It is true that there are multiple definitions of a continent. But it is also true that Europe fails to satisfy any of them. One of the boundaries between Europe and Asia was chose arbitrarily(the Ural mountains)by Peter The Great and before that, it was the Russian border(a line in the sand). It is not even a subcontinent like India and Arabia.The separation between Europe and Asia was a hypothesis of ancient Greek cartographers; who discovered that both Europe and Asia were part of a single landmass. So can we assume that this is just political on the part of Europeans who like feeling special?

  • $\begingroup$ I'm voting to close this as opinion-based. Whether there are seven continents (Europe, Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Australia, and Antarctica), six continents (definitions vary), five continents (definitions vary), four continents (Afroeurasia, the Americas, Australia, and Antarctica), or only two continents (Afroeurasia and the Americas, with Australia and Antarctica being classified as large islands) is a matter of opinion. You can find advocates for each count. $\endgroup$ – David Hammen May 30 '20 at 10:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Does this answer your question? What is the definition of a continent? $\endgroup$ – John May 30 '20 at 14:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I believe "it is a historical convention" would be a correct answer, although it was same flavor of the hsm.stackexchange.com . $\endgroup$ – peterh May 30 '20 at 21:36