Ethnocentric Cartography

I found Christina Klein’s use of maps in Cold War Orientalism to illustrate America’s (and in the case of The King and I, Britain’s) changing views on the political landscape. The first maps she showed were the two in the musical The King and I – Siam’s map of itself and Burma and the traditional Mercator projection. Klein describes this early scene and explains how the comparison of these maps quickly illustrates for the audience these two different cultures’ views of themselves and the world. While I have only ever used the Mercator map, viewing it in relation to Siam’s map made me immediately questions our own ethno-centric assumptions in mapmaking. Despite the character Anna’s observation of England’s size on the map in relation to Siam’s, Klein is quick to point out that the Mercator map is entirely Euro-centric, depicting Europe (and Britain especially) as the center of the world.

The next map that Klein illustrates is the “Worldwide – The Feeling About Us” map that was printed in Newsweek. The entirely U.S.-centric map features areas of the world where there is a United States military presence and illustrates in text bubbles quick statistics regarding that particular area’s feelings towards the United States. Meant to illustrate “the spread of anti-American attitudes around the world” (19), this map simultaneously illustrates American dominance worldwide. The left side of the map pictures Europe and mostly positive text bubbles such as “relations basically good” (France), “minimum personal friction” (Morocco), “Personal contacts friendly” (Britain), “Conditions improved” (Iceland), and, most importantly, “Cooperation now ‘best ever’” (West Germany). The right side of the map features the Middle East and Asia, and its bubbles are mostly negative: “Local frictions persist” (South Korea), “Collaboration endangered” (Formosa), “Relations better, though…” (The Middle East), “Relations worsening” (Okinawa), “Basically strong friendship, but…” (The Philippines), and “Irritations growing” (Japan). The incredibly positive views in Europe, specifically West Germany, show America’s presumed success at Globalization in Europe post-World War II. However, the overwhelmingly negative attitudes expressed on the Asiatic side of the map clearly show the “cartographer’s” opinion at its eventual failure in Asia. Klein surmises that this illustration truly conveys America’s own anxieties about the reputation of America abroad. I agree with her assumption, especially since the research behind the map’s creation must be called into question. How were these sentiments measured? What was the procedure by which these conclusions were reached? By showing such bare-bones and unscientific statistics, one must conclude that the goal of the map is not merely to reflect the world’s feelings about America but America’s feelings about itself.

I found Klein’s next two maps fascinating. The “World Struggle” map on page 35 showed an incredibly bipolar world, depicting the one-on-one conflict between America and Russia to the exclusion of everything else. As Klein notes, South America and Africa aren’t even fully displayed on the map. The “Collective Defense” map on page 45 is meant to depict global integration by creating a more balanced map with less emphasis placed on U.S.-Soviet struggles. However, by placing the United States in the direct center of the map and splitting the Soviet Union up so that it surrounds the Americas on both sides, this map does not show global integration but once again American centricity and dominance.