Cartographically constructing Kurdistan within geopolitical and orientalist discourses

Maps are powerful geopolitical tools, which are widely used to represent conflicts over territory, boundaries, citizens, and resources. But maps do more than represent. They are also discursive tools, which reflect, express, and help create geographic knowledge, political agendas, and social stereotypes. Through a longitudinal study of American journalistic cartography of Kurdistan – an ambiguously defined region that has often been in the midst of geopolitical conflict – this paper argues that maps reflect and recreate dominant geopolitical discourses, which are often intricately linked to orientalist discourses. A critical analysis of the design elements of place names, map text, border demarcation, and symbology revealed that these representations not only reflected the political and social narratives of the time and space in which they were created, but also constructed and communicated subtle and blatant positions towards the Kurds and Kurdistan. More specifically, these maps frequently marginalized the Kurds by questioning their geopolitical territorial claims, and also portrayed them in typical orientalist discourse as violent rebels or backward victims depending on the U.S. agenda in the region at the time. This paper will show how these interrelated discourses worked together in the cartographic image to portray the Kurds in a manner that generally supported and legitimated the dominant U.S. geopolitical position of a particular event.     

A Provincial Minister in Politics: Henry W. Crosskey*

Henry W. Crosskey (1826–93), a late Victorian unitarian minister who served in Derby, Glasgow and Birmingham, is now best remembered for his involvement in Liberal politics and policy, especially education, as both an advocate and as a member of the Birmingham School Board. An eloquent preacher, he was also an important geologist, recognized both for his original research and for popularising the science and its impact on theology, and a revealing figure in the evolution of English unitarian thought. From his student days at Manchester College, Crosskey was a follower of his teacher, James Martineau, but, unlike Martineau, he advocated an active role for government, particularly local government, in promoting social well‐being. In the political crises of 1885–6, though differing from Gladstone on religious education, disestablishment, and home rule for Ireland, he was unable to follow Joseph Chamberlain, a member of his congregation, into alliance with the Conservative Party. His scientific convictions led to his emergence in later life as an admirer of the broad piety of the early unitarian theologian and scientist, Joseph Priestley, whose followers had warred with Martineau's disciples in the bitter mid century struggle between ‘Old’ and ‘New’ unitarianism, thus serving as a bridge between the two schools of interpretation. He is also an important reminder of the expanding demands, internal and external, of an urban pastorate in the later 19th century.