As a Geographic Information Systems programmer, I look at geography a little differently than other people.
Standard databases are generally used to relate similar items. Or in any case, a table in a database will hold information about the same types of ‘objects’. You would not typically store address book information with recipes in a table.
Likewise, a water system database would not be stored with a power grid database.
Until now. While a water system and an electrical system do not share any physical components, they do have one thing in common. Geography. They exist in space. Relationships between the different systems can be made using their x, y and z coordinates.
Geography allows us to perform spatial analysis against ‘data’ that would not normally have anything in common.
You’ve address several good points - and they are points that are a concern for geographers. Your correct that there are no easy solutions. But I think what is encouraging is that geographers ARE beginning to tighten the professional bonds amongst ourselves. There is a growing realization (at least in some circles) that academic geographers need to cross previously entrenched areas of specialization to broaden their research interests and develop academic courses and programs that emphasize the integrative nature of the discipline. One example: there is a big push in some departments towards integrating human and physical geographer’s realms by establishing environmental studies programs (the human-environment relationship).
Another area - one in which Dr. de Blij emphasized - is the need for academic geographers to establish courses/programs in the realm of areas’ studies. This used to be the “bread and butter” of geography 40-50 years ago, but it tended to emphasize rather trivial stuff. Now, the international studies programs or political science departments have pushed the emphasis in area studies toward the forefront. Hopefully, academic geographers will be able to meet this challenge by offering their own version of area studies by creating courses/programs that are explicitly cross-discplinary - here’s where the political, economic, social/cultural, geographers can really get involved in a big way.
Another point - and one I think that Dr. de Blij would agree - is that we need some geographers to be well-rounded generalists. In other words, we need geographers who aren’t necessarily interested in pursuing geography from an narrow academic vantage point, but rather those who would be willing to undertake the arduous process in becoming well-rounded in all facets of geography to either teach - My approach, by the way - or work in the various media outlets (either print or electorinic media). Dr. de Blij has filled that bill (he’s worked with ABC and NBC as a consultant, as well as written popular and highly used textbooks for geography classess and developed highly popular videos for use as intructional materials). I’m not saying that they are those within academia who couldn’t do any of the above - it’s just that there’s a tendency in academia to concentrate on one’s own narrow of expertise.
Finally, we as geographers need to be more vocal and involved in pushing our local school districts in making geography and integral part of their cirricula. Make geography a requirement in order to graduate from high school. It also needs to be emphaized more as a requirement to teach K-12 (thankfully, this is already happening as I get quite a few students who take my classes because their degree in education requires it).
Addressing the North America, Central America, etc. conundrum…
From a purely physical geographic perspective, North America is considered to be a continent because it is the largest landform comprising the North American tectonic plate. Therefore, the US, Canada, Mexico, Central American countries, and Greenland would all be considered part of North America. Using tectonic plates to characterize or delineate continents helps explain, for example, why Greenland is an island (its part of the North American plate, but not the largest part) and Australia is a continent (has its own tectonic plate because it is the largest part).
However, from a human/cultural perspective, many geographers use the term North America to refer to just the United States and Canada (a more descriptive term, and one that is less confusing is Anglo-America – my preference). Mexico, the Central American countries (and in some instances, the islands of the Caribbean) would form part of the Latin America region (included, of course, is all of South America). In this instance, the physical geography really isn’t a (primary) consideration in delineating one region from the next. The key elements are cultural, historical, and political.
To add to what enipla said, if you REALLY want to get a sense of how relevant geography is to the wider public discourse, you should look into geographic information systems (GIS). Not only is extremely useful communicating information (as is the case with typical analog maps), but also it is a powerful tool for its analytical capabilities (its greatest strength). The things one can explore, analyze, and understand using a GIS is virtually limitless. That’s why more and more people (not just geographers) are becoming more aware about GIS and using it to address important issues and solve problems.
Oh, and kudos to furt for correctly identifying the two locations!
- or work in the various media outlets (either print or electorinic media). Dr. de Blij has filled that bill (he’s worked with ABC and NBC as a consultant, as well as written popular and highly used textbooks for geography classess and developed highly popular videos for use as intructional materials). I’m not saying that they are those within academia who couldn’t do any of the above - it’s just that there’s a tendency in academia to concentrate on one’s own narrow of expertise.