Rather than allow this blog to rot while I mug, I might as well comment on the stuff I am mugging. There’s a hell lot of stuff that I have pointed out to teachers and friends alike and I guess I would point them out in a more public scenario like erpz.net. That’s assuming that there’s any readers at all. Apparently many friends believes and understand that simplicity is very much dead. The fact is that the blog simply couldn’t catch up with my life – which is going a little too fast after I entered college.

In case no one knows, I take Geography and having obtained a considerably poor grade for Geography, I decided to write about some conventional problems with the study of Geography.

For once, we must all come to understand that Geography has gone through a long way to become what it is today. In fact, we may have to accept this fact that many students of Geography of the past will disagree with the kind of topics the falls under Geography today. Many fields of knowledge is such – no one would dispute that religion is not science in ancient Greece and so on. But the extent in which Geography evolved is so amazingly ridiculous that one should naturally be considered an all-rounder of the past to be considered a full-scale geographer.

A geographer of the past draws maps, map topography, and topograph landscapes. They study things that now falls under the branch of Physical Geography, independently devoted to very scientific field that was somewhat isolated from the others nowadays. In fact, Geography is the true ‘Natural Science’. Somehow, the subjects of study that used to be classified under macroeconomics became a part of Geography, mostly incorporated into what we now call ‘Human Geography’. The irony is that Geography has the tendency to avoid scientifically crude terms like ‘human’ and prefers terms like ‘anthropogenic’ – so one should naturally expect the branches of Geography to be termed ‘Corporeal Geography’ and ‘Anthropogenic Geography’. But it didn’t happen.

The fact that Geography evolved so much posed a considerable degree of inconvenience in the definition of things that are ‘Geographical’. We use the term only to refer to the old topics under Geography but not the new ones. We use ‘Geographical Factors’ to a nation’s success to refer to the how its location on the map benefits it. We can’t use ‘Geographical’ to refer to population factors, or development factors, because they are namely considered ‘Demographical’ and ‘Economic’. This makes me wonder what one can mean when we say ‘Geographical perspective’ to a scenario.

There’s a whole lot of other problems with Geography. I’ll probably leave them to later. In the meantime, mugging takes priority again after this moment of ‘Publish’.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *