Fact v. Fiction

The line between fact and fiction is blurred in the map “The World According to Dubya.” Normally, a map like this would instantly be perceived as a work of fiction, but its attributes (and more importantly, what we know about our president) suggest it might contain elements of truth. In any traditional geopolitical map of the world, Canada would be named Canada, not “Just like the United States….except for the French part of here,” and South America would be represented as South America, not “Uppity Democracies.” Considering these facts, it is important to remember that people are capable of representing what they perceive as true with maps. This means that even though a typical geopolitical map would contain different generalizations and different titles, Dubya’s map conveys what he believes the world to look like in fact. Personal interpretation is not unique in the map-making community. People make “mental maps” without even realizing it, and to a certain extent, these maps represent what those people perceive as fact. Similarly, Dubya’s map of the world, while not geopolitically or politically correct, contains elements, or distinguishing characteristics, that he believes to be true of those regions of the world. It is also important to note that the boundaries and borders established in geopolitical maps arguably do not exist in fact either. Geopolitical boundaries and borders are invisible and artificial; they are used to organize the world, and in some instances, without regard for the cultural makeup of the country or community they are delineating.