What continent does Hawaii technically belong to?
 

A silly question, I realize, but I just realized I don't know.

I must say this question intrigues me too. My first answer was North America. But I surfed around and found on about.com that the Hawaiian Islands are part of Oceania. I'm not sure that's technically a continent.

The word "continent" refers to one of the six (seven, if you include Antarctica) large contiguous land masses on the earth. Therefore, no island or island group (such as Hawaii) is part of any continent. Neither is it possible for a group of islands to comprise a continent. I recognize that Australia, one of the continents, may also be thought of as an island - but common usage is to regard it as large enough to be a continent in its own right.

I disagree with Dick (my disagreement is based on opinion alone, not scientific evidence). Does the definition of contiguous land mass mean that Indonesia is not part of Asia? Or that Puerto Rico is not part of North America? If it is based on contiguous land mass, then why are Europe and Asia not one continent? I think other factors (ethnicity of the natives, tectonic plates, geological barriers, etc) play a role in defining "continent."<BR><BR>Australia, NZ and the Pacific Islands make up Oceania (including Hawaii).

Simple. These islands where formed by volcanos and thus belong to no continent. However, as well know, they are controlled by the US goverment.

Liam is of course entitled to his opinion even if his opinion disagrees with me. In this case, however, his opinion also disagrees with my Webster's Unabridged, which defines a continent as "a continuous extent or mass of land" and as "a large body of land differing from an island or peninsula . . ." (I guess the quotes doom this message to an early erasing at the hands of the Fodor gnomes) So, I'll stick with my original comments.<BR><BR>With regard to the specific examples offered: no, Indonesia is not part of Asia (or Australia) and, no, Puerto Rico is not part of North America (or South America). Geographically, that is - not geopolitically, which is something else entirely. I would also point out that there were continents long before there were natives to demonstrate ethnicity, and, if plate tectonics were the determining factor, parts of California would be considered as not belonging to North America, which may or may not be a bad thing.<BR><BR>The argument that Europe and Asia (two continents, one land mass) disprove my (and Webster's) definition of a continent (note that this applies equally to pre-canal North and South America) is based on one of the common fallacies in formal logic, that of the undistributed middle. Restated as a syllogism, this takes the form of:<BR><BR>(1) All continents are contiguous land masses (2) Europe and Asia are a contiguous land mass, therefore (3) Europe and Asia are a (single) continent. The term contiguous land mass is not distributed in either premiss, which means the conclusion is not necessarily valid. This is the same as (1) All dogs are animals (2) My cat is an animal, therefore (3) My cat is a dog.<BR><BR>Finally, I'll stipulate that the areas mentioned do indeed form something that people may refer to as "Oceania" - but that is not sufficient to make Oceania a continent.<BR><BR>Why, yes, things are a bit slow at the office today. Why do you ask?

no arguments, Dick. Like I said, just my opinion (not based on any scientific criteria or professional knowledge). BTW - I knew California would get zinged on the tectonic issue.

My verdict: You have to belong within 30 miles of the shoreline of a continent to be considered "in-continent."<BR><BR>And to be considered in-continent would require adult diapers, like "Depends."<BR><BR>Wait... I have to check my spelling on that...

Dick<BR>If it's slow at the office tomorrow, perhaps you could answer my question on the difference between a US Protectorate (St Thomas VI) and a US Territory (Peurto Rico)posted here on this forum and not answered. Thanks!

Well, I guess I'm having a slow day too :))<BR>So where does Great Britain fit in??

Cheryl--<BR><BR>I was thinking that too...until I thought some more. Great Britain is not on the European continent...in fact, you will hear Brits say that they are going to the "Continent", when they're going to continental Europe. Similarly Madagascar is not on the African continent, Catalina Island not on the North American continent.<BR><BR>DAN

If Hawaii is an American State-then would it not "belong" to the Continent of North America? It is not ON North America but it should be part of NA-no?

I have claimed Hawaii in the name of the glorious planet of Mars!

Good Marvin-that made things so much easier and simple.or is that simple minded.whatever,Thanks M.

Herewith are the answers to the above questions:<BR><BR>**Continents:<BR>There is no uniform agreement (worldwide) on the number of continents.<BR>Most American students are taught that there are 7 continents (NA, SA, Africa, Antarctica, AUS, Europe, Asia).<BR>In most European schools, 6 continents are taught (NA and SA are viewed as one "America", Europe and Asia are separated).<BR>But some geographers hold to the strict definition that there are 6 continents (but that NA and SA are two...otherwise, putting the Euro definition and the literal definition together, there would be only 5 continents (America, Eurasia, Africa, Antarctica, AUS).<BR><BR>BTW, the National Geographic Society (a US body) recognizes 7 continents.<BR><BR>(So, this question should never be asked on a game show. There's no uniform opinion about the correct answer).<BR><BR>**Protectorate:<BR>A territory which gives up a portion of its independence to another, stronger, nation in return for protection and benefits from the superior nation, BUT, citizens of the protected society do not have citizenship in the superior country, nor voting rights. The protected society maintains a degree of independence. Goals of the relationship do not include transition toward statehood.<BR>**Territory:<BR>As regards US history, refers to a region given limited self-governing power, usually in preparation for statehood. All US states went through a period during which they were designated territories except the 13 colonies and KY/CA/ME/TX/VT/WV.<BR>(Currently includes USVI/Guam/American Samoa).<BR><BR>**Islands (Hawaii, Indonesia, etc) are NOT parts of continents. That's a geographical definition, not a political one. Politically, New Zealand is part of Oceania. Geographically, NZ is non-continental (? or incontinent?).<BR><BR><BR>Quiz: What's the world's largest island?????<BR>(Technically it's (dnalneerg) backward, since Australia is deemed a continent, not an island).

could the answer be Greenland? <BR>Do I get an A.<BR><BR>This is a very interesting question. I did not know that islands were not part of continents.<BR><BR>But arn't there parts under the ocean that are still part of the continent? So, if that is the case, if an island is close enough to the large land mass, is it part of the continent? (such as Newfoundland or Prince Edward Island in Canada) I am Canadian and those are two islands that are very close to the mainland.

oh yeah, what about islands within a Delta?

See the in-continent rule.

Melissa: as with many geographical issues, an arbitrary designation has to be made in some cases wherein hard and fast rules can't be accurately applied.<BR><BR>For instance: why is Greenland an island not a continent? What if there were an island half the size of AUS, 40 miles from Africa. Would it be a continent or an island?<BR>(There's no agreed upon definition here, that I'm aware of).<BR><BR>As for you PEI question, again, there must be an arbitrary determination of "how far is too far" for a separate land mass not to be part of a continent.<BR>The extremes would be: a spit of land which, at high tide is separate from the main land mass, and at low tide is contiguous. <BR>The other extreme: a large land mass many miles offshore but connected by a broad underwater isthmus.<BR>The former example (i.e. delta 'islands') is certainly part of the main continent.<BR>I would consider PEI a part of continental North America because the water separation is miniscule relative to the land mass.<BR>Same thing with Vancouver Island in BC.<BR>The Hawaiian isles, Indonesia, and New Zealand are small isles with significant separations from the above water land masses on their tectonic plates.<BR><BR>(And BTW, it's the above water part of the plates that determines land and political geography, of course).

Hey, Liam. I think Rand has answered enough of the questions so I only need to pass along a "thanks" for taking my remarks with the same grin and tongue-in-cheek (not an easy thing to do, I might add) with which they were offered.<BR><BR>Dick