[size=14pt]The true true size of Africa[/size]

LAST month Kai Krause, a computer-graphics guru, caused a stir with a map entitled "The True Size of Africa", which showed the outlines of other countries crammed into the outline of the African continent. His aim was to make "a small contribution in the fight against rampant Immappancy"—in particular, the fact that most people do not realise how much the ubiquitous Mercator projection distorts the relative sizes of countries.



A sphere cannot be represented on a flat plane without distortion, which means all map projections distort in one way or another. Some projections show areas accurately but distort distances or scales, for example; others preserve the shapes of countries but misrepresent their areas. You can read all the gory details on Wikipedia.

Gerardus Mercator’s projection, published in 1569, was immediately useful because it depicts a line of constant bearing as a straight line, which is handy for marine navigation. The drawback is that it distorts the shapes and areas of large land masses, and the distortion gets progressively worse as you get closer to the poles. (Africa looks about the same size as Greenland under the Mercator projection, for example, even though it is in fact 14 times bigger.) This was not a big problem from 16th-century sailors, of course, and the Mercator projection remains popular to this day.

In Mr Krause's map (above) he seems to have used the shapes of the countries from a Mercator projection, but has scaled up the outline of Africa, without changing its shape, to show the appropriate area. An alternative and arguably more rigorous approach would be to repeat the exercise using an "equal area" projection that shows the countries' areas correctly while minimising shape distortion. These two properties are the hardest to balance when showing the whole world on one map. I decided to rework Mr Krause's map using Gall's Stereographic Cylindrical Projection (1855) with two standard parallels at 45°N and 45°S. Distortions are still evident at the poles, but for most countries shape is maintained, and their areas are shown correctly. As you can see (below), the results are distinct from Mr Krause’s map. But however you look at it, his point is a good one: Africa is much bigger than it looks on most maps.

I dont think this is new info.

Its common knowledge africa is one of, if not the biggest, continent/s on the planet.

It isn't new info in the sense that Africa is said to be the 2nd largest continent; but what I admire about the map its usefulness for comparisons. With it we can see how Africa has been fragmented (Berlin conference) compared to the so-called developed nations

Atlases have been used in the past for political purposes like the ones produced during the cold war that showed either the US or former Soviet block in the middle. I think I've also seen an atlas from Samsung showing Korea in the middle.

Nearly half the continent is desert though.   

That will soon change considering the wobble in the Earth's rotation.

soon is when exactly?

.

Sahara is a gift if you look at it in the other way. It can produce enough energy for the whole Africa and Europe.

Hasn't the Sahara has been used as a barrier to prevent some Arab fundamentalists from overrunning those of us below the 10th parallel?

can there be food made in the Sahara Desert?

Interesting.

op

you forgot to consider north and central america, as well as canada, are on the same land mass.

you separated europe into countries and likewise cut china off from asia.

yet you presented the entire african continent as undivided.

meaning you're comparing countries with a continent.

same mistake westerners are prone to.

I did not author the map.
Note that the non-African countries used for comparison are are less culturally diverse and have fewer borders. Hence, it can be seen how the oyinbo (Amorites) used "divide-and-rule" tactics to dominate us.

Hrm. Oyinbo did what was in his best interest. But if they had wanted to do divide and rule, they'd never have merged the two Nigerian protectorates, right?

Plus, since Africa is so diverse, shouldn't there be *more* borders?

I dunno, I think your accusation is unfair in this case.

What if the Yoruba peoples (including Ewe) across West Africa had been together in one nation?
What if the Tutsi and Hutu were not lumped together?

With the divide-and-rule, some peoples were set up to dominate others (eg Fulani hegemony) and perpetuate antagonism. Cultural homogeneity would have been a better basis for setting up borders as competition and conflicts would not be so frequent. As you pointed out the oyinbo (Amorites) did what they thought was in their best interest but they will soon vomit all that they have stolen.