unless of course you think politics, culture and econimics are subsets of geography which seem prima facie to be wrong.

Unless of course you insert the word global/regional/other geographical term in front of those concepts which is what you would have to do in the case of all wars except civil ones and even then I would imagine some geographical connection as being inevitable.

Junkyard – Member
the reasons for going to war are dependant on and determined by economics, politics, and cultural difference all acting at different scales with different impacts in different places. Adding the word geography to all of these reasons seems a bit odd and adds nothing to the sentence unless of course you think politics, culture and econimics are subsets of geography which seem prima facie to be wrong.

Economies, political systems and cultures – amongst other things – operate differently in different places, across different spaces and at various scales. They create and are determined by geographies. I’m not talking about where a place is on a map, although that is important, but about the way place, space, scale and the interplay between these things construct (and are constructed by) relationships between individuals, groups, institutions etc. These relationships are different in different countries, regions, cities etc.

I can give you an extensive reading list to demonstrate this if you want, but it is a debate which has raged in the social sciences for over a century. Google ‘geography matters doreen massey’ for a good start.

These relationships are different in different countries, regions, cities etc

Yes you are correct but all these things are facets of humanity/society in general not geography. Different cultures, politics, histories are not created simply because of the geography of a region. These things are not subsets of geography they are different areas all together. That is not to say that the geography of a place wont matter.
It is like evolution isolate two identical populations and you get differences. This is an interplay between geography and mor eimportantly evolution and things adapt to that geography. It is not caused by geography alone as without evolution you would get no change as a result of geography.
Look at the Ulster plantation and the effect this has had on Ireland is that an aspect of geography or politics/imperalism?
i did google her but got her book -which I cant read online or a podcast which I cant download

You’re misunderstanding what I mean by geography. That’s not your fault, it is the way geography is taught at school, and geographers don’t do a particularly good job of selling the discipline. I’ll try and have a go.

Geography is more than where things (the material world) are, it is more than where mountains are, where river flow, where cities are located, where borders are drawn, or what resources are buried where. It is also about where, and most importantly, why the different parts of the economy are located, or why particular political systems are successftul (or otherwise) in some places than others, or why do Geordies see themselves differently to Makams, amongst many other things.

Now, while other disciplines could explain these things they would do so in a different way to geographers. But even economists and sociologists understanding that geography matters in explaining these things (for example, the World Bank’s World Development Report 2009 had a subtitle of ‘Reshaping economic geography’. Central to the way geographers understand they world are concepts such as space and place, proximity and distance, scale and connection, and relationships. You can have a read about them here with some neat examples if i’ve not bored you already.

Importantly, these concepts explain how geographies (the where, why and how of everything) are socially constructed through the relationships between individuals, groups, institutions, government, firms etc, and the environment (and of course the latter is shaped materially and emotionally/psychologically/imaginatively by the formers).

Using these concepts to understand the impact of a government policy on the North East of England vs the South East, or why US foreign policy means they are reluctant to be seen leading the enforcement of the no combat zone over Libya, and very reticent to get involved in the uprising in Bahain, provides a geographical understanding of phenomena/events. Using concepts central to economics would give you a different perspective, as would using political science concepts. I, as a geographer (I’m a lecturer btw), would argue that just taking a economistic perspective would provide an impoverished view because it concentrates on mainly one thing: the economy. Geography is a broad church and examines the economic alongside the social, political and cultural factors at play in a situation. Moreover, they do this while examining the specificities of place – i.e. how these factors operate in the case in question, and why they operate in that way. Let’s not forget than many leading economists believe the world is now flat, despite huge amounts of evidence it isn’t. So, these factors are not real. They are socially constructed by the way to interact and understand them – economics does this, history does this, and so does geography – i.e. they are subsets of geography because they can be understood through an appreciation of geography.

Hopefully that makes some sort of sense, apologies if it doesn’t i’m quite tired after my ride.

The Massey book is available via google books.

I don’t want to worry anyone, but I just looked up a couple of things.

The distance from Tripoli to London is 2331.04 kilometers.

The SU 24 bomber currently in service with the good Colonel has a range of 3,000 kilometers…

One way only, I know, but if the pilots are fanatical enough? 🙁

you’re onto something there woppit – maybe he could fly at night when everyone involved in EU early warning systems are asleep. Now i’m really worried 🙄

Yeah, fair enough.

having last sudied geography in 1984 i am happy to conceed the ground to your knowledge base unless you want me to discuss the Archamedes screw or follow the time honoured STW tradition of not letting ignorance be a bar to an entrenched opinion.
You have shined a bright light into an area of which I am [was] completely ignorant in fact I am happy to class it is an unknown unknown.
To compound my ignorance I bought a goat as well 😯
Intersting article and clearly I am not well informed enough to pass comment but I understand now that the term is much broader than I[and most people] would have used it – as the article notes
Cheers

You have shined a bright light into an area of which I am [was] completely ignorant

I’m glad. I’m also relieved as I had to retype my previous post after I was logged out.