Maps as provocateurs of social discourse (aka - Maps are AWESOME!)

It’s been buzzing around the internet the last little while, but have you seen the work of Bill Rankin?  He’s a historian and cartographer, and the curator/developer/mastermind behind Radical Cartography.

He does all sorts of map-making that intentionally pushes the boundaries of how folks think about maps as information organizers, transmitters, and social tools.  For example, his 2005 map called "Suicide" shows the difference in rates of suicide by white men and white women geographically in the U.S. (you might be surprised), and his 2006 map "U.S. Economic Empire" shows the percent of nations' GDP that was exported to the U.S. in 2003.

But what seems to have gained the most attention recently are his 2009 "Chicago Boundaries" maps, one which maps race/ethnicity in the city limits and the other which maps income in the same area.  Here's what he says:

“Any city-dweller knows that most neighborhoods don't have stark boundaries. Yet on maps, neighborhoods are almost always drawn as perfectly bounded areas, miniature territorial states of ethnicity or class. This is especially true for Chicago, where the delimitation of Chicago's official “community areas” in the 1920s was one of the hallmarks of the famous Chicago School of urban sociology. And maps showing perfectly homogeneous neighborhoods are still published today, in both popular and academic contexts alike.

My alternative is to use dot mapping to show three kinds of urban transitions. First, there are indeed areas where changes take place at very precise boundaries — such as between Lawndale and the Little Village, or Austin and Oak Park — and Chicago has more of these stark borders than most cities in the world. But transitions also take place through gradients and gaps as well, especially in the northwest and southeast. Using graphic conventions which allow these other possibilities to appear takes much more data, and requires more nuance in the way we talk about urban geography, but a cartography without boundaries can also make simplistic policy or urban design more difficult — in a good way.”

Long and short, he used city-block level data from the 2000 U.S. Census (rather than 'neighborhood' data) to map race/ethnicity (using the categories stipulated in the Census).  Every color-coded dot represents 25 people.  A pink dot represents 25 White people.  A blue dot reps 25 Black people.  Asians are shown in green, Hispanics (again, the language of the Census) are in orange, and "Others" are in gray.  The result:  whatever people might suggest to the contrary, segregation very much continues to exist in Chicago my friends.  (In case you had any doubt.) 

But the visual is stunning – both for showing levels of racial integration (or its lack) and population density.

Running with Rankin's idea, Eric Fischer used the same technique to map over 100 U.S. cities.  (And he just posted up the results less than a month ago.)  The results are amazing to look at, in addition to being amazingly informative.  Plus, being on Flickr, the images have numerous tags to help readers identify neighborhoods, landmarks, and so forth.  And, as readers look through, some are also commenting on the many ways history impacts population divisions -- such as the effects of redlining in Detroit and the geographic boundary of the Pima Maricopa Indian Reservation just east of Phoenix.

Go check it out.  It’ll give you something to think about.

Have I mentioned lately how much I love maps?!

UPDATE (November 2010):  It recently came to my attention that Bill Rankin is the downstairs housemate of my good friend and old roomie Sarita.  Imagine that.  Small world, eh?! - November 2010

UPDATE (July 29, 2011):  Bill Rankin recently posted a short (5 minute) video explaining his map of Chicago.  It's super interesting and totally worth watching.  Here it is:

Supporting food safety

There are days when I wonder if anything is safe to eat.  (Like yesterday when the prepackaged garden salad I got from the school cafeteria looked as if it hadn’t even been washed.  The lettuce had weird dusty black ick all over it.  And it wasn’t dirt.  And it didn’t stick like mold.  I don’t know what it was, but it was disgusting.  And dirty.  And don’t mock me; you wouldn’t have eaten it either.) 

On an increasingly common basis I think about ways I can become more closely connected to the source of my food.  I want to KNOW the conditions in which it was grown; how it was altered chemically, genetically, or environmentally; and frankly whether it’s safe for me to eat.  In many ways, it’s a hard balance.  Living in a very urban space on a below-the-poverty-line income, I have limited options.  (BUT, I do have options, AND I have the cultural capital to know about those options and how to access them, so really I’m not in the same bad situation as many, many others.)  But, in the process of feeling safe about the source of my food, I have rarely felt that the government had my best interests (aka – my health and well-being) at heart. 

Slow Food USA has created a video and a petition they hope will help change that.  They're asking Congress to better regulate the food industry and thus help ensure the health of all Americans.  So we're talking about making corporations accountable for actions (or the lack of actions) that produce/protect a healthy food supply; demanding that the USDA and FDA communicate better with one another; and supporting legislation that simplifies food safety regulation.

Sounds good to me.  Here's the video:


And, if you're interested, you can look at and/or sign the petition.

Video Spotlight: Rachel Maddow’s take on women candidates versus women’s rights

It’s feeling about time that I get back to my “Video Spotlight” roots, as it were.  Usually I post up short three or four minute videos.  Not today.  Today I’m asking you to take 13 minutes to listen to this BRILLIANT segment from this past Thursday’s The Rachel Maddow Show.  Rachel discusses the rise of women candidates in the GOP and the logical analysis that women candidates can have an influence on women’s votes.  She also explains that women (brace yourself) might not vote based on chromosomes, but rather on issues.  Shocking, right?!  Just as the number of women candidates in the GOP rises, so too rises that number of right-wingers, including women, who take the previously extreme view that abortion should be banned for ALL people, including victims of rape and incest.  So, will women citizens vote for women candidates who propose greater and greater limits to women and girls’ reproductive rights?  Hard to say.  I hope not.  They surely won’t have my vote.

In addition, the segment features a discussion with the wonderful Melissa Harris-Lacewell, a professor of politics and African American studies at Princeton University, who shares this gem:

"There is no place in the world and no time in history where restricting women's reproductive rights makes a people or a nation more free or more equal.  These extreme positions on abortion are without any question a war on American girls and women, and the fact that there are women who are both complicit and participatory in it is really neither surprising nor unprecedented.  It has always been true and it is incredibly important that we recognize that, despite the fact that we can be very proud of these women as women and as politicians, that the question is: how do women as citizens fair on the other side of them either being elected or not elected?"

Check it out:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And, if you need a little laugh/what-the-hell-is-wrong-with-you humor/sorrow in your life, you can give this little “Rachel Maddow is a lesbian vampire” segment from yesterday’s show a watch too.  Wow.

Responding to Focus on the Family's "back-to-school tools to... push back against the gay agenda"

Earlier this month, CitizenLink (a Focus on the Family affiliate) did a report that offered "back-to-school tools that'll help you identify and push back against the gay agenda in the classroom." (Note: Typically in my posts I link to organizations and groups I reference, but I’m not particularly fond of Focus on the Family and their affiliates, so if you’d like to see their sites directly, I encourage you to do so, but you will need to seek them out directly. They will come right up when you search for them by name.)

As a classroom teacher and an active LGBTQ advocate and ally, the CitizenLink broadcast makes me disheartened, sorrowful, angry, and hurt. Originally I sat down to write a satirical, comedic blog post on this topic, but I think I need to offer a sincere response. (Even so, comedy can be a great tool when confronting homophobia and bigotry. Bryan Safi over at Current TV has a great comedic response to Focus on the Family’s broadcast on his regular segment That’s Gay, which I enjoy thoroughly. You can watch his response here.)

Two things in particular about the CitizenLink report concern me:

First, CitizenLink’s Education Analyst (and I cringe at that title because it sounds so impartial and unbiased, but no one is truly objective and I’m trying to be respectful, so…) Candi Cushman makes a suggestion that concerned parents should check their child’s school library catalogue and search for key terms such as ‘homosexuality,’ ‘gay,’ and ‘lesbian.’ She says that if lots of items come up in the search then the school probably supports ‘the gay agenda.’ She argues that school libraries reflect school philosophies and if a library has a lot of ‘gay books’ then kids can check them out and teachers can use them as classroom resources. My thought is that libraries are meant to be the storehouse of available knowledge, which suggests that all ideas and opinions should be represented. If the ‘gay books’ are absent or restricted, then the library has failed to do its duty as a holder of knowledge and, at its worst, is participating in censorship. To blame a school for having books and resources is to deny trust or respect to its users – teachers, staff, students, and families – to be self-selective and judicious about material use. It also suggests that ‘gay books’ make people gay which, shockingly, is not true.

So, first, I’m concerned that Focus on the Family is suggesting a censorship of books and resources.

Second, CitizenLink’s anchor (or whatever) Stuart Shepard talks, along with Cushman, about ways to “identify and push back against the gay agenda in the classroom.” He says,

“Teachers send a lot of things home in the backpacks. It's important to read what's in there and kinda look for language that might be suggestive [of the gay agenda]. Often bullying is one of the ways that it's disguised. It talks about a Safe Schools Week or a Bullying Seminar."

In my experience, bullying takes many forms and attacks many people for many different reasons. Sexual orientation and gender identity, or the sexual orientation or gender identity of your friends or family, are only some of those reasons. At some point EVERYONE is the victim of bullying. I promise. To suggest that schools’ efforts to confront bullying supports ‘the gay agenda’ (whether you agree with that statement or not) denies the reality that ALL students can benefit from having less bullying in their lives – as protagonists and as victims. Cushman goes on to talk about ways to confront ‘real’ bullying, but as a professional educator I am shocked that ‘safe schools’ and ‘bullying’ are apparently buzz words synonymous with ‘gay activists’ and ‘gay supporters.’ I can pledge, proudly, that I will continue to actively fight bullying in my school and community and that INCLUDES fighting to protect LGBTQ folks and their friends and families. Mark me down as a ‘gay activist’ and ‘gay supporter.’ I welcome the label. And apparently families should now fear me. Though I’m still confused as to why. Bullying, in all its forms, hurts everyone, and we should do everything in our power to actively confront it.

Cushman goes on to talk about ways that “cute little pictures of furry animals” are used to “sneak… homosexuality lessons into things with innocent sounding titles.” She references the children’s book And Tango Makes Three by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson and illustrated by Henry Cole, which tells the true story of Roy and Silo, two male penguins at New York City’s Central Park Zoo, who adopt an egg in need of nurturing and hatch and raise their daughter Tango. I’ve read the book. It’s lovely. And for the children in my classroom who have same-sex parents, it made them feel a little more recognized and understood in the world, and for my students who came from families put together in other ways (and there are many ways to build a family), the book gave them one more way to understand what it means to be a family.

At the end of the day, it sounds like Focus on the Family thinks bullying is okay and books/furry animals encourage being gay. All of this is simply a crock of shit. And as I teacher I will proudly, adamantly, and unapologetically stand against bullying and utilize any and all books and resources (though not as likely cute fuzzy animals) to help my students understand the complex reality of the world around them. My intention is not to make Christians or others who don’t condone homosexuality or gender variance to feel unwelcome, but it is my responsibility to create an environment where all people feel welcome, valued, seen, and heard – including folks who identify as LGBTQ. Rather than censoring access to knowledge or promoting one idea of the world, my job is to help students and their families develop critical thinking skills that allow them to make their own life choices while honoring the freedom of others to do the same.

If you’d like to see the full video of the CitizenLink broadcast, it’s here (9min30sec).
(Image from here.)

I *heart* Jon Stewart. Plus, I'm not gonna drop-kick Muslims just because you do.

I caught Jon Stewart's opening monologue last night and I think he totally nailed it.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Wish You Weren't Here
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

I wish folks would take the time to really learn a bit more about Islam (and from the source, not second-hand from idiots like FOX News) and spend some time thinking about the many ways Christianity is privileged in our "separation of church and state" society. I'm not saying anyone needs to 'turn Muslim' but a little open-minded willingness to ask sincere questions, listen honestly, and reflect humbly could do us all a world of good.

And, getting off my soap box, one of my favorite lines from Stewart's monologue was this:

FOX Newscaster: "There are a number of people asking, 'Why are these mosques being built in my community?'"
Jon Stewart: "Oh! Oh! Oh! I, I think I know the answer to this one! There are Muslims in your community. And they can't find a prayer rug room in the church or synagogue."

Indeed.