More on the Japanese-American internment -- quite a bit more
Here are some of my further views, E. I will be responding to much of what you say, but by no means all of it. The more we get bogged down in specifics and details, the more we lose sight of the larger picture, in my opinion. As it is, not many have joined our discussion, and I think we may both be wearing out our welcome on this thread, perhaps boring others.
I think we could both agree, E, that the past cannot be undone. So, it seems to me that what is important to you is that Americans today join in a condemnation of our internment program of 1942. I believe it would satisfy you if we all agreed that it was a shame of our nation, if not a crime perpetrated against some of our own citizens. The idea of a "crime" is more concrete than that of a "shame", and so I will use that thought to develop my own arguments. Thinking of a crime also allows us to better draw analogies. For example, the elements of a crime include both motive and intent. These should equally apply to acting shamefully, in any event.
As to motive, I think this is a weak part of your argument at present. (Analogy: In a murder case, the prosecution is not obliged to offer the jury a motive. Yet, criminal attorneys agree that is near-impossible to secure conviction without providing the jury with a plausible motive for the crime). You have suggested that "local politicians" and the Hearst press were responsible for inflaming public opinion, a major impetus to the internment decision. First, we must understand who these "local politicians" were. I do not mean by name, but are we talking here of Mayors? Assemblymen? State Representatives? Congressmen? Senators? Water Commissioners? District Attorneys? If this is the general flavor of the meaning ... than what are you offering as a motive for these officials to have wanted to see large numbers of Japanese-Americans locked up? Was it so that they could steal the property of these citizens? Was it pure racial hatred? Were these individual, independent acts, or was it part of a concerted conspiracy? We need a theory of the crime here, E. If I am anywhere on the right track, than these officials were truly guilty of awful deeds, perhaps even treason. With our nation under attack in a World War, these officials may have been putting personal greed, or personal racial animus, above their sworn oaths of office and above the national interest, even in a time of war. People (the jury) are going to have difficulty accepting this, E, unless you can provide a convincing explanation of the motives that drove to them to these deplorable acts. As to the Hearst press, we need motive here, also. How did it benefit the Hearst press to inflame public opinion against Japanese-Americans? Was it just to sell more newspapers? Why did they do it?
This gets worse, much worse. Because neither the local politicians not the Hearst press had the power to intern citizens. That could only be accomplished by moving up through much higher levels of governments, indeed right up to the White House and President Roosevelt. So we must speculate on their motives as well, all these higher officials who had to be complicit in the crime for it to succeed.
As it stands now, E, a lot of people who might agree with you that the internment was in retrospect ill-advised, are not going to give you the kind of condemnation you seek unless you can convince them that all these officials did something while knowing at the time that it was wrong and unjustified. The nature of life is that we all mistakes in our lives. Often, we do not know these are mistakes until time proves them so. Then we regret that we didn't do otherwise. Rarely do we convict people of crimes, or brand them as shameful, for simply making what are later perceived to be mistakes. Motive and intent is everything. We need more from you on this. In the case of FDR, did he have something to gain, personally, from approving of the internment? Re-election? He was early in his third term at the time. He bore the responsibilities of Commander-in-Chief in a time of war. As an aging man bearing all of these heavy and monentous reposibilities -- was he thinking ahead to the election of 1944, and did he decide that even though the internment of Japanese-Ameicans was not justified, it would help him get re-elected for a fourth term? Is this plausible? You could suggest this as his motive, or perhaps you have another in mind. Then we can see what the jury thinks.
Let's turn now to some of your evidence, which you suggest proves that internment was not necessary, and which was known to officials at the time. Could this be the smoking gun? We have the FBI report stating that Japanese-Americans were loyal and no threat, based upon a previous ten-year study. I respect the FBI and would accept this as evidence without question. But what does it tell us? That prior to the outbreak of war we had nothing to fear from these citizens. What about after the war began? Now, Japan had become our mortal enemy. Was it possible that some JAs would experience a torn, conflicted loyalty between America and their ancestral home? Remember, this didn't have to be all JAs, most JAs, or many JAs. It just had to be some, or a few. It only took 20 Arabs to bring down the WTC and severely damage the Pentagon. Would this have constituted a reasonable possibility or fear in the minds of our war leaders? One justifying some precautions or preventive measures? Yes, there is the fact that their loyalty was known in the previous decade. But what about the fact that the Arab terrorists lived among us for a considerable period, going through all the motions of a normal life until the day that they acted. Does that tell us something? Have there not been "moles," enemy agents planted in our midst to lead a normal life for many years, and who then one day are called to strike against us? Don't we often hear the neighbors of a revealed serial murderer say, "I cant believe he did it, he was such a nice person." Do you remember when Gary Condit was newsworthy and he was going to be removed from the Intelligence Committee as a security risk, because he might be subjected to blackmail? Could our officials have thought, maybe some JA's have relatives in Japan, and maybe they would be susceptible to the threat of harm being done to those relatives if they don't do what Japan asks of them? Remember, the events we are talking about occurred in the heat of war and at a time when the security of our nation was paramount. It's just a bit too easy to say, well, none of those things would have ever happened (which, as a matter of fact, we can never know for sure even now). The question is, were these reasonable apprehensions at the time? Would the FBI report, a study made in peacetime, been enough to remove all doubt?
Again, E, you need to convince us that our officials were not well-intentioned, that they were knowingly not acting in what they perceived at the time as the best interests of our country, that they were doing something that they clearly knew was wrong and unjustified. Otherwise, we are left with the alternative conclusion that our officials were acting honorably, but that 60 years later we can all see that their fears were unfounded. I think even you would concede, E, that the latter interpretation would not constitute "acting shamefully" nor committing a "crime."
Now, I wish to turn all the inflammatory material that stirred "the people" to a deluded, ignoble, frenzy (as I recall your characterization). I am leaving aside the questions of motive and intent in terms of why these materials were promulgated. You are basically stating that it was very wrong to manipulate public opinion in such a manner. May I ask you this question: What exactly is the difference between these materials, and those you have been posting yourself? You have given us dreadful, shocking word-pictures of the cruelties and injustices that occurred in the internment, men disappearing, babies being locked up, etc. Indeed, another poster has provided actual pictures of the terrible and frightening conditions in the camps. How do these actions differ from what the Hearst papers were doing? If the Hearst papers were trying to manipulate public opinion, then how do you characterize what you yourself are doing? Could it possibly be that it is "manipulation" when those with an opposing view do it, but "informing" when you do it? Something to think about, E.
Each of us defines the parameters of this debate in our own way. For me, when re-examining a historic event, the crucial thing is to consider it in the context of its time -- to try to put one's head into those of the people who were acting it out at the time. I would never condemn Thomas Jefferson for keeping slaves, for example. I have read enough to know that attitudes and values were too different then for them to be judged by the far more enlightened standards of our own times. The belief that blacks were intellectually inferior and seen as incapable of managing their own lives was pervasive then. As offensive, and repudiated, as those views are to us today ... who am I to say that if my mind were erased and I was transported back to that era, that I would not have shared those very views. Given that, by virtue of my genes, I am nowhere near as intelligent and wise as Jefferson, there is every likelihood that I would have.
So I apply the same reasoning in viewing the internment episode. I was only a little boy in 1941, and I guess I was easily persuaded to hate "the Japs," at least while the war raged. Maybe if I had been an adult then, I still would have. Those were the times. I don't defend the internment of the JAs as a principle hanging in space with no attachment to a time or place. I defend it as an understandable over-reaction in America at a desperate and harrowing time. I have seen no evidence to convince me that our government's intent was anything but honorable in the interest of protecting our homeland, nor that the individuals responsible were motivated by anything other than the security of our nation, however misguided and exaggerated their fears may have been. I feel bad for the innocent and loyal Japanese citizens who were harmed at the time, just as I do for all those who lost their lives in the war, all who went to concentration camps or were prisoners of war, or otherwise suffered. Even those of us on the homefront endured deprivations, though that is scarcely comparable. World War II was horror on an epic scale for countless combatants and innocents alike. To say that we mourn for all these people, to say that many in no way deserved their fates, to say that it was all so unfair ... seems so paltry and trite. I don't know what words could possibly suffice.
Well, I think that about does it for me on this subject, E. I will be glad to receive your reply as a last word, and then I think we should agree to disagree, and let this go. I am sure you love this nation as much as I do, and especially at this time we will doubtless serve our nation better by focusing our energies on how we can make the future better, as opposed to excessively interpreting and re-interpreting what is past and done.
I really have enjoyed our discussion ... truly, otherwise I would not have expended such energy on it.
Best regards,
JC |
