Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm asking this because I recently read a book discussing the influence of geopolitics on a countries general well-being. For example, The United States essentially hit the geographic jackpot by having a coast on two oceans, allowing for more trade, yet China, surrounded by desserts to the west and dense forests to the south, has a more difficult ability to export and extend influence by land. These two geographic differences, the book posits, has made the US more of a traditional sea power, and thus more global in mindset, and China a land one, much more insular.
His ideas make a lot of sense, yet sometimes it doesn't really add up to me. For example, both Mexico and Canada, as well as other smaller countries, have access to both oceans, why have they not had as much success as the US? And what about a country like the UK, a group of islands off in NW Europe? How were they able to dominate the globe despite lacking an ideal geographic position?
Yes, absolutely. Climate, availability of resources, isolation from other countries, and many other factors play a major role. In addition, the social and political circumstances under which the country was first formed is a major factor.
In your example, Canada is limited, for the most part, by its climate. The growing season is shorter, so it's difficult to sustain a large population consistently and additionally, there are many people that just don't like living in colder climates when they have access to somewhere warmer.
Mexico has been limited by a fairly rigid class system and political instability over a large part of its history, which has limited the consistent growth of the economy there.
The UK benefited from the fact that they are an island, which isolated them from some invasions through antiquity, and also their policy of creating colonies that were designed to be self-sustaining and ongoing, as opposed to simply existing long enough to extract as much gold, silver, etc. and shipping it all back to the mother country.
Does the book you're referring to happen to be Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond?
Yes, absolutely. Climate, availability of resources, isolation from other countries, and many other factors play a major role. In addition, the social and political circumstances under which the country was first formed is a major factor.
In your example, Canada is limited, for the most part, by its climate. The growing season is shorter, so it's difficult to sustain a large population consistently and additionally, there are many people that just don't like living in colder climates when they have access to somewhere warmer.
Mexico has been limited by a fairly rigid class system and political instability over a large part of its history, which has limited the consistent growth of the economy there.
The UK benefited from the fact that they are an island, which isolated them from some invasions through antiquity, and also their policy of creating colonies that were designed to be self-sustaining and ongoing, as opposed to simply existing long enough to extract as much gold, silver, etc. and shipping it all back to the mother country.
Does the book you're referring to happen to be Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond?
^^ All great points, but I guess the question then becomes why has the Mexican socio-political scene consistently failed to the point of stifling growth, and the US, despite having its own social issues, has excelled and been able to use its resources to its advantage.
What you say about Canada seems true. One of Canada's biggest hurdles has been its climate. It's just too cold for most.
The UK may benefit from being an island, but what of France, the UK's historical rival? They have been in the thick of more than a few continental conflicts. What allowed them to excel, despite sharing land borders with more than a few other powers.
Moreover, what could this mean for countries like Bolivia, Kazakhstan, or the Central African Republic? Are countries like these doomed to forever have unlocked potential? And how has its culture influenced this, or vice versa?
The book was actually called "The Next 100 Years" by George Friedman. In the book he was basically trying to predict the future and used geopolitics as a base. Not sure if he was accurate or not, but it was pretty interesting. I did read the Diamond Book though, as well as watch his documentary...
I don't know if "doomed" is the right word, but there are certainly always going to be nations and regions that struggle while others thrive, again for a myriad of reasons.
With France, I'd say access to both the Atlantic and the Mediterranean was a factor, in addition to being a major colonial power. It's also the birthplace of the Enlightenment and has always been a very wealthy country.
Here's a link to a paper that addresses some of the issues with Mexico's economy:
I think the geographic location of a country intrinsically influences its culture and actions. As you said, France had access to two major bodies of water. Due to this, colonialism was easier for them as opposed to -what is today- Germany.
Part of Mexico's problem has always been its dearth of rivers, especially when compared to the US, where rivers like the Mississippi or Colorado have been vital for growth.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,060,466 times
Reputation: 11862
It's a factor, but it's just one of many factors.
England's island nature, for instance, made it both inward and outward looking. Islands tend to breed a sense of isolated superiority, where a nation is very self-contained but is compelled by the need for resources to look outwards...it was because of it's island nature that England developed the Royal Navy, which was the teeth if you like of the jaws of the British Empire. Without the Royal Navy, Britain would not be able to command dominance of the seas in the New World, or Asia, particularly British East India. The French were the biggest rivals but their navy never rivaled that of Britannia. This was the main reason why the British Empire was so dominant. The British were also the supreme capitalists - and this in turn influenced a lot of the philosophies behind the mercantile nature of the Thirteen Colonies and in turn the United States.
The US had access to vast resources: land, timber, minerals, water - so you would EXPECT it to be a great Empire. As for China, it being isolated by the Himalayas and Tibet probably did contribute to it's insularity. But also, let's not forget, that during the Warring States period it was composed of several states and had history been different China would've been like Europe, composed of many different states with their own cultures and languages.
Also, Canada didn't fail to become a powerful naval nation at all, it was first tier military power in the 1940's and was instrumental in both world wars. It's just not recognized as such because viewing Canada separately from the British Empire is a fairly recent (60ish years) phenomenon. It's simply too young a country, coming of age in a post-colonial world defined by multi-national efforts like NATO and the Allies, to get an opportunity to stick out individually. But it did, and still does, wield alot of softpower.
I'm asking this because I recently read a book discussing the influence of geopolitics on a countries general well-being. For example, The United States essentially hit the geographic jackpot by having a coast on two oceans, allowing for more trade, yet China, surrounded by desserts to the west and dense forests to the south, has a more difficult ability to export and extend influence by land. These two geographic differences, the book posits, has made the US more of a traditional sea power, and thus more global in mindset, and China a land one, much more insular.
His ideas make a lot of sense, yet sometimes it doesn't really add up to me. For example, both Mexico and Canada, as well as other smaller countries, have access to both oceans, why have they not had as much success as the US? And what about a country like the UK, a group of islands off in NW Europe? How were they able to dominate the globe despite lacking an ideal geographic position?
Thoughts?
britain withstood the spanish and french for centurys due to being an island and the germans during WW2 , their island status also forced them to build up a strong navy
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. I know...political corruption, cynical unpatriotic people, etcétera. But it proves that location/climate/natural bennefits of a country wont mean this country would be succesful.
