🔗 Share this article

In May, amidst his campaign concerning the nation to the north, a prominent political figure described the international boundary with his neighbour an arbitrary demarcation that had been drawn in a simplistic manner “cutting across the upper portion of the country”. He stated that the atlas of North America could seem more coherent if it were erased.

Researchers pointed out that this line embodied a nuanced background and a lived experience for a vast population, yet they conceded that his observation was partially correct. Much of the 49th parallel largely adheres to a linear path – and the diplomats and negotiators who established it were largely ignorant regarding the terrain.

This political move drew attention to the fact that the atlases standard in classrooms depict a falsely simplistic worldview – one segmented into uniform nations that admits no challenge to its objectivity, comprehensive knowledge or correctness.

Historian a Yale University expert links this perspective to eighteenth-century British cartographers who produced “jigsaw-puzzle maps” for instructional purposes for the youth of the aristocracy. These representations, portraying nations with sharp boundaries and served as the first jigsaw puzzles, stayed as a mainstay in schooling for generations. They persistently affect current understanding: what began as a classroom activity transformed into a means of representing variability in data points like longevity or economic output, with every nation illustrated with one statistic. “It is my opinion that creates genuine detriment, not merely to how we understand those states, but also to our comprehension of disparity,” states Rankin.

The Movement Towards a Mapping Revolution

A number of scholars are pushing for a cartographic overhaul. Not long ago, researcher an expert from Radboud University called for a campaign to “Liberate Cartography”. His aim is to replace the nation-focused perspective with a perspective that highlights mobility and human connections. As he describes it, to exchange Atlas, bending under the heavy world, for his grandson Hermes – the swift messenger, intermediary among domains.

The expert has deep knowledge of EU migration policy and immigration, which is routinely depicted in atlases via imposing vectors evoking a hostile advance (for many people, remember a memorable introductory clip). “The anonymous, massive arrow is mainly the perspective of the state,” he states. “It underscores the supposed sameness of the nation and the special status of movement by outsiders.” Addressing such criticism, the relevant authority has replaced the threatening vectors on its migration charts with less alarmist – though still non-neutral – proportional circles, and countless educators have pledged to alter the visual narrative in their teaching.

Integrating Fresh Mapping Principles

In a similar vein, Rankin calls for the science of maps to adopt alternative ideals. Both the collection and depiction of data are subjective human activities that require interpretation, he argues. Instead of striving for objectivity, neutrality and clear divides, cartographers must accept uncertainty, subjectivity diversity. His volume, named a pioneering book on maps, contains geographic illustrations that challenge the dominant narrative.

One shows overseas voyages throughout half a millennium commencing in the early Renaissance, not in terms of territorial acquisitions, but the places they reached that had no prior human settlement. These consisted of “several dozen islands and frozen expanses”.

This is enlightening regarding both the area of Earth humans had already settled by that era, and concerning the real exploration that happened after that. This differs from an 18th-century map of North America featured in a show in a major library's exhibition, which portrays native territories as blank spaces, “to create an impression that they were unoccupied and free for appropriation,” says a senior archivist of old charts.

The Impact of Countermapping

{In the 1980s|During