3 - United States of Canada vs. Jesusland
This map started popping up after the 2004 Presidential election in the US, when George W. Bush got re-elected (with a legitimate majority this time). Democratic challenger John F. Kerry only won a handful of states, mainly on both coasts - where the electorate is more ‘liberal’ than in the more rural ‘flyover’ states in the middle. This map was to demonstrate the political divide between the Bushites on one side and rational people in the US and elsewhere.
This map can be found all over the internet. I lifted it off a blog called beancounters.
“and rational people elsewhere”… give it rest. That comment shows the true disdain that liberals have for anyone who doesn’t agree with them. They simply must be irrational.
Comment by Me — November 7, 2006 @
You might want to look at a blog I did (when I did a blog) on this subject:
Still thinking about Election 2004…
Pay attention tot he lower two maps, as they tell the story (the way I see it) more accurately than the “Jesusland/United States of Canada” map (and I saw a version of the Jesusland/USofC map that had Alberta as part of “Jesusland,” thereby severing the USofC into two de-facto areas connected by the frozen tundra of Navauet).
Comment by Don H. — November 7, 2006 @
I believe this map originates from the yakyak.org forums.
Comment by Stewart — November 9, 2006 @
When I first saw this, it reminded me of “The World according to Ronald Reagan”
http://www.csc.calpoly.edu/~bfriesen/images/reaganposter.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Reagan-digitised-poster_PNG.png
Comment by Andy K — November 17, 2006 @
[...] Zo begint de blog “Strange Maps“, een verzameling van bizarre, oude of fictieve landkaarten… Een paar bekende dingen zoals deze “United States of Canada” (opgedoken toen George Bush werd herkozen), de ware grootte van Afrika (door de kaartenprojectiesystemen meestal te klein afgebeeld) en scenario’s voor een verdere Belgische staatshervorming. [...]
Pingback by Leesvoer voor landkaart-liefhebbers « Om ter saaist — November 30, 2006 @
[...] updated version of the famous United States of Canada vs. Jesusland map (see posting #3 on this blog). That map represented the outcome of the US presidential election in 2004, with the [...]
Pingback by 89 - Bushlandia vs. Reality « strange maps — March 18, 2007 @
This map is pretty silly and sophomoric. I live in New York and don’t know a soul that supports Bush. And I’m sure as hell not a Canadian.
Comment by hypnalogic — March 26, 2007 @
Hypnalogic: I don’t think you understand the meaning of this map… or maybe the geographic location of New York. New York State, and a number of other states (like California) are included in the “pretend” country of the “United States of Canada”. The reason for this is that our, speaking as a typical Canadian towards an average liberal American, political views are similar. So it makes sense that no one you know likes Bush and you live in New York.
Just start a sentence of with: “And I’m sure as hell…” and everyone already knows you are not from Canada;)
Comment by danor — April 6, 2007 @
I’m a Canadian and I’m extremely offended by this map.
We are NOT the same country. Although I am a Canadian I indentify more with American conservatives than American liberals. At least they have respect for the sovereignty of our nation (and you fools call them imperialists).
The other thing that pisses me off are stupid American liberals who run to Canada because they joined the army for free college and don’t want to have to serve their country. Canada is not a place for cowards. If you don’t want to fight then don’t join the military.
Here in Canada we don’t want cowardly theives who join the military for the free college and then desert when it comes time for them to serve.
Comment by Jonathon — April 8, 2007 @
If the United States were all Jesuslanders, we would be living in Heaven. I am not sure that would include such negative believers, the liberals. You know the type: they hug trees while they puff cigarettes. Makes no sense does it? There is no “light” (Jesus) in “darkness” (anti-Christ(s). Damn those Hillary supporters. The Clintons both are anti-Christs! And liberals are so blind they can’t see it. The mafia is behind the Clintons-as they were the Kenedy’s.
Comment by pissed off repubiclican — April 16, 2007 @
Jonathon (#9) and POR (#10) should move in together.
But in Canada or in Jesusland?
Comment by CortxVortx — June 8, 2007 @
Love the site. Fascinating stuff. One quibble: seems to me that this isn’t a political blog and so maybe political comments are out of place. Keep hunting down those maps!
Comment by John the Republican — June 13, 2007 @
I would agree somewhat with Jonathan#9, there are alot of conservative people in Canada, and would identify with Conservatives in the US more, not the evangelistic aspects, but the individual liberty, lower taxes, less government principles that is at the heart of conservatism.
Comment by Mark — June 21, 2007 @
I wonder how many people who describe themselves as “conservative”, like Mark #13, are really libertarians who don’t know the word.
Comment by Anton Sherwood — September 12, 2007 @
Seems like some of these comments are extremely heated. I guess some people really do care about politics! Well it’s just a picture that was meant to be witty so I don’t think people should read too much into it.
Comment by trademark registration — December 8, 2007 @
But their not really political differences are they? They’re more cultural differences. Arguments over regional and religious social customs and “conscience issues” or over the size of government programmes are conducted inside national parties in most countries.
And I don’t get the American definitions of “liberal” and “conservative”. This is how I understand the terms..
Conservatism(old): Criminalisation of oath-breaking; church tax; the charter system; imperialism.
Conservatism(modern): Conscription, strict import and immigration controls, national stockpiles; irridentism.
Liberalism: Deregulation; decriminalisation; decentralisation; constitutionally limited government.
Welfarism/Reformism/Social Democracy: Income redistribution through taxes and benefits; deficit spending; humanitarian intervention.
Socialism: Public ownership of companies; free schools and hospitals etc; neutrality.
I think this cultural “liberals” against “conservatives” row is a good way for the political class to do whatever they want and pretend its what their bases voted for.
Comment by Interloper — December 17, 2007 @
Speaking as a Canadian, I would like to apologize for Jonathon (#9), who apparently doesn’t
(a) have a sense of humour;
(b) appreciate that it’s the blue states who have been voluntarily annexed to Canada in this map, and not vice-versa.
Seriously guys; we’ll be glad to have you guys on board, any time you want. (Though Maine may have to become an officially bilingual province to keep from spooking the Quebecois too badly; hope that’s okay.)
Comment by Niel — March 24, 2008 @
I can understand leaving areas out of “Jesusland” such as California and a huge chunk of New England. I am a little clueless why the upper Midwest has somehow become “Canadian.” Midwesterners are by far much more conservative in their religious values than our neighbors in the “Great White North.” Speaking against homosexuality is a crime in Canada; This is not the case in (most of) the USA.
Comment by Ron — June 5, 2008 @
A pretty stupid map if you ask me. Some of the lowest church going rates are in the american west and they are still part of “Jesusland”. Plus, Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Iowa, and Ohio were one by a very narrow margin. And since when did being religious become a bad thing?
And heres my definition of political beliefs:
Conservatism-small government, strict constitution, sovereignty, lassez faire economy based on supply and demand
Liberalism-”living” constitution, idea that though the U.S. loses tens of billions every year to corruption and embezzlement, can still serve as a fair wealth distributer, self-righteous protectionist/subsidy infested economies(look up how europe rises commodity prices through subsidies and then tell me that these people care about starving africans)
Libertarianism can mean two things: one, an ultra-conservatism (Goldwater)or two, a progressive who believes in small government.
Socialism: a defunct idea that leads to high depression rates, political radicalism, moral bancrupcy and violence (Stalin killed 100 million compared to Hitlers 6 million, faschism is bad on the left and right)
As far as democrats believing in more Humanitarian aid, consider this chart: http://www.dmko.info/aaafrica1.GIF
Comment by kmoney — July 11, 2008 @