Counter-mapping

Counter-mapping represents a powerful, creative, and sometimes destructive practice that challenges the official boundaries and resource designations imposed by local communities, activists, and marginalized governments, companies, or other major institutions. Away from a theoretical abstraction, MOT-mapping countries are based on very real conflicts over resources, identity, and power. It sets out technical equipment familiar with state institutions – such as Geographical Information System (GIS), participation card methods, and data visualization – but gets them from top to bottom, pursues alternative world interviews, and competes with mainstream stories quickly.

Counter-mapping roots can be detected in the 1980s and mid-1990s, which appear as a string in significant geography and cartography. At the core, the belief is that maps are not just the purpose of reality, but a social construction that can strengthen the relationship between dominance and exclusion. In fact, mapping is intimately attached to the exercise of power, with official cartography that often involves colonial, corporate, or state interests, which label areas, delineate resource areas by labeling, or present societies as invisible. Counter-mapping opposes this dominance by producing alternative maps that reflect the experiences, knowledge, and allegations of those living in places being mapped.

An example of a living reality comes from Indigenous peoples all over the world who have used counter-mapping to regain their ancestors’ land and oppose the spread. In the United States, Red Road for the DC project under the leadership of Lummi Nation, not just the use of counter-mapping not only a threat to the sacred landscape or the development of infrastructure, but also as a solidarity act, which connects many social struggles together throughout the country. Their maps, cooperatively and often developed multi-level, focus on ignoring the history and demanding the government that the government respect the international legal standards of consent for independent, eastern, and tribal land. Similarly, in Southeast Asia, the basic research from Nancy Peluso on the counter-maps of Indonesian forest residents in the 1990s showed how indigenous maps were deployed to oppose industrial harvesting and government land tombs, so that local communities could demand resources and regime for “officially” mapped territory. In the megacities of Indonesia, Indonesia, grassroots groups came together to map the cities of the city. Informal settlements, local markets, gathering places, and weak enclaves were not recognized by state plans. In the Philippines, “Counter mapping for Perry-Urban Social Justice” threatened the country, cultural heritage sites, and social stories of the farmers and the indigenous Aeta groups of the new Clarke City Megaprojects launched by the government.

In global northern towns, counter-mapping has become a tool for documentation of processes such as gentrification, displacement, and ground resistance. San Francisco’s examples of anti-inaction mapping project (AEMP). This approach: AEMP compiles expulsion data, oral history, and visualizations to highlight the human effects of speculation and technology-driven gentrification of properties on black and low-income communities. Their interactive digital maps, quantity-hunted datasets, and storytelling projects not only act as a spokesperson tool, but also as the actions of collective memory-like reflection of spatial elimination by looking at official data and maps. Society quickly uses Open-Source GIS software, satellite images, colleagues' online platforms, and even drones to collect data, analyze, and imagine data.

For example, the counter map of the effects of extraction industries in the Amazon sometimes involves distributing GPS units, remote measurement tools, and traditional mapping workshops, where local knowledge is georeferenced with official data sets. In Detroit, the basic level organizations, the urban abandonment of its own counter maps, speculation about property and social solutions provided, and criminal data used to warm up the deep patterns of the official city, used to use GIS and punishment data to hear the maps of the official city.

Although it is often observed for democratization of cartographic power, counter-mapping is not without complications or contradictions. This process requires local reference and careful sensitivity to power dynamics, even the risk of exclusion or over-painting that reproduces the risk of alternative mapping initiatives if there is no real participation and vigilance. The task of mapping yourself – what to represent, on what scale, and for what audience – is deeply political. Nevertheless, when contracting is inherent in honor, reciprocity, and social control, it can promote new alliances, change relationships with space, and map routes to more promises.

An Important technical insight is that MOT mapping is not just about the production of a more stable map, but the ongoing collective process of the ongoing (re) conversation about space, resources, and meaning. This is the same about the process as a product. Sometimes maps are digital atlases with adaptable layers; Other times, they can be a board-game cum work built by students at Queen Mary University London for criticizing the neoliberal change on campus, an almanac, hand-prepared, or for protesting. Berlin’s activist mentors lie significantly in the act of “denying” official cartographic beliefs, and to continue the regional requirements for MAP's ability to shape the decisions and perceptions of the world world-world-social movements to continue the regional requirements for social movements.

Counter-mapping, then, is never a neutral exercise; There is a rebellious cartography that dates from the outset and fuels efforts to represent the ongoing struggles in the local communities themselves, restore resources, and press against unfair boundaries. It blends the lines between arts and activism, science and history, memory and resistance. In a world where borders are used to spread quickly and to exclude the resource maps, counter-mapping provides both a technical tool set and a political language to imagine and strive for alternative geographies.

References –

. . .

Discus