Mappenstance.

Larger Image

http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_publications/NATO_member_and_partner_countries-2011-ENG.pdf

As we enter 2017, the world has never been closer than it is now. Communication and information have completely revolutionized society and how countries interact with one another. As members of this society, it is important that we look to the past to see how it is currently shaping the future. One of the best ways to achieve this is to look at the institutions that define humanity. Therefore, I have decided to draw your attention to this map above, NATO Member and Partner Countries, as it is necessary to see how an organization such as NATO has evolved into its current state and how it influences our world today.

In the years immediately following World War II, once-allied nations began to drift further away from each other as their respective viewpoints and ideological values tore apart the friendship that had once helped end one of the greatest catastrophes in human history. The East and the West, the capitalists and the communists, democracy and tyranny all became synonymous with the two sides that would square off in the newly conceived conflict that would shape foreign diplomacy for nearly the entire last half of the century. This “Cold War,” as it would come to be known, put the countries of Western Europe against the countries of the Soviet Bloc. Fearing the new-found power of the Soviet Union, the United States turned to her closest allies, those nations of Western Europe as well as Canada, to contain this new threat. In 1949, these twelve nations came together and signed the North Atlantic Treaty. Perhaps what made this treaty so critical was the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or as it is most commonly referred to, NATO. This new organization would play a key factor in the continued polarization of Europe and serve as a reminder that even though there may have been no fighting in the Cold War, there was most certainly a symbolic divide that would have massive political and social implications for years to come [1].

One of the crucial provisions of NATO was that any member nation that was under the protection of the United States also fell under its “nuclear umbrella” [2].  At first glance, this seemed like common sense. If a group of nations were going to get together under the pretense of mutual protection, why wouldn’t they include every aspect of their arsenal? The main issue with this policy is that it put the use of nuclear weapons on the forefront of any military or political issue between NATO and the Soviet Union. This escalated even the most minute issues into full-blown conflicts since the nuclear option was always on the table. This provision in the treaty also helped to create the arms race. With the induction of Turkey into NATO in 1952, the United States was literally able to put nuclear weapons on the border of the Soviet Union. What were the Soviets to do about this? They couldn’t attack Turkey without fear of retribution, and a peaceful solution seemed next to impossible. In response, the Soviet Union began to stockpile missiles and created their own version of NATO in the form of the Warsaw Pact. These actions rendered by both sides in the name of self-defense ended up having many unintended consequences. This information is important in the process of understanding this map.

This map, NATO Member and Partner Countries, seems simple enough. It is just a depiction of the member nations of NATO as well as the organizations that they work with. But, as with every map, it is never quite that simple. As my professor would say, “we must go nerd deep.” Now what do I mean by this? When one looks at this map, they must be willing to look at the various decisions the makers of this map made and the social and political implications of these decisions. The first thing I want to do is to draw your attention to the creator of the map, NATO. When discussing what their organization does, they tend to focus on the positive aspects of their actions and have a perspective that nations who are not a part of their group may not share. A treaty organization as large as NATO is going to have broad reaching impacts on nonmember nations. While the organization’s main interests seem to be in Europe, they are clearly seeking to spread their influence into Northern Africa and the Middle East. These new initiatives that they claim to reflect purely positive reasons for working with these nations may not be as innocent as they seem.

Even though the age of imperialism and expansionism may be over, the countries with power are still finding ways to exert their control over weaker nations and are still actively trying to preserve their influence throughout the world. This is made even more apparent by the fact that the nations that are not a part of any NATO initiatives are purposely represented with a bland beige while the rest of the nations involved are given vibrant colors. It makes it appear as these other nations do not matter. Map color is a powerful tool in this sense. Another interesting aspect of this map is its use of cartouches that are all militarily related. This is just another example of the subtle ways the creator of this map draws the viewer’s attention to the power of NATO. One can tell that NATO must be mighty if they are in control of such incredible machines of war.

The way this map is divided exposes how NATO decides the various political and social issues that they are involved in. The focus is clearly centered around Europe and it excludes almost all South America, Southern Africa and most of Asia. This may seem obvious because NATO is designed to reflect the nations of the Northern Atlantic, but what it is subconsciously doing is making the viewer believe that those parts of the world that are not included are irrelevant. Essentially, how can such a fundamentally important group such as NATO ignore half of the world? This is a clear example of the dynamics of power and how a map creator can reflect their views in a seemingly unbiased representative map. This map also frames NATO not as a group of powerful players, but rather a humanitarian group that ensures the protection of others while simultaneously helping countries around the world. This choice of dialogue makes the viewer infer that NATO is a righteous and necessary organization and that these nations they claim to be “helping” must need this help or are simply not as capable of functioning as those in NATO.

It is also important to note that even though the Cold War may be over, a quick look at a map that has been produced as recently as 2011 can show that a divide still exists. Even though several nations that were part of the former Soviet Union joined NATO, there are still quite a few that remain distant from this group. Much of Eastern Europe and the Asian countries that were under Soviet control remain aligned with Russia. Further, many of the nations that are green in Europe traditionally have been neutral in times of war, such as Ireland, Switzerland and Sweden, while others remain uninvolved because of past treaties. This continues to highlight the militaristic nature of NATO and how the organization may not be as humanitarian or peaceful as it claims to be.

NATO has a significant effect on the modern political state of the world. Even though the divide between NATO and Russia may have moved further East, the two sides are still fighting for influence. The current conflicts in Ukraine and Syria exemplify this. If one wants to understand the current state of geopolitics, this map would be an important place to start. Many of the world’s issues can be traced back to the geography and mapping of the world, and this map is no exception to this concept. But is also vital that one keeps in mind some of the biases this map may contain and look for its deeper meaning. Keep in mind, this map only represents one perspective of the complicated issues of today’s politics. One should look elsewhere as well to further understand this issue.

References

[1] History.com Staff. “Formation of NATO and Warsaw Pact.” History.com. 2010. Accessed March 30, 2017. http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/formation-of-nato-and-warsaw-pact.

[2] Randolph, Stephen. “North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), 1949.” Office of the Historian. Accessed March 30, 2017. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/nato.

Nato. “NATO Member and Partner Countries.” NATO. May 1, 2011. Accessed March 30, 2017. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_81136.htm

http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_publications/NATO_member_and_partner_countries-2011-ENG.pdf

The absurdity of the portrayal of the colonies’ extension across America is not quite like any other map that I have seen. Few maps are as dramatic in their presentation as John Mitchell’s map of the colonies. Its colonies sweep out all the way to the pacific coast without even knowing what lies beyond the east coast. This map of the territories in North America is pivotal in its rhetorical power and geopolitical influence on those who viewed it. The full name of this map is “A map of the British and French dominions in North America, with the roads, distances, limits, and extent of the settlements, humbly inscribed to the Right Honourable the Earl of Halifax, and the other Right Honourable the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations.” (Congress) This map came about before the Revolutionary War and during the French and Indian War. John Mitchell was commissioned by the Board of Trade of Great Britain to produce this map in the year 1755. By viewing this colonial map three themes occur in regards to its appearance and power. This map is highly detailed, rhetorically significant in its manipulative power over foreign policy, and shows colonialism in its portrayal of the colonies.

The attention to detail can be seen in almost every part of the map. Inscribed at the lower right hand corner is a cartouche that identifies the recipient of the map – The Earl of Halifax. The Earl of Halifax at that time was George Montagu-Dunk who was the head of the Board of Trade. He had major influence over the colonies including expanding trade in the region earning him the name “father of the colonies.” (George Montagu-Dunk, 2nd Earl of Halifax) Maps such as this act as a symbol of power. By having a map with his name on it George Montagu-Dunk can legitimize himself through the ownership of the map. The attention to detail can also be seen in the inset on the upper left that examines the Hudson Bay and the areas around it showing its importance to the population in that region. In addition, there are strategically placed comments throughout that map pointing out information about the natives and French and English settlements. On the overall appearance of the map, some of the thirteen colonies are identified in bright colors and New France is identified to the north of these colonies in green. The map itself is brightly colored and hand drawn, identifying different territories during that time period. In regards to points of interest, the map includes, “roads, distances, limits, and the extent of settlements.” This attention to details plays into the maps function as a rhetorical device.

Rhetorically this map has a significant amount of power over British foreign policy. The comments in this map exist to shape the viewers understanding of the situation in the colonies. These comments are as much of a rhetorical device as the selection of one map projection over another. All maps make decisions about leaving things in, versus taking things out. These comments are an example of those decisions. For instance, there are two long paragraphs explaining Native American movements in what is today Illinois. These comments and others serve as a way to purport a major Native American influence in this region. This serves to use fear to convince the British people that the Native Americans were a problem that needed to be dealt with. This map was produced during the French and Indian War and helped to gain support for Britain’s involvement in the war. The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation owns this map and has done research on its origin and overall context. The Foundation has concluded that this map was extremely influential in its ability to swath the British people to keep control of the colonies. (Foundation)

The rhetorical decisions do not stop with the remarks about the Native Americans. In addition, comments about the French are sprinkled throughout the map creating the idea that the French are sweeping through North America. For instance, on the south of Lake Erie a comment states “usurped by the French 1751”. (Congress) By placing this comment the author creates a narrative that points toward French encroachment.

In addition to these comments, the way the colonies are portrayed shows a noticeable colonial arrogance. The colonies of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia are all extended to the edge of the map. This is done in a manner that lacks regard for any people groups in the areas that are bulldozed over by these arbitrary borders.  These lines seem to be drawn arbitrarily westward with no real understanding of the implications that the boundaries create. This was a time period when the seeds of rebellion were being sown and discontent with the Crown was more evident every day. It could have come off as a major insult that the Crown was claiming almost all of America for itself and fueled rebellion. The colonies seem to push infinitely into the west claiming all of the territory in the name of England. The map shows the British claiming land that they barely knew existed. This creates an incorrect perception that the British people have a right to all the land. Unfortunately, today, we seem to forget that we were once a colony that was taken advantage of by a stronger power and not given a say in how it wanted to be governed. We must see that this map, in its attention to detail and rhetoric, points toward us today and asks what kind of country we want to be in our dealings with our less powerful counterparts.

References

Congress, Library of. A MAP of the/ British and French Dominions in/ North America,/ WITH THE/ Roads, Distances, Limits, and Extent of the/SETTLEMENTS,/ Humbly Inscribed to the Right Honourable/ The Earl of Halifax,. n.d. 21 March 2017. <http://emuseum.history.org/view/objects/asitem/classification@17/15/title-asc?t:state:flow=06387ae4-812a-4ad4-943f-f337cdd89396>.

Foundation, Colonial Williamsburg. “A map of the British and French dominions in North America, with the roads, distances, limits, and extent of the settlements, humbly inscribed to the Right Honourable the Earl of Halifax, and the other Right Honourable the Lords Commissioners for Trade &.” n.d. Library of Congress. 21 March 2017. <https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3300.np000009/>.

George Montagu-Dunk, 2nd Earl of Halifax. n.d. 21 March 2017.