In Cartographies of Time, Daniel Rosenberg and Anthony Grafton illustrate how easy visualization of data can facilitate a deeper understanding of its meaning. They take care to introduce and detail multiple different different data recording systems from the last several centuries, explaining the nuances and distinctions among each of them. The evolution of these charts helps illustrate the relative importance of chronology as a field of study. It seems, however, that while these charts are immensely detailed and intricate, today’s charts are considerably less so. A timeline is no longer a revolutionary new method of visualization but more likely a homework assignment for a second grader. These charts have grown simpler over time, resulting in the standard line graph, something that was previously innovative but is now mundane. This lack of detail and intricacy points to an argument that Mark Monmonier makes in his book How to Lie with Maps, that exclusion of data and distortion of reality in a chart is necessary to get the most important points across.
A message that both books present is that simplicity is an important aspect of data visualization. Clarity is key. Unfortunately, the act of simplifying allows for the possibility of manipulation, which Monmonier details in his accounts of political propaganda maps. Monmonier alludes to the point that simplification of maps is dangerous because people trust them. Maps are often awarded more authority than they deserve. Take, for example, the following map:
This map means a lot of different things to a lot of different people, and is a frequent source of international tensions. The 9 dashed line (China’s claimed territory in the South China Sea, in red) was originally published in 1947 by the Koumintang, not the Chinese Communist Party. In 1949 when the Koumintang fled to Taiwan and the CCP founded the People’s Republic of China, the CCP conveniently adopted this map as their own despite it having been created by the Koumintang, who also maintain claims to the area. The CCP continues to insist upon their right to claim the entire South China Sea to this day, despite the fact that this violates mutually agreed upon international law. Some might find this map to be completely legitimate while others find it outrageous. It stands as an example of how lines drawn on a picture of the earth can represent something so incredibly significant as national sovereignty, and how oversimplification of maps can have potentially dangerous ramifications, especially when those maps carry authority.
Nice application of Monmonier’s points to an entirely different map. What stands out to me on this map are the dotted lines. Monmonier doesn’t talk specifically about dotted lines in our selections for today, but you can imagine an entire chapter focused on dotted lines and what they convey and evoke on a map—especially a map of disputed territories.