Peters Projection Maps

Ever since the first day of class (as well as in past courses when this topic has come up), I have been very intrigued by the concept behind the Peters Projection Map. It seems like a mildly absurd concept to me to be able to say that one map is more “right” or more “wrong” than another, when the world is so vast and each one of us so small. How, if not able to see the whole earth or chart all territory for that matter, are we supposed to create a map that is precisely accurate? It’s not like we can unravel the planet and lay it out on a drawing board to trace. All that being said, I decided to do a little research about it on my own.

The information I found was very interesting. While Wikipedia is not known to be the most reliable source, it did offer a great discussion on the controversy of different map projections. It was said that Peters projection, just like many other new map projections that arise, was widely ignored at first as it seemed mathematically impossible for any map projection to really be much better or more accurate than the next. However, Peters announced his new projection at a time when themes of social justice were very prominent in academia, and the Peters Projection map got much publicity for its accuracy, realism, and factuality. However, there was still a great deal of controversy behind this projection, as all map projections may be more or less accurate in different ways, and that the Peters projection was still warped near the poles, as any rectangular map must be mathematically.

I found the following resolution, which was adopted by seven North American geographic organizations in 1989 and 1990, which I found to be interesting (which, we have to keep in mind, was adopted by North American geographic organizations, not geographic organizations worldwide):
WHEREAS, the earth is round with a coordinate system composed entirely of circles, and
WHEREAS, flat world maps are more useful than globe maps, but flattening the globe surface necessarily greatly changes the appearance of Earth's features and coordinate systems, and
WHEREAS, world maps have a powerful and lasting effect on peoples' impressions of the shapes and sizes of lands and seas, their arrangement, and the nature of the coordinate system, and
WHEREAS, frequently seeing a greatly distorted map tends to make it "look right,"
THEREFORE, we strongly urge book and map publishers, the media and government agencies to cease using rectangular world maps for general purposes or artistic displays. Such maps promote serious, erroneous conceptions by severely distorting large sections of the world, by showing the round Earth as having straight edges and sharp corners, by representing most distances and direct routes incorrectly, and by portraying the circular coordinate system as a squared grid. The most widely displayed rectangular world map is the Mercator (in fact a navigational diagram devised for nautical charts), but other rectangular world maps proposed as replacements for the Mercator also display a greatly distorted image of the spherical Earth.

So, alas, I am left still feeling like all maps have their perks and all maps have their downfalls, and have to wonder why, if the Peters Projection offers a much more realistic and factual representation of the planet, do a majority of schools, etc. still choose to use other map projections, such as the Mercator. Concluding, I think it might be best to just avoid the use of rectangular maps as much as possible, and stick to the classical spherical globe! Nonetheless, I the different map projections out there are definitely something people should be informed about, as it’s important to realize that the image of the world we see on paper may be highly skewed!