William James Durant's The Geographical Pivot Of History: Analysis
In 1932, William James Durant, an American historian, in his famous book The Story of Civilization said:
No victory of arms, or tyranny of alien finance, can long suppress a nation so rich in resources and vitality. The invader will lose funds or patience before the loins of China will lose virility; within a century China will have absorbed and civilized her conquerors, and will have learned all the technique of what transiently bears the name of modern industry; roads and communications will give her unity, economy and thrift will give her funds, and a strong government will give her order and peace (Durant, 1935, p.825).
While delivering his ‘The Geographical Pivot of History’ speech to the Royal Geographical Society a few decades earlier, …show more content…
His theory was about describing ‘the “Great Game” and geopolitical rivalry between the Russian and British Empires. The “Great Game” was land-focused, with emphasis on the overland threat to British India from Central Asia, and saw Britain and Russia manoeuvring each other across most of Asia at the end of 19th and beginning of 20th century, from Gulf to the Pacific’ (Scott, 2008). He insisted that the world had become a ‘closed political system’ , with no new lands left for the European powers to discover, to conquer, and to fight for. 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.
In 1919, shortly after the First World War ended, he expanded his ‘Pivot’ paper to ‘Hartland theory’ by writing Democratic Ideals and Reality, ‘arguably the most important work on international politics ever written by geographer’ (Sempa, 2009, p.14). What Mackinder called in 1904 the ‘Pivot area’; he subsequently called the ‘Heartland’ by 1919. The ‘heart’ of Mackinder's theory is contained in a famous and concise dictum:
Who rules Eastern Europe commands the Heartland:
Who rules the Heartland commands the …show more content…
The key region, according to him was not the Heartland, but the area, that Mackinder called inner or marginal crescent. It was the Rimland region, consisting of of Western Europe countries, Middle East, Southwest Asia, China and Far East, that was key to domination of the larger Eurasian landmass (Petersen, 2011, p.27). In fact, he reworded Mackinder’s statement to ‘Who controls the Rimland, rules Eurasia; who rules Eurasia, controls the destinies of the world’ (Spykman, 1944, p.43). Rimland countries occupied the most fertile and populous part of the world and could secure access to the resources of the inland and set out upon the oceans to impress their will around the world (Petersen, 2011, p.27). Among them Spykman envisaged China as the most powerful Rimland nation and
No victory of arms, or tyranny of alien finance, can long suppress a nation so rich in resources and vitality. The invader will lose funds or patience before the loins of China will lose virility; within a century China will have absorbed and civilized her conquerors, and will have learned all the technique of what transiently bears the name of modern industry; roads and communications will give her unity, economy and thrift will give her funds, and a strong government will give her order and peace (Durant, 1935, p.825).
While delivering his ‘The Geographical Pivot of History’ speech to the Royal Geographical Society a few decades earlier, …show more content…
His theory was about describing ‘the “Great Game” and geopolitical rivalry between the Russian and British Empires. The “Great Game” was land-focused, with emphasis on the overland threat to British India from Central Asia, and saw Britain and Russia manoeuvring each other across most of Asia at the end of 19th and beginning of 20th century, from Gulf to the Pacific’ (Scott, 2008). He insisted that the world had become a ‘closed political system’ , with no new lands left for the European powers to discover, to conquer, and to fight for. 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.
In 1919, shortly after the First World War ended, he expanded his ‘Pivot’ paper to ‘Hartland theory’ by writing Democratic Ideals and Reality, ‘arguably the most important work on international politics ever written by geographer’ (Sempa, 2009, p.14). What Mackinder called in 1904 the ‘Pivot area’; he subsequently called the ‘Heartland’ by 1919. The ‘heart’ of Mackinder's theory is contained in a famous and concise dictum:
Who rules Eastern Europe commands the Heartland:
Who rules the Heartland commands the …show more content…
The key region, according to him was not the Heartland, but the area, that Mackinder called inner or marginal crescent. It was the Rimland region, consisting of of Western Europe countries, Middle East, Southwest Asia, China and Far East, that was key to domination of the larger Eurasian landmass (Petersen, 2011, p.27). In fact, he reworded Mackinder’s statement to ‘Who controls the Rimland, rules Eurasia; who rules Eurasia, controls the destinies of the world’ (Spykman, 1944, p.43). Rimland countries occupied the most fertile and populous part of the world and could secure access to the resources of the inland and set out upon the oceans to impress their will around the world (Petersen, 2011, p.27). Among them Spykman envisaged China as the most powerful Rimland nation and