GEOGRAPHY AND HISTORY

Southland Times, Issue 25796, 6 October 1945, Page 6

GEOGRAPHY AND HISTORY

FACTORS IN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT “The Influence of Geography on History” was the title of an address which Dr A. McLintock, of Dunedin, gave last night in the Tudor Lounge under the auspices of the University Association of Southland. Dr McLintock showed that geographical factors had had a considerable influence on human development, ' but gave a warning against sweeping generalizations to the effect that geographical factors alone accounted for the facts of history.

The president of the association, Mr A. J. Deaker, occupied the chair, and there was a good attendance. Dr McLintock said that there were those who declared that history in its truest sense was merely an expression of geographical fact, or that history was nothing but geography set in motion. The historian was* prepared to agree that geography did play an important part in history, but that it was only one strand in the web of history. The idea that climate and environment had an influence on the character of a people was as old as Socrates, and since his time philosophers, in an endeavour to interpret human history in some rational way, had been inclined to share that view and had been prepared to consider, with some fancy, the influence of geography on race and character. However, it was not until the beginning of the 18th century that men tried to approach the subject scientifically, and in modern times the idea had come to the fore once again. It was argued, for example, that the Southern States of America favoured slavery because of the fertility of the lower Mississippi Valley, while the people of the northern States were opposed to slavery because of the harder and more barren nature of their soil. One writer had even argued that there was a connection between geology and politics. He claimed that in the limestone regions of France the people were radical, and that in those portions of the country where there was a granite stratum the people were solidly conservative. However, this writer did not explain how people changed their views at election time.

MOUNTAINS AND LIBERTY There was also an idea, expressed poetically by Wordsworth, that people who lived in mountain regions and seafaring people were liberty-loving. People who lived in mountainous regions had probably retreated from the fertile plains to the inhospitable hills, where they could hold their own, because they were not prepared to bow to an invader, but such people were not i necessarily liberty-loving, since they I were often backward in culture, narrow in outlook and predatory towards i their neighbours. ; Seafaring people were brave and | self-reliant, but this did not mean that they were more liberty loving than I any othei- peoples. The Athenians and Carthagenians were great seafaring people, but they were also slave owners. Venice, a great seafaring city in its day, was ruled by an autocratic dynasty, and in modern times the Japanese provided an example of a seafaring people who were not libertyloving. This showed how dangerous it was to deal in sweeping generalizations, though it could be shown that geography had had a considerable influence on human development. However, as Professor A. J. Toynbee had pointed out, there was no proof that geography played a decisive part lin human development, because if it ! did, it was difficult to explain why, if the Nile delta produced a certain type iof civilization, a similar civilization was not produced on the banks of the Rio Grande in South America, or on the banks of the Upper Jordan. Professor Toynbee considered that there was an unknown factor, which he called X, which also played an import- ) ant part in human development, apart | from the factors of geography. I INFLUENCE OF DESERTS Dr McLintock went on to show i how geographical factors had influenced civilizations. He said that Egyptian civilization had developed because the Egyptians were protected by deserts from invaders. But this geographical factor had also brought about the decline of Egyptian civilization. It had remained isolated, and because it had thus lacked a stimulus it had decayed. The civilization of Babylon had also risen because it was partly protected by deserts; but it was not wholly protected in this way, and was thus liable to attack. Therefore, the Babylonians had been forced to develop military science to a much greater degree than had been the case with the Egyptians. The Assyrians provided an example of a people who had tried to overcome the facts of geography by developing a system of terrorism, just as Germany had done in modern times. The Old Testament was full of references to tire terrible military power of the Assyrians. Their ferocity was almost incredible, and they had slaughtered people by the million, but at last the subject people rose against them, and the Assyrians were wiped from the face of the earth.