Geography Shapes National Character?

In My Humble Opinion
1

Some time ago, I picked up a “documentary graphic novel” about Korea and its people. It was praised by the Korea Times for its honesty, and painted views both laudatory and somewhat harsh and unflattering.

As part of its thesis, the book stated that geography and language are the most important factors shaping national character.

Geographically, the book contrasted island and peninsular nations with other ones. It said island nations like Japan and England are more isolated and harder to attack. This allowed more homogeneity, a culture of innovation and more development of traditions and character. Korea is a peninsula and the book stated peninsulas tend to have military value and that peninsular nations have often been invaded and so are more aggressive and insistent on local traditions - mentioning the Balkans as a comparison. It also contrasted these with mainland nations.

Though obviously too simple, the basic argument seemed to have some merit. I am not sure I had heard this argued before. Is it largely true? Are island nations very similar to other far flung island nations? Is there a peninsular people prototype, perhaps?

2

I would agree to some extent. For instance, continental Europeans tend to be very mutually knowledgeable and well-informed of things, and that’s because Europe is many nations packed together in a relatively small area, and historically a continent of massive consequence. If something is going on in Poland, a Dutch or French person has to keep up to date with it, because it could affect them. In World Wars I and II and the Cold War, everyone understood that trouble in one region may very well not stay contained and could domino-effect over to them.

3

For one thing, if they referred to “England” as an island nation, then they were flat wrong. Great Britain is the island, with (currently) 3 distinct if joined nations on it. Just tell the Scots or the Welsh or even the Cornish that they have homogeneity with England.

Secondly, Britain was invaded numerous times, including in 1066 when a completely different language and culture took over from the Saxons, not to mention the remnants of Picts and Celts and Angles. Before that were the Vikings, who left settlements and linguistic artifacts behind.

Now tell me that Japan has a culture of innovation, when most of their advances came from their contact with other countries, first and most heavily China in around the 400’s CE and onward, and later from their exposure to Europe and later the US. They did, apparently, invent green tea, so there’s that.

Also it seems to me that a culture of innovation is a little contradictory to the idea of development of traditions. In fact, in most societies those things are at odds.

Other than that, spot on.

If they were going to talk about the use of wet rice farming, which works because of the wet climate in Japan, that would be both true and significant. But I don’t think that has much to do with them being an island. It has to do with their location relative to East Asian and Pacific weather influences, and their proximity to be able to learn it from southern China, both of which are shared by mainland areas like SE Asia.

So while there may be some merit in the general idea of cultures developing due to geographic influences, I don’t think anything mentioned in the OP has much validity.

4

Certainly geography is one thing that shapes national character. But so is a nation’s entire history of all of its interactions with other nations, and I would think that would be much more relevant.

For that matter, specific prominent individuals can also be a shaper of national character. Imagine, if you will, how different the US would be, were it not for George Washington, or any or all of the nations in South America, without Simon Bolivar.

5

Does “island nation” have to mean “nation that is an island,” or can it mean “nation that is on an island”?

6

Or a nation of islands, like Japan.

I don’t know that there is a fixed definition, but if the notion that geography influences a nation’s character, and that an island nation has a different character than one on a continent, “nation on an island” further weakens an already doubtful premise.

7

For what it’s worth, just like the UK, it’s not like the 4 major islands (plus numerous smaller ones) comprising modern day Japan was a single homogeneous nation either until quite recently. So the idea of a single homogeneous culture for Japan also misses the mark.

The northernmost major island Hokkaido and the Okinawan islands weren’t fully taken over by Japan until about a century and a half ago and there’s still distinct non-Japanese cultural elements. Those were suppressed for decades but there’s a modern movement to preserve what remains. And even on the major islands, as in the UK, it was the work of centuries to bring several historically disparate peoples into a single political union that only recently (historically speaking) largely share the same culture. And even now, there’s still remnants seen in things like the Kanto/Kansai divide.

The idea geography shapes elements of a culture does appear to have validity but the argument as presented perhaps draws too strong a conclusion from the available evidence. Seems more like there are “just-so” elements that selectively draw on certain evidence while ignoring other evidence that contradicts it.

8

Boy, I’ll say. Sometimes it takes my breath away what my Kanto-born and bred husband says about Kansai people.

9

I think there is some validity to the theory. But there are always exceptions and it is a bit simplistic to ascribe all facets of National Character to being a continental nation, peninsula or island.

The US for example is an ocean away from Europe. Some ascribe our straying from European norms to that fact. Theres probably a lot of other factors, but the Atlantic Ocean helped.