The Impacts of Political Geography

So, when I first started this class, back in January, I didn't know much about global politics. To be Honest, I got my news from the E channel. Pathetic yes, but true. I was more concerned about how fat Kim Kardashian was getting with her unexpected pregnancy than what is going on in the rest of the world. OK, so I have a BBC app on my phone (which i rarely use)....but that is about as connected to the news as I get. I always used the excuse of "It's so gruesome and depressing, why would I want to watch the news? and even if I did, its totally biased". Well as truthful as that is, it is always important to be informed as to what is going on in the world.
The premises of political geography is to shed light on human interaction of spatially uneven outcomes of political processes and the ways in which political processes are themselves affected by spatial structures. This includes the inter-relationship between a nation state and its citizens, local and national elections, war and conflict, terrorism, historical and religious regions, religion, colonialism, hegemonic global roles and border impacts. The god father of Political Geography is Halford Mackinder. Mackinder developed his theory of the geographical pivot of history, which states that the world will be divided into a heartland consisting of eastern Europe, a world island made up of Eurasia and Africa, peripheral islands and the new world. His theory said that whoever controlled the heartland, controlled the world. Territorial arrangement and its correlating political forces, along with its interaction with other groups or countries is what defines their socioeconomic status. Mackinder believed this was eastern Europe, the global hegemon. little did Mackinder know that the big bad wolf, America, was about to dominate.

All in all, I learned alooooot in this class and this is probably the best and most interesting class I have ever taken at Florida State. Seriously. I not only learned alot about global politics and how geography affects countries, but as well as how I personally view America versus the rest of the world, along with my political positioning and how i incorporate my moral values. I now watch the news as well.....which shocks my mom haha.

War and Conflict

Most people don't want to go to war. War is messy, devastating and expensive. War exists due to built up tensions between feuding nations, and eventually an event will happen that pushes the envelope too far. this is known as "the flashpoint". This event is what shifts the public's opinion and justifies the regime to respond with violence against the group responsible for their actions. Flashpoints change global perspectives. Neo-conservatives argue that the "enemy is out there, and as the global hegemon, it is our duty to identify them and surpress any other violent acts that may ensue". This means foreign wars, NEVER in our homeland, preemptive actions before attacks ensue, especially on American soil and war is inevitable....unless we, the hegemon, do something first. American are not one to "react", we carefully calculate our actions with force, scare tactics and out smarting the enemy before they even have time to blink.
The typical, and realistic side of war is that it encourages violence, which produces mass amounts of deaths on both fighting sides. However, not all is bad in times of war. Many believe that war stimulates the economy, builds national pride, decreases over population, gaining of territory or ending oppression in dictatorial states.
It is much easier to make a con's list of coarse. this includes but is not limited to: seperation of loved ones, death, destabalizing a country, destruction of cities/farms/property/etc, economic struggle, genocide, cultural cleansing, colonization, terrorism, expensive, nuclear weapons, disease, etc. The list can go on and on.
I believe, as much as I hate to say this, that war is not only inevitable but a way for a nation state to gain or regain independence, democracy and or over throw its government. NO ONE likes death (unless your a sick F***) but it is apart of every day life, as sad and tragic as that is.

Now something that was mentioned in class that caught my attention was the picture that the group "Annonymous" posted of Kim Jung Un that went viral in North Korea. Oh man, where do I start? First off....WTF. Yes...we get it. Its funny...but that was insanely inappropriate and childish. As an American, I truly felt embarrassed looking at that picture. Why are we poking at a country that already hates us and is clearly insane/starving/helpless? WHY?! This group "Annonymous" is acting like an American bully who sits behind a computer gorging on sticky buns and redbulls (who probably has never even traveled outside the U.S.), toying around with pictures all day long, with nothing better to do, instead of working, while I am working and probably paying taxes out the butt so they can sit there on the computer all day and fool around. must be nice....assholes. Don't you have anything better to do? I mean seriously. Damn liberals are always complaining how we should be "helping the weak, feeding the needy, medicare and food stamps for everyone, etc", well then how about actually helping the most poverish, oppressed and starving nation in the world?!?! Your poking fun at a "Oh grande, amazing, superb, chosen one, elite, awesome leader" and a small group of elites, while the rest of the country is extremely oppressed and people are dying every second.
I just think it was incredibly in appropriate and alarming that American citizens would go so far as to make a ridiculous photo like that. Shame on you, who ever you are. What message were you trying to send? Because all you did was light a fire under Un's ass to act upon terrorizing the U.S. (well...I mean I don't know if he will get very far, his attempts have been pathetic thus far...but still).

YOU DON'T TOY WITH A TODDLER WHO JUST GOT A SHINY NEW GUN.

terrorism

I was sitting in my 6th grade natural science class, in Coral Springs FL, when 3 soliders walked in and took the teacher aside. My classmates and I were all curious what was going on as the look of shock and fear spread across our teachers face. My teacher walked over to the television and turned it on to the news, something that was very out of the ordinary. Usually turning the on T.V. meant a lazy movie day when our teacher didn't feel like preaching to a roudy class of 11-12 year old kids. Something was different today; We were all uneasy. As our teacher turned to the news, thick clouds of smoke, screaming people, soliders and firefighters filled the T.V. It looked like a battle scene from a movie. We sat quietly, but none of us understood what was going on. I slowly raised my hand to break the silence. "Whats going on Ms. Dover?", she slowly and carefully replied that the Untied States was under attack. Fear and terror quickly crept in all of our young minds. I began to think what "under attack meant" and why were there soliders? Am I in danger? Where are my parents? What about my little brother? Am I safe here at school?

Thousands of questions ran through my head, yet I still was unsure how to comprehend everything that was going on. About an hour after the attack, a solider escorted me to the front of the school, where my mom, and several other panicked parents were picking up their kids. 

The car ride home was silent. Even my 8 year old brother, who is normally irritating and always doing something buggy was quiet. Once upon arrival at our house, my dad was already sitting in front of the television, motioning us to sit down with him. We all, as a family, sat there in silence and watched as they replayed the twin towers crumble to shambles, while millions of New York civilians ran around like chicken with their heads cut off. Some people were on cell phones with their loved ones, other helping firefighters, but most in just shear panic, staggering to any safe place they could find. The worst of the scenes was watching people jump from the twin towers. Complete and utter hopelessness ran through their lifeless bodies as they pummeled down to the ground to meet their fate.

I will never forget September 11th 2001. It was a day when I learned the meaning of fear. This type of fear is not what I was accustom to; Like when my dad would jump out of the closet and scare me, or a spider on the floor, or a scary movie, or halloween tricks, or fear of jumping from a high tree or even fear of punishment when I did something bad. No this fear was different. This fear was something even my parents couldn't hide. 

Instilling fear within a population or group is the premise of what terrorism is. Terrorism is a systematic and tactical organized group or individual which use violence through criminal acts as a means of coercion. These violent acts are usually politically, religiously or ideologically driven to deliberately target and victimize non-combatant civilians, oftening leading to many deaths and eventually war. Terrorists provoke fear in hopes of establishing symbolic terrorism to oppress a nation or group to gain media attention in order to influence a short or long term goal for maximum economic damage and psycological affect. 

Basically, they are radical assholes. 

Whether you believe it or not, terrorism works. there have been many many forms of terrorism; bus bombings, ruining villages, sending threats of nuclear weapons, military force such as kent university or killing a global leader. The point of 9/11 was to send a message of hatred. Welllll.....we got it and then did something about it. It worked because it provoked a war. Besides the war, we still feel the effects of it today; Such as the airport, with its intense and tight security, phone tapping, american flags are EVERYWHERE!, cultural impacts, economic devastation, fear, racism against anyone who even looks middle eastern (racial profiling), islamic awareness, radicals are acknowledged and known, military dependency, strengthened border protections, the global hegemon is challenged and the world was nervous, I mean the list can go on and on.  The point is... we have all tightened our belts and acknowledged terrorism. AND THATS THE POINT OF TERRORISM, TO MAKE A STATEMENT. However, the U.S. as the global hegemony, shut that shit down real quick. Our resilience was quick and our efforts to terminate terrorism was a success (kinda). 

role of the U.S. in the world

America is a special country. the success of the U.S. has been cemented by the foundations of our founding father who set forth an experiment in self government and declared independence for all. the U.S. declares equality and liberty for all human under the rule of law, cherished by the people, for the people. does this mean that the U.S. holds a special seat with the rest of the world? do american values affect the rest of the world? or do these values make people hate us even more with our western ways?

today i believe our role, thus far, has been to defend the american constitution with the common interest of protecting the people along with seeking peaceful relations with other countries. i believe america feels they have to uphold a sense of morality, social justice and promote economic growth with other countries (even though sometimes we suck at it ourselves). america's goal is to advance as much as possible and oppress other countries from surpassing us (another great american characteristic).

one subject, that is touchy for me, is womens rights. we had a brief yet intense debate among the class. womens rights within the united states is no where close to where it needs to be, however it is the leading country in the world that advocates womens independence. without the advancement and complete liberation of women, we can not expect to advance to our fullest potential. the argument said in class was "women who decide to dismiss furthur education and jump into starting a family, becoming a housewife, how do americans look at those women? how are those women viewed in our society?" although i am all for the right to choose your own destiny, i can help but feel there is a lack of knowledege with these women. if only our women and young daughter were furthur informed on the possibilities of their capabilities, i believe we would see an amazing increase in womens independence.

by dissecting the gender inequalities, men's patriarchy and the mysogynistic views that oppress women in this nation is to open our eyes to the social stratification and internal colonization that has been pinning women down for centuries. Americans have constructed womens identities around an image of what a typical women is like. these gender roles not only affect women but men as well. gender construction is formed on the basis of the roles in which you play in society, which in turn is our individual roles, or commonly known as our "identities". these gender roles assigned to women  throughout history  have been re-written by men and has set the tone for the underlying bigotry within this country, which is apparent and pumped into our everyday lives. this is to keep a patriarchal status quo to belittle womens abilities and maintain an attitude, behavior and intolerance towards women. this irrational fear is nothing more than than hypocritical justification and realization of social hierarchies and privledges bestowed upon men, by men. by defaulting men we are able to hide, protect and displace accountability.when men suffer, women suffer. i like to call it the internal war of testosteron. just as it is difficult for men to question their foundations on which their fragile egos lye, it is even more infuriating when a women challenges it. our society has set up and reward and punishment system through peers, media and social institutions to question what is "appropriate".

my point is if we keep on conditioning women and deny the information available to women that there is much more to a women than her womb, we can then start to make great advances and possibly solve world problems.  :)


ok could go on and on.....but i wont.

colonialism

colonialism is the expansion, establishment and maintenance of a nations soverneighty over territory and people outside its own boundaries, often to facilitate economic domination over their resources, labor and markets. the term also refers to a set of beliefs used to legitimize or promote this system, especially the belief that the mores of the colonizers have superior ways of industrialized practices than those of the locals. advocates of colonialism argue that colonial rule benefits the colonized by developing the economic and political infrastructures necessary for moderization and democracy. colonialsm also creates a protective, big brother, saftey net for smaller countries and allowing dependency for incapable countries. there are many forms of colonialism:
settlers colonialism- involving large scale immigration, often motivated by religous, political or economic reasons.
exploitation colonialism- involving fewer colonists and focuses on acess to resources for export, typically the metropole. this includes trading posts as well as larger colonies where colonists would constitute much of the political and economic administration, but would rely on indigineous resources for labor and material. prior to the end of the slave trade and widespread abolition, when indigenous labor was unavailable, slaves were often imported to the americas, first by the spanish empire and later by the dutch, french and british.
plantation colonies- considered expolitation and powers would either utilize different territories depending on various social and economic factors as well as climate and geographic conditions.
surrogate colonialism- involves settlement project supported by colonial powers, in which most of the settlers do not come from the mainstream of the ruling power.
internal colonialism- the notion of uneven structural power between a nation state. the source of exploitation comes from within the state.

the benefits of colonialsm include:
gain of natural resources
western medicine
education
infrastructure
political participation
religous freedoms
accelerated nation building
exploration of land
revenue
trading
safety
creating new job
better agricultural methods

NO COLONIALSM MEANS NO INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION. WHATS GOOD FOR SOCIETY AS A WHOLE IS WHAT MATTERS, NOT THE INDIVIDUAL.

the cons of colonialsm are obvious and tragic:
human trafficking
exploitation of peoples, land and resources
its time consuming and expensive
slavery
brings on disease
cultural cleansing

the truth is, anytime there is major revolutionary change, people are filtered out. people die, contract disease, etc. however the foundation that the colonists are buling are ones that will solidify a better life for your children and those to come many years after. colonialism is also an investment. you reap what you sow. global economic benefit happens when investment in capital occurs, often involving not so pretty stuff, such as slavery. colonialism is also at its own pace. only through time can a nation grow. those being colonized usually arent even aware of the resources available to them, thus going to waste. western modernization is able to educate and capitalize on these precious resources. colonialism doesnt just benefit the colonizers but the colonized as well. colonialism allows for developing countries to set forth a democracy and implement practices of advanced thinking and doing.

examples of successful colonialism is so apparent today. look at the united states. america gained advance modernization piece by piece over time. the urge for expansion-although at the expense of others, such as the native americans- is in the history of the united states itself.

although the notion of colonialism is unpopular, there is no deny without it, there would be no expansion or development crucial to our way of life right now. it is unnatural for humans not to be curious and explore.

to say that colonialism has no benefit is undermining the bigger picture itself.

electoral college

ok..........so I hate the electoral college. VOTING IN AMERICA SHOULD BE ABOUT THE PEOPLES VOTE!!! omg what a hard concept to grasp?!?!
The electoral college is a bunch of old white guys, who sit around and pick who will be president and vice president, "taking in consideration of the popular vote". These final decision makers are elected by popular vote state-by-state. There are 538 electors. The electoral college has been around since 1787, an outdated process that needs to change. It was originally set forth to equalize the need of opposing views of direct democracy versus Representative democracy.
In 1969, our country came the closest it ever has to abolishing the electoral college because they were upset of the turn out with Nixon versus Humphrey. The popular vote was never the basis for choosing a president, rather to make the people feel they are apart of a government in which they have say in. This only discourages the people from participation and voting turnout. The electoral college disfranchises all groups of people and diminishes all incentives to part take in the most patriotic duty we are able to be apart of every four years. There is also the disadvantage for any third party that is not of the main republican or democratic party, even if an independent has ideas that appease to the majority of Americans. Although it does promote stability with our current two-party system and isolates election problems. The electoral college is overly and excessively complicated as well, and it doesn't need to be. LET THE PEOPLE CHOOSE: one person, one vote (those that should vote, which you can read about in my other blog labeled "who should vote").

who should be allowed to vote?

Who should vote in the United States? Well….frankly, not many. As it stands today, everyone can vote, unless you are incarcerated, which you then forefitted your rights when you committed a crime under the laws of the United States. In 1920, women were granted the rights to vote during women’s suffrage act and shortly after in 1965 African Americans could vote as well. The 15^th amendment is an act that prohibits states from imposing any voting qualifications or prerequisites to vote, or standard, practice or procedure. In simple terms no one is denied a vote, regardless of color, gender, sexuality, etc.

Personally, I think voting should be regulated. The vote should be restricted to only those who pay taxes and a standardized test that shows a minimum capability of knowledge about the candidates running, which is a huge majority of the people in the United States anyways. Many would argue that all men are created equal, which is literally the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. I believe everyone is BORN equal, however not everyone earns equality. Everyone SHOULD be treated with respect and dignity but not everyone deserve equally as much as someone who works their tail off versus the person who commits crimes or exempts themselves from paying taxes. There should be no voting rights for those who freeride. Simple as that. If a person is dependent on welfare (this is excluding those who truly cannot work) and I am a working citizen, why is my vote just as important as someone who is jobless and I pay my taxes to fund their mundane lifestyle? I vote because I refuse to let this country become a socialistic pit hole. Your banking on the pure merit of people’s judgement. What happens when uneducated people vote? We let the rot and stupidity spread? Or what about the superficial aspects? Just because someone is young, better looking, a different race or excellent speech skills does not make that person a fit president! What does the candidate favor? What policies does he advocate? What is his background like? His upbringing? How many people in this country truly know what is going on? Or rather how many people actually voted for a candidate solely based on great campaign advertisement? Is there a correlation between voters economic class and which party they follow? Absolutely.  So does that mean they just need a good face to put there? Your vote should be based on how you live, and how the president’s policies will affect you and your finances. You don’t vote based on what’s emotionally appealing or pleasant sounding and this notion of sympathy towards excluding people from voting is also just your emotional appeal. I think there should be a simple citizens qualification test to demonstrate a basic knowledge of skills of the candidates that are running, and that of their manifestos of their hopeful terms. It shouldn’t be complicated and none of your rights would be sacrificed, only time. This in turn would hopefully weed out the ill-informed and truly focus on a politically based campaign. Some might be concerned that this may discourage many from voting at all, but if you truly cared about your vote and your future finances why wouldn’t you? Voting is more than just a personal expression, it is your engagement in this countries political processes. If one cannot be so bothered as to get off the couch and make an effort for their democracy, do they really deserve a say in my life as well? Hell no. Voting is a privilege that should be earned, not granted.

With this being said, there is nothing morally wrong with being ignorant about politics. Seriously. You don’t HAVE to vote. No one is going to penalize you for abstaining. In fact I congratulate those who don’t vote because they felt uninformed. I am a victim of miss information as well. I did not vote locally or about any new and upcoming policies because I did not educate or read up on them. I will not vote on something I don’t know about. Wearing an “I Voted” sticker does not make you a good citizen of this country but rather participant in a grand tradition of democracy. That’s why people vote. They have an intrinsic motive to vote even though it takes time and gas. The want for a better democracy is the individualistic incentive. If this holds true, your voting because you care about your lifestyle and economic status, not the washable shirt with a sticker on it. Voting does not make you an American. In no way shape or form does voting hold a self-worth. Therefore, don’t vote, just to vote. Voting is an investment in your future. Educate yourself and responsibly vote.

supernationalism....U.S. or not?

Supernationalism is a method of decision making in multi-national political communities, where power is transferred and delegated to an authority by governments of member states. It’s often referred to and to describe the basis of how the UN runs. It’s a large political entity in hopes to monitor and protect for the greater good of the people’s rights and freedoms. The majority of votes implements decisions and are enforced by those individuals representing a country to ensure that everyone is equal. These foundations of human rights in which the UN dissects and defines the boundaries of democracy and how government intertwines with those human rights.

In class we were asked to read and discuss the universal declaration of human rights. We were asked to talk amongst ourselves and decided which of the 30 articles were vague versus righteous without question and also whether the U.S. has broken any of these.  Naturally there was much debate. I found that literally every single person had a different opinion. What I have gathered from just mere observation was that your opinion is that of a biased reasoning concluded from experience and education. For example article 4 stated “no one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms” Many argued, quite passionately, that slavery is still relevant today. I personally thought, no way really? Or at least my ignorance has kept me oblivious. I do not consider seasonal workers from neighboring countries such as Mexico, picking strawberries and such in southern California to be slavery. Not even in the least bit. Especially because, living in L.A. for 11 years I have personally become quite acquainted with these seasonal workers. Many of these workers come for several months to make as much money as possible and then go back home to support their struggling families. I believe it’s an opportunity that they feel fortunate to have. Do I think they are under paid? ABSOLUTELY! We are completely exploiting these people, however is that slavery? Many students said as long as they are being paid, it’s not slavery. The definition of slavery is the inability to have control of your own body, due to the power withheld by a superior. I don’t know if I necessarily agree with that, especially because I don’t know the conditions of what these workers are in. another student brought something to our attention that blew my mind. It blew my mind because I had no idea that this was occurring right under my nose and the shear openness, yet NO ONE has done anything about it! The story is occurring in Immokalee, FL. A group of over 1000 worker of tomato picking were kept, beaten, chained, shot if caught trying to escape and locked in a U-Haul truck for sleeping purposes. Is this for real?!?!?! This is in direct violation of article 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 17, etc. (the list doesn’t stop there) so why hasn’t this gone national? Why are we hiding this? What disgusted me even more are the companies that are buying these products; Publix and sweet bay grocery store. Why hasn’t the UN done anything about this? Has the UN even heard about it? Or does it not even matter because it’s only a small group of 1000 workers compared to a national issue? I feel as though the U.S. is the big brother. No one wants to stand up to the big brother, and we just keep on bullying other countries with money and weapons. Why keep America accountable for all the nasty shit we have done to people? What about the discrimination against homosexuals? Now that’s a whole other issue. Maybe the issue of homosexuality and gay marriage isn’t as pertinent as current slavery but it still deserves recognition just the same. Most of the UN is on board with gay marriage; except for countries who naturally suck (this is obviously the Middle East).  Article 16 states that “men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution”. S0o0o……where in there did it ever mention discrimination of gender or sexual orientation? It didn’t right? A human=human. Why is this such a hard concept for many to grasp. Just let human be. Do not imposed your ideological, oppressive, higher archy opinions when you have no right to judge someone other than yourself. So again why isn’t the U.S. on the gay train? I don’t know. All of these questions I wonder if the U.S. is really in conjunction with these simple ideologies of freedom or we mask ourselves behind power and lie. The U.S. exploits others and puts pressures on countries to behave and conduct themselves in a certain way, yet we have done the exploiting ourselves. I am not an anti-American, but I just wonder why we constantly oppress a country to ensure failure, yet go in all “happy go lucky” to help these countries in need. I think we need to stop looking at the specs in the eyes of other countries and focus on the plank that is inserted in our own.

Mackinders heartland theory

Power is defined as the ability to do something or act in a particular way in which you exert an authority, force or strength over a person, group or situation that you are in favor of. 

There is a man by the name of Halford Mackinder, who was an english geographer. Mackinder is considered to be the founding father of geopolitical strategy. Mackinder had many influences on the way the world viewed politics and military domination, for example Adolf Hitlers notion of Nazi control.

The heartland theory is: "Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island controls the world." Mackinder saw the struggle between landmass and sea-based powers. He saw that the world had become a "closed" system, with no new lands left for the Europeans powers to discover, to conquer, and to fight over without affecting events elsewhere. Sea and land-based powers would then struggle for dominance of the world, and the victor would be in a position to set up a world empire.

Mackinder enforced the notion of "Man and not nature initiates, but nature in large measure controls". 

Mackinder's paper suggested that the control of Eastern Europe was vital to control of the world. The world-islands consisted of Europe, Asia and Africa. The offshore islands, including the British Isles and the Islands of Japan. The outlying islands, including the continents of North America, South America and Australia. 

Mackinder argued that the farther away you are from the heartland, the less influence you have. He also believed that Russia was the prime land, which was central to this theory. He believed that Russia had the advantage of landmass and natural resources. What Mackinder did not take into account was that Russia is easily attacked due to its massive size, making entry points possible from every direction, as well as limited year round ports because of the frozen coasts and having a weak central government for the most of the 20th century. Mackinders limited theory also did not take into account the development of technology. 

Thus he surrounded all of this power within Europe. The control of this land mass by any one state/country would enable it to organze an overwhelming amount of humans and material resources at hand, to detriment the rest of the world. The “heartland” of this landmass, or the center, would be impenetrable and inaccessible from attacks both land and sea. Victory would be inevitable if this type of monopoly would occur.

So is Mackinders theory relevant today? Have we seen anything close to this? Many would argue that during the Napoleonic wars had nearly been successful in its struggle against its successor, Russia. Mackinder warned that the game was changing, due to advanced technology. Sea mobility was now being matched by land mobility, with railroads and motor vehicles. Mackinder predicted that as both land and sea equaled in power, that there would be more bloodshed. So is this relevant today?

Political Geography

What is political geography? Political geography is the study of political processes and outcomes relative to international states, territories and people. Put simply, it is the study of human geography. The primary concern of political geography is to understand how people and politics interact with one another and how that affects the rest of the world around them, hence international relations studies. These studies hold a crucial validity because not one human on this planet is able to have an individual incentive without it concerning others and the outcomes of those actions. Historical tyrants such as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Ivan the terrible and countless more have always had someone or state to explain their actions to, and eventually were put to an end. Is political geography fighting with global domination or fighting to decentralize it, creating individual state policies? with that question in mind we must also ask ourselves:

-How and why states are organized into regional/territorial groupings? does religion, culture, identity play a role? 

-What is the relationship between states and former colonies, and how these territories came about over time, through neo-colonialism? (geopolitical practice of using capitalism, business globalization, and cultural imperialism to control a country, with either direct military control or centralized political control)

-What the relationship between a government and its people, along with the relationships between states including international trades and treaties.

-How and why the functions, demarcations and policing of boundaries/territories became. 

-The influence of political power on geographical space (is it surrounded by water? is it land locked? who is their neighboring countries? what resources are being allocated? what advantages and disadvantages does it have within that territory? does the geography bring security? or wealth?)

-The study of election results. Is it a democracy? what is the political processes and how much of the population has involvement and direct influence?

-Does one country have more of a say than another country because they are bigger? wealthier? have more resources? geographical advantage? and if so...does that country have a duty to step foot in international affairs that don't directly concern them? (For example, America. Does America have a duty to the rest of world to step in, without direct involvement with the issue just because America has the resources and wealth to help? or is this more of an issue with morality and what "should" be done because we can?)

I often ask myself...where do we draw the line? is there a line? I don't believe there is one answer, or at least one answer that the whole world can agree upon. So if the majority of the human population doesn't care about getting involved, or they think their individual opinions wont matter anyways with political and international issues...then who or what group is making all these decisions?

That is what Political Geography is all about. Asking and wondering how you as an individual affect the world with your actions and individual incentives where you are geographically located, versus how the world perceive you as a part of a group who shares the same views as a nation or country.