theguardian.com
African Union Challenges Mercator Projection's Distorted View of Africa
The African Union seeks to replace the Mercator map projection due to its distortion of Africa's size, arguing that this historical cartographic choice has perpetuated a skewed global perspective favoring northern continents.
- How does the Mercator projection's distortion of Africa's size impact global perceptions and policy decisions?
- The African Union's request to replace the Mercator projection map stems from its inherent distortion, which shrinks Africa relative to continents like Europe and North America. This distortion has shaped global perceptions for centuries, impacting how policymakers and the public view the continent's size and significance.
- What are the historical and political reasons for the Mercator projection's enduring use despite its known inaccuracies?
- The Mercator projection, designed for navigation, disproportionately enlarges higher latitudes, making Europe and North America appear much larger than Africa and South America. Greenland, for example, appears similar in size to Africa on Mercator, while it is actually 14 times smaller. This distortion, present in many atlases and educational materials, has contributed to a skewed global perspective.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of continuing to use the Mercator projection in education and global affairs, and what are the benefits of adopting alternative map projections?
- While alternatives like the Equal Earth projection offer more accurate representations, the debate highlights the power of cartography in shaping perceptions. The continued use of the Mercator projection can perpetuate biased understandings of global power dynamics and resource distribution, hindering equitable development and cooperation.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the issue as a historical and political one, highlighting how the Mercator projection has perpetuated a distorted view of the world that favors Western powers. The use of phrases like "flatters the powerful and diminishes the rest" and the reference to colonialism strongly emphasizes this perspective. While the article mentions counterarguments, the overall framing leans towards criticizing the Mercator projection.
Language Bias
The language used is mostly neutral, but some phrases like "flatters the powerful and diminishes the rest" carry a subtly negative connotation towards the Mercator projection. The overall tone is critical, but this is justified by the topic. Suggesting alternative phrasing might not be necessary, as the author's intent seems clear.
Bias by Omission
The analysis does not explicitly mention any omitted perspectives or missing information that would significantly alter the understanding of the issue. While the article focuses on the Mercator projection's distortions, it could benefit from including perspectives from cartographers who defend the projection's continued use for specific purposes (e.g., navigation) or those who argue against alternatives due to their own limitations.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights how the Mercator projection distorts the perception of continents, making Africa and South America appear smaller than they are compared to Europe and North America. Replacing this map with a more accurate one addresses the historical power imbalances reflected in cartography, promoting a more equitable representation of the world and fostering fairer global relations. This directly relates to SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) by challenging ingrained biases and promoting a more accurate understanding of global proportions, which can influence resource allocation and international collaborations.