One of the greatest parallels I found between my topic and the later periods we've studied is actually a backward parallel.
Wars began very personal. The earliest familial disputes were likely settled with fists, until we fashioned clubs, spears and blades. Other weapons of war followed (cimeters, swords, clubs with spikes, etc.) but even into the Enlightenment, wars were fought in a very personal way. The invention of gunpowder then changed the way we fought.
We discussed the great destruction that came with WWI, as soldiers used the personal war-tactics they had always known. New technologies rendered old strategies obsolete. Because no one was prepared for this new brand of warfare many soldiers died.
The destruction was compounded as technology evolved. According to many estimates nearly twice as many lives were lost in the second World War than the first. When one considers the bombs dropped in Japan or over London, the link between destruction caused by those weapons and the relative separation officials involved had with the actual suffering that followed, it is no wonder that trends move away from personal combat where possible.
(A caveat to this example is the world's shift away from chemical warfare. We recognized that some things are too destructive.)
As warfare moved from a very personal style of combat to anonymous killings, casualties have dramatically increased. When individuals are removed from the destruction that follows their actions they are less likely to appreciate the gravity of their actions – as happens by the second on the web.
We must facilitate a more deliberate shift from anonymous communications on the internet. Warfare over the years has submitted to the opposite, and the evidence of destruction is sobering.
This is an interesting post. I loved the initial angle of anonymity (and how that could cause an easier misuse of technologies and weapons), but your points present some difficult/unclear narratives for your reader to follow. I don't know that it's ever safe to safe to call any killing "anonymous"; there will always be a family, spouse, or friend left in the sorrowful wake of a death. If anything, WWI and WWII showed the world that no death is anonymous (hence the tremendous sorrow that followed afterward).
ReplyDeleteWere you trying to emphasize a type of self-delusional anonymity within those who use advanced technologies to bomb in times of warfare?
Really a unique tie in. I think it is powerful and evocative way to give strength to your argument. I found it an easy enough train of thought to follow. Distancing ourself from those we are interacting with has huge risks!
ReplyDelete