Obligatory West Wing “Cartographers for social justice”
Who are you quoting? I don’t see this text in this thread, other than in your quote. Did a sock get squashed?
It’s from the blog linked in the OP.
The blogger, a sociology prof, can’t be arsed to put up the right map to support his claim. Dumb or lazy, or dumb *and *lazy?
Extra clown points for casual insinuations of racism.
Yeah, I was born in Kenya and also spent part of my sophomore year of high school there, and when I came back there were two questions I got most often. The “did you learn to speak African” one was only second to “did you ride to school on an elephant” in frequency.
Nah, it’s a sociologist. The “isms” are more likely to be Eurocentrism, ethnocentrism, colonialism, cultural imperialism, etc. 
Entirely possible.
A technical explanation of the cartography would be beyond him.
That’s why we need algebra. To keep dumb people from getting PhD’s!
I’ve recently been enjoying a public-access show called “A History of Science in Society”, which is pretty much just a history professor talking (to some students) for an hour.
One episode was devoted to maps. It noted that many early maps had the Garden of Eden at the top, with the four important rivers flowing from it. They were never meant to be taken literally. They were understood to be symbolic. I imagine that most or all other maps have a degree of of this as well. The Mercator projection was designed to be as useful as possible to navigators, because it was conceived in an era when navigators had the greatest need for accurate (read: consistent) maps. So?
Wait a minute. I’ll admit I’m having a bit of a problem following this but the images are very deceptive.
Land mass? Anyone that was paying attention in the third grade knows that the land mass of Canada is far greater than the US but those images don’t show it. According to this site, Canada has the second largest land mass in the world.
http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/world_statistics_by_area.htm
Then, it helps to compare the population and the population per square km.
Portraying the surface of a globe in a plane is very difficult. Don’t be decieved.
Canada is larger by total area ( that is including all the land and internal water ways ). The United States is actually very slightly larger in terms of purely land area. You can see the difference here. Canada tops the chart in total internal water area.
And then we get to those maps that show what the world would look like if land masses’ area were proportional to population, wealth, etc…
The top map they used on the blog shows Africa as being gigantic! It looks like you could fit all of South America and the US in it! How could someone look at that map and *not *think you could fit all those other countries it in?
Even though I don’t like maths much I can totally agree here.
It’s funny how these “sociologists” see what they want to see all the time (racism, imperalism, blah blah blah), without having even some basic scientific knowledge or respect for science. All they have seem to be paranoia and a desire to destroy modern civilization.
And it’s so ironic they think everyone who don’t agree with them are “ignorant” when it is so obvious who are the real ignorant bigots here. This thread is just a classic example.
Nope. Polar regions can be arbitrarily chosen to be the center of the map too. Of course then Africa comes out very strange. See the links in my post a few up.
I wonder if perhaps the top map image on the blog has changed at some point? From the text you would expect to see a Mercator map there, with Africa looking small. In fact there is a Peters map, which shows Africa the right size (albeit stretched so it’s tall and thin). Somebody has clearly posted the wrong image link.
African maps aren’t really bigger, they just look that way because of how they’re colored.
But seriously, who gives a flying wafflebot? It’s not as if Great Britain is depicted as covering a third of the globe and Africa is a little Belgium-sized island in the middle of the ocean. It’s always been clear to me that what’s going on is a 3-d sphere is being depicted on a 2-d plane and there’s going to be some distortion. Anyways, this is the 21st century. Land mass doesn’t matter anymore, what matters these days is per capita GDP. And ball bearings. It’s all ball bearings these days.
I don’t know what to tell you, except that I didn’t initially, nor did my wife (a sociologist btw, as is my mother). And it was never the Mercator projection–it was always that one. It still looks to me like the U.S. in particular is smaller in the version where it is superimposed, so for me at least it is a kind of optical illusion like those lines that look longer when the “arrow” marks are pointed one way rather than the other.
Okay, fine; but my point stands that no flat map will ever portray areas and distances accurately for every part of the planet. And my statement that it will be the polar areas that are distorted most holds true, I’d aver, for 99.9999 percent of all the flat maps of the globe ever made and displayed where people see them.
BTW, there is bias and distortion to some degree in sociology, and I have even been willing to say so to my own wife and mother (brave lad I); but it is hardly a field totally lacking in “basic scientific knowledge or respect for science”. In fact, some of the holdout proponents of qualitative sociology bemoan the fact that the “quants” (quantitative sociologists, who are very into statistics and hard data) have come to dominate the discipline.
I have to agree with Eyebrows. I’ve never seen that projection before, but Africa looks gigantic in it, and fitting the US in it (with the other countries) doesn’t look like a challenge or distortion.
This map projection problem is sometimes called “The Greenland Problem”. Some area comparisons (in millions of square miles):
0.8M mi²: Greenland
3.7M mi²: China
3.8M mi²: Europe
6.9M mi²: South America
8.7M mi²: the former Soviet Union
9.4M mi²: North America
11.6M mi²: Africa
Therefore, Africa is 14.5X bigger than Greenland.
A visually quick way to assess a map projection is by looking at Greenland and the Arabian peninsula (1.2M mi²), which are roughly equal in area.
Roughly.