The Mercator Projection Isn't Wrong—It's Just a Product of Its Time

Revisiting the Cartographic Past

As someone who has spent years examining how maps shape our perception of space and power, I find myself drawn to Paul Harwood's thoughtful letter about the Mercator projection. It's not that I don't understand why people are critical of it—after all, the distortion of Greenland and Antarctica is visually jarring and has long been used as a symbol of Western-centric worldviews. But Harwood makes a compelling point: the Mercator wasn't wrong, it was simply useful for its intended purpose.

The Purpose of the Map

Harwood's letter reminds us that cartography is never neutral—it always reflects the needs, priorities, and technologies of those who create it. The transverse Mercator projection, which he references, was developed specifically for European sailors navigating the seas. It excelled at maintaining accurate compass bearings, a crucial skill for maritime navigation during the age of exploration.

"The fact that everyone carried on using it was our laziness and not their bias."

This is a critical insight. We often retroactively judge historical tools by today's standards, but doing so strips away their context. The Mercator projection didn't fail—it succeeded in its mission.

Maps Are Not Neutral

While the idea that all maps are neutral may be a myth, Harwood points out that even the international coordinate system (latitude and longitude) isn't centered on London. The Prime Meridian at Greenwich is arbitrary, and its historical significance lies more in political and navigational tradition than in any intrinsic geographic accuracy.

The Equal Earth projection, which has gained popularity as a more equitable alternative, does indeed offer better visual representation of global landmasses. However, Harwood rightly asserts that this doesn't make the Mercator projection inherently wrong. It simply means it served a different function.

Why Context Matters

We must be cautious about framing historical cartographic decisions as moral failures. To do so is to impose modern values onto past systems without understanding their motivations. The Mercator projection didn't set out to marginalize the global South—it was designed for European navigation, and it did its job well.

The Modern Misuse of Maps

In today's digital age, maps are often treated as absolute truths rather than interpretations. This is dangerous. When we adopt new projections like Equal Earth without acknowledging the legacy of older ones, we risk erasing the historical narratives embedded in them.

The question isn't whether one map is right or wrong—it's about who benefits from it and what narrative it supports. The Mercator projection isn't a tool of oppression; it's a relic of a specific era. But that doesn't mean we should stop using it when it no longer serves our purposes.

Reclaiming Cartographic Agency

Harwood ends his letter by noting that even the UK's Ordnance Survey mapping system isn't centered on London, but rather has its focus in Lancashire. This small detail illustrates how deeply embedded these historical conventions are—yet also how adaptable they can be.

As we move forward with mapmaking and geographic representation, we must resist the urge to moralize past tools. Instead, we should strive for transparency, acknowledging both the strengths and limitations of different projections while recognizing that no single map tells the whole story.

Conclusion: Beyond the Bias

The debate over map projections isn't really about geography—it's about history, power, and representation. By refusing to judge historical tools through a modern lens, we allow for more nuanced discussions of how maps have shaped—and continue to shape—our worldviews.

In the end, the Mercator projection may not be our preferred map today, but it deserves recognition as a product of its time. We shouldn't vilify it for serving its purpose; we should learn from it and move forward with intentionality.