Kropotkin And Mackinder: Annotated Bibliography

Growing up, I have always had an interest in geography and thinking about different countries and what makes them the way that they are. I have not been in a geography class since middle school and Human Geography was a class that made me think about things I have never thought of before. The readings of both Kropotkin and Mackinder brought up very interesting points, some that conflict and others that agree. Each author writes in a way that stimulates and makes you think about geography and certain topics in different ways which I find to be very rare in writings from this time period. Discussing Kropotkin’s and Mackinder’s general ideas, points they disagree or agree on, and my own views on the topic will all be discussed in this final paper.

Mackinder’s writing seems to take on a much more formal tone as opposed to Kropotkin. One of the first major questions that Mackinder asks about geography itself, is, “Is geography one, or is it several subjects? (Mackinder 156). He brings up the specific point of contrasting physical and political geography. This is an important distinction again from the writings of Kropotkin, in that Kropotkin as discussed geography as it were one all-encompassing subject and discipline. Mackinder’s main point is to propose a definition of geography in which it is a science that functions to trace the interaction between man and society as well as his environment. This is a much more specific definition than what Kropotkin had

With this statement, Mackinder makes a claim and says that no rational political geography can function without being built upon the ideas of physical geography. He says the idea of political geography is currently based upon no principles of physical geography and must not be considered a true discipline. This defines the complex and typically unseen relationship between political and physical geography, “Geography is like a tree which early divides into two great branches, whose twigs may none the less be inextricably interwoven.” (Mackinder 159). After Mackinder makes an interesting claim about how the rivalry between physical geographers and geologists are perceived. He claims that the physical geographer has hurt their field by only including the most basic principles of geology. What Mackinder really believes is that a geologist looks at the present to interpret the past, while a physical geographer looks at the past to interpret the present. The views of Mackinder to vary largely when opposed to the views of Kropotkin on what geography is or “ought” to