Brandon Fletcher
Recent discussions about maps have highlighted the hesitant responses from Google and Apple to Donald Trump’s latest attempt to manipulate cartography, specifically regarding Lake Ontario. While Trump’s actions may seem absurd, they serve as a reminder that maps are intrinsically linked to political power.
The world map epitomizes this connection. Since the Earth is spherical, projecting it onto a flat surface, whether paper or screen, inevitably leads to some distortion. The choice of how to distort this representation is influenced by historical contexts and political motivations, as much as it is by practical needs.
The well-known Mercator projection, developed in the 16th century, was crafted as a navigational tool, offering two significant benefits: it represents latitudes and longitudes as straight lines, and it maintains angle integrity. These features were crucial for navigators in the past and remain valuable in modern mapping services provided by companies like Google.
To achieve these navigational advantages, the Mercator projection maps the Earth’s surface onto a cylinder, with latitude lines fitting the cylinder’s diameter and longitude lines extending vertically. as one approaches the poles, the actual size of latitude circles diminishes. By rendering all latitude circles as equal, the projection increasingly distorts the map away from the equator. This leads to the Mercator projection’s notable flaw: landmasses near the poles appear disproportionately larger, while those closer to the equator seem smaller.
The landmasses that appear inflated in size on the Mercator projection are predominantly regions historically associated with white economic dominance—North America, most of Europe, and Russia—while areas like Central and South America, the Indian subcontinent, southern and central Asia, and especially Africa appear minimized. A visual representation of this distortion can be found on Wikipedia.
African nations have voiced their discontent over the Mercator projection’s misrepresentation of their continent. Recently, the UN passed a resolution, initiated by Togo and supported by the African Union, advocating for the official adoption of the Equal Earth projection to replace the Mercator projection. Although UN resolutions are not legally binding, this move could create pressure on publishers and technology firms to adopt the Equal Earth projection.
What distinguishes the Equal Earth projection? It is a pseudocylindrical projection that maintains parallel latitude circles, with their radii decreasing as they near the poles. Unlike the Mercator, it employs curved longitude lines. This projection was developed in 2017 to provide a more accurate representation of the relative sizes of land areas compared to the older Gall-Peters projection.
It is essential to note that there is no evidence suggesting that Gerardus Mercator intended to downplay Africa’s size when he created his map. The prevalence of the Mercator projection, 500 years after its creation, can be seen as an accident of history. If this is indeed the case, correcting such an oversight should be straightforward. The Equal Earth projection is evidently more suitable for many contemporary applications.
“A fair world begins with a fair map,” asserted Togo’s Foreign Minister Robert Dussey in a statement to Reuters.
While the conformal qualities of the Web Mercator projection are beneficial for small-scale navigation, it is not relevant for those charting a course through treacherous waters in search of trade routes. When individuals examine a world map, they desire an accurate representation of the Earth as it is. If the Equal Earth projection offers a more truthful depiction of landmass sizes—an assertion supported by research—then resistance to its adoption should be minimal, right?
Interestingly, Reuters reported that the United States was the sole nation to oppose the resolution.
While some may find reasons to argue against this change, the most common objection is likely to be the complexity and cost associated with implementing such modifications. it’s important to recall how quickly the concept of Lake America gained traction. Although reshaping the world map is undoubtedly a larger task than renaming a lake, people often find ways to achieve their goals when motivated. Conversely, when they are not inclined to take action, it’s worthwhile to consider the potential implications of inaction.
Daniel Mercer
