Going through the chapter I first focused on vocabulary and a few phrases I didn't understand, could anyone help me with a few words?
-referendum (page 136)
-spatial (they use this word a lot and I looked it up and it said it means existing or occurring in, is that right?)
-oft-failed (page 144)
-cheek by jowl (page 146)
Thanks in advanced!
Yay, someone is taking this seriously! That's smart, because people who don't are likely to regret their apathy. This is such a great tool to successfully master a difficult read, a lesson the sophomores have learned through blood and tears. Working together, as a team, creates a synergy that is greater than the sum of each persons contributions.
I'll help with one, others can post their help. De Blij is using " spatial" as most geographers would, to refer to space, the actual area area in which things occur. It's used to point out the distinction between location, a simple reference to where things are as opposed to " place", what things are like in a certain location.
I think referendum (136) just means ballot. So in a future poll in South Sudan voters may vote for independence which would add a landlocked country to Africa.
referendum- general vote of the electorate( voters) on a political decision
caste- social classes used in India determined by job, rank, economic class( rich,middle class,and poor) and passed down from parents
"Cheek by jowl" is an idiom or expression used to describe two things very close together, such as the privilege and privation deBlij talks about at the end of the 1st sentence, pg.146
I'm struggling with the 1st paragraph of Place and Authority. What does De Blij mean by smallness and singularity are not inevitably coupled? Why does he then go to comparing countries?
Caste is like the classes within a country or a place. For example, in America the typical "castes" are poor middle and rich, but some other countries have more.
Kyana: I think what de Blij is saying is that smallness and singularity, (aloneness) do not necessarily go together, but are linked. He starts comparing countries as to give examples of this.
Smallness and singularity often go together, but their connection is not inevitable, just probable. The definition for singularity in the dictionary is uniqueness, which could mean a variety of different things. de Blij helps you out and begins to compare small countries to bigger countries that are relatively close to each other geographically, demonstrating how the smaller countries are less diverse and more at risk to natural disasters, rising sea levels, and disease.
Thanks guys...I think I get it now:)
Okay, so I see the word scale a ton in this chapter. I want to make sure that I have a good grip on what de Blij is referring to when he uses it. Does scale refers to the massive differences of fortune and wealth between groups of people in a given region?
I think you've got it...that explains why places within china and India are so different(138)
I know this seems really basic, but in every chapter of de Blij he talks about some aspect of the PoP. The aspect in this chapter is barriers set by cultural and state boundaries correct?
Including boundaries set by the state
On Page 140, De Blij says, "Cultural clustering remains a powerful factor of destiny and a strong impediment to internal migration." How does cultural clustering prevent internal migration and remain a powerful factor of destiny? I can't seem to catch on to this connection.
It's easier to move one family then their whole community. Because people stay where they feel safe( their cultural clustering), they tend to stay in the same place, and not change from the destiny set for them in that community. People are scared to try new things.
In Policies and Destinies, I noticed De Blij really zeroed in on public health in Africa. Was it only to back up his earlier point that governments affect the destiny of millions in the area of public health? Or was his long portion about Africa part of a bigger picture?
Victoria: When he talks about how gov't affects the destinies of millions when it comes to public health, I believe this is just an example of how the state controls the destinies of many. I also think that cultural clustering prevents internal migration because more people want to stay where they are now that they have developed a culture and a nice social environment for themselves.
Has anyone gotten confused about "Confines of Conflict"? I feel like he only lists factors that fuel conflict instead of factors that limit it.
Emma: De Blij used a quote on Page 152... "due to the structure of boundaries between groups rather than as a result of inherent conflicts between the groups themselves..." This probably means that the existence of boundaries cause conflict, instead of the differences in the actual groups. If regions could be divided by culture instead of states, conflict could be minimized. International intervention was also stated earlier on this page as a solution to limit conflict. Thanks for answering my question.
De Bliji brings up separation and remoteness multiple times within the chapter. How does this relate to the theme of government throughout the chapter?
These are factors that affect governments; how they deal with various issues both within and outside their borders.
Remember, this is a summative chapter, he's pulling in all kinds of factors that effect the power of place and then relating them to the actions or inaction of the state.
On page 137 line 4 and 5 it says that landlocked states trade "through" the neighbors is it saying that a landlocked state sells goods to neighbor state then the neighboring state trades with someone and then the first state buys the goods from the neighbor state?
What I believe De Blij is saying is that landlocked countries can only trade with their neighbors, they have no water access to go anywhere else besides the people around them.
DeBlij is saying that if a state is landlocked and it is surrounded by rich states or well off states around it, it is likely to be a rich state itself. If the states around it are poor, the landlocked state is likely to be poor.
On page 139 on line 5 to the end of the paragraph I find this an important topic but having a hard time understand the full concept of it can someone explain?
Andrewww, What part are you talking about? Is it the fifth line from the top? How does the part start off?
He says that legal borders, that are now being marked on the ground (as in the Mexican/American fence), don't just limit the region spatially, but it also confines the states power on the behavior of its citizens. He focuses on internal migration and how cultural barriers within a country can be an impediment to internal migration. In Canada, not very often do families move into the southeastern region of Canada, where mostly French is spoken, from somewhere outside of this area.
I think that de Blij is trying to say that, because larger states tend to be made up of smaller cultures, larger states lack significant influence over the many different culture. Kind of like paint spread thin over a big area(government's influence), it covers everything in the area (within the state boundaries) but its not necessarily completely changing the colors (cultures) underneath.
Bingham: This forum is for us to engage with each other publicly about where we are struggling with the coursework and to offer each other solutions for what works for us.
Why Geography Matters More Than Ever