Historically, maps have never been neutral. Cartographers, often employed by colonizing nations, steeped ethnocentric views into their work. These maps frequently claimed land for the empire, erased Indigenous territories, and replaced local names with those preferred by European nations. When studying these historical maps today, it is important to consider the larger influences and history behind them. They are products of their time and of the worldviews that shaped them.
Given this history, it isn’t surprising that modern maps continue to reflect power dynamics. This week’s readings pushed me to think more critically about the accuracy of digital maps and the influence they have in a global society. Who decides what we see on these maps, and how real are borders?
Greg Bensinger’s article “Google redraws the borders on maps depending on who’s looking” reveals just how fluid digital borders really are. I had always assumed that Google maps might localize place names or labels based on language or regional settings. However, what I didn’t realize was how deeply political these decisions can be. According to Bensinger, Google adjusts the appearance of borders depending on the viewer’s location. For instance, users in India see Kashmir firmly within Indian territory, while users elsewhere see it marked as disputed.
Borders have always been human constructs, shifting with wars, treaties, and political conflict. But in the digital age, their uncertainty takes on a new meaning. Google claims it uses gray dashed lines to show disputed borders, yet in practice, this system is inconsistent. The company also says it consults local governments, area experts, and current news reports to keep its maps updated. And unlike in traditional mapmaking, these changes can be made instantly to users. The resulting consequences of such instant change can be dire. For instance, in 2010, a misplaced Google maps border between Costa Rica and Nicaragua caused troop movement. Although the situation was resolved peacefully, it shows how fragile border disputes can be and how powerful digital mapping platforms have become.
As the readings have shown, virtual maps are not just free digital tools, but a product of big tech companies like Google, Apple, and Microsoft. These maps generate enormous revenue through advertising, rideshare apps, and branding partnerships. As such, mapmakers at these companies are influenced by governments and shareholders, and objectivity may not always be the top priority. One of my major takeaways is that digital maps should be viewed through a critical lens and that it is important to question the unseen motivations behind the map.