Map Size vs Actual Size of Countries

a reply to: Mahogany

Something weird with Google earth. You have to spin it edge to edge (180 degrees) 3 times to get back to where you started.
A globe takes 2 turns. 360 degrees.
So is Google earth actually a 540 degree globe?

The closer to the equator the more correct the size is, but as you go north or south the longitude lines come closer together and so for navigational purposes, the lines are straightened out on the map which makes any land there look much bigger.

At the equator, the distance is about 70 miles between degrees, at 40-degree longitude (Kanas) it is only 53 miles per degree. If you look at Greenland it might be only 30 miles or less per degree. When you put it on a flat map then all degrees from top to bottom are 70 miles and so Greenland is now huge to what is reality. Latitude lines do not have much of a change from top to bottom.

This is why airlines fly north over the pole to get to let's say Japan...much shorter than flying latitude.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Yes, their voyages were mostly done keeping land in view, as they didn't know what they would find.

One of the reasons was that there was no good method of knowing the longitude, that's why even after discovering new lands the maps were not that accurate.

originally posted by: putnam6
Never knew of the Portugal-Brazil sugar plantation connection, and thus is tied to the African slave trade. Ironic how conquest is always based on the dominant commodities at the time.

The Portuguese found that the local people were not only too few but, knowing well the country, were hard to find if they ran away, so were not good as slaves, so they had to take slaves from Africa.

This rivalry created a crisis within the Catholic world as Spain and Portugal squared off in a battle for colonial supremacy. The pope had earlier intervened and divided the New World with the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494. Land east of the Tordesillas Meridian, an imaginary line dividing South America, would be given to Portugal, whereas land west of the line was reserved for Spanish conquest. In return for the license to conquer, both Portugal and Spain were instructed to treat the natives with Christian compassion and to bring them under the protection of the Church.

The Treaty of Tordesillas was the final agreement, and had an imaginary line 270 leagues west of Cape Verde islands, while the first treaty had that imaginary line only 100 leagues west of Cape Verde.
That allowed Portugal to get possession of the Brazilian coast (and later the rest of Brazil, which is must further west than the Tordesillas meridian.

a reply to: ZeussusZ

The amount of times you have to "rotate" Google Earth's globe depends on the viewing distance. When closer you are seeing much less than 180º.

Theoretically, at an infinite distance you would get a perfect 180º view of the globe.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: putnam6
Never knew of the Portugal-Brazil sugar plantation connection, and thus is tied to the African slave trade. Ironic how conquest is always based on the dominant commodities at the time.

The Portuguese found that the local people were not only too few but, knowing well the country, were hard to find if they ran away, so were not good as slaves, so they had to take slaves from Africa.

This rivalry created a crisis within the Catholic world as Spain and Portugal squared off in a battle for colonial supremacy. The pope had earlier intervened and divided the New World with the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494. Land east of the Tordesillas Meridian, an imaginary line dividing South America, would be given to Portugal, whereas land west of the line was reserved for Spanish conquest. In return for the license to conquer, both Portugal and Spain were instructed to treat the natives with Christian compassion and to bring them under the protection of the Church.

The Treaty of Tordesillas was the final agreement, and had an imaginary line 270 leagues west of Cape Verde islands, while the first treaty had that imaginary line only 100 leagues west of Cape Verde.
That allowed Portugal to get possession of the Brazilian coast (and later the rest of Brazil, which is must further west than the Tordesillas meridian.

I used to be really into history and how it relates to the present. Im out of practice and only knew the basics to begin with I definitely value other person's perspectives, outside of the limitations of American public schools and societal influence. That doesn't mean Im anti-American Im not but it also doesn't mean I don't see where America's past actions shape so many other people's and cultures' realities if that makes sense. They call them banana Republics for a reason. America isn't the only one though, IIRC Spain was pretty brutal compared to the Portuguese approach, was it not or am I oversimplifying the situation?

originally posted by: ArMaP

The Portuguese found that the local people were not only too few but, knowing well the country, were hard to find if they ran away, so were not good as slaves, so they had to take slaves from Africa.

A lot more slaves from Africa were sent to Central and South America than North.. Like 11 million went South and about 400k went to North America.

originally posted by: putnam6
America isn't the only one though, IIRC Spain was pretty brutal compared to the Portuguese approach, was it not or am I oversimplifying the situation?

It was, but the Spanish found a different situation, as the countries they occupied were organized and with relatively big cities, harder to control than the small villages the Portuguese found in Brazil.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: ArMaP

The Portuguese found that the local people were not only too few but, knowing well the country, were hard to find if they ran away, so were not good as slaves, so they had to take slaves from Africa.

A lot more slaves from Africa were sent to Central and South America than North.. Like 11 million went South and about 400k went to North America.

It's not that I don't believe you, but, source please or links?
I can't say that this may explain the Geo-Political situation of South America. 11 Million is significant dilution of the indigenous population. And how did the indigenous population of S.A. afford to buy the slaves?
Then what is the USA to expect with the invasion caused by the open borders?

a reply to: Xtrozero

That was probably one of the reasons the US and the UK were some of the first countries that wanted to stop the slave trade, as they do not needed it as much as the Portuguese needed in Brazil.

And yes, Portugal was responsible for a lot of slaves being taken from Africa.

originally posted by: Violater1
And how did the indigenous population of S.A. afford to buy the slaves?

In the case of Brazil it was the land owners that first made expeditions to enslave the natives and then bought the African slaves. They were the only ones with money.

Edited to add:

11 Million is significant dilution of the indigenous population

That's why in Brazil, for example, the Indig­enous in the last census were less than 1% of the population, with 54% whites, 19% mixed race and 11% blacks.

originally posted by: Violater1

It's not that I don't believe you, but, source please or links?
I can't say that this may explain the Geo-Political situation of South America. 11 Million is significant dilution of the indigenous population. And how did the indigenous population of S.A. afford to buy the slaves?
Then what is the USA to expect with the invasion caused by the open borders?

Pretty easy to find... Here is a nice depiction of where they all went.

Here



I think you are mistaken with the below question.

"how did the indigenous population of S.A. afford to buy the slaves?"

They didn't...the slaves were used in what was called the triangular trade where South America supplied all of Europe with coffee and sugar, so millions of slaves were sent to just Brazil by the Portuguese on plantations there. The indigenous population was mostly all dead from the devastating waves of diseases the Europeans brought with them. Up to 90% were killed so we are talking like 60 to 100 million killed before all the trade thing started.

originally posted by: Violater1

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: ArMaP

The Portuguese found that the local people were not only too few but, knowing well the country, were hard to find if they ran away, so were not good as slaves, so they had to take slaves from Africa.

A lot more slaves from Africa were sent to Central and South America than North.. Like 11 million went South and about 400k went to North America.

It's not that I don't believe you, but, source please or links?
I can't say that this may explain the Geo-Political situation of South America. 11 Million is significant dilution of the indigenous population. And how did the indigenous population of S.A. afford to buy the slaves?
Then what is the USA to expect with the invasion caused by the open borders?

Source

How Many Slaves Landed in the U.S.?
by Henry Louis Gates, Jr. | Originally posted on The Root
Perhaps you, like me, were raised essentially to think of the slave experience primarily in terms of our black ancestors here in the United States. In other words, slavery was primarily about us, right, from Crispus Attucks and Phillis Wheatley, Benjamin Banneker and Richard Allen, all the way to Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth and Frederick Douglass. Think of this as an instance of what we might think of as African-American exceptionalism. (In other words, if it’s in “the black Experience,” it’s got to be about black Americans.) Well, think again.

The most comprehensive analysis of shipping records over the course of the slave trade is the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, edited by professors David Eltis and David Richardson. (While the editors are careful to say that all of their figures are estimates, I believe that they are the best estimates that we have, the proverbial “gold standard” in the field of the study of the slave trade.) Between 1525 and 1866, in the entire history of the slave trade to the New World, according to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, 12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World. 10.7 million survived the dreaded Middle Passage, disembarking in North America, the Caribbean and South America.
And how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000. That’s right: a tiny percentage.

Bold added by me.

a reply to: Mahogany Of course, you're comparing countries to a continent.