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.
Godwin aside (get your own thread to bicker of Nazi numbers in), I am amazed at how no one has yet mentioned the Japanese culture of the time and the extremism that was part and parcel to it. As much as I regret any excesses -at the time and in the climate that existed- the camps WERE justified in the interest of 1. effective defense against sabotage 2. safety of those in the camps against a hateful public 3. elimination of any potential espionage.
Individual rights are trampled upon in wartime. Get over it. The draft and enforced conscription with the likelihood of death resulting isn't a shining beacon of individual rights. Martial law isn't a garden for individual rights. Rationing and enforcement of same isn't a good example of individual rights. Building weapons designed to kill masses of people and building up supplies and infrastructure so that those mass killing can be carried out isn't an example of supporting individuals at the expense of the collective.
How about examining how the Japanese were living at the time in their OWN country. If you want to claim abuse, at least claim it in contrast to what would otherwise be the natural state of the person or organism. (I say organism because the abuse card is often played by animal rights wackos who have never seen deer die of starvation or other horrors of nature). In Japan at the time, every house had regular governmental inspections where any form of hording was punishable, any lack of cleanliness was punishable, any variation from the norm was punishable. The state religion placed the emperor as a god just as much as the Egyptians or Incas, but because it had been usurped by the military, even the emperor himself was subject to its whims. Brutality was commonplace.
Now compare that to life in a camp in the U.S. Given a choice, I would choose the camp in the U.S. in a heartbeat.
IF the culture of Japan hadn't been so extreme, IF the threat of harm to families in Japan as a coercion to spy or sabotage so likely, IF the public sentiment had not been so hateful, MAYBE there could have been alternatives. The first and foremost goal of the U.S. at the time was winning a war on two fronts. I'm reminded of a father driving his wife to a hospital while the kids in the back are acting out. "Don't MAKE me stop this car." A backhanded slap at anyone in the back seat might not be politically correct, but needed to enforce some sense of sanity that allows things to go forward.
Godwin aside (get your own thread to bicker of Nazi numbers in), I am amazed at how no one has yet mentioned the Japanese culture of the time and the extremism that was part and parcel to it. As much as I regret any excesses -at the time and in the climate that existed- the camps WERE justified in the interest of 1. effective defense against sabotage 2. safety of those in the camps against a hateful public 3. elimination of any potential espionage.
1) There was no indication, except heritage, that sabotage was coming.
2) Yeah, that's why the machine guns were pointed into the camps rather than outside them.
3) There was no indication, except heritage, that they would commit espionage.
In fact, I'm fairly sure there was no Japanese counterpart to the German-American Bund, which had lost most of its steam by 1941 but at least did give some rational grounds for ethnic paranoia involving German immigrants and German-Americans.
Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria were among the hostile Axis countries. In only one case did we zero in on ethnic origin in large numbers, and there's one thing about that ethnic origin that stands out. Then there's the fact that many of the internees were American citizens. Only one thing about their ethnic origin stood out, too.
Sorry, but no matter how many apologies older people will attempt to make for this, it was still a completely unjustifiable abuse and a lasting shame upon this country. Either that, or it was getting this country to show its true colors under a little bit of stress, which is what I tend to think. We talk a great game about freedom and all that until someone sets off a few firecrackers, then we mainly abandon our principles and say 'that was then, this is now.'
Godwin aside (get your own thread to bicker of Nazi numbers in), I am amazed at how no one has yet mentioned the Japanese culture of the time and the extremism that was part and parcel to it. As much as I regret any excesses -at the time and in the climate that existed- the camps WERE justified in the interest of 1. effective defense against sabotage 2. safety of those in the camps against a hateful public 3. elimination of any potential espionage.
I am amazed that someone thinks that the culture within one country - Japan - magically follows all ethnic Japanese around the globe.
Quote:
Individual rights are trampled upon in wartime. Get over it. The draft and enforced conscription with the likelihood of death resulting isn't a shining beacon of individual rights. Martial law isn't a garden for individual rights. Rationing and enforcement of same isn't a good example of individual rights. Building weapons designed to kill masses of people and building up supplies and infrastructure so that those mass killing can be carried out isn't an example of supporting individuals at the expense of the collective.
There was no martial law in CONUS during World War II. You don't appear to know what you're talking about. You're just flailing about for any excuse to justify internment.
Quote:
How about examining how the Japanese were living at the time in their OWN country. If you want to claim abuse, at least claim it in contrast to what would otherwise be the natural state of the person or organism. (I say organism because the abuse card is often played by animal rights wackos who have never seen deer die of starvation or other horrors of nature). In Japan at the time, every house had regular governmental inspections where any form of hording was punishable, any lack of cleanliness was punishable, any variation from the norm was punishable. The state religion placed the emperor as a god just as much as the Egyptians or Incas, but because it had been usurped by the military, even the emperor himself was subject to its whims. Brutality was commonplace.
It's completely irrelevant to the rights of ethnic Japanese who are United States citizens. By this embarrassing proffering of logic, no black should ever complain about civil rights violation because, hey, there's some sub-Saharan country where black leaders are treating blacks worse. The same even applies to whites - rights are pretty meager in white-run Russia and Belarus, after all. So whites have no cause to complain when they're oppressed by the state, because... Putin!
See how completely incoherent that - ie, your argument - is?
Quote:
Now compare that to life in a camp in the U.S. Given a choice, I would choose the camp in the U.S. in a heartbeat.
And we'd both probably choose a year of incarceration without a trial, followed by a week of torture, and the subsequent confiscation of all our belongs - versus execution by firing squad. But, see, the fact that one abuse is less bad than another does not mean one should not object to the less bad abuse.
You really need this explained to you?
Quote:
IF the culture of Japan hadn't been so extreme, IF the threat of harm to families in Japan as a coercion to spy or sabotage so likely, IF the public sentiment had not been so hateful, MAYBE there could have been alternatives. The first and foremost goal of the U.S. at the time was winning a war on two fronts. I'm reminded of a father driving his wife to a hospital while the kids in the back are acting out. "Don't MAKE me stop this car." A backhanded slap at anyone in the back seat might not be politically correct, but needed to enforce some sense of sanity that allows things to go forward.
So you do believe in racial guilt - because ethnic Japanese in Japan misbehaved, ethnic Japanese in America must pay the price. Let me ask - are you white, like I am? Do you hold to the idiotic idea that because some white people lynched a black man in the South at some point, that it is therefore justified that another black person kill you or I?
That's your 'logic'.
PS - I note that you haven't the foggiest idea what the term 'politically correct' means, but I am hardly surprised to see you slip it in there. Nine times out of ten, people who prattle on about 'political correctness' merely use it to dismiss anything with which they disagree, because they have this self-absorbed notion that its meaning is 'anything I don't like'.
"I am amazed that someone thinks that the culture within one country - Japan - magically follows all ethnic Japanese around the globe."
LOL! Aside from the fact that it DID follow them throughout southeast Asia, China, Korea and a few other places, and aside from the fact that your "amazement" is better described as naivety, we all drag our cultures with us like so much baggage, regardless of how much we try to distance ourselves from it. "Ugly American", "Chinese Tourist", "Rude Frenchman" Stereotypes don't develop out of a vacuum.
You conveniently exclude Hawaii in your saying there was no martial law, which is somewhat irrelevant anyway since the concept I was driving at seemed to fly over your head like an airplane above your sight.
"It's completely irrelevant to the rights of ethnic Japanese who are United States citizens."
OK, if it is SO irrelevant, reverse things. You, as a person of U.S. heritage move to China. The U.S. and China get into a world war while you are there. You read that the city in the U.S. which houses your mother has been bombed, amidst much cheering in your local Chinese community. Do you have the ability to shrug it off "Oh well, mom's dead, she probably had it coming anyway."? Do you maintain ANY sense of concern and loyalty to your old country? If you accept her death with equanimity and don't have any concern for those you grew up with, then your argument of "irrelevancy" might make sense - for YOU and you alone.
"And we'd both probably choose a year of incarceration without a trial, followed by a week of torture, and the subsequent confiscation of all our belongs - versus execution by firing squad. But, see, the fact that one abuse is less bad than another does not mean one should not object to the less bad abuse.
You really need this explained to you? "
I see that I was able to squeeze a begrudging concession to a point there, along with a flip zinger. By your logic, if I am in a blinding two week blizzard and a farmer says the only place I can stay in in the stable with the horses, do I get to whinge afterwards and complain about his behavior even though his family lived in a one room shack and he wanted to protect his family? Life is FULL of abuse. This generation has experienced so little that it has no perspective.
You ask if I believe in racial guilt. No, but I DO believe in cultural guilt unless the person actively speaks out against or disowns the culture that is transgressing. I don't however carry that through more than a couple of generations. Culture is something one is born into but at some point has an opportunity to examine and accept or deny at any number of levels.
In debates like this, I usually make my points and let any reaction play itself out. Religion and politics are rarely examined successfully in the light of logic, and religious wars get tedious and more stupid as they go along. The points I made stand.
1. I regret any excesses that happened during that time.
2. The safety and welfare of the entire nation was at stake and that trumped a lot of nicities.
3. In wars between cultures, members of opposing cultures are treated with mistrust.
4. Cultural ties and coercion can be incredibly strong.
5. Japanese culture/religion/military at that time was intertwined and abhorrent
Lincoln said of slavery that if slavery had to continue for the nation to survive, he was for slavery. Leaders in war face tough choices. People get stepped on in service of the larger concept. There is no way around it.
1) There was no indication, except heritage, that sabotage was coming.
...
3) There was no indication, except heritage, that they would commit espionage.
I
There was every indication, based on heritage that sabotage was coming.
There was every indication, based on heritage, that they would commit espionage.
We know, beyond a doubt, that Japanese citizens living in Hawaii DID indeed commit espionage, monitoring and reporting ship movements in and out of Pearl.
We can argue that Japanese-Americans in the camps were treated better than American citizens. They were not drafted into our military. And as such were not subjected to being slaughtered by other Japanese.
Not that any of that makes it right. But the country had more to be concerned about than the sensitivities of Japanese-Americans at that time. We were in a world war, one in which more than 1/2 million of our citizens were killed.
Last edited by Toyman at Jewel Lake; 10-01-2015 at 04:24 PM..
I am amazed that someone thinks that the culture within one country - Japan - magically follows all ethnic Japanese around the globe.
I'm amazed that someone can be possibly think it doesn't, especially given how often that fact is reinforced, even today. If you recall, we actually have American citizens serving in Afghanistan right now. Some of them are in trouble today, for "bringing their culture with them". Seems that Muslim culture condones and supports the rape of children by adult men. When American citizens culture led them to kick said rapist's azz, Muslims were outraged and they were disciplined.
Equally so, we have Muslims in this country that have most certainly "brought their culture with them". From honor killings to attempts to slaughter those that draw pictures of their little sky daddy, to joining ISIS, to slaughtering innocent people as a political statement, just as a couple of examples.
I think it would be foolish in the extreme to think it impossible that some Japanese-Americans would not have done the same.
"It's completely irrelevant to the rights of ethnic Japanese who are United States citizens."
OK, if it is SO irrelevant, reverse things. You, as a person of U.S. heritage move to China. The U.S. and China get into a world war while you are there. You read that the city in the U.S. which houses your mother has been bombed, amidst much cheering in your local Chinese community. Do you have the ability to shrug it off "Oh well, mom's dead, she probably had it coming anyway."? Do you maintain ANY sense of concern and loyalty to your old country? If you accept her death with equanimity and don't have any concern for those you grew up with, then your argument of "irrelevancy" might make sense - for YOU and you alone.
Your analogy is flawed.
Firstly you'd need to move to China, have kids in China, have your kids have kids and have your kids kids have kids in China.
Then the US would have to commit an unprovoked attack on China.
Then the Chinese would have to intern you, your kids, grandkids and great grandkids as a security threat, while having a written constitution that was the basis of all government and law.
At the time of the Japanese Internment, the US had not launched any attacks on Japan, Pearl Harbor happened Dec 7 1941, EO 9066 was signed Feb 19 1942, barely two months after Pearl Harbor and 3 months prior to the first major US offensive (Battle of the Coral Sea). So you would have to be interned because of a hostile attack by your (Great) grand fathers country of origin
That's pretty much what happened to many Americans of Japanese extraction. Again they were not Japanese, and many had never set foot in Japan, they were as American as you are. The EO resulted in people who were up to 1/16th Japanese ethnicity (so one great grand parent was of pure Japanese ethnicity) being interned.
There was every indication, based on heritage that sabotage was coming.
There was every indication, based on heritage, that they would commit espionage.
I don't have any reason to believe that either statement is accurate. I think the only evidence one could find is that higher-ups felt those things were true, and because someone believes something is not evidence.
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.
