Maps in United States Classrooms

[daan]

Since the CIA is an agency of the United States government, it is understandable that despite the disclaimer on the map that the boundaries on it are "not necessarily authoritative", it might be felt that the People's Republic of China would complain that the U.S. was being insincere in abiding by the terms of its recognition of them if the map were accurate in terms of the facts on the ground.

I do not support the “facts on the ground” doctrine. Using that doctrine, maps of Ukraine would show Crimea and the eastern provinces as Russian, definitely not something I would condone. There are political and social goals in staking a position that differs from de facto control. Because the US does not recognize Taiwanese independence, it is neither inconsistent nor simply deferring to China to leave the labeling of Taiwan as not independent and leaving the reader to infer whatever they like.

— daan

[Milo]

I do not support the “facts on the ground” doctrine. Using that doctrine, maps of Ukraine would show Crimea and the eastern provinces as Russian, definitely not something I would condone.

I do think it makes sense to regard that area as currently being, at the very least, disputed. It doesn't get much more disputed than being an active warzone.

However, the fact that there's ongoing fighting means that any borders are in flux and liable to change. A map depicting the actual current borders would be expected to be outdated within months - and for that matter, near the front, it's likely that law and order have broken down and neither government is capable of exerting full authority. Unless you're specifically drawing a map meant to inform people on the current state of the Ukraine-Russia war, it makes sense that most mapmakers will prefer to publish maps with more staying power, which, until the war ends and we know what the results were, probably means sticking to the pre-war borders.

Taiwan and the Koreas, by contrast, have been de facto independent for decades with no real change in their situation, despite diplomatic blustering.

Because the US does not recognize Taiwanese independence, it is neither inconsistent nor simply deferring to China to leave the labeling of Taiwan as not independent and leaving the reader to infer whatever they like.

Marking a territory as disputed would be inviting readers to form their own opinions. Marking Taiwan as simply a part of China means readers who aren't previously aware of the existence of a dispute will have no reason to even suspect there is something to form an opinion about.

Sure, obviously readers can still "infer whatever they like". If I want to believe that Anatolia is still being controlled by the Byzantine Empire, there's nothing the CIA can do to stop me. But, according to this particular map, that belief wouldn't be any more obviously wrong than a belief that Taiwan is independent.

[quadibloc]

I can't come up with a reference off the top of my head, but at least people climbing Everest do need to temporarily swap their satellite phones for equivalent ones provided by the Chinese authorities while on the mountain, and hence in Chinese territory. This is noted in numerous mountain climbing accounts. I may have been mistaken in applying this to cell phones also.
Perhaps, too, my use of the phrase "facts on the ground" was injudicious, as I wouldn't want atlases to show Crimea as being part of Russia either.
In any case, recently I had bought an Ohio Art coin savings bank which was a small-sized version of their famous metal globes. Which were unusual in featuring Tannu Tuva as nestled between Mongolia and Siberia.
Well, since I put the CIA world map on the page to help people find countries on a map... I figured that this was the page on which to talk about finding Tannu Tuva on a map.
Finding a map I could use that showed Tannu Tuva led me on quite a chase... but the one I finally found had a caption that cleared up why Ohio Art had been putting that land on its globes. It was for the same reason they showed Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania on their globes all along, before the downfall of the Soviet Union. The 1944 annexation of Tannu Tuva was also not recognized by the U.S. government. So they were just being patriotic, not lazy.

[PeteD]

people climbing Everest do need to temporarily swap their satellite phones for equivalent ones provided by the Chinese authorities while on the mountain, and hence in Chinese territory. This is noted in numerous mountain climbing accounts.

I haven't managed to find any of these numerous mountain climbing accounts. Maybe I'm just not good enough at googling?

Most climbers attempt Everest from the Nepalese side, which is significantly easier, and are therefore only on the border of Chinese territory while ascending and descending the final ridge to and from the summit. It's a similar situation with K2, where most of the successful climbers are actually only on the border of Chinese territory on the summit itself since the most common route is entirely on the Pakistani side. I say "most of the successful climbers" because most attempts of K2 are unsuccessful, meaning most of the climbers don't reach the Chinese border at all.

[Milo]

Finding a map I could use that showed Tannu Tuva led me on quite a chase...

I was not previously aware that Tannu Tuva was even a place, sovereign or otherwise, let alone where it might be.

The 1944 annexation of Tannu Tuva was also not recognized by the U.S. government.

Well, from what I'm reading now, its independence was also never recognized by the United States government, even in the time period when it was by the Soviet Union.

[quadibloc]

Well, from what I'm reading now, its independence was also never recognized by the United States government, even in the time period when it was by the Soviet Union.

It's possible that the U.S. Government still considered it to be a part of the Republic of China. Not an independent nation, not a part of Mongolia, not a part of Red China - so Taiwan is about all that's left that they would like.

[quadibloc]

Finding a map I could use that showed Tannu Tuva led me on quite a chase... but the one I finally found had a caption that cleared up why Ohio Art had been putting that land on its globes. It was for the same reason they showed Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania on their globes all along, before the downfall of the Soviet Union. The 1944 annexation of Tannu Tuva was also not recognized by the U.S. government. So they were just being patriotic, not lazy.

I found another map that I could use, being from a U.S. Government publication as well, that showed Tannu Tuva. This one was due to the Department of Agriculture, and it was a world map, rather than just a map of the U.S.S.R. and environs.
I think that one genuine mistake was made in drawing the map, though. Iran is shown as "Iran" on the map, not "Persia". But the name "Persia" also appears on the map... and it seems to be given to Lebanon.
EDIT: Actually, it was given to Syria, and maybe Syria actually was called "Persia" at one point after Persia became Iran.

[PeteD]

maybe Syria actually was called "Persia" at one point after Persia became Iran.

That would be very confusing.

[Milo]

I recall reading that US British military forces temporarily reverted to referring to Iran as Persia and Iraq as Mesopotamia during the Iran-Iraq war the second World War (strikethrough denotes parts I turn out to have misremembered on looking it up!), to avoid confusion from two neighboring countries differing by only one letter. But I've never heard of Persia being used for anything as far west as Syria or Lebanon. That really does sound like a mistake.

Geographically, the "Persian Plateau" or "Iranian Plateau" refers to the region that includes Iran as well as Afghanistan and half of Pakistan, but it most definitely does not include Syria. Although from looking at a topographic map, it does seem to have considerable continuity with the Anatolian Plateau.

The Iranian language family shows a similar distribution.

[daan]

Marking a territory as disputed would be inviting readers to form their own opinions. Marking Taiwan as simply a part of China means readers who aren't previously aware of the existence of a dispute will have no reason to even suspect there is something to form an opinion about.

I don’t think “disputed” is anywhere as clearly defined or as desirable a designation as it might casually seem. From Taiwan’s perspective, it is Taiwan that has the legitimate claim to governance of mainland China. Does that mean maps ought to mark all of China as disputed territory? From Argentina’s perspective, the Falkland Islands are Argentine territory, and Argentina turned it into a matter of war in 1982. Does that mean we should mark the islands as in dispute? What of all the colonized territories that the indigenous predecessors never voluntarily ceded and still refuse to recognize as not theirs?

I think we each have a notion for how realistic a dispute is, and someone’s judgment there is what gets used to decide whether a territory ought to get marked as disputed on any given map. However, I don’t see any natural calibration for that judgment. It’s further complicated by the truth that acknowledging a dispute brings with it a sort of legitimization that you may not favor for moral or political reasons. That is obvious to the governments of countries that require specific world views to be shown on maps produced or sold in their jurisdiction: You are not permitted to sell or produce maps in China that show China’s territorial claims to be in dispute. Same in India.

I’m not arguing against marking territories as disputed — the maps I sell do, in fact, make such judgments — but I’m also not going to criticize failure to do so. In the case of Taiwan, I could argue that showing it as in dispute is more damaging to Taiwan’s interests than simply leaving the status unmarked.

— daan