Mappenstance.

The Map I chose is closely related to events occurring around the world today. As many know, tensions are rising as Russia is becoming a global threat. As they have clearly shown with their intentions to invade Ukraine, they’ll wage war and continue to ravage anyone who gets in their way. The idea of a future war is much more realistic than many would like to envision. The map I found represents Nuclear Forces all around the globe. Not only is this relevant, it is very relevant and scary to imagine. The map shows the estimated global nuclear warhead inventories as of 2022. Nuclear weapons consist of very dangerous missles and bombs that cause huge explosions. Nuclear weapons are capable of destroying and killing hundreds of people.

The source I found the map from is the Federation of American Scientists (FAS). The FAS is a nonprofit group that uses science to try and make the world as safe as possible. This credible source was first founded in 1945 by scientist who helped develop the first atomic bombs.

There are a couple of alarming facts to note as you look at the map from a quick glance. First, Russia has more nuclear weapons than anyone, including the United States. Secondly, nuclear weapons in multiple western countries such as Russia, China, North Korea, India, United Kingdom, and Pakistan are increasing in number. This is shown by the up arrow next to the countries. One good point to note is that the United States has the second most right under Russia. This map shows that countries have been increasing their nuclear weapons to pose a threat to other countries as well as to feel more comfortable and protected.

The map is estimated because the exact number of nuclear weapons held by each country is a secret in most cases. With that said, this map does not display the data with 100% accuracy. In this case, I believe not having the exact numbers does not make a huge difference, because it still accurately gives you an idea of who has a lot and who does not. When people look at this map they do not care as much about the exact number of nuclear weapons each country has, they just want to be able to look and see which countries have them and whether or not they have an abundance. Continuing with this point, I think this map is well done because it is simple and easy to read. The visual makes it very easy to see which countries are big nuclear threats and which are not.

A couple of questions came to mind while analyzing the map. Only nine countries are shown within the map having nuclear weapons. Does that mean that none of the other countries even have 1 nuclear weapon? I was unaware that only nine countries have nuclear weapons as of now. If so, is this expected to change in the near future?

The idea of this map showing estimated data made me think of the Turnbull reading from early on in the semester. Turnbull discussed the relationship between maps and theories and compared them to each other. The truth found in maps may be from what we believe in our heads or may contain objective facts. Regardless, we must have some type of theoretical knowledge to understand maps. Although the numbers from the nuclear weapon map may be estimated, viewers still use the theories they are aware of to explain and interpret what they see being displayed. It is interesting to me how maps like this one have a unique way of making a huge issue like nuclear weapons into a spatial perspective so that we as viewers are able to compare and contrast weapons all over the world.

WORKS CITED:

Fas. “Status of World Nuclear Forces.” Federation Of American Scientists, https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/.

Fas. “Striving for a Safer World since 1945.” Federation Of American Scientists, https://fas.org/.

Turnbull, David. “Maps Are Territories: Science Is an Atlas ; a Portfolio of Exhibits.” Amazon, Amazon, 1997, https://www.amazon.com/Maps-Are-Territories-Science-Atlas/dp/0730006883.

Figure 1: 2020 Election Results By County (Bump, “Let’s Get Ahead of It: A Map of the Early 2020 Results by Population, Not Acreage”)

This atlas is a map that shows the 2020 election between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. I chose this for two reasons: (1) It utilizes the special benefits of a classic map visualization while trying to convey a greater statistical representation of the election results. By doing so, it effectively communicates the rhetorical weight of cartography on the election without distorting the representation of the populous vote. (2) This map is directly correlated to my blog post by showing an alternative solution to some of the issues brought up in my analysis, in which there is a lesser emphasis placed on acreage portrayal.

References

Bump, Philip. “Let’s Get Ahead of It: A Map of the Early 2020 Results by Population, Not Acreage.” Washington Post, n.d. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/05/lets-get-ahead-it-map-early-2020-results-by-population-not-acreage/.

FIGURE 1: 2020 Presidential Election (Park et al., “An Extremely Detailed Map of the 2020 Election”)

FIGURE 2: 2016 Presidential Election (Bloch et al., “An Extremely Detailed Map of the 2016 Presidential Election”)

To preface this blog post, I would like to note that I do not mean what I say to be taken as a political message. The background I provide on this topic is worded as such to allow for a deeper conveyance of my argument related to my map of the week and around the rhetoric of cartography.

The map I chose for my blog is a map of the 2020 election results (FIGURE 1). The map details data from “2,523 of 3,143 counties in 47 states, representing 89% of all votes cast” (Park et al., “An Extremely Detailed Map of the 2020 Election”). I chose this map to be my “map of the week” because I think political maps are great examples of the rhetoric behind cartography. Not only that, but I believe this map and my greater analysis complement the blog thread as American political maps offer additional avenues of analysis on the rhetorical weight of their standing. 

There are some states that have been omitted from the county breakdown on the 2020 election map due to the ways the states reported votes. Through the pandemic, some states didn’t report votes in ways that linked the votes to specific precincts in the state because of the widespread mail-in balloting, so the New York Times – which is the source that created the map – felt that country-specific data from those states could not reliably be mapped. Due to this issue, the visualizations of the map as a whole are affected by the omitted counties and states. I wanted to mention this because while my analysis will be on the context and mapping of the 2020 election, after digging around I found that the 2016 election map and 2020 election map are nearly identical from a visual standpoint. So, in an effort to get around the visual issue of the 2020 map’s omission of certain counties and states, for some of my overarching analytical points about the rhetoric of cartography, I will reference the New York Times’ detailed map of the 2016 election (FIGURE 2).

Before I continue, I would like to present a question to you that I would like you to keep in the back of your mind as you read on: In the ways maps visualize information, how might a [political] map display, or distort the prevalence of political tension in the represented society? 

With that question stated, I will now provide some historical context behind the map. On November 3, 2020, the United States presidential election between former Vice President Joe Biden (D) and incumbent President Donald Trump (R) was decided, in which Joe Biden was elected as the 46th President of the United States. His victory marked the history books as the fifth occurrence in the past 100 years where the incumbent president did not win their re-election campaign. This monumental election also logged the highest voter turnout by percentage since 1900 (Park, “2020 Voter Turnout Was the Highest the U.S. Has Seen in Over a Century”), in which Biden earned his victory by outscoring Trump in both the electoral vote category (Biden with 306 and Trump with 232) and popular vote category (Biden with 81.2 million and Trump with 74.2 million) (“Presidential Election, 2020”).

Following the deliverance of the votes of the Electoral College, a joint session of the Congress was scheduled to take place on January 6, 2021, in which one of the most unprecedented events in recent history occurred. A large mass of American citizens incited violence against the Government of the United States through an insurrectionist invasion of the United States Capitol building. This event was largely provoked by Trump, which contested one of the most important and central tenets of American democracy, the need for a peaceful transfer of power, and resulted in Trump’s [second] impeachment just one week before his term expired.

Through the course of Trump’s presidential term, he could easily be labeled as a norm-shattering president (for better or for worse). This is because a central theme in many past presidents’ rhetoric is that they contain strong elements of logos, which is a form of rhetorical persuasion that is centered around building strong logical arguments to gain appeal. However, with Trump, his rhetoric was more strongly aligned with the elements of ethos, which is a form of rhetorical persuasion that is centered around building a strong sense of status or authority to appeal to others. This can be seen through Trump’s strong visceral reactions on Twitter, in debates, and in speeches, and can also be understood through the continual maintenance of his “strongman persona” (Rowland, “The Rhetoric of Donald Trump”). Through this rhetoric, Trump was incredibly effective at reaching his intended audience and he gained powerful support from millions of Americans across the country. However, in doing so, millions of people also outspokenly opposed his rhetorical style because, to many, it felt un-presidential and intrinsically violent. As a result, Trump’s rhetoric arguably caused one of the most post-civil war hyper-partisan divides in our nation’s history. 

With the historical context now provided, I will conduct a brief cross-sectional analysis of the rhetoric of cartography in relation to the 2020 election map by referencing the studies of two prevalent scholars in this field of rhetorical cartography, Dennis Wood and J. B. Harley. 

In Wood’s book, The Power of Maps, he states how maps hold an “inherent indexicality to link the territory in question with what comes with it;” they have rhetorical lives (Wood and Fels, The Power of Maps). Wood goes on to explain how maps serve as ways to label politically based areas, in which the science of cartography is in contest with the foundational artistry of it. This is important to the visualization of the 2020 election map because the map shows an overwhelming portion of the United States coated in red to show Republican voters, and an underwhelming portion of the United States coated in blue to show Democratic voters. So, on the basis of territory, Trump won this election. However, on the basis of population, Biden won, which isn’t conveyed through the rhetoric of this map. This is because elections are decided by the populace, in which the most densely populated areas are cities that happen to take up small portions of geographically based territory.  Furthermore, on the premise that maps serve as ways to label politically based areas, American electoral maps have an innate history of aligning space with political alignment. This can become an issue for political maps because it curtails areas on the map in ways that divide territory on a centralized, partisan basis. This causes territory to be [mis]represented through the acclaimed totality of red or blue prevalence in the area, which further feeds into nationwide tensions of political division.

In Harley’s book, Deconstructing the Map, he states how maps convey tension as both scientific documents and as political and rhetorical engines. They can legitimize power and can create or enforce inequalities (Harley, “Deconstructing the Map”). This is an important argument made by Harley for my blog post because it can be related to the storming of the capital. During the course of the election, these types of maps were broadcasted nationwide, which, when visually interpreted, show overwhelming support for Trump as massive amounts of the nation’s terrain were doused in red. I would argue that, in many ways, the map’s visual distortion of political support for Trump on a spatialized basis served as a sort of ‘factual’ justification for the [ignominious] storming of the capitol building, in which many citizens felt the results of the election did not represent their perceived ‘reality’ of the nation’s support for Biden. To connect this back to my central argument, – which is that American political maps innately present issues of divisive partisanship through the usage of space as a means to visualize the political arrangement of the nation – Harley’s point on how maps can legitimize power through the conveyed tension as both scientific documents and as political and rhetorical engines is perfectly exemplified through my statement above. Maps historically serve a purpose as being scientific documents, and in our society science and fact tend to be considered as one of the same. Tensions can therefore rise when a map is used to represent political alignment, and in the case of this map, it does so in a way that does not adequately align with the processes of determination for which it is used to convey. This map was broadcasted nationwide and was used as a means to accurately convey information on the results of the presidential election, however, the event that it was used (i.e. the presidential election) for is decided on the populace’s vote count, to which space is not factored in. So, by using a map, space is granted a greater emphasis, which directly conflicts with the use case of the map by distorting the reality of partisanship in our nation as it frames nation support based more on spatial support than on populous support.

References:

Bloch, Matthew, Larry Buchanan, Josh Katz, and Kevin Quealy. “An Extremely Detailed Map of the 2016 Presidential Election.” The New York Times, July 25, 2018, sec. The Upshot. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/upshot/election-2016-voting-precinct-maps.html.

Harley, J B. “Deconstructing the Map.” Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization 26, no. 2 (June 1989): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3138/E635-7827-1757-9T53.

Park, Alice, Charlie Smart, Rumsey Taylor, and Miles Watkins. “An Extremely Detailed Map of the 2020 Election.” The New York Times, February 2, 2021, sec. The Upshot. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/upshot/2020-election-map.html.

Park, Andrea. “2020 Voter Turnout Was the Highest the U.S. Has Seen in Over a Century.” Marie Claire Magazine, November 5, 2020. https://www.marieclaire.com/politics/a34589422/voter-turnout-2020/.

Ballotpedia. “Presidential Election, 2020,” n.d. https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_election,_2020.

Rowland, Robert. “The Rhetoric of Donald Trump.” University Press of Kansas, n.d. https://kansaspress.ku.edu/978-0-7006-3196-4.html.

Wood, Denis, and John Fels. The Power of Maps. Mappings. New York: Guilford Press, 1992.

https://www.wired.com/2015/08/pretty-maps-bay-area-hellish-commutes/ 

This is a blog by Wired that illustrates the Bay Area commute using a series of interactive maps. There are 3.3 million Bay Area residents who commute to 110,000 different areas. The maps were done by Alasdair Rae and the blog is written by Greg Miller who published it in 2015.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-atlas/go-to-the-atlas/

This atlas covers the topic of food access research.  I was initially interested in basing my final project on this topic, so I wanted to cover it in my atlas selection.  The atlas allows users to type in a location and determine how accessible supermarkets are for low-income residents.  The accessibility of these supermarkets range from ones that are only a few miles away to ones that require vehicle access.

The “Residential Security Map for Richmond” that I have selected shows the levels of residential security in Richmond, Virginia in 1937. The map rates the risks of various neighborhoods for the purpose of real estate investment. This map is a visual example of how cities in Richmond were redlined in the 1930s. Redlining is a practice that makes it challenging or impossible for people in specific areas to acquire mortgage financing and therefore become homeowners. Redlining allowed for native-born white families to be a priority in receiving both public and private money, resulting in black and immigrant families to be left with little to no access to that money. This map is still relevant today because redlining practices from this time have had a lasting effect on current neighborhoods (Mapping Inequality).

In the 1930s, federal officials deemed black neighborhoods as “risky” by using the color red to mark these areas on maps. This allowed bankers to deny mortgages and investments in redlined neighborhoods. Living in redlined neighborhoods made it extremely difficult for potential home buyers to receive mortgages or any sort of credit in these red areas. The underinvestment of these areas resulted in fewer trees and parks and no protection for any trees and parks that might be found. More paved surfaces and industrial sites were built as a result (Formerly Redlined).

In our class discussion on J.B. Harley’s writing of “Deconstructing the Map,” we talked about the idea that all maps have a message and that they all engage with social and political issues. We said that all maps make an argument. Taking this into consideration while looking at the “Mapping Inequality” map that I chose, I can see how redlining has affected Richmond’s residential areas. Due to redlining, formerly poor communities in Richmond experience hotter summers because of the lack of trees that are planted in these areas. These areas are up to 12 degrees warmer in the summer. The disadvantages of living in a neighborhood that does not have access to greenery include a lack of opportunity to exercise, play, inhale clean air, enjoy shade, and grow food. Heat-related illnesses are therefore more common in poorer neighborhoods (Travers).

Looking at the map, we can see that there is a key that tells us what each color means. The colors are scaled from “best” (green) to “hazardous” (red). As our eyes move inward on the map, we can see that the “hazardous” neighborhoods are located at the heart of the city. These neighborhoods are next to each other. This indicates segregation in housing because those who want to live in nicer areas live by each other. The green and blue areas are almost all furthest from the red areas. The blue and green areas are more on the outskirts of the city. They are located more north on the map, away from the industrial and commercial areas.

This map provides us with a visual representation of the disparities between poorer and more affluent neighborhoods. This is a straightforward map that effectively shows redlining in Richmond. The map allows us to see how big of an issue redlining is and how geographically concentrated the issue is. We mainly see the “hazardous” color in one area of the map. This suggests that we only show concern for those who occupy the “hazardous” space or those who are near it. Both sources that I referenced emphasize the fact that latinx and black residents are far more common in redlined areas than white residents. One reason why I chose this map was because the people who reside in redlined neighborhoods make a low income yet are subjected to a poor living environment that is bound to cause health related issues. The lack of greenery in redlined areas is likely to make residents’ doctor bills skyrocket, putting them in a constant cycle of owing money and not being able to afford to move up to a neighborhood with less hazardous living conditions (Travers).

In our class discussion on “Deconstructing the Map,” we also discussed how maps legitimize potentially problematic aspects of power. We can see how redlined neighborhoods are neglected because of the lack of greenery within them. The more affluent neighborhoods are tended to and cared for by the city because they possess an ideal image that the city wants to maintain. Residents of these neighborhoods except the maintenance habits that the city provides. Our class then talked about how maps are authoritative and that we let them legitimize a lot of problems as a result of this. This is evident in the “Residential Security Map for Richmond” map because redlining a neighborhood labels the communities that occupy them as ‘poor.’ Redlining creates both financial and health related barriers that single out occupants of “hazardous” neighborhoods from the rest of the community. Although redlining itself has subsided, we still live with the aftereffects. In Julia Travers’ article, we can see how gentrification, among other things, has almost become a new form of redlining. Less affluent neighborhoods are involuntarily being taken on as projects in an effort to revamp the appearance of these neighborhoods for the good of the city (Travers). For the most part, this map legitimizes the status of those who occupy space in downtown Richmond as ‘poor.’ This map forces us to reflect on the diversity of occupants that live in Richmond and how the areas that they reside in directly affect the ways that they are treated.

Works Cited

“Formerly Redlined Areas of Richmond Are Going Green.” Chesapeake Bay Foundation, www.cbf.org/blogs/save-the-bay/2020/09/formerly-redlined-areas-of-richmond-are-going-green.html.

Deconstructing the Map, by J. B. Harley, vol. 26, 2004, pp. 1–15.

“Mapping Inequality.” Digital Scholarship Lab, https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=12/37.549/-77.545&city=richmond-va&area=C4&text=intro

Travers, Julia. “A Tree Grows in Richmond: Southside Moves from Redlining to Greening.” Progressive.org, 11 Mar. 2021, https://progressive.org/latest/from-redlining-to-greening-travers-210311/