To European countries, geography became the way to judge a country in the 19th century. Not only was physical geography involved, but social and political geography as well.
The more land a country was in control of, the more powerful it was. For example, before the 19th century, African societies were considered nations. During the 19th century, the Europeans considered them primal tribes lead by primal chiefs. European countries often conquered land even if there was no or little value. To them, it was necessary to demonstrate their power. Being in control of colonies was necessary not only for power, but also satisfied the people from the European countries. Political geography came into play when a country had land around the world. Not only did they have control within their country borders, but also in places across seas. This was advantageous politically because the colonies had goods that the Europeans did not have. Social geography was a major factor in the 19th century. The Europeans considered themselves (white people) the superior race. Scientists measure sculls, and "concluded" that the white people had the biggest sculls, and therefore the bigger brains. As part of colonization, the stronger power took it upon themselves to "help" the people from the colonized country. They would care for the sick, give clothes to the naked, bring Christianity to them, and suppress their native culture. The Europeans believed that they were doing good and making "progress," but they were destroying people's culture. This fits in well with our RISK game. When a team colonized a country, the people would change into one of them. A green or red soldier would become a blue or gray soldier, and fight for the colonizing country.
The image above represents an Englishman and a Frenchman cutting into slices of the globe to take on their plate.
Yet another cool picture, and a good representation of your argument as well. I liked that you took the opportunity to bring up the "white man's burden" and how it affected (or was affected by?) social geography. On the other hand, I wasn't totally convinced by what you said about a larger nation being a nation of greater power. As Natalie said in her post, wouldn't a nation that stretched across continents be more difficult to manage for global leaders due to slower communication? Just something to think on. I do agree, however, that such a nation would have advantages in that it could set up a nice global trade if it had so much land. I liked your point though that a "cultural exchange" is more often than not a stomping out of one people's belief in favor of another's.
ReplyDeleteYou effectively included many different SPECS categories to demonstrate your point. I agree with Nicole that a larger nation would not necessarily be stronger. However, a larger nation may be viewed as stronger by other nations, and this intimidation factor could help them gain respect and power.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emily's point of how a larger nation must be viewed as stronger by other nations because that is how in the end they will succeed because without other people telling you, you are the best you might never find out. That is how countries gain power respect and have pride.
ReplyDelete