Geography 1992 Human Geographies
(Jim Russell, University of Colorado)
The goal of the course is to link the personal to the geopolitical and I have departed from the traditional course framework. In order to achieve this goal I offer two components to the course: 1) Helping the students to build a world-view so they might critically engage geopolitics while also linking them to events and experiences outside the United States; 2) Empowering the students by teaching them how to lobby their Senator persuasively about a foreign policy issue of interest (Assignments 1-3 on the webpage comprise this component). Another component to the course is Internet literacy. As you might notice, I do not use a textbook. I have assigned a number of readings that correspond with each lecture. The students must find the articles on the web. I hope to teach them how to be critical of information they might find on the Internet. As far as the readings themselves are concerned, I am pulling geographic concepts directly from them while introducing the students to the kind of writing they need to critically engage.
The rationale I offer for the change in the course structure is a geopolitical one. I believe that the current framework for World Regional Geography at CU is more suited to the Cold War world. Furthermore, the traditional world tour reinscribes imperialist and colonial geographies. The geography of the Post-Cold War is not so easily understood and hotly contested. The students themselves will be helping to decide what this world will look like. I focused on this theme in lecture the day after the attack. The overhead outline for the discussion was as follows:
[Below is the Outline for Jim’s Lecture the Day after the Attack followed by a brief commentary. More to follow.]
WELCOME TO THE POST-COLD WAR WORLD
Geography of the attack:
- Defining moment of Post-Cold War World
- What is the definition of a hegemon? The iconography of location
- The cover of chaos
Geography of the response:
- Pearl Harbor and the declaration of war
- “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” President Bush
- Where is the enemy? Identifying a nation instead of a state…
The outline probably deserves some explanation. Overall, I argued that the events that transpired on Tuesday would force the United States to shape this Post-Cold War geography and that the response would be indicative of this new paradigm. The Cold War paradigm would prove inadequate (such as the references to this era's Pearl Harbor or a declaration of war, which assumes an accountable nation-state). The discussion focused on what the students had learned so far in class and what options were available to the United States. I spent some time on exploring the face of the enemy and the domestic geographies that might result. The hyperlink for that won't work for you unless you have a Westlaw account. The link provides a hypothetical counterterrorism act and how that might affect people inside and outside of the country (particularly resident aliens viewed as a threat and their rights).