jane_the_23rd ([info]jane_the_23rd) wrote in [info]cartographica,
@ 2006-01-19 10:01:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Does anyone else find the media coverage of this map slightly troubling? The headlines keep reading things like "China was first", etc, etc, thus completely ignoring that we no longer view the contact between the 'new' and 'old' worlds as one that can be described as 'discovery'. Never mind the fact that maps made in 1763 are not maps made in 1418. There is acknowledgement, in most of the reports, that a map cannot really 'prove' anything, but even if it is a genuine copy of an earlier map (for which supporting evidence would be extremely unlikely), it still belies the fact that the rhetoric of discovery is being revived for the sake of another scientific 'first', which is no longer -- I hope -- a mark of scholarly or cultural value for anyone with academic leanings of any kind.

I understand that this is the media, and the media love sensations: the first, the biggest, the oldest, the latest, the fastest, the strongest. I also, however, wonder if the members of First Nations in the Americas appreciate being reminded that neither they nor the rather significant land mass on which they live, actually existed until someone from the 'developed' world validated it by finding it? It's not that I expect the media to be aware of all the latest theoretical and methodological approaches in my subject of study, but I do think this one is particularly obvious.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4609074.stm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/01/0118_060118_chinese_map.html
http://science.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1075882.php/China_map_claims_America_discovery

Cross-posted to my own journal.

(Post a new comment)


[info]gerald_duck
2006-01-19 10:54 am UTC (link)
I've given up on the entire issue, frankly.

That Columbus discovered America is basically a bizarre myth originated primarily by those in the USA — which is odd, since he never stepped foot in what is now the USA, and what he did discover he spent the remainder of his life forcing his colleagues at gunpoint to claim he hadn't.

And we already know the Vikings were around Newfoundland many centuries earlier, anyway.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]jane_the_23rd
2006-01-19 11:08 am UTC (link)
That's the crazy thing! I don't know enough about the construction of the myth of Columbus, but I imagine the politics behind it would distract me from my week's work sufficiently enough...

I am not revising my own life here, and pretending I was some astute little prodigy, but I do remember learning in elementary school that Columbus discovered America because he went to the West Indies. And then I remember wondering how someone could possibly claim they had discovered a whole continent based on one island that isn't actually, you know, near it. But the teacher was all, "It was AMERICA, OKAY?" Uh, ok. I probably did not phrase it in anything like a coherent question, but still...

As for the Vikings....Ah, yes. But they've only started to 'count' in the last few decades. You wouldn't believe how many people here continue to be taught that the Vikings were barbaric raiders, despite the fact that they, um, founded most of the major IRish towns and cities.

But if the media wants to treat myth as fact, why don't we just release the SHOCKING STORY that St Brendan sailed from the west of Ireland in the 7th century in a skin boat! After all, it can be proved by the fact that 'Brendan's Isle' is on 17th century maps! And we can PROVE the existence of Hy Brasil using the SAME MAP! Wait! We can prove the existence of the GARDEN OF EDEN based on maps!

Oh, crap, my sarcasm mechanism has just malfunctioned. Again.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]mrfishes
2006-02-01 03:35 am UTC (link)
I don't know enough about the construction of the myth of Columbus, but I imagine the politics behind it would distract me from my week's work sufficiently enough...

It seems to be largely an Italian-American pride thing. Italian districts in lots of cities have streets named (or sub-named) "Christopher Columbus Way" or something similar. . . .

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]nuniabiz
2006-01-19 02:26 pm UTC (link)
Bah. The Norwegians were the first palefaces here in the New World.

Why do people forget that?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]jane_the_23rd
2006-01-19 04:07 pm UTC (link)
So much about the coverage of this is fairly annoying, if not downright enraging.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]kenosis
2006-01-19 07:43 pm UTC (link)
The projection looks a little Eurocentric to me - and I've heard that many of the terms on the map weren't used until much later.

Deconstructing the word "discovered", of course, creates the notion of "connecting the Western Hemisphere to the world in a meaningful, long-term way".

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]windysmile
2006-01-20 09:54 am UTC (link)
The projection looks a little Eurocentric to me
Yes, and it looks very strange.

Besides, Australia and Antarctica are shown as they are on the modern maps, -- I mean both their conturs and position. It means, that these continents were known to the Chinese in 1418 (even if in 1763, it's fantastic to my mind). It also looks very strange to me.

More of all, there are not only conturs of the continents, but also the rivers shown approximately right, so we are to suggest, that there were not only marine expeditions, but the ones deep into the continents.

Certainly, this map is needed to be analized, but...

Maybe I'm wrong, but it looks like a fake.

--------
Sorry for my English.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…