babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » are world maps ethnocentric?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: are world maps ethnocentric?
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808

posted 07 January 2004 07:13 AM      Profile for Geneva     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
saw an episode of West Wing on DVD during the holidays, in which a group called Cartographers for Social Equity was lobbying the President to endorse the Peters Projection world map over the traditional, ostensibly Eurocentric Mercator projection

an obscure debate? political correctness gone overboard?

maybe, maybe not:
http://tinyurl.com/29wod

http://tinyurl.com/3dfb6

[ 07 January 2004: Message edited by: Geneva ]


From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
4t2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3655

posted 07 January 2004 08:22 AM      Profile for 4t2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Side by side...


Another thing that interests me is the centre-point on the map. Most representations of Peters still puts the Greenwich line at the centre. If you ever look behind an Air Canada counter (for example), you'll see Canada as the centre line. To me, it always provokes thought on the very existence of "west" and "east".....on a sphere!


From: Beyond the familiar... | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 07 January 2004 10:14 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Both projections put "north" at the top too... another arbitrary choice on the part of the first mapmakers and cartographers.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
praenomen3
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4758

posted 07 January 2004 02:42 PM      Profile for praenomen3        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Both projections put "north" at the top too... another arbitrary choice on the part of the first mapmakers and cartographers.

It wasn't arbitrary, nor is it some sinister plot to demean sub-equatorial peoples. The Pole - or North - star was the common reference point for early navigators in the northern hemisphere. The farther north you travelled, the higher the Pole Star appeared in the sky. For them, north was literally on top. Since they made the maps, the association stuck. Should we have new reference points in a world with different perspectives? Sure, but it's easier said than done. Remember the fracas when JC thought about renaming Mt. Logan to Mt. Trudeau? And that was just one mountain in one country. Trying to reverse the 'north is up' tradition among the world at large would be a nightmare - think of the maps, compasses and navigation.

Politics aside, the Pole Star really is quite special. It pretty much stays in the same place all night long, while the rest of the stars and constellations revolve around it.


From: x | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 07 January 2004 02:50 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I thought this debate had been hashed over and done with in the 1980s. National Geographic even had a little thing in one of their mags in.. what was it, 1988? 1989? saying they were going to switch to using the Molleweide Projection which, among other things, gives a better idea of the actual areas countries cover than the ridiculous Mercator Projection which splotzes Antarctica all over the bottom of the map.

Unwrapping a sphere is never neat, and the more you try to flatten it out the worse it looks.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 07 January 2004 03:29 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
2 points:

-If you just take a midpoint near the equator and flatten it all out from there (as many maps do), you end up with Greenland looking like it's bigger than Africa, which is absurd.

-It used to be quite common to see U.S.-centric maps, that would assume that the centre of the world is the state of Kansas. In order to accommodate this, Asia would be severed, with half appearing at the left edge of the map, and the rest appearing at the right. I'm sure there are still some maps like that around, notably in the U.S.

[ 07 January 2004: Message edited by: albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
praenomen3
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4758

posted 07 January 2004 03:30 PM      Profile for praenomen3        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
. . . Unwrapping a sphere is never neat, and the more you try to flatten it out the worse it looks.[/QB][/QUOTE]

True. When you have latitudes and longitudes intersecting each other at right angles, Greenland in particular looks absolutely massive. Yeah, that’s it – it’s those Greenlanders and their map scams, trying to intimidate us into submission.


From: x | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
zaphod
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4261

posted 07 January 2004 03:37 PM      Profile for zaphod     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actuall the flattening problem also gives Canadians a distorted view of the size of Canada relative to the US. Canada looks wayyyyy bigger but I believe the actual difference is 5 to 7 %. I do not know for sure due to different figures from different sources. I do hear Canucks often brag obout hoew much bigger Canada is.

This will be mitigated in 50 years: the Arctic Ocean will melt and Canada will shrink.


From: toronto | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 07 January 2004 03:49 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I do hear Canucks often brag obout hoew much bigger Canada is.

Yes, so have I - many, many, many times - we all do it. We're obnoxious about it.

New Year's resolution: I'm going to be using the rolly-eyes icon more now. Saves time.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 07 January 2004 03:49 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Actuall the flattening problem also gives Canadians a distorted view of the size of Canada relative to the US.

Yes, but this is true only -- or truest -- in the old Mercator projection (the second graphic reproduced above), which is also the one in which Greenland looks bigger than South America. The Transverse Mercator, just to take one example, provides less distortion in relative size. More recent projections are better still.

The projection which best represents area (relatives sizes of continents) while distorting continent shapes the least is probably Goode's "orange-peel" projection. Trouble is, it cuts the oceans (and Greenland) into two, and Antarctica into four.

quote:
Canada looks wayyyyy bigger but I believe the actual difference is 5 to 7 %. I do not know for sure due to different figures from different sources. I do hear Canucks often brag obout hoew much bigger Canada is.

According to the CIA World Fact Book (I think we can probably trust it on something like this), Canada's total area (land plus water) is 9,984,670, and the US's 9,629,091 (including all 50 states and DC). That makes Canada about 3.7% bigger.

Nothing to brag about, of course. Just a geographic datum, reflecting no credit on us. It's not like we built the land mass with our bare hands, or anything.

[ 07 January 2004: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076

posted 07 January 2004 04:01 PM      Profile for Tommy Shanks     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Maybe to solve the problems associated with trying to flatten a sphere, maybe cartographers could imprint maps on little....globes.

Hard to carry in your briefcase or glove-box though.

Seriously though, I never gave much credence to the idea that it was somehow empowering for nations (and their citizens) to pride themselves on their printed representation. Most of us know you shouldn't trust everything you read. I can see some some Australian, stuck in the middle of the desert (after measuring the distance between 2 vee-ed fingers as most serious map users do) saying "according to this map we should be in the ocean by now".


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 07 January 2004 04:07 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's not like we built the land mass with our bare hands, or anything.

Au contraire, M. Lance; I personally can take credit for a lateral moraine near the Malaspina ridge in Northern Ontario and for that peninsula on the south-west shore of Great Slave Lake that looks suspiciously like Flora MacDonald's left breast. I put a lot of work into those, and I'm very proud. In fact, I am so proud of Canada's vastness, I have to sing:

When i look around me, i can't believe what i see
it seems as if this country has lost it's will to live
the economy is lousy, we barely have an army
but we can still stand proudly because canada's really big
we're the second largest country on this planet earth
and if Russia keeps on shrinking, then soon we'll be first!
(as long as we keep quebec)

The USA has tanks, and switzerland has banks
they can keep them banks, they just don't amount
cause when you get down to it, you find out what the truth is,
it isn't what you do with it, it's the size that counts
most people will tell you that france is pretty large
but you can put fourteen france's, into this land of ours!
(it'd take a lot of work, it'd take a whole lot of work

we're bigger than malaysia, we're most as big as asia
we're bigger than australia and it's a continent
so big we sell them butter, to go see one another
but we often go to other countries for vacations
our mountains are very pointy, our praries are not
the rest is kinda bumpy, but man do we have a lot!
(we've got a lot of land, we've got a whole lot of land)

so stand up and be proud and sing it very loud
we stand out from the crwod, cause Canada's really big

...lyrics courtesy of Arrogant Worms.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 07 January 2004 04:08 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
ObTrivia: Even the real globe isn't a globe. It's slightly flattened at the poles, and otherwise distorted. To make accurate maps, you need both to know this, and to have access to an accurate measurement (and up-to-date, as it's always being refined with better instruments) of just how distorted it is.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 07 January 2004 05:33 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, this much I think we can all agree on: all of our attitudes towards brown peoples of the world are based on how dinky their puny little countries are on the map we saw in school 20 years ago! Only Greenland, mighty Greenland, deserves to be our friend. Right?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 07 January 2004 05:39 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I personally can take credit for a lateral moraine near the Malaspina ridge in Northern Ontario ...

... you bastard. You know perfectly well I not only designed that thing, I had it three-quarters built before coming down with the flu, that winter of '06.

Own up, Hinterland, or I'll see you in court.

"Hinterland," my ass. You probably live in a condo in downtown Toronto, like that poseur Jack Layton, and buy double no-fat cappuccinos before getting into your BMW in the morning...


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 07 January 2004 05:53 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Well, this much I think we can all agree on: all of our attitudes towards brown peoples of the world are based on how dinky their puny little countries are on the map we saw in school 20 years ago! Only Greenland, mighty Greenland, deserves to be our friend. Right?

You know, why the hell is it that people like you insist on deriding any viewpoint that considers facts in an alternative light?

The Mercator projection may very well not, on a conscious level, have been used to distort perceptions about the world, but the fact is, humans generally get impressed by big things and unimpressed by small things.

The Mercator projection unintentionally enlarges the industrialized nations relative to the LDCs, and this can cause a subconscious bias in thinking that is reinforced by where the mass media points a great deal of its attention.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 07 January 2004 06:04 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
You know, why the hell is it that people like you insist on deriding any viewpoint that considers facts in an alternative light?

Sometimes they're pretty deridable. And I find it a necessary antidote to the strident or excessively P.C. way in which they're often presented (I'm not referring to Geneva here). Sometimes things like this look less like a problem in need of a solution than people in need of a problem.

And for what it's worth, I think this particular problem suffers from an "It could, therefore it does" error in logic.

Has anyone ever, y'know, actually put the scientific method to work on this? Or are people pretty much assuming that because we tend to like big things more than small things that therefore we "must" like northern countries better than equatorial countries because of their size on the Mercator? Has anyone ever checked to see if we think better of the USSR/Russia, or Greenland, or for that matter Antarctica, because of it?

If not, then it starts to smell a little like someone with time on their hands looking for yet another way that we awful North Americans have been mean to everyone else.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 07 January 2004 06:08 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
'lance! I was just looking at the CIA site today. They sure aren't impartial when it comes to Cuba.

I think in this case, Size Does Matter. I think picturing Africa so tiny does have a subconsious affect on the way we view it. Just like I say "majority world" instead of "3rd world", to remind myself how much different the lives are of most people on this planet, from my own.


From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 07 January 2004 06:16 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Has anyone ever, y'know, actually put the scientific method to work on this? Or are people pretty much assuming that because we tend to like big things more than small things that therefore we "must" like northern countries better than equatorial countries because of their size on the Mercator? Has anyone ever checked to see if we think better of the USSR/Russia, or Greenland, or for that matter Antarctica, because of it?

The USSR was usually perceived to be a much greater danger to the "Free world" than China has ever been.

That's one example of how perceptions can be altered by some pretty darn subtle things.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 07 January 2004 07:20 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I was just looking at the CIA site today. They sure aren't impartial when it comes to Cuba.

I'm sure. But do they claim it's smaller in area than it actually is?

('lance goes to check... please stand by)

Edited:

OK, Mapquest sez Cuba is 110,860 square kilometres in area.

So does Lonely Planet.

And the CIA agrees!

(You can call me a brat now, if you like ).

[ 07 January 2004: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 07 January 2004 09:01 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
All maps introduce distortions in some dimensions. The advantage of the Mercator projection was that it preserved direction. If the Mercator map said that point A was at 17 degrees east of due north, then that was the course you set. The actual distance to get there would be wrong (or at least, hard to calculate), but that would have been less important than getting the direction right.

Isn't Google wonderful?


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 07 January 2004 09:11 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The USSR was usually perceived to be a much greater danger to the "Free world" than China has ever been.

That's one example of how perceptions can be altered by some pretty darn subtle things.


There were also some pretty darn unsubtle things, like 30,000 or so nuclear warheads and the means to "deliver" them anywhere in the world.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 07 January 2004 09:14 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The advantage of the Mercator projection was that it preserved direction.

This may be why the "transverse Mercator" projection is still used on so many maps -- that is, the ones drawn at a scale large enough to be used for navigational purposes.

There's no need to stick to it for projections of the entire globe, though. Even in the old wooden-ship days, nobody was about to navigate using a projection drawn at that small a scale.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 07 January 2004 10:29 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, I'm sure they're impartial about size, 'lance. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I was just browsing the site looking for recent stats on US literacy, and read the Cuba entry, which I'll look back up tomorrow.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 07 January 2004 10:42 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 'lance:
There were also some pretty darn unsubtle things, like 30,000 or so nuclear warheads and the means to "deliver" them anywhere in the world.

And China didn't have nuclear weapons?


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 07 January 2004 11:03 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
< arm-waving >

Well, I know much less about the Chinese nuclear capability than about the Soviet (as, I suspect, did most of the Cold Warriors back in the day). They probably had, have, some ICBM capacity -- but even if it approaches the old Soviet one, it's never been on ostentatious display to anything near the same extent. Their nuclear-armed subs, if any, were I think primitive by Soviet standards. That may have changed. And they didn't have fleets of long-range bombers, nuclear-armed bombers aimed at North American like the Soviets.

< /arm-waving >

Nor were the Chinese planting medium-range nuclear missiles within minutes' flying time of Western European cities. From the Western European and American point of view, the Soviets were just there -- you could see them at Checkpoint Charlie, or on the east bank of the Elbe, or whatever. The Chinese? Well, they're not here, are they, Henry? They're off squabblin' with the Russians along the Mongolian border, or with the Vietnamese... maybe we can somehow use 'em as a counterweight to the Russians, ya think?

Maybe the greater Western fear of the USSR had its irrational aspects, or was based partly on ignorance, or irrelevant rubbish, or whatever. My point is, I don't believe it had anything to do with the greater physical size of the USSR. Everyone knew that it was an empire full of restive minorities, but also that much of that size was taken up just by more-or-less empty tundra, that added not a whit to the country's power.

quote:
Oh, I'm sure they're impartial about size, 'lance. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

Yeah, I was just teasing. I don't expect a whole lot from that Fact Book when it comes to anything political or social.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 08 January 2004 12:31 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
And China didn't have nuclear weapons?

Seems to me that the U.S. was at least as worried about Cuba, tiny though it is there, right near the equator, and shrunk to near-teensy by the Mercator (well, strictly speaking, accurate but dwarfed by the distorted north).

And then of course Greenland, puffed up to 8 times it's normal size and near enough to throw warheads at the U.S., was never considered a danger whatsoever.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 08 January 2004 03:24 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
For complete accuracy, I think we should just adopt a full scale map of the earth.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 08 January 2004 03:34 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
For a space bird's eye view of the earth looking down at the mid-Atlantic ridge where planes fly from London to Toronto, go to
http://www.aquarius.geomar.de/cgi-bin/map-cgi.pl
and enter Map Boundaries North 90, South 20, East 0, West -68, Projection Orthographic, unselect Grid on Map, and there you are.

From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 08 January 2004 09:45 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually, there is a whole branch of research devoted to the social and anthropological relationships denoted in maps.

A book titled 'Violent Cartographies' by, someone whose name I forget, is a good start.

Maps can say a lot about how the people who drew them perceive the world and their place in it (usually the centre, eg. the maps above).

They can also say a lot about how they perceive the place of members of the 'rest' of the world.

By the way, if I'm not mistaken, Greenland is smaller than Central America. Our normal map tends to show it as a collection of dinky little countries, and they tend to get dismissed as such in many cases. I don't know if there's a link, but there HAS been a lot of work on the subject to explore it.

The maps under discussion are certainly 'Eurocentric', as Europe is in the center...


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 08 January 2004 10:07 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
By the way, if I'm not mistaken, Greenland is smaller than Central America.

< pendantry >

Only if you include Mexico in Central America, which not everyone does. Otherwise, if you include only Belize, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama, Greenland's about four times their combined size.

< /pendantry >

Edit:

South America, incidentally, has around 8 times the area of Greenland.

[ 08 January 2004: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 08 January 2004 11:48 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:
Actually, there is a whole branch of research devoted to the social and anthropological relationships denoted in maps.

Picked up "How to Lie with Maps" (by Mark Monmonier) at a garage sale last year. First time I have had a reason to read it. His position on this particular discussion is that all maps are distortions. The Mercator map did win out over other 'equal area maps' because it maintained the general shapes of the land masses (and it also exagerated the extent of the British Empire). The Peter's map is one of the poorer examples of the "equal area map", but Arno Peters was a great publicist.

I have more problems with the maps that developers present of what their projects will provide.


From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 09 January 2004 12:43 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was googling about, trying to find an image of a pre-Great War map of the world that featured caricatures of countries - in particular, Russia as an octopus - when I came across this site:

Cold War Popular Magazine Cartography

quote:
During the height of the early Cold War, journalistic cartography played a powerful role in reflecting and influencing Americans' attitudes toward the Red Menace. In popular magazines such as Time, Life, and The Saturday Evening Post, maps routinely accompanied stories dealing with Cold War politics. Additionally, cartographic images of the threat of Communist expansion and domination also accompanied advertisements in these popular publications.

From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 11 January 2004 07:25 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Originally from the Victoria Times Colonist, Ever Visited Lust Lake or Naked Man? by Katherine Dedyna

quote:
In her role for Geist, the self described atlas geek has devised more than 15 theme-based maps.

Now for the Menstrual Map (Right on Schedule). It overflows with place names from Port Moody B.C., to Leakville, Sask., continues with Cramp Creak and Red Secret Point in Ontario reaching Lac Tampon, Que., and finally Gush Cove Labrador.

Magazine staffers wondered how far they could push the map motif and "that seemed to be about the limit".



From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 11 January 2004 08:21 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Geist maps are brilliant.

But then, Geist is brilliant. I urge babblers: subscribe!


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca