The UK’s Telegraph reports (“Christmas truce of 1914 was broken when German snipers killed two British soldiers,” December 22) the incident, pieced together from historical records. On the front lines in France, British sentry Percy Huggins was felled by a German sniper; his platoon leader Tom Gregory retaliated against that sniper, only to be outgunned by another.

This may not fit the sentimentalized image of the truce, but taking it off such a pedestal makes it relevant to our messy world. Bertrand Russell noted that to “admit in theory that there are occasions when it is proper to fight, and in practice that these occasions are rare” yields far less war in practice than to “hold in theory that there are no occasions when it is proper to fight and in practice that such occasions are very frequent.”

The truce’s breakdown in this case remained an isolated flashpoint; it held on both sides, as close as under a mile away. The influence of an “incredibly professional” duty-bound Guards Brigade kept local tensions high from the beginning, with immediate rejection of Germans’ bid for a cease-fire.

Also instructive is the clear tit-for-tat aspect, driven by retaliation for specific aggressions rather than by general warlikeness. (One sniper indicating more made a third death inevitable.) Something needs to tip the balance to make hostility spread faster than toleration. That something, in one word: Politics.

Emma Goldman contended that without the socialist movement’s turn away from direct action and toward a reliance on political means, “the great catastrophe would have been impossible. In Germany the party counted twelve million adherents. What a power to prevent the declaration of hostilities! But for a quarter of a century the Marxists had trained the workers in obedience and patriotism, trained them to rely on parliamentary activity and, particularly, to trust their socialist leaders blindly. And now most of those leaders had joined hands with the Kaiser … Instead of declaring the general strike and thus paralysing war preparations, they had voted the Government money for slaughter.” And only the tripwire pitting of national leaders against each other could turn the assassination of an archduke into a feud that would multiply the tripling of Huggins’s death five-million-fold.

In his final letter, Huggins told his family: “I long for the day when this terrible conflict will be ended. You consider war a terrible thing but imagination cannot reach far enough for the horrors of warfare that can be seen on the battlefield are indescribable and I pray this may be the last war that will ever be.” A century of advance in global communications and commerce gives today’s Hugginses ample basis to coexist without politicians and the means to verify trust. It should not take another century to reach “the last war that will ever be.”

I soldati francesi, britannici e tedeschi, attratti dal suono dei canti di Natale che venivano dalle trincee nemiche, cominciarono timidamente a smettere di spararsi tra loro. Dalle trincee tedesche fu lanciato uno stivale, che poi risultò pieno di dolci e salumi. Man mano che acquistarono fiducia, i soldati cominciarono ad avventurarsi nella terra di nessuno tra le trincee, fino ad entrare nelle trincee stesse sul lato opposto per scambiare piccoli regali ricevuti da casa come caffè, sigarette, alcolici e giornali. Celebrarono il Natale giocando a calcio nella terra di nessuno. Soldati di entrambe le parti condivisero le loro razioni, cantarono assieme canti di Natale e posarono per le fotografie di gruppo.

Già prima di Natale le forze alleate e le potenze centrali avevano invocato alcune tregue per seppellire i morti, ma solo con l’approvazione dei rispettivi comandi supremi. Questa tregua di Natale, invece, non era stata autorizzata da nessuna delle parti, una violazione della disciplina a tutti gli effetti (fraternizzare con il nemico significava la corte marziale, tanto per intenderci). Ovviamente i capi delle forze tedesche e alleate erano profondamente sconvolti all’idea di ciò che questo fatto implicava; più sconvolti di quando, dopo l’armistizio del 1918, una unità francese in attesa impaziente della smobilitazione organizzò un soviet. Rimuginarono alla ricerca di un sistema per costringere gli uomini, con le minacce o con l’imbroglio, a tornare nelle trincee e uccidersi l’uno con l’altro.

Ma i soldati non ne volevano sapere. Il 26 dicembre, all’ordine di riprendere il fuoco, risposero sparando negligentemente in aria invece che in direzione del nemico. Tutto finì quando i comandi supremi mandarono al fronte truppe fresche che non avevano conosciuto la tregua. A Natale del 1915 e degli anni seguenti fu ordinato un fuoco di sbarramento continuo. Quando un ufficiale appena accennava ad una tregua veniva trattato in maniera esemplare. Un capitano britannico che autorizzò una tregua per seppellire i morti, seguita da un’ora di fraternizzazione, fu deferito alla corte marziale.

I governi e i comandi militari di Gran Bretagna, Francia e Germania erano giustamente spaventati dagli sviluppi. Era facilissimo per la propaganda ufficiale demonizzare il nemico agli occhi della popolazione civile a casa, come dimostrano le storie diffuse dalla stampa britannica sui soldati tedeschi che uccidevano i bambini belgi a baionettate. Ma i soldati che entravano in contatto con il “nemico” al fronte capivano subito che si trattava di persone normali come loro, con un lavoro e una famiglia a casa, persone che erano state abbastanza stupide da credere alle bugie raccontate dai politici.

Oggi i governanti hanno molte più ragioni per essere spaventati. Da quando si è diffuso internet e la connessione è praticamente diventata ubiqua in gran parte del mondo, ed i social-media hanno cominciato la loro rapida diffusione, è cresciuto esponenzialmente il numero di americani che comunica, da persona a persona, con cittadini delle nazioni “nemiche” contro cui gli Stati Uniti fanno le guerre. Non solo abbiamo accesso a canali d’informazione come Al Jazeera, che mostra i cadaveri carbonizzati e smembrati dagli attacchi americani, ma con il cellulare chiunque può caricare immagini o video sui social-media.

Novantanove anni fa i soldati dovettero camminare fino alle trincee opposte per capire che le truppe “nemiche” erano esattamente come loro, e che i loro veri nemici li avevano a casa, a Londra, Parigi, Berlino. Oggi sempre più civili lo capiscono prima ancora di sparare un singolo colpo.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

French, British and German soldiers, intrigued by the sound of Christmas carols from the enemy trenches, first tentatively refrained from firing on one another. A German boot tossed into the British trenches turned out to be filled with candy and sausage. Soldiers, with increasing confidence, began to venture out into no-man’s land and into each other’s trenches to exchange small presents like coffee and cigarettes, spirits, and newspapers from home. They celebrated Christmas by playing football on no-man’s-land. Soldiers from opposing armies shared rations, sang carols together and posed for group photographs.

The Allies and Central Powers had previously called temporary truces as Christmas approached, in order to bury their dead — but only with approval from their respective High Commands. This Christmas truce, in contrast, was completely unauthorized by commanders on either side, a violation of discipline in just about every imaginable respect (fraternization with the enemy — a court-martialable offense — just for starters). And needless to say, the German and Allied leaderships were utterly terrified by the implications — even more terrified than after the Armistice in 1918 when a British unit in France, impatient for demobilization, organized a soviet. They racked their brains to come up with a way to threaten or trick the men in the trenches into ending the unauthorized truce and getting back to killing one another.

The soldiers weren’t having any of it, though. Directly ordered to resume fire on December 26, they perfunctorily fired their rifles into the air rather than at the enemy. Finally the High Commands ended the truce by bringing in fresh troops from the rear who had not experienced the truce. In Christmas 1915 and subsequent years, truces were prevented by ordering continuous artillery barrages from the rear, and making conspicuous examples of officers who even hinted at allowing another Christmas truce. A British captain who authorized a local truce for burying the dead, followed by half an hour of fraternization, was court-martialed.

The governments and military commands of Britain, France and Germany were rightly afraid of this development. It was fairly easy to demonize the enemy to the civilian population at home with official war propaganda, like the stories in the British press about German soldiers bayoneting Belgian infants. But soldiers who came into direct contact with the “enemy” on the front quickly learned that they were just regular people like themselves with jobs and families at home, who had been stupid enough to believe the lies their politicians had told them.

Today our rulers have much more reason to be afraid. Since the rise of the Internet and near-ubiquitous connectivity in much of the world, and the rapid growth of social media networks, there’s been at the very least an order of magnitude increase in the number of Americans who have direct person-to-person communications with citizens of “enemy” nations whenever the United States goes to war. And we have not only easy access to media outlets like Al Jazeera showing the charred and dismembered bodies from U.S. air strikes, but ordinary people uploading images or videos to social media via cell phone.

It took a physical trip into the opposing trenches ninety-nine years ago for soldiers to discover that “enemy” troops were just like them, and their real enemies were back home in London, Paris and Berlin. Today a large, and rapidly growing, portion of the civilian public knows that before a shot is ever fired.

Translations for this article:

• Spanish, La Tregua de Navidad de 1914.
• Italian, La Tregua di Natale del 1914.

Por esta época do ano todos nós ouvimos falar da importância da família. Algumas pessoas receiam encontros embaraçosos com parentes, enquanto outras prezam a oportunidade de convívio com aqueles a quem mais amam. Quaisquer sejam os sentimentos que você nutra no tocante à família, contudo, provavelmente você ficaria chocado se o governo usasse a força para proibir você de ver sua família no Natal.

Para muitas pessoas, porém, isso não é simplesmente uma pavorosa hipótese de feriado; é, isto sim, cruel realidade. A guerra às drogas presenteou-nos com Estados Unidos que trancafiam mais seres humanos em jaulas do qualquer outro país na Terra. Isso tem efeito devastador nas famílias. De acordo com Michelle Alexander, o governo dos Estados Unidos já trancafiou tantos pais pretos que “Uma criança preta nascida hoje tem menor probabilidade de ser criada por ambos os pais do que uma criança preta nascida durante a escravidão.”

Embora Michelle Alexander concentre-se principalmente no encarceramento de pais pretos, as prisões estadunidenses também trancafiam mães, com consequências devastadoras para os filhos delas. De acordo com Victoria Law, “62% das mulheres em prisões estaduais e 56% das mulheres em prisões federais informaram ser mães de filhos menores.”  Muitas delas são mães solteiras, o que significa que os filhos vão para lares adotivos em vez de continuarem com membros da família. As mulheres são amiúde encarceradas longe dos filhos, tornando as visitas difíceis. E mesmo quando visitas são logisticamente possíveis, administradores de prisões têm controle sobre se essas visitas serão permitidas. A lei prescreve que as autoridades prisionais “usem seu controle referente a visitas para punir prisioneiros que questionem as condições existentes na prisão.” Isso pode ser usado para dissuadir prisioneiros de questionar sérias violações de direitos humanos. Por exemplo, Stacy Barker foi impedida de receber visitas depois de, com sucesso, ter processado o Departamento de Correções de Michigan por abuso sexual.

Sentenças de pena mínima obrigatória podem adicionalmente exacerbar o impacto do encarceramento em massa sobre as famílias. Recente artigo no New York Times explica como Stephanie George, mãe solteira, está atualmente cumprindo pena de prisão perpétua sem direito a condicional por ter desempenhado apenas papel menor em transações envolvendo drogas. Embora o juiz, no caso dela, tenha reconhecido que sentenciá-la a prisão perpétua era inadequado e injusto, as leis de pena mínima obrigatória impunham tal sentença por causa da quantidade de droga em cuja venda se comprovou estar envolvida a Sra. George. Essa é a realidade do encarceramento em massa: Mães são separadas de seus filhos pelo resto da vida, simplesmente por terem desempenhado papel menor em operações de negócios com drogas. A maioria das mulheres encarceradas está atrás das grades por ofensas não violentas.

E o encarceramento em massa não é a única forma de violência do estado que dispersa famílias. Deportações subtraem imigrantes de suas famílias, forçando-os a ir para abusivos centros de detenção antes de bani-los do país onde trabalharam para construir um lar. Recente relatório da ColorLines atestou mais de 200.000 deportações de pais com filhos cidadãos estadunidenses num período de dois anos. E muitos desses pais nunca cometeram crime sério. De acordo com a ColorLines, “cerca de 40 por cento dos deportados com condenações foram acusados dos crimes do menor nível, inclusive ofensas de trânsito.”

Encarceramento em massa e deportação em massa não são políticas separadas que ocorre de, ambas, destruírem famílias. Antes, são duas facetas diferentes do complexo industrial prisional. As mesmas corporações que administram prisões com fins lucrativos, tais como Corrections Corporation of America, GEO Group, e Management and Training Corporation, também lucram com administrar centros de detenção de imigração. Essas empresas apoiam políticos favoráveis a leis autoritárias relativas a questões tanto de imigração quanto criminais. Quando pessoas de cor têm suas famílias violentamente despedaçadas pelo estado, o complexo industrial prisional lucra.

Neste Natal, peço encarecidamente a você que mantenha as famílias juntas. Rogo que você se articule contra o complexo industrial prisional e o aparato do estado que já fizeram em pedaços tantas famílias.

Artigo original afixado por Nathan Goodman em 25 de dezembro de 2012.

Traduzido do inglês por Murilo Otávio Rodrigues Paes Leme.

For many people, however, this is not simply a horrifying holiday hypothetical; it’s a cruel reality. The drug war has given us an America that locks more human beings in cages than any other country on Earth.  This has had devastating impacts for families. According to Michelle Alexander, the US government has locked up so many black fathers that, “A black child born today is less likely to be raised by both parents than a black child born during slavery.”

While Michelle Alexander primarily focuses on the mass incarceration of black fathers, American prisons also lock up mothers, with devastating consequences for their children. According to Victoria Law, “62% of women in state prisons and 56% of women in federal prison reported being mothers of minor children.”  Many of them are single mothers, meaning that their children go into foster care rather than staying with family members. Women are often incarcerated far from their children, making visits difficult. And even when visits are logistically possible, prison administrators have control over whether these visits are permitted. Law writes that prison authorities “use their control over visits to punish prisoners who challenge existing prison conditions.” This can be used to deter prisoners from challenging serious human rights violations. For example, Stacy Barker was barred from receiving visitors after she successfully sued the Michigan Department of Corrections for sexual abuse.

Mandatory minimum sentences can further exacerbate mass incarceration’s impact on families. A recent article in the New York Times  explains how Stephanie George, a single mother, is currently serving a sentence of life without parole for playing merely a minor role in drug dealing. While the judge in her case acknowledged that sentencing her to life imprisonment was inappropriate and unjust, mandatory minimum sentencing laws demanded such a sentence given the quantity of drugs Ms. George was convicted of being involved in selling. This is the reality of mass incarceration: Mothers are separated from their children for life, simply for playing a minor role in drug dealing operations. The majority of incarcerated women are behind bars for non-violent offenses.

And mass incarceration isn’t the only form of state violence that breaks up families. Deportations steal immigrants away from their families, forcing them into abusive detention centers before banishing them from the country where they’ve worked to build a home. A recent report from ColorLines found over 200,000 deportations of parents with US citizen children over a two year period. And many of these parents never committed a serious crime. According to ColorLines, “nearly 40 percent of deportees with convictions were charged with the lowest level crimes, including driving offenses.”

Mass incarceration and mass deportation are not separate policies that both happen to destroy families. Rather, they are two different facets of the prison industrial complex. The same corporations that operate prisons for profit, such as Corrections Corporation of America, GEO Group, and Management and Training Corporation, also profit by running immigration detention centers. These companies back politicians that support authoritarian laws on both immigration and criminal justice issues. When people of color have their families violently broken apart by the state, the prison industrial complex profits.

This Christmas, I urge you to keep families together. I urge you to organize against the prison industrial complex and the state apparatus that have broken so many families apart.