Introduction
The acquisition of new territories by the United States between 1783 and 1850 expanded the nation's borders to the Mississippi, then to the Rocky Mountains, and finally to the Southwest and West Coast. A pageant of now famous historical figures, as well as lesser known and unknown persons, pushed the frontier further westward through politics, diplomacy, squatting, courage, good fortune, warfare and, at times, apparent thievery. However, of all the tools at the disposal of politicians, patriots, explorers, adventurers, businessmen, and speculators, the map, above all things, legitimized westward expansion and symbolically made these gains manifest. With all of its rhetorical powers, lies, and limitations, the map became the concrete embodiment of the notion of Manifest Destiny.
Critical viewing of maps by teachers and students requires that we accept the fact that all maps have a point of view and purpose that emphasizes key pieces of information while distorting and/or limiting others. This applies to map projections as much as it extends to map content. Mercator projections, for example, consistently relate latitude and longitude to specific locations while grossly exaggerating the size of continents and landforms at the poles. Mercator projections worked well for sea captains of the 16th-19th centuries who needed reliable rhumb lines to sail more accurately from place to place. Indeed this was the purpose of the mercator projection. However, using the map out of context sends really inaccurate messages about the size of land forms. Russia, Canada, Greenland, and Antartica appear much larger than they actually are while continents like Africa actually appear relatively smaller (Monmonier, 1996, p.94). Maps may also lie or give one side of a disputed story. A head of state may authorize the publication of maps that deny a neighboring nation's land claim while including the disputed boundary as his nation's own possession. Such was the case over the disputed state of Kashmir. The neighboring countries of India and Pakistan each published tourist maps showing the disputed territory as their own almost twenty years after a ceasefire agreement had split the country in half (Monmonier, 1996, p. 90). In our nation which increasingly incorporates the visual graphic as part of navigating everyday life, the rhetoric of multiple map types such as, demographic maps, topographical maps, weather maps, road maps, and mass transportation maps, begs for our attention. The power to critically use maps clearly gives students a tremendous skill set by which they can most figuratively and literally navigate through life.
I intend this unit to be an exercise in critically interpreting and demonstrating the rhetoric behind maps. My plan is to connect students' knowledge of organizing and labeling familiar spaces and territories with the body of knowledge for interpreting representative maps of important events in early United States history.
Students are quick to define and at times defend their space, yet they have difficulty reading and interpreting maps. They know the territory of their neighborhood, their school, their locker, and their classroom. However, asking students to define political spaces on a map can be a daunting and frustrating task. Why are students so capable of bragging about and even defending their space when completing a task as apparently simple as labeling a map of the United States is so tedious?
I hope to arrive at some conclusions through the development and teaching of this unit. I will start with an observation gained over ten years teaching in urban school districts: student interest and ability in geography as a discipline is abhorrently low. Moreover, the importance of geography to many urban districts around the country has been eclipsed by initiatives that clearly focus attention on trying to raise reading and writing skills for standardized tests.
Yet the ability to organize space, recognize boundaries, and interpret symbolic renderings of space is a crucial skill for literally and figuratively navigating one's way in the world and through life. Understanding the basic principles of maps and mapmaking unlocks some of the most fascinating incidents in United States history. These principles should flow instinctively from students' innate ability to describe the boundaries of one's personal space, immediate surroundings and local area. Yet there is a distinct disconnection between the "boring" pictures of maps in a text book and the lively activity of one's neighborhood. Students enjoy differentiating why their neighborhood is better than another. Perhaps it's the personal connection to space that makes it worth defining and describing.
Comments: