3 ms·

What do you mean "don't politicize maps"? Maps are one of the most political things there are, with countless wars and disputes over territories, boundaries, an

What do you mean "don't politicize maps"? Maps are one of the most political things there are, with countless wars and disputes over territories, boundaries, and their importance in navigation and imperialism. I also don't get your claim that it isn't mapmaking—it's a map, look—or education, when maps have a big role in history classes and affect one's worldview. It's about striving for an accurate representation of our globe, and if you're against that because "the evil SJWs!", maybe it's you who needs to stop politicizing things. Regarding Google Maps, not every classroom is equipped with a projector, and a globe would have to be really large for students to see them and you'd need a 2D representation for student printouts anyway.

candiodari 10y ago
The controversy is not about where borders lie, the controversy is about which country appears the biggest on the map. How to draw the SAME borders so X appears bigger, that's what were discussing. I assure you those wars and disputes were not about the projection of those maps, but about what was drawn on the maps. If you want to go for accuracy in worldview, show people a globe. If you want a map, Robinson projection is probably the way to go for "most accurate looking". If you want to cross the dateline, and navigate easily, I'd still go with Mercator I think.
- cooper12 10y ago
  My point was that the whole concept of a map is political, even if the disputes don't directly involve this issue with them. The whole world doesn't use the Mercator projection, they use ones more suited towards representing their hemisphere. That's politics. As for your last point, the fact that you have to mention the drawbacks and advantages of different maps shows that there isn't actually one right answer. That's politics. Map choice has to accept limitations. You can't get a globe everywhere, the 2D plane is still really popular in our world so it's not a binary choice between "globe" and "Robinson", but rather "what exactly am I looking for in a map". It is politics and you can't just immediately shut down anything deviating from the status quo because "my way is the only way".
  - candiodari 10y ago
    I can argue to shut down anything in science that gets changed because of political reasons, because there shouldn't be politics in science. The further along we seem to get the worse it seems to get though. I did math, statistics specifically, so ... well ever since climate change that's a lost cause. And that's uniformly bad. Bad for the quality of people at university, students and academics. Bad for the science itself. Bad for society (imho). Bad for everyone. The ONLY merit Gall-Peters has is this supposed "social justice" bullshit. Neither Gall and Peters were honest. Neither of them had anything to contribute to mapmaking. They just wanted attention and money. Get out. Just ... get out. Find a better reason, or please don't bother anyone.
    - cooper12 10y ago
      > there shouldn't be politics in science Politics is unavoidable in science. There was never an era in which the two weren't combined from phrenology to modern-day examples like global warming which you mentioned. To expect science to be free from outside influence is overly idealistic. Science needs funding. That fact alone makes it inseparable. > The ONLY merit Gall-Peters has is this supposed "social justice" bullshit. Now you're just being dishonest. Did you miss the whole "equal area" thing? > They just wanted attention and money. Yeah map projection creators are rolling in royalties... You tell me to find a better reason and you come up with bullshit like this, ha!
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - trentmb 10y ago
    > My point was that the whole concept of a map is political No, navigation is.
    - cooper12 10y ago
      Well yes the Mercator projection was about navigation, but maps are also used in other ways since they represent the world. A common example is to depict territories in disputes. Maps were originally for navigation yes, but that's not their only use.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

candiodari 10y ago

The controversy is not about where borders lie, the controversy is about which country appears the biggest on the map. How to draw the SAME borders so X appears bigger, that's what were discussing. I assure you those wars and disputes were not about the projection of those maps, but about what was drawn on the maps. If you want to go for accuracy in worldview, show people a globe. If you want a map, Robinson projection is probably the way to go for "most accurate looking". If you want to cross the dateline, and navigate easily, I'd still go with Mercator I think.

cooper12 10y ago
My point was that the whole concept of a map is political, even if the disputes don't directly involve this issue with them. The whole world doesn't use the Mercator projection, they use ones more suited towards representing their hemisphere. That's politics. As for your last point, the fact that you have to mention the drawbacks and advantages of different maps shows that there isn't actually one right answer. That's politics. Map choice has to accept limitations. You can't get a globe everywhere, the 2D plane is still really popular in our world so it's not a binary choice between "globe" and "Robinson", but rather "what exactly am I looking for in a map". It is politics and you can't just immediately shut down anything deviating from the status quo because "my way is the only way".
- candiodari 10y ago
  I can argue to shut down anything in science that gets changed because of political reasons, because there shouldn't be politics in science. The further along we seem to get the worse it seems to get though. I did math, statistics specifically, so ... well ever since climate change that's a lost cause. And that's uniformly bad. Bad for the quality of people at university, students and academics. Bad for the science itself. Bad for society (imho). Bad for everyone. The ONLY merit Gall-Peters has is this supposed "social justice" bullshit. Neither Gall and Peters were honest. Neither of them had anything to contribute to mapmaking. They just wanted attention and money. Get out. Just ... get out. Find a better reason, or please don't bother anyone.
  - cooper12 10y ago
    > there shouldn't be politics in science Politics is unavoidable in science. There was never an era in which the two weren't combined from phrenology to modern-day examples like global warming which you mentioned. To expect science to be free from outside influence is overly idealistic. Science needs funding. That fact alone makes it inseparable. > The ONLY merit Gall-Peters has is this supposed "social justice" bullshit. Now you're just being dishonest. Did you miss the whole "equal area" thing? > They just wanted attention and money. Yeah map projection creators are rolling in royalties... You tell me to find a better reason and you come up with bullshit like this, ha!
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- trentmb 10y ago
  > My point was that the whole concept of a map is political No, navigation is.
  - cooper12 10y ago
    Well yes the Mercator projection was about navigation, but maps are also used in other ways since they represent the world. A common example is to depict territories in disputes. Maps were originally for navigation yes, but that's not their only use.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]