- This topic has 2 voices and 10 replies.
-
Posts
-
For those not familiar with the subject I will give the basic facts. Several months after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor the U.S. President signed an executive order that required all people of Japanese descent living on the West Coast, over 100,000 people, whether alien, citizens, or native born to be removed to “internment camps” in the interior. This was supposedly because they were deemed to be a security risk even though the only “proof” of this was some blatant lies that were told by the military commander of the military district. They were to be allowed to take one suitcase each with them. All other property would have to be sold or abandoned so families lost everything they had spent a lifetime accumulating and at best received far less than their actual value. There was a long history of racial hatred and prejudice on the West Coast against Asians in general and Japanese in partiuclar going back about 90 years, to when Chinese laborers were brought over to work on the transcontinental railroad. There were three famous Supreme Court cases that came out of this action by the U.S. government. Eventually the U.S. formally apologized and gave each survivor a pittance of $20,000 in compensation. What tends to make this whole episode even more suspicious was the fact that in Hawaii, where an invasion by Japanese troops was far more likely and where the Japanese were a larger percent of the population, no such actions were taken.I thought that, in light of the situation today where paranoia over an overblown threat to the country has resulted in gross violations of civil rights as well as generalized prejudice against a specific group based on either religion or ethnicity, a discussion of this topic might be enlightening. History DOES repeat itself, especially if people don't remember and talk about it.
First, I am not going to defend maltreatment to any group of people. I haven't studied this episode of history enough to have an accurate understanding of the process of forcing Japanese Americans into internment camps. However, any unjust treatment toward them was wrong. That said, I'm not so sure that the "only proof" was based on the lies that you suggested. I recall a History Channel program that spoke of Japanese work on chemical or biological weapons in Manchuria toward the end of the war (for example, see the story of Shiro Ishii). They were also working on high altitude, long range bombers that would fly too high for American fighters to engage. These bombers would have had the ability to strike targets on the U.S. West Coast, such as San Diego. There were other scenarios as well:
Proposals included use of these weapons against the United States. They proposed using balloon bombs to carry disease to America and they had a plan in the summer of 1945 to use kamikaze pilots to dump plague infected fleas on San Diego.
Here's another account of the danger and uncertainty faced on the West Coast soon after American joined the War effort. Rumors - whether intentional or not - may have been spread about Japanese ships off the coast of California, but they weren't something to take lightly:
Along the Pacific coast in December 1941 there were, for example, only forty-five thoroughly modern fighter planes to defend a coast line which extended for 1,200 miles, and along which were located such important aircraft plants as those of Boeing in Seattle, Douglas and Lockheed in Los Angeles, and Consolidated in San Diego. In heavy bombers, the defenders were even less well equipped; for at the close of 1941, there were only ten such planes stationed along the entire coast and the number within reach for concentration against an enemy force was indeed limited.
That same site describes how California had been hit by Japanese sea warfare:
During the course of a fireside report to the nation delivered by President Roosevelt on 23 February 1942, a Japanese submarine rose out of the sea off Ellwood, a hamlet on the California coast north of Santa Barbara, and pumped thirteen shells into tidewater refinery installations.
All this said, suspicion and fear that a massive Japanese attack would hit the West Coast were quite understandable. I'm not sure how much the U.S. government knew about plans to spread biological agents in California - perhaps this came out after the War. But if the government did know during the War, it would add an extra need for very high security.I'm not saying that any of this justifies any particular thing that happened to Japanese Americans or any policy directed at them during the War. However, I am saying that suspicion of Japanese spying within the U.S. - and the potential for major destruction - was more understandable during the time of conflict. Of course, we can look back and judge some 60 years after the fact, but remember that they didn't yet know the outcome of the War.
All of the responses seem to have one thing in common – none of them were about anything the people interned did. Just because they looked like the enemy did not make them the enemy or in any way responsible for enemy actions, must less plans. The attitude of the general responsible for starting the rumors of “suspicious lights” and other actions attributed to Japanese-Americans was – and this is a quote – “A Jap is a Jap.” In other words he was declaring that because of their race their were automatically a suspect class. Nothing even remotely like it was done to, or even suggested, against Italian-Americans or German-Americans. And all of this was after the FBI had identified all enemy aliens that were deemed as suspect and they were either rounded up or under surveillance. In fact the head of the FBI was against the internment. He happened to be J. Edgar Hoover who was never exactly renowned for giving a rat's behind for anybody's civil rights. The point that I am trying to make is that the country did these unconstitutional and immoral things to a group because the people were scared and the group they were scared of the most were easily identifiable by their race. I think that in this day of over-hyped terror plots – plots such as the most recent where the suspects had been under investigation for over a year – we need to be aware of our proven tendency to react when scared by striking out at the most easily idenfiable group without much caring about things like proof or even guilt. We as a a nation have always had a tendency to strike out blindly when we feel threatened and in this day of an ever shrinking and more dangerous planet we have to be even more careful. If anything, recent events should have taught us hitting the wrong target can turn friends into enemies, in a heartbeat, and we need friends more than ever. The Nissei reacted to their treatment by forming the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, either the most decorated, or one of the most decorated, combat units in all of World War II. Other groups might not be so understanding or committed to proving themselves to us. I'm not saying that the government didn't have the right to be suspicious of the Nissei and to keep an eye on them and investigate suspicious activity – that is, by definition, their job. I'm saying they did not have the right to punish an entire group of people, to take away everthing they owned, to lock them up, without proof or anything even remotely resembling a judicial proceeding. If we are going to hold ourselves up as the bastion of democracy we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard or we are no better than whatever the current “axis of evil” that we are opposing, regardless of who are its members.
Your point is well taken – it was basically a reaction against an entire group for the possible action of a select few who might be from the group. Granted, it was a cautionary measure designed to pre-empt calamities without considering the effects on the innocent who would undoubtedly be punished.
Nothing even remotely like it was done to, or even suggested, against Italian-Americans or German-Americans. And all of this was after the FBI had identified all enemy aliens that were deemed as suspect and they were either rounded up or under surveillance.
Actually, this isn't true, so it wasn't only a singling out of Japanese Americans. Read this:
During WWII, the US Government interned at least 11,000 persons of German ancestry. By law, only "enemy aliens" could be interned. However, with governmental approval, their family members frequently joined them in the camps. Many such "voluntarily" interned spouses and children were American citizens. Internment was frequently based upon uncorroborated, hearsay evidence gathered by the FBI and other intelligence agencies. Homes were raided and many ransacked. Fathers, mothers and sometimes both were arrested and disappeared. Sometimes children left after the arrests had to fend for themselves. Some were placed in orphanages.
Also read this:
According to the latest research, dozens of Italians lost their fishing boats and hundreds more -- largely bakers, restaurant workers and garbage men -- had to give up jobs because of curfews. About 1,600 Italian citizens were interned, all of them here, and about 10,000 Italian-Americans were forced to move from their houses in California coastal communities to inland homes.And the 600,000 legal Italian immigrants who had not become U.S. citizens were put under travel restrictions. Dozens of American citizens of Italian origin who had shown sympathy for Mussolini were temporarily banished from California.
So the situation was not quite as similar to what you are proposing (i.e. different race = "lock 'em up"). Actions were taken as "sweeping measures". Let's face it, in world war, all sides end up losing in one way or another. Where I will disagree, though, is the comparison of internment to current politics. We're truly facing a different enemy now, and the actions by democratic nations are hardly comparable to those of WWII.
Please tell me your source for the information about the actions taken against German-Americans & Italian-Americans' . I have never seen any reference to any such widespread actions in all my reading. I'm not doubting you but if I'm wrong I want to verify it and correct it. But the measures you describe sound much less draconian than those taken against the Nissei and they seem to be less widespread. Still, that does put a new perspective on the whole issue. So please let me know your sources and if I was mistaken I will admit it. After all, it wouldn't be the first time and likely wouldn't be the last. Besides, all of it was still wrong and violated most of what this country supposedly stands for and what we were supposedly fighting against. And I would still argue that there is a direct connection between those actions and much of what we see today. But you are right, there is much difference between the war then and the “war” now. For one, there is no threat of invasion, except by us. Our current enemy cannot destroy us while the original Axis very well could have. Both could and have inflicted death and destruction against us and our allies but, while 9/11 has much in common with Perl Harbor, there has been no Bataan, Corregidor, or Wake Island to follow it up and I imagine that most Britons would concede that the Underground bombings of last year pale in comparison to the Blitz or Dunkirk. I'm NOT saying that the terrorists are to be taken lightly, far from it. They have a demonstrated willingness and ability to kill and destroy anyone, anywher, at any time, but again THEY CANNOT DESTROY US, THEY CANNOT CONQUER US!!! However, we can destroy ourselves by engaging in self-destructive behavior because of raging fear and paranoia, and it still wouldn't protect us from the terrorists – the ability of the mujaheddin to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan is vivid testimony to the fact that brute force cannot defeat a civilian insurgency that has any significant amount of popular support, as is the current situation in Iraq. At let's not forget Vietnam. People must be allowed to determine their own fate even if we don't like the results. Trying to impose our ideology because we don't like theirs never works. And finally, we must not repeat the mistakes of the 1940's and '50's when we almost consumed ourselves through things like McCarthyism. Again, history repeats itself and the results are often not pleasant.
Historywonk, in response to your request about the source, you can view the underlined links in my previous post to see the page where I got the info from. One of those sites is a comprehensive detailing of the internment of German Americans during WWII: http://www.foitimes.com/
Historywonk, in response to your request about the source, you can view the underlined links in my previous post to see the page where I got the info from.? One of those sites is a comprehensive detailing of the internment of German Americans during WWII: http://www.foitimes.com/
If I am reading the information on foitimes.com correctly, he is referring to the people taken into custody by the FBI and his figures are comparable to those that I have seen. I am talking about the mass internment of Japanese-Americans which included ALL of them in the Military District that covered the West Coast. It was done under the authority of Executive Order 9066. This was strictly a military operation, conducted by the Army, in the Department commanded by Gen. DeWitt if I am remembering the name correctly. This was an entirely separate operation from what the FBI did. Their operations were against individuals suspected even before Pearl Harbor of ties to one of the Axis governments and they were usually given access to some sort of legal proceedings. The people taken to the internment camps were eventually released but everything that they owned or possessed at the time of their internment was gone. None of them were ever given any type of hearing or judicial procedure. There was nothing similar done to any other group. Again, this was a completely separate operation from the FBI's taking of people into custody. In fact, one of the condemnatory aspects is that the man in charge of it, DeWitt, made J. Edgar Hoover look like an ACLU member, and THAT was really hard to accomplish. It's why they received an official apology and reparations from the government.
Actually, it looks like Order 9066 applied to all ethnicities, not just Japanese:
Feb.-April 1942 Congress ratifies Executive Order 9066 authorizing the imposition of sanctions for violations of the order. Extensive military zones established on the east and west coasts, significantly expanding upon those originally created by DOJ, and in certain areas around the Great Lakes. Gen. John DeWitt issues a series of Public Proclamations creating Western Defense Command military areas and outlining curfews, travel restrictions and exclusion provisions, among other things, applicable to German, Japanese and Italian aliens, as well as Japanese American citizens. By military order, thousands of German, Japanese and Italian aliens required leave military areas on the West Coast. Later, approximately 100,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans are relocated from the West Coast to camps administered by the Wartime Relocation Authority. On an individual basis, "potentially dangerous" US citizens of German ancestry are also ordered out of military zones and forced to establish new lives with little or no government assistance.
However, Japanese were far more affected than other groups, but from what I have read it sounds like the other groups were treated pretty bad, if not equally as bad. There is a page, here, which discusses the myth that Japanese Americans were interned en masse.Regardless, the treatment of people with particular nationalities, especially the Japanese in America, appears to have been pretty harsh. But again I don't think this is comparable to anything that is going on today. Aside from limited acts of retaliation (e.g. right after 9/11) perhaps the opposite it true; for example, political correctness has mandated that profiling not be used at airport screenings.
Actually, it looks like Order 9066 applied to all ethnicities, not just Japanese:However, Japanese were far more affected than other groups, but from what I have read it sounds like the other groups were treated pretty bad, if not equally as bad.? There is a page, here, which discusses the myth that Japanese Americans were interned en masse.Regardless, the treatment of people with particular nationalities, especially the Japanese in America, appears to have been pretty harsh.? But again I don't think this is comparable to anything that is going on today.? Aside from limited acts of retaliation (e.g. right after 9/11) perhaps the opposite it true; for example, political correctness has mandated that profiling not be used at airport screenings.
First, the mass internment of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in early 1942 is NOT myth, any more than the Holocaust is myth. It happened, to them and nobody else. There were three Supreme Court cases triggered by it. They are no more myth than the Dred Scott case. And the point is not what we HAVE done, but what we MIGHT do. The fact that we haven't done anything remotely resembling what we did during World War II is a good thing, but we need to keep our guard up so that we DON'T do it. That's why we have to dial back on the political rhetoric that equates any disagreement with administration policy as helping the "al Queda types" and calling anyone who wants to see an actual exit strategy for Iraq in place a "cut-and-runner". This country has a long history of abusing minorities when it fits a social or political agenda. It also has a long history of suppressing dissent during war times, regardless of the severity of the threat, so we must be as vigilant against those who would use the threat to attack their political enemies or support their social agenda as we are against the threat itself.
Well, the site that I pointed to is the one which discusses the myth that I referred to. Mind you, the myth is not that internment did not happen, but rather that it was “en mass” interment (i.e. a simultaneous sweep). And again, I think that the sites I pointed out are pretty definitive in that this kind of thing was not confined to Japanese in America.As far as your second points go, I agree with some of what you say, although I don't think it's really related to racial or ethnic internment. I agree that calling for an exit strategy in Iraq shouldn't be treated with scorn, since our goal should be to leave Iraq at some time, unless we plan on making Iraq a commonwealth of the U.S. (or something like that). And while dissent may have been suppressed during times of war in the past (likely for all of history), I think that in modern times that common sense has been suppressed by political correctness, including during times of war. That is something we need to watch out for IMO.
I will agree that political correctness and common sense don't go together, and this applies whether the PC is from the Left or the Right. I would argue however that the Right tends to more the attack-dog mentality (O'Reilly, Limbaugh, etc.) while the Left is more the touchy-feely type. One tries to beat you into submission while the other tries to smother you with pablum. But there is still an ongoing attempt to suppress dissent by effectively saying that liberals are in cahoots with the enemies of America. In the '50s they called them “fellow travelers” who had joined “Communistically inspired” organizations whereas now the VP says that their actions help the “al-Queda types.” Now there is nothing wrong with insulting your opponents, that has always been and will always be part of American politics, going back to the Jefferson-Adams presidential contest of 1800. It is when the executive proclaims that it has the right to wiretap phones without a warrant, to seize and lock up American citizens without benefit of any legal proceedings and hold them as long as it sees fit, when it supports torture in violation of domestic and international law, when it seizes people off the street both here and abroad and “renditions” them to countries that allow all kinds of physical torture, and finally WHEN THE CONGRESS STANDS IDLE AND LETS IT HAPPEN, that's when I get very nervous. Fortunately the Supreme Court still seems to have a little bit of courage left, at least until another justice dies, retires, or whatever. The bottom line is that the direction we are currently headed in is scary. Or to put it another way, how would you like to see Hillary Clinton as President with the same powers that George Bush claims?And I don't care what websites you find, 110,000 Americans citizens WERE swept up in a matter of weeks from one entire section of the country and FORCED to leave almost everything behind while they were FORCED to move into what were concentration camps where they were held without any legal recourse for at least a year, perhaps more, I'm not sure of the time frame offhand, but then the amount of time is irrelevant. Nothing even close to this was done to any other group, and it was done to this group BECAUSE they were Japanese or of Japanese ancestry. Other groups may have been mistreated during the war - this country has a history of mistreating or taking advantage of immigrants - but nothing on the scale that we did to the Nissei.
And I don't care what websites you find, 110,000 Americans citizens WERE swept up in a matter of weeks from one entire section of the country and FORCED to leave almost everything behind while they were FORCED to move into what were concentration camps where they were held without any legal recourse for at least a year, perhaps more, I'm not sure of the time frame offhand, but then the amount of time is irrelevant. Nothing even close to this was done to any other group, and it was done to this group BECAUSE they were Japanese or of Japanese ancestry. Other groups may have been mistreated during the war - this country has a history of mistreating or taking advantage of immigrants - but nothing on the scale that we did to the Nissei.
Well, I think I've been more than fair enough in explaining my position and backing up my findings with sources. So if you "don't care" what evidence I'm using in support of my findings - or my presentation of other people's findings - having this conversation becomes rather moot, and we can both start claiming whatever we want. History is full of fact and fiction, and so it's important to at least attempt to distinguish the two. That's my preference in tackling historical issues, particularly when they have some effect in present-day issues.
