Thursday, November 15, 2012

Mapping Africa

A person alone cannot make an accurate map. Some of the first maps ever made, drawing coastlines and oceans, are far from even the modern globe. A person had to travel along coasts, observing the shape and bends, to draw their perceived shape. Estimations of distance were often far off from the actual geography.



This antique map of Africa portrays ideas and knowledge the cartographer had about the continent. The cartographer's knowledge isn't complete about Africa, rather he has an idea of the general shape, important rivers, trade towns, and a few geographical features. All of the rivers are the same size regardless of actual width, and the societies are depicted with the same buildings. The map is written in Latin, so the European cartographer combines all known European knowledge at the time. The cartographer did not travel through all of Africa firsthand, so he has to rely on gathered information of other travelers. Older maps clearly show a bias of what's important to the cartographers because what's drawn on a map is seen as important to the cartographer. Obviously, this cartographer didn't draw every major African society, rather ones Europeans have interacted with.



A more modern European map of Africa is much more accurate to detail in continent shape and size. Over time, the maps of other cartographers piece together to create more complete and accurate maps. In the 1884 Berlin Conference, Africa was divided up by European countries so they could define who gets "a piece of the Africa cake". Country boundaries were formed without regard to the people living in Africa. Certainly no Africans were present at the conference table. Straight lines on any map mean trouble because the boundaries are arbitrary to social, cultural, political, or ethnic boundaries within the continent. Nothing changed within Africa the moment country lines were drawn on the map. Africans lived their lives according to their own natural borders. The real change happened when Europeans acted on their created borders: implementing direct rule, building infrastructure such as railroads, and controlling natural resources. Because the borders were decided by countries who asserted their power to act in accordance to them (such as French controlling one country and Britain controlling another), the European-made borders for the most part stayed on the map into modern times.



The current modern map of Africa is similar the 1880s. Borders are almost the same especially in northern Africa. European leaders cooperated together to decide on country boundaries and controlling African peoples, but what happens when part of an African country declares independence? Borders of some countries are fluid, but the changes don't make it onto maps until the countries are recognized by major global powers such as France or the U.S.. The cartographers and who they collaborate with affect how maps are made and possible biases they present.

2 comments:

  1. What's interesting is that the bias you have identified is perhaps one most often ignored. While we, as a society, have learned to accept newspapers as biased, we take certain facts as just that, facts. We think not of how even facts require selection and wording and thus bias. I am reminded of the time standardization in the US in the 1880s. Before railroad companies split the country into four standard zones, each town held its own time. Was this a bias of a sort? And were the zoning lines biased as well? Could something as fundamental as time, the same fundamental power that maps are perceived to hold, be biased?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What were the dangers of the railroad "time-zone" bias? While the imposed standardization of time zones by the railroad company is comparable in structure to map biases, maps have more political implications. I doubt that any society in America was upset that they were in the same time zone as their neighbors. No rivalries occurred because two counties were once on different times, and now on the same. Time is a scientific measurement that is fairly precise when measured. There is not much room to argue what "time" it is using common measurements. A clock may be a few seconds off, but that would not be to blame for life-changing conflict. Yes, time can be biased in the sense you mention about railroad standardization, but not as weighty as map biases. Time zones are a map of sorts, but only define time zones, not identities.

      Delete