Comments on: Amazing Atlas

Amazing Atlas

blahblahblah — Thu, 02 Jun 2005 22:45:14 -0800

Matthew White's Historical Atlas of the 20th Century. One of those amazing internet reference sites created by some guy (okay, Matthew White). Lots of fascinating, incredibly researched stuff: complete lists of all manmade megadeaths in the 20th century, the 100 most important works of art of the 20th century, maps showing changes in the types of government by decade, comments on Wikipedia, and much more. Also, some fun stuff, like what the US would look like if every secessionist movement succeeded. Previously posted in 2001, but much updated and worth a second look

By: Sangermaine

Sangermaine — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:12:27 -0800

This is amazing. Thank you. I really liked the maps showing the changing nature of the governments of the world over the 20th century. It would be neat if someone would create an animation of the changing map.

By: kaibutsu

kaibutsu — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:40:36 -0800

Too bad he's using the wrong view of the world in all those fancy maps! Very cool find.

By: Galvatron

Galvatron — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 01:25:51 -0800

Good post. I have a soft spot for HTML 2.0 websites with tons of content.

By: dhruva

dhruva — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 01:53:12 -0800

here's a kinda related conflict map. try the slider. (flash)

By: OmieWise

OmieWise — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 08:48:55 -0800

Very cool. Thanks.

By: linux

linux — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 10:38:37 -0800

With such a balkanized North America, I wonder how he would extrapolate the world map from 1900-2000 with the lack of a 48-state USA. Good post.

By: never_work

never_work — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 11:54:04 -0800

White's site is very cool, and I applaud anybody who makes the effort to create graphical means of representing historical change. Did anybody else wonder why he didn't list any sources at all? It's interesting especially in light of the whole big debate around wikipedia vs. the academy...

By: blahblahblah

blahblahblah — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 11:58:26 -0800

He actually gives lots of sources (especially for the casualty statistics), and provides a giant bibliography.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 12:00:26 -0800

Previously posted in 2001, but much updated and worth a second look And, tangentially, in 2003, where, upon reading the history of Moslem Australia, languagehat noted in regards to Matthew White, This guy is a genius. It's a labor of love always worth a second look.

By: Artifice_Eternity

Artifice_Eternity — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 12:20:44 -0800

His balkanized North America map is missing my favorite non-existent country: The Free City of Tri-Insula, i.e., an independent republic of New York City. The idea grows ever more appealing...

By: Kattullus

Kattullus — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 16:19:59 -0800

This is all too awesome. Thanks for the post, blahblahblah. Man, most of these things deserve special posts of their own... e.g. like the top 100 art works... or the Do Democracies Go to War? thing... this is a year's worth of posty goodness rolled into one.

By: blahblahblah

blahblahblah — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 19:01:58 -0800

Yeah, its actually too bad that there is no discussion over the actual information -- too overwhelming? With permission, I'd love to post the art work as an FPP in a couple of days, just to see the discussion. Not a lot of art talk on MeFi, and this list is accessible and fun to argue over.

By: Kattullus

Kattullus — Sat, 04 Jun 2005 05:55:15 -0800

or most overrated... man, I love his reason why Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis is overrated: Her sole claim to fame is that she slept with John Kennedy -- like that's hard to do. I mean, if she had nailed a couple of popes or something, that would be something to write home about (and I mean properly geriatric and celibate 20th century popes, not some Renaissance Borgia party-popes), but we're talking about a Kennedy here. Anyone with a pulse and a vaguely humanoid appearance could have nailed John Kennedy. Also, anyone who calls Gavrilo Princip the most important figure of the 20th Century has earned my undying love. This site is truly best of the web. It would probably be better to go over to metatalk before posting something from a site you just posted. Y'know, to keep people who'd get all huffy from ruining the thread.

By: bluffy

bluffy — Thu, 09 Jun 2005 18:35:52 -0800

I didn't understand. Why were the US and UK "limited democracies" in 1900-10 while Australia was a "multi-party democracy"?

By: sellout

sellout — Thu, 09 Jun 2005 19:23:31 -0800

kaibutsu: Somehow, that map is nauseating. Great post, blahblahblah. Thanks.