simply, ‘Sub continent’, just like how the United stetes of America is called ‘States’) should be popularized more, than projecting India as a whole separate continent. Indian sub continent that includes India, Pakistan, Banglawdesh, Srilanka, Nepal and Butan has every single quality to be viewed as a separate logical entity compared to rest of Asia and the world. The idea of calling it a whole separate continent would simply lead to other questions such as calling China a separate continent or calling all the Arab countries together a separate continent.
“印度次大陆”(或者简单地说“次大陆”，就像美利坚合众国被称为“合众国”一样)的概念应该得到更多的推广，而不是把印度想象成一个完整的独立大陆。
印度次大陆包括印度、巴基斯坦、孟加拉国、斯里兰卡、尼泊尔和不丹，与亚洲和世界其他地区相比，印度次大陆的每一个国家都被视为一个独立的实体。
把印度称为一个独立的大陆的想法只会导致其他问题，比如把中国称为一个独立的大陆，或者把所有阿拉伯国家统称为一个独立的大陆。
Continents are not a political/ethical or regional delineation.
It is a geographical delineation. So yes, whole Indians should not be ethically grouped with a lot of Asian cultures due to the mentioned reasons....the Continent we are a part of is fine.
大陆不是政治/道德或地区划分。
这是地理上的划分。所以，是的，由于上述原因，整体印度人不应该在伦理上与许多亚洲文化归为一类....我们所在的大陆很好。
I think the classification as Asian Indian serves to separate Indians from Asia from Amerindians (Native American Indians). Besides, let’s not forget that Indians and East Asians are from the same continent originally, so that makes them both Asians.
我认为亚洲印度人的分类是为了将亚洲的印度人（Indians）和美洲印第安人（Indians）区分开来。此外，别忘了印度人和东亚人最初来自同一大洲，所以他们都是亚洲人。
A lot of people have said this already so my answer is a strong vote in their favor. Asia is defined by ancient European as something that falls behind an artificial boundary. It does not signify a culture, ethnicity or country. It actually signifies diverse homogenous landmass connected to another landmass but yet separated from them. The cultures have for centuries exchanged ideas including Indo-China and Indo-Persia, and Arab-Persia, etc.
The more recent separation of culture is more to do with artificial separation of cultures driven by political differences. If China, India and Persia were politically similar, they would look like the same continent.
Look at Persian map for instance from ancient times when there were three great kingdoms.
很多人已经这么说了，所以我的回答是强烈支持他们。亚洲被古代欧洲人定义的人为边界。它并不代表一种文化、种族或国家。它实际上意味着不同的同质大陆连接到另一座大陆，但又与它们隔离。几个世纪以来，两种文化一直在交换思想，包括印度中国、印度波斯，以及阿拉伯波斯等。
最近的文化隔离更多的是由于政治差异造成的人为的文化隔离。如果中国、印度和波斯在政治上相似，它们看起来就会像同一块大陆。
看看波斯地图，比如古代有三个伟大的王国。
Ideally, continents shouldn't be drawn by people but they are natural landmasses. I'd argue that the real continent of Eurasia makes more sense from that perspective.
Re the critical aspect of your question: the ancestry has also mingled with rest of the world with Aryan migration (Europe), Mongolian conquer of China to Turkey and then the same lineage becoming the Mogul kingdom in India. The marriages of Greeks and Indians, and Persians and Indians/Moguls are equally documented. So that's debatable as well.
Now, re questionnaire in the US. IMHO, that's the a pretty ignorant question anyway. Do you think all African cultures are same? I think it's time that US moves on and debates the merit of that just like there is one in India (about caste based metrics/reservations).
It's important to measure diversity on one hand, but then it's likely damaging to categorize people in a highly progressive and globalized world into anything (caste, religion, ethnicity, etc). The best metric is how many people are happy, educated, feel safe, and healthy.
So,
dividing India out of Asia: no
Separating Indian from Asian: no
Identifying ourselves on some stupid questionnaire: meaningless
uniting Europe and Asia: yes.
uniting Eurasia and Africa: next step over
……理想情况下，大陆不应该由人类绘制，而应该是自然延伸。我认为，从这个角度来看，真正的欧亚大陆更有意义。
关于你提的问题的关键方面：各地祖先与世界其他地方融合在一起，雅利安人(欧洲)移民，蒙古人从中国一直征服到土耳其，然后同样的血统成为印度的莫卧儿王国。希腊人和印度人的婚姻，波斯人和印度人/莫卧儿人的婚姻同样有记载。当然这也是有争议的。
恕我直言，这是一个相当无知的问题。你认为所有的非洲文化都是一样的吗? 我认为美国是时候继续讨论它的优点了，比如印度就有一个(基于种姓的指标/预留)。
一方面，衡量多样性是很重要的，但另一方面，在一个高度进步和全球化的世界中，把人们归为任何类别(种姓、宗教、种族等)可能是有害的。最好的衡量标准是有多少人是快乐的、受过教育的、感到安全和健康的。
所以：
把印度从亚洲分离出来——不好；
一些愚蠢的、自我区分的问卷调查——不好；
统一的欧亚——好。
统一的欧亚非——下一阶段。
Your question though interesting but is vague. Asia does not mean anything to India in the first place. It is only a terminology used to classify a vast area of land.
India does not have that much area to be classified as a continent in the first place.
It is not mandatory how populous that area of land is.
Cultural differences? For that we have the term country and a continent does not signify it. For example Ukraine and Russia both speak Russian but do we consider them as a whole? No. They have cultural differences, hence ideological and social differences and that is why they are two separate countries. But they are of the same continent because they are part of the same big land mass surrounded by water.
And go by definition - “continents are understood to be large, continuous, discrete masses of land, ideally separated by expanses of water.”
India is already termed as a subcontinent. Because it is largely distinguishable among other sectors of Asia. It’s culture and society does not go with the Chinese or the Russian or the Arabs.
你的问题虽然有趣，但很模糊。
亚洲一开始对印度没有任何意义。这只是一个用来对大片土地进行分类的术语。
首先，印度没有那么大的面积可以被归类为一座大陆；
这片土地的人口数量并不是强制性的；
文化差异?基于此我们有国家层面的术语，而一座大陆并不能代表着它。例如，乌克兰和俄罗斯都说俄语，但我们能把他们看作一个整体吗?不。他们有文化差异，因此也就有意识形态和社会差异，这就是为什么他们是两个不同的国家。但它们属于同一座大陆，因为它们是同一大片被水包围的陆地的一部分。
根据定义——“大陆被理解为大的、连续的、分离的大块陆地，理想情况下被广阔的水域隔开。”
印度已经被称为次大陆。因为它在很大程度上区别于亚洲的其他地方。它的文化和社会与中国人、俄罗斯人或阿拉伯人不合拍。
When we identify ourselves as Asians or someone else does it for us, we must ask a simple question -
Is it something that we came up with ?. Did the people of this land consciously decided to identify themselves this way ?
The terms - Asia, Libya, Near-east, Middle-East, Far-East, East are all Euro-centric. So much for self-importance that the Mediterranean Sea literally means “The sea of the middle earth”.
The Greenwich time, the world map as you see it everywhere are all legacies of such ideas.
We can and we should separate ourselves from such identifications. India is as big, as diverse and as populated as Europe is. If Europe is a continent, there is no reason why India is not. Europe has alps, India has Himalayas. Europe has Atlantic, India has Indian Ocean.
We can’t control how others identify us. But we can definitely shed such denominations from our side.
当我们认为自己是亚洲人，或者别人认为我们是时，我们必须问一个简单的问题：这是我们想出来的吗?这片土地上的人们有意识地决定以这种方式来认同自己吗?
亚洲、利比亚、近东、中东、远东、东方这些术语都以欧洲为中心。地中海的字面意思就是“中土之海”。
格林尼治时间，你随处可见的世界地图都是这些思想的遗产。我们能够也应该把自己从这种认同中分离出来。印度和欧洲一样大，一样多样化，一样多人口。如果欧洲是一块大陆，印度没有理由不是。
欧洲有阿尔卑斯山，印度有喜马拉雅山。欧洲有大西洋，印度有印度洋。
我们无法控制别人如何认为我们，但我们绝对可以摆脱这种偏见。
Yes, there is no point in counting India in Asia either through culture, geography, history or ethnicity.
India sits in its own continental plate and has a distinct culture. It has not ruled East Asia nor ruled by it. It is larger than Europe in population and it is plain Euro-centrism to see Europe as distinct from Asia [when they are a part of the same continental plate], but India as a part of Asia. India would satisfy every criteria to be a continent - large population [larger than other continents], separate continental plate, distinct cultural & linguistic groups and so on.
The Americans are often using the correct terminology by calling out the Asians, Indians and the Arabs distinctly [all of these are separate plates and separate cultural groups]. In UK, also this distinction is more common. I guess it is just a matter of being exposed to more of outside world.
是的，无论是从文化、地理、历史还是种族角度来看，把印度算在亚洲是没有意义的。
印度坐落在自己的大陆板块上，有着独特的文化。它既没有统治东亚，也没有被东亚统治。它的人口比欧洲多，把欧洲与亚洲(当它们是同一个大陆板块的一部分时)区别开来，而把印度视为亚洲的一部分，这是显而易见的欧洲中心主义。
印度满足作为一座大陆的所有标准——人口众多(比其他大陆更多)，独立的大陆板块，不同的文化和语言群体等等。
美国人经常使用正确的术语，把亚洲人、印度人和阿拉伯人区别开来(所有这些都是不同的板块和不同的文化群体)。
在英国，这种区别也更常见。我想这只是更多地接触外部世界的问题。
When I was growing up in the States, India was called “India” or the subcontinent. Asians were thought of as “Orientals”, distinct from Indians and never to be confused with Indians. For some reason, about ten-fifteen years ago, it became politically correct to lump all of them into the category of “Asians”, something I found to be very confusing. In what universe would Indians and Orientals be the same culture?
We have improved this recently by referring to “South Asians” and East Asians but I always wonder who start these trends.
当我在美国长大时，印度被称为“印度”或次大陆。亚洲人被认为“东方人”，区别于印度人，永远不会与印度人混淆。出于某种原因，大约10 - 15年前，把他们都归为“亚洲人”的范畴在政治上是正确的，但这让我感到非常困惑。在哪个宇宙里，印度人和东方人是同一种文化?
我们最近通过提到“南亚人”和“东亚人”改善了这一点，但我一直想知道是谁开始了这些趋势。
In the UK, Asian refers primarily to South Asian differenciable from Chinese or East Asian; and Arab, Middle Eastern or Central Asian peoples. Mediterranean is also differentiated.
在英国，亚洲人主要指南亚人，与中国人或东亚人、阿拉伯人、中东人或中亚人有所区别。
地中海也是区别化的。
What difference will it make to have a different descxtion? What is the benefit? Will be interested to know.
有不同的描述会有什么不同呢?有什么好处?我很想知道。
It won’t make any difference. It’s just bad nomenclature.
这不会有什么不同。这只是命名法很糟糕。
Correct Definition for the term “Sub Continent”. India is often represented as one in Geography.
“次大陆”是正确定义。在地理学中，印度经常被认为是一个国家。
The correct definition is a continent. It is not a sub anything.
正确的定义是大陆。它不是“次”什么的。
In the US, I have met a lot of people who still mean native Americans when they say Indians. I think sometimes, in US and some other parts of the world (UK?), some people often use the term Orientals to mean Chinese or East Asian.
在美国，我遇到过很多人，当他们说India时，他们仍然指的是美国原住民。
我想有时候，在美国和世界上其他一些地方(英国?)，一些人经常用东方人这个词来指中国人或东亚人。
Yes, some years ago, if you said you were Indian, I would wonder what tribe you were from, in part, because you would not look Indian to me. You would have to say, “No, not that type of Indian”.
I think things in the States are a lot different, now, because we have so many people coming this this country who used to be Indians so now we know.
是的，几年前，如果你说你是India，我会想知道你来自哪个部落，部分原因是，在我看来你不像印第安人。你会说，“不，不是那种India”。
我认为现在美国的情况有很大的不同，因为我们有很多人来到这个国家，他们以前是印度人，所以现在我们知道了。
What do continental plates have to do with such divisions? These are geographical formations that can be distinguished only if you go back to a time before Humans! It makes no sense to distinguish Arabs, Indians and East Asians based on these sitting on separate plates.
大陆板块与这种区分有什么关系?这些地理构造只有回到人类出现之前才能被区分出来！把阿拉伯人、印度人和东亚人放在不同的板块里是没有意义的。
What do you think a continent means? In what way is India part of Asia?
你认为大陆是什么意思?印度在什么方面是亚洲的一部分?
Definition of 'continent' in the modern context has little to do with continental plates. One could certainly make a point that continental plates have tended to act as isolators for different civilizations indirectly, as Ankhi Mun mentioned below... but continental plate collisions and human migrations just don't overlap when you look at the timelines. The latest the Indian plate collided with the Eurasian plate was 25 mya and the earliest human migration out of Africa was that of Homo Erectus 2 mya. The point is, when you use continental plates as a separating factor you're basically using the results of their collisions as the separating factors - in this case, the Himalayas. And when I quickly checked a world map of mountain ranges, you're actually right. The Ural mountains are not as big a separating feature of Europe and Asia as the Himalayas are of Indian subcontinent and north Asia. Time to exit from Asia eh?
在现代语境中，“大陆”的定义与大陆板块关系不大。人们当然可以指出，大陆板块倾向于间接地充当不同文明的隔离者，正如Ankhi Mun在下面提到的……但从时间轴上看，大陆板块碰撞和人类迁徙并不重叠。
印度板块与欧亚板块最近一次碰撞是在2500万年前，而人类最早走出非洲的迁徙是200万年前的直立人。重点是，当你用大陆板块作为分离因素时你基本上是用它们碰撞的结果作为区分因素。在这里，是喜马拉雅山脉。
当我快速查看世界山脉地图时，你是对的。乌拉尔山脉不像喜马拉雅山脉在印度次大陆和北亚那样大，（都能）成为欧亚大陆之间的一个区别特征。是时候离开亚洲了，对吧?
You can assume whatever definition you want. None of those definitions would make India a part of Eurasia.
你可以假设任何你想要的定义。但这些定义都不能使印度成为欧亚大陆的一部分。
Wait what's wrong in saying India is part of Eurasia as both are part of the large landmass on the surface called Asia? That's the modern definition and I see nothing wrong with that. The Americas would most definitely not be part of Eurasia by the same definition. So on the surface India is definitely part of Asia but if one must get technical, tectonic plates are better than oceans to separate landmasses into continents.
说印度是欧亚大陆的一部分有什么错，因为两者都是亚洲大陆的一部分?这是现代的定义，我看不出有什么问题。
按照同样的定义，美洲肯定不是欧亚大陆的一部分。所以从表面上看，印度绝对是亚洲的一部分，但如果你必须从技术上讲，地壳板块比海洋更能把大陆分割成大陆。
Obsolete definition of Continents: large continous landmasses separated by oceans in between.
That would make Afro-Eurasian super continent and NA-SA cojoined as the Americas.
Thus tectonic plates are a logical way to identify continents.
大陆的过时定义:被海洋隔开的、大的、连续的大陆块。这将形成欧亚非超级大陆和北美-南美的大美洲。
因此，构造板块是识别大陆的一种合乎逻辑的方法。
But European and Asian region (excluding the Indian Subcontinent) are part of the same tectonic plate?
但是欧洲和亚洲地区(不包括印度次大陆)是同一个构造板块的一部分吗?
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Yes. It is the Eurasian plate.
是的， 这是欧亚板块。
Wouldn't calling the continent EURASIA be more appropriate?
It would be less confusing regarding Russia as well.
称欧亚大陆不是更合适吗?
这样一来俄罗斯的情况也不会那么令人困惑。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Yup.
是的。
I think the problem with how you pitched your answer is that you seemed to connect two seperate albeit equally legitimate ideas.
There is no practical reason for us to refer to india as part of Asia. As an Australian we never refer to Indians as Asians without qualifying what we mean and it seems peculiar to hear those in the US and GB calling Asians Indians.
The concept of continents is quite vague and has changed numerous times through history. Even today it would depend on where you live in the world as to how many continents you were taught that there are. Although tectonic plates line up quite well to define India there are many other places in the world such as the Eurasia plate and the Indo-Australian plate that don't serve a practical purpose beyond geographical conversations.
我认为你给出答案的方式存在问题，你似乎将两个尽管合理但独立的想法联系在了一起。
我们没有实际的理由把印度称为亚洲的一部分。作为一个澳大利亚人，我们从来不会在没有资格的情况下把印度人称为亚洲人，听到美国和英国的人用亚洲人指代印度人似乎很奇怪。
大陆的概念是相当模糊的，并在历史上改变了无数次。即使在今天，这也取决于你生活在世界的哪个地方，取决于你被告知世界上有多少大洲。虽然构造板块排列得很好，可以定义印度，但世界上还有很多其他地方，比如欧亚板块和印度-澳大利亚板块，但除了地理场景之外，没有其他实际用途。
I think this is just a semantic conversation that results from the English language not having bothered to come up with more specific terminology to describe these concepts. There is nothing to stop Indian schools teaching their own version of such unscientific constructs and it might actually be adopted more broadly, especially if it was more practical and scientific.
大多数情况下，当人们谈论大陆时，他们通常是把它作为一种广义的方式来定义人类群体，而不是他们所居住的实际土地。为此，印度理应拥有自己的“大陆”，而这块大陆恰好与印度所在的板块相匹配。另一方面，亚洲没有地方可以与欧洲划归在一起，或许整个俄罗斯也可以被认为是一个独立的“大陆”的一部分。
我认为这只是一种语义上的对话，因为英语这门语言没有费心想出更具体的术语来描述这些概念。没有什么能阻止印度学校教授他们自己版本的这种不够科学的认知，它实际上可能被更广泛地采用，特别是如果它更实用和科学的话。
But what about the North-East Indians that does’t fall in the prescribed format of “Indian” for many people? Are they called Indians or Asians by the Americans?
但是，对于很多人来说，东北部的印度人不属于规定的“印度人”的范畴。他们被美国人称为印度人还是亚洲人?
Northeast India also comes in Indian continental plate and the plate boundary was the traditional boundary of India. However, in terms of features some might be confused with East Asians. I don’t think many Americans have interacted with NE Indians.
印度东北部也位于印度大陆板块，板块边界是印度的传统边界。然而，就特征而言，有些人可能会与东亚人混淆。
我不认为很多美国人和东北邦印度人有过接触。
But when you said distinct culture and linguistic group, aren’t North-East Indian more “Asian” than being “Indian” as you described? I mean in food, language(many languages come under the family of Sino-Tibetan),ethnicity etc…
但当你说到独特的文化和语言群体时，难道不是东北印度人更“亚洲”，而不是你所描述的“印度人”吗? 我的意思是在食物、语言(很多语言都属于汉藏语系)、种族等方面……
East Asia is primarily Confucian culture. Is Indian Northeast Confucian? What relationship does Assam, Manipur, Nagaland or even Arunachal have with Japan, Korea or Eastern China?
In fact, states like Tripura, Manipur and Assam have more commonality with rest of India in religion, culture.
东亚主要是儒家文化。印度东北是儒家社会吗?
阿萨姆邦、曼尼普尔邦、那加兰邦甚至"阿鲁纳恰尔"与日本、韩国或中国东部能有什么关系?
事实上，像特里普拉、曼尼普尔和阿萨姆等邦在宗教和文化上与印度其他地方有更多的共同点。
They may not have relations with the countries you said, but they certainly have relations with Burma, Tibet and the surroundings. Nagas are spread over in large parts of Burma, and so are Kukis or Kuki-Chin-Mizo, and various other tribes. The religious relations of India and Manipur are fairly recent (only few centuries old) compared to the long history of relations this land had with parts of Burma and Thailand. Even folklore and history of many tribes in the area revolve around Burma and Tibet. And also physical appearance of many North-East Indians have more similarity to these countries than the rest of the country.
他们可能与你说的那些国家没有关系，但他们肯定与缅甸、西藏和周边地区有关系。那加人分布在缅甸的大部分地区，Kukis或Kuki-Chin-Mizo以及其他各种部落也是如此。
这片土地与缅甸和泰国部分地区悠久的关系相比，印度和曼尼普尔邦的宗教关系是相当近代的(只有几个世纪的历史)。
甚至该地区许多部落的民间传说和历史都围绕着缅甸和西藏(地区)。此外，许多东北印度人的外貌与这些国家相似点更多。
Burma is part South Asia and part SE Asia. Tibet is part Central Asian part East Asian.
缅甸是南亚和东南亚的一部分。西藏(地区)是中亚和东亚的一部分。
Yes. And my question is would these people be in the “Indian continent” or “Asia(along with SE Asia)” purely with arguments you provided for a separate “Indian continent”. Of course they are a part of India in political sense.
是的。我的问题是，这些人是在“印度大陆”还是“亚洲(以及东南亚)”，这完全是基于你提出的一个单独的“印度大陆”的论点而来。
当然在政治层面上，他们是印度的一部分。
Yes, they would be in India both geographically and culturally. The Indian plate include NE and goes up to the Arakans in the east and Himalayas in the north. And like in any every other continental edge, there will be mix of different cultures. That is definition of being in the border. In the same way, Punjab and Kashmir would share a lot of things with Persia and Afghanistan.
是的，他们在地理和文化上都在印度。印度板块包括东北部，东至阿拉干山脉，北至喜马拉雅山脉。
就像在任何其他大陆边缘一样，这里是不同文化的混合体。这就是边界的定义。同样，旁遮普和克什米尔也会与波斯和阿富汗有很多共同之处。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Thank you for providing your opinion. What I wanted to point out was when you said “distinct culture” or “distinct linguistic group” or distinct anything, there are parts of India that are not as distinct from Asia(SE Asia) as you might want us to believe, because India is really diverse and we should provide space for the diversity in our narrative of “Indian” or “Indian-ess”. Anyways I hope to read your views in this issue in one of your answers in future.
谢谢你的意见。我想指出的是，当你说“独特的文化”或“独特的语言群体”或任何独特的东西时，印度有些地方与亚洲(东南亚)的区别并不像你想让我们相信的那样明显。
印度确实是多样化的，我们应该在“印度人”的叙述中为多样性提供空间。不管怎样，我希望将来能在你的回答中读到你对这个问题的看法。