Imperialism in America - Facts Speak Louder Than Words
- Title:
- Imperialism in America - Facts Speak Louder Than Words
- Alternate Title:
- Imperialism in America
- Collection:
- Persuasive Maps: PJ Mode Collection
- Creator:
- Ordonez, N.
- Other Creators:
- Departmento de Prensa y Publicaciones del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores del Ecuador, publisher. Graficas Ayerve & Cia., Quito, printer.
- Date:
- 1941
- Date 2:
- 2024-04-25
- ID Number:
- 2385.01
- File Name:
- PJM_2385_01.jpg
- Style/Period:
- 1940 - 1959
- Subject:
- Imperialism
Not So Persuasive
Other War & Peace - Measurement:
- 26 x 18 on sheet 46 x 40 (centimeters, height x width)
- Notes:
- “Emotionally charged and highly involved, the territorial question between Ecuador and Peru complicated and disrupted inter-American relations for much of the past two centuries,” from 1822 to its eventual settlement in 1998. St John 1999, 1. This broadside was an attempt by Ecuador to set out its claims, asserting in the supporting text that “the fundamental issue at stake is so clear-cut and obvious that the impartial observer has merely to glance at the map of the two countries to arrive at the only possible conclusion.”
The text continues with assurance that “the un-biased observer, without recourse to ancient archives or consultation with the conflicting parties themselves, need only allow the facts to speak for themselves in order to reach the inevitable solution. The acomppanying (sic) map speaks more elocuently (sic) than any words, revealing a series of facts which cannot be denied, and point to one, AND ONLY ONE, motive for the controversy, to wit: the un-American and unacceptable motive of IMPERIALISM. Let these facts speak for themselves."
The territorial dispute between the nations involved three distinct territories. (See generally St John 1999). Two of these were relatively small, one on the Pacific and the other in the countries’ central highlands. This map deals only with a vastly larger disputed area in the Eastern lowlands along the Amazon River and its tributaries (labeled 3a, 4a, and 5a on the map). The right-hand column of text surrounding the map sets out Ecuador’s legal position, but from the balance of the text it is clear that mapmaker intended to make essentially two potentially strong emotional points about the positions of the parties. First, the amount of land in dispute would enlarge Peru’s territory by only a small amount, but it would reduce the size of Ecuador dramatically, “a crippling decrease . . . that . . . destroys the fundamental geographic and economic concept of Ecuadorian unity.” Second, Peru’s position would deprive Ecuador of access to the Amazon and navigable portions of its tributaries, essential in the inhospitable Eastern lowlands, giving Peru “An absolute monopoly of the whole upper-Amazon basin including both sides of the river.”
From the perspective of persuasive cartography, there are two particularly interesting aspects of this broadside. First, note that the text is entirely in English. This suggests that the intended audience was not so much the citizens of Ecuador or Peru, but forces in the United States and the world diplomatic community that would eventually play a central role in settling the dispute. For a similar situation, see ID #1145, a Japanese map regarding the Russo-Japanese War with the critical text in English.
Second, the map is relatively ineffective in making the desired points because of poor design. The numbers marking the disputed areas in Ecuador (3a, 4a, and 5a) are difficult to read, and the same numbers are used to mark similar but undisputed areas in Peru. Moreover, had the disputed area been set out distinctly - by a bold contrasting color or the use of cross hatching, for example - it might well have been “so clear-cut and obvious” upon a “glance” by an “impartial observer” that Ecuador stood to lose both a vital amount of territory and critically important access to the Amazon and its tributaries. As it stands, the map does not have anything like the impact it might have. For another map allegedly - but not in fact - clear at “a glance,” see ID #1065, “The Cotton Kingdom.”
This broadside is undated. OCLC shows one copy, at the Library of the University of California Santa Barbara, which dates it 1941. It seems likely that the map was produced in the period of border incidents during the year or so before the outbreak of war between the parties in July 1941.
Cornell University Library is pleased to present this digital collection of Persuasive Maps, the originals of which have been collected and described by the private collector PJ Mode. The descriptive information in the “Collector’s Notes” has been supplied by Mr. Mode and does not necessarily reflect the views of Cornell University. - Format:
- Image
- Rights:
- For important information about copyright and use, see http://persuasivemaps.library.cornell.edu/copyright.