The Minoans: The Forgotten Sea Empire

How can I ignite a passion for history in my students? That’s a question I found myself asking when I was teaching at Trenton Central High School while doing my first clinical experience at The College of New Jersey. Naturally, I began with looking back at my high school teachers trying to remember what they did that allowed me to not just passively learn, but to explore my interests as well. The paper that follows this introduction was my capstone paper I wrote while at TCNJ studying history. It covers a people known as the Minoans. These seafaring people of the Bronze Age are not likely to be found in any high school history textbook. However, I decided to write about the Minoans in such length because of a project I did in my English class in high school. (Yes, you read that right, my English class.)

            My English teacher at the time, Ms. Lutz, had allowed the class to do a presentation on a topic of our choosing. As a person who found English to be very boring and history much more interesting this project excited me as I was able to dive deeper into a topic I was interested in. I ended up settling on the Minoans as I had only heard their name once briefly in a video discussing Crete. Ms. Lutz’s English project allowed me to have choice in my learning all while developing my presentation making skills and teaching me how to do proper research. If the goal of your lesson is to develop student research and presentation skills then focus on that. Students will be much more willing to speak in front of the class if they are passionate about the subject. That little bit of research at the high school level might even turn into a capstone paper one day. So why is this important? How does this help me create passion for history in the classroom? Give your students some agency in what they learn. Let them tell you what they find interesting about U.S. or world history and let them explore that interest in your class. This also shows us history does not have to be confined to the history classroom instead other subjects can use history as a backdrop to explore concepts and develop new skills.

During the Bronze Age trade flourished in the Mediterranean. Few people were as well situated to capitalize on this fact then the inhabitants of the Island of Crete. The people of this island during the 3rd to 1st millennia B.C.E.E. are known to modern historians as the “Minoans”. Who were the Minoans and what did they do? The Minoans really excelled at creating high quality products. At first mastering pottery allowed them to create vessels for holding agricultural products like olive oil. When faced with a lack of valuable metals and materials like copper and tin, on the island, they were forced to turn to trade to get rarer resources. This trade centered around providing olive oil and other goods in exchange for these precious resources which could be used in the creation of desirable specialized products. This operation eventually expanded to become an intricate sea trading network that encompassed large portions of the Mediterranean and beyond. Minoan products have even been found as far as the Indus River Valley. However, material goods were not the only thing traded by the Minoans. Culture was readily exchanged as well both willingly and as a side effect of trade. Minoans managed to spread their culture while incorporating elements from foreign cultures that proved beneficial. While much information about the Minoan civilization has been lost to history, the vastness and importance of their trade empire economically and culturally can not be overstated. Many civilizations of this time like the Phoenicians, Sumerians, and the Harappans of the Indus rRiver valley tend to overshadow the Minoans but they should be seen as cultural equals to these complex societies. Their central geographic location, coupled with a need to trade for raw materials as well as fostering skilled artisans enabled the Minoans to become a Bronze Age thalassocracy with influence on many civilizations.

The Bronze Age in Crete is generally considered to have lasted from around the 3rd millennium B.C.E. to the 1st millennium B.C.E.[1] The Minoans received exposure to metallurgy and bronze making from the east. The Island of Crete is the largest in the Aegean Sea and also the furthest south. This geographical position made Crete a natural stop on the many trade routes of the Mediterranean. Crete was perfectly positioned to receive sea trading merchants from all their neighbors. Mainland Greece to the northwest, the Cyclades to the north, Anatolia to the northeast, Egypt to the southeast, Cyprus to the east, and even further east Syria. This places Crete in the middle of some of the most important civilizations of the Bronze Age. The innovations of the Bronze Age first began in the east and it is no wonder how the Minoans gained access to this knowledge. While the Minoans were influenced heavily by the cultures that they came in contact with, the Minoans developed a distinct culture of their own. This is contrary to what historians of the past once believed. Historians used to think that the Minoans were not a distinct culture but instead a more of a imitator of Anatolian, Syrian, and Egyptian customs. This can not be further from the truth; instead the Minoans created a highly advanced culture which spread its influence to the furthest reaches of the known world at the time.[2] 

Even in the 21st century when writing about Minoan cultural spread, archeologists like Cyprian Broodbank and Evangelia Kiriatzi write that the “Minoanization” of surrounding islands and the Mediterranean remain controversial.[3] Cultural spread was not the only highly contentious aspect of the Minoan civilization. An article by Chester G. Starr really exemplifies how some scholars used to feel about the Minoans having large influence in the Mediterranean or even the Aegean. Writing in 1955 Starr confidently writes off the Minoan thalassocracy stating

The Minoan thalassocracy is a myth, and an artificial one to boot. It is amazing that the patent falsity of the basic idea has never been fully analyzed, for neither logically, archaeologically, nor historically can the existence of a Cretan mastery of the seas be proved.[4]

As the history of the Minoans becomes more and more clear through archeological finds Starr’s article appears more and more outdated. While he recognizes the fact that trade between Crete and Syria as well as trade between Crete and Egypt existed, he heavily downplays the Minoan involvement in this trade. Proclaiming instead that Minoans were nothing more than intermediaries between great powers.[5] Starr even writes off Minoan control of the Aegean by saying that they would not be able to field the required number of ships.[6] The idea of Minoan colonies is also completely downplayed as nothing more than a few factories created by Minoans for native populations of those islands to gather and produce products.[7] Early and mid 20th century historians certainly did not see the Minoans to be as capable as they were.

In 1962 an article by Robert J. Buck continues to echo this sentiment. Buck writes “No matter how prosperous Crete may have been, there was simply no place in the Late Bronze Age for a Minoan thalassocracy.”[8] His reasoning is that Crete did not have the industry capable of producing enough goods for a large overseas market.[9] It was not until the 1990s that scholars began to find more evidence that Crete could have held an empire of the sea and the Minoans were their own advanced culture.[10] Today the topic is still debated and the true scale of the Minoans’ influence is not completely clear. Evidence gathered in this paper however points to the existence of a heavily influential Minoan thalassocracy.

Trade was what built this Empire and was the primary way that Minoans spread their culture. The geographic location of Crete was not the only factor that led to the Minoans creating a trade empire. The Minoans had access to plentiful land to produce agricultural products in large quantities. Grapes, olives, pears, etc. were vital to the Minoan economy and way of life. Grapes were used to produce wine and tablets found at Knossos, the Minoan capital, reference 420 grape vines in the area and tablet “GM 840” records over 14,000 liters of wine that were brought to Knossos as a product of the last harvest.[11] Olives were also fundamental to the people of Crete and the Mediterranean and were always in high demand. Olives and olive oil took a long time to spoil, were used in cooking, washing oneself, burned in lamps, and were used as body oil. Olives were enjoyed both in their pressed oil form and regularly eaten without being pressed. These many different uses for olives made it a major crop of the Minoan economy. More tablets found at Knossos document 9,000 liters of olives being produced in just the Dawos area of the Messara plain of Crete.[12] Pears were also grown and might have even been native to Crete with Minoan trade being the reason the fruit spread throughout the Mediterranean.[13] While having an abundance of agricultural products is certainly good, the Island of Crete was lacking valuable metals that were the building blocks for societies of the Bronze age. Metals like copper, tin and gold were not found readily enough to support the demand on the island and this forced the Minoans to turn to their neighbors to acquire these metals.

Copper and tin were combined to create the alloy of bronze, a vital resource of the time. The island of Cyprus to the east was a large supplier of copper to the Mediterranean and made a perfect trade partner for the Minoans. Copper ingots from Cyprus were found at the Minoan palace-temple of Zakro confirming trade between the two islands.[14] It seems connections between Cyprus and Crete date back to the early and mid-Bronze Age.[15] Minoan pottery has been found on Cyprus in important places like palaces and ingots of various metals traded to the Minoans by the Cypriots have been found on Crete.[16] Some Cypriot pottery had even been found in the port of Kommos on Crete. All of these connections show a healthy trade relationship between the two islands. It is also clear that the Minoan and Cretans developed some kind of rapport as the Cypro-Minoan script begins to appear on traded items. The Cypro-Minoan script was a shared syllabary that the two islands utilized in trade with one another.[17] While the script remains undeciphered it allows archeologists to tell when items have come from Cyprus. Lead, copper, and tin ingots have been found bearing Cypro-Minoan markings with Cypriot lead mines being identified as far as Sardinia.[18] These are the kinds of metals that Minoans would have been in heavy need of and thus this close relationship between Cyprus and the Minoans makes sense. The Minoans would have used these metals to manufacture all kinds of various products. Cypriots were getting their lead from mines in Sardinia to trade that lead to the Minoans who then used lead to create objects that were sold overseas to places in Anatolia and Egypt. This is a perfect example of how interconnected Mediterranean civilizations were in the Bronze age and is not dissimilar to trade in the modern day.

Evidence of overseas trade is easy to spot all around Crete. For example, in the city of Myrtos imported metal objects, stone vessels, and obsidian have been found. Within the city, pottery and textiles were produced which could have been exported in exchange for these goods. Myrtos, like many Minoan cities, was located near the coast and many of these cities had their own ports and had more access to the outside world than might be expected.[19] Minoans most likely constructed their cities with trade as a central tenant. This is evident by the distribution of settlements around the island. The west side of Crete is almost completely barren of settlements while the north, south, and east have plenty of large cities. When looking at this from a trade point of view it makes sense as Minoans would have been primarily trading with the Cycledies to their north, Anatolia, Cyprus, and Syria to the east, and Egypt to the south. While Minoan pottery has been found west, in places like Malta for example, Minoans seemed to be more focussed on conducting their business in the eastern Mediterranean. Ports and harbors did not only exist in large cities. Evidence of Minoan ports have been found in many coastal regions of Crete and on nearby islands like Dia and Thera.[20] Having ports scattered throughout the sea allowed Minoan sailors to have many points where they could stop and rest. It is also crucial for long range seafaring as these journeys could be very dangerous and various weather conditions could spell disaster for ships and their crew. Having ports along the way to their destination allowed ships to take stops and wait for more favorable weather and wind conditions if needed.

            Minoans traded in many different kinds of products and were not limited to their agricultural surplus of olives and wine. In fact, skilled artisans were highly valued in Minoan society and were some of the most adept in the Mediterranean. Vathypetro, a Minoan building in the Cretan countryside, gives historians a glimpse into the industries Minoans engaged in. The building is dated to 1580 B.C.E. and had a wine press, clay loom weights for weaving, an oil press, 16 storage jars, multiple potters wheels, and a farm on the property.[21] Rodney Castleden, author of Minoans:Life in Bronze Age Crete suggests that it could have been a summer residence for the king, wealthy landowner or just as likely a communal industrial and agricultural center where Minoan artisans and farmers in the area could work. It is clear that Minoan goods were highly valued as they have been found all over the Mediterranean and beyond. Other cultures also show clear inspiration taken from Minoan frescoes and pottery showing the scale of Minoan influence. The largest potency of this influence is seen in Minoan colonies and close neighbors like the Mycenaeans. However, very proud and ancient civilizations like Egypt have shown to have respected the Minoans to a certain degree and had interest in their art and products.

            At some point Minoans began to make changes to their social structure to prioritize artisans and the manufacturer of luxury goods. This can be seen in the Minoan palace-temples. In Minoan society towns littered the countryside but in large cities there were often massive palace-temples where the elite and priests would live and in the case of Knossos a king or some kind of central authority. The main temples were located in Knossos, Kydonia, Phaistos, Zakro, and Mallia.[22]

Archaeologists have been able to discover that at some point before 1700 B.C.E. Minoan craftsmen and artisans concentrated within these temples. It seems that artisans were gathered to collectively work as full time specialists paid by the state. This proximity to other skilled specialists allowed them to share ideas and learn from each other creating ambitious works for domestic use and for transportation overseas.[23] At Phaistos within the store rooms some pithoi made by these craftsmen survived to this day.[24] Castleden describes the work made by these specialists as reaching “levels of technical skill and artistry so high that some of their works rank among the finest ever produced in Europe.”[25] It is no wonder why Minoan products were sought out all through the Mediterranean and beyond. By focusing their talents together and producing artwork that surpassed anything that their competitors were producing they found a lucrative market in luxury goods.

            With the palace-temples being the concentrated point for artisans they also became trade hubs as a consequence of both having the skilled workforce needed to use these raw materials and being the center of bureaucracy in the region. Imported materials found include silver, tin, copper, ivory, gold, lapis lazuli, ostrich eggs and plumes, exotic stones, and more.[26] These materials were then worked on by specialists at the temples where the finished products were sold both to local markets and taken by seafaring traders to foreign markets. Having the temples act as the center of industry, trade, faith, and bureaucracy as well as having five of these temples spread around the island created an efficient and administratively run government. Some early theories about the Minoan government suggested that these temples were seats of different city-states like those of mainland Greece. However, consensus now is that each temple had a local bureaucracy that controlled a portion of the island, but in the end they were all subservient to the main seat of power in Knossos. Keeping a well run and organized government is vital for sustaining a far-reaching trade empire with connections around the world and it appears the Minoans recognized this. It is very possible that Minoans understood how to organize themselves into a more centralized state by looking at the Egyptians.

            As the Minoans were looking towards the Egyptians for inspiration other less developed peoples were looking at the Minoans as an example of a developed culture. By looking at the ruins of a palace at the ancient site of Tel Kabri, located in modern day Israel, archeologists have noticed shocking similarities between this palace and Minoan palaces. For example, Minoan style fresco fragments have been found that seem to be mimicking the Minoan style. The palatial layout and construction of the palace also seems to coincide with the Minoans expanding their palaces.[27] It should not be so surprising that foreign merchants most likely visited Knossos or other palaces on Crete and were amazed at what they saw there. When they returned home the nobility of places like Tel Kabri wanted to emulate the great Minoan culture to give some kind of additional legitimacy to their own rule. This is an example of the Minoans having great influence on outside cultures without doing much to influence these people.

Additionally, by analyzing animal bones found at the site archaeologists could determine that the people at Tel Kabri started using meat cleavers to cut bone and extract marrow. This had occurred just slightly after the same development happened within Minoan society.[28] Again this showcases how trade partners of the Minoans benefited from not only the exchange of goods but also the exchange of ideas coming from Crete.

Egypt was one of the many civilizations that benefited from trade with the Minoans. This is evidenced by the many Minoan products found in Egypt. Most commonly found is Minoan pottery. Pottery from Crete has been found all over Egypt. In her article “The Perceived Value of Minoan and Minoanizing Pottery in Egypt” Caitlín E. Barrett discusses why Egyptians desired Minoan pottery and who in Egypt was buying it. Through her findings she concludes that people of nearly all strata had access to Minoan pottery and other Minoan products like cups for example.[29] Cretan pottery has been found in Egyptian homes and even graves indicating that it was used either practically or as display pieces. Essentially showcasing that they have exotic pottery from a distant land.[30] Its presence in Egyptian graves is also a strong indicator that Minoan pottery was quite well revered in some respects and that some Egyptians wanted to take it with them even in the afterlife. Minoans only imported a very small number of manufactured goods as they produced most, if not all, of these goods domestically. Of the manufactured goods imported to Crete almost all that have been found were Egyptian.[31] This really demonstrates the longstanding connection between these two cultures and the admiration they held for one another.

It can be deduced that Minoans had been visiting Egypt for many years, evidenced by the style of clothing the Egyptians portrayed Cretans wearing in their paintings. As Minoan clothing trends changed, as can be seen in Minoan artwork of themselves on Crete, these same changes are depicted in Egyptian iconography featuring Minoans. The Rekhmire paintings, located in the tomb of Rekhmire in the Egyptian city of Thebes, depict Minoan envoys wearing patterned kilts without cod pieces and a hemline sloping down towards the front.[32] Through cleaning an original coat of paint was revealed showing an older style of Minoan dress, kilts with codpieces and an upwards sloping hemline. This indicates that the Egyptians made clear efforts to update their portrayal of Minoans through the centuries. Wall paintings in the Tomb of Senmut also have Minoans depicted with the older style of outfit dating to the 1500s B.C.E.[33] At the same time on Crete in Minoan frescoes monkeys are painted blue which is a common feature of Egyptian portrayals of monkeys. A study published by the Cambridge University Press even suggests that the Minoans were the first Europeans to have contact with non-human primates.[34] The frescoes also often feature depictions of papyrus which was not grown in Crete but rather procured from Egypt. The presence of papyrus in these frescoes may also indicate Minoans trying to replicate features commonly seen in Egyptian art. These two features of Minoan frescoes can point to the Minoans certainly being influenced by Egyptian art. When added to the Egyptian portrayals of Minoans, a picture of two cultures with respect for each other and who came into contact with each other often starts to emerge.

Another piece of evidence that lets historians know that Egyptian and Minoan cultures came into frequent contact are inscriptions written by Egyptians discussing Minoans. One such inscription can be found once again in the Tomb of Rekhmire. Rekhmire was an Egyptian vizier, who was visited by the Minoans around 1470-1450 B.C.E.[35] and the inscription under a painting of the Minoan envoys reads “Princes of the Land of Keftiu (Crete) and of the isles which are in the midst of the sea.”[36] The isles mentioned most likely refer to the other islands of the Aegean. The mention of “the isles” in this inscription is good evidence that the Minoans had established colonies, trade posts, and had built an empire in the Aegean by the 15th century B.C.E. Another inscription at the base of a statue in the funeral temple of Amenhotep III lists nine place names. Four were located in Pylos, a Mycenaen kingdom and four were cities on Crete: Knossos, Amnisos, Lyktos, and Dikte.[37] The final place name was the island of Kythera which was a Minoan colony.[38] The purpose of this inscription is not entirely known but it is possible it relates to trusted trade partners or cities in which trade deals were made within Amenhotp’s lifetime.

Cultural exchanges between the Minoans and Egyptians were not entirely one sided. Some evidence from a discovery in 1991 suggests that Minoans had substantially more influence over Egyptian culture than previously thought. In Tell el-Dab’a a Minoan style fresco was uncovered depicting a bull leaping, among other things. The bull is a common trope in Minoan art work and often associated with Crete even in the present day. In an article by Sara Cole she looks into the techniques used to determine if this fresco was Minoan or Egyptian in origin. Looking at the fresco a lime plaster was used which corresponds with frescoes found in Knossos and Akrotiri, Minoan cities. In contrast Egyptian wall paintings utilized a gypsum plaster.[39]

Another indicator that this fresco is Minoan in origin are the proportions. Egyptians utilized a grid to create proportions unique to Egyptian art; they also had particular proportions for human beings. There is no evidence of these proportions or grid being followed in the Tell el-Dab’a fresco.[40]

Furthermore, there is evidence that a string was used on the wet plaster to create borders which is an explicitly Minoan technique.[41] From these observations it is clear that the fresco was created using Minoan techniques and imagery. The question that arises becomes, is this merely an imitation of Minoan art or were Minoans hired to create this fresco for Egyptians? Cole argues the latter by looking at the pigments utilized in the fresco. All the pigments utilized are common in Minoan frescoes found in Knossos and elsewhere. By looking specifically at the Egyptian blue and the elements that comprise the pigment evidence for the fresco being a commissioned work come to light. The type of Egyptian blue used in this fresco contains a copper-tin alloy which had been used for centuries by Minoans and can be found in frescos on the island of Thera and in Knossos on Crete itself. This composition for Egyptian blue is not typically used by Egyptians and instead indicates that the painters most likely brought it with them from Crete.[42] It is clear that skilled Minoan artisans were valued enough to be hired even by the great powers of the time and that these painters were specifically sought out. While historians used to believe that Minoans merely imitated the cultures around them, this fresco proves that Minoan culture was valued by others and even the Egyptians looked at Minoan art as desirable.

Another specialized art form that Minoans became masterful at was faience. Faience is glazed pottery usually decorated with paintings. Between 1700-1400 B.C.E. Minoan faience had been perfected and the Minoans were able to create polychrome faience pieces with many different inlaid colors.[43] M.S. Tite et al. in The Journal of Archaeological Science look through electron microscopes to determine the colors of the weathered faience samples that have been recovered from Crete. As a consequence of severe weathering the Minoan faience recovered is often gray, white, and brown with most of the color washed away. However, through the use of electron microscopy “bright turquoise blue, purple and violet, and pale yellow-green and greenish turquoise”[44] have all been determined to have originally been visible on these pieces. Rodney Castleden looked at the faience industry as proof of collaboration between the different artisans within the temples. He comes to this conclusion by stating that faience is a craft that utilizes the “shared experience of many different crafts [which] implies collaboration.”[45] Potters and the pot painters or even the designers of the particular faience imagery could all be different specialists who came together to create faience works of very high quality. These works could then be exported and traded for a much greater value than the material used in its construction.

Minoan stone working was also highly desired around the Mediterranean. The Minoans used stone to make vases, buckets, jars, bowls, and lamps with incredible skill. They utilized highly creative designs for example, pot lids with the handles sculpted to resemble reclining dogs.[46] They used various and sometimes exotic stones from around the Mediterranean to create colorful masterpieces. Rosso antico from the Greek mainland, white-speckled obsidian from the island of Yiali, alabaster from Egypt, gypsum, limestone, serpentine, porphyry, black obsidian from Cappadocia, basalt from the Peloponnese, and more were all used.[47] Minoans even coated some of these stoneworks in gold leaf and their stoneworkers were extremely desired by other cultures.[48] The Minoan economy depended on workers like these to make highly desirable products for foreign and domestic trade. Gathering these stones from over the Mediterranean and creating beautiful stoneworks was only possible with the centralization of artisans within the palace-temples and a vast trade network. Taking Crete’s rather meager raw resources and utilizing them to trade for specialized materials like obsidian or serpentine to create high quality in demand masterworks was the formula which the Minoan government used to become extremely wealthy and renowned.

This wealth is evident even today when traversing the ancient ruins of the Minoan temple-palaces. Large frescos and decadent architecture can be seen as well as the monumental scale of the palace. The palace would have been multiple stories high and the upper floors would have held the more extravagant rooms like dining and banquet halls. The lower floors on the other hand were relegated to housing the workshops and storerooms.[49] There were guest and service stairways as well as kitchens and pantries where food would be prepared for guests.[50] The rooms would have also been beautifully decorated with painted walls, columns, and frescos. The Minoan nobility clearly wanted to show off their wealth when designing these palaces. The layouts of the palace themselves would also often be intricate and creative with none of the Minoan palaces being the same. It is no wonder that the story of Daedalus, an extremely skilled architect, takes place on the Island of Crete. It seems that Minoan architecture over time became somewhat legendary and constructions like the labyrinth of Knossos sparked myths to grow when the Greeks conquered the island. Another interesting aspect of the Minoan palaces are that they embody both function and form. They are extremely grandiose but still hold the storerooms for the goods waiting to be exported and also the artisans’ workshops. The palaces were not just residencies for nobility but also quite literally the economic heart of the island.

Artifacts made in these workshops, like a collection of 153 silver cups and one gold cup, have been found in the ancient Egyptian town of Tôd. The Egyptian deposit in which they were found has been dated to the 1920s B.C.E. and all the cups appear to have been made by Minoans made in a style used on the island from 2000-1900 B.C.E.[51] The cups were apparently offered to the Egyptians as tribute from a Syrian king. This shows that Minoan products were found in many places and were valued enough to be accepted as tribute. Gold itself was imported to Crete from Egyptian gold mines in the Sinai, the Arabian desert, and Anatolia. Skilled Minoan craftsmen worked this gold into cups, jewelry, sword hilts, statues, and more. They then took these products and sold them overseas at a large profit. Gold cups made by Minoan craftsmen were found at a burial in Vaphio on the Peloponnese as well.[52] Examples of Minoan products made of precious metals are rare especially on Crete itself as many would have been stolen and sold or melted down at some point. That makes any examples of Minoan products like these extremely useful to know the level of expertise Minoans had when working with silver and gold.

Another valuable resource imported by the Minoans was ivory. Ivory carving was done on Crete and might have been taught to the Minoans by the Syrians whose carvings share a lot in common with Minoan examples. An example of a Minoan ivory relief carving was found in an unlooted Mycenaean tomb. The carving was probably a decoration attached to wood furniture.[53] It features a scene of marine motifs such as argonauts, seashells, seaweed and rockwork.[54] Marine motifs seem to be very common across all mediums of later Minoan art. As the Minoans used the sea as their lifeblood this makes sense. Maybe the most common way Minoans used ivory though was in the creation of sealstones. Sealstones could be made of a couple different materials like stone, ivory, or bronze, but they served an important purpose in society. Sealstones were essentially the equivalent of today’s signature for the Minoans. Every person of importance or business man would have their own unique seal.[55] Many different designs have been found on Minoan sealstones, but they often featured animals like bulls, lions, birds, or marine life.[56] They also sometimes featured common patterns at the time like the swastika.[57] For a highly mercantile society sealstones were even more pertinent. Merchants could stamp pottery with their seal so you would know who the product was from; it was essentially a Bronze Age business logo.

As other specialized crafts developed, simple pottery did as well. Castleden calls Minoan pottery “the finest… in the civilized world.”[58] Minoan pottery featured elegant designs and would often be painted with intricate patterns and swirling shapes. Kamares are just one type of Minoan pottery and features a dark background with light colored designs overtop.[59] A Minoan pithos found in Phrygia showcases an optical illusion of six conjoined heads. The viewer is only able to see around two heads at a time as the concentric lines only appear to form heads when they are in your direct eyeline.[60] This kind of design where there are images hidden in minimalist patterns is not uncommon for Minoan pottery. A jug depicting birds made out of spirals and other flowing shapes shows how Minoan painters loved to play with perception by using highly creative and arctic designs.[61] Another common feature of Minoan pottery is the marine motif. Minoans loved showing marine life, especially animals like octopi and fish. The sprawling arms of an octopus provided great ways to fill up space on the pottery.[62] The marine motifs also fit with the seafaring nature of Minoan society and Minoans would have had plenty of experience with these animals to render them correctly.

Minoan trade did not end at Mediterranean civilizations. Instead, a new study suggests that Minoans had direct trade routes with the Indus River Valley civilization. Located in areas of modern-day Pakistan, Afghanistan, and India it is clear that Minoans had quite the trading capability to be able to do business so far away. Minoans were not simple intermediaries in these trade deals, instead they were a main trade partner. This was unearthed by looking at weight measurements of each society and comparing them. Merchants trading with other civilizations would bring their weights and balance scales with them and allow these weights to be copied by the other party creating a uniform weight system between the two.[63] This practice probably started in Mesopotamia and spread from there.

Every time the weights were copied however it seems that they began to deviate from the original slightly. This made the weights a bit too heavy or too light and each time they were copied they would veer further from the original, like a game of telephone. Using this, archeologists could see which civilizations had identical weights to tell if there was a direct trade route between the two. The Minoans had four different measurements of identical weights with the Indus River Valley civilization. Some of these weights were recovered on Crete itself and some were from Minoan colonies. This shows that the Minoan colonies did actively participate in a lot of trade and that the colonies and Crete itself worked together.

The highest concentration of weights came from the city of Akrotiri on the island of Thera, modern day Santorini. Thera was a prominent Minoan colony and an important trade hub.[64] The route proposed by the authors of the study would be from a city named Shortugai, in modern-day Afghanistan, through Iran, and up to the city of Trebizond on Anatolia’s Black Sea coast.[65] There Minoan merchants would be waiting and goods would be exchanged. This is quite different to the previously held view of the scope of Minoan trade. It was previously thought that trade from India to Crete would have only been done with Mesopotamian peoples acting as middlemen.[66] Instead direct trade between India and Crete puts into perspective the scale of Minoan trade influence and connections. Knowing this, other proposed theories like Crete receiving its tin from Britain become more probable. No concrete evidence has been found of this though and the source of tin for the Minoans is still unidentified.

            To sustain such a vast trade empire the Minoans needed a capable fleet of ships to transport their goods as well as a naval fleet to protect these goods from pirates. Thucydides actually credits the Minoans with creating the first ever naval fleet, writing

The earliest ruler known to have possessed a fleet was Minos. He made himself master of the Greek waters and subjugated the Cyclades by expelling the Carians and establishing his sons in control of the new settlements founded in their place; and naturally, for the safer conveyance of his revenues, he did all he could to suppress piracy.[67]

The veracity of this claim is hard to prove and it should be noted that Thucydides was writing roughly 1000 years after the Minoans were conquered by the Mycenaeans. Despite this, it does give a good idea of how Greeks thought of the Minoans even long after they were gone. From the quote some general truths can be garnered, the Minoans controlled the Cyclades and had a strong fleet to suppress piracy which gives credence to the Minoans being a thalassocracy. Island Empires always prioritize constructing a large naval force to protect their home island and overseas colonies. The early 20th century Japanese and the British Empire are good examples of this. In this regard the Minoans were no different. The exact scale of the Minoan navy is the real mystery that can only be solved if more archeological evidence comes to light.

Even though archeologists do not have many examples of Minoan ships outside of paintings, a very small number of confirmed Minoan shipwrecks have been found. The first of which was discovered by Greek archeologist Elpida Hadjidaki in 2004. The wreck was found on the seafloor off the coast of the island of Pseira.[68] The fact that this was only discovered so recently really shows how Minoan history is very much still being written. In 1976 Jacques Cousteau discovered some Minoan pottery in the shallows of the island to add to that Pseira was also known as a Bronze Age sea port.[69] Even though this seems like a prime location for a Minoan shipwreck to be located, the deeper waters surrounding the island were never explored until Hadjidaki’s team did a dive there. On the seafloor 209 ceramic amphoras were discovered, 80 of which were completely or nearly completely intact.[70] The layout of how they were discovered also provides significant information about what the original dimensions of the ship were. Hadjidaki estimates the ship to be 32 to 50 feet long.[71] This is consistent with iconography from Minoan frescoes of what a smaller Minoan ship should look like. Hadjidaki also suggested that this ship is most likely a local ship that did not do long distance journeys to procure overseas goods.[72] It makes sense the Minoans would have many classes of ships some larger for longer expeditions and others smaller to acquire local goods. Yet, the sheer amount of amphoras found on one singular ship gives an idea on how impressive the scale of Minoan trade was. The fact that this was a small local ship must be emphasized as their large ships could have carried possibly thousands of amphora most likely carrying olive oil and wine.

Many depictions of Minoan ships can be found on sealstones on Crete. Many of these vessels have only a single mast. Arthur Evans in his article The Early Nilotic, Libyan and Egyptian Relations with Minoan Crete suggests that a small Minoan ship with a crew of less than 12 could have traveled to Benghazi in Libya or Alexandria in Egypt easily.[73] He even claims that it is very possible that because of the favorable winds, current, and extensive Cretan forests providing good quality wood, the Minoans might have been the first people to traverse the open Mediterranean.[74] This would align with the claim made by Thucydides and gives even more of an explanation on why the Minoans became a thalassocracy. The extreme deforestation of the Island of Crete can be explained by Minoans using the island’s once extensive forests to build ships.

            These ships must have been stopping at Minoan colonies along their voyages and the name of the Minoans themselves may lend a hand in finding out the extent of these colonies in the Mediterranean. Many bronze age port cities throughout the Mediterranean bear the name “Minoa”. These cities reach as far west as Sicily and are scattered throughout the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean. Minoans got their name in the early 20th century being named by historians after the legendary King Minos from Greek stories. Although this is the case, Castleden argues that it is very possible that Minos was the title of the Minoan king and the colonies were named after him.[75] It could make sense as an etymological remnant of Minoan rule. The location of these cities being coastal, having distinctly Minoan street plans, Minoan style of architecture, Minoan burial customs, and pottery shops in the Minoan style, all point towards these “Minoa” as being Minoan colonies.[76]

To clarify, not all Minoan colonies held the name Minoa. Instead, there is a significant list of other settlements that share all the characteristics of Minoan colonies. Kastri on the island of Kythera is theorized to have been the first Minoan colony with Minoan settlement dating back to before 2000 B.C.E.[77] Kastri was first excavated in the early 1960s and was determined to be a Minoan colony from the heavy presence of Minoan pottery and evidence of Cretan cultural practices. Another thing to note is the presence of what seems to be pottery belonging to a native population of the island.[78] By dating the pottery and looking at expansion of the settlement it can be seen that this native pottery style was slowly overtaken and eventually completely replaced by Minoan styles as the centuries went by.[79] This probably indicates either the expulsion of the native people of Kythera or their assimilation into Minoan society. The original excavation in the 1960s only uncovered a small amount of the total island while more recent excavations have been able to unearth much more land area.

Through these newer excavations Minoan presence on the island seems to have extended beyond just Kastri.[80] Though the question of whether the native population was pushed out or integrated into Minoan society has not been fully answered it does allow for some insight into Minoan colonial practices. It is clear that Minoans were not adverse to settling in areas where native populations were already residing. The Minoans likely colonized Kythera in order to have a rest stop for ships and to monopolize on trading routes coming through the west of the Aegean. Another reason for their settlement would surely be to extract any and all material resources that the island had.[81] It also leaves the possibility that Minoans incorporated other cultures into their own and at the apex of their expansion they had multiple ethnic peoples in their domain.

While Kastri might have been the first Minoan colony, perhaps the most discussed and important to understanding Minoan colonies is Akrotiri on Thera. Essentially the Minoan equivalent of Pompeii, a volcanic eruption buried the city in ash in the 16th century B.C.E.[82] This left the city relatively well preserved. Three large vessels found at Akrotiri contained wine and olive oil residues.[83] The storeroom they were found in also featured large windows and archeologists think that this could have been used as a storefront.[84] It makes sense that Akrotiri had such stores as it would have been a pivotal stop for ships travelling through the eastern Mediterranean and even for ships going to and from the Black Sea. The Minoan civilization’s emphasis on trade is particularly noticeable when looking at their colonies. Their colonies always tend to be on the coast and in places that are on busy trade routes. They also tend to colonize places where it would be to rest on long voyages or to wait for favorable winds for their ships.

            As seen with Kastri, Akrotiri was not an uninhabited island when Minoans arrived. Likewise with Kastri, local pottery styles seemed to become more Minoanized over time.[85] It seems Minoan colonies did not always rely on many colonists travelling from Crete to settle in these far away cities. Instead what probably occurred was artisans were sent from the palace-temples to teach the Cretan way of producing pottery, making frescos, etc.[86] In exchange some kind of agreement would be reached to bring the cities closer to the Minoans politically. Over time the city becomes “culturally colonized” without the need for conquest or resettlement of native peoples.[87] Evidence from Akrotiri gives more credence to the theory that the people of Kastri were assimilated into Minoan society without being expelled to an unknown location or killed. Evidence like Theran cultural and artistic expression still being present in their pottery and frescos combined with strong Minoan influences.[88] It seems that as long as you were capable of providing the Minoans with artisan goods and were located in a coastal area along trade routes they were eager to integrate you into the broader Minoan trade empire.

            Minoans established colonies not just on islands but colonies like the one at Miletus in modern day Turkey show that they would establish colonies on the continent as well. Ninety-five percent of the pottery found at Miletus has been made in the Minoan style or was imported from Crete.[89] On top of that, seven inscriptions in Minoan Linear A script have been uncovered. Miletus is not one of a kind and Minoan frescoes and pottery have been found at Iasos, Turkey and Qatna, Syria which could also be potential Minoan colonies.[90] Iasos is the more likely location of a Minoan colony compared to Qatna as it is on the Aegean and Minoan colonies seem to always be close by to water. These colonies likely were used to produce grain and mine for copper as well as other metals that the Minoans lacked on Crete. As the Minoans had a mostly export based economy they would have been trying to cut down on importing food and copper as much as possible.

            Castleden provides his reasoning for why colonies were established which again goes back to a lack of resources simply saying they were established as a response to a surge in population on Crete that necessitated having to look overseas for new supplies of grain and other food sources.[91] It seems that local populations integrated with the Minoan culture eventually but the question of how Minoan colonies were initially founded is still a mystery. It is possible that the Minoans were able to peacefully establish colonies. Minoan art and culture was much more advanced than their close neighbors and it can be theorized that gaining access to some of this Cretan knowledge could have convinced local peoples to allow Minoan settlements on their islands.[92] Despite this possibility it is a bit optimistic and it should be remembered that during this time period violence was often used and it would not be out of place for the Minoans to utilize it as well. Regardless of how the colonies were formed, the Minoan culture was spread and colonies were established using Minoan cities as reference.

Through this the Minoan Empire only further expanded their trade dominance and influence on Mediterranean culture.Minoan influence in the Mediterranean has been greatly diminished by historians for decades. It is now clear that Minoans turned to trade due to lack of natural resources. By concentrating their artisans together and creating specialized government run workshops Minoans were able to use raw materials to create elaborate products that were works of art. These products created a high demand for Minoan goods which allowed the Minoans to become very wealthy building large palaces and establishing colonies all over the Mediterranean. They also dealt not just in material goods but cultural goods as well. As with all trade this was not a one-way exchange. The Minoans took inspiration from the best and oldest cultures at the time, like the Egyptians, while spreading their own culture simultaneously. Where they established colonies they also spread their culture and it is possible many different peoples considered themselves Minoan by the time the empire fell. Minoan ships were able to carry hundreds or even thousands of amphora long distances and Crete alone produced tens of thousands of litres of olive oil and wine a harvest. The quality and quantity of Minoan industry was clearly an accomplishment to marvel at. By the way their contemporaries and the Greeks wrote about them, it becomes clear that the Minoans carried some level of respect and influence that should grant them more than a footnote in our history books. It is clear the Minoans controlled an impressive Bronze Age thalassocracy that spread its products just as far as its culture and left an indelible mark on Mediterranean civilization.

Barrett, Caitlín E. “The Perceived Value of Minoan and Minoanizing Pottery in Egypt.” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 22, no. 2 (2010): 211–34. https://doi.org/10.1558/jmea.v22i2.211.

Bonn-Muller, Eti. “First Minoan Shipwreck. Archaeology.” Vol. 63. Boston: Archaeological Institute of America, 2010.

Broodbank, Cyprian, and Evangelia Kiriatzi. “The First ‘Minoans’ of Kythera Revisited: Technology, Demography, and Landscape in the Prepalatial Aegean.” American Journal of Archaeology 111, no. 2 (2007): 241–74. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40037274.

Buck, Robert J. “The Minoan Thalassocracy Re-Examined.” Historia : Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte 11, no. 2 (1962): 129–37. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4434736.

Castleden, Rodney. Minoans : Life in Bronze Age Crete. London ; Routledge, 1993.

Cole, Sara “The Wall Paintings of Tell el-Dab’a: Potential Aegean Connections,” Pursuit – The Journal of Undergraduate Research at The University of Tennessee: Vol. 1 : Iss. 1 , Article 10 (2010): https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=pursuit  

Demakopoulou, K, and S Aulsebrook. “The Gold and Silver Vessels and Other Precious Finds from the Tholos Tomb at Kokla in the Argolid.” Annual of the British School at Athens 113 (2018): 119–42. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245418000084.

Evans, Arthur. “The Early Nilotic, Libyan and Egyptian Relations with Minoan Crete.” The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 55 (1925): 199–228. https://doi.org/10.2307/2843640.

Graham, J W. “Further Notes on Minoan Palace Architecture: I. West Magazines and Upper Halls at Knossos and Mallia; 2. Access to, and Use of, Minoan Palace Roofs.” American Journal of Archaeology 83 (1979): 49–69.

Keys, David. “Colonizing Cretans.” Archaeology. Vol. 57. Boston: Archaeological Institute of America, 2004.

Knappett, Carl, and Irene Nikolakopoulou. “Colonialism without Colonies? A Bronze Age Case Study from Akrotiri, Thera.” Hesperia 77, no. 1 (2008): 1–42. https://doi.org/10.2972/hesp.77.1.1.

Marom, Nimrod, Assaf Yasur-Landau, and Eric H Cline. “The Silent Coast: Zooarchaeological Evidence to the Development Trajectory of a Second Millennium Palace at Tel Kabri.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 39 (2015): 181–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2015.04.002.

Reich, John J. “Twelve New Bronze and Iron Age Seals.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 86 (1966): 159–65. https://doi.org/10.2307/629000.

Revesz, Peter Zsolt and Bipin C Desai. “Data Science Applied to Discover Ancient Minoan-Indus Valley Trade Routes Implied by Common Weight Measures.” In Proceedings of the 26th International Database Engineered Applications Symposium, 150–55. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1145/3548785.3548804.

Starr, Chester G. “The Myth of the Minoan Thalassocracy.” Historia : Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte 3, no. 3 (1955): 282–91. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4434736.

Thera Excavation Storerooms (Greek repository, Akrotiri, contemporary). Three Vessels in the Storage Room of Sector A. at the Akrotiri Excavation Site. 1613. Masonry; construction (discipline); archaeology; experimental archaeology; classical archaeology; urban archaeology; ceramics (objects). Akrotiri Archaeological Site. https://jstor.org/stable/community.31068453

 Three Handled Amphora: Marine Style Octopus. c.1500-1400 B.C.E. https://jstor.org/stable/community.13555696

Tite, M.S, Y Maniatis, D Kavoussanaki, M Panagiotaki, A.J Shortland, and S.F Kirk. “Colour in Minoan Faience.” Journal of Archaeological Science 36, no. 2 (2009): 370–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2008.09.031.

Urbani, Bernardo, and Dionisios Youlatos. “A New Look at the Minoan ‘Blue’ Monkeys.” Antiquity 94, no. 374 (2020): e9. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2020.29.

Vessel (Jug; Ht. 27cm.). ca. 1800 B.C.E. Terra cotta. Heraklion: Mus., Archaeological.; Found at Pazarli. https://jstor.org/stable/community.11656751

Vessel (Pithos; Ht. 45cm.). ca. 1800 B.C.E. Terra cotta. Heraklion: Mus., Archaeological.; From Dascylion, ancient capital of the satrapy of Phrygia during the Achaemenid period. https://jstor.org/stable/community.11656755

Yahalom-Mack, N, D.M Finn, Y Erel, O Tirosh, E Galili, and A Yasur-Landau. “Incised Late Bronze Age Lead Ingots from the Southern Anchorage of Caesarea.” Journal of Archaeological Science, Reports 41 (2022): 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103321


[1] Rodney Castleden, Minoans: Life in Bronze Age Crete, (Routledge, 1993), 4.

[2] Castleden, Minoans, 3.

[3] Cyprian Broodbank and Evangelia Kiriatzi, “The First ‘Minoans’ of Kythera Revisited: Technology, Demography, and Landscape in the Prepalatial Aegean,” American Journal of Archaeology 111, no. 2 (2007): 241–74, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40037274, 241.

[4] Chester G. Starr, “The Myth of the Minoan Thalassocracy,”Historia : Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte 3, no. 3 (1955): 282–91, https://www.jstor.org/stable/4434736, 283.

[5] Starr, “The Myth of the Minoan Thalassocracy,” 284.

[6] Starr, “The Myth of the Minoan Thalassocracy,” 284.

[7] Starr, “The Myth of the Minoan Thalassocracy,” 285.

[8] Robert J. Buck, “The Minoan Thalassocracy Re-Examined,” Historia : Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte 11, no. 2 (1962): 129–37, https://www.jstor.org/stable/4434736, 131.

[9] Buck, “The Minoan Thalassocracy Re-Examined,” 131.

[10] Castleden, Minoans, 3.

[11] Castleden, Minoans, 45.

[12] Castleden, Minoans, 46.

[13] Castleden, Minoans, 46.

[14] Castleden, Minoans, 113.

[15] Katarzyna Zeman-Wiśniewska, “Re-Evaluation of Contacts between Cyprus and Crete from the Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age,”Electrum (Uniwersytet Jagielloński. Instytut Historii) 27, no. 27 (2020): 11–32, https://doi.org/10.4467/20800909EL.20.001.12791, 26.

[16] Zeman-Wiśniewska, “Re-Evaluation of Contacts between Cyprus and Crete,” 26.

[17] N. Yahalom-Mack et al, “Incised Late Bronze Age Lead Ingots from the Southern Anchorage of Caesarea,” Journal of Archaeological Science, Reports 41 (2022): 1-10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103321, 1-2.

[18] Yahalom-Mack et al, “Incised Late Bronze Age Lead Ingots from the Southern Anchorage of Caesarea,” 3.

[19] Castleden, Minoans, 63.

[20] Castleden, Minoans, 40.

[21] Castleden, Minoans, 40.

[22] Castleden, Minoans, 77.

[23] Castleden, Minoans, 78.

[24] Castleden, Minoans, 77.

[25] Castleden, Minoans, 108.

[26] Castleden, Minoans, 109.

[27] Nimrod Marom, Assaf Yasur-Landau, and Eric H Cline, “The Silent Coast: Zooarchaeological Evidence to the Development Trajectory of a Second Millennium Palace at Tel Kabri,” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 39 (2015): 181–92, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2015.04.002, 182.

[28] Marom, Yasur-Landau, and Cline, “The Silent Coast,” 190.

[29] Caitlín E. Barrett, “The Perceived Value of Minoan and Minoanizing Pottery in Egypt,”Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 22, no. 2 (2010): 211–34, https://doi.org/10.1558/jmea.v22i2.211, 226,211. 226.

[30] Barrett, “The Perceived Value of Minoan and Minoanizing Pottery in Egypt, 226.

[31] Castleden, Minoans, 119.

[32] Castleden, Minoans, 12.

[33] Castleden, Minoans, 12.

[34] Bernando Urbani and Dionisios Youlatos, “A New Look at the Minoan ‘Blue’ Monkeys,” Antiquity 94, no. 374 (2020): e9, https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2020.29.

[35] Castleden, Minoans, 12.

[36] Castleden, Minoans, 12.

[37] Castleden, Minoans, 119.

[38] Castleden, Minoans, 119.

[39] Sara Cole, “The Wall Paintings of Tell el-Dab’a: Potential Aegean Connections,”  Pursuit – The Journal of Undergraduate Research at The University of Tennessee: Vol. 1 : Iss. 1 , Article 10 (2010): 112, https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=pursuit.

[40] Cole, “The Wall Paintings of Tell el-Dab’a”, 112.

[41] Cole, “The Wall Paintings of Tell el-Dab’a”, 112.

[42] Cole, “The Wall Paintings of Tell el-Dab’a”, 112.

[43] M.S Tite et al, “Colour in Minoan Faience,” Journal of Archaeological Science 36, no. 2 (2009): 370, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2008.09.031.

[44] Tite et al, “Colour in Minoan Faience,” 370.

[45] Castleden, Minoans, 95.

[46] Castleden, Minoans, 88.

[47] Castleden, Minoans, 89.

[48] Castleden, Minoans, 90.

[49] J W Graham, “Further Notes on Minoan Palace Architecture: I. West Magazines and Upper Halls at Knossos and Mallia; 2. Access to, and Use of, Minoan Palace Roofs,” American Journal of Archaeology 83 (1979): 49–69, 49.

[50] Graham, “Further Notes on Minoan Palace Architecture,” 49.

[51] Castleden, Minoans, 90.

[52] Castleden, Minoans, 93.

[53] K. Demakopoulou and S. Aulsebrook, “The Gold and Silver Vessels and Other Precious Finds from the Tholos Tomb at Kokla in the Argolid,”Annual of the British School at Athens 113 (2018): 119–42, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245418000084.

[54] Demakopoulou and Aulsebrook, “The Gold and Silver Vessels and Other Precious Finds”.

[55] Castleden, “Minoans,” 95.

[56] John J Reich, “Twelve New Bronze and Iron Age Seals,”The Journal of Hellenic Studies 86 (1966): 159–65, https://doi.org/10.2307/629000.

[57] Reich, “Twelve New Bronze and Iron Age Seals”, 159.

[58] Castleden, Minoans, 118.

[59]Vessel (Pithos; Ht. 45cm.), ca. 1800 B.C, Terra cotta, Heraklion: Mus., Archaeological; From Dascylion, ancient capital of the satrapy of Phrygia during the Achaemenid period, https://jstor.org/stable/community.11656755.

[60] Vessel (Pithos; Ht. 45cm.), ca. 1800 B.C, Terra cotta, Heraklion: Mus.

[61] Vessel (Jug; Ht. 27cm.). ca. 1800 B.C.E. Terra cotta. Heraklion: Mus., Archaeological.; Found at Pazarli. https://jstor.org/stable/community.11656751.

[62]Three Handled Amphora: Marine Style Octopus, c.1500-1400 B.C, https://jstor.org/stable/community.13555696.

[63] Peter Zsolt Revesz and Bipin C. Desai, “Data Science Applied to Discover Ancient Minoan-Indus Valley Trade Routes Implied by Common Weight Measures,” Proceedings of the 26th International Database Engineered Applications, (New York: 2022), 150, https://doi.org/10.1145/3548785.3548804.

[64] Revesz and Desai, “Data Science Applied to Discover Ancient Minoan-Indus Valley Trade Routes”, 152.

[65] Revesz and Desai, “Data Science Applied to Discover Ancient Minoan-Indus Valley Trade Routes”, 152.

[66] Revesz and Desai, “Data Science Applied to Discover Ancient Minoan-Indus Valley Trade Routes”, 152.

[67] Castleden, Minoans, 116.

[68] Eti Bonn-Muller,“First Minoan Shipwreck,” Archaeology, Vol. 63, Boston: Archaeological Institute of America, 2010.

[69] Bonn-Muller, “First Minoan Shipwreck”.

[70] Bonn-Muller, “First Minoan Shipwreck”.

[71] Bonn-Muller, “First Minoan Shipwreck”.

[72] Bonn-Muller, “First Minoan Shipwreck”.

[73] Arthur Evans, “The Early Nilotic, Libyan and Egyptian Relations with Minoan Crete,” The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 55 (1925): 199–228, https://doi.org/10.2307/2843640, 207.

[74] Evans, “The Early Nilotic, Libyan and Egyptian Relations with Minoan Crete,” 208.

[75] Castleden, Minoans, 117.

[76] Castleden, Minoans, 117.

[77] Castleden, Minoans, 117.

[78] Broodbank and Kiriatzi, “The First ‘Minoans’ of Kythera Revisited,” 241.

[79] Broodbank and Kiriatzi, “The First ‘Minoans’ of Kythera Revisited,” 242.

[80] Broodbank and Kiriatzi, “The First ‘Minoans’ of Kythera Revisited,” 259.

[81] Broodbank and Kiriatzi, “The First ‘Minoans’ of Kythera Revisited,” 267.

[82] Thera Excavation Storerooms (Greek repository, Akrotiri, contemporary),Three Vessels in the Storage Room of Sector A. at the Akrotiri Excavation Site, https://jstor.org/stable/community.31068453.

[83] Thera Excavation Storerooms, Three Vessels in the Storage Room of Sector A. at the Akrotiri Excavation Site.

[84] Thera Excavation Storerooms, Three Vessels in the Storage Room of Sector A. at the Akrotiri Excavation Site.

[85] Carl Knappett and Irene Nikolakopoulou, “Colonialism without Colonies? A Bronze Age Case Study from Akrotiri, Thera,” Hesperia 77, no. 1 (2008): 1–42, https://doi.org/10.2972/hesp.77.1.1, 37.

[86] Knappett and Nikolakopoulou, “Colonialism without Colonies?,” 38.

[87] Knappett and Nikolakopoulou, “Colonialism without Colonies?,” 38.

[88] Knappett and Nikolakopoulou, “Colonialism without Colonies?,” 36.

[89] David Keys, “Colonizing Cretans,” Archaeology, Vol. 57, Boston: Archaeological Institute of America, 2004.

[90] David Keys, “Colonizing Cretans”.

[91] Castleden, Minoans, 121.

[92] Castleden, Minoans, 121.

The Rise of the Führer

Regarded as one of the most notorious dictators, Adolf Hitler has cemented their place within history. When generally speaking of Hitler, negative connotations are often placed; Hitler is seen as a cruel dictator, responsible for the countless lost lives of the Jews. However, not much is talked about Hitler’s leadership and speaking skills that took over the German hearts. This historiography paper is not meant to justify, endorse, or celebrate Hitler’s actions, but rather, focus on how Hitler used propaganda to take advantage of Germany and allow for the Nazi regime. Throughout different monographs, they showcase Hitler as an evil dictator, while other monographs go against the idea that Hitler was a villain. Instead, many modern-day monographs acknowledge the methods Hitler used that led to some Germans painting Hitler seen as their savior. Although people and their history books have perspectives on who’s the true villain of the second World War, it must be remembered that every villain is a hero in their own eyes.

Generally, Adolf Hitler is mostly known for his cruel deeds; many modern historians recognize Hitler as a genius who used propaganda against weak Germans to his advantage.  George Stein’s Hitler (1966), St. Martin’s Hitler: A study in Personality and Politics (1979), and Alan Bullock’s Hitler a study in Tyranny (1955), all provide historical insight on how Hitler rose to power and how events shaped historians’ and citizens’ views on Hitler.  Within the three monographs, the authors take a different approach to examine Hitler’s actions, rise to power, personality, and social impact in light of German history and the second World War. In some cases, Hitler was praised by some Germans; modern day monographs acknowledge the praise, but speak on how Hitler was actually just a cruel man. Within the monographs, there is a common theme found; Hitler is the root of evil and nothing more. The authors of the different monographs also explain how Hitler would lie in his autobiography Mein Kampf. Stein, Carr, and Bullock all criticize Mein Kampf and reveal how Hitler would strategically exaggerate events to appeal to the public. Despite the Second World War happening decades ago, monographs are being written to showcase the cruel and upbringing of the Hitler regime. Although the upbringing of the Nazi regime was very cruel, it has been acknowledged that Hitler was a phenomenal leader- with an amazing display of leadership and propaganda skills. In no way shape or form are the monographs trying to justify the horrors that Hitler brought, but to educate the readers how a man, equipped with proper leadership, can rise to power through propaganda, manipulation, and greed. 

            With Stein’s monograph, Hitler, scholars are able to reshape how Hitler is perceived. Stein offers readers both sides of Hitler’s regime upbringing, showcasing both the negative and positive tales of Hitler’s regime. As mentioned and emphasized earlier, historians think that Hitler was a purely evil man. Although this is true for the most part for most scholars and the general audience, Stein’s monograph acknowledges and praises Hitler’s work as a leader. It has to be remembered that Stein is not praising Hitler for the genocides and the wars, but showing how Hitler’s excellent manipulative skills allowed him to gain control in a weak Germany. As their monograph develops, Stein gives readers different stories and scenarios that aids in their understanding of Hitler. Within these stories, readers are able to understand Hitler’s childhood and his development in German politics. With this in mind, Stein allows scholars to analyze how

Hitler aided Germany, but also caused plenty of chaos. However, Stein’s monograph points towards the idea that Hitler was actually praised in Germany. Especially after the first war, the Germans needed a savior, which many of the Germans found in Hitler. Despite the many positive talks, Stein also talks about the cruel stories of Hitler.

            Within Stein’s Hitler, Stein offers three different views on Hitler. Stein gives insight about Hitler’s regime through Hitler’s own words, through the opinion of his contemporaries, and through retrospective.[1] According to Stein, he mentions that Hitler regarded himself as a great man, nonetheless, the historian Stein recognizes both positive and negative greatness of Hitler’s rise.[2] As mentioned previously in the introduction, Stein analyzes Hitler’s words to understand how the villain of the story viewed himself as the hero. Even though the different ideas that Hitler was a monster, Hitler’s perspective on himself was nothing short of great. With the help of Stein’s Hitler, Stein’s monograph contributes toward an understanding of both sides of Hitler’s power; the devoted and the non-believers. 

            Within the first part of Hitler, readers can understand how Hitler rose to power through the eyes of the man himself. Inside this section, readers and scholars alike can learn about Hitler through the way that he expresses himself. By analyzing Hitler’s word choices and actions, Stein helps shed light on the hatred, the greed, and manipulation that led to Hitler’s rise. When it came to tactics and propaganda, Hitler is credited to be a smart man; Stein blames most of Hitler’s ideologies on generalized anxiety, frustration, and the need to find his own identity.3 In order to understand Hitler and his successes, historians must examine the techniques and methods that Hitler used. More importantly, it is important the propaganda and leadership skills that tricked a nation into believing the Nazi regime.  In order to understand Hitler’s techniques and methods, Mein Kampf can be studied to understand how Hitler gained the trust of the public. Despite being seen as a fearless and ever powerful dictator, Hitler paints himself in a different way in his autobiography, Mein Kampf. Within this autobiography, Hitler portrays himself as a poor, struggling student who diligently earned his meager by hard work.[3] Here, readers can see the comparisons of Stein’s work and Hitler’s own. Stein’s monograph starts off criticizing Hitler’s autobiography and calls out Hitler for manipulating people for sympathy. Hitler would use sympathy to relate to the millions of Germans who were poor and affected by the First World War. In reality, this was all a propaganda tactic as Stein claims that Hitler was born into a middle-class family that provided everything he needed. Tying back to the idea of spreading propaganda, Stein argues that Hitler would make himself appeal to the Germans. Especially coming off, and losing, the war, Germans faced poverty and seeing their newfound hero go through similar circumstances gave them a false sense of sympathy; hope that a poor child can achieve anything with hard work. Being a manipulator, patience and false sense of sympathy were key techniques to Hitler’s rise. With a combination of coercion and false promises, Hitler managed to force through the Reichstag laws that allowed him to deviate from the constitution, whenever he thought it necessary.[4]

            Although Hitler had various leadership techniques, his sense of propaganda enabled him to appeal to the Germans. According to Stein, Hitler used propaganda to reach greater masses of people with a lower intellectual level.6 In other words, Hitler found a way to understand the general emotion of the public and used it to his advantage. Hitler would strategically use this understanding to convince lower intellectual Germans that his ideology matched theirs. With the help of Stein’s arguments and monographs, readers are able to understand how propaganda

played a major role in Hitler’s success. Although Hitler’s propaganda can be seen as a terrible tactic, it shows how Hitler’s master plan of manipulation enabled him to get control of the masses through his ideologies.

            In Section 1, Part 5 of Hitler, Stein explains how Hitler rose to power through his hatred for the Jews. Stein refers back to Mein Kampf to show how Hitler’s hatred for the Jews helped him gain the support of the public. Through brainwashing and public manipulation, Hitler was able to put the blame of the war on the Jews. In this aspect, Hitler can be painted as a genius, as his usage of patriotism enabled him to convince the Germans that they must be prepared to be ready to lay down their lives for their country.[5] Stein highlighted patriotism as a positive trait, as Hitler viewed himself as a leader who would do anything for his country. With a false sense of patriotism, Hitler would cleverly pick and blame people to convince Germans that they should support his cause

When the topic of Hitler rises, there is a mixed bag of reviews. By this, historians, as well as the general public, view Hitler as evil reincarnated. However, Stein argues that many Germans had a positive outlook on Hitler. Despite being a manipulator, liar, and cruel, Stein discusses how sources claim that Hitler was charming, even endearing; that he was sensitive and capable.[6] Hitler is generally regarded as an evil dictator; with the help of Stein, historians understand a new side of Hitler and his characteristics. Within Stein’s monograph, it was found that followers viewed Hitler as a genius who was organized and cared for his fellow companions.9 Stein offered a perspective that painted Hitler as a person who seemed to care about the welfare of others.

Although society views Hitler’s psychopathic personality as the root for evil, many of Hitler’s followers praised his personality to make him appear as a genius.[7] Whether the persona be artificial or genuine, Hitler would use his likeable persona to brainwash the German nation.

William Carr’s Hitler: A Study in Personality and Politics presents Hitler in the light of modern historical science. Despite this monograph being written in a different time period,  Stein and Carr both agree that Hitler’s expertise in manipulation and mind control enabled him to gain control of Germany. Similar to Stein, Carr believes that Hitler cast a spell over millions of Germans desperately seeking reassurance at a time of unprecedented crisis.[8] Despite both monographs being written years apart, one thing stays the same- Hitler brainwashed. Hitler was well known for his leadership and manipulation tactics, many of his notable traits include the usage of dogmatic assertion, repetition, biting sarcasm and emotional appeal to win over his followers.12 Going back to Stein’s claim, most of the Germans who appealed to Hitler’s words were those lower- and middle-class people; specifically, the lower-class intellectuals.

With this in mind, readers are able to understand how Hitler’s main followers came from the lower levels of society, those of which, that lacked the proper education. Carr sheds light on how the middle-class people yearn for a father figure, and Hitler used that to his advantage. Hitler perfectly created his persona around the idea that he was the father figure that was able to support Germany in times of need and the Germans were manipulated into believing it. Similar to Stein’s approach, Carr argues that Hitler’s targeted propaganda allowed Hitler to take over Germany. Carr praises Hitler for his use of propaganda, as he claims that Hitler had an extraordinary instinct and understanding of it.13 Being a master of propaganda isn’t an easy feat, as Hitler would perfectly cater in his speeches and arguments to appeal to the Germans. With this in mind, Carr argues that Hitler knew what the general appeal was and used it to negotiations; Hitler tricked the people of Germany and countless people into believing in him.

Going back to Mein Kampf, the autobiography is once again being called out for its fabrication and lies. By this, Carr also criticized Mein Kampf for painting Hitler’s fake persona and upbringing as a fabricated story. Hitler would complain about his poor life- when in reality, he had favorable conditions growing up. The fabrication of Hitler’s autobiography was done on purpose, Hitler once again wanted to appeal to the middle and lower class. Stein limited his view to just the German lower and middle class, while Carr gives more insight on how Hitler manipulated the government to come into control. 

Carr provides a new perspective on Hitler’s persona. With their new claim, Carr argues that Hitler is not the one to fully blame for many events in history. However, the ones to blame are shifted towards Hitler’s accomplices. Although the Nazi regime and motives were Hitler’s vision, Hitler only provided the foundation for the plans. In other words, Hitler provided the blueprints but his accomplices did the work to carry out the plans. Historians can see this as Hitler and his associates were not in possession of a blueprint for aggression as the Nuremberg Tribunal believed.14 In reality, one of Hitler’s goals was to avoid

However, this is not to excuse any of Hitler’s plans or motives, but to acknowledge that Hitler was not the sole person responsible for many of the crimes. Carr’s monograph reveals new details about Hitler’s personality. Prior to Carr, little to nothing was known about Hitler. With the help of modern history, historians can learn more about Hitler’s complex personality. Prior studies believed that Hitler was a person with the Oedipus complex; when a son loves his mother while showing hatred for his father. With recent studies and monographs, historians concluded that this is not fully true.

Carr argues how Hitler never really loved his mother, and how he really never hated his father.[9] Instead, it was found that Hitler would have to constantly reassure his mother, which caused him to be spoiled and dependent on her. Carr refers back to Stein, as they agree that Hitler’s personality came to be a result of trauma and not the Oedipal complex.17 Hitler’s personality isn’t seen as an Oedipus complex anymore, instead, it can be seen as a man imprisoned in a shame-guilt cycle. With the help of new Historical evidence, it can be confirmed that Hitler experienced his major identity crisis between the age of eighteen and twenty.18

Since Hitler was dependent on his mother, her death caused Hitler to break away from the world. Historians point towards the idea that Hitler’s time in the military played a role in shaping Hitler’s trauma. Within his military time, Hitler would have a personality crisis and tried to pinpoint a scapegoat for all of the problems being faced. By using brainwashing techniques, Hitler would help Germans to find a way to cope with their troubles instead. By manipulating the Germans, Hitler was able to overcome his trauma by offering to aid the weak Germans. 

With Bullock’s Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, Bullock explores the role of Hitler and how he rose to power. Bullock begins his monograph with two questions in mind, what great part did Hitler play in the Third Reich and how did Hitler rise to power? Bullock takes a different approach as Bullock’s theme is to study the dictator and not the dictatorship. In other words, Bullock is focusing on the personality and characteristics of Hitler instead of the evil deeds committed by the Nazi regime. Much like the previous authors, Bullock criticizes Mein Kampf as he believes that Hitler makes his story much more dramatic than it actually was. By being overdramatic, Hitler seeks to gain the sympathy of the German citizens. Bullock explains that Hitler attempted to be seen as a poor child, but he agrees with Stein and Carr that this is not true. In line with Carr, Bullock debunks the idea of the Oedipus complex and explains it as a more dramatic response by Hitler. With constant fabricated stories, Hitler is seen trying to gain the support of the Germans by gaining petty points on his upbringing. This tactic was one of Hitler’s most common tactics, as he would relate back to German struggles. 

With Bullock’s monograph, readers are able to understand how Hitler would often falsely sympathize with the public. Although Hitler wrote about Vienna’s working-class misery, it was evident that his words produced no sympathy.[10] Despite Hitler showing false support and sympathy, it was used to show how he attempted to care. One of the tactics Hitler used was to learn the working-class hatred towards the higher class. By understanding this concept, Hitler used this to his advantage to gain the support of the working class. Bullock tells readers that Hitler found the solution in the “discovery” that the working men were the victims of a deliberate system.20 In other words, Hitler’s discovery of working men led towards his attempts to gain the support of the poor. As previously stated earlier, the lower class was also seen as having lower intellectual abilities, Hitler’s main targeted group. 

  A new study shows that Hitler did not entirely hate the Jews, but fabricated the propaganda to appeal to the Germans. In Mein Kampf, Hitler would have pages that references Jews. However, in the devoted pages towards Jews, Hitler failed to provide any facts to support his reasoning to hate the Jews. Although the Jewish population was the main victims of the Nazi regime, historians learn that Hitler used the Jews as a fantasy where he projected all that he hates and fears. With recent studies, it shows that the Jewish people were seen as the scapegoats for Germany. In other words, Hitler used Jews as scapegoats to find closure after losing resources and power after the first war. Hitler wisely used this tactic, as he knew finding a scapegoat would allow him to gain support of the Germans.   

Hitler is praised for his leadership skills, but Bullock reveals that Hitler’s nationalism was both unoriginal and highly motivated by propaganda. By this, the ideas that Hitler executed were not Hitler’s own original ideas. Instead of being original, Hitler was able to derive previous ideas from old sources for his movement.[11]  Hitler is depicted to be seen as a mastermind, when he really has no originality in himself; Hitler was able to use his sources and prior ideas to his advantage and appeal to the public. Studies prove that Hitler believed propaganda was key to success, as Hitler observed the successes of English propaganda. Many of the monographs talk about how Hitler emerged from fixed ideas and prejudices, stemming from his traumatic life.

Hitler is seen as a genius for his ability to use propaganda and target the right people. Throughout the monographs seen within this paper, propaganda is a key talking point in every single one of them. The three authors are all in unison to agree that propaganda was the main driving force within Hitler’s rise to power. As mentioned earlier, Hitler had no original ideas, but properly presented himself to gain support. Hitler’s genius was seen when it was time to exploit the weaknesses of the Germans. With recent studies, historians found that Hitler came to know Germany and the Germans in hopes of exploiting their weaknesses. By 1933, Hitler had spoken to almost every single town in Germany, targeting the lower class towns the most. By using his powerful words and leadership skills, Hitler aimed to appear as the hero Germany desperately needed. Bullock provides a new insight on Hitler’s rise to power, as his advantage was that he became a well-supported public figure. 

Hitler rose to power through the powerful messages sent out through his political movements. In order to properly understand the rise of Hitler, the Nazi regime and their movement must be analyzed from a psychological perspective. Hitler’s strength came through his gaining of the public trust, where Hitler properly knew what the masses needed. During his movement, Hitler explains his movement must avoid everything which may lessen or weaken its power of influencing the masses.[12] In other words, Hitler would avoid any obstacles that might have hindered his image or the image that the Nazi regime was trying to portray. Bullock explains in his monograph that Hitler uses constant repetition which succeeded in imprinting an idea on the memory of a crowd.[13] Hitler manipulated the collective memory of the messages, as Hitler would enforce specific memories towards the masses. By enforcing specific memories, Hitler would manipulate the feelings that the masses had towards the Nazi regime. Repetition was seen as key towards Hitler’s success as Stein reveals that Hitler would constantly repeat the same idea over and over.

With this constant repetition, Hitler left a footprint within the crowds. Hitler’s best propaganda and manipulation skills were shown within his speeches. In his speeches, Bullock reveals that Hitler would use specific, emotion triggering words to get the Germans on his side. By emotion triggering, historians learn that Hitler would employ verbal violence and repeat the words “smash”, “force”, “ruthless”, to evoke an effect on the audience. With the constant repetition drilled in the Germans, historians found the effectiveness of Hitler’s speeches to actually impact society into believing that he was correct. Prior to the Nazi regime, Hitler was unknown to the large general public. The Germans were unaware who Hitler was, but he had recently become a familiar figure, thanks to a publicity campaign.24 Bullock explains how

Hitler’s popularity caused him to attract the attention of those who controlled the political funds from heavy industry and big businesses. Looking back at Hitler’s regime, historians learn that Hitler needed the support of both industrialists and big businesses to be able to control the funds for his organization and propaganda.

Within Bullock’s study of Hitler, Bullock discusses how Hitler’s personality was key in making him an effective leader. Regardless of the many troubles or situations that the Nazis found themselves in, Hitler was what kept his men together. Bullock establishes Hitler as a man with a striking leadership quality, a leader that was devoted to his soldiers and goals. Hitler would never let go, never lose faith in himself, and communicated this with his comrades- which ended up boosting their spirits. History does not credit Hitler for his leadership, even though he was the sole reason that the Nazi regime was not abolished sooner. Hitler was the glue within his army, as his constant leadership and positive outlook was a key factor in boosting esteem within the regime. Even while he was in prison, Hitler did not lose faith and constantly reassured his supporters. However, Hitler proves that a cruel movement can gain support through a person’s top tier leadership qualities.

Hitler’s tactics included a mixture of bribery, appeals, and threats. All throughout the German streets there were slogans plastered all over the walls and posters showcasing any sort of help to boost Hitler’s reputation. Stein and Carr explained how Hitler appealed to the middle- and lower-class Germans, but Bullock reveals that Hitler also aimed to target respectable bourgeois parties like the democrats. Much like the Germans of the time, the different political parties were crying out with crippling anxiety and depression. Hitler once again took advantage by offering a brand of extremism. Bullock mentions how Hitler never forgot his main theme in Mein Kampf, as he always targeted the masses, since “possession of the streets is key to the power in the state.”25 Hitler was a genius when it came time to target the masses, as he knew that the lower-class citizens, or streets, were crucial in the development of his regime.

After analyzing the three monographs, the historians are able to offer scholars and readers a new perspective on Hitler. Collective memory enables people to view Hitler as this villain, but fail to acknowledge the incredible grit and determination it took to become a leader. People often mistake Hitler’s manipulation as a negative trait, but the monographs shifted this view to be seen as Hitler’s outstanding traits. Manipulation is tied with a negative connotation, but when used wisely, manipulation can be seen as a positive trait. Although the manipulation didn’t lead to positive outcomes, it shows how it can be used to gain the support of masses. Through manipulation and propaganda, Hitler was able to accomplish great features. To convince thousands of people to follow a regime is outstanding, and Hitler had all the tools to convince the Germans. The monographs acknowledge Hitler’s skill as a genius trait, since many leaders would stumble when trying to convince the mass millions.

The new studies of Hitler coming to light, scholars are able to understand the true nature of Hitler. Before these monographs, historians had different ideas and outlooks on Hitler’s life- many of which mistakenly took Hitler’s personality as a result of the Oedipus complex. With the help of Stein, Carr, and Bullock, historians reframe their thinking of Hitler and how his personality came to be. It has been found that Hitler was not a product of the Oedipus complex, but a result from childhood trauma that came from his dependence on his mother. Contrary to popular belief, Hitler did not love his mother- debunking the Oedipus complex. To further debunk the Oedipus complex labeled on Hitler, Bullock mentions how Hitler did not hate his father but over exaggerated his story.

Prior to any monograph or stories, the only source scholars had on Hitler was through his autobiography. Although Hitler’s autobiography had over dramatic events, scholars were able to understand a glimpse of Hitler’s life. The three monographs help historians understand that Hitler’s autobiography is not entirely accurate. As mentioned before, Hitler would exaggerate his stories to manipulate sympathy from the public. Modern day monographs help reveal the true nature of Mein Kampf and expose some of the lies. All through-out the monographs, it is apparent that they credit Hitler’s rise to power due to his genius use of propaganda. Hitler would use his propaganda to target the middle and lower class who were desperately trying to find a hero. All three authors explain how Hitler painted himself as the hero and would lie in his autobiography to appeal to the people of Germany. The monographs shift history’s understanding of Hitler’s tactics by showcasing how Hitler used the desperation of the German people to his advantage.  

In Bullock’s monograph, Bullock paints Hitler as a clueless person who used luck and manipulation to gain the trust of millions. Hitler had an incredible array of leadership skills and knew how to persuade people. There are countless examples of historical figures that had a part to play in the war, such as other Nazi members and the other Axis powers. As mentioned before, Hitler was the one to be the leader since he had the vocal and persuasive skills to be the leader. The other Nazi higher ranking members and Axis powers had similar ideas, but they just needed Hitler’s platform to reach new heights. The monographs show how Hitler’s manipulation, greed, and childhood trauma, allowed him to become the leader that society knows today. Hitler kept his ideas and did not back down from them, showing leadership qualities in tragic events. Although scholars and historians learn that most of Hitler’s ideas were not originally his, Hitler used prior platforms to his advantage.

Collective memories paint Hitler as a villain, but history must consider his genius as a leader that manipulated his rise to power. As Stein previously mentioned, historians must recognize the positive and negative aspects of the historical figure and the same must be done for Hitler. Although Hitler is seen as mostly negative, the monographs listed here enable scholars to analyze the rise of Hitler and compare it to other politicians. Despite being the villain in countless stories, Hitler is a hero in the eyes of the manipulated and gullible. 

History does not just live within the textbooks or within a teacher’s lesson; history can be seen repeating in our modern-day life. A single man’s voice was able to manipulate and gain the attention of millions of blind supporters, a pattern that can be seen repeating constantly. Even the craziest of ideas can be accomplished through manipulation, propaganda, and other tactics. The historiography paper, The Rise of the Führer, can be used to analyze how Hitler’s tactics gave his voice the power to control the blind masses to go against the Jews. Teaching the rise of Hitler is important in any school curriculum where students are exposed to ideas that involve authoritarianism, manipulation, and dictatorship. Countless politicians and world leaders saw the warning signs of Hitler but failed to really put a halt to him. Relating it to modern day, the world is slowly seeing another Hitler on the rise: Donald Trump.

            Donald Trump is seen using the same tactics as Hitler: manipulation, propaganda, and borderline authoritarianism. For educators, it is important to not only teach about how Hitler rose to power but also connect it to modern-day politicians like Trump. Students need to be educated on the rise of dictators and the consequences that can be faced if they are not stopped. Although The Rise of the Führer does not provide a solution on how to stop a dictator, the paper analyzes how easily the masses can be controlled. 

Bullock, A. (1991). Hitler: A study in tyranny. HarperCollins.

Carr, W. (1978). Hitler: A study in personality and politics. Hodder Education.

Hitler, A. (2015). Mein Kampf (R. Manheim, Trans.). CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. (Original work published 1925)

Stein, G. (1968). Hitler. Spectrum Books.


[1] George Stein’s Hitler, 14

[2] Stein’s Hitler Introduction, 1

[3] Stein’s, 4

[4] Stein, 13

[5] Stein, 78

[6] Stein, 88

[7] Stein, 106

[8] William Carr’s Hitler: A Study in Personality and Politics

[9] Carr, 152

[10] Bullock, 32

[11] Bullock 40

[12] Bullock, 60

[13] Bullock, 63

Why was the A-Bomb Used?

J. Robert Oppenheimer and other leading physicists took part in the Manhattan Project during the Second World War, which led to the first atomic bomb being dropped in the history of the world. To gauge the question on whether or not the U.S. should have dropped two atomic bombs on Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there needs to be a clear understanding on the history of this argument. One decision needed to be made, either having the atomic bomb as a threat or using the atomic bomb for the means of mass destruction. Physicists such as Oppenheimer and Albert Einstein felt that during the 1940s, during and after World War II, that this atomic bomb dropping would start a chain reaction amongst nations that would lead to a worldwide arms race. Decades later historian writers such as Richard Rhodes and Anthony Brown understood the use of the atomic bombs would prove costly as their years of research post-World War II examine how the after effects of nuclear sickness and nuclear warfare would outweigh the benefits of immediately ending World War II with the use of an atomic bomb.  When it came to the person who would have to make this decision, President Harry Truman decided to drop the first bomb on a Japanese city to justify the amount of time and money invested into the Manhattan project, while also ending the war immediately. With that being said, many questioned the usage of this bomb and with the primary sources and monographs acquired for this paper, there is a clear argument for the decisions made by Harry Truman. I will argue that Harry Truman wanted to use the bomb for an unnecessary desire to end World War II against a weak Axis powered alliance, and that Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted possession of the bomb to avoid the continuation of World War II and a future arms race.  

            Secondary educational history teachers would use this topic to show students how an inquiry-based question can be formed and answered. It is not the topic per say that is the focus for students, rather the ability to take an event/argument from our history and make it into a different argument based off of the research conducted. Once students realize that factual evidence allows history to be picked apart and formed into a new argument, their possibilities are unlimited. With this topic in mind, the U.S. can conclude that FDR had the desire to drop the atomic bomb on Nazi Germany and any other strong Axis Powers that was an immediate threat to the U.S. nation. FDR knew the ability of the atomic bomb and would not have dropped it unless it was needed. When Truman entered office after the death of FDR, he was clueless on the power of the atomic bomb. That is not an understatement, Harry Truman did not have nearly enough information on the atomic bomb as FDR did. Thus, for the reasons listed below, I believe FDR would not have dropped the atomic bomb on the two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  

            While arguing that Harry Truman wanted to use the bomb for an unnecessary desire to end World War II against a weak Axis powered alliance, and that Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted possession of the bomb to avoid the continuation of World War II and a future arms race, there needs to be an understanding of all information about this argument. During the creation of the bomb there were already questions regarding the atomic bomb dropping decision because Nazi Germany looked weak. Throughout the end of World War II physicists such as Oppenheimer and Edward Teller suggested to take caution with this decision not only on the fact that citizens would die, but that the U.S. would start the means of a different type of warfare. Looking forward to a decade later in the late 50s, historians such as Michael Armine argued Truman didn’t take the proper precautionary measures and this led to what all physicists feared, a different means of warfare. As mentioned above, historians Richard Rhodes and Anthony Brown studied the bomb droppings and published their views 50 years after the bombing of the two Japanese cities. They saw firsthand how the fears Oppenheimer and Teller had become true and that the U.S. lived in fear for decades after. Within many pieces of evidence found within this question, came caution that many made President Truman aware of. Truman, who was left in the dark about the atomic bomb until a few months before dropping one, had the means to end World War II without looking at the consequences. FDR had the means to use this bomb, when need be, a decision he would have gone against due to many memorandums and petitions received about the dangers of this atomic bomb. It is obvious the Allied powers would have won without these bombs, there were other strategies to be made such as naval blockades. These alternate strategies would have saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens. 

            Harry Truman was born in Lamar, Missouri and served as a captain in the Field Artillery during World War I. Truman was born into independence as his family were farmers who relied on agriculture to survive. His political career started as a county judge and twenty years later in 1934 was elected to the U.S. Senate. In this new role, he supported President Roosevelt’s New Deal programs, which aimed to remove any continuation of the Great Depression in America.

When the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt came about, Truman became the 33rd president of the U.S. and during this time authorized the first and only use of atomic bombs in warfare.[1]

Harry Truman’s decision to drop two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has led to a question concerning his credibility to make this decision with such limited knowledge of the atomic bomb with its many deadly and consequential outcomes. The development of the atomic bomb was studied from start to finish by historians; a cause for concern was the fact that the leading moderator, Franklin D. Roosevelt, died before the decision of dropping any atomic bombs was made. The historiography of this study changes as more information and opinions are formed. Moreover, as one could imagine it was a split decision among politicians in 1945, regarding the employment of the atomic bomb. 

As for the people, things were different in the aftermath of the dropping of the atomic bomb. Studies showed that a Gallup poll taken after the two bombs were dropped in August 1945 found that 85 percent of Americans supported the bombings, 10 percent were opposed to them, and 5 percent had no opinion. Directly after the two bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki the citizens of America supported Truman’s decision on ending World War II. The lack of evidence and knowledge from the average American citizen in 1945 was alarming, due to the fact that many physicists such as J. Robert Oppenheimer, Albert Einstein, and Leo Szilard felt this decision would lead to the loss of innocent civilian lives, as well as the emergence of the threat of nuclear warfare. It’s also interesting to think about this situation because a serious cause for concern was civilian causalities, yet the citizens of the U.S. still believed the bombing of these Japanese cities was justified.

  During the summer of 1945 there was no shortage of information for civilians as the Szilard Petition made headway before any bombs were dropped by the U.S. The Szilard Petition was created by Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard and tried to show how the development of atomic power will provide the nations with new means of destruction. The atomic bomb at the disposal of the U.S. or any given nation threatens the existence of the whole world. Not to mention its destructive power it poses during the creation of the atomic bomb. Szilard writes this petition and agrees that the atomic bomb shouldn’t be used because the U.S. is opening the door on a new era of warfare, thus leading to mass destruction on an unimaginable scale. This petition suggests a warning to the U.S. government as the stage will be set for nuclear warfare in the future. Not only will the stage be set, but the U.S. will have the responsibility for this. With that being said, Szilard will ask President Truman the following, “in view of the foregoing, we, the undersigned, respectfully petition that you exercise your power as Commander-in-Chief, to rule that the United States shall not resort to the use of atomic bombs in this war…”[2] Politicians suggested to Truman to wait on a Japanese response after the U.S. accounted they have this weapon. Even from the beginning opinions were split in the summer of 1945, one that led to the decision to drop the first atomic bomb on an opposing nation. 

With the information above that Franklin D. Roosevelt had on the atomic bomb there was a greater chance he would have used the atomic bomb more as a visual threat, letting other nations view the power the U.S. possessed, as opposed to actually using the atomic bomb. Many questioned Truman, as even during his own presidency interim committee camp reports written by Oppenheimer himself to President Truman explained how he should “protect the world,” instead of showing a lust for power over other rivaled nations. Oppenheimer writes directly to President Truman in a memorandum and “recommends that before the weapons are used not only Britain, but also Russia, France, and China be advised that we have made considerable progress in our work on atomic weapons…”[3] In Oppenheimer’s direct message to President Truman he’s not only arguing the use of the atomic bomb, but emphasizing the importance of letting other nations know what their plans are so cause less conflict in the world. Oppenheimer, as well as Szilard, let the president know they are open for helping out with this issue as an improvement of international relations would greatly help their war efforts. With Truman’s decision on dropping the two atomic bombs, he was criticized for not making the decision as a whole when it came to the allied powers during World War II. This situation connects back to the statement that Truman wanted to use the bomb on another nation, while FDR wanted the bomb to strictly send a message. A memorandum was sent to Truman, after the death of FDR. Historians argue FDR would have agreed with the first half of this message as “Those who advocate a purely technical demonstration would wish to outlaw the use of atomic weapons and have feared that if we use the weapons now our position in future negotiations will be prejudiced.”[4] The reasoning behind this belief is because FDR’s goal was to use the bomb on a powerful Nazi Germany nation and Japan if that decision needed to be made. Historians argue that Truman, along with others, “emphasize the opportunity of saving American lives by immediate military use…”5 Truman believed that the action being made on bombing Japanese cities would eliminate the threat as a whole, thus saving American lives. Truman and other believers of the atomic bomb want to use this technology as a demonstration to other nations that they have a powerful weapon. The U.S. saw no other means towards the end of World War II and thought that this direct military use was the way to go. With the use of this primary source above, a split developed as demonstrated by the two different sides of the argument, thus concluding FDR wanted the bomb to show as a threat, while Truman wanted to use the bomb no matter what the consequences.

  Harry Truman’s decision to drop two atomic bombs on Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki, led to a question concerning his credibility to make this decision with such limited knowledge of the atomic bomb with its many deadly and consequential outcomes. Looking ahead to over a decade later in the year 1960, which is also the date of publication of my first monograph, the examination and history of the dropping of the atomic bomb has changed as the historiography is affected by more information. A growing number of citizens along with other politicians and physicists disagreed with Truman’s decision once they received reports on the destruction and number of casualties in Japan, as well as the rising threat of nuclear war. There was a clear understanding that the atomic bomb was an “absolute weapon” and one that would be produced around the world by other threating nations. 

With this additional information, there’s a desire to examine the information Franklin D. Roosevelt had on this bomb and how his decision may have differed from Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb twice. There’s evidence that leans towards this decision not being made by FDR as other physicists such as Niels Bohr who wrote to President Roosevelt in a memorandum stating that, “it certainly surpasses (atomic energy) the imagination of anyone to survey the consequences of the project in years to come…” Bohr says this to President Roosevelt to show his skepticism on what the physicists have created as this power source is nothing they’d ever had. Not only that, but Bohr writes to President Roosevelt in fear that in the long run, other nations will obtain this power. Other nations with the means of mass destruction or world domination. Regardless of whether other nations create the bomb, the actual making and testing of the bomb is dangerous enough. This message itself doesn’t focus on the dangers of the atomic bomb, Bohr talks about the threat the bomb holds by simply possessing it, along with other nations who have different ideological goals for their prosperity. This was a direct message to President Roosevelt and with these primary sources there is clear evidence that backs the argument President Roosevelt wanted this bomb for the threat alone. With the information President Roosevelt received about the deadly power of the atomic bomb, such as nuclear fission, impurities, and uranium, one would argue his decision would differ from Truman’s.

Physicists also argued against Truman about the containment of this bomb and how a chain reaction can be caused in two ways. One way being with a mass explosion that destroys the world, and the other chain reaction is the actions taken by other nations. Ever since the possibilities of releasing atomic energy on a vast scale came in sight, “much thought has naturally been given to the question of control… The terrifying prospect of a future competition between nations about a weapon of such formidable character can only be avoided through a universal agreement in true confidence.”[5] A decade and a half later the historiography on the opinions of the bomb being dropped has changed due to additional information being provided to the historians and the public, leading to the opinions of the citizens from 1945 changing with regards to Truman’s decision.  This historiography on Truman’s decision to drop the bomb continues to change over the years, leading to a question of his credibility in making this decision with such limited knowledge of the atomic bomb with its many deadly and consequential outcomes. Looking ahead three decades later to the 1990s, which is also the year of my second monograph, the opinions of the people are essentially evenly split, differing from years in the past where one side was heavily favored over the other. By 1995, fifty years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many American citizens supported an alternative decision, other than the atomic bomb dropping. Americans felt if the decision was left up to them to drop the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, half said they would try another way. It took 50 years to split these opinions, arguably because they read about the mass terror that struck throughout Japan on Japanese citizens. However, the other half of respondents still agree with the atomic bomb droppings. This other half that supported the atomic bomb droppings also supported President Truman’s thought process because they felt the over desire to end World War II. There’s no argument against this thought process as it was a long war for the U.S., however Japan was a dying nation towards the end of World War II. The U.S. would have blocked Japan from the outside world with naval blockades and starved them.

There were other ways to end the war instead of nuking these two cities and creating a mass genocide. The argument needed to be made in this situation was if this bombing was justified. U.S. citizens are understanding this decision more as time goes on and it is seen with the changing of opinions of the people in the U.S. In 1945, 85% of citizens supported the bomb dropping, and in the 90s, it dropped down to more than half of U.S. citizens. This percentage dropped due to time; historians were able to form more opinions on the direct impact of the atomic bomb dropping. There was a fear of nuclear warfare that was imagined back in 1945, now being in the1990s the U.S. experienced the Cold War, and the impact of a decision made almost fifty years ago. 

Taking a different approach to this opinion matters; the thoughts of physicists and politicians are important but a complete approach to this must also focus on a military mindset. Military strategist Bernard Brodie believed that “the urgency of finding solutions to the transitional problem created by the atomic bomb was present…”[6] A solution to this matter would be to put polices on place, ones that protect the nation under any future atomic attacks. Certain circumstances can arise in the future and the best course of action the U.S. can take is having protection. This is why historians and physicists would disagree with Truman’s decision because the cons outweigh the pros, possibility a nuclear war. Brodie would agree with this statement. The historiography changes throughout the fifty years post-World War II, showing the effect that historians have on pivotal matters in U.S. history. This leads to understanding why one would believe Truman’s decision was undesirable and dangerous, while a decision by Franklin D. Roosevelt would have led to a different, more favorable outcome. 

Harry Truman’s decision to drop two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, led to a question of his credibility to make this decision with such limited knowledge of the atomic bomb with its many deadly and consequential outcomes. A 2015Pew Research Center surveyfinds that 56% of the American population believe that the use of the two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities was a justified action, while 34% say this action was terrible. However, the divide between opinions is specific, it deals with age. Not surprisingly, there is a division between the ages of Americans 65 and older and the other percent being the age of 20s. About seven-in-ten Americans above the age of 65 agree the use of the atomic bombs were justified, while the younger generation, around 47%, argue this was an unfit action. With this information there is evidence of an age gap between those who believe the U.S. should or should not have dropped the bomb on the Japanese cities. With more information accessed by a younger generation the more they can see the unwillingness of Truman to realize the future of the U.S. could be in danger. This unwillingness from Truman to realize the future damage stemmed from the desire to put an immediate end to World War II. 

From a historical perspective, the historiography continues to change as the decision to bomb the two Japanese cities was unpopular, and Truman knew this based on a letter he received from physicists within the Manhattan Project. In a petition to Present Truman they wrote, “We are not to resort to the use of atomic bombs in the present phase of the war, at least not unless the terms which will be imposed upon Japan after the war are publicly announced and subsequently Japan is given an opportunity to surrender.”[7] This was certainly a popular opinion, especially because as the decades went on many historians questioned if Truman gave Japan enough time to surrender, as they only gave Japan three days to assess this new power. Many historians say no, and most physicists say no because they know that atomic bombs are primarily a means for the ruthless annihilation of cities and nations get rid of one quote. Thus, putting the factor of atomic warfare into the world, putting every nation at risk. 

With this information on hand there is a clear argument to be made that Harry Truman wanted to use the bomb for an unnecessary desire to show power against power-house nations, including the Soviet Union, and that Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted possession of the bomb to avoid the continuation of World War II and a future arms race. The development of the atomic bomb was important for an American and Allied victory in World War II, however at this point it is well known that atomic power will provide the nations with new means of destruction. With this information in the hands of the President of the United States, it’s hard to believe there was still a decision needed to be made. With the people of the U.S. now having this information completely in the 2000s, the 85% of people who supported the bomb dropping in 1945 dropped down to about half the people. With a president like Franklin D. Roosevelt, one who had great connection in the Manhattan Project, there would have been a more logical decision.       As historians continue to study the decisions made on the atomic bomb, the more histography changes over the decades. Harry Truman wanted to use the bomb for an unnecessary desire to show power against power-house nations, including the Soviet Union, and Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted possession of the bomb to avoid the continuation of World War II and avoid a future arms race. The differing opinions of historians over a 50-year span is shown through different books. British historian Anthony Brown’s book, The Secret History of the Atomic Bomb (1997), gives insight on the making and science behind the atomic bomb during the Manhattan Project, while also emphasizing the importance of security amongst the physicists on the testing site. During the Manhattan Project, Brown found the security within the testing site to be key for the protection of this device and the U.S.

The science behind the bomb such as nuclear fission, impurities, and uranium led Brown to argue this great power needed to be kept in check, and most importantly in the hands of the U.S. elites. While Brown’s book talks about the science behind the bomb, science writer Michael Armine’s monograph, The Great Decision (1959), dives into the question of whether Truman wanted to have the bomb for the wrong reasons, resulting in his dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There was growing insight into the fact that Truman was left in the dark during the making of the atomic bomb, leading historians to ask if this was a premature decision to end the war or show the power he possessed.

Lastly, American historian Richard Rhodes’ monograph, The Making of the Atomic Bomb (1986), talks about how having an atomic bomb, and its threat, is different than using it on another nation. The threat of nuclear warfare was too great, leading Rhodes to argue against Truman’s decision.

            Michael Armine is a scientific writer who had a deep interest in the study of the atomic bomb because of his father’s historical background. Armine enjoyed combining his interests and his father’s work, thus fell upon the study of the atomic bomb. After World War II, Armine managed the publicity campaign for the Federation of Atomic Scientists and later was director of public education for Brookhaven Laboratory, a peacetime research center of the Atomic Energy Commission… “He is a consultant for the American Psychological Association, the Air Research and Development Command of the U.S. Air Force, and other scientific agencies.”[8]

Armine’s accolades support his work in The Great Decision, which highlights the decision making of the Atomic Bomb in World War II. 

Michael Armine’s The Great Decision (1959), is the closest book published to the dropping of both the atomic bombs on Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Armine questions Truman throughout his book to show the uncertainty Truman had during the creation of the atomic bomb. Armine portrays his argument by asking questions throughout the book like, “Why did Truman not know of the A-bomb project when he became president, only 116 days before Hiroshima?”[9] Pointing out Truman’s flaws and uncertainties throughout the book strengthens the argument of his blindness to the science and the “atomic curtain.”[10] Armine even questions why Truman had the sole decision and responsibility to drop this atomic bomb when in reality it was an “allied project.”

Truman, not relying on the opinion of other allied nations concerning the atomic bomb dropping raises suspicion on Truman’s thought process and desires. Franklin D. Roosvelt wanted the atomic bomb for the axis powered Nazi Germany and Japanese nations, this threat was believed to be big enough for other nations to back down; the threat of posing this weapon was great enough. However, Truman wanted to use this weapon, twice.              Michael Armine’s interpretation of the atomic bomb dropping supports the idea that Harry Truman wanted to use the bomb, while Franklin D. Roosvelt wanted possession of the atomic bomb. General Eisenhower’s opinion was also squandered as Truman ignored his plea for peace around the world. Armine understands this is a world war; however, the dropping of this bomb led to his own, and Eisenhower’s, belief that this action would increase the threat of an arms race or even nuclear warfare. There was a psychological aspect Armine and Eisenhower believed would be strong enough to force Japan into a surrender rather than risk future conflicts. This is seen in a memorandum sent to General Grooves that the “two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.”[11] The psychological factors that played into this decision were enough for leading politicians like FDR and General Eisenhower. The immediate threat posed by this decision was too great a risk for the nation’s safety. 

            Richard Rhodes is an American Historian and author who wrote the book The Making of the Atomic Bomb. Rhodes also won a “Pulitzer Prize in Nonfiction, The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb, which was shortlisted for a Pulitzer Prize in History; and two further volumes on nuclear history.[12] Rhodes’ many awards and achievements help to establish his credibility regarding the history of the atomic bomb and create a good argument suitably denying President Truman’s decision on dropping two atomic bombs. Rhodes’ well-rounded education helps with his argument in his book The Making of the Atomic Bomb.

            Richard Rhodes monograph, The Making of the Atomic Bomb (1986), is written about forty years after the atomic bomb was dropped and talks about how having an atomic bomb, and its threat, is different than using it on another nation. The threat of nuclear warfare was too great, leading Rhodes to question Truman’s decision strictly on a scientific level. Rhodes describes his idea on how the pace of the making of the atomic bomb is ‘frightening.’ Rhodes says the discovery of microbes is a punishment from God because during the closing days of World War II, “marked a turning point in human history, a point of entry into a new era when humankind for the first time acquired the means of its own destruction.”[13] For President Truman to make this decision essentially with little information, Rhodes questions why he had the desire to drop two bombs on Japan. Rhodes upholds this view mentioning how the Manhattan Project is only known by scientist peers such as Oppenheimer, Teller, Bohr, and others. General Eisenhower, who was also not fully aware of the Manhattan Project, agrees with Rhodes’ point and describes the bomb as a “physical force, it was morally indifferent and could just as easily serve evil purposes as good.”[14] While Rhodes talks about the science behind this bomb it’s difficult for him to disagree with this statement because he believes the release of nuclear energy would not only cause mass genocide immediately in Japan, but also lead to the aftereffects of the radiation, causing long term illnesses for Japanese citizens. 

            Rhodes continues to agree with the argument that Truman made an undesirable decision for his U.S. nation because of the threat posed in the future for the U.S. and Japanese citizens. With Rhodes’ knowledge of FDR’s commitment and awareness of the atomic bomb he subscribes to the argument that FDR would not have dropped the atomic bomb. While Rhodes doesn’t directly say this, he mentions how “the release of nuclear energy, and its application to build weapons of mass destruction, has gradually changed how total war is based…”[15] Even nations who are poorer than others have the means and desire to create nuclear weapons themselves due to the portability of these weapons, and more importantly, how they can act as a defense mechanism for their nations. 

There was a deeper meaning Rhodes waned to portray to the audience; he wanted to show how the bomb was created and how dense this line of work was during the Manhattan Project. However, after considering all of the scientific aspects, he mentions firsthand stories of civilians during the dropping of both of the atomic bombs. These stories suit the argument made against Truman. Rhodes finds it difficult to believe that with Japan on the brink of collapse that FDR, with all of his knowledge of Project Trinity, would have dropped the bomb on a dying nation. These stories consist of survivors who had painful lives, or citizens who survived the initial blast of the atomic bomb but passed away years later. A priest named Father Kopp was standing outside; he was about to head home after a long day of work. Father Kopp suddenly became “aware of the light, felt a wave of heat, and a large blister formed on his hand. A white burn with the formation of a bleb is a grade-four burn…”[16] His burn took over a year to fully heal, and the bleeding on his calves swelled up, changing his life forever. A junior-college girl described the events she experienced as “the vicinity was in pitch darkness; from the depths of the gloom, bright red flames rise crackling and spread moment by moment. The faces of my friends who just before were working energetically are now burned and blistered, their clothes torn to rags… they remained paralyzed with terror.”[17] Rhodes added these stories to the end of his monograph to substantiate his claim against President Truman and points out that the physicists who petitioned against the bombing are the real heroes. It struck a nerve with Rhodes that at times the physicists who worked on this project were blamed for the death and trauma experienced by the Japanese citizens. In this case, Rhodes is biased in favor of the physicists as he supported their thoughts and scientific approach throughout the entirety of the Manhattan Project. However, there was little to no support with Truman’s decision, backing the argument that FDR would not have dropped these bombs with the information he had. 

Rhodes’ final criticisms put to shame Truman’s actions on dropping the two atomic bombs on Japan, describing his action as an attempt to gain power amongst the world powers. Rhodes examines Truman’s “lust” for power during World War II and will argue that Truman didn’t just want to end World War II, he wanted to send a message. Rhodes believes Truman knew how his actions would weigh out, thus writing about a children’s point of view on this mass genocide. A seventeen-year-old girl tells her story and says, “I walked past Hiroshima Station… and saw people with their bowels and brains coming out… I saw an old lady carrying a suckling infant in her arms… I saw many children… with dead mothers… I just cannot put into words the horror I felt.”[18] Another young boy speaks and says “I was walking among dead people…it was like hell. The sight of a living horse burning was striking.”[19] A young schoolgirl saw “a man without feet, walking on his ankles, she remembers a man with his eyes sticking out about two inches called me by name and I felt sick… people’s bodies were tremendously swollen- you can’t imagine how a big human body can swell up.”[20] Rhodes brings a completely different aspect to his storytelling with these first-hand stories and points out the obvious to those who supported the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those who supported the bombing just years after World War II were ashamed of the end of this monograph. Rhodes’ thoughts on

Truman’s goals for dropping the bomb, showing powerhouse nations such as the Soviet Union what the U.S. has, was shameful. For these reasons, the argument is made that FDR would have used the existence of the bomb as a deterrent against a dying Japanese nation, as opposed to the actual employment of the bomb as Truman did.

Secondary educational history teachers would use this topic specifically in their classroom because it is an argumentative topic and affects the U.S. today. Besides secondary educational history teachers using this topic to show students how inquiry-based questions are formed, they can also use this topic to show the after effects of the dropping of two atomic bombs. After World War II came the Cold War, it was a direct impact of the two droppings of the atomic bombs on Japanese cities. Since the Cold War, the whole world has lived in fear of a nuclear war. With that being said, introducing a topic to students on an issue that was 50 years ago and still affects their nation today is one they can grasp. Any time students hear the phrase “nuclear warfare,” they can look no further than the actions the U.S. committed to in 1945. 

Anthony Brown is a British historian who writes about the history of the atomic bomb and British and U.S. military strategies.  Brown was born in Bath, England, he served in the “Royal Air Force. He became a journalist for the ‘Daily Mail’ in London. In 1962, Brown emigrated to Washington, D.C., where he had a career as a journalist.”[21] With Anthony Brown’s background his contributions to this argument are key to understanding the decision behind the dropping of the atomic bomb on the two Japanese cities. 

Anthony Brown’s, The Secret of the Atomic Bomb (1997), gives insight into the making and the science behind the atomic bomb during the Manhattan Project, while also emphasizing the importance of security amongst the physicists on the testing site. Brown’s spin on his argument is showing how important security was within the Manhattan Project because the information within was dangerous if ascertained by other nations. The author believes that the creation of this bomb was important for a U.S. victory over the Axis powered nations; however, as Brown wrote this book fifty years after the dropping of two atomic bombs it helps him understand the science behind the bomb, understanding how the threat of possessing the bomb was exactly what they needed. Brown would argue against Truman’s decision because opening up this power to the world is dangerous. The science behind the bomb such as nuclear fission, impurities, and uranium led Brown to argue this great power needed to be kept in check, and most importantly remain in the hands of the U.S. elite.

Brown will argue against Truman’s decision to drop the two bombs on Japanese cities strictly because of the threat of exposing the world to this type of warfare. Brown mentions throughout his book how the physicists panicked during the Manhattan Project because they were in a virtual race against the clock with Nazi Germany. This led Brown to believe at times the physicists were sloppy, leading to dangerous situations of either exposure within the camp or a mistake in the making of the bomb. The physicists encountered many obstacles which caused them to “change certain divisions that work on specific aspects of the bomb. The changing of divisions such as G, X, and R led to the Technical Board Committee to deem parts of this program inadequate to handle technical problems within the laboratory.”[22] The reason Brown mentions this sense of panic within the camp is because of the connection made at the end of his book concerning the uncertainty of President Truman. Once this bomb was successfully created, news of a spy surfaced within the Manhattan Project, and when Truman heard of this, Brown believed from then on, that any decision seemed drastic. 

Brown believed the information on the threat of the atomic bomb to the world and the nation’s future was ignored by Truman, thus leading to a hasty decision of using the bomb on Japan. One of Brown’s chapters is named “The New Project,” and this chapter is all about the decisions made in the summer of 1945. With Truman’s limited information on the atomic bomb, he explains why a president, such as FDR, would have used the bomb as a threat, mostly because he knew of the long-lasting danger posed by its very existence. FDR was aware that a possible “chain reaction does or does not go depends on the result of a competition among four processes: (1) escape; (2) non-fission capture by uranium; (3) non fission capture by impurities; (4) fission on captured impurities.”24 The main reason for FDR was to have made the bomb and use it against Nazi Germany and Japan. Although FDR was alive during the collapse of Nazi Germany, the bomb hadn’t been finished yet and other measures would have been explored. This can be seen in a memorandum that mentions, “at one point the President raised the question of whether this means should actually be used against the Japanese or whether it should be used only as a threat with full-scale experimentation in this country. He did so, I believe, in connection with Bohr’s apparent urging that a threat be employed against Germany, which would of course, I think, be futile.…”[23] FDR avoided this question a good number of times because it was too early to determine if this action was necessary. There were full beliefs from all of the authors above that with the information FDR had received from physicists on the Manhattan Project he would not have made the decision to deploy the bomb. FDR would have preferred to use the atomic bomb as a threat, while Truman, as Brown mentions, wanted to use the bomb on a full-scale level showing how powerful the U.S. can be.

Brown mentions how propaganda was used throughout Japan the day after the first bombing of Hiroshima. The main goal of using propaganda was for the Japanese nation to show how evil the U.S. was, almost making it seem like Japan had done nothing wrong during World War II. The Japanese used this propaganda effectively because they wanted to establish a bias towards their victimization, when in reality the aggressive action by the Japanese constituted a major factor in the U.S. decision to join World War II. However, some of this use of propaganda was truly a call for help and this supports Brown’s argument against President Truman. The Japanese showed the world the massacre they endured with the “distribution of 500,000 copies of Japanese newspapers containing stories and pictures of the atomic-bomb strike.”[24] This propaganda campaign continued and small 15-minute intervals of Japanese broadcasts during the first bombing of Japan made it to the public eye. Many also question whether or not Truman gave the Japanese enough time to surrender as they dropped the second bomb only days after the first. President Truman defends his decision-making and claims he made this decision to save the lives of U.S soldiers and end the war as soon as possible. Whether or not historians believe this is true, it is difficult to argue with the fact that President Truman was warned by many physicists that he should proceed with caution in making this decision. 

Throughout Michael Armine’s, The Great Decision (1959), there is key information provided that disagrees with Truman’s viewpoint of the dropping of two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities.The basis of his question comes strictly from the average person’s point of view because he asks the simple questions such as questioning Truman’s decision with such limited information, and whether Truman ever consulted with other Allied powered nations or American generals. Armine asks these valid questions; however, due to the date of publication he hardly has any facts to validate his statements. Armine is simply asking questions, while the other two books listed above talk about the importance of the science behind the bomb, information those authors received due to publishing their books forty plus years later. During this time about 80% of American citizens believed the dropping of the atomic bomb was justified; however, these opinions were based on limited information about this bomb.

Armine’s thoughts on this bomb shouldn’t be dismissed, the questions he asks are crucial to American history, but he fails to provide any scientific backing.  He was still asking questions such as “is this bomb called a super bomb? Should the bomb be dropped, as a demonstration, on uninhabited territory? Could other countries make such bombs?”[25] Even when Armine does take a statistical approach, he mentions how the science behind this atomic bomb should serve as protection to the U.S. but doesn’t address how dangerous these substances are. The closet Armine approaches the fear factor in this book is when he mentions how “Szilard and his colleagues were thinking of the atom bomb in 1939. In 1945 they were having nightmares of the atom bomb in World War III.”[26] Unfortunately, the closest Armine gets into the dangers of the atomic bomb is talking about how the physicists feared its being used in a future World War III conflict. However, the questions he asks are important for the reader’s information on the atomic bomb, thus disagreeing with Truman’s plans to drop two bombs on a weak Japanese nation.  

Both Anthony Brown’s, The Secret History of the Atomic Bomb (1977), and Richard Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb (1986), have similar methodology due to their dates of publication being within ten years of each other. Both authors mention the science behind their reasoning for opposing the bomb droppings, and as a result, they are slightly biased to be against President Truman. As both authors had forty plus years to write their books, many memorandums and committee reports were made available to the public on a large scale. While this information is important for any decision on the bomb, it was used too heavily throughout the books and failed to ask any deep-rooted questions on how other physicists, politicians, and allies felt. After researching the dropping of the atomic bomb, it’s important to get the full picture to truly understand the reasoning behind it. If the reader read only these two books, The Secret History of the Atomic Bomb and The Making of the Atomic Bomb, they’d fail to understand the reasoning and support for dropping the two bombs. The argument being made is that President Truman made a quick and undesirable decision to end World War II immediately, however there should be no argument presented that Truman made this action with thoughts of vengeance or anger. If someone read these two books, they’d assume President Truman was an unfit president to follow FDR. The audience understood FDR’s backing of the development of the atomic bomb and the information he received during his presidency was far greater than  Truman’s. This shouldn’t be the end all and be all; President Truman and his staff believed the ending of this war was crucial, and they had the best interest of the U.S. at heart, at the time. 

During the summer of 1945 President Truman believed the dropping of the two atomic bombs was a fit decision to end World War II and bring home American troops. However, the benefits of The Secret History of the Atomic Bomb and The Making of the Atomic Bomb, show how this decision would prove costly in the future. Unlike Michael Armine’s, The Great Decision, these two books talk about the dangers Truman understood might be incurred by Japan and other responding nations. This viewpoint helps any learner understand that the actions of President Truman resulted in consequences for the U.S. for decades to follow. Rhodes believed that all factors weren’t looked at by President Truman because he had an uneasy pressure to end

World War II. Truman also needed to justify the money invested into the atomic bomb project, “the bomb was also to be used to pay for itself, to justify to congress the investment of $2 billion…”[27] President Truman’s decision to drop two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities seemed careless. There was no regard for how this decision could pan out in the future. Even Allied leader Winston Churchill agreed with President Truman and summarized the atomic bomb use in World War II as such, “to bring the war to an end, to give peace to the world, to lay healing hands upon its tortured peoples by a manifestation of overwhelming power at the cost of a few explosions, seemed, after all our tolls and perils, a miracle of deliverance.”[28] To use the words “at the cost of a few explosions” summarizes the thought process between the two leaders. There is no disagreement that the Allied powers paid their tolls during World War II, but to cause suffering of hundreds of thousands of citizens in Japan shouldn’t add up to “a few explosions.” As mentioned before, there was an unnecessary desire for Truman to end World War II the way he did as he didn’t account for the near future. 

As Rhodes continues to talk about Truman’s decision to drop two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities, he mentions how this barbaric choice was opposed by generals and staff who were linked close to the atomic bomb in the summer of 1945. There was a different psychological feeling the president had at the time, including American citizens they felt, “free to use and compelled to use a new weapon of mass destruction on civilians in undefended cities. It was the psychology of the American people. I. I. Rabi, an American physicist who discovered nuclear magnetic resonance, explained how eventually it wasn’t just the military involved with this decision, the decision was “backed by the American people.” There was impatience looming in America that merged with the desire to end the war, that supported this decision. Thus, explaining why the Gallup Poll taken in 1945 showed that over 80% of American citizens supported the bomb droppings in Japan. Even after the two bombs were dropped The Smyth Report, the official report on the development of the atomic bomb under the auspices of the United States Government, was released and stated that “the average citizen cannot be expected to understand clearly how an atomic bomb is constructed or how it works but there is in this country a substantial group of engineers and scientists who can understand such things and who can explain the potentialities of atomic bombs to their fellow citizens.”[29] To use the backing of American citizens for the decision to drop two atomic bombs was unjust. It’s also interesting to Rhodes that U.S. citizens would allow two bombs to be dropped on Japan that would kill thousands of Japanese citizens. 

Anthony Brown backs Rhodes’ claims on President Truman’s actions being costly because it puts the U.S. nation in an immediate threat. As Brown talks about the science behind the atomic bomb, he mentions there being no end to this destruction. Brown argues that other power-house nations will continue this violence in the future with their own bombs while also finding possibilities to get bigger, or worse weapons. Brown’s take on releasing an atomic bomb into the world isn’t just the fear of another nation recreating it, but the fear of making a mistake.

There is a mentioning of how the “development of means predicting accurately the critical mass of active materials,”[30] and how a miscalculation of certain scattering data such as fission experiments could be deadly. Brown believes this is why the patent for the U.S. Manhattan Project took so long to be accepted because of the fear of worldly catastrophe. With Truman showing how powerful this bomb is, every nation in the world would want to recreate this invention and, in the process, destroy the world. Not only does it tease the U.S. competitors to make this deadly weapon, but in the process, they can destroy the world. The two authors suggest not using the bombs, rather presenting them as intimidation. Granted, both authors understand the indubitable desire for other nations to match the U.S. and create an atomic bomb for themselves, but there’s an argument to be made that there is less of a threat the bomb would be used by another nation against the U.S. if Truman decided not to drop the two bombs on Japan. 

            The argument made throughout this paper is that Harry Truman wanted to use the bomb for an unnecessary desire to end World War II against a weak Axis powered alliance, and that Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted possession of the bomb to avoid the continuation of World War II and a future arms race. The historiography speaks on this decision as fifty years’ worth of information confirms the physicists’ and politicians’ fears of a new means of mass destruction and an all-out arms race. This type of issue created a chain reaction conceived of by only a few who were shown to be correct. This chain reaction wasn’t scientific, it was political. Every nation had the means to create their own atomic bomb as they witnessed the first one being used on a dying Japanese nation during World War II. The two bombs dropped by President Truman killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens and was considered mass genocide. Not only was there fear other nations would create this weapon, but there was also fear they could destroy the earth in the process of making the bomb and testing it. Within many pieces of evidence found concerning the question of whether or not to drop the atomic bomb on another nation, came caution that made President Truman aware. Truman, who was left in the dark about the atomic bomb until a few months before dropping one, had the means to end World War II without looking at the consequences. FDR had the means to use this bomb, when need be, a decision he would have gone against as evidenced by many memorandums and petitions received about the dangers of the atomic bomb. It is obvious the Allied powers would have won without these bombs, there were other strategies to be employed, such as naval blockades. These alternate strategies would have saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens; therefore, fortifying the argument against President Truman’s decision. 

            Secondary educational history teachers would successfully use this argument to show two objectives for students. The first objective for students to learn is the beauty behind inquiry-based questions. History can be seen through any lens, as long as there is proper evidence to back the claim. To get a full understanding of history, a historian, or even student for that matter, should understand there are different angels of a “historical fact” or “historical event.” History is one of the only subjects where this is no definitive answer, there needs to be proof to back the argument. The second objective is for the topic itself, the dropping of two atomic bombs by the U.S. onto Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is a prime reason for the threat of nuclear warfare today. Despite the atomic bomb being made by the Soviet Union just shortly after the U.S. dropped the bombs, all fingers point to the U.S. for introducing this type of power to the world. The U.S. is the only nation to drop an atomic bomb on another nation with aims to destroy them. J. Robert Oppenheimer was not just afraid of the creation of the atomic bomb, but who would eventually have their hands on one. The atomic bomb is a means for mass destruction and something that every person in the world may one day fear will destroy life as they know it. For students to understand how this history can affect their lives today is something worth teaching, and for the students, worth understanding. Learning from past mistakes is a crucial part of history, and for Harry Truman he may have made a mistake that will affect his nation decades later. 

Amrine, Michael, The Great Decision, (Van Rees Press: New York, 1959). 

Arneson, Gordon, “Atomic Archive,” Notes of the Interim Committee Meeting, 1945, Notes of the Interim Committee Meeting | The Manhattan Project | Historical Documents | atomicarchive.com.

Bohr, Niels, “Atomic Archive,” Niels Bohr’s Memorandum to President Roosevelt, 1944, Niels Bohr’s Memorandum to President Roosevelt | The Manhattan Project | Historical Documents | atomicarchive.com.

Brodie, Bernard, The Absolute Weapon; Atomic Power and World Order, March 25, 1946, THE ABSOLUTE WEAPON ATOMIC POWER AND WORLD ORDER ( COVERSHEET ATTACHED ).

Brown, Anothony, The Secret History of the Atomic Bomb, (New York, 1997). 

Brown, Anothny, “Georgetown University,” Anthony Cave Brown Papers, 2006, Collection:

Anthony Cave Brown Papers | Georgetown University Archival Resources.

Bush, V., “Atomic Archive,” Memorandum to Dr. Conant, 1944, Memorandum to Dr. Conant,

September 23, 1944 | The Manhattan Project | Historical Documents.

Derry, J. A., “Atomic Archive,” Summary of Target Committee Meetings, 1945, Target Committee Meetings | The Manhattan Project | Historical Documents | atomicarchive.com.

Johson, Lily, “History Hit,” Facts about Harry S. Truman, 2022, 10 Facts About Harry S. Truman | History Hit.  

Oppenheimer, Robert, “Atomic Archive,” Science Panel’s Report to the Interim Committee, 1945, Science Panel’s Report to the Interim Committee | The Manhattan Project | Historical Documents | atomicarchive.com.

Rhodes, Richards, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, (New York 1986).

Smyth, Hennry, “Atomic Archive,” Atomic Energy for Military Purposes (The Smyth Report),

1945, Atomic Energy for Military Purposes (The Smyth Report) | Historical Documents

Stokes, Bruce, “Pew Research Center,” 70 years after Hiroshima, opinions have shifted on use of atomic bomb, 2015, 70 years after Hiroshima, opinions have shifted on use of atomic bomb | Pew Research Center.

Szilard, Leo, “Atomic Archive,” Petition Request from Szilard to Edward Teller, 1945, Petition Request from Szilard to Edward Teller | The Manhattan Project | Historical Documents | atomicarchive.com. 


[1] History Hit, “Facts about Harry S. Truman,” 2022, 10 Facts About Harry S. Truman | History Hit

[2] “The Nuclear Museum,” last modified June 6th, 2014,  Debate over the Bomb Nuclear Museum.

[3] “Atomic Archive,” Last Modified June 16th, 1945, The Manhattan Project | Historical Documents.

[4] “Atomic Archive,” last modified June 16th, 1945, The Manhattan Project | Historical Documents. 5 “Atomic Archive,” last modified June 16th, 1945, The Manhattan Project | Historical Documents.

[5] “Atomic Archive,” last modified July, 1944, The Manhattan Project | Historical Documents.

[6] Bernard Brodie et al. “Jstor,” Atomic Power and World Order, 535, no 4 (1946), accessed November 13th, 2024, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1404606.

[7] “Atomic Archive,” last modified July 3rd, 1945, Leo Szilard’s Petition to the President | The Manhattan Project | Historical Documents | atomicarchive.com.

[8] Michael Armine, The Great Decision, (Van Rees Press: New York, 1959), 1.

[9] Michael Armine, The Great Decision, 1. 

[10] Michael Armine, The Great Decision, 24. 

[11] Atomic Archive, last modified 1945, Summary of Target Committee Meetings | The Manhattan Project | Historical Documents | atomicarchive.com.

[12] Richard Rhodes, last modified 2005, Richard Rhodes Welcome.

[13] Richard Rhodes, “The Making of the Atomic Bomb,” (New York 1986), 5.

[14] Bernard Brodie et al. “Jstor,” Atomic Power and World Order, 5, no 4 (1946), accessed December 10th,, 2024, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1404606

[15] Richard Rhodes, “The Making of the Atomic Bomb,” 6.

[16] Richard Rhodes, “The Making of the Atomic Bomb,” 716.

[17] Richard Rhodes, “The Making of the Atomic Bomb,” 716.

[18] Richard Rhodes, “The Making of the Atomic Bomb,” 722.

[19] Richard Rhodes, “The Making of the Atomic Bomb,” 722.  

[20] Richard Rhodes, “The Making of the Atomic Bomb,” 723.  

[21] Georgetown University, last modified February 2024, Collection: Anthony Cave Brown Papers | Georgetown University Archival Resources.

[22] Anthony Brown, “The Secret History of the Atomic Bomb,” (New York, 1997), 443.  24 Anothny Brown, “The Secret History on the Atomic Bomb,” 23. 

[23] Atomic Archive, last modified September 23rd, 1944, Memorandum to Dr. Conant, September 23, 1944 | The

Manhattan Project | Historical Documents

[24] Anothny Brown, “The Secret History on the Atomic Bomb,” 532.

[25] Michael Armine, The Great Decision, 83.

[26] Michael Armine, The Great Decision, 83.  

[27] Richard Rhodes, “The Making of the Atomic Bomb,” 697.

[28] Richard Rhodes, “The Making of the Atomic Bomb,” 697.

[29] “Atomic Archive,” last modified 1945, Atomic Energy for Military Purposes (The Smyth Report) | Historical Documents

[30] Anothny Brown, “The Secret History on the Atomic Bomb,” 370.

War by Alternate Means: Native American Boarding Schools in the 19th Century

  In the late 19th century, the United States saw the emergence of a multitude of government funded and operated boarding schools, as well as religiously operated boarding schools. Over 500 schools across 38 states operated between 1879 until approximately the mid 1960’s, each with a uniquely distinct student body. These residential schools were established, and systemically formulated in order to hold and ‘educate’ Native American children. A single common philosophy both connected and fueled each and every one of these boarding schools; “Kill the Indian, save the man”.[1] In 1879, Lieutenant Richard Henry Pratt was authorized by the United States government to establish the first school dedicated to ‘saving’ Native Americans as well as proving as a race, they can be educated. Pratt upheld the belief that through the process of assimilation into Anglo-American culture, Native Americans could successfully live and prosper among white standards of civilization and life. The Carlisle Indian Industrial School, founded in Carlisle Pennsylvania, was the first official government funded Indian boarding school of the time. This school was the first of many that would center the idea of assimilation through education as a saving grace for Native Americans and the Native American race. Children of these communities would be legally kidnapped, imprisoned and forced to attend these schools in an effort to put a stop to Indigenous lifestyles and its passage down to future generations, and destroy these customs and cultures to be replaced with a ‘civilized’ culture. Experiences across these institutions vary with few being considered positive and a majority ranging between poor and abysmal. While each school may have had its differences, their goals or philosophy remained constant, connecting them all through a shared objective; kill the Indian.  

Native American history after the introduction of white colonization becomes a tragic and violent segment of American and United States history. Regarded as simply a small facet of the larger, paler picture of American ideology, this history is constantly neglected, keeping it from deeper analysis and understanding. Primary sources such as records from the federal government or official school reports provide insight into a perspective that aims to justify these boarding schools, lasting damage and cultural genocide. Their goals of assimilation and cultural erasure (through violent means if deemed necessary by the offenders of said violence) is supported by an argument that paints a picture of righteousness, compassion and service. This concept is best recognized as a ‘white savior complex’ highlighting the incessant need to intervene by white communities in races and nations that did not ask nor need it. This argument, or perhaps better yet, this belief was that Native American populations were “savage”, particularly in comparison to Anglo-European standards. The culture, traditions, customs and people were positioned as less than that of white society and members of it, formally fixing whiteness at the top of a socio-racial hierarchy. As a result of this mentality, ‘saving’ these people and communities became understood as the duty of those who are properly ‘civilized’, and it is the duty of the educated, Christian and white to combat and correct Indigenous lifestyles. The belief was if Native ‘savages’ are to survive, they must do so through emanating civilization to the white standard, otherwise their barbaric ways of life would lead to their demise. Through the guise of salvation, white colonists believed the humane alternative to slaughtering Natives for their land and own peace of mind was to force Native children into schools that stripped them of their customs, cultures, identity, and in some cases, their lives. Is it possible to wage war through education? The United States in the 18th century saw the powerful emergence of these hostile Native American boarding schools, used as mechanisms of assimilation. Through these residential schools, Native American children resisted, conformed and lost their lives as a result of what could be considered alternative war. Alternative war, through education.

As with any historical line of study, approaches to research into the process, history and impacts of Native American boarding schools have varied. These variations are a result of influential social or political factors, becoming products that are farther in tune to their time period than historians may realize while they compile, and create. In addition to being influenced as well as an inevitable product of the time in which they were researched and written, historical works on a topic can also simulate a ‘road-map’ for modern historians to consider as an outline of comprehension on any given topic throughout history. Over the course of American history research and study, three major schools of thought have formed around the discourse of Native American boarding schools, each providing deeper insight into the broader understanding of this historical account.

The first school of thought is known as the ‘Traditional View’, as the title suggests, this school of thought is traditional in the sense of who is telling this story, how they are telling it and finally, why. This “view” is dominated by official government excerpts, and white influential individuals who often frame these schools as a natural process, essential for the benefit of America, (white) Americans and most importantly, the benefit of Native Americans. The traditionalist view is marked by the years of scholarly and historical work done prior to the 1960’s, before the federal government ended its participation in funding these residential academies in 1969. This historical view decidedly does not include first-hand testimonies of Indigenous children who experienced these institutions, or families who lost their younger members to these schools. As one may predict, these primary sources center the voices and testimonies of those who cannot critically analyze their own actions and ideologies as racist or misguided. More recent works in comparison to sources from the time, such as Church, State, and the American Indians: Indian Missions in the New Nations, published in 1966, include insight into the intersection between religion, and the ‘Indian mission’.[2] In this work, as well as similar works, authors such as Pierce Beaver tend to lack a critical understanding of the topic focusing mainly on the story of their formation from the perspective of those who formed them, even referring to the schools as a place where “Indians” could advance (or become accustomed to) their American conceptualizations of accepted morality.[3] This school of thought dominates a majority of American history related to this topic, with a shift in perspective arising as a result of an explosive Civil Rights era.

Less than five years after the publication of Beaver’s work, a new approach to Native American and Native American boarding school history began to take precedence. The second school of thought related to this historical line of inquiry is marked by the period of time between the 1970’s to the mid 1990’s. Known as the ‘Critical Revisionist View’, this school of thought shifts away from a narrative of justification and towards one that begins to emphasize the brutality and barbaric nature of Native American treatment throughout history. Rising in conjunction with Civil Rights movements and organizations, specifically the ‘Red Power’ movement, a civil rights movement advocating for the equal rights and protections of Native Americans in the United States and under the United States government. This view centers indigenous survivor testimonies, the role of systemic injustices and violence and prejudices rooted in white-supremacy. However, this school of thought still did not prioritize Indigenous authors, or historians to share their own history and experiences. The rise of this highly critical historical analysis particularly in association with the rise of Native American civil rights movements is a highly powerful influence to this line of historical study, and can be understood as a defining shifting factor between schools of thought and historical approaches to this historical narrative.

The third and final school of thought related to this history is known as the ‘Decolonizing Perspective’. This view and approach to Native American history and history of their schooling is marked by the late 1990’s, and is considered the current approach to this line of historical inquiry. This approach aims to center Native American scholars, testimonies and historians as the storytellers of their own history and experiences of their communities and people. This approach shifts beyond a view that creates a false image of Native American people as passive victims who simply accepted horrific treatment, with no agency or attempts of resistance against these oppressive and hostile practices. While these notions of history are not excluded in this modern approach, more focus is lent to examples of Indigenous children who survived, resisted and fought back against forced assimilation, in an attempt to uphold and retain their identities and culture. This school of thought is part of a historical movement committed to help aid in the healing of historically marginalized and oppressed communities by empowering members who  share identities with those who faced gross oppression. This perspective is helping Native populations to reclaim and properly share their stories, even for a portion of history that was directly dedicated to destroying those same identities.

If the United States waged war through a Trojan Horse of education, one might find it important to reasonably define war in order to compare the concepts. War is defined by the use of violence and force through a nation’s military in pursuit of a political goal.[4] This definition is slightly contradictory to what one might imagine would be the technical meaning or definition of what characterizes a war. One might assume war is characterized by a battlefield, strategy, weaponry and bloodshed, all of which carry a portion of truth to them however, all of which additionally paint the picture of literal war or more accurately, battle. In addition to force, for a conflict to be considered war, it typically includes a sense of organized force or strategy as opposed to violence alone. Furthermore, war typically carries with it destruction, death and widespread violence against an understood enemy. When researching this history, these characteristics can be reasonably applied to the story of Indigenous residential schools, leading one to a chilling conclusion of academic hostility against a community, through the youngest members of said community.

One might find themselves questioning why an Indigenous guardian would be willing to send their child, in a majority of cases, off their reservation and far away from home to be schooled by white people. The answer is fairly simple and most likely predictable if one has prior historical knowledge of American or Native American history. It was not a choice. Prior to complete federal involvement through policy and funding, all Native boarding schools were operated privately, most by Catholic institutions[5] with the distant support of state and federal governments. Towards the end of the 19th century marks the beginning of the federal government and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) efforts to become more centrally involved in this process of ‘educating’ Native Americans through existing Indian policy. This existing Indian policy originally belonged to the Secretary of War and the same department, due to a contested past and relationship prior even to this time.[6] Eventually, this Bureau was converted to the Department of the Interior (DOI) which took and continues to take responsibility for issues related to Native Nations and their reservations, including issues of legality, sovereignty and United States government outreach. Through the BIA and efforts of the federal government, policies regarding Native American education began to take root. Treaties between Indigenous nations such as the Sioux agreed to these educational practices, considering them a service of the United States government to Native communities and their children as well as their futures. Motivated by a desire for more territory, the idea was an ‘educated Indian’ required less land than a ‘wild Indian,’ this idea contrasted the belief that Native Americans were incapable of civilization, eventually pushing for more involvement and support from both the government and public.[7] Policies enacted by the federal government through the Bureau of Indian Affairs required Indian children of the appropriate age to be taken from their homes and families to attend these schools via “proper means”.[8] These policies were not originally considered priority by many states and institutions, however in 1887 a series of legislations passed through the BIA, including the Dawes Act (1887), made eluding federal school requirements for children and families more difficult. Additionally, the Dawes Act officially and legally allowed for said ‘proper means’ of removal and relocation to these residential campuses in question, to be that of force. Federal and state officials now had given themselves legal standing over sovereign communities to essentially kidnap Indigenous children from their families and reservations and force them to attend a school that would strip them of their cultural identity against their will.

The United States government made no mistake when targeting the youngest members of Native American tribes through their boarding schools.[9] This approach was extremely plotted and strategized in order to achieve two specific socio-political objectives towards the advancement of a white-centric American society. The ulterior motives of the United States behind helping Indigenous populations are both straightforward and ambiguous. The first that one might consider ‘straightforward’ is the deep-rooted desire to expand westward and expand the territory of the United States, a desire that established Native Americans as obstacles rather than people, who had been occupying the land first. The second, possibly more ambiguous motive is rooted in racial and racist ideologies tactically carried out and enacted by the federal government through these institutions in order to position white people, the culture, religion and customs sternly at the top of a social and political hierarchy. Due to the fact that education became the popular alternative to strategized murder because of economic concerns held by the federal government, if Native Americans and white colonizers were expected to be neighbors, an ideal of superiority and inferiority would need to be instilled through acculturation. Prior to the Dawes Act, otherwise known as the General Allotment Act, the accepted form of schooling for Native children was the typical day school. Children would go to school in the morning, and return home to their families in the evening, much like schooling as one may understand it today. However, concerns began to arise from officials and citizens alike, claiming that children could not fully avoid a “savage” upbringing if they simply return home to continue to be raised by their ‘uncivilized’ families and communities. In order to combat these concerns, the shift from day schools to residential schools was officially made, under this new strategy Native children would be taken from their homes and reservations at a young age, and allowed to return only after they reached the age of a young adult and completed their education. For an overwhelming majority of schools, this would mean students would not be allowed much, if any, contact with home, family or guardians nor would they be allowed visits. Essentially, this tactic was to ensure Native children would be completely isolated from their community and heritage. In this way, these children could be enclosed in a bubble of whiteness with little to no prospects of maintaining or learning their own cultural identity and effectively being fully indoctrinated into a white-centric society and culture. This shift was accompanied by the forceful nature in which the federal government employed its military to kidnap children and forcefully remove and relocate them to these residential institutions. Acculturation was no longer optional nor enforced leniently. This approach and these legislative acts also coincided with a new desire of the United States to begin taking individual records and consensuses of Native American people and communities on reservations.[10] With this angle, it would be difficult for Native children to avoid being taken or accounted for when it came time for them to be enrolled in school. Additionally, the United States government would have complete access to files and records containing nearly every one of their ‘enemies’ individually. It is clear in this way that these schools were not established in pursuit of “moral, intellectual, and social improvement of the Indians,”[11] as it was framed by official federal reports. This approach, or strategy, can better be understood as a piece of a larger plan that aimed to destroy Native populations through the education of their youngest members of their societies.

The transfer from day to residential schooling signifies the lengths of control the United States government would take in regards to Native American assimilation education. Through this use of military force and the passage of the Allotment Act, the federal government aimed and successfully accomplished an objective of disbanding and fracturing unity among tribes in order to replace tribal lands with more allotted land and space to the government for the use of its citizens.[12] By kidnapping and isolating the youngest members of a tribe, oppressors instilled a sense of fear in Native communities, fear of their children’s wellbeing, as well as extended violence against themselves and their communities back home. This political motive of land expansion is quite clear through the process of isolation, acculturation and resulting negotiations and land seizure. Dismantling the community from within through a process of separation between the younger and older generations in the community was not the only tactic exercised by United States and institutional officials. Through their white education and process of assimilation, ideologies of community reservations were replaced with the idea of individual land ownership, and farming as a means of life and prosperity. With more and more Native Americans choosing to own their own smaller plots of land to build and live on with their families in contrast to returning to their reservations and communities, which was highly discouraged by their new society as well as school officials following their graduation from these schools and departure into society as Americans.[13] With fewer Indigenous children returning home, advocacy and ownership over land became increasingly difficult and negotiations between Native nations and the federal government led to further expansion and apprehension of Native territory.[14] Through force, fear and a tactic of assimilation, the federal government and residential institutions effectively established a system that would inevitably create a vacuum of land for their enjoyment and usage. It is clear that a direct result and motive of schooling hinged on what could be gained by the United States and the society that was being established through what was being instilled in Native children, as well as proceeding negotiations and land gained for the country.

As one can observe in American history, studies of oppression and marginalization from one major group against another, are typically that of a racial basis. American history is plagued by systems and institutions put into place to uphold a racial and social hierarchy, fixing white people and whiteness at the top. Since the conceptualization of race and the ‘othering’ mentality[15] that came as a result of its invention – which was used as a justification for oppression – race has been a harbinger of violence and conflict throughout the history of the United States. Since European colonizers arrived in America, race has acted as a powerful driving force for much of the darkest parts of the country’s history, including that of the actions taken aggressively towards Native Americans. These actions were not taken simply against Indigenous people, but as a community with their own customs, deeply established and rooted on the lands desired for white colonizers and their own communities.

Race alone as an invention or discernible identifying factor does not necessarily bear conflict. Racism and proposed racial hierarchy, while a result of the invention of race, it is this decided intolerance that truly bears conflict and inevitable violence. Racism is the true centraldriving principle behind these boarding schools, and for people such as Lieutenant Richard Henry Pratt, it was this ideology of difference, status and inferiority that supported the belief that whiteness is superior to all others. It was important to white Americans that this hierarchy be established and not just understood, but agreed upon by Natives through an education that is both fueled by and teaches racism.[16] This racist ‘fuel’ helps to feed the idea that Native communities are placed significantly beneath white people and white culture and therefore must be saved, whether these nations are open to their ‘help’ or not.[17] Founded on the idea that Native children and people must be saved by erasing their current customs and cultures in order to make room for the decidedly superior white culture, these schools needed to integrate concepts of racial hierarchy in order to justify the steps and actions taken in pursuit and inside the walls of these residential schools. Furthermore, justification was not only a necessity for these schools to operate and function externally, but internally among the student body as well. If this was something that Indigenous nations and people were opposed to, or resisted against, the need to ‘help’ them was so great, it would turn to violence, coercion and force.

For as long as humans have worshiped gods and practiced religion, there have been conflicts, violence and war fueled by faith. Religion has long been a harbinger of violence, battle and adversity – and the experiences and history of Indigenous people in Native American boarding schools are no exception. The religious and cultural practices of Indigenous nations and people were yet another facet of society that was considered inferior to the white-centric society that was being forced into place for all inhabitants of the United States. Due to the earliest boarding schools being privately owned and operated by Protestant and Catholic institutions through the support of little federal funding, one might recognize the weight religion held on the process of assimilation. Religion guided virtuous civilized Anglo-American culture, similarly, religion guided the ‘savage’ culture of Native Americans, therefore religious assimilation was one of top priority since the original establishment of these residential schools.[18] To force entire nations – each with their own religious customs and traditions – to conform to a single, Christian form of religion, is an attack in itself. It is a blatant attempt to try and conquer an entire group of people from the inside out starting with their faith, which guided much of their lifestyle, especially at the time. This point becomes increasingly clear when one begins to consider the strategy behind educating children, and not physically battling adults for socio-religious dominance. 

Today, public schools, public education systems and even private education systems all vary in a multitude of ways. Schools within the same state and district can find themselves with less in common – in terms of process, administration, structure to name a few – than they would have originally thought. This same concept applies to that of these residential schools. The main differences between the ‘types’ of these schools lies with religion. Some schools were operated by Catholic institutions and managed by Catholic immigrant nuns, others centralized Protestant religious beliefs, similarly being operated by nuns, and finally very few academic institutions that were federally operated, minimized or disposed of the inclusion of religious assimilation practices. In author, educator and historian James T. Carroll’s work,[19] he researches the unique perspective of Catholic boarding schools and the nuns who managed them in the assimilation efforts of Indigenous children. The schools he focused on were primarily situated in both North and South Dakota, with the majority of their students being that of Sioux heritage. These institutions uncommonly created an atmosphere of compromise, and the women who ran them permitted much of the student body’s culture and customs to be maintained, even within the borders of campus in what is considered a sincere attempt to blend Catholicism and Sioux culture.[20] What was allowed was that which was deemed ‘acceptable’ or, in other words, not “too savage” to the average white American. What one might find most questionable is that the nuns managing these schools were hired by the federal government to “Americanize” Native children, when they themselves were new to American culture and society as immigrants. Hailing from countries such as Germany, France and Switzerland and finding themselves in these schools upon arrival, one might ponder what qualifications an immigrant who is new to America might have for teaching American values and customs? Had the main goal of these schools been to ‘Americanize’ or civilize Indigenous children, it seems the proper way to achieve this would be through American educators. However, the federal government’s consistent use of immigrant Catholic nuns symbolizes an ulterior motive, of which prioritizes not American culture, but whiteness or white culture. Even for immigrant religious women, who knew nothing more of the culture the United States was attempting to establish than Indigenous children and communities, they were trusted and hired due to their similar customs, and more importantly similar appearances.

Wars are not waged or fought without the intention of a political acquisition. Whether it be retaliation, land, resources or defense (among others), war is not fought with the intention to lose money, resources and lives. The United States federal government’s usage of boarding schools as a mechanism of assimilation into white culture was an attempt to erase an entire culture and the identities of those who belonged to it. The goal was to better suit Native ‘savages’ to live alongside white settlers, as opposed to the justification used, characterized as beneficial to Natives. The point of the schools in fact was not to ‘save the man’ but rather more specifically to ‘kill the Indian,’ in terms of each part of their identity, culture and religion in an attempted cultural genocide.[21] All actions taken and procedures formed are indicative of a goal aimed towards destroying the culture as well as the passage of culture to future generations. If white colonizers were expected to continue their expansion west and share lands with Native Americans, the only feasible way for this to happen would be if they assimilated to white standards. When applied to the concept of war, the political goal here can be recognized as instituting a society based on a racial hierarchy through an aggressive, ‘educational’ process of cultural genocide. This idea of genocide was hidden behind a guise of service, protection and prosperity for the Native nations, however in reality it was yet another attack on their lifestyle, representing nothing but an attitude of disparagement deeply rooted in a natural aversion to those who are ‘different’, or to put more simply, not white. This was a way to “kill the Indian” with the moral burden of literally taking their lives, or the economic burden of a physical genocide.[22] 

            The overwhelming employment of foreign educators and nuns in these institutions is a clear display of the United States priorities in ‘Americanizing’ and ‘civilizing’ Native Americans. It was all too common that white immigrant women would arrive in America and immediately begin work in these residential schools in an effort to help civilize these populations.[23] What one might find interesting about this dynamic is the fact that these immigrant women themselves, were not American. Similarly, new to the culture and customs the United States was building and abiding by, one might assume them unfit to the teachers of a society they themselves were not a part of. The difference between these immigrant women and Native Americans lies solely in the color of their skin and the closer resemblance their society and cultures operated. Through the usage and employment of women from countries such as Germany and Switzerland[24] to ‘Americanize’ Native Americans, the United States was establishing more than a mechanism of civilization, but rather a mechanism establishing white superiority. In teaching these children the civil American way, what was being instilled in reality was a sense of whiteness as a fixed priority to American culture, as well as an internal opposition to their own heritage. It is clear that Americans looked down upon the entirety of Indigenous culture and way of life and went to extreme lengths to replace an entire race and ethnic identity in pursuit of dominance. Because priorities shifted from genocide to assistane due to concerns of costs in order to overtake Native land, this meant white populations would be expected to neighbor with Native populations. In this case, it seems “save the man” was intended more for the white man and his peace of mind of what he finds acceptable, rather than the true benefit of Indigenous children and communities. These schools, above all, were established to “civilize” Native Americans, based on what Anglo-American settlers considered civilized by their own standards of living. Additionally, in doing so the racial hierarchy was instilled even deeper into the fabric of United States government and society. The United States government took the opportunity of schooling to instill this sense of white superiority in non-white students, creating what is essentially brainwashed individuals, forced into abiding by standards of a society that depends on their oppression.

            Primary sources from students during their time in these residential schools provide many interesting insights, in both what could be considered a positive and negative light. Author and professor of Native American literature Jacqueline Emery’s work, Recovering Native American Writings in the Boarding School Press, compiles a wide arrangement of primary accounts of students in school newspapers. The papers are sourced from a few schools, as not many allowed their students a school press. The papers were student run and featured many different submissions from their student body. The sources and newspapers include short stories as a way to maintain cultural heritage through storytelling, as well as editorials from students based on their opinion of schooling and what they were being taught and more. Things like a school newspaper became an outlet for students to maintain their identities as Native Americans, or find a platform to express themselves as new Americans. In this way, sources such as this provide a look into forms of both resistance and full assimilation from the students who experienced this education first hand. One source written by a young Native school boy, details the way in which he now looks down upon Native customs and culture in comparison to white society and Christianity. Joseph Du Bray uses words such as “Indian”, “civilized”, and “foolish”[25] when describing Native customs, of which he was once a part of with a clear recollection of events, and some formative upbringing. “Before the Indians became civilized they used to have foolish accustoms. I will tell you a few of them…”[26] It is clear the language Du Bray chooses here and his opinion on the subject matter are a result of his upbringing and education. Referring to himself and his people as ‘Indians’ as opposed to their actual Native nationality would have been something that was reiterated in his schooling, including the belief that prior to United States intervention, Native nations were uncivilized. Furthermore, the use of the word “foolish” against his own customs, which he recounts with clear memory of living with and being taught prior to his time at school, is highly indicative of an environment that emphasized the idea that being Native and Native culture was significantly inferior to white culture. Without the intervention of the United States and religious missionaries, would Du Bray have ever felt this way about his own culture, heritage and people? Would he truly have considered white culture superior to his as he implies, without the efforts of assimilation and brainwashing provided by the United States government? Sources such as Du Pray’s provide one with the ability to see the actual successful results of assimilation on individuals and how it would come to benefit the United States and its ideologies of white superiority. 

            Does it seem wise to send a child to a school with its own cemetery? The implications of an on-site cemetery are grim, and while the practice itself was not uncommon, it is who is being laid to rest in these cemeteries that are cause for concern. More commonly reserved for religious institutions, religious leaders and staff, schools reserved for the acculturation of Indigenous youth confronted a death toll that centered around the student body, as opposed to staff.

Nearly every residential school had its own graveyard, most likely initially intended for the use of staff, the cemeteries quickly became overpopulated with students who would lose their lives to abuse, disease, neglect and mistreatment.[27] These institutions were framed and justified as constructive and valuable to the civilization and successful lifestyle of Native Americans, though, were this genuinely the case one might safely conclude that the students here would not be losing their lives at a steep rate due to neglect. This was due in part to conditions of the school and school life for children as a result of frugal and abusive practices. The idea had been presented that schooling Native children would cost half the price of which it would cost to engage in war with Native Nations. Projected costs to take the life of a single native were seen at 1 million dollars, whereas educating the native would cost about $1,200.[28] These economic concerns fueled an ideology that separated violence from the education being inflicted upon Native children and by extension, their Nations. For American policy makers as well as school and government officials, it was the cheapest, most virtuous form of war that could be conceptualized against the entirety of the Native American population in the United States. The frugal practices in question are gross examples of neglect against children who were regarded as disposable due simply to their heritage and ethnicity. Proper nutrition, food preparation and food services to the children were not commonplace across these schools, leading to hundreds of students dying as a result of malnutrition or starvation, in fact, it was more common for institutions to use food as rewards and punishments.[29] In addition to improper meal services, students were provided with poor clothing that was not suitable for weather or disease ridden conditions. Furthermore, it was no beneficial factor that an overwhelming majority of these institutions experienced overcrowding to levels that proved hazardous for student health and the spread of disease.[30] If the goal was to ‘save’ Indigenous children’s lives through assimilative education, how could circumstances be so poor that they could go so far as to take them?  In order to manage the death toll at a single boarding school, school officials would send a child who was near death, home to their families and guardians so as not to add to their rising tallies.[31] While this was not the case for all schools – some being much kinder to their students and their students’ culture[32] – an overwhelming majority of these schools were guilty of mistreating students in a multitude of ways. The justification of a white man’s ‘salvation’ does not stand in the face of the conditions of neglect and loss of life that resulted. It is clear that those who were in a position of power to establish these dynamics regarded the schools as a cheaper, nicer, alternative to war. However given the extreme levels of neglect, it seems that the goal of assimilating or “killing” the ‘Indian’ were of a higher priority than the wellbeing, and even lives,  of children.

            School is meant to be regarded as a safe space for children, to provide them care and assurance for their lives and more importantly, their futures. Based on records and sources, one can only conclude that this was not the case nor the goal of a single Native American boarding school established. Sadly, neglect and poor conditions were not the only causes for concern a child might hold while attending one of these institutions. Cases of physical, sexual and emotional abuse were all too common for an overwhelming majority of institutes and students. Due to the federal foundations of these institutions and the fact that their existence is dependent on a mentality of racial and cultural inferiority, accountability for these instances of abuse were virtually non-existent.[33] The violence faced and experienced are indicative of a system whose primary goal is not to benefit Natives as individuals, or a race. Given the fact that the true nature of these schools was to act as a backdoor for a physical war, in a more creative process of destruction and land seizure as opposed to a violent one,[34] mistreatment and death were no cause for concern nor investigation at the federal or institutional level. One educator, John Boone[35] was accused and found guilty by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for sexually assaulting over 140 young Native school boys, and faced zero repercussions by the Hopi School, where he worked or the federal government. Accounts and accusations of abuses of any kind from students against faculty are sporadic, due largely in part to the fact that these accusations were ignored and remained uninvestigated by school officials in attempts to protect their staff. Additionally, due to the lack of federal protection from instances such as sexual abuse, schools would not only choose to not reprimand staff, but outwardly refuse.[36] The lack of basic human protections in these institutions from both the federal government as well as school officials paint a haunting picture of what the average life was like for students, and what these children experienced daily, for years. It seems that based on the average treatment, these schools were considered less of schools and more of housing institutions, where crime against Native youth was acceptable on account of an education that was not for them but an act of violence against them, and their culture. Because America and white Americans had a strong desire to continue to expand west, and needed a morally permissible and cheap alternative to genocide, there was little regard for their protection and well-being. In short, the experience at these schools was extremely violent and devastatingly poor, and as one can presume, not because it is the ideal learning environment. Rather, conditions and experiences were so dreadful for a majority of students who attended because it was not about their education, but control, under white dominance and a racial hierarchy that centralized white superiority. In a society by this design, Anglo-American populations could find themselves in a place where abuse was acceptable, of which many would take advantage in an ongoing conflict of culture and territory. Modern federal and historical investigations estimate the cost of young children’s lives to be nearly 1,000, across over 500 schools, many of whose families were never informed and their bodies buried in unmarked graves. Actions that much more reflect a singular goal of ‘killing the Indian’ rather than saving them, in any regard.

            Given the mistreatment, the widespread philosophy and the assimilative nature of these schools, it is no surprise that Indigenous students and adults alike, resisted this overwhelming oppressive force. Unfortunately, as discussed earlier, attending these schools was not a matter of choice for Native American children or their guardians after the passage of the Dawes Act in 1887. People are not prone to comply with oppressive powers, nor do they resist in the face of systems that are harmless to their well being.[37] In order for a conflict to reach a level of war, there must be two sides fighting, and Native American populations fought despite narratives that portray them as docile or accepting of oppressive powers. Not all Native Americans were resistant, some embracing the ‘help’ of the United States and assimilation into a white culture, however a vast majority did not accept this treatment and tried to the best of their abilities to fight back, or hold on to their heritage. If resistance to attendance was no longer  plausible, Native children would find ways to resist within the walls and confines of the school. Finding ways to maintain their identities, culture, traditions and language by any means they could conceive, while simultaneously avoiding detection and repercussions from school officials. Some forms of student defiance can be understood as more positive in efforts of cultural maintenance. These efforts would lead to the development of a ‘sub-culture’ among students that was formed in direct defiance of strict school rules and regulations, as well as neglect.[38] The crime of stealing became common among schools and integrated into this resistant subculture, in an effort to combat mistreatment that would inevitably lead to malnutrition and starvation for many Native children. Stealing and sharing of food to combat hunger was a defining characteristic of community and resistance among these schools, bringing students together in support of each other, against what they felt and recognized as oppressive forces.[39] The frequency of reported instances of stealing and organization among students to work together to steal is representative of how often large numbers of students were abused through food at the direct hands of these institutions. Another common form of resistance across schools was the usage of Native language despite its usage being forbidden in favor of the English language. Older students would guide younger students, teaching them when it was safest to speak and how to successfully avoid being caught by school officials.[40] In these ways, community and culture was able to be maintained in secret, providing at least a partial positive outlet for indigenous children to maintain their identities and connections.

Connection, community and heritage were not the only forms of resistance taken by the students of these boarding schools. Suicide was highly common as a form of escape for many Indigenous children attending these institutions and experiencing their brutal realities.[41] Conditions so poor and dire that they lead children to a point where the best possible means of escape is death. These systems were not designed with the best interest of these communities and children in mind. In order to resist mistreatment, abuse or rejection from the major Anglo-American society taking over the entire territory of the United States, some students would even attempt to run away from home, despite the design of these schools being specifically that prospects of making it back to their home reservations were dim due to their distance from reservations. When caught, students who attempted to flee the schools would be punished severely, reports of shaven heads were common as a result of this attempted escape.[42] Another account of harsh punishment shares the experience at a school where “language offenders,” or students who had been caught speaking their native language, would be punished routinely by having a needle stuck through their tongue.[43] In some cases resistance was successful and in others, it added to the misery being faced by these young indigenous children.

The tragic story of Native American oppression at the hands of the United States federal, state and local governments, as well as its citizens operating under the influence of a deep-rooted white-centric American hierarchy, is still a very prevalent issue indigenous communities face in contemporary times. Federal financial support for Native American boarding schools and Native American education was officially concluded in 1969, coinciding with the rise of the Red Power movement in the late 1960’s, a civil rights movement fighting for the equality and rights of Indigenous communities and people. However, oppression against these communities did not end with the conclusion of financial support. Traces of racism and generational trauma both contribute to startling statistics of poverty, suicide, mental health and racial violence faced by the Native American community today. Psychological and historical studies reveal the connections between these shocking statistics of life for Native individuals and communities and the historical violence and oppression they have faced for centuries, continuing well into the twenty-first century. Studies reveal the psychological effects of intergenerational trauma of Native residential schools, being that of a lack of compassion.[44] An analysis of this effect furthermore extends into higher risks overall of ‘negative behavioral patterns’ including substance abuse.[45] Trauma related to this history results in a mentality of ‘historical loss’ shared among members of a historically marginalized group.[46] This mentality feeds into the issues related to low self esteem and that of loss, loss of land, family, culture, autonomy and more can deeply affect the mental health of not one single person, but an entire community. Given the cause and effect relationship between United States intervention, followed by the United States’ abandonment of a community that was cultivated to be dependent on their oppressors,[47] coupled with over 100 years of an education designed to instill deficit ideologies of identity within thousands of members of a single community, it comes as no surprise that Native communities face such negative circumstances of life on a grand scale. The United States was highly successful in their objective to dismantle and destroy their ‘enemy’ to a degree that is still felt to this day. Furthermore, had the call for Native equality not been so powerful during the Red Power movement, the United States may have continued their funding of Native educational institutions. Oppression against Native communities was not simply a ‘product of the times’ so to speak, rather a system that was intentionally established and continues to be intentionally benefited off of by people and communities in positions of power.

  In an article published by The Washington Post in 2024, researchers spent a year investigating the true number of lives lost in, and at the hands of these residential schools, and furthermore, by the federal government.[48] The official number reported by the United States government was close to 1,000 lives lost, through an investigation of official government and school documents, as well as testimonies and sources of students who attended these schools, the Washington Post’s research team and investigation revealed the true nature of death resulting from these school was more accurately, well over 3,000. This research highlights many troubling aspects that further illustrate the cruelty of these institutions, as well as the United States government and people. Records indicate that around 800 of these children lost their lives and were buried on school property in unmarked graves, many having died with no notice home to inform family. Additionally, the intentional, or unintentional inaccuracy of the reported death toll further emphasizes the continued disregard the United States government had, and has for Native communities. The loss experienced is a direct result of American intervention, and colonization. Research and analysis today into the history, impacts, and reparations surrounding assimilative residential schools continue to reveal the brutal treatment and negative effects Native children faced. Historical authors and researchers that can be considered part of the decolonizing historiographical perspective such as Judi Gaiashkibos help to shine a light on the violence and cruel nature of these schools, and how it affected children and for Gaiashkibos, family; “These were not schools, they were prison camps. They were work camps.”[49] The inability to take full accountability and accurately represent the lives of children lost, even as recently as 2024, further emphasizes the success of this racist educational strategy of centering whiteness in American culture, as well as domination over the multiple nations of people deemed ‘savage’. Continued investigation into this harsh history also highlights the continued impacts that are still very much felt by indigenous communities today, who continue their effort in framing these schools out of a perspective of education and into violence, or more accurately, war against Native Americans.

The history of Native American boarding schools is one of violence, force, assimilation and white superiority. The children who attended these institutions experienced exploitation, abuse and mistreatment in a variety of ways, simply because staff and officials could treat them this way, and accepted it because they had effectively positioned them as people lower than that of white people. The United States government employed the usage of their military to forcefully relocate and kidnap children from their homes and reservations, to specifically brainwash and assimilate them into what was deemed ‘civilized culture’. This system and process was unkind and cruel, with thousands of children dying under the care of government funded schools that forced them against their will to attend. Using the children for exhausting work and starving them of food to the point where they began to band together and steal food can not be framed as beneficial for their lives and futures as Americans, of which they never asked nor necessarily agreed to be. Targeting the youth in order to instill fear, dismantle unity from within, and use this fracturing of community to further negotiate more and more land for the allotment of the United States was the purpose of these institutions. Additionally, brainwashing the youth into believing white culture is superior to their own, and even accepting their lower position in this hierarchical society based on race. In order to save money, and remain moral in some ways, while still gaining what was desired, boarding schools designed specifically to educate and assimilate Native youth were the perfect way to carry out “killing the Indian”. In order to cater to the comfort of Anglo-Americans who would be living side by side with Natives, their dominance would have to be solidified in a new American order. These tactics, strategies, mindsets and approaches paint a picture of violent assault on a community to a shockingly high degree. Rather than engage in a war with weapons, ‘man versus man’, it was an alternative war of ideology and identity. The United States attacked their enemy through their impressionable, youngest   generations and abused them into compliance and assimilation in order to achieve a society, social rank and allotments of land that were acceptable, and beneficial for the white majority. 

Native American history after the introduction of white colonizers is one of the darkest and most negative parts of the United States and Native American history. The mistreatment of these children can only be understood as an act of war against Native Americans, in a way that was more morally acceptable than blatant violence and bloodshed. The abuse faced in these institutions cannot be justified as beneficial or useful methods of learning by any means, leading only to harm, death and trauma that extends beyond generations and affects the lives of Native individuals, communities and relations with the United States government today. The mistreatment and little regard for the well-being and lives of indigenous youth, coupled with the resulting socio-geographical gain won by the United States was no mistake. The educational residential institutions may have been framed as beneficial and supportive of Native success and longevity of the race, however actions and results speak of a different narrative.

In order to secure Natives into the lowest rungs of a white centric society, seize their land and finally, legally abuse and murder them, (all while remaining financially conscious) these schools were established. How could the exploitation of students for physical labor relate to the language they speak or the religion they follow? While not all schools shared the same horrors of violence, some even being fairly positive places, the goal was always the same: “Kill the Indian, save the man.” Had concerns of faith and costs been different, or balanced in the opposite direction the call to war would have been much clearer and far less sneaky. The purpose of these institutions, above all, was to enact war against an entire people and their way of life in a subtle, yet nearly equally violent manner. In this way the United States effectively waged an alternate form of war, through the guise of salvation and education.

Native American history is one of, if not the most neglected history of the Americas. For most American students, the chances of learning more about Native Americans past the fictitious happy narrative of the first thanksgiving is rather slim. Educators of history, both future and present, have the opportunity to join the historical reconciliation movement that has arisen with the decolonizing perspective of Native American histories. Truth is of the utmost importance in the history classroom if we are to help students better understand the present through the history of their home. Secondary students are not in need of a sugar coated narrative of history, and would much more benefit from an understanding of history that faces the truth, even the darkest  parts head on, instead of sweeping them aside to maintain a happy image of the United States. Furthermore, as previously mentioned Native populations face some of the most grim statistics of any other group in the United States, due in part to the history of assimilation boarding schools, as well as many more aspects of history that continue to go untold. It is important for educators to learn and acknowledge these histories, not only in pursuit of historical reconciliation, but to analyze and understand the many ways in which schooling can be used as a tool for success, as well as manipulation. In a time where teaching history is as contested as ever, it has never been more important to understand education in this way, to ensure it is being taught for the good of our students, and not for ulterior motives.

References

Adams, David. Education for Extinction: American Indians and the Boarding School     Experience, 1875-1928. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1995.

Beaver, R. Pierce. Church, State, and the American Indians: Indian Missions in the New Nations. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1966.

Carroll, James. Seeds of Faith: Catholic Indian Boarding Schools. New York: Garland Publishing Inc., 2000.

Crawford, Neta C. “What Is War Good for? Background Ideas and Assumptions about the Legitimacy, Utility, and Costs of Offensive War.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 18, no. 2 (2016): 282–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148115613662.

Devens, Carol. “If We Get the Girls, We Get the Race: Missionary Education of Native American Girls.” Journal of World History. Vol. 3, No. 2 (1992).

Emery, Jacqueline, ed. Recovering Native American Writings in the Boarding School Press. University of Nebraska Press, 2020.

Haig-Brown, Celia. Resistance and Renewal: Surviving the Indian Residential School. Canada: Tillacum Library, 1988.

Henriksson, Markku. The Indian on Capitol Hill: Indian Legislation and the United States Congress, 1862-1907. Helsinki: Finnish Historical Society, 1988.

Hill, Edward, E. Guide to Records in the National Archives of the United States Relating to American Indians. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service, 1981.

Lomawaima, K. Tsianina, Bryan McKinley Jones Brayboy, and Teresa L. McCarty. “Editors’ Introduction to the Special Issue: Native American Boarding School Stories.” Journal of American Indian Education 57, no. 1 (March 1, 2018): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1353/jaie.2018.a798593.

McBride, Preston. “Indian Boarding School Deaths, Burial Sites Far Exceed U.S. Government Counts.” Washington Post, December 22, 2024. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2024/native-american-deaths-burial-sites-boarding-schools/.

Piccard, Ann. Death by Boarding School: The Last Acceptable Racism and the United States’ Genocide of Native Americans. Gonzaga Law Review 49, no. 1 (2013-2014): 137-[vi]

Sebwenna-Painter, Kaitlyn, Amoneeta Beckstein, Sue Kraus, “Psychological Impacts of Historic Loss and Current Events Surrounding American Indian Boarding Schools.” American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research. Vol. 30, 2023. https://coloradosph.cuanschutz.edu/docs/librariesprovider205/journal_files/vol30/30_2_2023_1_sebwenna-painter.pdf.

Smith, Andrea. “Boarding School Abuses, Human Rights, and Reparations”. Social Justice 31, no. 4 (2004): 89-102. https://login.tcnj.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/boarding-school-abuses-human-rights-reparations/docview/231920785/se-2.

United States. Office of Indian Affairs: Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, for the Year 1891. 60th (1891). 


[1] David W. Adams, Education for Extinction: American Indians and the Boarding School Experience, 1875–1928. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1995), 56.

[2] Pierce R. Beaver. Church, State, and the American Indians: Indian Missions in the New Nations. (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1966).

[3] Beaver, Church, State, and the American Indians, 25.

[4] Neta C. Crawford, What is War Good For? Background Ideas and Assumptions About the Legitimacy, Utility, and Costs of Offensive War, 18 (The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2016).

[5] Markku Henriksson, The Indian on Capitol Hill: Indian Legislation and the United States Congress, 1862-1907. (Helsinki: Finnish Historical Society, 1988), 96.

[6] Henriksson, The Indian on Capitol Hill, 21.

[7] Henriksson, The Indian on Capitol Hill, 98.

[8] United States Office of Indian Affairs, Annual report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, for the year 1891, 60th. (Washington D.C.: Office of Indian Affairs, 1891).

[9] Carol Devens, Journal of World History, “If We Get the Girls, We Get the Race: Missionary Education of Native American Girls”, 3. (Hawaii: University of Hawaii), 223.

[10] Edward E. Hill, Guide to Records in the National Archives of the United States Relating to American Indians. (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service, 1981), 29.

[11] Hill, Guide to Records in the National Archives of the United States Relating to American Indians, 30.

[12] Hill, Guide to Records in the National Archives of the United States Relating to American Indians, 29.

[13] David Adams, Education for Extinction: American Indians and the Boarding School Experience, 1875-1928. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1995), 301.

[14] Hill, Guide to Records in the National Archives of the United States Relating to American Indians, 155.

[15] Tsianina K. Lomawaima, Bryan McKinley Jones Brayboy, and Teresa L. McCarty, Editors’ Introduction to the Special Issue: Native American Boarding School Stories, Journal of American Indian Education 57, no. 1. (Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 2018).

[16] Ann Piccard, Death by Boarding School: The Last Acceptable Racism and the United States’ Genocide of Native Americans, no. 1. (Gonzaga Law Review 49), 141.

[17] Piccard, Death by Boarding School.

[18] Beaver, Church, State, and the American Indians.

[19] James T. Carroll, Seeds of Faith: Catholic Indian Boarding Schools. (New York: Garland Publishing Inc., 2000).

[20] Carroll, Seeds of Faith, 170.

[21] Piccard, Death by Boarding School, 155.  

[22] Andrea Smith, Boarding School Abuses, Human Rights, and Reparations. (Social Justice Vol. 31, No. 4, 2004), 90.

[23] Carroll, Seeds of Faith.

[24] Carroll, Seeds of Faith, 15.

[25] Jacqueline Emery, ed., Recovering Native American Writings in the Boarding School Press. (Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 2020), 75.

[26] Jacqueline Emery, ed., Recovering Native American Writings in the Boarding School Press. (Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 2020), 75.

[27] Smith, Boarding School Abuses, Human Rights, and Reparations.

[28] Smith, Boarding School Abuses, Human Rights, and Reparations, 90.

[29] Celia Haig-Brown, Resistance and Renewal: Surviving the Indian Residential School. (Canada: Tillacum Library, 1988), 99.

[30] Smith, Boarding School Abuses, Human Rights, and Reparations.

[31] Adams, Education for Extinction.

[32] Carroll, Seeds of Faith, 170.

[33] Smith, Boarding School Abuses, Human Rights, and Reparations, 91.

[34] Devens, If We Get the Girls, We Get the Race, 223. 

[35] Smith, Boarding School Abuses, Human Rights, and Reparations, 95.

[36] Smith, Boarding School Abuses, Human Rights, and Reparations, 95.

[37] Haig-Brown, Resistance and Renewal, 5.

[38] Haig-Brown, Resistance and Renewal, 98.

[39] Haig-Brown, Resistance and Renewal, 99.

[40] Haig-Brown, Resistance and Renewal, 104.

[41] Haig-Brown, Resistance and Renewal, 123.

[42] Haig-Brown, Resistance and Renewal, 109.

[43] Haig-Brown, Resistance and Renewal, 16.

[44] Kaitlyn Sebwenna-Painter, Amoneeta Beckstein, and Sue Kraus, Psychological Impacts of Historic Loss and Current Events Surrounding American Indian Boarding Schools. (University of Colorado: Anschutz Medical Campus), 3.

[45] Sebwenna-Painter, Beckstein, and Kraus, Psychological Impacts of Historic Loss and Current Events Surrounding American Indian Boarding Schools, 3.

[46] Sebwenna-Painter, Beckstein, and Kraus, Psychological Impacts of Historic Loss and Current Events Surrounding American Indian Boarding Schools, 5.

[47]Adams, Education for Extinction, 337.

[48] Dana Hedgpeth Sari Horwitz Chikwendiu Joyce Lee, Andrew Tran, Nilo Tabrizy, Jahi, Indian Boarding School Deaths, Burial Sites Far Exceed U.S. Government Counts. (Washington Post, December 22, 2024), https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2024/native-american-deaths-burial-sites-boarding-schools/.

[49] Chikwendiu, Indian Boarding School Deaths, Burial Sites Far Exceed U.S. Government Counts.

Cultivating Virtues and Reasoning about the Common Good

            Before we delve into the realm of the common good, let us begin by looking at the overall matter of the common good. To promote the common good, individual interests need to be pushed aside for the well-being of society to create a more positive community. Michael J. Sandal’s literature expresses many concepts of the common good, society, and community. In order to get a sense of the common good we “…must find a way to cultivate in citizens a concern for the whole” rather than following individualism.[1] This leads us to the matter that more and more Americans move to gated communities and begin sending their children to private and boarding schools which defeats the purpose of the common good. These gated communities where the HOA (homeowners association) fees are ridiculously high, feature brand new and private amenities such as gyms, pools, parks, playgrounds, and literal gates to prevent outsiders from coming in. Some gated communities will have two security checkpoints and even a guard to make sure only residents of the community are entering. The need for “public” housing (I use quotes because it is open to anyone) is no longer desired as it used to be.

Homeowners used to crave land, yard space, and stand-alone houses with their own home gyms and pools but the craving has gone to housing communities. The desire to be in a gated community, with all these great amenities, has increased leaving more of these communities being built and nature destroyed. As for private and boarding schools, parents feel that their children need to be seeking a greater education when public schools can offer just that. Private schools can lead to diversity disasters and create social division and inequality.

Michael Sandel wrote a book titled Justice: What’s The Right Thing to Do? about three approaches to justice. Along with Sandel, I too agree with the third approach, “…justice involves cultivating virtue and reasoning about the common good,” nevertheless justice also includes freedom of choice and independence.[2] If people want to feel an extra sense of safety by living in a gated community, it is up to the homeowner but what is stopping someone from jumping the fence? Along with homeownership, families are moving to more affluent areas with great school districts to benefit themselves and their children or paying additional costs to send their children to private and boarding schools. Again, the common good focuses on community but at what cost if people are following the idea of individualism?

Public facilities such as pools, recreation centers, parks, libraries, and more would “…draw people out of their gated communities and into the common spaces” creating the sense of community that everyone was looking for.[3] Now, “The affluent send their children to private schools (or to public schools in wealthy suburbs), leaving urban public schools to the children of families who have no alternative. A similar trend leads to the secession by the privileged from other public institutions and facilities. Private health clubs replace municipal recreation centers and swimming pools. Upscale residential communities hire private security guards and rely less on public police protection. A second or third car removes the need to rely on public transportation. And so on. The affluent secede from public places and services leaving them to those who can’t afford anything else”.[4] It is as if the working class is left with leftovers and even less. Gated communities have created a space for the affluent to have no reason to leave unless they absolutely need to because of all the provided amenities.

Taking a look at private education, it is the root of many problems. Even though these private institutions are trying to work on solutions for racial, socioeconomic, and educational diversity and inequality, many schools still face a lack of diversity. Post-secondary education and even graduate schools face the issues of diversity. In the past, diversity rarely included race and ethnicity, it was mostly “…students from California, New York, and Massachusetts; city dwellers and farm boys; violinists, painters and football players; biologists, historians and classicists; potential stockbrokers, academics, and politicians,” it never included the physical and economic attributes of people.[5] Taking racial and ethnic backgrounds into consideration, students of color and ethnic diversity can bring what Caucasians and Whites can’t, which is diversity. When students share their experiences the audience can learn from others making an educational difference. Sharing stories from their past from cultures to religion, can educate others and create a more safe and comfortable environment.

Oral history is so powerful. Stories from the past are being preserved and told in a certain tone that impacts the audience making it stronger than reading text. Having students from all backgrounds can cultivate an enriching learning environment where everyone is learning the oral history of others which can also benefit them. These oral histories can prevent the audience from making mistakes made in the past, thus creating a learning and teaching moment.

Socioeconomic status has always been a barrier for children attending private institutions at all levels, leading to a lack of awareness of the different levels and situations people are in. Schools like Lawrenceville School require a tuition of seventy thousand dollars a year and for the average American, that is a yearly salary. If those who are sending their children to these exclusive schools are not going to be exposed to the variety of socioeconomic statuses that exist, and will only be mindful of their own. Having the privilege of attending a college preparatory school is not an option for everyone creating educational disparities. Some schools are trying to create more equal opportunities but that is not the case for everyone. A school in Texas named The Tenney School released a statement from the headmaster saying “The single biggest factor impacting diversity in private schools is tuition…it is very difficult to find diverse families who can afford private tuition…private schools do attempt to attract diverse students through scholarship programs, but at the end of the day, there will be some tuition to attend a private school,” meaning some type of tuition is always going to be on the invoice which only certain, most likely White, families can pay.[6]

College preparatory schools set children up for their future with a more advanced education that is catered to each child. Comparing this to a standard public school that is built around standards for the general population, these private schools give children a huge advantage when it comes to colleges and universities because of the institutions’ status, thus setting up the privately educated child to become successful in the future. Think of this like a chain of effects. If the parents make loads of money, they will live in a privileged area leaving them with two options; option one is to send the child to a very nice public school with everything that is possibly needed or send that child to a private school with everything and more. If option two is picked, the child will receive an education that is meant specifically for them, a higher chance of getting to an Ivy or public Ivy university, and lastly, a greater chance of a successful career and high salary. This chain of events will continue to this family’s future children and a never-ending cycle of private school privilege. From personal experience, where I went to school (South Brunswick, NJ), by the time some of my classmates reached sixth grade, they attended private schools, and for ninth grade, some went to boarding schools. Why? Because their parents felt that a private school would be needed to make their children more successful because of the advantages. The inequality margin is getting larger and larger every day because of the number of children attending private schools.

As I said previously, the common good is an independent choice, but why remove the concept when some are in need? Sandel agrees with his third reasoning for justice, “cultivating virtue and reasoning about the common good,” but the United States no longer fosters the same opinion.[7] Many in the US are fostering a more greedy mentality through actions like living in a gated community or sending their children to private schools. There is no longer a need for public facilities, but they can enhance the sense of community and create a place of belonging for children. Those who do not have access to private facilities could be going to public ones but that isn’t an option because the common good wasn’t kept up with and a fee is included with everything. An example of this would be the local dog park. In order to access, a high fee must be paid, but if you are not a resident of the town, you must pay an even higher one. Why have a park if you have to pay for it? The answer is easy. Greed. Towns need money and the only way to make it is through fees and payments. America needs to adopt a mentality that makes us think about others, not just ourselves. The only way we can better society is through working together but that is not possible if people are only looking out for themselves and how they can make it more luxurious.

Encouraging people to attend public schools and buy stand-alone housing not in gated communities is a start to increasing the sense of community and common good, but again, it is a choice and people have the freedom to do as they please. Taking that away from families is simply wrong, however, they should be aware of their actions and the consequences. Making the private school sector more available to all classes and providing information about the community can make everyone more aware. In gated communities, removing the facilities can increase families leaving and going to public ones, leading to fostering friendships and relationships with others. Asking the American people to do this after gated communities and private institutions are embedded in our society is a lot but the difference that can be made is even greater. I agree with Sandel and the concept of the common good, but asking the American people to believe in this when everyone has different values will be difficult, maybe even impossible.

            Social Studies is such a broad subject where students learn about the various cultures, races, ethnicities, and so on. It is one of the only core subjects taught in schools where students can take the time and learn from each other. They can tell personal stories, explain their cultures and traditions, and most importantly, listen to each other. My paper above is about the common good, one of the goods being public education. Private institutions take away the learning opportunities that public schools have to offer. At these institutions, there is one kind of group of kids: those of a higher socioeconomic status. With that being said, many of these kids are White. There is no opportunity to learn about various backgrounds and ethnicities. With my experience in public schools, I learned so much about different cultures and people. It really influenced me to think deeper about what other hardships people face in their lives. While I don’t have first-hand experienced life in a private school, I can speak on behalf of the many people I know who attend private institutions for their K-12 education. It is so simple, it’s not diverse.

            In order for students to be knowledgeable about the problems in this world, it is crucial they take the time to understand and learn from others. One student does not have the same life as another. Although they will never truly know what others have experienced, discussion is a great place to start. In high school, I took a sociology class that changed my perspective on life in general. We would discuss our backgrounds, cultural traditions, and  our family and family life. This class allowed me to learn what true diversity is, in turn, making me want to expose my future students to each other. Not enough credit goes out to students. They are not only listeners but they are teachers. They teach what teachers can’t, cultures and traditions. We can only talk about what we know but it is more personal when it comes from a true place and narrator. There is nothing more valuable than students sharing their experiences with their classmates, it builds a community.


[1] Michael J Sandel, Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009).

[2] Michael J Sandel, Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009).

[3] Michael J Sandel, Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009).

[4] Michael J Sandel, Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009).

[5]  Michael J Sandel, Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009).

[6] Is there a lack of diversity in private schools?, accessed May 13, 2024, https://www.usnews.com/education/k12/articles/is-there-a-lack-of-diversity-in-private-schools.

[7]   Michael J Sandel, Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009).

Reimagining AI in Social Studies: Four Educator Archetypes and the Path Forward

Michael Fullan’s 2011 paper Choosing the Wrong Drivers for Whole System Reform offered a powerful caution that still rings true today. Schools often rush to adopt new technology without the deeper instructional shifts needed to make it meaningful. Early in my teaching career, I saw this firsthand with the rollout of interactive whiteboards. The promise was exciting and the investment was significant, but the implementation fell short. Without the right training, support, and connection to instructional goals, many of those boards became little more than digital display tools.  They were not used the way they were intended, and the opportunity to transform teaching practice was largely missed.

We are at another crossroads. Just as interactive whiteboards once promised transformation but too often delivered status quo, AI now arrives with the potential to reshape how students think, write, and engage with civic life. Fullan reminds us that real, lasting change does not come from devices or tools alone. It comes from building instructional capacity, strengthening relationships, and creating coherent systems. In the age of AI, his warning is more relevant than ever. If we adopt these tools without clear purpose or thoughtful pedagogy, we risk repeating old mistakes with even more powerful technology.

In 2025, two major federal initiatives signaled a nationwide commitment to integrating generative artificial intelligence into education and educator development. In April, the White House issued Executive Order 14277, Advancing Artificial Intelligence Education for American Youth, which focused on expanding educator capacity and increasing student access to AI tools (Federal Register, 2025). Just months later, it released Winning the Race: America’s AI Action Plan, a strategy outlining more than 90 actions focused on expanding AI education, supporting teacher training, and ensuring equitable integration across learning environments (White House, 2025). While neither document names social studies directly, their emphasis on “fostering a culture of innovation and critical thinking” (Federal Register, 2025) has clear implications for K–12 social studies classrooms. Guidance from organizations such as the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), and Common Sense Media reinforces the need for educators to critically evaluate tools, protect student data, and promote responsible use of generative AI. However, national ambitions alone won’t shape daily classroom practice – teachers will. And to do that effectively, we must start by understanding where each educator is on the journey. Some are skeptical of AI’s role in civic learning. Others are experimenting with basic tools. A few are already transforming their practice in bold, creative ways.

This article introduces a four-archetype framework: Skeptic, Novice, Designer, and Trailblazer, to capture the diverse ways social studies educators are engaging with AI, each reflecting a distinct mindset and stage of instructional readiness. Each archetype is grounded in practical, student-facing classroom examples designed to support critical thinking, historical inquiry, and civic reasoning in an AI-powered world.

“I want students to wrestle with complexity—not rely on shortcuts. AI worries me because it might undercut the deep analysis and civic responsibility we’re trying to teach.”

Skeptics approach AI with deep caution, grounded in a firm belief that students should be thinkers, not just content consumers. They worry that AI tools may undercut historical reasoning, obscure authorship, or dilute opportunities for authentic civic learning. For these educators, AI is not neutral. They raise valid questions about equity, surveillance, and how easily confident-sounding misinformation can circulate unchecked. Their hesitation is often grounded in research on how students misinterpret digital content and confuse fluency with accuracy, a concern amplified in recent studies on AI-generated misinformation (Wineburg & Ziv, 2024). Yet even skeptical educators recognize the importance of engaging with these tools critically, so students are not left unprepared.

These activities emphasize critique, caution, and civic responsibility, helping students question AI rather than accept it at face value:

  • Facilitate an activity where students fact-check AI-generated historical claims using vetted primary sources.
  • Guide students to verify an AI-generated historical claim using lateral reading—opening new tabs to cross-check with trusted sources—and reflect on how polished responses can still be misleading (Wineburg & Ziv, 2024).
  • Have students use AI to generate a fake historical image or event description, then analyze it using Common Sense Media’s AI literacy principles to identify signs of manipulation and discuss real-world implications (Common Sense Media, 2025).
  • Use ChatGPT’s Study Mode to help students unpack a dense primary source, then lead a discussion critiquing how the AI framed key ideas and what it overlooked (Sawchuk, 2025).

“I’ve tested a few AI tools, but I’m still figuring out how to connect them to real learning, especially sourcing, analysis, and classroom discussion.”

Novices are intrigued by AI and willing to try it, but they’re still figuring out where it fits. Their experimentation often centers around one-off tasks, like generating an image for a warm-up or asking ChatGPT to summarize a reading. While eager to explore, they haven’t yet connected AI use to core social studies practices like sourcing, historical inquiry, or civic discourse. According to Hernholm (2025), even teachers who express curiosity about AI still need structured support, especially when it comes to tools, time, and training. As AI for Education (2024) notes, starting with small activities, like brainstorming prompts or using generative tools for warm-ups, helps build confidence without overwhelming teachers new to AI. These early successes lay the foundation for deeper exploration and help novices envision how AI might eventually align with their instructional goals. Structured tools like MagicSchool AI, Claude, Adobe Express, and NotebookLM give these teachers a way to test ideas in real classrooms while building the capacity to move from occasional use to intentional design. When AI is framed as a way to enhance, not replace, core learning goals, novices begin to shift from curiosity to confidence.

These entry points offer low-risk ways to explore AI tools while building confidence and connection to core social studies practices:

  • Use AI tools like NotebookLM to reorganize historical sources into thematic clusters, then have students analyze how the AI grouped them and evaluate the accuracy and bias of those groupings (Wasik, 2025).
  • Prompt students to use Claude.ai or ChatGPT to generate differing perspectives on a historical event, then evaluate them for bias and omissions.
  • Facilitate a role-play simulation using Character.AI, where students question historical figures and fact-check the responses.
  • Use Adobe Express to co-create civic posters or infographics with AI-generated draft text, then revise for accuracy and tone.

With the right support, tools, time, and professional learning – these educators begin moving from curiosity to confidence.

“AI gives us new ways to simulate civic life, reimagine debate, and engage students in building—and challenging—systems of power and justice.”

Designers integrate AI with purpose. They go beyond surface-level use to embed it into thoughtful lessons that support historical reasoning, civic writing, and student discourse. These educators treat AI as a tool to elevate, not replace, student learning. They maintain instructional control, designing experiences where students use AI to revise, question, and deepen understanding. They are clear about their instructional goals and use AI as a tool to help students engage more deeply with content. Designers are neither dismissive nor blindly enthusiastic. They see the promise of AI, but they also understand its limits.

Recent research supports this balanced mindset. Clark and van Kessel (2024) found that AI-generated lesson materials often reflect embedded assumptions or miss opportunities for meaningful inquiry. They encourage educators to treat AI as a collaborator that needs to be questioned and shaped, not a neutral source. Similarly, Klein (2025) reported that many AI-generated civics lessons lack depth and fail to promote the kind of student thinking social studies demands. Designers are aware of these limitations. That’s why they stay close to their pedagogical aims and use AI as a tool for design, not a substitute for it.

In the classroom, Designers guide students to use AI purposefully: drafting historical arguments, analyzing civic texts, or refining written responses. They help students question AI outputs and compare them to disciplinary thinking models. They use AI to scaffold participation for multilingual learners or struggling writers, while still expecting students to revise, debate, and cite. In short, Designers make AI useful by keeping it anchored in student learning.

These practices use AI intentionally to deepen historical reasoning, support civic discourse, and elevate student writing:

  • Use NotebookLM to create a video overview from source documents, then have students critique its accuracy and revise it to reflect stronger historical thinking (TechCrunch, 2025).
  • Use AI to model civic writing, like letters to elected officials or op-eds, followed by analysis of argument strength and tone.
  • Support multilingual learners by using AI to generate sentence starters, vocabulary scaffolds, or translated prompts (Szeto, 2024a).
  • Ask students to use AI to generate multiple historical perspectives on an event, then evaluate how each aligns with available primary sources and disciplinary thinking (Szeto, 2024b).

 ”AI lets us simulate debates, test civic arguments, and rethink how students engage with the past and present.”

Trailblazers are reimagining what’s possible with AI. They don’t just use tools, they create new experiences where students build, critique, and explore ideas at the intersection of technology and civic life. Their classrooms are laboratories for inquiry, civic action, and reflection. Trailblazers lead boldly but with intention, staying grounded in social studies goals like justice, democracy, and historical thinking.

These educators often lead professional learning, collaborate across content areas, and pilot new strategies. They guide students in building with AI, critiquing its limitations, and using it to examine democracy, memory, and power. They are not reckless with innovation; they’re intentional, equity-focused, and transparent about what AI can and cannot do.

Trailblazers also recognize that students must learn how to ask hard questions of systems, not just generate answers. Projects in their classrooms often blend social studies content with algorithmic thinking, civic action, and ethical reflection. While some of their work pushes the boundaries of what’s typical in a classroom, it remains rooted in the goals of social studies education: inquiry, citizenship, and justice.

These projects invite students to co-create with AI, interrogate systems, and use emerging tools for civic innovation and justice:

  • Lead an AI-powered civic simulation where bots draft policy proposals and students must revise or defend them using constitutional principles
  • Guide students to train their own lightweight LLMs on curated primary sources and analyze how outputs differ from general models
  • Have students investigate algorithmic bias or digital redlining using AI-generated maps or predictive tools and connect their findings to environmental justice or civil rights issues.
  • Have students use AI and local datasets, such as NYC Open Data, to take informed action by proposing policy solutions to real community issues, aligned to social studies standards.

Supporting all educators on the AI journey: A path forward

While archetypes offer a useful lens, sustainable integration of AI in social studies requires system-level support that recognizes where educators are and helps them move forward with clarity and confidence. Below are five key actions for leaders, curriculum teams, and policymakers to consider:

  1. Leverage Professional Learning Communities (PLCs)
    Some of the most powerful shifts in practice emerge through sustained, peer-driven collaboration. Districts and schools can embed AI integration into existing PLC structures by identifying and supporting Designers and Trailblazers as lead learners who model and share instructional strategies. Within these communities, Novices can build confidence through co-planning and reflection, while Skeptics are invited to engage in inquiry without pressure. PLCs foster collective efficacy, promote shared responsibility for innovation, and ensure that professional learning remains rooted in classroom practice.
  2. Provide tools, time, and trust
    Teachers won’t use what they don’t understand or don’t have time to explore. Access to quality AI tools, along with dedicated time to explore them meaningfully, is essential. As Hernholm (2025) reminds us, capacity grows when schools invest not just in technology, but in the people using it.
  3. Focus on student thinking, not just use
    Rather than measuring AI adoption in terms of tool usage, districts should evaluate how it supports disciplinary thinking, civic engagement, and student growth. AI that helps students revise a DBQ, analyze bias, or debate constitutional issues is more impactful than AI used to generate generic content. The goal isn’t AI integration; it’s better thinking.

Across all four archetypes, whether skeptical, curious, intentional, or trailblazing, one truth holds: AI is only as powerful as the pedagogy behind it. As Michael Fullan (2011) warned more than a decade ago, technology alone doesn’t drive meaningful change. Real impact comes from purposeful design, skilled teaching, and systems that support both.

Used thoughtfully, AI can scaffold reasoning, simplify complex texts, and provide fast, iterative feedback. It can lower the barrier to entry for drafting and help students engage with challenging sources they might otherwise avoid. For multilingual learners and struggling writers, it can act as a helpful drafting partner, not a shortcut, but a springboard.

But the risks are real. Without intentional framing, students may bypass the intellectual heavy lifting that defines social studies. AI can hallucinate facts, misrepresent sources, or mask bias in confident tones. As Dan Meyer (2024) reminds us, AI can do the heavy lifting of generating and organizing, but “we have to help teachers go the last mile.” That last mile is where historical thinking, civic reasoning, and disciplinary literacy live. It’s where students learn to evaluate claims, wrestle with complexity, and build arguments from evidence.

Each archetype contributes to that journey. Skeptics ground us in ethical questions. Novices push us to offer practical supports. Designers model how to integrate tools with intention. Trailblazers show what’s possible when innovation meets purpose.

AI can support great teaching, but it cannot replace it.  We are not preparing students to use AI for trivia. We are preparing them to ask hard questions of systems, sources, and society.

That is the heart of social studies.

AI for Education. (2024, March 12). Getting started with AI: A guide for educators. https://www.aiforeducation.io/blog/getting-started-with-ai

Clark, C. H., & van Kessel, C. (2024). “I, for one, welcome our new computer overlords”: Using artificial intelligence as a lesson planning resource for social studies. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 24(2). https://citejournal.org/volume-24/issue-2-24/social-studies/i-for-one-welcome-our-new-computer-overlords-using-artificial-intelligence-as-a-lesson-planning-resource-for-social-studies/

Common Sense Media. (2025, June 26). Deepfakes can be a crime: Teaching AI literacy can prevent it. Retrieved August 3, 2025, from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/kids-action/articles/deepfakes-can-be-a-crime-teaching-ai-literacy-can-prevent-it

Fullan, M. (2011). Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform. Centre for Strategic Education. https://theeta.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/eta-articles-110711.pdf

Guskey, T. R. (2014). Planning professional learning. Educational Leadership, 71(8), 10–16. Retrieved August 3, 2025, from https://tguskey.com/wp-content/uploads/Professional-Learning-2-Planning-Professional-Learning.pdf

Hernholm, S. (2025, June 19). AI in education: Why teachers need tools, time, and training. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahhernholm/2025/06/19/ai-in-education-why-teachers-need-tools-time-and-training/

Klein, A. (2025, June 30). Why AI may not be ready to write your lesson plans. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/technology/why-ai-may-not-be-ready-to-write-your-lesson-plans/2025/06

Meyer, D. (2024, May 3). The difference between great AI and great teaching [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH4Pn4bpOfQ

Sawchuk, S. (2025, July). What teachers should know about ChatGPT’s new Study Mode feature. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/technology/what-teachers-should-know-about-chatgpts-new-study-mode-feature/2025/07

Szeto, A. (2024a). AI and social studies: Supporting multilingual learners with generative tools. Teaching Social Studies. https://teachingsocialstudies.org/tag/english/

Szeto, A. (2024b). Enhancing Student Learning with AI-Powered Image Features Teaching Social Studies. https://teachingsocialstudies.org/tag/historical-perspectives/

TechCrunch. (2025, July 29). Google’s NotebookLM rolls out video overviews. https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/29/googles-notebooklm-rolls-out-video-overviews/

The White House. (2025, April 23). Executive Order 14277 of April 23, 2025: Advancing artificial intelligence education for American youth. Federal Register, 90, 17519–17523. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-04-28/pdf/2025-07368.pdf

The White House. (2025, July 23). Winning the race: America’s AI action plan [PDF]. Office of the President of the United States. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Americas-AI-Action-Plan.pdf

Wasik, B. (2025, June 16). A.I. is poised to rewrite history. Literally. The New York Times Magazine. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/16/magazine/ai-history-historians-scholarship.html

Wineburg, S., & Ziv, N. (2024, October 25). What makes students (and the rest of us) fall for AI misinformation? Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/technology/opinion-what-makes-students-and-the-rest-of-us-fall-for-ai-misinformation/2024/10

Book Review – The Poverty Paradox: Understanding Economic Hardship Amid American Prosperity

We educators at all levels are facing huge changes in the classroom—and some new and startling realities.  Namely, we are dealing with students who are homeless, hungry, abandoned, and poor.  Not only do we need to help students in K-12 schools with a wider variety of needs than in the past, we also need to help prepare teacher candidates and novice teachers with the tools and tolerance to help students who have a myriad of problems.

Backing up just a bit, we need to look at how these students got to our schoolroom door.  Where did they come from? Are they migrants? Are they native students?  How can there be so much poverty out there?

This technical discussion of why some people are poor in the richest country of the world will provide several theories for you to consider.  The author is an expert researcher and author on social welfare, poverty, and inequality.  Professor Rank proposes five major reasons or factors as to why people are poor.

Rank shows the historical context in which poverty has blossomed in our nation and has targeted certain persons, races, neighborhoods, and parts of the country.  He talks about patterns.  He provides in-depth explanation of each of the factors driving poverty.

You will have to read this technical account of the situation and digest the graphs and charts making it clear that poverty is a much greater problem than just a few poor people out there.  Rank provides a great deal of information about how we got to where we are.

Rank reminds us that it is popular in America to think of poverty in terms of the behaviors and actions of the individual.  People often erroneously assume it is the individual causing all the poverty in our country.  It is the laziness of a few.  It is the refusal to try harder. 

Many such stupid beliefs stand in the way of solving the issue of poverty in America.

Looking at the history, and the system, and the pattern of poverty is essential.  It takes an understanding of all such aspects—and more—to come to a comprehension that is informed by all the research and stories of the poor.

I recommend this book to professors of social work, economics, political science, and counselors helping the homeless—and others suffering from the grasp of poverty.  Educators and street helpers, also, can get a lot out of this advanced discussion of poverty in a rich nation. 

We all need to develop our own take on this complicated web of causes and continuity in this thing called poverty.  We all want to help those suffering.  We all want to figure it out quickly and get to work changing the world.  However, solving the poverty problem with one attempt cannot achieve much. 

It is over time that we will need to consider the information out there and attempt to digest a complicated landscape of data and tendencies.  Through books such as this one, we may begin to figure out the blueprint.

As with most of my reviews, I do not wish to provide all the key facts here but give you hints, categories, and classes of content.  Your reading of the book to get your own understanding is of course crucial. 

I would recommend you obtain a copy of this book for both your personal and professional libraries.  You have both, don’t you?

Book Review-Homeless Outreach and Housing First: Lessons Learned

Jay S. Levy has written an excellent book for aldermen, social workers, counselors, taxpayers, nurses, street helpers, and many others to read.  It is excellent because of how it gets the reader into the topic and provides clear definitions and examples.  *See the two articles below for more explanation of this important topic, housing first.

This book looks like a workbook, actually.  It is a thinner paperback, and it is a brief and clear guide about not only providing outreach to get people ready to be housed but also moving ahead with the well-known strategy of using “housing first.”  Housing first is the successful—but underused—process of getting persons indoors right away in the move to solve homelessness.  Rather than making people jump through a dozen hoops, plus half-way houses and shelters, plus appropriate counseling, housing first gets the person stable housing so that all of the other pieces can fall into place.

The phenomenon of housing first, developed by Stefancic and Tsemberis, is highly successful, but more expensive than approaches which pick and choose from the homeless person’s needs.  Books and articles by those two experts are easy to locate through a quick search.

It costs more because in housing first somebody has to pay the rent for the ex-homeless person to be housed—typically in an apartment.  The documentation is very clear.  The successes are great.  It is a longer-term solution.  Housing first allows the newly-indoors individual to save money by having a refrigerator to keep leftovers, a place to keep any needed medication, a place to be safe from attack and danger and murder.

Housing first provides—very importantly—a secure dwelling for sleep and safety.  Therefore, Housing first is a lifesaver.  This should be simple to understand.

The book’s clarity and brevity are both plusses.  The book can be read easily in one sitting and therefore it is perfect for weekend retreats with board members and others who need to come to a quick understanding of how housing first works as the key element to successful placement of persons into the indoors. 

Also helpful is the way Levy brings together three different pieces to provide context, definitions, and an example of an individual who “makes it” despite his challenges of addiction, homelessness, and depression.  It is a good and quick reference—clear explanation—of the world of housing first.

Part One is an article about hope and ethics.  Part Two is the first housing first process used by the author, Jay S; Levy.  Part Three is an interview with someone who was helped by Levy’s intervention.

The author is a social worker who tells of the quality of the housing first strategy and his own growth—not just that of the individuals he helps.  It is an inspiring book, and the author is an encouraging and prayerful professional.  Levy has written not only about homeless first strategies but also about the pretreatment necessary for the system to work.  This is a piece of the puzzle people need to know more about.

As an educator, I recommend this book highly and hope all persons helping the homeless will read it, study it, and reflect on it.  I admire professionals who can write clearly and well, explaining, using illustrations, and making their point succinctly.  Great information here, and easy to understand and utilize.  

As an educator with a Jesuit background, I am forever reflecting on my own ideas and decisions, thinking about how I could have done things better… how I can communicate better, and how I can help the unhoused with their challenges more effectively.  I grew from reading this book.  

The book is good background reading and important to get onto your bookshelf to be loaned to others.  The book would also be great for professional development classes, retreats, fundraising, and other uses.  I encourage everyone to read it soon. 

Levy, J. S. (1998, Fall). “Homeless Outreach: On the Road to Pretreatment Alternatives.  Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 81(4), pp. 360-368.

Levy, J. S., (2011, July). “The Case for Housing First: Moral, Fiscal, and Quality of Life Reasons for Ending Chronic Homelessness.  Recovering the Self: A Journal of Hope and Healing, III(3), pp. 45-51.

Three Ways to Teach About Venezuela in a Nonpartisan Way

Three Ways to Teach About Venezuela in a Nonpartisan Way

©2025 Council on Foreign Relations. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Unpack the news coming out of Venezuela with expert-informed resources that focus on history and fundamental foreign policy concepts.

People celebrate after the U.S. struck Venezuela and captured its President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, in Santiago, Chile on January 3, 2026.

Source: Pablo Sanhueza/Reuters

Last Updated: January 06, 2026

If your students are returning to the classroom talking about Venezuela, they are not alone. When Americans woke up on January 2nd to the news that U.S. forces captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, there were a lot of questions. The capture, which came after weeks of mounting military pressure on Venezuela, stirred difficult conversations, leaving world leaders and experts unsure of what comes next.

Given the uncertainty surrounding Venezuela, it is important to present this moment in foreign policy in a nonpartisan, fact-based manner to encourage students to think critically and form their own opinions.

In this blog, you’ll find three ways to incorporate this topic into your teaching by 

  • viewing events through a historical lens;
  • focusing on fundamental concepts of foreign policy; and
  • conducting a hypothetical simulation on the foreign policy tool of intelligence and covert action.

A Summary of the Past Decade in Venezuela 
 

Venezuela has been struggling for years. Once South America’s wealthiest country, Venezuela’s economy collapsed in 2014 under President Nicolás Maduro due to expensive social policies, corruption, and overreliance on oil exports. The legitimacy of Maduro’s role as president has been called into question numerous times because of fraudulent elections and arrests of opposition leaders.

For almost two decades, the United States has imposed sanctions on Venezuela for a variety of reasons, including for lack of cooperation on counterterrorism and anti-narcotics efforts, as well as human rights violations. Under the Biden Administration, some sanctions were rolled back in an effort to curb energy prices and help the Venezuelan people. However, after Maduro’s government claimed victory in the 2024 election despite evidence that the opposition won the majority of votes, the tide changed again. Within the first year of his second term, President Trump began deploying a significant military presence off the coast of Venezuela, escalating tensions.


History of U.S. Foreign Policy in South and Latin America 
 

The U.S. has been involved in Latin America almost as long as the United States has existed as a country. The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 declared that European nations should not interfere in the region, as it was in the United States’ sphere of influence. President Theodore Roosevelt went further than his contemporaries, announcing through the Roosevelt Corollary that the United States would intervene in countries in the region. These two declarations set the stage for decades of intervention aimed at advancing U.S. interests.

A 1905 political cartoon by Louis Dalrymple depicts Uncle Sam straddling the Americas while wielding a big stick labeled “Monroe Doctrine.” Source: Bettmann Archive via Getty Images

From the Spanish-American War to supporting an armed insurrection to creating the Panama Canal, the U.S. became increasingly involved in Latin America as it sought to establish itself as a global power. There were a few years when the U.S. attempted to prioritize a more diplomatic approach in the region and focused on fostering democracy and developing local economies.

The Cold War quickly saw a return to U.S. interventionism. During this period, the United States and the Soviet Union supported opposing governments worldwide to promote their ideologies, exploited local politics for economic advantage, and brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. Some of the governments that the U.S. supported to achieve its goals were violent, oppressive, and often inflicted lasting harm on their populations.

The U.S. operation to capture Maduro could signal a return to the kind of interventionism that defined previous decades of U.S. involvement in Latin America.

Foreign Policy Concepts Relevant to Venezuela
 

With a range of perspectives on what has occurred in Venezuela over the past few days, understanding fundamental foreign policy concepts can help students form their own conclusions.

Discussions about Saturday’s operation have centered on several core foundational concepts in international relations, including sovereigntyinternational law, and the authorization of force. Use CFR Education resources to help your students understand the basics before they consider whether they believe the concepts apply in this situation.

Sovereignty 

In principle, sovereignty means countries get to control what happens inside their borders and shouldn’t interfere within other countries. However, as with most things, established principles don’t always hold true. Countries occasionally violate other countries’ sovereignty to varying degrees – sometimes for humanitarian reasons, and sometimes to pursue economic or security goals.

The concept of sovereignty has become increasingly complicated in a more interconnected world, where many of today’s most pressing issues do not respect geographic boundaries. What does sovereignty look like when greenhouse gas emissions, viruses, and information ignore borders? While sovereignty serves as a central organizing principle at the heart of modern international relations, there are few clear rules or procedures for determining who is entitled to form a sovereign country or what constitutes a violation of sovereignty. 

International Law 

As with sovereignty, international law has helped maintain order by setting standards that other countries and domestic publics alike can use to hold governments accountable. Some types of international law are codified in the form of treaties and formalized agreements. Other international law is customary, comprising international obligations that arise from established international practices rather than from formal written treaties.

The United Nations (UN) Charter prohibits the use of military force, except in two cases: self-defense and instances where the UN Security Council authorizes the use of force. If war does break out, international humanitarian law encompasses a set of rules that aim to mitigate the conflict’s impact on civilians. These principles are codified in the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which 196 countries have ratified.

Primary Source Tip: Have your students read Article 2(4) in Chapter I of the UN Charter and discuss the extent to which it leaves room for interpretation regarding the use of military force and self-defense. 
 

The Constitution and Military Force

According to the Constitution, Congress has the exclusive power to declare war. It also empowers Congress to authorize military force without having to declare war, as Congress did—among other times—in Afghanistan and Iraq in the early 2000s. While Congress can greenlight military force, the president serves as the commander-in-chief of the military and has discretion over how it performs its duties. Presidents have used this authority to deploy the country’s armed forces, conduct intelligence, and carry out covert operations. 


In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to ensure that presidents can act effectively in a military context by acting unilaterally for specific periods of time before obtaining congressional approval. However, past presidents of both parties have violated the War Powers Resolution without facing action from Congress.

Primary Source Tip: Have your students read Article I, Section 8, and Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution before reading the CFR Education piece to see how these Sections of the Constitution have evolved over time. Then ask them to discuss whether they see Venezuela as representing continuity or change in the evolving way in which presidents pursue American interests.

Hypothetical Scenarios
 

It can be challenging to understand the foreign policy forces at play in Venezuela while also keeping up with the constant news updates. You can drive home the relevant issues of intelligence and covert action without having to refer back to the news for policy changes with one of the hypothetical situations in CFR Education’s simulations library.

In the simulation below, students are put in the shoes of the National Security Council (NSC) to advise the president on deciding whether to use covert action as a tool of foreign policy. After conducting the simulation, ask students to reflect: What is this tool suitable for? Does it fulfill its stated goals? What are the pros and cons of employing covert action? Do students see similarities or differences between the hypothetical simulation and the events this past weekend in Venezuela?

Teach the Headlines with CFR Education

Rapidly changing global affairs can be challenging to understand, which is why it is essential to scaffold these events for your students by studying history, principles of foreign policy, and simulations that model global situations.

You can rely on CFR Education for nonpartisan resources that will help you tackle this situation as well as the other global events heading our way.

Newsletter to teach today’s most pressing global issues! 

Social Footer

©2025 Council on Foreign Relations. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Creative Commons. Some rights reserved.

Era 13 Postwar United States: Civil Unrest and Social Change

www.njcss.org

The relationship between the individual and the state is present in every country, society, and civilization. Relevant questions about individual liberty, civic engagement, government authority, equality and justice, and protection are important for every demographic group in the population.  In your teaching of World History, consider the examples and questions provided below that should be familiar to students in the history of the United States with application to the experiences of others around the world.

These civic activities are designed to present civics in a global context as civic education happens in every country.  The design is flexible regarding using one of the activities, allowing students to explore multiple activities in groups, and as a lesson for a substitute teacher. The lessons are free, although a donation to the New Jersey Council for the Social Studies is greatly appreciated. www.njcss.org

Era 13 Postwar United States: Civil Rights and Social Change (1945 to early 1970s)

The postwar era marked the rise of America as a world power. The new world order established alliance and economic agreements that have led to unprecedented economic growth. However, this period also marks divisions between countries with democratic institutions, authoritarian governments following the ideology of Marxist communism, and developing countries with issues of poverty, disease, debt, and human rights abuses. The United States faced issues or racial segregation, a shrinking middle class, and the expansion of costly federal government programs and a large defense budget causing its national debt to increase. Technology and the media influenced social changes.

Dixiecrats and the Authority of State Government in the United States

The principle of federalism is valued in the way the people of the United States govern themselves. There is a fine line between the division of powers between the states and the national government. The Tenth Amendment specifically protects the powers of the 50 states, and the Ninth Amendment protects the powers of individual citizens.  The powers of the national government are carefully defined and limited.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (Ninth Amendment)

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (Tenth Amendment)

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” (Article 2, Section 2)

“He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.” (Article 2, Section 3)

The Dixiecrats perceived the legislation passed by the national government (Congress and President Truman) to integrate American society as a threat to their liberty and authority as independent states. In the 1948 presidential election, Southern Democrats walked out of the Democratic National Convention because they disagreed with its civil rights platform. They formed a new political party with South Carolina’s Governor Strom Thurmond as their party’s presidential nominee. Their objective was to deny or ‘nullify’ laws passed by the national government to integrate schools and modes of transportation. Individual states wanted to continue with the 1896 “separate but equal” decision from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson

In 1798, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed into law, the Alien and Sedition Acts. The acts outraged Thomas Jefferson and Kentucky declared the Alien and Sedition Acts unconstitutional and “altogether void and of no force” in the state of Kentucky.

Kentucky held that our Constitution was a “compact” among the states that delegated a set of limited powers to the federal government. This meant that “every state” had the power to “nullify of their own authority” any violation of the Constitution. In 1832, South Carolina declared the Tariff of 1832 was unconstitutional, “null, void, and no law” because they disproportionately burdened southern states.

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” (Article 6)

Switzerland’s Government

Switzerland is governed under a federal system at three levels: the Confederation, the 26 cantons and the 2,131 communes. The Swiss Confederation of States and its current boundaries were agreed to in 1815 and its current constitution was adopted in 1848. Switzerland has a direct democracy with citizens voting on decisions at all political levels. Switzerland is governed by the Federal Council of seven members representing the different political parties and are elected by the two-house assembly or parliament. whose decisions are made by consensus. Switzerland has a two-house assembly, the National Council is the lower house and represents the people. The upper house is the Council of States and represents the individual cantons. Switzerland also has ten political parties. The powers of cantons include education, culture, healthcare, welfare, law enforcement, taxation, and voting. Cantons have their own constitutions, parliaments, and courts, which are aligned with the federal constitution. 

An example of a conflict in Switzerland that challenged the authority of the individual cantons is the city of Moutier with a population of 7,500 in the canton of Bern. Since 1957, the Moutier committee wanted to secede from the canton of Bern and join the canton of Jura. The majority of people in Bern have voted to keep Moutier within its jurisdiction.  Four out of the seven Jura districts narrowly rejected forming a new district. The three northern, majority Roman Catholic, districts voted in favor of a new district.

Since 2013, there have been peaceful protests and at times vandalism. The people of Moutier voted to join the Jura canton making it the second largest town in the canton of Jura. Although a majority, 51%, of the people voted to join, the government and people of Bern declared their vote to be invalid because some people voted whose residency could not be confirmed. There have been nine referendums in the past 70 years with the population voting to secede and join the Canton of Jura in 2021.  The change to the canton of Jura took effect on January 1, 2026, granting Moutier the right to secede from one canton and join another.

Questions:

  1. Should the national government of the United States be able to enforce common laws for holidays, the economy, schools, transportation, public health, and the environment in all 50 states and territories?
  • What are the advantages and disadvantages of the federal system of power between the individual states and the national government in the United States?
  • Does the Swiss government model have any advantages or disadvantages over the structure of government in the United States?
  • What would be the best way to resolve the conflict with the population of Moutier?
  • Will the decision allowing Moutier to secede establish a precedent for future towns or cities to secede in Switzerland?  

Platform of the States Rights Democratic Party, August 14, 1948

Article 1, Section 8: Federalism and the Overall Scope of Federal Power

Keeping the Balance: What a President Can and Cannot Do (Truman Library)

Looking Back: Nullification in American History (National Constitution Center)

Political System of Switzerland

Federalism in Switzerland

Education is primarily a state and local responsibility in the United States. About 92% of the money for elementary and secondary education comes from local taxes and money from the individual states. The role of the federal government in education dates back to 1867 when Congress wanted information on teachers and how students learn. Over time this led to land-grant colleges and vocational schools After World War 2, the federal government enacted the “GI Bill” to provide college and vocational education to returning veterans.

In response to the Soviet launch of a satellite, Sputnik, into space in 1957, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act to provide funds for teachers in the areas of mathematics, science, world languages, and area studies to enable us to compete with the Soviet Union. Perhaps the most significant legislation to increase federal funds for schools came in response to the passage of civil rights laws in the 1960s and 1970s and the Great Society programs to reduce poverty. In 1980, Congress established the Department of Education as a position in the president’s Cabinet. In 2025, the Department of Education’s staff and budget was significantly reduced. The Department of Education before 2025 supported 50 million students in 98,000 public schools and 32,000 private schools. They also provided grants, loans, and work-study programs to 12 million students in colleges and vocational training programs. In addition, they administered $150 billion in loans.

The purpose of federal funds in the United States is to provide equality for disadvantaged students and to improve academic achievement. This is monitored through state assessments based on learning standards. Unfortunately, some states lowered their expectations for student achievement to qualify for the federal funds and the federal government is currently investigating fraud in how federal dollars are being spent.

In the United States, federal funds are designated for after school instruction, English language acquisition, preschools, nutrition, literacy, teaching American history and civics, charter, and  magnet schools.

School Financing in Canada

School funding in Canada is primarily a responsibility of provincial and territorial governments. The federal government contributes money to ensure an equal education for its significant indigenous population. Most funding is from Canada’s 10 provinces. Some provinces provide public funding to private, charter, and religious schools.

The government of Canada views education as a public good from which everyone in society benefits. Education prepares students for jobs, higher education, lowers crime, and reduces poverty. Employers also benefit as educated workers are more productive leading to higher profits for businesses. The only province to fully embrace school choice is Alberta. Canadians fear that school choice may lead wealthier Canadians to benefit from independent, parochial, charter, or magnet schools and this would leave marginalized populations at a disadvantage. Equality and equity are two principles that Canadians value.

According to U.S. News & World Report, the United States is ranked #1 and Canada is ranked #4 in the world in education.

Questions:

  1. Should local communities, states or provinces, or the national government decide the curriculum and funding for public schools?
  2. To what extent should public tax dollars be used to support private or religious schools?
  3. What is the best way to ensure an equal and equitable education for all students?
  4. Should public tax dollars be used for extracurricular activities and sports in schools?
  5. Do you consider education to be a public good that benefits all of society or is it a private good that benefits individual students?
  6. To what extent should public tax dollars be used to support college and vocational education after completing elementary and secondary education?

Elementary and Secondary Education Act

Canada’s Approach to School Funding

Council of Ministers of Education, Canada

De facto Racial Residential Segregation in the United States

The United States ended racial segregation with the Brown v. Board of Education v. Topeka, Kansas decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1954, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. However, the United States continues to be a place of segregation, not integration. Residential segregation exists through our zip codes and neighborhoods. Although our laws prohibit discrimination, differences in land use policies, wealth and income, contribute to what is called de facto racial residential segregation. Neighborhoods determine the quality of schools, public safety, quality of drinking water, opportunities for employment, strategies of law enforcement, rates of incarceration, and life expectancy.

A study by the University of California (Source) found that more than 80 percent of metropolitan areas were more segregated in 2019 than in 1990. In 2025, the United States government effectively ended support for DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs. Racial residential segregation is difficult to    address when resources are not equally available to all communities. The Kerner Commission wrote in its 1968 report that integration is “the only course which explicitly seeks to achieve a single nation” rather than a dual or permanently divided society.

Table 3: Top 10 Most Segregated Metropolitan Statistical Areas (2019, Minimum 200,000 people)

Segregation  RankMetro
1New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA
2Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI
3Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI
4Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI
5Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL
6Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA
7Trenton-Ewing, NJ
8Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH
9Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD
10 (tied)Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
10 (tied)New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA

Religious Segregation in India

India ended the caste system in 1947 and yet many Indians live in religiously segregated areas. One of the reasons for this segregation is that friendship circles are often part of the religious community and marriages are within the same faith community. People in southern India are most likely to live in integrated neighborhoods. Indians with a college degree are more accepting of people from other faiths living in their neighborhoods than those with less education.

Very few Indians say they are married to someone with a different religion. Almost all married people (99%) reported that their spouse shared their religion. This applies to Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and Buddhists.

Indians generally marry within same religion

Religion, especially members of the Hindu faith, is closely connected with views on politics and national identity. Hindus make up 80% of India’s population. A Pew Research study found that 36% of Hindus would not be willing to live near a Muslim, and 31% say they would not want a Christian living in their neighborhood. Jains are even more likely to express such views:. 54% of people who identify with the Jainist faith would not accept a Muslim as a neighbor, and 47% say the same about Christians. People who identify as Buddhist tend to be the most accepting of people from other faith traditions. Eight-in-ten Buddhists in India say they would accept a Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Sikh or Jain as a neighbor.

Members of both large and small religious groups mostly keep friendships within religious lines

And Indians who live in the Central region of the country are more inclined than people in other regions to say it is very important to stop people from marrying outside of their religion. Among Hindus in the Central region, for instance, 82% say stopping the interreligious marriage of Hindu women is very important, compared with 67% of Hindus nationally. Among Muslims in the region, nearly all (96%) see it as crucial to stop Muslim women from marrying outside the faith, versus 80% of Muslims nationally.

The religious segregation also impacts the quality of education and employment. Muslim student enrollment is dropping. Some states in India are banning religious instruction even though it is protected by the national constitution.

Questions:

  1. Are there common factors (geographic, social, economic, racial, educational, religious, etc.) causing different kinds of segregation in Indian and the United States?
  2. How can countries best establish a social system of equality and integration?
  3. Is segregation present in your school or community?
  4. How do countries/societies unite or define their identity?
  5. Is the problem of segregation about the same, more severe, less severe in India or the United States?

Examples of Government Regulation of Business in the United States

Religious Segregation in India (Pew Research Center)

The Great Society Program in the United States

In 1965, according to the U.S. Census, the poverty rate in the United States was 13.3%. In 2024, it was 10.6%. However, poverty rates often provide mixed data because of inflation, income levels, race, and age. For examples in 1965 45% of the population in South Carolina was below the poverty line and in 2024 the poverty rate for Hispanic (15%), Black Americans (18.4%), and Native Americans (19.3%) is significantly higher than 10.6%. The definition is further complicated by the difference between absolute poverty (below an income of $31,200 for a four-person household) and relative poverty (the quality of life for people in a neighborhood or community).

Social Security and Medicare are for senior citizens who are eligible at age 65 for Medicare and age 67 for Social Security. There are 83 million people, including children, receiving Medicaid, about 25% of the population. The program is offered by the states and the services provided depend on the state. An average estimate for eligibility is an income that is about 140 percent above the federal poverty level ($30,000 for a family of two in New Jersey, as of 2026). In New Jersey, Medicaid costs about 23% of the state’s budget. Approximately 25% of the residents in New Jesey receive Medicaid at an average cost of $2,600 per enrollee. Amounts vary and are higher for families with children and pregnant women.

According to the Congressional Research Services, mandatory spending was only 30% of the federal budget. Today, it is 60%. Medicare and Medicaid together cost nearly $1 trillion annually. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, are the main contributors to our national debt, which is now over $40 trillion (or roughly $59,000 per citizen). According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, Medicare provides health insurance coverage to 68 million Americans. Funding for Medicare is from government contributions, payroll tax revenues, and premiums paid by beneficiaries. Medicare spending is currently about 13.5% of the federal budget or roughly $1.1 trillion. The average cost is $17,000 per enrollee with a $12 billion shortfall in 2023, about $1,300 per enrollee.  The administration of President Trump cut some of the Medicaid programs in 2025 and is negotiating lower prescription drug costs to reduce this shortfall. An aging population and higher health care costs are factors that are expected to continue. Even with these Great Society programs, poverty among the elderly is significantly high. According to USA Today,

“Based on the official measure, which is a simple calculation based on pretax cash income compared with a national threshold, the percentage of seniors in poverty rose to 9.9% last year from 9.7% in 2023, data showed. Using the more comprehensive supplemental measure, which includes noncash government benefits, accounts for taxes and essential expenses like medical care and work-related costs, and adjusts thresholds for regional differences in housing costs, senior poverty rose to 15% from 14.2% − and marked the highest poverty level among all age groups.”

Although these programs are not cost effective and are withdrawing funds from the Trust Fund, they are considered transfer payments because the money is spent at the local and state level which generates income and GDP growth in the economy. They are often referred to as entitlement programs because they were passed by Congress and have been in effect for 90 years (Social Security) and 60 years (Medicaid and Medicare) and revised and expanded over time.

Marshall Plan

In June 1947, Secretary of State George Marshall, announced the U.S. plan to give economic aid to Europe. The offer was made to all of Europe, including the U.S. wartime enemies and the communist countries of Eastern Europe. Sixteen European countries responded by cooperating on a plan that was accepted by the United States. The United States appropriated $13.6 billion (equivalent to $190 billion in 2026 money) was provided. By 1950, the economies of the participating countries returned to their prewar levels.

The Marshall Plan required the countries to stabilize their currency, reduce public spending, import goods from the United States and increase their exports to the United States. There were clear expectations that benefited the economy of the United States. The Marshall Plan established the U.S. as a dominant economic power, promoted open trade and prevented the return of economic depression. It was critical in forming NATO and a closer relationship between the United States and Europe.

Questions:

  1. Given the fact that the Great Society programs of Medicaid and Medicare are not cost effective and that the poverty rate for people over the age of 65 has increased, should the United States continue with these programs?
  2. What should the United States or the individual states do to lower the poverty rate among people over the age of 65?
  3. Does the United States have a legal (constitutional) or moral responsibility to provide supplemental or full health care for its citizens, legal residents, and/or undocumented immigrants?
  4. Was the Marshall Plan worth the investment by the United States?
  5. What factors contributed to the success of the Marshall Plan?
  6. Would a ‘Marshall Plan” to support the rebuilding of a sustainable infrastructure based on renewable energy be effective and accomplish similar outcomes within three to five years?

Tallying the Costs and Benefits of LBJ’s Great Society Programs (American Enterprise Institute)

Estimates of the Costs of Federal Credit Programs (Congressional Budget Office)

Kaiser Family Foundation Reports on Medicare-Medicaid Enrollment and Spending

Marshall Plan (1948) (National Archives)

Marshall Plan and U.S. Economic Dominance (EBSCO)

The Marshall Plan: Design, Accomplishments, and Significance (Congressional Research Service)