Anonymity in warfare

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.

History of Tolerance: Open-Minds and Open Doors

Tolerance has been a multifaceted concept since the Enlightenment. But, regardless of its many forms, tolerance has also always had a positive effect as America (and the world) transitioned through major historical periods:

• Industrialization: as Industrialization grew, tolerance was required on both sides (by industrial producers and by market consumers). Given, there are still some environmental issues with big manufacturers today, but imagine if big business manufacturers hadn't kept an open-mind about the effects of certain forms of production on the environment. Regulation Laws would never have been passed. Conversely, if consumers hadn't kept an open-mind about the material benefits of industrialized manufacturers, then we wouldn't have the technology or accessibility that we enjoy today. 
• Romanticism: this movement speaks for itself. Staying open-minded about how an individual can view themselves or any medium of artistic aesthetics is what made this clock tick. Respecting and appreciating the creative agencies of an individual (within the realms of the Constitution) is what drove the successful creation of cherished works of poetry, visual art, music, and prose literature.
• Nationalism: History tells an visceral story about the consequences of not having tolerance during the development of "Nationalism." WWI and WWII are the consequence of not keeping an open-mind to the rights and privileges of others (within the boundaries of a nation's legal and rational freedoms).