September 22, 2004
The nadir of conviction
This Winds of Change article makes a promising start pointing to the use of anonymity by those who would murder us all. It then meanders off into a peculiar argument about the power of anonymity, contrasting it to a frankly banal critique of celebrity.
Perhaps. Or perhaps anonymity enables weaklings to torture and murder people by the sawing off of their heads secure in the hope their masks protect them from the law and swift justice. Perhaps the same masks that sheltered the KKK do so for the same reasons: rank cowardice.
There is something profoundly troubling to me in making a comparison between the anonymity of many bloggers and the anonymity of the terrorists. It is a commonplace that the most intemperate, rude and irrational comments posted to this or most blogs are left anonymously but I am certain many bloggers, including the person who wrote this Winds of Change post, have honourable reasons for masking their identities. Many anonymous bloggers, including some leaving posts at the routinely excellent Winds of Change, earn respect through the force of their argument, wit or whatever contribution. It is frankly offensive to set them alongside the KKK of Iraq. Worse yet is easy criticism of celebrity culture that mirrors precisely the stated war rationale of the men in the masks and their fellow travellers in the hooded vandals of "anti-war" marches.
To be sure, anonymity forms part of the arsenal of asymmetric warfare and to this extent the article makes a point that almost reaches salience. But in one matter it is dead wrong. Anonymity does not enchance conviction. It is, rather, the nadir of conviction. Readers of this blog do not know everything about me or my life, even and perhaps especially important things about me and my life. The reason for this is twofold: first, my parents have access to the internet and I have put them through quite enough embarrassment in my life, thank you very much, and; second, because there are parts of my life which are quite frankly none of your business. That said, my name is in the sidebar and you are an easy google away from my work address. This is nothing to be applauded but the simple expression of the precious liberty paid for by the blood of heroes from Runnymede to Fallujah. The exercise of this freedom could conceivably cost me a job and has cost me weak friendships but these are small things to set against losing my head to knife wielding maniacs or my honour to the easy bravado of anonymous scribblings on a bathroom wall.
My convictions are publicly stated under my own name and that, sir, makes them stronger than yours.
Posted by Ghost of a flea at September 22, 2004 08:00 AMTrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.ghostofaflea.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1650
I wonder. I generally agree yet I met a wonderful old gentleman in a small Polish city once who aske which language I wish to speak with him with. We settled on Franch in which he explained that he had spent six years in the war fighting Nazis through anonymously blowing up trains and slitting throats throughout Germany. He was a Colonel in the Communist resistence and doing the Lord's work as far as I am concerned. Was his anonymity indicative of a lack of conviction or a lack of righteousness? For me, no.
Similarly, where there is a real risk of personal loss - work or even life - by writing the truth, I see a place for that unless what is being written is subject to a employment or professional confidence. The line of where that arises is a difficult question but one that can't be ignored in assessing when to write anonymously.
Posted by: Alan at September 22, 2004 09:46 AMThat would be why I refer to "honourable reasons" for many bloggers to retain their anonymity. It may be sensible but it is hardly something to celebrate.
Posted by: Flea at September 22, 2004 09:48 AMAnd, pace this Polish gentleman who may have done just what he claimed to have done, I am skeptical of the multitude of anonymous heroes of, to cite only one example, the French Resistance. No matter the recent claims of the French press it was a stand up fight that liberated Paris. Though I suppose these days we are meant to sneer at the word "liberate".
Posted by: Flea at September 22, 2004 09:51 AMWhile I take your point, the particular man in question was the father of the principal at the school where I taught and was generally recognized as that sort of hero so I would not be skeptical in the specific case. He went into a fair bit of detail, too, which was a bit alarming given his classic Polish dignity - they would not brag of such things. There was a way of being the capable honourable man doing good in Poland that was well characterized a red army officer who also was reflecting something the nation's proud Catholic orthodoxy. Two orthodoxies, in fact. Like many Polish men, his hands when you shook them - as you had to do often - were twice as thick as mine. Capability was implied.
Posted by: Alan at September 22, 2004 10:01 AMThanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
