Does The Technate of America map produced by Technocracy Inc. in the 1930s–1940s include all the carribbean country?
Executive summary
The 1940 “Technate of America” map produced by Technocracy Inc. depicts a single continental industrial domain that explicitly stretches south to “encompass the Caribbean,” but available descriptions and scans show a regional inclusion rather than a nation-by-nation annexation list — the map includes the Caribbean as a geographic unit but does not, in the cited reporting, enumerate every sovereign Caribbean state [1] [2] [3].
1. The map’s intent: a schematic that swallows regions, not a legal treaty text
Technocracy’s map was designed as an engineer’s schematic of resource and infrastructure logic, not a diplomatic document listing sovereignties, and contemporary descriptions emphasize that the Technate “encompass[es] the Caribbean” as part of a larger red-shaded continental bloc extending from Greenland to the International Date Line and south into parts of northern South America [1] [4] [5]. Multiple retrospectives characterize the map as folding the Caribbean into that industrial geography — language repeated across dealers, academic catalogs, and popular write-ups — but the sources speak to regional inclusion rather than itemized incorporation of each islands’ modern statehood [2] [6] [7].
2. Reporting consensus: Caribbean included in broad strokes, specifics absent
Across museum and rare-map descriptions, commentators consistently say the Technate covers “the Caribbean” or “parts of the Caribbean” and list nearby continental areas (Central America, northern South America, Greenland) as part of the proposal, with the map also showing defense bases at strategic points like Bermuda or other offshore sites [1] [8] [4]. Scholarly cataloging (Cornell’s Persuasive Cartography entry) and archives reiterate the movement’s plan to unite North America, Central America and the Caribbean under a technocratic domain [3] [9]. None of the cited sources, however, provides a checklist that confirms every independent Caribbean country by name as included, so the claim that “all Caribbean countries” are individually mapped cannot be substantiated from these references [1] [3] [5].
3. Why the ambiguity matters: map rhetoric vs. political reality
The ambiguity stems from the map’s purpose and propaganda style: it visualizes an autarchic zone organized by energy and infrastructure, not a legal annexation plan that would need to name states or treaties; descriptions call it a unifying schematic for supply, defense, and resource geography rather than a list of annexed polities [2] [6] [7]. That rhetoric served the Technocracy movement’s agenda — advocating rule by technical elites and repudiating traditional party politics — so the map was meant to persuade and conceptualize rather than to serve as a diplomatic ledger [3] [9]. Some secondary accounts emphasize “parts of the Caribbean” or “gathers … parts of the Caribbean,” indicating selective or schematic coverage rather than a claim that every island-state was individually delineated [1] [2] [10].
4. Conclusion and reporting limits: the right answer, and what remains unknown
The correct, evidence-based answer is: yes, the Technate map portrays the Caribbean region as part of the proposed Technate of America, but the sources do not demonstrate that the map explicitly names or individually includes every modern Caribbean country; reporting consistently describes regional inclusion or “parts of the Caribbean” without a comprehensive country-by-country inventory, so any stronger claim cannot be validated from the available citations [1] [2] [5] [9]. Further certainty would require consulting the primary map image or high-resolution scans and archival catalog entries (Cornell’s PJ Mode collection, the rare-map listings) to check island boundaries and labels directly — sources summarized here point to regional incorporation but stop short of a definitive, per-country confirmation [3] [4].