Talk:Japanese American internment/removed
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page documents text that I removed from a draft restructuring of Japanese American internment. It is placed here for reference and discussion only, in the spirit of full-disclosure. Suggestions for additional removals are welcome, but I would prefer to keep lengthly debates on the main talk page. Assuming the restructured article is promoted to the main article, I will promote this text to the main Talk page and delete this subpage.
Contents |
[edit] Removed from Terminology debate
Caption under map: Japanese American Dispersion in Western United States
- Deleted because image already has a descriptive caption
The term Internment Center is synonymous with Relocation Center for all practical purposes.
- POV, not referenced, and redundant
In its 1983 report, "Personal Justice Denied," the Congressional appointed Commission on Wartime Internment and Relocation of Civilians explained its decision to use the term "relocation camp" thus: "The Commission has largely left the words and phrases as they were, however, in an effort to mirror accurately the history of the time and to avoid the confusion and controversy a new terminology might provoke. We leave it to the reader to decide for himself how far the language of the period confirms an observation of George Orwell: "In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible ... Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
- Not necessary to use Orwell quote; it should be sufficient to note that the commission opted to use the terminology of the official agencies.
An undocumented number of pro-Japan demonstrations were held there throughout the war, which pro-internment apologists such as David Lowman have cited to justify the internment operation as a whole.
- Removed strikeout text, since it is non-specific. This statement should be part of a larger discussion about the justification trade-offs: Could a more measured response have achieved the same aims, and were exclusion, removal, and detention of all ethnic Japanese the only options considered?
[edit] Removed from History
Although it was later disproven, the "Japanese" attack swayed public opinion.
- Deleted because this statement is not true--there appear to have been limited attacks on the west coast. However, a discussion of public opinion and media sensationalism should be added to the article.
[edit] Removed from Support for the internment, then and now
Members of the American Legion and some veterans who fought in the Pacific theater have been vocal proponents of these viewpoints. Another defender of the internment is Filipino American opinion columnist Michelle Malkin, who authored a 2004 book entitled In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror. Critics have characterized her book as being one-sided, and a logically unsound justification for present-day racial profiling. [1]
- It's not necessary to say who's on which side, since that has no bearing on the facts. Let's just state the claims and cite the references as needed.
In April of 1984, John J. McCloy was the ranking surviving individual who participated in the decision to relocate the Japanese Americans in the winter of 1941–42, when he was Assistant Secretary of War. He wrote a letter expressing his dissatisfaction with the hearing held to consider redress and compensation for Americans held in internment camps, defending the internment and claiming that the redress would be "a great injustice to the American taxpayer."
McCloy also claimed that the Japanese Americans "...were permitted to go anywhere else in the country they saw fit to go at the expense of the government. They were not 'interned.'" This denies the fact that they were placed under armed guard, behind barbed wire, and surrounded by guards who in fact did shoot and kill. He went on to once again attempt to connect all Nikkei to the attack on Pearl Harbor, saying "I believe it would be most unjust to all Americans, indeed, to all nationalities who suffered as a result of the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, to have those who were affected by the President's order be further compensated for their removal from the sensitive military areas of the West Coast. ... Generally speaking, I would say that our Japanese/American population benefited from the relocation rather than suffered, as did so many others of our population as a result of the war. The so-called investigation which sought to obtain unconscionably large unproven lump sums for added compensation for the relocation which had been given when evidence was fresh and witnesses were alive and in a position to testify was really outrageous. No serious attempt was made to recreate the conditions that the Japanese attack created on the West Coast, nor, the reasonableness of the steps that the President ordered to meet the devastating attack."
- Deleted because these comments refer specifically to McCloy's opposition to reparations. Other statements by McCloy that specifically address military necessity can be inserted, but these remarks do not add to that discussion, since the most substantive content merely asserts that there was military necessity and "reasonable steps" without providing details. Information supporitng these statements can and should be added to the article, but little is gained by quoting McCloy's undetailed statements.
Despite all this, it must be noted that the FBI had no documented proof of espionage or sabotage by any Japanese American or Japanese national in the United States,
- This statement--as written--is factually incorrect or misleading. Most importantly, it is unnecessary, as the number of documented cases is low, especially given the size of the response (i.e., exclusion, relocation, and detention). That is the key--and perhaps unanswerable--question in this controversy: Was the response appropriate, given the size (actual and perceived) of the threat?
[edit] Removed from Compensation and Reparations
Removed link attached to word carry in the following sentence: Upon evacuation, the Japanese American internees were told that they could bring only as many articles of clothing, toiletries, and other personal effects as they could carry.
- Reprints of the evacuation orders from the WCCA include text similar to the following: "The size and number of packages is limited to that which can be carried by the individual or family group." The picture appears intended to contradict the claim presented in the text, which is supported by historical documents. However, it is likely that some leeway was permitted on the definition of 'carry', but the allowed cargo was a small fraction of the household items.
