Maps, although evidently goal representations of the world, hold enormous power. They influence how we perceive place, how we travel, and what social boundaries are. However, there is a possibility for adjustment beneath the surface of the neutrality.
The history of conflict is full of illustrations of drawings that depict the foe inhumanity. Some of these are pretty obvious. In the first globe war, all sides produced humorous maps that depicted Europe as a series of cartoons to demonize the foes and advance a successful conflict narrative.
Different cases are less apparent. In the Vietnam War, US military maps were created that designated certain areas of Vietnam as “free-fire zones,” meaning anyone who lived in a zone may be viewed as hostile and used as a weapon against anyone who attempted to use force there.
Essentially, this tactic successfully eliminated the civil population from the map and made the entire region a haven for the enemy.
Maps have an intrinsic level of abstraction, which contributes to their dehumanizing result. Maps reduce a complicated environment, which is teeming with life and history into ranges, symbols, and colors, simplifying reality. Although simplicity is required for clarity, it frequently leads to the loss of the human element.
The following image, for instance, shows the sites of Russian-led ground and air strikes that were carried out after its conquest of Ukraine in February 2022. To make the fight less complicated, the image uses icons.
Afterwards, we would discover that one of these cartoon-like symbols represents the Bucha massacre, which allegedly resulted in the deaths of 458 Ukrainian citizens and war prisoners by Russian forces.
Supporting conflict
Charts can also be used to promote the “us v them” culture that energy issue. They create a physical distinction between “our part” and” own” by starkly defining enemy territory.
Radical Hutu media outlets created maps that classified Rwandans by ethnicity: Hutu and Tutsi in the lead-up to the 1994 genocide. These maps were n’t just geographical representations, they were tools for identification and targeting.
The charts frequently sharply divided the areas of Hutu and Tutsi using contrasting colors. This visual distinction promoted the idea that Tutsis were not a part of the Rwandan fabric by establishing a clear separation between the in-group ( Hutu) and the out-group ( Tutsi ).
Some drawings went further, using icons like batons or snakes to signify Tutsis, portraying them as aggressive and harmful. These drawings were widely circulated in magazines and radio broadcasts. They not just identified Tutsis, but they also served as physical adsolicitation that supported their impunity.
It is easier to see the enemy as an abstract danger than fellow human beings because of this physical separation, which fosters a sense of range and difference. Propaganda charts profit from this effect by exaggerating the territory’s size or presenting army populations as impersonal masses.
removing the person from the image
Utility drawings were introduced to Gaza by the Israel Defense Force in December 2023, giving another method of dehumanizing populations. Israel has divided Gaza into more than 600 stones, apparently to aid in transporting citizens, similar to the free-fire areas of the Vietnam War.
Removal warnings can be received for each stop on the image before a given rectangular is bombarded with them, which can be accessed via a QR code on flyers and social media posts.
Aid workers have but warned that the image runs the risk of making Gaza existence a “game of battleships,” in which flattening any network circle is justified despite the claim that it is an empty room on the chart.
Drawings also have an impact on the way we, as spectators, see issue. This may extend beyond the battle. Migrants are frequently depicted as a homogeneous mass, disregarding the personal stories and desires that led to their displacement.
In the early stages of Russia’s war of Ukraine, for instance, the BBC came under fire for one image in which it used bolts to describe the movement of immigrants. These characters were interpreted as a form of war rather than a frightful escape, according to some on social media. Following censure, the BBC updated the image to use equal lines instead.
Instructions are being learned
The dehumanization natural in battle maps is not expected. For example, including human infrastructure and population mass on defense charts can serve as a continuous reminder of the human value of conflict.
Oral histories and community modeling initiatives can also provide fresh perspectives on the property, highlighting the individual stories that military cartography frequently overshadows.
In light of the issue in Gaza, lessons have been learned about how to use charts more effectively. For instance, Reuters has used maps in addition to other words and visual components to show a more in-depth story and complete what maps only might never be able to perform.
In the end, charts are tools that can be used for good or evil. We must try to remember the people whose lives are affected by the conflicts that are depicted on maps.
Doug Specht is Reader in Cultural Geography and Communications, University of Westminster
The Conversation has republished this essay under a Creative Commons license. Read the original post.