The release of a global map by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) has sparked attention to the political nature of cartography. While some may be taken aback that ideological debates have reached the field of map-making, the truth is that cartographic projections are always political choices. When representing a three-dimensional world on a two-dimensional surface, decisions must be made about what to prioritize – whether it’s shapes, areas, or angles – and which political conventions to follow.
One prominent example of a politically charged cartographic projection is Joaquín Torres García’s “Inverted America,” which places South America at the top of the map to challenge traditional power dynamics. Similarly, the choice of the Greenwich meridian as the zero meridian in the 19th century reflected British dominance, much to the dismay of France. The United Nations’ use of an azimuthal projection starting from the North Pole is an attempt to avoid favoring any specific country, although it still reflects power imbalances.
Recently, controversy erupted in Brazil over the new edition of IBGE’s School Geographic Atlas. The map placed Brazil at the center of the world map, a decision met with criticism from Brazilians themselves who highlighted its sensitive nature. Additionally, this representation also drew attention to countries that are members of G20 and diplomatic representations around the globe. This event serves as a reminder that cartography is not immune to politics and power dynamics.
