They Called Us Enemy: The Untold Story of Marginalization and Resilience

Published

The labels stick like tar. "They called us enemy"—not because of actions, but because of ancestry, faith, or skin. The phrase echoes across centuries, a chilling refrain uttered by those in power to justify confinement, exclusion, and erasure. It was the government’s decree in 1942 that stripped 120,000 Japanese Americans of their rights overnight, herding them into internment camps under the guise of national security. It was the colonial propaganda that branded Indigenous peoples as savages to seize their land. It was the 2017 travel ban that painted Muslims as threats, reviving old scripts of fear. These weren’t isolated incidents; they were systematic campaigns to dehumanize, to render entire communities invisible unless they served as scapegoats.

The paradox is brutal: the moment a group is labeled "the enemy within", the state’s violence becomes not oppression, but patriotism. The language shifts from "civil rights" to "national defense," and dissent is met with silence—or worse, complicity. Historians and activists alike trace this pattern back to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, when Irish and French immigrants were branded as traitors for daring to disagree. The playbook hasn’t changed: identify a vulnerable group, amplify their difference, then justify control in the name of safety. What remains constant is the human cost—families torn apart, cultures suppressed, and generations forced to rebuild from the ashes of official hostility.

Yet resistance has always been the counter-narrative. The Japanese Americans who sued the government in Korematsu v. United States, the Muslim families who challenged the travel ban in Trump v. Hawaii, the Indigenous leaders who fought back against the Doctrine of Discovery—these were not passive victims. They were architects of defiance, turning the very labels meant to destroy them into badges of pride. The phrase "they called us enemy" now carries dual meaning: a wound, and a weapon. Understanding its history isn’t just about acknowledging past injustices; it’s about recognizing how these tactics persist today—and how to dismantle them.

they called us enemy

The Complete Overview of Systemic Marginalization

The phenomenon of labeling groups as "they called us enemy" is a cornerstone of statecraft and social control, a tool wielded whenever power seeks to consolidate authority by creating an "other." At its core, this strategy relies on three pillars: legalized discrimination (laws that codify exclusion), media amplification (stereotypes that justify fear), and institutionalized silence (the complicity of those who benefit from the system). The result is a cycle where marginalized communities are simultaneously demonized and denied agency, their narratives replaced by official propaganda. What distinguishes this tactic from ordinary prejudice is its structural permanence—it’s not just hate speech, but a framework embedded in laws, education, and economic policy.

The psychological and economic toll is staggering. Studies show that communities branded as threats experience intergenerational trauma, with children of interned Japanese Americans exhibiting higher rates of PTSD decades later. The travel ban’s impact on Muslim families included lost livelihoods—doctors, engineers, and students barred from entering the U.S. for years, their careers derailed by bureaucratic hostility. Even the language of exclusion has material consequences: when a group is framed as "the enemy," funding for their communities dries up, while resources flow to those deemed "worthy" of trust. The insidious part? Many of the victims of these policies are model minorities—highly educated, law-abiding, yet still treated as threats. This contradiction exposes the lie at the heart of the label: it’s never about the group’s actual behavior, but about the power of those doing the labeling.

Historical Background and Evolution

The origins of "they called us enemy" policies trace back to the Doctrine of Christian Discovery (1493), which declared Indigenous peoples "heathens" and thus fair game for conquest. By the 19th century, this logic had expanded to include Chinese immigrants, labeled "the yellow peril" in California’s anti-coolie laws, which barred them from testifying in court or owning land. The pattern repeated in 1942 with Executive Order 9066, where the Supreme Court upheld internment by arguing that Japanese Americans were a "military danger"—despite no evidence of widespread disloyalty. The court’s reasoning? "A military urgency may sometimes render necessary restrictive rules" that would be unconstitutional in peacetime. In other words, democracy takes a backseat when fear is weaponized.

Fast-forward to the 21st century, and the playbook remains eerily similar. The Patriot Act (2001) targeted Arab and Muslim communities under the guise of counterterrorism, while the Muslim Ban (2017) explicitly named seven majority-Muslim countries as "high-risk." Each iteration refines the same tactics: legalize exclusion, manufacture fear, and erase dissent. The key innovation? Digital surveillance. Today, algorithms and social media amplify stereotypes at scale, turning individual bias into systemic discrimination. What was once a local lynching mob is now a globally connected echo chamber, where a tweet can trigger real-world consequences for an entire community.

Core Mechanisms: How It Works

The machinery of exclusion operates on two levels: visible (laws, policies) and invisible (cultural conditioning). Visible mechanisms include travel bans, internment orders, and voting restrictions—tools that directly limit rights. But the invisible mechanisms are more pernicious: media narratives that frame groups as inherently dangerous, educational curricula that omit their contributions, and economic policies that redirect resources away from them. For example, the 1924 Immigration Act explicitly banned Asians while praising European immigrants as "desirable." The message was clear: some lives matter more in the eyes of the state.

Table of Contents

Psychologically, the labeling works by triggering the "othering" reflex—a cognitive shortcut where the brain categorizes unfamiliar groups as threats. Neuroscience shows that this reflex activates the amygdala, the brain’s fear center, making rational debate nearly impossible. Politicians exploit this by repeating coded language ("foreign," "non-assimilable," "security risk") until it becomes conventional wisdom. The endgame? Normalization. When a group is constantly framed as "they called us enemy," resistance becomes unthinkable—because the enemy, by definition, is beyond reason. The solution, then, isn’t just legal reform; it’s cultural re-education to dismantle the myths that fuel these cycles.

Key Benefits and Crucial Impact

On the surface, labeling groups as enemies serves a single purpose: consolidating power. By creating an external threat, leaders can justify expanded surveillance, military spending, and restrictions on civil liberties—all while rallying a fearful populace. The historical record is clear: every major expansion of state authority in the U.S. has been tied to a manufactured crisis involving a marginalized group. The Alien and Sedition Acts silenced critics of the government; internment camps paved the way for the NSA’s mass surveillance; and the Muslim Ban enabled the creation of "extremist watchlists" that disproportionately target minorities. The pattern is predictable: fear → scapegoating → policy → compliance.

Yet the impact isn’t just political—it’s economically transformative. When a group is labeled a threat, their access to capital, education, and opportunity evaporates. The 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act destroyed a thriving immigrant workforce; the 1924 Immigration Act stunted Asian American economic growth for decades. Today, redlining and predatory lending continue to target communities of color, ensuring wealth gaps persist. The irony? The groups deemed "enemies" are often the most productive members of society—entrepreneurs, scientists, artists—whose exclusion weakens the economy as a whole. The real enemy, then, isn’t the labeled group; it’s the system that profits from division.

"The problem is not that we have too many enemies, but that we have too few friends—and the ones we have are afraid to speak up." — James Baldwin, on the cost of silence in the face of scapegoating

Major Advantages

While the human cost is undeniable, the systemic advantages of labeling groups as enemies are clear:

-

  • Political Unity: Fear of a common threat suppresses internal divisions, allowing leaders to present a united front (e.g., "us vs. them" rhetoric during wartime).
  • Economic Redistribution: Resources flow toward industries tied to "national security" (military, surveillance, border control) while marginalized communities lose access to capital.
  • Legal Precedent: Each new policy builds on past ones, creating a slippery slope where restrictions become permanent (e.g., internment → travel bans → surveillance states).
  • Cultural Dominance: By controlling narratives, the dominant group ensures its version of history is taught, reinforcing its superiority (e.g., textbooks that omit Indigenous perspectives).
  • Labor Exploitation: Marginalized groups are often forced into low-wage jobs while being denied pathways to citizenship or protection (e.g., undocumented workers in agriculture).

The paradox? These "advantages" are short-term illusions. History shows that societies built on exclusion eventually collapse under the weight of their own contradictions. The Roman Empire’s persecution of Christians backfired; the Soviet Union’s purges weakened it; and the U.S. internment camps left a legacy of distrust that still haunts Asian American communities today.

they called us enemy - Ilustrasi 2

Comparative Analysis

| Policy Era | Targeted Group | Mechanism of Exclusion | Long-Term Consequence |
|-------------------------|--------------------------|------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
| 1798 (Alien Acts) | Irish, French immigrants | Deportation, sedition laws | Erosion of free speech norms |
| 1882 (Chinese Exclusion) | Chinese immigrants | Banned entry, denied citizenship | Stunted Asian American economic growth |
| 1942 (Internment) | Japanese Americans | Mass incarceration without trial | Intergenerational trauma, distrust of govt |
| 2001 (Patriot Act) | Arab/Muslim communities | Surveillance, profiling | Normalized mass data collection |
| 2017 (Muslim Ban) | Majority-Muslim nations | Travel restrictions, visa denials | Global perception of U.S. as hostile |

The table reveals a consistent pattern: each policy starts with a specific target but expands unpredictably. The Chinese Exclusion Act led to broader anti-immigrant sentiment; internment camps set the stage for modern surveillance. The key variable? Who benefits. In every case, the groups in power—politicians, corporate elites, media—gain while the labeled "enemies" lose. The lesson? Exclusion is never an accident; it’s a choice.

The next iteration of "they called us enemy" policies will likely leverage artificial intelligence and biometric surveillance to automate exclusion. Already, facial recognition systems are being tested in airports to flag "high-risk" travelers—often with racial bias built into the algorithms. Meanwhile, social credit-style systems (like China’s) could expand to the U.S., where "loyalty scores" might determine access to housing, jobs, or even voting rights. The chilling part? These tools are being developed with corporate and government collaboration, meaning resistance will require legal, technological, and cultural battles on multiple fronts.

Yet history also shows that technology can be a double-edged sword. The same AI that profiles "enemies" can be repurposed to expose discrimination (e.g., algorithms detecting bias in hiring). Grassroots movements are already using blockchain for secure voting, mesh networks for uncensored communication, and open-source tools to audit surveillance. The future won’t be dictated by those who label—it will be shaped by those who refuse to be labeled.

they called us enemy - Ilustrasi 3

Conclusion

The phrase "they called us enemy" is more than a historical footnote; it’s a living tactic, one that adapts but never disappears. Its persistence proves that power doesn’t just seek control—it craves legitimacy, and what better way to justify authority than by inventing a threat? The challenge for future generations isn’t just to oppose these policies in the moment, but to disrupt the very idea of the "other." That means rewriting curricula to include marginalized narratives, holding media accountable for sensationalism, and building cross-community alliances to dilute the power of division.

The alternative is a society where fear is perpetual, where every generation must fight the same battles against the same lies. The good news? Every time a group labeled "the enemy" has resisted, they’ve forced the world to see the truth: the real enemy is the system that profits from hate. The question now is whether we’ll let history repeat—or finally break the cycle.

Comprehensive FAQs

The phrase gained legal traction through Supreme Court rulings like Korematsu v. United States (1944), where the court upheld internment by arguing that Japanese Americans posed a "military danger." The language was later echoed in cases like Trump v. Hawaii (2018), where the court accepted the government’s claim that the travel ban was a "legitimate security measure." The pattern shows how courts have repeatedly deferred to executive fearmongering when civil liberties are at stake.

Q: Can "they called us enemy" policies still happen today?

Absolutely. While overt internment is rare, modern equivalents include:

  • Detention camps: The U.S. currently holds over 50,000 immigrants in detention facilities, many without trial.
  • Surveillance states: Programs like CBP One (border patrol’s app) and facial recognition at airports target specific groups.
  • Economic exclusion: Redlining and predatory lending continue to block wealth-building for communities of color.
The difference today? These policies are fragmented and decentralized, making them harder to challenge legally.

Q: What’s the difference between "they called us enemy" and ordinary racism?

Ordinary racism is individual prejudice, while "they called us enemy" is systemic policy. The latter involves:

  • Legal codification: Laws explicitly banning or restricting a group (e.g., Chinese Exclusion Act).
  • State violence: Government-sanctioned actions like internment or mass surveillance.
  • Institutional complicity: Courts, media, and corporations collaborating to enforce exclusion.
Racism can exist without these elements, but "they called us enemy" requires structural power to implement.

Q: How have marginalized groups resisted these labels?

Resistance has taken many forms:

  • Legal challenges: Cases like Korematsu (which was later overturned) and Trump v. Hawaii (which upheld the ban but with dissenting opinions).
  • Cultural reclamation: Movements like #BlackLivesMatter and #MuslimBanIsNotAboutSafety reframe narratives.
  • Economic boycotts: Japanese Americans sued for reparations in the 1980s, winning $20,000 per survivor.
  • Technological tools: Apps like Muslim Pro (for travel bans) and Decolonial Atlas (for Indigenous land rights) provide real-time resistance.
The most effective strategies combine legal, economic, and cultural pressure to force systemic change.

Q: What can individuals do to combat "they called us enemy" policies?

Individual action can shift the tide:

  • Educate: Share accurate histories (e.g., internment, redlining) to counter myths.
  • Vote strategically: Support leaders who oppose exclusionary policies (e.g., ending ICE detention, defunding surveillance).
  • Divest from complicit industries: Boycott companies profiting from exclusion (e.g., private prisons, surveillance tech).
  • Build alliances: Cross-community solidarity (e.g., Asian American and Black activists uniting against anti-immigrant policies).
  • Document abuses: Use tools like ACLU’s surveillance tracker or ProPublica’s data projects to expose patterns.
The goal isn’t just to oppose policies—it’s to disrupt the conditions that allow them to exist.