To what extent do you agree with the main argument?
In Gil Grosvenor's "Why We Need Geography", he argues geography is an essential component of most issues and jobs. He believes the subject should infiltrate more schools and deserves , at least, "one tenth the amount of money history has." Providing many excellent points, Grosvenor's assertions are hard to disagree with, and geoliteracy should be emphasized in schooling as well as in international issues.
As a student of public schooling, I'm embarrassed by my own limited knowledge in geography. In my history class, my lack of knowledge of locations has impeded on successful understanding of some important events (where was the land bridge again?). While this is on a small scale, Grosvenor is able to connect geoliteracy with skillfullness in a multitude of jobs. It helps bankers decide the best loans to give, helps workers in real estate understand the patterns of the industry, and even farmers grow the best crops. While some students see geographical knowledge as a waste of time, given that Google is always there to direct you, the fact is that where things are has a huge effect on what they are. Especially in world wide problems.
When discussing geography in current events, Grosvenor focuses on the Obama administration's "what should we do in Afghanistan" poll. He sees it as good in concept, but because of the nation geographical illiteracy, ineffective. The nation was split half way in opposing decisions because many do not fully comprehend the issue. Grosvenor argues that because the majority of Americans do not know about where Afghanistan is, and what exists there, they are unable to properly make a decision. Grosvenor believes the foundation of most misunderstanding is the lack of geographical knowledge. Despite his expertise, this is difficult to prove. Perhaps the way to find out is to do what he says, and better equip today's students with geographical understanding.
No comments:
Post a Comment