Is northism evil?

[Pierrot Le Fou]

Is the standard practice of orienting maps and globes to the north evil? The connection to Eurocentrism, racism, and culturism is hard to miss. Orienting north privileges Europe, North America, and northern Asia at the expense of Africa, South America, Australia.

The Earth has both a north and a south pole. Neither is any more "up" than the other. Placing north at the top of most maps and globes is damaging to the non-privileged cultures. The practice of putting north-oriented maps and globes in America schools only re-enforces Eurocentrism, racism, and culturism in a captive audience of children.

Should the Department of Education require schools to use an equal number of south-oriented maps and globes? Do north-oriented maps and globes re-enforce Eurocentrism, racism, and culturism?

[njtt]

A considerable majority of the worlds population (and most of its land mass) is found north of the equator. It is not just Europe and North America, it is all of Asia, most of Africa, and a considerable chunk of South America.

[AClockworkMelon]

Jesus titty-fucking Christ.

People have enough trouble finding important locations on simple maps without you turning half of them upside-down.

[Der Trihs]

Is the standard practice of orienting maps and globes to the north evil? The connection to Eurocentrism, racism, and culturism is hard to miss. Orienting north privileges Europe, North America, and northern Asia at the expense of Africa, South America, Australia. Northern regions are more important to other northern regions. Especially back when the North = Up convention was settled on in the first place.And if the southern ones want southern oriented globes they can flip them easily enough; such globes exist.

The Earth has both a north and a south pole. Neither is any more "up" than the other. Placing north at the top of most maps and globes is damaging to the non-privileged cultures. No, it isn't. How is it damaging?


The practice of putting north-oriented maps and globes in America schools only re-enforces Eurocentrism, racism, and culturism in a captive audience of children. So...back when they hung maps eastern side up (thus the term "Oriental", toward the end where you oriented the map), was that because China secretly dominated Europe?

Should the Department of Education require schools to use an equal number of south-oriented maps and globes? No, that would just be confusing.

[Der Trihs]

A relevant Straight Dope column (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/441/on-maps-why-is-north-always-up).

[Thudlow Boink]

Placing north at the top of most maps and globes is damaging to the non-privileged cultures. The practice of putting north-oriented maps and globes in America schools only re-enforces Eurocentrism, racism, and culturism in a captive audience of children. You mean like how U.S. maps prejudice schoolchildren against Florida, Texas, and Louisiana, in favor of North Dakota, Maine, and Montana?

[Marley23]

I have to assume this is a parody.

[Mr Downtown]

What is the most important influence on life on earth? Why the sun, of course. When north is up, those poor people in the Northern Hemisphere have to deal with the conundrum of the sun's path being at the bottom of the map. The unfairly favored peoples of the Southern Hemisphere can read maps of their continents properly, with the sun traveling across the top, and easily plan their outdoor weddings and architectural photography expeditions.

[ExTank]

I have to assume this is a parody.

If not, Le Fou has an insufficient grasp of the magnitude of hosts of more pressing problems facing humanity.

Or just too damned much time on his hands.

[Der Trihs]

If not, Le Fou has an insufficient grasp of the magnitude of hosts of more pressing problems facing humanity.

Or just too damned much time on his hands.Or he's one of those darned Southern Hemispherians here to steal our jobs and wimmin!

[Pierrot Le Fou]

No, it isn't. How is it damaging?



It perpetuates the myth that the northern hemisphere is more important. It focuses attention on the northern hemisphere, implying that the north is more important. It puts whites and Asians over Latinos and blacks, reinforcing stereotypes about who is more important and who is in charge.

The south is just as "up" as the north and maps and globes should reflect this fact. Failing to recognize this fact is naked prejudice.

[Der Trihs]

It perpetuates the myth that the northern hemisphere is more important. It focuses attention on the northern hemisphere, implying that the north is more important. It puts whites and Asians over Latinos and blacks, reinforcing stereotypes about who is more important and who is in charge.

The south is just as "up" as the north and maps and globes should reflect this fact. Failing to recognize this fact is naked prejudice.
That's just silly. It's a leftover convention from Ptolemy, who didn't even know that Australia or South America existed much less have a prejudice against them. That's all the significance it has. And making geography more confusing profits no one.

[The Tao's Revenge]

It perpetuates the myth that the northern hemisphere is more important. It focuses attention on the northern hemisphere, implying that the north is more important. It puts whites and Asians over Latinos and blacks, reinforcing stereotypes about who is more important and who is in charge.

The south is just as "up" as the north and maps and globes should reflect this fact. Failing to recognize this fact is naked prejudice.

Is this a joke thread? People in Africa and Latin America aren't concerned with your damn map.

[Napier]

Oddly, maps used to be oriented with east up. That's why it's called that - the Orient is at the top.

[njtt]

It perpetuates the myth that the northern hemisphere is more important.

It is not a myth, it is true. It is where most of the people are.

[Canadjun]

It perpetuates the myth that the northern hemisphere is more important. It focuses attention on the northern hemisphere, implying that the north is more important. It puts whites and Asians over Latinos and blacks, reinforcing stereotypes about who is more important and who is in charge.

The south is just as "up" as the north and maps and globes should reflect this fact. Failing to recognize this fact is naked prejudice.

So the Inuit are the most important people in the world?

Or, if you want to be old-fashioned, Eskimos

[Simplicio]

Plus, there's nothing really stoppng Australia, Argentina and Brazil from churning out some South oriented maps. Presumably they don't bother because being on the bottom of the map does not, in fact, make them feel inferior.

[BrotherCadfael]

I have to thank the OP, for providing evidence to refute those various posters who claim that the concept of "political correctness" is a figment of the right-wing imagination.

If the OP is in fact parody, I have heard the claim made in all seriousness in other venues.

[Cunctator]

Plus, there's nothing really stoppng Australia, Argentina and Brazil from churning out some South oriented maps.McArthur's Universal Corrective map is a good example: link (http://www.we-make-money-not-art.com/wow/0aarthuruur.jpg)

[Rand Rover]

It perpetuates the myth that the northern hemisphere is more important. It focuses attention on the northern hemisphere, implying that the north is more important. It puts whites and Asians over Latinos and blacks, reinforcing stereotypes about who is more important and who is in charge.

The south is just as "up" as the north and maps and globes should reflect this fact. Failing to recognize this fact is naked prejudice.
Do you have any evidence for any of these alleged ill effects?

[Thudlow Boink]

Oddly, maps used to be oriented with east up. That's why it's called that - the Orient is at the top.Unless they occidentally hung it upside-down.

[Blake]

A considerable majority of the worlds population (and most of its land mass) is found north of the equator. It is not just Europe and North America, it is all of Asia, most of Africa, and a considerable chunk of South America.

Umm, no.

Just, no.

[Little Nemo]

I have to thank the OP, for providing evidence to refute those various posters who claim that the concept of "political correctness" is a figment of the right-wing imagination.Nobody appointed Pierre Le Fou to speak on behalf of the left. You'll note that Der Trihs, who is as liberal as anyone on this board, is not supporting this idea.

[Captain Amazing]

Umm, no.

Just, no.

Doesn't that depend on whether you consider Indonesia part of Asia or Oceania? Because Indonesia is the only part of (maybe) Asia that has lands south of the equator.

[Asympotically fat]

Yes, it is evil.

Just kidding, of course it isn't.

Start pointing those neurons in a direction that matters.

[Implicit]

I'm shocked that no one has mentioned time zones. Basing our time zones on Greenwich, London is clearly the cause of all evil. *cue scary music* Don't even get me started on daylight savings time.

[Zakalwe]

I'm shocked that no one has mentioned time zones. Basing our time zones on Greenwich, London is clearly the cause of all evil. *cue scary music* Don't even get me started on daylight savings time.Well, YEAH! I mean, how come we're only saving daylight? Huh? Huh? What about all the dark skinned people who might like night better? What about them? WON'T SOMEONE THINK ABOUT THE NIGHT-LOVING DARK-SKINNED CHILDREN AND STOP THE MADNESS!!!!!

Hey, this is fun! Let's talk about why up is up next!

[Candyman74]

The people who made the effort to chart the entire fucking planet and create the map can orient it any way they damn well please.

Go chart the planet yourself (without using someone else's map), and I'll have some respect for how you choose to orient your map. Do it with 17th century technology, and no benefit at all from modern technology (including no modern boat, canned food, navigation equipment, etc.) and I might consider buying one.

Until then - it's easy to be an armchair general and pontificate about things you had no input in whatsoever, and couldn't possibly achieve yourself.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

The people who made the effort to chart the entire fucking planet and create the map can orient it any way they damn well please.



Just like people can colonize and enslave whomever they want. You should look beyond what people can do and look at what they should do. The United States could nuke Mexico, but that is not something the US should do.

The north orientation is evil. The orientation was used against people that were colonized and enslaved.

You can be on the side of people that raped entire cultures. I will be on the side of angels.

[Marley23]

The OP is clearly thinking much too small. The most of the world's landmass is in the Northern Hemisphere because of plate tectonics. But just who came up with this plate tectonics theory? Who made the continents start moving in the first place? In other words, cui bono from a north-oriented world? The conclusion is inescapable: Santa Claus. He did it to drive up property values and keep away anyone who might start asking questions about his tax-free elf slave labor. IT ALL FITS TOGETHER!

[tingbudong]

I've actually witnessed this cartographic debate live. 2nd year GIS class when I was an undergrad in 2000. At the time university campuses in Canada were still pushing a lot of post-colonial stuff on the students (not saying it was bad, just saying there was lots...not sure what the undergrad flavour in today's classrooms) and GIS had to jump on the bandwagon to stay relevant as a 'real' university activity.

I'll give the OP some benefit in the assertion that north-centric projections perpetuate colonialism, racism etc. Maps are more powerful tools than most people realize in forging national narratives, cultural confidence, stereotypes etc. That said, while I recognize the argument, I don't think it is strong enough to perpetuate a massive change in standard map orientation or become so blindingly impassioned like the OP. Anyone who is an educator may want to point out that while maps can oriented in any direction for feel-good fuzzy political feelings, it is international standard practice to navigate and conduct land/ocean surveys with north oriented at the top of the page.

IMHO, regarding maps, it's not the orientation that the OP should be getting all bent-out-of-shape over, but the tricky art of map projection. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projections#Which_map_is_best.3F)

[Musicat]

I have to thank the OP, for providing evidence to refute those various posters who claim that the concept of "political correctness" is a figment of the right-wing imagination.Help stamp out rightwingism!

[RickJay]

I have to assume this is a parody.
Gosh, no. I've heard this complaint for decades. People are deadly serious about it.

Umm, no.

Just no.
I'm looking at a map of the world right now and every square inch of mainland Asia is north of the Equator. If you were to count Indonesia as being Asia then you coulod say parts of Asia are in the Southern Hemisphere but you have to admit that it's reasonable to state "Asia's entirely in the Northern Hemisphere" as long as we understand you mean the mainland.

Having said that, I think the "mainland" qualifier is important, because geographically most of Indonesia is in fact part of Asia.

[Boyo Jim]

According to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Hemisphere), 90% of the earth's population is in the Northern hemisphere, as well as most of the land.

[magellan01]

It perpetuates the myth that the northern hemisphere is more important. It focuses attention on the northern hemisphere, implying that the north is more important. It puts whites and Asians over Latinos and blacks, reinforcing stereotypes about who is more important and who is in charge.

Aha! So that's why the Inuits and Lapps have such influence in the world.

And they're constantly looking down on us!

[TriPolar]

So the Inuit are the most important people in the world?


No, the Claus family, their elf workforce, and Superman are.

[Fatwater Fewl]

Pierre, don't let these folks and their northern platitudes disorient you.

You've charted your course, hold firm and sail right along it, dude.



:D

[Bryan Ekers]

Why does B always have to be the second letter in the alphabet?! That's not fair. Why do we let A hog all the glory? It's selfish! I demand a rotating alphabet order so all 26 letters can democratically have a turn at being first.

[Little Nemo]

No, the Claus family, their elf workforce, and Superman are.Don't forget Mr Popper's penguins.

[magellan01]

Aha! So that's why the Inuits and Lapps have such influence in the world.

And they're constantly looking down on us!

Oops, I missed Canadjun's post. My apologies.

[Little Nemo]

You can be on the side of people that raped entire cultures. I will be on the side of angels.So you're implying that the angles are on the side of good? That's pretty Christocentric if you ask me. Sounds to me like you're insulting the indigenous faiths of native peoples.

[etv78]

Unless they occidentally hung it upside-down.
:rimshot: :D

[Bryan Ekers]

So you're implying that the angles are on the side of good?

I gather this entire discussion requires the assumption that that are good angles and bad angles.

[Der Trihs]

I gather this entire discussion requires the assumption that that are good angles and bad angles.The non-Euclidean angles are the bad ones. Very bad.




Cthulhu fhtagn!

[Capitaine Zombie]

The non-Euclidean angles are the bad ones. Very bad.




Cthulhu fhtagn!

And the Hounds of Tindalos haunt the right ones...

[Little Nemo]

I gather this entire discussion requires the assumption that that are good angles and bad angles.Don't get me started on angles. Acute angles? Pure sexism. Obtuse angles? Intolerance of the differently abled. Right angles? Which I guess says that all other angles are somehow wrong. And straight angles - I notice that there are no gay angles.

[Leaper]

Here's a (semi-related) question: wherefore this assumption that "up" is good and "down" is bad? Is it just because of heaven and hell? Or is there more to it? (I know there's "looking up" and "feeling down" and all that, but they have to have origins too.)

[Electric Sky]

Not that exposing kids to different kinds of information isn't a good thing, but instead of requiring schools to purchase a load of South-oriented maps, how about requiring them to teach the fact that North isn't 'up' because "it just is, duh" (as I've heard said), but because our culture has over time decided that it is, and that trying to boil down an immense and complex world into a piece of paper requires a vast amount of simplification?

[Alessan]

Here's a (semi-related) question: wherefore this assumption that "up" is good and "down" is bad? Is it just because of heaven and hell? Or is there more to it? (I know there's "looking up" and "feeling down" and all that, but they have to have origins too.)

It's probably been that way since cro-magnon man found out that he could stand on top of a hill and throw rocks down on his enemies.

[Der Trihs]

It's probably been that way since cro-magnon man found out that he could stand on top of a hill and throw rocks down on his enemies.Or that you have a better view, or are less likely to get flooded out.

[penultima thule]

You northerners can orient the map however as most pleases your goodselves, just so long as you use an equal-area map something like the Gall–Peters projection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gall-peters.jpg)

[Galileo]

Well, there's Buckminster Fuller's Dymaxion Map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dymaxion_map). It has no "up" or "down".Fuller argued frequently that in the universe there is no "up" and "down", or "north" and "south": only "in" and "out". Gravitational forces of the stars and planets created "in", meaning 'towards the gravitational center', and "out", meaning "away from the gravitational center". He attributed the north-up-superior/south-down-inferior presentation of most other world maps to cultural bias.

Fuller intended the map to be unfolded in different ways to emphasize different aspects of the world. Peeling the triangular faces of the icosahedron apart in one way results in an icosahedral net that shows an almost contiguous land mass comprising all of earth's continents – not groups of continents divided by oceans. Peeling the solid apart in a different way presents a view of the world dominated by connected oceans surrounded by land.

[FinnAgain]

Nah. Just teach students that they bear an immense level of guilt for being filth directionists.

[DrFidelius]

The OP is clearly thinking much too small. The most of the world's landmass is in the Northern Hemisphere because of plate tectonics. But just who came up with this plate tectonics theory? Who made the continents start moving in the first place? In other words, cui bono from a north-oriented world? The conclusion is inescapable: Santa Claus. He did it to drive up property values and keep away anyone who might start asking questions about his tax-free elf slave labor. IT ALL FITS TOGETHER!

Reunite Gondwanaland!

[runner pat]

Reunite Gondwanaland!

Continentist.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

Well, there's Buckminster Fuller's Dymaxion Map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dymaxion_map). It has no "up" or "down".

That is a great map. The Department of Education should require it or cut a school's funding to zero.

[Candyman74]

Just like people can colonize and enslave whomever they want. You should look beyond what people can do and look at what they should do. The United States could nuke Mexico, but that is not something the US should do.

Did you just compare drawing a map to slavery and nuclear genocide?

The north orientation is evil.

But a south orientation isn't? :rolleyes:

[Baracus]

But a south orientation isn't? :rolleyes:
And what is so much better about being at the top of the map in the first place? By failing to recognize the inherent value in the bottom of the map, the OP is revealing his uppism.

[tdn]

You northerners can orient the map however as most pleases your goodselves, just so long as you use an equal-area map something like the Gall–Peters projection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gall-peters.jpg)

I used to have something called The New World Map, which looked a bit like that. It debunked a lot of misconceptions propogated by the Mercator Projection, such as land mass of the south compared to the north. (The south has more.) I wish I could find a link to an image.

Having said that, I'm tired of being oppressed by Canada.

[straight man]

I used to have something called The New World Map, which looked a bit like that. It debunked a lot of misconceptions propogated by the Mercator Projection, such as land mass of the south compared to the north. (The south has more.) I wish I could find a link to an image.

Having said that, I'm tired of being oppressed by Canada.
The Southern Hemisphere most certainly does not have more. Quoting Wikipedia:
Climates in the southern hemisphere overall tend to be slightly milder than those in the northern hemisphere except in the Antarctic which is colder than the Arctic. This is because the southern hemisphere has significantly more ocean and less land. Water heats up and cools down more slowly than land. The southern hemisphere is also significantly less polluted than the northern hemisphere because of lower overall population densities (a total of 10 to 12% of the human population), lower levels of industrialisation, and smaller land masses.

[DrFidelius]

I believe TDN meant that the Southern hemisphere has relatively more land mass than is shown in a standard Mercator projection, not that it has more land absolutely than the Northern Hemisphere.

[Blaster Master]

I'm trying to understand the OP. I could see a perspective where one could argue that a East-up or West-up map could portray a level of favoritism because any place where one would draw the line as the top would be purely arbitrary. With a North-up or South-up map, the top has a very simple non-arbitrary point to describe as the top. But what I'm failing to understand is why, even if we assume that up is good, North-up is somehow evil and South-up is not.

It seems to me that, when choosing between those two, North-up makes the most sense simply because, as others have pointed out, the majority of the land mass is in the Northern Hemisphere and the vast majority of the population as well. As such, I'd think that a North-up map would make it more useful than South-up simply because ~90% of the population that lives in the Northern Hemisphere. I use maps in a way that's most convenient for me, and as I live in the Northern Hemisphere and North-up is the established standard, it's what I use. Just as I know people here in the US who insist on using Metric for everything and spending energy converting units to figure out what to buy, if people want to use South-up maps, they exist, they can buy them; no one is stopping them.

And sure, you can draw associations to slavery and oppression, but I think doing so is tenuous at best. And, really, when I look at a map, I don't think "Africa is under Euro, therefore white people are better than black people". I think the reason the Northern Hemisphere is more developed has absolutely zero connection with how maps are drawn and everything to do with the fact that the Northern Hemisphere has such a huge population and land mass margin. It's the very same reason that, typically, larger countries will perform better in international sports; they have a larger pool of talent and resources.

And even if we grant that somehow North-up is wronging the Southern Hemisphere, how does reorienting our map fix that? Doesn't that just reciprocate that evil onto the Northern Hemisphere instead? If we have to pick one hemisphere to be on the bottom, doesn't it make the most sense to put the hemisphere that has so many fewer people living in it on the bottom to favor the overwhelming majority? And even if you can justify that, do you really believe that the impact is significant enough that it warrants the costs associated with changing something so ubiquitous, not only in replacing countless maps, but in relearning for the majority of people how to use it?

So, even if your premises are right, they don't support your conclusion. And, your premises are utterly lacking support. North-up just makes the most sense.



In short, it seems to me that this sort of proposal is akin to saying that designs favoring right-handed people is perpetuating ancient cultural norms of looking down on left-handed people and forcing them to use their right-hands rather than being ostracized. And so, to correct this, we should redesign everything to benefit left-handed people. Nevermind that the whole reason it came up in the first place is that the overwhelming majority of people are right-handed, and so it makes the most sense to the most people to design everything where one hand must be favored to favor the hand that the overwhelming majority favors. Making everything left-handed doesn't correct any past wrongs and more than reorienting the map South-up would, it just inconveniences the vast majority of the population with no meaningful benefit to anyone.

[Frank]

I believe TDN meant that the Southern hemisphere has relatively more land mass than is shown in a standard Mercator projection, not that it has more land absolutely than the Northern Hemisphere.
I agree also. The Mercator over-emphasizes the size of land further north, and would in the south as well, if there was any there. This leads to Russia and Canada covering half the world's area. And Greenland taking up most of the remainder.

[tdn]

I believe TDN meant that the Southern hemisphere has relatively more land mass than is shown in a standard Mercator projection, not that it has more land absolutely than the Northern Hemisphere.

Actually, I meant the latter, but I was wrong. I swore it said that on the New World Map, but I misremembered. But it is true that the Mercator map is seriously out of proportion. Greenland is not as big as South America, dammit.

[DrFidelius]

He had brought a large map representing the sea,
Without the least vestige of land:
And the crew were much pleased when they found it to be
A map they could all understand.

`What's the good of Mercator's, North Poles, and Equators,
Tropics, Zones and Meridian lines?'
So the Bellman would cry; and the crew would reply,
`They are merely conventional signs!'

`Other maps are such shapes with their islands and capes!
But we've got our brave captain to thank.'
(So the crew would protest) `that he's brought us the best,
A perfect and absolute blank!'

[Skammer]

Someone should post a Youtube link of that scene from West Wing where some society for geographic equality does a presentation to the White House staff explaining that north-hemisphere centric maps are unjust. It's a funny clip but I can't do youtube from here.

[Robb]

What did maps look like when Europeans began colonizing?

[Frank]

What did maps look like when Europeans began colonizing?
This wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_world_maps) page has a bunch of maps covering from B.C. into the 1600s.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

I have not suggested using only south-up maps. We should north- and south-up maps equally.

[Thudlow Boink]

I have not suggested using only south-up maps. We should north- and south-up maps equally.Why only those two?Why should the big N always be on top when there are hundreds of other directions — thousands, if you get down to seconds of arc — that have an equally legitimate claim on our affections? I grieve to think of the shattered dreams of, say, south southeast.

[Candyman74]

Why only those two?

Well, I don't think it's unreasonable to use the poles as the two focal directions. Especially if you wanna use compasses and stuff to navigate. Poles aren't arbitrarily chosen; they're a natural feature.

[Frank]

I have not suggested using only south-up maps. We should north- and south-up maps equally.
How does "equal" get determined? How are you going to enforce this? Do I have to go buy another Atlas with all the maps turned upside down? If AAA wants me to try driving across the United States using a map with Florida at the top, am I allowed to find a north-up one that does doesn't bewilder me?

There is no good reason for your suggestion, and there are plenty of good reasons why it's a bad idea. You should have offered your comments back in the days when mapmaking conventions were being developed.

Certainly students should be taught that it is just a convention, shown other methods of mapping (such as the Fuller example above), and learn the history of maps, but for the everday purposes that most people use maps and globes for, your solution offers confusion and error for a problem that doesn't exist.

Besides, everyone knows that any map worth its salt has me at the center.

[TriPolar]

Could someone explain to me how an east-up or west-up map works? I've been looking for the east pole on my globe, but it just keeps spinning around :)

[Blaster Master]

I have not suggested using only south-up maps. We should north- and south-up maps equally.

Why? There is a large natural utility to using North-up maps, being that the majority of the land mass and population live in the Northern Hemisphere. On top of that, we're dealing with thousands of years of momentum in an established international standard. Considering that the entire purpose of maps is for navigation, it seems to me that using multiple standards will necessarily result in greater ambiguity. As such, I don't see any reason to use multiple standards, and I think the reasons for using North-up signficantly outweigh those of a South-up.

Furthermore, using North-up and South-up maps equally directly contradicts your original point. If North-up acts in some way to oppress the Southern Hemisphere, then, following that logic, I can conclude that using South-up will oppress the Northern Hemisphere. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the population lives in the Northern Hemisphere, a South-up map necessarily oppresses more people. As such, using each standard equally will result in oppressing more people than are currently being oppressed. If you want to balance out the oppression, fine, but that would mean you'd not be using them equally but, in fact, be using North-up maps ~90% of the time and South-up Maps
~10% of the time, so that the total average oppression is slightly lower than it is now. But now, you have a system such that, usually, you know up is North, but sometimes it won't be, and you'll almost certainly get lost.

So, if we did decide to switch to a system where we use North-up maps and South-up maps in some ratio, how do we decide which standards are used in which circumstances? For instance, will my car GPS be in one standard, but the maps when I'm watching the news be in the other?

I would argue that while the oppression of peoples from various regions around the world is certainly a regrettable stain upon human history, but that the worst of that stage is behind us, and we're continuing to move forward. Yes, it's not gone, but any continuation of it by maps is tenuous to, in all likelihood, non-existent. As such, modifying one of the most useful tools to modern life to account for it, especially without any guarantee it will have an effect, in such a way that that tool becomes potentially much less useful is the greater evil than any perceived notions about the current international standard.

To me, arguing this connection doesn't seem a whole lot different from saying slavery in the US and the resulting racial turmoil was horrible, many slaves picked cotton, so the fact that we still use cotton to make clothes and other goods acts as a reminder of that oppression.

[Blaster Master]

Well, I don't think it's unreasonable to use the poles as the two focal directions. Especially if you wanna use compasses and stuff to navigate. Poles aren't arbitrarily chosen; they're a natural feature.

This. Picking East or West kind of makes sense too, but only for the very same reason, in that, as a result of the poles and the Earth's rotation. I can even understand why, in the old days, putting East at the top might have made sense, because the sun rises in the East. But if the idea is to counter-act the oppression created by maps, East or West, then you actually do run into the problem posed by the OP because any line drawn at that point has no natural reason why. I could just as easily have an East-up map with a line through the Pacific or the Atlantic, and either one could potentially be seen as a form of favoritism. As such, not only are you faced with justifying why that particular direction was chosen, but also why, of any countless number of countless potentially top-most points were chosen.

Any non-cardinal direction is even worse because it would necessarily be arbitrary since there's no compelling natural reason to choose them. Hell, the whole reason the cardinal directions are the cardinal directions is precisely because they have a compelling reason to be chosen over any other ones.

So, North and South are really the only two logical standards based on our current geographical knowledge because it is defined by two easily recognizable natural features that are essential to navigation. Even before the compass, the North Star and the Southern Cross were used for navigation.

[wmfellows]

Well, I don't think it's unreasonable to use the poles as the two focal directions. Especially if you wanna use compasses and stuff to navigate. Poles aren't arbitrarily chosen; they're a natural feature.

Quite.

I'm fairly bemused by this thread. Northism.... I thought this kind of useless bloody tripe died out in the 1990s after the American universities got wrapped up in other bits of useless leftist Academic wankery.

Regardless, I recall from my now ancient Geography studies that none of the flat projections are particularly favoured as general maps - not Peters any more than Mercator - but rather mixed projections. Looking at Wikipedia I see that things like Winkel Tripel projections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winkel_Tripel_projection) are favoured. I recall the Goode... In any case, the ridiculous confusion of superficial wooley headed left-third worldism with a technical issue doesn't do anyone any favours.

And in the real South, one has a lot better bloody things to worry about than some student wankers in the North worrying about fictitous tripe....

Yet I don't see a thread about a real problem, like where the incumbent Big Man dictator is exploiting this third worldist rhetoric in a classic fashion to justify stealing an election. The well-being and self respect of Africans has a lot more to do with addressing these corrupt exploitive bastards (http://af.reuters.com/article/ivoryCoastNews/idAFN2020792620101220) than the imagined sins of maps or other divorced-from-reality esoterica.

[Pleonast]

It perpetuates the myth that the northern hemisphere is more important. It focuses attention on the northern hemisphere, implying that the north is more important. It puts whites and Asians over Latinos and blacks, reinforcing stereotypes about who is more important and who is in charge.

The south is just as "up" as the north and maps and globes should reflect this fact. Failing to recognize this fact is naked prejudice.
Ah, you're one of those "uppists" who think that things on top are more important than things below.

[Galileo]

I guess some of this thread is serious ... so I'll bite.Well, I don't think it's unreasonable to use the poles as the two focal directions. Especially if you wanna use compasses and stuff to navigate. Poles aren't arbitrarily chosen; they're a natural feature.But that might be one of the weakest reasons for maintaining the North-South orientation.

Today, who travels by compass?* There's GPS. Car, boats, planes having "moving maps" that orient themselves to the direction of travel. And who here has never rotated a road map to get a better sense of the direction of travel? And even if you're using a compass, why use North as the main direction?

My car's GPS has the option to view the map with North at the top. I never use that option. I want to know where I am traveling, not what the cardinal directions are.**

Main reason to stick with the current orientation is: That's what people are used to. But, standards have changed in the past. For example, the change from Julian to Gregorian calendar, from various local measurements to Metric, and the history of and proposed use of Decimal Time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_time).

I posted it upthread, but I'll do it again, because it's so cool: Fuller's Dymaxion Map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dymaxion_map). Almost as cool as Geodesic domes and Bucky balls.

* I remember a stand-up comic wondering why some people have a compass in their car. It's not as if when you ask for directions, you're told: "Go SW for about a mile, then NNW for a couple of blocks, and then due North until you get to the store."

** A friend of mine has a compass in her car (it was standard equipment) and she couldn't figure out why the compass said she was traveling SW when, "obviously", she was going South. I couldn't convince her that the "North-South" streets in her town were not actually laid out from Due North to Due South. :D

[wmfellows]

Today, who travels by compass?*There's GPS.

The 90% of humanity that doesn't have access to GPS. Jaysus, GPS is bloody new even in Developed markets, it's some gobsmacking myopia...
And even if you're using a compass, why use North as the main direction?
It's convenient.

[GreenHell]

When I was young, my father instilled in me a reverence for our family name. It wasn't just MY name, it was also his, and his father's and his grandfather's. This was part of the reason we were encouraged to be honest, polite, industrious and of good humor.

I have tried to live up to my name.

Apparently, the OP is trying to live up to his.

[Dallas Jones]

I try to fight against Northism by going down south once in a while.

It seems to help, everyone involved ends up in a better mood. ;)

[Frank]

And who here has never rotated a road map to get a better sense of the direction of travel?
*raises hand* That's why I gave up on the AAA TripTic thingies; they're oriented in the direction of travel and I just get confused.

[Kevbo]

No northism is not evil.

However, were I in charge of the world, Geography could only be taught in rooms oriented to the cardinal directions (walls running N, E, S, & W) and maps could only be hung on the north wall. Any map hung on another wall would have to be turned so that the viewer was facing the direction at the top of the map.

I went to an Elementary School that was Skewed 45 degrees, and the Maps in second and third grade were hung on the SE wall. I still have to think which way is actually north.

Mercator projections...now those ARE evil. Or maybe not. I first realized adults could be idiots from a teacher that insisted that Hawaii is West of Japan. Might as well learn that lesson sooner as later.

[sqweels]

How do we know they didn't just flip a coin centuries ago and the south lost?

[Galileo]

The 90% of humanity that doesn't have access to GPS. Jaysus, GPS is bloody new even in Developed markets, it's some gobsmacking myopia... Do those people use compasses? That's what I was comparing with GPS.

Also, I wasn't suggesting abolishing maps at midnight tonight. This is a speculative thread. I mentioned cars, boats, and planes. Not many people have planes, and certainly not everyone has a boat or a car. So, I'm just talking about what is currently possible if someone has the resources.

One more point: I'm pretty sure that practically 100% of humanity has access to the GPS satellite signals - you just need a GPS device, and they're pretty cheap nowadays, as far as new technology goes. Of course, the devices have to be available in your area. I think, though, that your 90% figure is a bit of an overstatement.

[Acsenray]

Every time one enters an Outback Steakhouse, one is faced with a south-oriented world map. Maybe we should just require all restaurants to turn their maps.

[FinnAgain]

a teacher that insisted that Hawaii is West of Japan.

Well, it is. It's also east of Japan.
Round world, and all that.

[penultima thule]

One more point: I'm pretty sure that practically 100% of humanity has access to the GPS satellite signals - you just need a GPS device, and they're pretty cheap nowadays, as far as new technology goes. Of course, the devices have to be available in your area. I think, though, that your 90% figure is a bit of an overstatement.

Just a wild arsed guess, but do you think more than 10% of Americans actually own a GPS unit?

[Galileo]

I didn't interpret "has access to" to mean "owns".

I thought it meant that they have access to buying and using one.

[Guinastasia]

I assume that that's where Santa gets the power to see us when we're sleeping, and how he knows when we're awake. Because he's the Emperor of the Entire Fucking World.

[Claverhouse]

Well, there's Buckminster Fuller's Dymaxion Map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dymaxion_map). It has no "up" or "down".


Oddly enough I first became aware of this map on Wikipedia a week ago, and mocked it then elsewhere.


It didn't take long to realise that Mr./Prof./Dr. whatever he was Fuller was one to be avoided. If nothing else, to quote: "Fuller championed, and for many years adhered to, a dietary regimen that consisted exclusively of prunes, tea, steak, and Jell-O."

[Galileo]

If nothing else, to quote: "Fuller championed, and for many years adhered to, a dietary regimen that consisted exclusively of prunes, tea, steak, and Jell-O."What are you quoting? What's the source?

[Kamino Neko]

A 2008 New Yorker profile of Fuller. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/06/09/080609fa_fact_kolbert)

[Claverhouse]

*looks really unthrilled*

You realise I have to go back to that other board, find the post, find the link I gave there and bring it back, don't you ? Just for the unique culinary preferences of a nutcase...




Here ya' go: The New Yorker : Dymaxion Man, by Elizabeth Kolbert; 9 June 2008 (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/06/09/080609fa_fact_kolbert/?printable=true).


Take it up with her.




Fuller was fond of neologisms. He coined the word “livingry,” as the opposite of “weaponry”—which he called “killingry”—and popularized the term “spaceship earth.” (He claimed to have invented “debunk,” but probably did not.) Another one of his coinages was “ephemeralization,” which meant, roughly speaking, “dematerialization.” Fuller was a strong believer in the notion that “less is more,” and not just in the aestheticized, Miesian sense of the phrase. He imagined that buildings would eventually be “ephemeralized” to such an extent that construction materials would be dispensed with altogether, and builders would instead rely on “electrical field and other utterly invisible environment controls.”

[Zakalwe]

I thought this kind of useless bloody tripe died out in the 1990s after the American universities got wrapped up in other bits of useless leftist Academic wankery. Yeah like being upset about Christian churches and other righties supporting beating fags to death and hanging niggers.

Seriously, can we get over the idea that this is some sort of wide-spread liberal idea?

[Bryan Ekers]

Fuck Sigma Octantis! Polaris rules!

[MrDibble]

I'm one of the Southernmost 'dopers (there's all those Melbourners and Chileans, but they don't count) and a survivor of colonialism, and I say the whole idea in the OP is stupid.

[Leaper]

*looks really unthrilled*

You realise I have to go back to that other board, find the post, find the link I gave there and bring it back, don't you ? Just for the unique culinary preferences of a nutcase...


That "invisible environmental controls" in building thing does sound kind of neat, tho'. A good SF author would probably do some interesting things with it. (I haven't read any who have yet, but that probably means I'm just not well-read enough in the genre.)

[wmfellows]

Yeah like being upset about Christian churches and other righties supporting beating fags to death and hanging niggers.

Seriously, can we get over the idea that this is some sort of wide-spread liberal idea?
Perhaps if knee jerkers actually respond to what was written. No where did I write that the concept was wide spread among the American left. Read it again mate. It was certainly something quite popular for Left activist American students to blither on about in the late 1980s as they banged about London pubs (etc).

Doubtless a marginal bit of idiocy, but one quite promoted by youngsters.

What the bloody fuck gay rights or lynching has to do with any of this entirely escapes, doubtless more blind knee jerking.

The "Woe is us in the Left' blithering on this Board is about as tedious as the Woe is us Right on the board. American speciality, it appears, woe is me victim card playing.

[tomndebb]

wmfellows, back off.

Everyone else is having a good time deriding the concepts of the OP and a few of the other ideas proposed in a humorous fashion while you appear to need to stomp around and hurl mean-spirited insults.
Your attitude is doing nothing to promote your views or keep the thread on topic.

Take it to The BBQ Pit or drop it.

[ /Modding ]

[Buck Godot]

He had brought a large map representing the sea,
Without the least vestige of land:
And the crew were much pleased when they found it to be
A map they could all understand.

`What's the good of Mercator's, North Poles, and Equators,
Tropics, Zones and Meridian lines?'
So the Bellman would cry; and the crew would reply,
`They are merely conventional signs!'

`Other maps are such shapes with their islands and capes!
But we've got our brave captain to thank.'
(So the crew would protest) `that he's brought us the best,
A perfect and absolute blank!'

Geez, it was a simple question why do you have to be so snarky.

[njtt]

A considerable majority of the worlds population (and most of its land mass) is found north of the equator. It is not just Europe and North America, it is all of Asia, most of Africa, and a considerable chunk of South America.
[Emphasis added by Blake]


Umm, no.

Just, no.

Yes, I know that on some definitions of "Asia" a tiny part of its area (part of the Malay Archipelago), and small fraction of its population, is south of the equator. Those definitions are very far from being universally accepted: Oceania. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oceania,_broad_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg)

Your post is at best a tendentious nitpick. Stated in that blunt unqualified way, and in the context of the discussion, it is positively obfuscatory.

[DrFidelius]

Geez, it was a simple question why do you have to be so snarky.

But it is the season for Carrolling.

[ctnguy]

I'm one of the Southernmost 'dopers (there's all those Melbourners and Chileans, but they don't count) and a survivor of colonialism, and I say the whole idea in the OP is stupid.

You're in Obs and I'm in Rosebank, so I'm Southernmore than you. :p With you on the OP, though.

[Evil Captor]

Umm, no.

Just, no.

Brilliant argumentative technique! Which, sadly, is overwhelmed by a moment's look at a map.

[kanicbird]

Could it be that maps were orientated north is up as a reflection of the evil condtion of the population?

In other words it was not that it was evil to have north = up but because of the evil that existed, north was orientated up.

[Boyo Jim]

Could it be that maps were orientated north is up as a reflection of the evil condtion of the population?

In other words it was not that it was evil to have north = up but because of the evil that existed, north was orientated up.

Yes, I can see that. Kind of like the food pyramid for evil.

[Chronos]

Someone on the previous page said that the Mercator projection overrepresents the amount of land in the north, and underrepresents the amount of land in the south. This is, in fact, incorrect: The Mercator projection actually overrepresents the amount of land in the south, and to an infinitely greater degree than the north. You see, the Mercator projection itself doesn't actually have boundaries at the top and bottom: The maps made from it generally cut off at the latitudes beyond which things get uninteresting (generally a bit above the north shore of Greenland and a bit below the shore of Antarctica), but the projection itself extends infinitely, and never quite reaches either pole. And since the South Pole is on land but the North Pole is in ocean, this means that the northern hemisphere of a Mercator map shows an infinite amount of ocean but only a finite amount of land, while the situation is reversed in the south.

As for other directions to orient a map, the Earth is a sphere, and while the rotational poles are certainly of interest, any pair of antipodal points could be used as poles for a projection. One might, for instance, imagine any of the standard map projections based around the magnetic poles, for ease of using a compass. Or a Muslim might use a map with Mecca at the "north pole" to easily determine the direction to face for prayer anywhere in the world. Or a ham radio operator might use a map with his own location at a "pole", to easily determine the direction to aim to talk to anywhere in the world (my grandfather actually had such custom-made).

[Bryan Ekers]

I gotcher pole right here, pal....


The magnetic poles wouldn't make for a good axis, as they tend to move around quite a bit. I'm not actually sure how a Mecca-north map is an improvement:
"Which way should we pray?"
"North."
"Which way is north?"
"Toward Mecca."
"But which way is that?"
"North."
...

[Ludovic]

But it is the season for Carrolling.At the SDMB we hold puns close to our boojum.

[Chronos]

A magnetically-aligned map would of necessity be an approximation, since not only do the poles wander, but the Earth isn't a perfect dipole, either. Even an approximate magnetically-aligned map would still be more convenient for compass-users, though. As for the Mecca-aligned map, what you would do is find some other more convenient landmark marked on your map that's "north" of you, and pray in that direction. Or even find some landmark that isn't "north", and just see how far off of "north" it is.

By comparison, using a map oriented to conventional north, I can see that the mountain with the big M on the side of it is due northeast of my place. If I want to head north, then, I find that mountain, and head 45 degrees counterclockwise from it.

[sunstone]

In Australian bookstores I've found maps that had south and north reversed, so that Australia is at the top. Pretty much meant as a joke, it seems. But there were wonderful books on Australian birds to be had.

I doubt that any Australians are bent out of shape by having maps show them on the lower portion of the map.

[kanicbird]

I would assume the northern star is responsible, as it was the guiding star for the civilization that colonized/conquered/enslave the world by ship. When the compass was invented it would point to the northern star, yes it would point south too, but people already used the northern star as their guide point.

A star being in the direction of 'up' would orientate maps in that direction.

So the motivation of the European conquerors/colonizers/enslavers to take to the sea as they did would be behind the reason why the northern star was used, using that star is not evil, but the motivation for the necessity of doing so may have been.

[pinguin]

The South has better skies, and the Southern Cross, instead of that boring Big Deeper.