Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are again putting words in my mouth.
What I said was that the risk was unknown and given the extremely difficult situation in 1941, the interment seemed to be a an effective way of dealing with the threat. It's so easy to pass judgement having all the historical sources at your disposal yet those were not available in 1941, you know...
You are commiting a cardinal sin by forgetting that the knowledge we have about the events was not available then. It's hard to deal with the unknown and you'd rather err on the cautious side.
Imperial Japanese Army =/= Japanese Americans. Stop comparing Japanese Americans to Japanese Nationals, just because they share ethnicity does not mean they are one and the same. That seems to be the problem with many of the arguments in this thread... If you want to feel better about the internment, take pride then in that it wasn't as horrific as the Soviet persecution of the Volga Germans.
I wasn't making a reference to the Japanese Americans. I wasn't even alive, but my grandparents and aunt detested the Japanese when they were repatriated to America. There was no difference to them for sure.
You are again putting words in my mouth.
What I said was that the risk was unknown and given the extremely difficult situation in 1941, the interment seemed to be a an effective way of dealing with the threat. It's so easy to pass judgement having all the historical sources at your disposal yet those were not available in 1941, you know...
You are commiting a cardinal sin by forgetting that the knowledge we have about the events was not available then. It's hard to deal with the unknown and you'd rather err on the cautious side.
The issue we have is that the people who say it was "justified" argue that it was in the "context" of the times and claim that it was the only evident solution to possible actions by a fifth column. The problem with this line of thinking is as follows; if you (and others) want to cling to your argument then you need to resolve the following:
1. Not all Japanese Americans were placed in internment camps. Only Japanese Americans living on the West Coast were universally placed into camps. Japanese American populations in Hawaii, Midwest and the East Coast were largely left alone. In the case of people in Hawaii, selected people deemed to be "high risk" were taken into custody. That amounted to roughly 1,800 people out of a population of 150,000. Others were placed under minor restrictions, but pretty much left alone. Why were Japanese Americans on the West Coast deemed such an imminent threat, but those in Hawaii and other areas of the country were not? Japanese laborers in Hawaii were even used extensively in rebuilding the facilities at Pearl Harbor and expanding Hawaiian defenses.
2. Restrictions were placed on people of German and Italian descent, but it was done in a selective manner. This is despite the fact that during WW1 German saboteurs carried out extensive attacks against targets in the US under the direction of the German ambassador. The saboteurs found a ready home among not only the German-American population but it is believed actually were assisted by the Irish-American population who resented the US's support for England at the time. Throughout WW2 the Germans attempt to send agents to infiltrate, spy and perform acts of sabotage against the US. Many of these involved German-Americans such as Operation Pastorius and the Duquesne Spy Ring Despite the clear and evident threat posed by German agents, no moves were ever made against the German-American population at large. So, we have overwhelming evidence and direct moves by German-American agents, but no moves against the German-American population. We have zero evidence of any involvement of Japanese-Americans in any form of espionage or sabotage, yet they were interned. Why is that?
3. Why were the growers co-ops on the West Coast so heavily interested in, to the point of openly lobbying for and writing editorials in support of, internment? What interest would growers co-ops possibly have in the issue if it was a purely military descision made in the interests of national defense?
I am not the one who was charge in securing the homeland when the axis powers were winning on all fronts. I am not privy to any intel on attitudes of Japanese Americans towards the war. I can only suspect that the west coast was deemed strategic as any Japanese attack in us soil would happen there so this part of the country was focused on. It's not a matter of prejudice as all the Japanese American be affected then.
Again, it's so easy to pass judgement knowing what we know about WWII today.
In 1941 the priority was to win this war. Keep that in mind.
I believe the Japanese Americans suffered a lot but so did many other Americans and their families
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
The issue we have is that the people who say it was "justified" argue that it was in the "context" of the times and claim that it was the only evident solution to possible actions by a fifth column. The problem with this line of thinking is as follows; if you (and others) want to cling to your argument then you need to resolve the following:
1. Not all Japanese Americans were placed in internment camps. Only Japanese Americans living on the West Coast were universally placed into camps. Japanese American populations in Hawaii, Midwest and the East Coast were largely left alone. In the case of people in Hawaii, selected people deemed to be "high risk" were taken into custody. That amounted to roughly 1,800 people out of a population of 150,000. Others were placed under minor restrictions, but pretty much left alone. Why were Japanese Americans on the West Coast deemed such an imminent threat, but those in Hawaii and other areas of the country were not? Japanese laborers in Hawaii were even used extensively in rebuilding the facilities at Pearl Harbor and expanding Hawaiian defenses.
2. Restrictions were placed on people of German and Italian descent, but it was done in a selective manner. This is despite the fact that during WW1 German saboteurs carried out extensive attacks against targets in the US under the direction of the German ambassador. The saboteurs found a ready home among not only the German-American population but it is believed actually were assisted by the Irish-American population who resented the US's support for England at the time. Throughout WW2 the Germans attempt to send agents to infiltrate, spy and perform acts of sabotage against the US. Many of these involved German-Americans such as Operation Pastorius and the Duquesne Spy Ring Despite the clear and evident threat posed by German agents, no moves were ever made against the German-American population at large. So, we have overwhelming evidence and direct moves by German-American agents, but no moves against the German-American population. We have zero evidence of any involvement of Japanese-Americans in any form of espionage or sabotage, yet they were interned. Why is that?
3. Why were the growers co-ops on the West Coast so heavily interested in, to the point of openly lobbying for and writing editorials in support of, internment? What interest would growers co-ops possibly have in the issue if it was a purely military descision made in the interests of national defense?
I am not the one who was charge in securing the homeland when the axis powers were winning on all fronts. I am not privy to any intel on attitudes of Japanese Americans towards the war. I can only suspect that the west coast was deemed strategic as any Japanese attack in us soil would happen there so this part of the country was focused on. It's not a matter of prejudice as all the Japanese American be affected then.
Again, it's so easy to pass judgement knowing what we know about WWII today.
In 1941 the priority was to win this war. Keep that in mind. I believe the Japanese Americans suffered a lot but so did many other Americans and their families
You keep on trying to change the direction of this whole thread.
This thread title is: "Japanese American internment during WWII was actually a good thing?"
Your answer basically is this: Japanese-American suffered a lot but so did many other Americans and their families.
It doesn't answer the question or makes any sense. Japanese-American = Americans. Japanese-Americans didn't start the war, they are no different from German-American, Italian-American, Irish-American or any other Americans.
"In 1988, Congress passed and President Ronald Reagan signed legislation that apologized for the internment on behalf of the U.S. government. The legislation said that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership".[12] "
Like other posters pointed out. America is a great nation, not a perfect one. I personal believe that America has always been and will always be land of freedom. This is a great country. Internment camp is a shameful chapter of American history, but we learned from it and we moved on.
I am not the one who was charge in securing the homeland when the axis powers were winning on all fronts. I am not privy to any intel on attitudes of Japanese Americans towards the war. I can only suspect that the west coast was deemed strategic as any Japanese attack in us soil would happen there so this part of the country was focused on. It's not a matter of prejudice as all the Japanese American be affected then.
Again, it's so easy to pass judgement knowing what we know about WWII today.
In 1941 the priority was to win this war. Keep that in mind.
I believe the Japanese Americans suffered a lot but so did many other Americans and their families
This is not about passing judgement, this is about reflection and an honest review of what was done. The person who created the thread said that it was a "good thing" that the Japanese were interned. Many of us have been arguing that it was not. Either argument is based on judging the decisions and actions. In the 40 years since it happened there has been much reflection on it and others in a position to do so have already declared it to be a mistake born out of prejudice.
If you want to support the view that it was a positive thing, then you need to present an argument supported with evidence as the rest of us have done to support our statements. The three paragraphs I posted are what need to be resolved for the argument that it was "good or necessary" to hold true. Having read the thread, no one taking the "other side" has even put a coherent argument together let alone provide evidence that it was a positive action. I imagine given it is quite difficult do to the fact you would be running contrary to the findings of the Supreme Court, a Congressional Committee, a couple of Presidents and an approved bill.
Yes, the priority in 1941 was "winning the war". That I have not forgotten. The argument would be that internment had no basis that has ever been found in that process of winning. As for suffering, yes many families suffered. The Japanese-American families suffered the same as the rest when it came to sacrificing their sons for war when it was finally allowed. On top of that, they endured a sacrifice that no other American of any background was asked to do. They had their rights stripped and were sent off to live in a camp under armed guard. Japanese-Americans gave their lives to defend the country and win the war while their families were locked away in a camp. No one else did that.
In the land of freedom we also have prisons and sentence people to death. Protecting the freedom is not an easy task. There were thousand of Americans who sacrificed their lives to protect that freedom so excuse me while I won't shed a tear over the internment of Japanese-Americans.
Of course, when your idea of protecting freedom involves depriving some Americans of freedom, that sacrifice gets cheapened. At least, it doesn't look to me like the Japanese Americans' freedom got a whole lot of protecting.
In the land of freedom we also have prisons and sentence people to death. Protecting the freedom is not an easy task. There were thousand of Americans who sacrificed their lives to protect that freedom so excuse me while I won't shed a tear over the internment of Japanese-Americans.
Of course you won't. Japanese-American were not Americans. Your tears are saved for "Other" Americans who are way more superior than Japanese-Americans.
This is not about passing judgement, this is about reflection and an honest review of what was done. The person who created the thread said that it was a "good thing" that the Japanese were interned. Many of us have been arguing that it was not. Either argument is based on judging the decisions and actions. In the 40 years since it happened there has been much reflection on it and others in a position to do so have already declared it to be a mistake born out of prejudice.
Any review done today, which is post factum, cant be "honest" since we already know how WWII ended and what happen. We won. Of course our view is skewed because we are free today so we fell nonchalant about many events, forgetting that when they were happening situation wasn't clear, or rather was critical. You know very well njgoat what was our situation in 1941. It was really bad. It's very easy for the politicians, especially Carter, who was unable to deal with any international crisis, to take the blame and apologize and maybe we even should, but lets remember that this politician got to live in a free country because many before him were faced with tough choices and difficult decisions.
I don't have to tell you that during war all ethical aspects are secondary to survival, you often sacrifice divisions to save an army. Not ethically plausible but WAR IS UGLY.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
If you want to support the view that it was a positive thing, then you need to present an argument supported with evidence as the rest of us have done to support our statements. The three paragraphs I posted are what need to be resolved for the argument that it was "good or necessary" to hold true. Having read the thread, no one taking the "other side" has even put a coherent argument together let alone provide evidence that it was a positive action. I imagine given it is quite difficult do to the fact you would be running contrary to the findings of the Supreme Court, a Congressional Committee, a couple of Presidents and an approved bill.
Supreme court, Congree and presidents? This is all politics. Fortunately for them these politicians never had to make such difficult decisions. I am not going to try to prove that it was necessary as we lack any data on what would happen if the japanese-americans were not interned. We dont know with a 100% certainty. Maybe nothing or maybe a lot. The politicians who decided for internment did not know it either and simply fought the risk was to high.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
Yes, the priority in 1941 was "winning the war". That I have not forgotten. The argument would be that internment had no basis that has ever been found in that process of winning. As for suffering, yes many families suffered. The Japanese-American families suffered the same as the rest when it came to sacrificing their sons for war when it was finally allowed. On top of that, they endured a sacrifice that no other American of any background was asked to do. They had their rights stripped and were sent off to live in a camp under armed guard. Japanese-Americans gave their lives to defend the country and win the war while their families were locked away in a camp. No one else did that.
"Never found in the process of winning"? Internment was custmary in most wars. What is that process of winning you mention? The only process of winning I know involves eliminating threats, even potential ones, and since the Japanese American Fifth Column was considered a threat that threat had to be eliminated. That's the process of winning. Threat is not necessarily an active attack, its just a potential danger which has to be dealt with. Stakes were to high to leave anything to luck......
Now remember, almost nothing happened to American-Japanese living on the east coast. Don't you think that if the interment was prompted by prejudice it would affect all of the Japanese Americans, anywhere in the country and not just on the territory that was most likely to become a war theater?
Last edited by risotto11; 01-13-2014 at 10:14 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
