Maps, although seemingly objective representations of the world, have enormous power. They shape our understanding of space, determine the directions of our travels and define political boundaries. But beneath the façade of neutrality lies the potential for manipulation.
The history of warfare is replete with examples of maps being used to dehumanize the enemy. Some of them are very obvious. Satirical maps were created by all sides of the First World War, depicting Europe as a series of caricatures intended to dehumanize enemy states and push a narrative of victory in the war.
Other examples are less obvious. During the Vietnam War, the US military created maps that marked specific regions of Vietnam “free fire zones”, meaning that any person or activity inside this zone could also be considered hostile and a goal for military force. This tactic effectively worn out the civilian population from the map, treating your complete area as an enemy stronghold.
United States Library of Congress / Wikimedia Commons
The dehumanizing effect of maps comes from their inherent abstraction. Maps simplify reality by reducing a fancy landscape teeming with life and history to lines, symbols and colours. While needed for clarity, this simplification often results in the removal of the human element.
For example, the map below shows the locations of known Russian military and ground attacks following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The map uses symbols to simplify the conflict. We later learned that one of these cartoon-like icons represents Bucha massacre in which Russian forces reportedly killed 458 Ukrainian civilians and prisoners of war.
Related press
Fueling conflict
Maps may also be used to bolster the “us versus them” mentality that fuels conflict. They create a visible distinction between “our side” and “theirs”, clearly marking enemy territory.
The day before Genocide in Rwanda in 1994, extremist Hutu media produced maps which divided Rwandans based on ethnicity: Hutu and Tutsi. These maps were not only geographical representations, they were identification and tracking tools.
Maps often used contrasting colours to sharply separate Hutu and Tutsi areas. This visual distinction created a transparent separation between the in-group (Hutu) and the out-group (Tutsi), promoting the concept Tutsis are not part of the material of Rwanda.
Some maps went further, using symbols similar to machetes or snakes to represent Tutsis, depicting them as brutal and dangerous. These maps were widely distributed through newspapers and radio broadcasts. They not only identified Tutsis, but additionally served as visual propaganda to justify violence against them.
This visual separation promotes a way of distance and difference, making it easier to perceive the enemy as an abstract threat fairly than other people. Propaganda maps exploit this effect by exaggerating the dimensions of enemy territory or depicting the enemy population as faceless masses.
Removing an individual from the map
The IDF’s introduction of grid maps to Gaza in December 2023 introduced one other way of dehumanizing the population. Like free fire zones throughout the Vietnam War, Israel divided Gaza into over 600 blocks, ostensibly to assist evacuation of civilians.
Any block on the map that may be reached via a QR code found on leaflets and social media posts can receive evacuation warnings before that square is bombed. However, support staff do warned that the map risks turning life in Gaza right into a “battleship game” in which the flattening of any given grid square is justified by the looks that it’s an empty spot on the map.
Maps also influence the best way we, as observers, perceive conflicts. This may extend beyond the battlefield. Maps often depict refugees as a homogeneous mass, leaving out the person histories and desires that drove them from their homes.
In the early stages of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, for instance, the BBC got here under fire in the case of one map that shows the movement of refugees with arrows. People on social media he suggested that these symbols commanded invasion fairly than flight. In response to criticism, the BBC updated the map to make use of proportional circles as a substitute.
Homework is completed
The dehumanization inherent in war maps is just not inevitable. For example, including civilian infrastructure and population density in military maps could be a constant reminder of the human costs of conflict. Oral histories and community map projects can even offer alternative perspectives on the land, highlighting the human histories often erased by military cartography.
The conflict in Gaza has shown that lessons are being learned about how you can higher use maps during conflict. Reutersfor instance, maps were used together with other textual and visual elements to assist tell a fuller story and complete what maps alone could never achieve.
Ultimately, maps are tools that may be used for good or evil. We must strive to look beyond the lines and symbols and remember the people whose lives are affected by the conflicts depicted on the maps.