History Hub聽 permalink
Is history really just geography?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.聽
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Monday, 28th March 2011
From time to time here we have discussed what history is. I don't suppose we have come to a consensus.
But when I was in Malta recently learning of all the invasions that have taken place there over the past thousands of yers it was ovbioius that this has only occurred because of where Malta is situated. A small island in the South Pacific, even supposing it had the same climate and natural resources such as its limestone, would have been left in peace.
And my country, New Zealand, is newly populated not because it is new geologically (which it is) but because people have not come across it in their wanderings till recently.
Large continental blocks lend themselves to splitting into smaller countries with concomittant problems, when they would surely have a different history were they all more separated.
Are there any histories which don't seem connected to their geography? Northern Ireland's? No, stuck near Spain I don't suppose there would have been the troubles it has had.
Caro. -
Message 2
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Monday, 28th March 2011
I think you could say, with equal justification, that history is a study of the movement of human families, groups, tribes, ethnic societies, and finally nations. People and societies tend to seek living room. When a given homeland becomes too crowded for comfort, groups move where they can. If there are already people occupying the new area, more often than not there is a fight for territory with the winner taking it all.
Accepting this, I suppose you could say that history is merely a matter of geography, but I feel that鈥檚 a bit too simplistic. Malta has been invaded many times probably because of its location, but its location wouldn鈥檛 have made any difference to history had some groups of people not decided, for whatever reason, they wanted to displace those living there so they could take it over for themselves.
Certainly that seems to be true of the British Isles. The nature of the first people there seems lost in the past, but they may have been immigrants from either nearby France or the more distant Iberian Peninsula. The further population of the Isles has resulted from movement of dozens of different tribes and groups, including invading armies that have ebbed and flowed all across Europe, Africa, and Asia.
New Zealand may have only recently been discovered by Europeans, but the islands themselves have been lurking there in the South Pacific for 23-million years. So the historical question becomes: once humans evolved, how long was it before people found them? Which peoples were there first? Were the Polynesians first, and if so, how long have they been there? Historically important questions, but not geographical.
Those same Polynesians, as well as peoples from Northern and Southern Asia, were likely the first to move into the Americas tens of thousands of years ago. Is it unreasonable to suspect that heir movements were more than a matter of geography? Was it possibly more a matter of opportunity and curiousity than geography, particularly in the case of the trans-Pacific movement of Polynesian groups, because if that did indeed occur, it would have been across a vast expanse of ocean?
You used the term 鈥樷榠nvasion鈥欌, Caro, and that implies an unwelcome influx of peoples and a resulting conflict. That was likely true even while humanity was finding its way as a species, but once people ceased to be tribes of hunter-gatherers and became builders of linked communities and cities, that definitely seems to have been the case. Hence ''invasion'' gives birth to a series of questions that I believe are as fundamental as geography. What motivated the invasions and what was their outcome? Then if the invasions were successful, once over, how were the invaded regions pacified and governed? Historically important questions that may involve human personalities as much as, or more than, geography.
This could really get interesting, Caro. I suspect you have opened a Pandora鈥檚 box and the results could well become intricate and fascinating. -
Message 3
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Monday, 28th March 2011
Is history really just geography?聽
No, because history is a discipline which defines itself primarily by context (the past), whereas the discipline of geography defines itself primarily by theme.
However...
Are there any histories which don't seem connected to their geography?聽
No - geography is a fundamental part of the context by which any particular history is defined.
Northern Ireland's? No, stuck near Spain I don't suppose there would have been the troubles it has had.聽
The Troubles are the product of human agency, with human arguments over the significance of geography being partly responsible. Spain hasn't exactly been peaceful in recent centuries, either.
-
Message 4
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Monday, 28th March 2011
Hi Caro
Is it not true that there are different types of history?
The history of the Universe?
The history of Mammals?
The history of Insects?
Human history......etc.
Human history is of necessity location based therefore geography must play a major part because the environment caused by the location influences the human interaction.
With Malta as you say its location alone made it a 鈥渃ross roads鈥. It only has prominence because of its position and human history flows through this rock in the ocean.
Would the Romans have invaded Britain if it wasn鈥檛 looking to secure its iron and precious metal deposits? Probably not......
Could Rome have negotiated lucrative deals without invasion? Probably.......
Yet historically they invaded 鈥 history made by the humans not by the geography.
In Sheffield a few years ago there was a thriving Steel Industry yet now it is a shadow of its former self, destroyed by market forces not the landscape.
History made by humans........
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 5
Posted by Elkstone (U3836042) on Monday, 28th March 2011
I was told that geography is the father of history. you look at land and the people who live there over time. Yes it is logical, you can not have 'history' without a frame of reference be it location. A classic case would be the Israel/Palestine issue, and before the Apartheid conflict
-
Message 6
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Monday, 28th March 2011
The Habsburg minister of state Clemens von Metternich said in 1847 that "The word 'Italy' is a geographical expression, a description which is useful shorthand, but has none of the political significance the efforts of the revolutionary ideologues try to put on it, and which is full of dangers for the very existence of the states which make up the peninsula."
In this way he was seeking to diffuse the concept of Italian nationalism and the cause of Italian unification which saw the Habsburg Empire as one of its chief obstacles.
In much the same way, perhaps, opponents of the EU today might say that Europe is only a geographical expression or else opponents of the UK might say that Great Britain and the British Isles are only geographical expressions. It's an attempt to separate the geographical from the political. -
Message 7
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Monday, 28th March 2011
I don't see how they can be disentangled, in your examples the locations without their history as understood by the inhabitants would be meaningless. The human, cultural and critical geographies that are prevalent today, as opposed to the physical geography and environmental determinism that were foremost, are working in areas that are very close to history and archaeology and have influenced them quite profoundly in looking at how people made their landscapes and places and how those places made them. I'm neither a historian nor a geographer but the land is neither simply a neutral backdrop nor just a resource base but something much more significant to the people who live there.
Invasion is a value loaded term, do people describe the colonisation of, say, Australia as invasion or settlement? It depends on your experience of it. -
Message 8
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Tuesday, 29th March 2011
In Sheffield a few years ago there was a thriving Steel Industry yet now it is a shadow of its former self, destroyed by market forces not the landscape.聽
TA, my understanding is that there is more steel and related products being produced in Sheffield than ever before. That is certainly what we were told in the Magma museum, and in other places around Sheffield.
I expect white people describe the colonisation of Australia as a settlement and the Aborigines describe it as an invasion. The Maltese woman (our guide) talked of invasions. Probably fair to say NZ was invaded by the British - they were certainly prepared to use force to get what they wanted. And apart from the British who were invited and the Knights of St John who were given Malta (not by the Maltese themselves though) I think the other people who came were invaders in the sense that they came unwanted to a place and were prepared to use force. (Oddly, I remember a Maori leader here once saying the Europeans had no right to be in NZ as they had not conquered it and you can only rule a country by conquest or invitation. That seemed a very European construct really. And although the British didn't originally conquer NZ, they did fight eventually for what they wanted and displaced and downgraded Maori.)
Cheers,Caro. -
Message 9
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Tuesday, 29th March 2011
Hi ferval
Your statement
鈥渢he land is neither simply a neutral backdrop nor just a resource base but something much more significant to the people who live there.鈥
surely is quantified by the people themselves not by the land.
The very statement that people apply to where they come from 鈥淔atherland鈥, 鈥淢otherland鈥 or 鈥溌槎乖寂膌and shows a connection to the land and a pride or emotion associated with it.
Land itself cannot have emotions (that we know of) therefore does not have connectivity to the people who are living off it.
As Caro intimates, history has two sides, often viewed from the winner and the loser for example 鈥渋nsurgent鈥 versus 鈥渇reedom fighter鈥 or 鈥渋nvader鈥 versus 鈥渄efender鈥 but it again is the human interpretation that is the history.
It still is the people who are creating the history not the land itself. If you extend your argument the forces of nature can cause a change to people鈥檚 history 鈥 so human history is affected by the environment but does not create the history itself.
Caro, very pleased to hear that Sheffield is thriving once again but I must admit I am surprised at the statement that 鈥渢here is more steel and related products being produced in Sheffield than ever before鈥.
During the 1980鈥檚 recession the Don Valley was decimated with mile upon mile of derelict factories big and small with the loss of tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. For this to have been regained and not just replaced by shopping outlets is indeed a great step.
Interesting comment from the Maori chief, but I feel that America has recently gone one better by starting a conflict (we mustn鈥檛 mention regime change but instead on 鈥減rotection of civilians鈥) and then passing it on to someone else to finish off the really difficult bit 鈥 far more sophisticated!
So history being created yet again by the value of the contents of the land 鈥 allegedly....
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 10
Posted by geobrtls (U14826648) on Tuesday, 29th March 2011
Geography doesn't much care about history, but history certainly cares about geography.
Take the north European plain. Rich in agriculture and resources, and with no major natural boundaries, excepting the odd river here and there, it's been fought over, from France and Belgium to the Urals, for millennia.
Compare that whole area with remote islands like, say, Tristan da Cunha. It's just not the kind of place people are likely to covet or invade on a regular basis. Too remote, not enough reward.
You could, I suppose, say at a pinch, that history is caused by geography. -
Message 11
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Tuesday, 29th March 2011
TA, if you want to see more about my take on Sheffield steel etc, have a look here:
Can't vouch for the accuracy.
Cheers, Caro.
PS NZ isn't very sophisticated; it wouldn't think of anything so dastardly! -
Message 12
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Tuesday, 29th March 2011
There seem to be a number of competing issues here, not least in definitions. Is the geography under discussion physical, ie topography, economic or cultural or is it geology?
Malta was subject to invasion mainly because of its strategic position but it only gained that importance because of the history of the peoples who developed the maritime skills to get there in the first place and then mount invasions and its strategic importance grew out of the political aspirations of those people.
The conquest of South America may have been prompted by the search for precious metals but that was because of the economic and prestige value of those commodities and that is a cultural construct.
The Israelis and the Palestinians are competing for the land because their respective histories have given them what they see as an entitlement to it.
Geography in the sense of land forms may influence history but history, in the shape of the cultural aspirations and beliefs of people, ascribes to that geographic reality the values and the stories attached to it that ultimately are the driving forces of history. -
Message 13
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Tuesday, 29th March 2011
Good post ferval.
-
Message 14
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Tuesday, 29th March 2011
Hi ferval
Well put......
Although I have said that the land does not form human history in itself, you have raised an interesting point which still puzzles me to this day.
Why is it that sometimes when you visit somewhere that you have never been before that you can feel "at home" a feeling of peace a feeling of belonging to a place (and sometimes a culture)?
Why is it possible to define a population in terms of age, where New Zealanders and Australians somehow as a Nation embody youth and energy (in different ways) whereas I always feel that the Aborigines in Australia come from a culture that is hugely old, unhurried and wise beyond my own understanding.
I expect we can all see particular attributes in other nations like the "stiff upper lip", the ..."je ne sais quoi pas".........
Why would a Palestinian or a Jew be inevitably drawn to a city that they feel that should be theirs by right rather than logic? Is it in their history or in their blood?
Why do we have a phrase "its in their blood" when we cannot explain someone's action rationally.
As Shakespeare said "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Why do some people take on a Nationality like a cloak when they move to a particular area of a country?
Huge numbers of people who regard themselves as Welsh for instance are descended only one generation ago from England but take on the culture of Wales, or whatever country they have grown up in but equally some never do - why?
You would have thought that with the equalising effect of global expansion, similarity of shops and products and societies that differences would diminish but it seems that deep down they are still there.
Why should someone feel they are different to someone else who lives on the other side of a river or mountain?
Is it nurture or nature and if it is nature where does it com from - the land?
So am I wrong? - perhaps the land has more influence than I suppose....
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 15
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Tuesday, 29th March 2011
Hi Caro
Many thanks.......
I think it shows that if you don't keep up with what is happening on a regular basis your view can be prejeudiced by your memories.....I must move on....
So I consider myself pleasantly enlightened...
Hope you are enjoying it....
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 16
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Tuesday, 29th March 2011
"Is it nurture or nature and if it is nature where does it com from - the land?"
An Indigenous Australian would say yes TA. It is their traditional belief that the land owns all, including the people, and it is the people who must adapt to the dictates of the earth.
Polar opposite to the European view of land ownership and our desire to control everything within our enviroment. -
Message 17
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Tuesday, 29th March 2011
Yes, id, and their belief is that it was dreamed and sung into being by the ancestral gods. Their understanding of their landscape is probably the ultimate cultural construct in that every aspect of their environment is significant because of the spirits and stories which it embodies and memorialises. It's wonderful stuff,sorry that that's such a really superficial way of describing it, it's one of the concepts that's been very influential in landscape archaeology as one way of attempting to approach the prehistoric experience.
It's chicken and egg, geography and history, they're utterly entangled, a bit like the old saw, 'Glasgow made the Clyde and the Clyde made Glasgow' to quote a glib analogy. -
Message 18
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Tuesday, 29th March 2011
History = Geography + Time
Or
H = G & T ? -
Message 19
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Wednesday, 30th March 2011
History = Geography + Time
Or
H = G & T ?聽
Comedy = Pain + Time
or
C=P+T -
Message 20
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 30th March 2011
Geography doesn't much care about history, but history certainly cares about geography.
Take the north European plain. Rich in agriculture and resources, and with no major natural boundaries, excepting the odd river here and there, it's been fought over, from France and Belgium to the Urals, for millennia.
Compare that whole area with remote islands like, say, Tristan da Cunha. It's just not the kind of place people are likely to covet or invade on a regular basis. Too remote, not enough reward.
You could, I suppose, say at a pinch, that history is caused by geography.聽
Good post geobrtls.
It's a similar situation when one compares, say, Guernsey and Jersey with, say, the Faroe Islands.
In geographical terms the Faroe Islands could be said to be part of the British Isles archipelago by virtue of the priniciple of nearest landfall and yet I don't think that the Faroes have ever been territorially claimed by any Scottish or British monarch over the centuries.
On the other hand Guernsey and Jersey which are closley linked politically to the British Crown and are also often commonly (although erroneously) referred to as being part of the 'British Isles'. They are not part of the British Isles archipelago but instead form their own geographical group off the coast of Normandy.
During the Second World War, however, the Faroe Islands did indeed come under British occupation albeit in a de facto way and not de jure. And conversely Guernsey and Jersey were famously the only parts of 'British' territory which were occupied by German forces during that time. It seems, therefore, that the realities of world war threw the geographical concept of the term 'the British Isles' into stark relief as perhaps never before. It's a prime example if ever there was one of history really just being about geography. -
Message 21
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 7th April 2011
Re: Message 1.
Caro,
I wanted to reply immediately to your message but as always lack of time...
I join Erik Lindsay in his message 2, geobrtls in message 10 and Ferval in message 12.
As early as 2002 I started on these boards a thread about the relationship of geography and history. I talked about the crossroads of rivers and main roads (perhaps first fords or natural easy to cross circumstances), the estuaria of the great rivers as the birth of towns, cities. I talked also about mountain ranges separating people, for instance the Alps, the Carpathians in the nowadays Romania, before the border beween Austria-Hungary and Romania.
I started to look in my atlas and thought in my innocence to have found even the reason of the Germanic / French speaking language border in the nowadays Northern France by the slight hills range of Artois, the foothills of the Ardennes reaching the sea near Calais. But I was wrong. Due to the Romans and later the Church, Mons and surroundings as Lille, were from the Roman time on because of political reasons strongly absorbated in the Roman influence and by that Latinized.
Yes, geographical oportunities are primarily forming the borders or connections between people, but then political parameters seems as preponderant for later history as the geographical ones.
Remember teh Alaskan highway during WWII. I read about islands in the Pacific with no agriculture, where the American army with aquaculture was preparing for a food reserve for the army during the proposed invasion of Japan.
Nearing as yesterday midnight on the European peninsula, see you "tomorrow on "our" calendar".
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 聽to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
麻豆约拍 iD
麻豆约拍 navigation
麻豆约拍 links
麻豆约拍 漏 2014 The 麻豆约拍 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.