Tag: Student Weekly Posts

With any argument, publication, presentation, or comment (online or in person), ethics should be considered. In terms of mapping, one should value honesty, fairness, and an unbiased representation of the proposition they are trying to make. With any set of data, numbers and visuals may be skewed/edited in order to promote a certain agenda–which is something all readers should be aware of. Look into map cartographics and classifications. Look into the data sources. Look into the map-makers history. All of these things can guide you towards the reliability of the map, and if its methods are ethical. History itself is much more than just numbers, but unreliable storytellers and map-makers can use data to enhance a story that is far from the truth. Remember the example of the vehicular crashes map of Southern California that was presented in class; it appeared as if certain areas had unsafe roads, bad drivers, or a mix of both? However, it was more of a representation of population numbers than anything else. More people means more drivers, which means more crashes. The author used this to their advantage to show an “increased danger associated with driving.” Yet that was far from reality. Those with bad intentions can do similar things with all sorts of topics and maps–so be aware of what is presented, how it is presented, and who is presenting it. When creating maps of your own, remember these values and uphold standards that you want others to adhere to.

Now, let’s take a dive into this week’s assigned readings. The two maps given are much more than sheer numbers: they are deep maps with associated readings and stories. In Monroe’s map, each lynching is tied to a name, gender, when they were lynched, where they were lynched, and why they were lynched.

Monroe & Florence Work Today. 2016. “Map of White Supremacy Mob Violence.” PlainTalkHistory. https://plaintalkhistory.com/monroeandflorencework/?u=2

It uses point vectors to associate deaths and certain coordinates (I presume), a very effective and efficient way to differentiate this map from a typical choropleth map. The tie to personal stories creates a much darker effect for the reader–instead of promoting people just as numbers. 

Monroe & Florence Work Today. 2016. “Map of White Supremacy Mob Violence.” PlainTalkHistory. https://plaintalkhistory.com/monroeandflorencework/?u=2

Further, a timeline along the bottom expertly shows change over time (a common struggle for cartographers). I would like to use/create something like this for my final project. 

Instead of using maps TO tell a story like Monroe, EJI tells a story and uses maps to AID in this. It first delivers personal anecdotes, quotes, memories, and a short film to show how slavery progressed into a looming issue of lynching, and now into mass incarceration. Monroe focused on the issue of lynching, while the EJI went back to the root issue (slavery) and showed how this progressed as laws/society changed. An important quote guiding me towards this realization was from Anthony Ray Hinton, an inmate who was wrongly put on death row. 

Equal Justice Initiative. “Lynching in America.” EJI. https://lynchinginamerica.eji.org/explore

Clicking on this then takes you to a short film about his circumstances, and further down the page two maps are presented. One shows the migration of African Americans out of the south using a decade-by-decade choropleth maps of state AA % population, and another is a choropleth map county-wide for lynching data. 

For both of the projects above, original reports and sources are listed so that readers are able to read and come to their own conclusions if need be. I like their acknowledgment of this issue and the transparency aspect that it provides. A great solution for a possible ethical dilemma. 

In the last assigned source, an article going over both of these projects and the associated ethics behind historic visualizations is given. Similarly to what I prefaced earlier, it highlights the fact that the author uses intentional silences to promote their cause (ie: EJI and systemic racism).

Hepworth, Katherine & Christopher Church. 2018. “Racism in the Machine: Visualization Ethics in Digital Humanities Projects.” Digital Humanities Quarterly, 12(4). https://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/12/4/000408/000408.html

This again shows the importance of digging into the data/sources used, the map itself, and the individual/group that made the map. Different symbology, scales, classifications, colors, and other cartographic elements can be used to alter data in a way that it should not be. While the sole point of maps is to create and maintain a proposition, they should not be used to falsely promote a point for argumentation’s sake. Mapmakers themselves should adhere to ethical standards, but in the fact that this is not always how it works, readers need to be given access to original sources and be aware of tricks/deceptions used to portray data.

Henry Gannett’s 1903 map outlines the relative distribution of wheat production in the United States at the dawn of the 20th century. At first glance, one can see that much of the land that produced large sums of this crop was concentrated across the Midwestern regions of the country, whereas the Mountain West, West, and Southern lands of the United States did not contain high densities of wheat [2]. Gannett’s map, however, also serves a greater purpose – it offers a narrative about various environmental factors and it gives the audience a degree of insight into man’s ability (and inability) to manipulate natural landscapes.

In On the great plains, Geoff Cunfer describes the variation in land use between regions the central United States in the 19th and 20th centuries, highlighting the plowing efforts of many with their eyes set on agricultural profitability. To turn natural grassland into money-making fields of crops, there were a complex set of factors that needed to be just right. The land itself needed to be relatively level; enough rainfall was required for successful growth; temperatures needed to be mild enough to retain water in the soil, but consistent enough to have a lengthy growing season; and the soil itself must have nutritive substances. Each of these variables were required in the equation of making money in the agricultural realm, and any one that was missing would certainly detract from success [1].

Returning to Gannett’s map, we can begin to infer that areas with many bushels of wheat per square mile fit the slope, rain, temperature, and soil requirements necessary for profitable farming. Even though it only displays wheat per square mile, this map tells much more about the environments, weather patterns, and climates in specific areas of the United States. Prospective land buyers may have likely used this map as a tool to assess the environmental diversity across the country, basing their purchase of land on their intended use (farming or ranching, in particular).

Lastly, Gannett’s map shows that, given the technological state of the 1900s, there is a clear limit to man’s ability to completely alter a landscape. Not all land can be stripped of its natural state and converted into an economic and agricultural tool, as seen by the light-green and beige regions of the map. Further, Cunfer records that by the 1940s, farmers attempted to plow beyond the limit allowed by the natural environment, and much of what had been plowed eventually returned to grassland. Gannett’s map is a representation of the forces of nature versus the intent of man.

In terms of the final project, I think that the analysis of this map helps me to understand how, even though a map displays one particular thing, it can still be telling of a variety of other factors. In this case, even though Gannett only mapped bushels of wheat per square mile, the map still offers great insight into physical and environmental aspects of particular regions in the United States.

[1] Cunfer, Geoff. 2005. On the great plains. Texas A&M University Press, pp. 16-37.
[2] Gannett, Henry. 1903. “Production of Wheat per Square Mile at the Twelfth Census 1900.” DavidRumsey.com.

In the US today, there is little to no land that is not currently serving a purpose. By this, I mean that nearly every acre is allocated to something: farming, homes, parks, state parks, cities, and all in between. Even land that has seemingly no function, is usually placed within a conservation easement of some sort; therefore, serving a purpose. However, in the time of Elam Bartholomew this was not the case. The prairies served an endless abundance of farmland, once rightfully plowed. Areas they determined were bad for farming, were mowed or left for grazing/hay. This was common:

Geoff Cunfer, “Pasture and Plows,” On the Great Plains, 2005; 19

Across the entire Great Plains, this transformation of natural grasses to pastures and farming was occurring: in what one described as the “most important ecological action” (Cunfer 17). Most importantly, the farmers discovered the natural limits of nature: something I believe science takes advantage of today. From 1880 to 1920, you can see the slow and tedious process of turning grassland into agricultural land:

Figure 2.4. Percentage of total county area not plowed, 1880-1920.

The eastern regions were targeted first, with subtle differences in large 20 year increments. Due to increased farming, demand for land, improved technologies, and an improved economy, the next fifteen years created immense change.

Figure 2.5. Percentage of total county area not plowed, 1925-1940.

When viewing the 1935 map, the change is greatly shown. The dark black map from the 1880s is now ~⅓ white, denoting 0-25% grassland in these areas (in other words a ~75% decrease in grassland!). By 1940, the resistance/limit set by the land is shown as the grassland returns in some areas. The author uses a choropleth map to maintain his argument, contrasting white and black which allows for an easy interpretation and visual of the change occurring. Sharing a similar argument, the 1903 map of wheat/square mile shows that eastern land was developed first and the Great Plains remained largely untouched until the 20th century. 

Henry Gannett, Wheat/sq. mile, 12th census of the US, 1903.

The dark green regions show the most bushels per mile², while the white/unshaded regions represent the lowest amount of wheat production. Again, the mapmaker uses simple contrasting choropleths to show the argument. If this map were continued into the 1930s to 1940s, I presume it would show the same changes that Cunfers’ maps did–expansion and plowing of the Great Plains. The unshaded regions would become darker as the years passed and farming became more prevalent.

John Snow’s cholera map of 1855 was a tool that eventually aided in convincing London’s general public and health officials about the true nature of this mid-19th century disease outbreak. In its persuasion, the map generated downstream social and structural effects that stood as a precedent for disease prevention and health [1]. The cholera map recognizes disease closely connected to the ways in which communities interact, whereas Alexander Johnston’s 1856 “Geographical Distribution of Health and Disease in Connection Chiefly with Natural Phenomena” misses this point.

Snow’s map (pictured above) not only displays recent incidents of deaths from this mysterious disease, but it also successfully depicts an understanding of proximity to the source of contamination – the Broad Street water pump. The map presents a very important connection between where cholera is occurring and why it occurs where it does. It understands that disease, or cholera in particular, has a reliance on the way humans interact with their environment. As in this case, people in close proximity to the contaminated water source were likely to become ill, as one would logically secure their water from a pump that is nearby.

On the other hand, Alexander Johnston’s global map of disease does not encompass this aspect of disease to the same degree. It seems to make an oversimplification of the idea of disease, arguing that disease is inherently regional or territorial. Specific diseases are listed across particular continents, which makes the implication that an illness is tied to distinct geographical areas. Additionally, by color-coding parts of this world map based on latitude, it attempts to make the case that things like weather or regional climate are a main factor in the spread of the shown diseases.

In sum, Johnston’s map does not effectively portray the interactive aspects of disease as well as John Snow’s map does. By drawing connections between proximity to the predicted source of contamination and understanding how that source became contaminated via human activity, Snow succeeded in setting a epidemiological standard that the spread of disease relies on how people interact with their environment. Johnston’s map, conversely, makes the case that disease is fundamentally embedded in specific regions of the world.

[1] Johnson, Steven. 2006. The Ghost Map. Riverhead Books. pp. 1-22, 190-228.
[2] Johnston, Alexander. 1856. Geographical Distribution of Health and Disease in Connection Chiefly with Natural Phenomena. https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~24722~940061:The-geographical-distribution-of-he.
[3] Snow, John. 1855. Cholera Map. https://kora.matrix.msu.edu/files/21/121/15-79-54-30-johnsnow-a0a1d5-a_16430.jpg.