Chapter
1, Activity 1 Extention:
True
Maps, False Impressions in the Atlas of Canada
Aboriginal Population Map, 2001:
1)
What is the primary purpose of the map?
The primary purpose of
this map is to display, in full, the population percentage as well as distribution
of Aboriginals in Canada in the year 2001.
2)
What secondary information does the map also
convey?
·
The percentage of Aboriginals living specifically
in each province
·
The number of Aboriginals living in Canada and in
each province in specific bands (Metis, North American Indian, and Inuit)
·
Certain geographical information, such as rivers,
provincial lines, and province names
·
Comparison to 1996 population
·
Percentage of on-reserve vs. off-reserve
Aboriginals
3)
How effective is that map at relaying the
information it is designed to convey?
I believe this map is not effective at relaying the
primary and secondary information it intends to convey. The map appears
cluttered, and consequently difficult to read, due to an unnecessary concern
with displaying irrelevant geographical information such as rivers and province
names. Furthermore, the use of two kinds of information population number and
population percentage makes for a confusing, and potentially misguiding map.
Indeed, the mapmaker used multiple types of information in many areas, which
confuses the reader. Another example is the use of regions in the main map as
boundary lines, and the use of provinces in the information table as boundary
lines. For these readers, the reader finds themselves confused more than
enlightened when reading this map.
4)
Be a detective. If the map maker had a
hidden agenda, what might it be?
Naturally, the government of Canada wants to seem
like an inviting, multi-cultural, accepting institution. In seventh grade history
class, we were taught that Canada boasts a cultural mosaic, where many
different cultures can proudly maintain their traditions, language, and
livelihood without pressure to integrate themselves into Caucasian, Western
culture. This was thought to be unique, specifically in comparison to the
melting pot theory of culture the United States has. However, the truth is
that the culture of the Aboriginals in Canada is suffering they are losing
their language and their territory, and more so now than ever, they are finding
themselves concentrated in urban areas. In short, they are integrating
themselves into English-speaking, Caucasian, Western culture, due to financial
necessity. However, upon reading this map, one would never know the use of
percentages and the choropleth mapping system portrays the Aboriginal
population as thriving, as well as being somewhat separate from areas of urban
congestion (such as Southern Ontario).
5)
List at least three ways the map might give
a false impression
1)
The use of percentages and choropleth mapping means
that the Aboriginal population seems larger than it truly is
2)
Neglecting to use specific numbers of Aboriginals
in any given place (rather than percentages), makes it seem that Aboriginals do
not inhabit urban areas, such as Southern Ontario
3)
The use of indistinctive and relatively neutral
colours provides less clarity for the reader. The eye cannot immediately
distinguish between areas of differing population percentage, causing
confusion.
Historical Indian Treaties Map:
1)
What is the primary purpose of the map?
The primary purpose of
this map is to show Indian treaties that were negotiated between 1725 and 1930.
2)
What secondary information does the map also
convey?
·
Historical background of treaties in Canada
(pre-map screen)
·
The name and boundaries of each pre and
post-confederation treaty
·
The exact date each treaty was made
·
Certain geographical information, such as lakes,
provincial lines, province names and names of oceans
3)
How effective is that map at relaying the
information it is designed to convey?
I believe the map is very
effective at portraying the information it is designed to convey, with the
exception of one or two pitfalls. Though the map is distinctive, well-titled,
and easy to read, I do not believe enough information is included for it to be
useful for the average reader. One is left with many questions it is
mentioned that Aboriginal peoples and various European and Canadian governments
formed treaties, but who are the particular participants (specific bands of
Aboriginals, specific European or Canadian governments) in each one listed? It
is also mentioned that treaties create mutually binding obligations what
are some of the specific or defining obligations of each treaty?
4)
Be a detective. If the map maker had a
hidden agenda, what might it be?
Again, I believe the
Canadian government created this map in an attempt to manufacture a good image
for itself. In this case, the map creates the sense of a historically united
Canada, in which European governments, Canadian governments and Aboriginal
bands lived at peace with one another. Creating and propagating such a myth is
advantageous for the Canadian government for obvious reasons. The truth,
however, is very different the Aboriginals were mistreated by the Canadian
government both before and after confederation, and European governments were
the first to take away their land and rob them of their natural rights.
5)
List at least three ways the map might give
a false impression
1)
The fact that much of this map shows land united by
treaty, one would think that the Canadian population was very much united. This
is a false impression.
2)
This map does not account for treaties that began
in the years indicated and then fell apart.
3)
The close proximity of many treaties in the
Southern Prairies makes it difficult to visually discern between different
united areas.
Elections:
1)
What is the primary purpose of the map?
The primary purpose of
the following three maps is to show the results of the three most recent
elections (held in 2000, 2004 and 2006).
2)
What secondary information does the map also
convey?
·
(on pre-map screen) General information about
elections (how often they are held, how long they have been held, what their
result is)
·
Distribution of ridings and riding boundaries
·
The name of each elected official, their party,
whether they were a member of the previous parliament, the names of other
candidates in any given riding, and a link to profiles of each one (upon
clicking get info from map)
·
Federal Electoral District Boundaries
·
International boundaries
·
Provincial / Territorial boundaries
·
Canada / Kalaallit Nunaat dividing line
·
The number of seats won by each party
3)
How effective is that map at relaying the
information it is designed to convey?
I believe this series of
maps is effective at portraying the results of the 37th, 38th
and 39th general federal elections in Canada. One can clearly
discern the ridings and general areas where any given party won seats, and the
added table of information (regarding exact number of seats won) adds
additional clarity to the map. There are only two ineffective elements of this
map, the most important of which is the small size parts of Southern Ontario
with concentrating populations (and, thus, a large number of ridings) are
cramped and unclear. A larger map would add clarity, and rectify this point of
confusion. The second misguiding element is the use of choropleth mapping with
the varied size of ridings this creates the false impression that parties who
won in larger ridings won more seats than parties who won in smaller ridings,
which is not so.
4)
Be a detective. If the mapmaker had a hidden
agenda, what might it be?
Any political map is a
simplification, and creates the sense of a united political agenda within any given
riding, region, or province. However, since Canadas political system does not
work by proportional representation, this is not so. The NDP, the Green party
and several Independent parties are grossly underrepresented in the current
system, and actually obtain much more of the vote than our present system
portrays. This map maker obviously set out to simplify the political scenery of
Canada, and make it seem as if unified pockets of party supporters exist all
throughout the country. A map displaying a proportionally representative vote
would be a more accurate (and thus less concise and sterile) political map of
Canada.
5)
List at least three ways the map might give
a false impression
1)
The use of choropleth mapping is misguiding, in
regards to the varied size of ridings. For example, the 38th Federal
Election map gives the impression that the NDP won a significant amount of the
seats the orange coloured spots on the map are rather large, occupying about
1/3 of British Columbia, 1/5 of Ontario and Ύ of Manitoba. However, when one
looks closer, each of these large orange areas is really only one riding, and
only amounts to three NDP seats (an incredibly insignificant colour). When
incorporating the smaller bits of orange, the NDP only won 19 seats as compared
to the Liberals 135.
2)
The cramped nature of Southern Ontario gives the
impression that Conservatives dominated this area, and the gray fuzziness of
the region may even cause readers to assume several ridings were won by
independent candidates. Both these impressions are misguided and untrue.
There
are several different boundary lines on this list, many of which (in the
legend) appear to have little difference in appearance. For example, the line
that defines ridings looks very much like the lines that define provinces,
which could be confusing for those who do not know Canadian geography well.
