Donald Trump has a Mercator personage, distortion is always his view. People would do well to appreciate that when formulating responses to his presentations.
Navigation in Mercator is better…
Allegory
Yes, I absolutely understand! You’re asking about the fascinating and often misleading nature of maps, specifically focusing on Greenland and the Mercator projection. Let’s create a “photo” (imagine this as a textual description since I can’t actually take a photo) of a map and discuss this.
Okay, imagine this as a simplified Mercator projection world map, zoomed in a bit to highlight Greenland.
North Pole (exaggerated size)
/ \
/ \
/ \
/————\ Arctic Circle
/ \
Europe & Asia —-/—————-\—- North America
/ \
/——————–\ **GREENLAND (appears HUGE)**
/ \
/————————\
/ \
/—————————-\
/ \
/——————————–\ Equator
/ \
/————————————\
/ \
/—————————————-\
/ \
/——————————————–\
/ \
————————————————– South …
… Continents (stretched near poles)
South Pole (exaggerated size)
In this Mercator Map “Photo”:
* Greenland looks enormous. It appears to be the same size as, or even larger than, the continent of Africa or South America. It dominates the top-left portion of the map.
* Shapes are generally preserved: Greenland roughly looks like Greenland.
* Distances are distorted: The distances between places, especially at higher latitudes, are stretched out horizontally.
Now, let’s talk about the “Mercator value” vs. “actual size” and the distortion in worldview:
Mercator Value (What the Map Shows):
* Purpose: The Mercator projection was created for navigation. It’s fantastic for sailors because straight lines on a Mercator map represent lines of constant compass bearing (rhumb lines or loxodromes). This is incredibly useful for plotting courses.
* How it works: To achieve this straight-line bearing property, the Mercator projection preserves angles and shapes locally. However, to do this, it drastically distorts areas, especially as you move away from the equator towards the poles.
* Greenland’s Mercator Value: On a Mercator map, Greenland is given a massive visual value. It looks incredibly important due to its apparent size. It can appear to visually dominate global discussions, resource maps, etc., simply because it takes up so much space on the map.
Actual Size (Reality):
* Greenland is indeed large… but not that large. Greenland is the world’s largest island, but its actual land area is about 2.166 million square kilometers (836,300 sq mi).
* Comparison to continents is key:
* Africa: Africa is about 14 times larger than Greenland in land area.
* South America: South America is about 8.5 times larger than Greenland.
* Even India: India is larger than Greenland.
Demonstrating Distortion in People’s Worldview:
This is where the real impact lies. The Mercator projection, while useful for navigation, has unintentionally and subtly shaped our perception of the world for centuries.
* Exaggerated Importance of High-Latitude Regions: Because Mercator inflates areas near the poles, regions like Greenland, Canada, Russia (Siberia), and Scandinavia appear much larger than they are in reality. This can lead to:
* Overemphasis on these regions in geopolitical thinking: Someone only looking at Mercator maps might overestimate the landmass and potential resources of these northern regions compared to equatorial and tropical areas.
* Eurocentrism: Historically, Mercator projection became popular in Europe. Because Europe is at a mid-latitude, its size distortion is less extreme than Greenland’s, but it still looks proportionally larger compared to regions near the equator. This projection has been argued to subtly reinforce a Eurocentric worldview, visually “placing” Europe and the West as larger and perhaps implicitly more “important” in the global picture.
* Underestimation of Equatorial and Tropical Regions: Conversely, areas near the equator like Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia are shrunk on a Mercator map compared to their true size. This can lead to:
* Underplaying the scale and significance of these regions: Someone might underestimate the vastness and importance of continents like Africa and South America simply because they visually appear smaller on common Mercator maps.
* Reinforcing existing biases: In colonial and post-colonial eras, this visual underrepresentation might have contributed to or reinforced existing biases about the relative importance and power of different parts of the world.
* Misconceptions about Global Issues: When discussing global issues like climate change, resource distribution, or population, if people are primarily visualizing a Mercator map, they might have a distorted sense of the scale and impact on different regions. For instance, the sheer size of Africa or the Amazon rainforest might be visually minimized, leading to a miscalculation of their global importance.
In Conclusion:
The Mercator projection is a powerful example of how map projections are not neutral representations of the world. They are tools created for specific purposes, and they inevitably involve distortions. While Mercator is excellent for navigation, it significantly distorts area, particularly at high latitudes.
By understanding this distortion, especially in the case of Greenland, we can become more critical consumers of maps and be aware of how map projections can subtly shape our worldview and potentially reinforce existing biases about global scale and importance.
It’s important to use different types of map projections (like equal-area projections) when the goal is to accurately represent area and compare the sizes of regions. This helps to correct the visual distortions of Mercator and provides a more accurate “picture” of the world’s geography.
Did this explanation and “photo” make sense? Let me know if you’d like to explore other map projections or distortions!
Kevin Griffiths
percypaschal
