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.
newsflash, japanese were honary whites, and germans face discrimination during the 40's because of hitler and the senate rejected a wisconsin elected socialist because he was german, german business were forced to change their names to more american names at the time which is basically english american style name to prevent backlash and violence from non germans
How many first-generation German American-born citizens were given a couple of days to wind up their affairs, herded into camps, told to sign an oath renouncing Hitler (as if they'd previously been loyal to him), had all their stuff confiscated and their property vandalized, and incarcerated for three years? I'll be fascinated to hear the number.
If Japanese were honorary whites, then why were there specific laws denying Japanese immigrants permission to apply for US citizenship? The only reason there were very many actual Japanese nationals (as opposed to their children, who were born US nationals) is because they weren't even allowed to apply for citizenship until after WWII. Whites and blacks were, but not Japanese. I'll be fascinated as well to hear you explain how Japanese immigrants or Japanese-Americans could be considered honorary whites under those conditions.
newsflash, japanese were honary whites, and germans face discrimination during the 40's because of hitler and the senate rejected a wisconsin elected socialist because he was german, german business were forced to change their names to more american names at the time which is basically english american style name to prevent backlash and violence from non germans
Honorary whites are legal definition in apartheid south africa created to accommodate trade relations between South Africa and Japan. There is no such thing in the US. Even the term "model minority" didn't appear until fairly lately when Asian American began to emerge economically AND more importantly civil rights movement, which we all now was primarily about rights for African Americans, began to shake up status quo in the US. It's very clear that the whole "model minority" carries a undertone essentially saying Asian Americans are "good" not just because they are economically successful but also they are much more docile than blacks and far less likely to challenge discrimination they encounter in their lives. America is to certain extent a nation defined by race. A lot of seemly high moral rhetoric have very nasty racism undertone beneath it. No, racism didn't disappear, they just chose to hide behind moralistic rhetoric like "individual responsibility", "small government", "state rights", etc.
It's very clear that the whole "model minority" carries a undertone essentially saying Asian Americans are "good" not just because they are economically successful but also they are much more docile than blacks and far less likely to challenge discrimination they encounter in their lives.
That actually became quite a divisive issue among the Nikkei community for over a generation (arguably two for it to fully peter out) during and after the war. While it's inaccurate to try and draw a crystal-clear dividing line because opinions varied quite a bit even among those of roughly similar view, one might roughly group Nikkei of that era into two broad factions: those who bought into "If we just don't cause any trouble, and do what the government wants, it'll get better," and those who said "The government can go pound sand until it decides to treat us like law-abiding citizens."
I don't doubt that both sides resented the situation deeply, and with good reason, but the former side put up with the conditions and sought to work through political representatives and putting the best face on a rotten situation--they tended to serve in 442, for example. The latter dared make a statement (or supported those who did) and thus was subjected to some ostracism from the former--and in quite a few cases, jail time. It's not for me to take sides or judge anyone at this ethnic and temporal remove, except to say that I don't blame anyone for their personal choices in such a lousy situation, and I wish that view had prevailed more among the community in the postwar period. But perhaps when it touches you so personally, it's hard to be so understanding, and that too is something I'll never be in a position to really judge.
A good friend of mine (Nisei, thus a born American national) was of military age when he was hauled into camp, but he had already attempted to volunteer for the service and been turned away. When they came later to recruit him, he said, "Forget it. You didn't want me before, so do it yourself." However, he later served in Korea. A significant issue was the loyalty oath presented to everyone in the incarceration camps, because the response the government was looking for on the key questions was yes/yes, but as the oath was worded, answering yes/yes was tantamount to an admission of previous allegiance to Japan. If one had never truly held any allegiance but to the US, therefore, one had to answer 'no' to the pertinent question. George Takei's parents, who went into camp with youthful George during the war, saw it this way and answered 'no', and got a lot of grief over it. It's pretty bad when you can't even word a question so that a person with undivided loyalties can't in good conscience affirm that loyalty by answering the question positively.
And lest anyone think that was just semantics people should have ignored, one may well remember the numerous prosecutions and incarcerations of camp inmates who didn't toe the line--in Idaho, especially, they were parodies of jurisprudence with grossly inadequate assistance of counsel and assembly-line juries. With such things going on, one must be very careful what one is saying by signing a document. It's not as though the camp inmates could expect the system to work in a balanced way for them, so some did what I probably would have done: take the question as it was written and answer in complete candor, and if need be, explain why.
The Internment is very relevant today. It really boils down to just how important is the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights during times of turmoil. Without the Constitution. the situation that has been implemented today would be the permanent status.
I think the camps set up for the Japanese-Americans were a travesty of our priciples, although the over-reaction which caused them is somewhat understandable.
That the war would produce internment camps for Japanese Americans would seem in keeping with a war that was primarily caused by racism.
Japan's "crime" in the eyes of the US was behaving like a western imperialist nation.
When they came out of isolation in the latter half of the 19th Century, they came a booming. They made an incredibly fast decision to take on western ways and inacted the program with stunning speed. The Japanese, as with the western nations, had a very high opinion of themselves, and as with the western nations, believed that they were entitled by natural law to dominate lesser civilizations. They also believed that by transforming themselves into a western style imperial power, they would be winning the respect of the west and welcomed as equals. They had whipped the Russians in 1905 and they were on the winning side in WW I. In their minds, they had arrived. They were major players on the world stage.
That this was not going to be the case was first evidenced by the Naval treaties of the 1920's where the US and Great Britain sought to control the size of the Imperial fleet and keep it smaller than their own navies. It started to become apparent to Japan that the west might be regarding them as honorary westerners, but they still had a child's status.
The tremendously negative reaction to the Japanese invasion of China still managed to surprise them. In their minds they were doing what the west had been doing for centuries, carving out chunks of China for their own interests, behaving like imperialists had always behaved.
But what was okay for Christian western civilizations, was not okay for Japan. Instead they were being told that their dreams of empire were going to have to remain dreams and the west would dictate what was to be permitted in the Pacific. Their choice became accepting second class status, or gambling on a war.
Since the United States never threatened Great Britain with sanctions when the Raj needed to shoot down protesting Hindus, but did impose them on Japan for shooting Chinese, it isn't difficult to see that racism was the dividing line.
In that sense, one could argue that the US fought the Pacific war to sustain their existing view of Japan's second tier status. It is not surprising then that during the war, they would treat Japanese Americans as second tier citizens, ones who were not quite white enough to qualify for Bill of Rights protections.
I think the USA embargo on exports of oil and materials which could be used for war (along with the freezing of Japanese interests inside the USA) made an attack on the USA inevitable. And of course Japan was treated badly in a racist way before that. However, it hardly justifies Pearl Harbor and the abysmal treatment of POWs by the Japanese. (Not to mention the "Rape of Nanking" and suchlike, which brutality was on a scale and horror that the Western Powers hardly approached in their imperialist designs on China - talk about racism!) The United States could hardly avoid declaring war on Japan after December 7, 1941.
This thread is drifting...None of the above justifies the interment in the United States of Japanese-Americans, but after Pearl Harbor, an invasion of the West Coast was feared by some. There is more than enough blame to go around.
This thread is drifting...None of the above justifies the interment in the United States of Japanese-Americans, but after Pearl Harbor, an invasion of the West Coast was feared by some. There is more than enough blame to go around.
Such an invasion was certainly feared. And the internment of foreign nationals is one thing in wartime, though perhaps we might justly make some allowance for the fact that most of the foreign nationals in question were not permitted to apply for citizenship to begin with, which really kind of takes 'life is not fair' to the extreme when one subsequently interns them for being foreign. But the internment of US citizens, many of whom gave up chunks of their childhood 'in camp', that's the part that will never find a justification.
Then there is the part that isn't economically hurtful but is quite offensive to the pride: the insult implied in saying, "Because you are of Japanese heritage you might be a traitor." I wonder how many colonels and generals named Antonelli and Schumann promulgated that.
Last edited by j_k_k; 06-14-2009 at 09:52 AM..
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.
