American Slavery System

White by Design: The United States’ Long Enduring History of Family Separation: A Call for Intervention by Oriel María Siu, PhD

Deportation as a tool for controlling and removing people of color from –and within– U.S. territory is nothing new. The act of forcibly removing and separating non-white families, making people of color disposable, unwanted, and deportable, dates back to the very birth of this nation. That birth does not begin in 1776, as the master narrative of white settler colonialism would like us to believe, but rather in 1492 –in the very act of genocide, slavery and white settler colonialism in the Americas; that is, in what historian David Stannard so accurately calls, the “American Holocaust.”

The foundational race rules disproportionately affecting U.S. communities of color today and governing the current U.S. deportation and immigration system, were set during the first 100 years of the European occupation of the Americas, from 1492 to1592. Following a politics of extermination and removal of those whom were thought to obstruct colonization, land-grabbing, and Christianization,  European occupiers brutally decimated Native populations during that century, reducing America’s population of 110 million people in 1492, to 2.5 million by 1592. In this holocaust, entire families were removed from their land by way of annihilation, while others were separated from each other for generations to come.

A woman hangs herself and her child to avoid the dogs white people used to massacre Indigenous populations during the initial stages of the European occupation of America.   Illustration by Theodore de Bry to 1598 edition of Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas,  Brevísima Relación de la Destrucción de las Indias . Engravings appeared in  Narratio regionum Indicarum per Hispanos quosdam deuastatarum verissima  by Theodore de Bry in 1598. Source: Bibliothèque Nationale de France.

A woman hangs herself and her child to avoid the dogs white people used to massacre Indigenous populations during the initial stages of the European occupation of America. Illustration by Theodore de Bry to 1598 edition of Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas, Brevísima Relación de la Destrucción de las Indias. Engravings appeared in Narratio regionum Indicarum per Hispanos quosdam deuastatarum verissima by Theodore de Bry in 1598. Source: Bibliothèque Nationale de France.

Enhanced by ideas of white superiority and theories of “civilization” and “progress,” from the beginning, white settlers in what later became the United States, made it clear that the right to decide who could move where –and how– was to be determined by a system of racialized dominance, setting the foundations for the federal deportation regime that developed in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Whites’ invented concept of race –a concept born out of the European occupation of America and based on the idea that humans could be divided into two main categories –full humans (whites), and less-than-human humans, or non-humans (people of color)– was foundational to white supremacy as the new system of domination in American societies beginning in 1492. Under this new logic, non-whites were not capable of, nor should they have the right to, make their own decisions about place of residence, or movement.  Whites were. And, in fact, did.

Throughout the 1600s, 1700s, 1800s, and up to the early 1900s, whites freely moved from Europe into the American continent, and from East to West of the United States. These white settlers stole and occupied Native lands slaughtering all that frustrated their land-grabbing ventures, including the more than 30 million bison that freely roamed northern America during that time. As part of the process of this occupation, settlers began writing whiteness into law, importing and imposing the European concept of property itself, and self-granting themselves the right to possess and privatize land, animals, and people. Property, as a concept, was inexistent in the Americas prior to Europeans invading and occupying it. Privatizing the right to movement, while depriving people of color of it, was central to instituting and consolidating white settler colonialism in the United States.

Two US Army officers stand atop and bottom of the skulls of massacred bison, mid 1870s. Photocredit: Wikipedia.

Two US Army officers stand atop and bottom of the skulls of massacred bison, mid 1870s. Photocredit: Wikipedia.

Scientific research stemming out of U.S. and European universities during the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s produced research and implemented curricula that rationalized this racialized movement regime. This “research” furthered the argument of the inferiority of Black populations and Natives, their ways of knowing and existing, and inversely, the superiority of the white man. In reasoning white superiority, these “men of letters” measured the skulls of diverse world populations putting forth theories that supported the racist classification of human populations as “distinct races” stemming from “different origins,” and thus, according to that logic, “possessing different qualities,” or lack thereof. These so-called men of letters lived to prove that the racial inferiority of people of African, Pacific Islander, Asian, Caribbean, and Indigenous descent, justified conquering them, enslaving them, exterminating them, exploiting them, segregating them, removing them, and/or occupying their lands. Through these racist theories, whites justified their occupation of what is now the full territorial map of the United States, the establishment of its borders (fully established by the late 1800s with the U.S. take-over of Puerto Rico and Guam, alongside the Philippines and Cuba), and their occupation of lands south of these borders, as well as overseas where U.S. and European imperialism was hard at work particularly during the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Science in defense of American slavery. From Types of Mankind (1854) by J.C. Nott, and Geo. R. Gliddon. In arguing for the superiority of whites, scientists claimed that the world’s “races” had different “origins” and were therefore different “species”. Photo by APS Museum.

Science in defense of American slavery. From Types of Mankind (1854) by J.C. Nott, and Geo. R. Gliddon. In arguing for the superiority of whites, scientists claimed that the world’s “races” had different “origins” and were therefore different “species”. Photo by APS Museum.

By the early 1800s, the possession of whiteness, –that is, the possession of white skin– in the United States, already directly meant the possession of the right to exclude, lynch, dispossess, rape, enslave, massacre, unite in mob violence against those very people made disposable, the right to write and define the law, the right to absolute legal and social impunity for taking away the life of those whose lives were deemed worthless, the right to separate families, and the right to forcibly remove people of color from lands they had inhabited for over 70,000 years.

Indeed, the first Federal U.S. Citizenship and Immigration law, signed in 1790 and known as the Naturalization Act of 1790, excluded Native Americans, free Blacks, and enslaved Blacks because whites regarded them as “property” and not as humans. In setting the platform for a nation to be governed by whites only, this 1790 law specified that only a “free white person” could become a citizen of the United States as long as “he or she lived in the United States for at least two years, and in the state where the application was filed for at least a year.”

The first official U.S. government policy of deportation came shortly after, in 1830, with the passage of the Indian Removal Act. Although already in practice since the arrival of the Spanish and English in what would become the United States in 1492, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 made the removal of First Nation peoples in North America official by way of Executive Order. This meant that enforcing the policy now officially required the U.S. Army use military force to restrict and determine the movement of peoples who had been living in north America for over thousands of years.

U.S. soldiers putting Indigenous people in a mass grave after they massacred them at Wounded Knee, 1890. Image: Library of Congress.

U.S. soldiers putting Indigenous people in a mass grave after they massacred them at Wounded Knee, 1890. Image: Library of Congress.

Surviving and resisting Native populations located in the Eastern part of the United States were at this point relegated to geographies not of their choice: reservations in the West. First Nations resisting these relocation orders were met with the latest military technology until the beginning of the 1900s. By the early 1900s white occupiers had forcibly removed most Native communities from their lands, and had separated thousands of Native children from their parents, by putting them away in atrocious boarding schools that had one main racist purpose: in the words of General Richard Henry Pratt, one of the proponents of the construction of these schools, to “Kill the Indian and Save the Man.”

Native children separated from their families at Carlisle Indian School, Pennsylvania (c. 1900). This school was only one of the hundreds of schools run by the U.S Government in an attempt to forcibly assimilate Native children into becoming “American.” Photo Credit: Getty Images.

Native children separated from their families at Carlisle Indian School, Pennsylvania (c. 1900). This school was only one of the hundreds of schools run by the U.S Government in an attempt to forcibly assimilate Native children into becoming “American.” Photo Credit: Getty Images.

In these known 357 boarding schools, white men and women not only deprived Native children of seeing their parents for years –sometimes life–, they also separated them from their siblings, forced them to speak English, cut their hair, removed all of their cultural signifiers from their daily life, and replaced their names with European ones to further “civilize” and “Christianize” them. The experience of these schools left intra-generational traumas persisting to this day. For many children, the experience was even deadly. It is estimated that these schools had mortality rates of up to 42%. Recent research also reveals countless cases of sexual, physical, and mental abuse that occurred mostly within the Christian church-run boarding schools. These Boarding schools for native children existed well into the 1970s in the United States. They also existed in Canada and Latin America –everywhere where Europeans practiced white settler colonialism in the Americas.

The jail/stockade at Carlisle Indian Boarding School where Native children were locked up for various minor infractions, such as "stealing" food from the kitchen because they were so hungry from starvation diets, or running away because they wanted to go home. Photo Credit: Dr. Michael Yellow Bird.

The jail/stockade at Carlisle Indian Boarding School where Native children were locked up for various minor infractions, such as "stealing" food from the kitchen because they were so hungry from starvation diets, or running away because they wanted to go home. Photo Credit: Dr. Michael Yellow Bird.

 Thus, up to the 20th century, white colonizers who self-granted themselves the right to movement in the Americas, violently stripped First Nations from their lands, pushing them into reservations and Boarding schools, all the while forcibly transferring Africans to lands all throughout the Americas where they were made to labor for whites. It has been well documented that slave-owners sold the children of enslaved Africans at will, and parents could do little to stop the sale and theft of their children, often never seeing them again.

Sketch of a slave auction. Photo Credit: Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture.

Sketch of a slave auction. Photo Credit: Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture.

The experience of family separation lies at the core of how the United States came to be: genocide, slavery, and the forced removal of “obstructive” living beings on lands white settlers stole, and since then, occupied.

From the beginning, the U.S. Federal Deportation regime has been a racialized system, meaning only people of color have been systematically subjected to transportation and forced removal from U.S. territory, within U.S. territory, or into U.S. territory. Indeed, the tactics used by white settlers to remove Natives from their land were outstandingly similar to those used in the late 19th century Chinese cases, when the U.S. government instituted the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1880. It is important to remember that the Chinese were the first non-European descent immigrants to arrive in large numbers to the United States. Prior to the Chinese arriving, the population in occupied northern America consisted of Natives, Blacks, and Whites. Yet Chinese started arriving to the U.S. in the 1850s for the very same reasons many whites continued to do so during that same time period. Political unrest and economic pressures at home prompted thousands of Chinese to move to the western regions of the U.S. in search of work. Despite having to endure racism in the workplace, Chinese took whatever jobs were then available to them. They worked the low-skilled underpaid jobs in construction, agriculture, and in the gold mines. Under the framework of white supremacy, these non-white immigrants were considered racially and culturally inferior to white immigrants; a “yellow peril” believed to be “too different” to assimilate into the white constructed sense of Americanness.

Consequently, when gold became harder to find in the mid 1800s, white Americans scapegoated Chinese workers and forcibly drove them out of the mines and the communities they had come to be part. At this time, Chinese were accused of stealing jobs, not acculturating fast enough, not speaking English and being “unfit” for citizenship. The Chinese Exclusion Act not only barred Chinese from immigrating into the United States, it also gave the U.S. government full permission to remove them using force. In 1885, the city of Tacoma, Washington, went as far as creating a method to remove Chinese from cities and towns in the region. Fully endorsed and ordered by the city’s Mayor, police and city officials, “The Tacoma Method,” as it was called, consisted of raiding Chinese communities out of town, placing them on trains bound south to Mexico, ravaging all of their established businesses, and burning shops and residences that formed the Chinese community along Tacoma’s waterfront.



Chinese women and children in a detention room on Angel Island, early 1900s. The prison held hundreds of thousands of Chinese and was considered ideal because of its isolated location, making it very easy to control Chinese migrants and enforce the new immigration laws.  Image: Library of Congress.

Chinese women and children in a detention room on Angel Island, early 1900s. The prison held hundreds of thousands of Chinese and was considered ideal because of its isolated location, making it very easy to control Chinese migrants and enforce the new immigration laws.  Image: Library of Congress.

The Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed in 1945, when the U.S. needed China as an ally for WWII. Countless families, however, were separated and unable to reunite in the process, affecting the generations that came and igniting Anti-Asian sentiments that would later, in the 1940s, allow for the inhumane placement of more than 120,000 Japanese immigrants and families in U.S. sanctioned internment Camps.

Japanese children being taken to a U.S. Government internment camp. California, 1942. Image: National Archives and Records Administration.

Japanese children being taken to a U.S. Government internment camp. California, 1942. Image: National Archives and Records Administration.

Contrary to the Chinese immigrant experience, throughout the 1800s and early 1900s, Northern, Southern, Western, and Eastern European immigrants were met with open door immigration policies. Although confronted with a series of hostilities on the basis of religious and cultural differences, and some of these groups even categorized as non-white upon their arrival (Greeks, Poles, Hungarians, Slavs, Irish, Jewish, Italians and Finish were not considered white upon entering the U.S.), immigration law never dictated their systemic or forced removal once inside the United States. In fact, if you were an immigrant from any part of Europe during the early 1900s –during the height of European immigration into the US–, neither a visa, nor a passport, nor any sort of paper, was required of you to enter, and stay, in the United States. A medical exam lasting approximately 2 hours was all that was required to enter for white, or soon to be considered white, groups. Large boats holding as many as 10,000 Europeans each, came to the U.S. during this open-door immigration policy period. Visas and passports were required until 1924, when more Eastern Europeans started arriving to the United States. As I tell my students, the possession of white skin was the only required form of documentation required for Europeans that entered the United States prior to 1924.  Their skin served as their “passport.”

World War I, however, brought this open-door for whites-only policy to a halt. Coincidently, it was during this same time-period, in 1924, that Congress created the U.S. Border Patrol, at first to keep Asian immigrants out of the now established U.S. borders, but slowly thereafter, to control immigration coming into the U.S. from Mexico, or rather said, to control Mexicans.

Thus, when in 1929 the Depression hit and unemployment surged among whites, U.S. citizens who “looked Mexican” were now the ones scapegoated and made targets of forced removal. Ironically, however, not all Mexicans in the U.S. at this point, were in the U.S. by choice.  Rather, they were in the U.S. because in 1848 the U.S. took over Mexico’s northern territory by dictates of the Treaty of Guadalupe de Hidalgo, and whites moved the border south, with Mexicans residing in all of what is now the Southwest. Thus, a large number of Mexicans residing in the U.S. during the Great Depression, had not crossed any border and were, in fact, legal U.S.-born citizens, although not by choice. 

Despite of this, Depression-era whites claimed that Mexican Americans were “foreigners” taking away American jobs, overwhelming welfare offices, and draining charities set up for “real Americans.” It was under these pretenses that President Hoover pushed for the federal program, “American Jobs for Real Americans,” a program that helped create the logic for the U.S. government to raid and deport close to 2 million Mexicans during the Great Depression, 60% of whom were U.S.-born citizens. For the simple act of “looking Mexican,” Hoover’s administration raided Mexican U.S. citizens in parks, hospitals, markets and social clubs, later cramming and shoving them into trains bound south, to Mexico. As Francisco Balderrama documents in his book, Decade of Betrayal, 1.8 million Mexican families living in the U.S. were separated during this time.

When cheap labor was needed to fill the void left in the agricultural fields during WWII, however, the U.S. Government brought back Mexicans through a program that allowed for their legal exploitation. Starting in the 1940s, despite believing them inferior, the U.S. government legally entered Mexican “Braceros” –or “arms” as the dehumanizing term signifies–, as temporary workers. The US agribusiness too, through its labor demands, entered an even larger pool of undocumented Mexican laborers through its back doors. Once WWII U.S. veterans returned, however, Mexicans were again made target of deportation. This time, through “Operation Wetback,” a federal deportation order that forcibly removed over one million Mexicans from the United States in 1954, a great number of whom were U.S. citizens, or whom had arrived under the Bracero Program. No action has ever been taken against the Border Patrol for the hundreds of Mexican families separated during this operation.



“Operation Wetback” 1954. Photo Credit: U.S. Border Patrol Museum

“Operation Wetback” 1954. Photo Credit: U.S. Border Patrol Museum

Despite the direct intent to expel Mexicans from U.S. soil however, undocumented migration from Mexico only increased after 1965. Push factors in Mexico, and pull factors in the United States, continued encouraging Mexicans to move north. Yet, beginning in 1965, entering the U.S. became a very different experience. As Aviva Chomsky documents in her book, Undocumented: How Immigration Became Illegal, in 1965, the U.S. government made drastic changes to immigration law by establishing equal immigration quotas on all countries, essentially creating the problem of illegality for people from Mexico and later Central America, the regions pushing the largest number of undocumented immigrants into the U.S. during the second half of the 20th century. Consequently, “illegal” people started existing in 1965 not because new immigrants were doing something white immigrants prior to 1924 didn’t do, but because the law now ascribed them a term that simply didn’t exist before, “illegal.”

Coincidently, by 1965, it was no longer white Europeans who made up the bulk of the incoming immigrant population arriving to the United States. It was now people of color. Besides Mexicans who sought work that the United States offered, millions of war refugees and immigrants coming from countries where, in the majority of cases, the U.S. had actively contributed either financially, politically, or militaristically, to the conditions provoking the mass emigration of its citizens, now made up the core of the immigrant population into the United States; half (51%) of incoming post-1965 immigrants were from Latin American countries (after Mexico, mainly from the Dominican Republic, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala), and one-quarter were from Asia (Vietnamese, Koreans, and Filipinos being among the majority, after Chinese and Indians). The drastic rise in the migration of unaccompanied children coming from Central America in the 2000s, has been but a continued example of the United States’ long interventionist history abroad and the lasting consequences of such interventions.

Unsurprisingly, when the Obama administration entered the White House in 2008, Mexicans and Central Americans made up 80% of the undocumented population in the United States. Europeans, Asians, and to a lesser degree Africans, comprised the other 20%. 97% of those targeted by Obama for what became historical record-breaking deportations, however, were Black and Brown immigrants from Latin America, mostly from Mexico and Central America.

From the beginning, Obama set the record straight. He would legally sustain and expand the long-enduring war against immigrants of color by revamping deportation, border enforcement, and inhumane immigrant detention and separation. Like preceding Democratic and Republican presidents who, since 1979, started normalizing the detention of undocumented immigrants by building new and more immigrant prisons, Obama too, followed suit. But Obama differentiated himself from those previous administrations by one key factor: he expanded immigrant detention and enforcement to the point of generating private immigrant prisons and military technology corporations billions of dollars from the historical practice of separating families.  No other president had facilitated such revenue for these privatized companies, clearly taking a decisive turn towards profiteering from family separation, detention, and deportation. With all the groundwork having been laid by his Democratic predecessor Bill Clinton, however, this new business model for imprisoning undocumented immigrants came as no surprise to human rights activists and immigration advocates who understood the systemic effects of Clinton’s 1996 act.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), signed by Clinton in 1996, served as the legal architect for Obama’s own approach to immigrant detention. A solid pipeline for mass deportation, IIRIRA made more people deportable and fewer people legalizable by expanding the grounds of deportation to include not only serious crimes, but nearly any crime and misdemeanor (not returning a book to the library, for example, driving with a broken headlight, or petty theft). Comprised of a number of provisions, IIRIRA had one major goal: to increase penalties on undocumented and documented immigrants who had violated US law in some way –whether this was crossing the border without the possession of documents, or for other crimes or misdemeanors committed even by legal immigrants, even if those crimes or misdemeanors had been committed years before, and even if the crime had not been violent. IRRIRA worked retroactively and now subjected undocumented people to fast-track deportations; stripped them, and anyone apprehended within 100 miles of the border, from the ability to argue their case before a judge prior to deportation; mandated detention for immigrants undergoing removal proceedings; eliminated due process from the overwhelming majority of removal cases; erected multiple technical roadblocks to obtaining asylum, and among other provisions; created the 287(g) program which now allowed for state and local law enforcement agencies to engage in federal immigration enforcement activities, all in all, ensuring a constant flow of profit for the more and more privatized immigrant detention prisons being built since the 1980s.   

Mass incarceration of entire families, mothers, and unaccompanied children for prolonged periods of time, became the official uninterrupted Obama response to the violent displacement of people arriving from Central America to the United States in 2014, when the media started documenting this migration. Prior to Obama, no other president had deployed higher number of border patrols, spent more on border militarization and interior immigration enforcement, deterred migrants into the hottest –and deadliest– areas of desert-lands along the US-Mexico border, or instituted mass trials of immigrant parents. Neither had any one president made it official policy to hold child migrants for prolonged periods of time, in various documented cases, even years. Under the Obama administration, roughly half-a-million U.S. citizen children experienced the apprehension, detention, and deportation of at least one parent between 2011 and 2013, with thousands of these children ending up entered into the U.S. foster-care system and separated from their parents, indefinitely. By 2012, the Obama administration was already spending 24% more money on immigration enforcement than in all other federal law enforcement agencies combined (the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, Secret Service, U.S. Marshals Service, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives), reaching nearly $18 billion by 2013 –an unprecedented turn in U.S. immigration strategy, but one with solid legal and well-funded structures preceding and backing it up.

By the end of his term, Obama had deported more people than any other president in the history of the United States, reaching a record-breaking 3 million deportations by 2016, and leaving at least one million children traumatized from the separation from one or both their parents.   It then became more than clear that Obama’s legacy would be the publically normalized subjection of children, and their parents, to long-lasting psychological trauma, all the while securing billions of dollars for the federally-contracted immigrant detention prisons built to benefit.

Documents obtained and made public by the American Civil Rights Union in 2018, attest to the gravity of the abuse and neglect inflicted upon detained unaccompanied immigrant children by Obama’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The report, which is based on 30,000 pages of documents dated between 2009 and 2014, details countless instances of children being punched and kicked by agents inside detention, agents sexually and verbally abusing children, agents leaving a premature baby and the minor mother in an overcrowded and dirty cell full of sick detainees against medical advice, agents throwing away birth-certificates belonging to children, children being held for longer periods of time than the one stipulated by law, children held in solitary confinement, children being coerced into deportation without due process, children being consistently denied medical attention, and the petrifying list of documented abuse inside Obama’s immigrant detention facilities goes on.  

President Donald Trump’s (2017-2021) separation of more than 5,400 children from their parents at the border, thus, has precedence. Obama handed him a fully operational, well-funded, and sophisticated deportation machinery that he effectively used to deliver on his xenophobic campaign pledges to control migration from Mexico, Central America, Haiti, the Caribbean, Africa, and Asia throughout his presidency. Trump never operated in a vacuum. 

White by design, the U.S. Federal Deportation system has, from the beginning, been a racialized regime; that is, only people of color have been systematically subjected to transportation, mass detention, and forced removal from, within, or into U.S. territory. The practice of separating children from their parents in the United States is nothing new. It is as old as white settler colonialism in the Americas. The only difference now is, that it is undeniably and unavoidably visible. And it is way over time we intervened it.

Migrant and U.S.-born children playing on the Tijuana side of the U.S.-Mexico International Border during arrival of a migrant/refugee caravan attempting to enter the United States coming mainly from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala, 2018. Photo credit: Dr. Oriel María Siu.

Migrant and U.S.-born children playing on the Tijuana side of the U.S.-Mexico International Border during arrival of a migrant/refugee caravan attempting to enter the United States coming mainly from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala, 2018. Photo credit: Dr. Oriel María Siu.

Dr. Oriel María Siu is the author of the children’s book series Rebeldita la Alegre and has taught and contributed to the field of U.S. Ethnic Studies for over ten years. For more on her work, please visit, www.orielmariasiu.com.

Last Real Indians

Romania in 1918

The Conflicting Ideologies

When large number of peoples and sometimes whole nations or races are led to adopt basic suppositions and beliefs that differ substantially from others constantly increasing friction is likely to develop between these groups.

Since they have no adequate or accepted means of testing the relative merits of the opposing concepts the heat of emotion generated by the continuing friction may and frequently does lead to warfare.

The tragedy of warfare lie in the fact that it cannot determine the relative merit if the conflicting ideologies and it can only demonstrate the fighting abilities of the participants.

The winner usually learn nothing from such encounters and the looser learn only how to avoid in the future the military errors.

Millions of innocent persons met senseless and untimely deaths and hundreds of years of human effort were wiped out at the passing whim of one leader.

When weapons of mass destruction come into being the situation changes for no civilization and no race can survive the holocaust.

The leaders attempts to justify these mutual acts of mass slaughter in various ways. They perform some truly amazing feats of moral and philosophical gymnastic in their determined efforts to convince themselves and their victims that their tremendously destructive acts of passion brutality and greed are motivated by the highest of ideals and principles.

At least once in every generation each nation finds an excuse to enter into an armed conflict with one or more nations. Each side is determined to subdue or destroy the other , and every device or system which the.mind can conceive and the technology can create is used in some way in the furtherance of this senseless purpose.

These periodic acts of tragic nonsense have been performed almost as a ritual by every race, tribe and nation.

There is no social science on Earth only social arts which cannot progress substantially because they depend on the beliefs and attitudes of many leaders which lead in different directions.

All evidence indicates that the common citizen of the Earth has been ready for peace for some time.

Its leaders seems to be the laggards.

Peace is simply the automatically the automatically resulting by product of complete understanding between man and man, between race and race, between state and state and between man and God.

When such understanding exists there is no need to search or work for peace it exist automatically.



Feom the book "The White Sands Incident" by Daniel Fry

USA The War Game That Could Have Ended the World Man Playing with Weapons


p06r4p76.jpg

Soviet soldiers participate in a military exercise in the early 1980s. Credit: Getty Images.

On November 7, 1983, around 100 senior military officers gathered at Nato headquarters in Brussels to ‘fight’ World War Three. The annual simulation, known as Able Archer, came at the end of a large-scale conventional exercise ­– Autumn Forge – involving tens of thousands of Nato troops across western Europe.

Able Archer 83 was held at a time of heightened Cold War tension. Relations between Warsaw Pact and Nato-aligned nations were as bad as they had ever been. Earlier in the year, US President Ronald Reagan had branded the Soviet Union an “evil empire.” And, in September, Soviet pilots had shot down a Korean Airlines 747, killing all 269 people on board.

Meanwhile, both sides of the Iron Curtain were in the process of deploying medium range nuclear weapons – including cruise missiles based at Greenham Common in southern England – capable of striking targets within five minutes of launch. The world was on a nuclear hair-trigger.

According to the fictional scenario behind the Able Archer 83 war game, turmoil in the Middle East was putting a squeeze on Soviet oil supplies. Meanwhile, Yugoslavia – which wasn’t aligned to either side of the Cold War – decided to back the West. The Soviet leaders in the game feared this would lead to a cascade of other eastern European countries following suit, switching allegiance from the Warsaw Pact to Nato, and putting the entire communist system at risk.

The imagined ‘war’ started when Soviet tanks rolled across the border into Yugoslavia. Scandinavia was invaded next, and soon troops were pouring into Western Europe. Overwhelmed, Nato forces were forced into retreat. A few months after the pretend conflict began, Western governments authorised the use of nuclear weapons.

Role-playing Nato forces launched a single medium range nuclear missile, wiping Ukrainian capital Kiev from the map. It was deployed as a signal, a warning that Nato was prepared to escalate the war. The theory was that this ‘nuclear signalling’ would help cooler heads to prevail. It didn’t work.

By November 11, 1983 global nuclear arsenals had been unleashed. Most of the world was destroyed. Billions were dead. Civilization ended.

Accidental Signal

Later that day, the Nato commanders left their building and went home, congratulating themselves on another successful – albeit sobering – exercise. What Western governments only discovered later is that Able Archer 83 came perilously close to instigating a real nuclear war.

“There’s evidence at the highest levels of the Soviet military that they were finding it increasingly difficult to tell drills from an actual attack,” says Nate Jones, director of the Freedom of Information Act Project for the National Security Archive in Washington DC, an independent non-profit organisation that advocates for open government. “We’re now amassing a collection of documents confirming that the Soviets were really scared the West would launch a nuclear strike.”

p06r4q1k.jpg

Nato troops conduct a staged military exercise in Norway in 1984. Credit: Getty Images.

Based at George Washington University, the offices of the National Security Archive are stacked high with files and boxes of documents. Every shelf creaks with information that governments would rather have kept secret. Exposing the details of Able Archer 83 has taken Jones years of persistence.

“I remember [when I started] going to the archives and being laughed at, being told you’ll never see that as it’s highly classified,” says Jones. But after 12 years of filing freedom of information requests, complaining, chasing and badgering, in 2015, the efforts paid off. “I got this package in the mail, the key all-source intelligence report – and to make it even better, it arrived on my birthday.”

The document, produced in 1990 by the US President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, is entitled “The Soviet War Scare.” With only a few short sections redacted, the 109-page report details the unintended consequences of Able Archer 83. It makes for sobering reading (you can read the entire report here).

Unlike previous exercises, Able Archer 83 included encrypted communications and periods of total radio silence. There were also deployments on the ground. Some US air bases even practised weapons handling – taxiing out of hangars with realistic dummy warheads.

p06r51kj.jpg

Surface-to-air missiles on parade in Red Square on the 65th anniversary of the October Revolution. Credit: Getty Images.

Based on intelligence gathered in the months following the exercise, the 1990 report investigated the Soviet response. This included grounding flights, transporting nuclear weapons ready for deployment and assigning priority targets. There was also an unprecedented emphasis on civil defence measures. It had all the appearances of full-scale preparations for war.

The Soviet leadership didn’t believe Able Archer was an exercise, but instead a cover for a genuine first strike nuclear attack, and they prepared to retaliate.

“The war scare was real, and it’s very scary – an unprecedented military reaction,” says Jones. “We don’t want our enemies to think we’d launch a first strike when we have no intention of doing so.”

So how did an annual Nato military exercise get so badly misinterpreted? To investigate the answer, Jones and his colleagues have recently been scouring Russian sources including the KGB archive in Ukraine.

“We’ve found a confidential Soviet military journal from 1984 with a detailed analysis of Able Archer,” says Jones. “[It’s clear] from worried tones that the Soviet military was scared.”

In 1983, the leader of the Soviet Union was Yuri Andropov. A former head of the KGB and very much of the Soviet old-guard, he had risen through communist party ranks. But by the time he reached the top he was seriously ill. And seriously paranoid.

“There was a paranoia,” says Martin Chalmers, deputy director general of London-based security think-tank RUSI. “The Soviet leadership could remember the trauma of Hitler’s surprise attack in 1941 that almost destroyed the Soviet Union – that was the lens through which US policy was seen.”

p06r4pvj.jpg

Yuri Andropov, the leader of the Soviet Union at the time, had told KGB officers to watch keenly for any nuclear activity. Credit: Getty Images.

“There’s a document I found of Andropov telling KGB officers: ‘your number one priority is not to miss a nuclear strike’,” says Jones. “KGB operatives were tasked with trying to detect this and report it every two weeks.”

But because their masters in Moscow wanted to hear there was potential for a first-strike, to please their bosses, that’s what the spies delivered.

“These people were close to the West, they lived in the West and knew there were no plans for a first strike but they reported what they were told to report,” Jones explains. “Moscow collected these reports and drew dire conclusions and, as this reporting was going on, Able Archer 83 occurred.”

It was a dangerously vicious circle. “It’s a failure of the Soviet system,” says Jones, “Soviet intelligence did not act rationally.”

But nor did Western leaders understand the dangers of simulating a first strike nuclear attack. “It was a lack of empathy combined with the nuclear arms race creating tension,” says Jones. “The [conventional Autumn Forge] exercise was right on the Soviet border and then you had the added dimension of these new decapitating nuclear weapons.”

Although the secret US presidential report on Able Archer 83 wasn’t published until 1990, within months of the exercise, the first hints of trouble were reaching British intelligence. Both Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and President Reagan were shocked when they discovered that the Soviets believed they would authorise a first-strike attack.

Fortunately – and perhaps partly as a result of the war scare – over the subsequent months and years, tensions eased. And Reagan and new Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev embarked on a series of arms reduction treaties.

Far from being a terrifying footnote in Cold War history, however, Able Archer 83 is still relevant today. At the time of this article's publication in November 2018, rhetoric is once again ratcheting-up between Russia and the US, with concerns that global nuclear treaties are unravelling.

Russia, the US and China are renewing their nuclear arsenals. The US also insists that the Russians have, in breach of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, developed a new medium-range missile. As a result, President Trump has said he will withdraw from the agreement.

“The collapse of arms control will combine with the very real concerns that both sides see the other side as malign and possibly prepared to do some terrible thing in a crisis,” says Chalmers. “If a crisis comes along, the chances of a misunderstanding of the sort we saw in 1983 will be greater.”

Jones, who has been immersed in Able Archer 83 for most of his career, agrees. “As long as there are nuclear weapons, the danger of war through miscalculation remains.”

 

Thanksgiving

The Unspoken Truth Behind Thanksgiving

“When I was younger and went to vacation bible school, I remember a kid asking ‘what are you?,’” said Parrish Pipestem, a senior at Booker T. Washington High School. “I told them I was Native American and they said ‘I thought they were all dead.’”

Part of the problem lies in the fact that too often our understanding of Native American history is based on myth, stereotype and conquering culture. Children learn little about Thanksgiving beyond the romanticized pageantry – the turkeys and togetherness.

“The idea of Thanksgiving really comes from a few different events, including the Pequot Massacre,” said Gable Roubideaux-Davis, a Tulsa Public Schools Native Studies teacher. “In 1637, pilgrims found the body of a white man in a boat and the nearby Pequot people were blamed for that. The pilgrims subsequently burned their village, killing men, women and children. A day of thanksgiving for their victory was then declared.”

The Wampanoag Meeting of 1621 is another piece of the puzzle, as it’s about the closest thing to a “first Thanksgiving.”

“The Wampanoag tribe outnumbered the pilgrims two-to-one,” Roubideaux-Davis said. “They thought they heard some gunshots, so when they arrived at the scene, the pilgrims may have thought ‘well, we don’t want to die, so here’s some food.’ They may have been aware of their power.”

The Native Studies teacher argues that history itself is the greatest indicator of how mythologized truth has become 

“Regardless of when this meeting actually took place, the American government would still continue to take tribal land,” he said. “It’s not the reciprocal relationship so many people think it is.”

Roubideaux-Davis also stressed the importance of a term his mentor coined: land acknowledgement. In school, this involves teachers going over the history of the land that the school or the town sits on.

“I’m still in the process of moving to Tulsa, but once I get here, I aim to teach more about the history of the Creek Nation,” he said. “One of the main functions of society is education – it starts there.”

The power of the personal, lived experience can’t be discounted, though. Even if Thanksgiving is a dominant cultural myth, it’s been a part of our lives for so long that many people have become emotionally attached to the idea of the holiday.

“One thing Indigenous people are faced with is being asked about our past, culture and laws,” Roubideaux-Davis said. “One of our biggest hurdles is convincing people that not only are we still here, but we’re still capable of taking care of ourselves and our community.”

To that end, Theresa Hinman founded the Coalition for the Betterment of Indian Education, a volunteer group comprised of local and statewide community members, tribal leaders and educators. Its mission is “to provide pathways for students, families and educators to improve the recruitment and retention of American Indian and Alaska Native students, staff, teachers and administrators in Oklahoma public schools.”

“History repeats itself,” Hinman said. “If you don’t tell the whole story, it’ll happen again. You normalize the marginalization (of Indigenous people) – make people think it’s OK.”

Along with fostering a more informed populace, the Coalition also aims to provide curriculum that is culturally responsive.

“The way in which certain subjects are taught is important, too,” Hinman said. “If you teach math in a Persian way, for instance, that instills a greater appreciation for that culture.”

Pipestem, who serves as the Coalition’s student chair, has spoken with Native youth to gauge what his fellow students want most.

“Right now, one of the big things being asked for is tutoring,” he said. “Having someone who looks the same as you and who is there to advocate for you – that’s huge.”

Looking beyond Thanksgiving specifically, Pipestem cited Native Americans’ oversexualization in media as contributing toward their marginalization.

“There’s this image of red-skinned people with feathers in their hair,” he said. “If that’s the extent of your Indigenous education, then there’s a problem.”

That said, he did preface that most people have good intentions and are not intentionally coming from a place of insensitivity.

“I’ve just noticed that any time Native Americans are brought up in class, my classmates will turn to me,” the senior said. “However, it’s not a student’s job to teach Indian education. It starts with the schools.”

Pipestem recalled growing up in the D.C. area and visiting a friend’s house, where the local team mascot – an Indian caricature – was plastered all over the family’s T-shirts and hats.

“Some will point to poorly conducted studies throughout history of self-proclaimed Native Americans who thought such representation was OK – that it was a symbol of pride,” he said. “However, more recent studies show that more Native Americans find these depictions to be racist. And it affects children, as it’s been proven to be a contributing factor toward depression and low self-esteem.”

The Booker T. Washington senior implored his fellow, non-Native peers to – rather than ask “how does it feel to be Native American” – look within themselves and ask “how does Thanksgiving affect my thoughts on who Native Americans are? And is that a positive thing?”

“Indian education shouldn’t be opt-in,” he said. “This should be a natural, universal part of the curriculum – if you’re going to be around these people your whole life, then you should understand their culture.”

Dr. Cornel Pewewardy, Founding Member of Indigenous Peoples’ Day and professor emeritus at Portland State University, acknowledged that the spirit of reciprocity and togetherness behind Thanksgiving has been commercialized over time.

“There’s this grand narrative from an American perspective – accenting the pilgrims rather than the Indigenous people,” he said. “Today’s Thanksgiving isn’t even close to the original one. It’s almost cartoonish, considering that most of the Wampanoag are no longer here due to history.”

In what seems to have become a time-honored tradition, many elementary schools will have students dress up as pilgrims and natives every November.

“The worst thing you can do is select a Native American – or just dark-skinned – kid in elementary school and ask them to dress up as the Indians and the white kids as pilgrims,” Pewewardy said. “These particular teachers are not even close to understanding the culture, so they are prone to doing things they’re used to.”

Pewewardy argues that the greatest obstacle for many Native American kids is getting them to feel comfortable with their own culture. Indeed, some elementary school students don’t even know or identify as Native American and they end up asking a teacher. Meanwhile, others don’t discover their heritage until they’re in middle school or high school.

“Knowing the whole story is the first step toward healing,” Pewewardy said. “It’s taken generations to overcome – it’s a soul wound caused by the U.S. government, language use, and just the culture in the curriculum.