Initially, I was baffled by professor Gianluca Rizzo’s description of Futurism. It seemed unthinkable that someone would advocate for violent war as a way to create utopia. Parts of Futurism – the emphasis on fighting blandness, the wacky clothing – I can understand, but the rioting and fetishizing of wounds? It all seemed too peculiar to be true. However, the more I thought about it, the more plausible it became. For instance, the best way to unite people is to give them a common enemy. In a politically and socially bifurcated world, having a defined enemy to fight against can bring people together. Furthermore, having a common cause can energize and motivate people. The way people get riled up about sporting events or political elections is clear proof that people are excited by conflict. However, the transition from non-lethal conflicts that connect people such as the Super bowl or the World Cup, to lethal conflict that is designed to disfigure people is a tough transition for me to justify. I just don’t see how the permanent and life-altering disabilities that result from warfare help improve people’s lives. Marinetti may have seen wartime wounds as beautiful, but I doubt today’s soldiers who have come back injured from Afghanistan and Iraq and are now homeless or impoverished would agree with him.