--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, David Kendall <dhkendall@...> wrote:
> And your knowledge of borders and geopolitics aren't working as pickup lines? I'm shocked! :)
You know, that never occured to me. Maybe I should try it
If she's not put off by dedksew, Vennbahn, and Bouvetoya, well by golly, she's a keeper!
- The notion that a river makes a "natural" boundary is peculiar to certain
societies and certain kinds of rivers. Rivers are often just the opposite.
The greatest rivers are sometimes the unifying highways and even the raisons
d'être of nations. Egyptians would hardly think of the Nile as a natural
boundary. Nor is the Indus one for Pakistan, the Ganges for India or
Bangladesh, the Tigris or the Euphrates for Iraq, the Yangtze for China, the
Amazon for Brazil, or the Gambia for The Gambia. I could go on.
Let's look at the Mississippi River as an example. In its upper and middle
reaches, the river is seen as a the divide between the eastern and western
USA. It was a barrier to settlement, and it has become the boundaries
between and among states. Louisiana, however, near its mouth occupies both
banks. Not only that, but below Baton Rouge the Mississippi River almost
entirely ceases even to be a boundary between parishes (county equivalents).
There are eight parishes that occupy both banks of the river--and not just
due to meanderings of the channel. They are Iberville, Ascension, St.
James, St. John the Baptist, St. Charles, Jefferson, Orleans, and
Plaquemines. The civil parishes developed out of the Catholic church
parishes of French and Spanish colonial times and often still bear the same
names. So, it becomes obvious that the river was anything but a natural
boundary, but rather a unifying force--even in the flocks of individual
Lowell G. McManus
Eagle Pass, Texas, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "anton_zeilinger" <anton_zeilinger@...>
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 4:16 AM
Subject: [borderpoint] Re: Waters around Point Roberts
> --- In email@example.com, "Roger McCutcheon" <rogerdwmac@...>
>> "Any international border is an imaginary line" is clearly true, but if
>> follows the centre of a river or of a mountain range it makes more sense.
> This argument may have been valid in history, but I do not believe it is
> tenable anymore today. With today's advances in technology and
> engineering, a mountain or a river is no longer a "natural" boundary in
> the sense that it "naturally" divides living spaces of people.
> Bridges are easily and numerously contructed, tunnels are dug in every
> imaginable length and direction, and planes can cross any divide.
> Rivers in particular, but also mountains, are in no way a "natural" limit
> for societies anymore.