The “World Distribution of Spirochaetal Disease” was produced near the beginning of the Cold War in 1955 as one of 17 other maps included in The Atlas of Disease. In collaboration with the American Geographical Society, the United States Armed Forces, and international pharmaceutical companies, Dr. Jacques May and cartographer E. D. Weldon diagramed the spread of three spirochaetal diseases (yaws, pinta, and bejel) present throughout the Southern Hemisphere. The map is split into five distinct maps– a large, world-view map and four smaller maps, each highlighting a different region of the world. Within these maps, the prevalence of disease is shown in relation to its organic and inorganic factors, for example the region’s geology, soils, temperature, vegetation, and rainfall. This information is more or less repeated in the text box in the lower right hand corner, where more detailed (and biased) information on the factors and specific outbreaks is located. Here the mapmaker’s preference for the western world shines through as he describes disease as “an expression of miserable living conditions, of densely populated areas, of crowded savanna villages markets, [and] of a primitive way of life in dark, windowless huts.” While all countries are labeled, the same cannot be said for cities and regions. These seem to be placed pell mell around the map at the mapmaker’s discretion. The result is a confusing and nearly illegible mass of names and lines, that makes the bright splash of disease the only clear information on the map. One of the features of the map that cannot go unmentioned is its use of pictures. Placed in a central location on the map, they jump out at the viewer with their human appeal and the grotesque deformations that spirochaetal diseases have left in their wake. Visually captivating, in the end the map calls the viewer’s attention to the perceived plight of the sick and impoverished Third World and calls the healthy and prosperous First World to take responsibility.
In our presentation we critiqued several rhetorical choices made by the mapmakers. We discussed the photos included in the map and their prominent placement over the northern hemisphere, signaling to the audience that, within the topic of disease, the north is irrelevant. The photos themselves display the harsh and uncomfortable realities of spirochaetal diseases, and we discussed the heart-wrenching, emotional effects these images have on the audience, effects which are similar to those caused by the images on the Gulag Slavery map. A second rhetorical choice we critiqued in our presentation was the projection. The Briesemeister projection was created specifically for the Atlas of Disease maps and intentionally places Africa front and center, encouraging the audience to conclude that Africa is the center of disease. Color choices are a third rhetorical device the mapmakers employed. The dark red chosen to depict the incidence of the disease looks like rash physically plaguing the bottom half of the map, furthering the belief that disease is a southern phenomenon to which the north is immune. A final rhetorical choice we critiqued in our presentation was the inclusion and exclusion of certain diseases. Syphilis is a spirochaetal disease that falls into the same family as yaws, pinta, and bejel, but was surprisingly left off the map. Further research indicated that syphilis had not yet been eradicated in the U.S. at the time this map was produced, so its inclusion would have compromised the U.S.’s image as a clean, disease-free nation. One main goal of our presentation was to convey the Cold War rhetoric embedded in this map, because at first glance one may not notice this as a Cold War map. We discussed the two different Cold War tensions this map depicts (north v. south and east v. west); not only was the north seeking influence in the developing south, but individual northern powers were also competing against each other for that influence. The democratic U.S. and the communist U.S.S.R. were vying to spread their ideologies to the developing world. In our class discussion, we began by asking what the purpose of this map might be and ended by discussing its effectiveness in achieving this purpose. We agreed that this map, however biased or misleading, was certainly successful in achieving its goal; this map and others like it were used in such a way that they contributed to the separation and distinction between the so-called First and the Third Worlds and perpetuated ideas of northern superiority and southern inferiority.
– Cathryn F. and Lauren S.