Talk:Japanese American internment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Japanese American internment article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	To-do list for Japanese American internment:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Review and comparison of principal references, to identify conflicting accounts. The list of principal references should remain brief for the purposes of this to-do list. Works repeatedly referenced in the article or on the Talk page are: Personal Justice Denied MAGIC (Lowman) Years of Infamy Expansion of the sections for the DOJ facilities, WCCA facilities, and WRA facilities.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Related task forces (nations and regions): Japanese military history task force United States military history task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

	Japanese American internment is part of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Japan To-do: edit purge Improve to Featured status Japan Improve ASIMO Burakumin and Buraku Liberation League Takako Doi Chikamatsu Monzaemon Education in Japan Japanese architecture Japanese art Japanese robotics Japanese strategic planning for the Pacific (1905-1940) List of Emperors of Japan (transl. from ja) Emperor Yozei of Japan List of Japanese artists Namioka, Aomori Nihonjinron Sadako Ogata Ōishi Yoshio Politics of Japan Yagyu Shinkage-ryu Center Shiken (大学入試センター試験) More... Review First Sino-Japanese War Hinduism in Japan Inland Sea Kigo Narihira Santosen Temple Sazae-san Stroke order Heizo Takenaka Giovanni Battista Sidotti Requests See Requested articles Listed for deletion See this page, this page, and this page for lists. Grammar corrections Gaijin Takefuji Need images Every prefecture, see Subdivisions of Japan Sendai - Add demographic images More... Translate from Japanese Wikipedia Iemoto (家元) Blue Ribbon Award (Film) (ブルーリボン賞 (映画)) Gesaku (ja:戯作) More... Transliterations missing for Military ranks and insignia of the Japan Self-Defense Forces Wikify Ibaraki University Ikawa, Shizuoka Ima, Ai ni Yukimasu Japanese sculpture Mori Goro Organization of the Imperial Japanese Central China Army Organization of the Imperial Japanese North China Army Sangaria Shaken Takefuji Vote: Talk:Dokdo#Rename vote Watch this list — Edit this list

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Asian Americans, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Asian Americans on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

/Archive1 /Archive2

• /Archive3 29 Sep 2003 to 19 May 2006
• /Archive4 14 July 2006 to 21 July 2006
• /Archive5 (posts related to an edit war in July/August 2006. Read a digest of these discussions.)
• /Archive6 (posts related to a restructuring of the article)
• /References A page where references can be listed and linked for use in drafting the article

---

Contents 1 Clarifications and Additions 2 History Section 3 Divinity 4 References & Citations 5 Offensive action against the Nikkei 6 Multiple exclusion zones 7 Doubt 8 Ban on Immigration 9 Commment on EXTERNAL LINKS and SEE ALSO section 10 Use of Nikkei 11 WRA Relocation Camps 12 No mention of No No Boys 13 Citations needed 13.1 Apology quote in lead section 13.2 Military necessity 13.3 Naughton on MAGIC 13.4 On 3:3 Conditions of Camps 14 Citations for new copy 15 Survey: Is there consensus for current structure and philosophy? (ATTENTION page watchers!) 16 Corrections / Clarifications 17 120,000 18 incarceration 19 Italian and German Peoples 20 David Lowman, his book and related website 21 Clarification of Points 22 Carr 23 Pro-Internment folks gone? 24 Discussion points 25 Anti-miscegenation laws 26 Revert changes 27 Japanese-Americans 28 Page clean up 29 WPMILHIST Assessment 30 Reverted edits by anonymous editor

[edit] Clarifications and Additions

I'd like to preface this by stating that I am relying on memory for much of my comments. My primary source is "American Concentration Camps, vol.2", edited by Roger Daniels, published 1989 by Garland Publishing, which I used recently as primary source material for a research project. I no longer have this book in my possession.

• In the introduction, the article states that "President Franklin Roosevelt authorized the internment with United States Executive Order 9066, which allowed local military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones", from which "any or all persons may be excluded.""

This sentence obscures the fact that internment of non-citizens (specifically, those from Japan, Germany, and Italy) was authorized much earlier by Roosevelt in Presidential Proclamation Nos. 2525, 2526, and 2527. The article mentions these Proclamations later, but does not explain their significance. Executive Order 9066 was significant because 1) it extended the power of internment to include citizens, and 2) it transfered all responsibility and authority for such action to the War Department.

• In the History section: "Authorities also feared sabotage of both military and civilian facilities inside the United States. Military officials expressed concerns that California's water systems were highly vulnerable, and there were concerns about the possibility of arson — brush fires in particular.

"Administration and military leaders also doubted the loyalty of ethnic Japanese..."

This use of weasel words is significant because it conceals the division within the Roosevelt administration concerning the possibility of internment. Directly citing these "authorities" and "military officials" would be excellent; qualifying them as principally within the War Deapartment would be a step in the right direction.

In addition, citing or quoting the Munson Report would be helpful here, as it displays evidence that Japanese Americans as a group were not a threat in terms of sabotage or espionage. The Munson report is also significant because it was evidence of Japanese loyalty which Roosevelt personally had possession of before signing Executive Order 9066 (specifically, Roosevelt had the Munson Report no later than November 8, 1941). The Munson Report is quoted later in the "Criticisms, then and now" section of the article, but I think should be referenced in the "History" section as well.

Source: C. B. Munson to John Franklin Carter, 7 November 1941, American Concentration Camps: July, 1940 – December 31, 1941, vol.1, Roger Daniels, ed. (New York: Garland, 1989).

• In the Hawaii section: "The vast majority of Japanese Americans and their immigrant parents in Hawaii were not interned because the Government had already declared martial law in Hawaii and this allowed it to significantly reduce the risk of espionage and sabotage by residents of Japanese ancestry. Also, since these individuals comprised over 35% of the territory's economy, it was not prudent to remove them. They were laborers in the sugar cane and pineapple fields and canneries, and also merchants, restaurant owners, etc. In fact, scholarly research has shown that government and military officials realized that removing and interning all people of Japanese ancestry from Hawaii would completely destroy the territory's economy. This was a major factor in their decision that no mass removal and internment program was needed."

There were also significant logistical challenges to interning Japanese Americans in Hawaii which contributed to the eventual failure to intern there. Debate occured within the administration concerning possible internment, with discussion stuck on whether to intern Japanese Hawaiians somewhere on the island or whether to ship them to the mainland and intern them somewhere in the continental U.S.. Both options presented difficulties; internment on the islands would have required stationing guards at a facility of little strategic value, whereas shipping over 100,000 people from Hawaii to the mainland would have required a significant allocation of naval resources. Roosevelt repeatedly expressed a desire to intern Japanese Hawaiians, but General Emmons (in command of defenses on the Hawaiian islands at the time) opposed such action due to logistical difficulties. These difficulties continued to be an obstacle even up to the Battle of Midway, indicating that even if military necessity was perceived as warranting internment, by the time it was possible to actually do so the perceived necessity may have largely vanished. Clearly if there was stronger evidence of an imminent Japanese invasion of the Hawaiian islands, logistical difficulties would not have stood in the way of military operations, but the importance of logistics should be mentioned as a factor in the ultimate outcome in the consideration of whether to intern Japanese Hawaiians.

Source: Greg Robinson, By Order of the President: FDR and the Internment of Japanese Americans (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001).

• Also, this article lacks any discussion of factors which led Roosevelt to decide to issue Executive Order 9066. Much of the historical analysis of this topic which I have researched has tended to paint the internment largely as a project designed and lobbied for by the War Department, which Roosevelt acquiesced to; this perspective ignores the rivalry between the War Department and the Department of Justice over internment between December 7 1941 and February 19 1942. I believe a mention of this rivalry is appropriate because it clearly shows Roosevelt as having access to information which might suggest mass internment as unnecessary.

• Finally, there was some discussion on this page implying that Japanese American internment could be regarded as a sort of sacrifice, comparable to the sacrifice made by American servicemen. I agree with Gmatsuda that this is an inapropriate comparison: although there were attempts made at the time to paint internment as a patriotic sacrifice, and indeed sentiments expressed by Japanese Americans (especially by the JACL) which supported this viewpoint, internment was a significant violation of civil rights which was almost certainly unconstitutional. In contrast, involuntary military service was specifically authorized by law. In addition, the comparison ignores the stigma attached to Japanese Americans as a result of the internment, as opposed to the aura of heroism afforded to those who served in the military.

--Ogthor 20:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History Section

207.207.79.202 added the following: "The roots of the internment may run back to the turn of the 20th century, the Russo-Japanese War and the rise of Japanese Ultra Nationalism during the Showa Era. Tensions between Americans and a the large influx of newly arrived Asians in California had begun to increase in the 1880s when a series of laws were passed. They were initially the result of union pressure on the government to keep American's wages high because immigrants would work for half the price."

That replaced the following (don't know who wrote it): "The roots of the internment run back to the turn of the 20th century. Tensions between Caucasian and Japanese immigrants in California had begun to increase in the 1890s, then a series of laws were passed, aimed at discouraging Japanese immigration, prohibiting land ownership by Japanese and even denying entry to Japanese women seeking to join their husbands in America."

I wrote it. My interested in the Japanese American internment is relatively recent, so I came into it from the whole issue of how Asians were treated in California from 1860 - 1960. 68.178.65.194 03:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the new paragraph is better than what it replaced? Did Japanese Ultra Nationalism _REALLY_ have an impact worth mentioning here, or is this just someone's point of view? Same goes for union pressure...my memory of labor history is failing me at the moment, but this makes it appear that racism was a secondary factor in the enactment of the anti-Asian/anti-Japanese laws of the time. I would think that a more accurate statement would be more general about economic greed rather than pointing specifically at unions. Thoughts? Gmatsuda 21:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The roots of the internment run back to the turn of the 20th century. Tensions between Caucasian and Japanese immigrants in California had begun to increase in the 1890s, then a series of laws were passed, aimed at discouraging Japanese immigration, prohibiting land ownership by Japanese and even denying entry to Japanese women seeking to join their husbands in America.

[edit] Divinity

Should the Japanese conception of the divine emperor be mentioned here? It is often mentioned in debates about whether the internment was legit.

Justforasecond 14:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, as long as you mention that this was not a universal belief. About half of the Issei had abandoned that belief, and few of the Nisei held it, as evidenced by their having become members of other religious faiths. 68.178.65.194 03:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Justforasecond 03:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't understand the context in which bringing up the concept of a divine emperor is important? If we look at the work of Yuji Ichioka the Issei had a very tenuous relation with Japan. The Japanese govn't was speculative of their emigrants and exercised little influence to the benefit of their subjects overseas. In terms of legitimating internment the Japanese govn't was not trusting of the Issei and their children and made no attempts to recruit them as spies, munson report, roger daniels, et al. Spies were detained but were Japanese nationals, and were there to mostly gather information on the Japanese Americans. In terms of appropriate context to bring this up, I think if and when an expansion of the loyalty questionnaire and resistance is created the idea of a divine emperor sheds light on question 28. Dezertfx21 09:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You sound knowledgeable enough on the subject. Can you draft a paragraph or two to address this divinity question, providing citations per your comments below? That would be a contribution to the article. --ishu 12:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a relevant factor. While those who believed the Emperor to be divine were a distinct minority, this belief was in fact held by some, and this was used as part of the justification for the internment. Critic-at-Arms 17 October 2006

[edit] References & Citations

I have browsed some of the documents on internmentarchives.com. While it is chock full of primary documents, this presents original research issues, since thesea are primary sources. A bigger problem is that many of the descriptions of the documents don't match well with the content. Pictures, such as those of demonstrations at Tule Lake, are a particular problem since the descriptions of the pictures provide very little verifiable context, yet are also riddled with generalizing statements such as:

There were thousands of individuals loyal to Japan at Tule Lake after the segregation of disloyals. These photos show, among other things, military drills and ceremonies. That thousands had petitioned the government to be returned to Japan to fight against the U.S. makes one wonder what would have happened had they been allowed to run loose on the West Coast during a time when we were taking tens of thousands of casualties in the Philippines, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. These folks were certified fanatics.[1]

It is not possible to tell--from the site and its contents--whether the demonstrations in the pictures were a one-time occurrence or representative of more frequent and widespread events. In general, the article and this discussion need to vet the claims and counter-claims of the frequently-cited works on the page and Talk. These primary sources should be brought in when they back-up or contradict a specific claim in the references. Comments, anyone? --ishu 04:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ish, this is not original research. Those comments exist on another site. We can include them here, just attribute them to the internmentarchives site. Justforasecond 05:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for being unclear. I agree that using comments from the site itself is not OR. But the way that these documents were used in our discussions here treads close to the line of OR. I'd like to set expectations in this Talk section by vetting our sources (individually and collaboratively) and discussing how we expect to use them. The comments on the site are not always consistent with the documents, so I don't deem the site reliable for its analysis. That leaves the documents themselves, and we're on our way to OR. I didn't fill in all the blanks before, so I hope this gives a more complete picture of my intention. --ishu 05:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, some of the comments there seem a little suspicious and I favor vetting them. The "banzai" salute looks like an ordinary stretching exercise to me. However, I will admit that the images are shocking. These are not merely Americans angry at detention, they are organized in formations, marching and wearing a "uniform" (headband) meant to show their support for the Japanese military. I don't guess these actions are typically the result of detention -- they seem more like the sort of thing that was already stewing before detention. I had heard about Tule Lake and citizenship renunciations but the images really bring it home.

What is your opinion on the divinity of the emperor? Should it be discussed? Justforasecond 06:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, wearing headbands during exercises doesn't seem all that insidious to me. Headbands are a traditional Japanese headgear. That means that it could be anything on the scale from just calesthenics to the beginning of a riot, and we can't tell. 68.178.65.194 01:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of Tule Lake and renunciation, let me note that we need to vet numerical claims extremely carefully. For example, when a source states that x-thousand people renounced their citizenship, does this figure include children who were part of a family unit that was slated for "repatriation" to Japan? If the number discussed is the population at Tule Lake, or the waiting list, then I have no problem. However, if the figure is used to estimate the number of disloyals, then that is a misleading use of the number. Another example is military service. An earlier revision of this same page stated that 94% of the Japanese Americans "refused to serve" in the military. When I checked the source, it stated clearly that 6% of draft age men volunteered for service. This is an example of what I mean by using the primary sources to validate claims (including those in secondary sources preferred for Wiki). Make sense?--ishu 03:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Ish, without the citations I can't say for sure, but some of what you say makes sense -- the 94% refusing sounds pretty misleading. But the children issue gets sorta complicated. When we say there were 100 thousand (or whatever) relocated, well of course that has to include children because they were with their parents. Take a family with 2.5 kids and more than half of 'em are children. So we can't on the one hand include the kids in the count and make the internship sound bigger, and on the other hand not include the kids and make the citizenship renunciations sound like they were fewer than they were. The kids didn't have a choice in either matter. Justforasecond 03:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the children issue is complicated. It all depends upon the specific claim that's being made. For example, let's look at the renunciation/repatriation issue, assuming there were 25,000 total people and 12,000 children. If we're trying to point out that there was "disloyalty" then it's highly misleading to say there were 25,000 (or 20% of the detainees) vs. 13,000 (or about 11% of detainees). If we're just stating how many people were in this process, then it's not misleading to use the larger figure. Again, we must vet carefully, and, I think in most cases, we should trace claims back to the primary sources whenever possible. In other words, we may have to use two references for numerical claims, given the polemical nature of the secondary sources on both Pro- and con- sides. To adhere to WP:OR, I guess we have to reference the secondary source for the actual claim, then reference the primary source for the fact-checking. I know this sounds cumbersome, but I'm open to alternatives. --ishu 15:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

To complicate it even further, are they claiming that everyone who asked to go to Japan "renounced their citizenship"? Remember that Issei were denied citizenship, and many of those asked for repatriation. 68.178.65.194 01:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Offensive action against the Nikkei

I added Template:not verified to the article. Also, an anonymous user added numerous claims to the page. I reverted these edits because I think that any additions to the article should adhere to strict citation requirements. Unless others protest here, I will continue to revert similar edits, and I encourage all editors to protect this article from any edits that are not properly and thoroughly cited. To a "passerby" editor, these edits aren't different from what's already in the article, but I don't want it to get worse. --ishu 07:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Since I'm the one you edited out, let me note that I'm only "anonymous" because the server at work won't let me log in (it blocks passwords and traps cookies). I'm better known as Critic-at-Arms. And yes, I object to your edits in a couple of places. For instance, you wiped out the notation that Reagan was once the California governor. Since California was the home to most of the internees, it is certainly pertinent that a former California governor would, as President, condemn what had happened to his fellow Californians. You also wiped out my description of the tactics used as being consistent with an attack on the Nikkei. DeWitt certainly understood this, it's taught at every military school in the world, and explaining it to non-military-science people helps them understand the orders in their context. 68.178.65.194 01:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I edited the lead section to keep it brief--as I noted in my comment. You appropriately moved the Reagan-California reference to the main body of the article, where it is pertinent. As for the "military dictum of the 'Three Fs'," your intent is now clear: to insinuate that the internment was "an attack on the Nikkei." While it is fair to note that the internment was viewed as an integral part of the war effort, it is biased and contrary to historical accounts to suggest any institutional motivation to "Finish 'em" with respect to the internees.

If you're not logged in, you're not "anonymous;" you are anonymous, regardless of why you're not logged in. --ishu 16:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Critic-at-Arms again. Okay, I'm anonymous, but I'm not anonymous (hey, that makes as much sense as most of the comments here)!

No, I'm not "insinuating" anything. I am stating clearly that the actions taken against the Nikkei were consistent with offensive action, as taught at the USMA and Air War College. They were inconsistent with their stated aim, that being to increase military security, because that end could have been met by other, more traditional means -- and with a lot less disruption and resource allocation. Given the above, you are encouraged to draw your own conclusion. 64.122.31.130 01:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Encouraging readers to "draw their own conclusions" is an insinuation. An "offensive action" as "taught" in military schools is an "attack" in civilian parlance--besides, attack is your word. It is fair to note that the internment was viewed as an integral part of the war effort. It is one thing to state that the internment was a disproportionate response (i.e., the stated aims could have been met with a less severe plan). It is biased to deduce--absent clear references--that the internment was an "attack" or "offensive action," except in a strictly metaphorical sense. The language I removed, and your comments above sound literal, not metaphorical. There is no doubt that the architects and executors of the internment were military people. But none of this makes the internment a military action even "consistent with" an offensive action. It may well have been part of military action subjectively to individuals such as DeWitt, McCloy, etc. Institutionally, however, it is a gross misinterpretation even to suggest, much less to "clearly state" that the internment was an "offensive action" or military maneuver. If you want to make this link, it should require clear citations showing this sentiment, and also clearly differentiate between individuals and institutions, and metaphor versus literal meanings. --ishu 05:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to make it as clear as I can. While all attack is offensive action, not all offensive action is attack -- the word "attack" has specific meaning in military science, and it is one type of offensive action (blockade is another, a third is denial of resources, aka "scorched earth"). Offensive action is any action taken to change the opponent's status quo, defensive action is any action taken to maintain your status quo. A rattlesnake striking at you is offensive, a rattlesnake shaking his tail so that you will leave him alone is defensive.

In the case of the internment, this was a campaign, a series of offensive actions, taken against the Nikkei community as a whole. Their leaders were removed, they were cut off from their resources, forced at gunpoint to leave their homes and abandon their belongings, imprisoned, and some even killed. What in there is NOT consistent with the definition of "offensive action"? The Nikkei status quo was completely destroyed, and has never recovered.

Now, look from the other side of the issue. A military commander, whose task was the defense of the West Coast, diverted resources, men and materiel from that defense to the job of locating, building and staffing internment camps. He took farmers off their land in a time when food was being rationed. He sent trains across the country carrying women and children, at a time when troop and munitions movements to the East were considered so vital that even the railroad unions were persuaded to ignore the duty-hours limitations which they had fought 75 years to impose. And he did these things when the experience in Hawaii was showing them not only unnecessary, but counterproductive -- unless the goal was the destruction of the Nikkei community, politically and economically, in which case these things were exactly the right thing to do to achieve that goal.

So what it comes down to is that the general commanding the Armed Forces on the West Coast, a man whose career had been centered on military science for decades, must be assumed to know what the effect of his orders would AND WOULD NOT be, while knowing what the military needs of the country were. Thus, I can only conclude that his primary goal was political. His public statements ("a Jap is a Jap," etc) bolster this conclusion, but even if he had never made them, what he did and the way that he did it is inconsistent with any conclusion other than that this was offensive action against the Nikkei. Critic-at-Arms 01:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple exclusion zones

The problems with the whole "military necessity" issue are A), DeWitt's bigoted statements regarding the Nikkei as a whole, B), the fact that the claimed objective could have been met just as well (if not better) through other plainly available and more reasonable means, and C), the timeline of events fits an offensive model (the Nikkei as enemy) rather than a defensive model (military security). Note that an initial Exclusion Zone was published, and the Nikkei encouraged to move outside it, then the Zone was expanded to cover the areas where most of the Nikkei had gone. This had the effect of draining their resources with the first move, then trapping them with the second Exclusion Zone, which did not appreciably increase any military security. If the objective was to destroy the economic, social and political power of the Nikkei, this is how to do it, but if the objective were military security, this was no more effective a method than many others which would not have included internment or forced relocation. 64.122.31.130 00:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have evidence of their being two exclusion zones? The article only mentions one ("Military Exclusion Zone 1"). Justforasecond 00:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

See http://www.jainternment.org/images/map1.gif -- note that the first zone included nearly all of the open farmland of the West Coast and Arizona, then a month and a half later, expanded to include the parts of California in which those Nikkei who could move were gathering. Note also that the expansion occured AFTER the no-move order, so once it was announced, the Nikkei were trapped in place. As I've said, if the objective was to destroy the economic, social and political strength of the Nikkei, it could not have been done any better. However, look at the map and you realize that, in 1942, there was very little within the exclusion zones of greater military importance than what was outside. 68.178.65.194 01:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The decision in Hirabayashi agrees:

Among the military areas so designated by Public Proclamation No. 1 was Military Area No. 1, which embraced, besides the southern part of Arizona, all the coastal region of the three Pacific Coast states, including the City of Seattle, Washington, where appellant resided. Military Area No. 2. designated by the same proclamation, included those parts of the coastal states and of Arizona not placed within Military Area No. 1.[2]

It describes only the "coastal region" of the states, while all of California was eventually declared to be an exclusion zone. The open question is whether exclusion applied only to Military Area 1, or to both areas 1 and 2. --ishu 14:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It applied to both. I have spoken to a number of Nisei whose families moved out of the first zone, then were rounded up from the second. Critic-at-Arms 20:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to believe you, but we need to cite sources to state it in the article. Unfortunately, your discussions with affected persons would constitute original research, which is not appropriate per Wikipedia policy. If you have a reference, it would help if you could provide reference information, preferably including page numbers, and relevant quotations. If you review this talk page, you will find that we have a tremendous need for solid citations for many statements in this article. Your help would be appreciated. --ishu 22:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The map shows the two zones and the dates of each being put in place. I cited the location of the map. What more do you need?

One real problem that I have with the "original research" issue is that, somewhere, sometime, someone DID original research. As a newsman, I have done a LOT of it, and every once in a while I come across someone using my work as their citation for a Wikipedia article. It seems ridiculous that I can't refer to an interview which I've done, but someone else here can refer to the column that I wrote which referred to that same interview! You will notice that I make very few edits these days, and generally spend my time in the discussions, simply because I have better things to do than spend time making edits which are blown away because someone doesn't like what I've said. 64.122.31.130 01:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Does seem a little backwards, doesn't it? Unfortunately those are the rules. If you're still a "newsman" and can get this info published, we can include it here. Justforasecond 02:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Amusingly, in one article, someone quoted me incorrectly, and when I supplied the complete and accurate quote, my revision was spiked and the erroneous quote replaced! You just can't win sometimes. Critic-at-Arms 05:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for having skipped a step in my thought process. I'm operating with an extra-high level of skepticism on sources, looking for at least two independent sources that agree. After reviewing the reference to the "Niihau incident" and the content at internmentarchives, I'm highly reluctant to go with one source for anything on this page. That's how we got into the mess the article is in now ("some say a, while others say b...) weaseling around. Or worse, revert wars, like you seem to be alluding to. I don't think it'll be so hard to find another source, but I'd like to find one. Dual-referenced statements stand up better in revert wars. And I agree with J4sec that if it's published, it doesn't matter whether it's you or not. That'd be no different than if I cited you. --ishu 03:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, this should be in the history section. Most of the land that was added is mountainous middles of nowheres and all of it is California. I could see how it would be simpler to just say "the exclusion zone includes all of california" instead of that wiggly line that defined Zone 1, but it also seems a little suspect. Justforasecond 18:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not as middle of nowhere as you seem to think. 64.122.31.130 01:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

For anyone not familiar with the area, this is included in Zone 2. Justforasecond 02:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And so are every ski resort in California, Palm Springs, Lake Tahoe, the high-valley farmlands, the gold mining areas, the eastern San Joaquin Valley, Yosemite, the eastern portion of the Los angeles Basin and the current homes of a couple of million people . . .sure Death Valley is there, it's about 2% of the second zone, and I've never been there except to fly over it, despite having lived half of my life within Zone 2. Critic-at-Arms 05:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The ski resorts are there precisely because it is the middle of nowhere. Large tracks of mountainous land with no development. Most of these resorts were not open in the 40's. Heavenly Ski Resort, the largest resort in Tahoe was purcahsed for $5,700 in 1955[3]. Anyone who's been to Yosemite can testify to the lack of development and density of mountains. If death valley isn't enough, the exclusion zone is also where the Donner party became famous. Justforasecond 15:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The ski resorts are there precisely because it is where the MOUNTAINS are. It has nothing to do with being "the middle of nowhere." And, as I mentioned, there are a lot of people living there, and a lot of farming going on. But we're getting away from the point, that being that many Nikkei moved into Zone 2, trying to stay close to their homes, and were trapped there. BTW, the Donner Party became stranded in Nevada, but who's counting? Critic-at-Arms 06:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Tell it to the Donners. Donner Lake: a freshwater lake that is much smaller than nearby Lake Tahoe....It is located in the town of Truckee in northeastern California. The map you provide also puts Sacramento about 100 miles North of where it really is. Many of the other cities are in the wrong places too. Justforasecond 16:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. Boyhood memories of the Donner Trail hike had me thinking that we had crossed into California AFTER leaving the Deadfall Camp where the majority of the group had stopped prior to the rescue party leaving for help. Maybe senility is setting in.

Yes, the map is very generalized. Zone 2 is somewhat larger than it appears to be. However, the question was for proof that there WAS a Zone 2, and that was sufficient. 68.178.65.194 02:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doubt

The article states in its header that "[Japanese] from the West Coast during World War II to hastily constructed housing facilities called "War Relocation Camps" in remote portions of the nation's interior." Does that mean that Japanese in the East Coast had no problem? That most Japanese who lived in the US had their homes in the West Coast? That there weren't any Japanese in the US outside the West Coast? The current wording is confusing in my opinion. MJGR 11:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It does not mean any of these things. The first sentence is as clear as it needs to be for the lead section: It states who, what, when, and where. Select Japanese Americans from elsewhere in the country were detained. This can be addressed in the article, but is not now. Most Japanese Americans lived in the west and Hawaii, but some lived elsewhere. These facts are not relevant to the lead section. --ishu 03:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

About 95% of the Nikkei in the States were on the West Coast. The Nikkei elsewhere were not interned, though a few were detained during late 1941 - early 1942 for investigation. 68.178.65.194 01:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It should also be noted that some japanese moved east of military zones 1 and 2 and were therefore not subject to internment. These families however were not part of the voluntary evacuations that took place. The irony of course is that in some places such as Minidoka Idaho "free" Japanese Americans witnessed the internment from the opposite side of the fence.Dezertfx21 05:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference between "nikkei" and "nissei"? Does "ni" mean two or "nippon"?

Nikkei = of Japanese origin or ancestry (ni as "Nippon"). Nisei = children of Japanese ancestry, one specific generation (ni as "two"). Issei are Japanese-born, Nisei are the first generation born outside of Japan, Sansei are the children of Nisei. Critic-at-Arms 01:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ban on Immigration

The original passage was more accurate. SOME immigration was allowed, but there was a specific ban on women immigrating from Japan, which included wives. This is the only time in the history of controlled US immigration that wives of citizens or legal immigrants have been banned on a wholesale basis, due to race or national origin. The reason given in the rulemaking was to encourage Nikkei (including Nisei) to leave the US, because (at the time) there were laws prohibiting Asians from marrying outside their race. Thus, I believe that it deserves special attention in the article. Critic-at-Arms, 4 SEP 06

Greetings, Critic. Are you referring to the Immigration Act of 1924? I assumed that this passage did. If you are referring to a different act, then it is noteworthy, though it would be helpful to specify the act name and date. --ishu 00:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I will have to dig out my citations on this one.

[edit] Commment on EXTERNAL LINKS and SEE ALSO section

EXTERNAL LINKS: This section needs to be cleaned up. There are many databases available to the public and to those affiliated with educational institutions or any place that purchases subscriptions to large electronic research databases. As such I would like someone to test out the following link: [http://jarda.cdlib.org/] That is a link to the Japanese American Relocation Digital Archives, and is supported through the California Digital Library. I feel this resource will adequately replace most of the links already present since the archive brings together all the major holdings on JA Relocation in the country.

SEE ALSO: Conversely this section needs some beefing up. I know that the objective of the wiki media project is to bring together information through a synthetic process, however I still believe the greatest asset this program can offer is to act as a bibliographical source. Hence the SEE ALSO section should be re-titled "further reading" or "related works" and should include PUBLISHED WORKS, including the books the contributors themselves referenced. Since the standard practice is to create links to other references within wikipedia itself in the text i feel that topics such as Gentlemen's Agreement and Chinese Exclusion should be removed.

For example the works widely accepted as the preeminent text on the subject of Relocation might be mentioned in the discussion but are no where found in the main article. Michi Weglyn is an exception to this and I appreciate her work being mentioned in the main article, however it should be moved down to the bottom.Dezertfx21 06:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Nikkei

I would suggest that the use of Nikkei not be used synonymously with Japanese American. This is for two reasons. For this article it is important to create a clear distinction between the citizen NISEI and their non-citizen parents, ISSEI. Secondly Nikkei refers to anyone not born in Japan of Japanese decent. Hence it is important to distinguish between Japanese Americans and other Japanese residing outside of Japan. I say this because South American Japanese were sent to camps in the United States, Crystal City Interment Camp is famous for housing Peruvian Japanese along with German and Italian internees. Also for those not familiar with the term Nikkei, it might be confusing since it also is the name of the index on the Tokyo Stock Exchange. Hence i propose stating the exact group, Issei, Nisei, since the way they are affected by internment differs and we otherwise rely on Japanese American to refer to the group as a whole, or JA as short hand.Dezertfx21 06:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Nikkei is the correct term to use in describing immigrants who are of Japanese ancestry and their descendants. It spans all generations. No other word does this. It is no more difficult to understand the word "Nikkei" than to understand "JA" -- and the Nikkei that I know use that word, which is where I learned it. It is also more correct, especially since (at the time) Issei were NOT Americans. All of the South Americans you mentioned are also Nikkei, and the internment was of all Nikkei as a class. I somehow doubt that anyone will think that a stock exchange was rounded up and put into camps in the desert, so we're reasonably safe from confusion over the term.

You need to sign your name when you post so we know who you are. I still recommend for the clarity of the article that Nikkei not be used due to the comments that I have read on the discussion board. This is not an issue of correctness; it is an issue of getting the facts as clear as possible. Nikkei is an ambiguous encompassing of many groups and does not lend itself well to specificity. Additionally if you want to get all logic-matter-of-factual about this, Issei were not Nikkei, (good pointing out) which proves problematic, hence I once again ask that only Japanese and its compounding, Japanese American, Japanese Peruvian, etc be used.Dezertfx21 13:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the three generations (Issei, Nisei and Sansei) were affected in different ways, but we must already differentiate between them in areas where it matters, so, again, using Nikkei makes the most sense when referring to groups larger than a single generation. Critic-at-Arms 8 SEP 06

The U.S. government made scant distinctions among the immigrant and natural-born Japanese Americans. (e.g., "Instructions to all persons of Japanese Ancestry...") In effect, the gov't treated them as Nikkei, or an undifferentiated "Japanese people." This suspicion-by-ethnicity treatment is significant and consequential. While I agree that the distinctions between Issei and Nisei should be made, it would be helpful if Dezertfx21 could be more specific as to why it is so important to make the distinction clearer than it already is.

At the same time, we've seen on this discussion page (and also please review recent archives) how some editors view this broad-brush detention as justified (and even benevolent), while others feel that the non-selective detention is the core of the civil rights violations. Since the term Nikkei can be translated to mean "Japanese people" ("persons of Japanese Ancestry"), the article must avoid the same logic trap used by the government in the first place.

Long story short: I don't have a problem with use of Nikkei, but if it is to be used, it must be used carefully, and with an explanation as to its meaning. --ishu 22:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say just keep it out. It isn't a well-known term (I thought it was a syn. for Nissei) Justforasecond 22:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that Nikkei is the only completely accurate description encompassing all of those who were interned. Many were Japanese, but not all. Many were Americans, but not all. Many were Japanese who considered themselves Americans, and some were Japanese who later BECAME Americans. Thus, "Japanese American" is useful but inaccurate, as is "Americans of Japanese descent." Some were Issei, some Nisei, some Sansei. THEY refer to themselves as Nikkei, and this term fits them all. Unless someone has another term which is equally accurate, I don't see how there is really any room for discussion. Critic-at-Arms 19:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WRA Relocation Camps

I added copy from a document on the National Park Service site. As it is a publication of the US government, I believe it to be in the public domain. --ishu 03:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• I would like to begin serious restructuring of the article. Significant information is left out of this article as well as lack of depth and over emphasis on the unimportant is rampant in this article. Also was that link accessible to those not on a proxy server regarding the data base?
  • The tone of the article creates an air of sympathy for the government. The opening of the article goes to some length to separate JA internment from Nazi concentration camps which seemingly behaves as a way of lessening the impact of internment. It is clear that JA internment was in no way on the same level as the Holocaust, but it is not the purpose of this article to judge one atrocity by the other or address a synthesis of two historic events that we can only speculate will occur on the part of the reader. It is important that we tell the story of internment as succinctly as possible, and avoid hedging reader’s opinions. However to garner empathy for those that experienced Internment there is a balancing that needs to occur in the text.
    • Resistance is totally ignored by this article. There is no mention of the Manzanar Riot, or fair play committee, draft resistors, or No No boys.
    • Compliance is also not well addressed by the article. There is no mention of the JACL and its role in pacifying their own people, calling for cooperation with the internment process. This is important to acknowledge given the long held interpretation that Japanese willingly went into camps which if vital for understanding one of the biggest lessons dealing with military necessity.Dezertfx21 14:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this article needs to be greatly reduced and instead act as general starting point for articles that need to be created that discuss aspects during internment at greater length. Dezertfx21 14:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

For openers, thanks for stating your intentions on the talk page before starting major edits. I've got some comments that I hope will be taken in good faith:

1. Please feel free to create articles on No-No boys, the Manzanar riot, and any other topics you feel are relevant. It would add to the coverage of this event, and I and other editors would be happy to support you.
2. I have no problem with boldness. However, when you suggest a "serious restructuring," could you clarify whether you wish to reorganize the existing copy or to expand within the current structure? "Expansion" could include addition of headings, for example, while reorganization would move some copy while deleting other copy.

   If you seek to reorganize, a first step would be to (please) browse through some of the archives for this talk page, including the most recent (or at least the digest of Archive5). You'll see that we recently obtained a thin consensus on the current structure after a protracted edit war. It is a compromise, but one that can be expanded to address many of your concerns.

   Please understand that the recent restructuring was almost strictly a reorganization of existing copy, so that we could have a framework to build upon. The idea was to change the structure while avoiding disputes about content that might interfere with the reorganization itself.

3. Any new copy in this article should be subject to strict citation requirements. The citation of the existing copy is woeful, and needs to be upgraded, but new copy should be held to higher standards so that we don't have to go back and re verify the new stuff. Speaking only for myself, I'd prefer to have copy that's going to stick around, and--most importantly--be relatively immune to edit wars.

Finally, please appreciate where the article is today versus at the beginning of each of the last three years. We've had edit wars in the past, by people who felt that the existing copy is biased against the government. As I said, I'd prefer to reduce the chance of them in the future. At the risk of sounding contradictory, do be bold, but please be cautious. --ishu 15:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Ish -- you're doing a good job with the article. It's been very educational. It's ironic, but researching H.S. claims (which weren't ALL bad) was very fun. I tried to locate "farewell to manzanar" but couldn't get a copy. I still don't quite have a handle on the whole episode , just when I'm thinking these are the equivalent of German concentration camps I'll come across a detail like the camp inmates could have guests and leave the camps from time to time.

Anyhow, I came to say I'm gonna detatch for a while. I haven't edited or researched in months anyway, but feel free to drop me a message on my talk page if you want any input. Justforasecond 21:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ok so after reading through the article again and skimming most of the talk page (you guys really went at it) I feel the only way this article will ever approach a standard on par with any copy edited selection is to rebuild it from the ground up. Although the skeletal structure of the article is sufficient the information within these topics are skewed at best. There is a lot of information to discuss on this topic and hence why i recommended this act as a starting point to thread together the multitude of subtopics. This recommendation aside I feel many of the problems regarding citation stems from the mostly hear-say nature of the information contributed. (There really isn't that much out there on the subject that doesn't cite heavily from a select core of texts.) Compound this with the relatively recent shift by all those involved to openly discuss it, the academic community has only begun (a third phase of sorts) writing the internments history. The first solid phase was based largely on the legal proceedings, and government documents which lead to the redress and reparations movement. The second phase, which i feel we are at the tail end of, is the collection of oral histories. This was a great feat accomplished by those such as Art Hansen at CSUF. Naturally scholars have been simultaneously analyzing these sources but for the most part the book has only been cracked on this topic. As such a professorship was just endowed this year at UCLA devoted to JA internment, reflecting the current demand to fully explore this period in all its complexities. I am glad to see that this article evolved reflecting progress made elsewhere. So I think we need to work within the confines of what is currently written on the topic. That said I think there is a concern about bias. If we look at what is in print and the critiques offered by those who have done far more research than anyone most likely to contribute to this article I feel it is safe to echo these opinions. However these claims cannot be made without formal citation (MLA CHICAGO APA). As the in text citation style, Chicago or otherwise, is rarely followed on wiki, might I suggest that those contributing simply cite as best they can, Page #’s especially, so that the group can fairly come to consensus. I notice that the discussions are very lopsided, some individuals reflecting familiarity with certain aspects and the associated writings, which is rebuked by personal anecdotes and nitpicky semantics. This is not to say that I am always on the side of book pounding fact folk, and feel above all else this article reflect in its tone as a contribution to the fight for social justice. Contemporarily speaking it should not be mired in controversy over military necessity, and should instead tell the story of how innocent people were denied their civil liberties, and how this occurred not through interpersonal racism or bigotry but formal, or structural racism. In short I agree that a new copy be made. Dezertfx21 11:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's been a week or so since fox left the post above, so I'm not sure whether the intentions are still burning. But here's my response anyway.

• "rebuild it from the ground up": The only way I would support this suggestion is if you were to create a sub-page and work on the re-build completely independently from the current article. Assuming there were consensus for the rewrite, we could promote it to the main article. I just took the article through this process myself. While I don't mean to sound ego-invested in that (or any other process), you can't do a unilateral wholesale rewrite.
• "hear-say nature" and "core texts:" I agree with the core-texts argument; I'm not sure what you mean about hear-say, though. However, the article can't ignore the criticisms of Malkin et al. They won't go away. To the extent that you disagree with them, you must find the evidence that discusses that disagreement. Eric Mueller, for example.
• "work within confines of current writings": I agree. As I have tried to do, many of the factual issues can be addressed by referring to the Supreme Court decisions, which have the benefit of being both of the period, but also analytical, and authoratitive.
• "mired in controversy over military necessity": The trade-off between military necessity and civil rights is the crux of this issue. That's one reason why Malkin sold so many books. The institutionalized racism claim is compelling only if the evidence of military necessity doesn't square with the remedy that was used. You seem to want to believe that the racism claims are a given. Whether or not you agree with her, Malkin has shown that the case is not taken as a given by a large enough slice of the population that it should be discussed in this article. Whatever you may think about the court's decision in Korematsu, Justice Black understood the trade-off. The controversy is a mire, and it can't be glossed over to talk only about institutionalized racism.

I do not support a major restructuring of the article along the lines you discuss. I leave it to other editors to articulate a consensus one way or another. --ishu 04:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No mention of No No Boys

Where is the mention of No no boys in this article? It is alluded to in the loyalty qusetionaire section however the phrase never appears in the main article. Draft dodgers are also a topic that should be added to the main text.Dezertfx21 13:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but it's also necessary to cover the Loyalty Questions in depth, and mention that many No-Nos said that they would answer Yes-Yes if not for their families' being in internment camps. Critic-at-Arms 19:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And where do you have a source for that comment that isn't 60 years after the fact? --History Student 21:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You have unwittingly put your finger on one of the big problems of researching this whole issue. The Issei almost never discussed this issue except with other Issei, and most Nisei didn't talk about it for decades. Our earliest reports of much of what happened came from people who were children in the camps, such as George Takei and Jeanne Watsuki, who didn't write about it until much later.

The former internees have followed the classic psychological patterns of victims of such crime as rape and torture. As such, it took decades before anything more than oblique references were made outside the community of victims, so there just isn't a lot of analysis dating back to the 1940s. Another part of the problem is that it was the government which had done these things, and the mainstream American populace was generally in favor of the internment, so who outside the community were they supposed to talk to? They all knew what had happened regarding the No-Nos, and nobody else cared, so why talk about it at all in the first place?

Now that enough time has passed and these things are being discussed outside the Nikkei community, naysayers such as yourself condemn them for not talking earlier. They can't win for losing! Critic-at-Arms 15 October 2006

"Many Nisei men felt they could not answer yes to that question until their civil rights were restored, and only with the proviso that they would not be placed in a segregated unit. Unable to qualify their answers in this way, they could only answer no to Question 27 as well as 28." (Yoshiko Uchida, Desert Exile, 1982) Critic-at-Arms 18 October 2006

[edit] Citations needed

This section will contain requests for citations of specific claims. When citation requests are resolved and edits are made, the relevant copy should be moved to the archive.

[edit] Apology quote in lead section

The second-to-last sentence of the lead section begins:

The official apology said that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership"

I can't find a reference to the actual text of the bill or the apology. Most references attribute this language to the CWRIC report (Personal Justice Denied). Can anyone provide a reference to the act or apology? --ishu 02:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I found a reference to the Senate bill S.1009. I have changed the reference in the article and added the appropriate link. --ishu 04:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military necessity

The entire first paragraph needs citations:

Critics of the exclusion argue that the military justification was unfounded, citing the absence of any subsequent convictions of Japanese Americans for espionage, as well as the fact that the Army resorted to falsifying evidence in order to bolster its case before the Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States. In response, pro-internment author Michelle Malkin has argued that the absence of any esponiage convictions is immaterial because the government may have possessed unspecified secret evidence of espionage that it was not able to introduce in court; however, her argument has not met with much success among professional historians.^{[citation needed]}

The falsification claim has been raised on this Talk page, notably the (admittedly wordy) copy proposed by a strong critic of the current article, which reads:

The "newly discovered evidence" that commission "researcher" Aiko Herzig "found" that was used in the Coram Nobis cases of the 1980's is a Ringle memo the pro-reparations lawyers submit to the court as exhibit "D" MINUS THE FEBRUARY 14, 1942 ONI COVER MEMO FROM RINGLE'S BOSS, H.E. KEISKER STATING "IT DOES NOT REPRESENT THE FINAL AND OFFICAL OPINION OF THE OFFICE OF NAVAL INTELLIGENCE ON THE SUBJECT." The memo was also carbon copied for MID and two sections of the FBI. Thus, the memo was an unofficial document haveing no status whatsoever was not concealed, but on the contrary given wide distribution, did not represent the stated position of the ONI nor anyone else of any status in the military, and WAS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH AN OFFICIAL ONI INTELLIGENCE REPORT AUTHORED BY LT. COMMANDER HIMSELF LESS THAN TWO WEEKS LATER. Thus the lawyers representing the Japanese American reparations movment submitted evidence in a federal court under false pre-tense.

The Malkin claim is difficult to deal with as is because it requires proving a negative (no convictions); the stronger claim would be to show declassified evidence that the government had at the time.

Frankly, I think both claims should be struck from the article, and replaced with an assessment of the information available to the decsion-makers at the time (e.g., how much of what parts of MAGIC was available to Roosevelt). This assessment should also include alternatives that were considered and rejected, and alternatives that may not have been considered. Bonus points for evidence against specific individuals. --ishu 02:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are links to the actual docs mentioned above that were deliberately manipulated by the Japanese American activist lawyers during the Coram Nobis Korematsu case.

Unofficial Ringle Memo: [4] Ignored Keisker cover sheet: [5] Official Ringle Memo: [6] --History Student 22:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Michelle's claim doesn't hold up, because after the war the records of the secret trials and hearings of National Socialist spies were eventually made public, including those who were executed. Unless, of course, you have evidence that espionage and treason by Nikkei were so bad that every instance must remain hidden to this day. And it seems that the burden is once again on your side of the issue to provide credible and neutral historians who agree with Michelle. Critic-at-Arms, 15 OCT 06

[edit] Naughton on MAGIC

I removed the following statement because the link does not point to an acutal page or document:

James C. Naughton, Command Historian of the US Army, had this to say, "The hints contained in MAGIC, if decisionmakers paid them any heed at all, were not by themselves sufficient to justify the mass evacuation and incarceration of over 100,000 civilians..."[7]U.S. Army Center of Military History

We can move it back if the editor will supply a better citation. --ishu 03:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Just as a clarification, do you mean James McNaughton? [[8]] --History Student 18:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On 3:3 Conditions of Camps

I know that it is not looked fondly upon to introduce new sources for citations, but I have a source for the first paragraph under 3:3 'Conditions of Camps.' The docu-drama Unfinished Business: The Japanese-American Internment Cases. BUT I do not feel that I have the status to be making this addition my self, let alone do I have the knowledge of how to make the change anyways.LEKS 16:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations for new copy

I reverted some edits to the article--especially because they appeared in the lead section.

There is a consensus among recent editors on this article regarding new copy.

• Any new copy in this article should be subject to strict citation requirements. The citation of the existing copy is woeful, and needs to be upgraded, but new copy should be held to higher standards so that we don't have to go back and re verify the new stuff.
• This consensus is an offshoot of a protracted edit war that occurred in June and July of 2006.
• In order to understand what occurred and why the strict standards, (please) browse through this talk page, including some of the recent archives. (Due to the high "noise" content in archive 5, a digest of that archive has been created.)

A review of the edit history of this article will show that I have been adding citations and requesting citations as busily as I can. Without intending to sound dictatorial, I think this should be the main focus of editing for the short term.

I'd appreciate concurrences from some of the other editors. Thanks for your understanding and cooperation. --ishu 23:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corrections / Clarifications

1. Twelve days later, this power was used to declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast, including all of California and most of Oregon and Washington.[4]

Answer: The militarized zone also included the southern third of Arizona along the Mexican border. The sentence gives the impression mandatory evacuation of ethnic Japanese began 12 days after February 19, 1942. The first mandatory evacuation started March 25, 1942. Up until then it was voluntary evacuation. Although thousands of ethnic Japanese did voluntarily evacuate, many more could not or would not.

Response: You're overlooking the minor little detail that relocation is expensive and requires disposition of property -- take or sell. Many of the Nikkei found that their bank accounts were frozen, and they were unable to sell property except for pennies on the dollar. In some cases, especially land deals, there were contractual prohibitions on voluntarily leaving. Moreover, where to go? Where to find a home to rent, a job to pay the bills? This is why so many were caught in the second Exclusion Zone -- they went only as far as necessary, hoping to settle close enough that their good reputations would work for them, while others simply were too poor to go far, and followed friends or family to the new towns which DeWitt then placed in the second Zone. Critic-at-Arms 15 October 2006

2.Some compensation for property losses was paid in 1948, but most internees were unable to fully recover their losses.

Answer: What kind of source is this? Some website designer at the Truman Library? That's not a source. The "damages totaling $131 million" figure is mesleading because the reparations activists are reffering to income that would have been generated had the evacuation not occured - not loss of property. Japanese had months to apply for government relief for lost property as a result of the evacuation. Less than ten applications were denied.

Response: Much of what was lost was irreplaceable. Think about what YOU have which can't be brought back -- photo albums, vital records, heirlooms, and so on -- and now decide whether you should bring them in your "all you can carry" . . .or should you bring warm clothing for your children, to face the icy winds of Utah and Wyoming? In many cases, the personal disaster was the equivalent of having the home burn down with all possessions, leaving you only with what you're wearing now. Ever dealt with an insurance company after something like that? Just how much value do you think that they will put on Grandma's tea set, when you can buy one just like it for $5.00 at Wal-Mart? How much will they pay for the clothes that you wore to your wedding, or your oldest daughter's first baby shoes? Will you consider that "full recovery" of your losses? Critic-at-Arms 15 October 2006

3. The American camps were only meant to isolate the Japanese, in contrast to the Nazi concentration camps which existed to eliminate their captives.

Answer: This sentence convolutes the difference between an Aushwitz and a Dachau. Some Nazi camps were death camps and others were meant to hold enemies of the Nazi regime. Depends on the camp and the year.

Response: A veteran hair-splitter such as yourself can surely see that the differentiation does not include ALL National Socialist camps . . ? Critic-at-Arms 15 October 2006

4. Most historians now use the term internment camp for several reasons. Many definitions of internment refer to detention of "enemy aliens" or "prisoners of war"[9]; while the Japanese Americans were not prisoners of war, they were considered to be enemy aliens for several purposes, notably the draft. So internment implies a sense of detention, which is not true of relocation. Finally, the term concentration camp is inappropriate due to its highly negative association with the Nazi concentration camps.

Answer: This is pretty good, especially the last sentence. As a clarification permanent resident aliens (Issei) became enemy aliens afer the declaration of war against Japan. Japanese Americans (Nisei)were never enemy aliens as they were American citizens by birthright although many held dual citizenship with Japan.

Response: This is, of course, why De-Witt's order specifically included "non-aliens." Critic-at-Arms 15 October 2006

5. There were twenty-seven U.S. Department of Justice Camps, eight of which (in Texas, Idaho, North Dakota, New Mexico, and Montana) held Japanese Americans.

Answer: They held enemy aliens deemed a security risk, also Germans, Italians, Romanians, Hungarians...

6. The camps were guarded by Border Patrol agents rather than military police and were intended for non-citizens including Buddhist ministers, Japanese language instructors, newspaper workers, and other community leaders.

Answer: They key is "deemed a secutity risk". Enemy aliens deemed not to be a security risk were sent to relocation centers and some even moved east out of the centers, such as Kiyoaki Murata, author of "An Enemy Among Friends" and editor of The Japan Times.

Response: Eventually. Remember, they were arrested between 7 DEC 41 and 11 DEC 41. They were sent from arrest to internment, many months later. And a number of the arrestees were Nisei -- thus citizens. Critic-at-Arms 15 October 2006

7. Approximately 1,800 were Japanese Peruvians. The United States intended to use them in potential hostage exchanges with Japan.

Answer: This is pure reparations propaganda which is why there is no source cited.

Response: For once, I agree. This wording makes an assumption which has never been proven. Critic-at-Arms 15 October 2006

Currently Japanese Latin Americans are attempting to get reparations from the Americans government. On the face of it why would the American government need to import Japanese Peruvians for "hostage exchange" when they had a country full of Issei? Ridiculous and this sentence should be deleted. P.S. Latin American Germans and Italians were sent to the United States, too. Here are some facts:

With regard to the Latin American Axis nationals, it is generally acknowledged by those who have bothered to check the record that only approx 8,500 Axis nationals (Germans, Italians, and Japanese)were arrested and interned by 16 Latin American countries during WWII. In accordance with treaty obligations, the U.S. was obligated to accept Axis nationals for internment in the U.S. from those Latin American countries which were unable to establish costly internment programs.

Accordngly, at least twelve Latin American countries deported a total of only 3,000 Axis nationals consisting of just under 2,300 Japanese (500 of whom who had already applied for expatriation to Japan at the Spanish Embassy in Peru) and just over 700 Germans and Italians.

Hence, the U.S. was only involved in the internment of 3,000, not 31,000 Latin American Axis nationals. Charges of violation of the wartime civil rights of such persons (enemy aliens)by the U.S. is far fetched. Indeed, such persons were specifically excluded from P.L.100-383 which authorized payment to Japanese enemy aliens and Japanese Americans evacuated from the West Coast or interned by the U.S. during the war.

Here is a link. The link is provided to let you know the movement exists, not to endorse what the movement espouses. [10] --History Student 17:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

8. Eisenhower realized that anti-Japanese racism was not confined to California.

Answer: Racism? In this day and age the terms "racism" is thrown around so much as it has become devoid of any true meaning. Anger and hostility towards the enemy after the country had suffered a sneak attack from the enemy is not "racism". Fact is the vast majority of ethnic Japanese ADULTS were enemy aliens. This sentence needs a re-write.

Response: Fact is that many thousand of the Nikkei adults who were interned were AMERICAN CITIZENS, not enemy aliens. They were interned SOLELY on the basis of being Nikkei. And then there were all those thousands of Nisei and Sansei children, including orphans under the age of 10, who were likewise sent to camps, again solely for being Nikkei. If you don't think that this is "racism," I look forward to your definition of the term. Critic-at-Arms 15 October 2006

9.The roots of the internment run back to the turn of the 20th century

Answer: This is a leftover from the old article. Cite a source for that one.

10. During the period of 1939–1941, the FBI compiled the Custodial Detention index ("CDI") on citizens, "enemy" aliens and foreign nationals who might be dangerous based principally on census records. These definitions of "enemy aliens" did not include those of German and Italian descent.

Answer: Cite a source for that one. German Americans on the east coast and throughout the country were arrested, interned, and in some cases deported. Almost 11,000 German Americans were interned in the U.S. during World War II. Many German Americans sat, worked, played and went to school in the same camps as their Japanese American counterparts.

Response: Europeans were interned on a case-by-case basis, generally (as you point out) following arrest for their pro-Axis activities. Those few children interned were sent with their parents. With tens of millions of "German Americans" and "Italian Americans," the number of those interned is statistically insignificant. OVER 90% OF NIKKEI IN THE UNITED STATES WERE INTERNED. Arrests in the first days following the Oahu attacks included all of the leaders of the Nikkei communities, arrests of European Americans were leaders in pro-Axis activities. Come on, somewhere in here even YOU have to see the difference in the situations! Critic-at-Arms 15 October 2006

Furthermore even before the first person was interned, 600,000 Italian Americans and 300,000 German Americans were deprived of their civil liberties when they (all persons, male and female, age 14 and older) were required to register as "Alien Enemies." This registration entailed photographing, fingerprinting and the issuance of identification cards which the Alien Enemies had to have on their possession at all times. In addition they were forbidden to fly; to leave their neighborhoods; to possess cameras, short-wave radio receivers, and firearms. Finally, these persons were required to report any change of employment or address to the Department of Justice.

Response: Wow. 900,000 people had to register -- but why are you saying that they were AMERICANS? They WERE foreign nationals. If you could show that the 35,000,000 or so Americans of German descent and 15,000,000 or so Americans of Italian descent had to register, then your comment would have some value in the discussion. Critic-at-Arms 15 October 2006

11. Further attacks, such as the fairly minor shelling of a California oil refinery in 1942, ostensibly by a Japanese submarine, redoubled these suspicions.

Answer: This sentence seeks to belittle the many sinkings and shellings that occured from California to British Columbia. You want a breakdown of attacks?

12. Civilian and military officials had concerns about the loyalty of the ethnic Japanese on the West Coast and considered them to be a security risk, although these concerns often grew more out of racial hatred than actual risk.

Answer: More race card racebaiting. Cite a source for this one. How about the loyalty of ethnic Japanese in the Philippines, an American Commonwealth at the time? No mention of MAGIC thus far in the article either.

Response: When you can show me DeWitt's order for "aliens and non-aliens of German descent" to report to internment camps, then you can legitimately ask this question. Critic-at-Arms 15 October 2006

13. Lieutenant General John L. DeWitt, who administered the internment program, repeatedly told newspapers that "A Jap's a Jap" and testified to Congress, "I don't want any of them [persons of Japanese ancestry] here. They are a dangerous element. There is no way to determine their loyalty...It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen, he is still a Japanese. American citizenship does not necessarily determine loyalty...But we must worry about the Japanese all the time until he is wiped off the map."

Answer: DeWitt's report was entirely for public consumption and in fact justified many of the fears that existed in the general populace. The comment was also for the consumption of the Empire of Japan, for the Americans had to justify the mass evacuation of 120,000 people without letting the enemy no their diplomatic and military codes had been compromised.

Response: Are you REALLY saying that MAGIC intercepts indicated that the only way to ensure the safety of the West Coast was to lock up 10-year-old schoolgirls in Wyoming? Critic-at-Arms 15 October 2006

The plan worked flawlessly. The Empire of Japan immediately used the evacuation for propoganda purposes (like today's reparations movment), but knowledge of Japan's codes being broken was never revieled.

Unfortunatley, DeWitt's comments are now bandied about and taken entirely out of historical context.

Response: Mostly by the anti-reparations people. Everyone else knows what DeWitt was saying, and understands the historical context. Critic-at-Arms 15 October 2006

14. American citizens of German and Italian ancestry were excluded from the classification of "enemy race", which was due largely to political concerns. The German and Italian communities represented a significant voting block, and those ethnic groups had become more assimilated into American culture.[citation needed] The Japanese people represented only a small minority, making internment feasible. Those of German and Italian ancestry were actually praised by President Roosevelt for their "loyalty" as to relieve any anxiety that those groups might also be interned.[citation needed]

Answer: This is reparations propagands. See above where I discuss the government crackdown on Germans and Italians in America long before Pearl Harbor.

That's all I can handle for now. I'll review more later. --207.207.80.138 23:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC) That's me. --History Student 23:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Student: Welcome back! I genuinely appreciate your comments on this page. I've put some quick responses to your questions below, but they mostly agree that citations are lacking and rewrites are appropriate. I hope you can see the large number of citation requests througout the article that I've put in. I'm glad somebody's willing to help vet the claims. Obviously, statements that can't be substatiated should be rewritten or removed.

1. Timeline of evacuation: We can clarify this statement in the article and/or reword the sentence, and/or add a clarifying phrase or sentence.

2. "Damages" citation. Please note that the reference is used only to substantiate that "some compensation" was paid. I agree that the source is inadequate for anything beyond that simple statement. I tried to find a reference to the 1948 claims act, but couldn't find one. If you or anyone else has a better cite we can swap it out. The key is that claims were paid in 1948. That's it for the lead section. Other facts can go in the body of the article.

3. Nazi camps sentence: I'm not a fan of that sentence, so let's please change it. My only request is that we limit the reference in the lead section to one or two sentences only. We can elaborate further in the body, maybe under "Key Disputes/Severity".

4. "Most historians...:" I'm glad you agree that something is better.

5 to 7. DOJ Camps: Obviously this section requires expansion... with citations, of course. This entire section was copied from reference 10. We can and should expand and cite further.

8. Eisenhower: Let's rewrite per my comments above.

9. Roots of internment: A lot of the copy was carried over from the previous version. We can rewrite.

10. CDI: Let's do get a citation. The citationneeded tag is there to request one.

11. Shelling refinery: Actually, you already provided a pretty good timeline (it's now been moved to the archive). Let's rewrite that statement to fit the timeline.

12. Racebaiting: Can we just agree that we need a citation for this statement or remove it if we can't find a citation?

13. DeWitt (Jap's a Jap) and context: I'd be interested to see some references on this point to provide the context.

14. Citation requests have been attached to these claims. I only put in two because the first two sentences are basically a single claim. The third sentence I consider to be factually correct. The fourth sentence also has a citation request.

Let's get to work, everybody! --ishu 04:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Lowman discusses this in his book "MAGIC".

The statment was in the congressional record before DeWitt ever mentioned it.

"Once a Jap, always a Jap! You can't any more regenerate a Jap than you can reverse the laws of nature!"

-John Elliot Rankin (D)

Mississippi Congressman 1921-1953

Why not use my suggestion above and cite Lowman's book and the Congressional Record? I see a lot of "citations need" links for pro-reparations comments. --History Student 17:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have Lowman's book. If you can provide some context for his discussion and more specific citations, that would help. Does Lowman make the observation about Rankin's remark, or is his point about DeWitt's strategic obfuscation? Also, any additional information you can provide on Rankin's comment would help, such as what year and date. Page numbers are always helpful. --ishu 05:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"Once a Jap, always a Jap! You can't any more regenerate a Jap than you can reverse the laws of nature!"

-John Elliot Rankin (D) Mississippi Congressman 1921-1953

Congressional Record, December 15, 1941 --History Student 15:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Strategic Obfuscation? You should read Lowman's book and you will find the tone is far from "stategic obfuscation". The attempts by the Japanese American Reparations Movement activists to explain away any history that conflicts with their version of events is a better example of "strategic obfuscation". A good example is where the article discusses the fact that more Japanese Americans served on the Imperial Japanese Forces than in the American Forces. This is conveniently explained away as, "well they had no choice". But back to DeWitt....

DeWitt, up to his final recommendation to the War Department on 13 Feb. 1942, (prior to FDR's E.O.9066) was consistent in his opposition to the detention of American citizens. His final recommendation to the War Department was that "citizen evacuees would either ACCEPT INTERNMENT VOLUNTARILY OR RELOCATE THEMSELVES with such assistance as state and federal agencies might offer." (Emphasis mine)

In his final recommentation, DeWitt also called for the inclusion of ALL enemy aliens (German and Italians as well as Japanese) in any evacuation decided.

The evacuation decision was made in the War Department and instructions to DeWitt for instrumentation thereof differed markedly from DeWitt's final recommendation in a number of respects. But the fact is that from early on to his final recommendation prior to the Evacuation Decision made in Washington, DeWitt was consistent in his opposition to the detainment of American citizens of Japanese descent. As a good soldier, however, he bowed to the orders of his superiors and carried out their instructions to the best of his ability.

A review of Chapter V, "Japanese Evacuation From the West Coast" of Conn, Englemman, and Fairchild's "Guarding the United States and its Outposts." [Center of Military History, U.S.Army] is suggested. --History Student 15:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

For some reason my reply to Ishu continues to mysteriosuly disapear with no documentation in the "history" link. Why is that? --207.207.80.138 17:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC) --History Student 17:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've got no time to review it, but here's a direct link to Guarding the United States and its Outposts. --ishu 00:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow! That's great. I didn't know the book was online and will compare to my hardbound copy. --History Student 18:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 120,000

• Some 120,000 U.S. residents of German and Italian descent across the country were also arrested and interned as security risks, but no compensation was ever paid to them.^[1][2]

Wehere do we get the figure of 120,000? It isn't in the cited references. Here's a better reference, but it mentions much smaller numbers, "WWII Violations of German American Civil Liberties by the US Government". A U.S. Senator sponsored a bill to study the issue and he said in a speech:

• Approximately 11,000 ethnic Germans, 3,200 ethnic Italians, and scores of Bulgarians, Hungarians, Romanians or other European Americans living in America were taken from their homes and placed in internment camps [11]

It appears that we are off by an order of magnititude. -Will Beback 19:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] incarceration

just an fyi -- reparations activists have moved on from "internment" to "incarceration" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TuleLakers (talk • contribs) 01:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your comments. --Gar2chan 10:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

And, since this apparently doesn't meet with your approval, please describe why the term "incarceration" doesn't apply. Critic-at-Arms 15 October 2006

Critic: Please assume good faith. Gar2chan just asked for a signature. TuleLakers gave an FYI. Nobody's disagreeing with anything. --ishu 15:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to Gar2chan, I was addressing the person who didn't sign, but apparently finds some fault with the use of the term "incarceration." Something which seems to elude many people, 65 years after the event, is the destruction of lives which was done by our government, on the whim of a handful of people. While I am not Nikkei, I know many of them and find the internment reprehensible -- yet here we are, today, arguing over terminology, while some attempt to justify the unjustifiable. Critic-at-Arms 17 October 2006

Critic: Please assume good faith. TuleLakers (the unsigned party) gave an FYI without issuing an opinion as to which term he/she preferred. You are the only one finding fault with anyone in this topic. --ishu 04:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay. TuleLakers, please explain why you consider it noteworthy that some people prefer the word "incarceration" over "internment." Throughout the last several decades, the words "imprisonment," "incarceration," "internment," "explusion," and so on have been used more-or-less interchangeably to describe the government's actions regarding the Nikkei from 1941 - 1945. The only protests that I've heard to the use of these phrases has come from people who feel that the "reparations activists" are not justified in their position. If you believe the phrase to be incorrectly used, please explain your basis for this belief. --Critic-at-Arms 23 October 2006

During the war, more than 33,000 evacuees voluntarily left the relocation centers to accept outside employment. An additional 4,300 left to attend colleges. All it took to leave the relocation center was a loyalty oath to the United States and the means to support one's self. That hardly fits the definition of "incarceration".

You also use the term "Nikkei", but the vast majority of Japanese Americans were kids many holding dual citizenship with Japan and their parents were enemy aliens. --History Student 15:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You are apparently asserting that nearly all of the adult Nikkei had left the camps for jobs during the war (remember, as you pointed out, "the vast majority" of the 110,000 internees were CHILDREN). This makes no sense. Such a figure would also include temporary workers, who had to return to the internment camps once their employment ended (and counting some of them more than once), and those who left the camps between the end of mandatory internment and VJ Day.

Permanent parole required a sponsor willing to take responsibility for the internee and any family members who would accompany him or her. Try finding that TODAY, much less under wartime conditions, immediately following an economic depression. You would turn to your family and friends . . .but your family and friends are also behind barbed wire! Even with a sponsor, you had to have a JOB and a PLACE TO LIVE. Even without the phrase of which you're so fond ("enemy alien"), this would be nearly impossible today, much less in 1943. And remember that there was no promise that the government wouldn't pull the same stunt again, of letting people leave one Exclusion Zone, then trapping them by arbitrarily creating another.

They also had to convince a review board that they posed to threat to to the public at large.

What part of armed guards are keeping you behind barbed wire, and will shoot you if you get too close to the wire, doesn't fit the definition of "incarceration?" Sure, by doing certain things, arbitrarily defined by the government, the Nikkei could leave. By doing certain things, arbitrarily definied by the government, a convicted murderer gets to leave prison too. And guess what? They are the SAME THINGS. So perhaps he's not incarcerated either . . ?

Also, by your reasoning, there should have been no barbed wire at all at most of the camps, since the Nikkei sent there were not in the Exclusion Zones.

You keep harping on the loyalty oaths. You seem to have no clue what the issue really was. For the Issei to renounce their citizenship WHILE FACING IMMINENT DEPORTATION TO JAPAN would have been to make themselves into targets for BOTH governments. As stateless persons they would have no protections. For the Nisei and Sansei, the wording of the loyalty oath made it a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question, forcing them to admit to a previous allegience to Japan. This would open them up to charges of being undeclared agents loyal to an enemy power, yet provided no promise of any sort of protection. Sure, you and I can both believe that the wording was simply careless (BTW, I DO believe that), but I don't think that either of us would have been all that trusting of the government under those circumstances. So why would the Nikkei have been any more trusting than you would have been? These objections were brought up, but the government refused to modify the questions! Wouldn't YOU wonder why?

Now you have a problem with the word "Nikkei"? Go look it up! Here, I've made it easy. Critic-at-Arms 27 October 2006

Those "enemy aliens" had kids in the United States (the vast majority of Nisei did not hold duel citizenship), which gives them much more reason to remain loyal, if that was ever really in question.

My grandfather held a job while interned (my other grandfather fought on the European front). He was an American citizen, like all my grandparents, with English as their native language. He had to return to the camp after work before nighttime. Your paragraph makes it sound like everyone had the possibility or choice to do outside work and that they remained outside the camp at that time. falsedef 20:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That's wrong. Over 90% of Japanese-Americans over age 17 were also citizens of Japan (dual citizens)under Japanese law.

Uh . . .History Student . . ? Where in history have the laws of one sovereign nation applied to another sovereign nation . . ? Japan could call them anything they liked, but they were AMERICAN citizens. Critic-at-Arms 10 November 2006

Thousands had been educated in Japan. Some having returned to the U.S. holding reserve rank in the Japanese armed forces. The Issei were enemy aliens after Pearl Harbor.

They did have the choice to do work or do nothing. They were never forced to work. Thousands sat around and did nothing for four years

Sorry, HS, this is not true, unless you are counting the aged, infirm, young children, and those who were prohibited from working by the administrators. "Sitting around and doing nothing" is not how the Japanese are built. Haven't you ever heard of "Karoshi"? Critic-at-Arms 10 November 2006

and then begged the government not to close the Relocation Centers when the war was ending.

Make up your mind. You say that nearly all of the adults left the camps during the war, then you say that they begged for the camps to be kept open. WHICH IS IT? Critic-at-Arms 10 November 2006

They also had the choice of leaving the centers provided they would declare an oath of loyalty and had the means to support themselves. It's all in Ex Parte Endo. I suggest you read it. --History Student 23:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You make it sound so simple. I'll bet you $500 that you couldn't duplicate that "simple" trick under the same conditions, as close as we can come to duplicating them. Critic-at-Arms 10 November 2006

Stop posting at the top level of the thread for you arguments. Most work was done inside the camp (including work for the war effort, such as making nets). You do realize the camp did not run on its own? Anyways, not everyone had a choice to do outside work, which is what we were discussing. Stop setting up straw man arguments.

Actually, you're wrong. Most Nisei did not have dual citizenship as in 1924 (the same year as America's exclusion laws) Japanese citizenship laws changed for Nisei. Since most Nisei were children, the 1924 law held that those born after were would not be granted automatic citzenship. The 1924 law is why you only cited ages 17 and up, which is quite misleading and devious. Three fourths of Nisei were NOT dual citizens at the time of WWII. Since the previous laws before 1924 provided automatic citizenship, older Nisei had never shown any disloyalty by gaining such recognition (by Japan, in Japan, not by America).

Thousands begged to keep the Relocation centers open? Your comments are out of line and downright disgusting. There is no court case or documentation for that. Camps were kept open due to the loss of property and jobs (compensation for property loss was not dealt with until 1948). Ex Pate Endo is a case of a woman trying to be set free from internment, exactly the opposite of what you're saying. They did not have the ability to request clearance to leave until the Endo case. The process wasn't something that could be done quickly. How can most have any means of supporting themselves if they're hundreds of miles from their hometowns? falsedef 09:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm right. Nisei born before December 1, 1924 could nullify their Japanee citizenship by submitting formal notification to the Japanese Home Minister. Those born afterwards would lose their Japanese citizenship within two weeks of birth unless their parents registered them with the Japanese Consulate.

Thus, after 1924, older Nisei could renounce their Japanese citizenship while the parents of those born after 1924 needed only to do nothing, and their children would have no legal ties with Japan.

However by 1933, only 8% of Nisei born before 1924 had renounced their Japanese citizenship, and by then, also, some 40% of Nisei born after 1924 had been registered at the Japanese Consulate so as to acquire Japanese citizenship.

Gee, HS, that's THREE TO ONE AGAINST. Critic-at-Arms 10 November 2006

Oops, sorry, three to TWO against. My error. Critic-at-Arms 11 November 2006

Of the some 110,000 persons of Japanese ancestry who were evacuated, approx 60% of the ADULTS were Japanese nationals, enemy aliens subject to detention in wartime under long-standing law dating back to 1798 and still on the books today.

You've just shot yourself in the foot again, HS. Elsewhere you note that the "vast majority" of adult Nikkei were Nisei. Critic-at-Arms 10 November 2006

Most of the U.S. citizens among the evacuees were minor children. And well over half of those over age 17 were dual citizens (Japanese and American). Of the entire 110,000 evacuated, only some 28,000 were U.S. citizens over the age of 21.

Further, in 1938, it was announced that children of dual citizens (Sansei) were eligiable for registration as Japanese subjects.

Eligibility means NOTHING, HS, the children of dual citizens born abroad may be registered as US citizens as well. BTW, Sansei means "third generation," it has nothing to do with dual citizenship. Critic-at-Arms 10 November 2006

The announced closing of the centers was a shock to the residents. They didn't want the centers closed and petitioned the government to keep them open until the end of the war. Ever hear of a "concentration camp" where the residents didn't want to leave?

The Exclusion Zones were in effect until the beginning of 1945. The announcement was made that the camps would close in the spring of 1945 (this was later pushed back), which was not enough time to find work, places to live, etc. So, yeah, if the choice is between starvation and staying in the camp -- MINUS BARBED WIRE AND MACHINEGUNS -- I think that any reasonable person would want the camps to stay open a while, in the same way returning veterans stayed in camps built in various parks throughout Southern California, such as Rodger Young Village. Critic-at-Arms 10 November 2006

Your comments on Endo are wrong, also. (Endo provides a good history of the evacuation. This is my point.)

The Court did not hold that the detention of one whom the government had not yet conceeded to be loyal, is unlawful. In other words, under the existing circumstances, detention of persons of questionable loyalty is OK until their loyalty has been determined. Then they can go.

Incidentally, Endo was moot. The exclusion orders were lifted before the decision was released. Then the evacuees started demanding the Relocation Centers stay open.

Thousands left the Relocation Centers and started new lives outside the evacuation zones. The purpose of the Relocation Centers was assist those who could not or would not "support themselves hundreds of miles from home". That's a far cry from "incarcerated in a concentration camp". --History Student 19:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"Thousands begged to keep the Relocation centers open? Your comments are out of line and downright disgusting. There is no court case or documentation for that."

Wrong again. (P.S. I said thousands sat around and did nothing...)

"Democracy on Trial" by Page Smith, PhD History, UC Santa Clara; Chapter 24 of that book, titled "Closing the Relocation Centers:

P.372 "Among the evacuees the announcement that the centers were to be closed brought another wild emotional upheaval....The outraged reaction was perhaps best expressed by a Nisei girl at Minidoka who exclaimed: 'This is a town. You can't close a town.'.... "Soon there were the now familiar protests and petitions. The centers couldn't be closed. Many of the people remaining in them were Issei men and women too old to start over...

Nice shootin' Tex! You've hit your own foot again! ". . .too old to start over . . ." Critic-at-Arms 10 November 2006

P.373 "One evacuee who had been planning to resettle angrily canceled his plans. He would hang on until he was 'shoved through the gate.' Talk went around about a sit-down strike...

P.383 "A well-to-do evacuee at Heart Mountain expressed the sentiments of those remaining in the centers: 'I guess I'll just have to go..I don't want to go. I sort of like it here. My work is interesting. I have time for golf and fishing....I have no worries. My wife likes it here all right and my daughter has her friends. We're used to it..Oh, I'll go. I have to..But I don't want to.'"

The chapter goes on to tell that delegates from the various centers elected representatives to a conference at Salt Lake City to discuss the closing of the centers and to formulate a series of 21 requests to be made of the U.S. government preceeded by a "Statement of Facts" in which the delegates wanted an agreement from the WRA that their recommendations be met in conjunction with the closing of the centers. No agreement on the complete list was reached with the WRA. --History Student 18:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, stuff like "help in finding gainful employment" -- how DARE they ask for such a thing! Critic-at-Arms 10 November 2006

"You keep harping on the loyalty oaths. You seem to have no clue what the issue really was. For the Issei to renounce their citizenship WHILE FACING IMMINENT DEPORTATION TO JAPAN would have been to make themselves into targets for BOTH governments. As stateless persons they would have no protections."

According to the 1940 census there were 84,658 Issei in the U.S. and Hawaii at that time. In 1960 there were 101,656. An INS report "Persons Naturalized by Former Allegiance" indicates that between 1952 and 1960 only 32% of Japanese-born persons in the U.S.in 1960 had become naturalized. Of course we also don't know how many of the 1940 group survived and how many additional Issei (war brides?)emigrated between war's end and 1960. Nevertheless, if only 32% bothered to naturalize between 1952 and 1960 wouldn't that seem to indicate lack of a burning desire among Issei to become U.S. citizens? Why would the urge have been any greater in 1940?

"Yeah, stuff like "help in finding gainful employment" -- how DARE they ask for such a thing!"

So you're saying the U.S. Government did not provide help in finding gainful employment and settling ethnic Japanese east of the militarized zones? Is that what you're saying?

"So, yeah, if the choice is between starvation and staying in the camp -- MINUS BARBED WIRE AND MACHINEGUNS --"

You mean three strand cattle wire that was routinely crossed. Machine guns? That's another attempt at providing a worst case scenario.

Japanese American Evacuation O.H. 649 Harry Nakamura Interviewed by John McFarlane on May 2, 1971 California State University Fullerton Oral History Program Japanese American Project

McFarlane: Were you conscious of the enclosure, the barbed wire and the guards, there at the camp?

Nakamura: Well, our camp didn't have that barbed wire. We were able to go to the Colorado River and hiking to the mountains. The only guard I know of that they had was at the main gate. So other than that I don't think it was very strict.

McFarlane: Then you didn't see the guards, they weren't very apparent; they weren't driving around watching you?

Nakamura: Oh, no.

"So, yeah, if the choice is between starvation and staying in the camp I think that any reasonable person would want the camps to stay open a while..."

Okay, so let me get this straight. Now you're saying they wanted to stay in the CONCENTRATION CAMPS to KEEP FROM STARVING!

That's real good. Thank you for making my point. --History Student 20:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

HS, you've had no point to make. You throw out numbers that contradict each other, then ignore this minor little detail. You can't defend your opinion with fact, so you ignore any fact which intrudes on your viewpoint.

The OFFICIAL RECORD shows that a number of people were shot for approaching the fences which you say were "routinely crossed." James Wakasa, for instance. You say that is was a 3-strand barbed-wire fence, so please explain the 6- and 8-foot posts still in the ground at places like Topaz and Poston, which is the only camp near the Colorado River. Explain the guard towers, and why anyone would put them up but only put up 3-strand barbed-wire. Explain the photos which show the boxwire fences and the limit wires 10 feet inside them.

And please pick ONE set of numbers and stay with them. Did 33,000 adult Nikkei leave the camps during the war? If so, then who was left to "be shoved out the gate"? Critic-at-Arms 12 November 2006

To me, concentration camps seem to be the right terminology: the United States Government rounded up people for no reason other than their race. They did so out of revenge, as they did not round up many, if any, Italians or Germans. These people were rounded up and put into these "internment camps", and not allowed to leave until the end of the war. Their should definitely be a negative connotation to the term concentration camp; even though America's where no where near as bad as Germany's, they were still dreadfully wrong, a travesty. The Japanese internment was one of the greatest atrocities committed by America during World War II. (America DID commit atrocities, though many would like to believe otherwise and look to our country as perfect - All countries, no matter how good, commit atrocities, especially in times of war. Examples of past American wrongs: the lack of rights to women, who weren't even allowed to vote until the 1920's, and the lack of rights to African-Americans, who weren't allowed many basic rights until the 1960's civil rights era. 24.253.216.168 19:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with using the term "concentration camps", but I think you're mistaken on one point. In fact, America rounded up over 11,000 German resident aliens and their American born children. The Italian-Americans fought for and won an apology from the US government regarding internment, which is now a matter of public record. 69.151.233.215 01:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Italian and German Peoples

Can somebody get some more info on that or get a more concentrated section about that, I know there were many German and Italian peoples involved in internment camps.

Those internments would probably be better handled in a separate article. -Will Beback 04:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Between 1941 and 1948, the U.S. government rounded up anddetained 15,000 German-American civilians, disrupting thousands of homes.(Photos courtesy of the Traces Museum.) A traveling museum, dubbed the Buseum 2, will visit the Monticello Library Monday, Nov. 6. A traveling exhibit scheduled to visit Monticello next week tells thestory of a dark chapter in America's history, of a time when thousands of American citizens were forcibly captured and contained by agents of their own country.

http://www.germanworldalliance.org/news/Monticello.html

Johann

[edit] David Lowman, his book and related website

I find it interesting that the anti-internment website so revered by HistoryStudent is sponsored by Athena Press, a publisher with only two products.

One is the also-highly-touted book by David Lowman. The other is a book by that paragon of human rights, Generalfeldmarschall Erwin Rommel, "one of Hitler's favorite generals" and a man who once had unarmed black POWs killed to make a propaganda film. Rommel's other endearing actions included the order that non-white POWs be given 800 calories per day, while white POWs' rations were 1200 calories per day.

I can't help but wonder if there is some significance in their selection of a Nazi and a pro-internment bureaucrat as their "stable" of authors . . ?

According to his official bio, Lowman was in the Army during WWII, in the South Pacific. Since he died in 1999, we must assume that he was in his 20s or 30s during the war. Since the bio doesn't claim that he was involved in any way with MAGIC during that time, and considering his age, we have to assume that what he knew of the whole project came later. As a native of Washington (the state) and a veteran of the war against Japan, his impartiality must be questioned, but this may be the source of his outspoken support of the internment and opposition to CRA '88.

He then went into the National Security Agency, those wonderful people who tapped your phone in the 1990s (in direct violation of American law and of the Presidential order which created the agency in the first place).

Going back to the bio, after he retired from Spook Central, he was a "consultant on the declassification of World War II intelligence documents." Wow. He's an expert on declassification. I didn't see anything in the bio which indicated any expertise in ANALYSIS.

So, we've got a guy with an iffy background when it comes to Nikkei, who went to a hush-hush secret agency which is best known for keeping things secret, yet his claim to fame is in making information public . . ? He's an expert in declassification, with an agency whose very EXISTENCE was classified for decades . . .what's wrong with this picture???

Can anyone say "Disinformation Expert" . . ? I knew you could!

And his book isn't published until he's beyond the reach of any court order to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth . . .so, how do we know that what he put in the book bears any relation to that truth, and isn't just the result of years of carefully-crafted falsification by someone who hated the Japanese and anyone of Japanese descent? Critic-at-Arms 27 October 2006

Critic: Please be civil. Let's just address the documents presented and their content. If you have references that address the claims presented, the most constructive thing you can do is to present your sources so that we can vet them all together with Student's sources. Student is derisive, to be sure, but has shown a willingness to work with other editors. The internmentarchives.com site has some commentary I disagree with, but the documents present claims that I have not been able to confirm or refute. Confirmation or refutation is the task for editors on this page, and we should focus on that. --ishu 13:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I am being civil, but I refuse to let them force me to accept an unproven standard. They have been raising Lowman as their expert, thus Lowman's background is very much a valid issue for consideration. I have looked at that background and -- using only what his supporters have said to PROMOTE him -- found so many red flags it looks like a bullfighters' convention.

Disinformation is one of the primary jobs of any intelligence agency and its officers, and Lowman was awarded for his work with the NSA, eventually becoming a high-level, awarded employee. Thus, we can't ignore his necessary expertise in the techniques of disinformation, which are largely independent of the issue being discussed. Pick an issue to be "treated," it doesn't matter what, and you open the same toolbox. As a decades-long member of a group which is has been the constant target of a disinformation campaign since before any of us were born, it isn't hard to see the same kind of false neutrality in Lowman and the things which he reportedly wrote.

One thing which is glaringly absent is the "follow-through." Where are the convictions? We have the records of secret trials of the handful of National Socialist agents caught in the US, tried in secret, and executed -- even Paul Harvey commented on them on his radio shows. Where are the records of the trials and executions of those in the "hundreds of spy rings" which Lowman claimed were uncovered by MAGIC? Where are the holes left behind when they fell off the IRS and Social Security files? MAGIC itself was public knowledge at least as far back as the 1960s. The MAGIC team bragged about having a copy in the clear of the last part of the declaration well before the Japanese Ambassador had it . . .yet they weren't bragging about all of those Japanese American spy rings that they caught! What about all of the people who would have been involved in capturing, detaining, feeding, guarding, prosecuting, defending, judging, shooting and burying them -- where were they during the Congressional debate? BTW, Lowman wasn't one of them, he was in the South Pacific at the time. There are plenty of deep-left-wing and deep-right-wing bigot groups who would have delightedly put those stories in their neo-Nazi papers at the time, and on their websites now, but . . .the silence even from that quarter is deafening. The "proof" comes from a publisher with an unlisted phone number and a residential address, whose only other offering is a book by a Nazi Field Marshal. Of course, most publishers started small, and I am perfectly willing to believe that they took what they could get in order to get started, but at first glance it seems pretty suspicious. Critic-at-Arms 28 October 2006

So any person who writes or publishes a biography or history of WW2 Germany is now a facist? Guess that includes John Toland and William Manchester, too. I don't find your ramblings to be very convincing and doubt other people do either. --History Student 23:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Funny, HS, that you should bring up fascism. I said nothing of the kind. I merely pointed out some of the glaring obstacles between that stand between Lowman and objectivity, and noted that his publisher's only other offering was a textbook written by Hitler's "favorite general" (not a "biography" or "history"). I never said anything in the TWO WHOLE SENTENCES about the publisher that is not verifiable and accurate -- I even offered a possible explanation in their favor. YOU are the one who decided that I was calling them fascists, when I questioned their choice of books to publish. Interestingly, one of the tactics of the Fascists was to put words in the mouths of their opponents, then attack them for what they "said."

. . .but we all noticed that you don't actually have any REBUTTAL to offer of what I've written, just an inaccurate rant on a tangent. Come on, I've just shown that your "expert" isn't as golden as you want us to believe, don't you have ANYTHING to say in his defense? Don't you have any answer to my other points? You sound like those conspiracy nuts who claim that the Apollo landings were hoaxes, made on some soundstage somewhere -- you're certain of your "facts," but none of the thousands of other things (the infrastructure) that would go along with them are present.

Come on, HS, answer my actual POINTS. You believe that what was done to 120,000 men, women and children was justified, and you used Lowman's book as your proof that they were a threat, engaged in activities so heinous that national security demanded that old people had to be taken straight from surgical theaters to the horse stables, that 4-year-olds had to be taken from orphanages and put behind barbed wire. I've raised reasonable questions about your "proof" and it's source. Such questions are a legitimate part of debate, so you now have three options. You must either counter the points I've raised, admit that you can't, or close your eyes, plug your ears, and hum REAL LOUD. Which will it be? Critic-at-Arms 10 November 2006

Critic: Please be civil. Let's just address the documents presented and their content. If you have references that address the claims presented, the most constructive thing you can do is to present your sources so that we can vet them all together with Student's sources. Impugning the author is not the same thing as discussing the content. If you believe that the documents involve some misrepresentation, please discuss those concerns here. Whether the misrepresentation is due to Lowman's beliefs is less important than determining the validity of what he's actually written/compiled. --ishu 02:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Ishu, when someone is put up as an expert, it is the responsibility of those promoting him to prove that he is what they say he is. I know, when I have appeared as an expert witness in court and before elected officials, the first things which must be answered are my qualifications, then about my personal point of view (if that might have any effect on my testimony). ANY question about the expert's character as it may affect his "testimony" is appropriate, and must be answered in court. Is the truth any less important here?

I don't have to provide anything but questions, when countering an unproven assertion. Lowman's assertions are unproven, yet HS demands that we accept them as the baseline.

Lowman's background is fair game, as he A), was raised in an area with a noted historical anti-Nikkei social element active at the time he lived there, B), he served in the South Pacific in the war against Japan, C), he was a highly-placed member of an agency which practices "disinformation" as a key tool, and D), the book was not published until after Lowman was beyond the reach of any questioner who might get him under oath. Any one of these things would be enough to call his honesty into question. The combination is an overwhelming level of "reasonable doubt" about his motives and thus his honesty.

Additionally, as I have pointed out, there is a complete lack of any of the "ripples" which would have come if Lowman's assertions were right. Neither Lowman nor HS could claim that the records are still classified -- not after this information has appeared in a book -- yet those records just are not there . . .or they would be touted as proof of Lowman's otherwise-unproven claims. With so many minute details presented by HS and Lowman, where is the infrastructure which would have made these things possible in the first place? There are enough bigots who hate the Nikkei that if these things existed, they would be widely advertised. After all, ANYONE can set up a website, so there would be dozens of them.

Instead, what we have is one website, sponsored by people who want to sell the book from which the website content springs, and whose only other product was written by a National Socialist Field Marshal with a documented history of bigotry.

Until the pro-internment side is able to answer these issues, they are running very short on support for their beliefs.

Regarding "civility," HS put words in my mouth, then attacked me for those words which I NEVER SAID -- without comment from you. It is no less "civil" of me to point this out, and point out that he is unable to answer the factual issues which I raised, thus resorts to ad hominem insult to mask that failure. I want him to answer the questions, or admit that he can't. Critic-at-Arms 11 November 2006

"I find it interesting that the anti-internment website so revered by HistoryStudent is sponsored by Athena Press, a publisher with only two products."

The publisher is not publishing to make a living or make a name for himself.

How do you know this, HS? Please give me the name of the person that you spoke with who represents Athena Press. I'm planning to visit them in the near future and clarify the whole issue of the publisher, so it would help if I can ask the person that you got this from.

"...Generalfeldmarschall Erwin Rommel, "one of Hitler's favorite generals"..."

Check out this link: [12]

This comment especially: "He is also noted for possibly having taken part in a plot to assassinate Hitler, for which he was forced to commit suicide before the war's end."

I much prefer this one, from the same page: '"No evidence was found that directly linked Rommel to the plot, nor that he had been contacted by any of the plot ringleaders."'

Or this one: '"After the war, however, his wife maintained that Rommel had been against the plot."'

Or perhaps: '"Tempering this favourable view of Rommel are the facts that he did loyally serve Hitler and the Nazi government if not throughout his life at least until 1944, that he never publicly disagreed with any Nazi actions or goals during his lifetime, and several examples of racially prejudiced policies enacted under his command. Some examples of Rommel’s racial attitude are his 1942 order that non-white Allied prisoners of war in Axis captivity be fed only 800 calories a day, while white prisoners would be fed 1,200 calories and his killing of unarmed black prisoners of war in 1940 in order to film propaganda newsreel footage recreating his victories in France."'

So, we've got a man who is RUMORED to have POSSIBLY taken place in a plot, but not only is there no evidence that he was even directly aware of it, his own wife said that he OPPOSED the plot! Now, put yourself in her place. She was the widow of a very high-ranking officer who had served a conquered land -- one facing famine -- who is offered a chance to curry favor with the forces occupying her homeland. And she says NO, her husband was FAITHFUL to the conquered leader! Why would she do that, if it were not true?

This is also a man who clearly believed in the whole "Master Race / Lesser Races" thing.

"And his book isn't published until he's beyond the reach of any court order to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth . . ."

Well, most students of this history know that there was no oath sworn to tell the truth during the commission hearings, however the raw documents that make up two-thirds of Lowan's book speak volumes regarding this history.

So where are all the documents and records which would back up the stuff in the book? And please tell us what proof you have that A), the quoted documents exist, B), that they were accurately and completely contexted in the book, and C), that there were not other documents, NOT quoted, which would have changed the conclusions that you reached?

All you have to prove Lowman is Lowman's book . . .which wasn't published until after his death. His book was not given as an exhibit or testimony in any hearings. For that matter, I've yet to see proof that Lowman testified during those hearings, nor a transcript of his testimony, so there may be other questions to be asked about that one point.

"There are enough bigots who hate the Nikkei..."

I don't hate the Nikkei. I just believe a section of the community that claims to represent the Nikkei are liars and unwilling to confront the 100% truth.

If your (and Lowman's) assertions are correct, WHERE IS THE ANCILLARY EVIDENCE? Where are the records to back them up? There were several truckloads of records from the FBI alone following the Waco thing, yet you don't have the records of anything involved in the trials of spies, the verdicts issued, accounting for the costs of the trials, incarceration and disposition? Much less the personnel records, Quartermaster records of equipment issued and returned, etc. Where did these things take place?

Or did they have all of this MAGIC evidence and do nothing with it except decide to put every "Jap" on the West Coast behind barbed wire? DeWitt wasn't on the MAGIC list (MIS was a Class II activity, not under DeWitt's authority), but his boss was -- and his boss saw no reason to order the internment of the Nikkei in Hawaii, despite the minor little detail that Oahu was the single most critical chokepoint in the military effort against Japan.

If you really are any kind of student of history, you know that there are ALWAYS "ripples" from any event. Stop dodging the issue, show us the ripples or admit that you can't.

"Regarding "civility," HS put words in my mouth, then attacked me for those words which I NEVER SAID..."

No kidding? Examples please? --History Student 19:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

So any person who writes or publishes a biography or history of WW2 Germany is now a facist? I never said or implied anything which this statement would answer, and in fact the first time in all these months of discussion that the word "facist" (or "fascist," which is the correct spelling) appears is in the statement that you made. You held this up as a straw man, and now you're upset that I've called you on it. Critic-at-Arms 12 November 2006

Heated discussion in my absence...

I concur with Critic that Lowman's reliability as a source is an important issue to be resolved. MAGIC's contribution to the internment seem relevant at first glance, but HS seems to place a fair amount of emphasis on the justification MAGIC provided for internment - or so Lowman argues, from what I can gather (I admit I have not procured his book). If MAGIC was as integral to the internment as Lowman (and by extension, HS) argue, shouldn't we try to find other sources which corroborate this viewpoint? I suggest that we get in touch with the "watchers" of the MAGIC article, to get their input on the intersection between MAGIC and internment. Unless significant objection is raised, I will leave an invitation to discussion on the MAGIC page in one week.

That sounds like a great idea. I'd like to make it clear that my argument is not whether MAGIC existed nor what it did -- my argument is that I don't trust Lowman as a source of "transcripts" nor his conclusions. Critic-at-Arms 22 November 2006

(sigh...)

I just took a closer look at the article on MAGIC. I'm not sure how much help we'll get from that direction; there's a single comment on the Talk page. The section on internment on the MAGIC page was added by a user who seems to have gone inactive in 2004. Oh well.Ogthor 09:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

A note in particular to Critic: although nothing productive is accomplished when HS fails to address your points, and thereby avoids the process of debate, arguments which focus on the very fact of HS's failure to contribute in the manner you expect are similiarly unproductive. In short, don't let him draw you in. Remember you are arguing in front of an audience. If you make good points against HS's arguments that he fails to address adequately, the community will see that and will react appropriately. Avoid the temptation to think of this as a one-on-one battle.

That's exactly what this has become. In that corner, HS, in this corner, me, and Ishu as referee while everyone else watches from outside the ring without saying anything. He drops in, swings a time or two, then fades back hoping that people will think that he's winning -- and that nobody will follow up. Critic-at-Arms 22 November 2006

A note to History Student: Failure to address points made against you may lead to decision against you. If you need clarification for which points remain unaddressed, all you need do is ask.Ogthor 07:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could put History Student's pic on milk cartons . . ? I can't believe he hasn't even looked in here for nearly 3 weeks, knowing that his primary source is in question.

More likely, he has looked and has no answers to offer. Critic-at-Arms 1 December 2006

[edit] Clarification of Points

I will be happy to clarify my points.

First, from a military standpoint, the internment was counter-productive. It tied up resources desperately needed for military purposes elsewhere during a period of crisis, including military manpower, transportation facilities, construction materials, logistics infrastructure, medical supplies and personnel, communications equipment, provisions for 110,000 internees and 6,500 "keepers," and (for the first year) removed thousands of farmers from the land during a time of forced rationing, leaving tons of food to spoil in the fields.

Second, from a political standpoint, the internment was wildly successful. It destroyed the Nikkei communities of the west coast, in a systematic campaign which could have been taught at West Point -- where, perhaps coincidentally, DeWitt had been commanding officer. The aforementioned agricultural land was taken over by non-Nikkei, as well as homes and other possessions. There are only two similar programs in American history: the first being the war against and eventual subjugation of the American Indians, and the war on the Mormons, which ran from the Exterminating Order of 1838 to Johnston's Army in 1857. In each case, the issue was not the true threat posed, but instead the desires to take the resources and destroy the political power of each group. Also, in each case, the victims were labeled (and treated) as subhuman. Only the Mormons were able to survive as a cohesive group, and this due to a mass migration to empty land hundreds of miles from outsiders.

Third, the modern justification for internment comes from a book which was ostensibly written by David Lowman, who was raised in a community with an active anti-Nikkei element, who then served against the Japanese in the Pacific before coming home and becoming a high-ranking, awarded official with an agency which has brought "disinformation" to a fine art and which has repeatedly violated the Presidential order which created that agency in the first place. His job in this super-secret agency is to make classified material public, and he claimed to have handled the raw transcripts from the MAGIC project, which was tasked with breaking the codes used in intercepted Japanese communications. Lowman's book on MAGIC was not published for another two decades, waiting until after his death, making it impossible to depose him under oath or to verify that what was published is actually what he wrote. Lowman's book claims that the internment was justified due to widespread espionage and other anti-American activity by the Nikkei, and that these things are proven by MAGIC intercepts.

Fourth, History Student has made a number of wild statements in defense of this book and its related website, to bolster his viewpoint that the internment was justified (or perhaps they are the source of his viewpoint). He has thrown out unsupported statistics which contradict each other, and which he makes no attempt to explain or defend.

Fifth, History Student made the bold statement that "The publisher is not publishing to make a living or make a name for himself." This statement must be backed up -- who at Athena Press said this? What is History Student's connection to Athena Press?

Sixth, there is an apparent complete lack of follow-up action taken in regard to the anti-American activities supposedly proven by the MAGIC intercepts, as if a boulder fell into a pond without making ripples. There should be truckloads of records of arrests, trials, and the logistics support that these would require, yet there are none to be found.

THOSE are my points. Critic-at-Arms 25 November 2006

[edit] Carr

More about Ralph Carr should be added. The fact that he defied interring and allowed 20% of the Japanese being moved to be taken to Colorado (freely) needs to be added. At least a paragraph. --Plankton5005 07:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-Internment folks gone?

It's over a month since we last heard from HistoryStudent. Is there anyone else willing to venture answers to my points, or is it now safe to clean up the article? Critic-at-Arms 18 December 2006

Critic, you are not worthy of receiving an answer from anyone with half the knowledge I have regarding this history. That's putting it politely. Give it up --History Student 00:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that most of what you know isn't true, so answer the questions or ADMIT THAT YOU CAN'T. You've had 7 weeks to come up with answers, wasn't that enough? Critic-at-Arms 30 December 2006

I'm not going to address your blatant absurdities, Critic. Readers can judge your participation for what it is. --History Student 01:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I was somewhat undecided on the merits of the internment due to a lack of knowledge - but reading this article ( http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/10/what_really_hap.php ) from American Renaissance ( a White Nationalist rag I don't read regularly), which cites numerous interesting statistics where the Wikipedia article has a 'Citation needed' in every sentence. The article in its entirety is quite embarassing, due to the frequency of the citation needed flag. Some of the sentences in the Wikipedia articles seem rather glib without citations, such as:

"Most of those who refused, however, tempered that refusal with statements of willingness to fight if they were restored their rights as American citizens. How, they asked, could any government dare ask them to fight for freedoms for others, freedoms which that same government had taken away from them?"

The 'sizable number' stems from that 6% who agreed to serve - sizable is disingenuous and superfluous (as the proportion of Japanese-Americans has already been stated, no need for adjectives). I edited it accordingly.

The A.R. article cited above quotes a figure of 19,000 Japanese Americans expressing intent to return to Japan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.105.83.212 (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm still very much around, Critic. I can only imagine what your definition of "clean up the article" is. --History Student 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"Clean up" means clean up grammar, structure, etc. to make it more cohesive and readable. There have been a number of snap edits which duplicate or confuse information. If you're still going to be arguing with everything, there's no point in doing a cleanup now. Critic-at-Arms 30 December 2006

Yea, sure it does. --History Student 01:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

As for your attempt to link those of us who appreciate historical truth with the crackpots at "American Renaissance", the article you linked

Nice shootin' Tex! Got yourself in the foot again. I didn't link any articles. Critic-at-Arms 30 December 2006

was written by Dr. Dwight Murphy at Wichita State University. As stated:

This article is adapted by AR staff from original research by Dwight D. Murphey, professor of business law at Wichita State University. His findings first appeared in The Dispossession of the American Indian—and Other Key Issues in American History, Scott-Townsend Publishers, 1995.

Nice try....

--History Student 00:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I see the pro-reparations activists have been busy mucking up the article, including the reference to concentration camps under "facilities". Looks like Ishu has been too busy to visit often, too. --History Student 00:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Two points: First, I don't agree with calling them "concentration camps." Second senior Roosevelt Administration officials -- FDR, for instance -- referred to them as "concentration camps" in official correspondence and notes. Their frame of reference at the time were the concentration camps in South Africa during the Boer War, not the National Socialist camps. I believe that the term "internment camps" is the most accurate, in light of the revised meaning of "concentration camp" following WWII. Critic-at-Arms 30 December 2006

No, internment and relocation are entirely different. --History Student 01:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

As are relocation and imprisonment.

Critic-at-Arms 30 December 2006

Just read this newest pro-reparations myth under "Key Disputes".

General DeWitt, who ordered the internment, was not on the severely limited distribution list for intelligence developed from MAGIC. Ironically, Nisei members of the Military Intelligence Service were assigned to analysis and translation of the raw intercepts.

This is blatantly false. No ethnic Japanese set foot anywhere near the MAGIC program for security reasons. --History Student 18:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to your proof of this assertion. Your assertion disagrees with Army records. Critic-at-Arms 30 December 2006

What army records? --History Student 01:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

United States Army records. Which Army did you think I meant? Critic-at-Arms 30 December 2006

Nisei in the MIS were in the field translating captured documents or listening in on Army battlefield communications that had nothing to do with breaking the MAGIC code or analysing raw MAGIC intercepts.

This is another example why Wikipedia has no credibility. --History Student 18:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

We're still waiting for you to back up your earlier statements regarding Lowman and Athena Press. You should be careful not to add too many more to the list until you start answering some that you've dodged, your debt builds every time you dodge the questions. Critic-at-Arms 18 December 2006

Your crackpot comments regarding Lowman and Athena are not worth a reply. --History Student 01:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

That's your way of saying that you made assertions that you can't defend. YOU are the one who said -- and this is a direct quote, copied from above -- "The publisher is not publishing to make a living or make a name for himself." Really, HS, I couldn't have made up anything so incredible, but you refuse to elaborate or provide any attribution, but this comment is not backed up by anything that I've been able to find anywhere. So, you either pulled that idea out of thin air, or you have a connection to Athena Press that has remained hidden. Either way, you're dodging and weaving, we all know it, and I enjoy watching it. Critic-at-Arms 6 January 2007

Hey, I'm not out to convince the unconvincable. Your right to believe what you want doesn't give you the right to be taken seriously, and I don't take you seriously therfore I am not going to spend time debating you. --History Student 23:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE ASSOCIATED WITH ATHENA PRESS AND HERE TO PROMOTE SALES OF YOUR PRODUCT. You base your comments on their website and their primary product, you make comments which imply a familiarity with the company and its motives, and you refuse to clarify those comments nor your level of involvement.

Critic-at-Arms 30 December 2006

Well the right to believe what you want doesn't give you the right to be taken seriously. --History Student 18:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

DeWitt was only a bit player in the evacuation scenario. --History Student 18:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, after all, he was just the Commanding General in charge of the West Coast and Arizona, who wrote and signed the orders. Perhaps Colonel Bendetsen was secretly a full General (thus outranking DeWitt's mere three stars). Critic-at-Arms 30 December 2006

Read below, Critic. --History Student 01:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this "bit part" that DeWitt played is why the Nikkei were uprooted from their homes "dangeously near" water sources and military installations and planted 100 feet from an Army airfield and a canal providing drinking water to Los Angeles . . ? Critic-at-Arms 30 December 2006

In fact, DeWitt was opposed to evacuating U.S. citizens and so informed his Army superiors. He also contended that any evacuation should include German and Italian aliens along with Japanese. DeWitt was overruled by the true policy-makers in Washington, Stimson and Mcloy, whose authority from FDR was to do what they thought necessary on the basis of military considerations only. --History Student 01:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That was VERY skillful, HS, I almost missed that part where you commented on German and Italian ALIENS while somehow failing to mention that A), over 2/3 of the Nikkei were "NON-aliens," and B), that DeWitt didn't even suggest that German or Italian "non-aliens" be rounded up and shipped off to the wilderness. Critic-at-Arms 30 December 2006

To argue there must be some kind of proportionality between Germans and Japanese because they both happen to be the enemy without acknowledging the extent of the security threat from ethnic Germans compared to ethnic Japanese is screwy logic plain and simple. --History Student 18:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right, but not for the reason that you think. Germans can far more easily blend in with the general American population than can Nikkei, thus were a greater espionage and sabotage threat. German-Americans had openly joined the NSDAP and paraded in support of the Third Reich (and still do, for that matter). When the war started, many of the members of the NSDAP/German American Bund were arrested, but not even all of them, much less all of the "alien and non-alien" Germans. Bartlett and Lay noted that some American officers fighting the Germans had had ties to the GAB, yet were cleared to work with one of America's greatest secret weapons, the Norden Bombsight. So, no to argue that the Germans and Japanese should have been treated the same is laughable -- if anyone should have been rounded up wholesale, it should have been German Americans. The point is that NOBODY should have been rounded up! Critic-at-Arms 6 January 2007

They didn't bomb Pearl Harbor though, did they.. --History Student 23:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't wait for you to produce the "Army Records" indicating Nissei were involved in MAGIC. We are all waiting... --History Student 01:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This poses one problem -- you won't believe anything that I can post here. Where and when can we meet in person? I'm serious, let's get together and hash this out. For that matter, how about spending a week touring a couple of camp sites and interviewing survivors? I'll be doing that in a couple of months, and you're welcome to come along. Critic-at-Arms 6 January 2007

Fine, next time I'm heading for the East Coast, I'll let you know and we can drop in at Vint Hill.

In the meantime, http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/topics/apam/Nisei.htm says:

" . . .the most exciting new insights into the Pacific War in recent years have been as a direct result of historians exploiting revelations in the field of Allied intelligence. Historians have now begun to reconstruct the complex picture of theater intelligence activities and organizations and delve into the role of they played in the campaigns. Initial memoirs such as W.J. Holmes' Double-Edged Secrets (1979) and Ronald Lewin's The American Magic (1982) are being overtaken by careful historical studies such as Ed Drea's MacArthur's Ultra (1992).3

"Reconstructing the story of the Nisei linguists promises to add to these insights and lend both breadth and depth to our understanding of the theater intelligence architecture that supported all commanders in the area. Since much intelligence information had to pass through the hands of interpreters or translators at some point, the Nisei linguists participated in virtually all aspects . . .

"What do we learn by tracing the Nisei involvement in intelligence? . . .It involved not just the big intelligence coups such as shooting down Admiral Yamamoto, but also the grinding day to day work, interrogating prisoners, translating intercepts, evaluating and translating captured documents. And it involved not just the Pacific War, but the war in Europe, such as intercepting the cables of the Japanese ambassador in Berlin."

I can't wait for your explanation of how Nisei could have been doing all of this MAGIC-intercept work but not "setting foot anywhere near the MAGIC program." The death of Yamamoto, for instance, is seen as one of the greatest victories of MAGIC. It is mentioned almost in passing as a Nisei MIS kudo, because this was a presentation for military historians, who already knew the details of the shootdown -- and that the MIS Nisei were the ones who did the workups from the direct intercepts.

But hey, the author is just a military-intelligence professional, and his PhD from Johns Hopkins is meaningless when it conflicts with HistoryStudent's "facts." Critic-at-Arms 30 December 2006

No where in your link does it mention any Nissei involvment with the MAGIC program. --History Student 18:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If you say so, HS. Yamamoto was shot down due to "Nisei involvement in intelligence" and is credited as a triumph for MAGIC, but no, he didn't get down to the level that you seem to require ("See Kenji analyze. Analyze, Kenji, analyze").

The inference that Nisei translators had something to do with the shootdown of Yamamoto's plane is nonsense.

Then please explain why this "nonsense" is given credence in the Army's own historical website . . ? Critic-at-Arms 6 January 2007

And cite the source McNaugton provides for this? In fact, does McNaughton provide any citations for his "paper" from 1994? No, he doesn't. Nisei (a very small percentage) were involved in battlefield intelligence. To state that they were involved in MAGIC is you jumping to conclusions you want to believe but are far from the truth. --History Student 23:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That message was not translated by a Nisei, who were kept away from Naval decoding efforts, but by a Marine Corps Lt. Colonel named Alva Lasswell who was described by David Kahn in his monumental book, "The Codebreakers," as "a translator of more than ordinary compotence...(who had) studied Japanese as a language officer in Tokyo from 1935 to 1938..." --History Student 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, how do you explain "intercepting the cables of the Japanese ambassador" -- DIRECTLY a reference to MAGIC -- as being included with "Nisei involvement in intelligence"?

Critic-at-Arms 31 December 2006

And from what source does McNaughton cite this "revelation"? --History Student 23:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If you had actually read "Hitler's Japanrse Confidant" by Carl Boyd, considered the best source on the subject, then you would know that is false. Have you read it? --History Student 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll let you be the one to tell the Army and Dr McNaughton that they're lying to us. Critic-at-Arms 6 January 2007

No you haven't read it. Thought so... --History Student 23:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As for McNaughton, you must mean this guy: [13]

Read where it says, "Dr. McNaughton said he was assigned to write Loyal Linguists, mandated by Congress on the initiative of Senator Daniel K. Akaka, in 1994 when he was Command Historian at the Defense Language Institute at the Presidio of Monterey, California."

So here we have another example of politicans passing laws to re-write history. McNaughton obviously knows on which side his bread is buttered. --History Student 18:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice try. Are we to assume that, when you have been assigned to write a paper, your teacher tells you what to write . . ? Where did you say you were a "student," HS? Critic-at-Arms 30 December 2006

Akaka isn't McNaughton's "teacher". That's a pretty crappy analogy. More precisely he is McNaughton's "employer".

No, the Army was his employer. McNaughton was assigned the job on the basis of his position as a historian in the organization of which the linguists were a part. I find it rather distasteful that you automatically assume that he lied, while providing no proof that any undue influence was used. Critic-at-Arms 6 January 2007

He failed to cite any sources in a piece you quoting from 1994, long before he started the research for his "book". --History Student 23:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself...McNaughton several years ago as a result of a Congressional efforts by Senator Akaka, headed a review of the records of Nisei who won the DSC in WWII for possible upgrade to Congressional Medal of Honor, the assumption being that they were not given higher awards because of racial discrimination. McNaughton wrote in his report that there was no evidence in the WWII award process of any denials of higher medals due to racial discrimination.

I have no argument with his report. I have stated elsewhere that I oppose the idea of reconvening review boards. Critic-at-Arms 6 January 2007

Of course you don't. It's exactly what you and Dan Akaka want to hear. McNaughton knows that. He knows who send the paycheck every month. --History Student 23:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, during the Clinton administration, McNaughton's findings were ignored in Washington and some 21 WWII Nisei were upgraded from DSC to the Congressional Medal anyway. Notably, Akaka's law specifically prohibited any upgrade review of any Caucasians who had received the DSC. The Nisei upgrades were labelled by some (understandably) as the "Åffirmative Action" medals. --History Student 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

And since your bringing up McNaughton here's another quote from him:

"What did we find? ....in the Army awards process we found NO evidence that award recommendations were rejected or downgraded on the basis of race." Command Historian, James C. McNaughton in the board's final report on September 30,1998

Make up your mind -- you can't portray McNaughton as a pawn of the politicians in one paragraph, then as your unassailable expert in the next. Critic-at-Arms 31 December 2006

Why not? Besides I'm not portraying one way or the other. I just provide the historical facts. --History Student 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No, HS, you provide those facts which suit your viewpoint, and ignore all others. You fill the empty space with hyperbole. You duck any and all questions.

Ha! Ha! Right, I am accused of the hyperbole. You provide only facts and no hot air. LOL! Too funny. --History Student 23:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

However, to answer your question, a reasonable person doesn't accuse his own witness of unreliability. If, as you say, McNaughton was a Senator's pawn when he wrote "Loyal Linguists," then why would he stand up against a PRESIDENT? Critic-at-Arms 6 January 2007

If you can't beat 'em. join 'em? Why not send Dr. McNaughton a letter and ask him. I am curious, too. --History Student 23:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Despite these findings, 22 Japanese-Americans were upgraded from DSCs to MOHs anyway. In so doing, the judgement of WWII combat award officers whose original decisions that DSCs (not MOHs) were appropriate at a time when the facts were fresh and corroborating witnesses alive and on hand to verify them, were politically overruled. --History Student 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You show your complete and utter ignorance of the process of military awards. With the exception of the MOPH and the various longevity or period-or-service ribbons, military decorations are awarded on the basis of testimony from witnesses and the PERCEPTION held by the review board.

Oh, so now you're expert on this, too. Show us what you pasted this time. --History Student 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I figure you're not an expert until you sit on at least twenty award or promotion review boards. I've only been on 14 or 15 (I lost track, it's been awhile). And you seem to have completely missed my comment that I don't approve of re-convening review boards. Critic-at-Arms 6 January 2007

Sure you have. --History Student 23:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Something which is seen as MOH-worthy in the field is usually downgraded to a Star, unless there are enough heavy hitters to carry the citation through the process. For instance, a USAF sergeant saved a C-130 in Viet Nam by starting the engines and flying it away from a base which was being shelled, with fuel streaming from perforated wing tanks. His doing so kept the only runway open, permitting resupply of the base, if the plane had been destroyed in place, the base would have been strangled and eventually overrun. He was awarded the MOH for his utter disregard of his own life in taking action which saved hundreds of men -- an action which he could not have been expected to take (they don't teach sergeants to fly cargo planes). The citation was downgraded twice (by well-meaning officers who felt that the MOH was unattainable), and each time the Marine commander whose men were saved demanded that it be reinstated as a MOH candidate. As such, if it had not been selected, the best that the sergeant could have gotten would have been the Silver Star.

So . . .did the sergeant deserve the Medal of Honor? Or "just" the Air Force Cross? Silver Star? An afternoon off with pay? The officers who make the awards have to sift through all of it and make their decisions.

Remember also that the MOH is awarded for "extreme bravery" -- which is determined in relation to the actions of others. The Nisei had a significantly higher casualty rate than other Army units, thus the behavior of Nisei which would have been "extreme bravery" in other units were not "extreme" in relation to other Nisei. The baseline was higher. Let's think of it in terms of points. The MOH isn't awarded for 100 "bravery points," it's awarded for 50 EXTRA "bravery points." That USAF sergeant got the MOH because he was not trained as a pilot, thus compounding the risk to his life. A pilot who did that would have been awarded the Silver Star, because he would not have been taking so much of a risk (he knows how to fly planes). Likewise the Nisei were already performing to a particular standard (say, 80 "bravery points"), while average soldiers were performing to 45 "bravery points" (based on casualty rates). A Nisei would have to be at the 130-point level to get the MOH, while a member of other units might see the MOH if he broke 95 points -- a mere 15 points above the Nisei norm.

I am GREATLY simplifying this for the sake of illustration, BTW. It shows that it's not necessary for there to have been racial discrimination (nor even AWARENESS) for MOH-worthy performance to be downgraded. If an officer who had served with the 442nd were asked if a particular private's actions were "extreme," that officer would think of dozens of equally-brave soldiers, and find the question harder to answer.

So, the question becomes one of whether the MOH is warranted. I think that in this case, it was an attempt by Slick Willie to curry favor with a group that his party had put behind barbed wire 55 years earlier. Rarely are citation boards reconvened, and I think it's a bad idea.

Critic-at-Arms 31 December 2006

It was affirmative action at its worst based on race. Your diatribe is a bad case of rationalization - looks like you cut it from the 442nd web site or something. --History Student 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny how anything which disagrees with your prejudice is "diatribe," and anything that you can't answer is "not worthy of attention." Classic socialist argument technique. It's nice to see that the old traditions are not yet dead. Critic-at-Arms 3 January 2007

You may recall this sordid occurance after Sen, Akaka submitted legislation that resulted in Bill Clinton handing out medals and upgrades like candy canes to Japanese Americans against the advice of Dr. McNaighton, many years and miles away from the battlefield in complete defiance of American military tradition.

This being above and beyond the fact that McNaughton's piece you provided never says Nisei were involved with MAGIC.

It's quite humerous reading your absurd posts and then demanding others prove they are not true. A real joke... --History Student 18:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what a bone in arm would have to do with it. I've never demanded that anyone prove something to not be true -- I've demanded that YOU provide proof that what you say IS true, and you have consistently ducked, dodged and ignored my every call. You are doing this again. Rather than answering my DIRECT questions, you're dragging us off on a tangent, hoping that you can miss fast enough to win.

But then, you are UNABLE to answer the questions, address the issues raised, or even explain your own conflicting "statistics," so you claim that my questions are unworthy of your attention. However, the rest in here see what you say, what you do, and what you try to hide. THEY are the ones that you have to convince, not me, and you're not doing it. Critic-at-Arms 31 December 2006

Yada..yada...yada...you make absurd claims and then demand others prove they're not true. You have no credibility and I am tiring of responding to your wacky posts. Perhaps I'll return in another month of ishu returns or at least someone a little more logical and less zealous. --History Student 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never asked anyone to prove that something isn't true, despite your repeated claims that I have done so. But here's a simple one for you.

Please provide any record of follow-up activities involving the information which you believe was developed by MAGIC. After all, if the USDOJ would throw the most expensive criminal trial they'd ever done at "Tokyo Rose," they certainly wouldn't have just released thousands of traitorous American citizens without trials and long prison terms.

In other words, a rock in a pond makes ripples. Show us the ripples, and you put the burden of researching and explaining them back onto me. I can show you hundreds of pages of logistics records surrounding the secret trials of a mere handful of German spies and German-American agents, some of whom were executed. Where are the logistics records of all those Japanese spies and Japanese American agents? Where are the USDOJ records of trials, testimony, verdicts?

This is the biggest problem with the claims made in Lowman's book -- a complete lack of corroborating evidence. Critic-at-Arms 1 January 2007

This from the unsigned above, who cited AR. It's fine by me if you think AR is generally crackpot, but the article in question cites specific facts which I would include in the Wikipedia article, had I an academic library at my disposal to check the sources (I don't at the current time, but will within a month). The AR article is not at all radical (and on that note may be said to be somewhat uncharacteristic of AR) - it states supposed facts to argue that there is a case to be made for the internment, that it's not quite the strawman that is almost always presented. The Wikipedia article, on the other hand, is in shambles due to its lack of sources; that said, there is a little convergence of facts cited between the Wiki and AR article. If the AR sources are verified, the AR article would be a very good link. And FWIW: I'm not a white nationalist, and the Institute for Historical Review is far inferior to AR, if only because the former denies the holocaust. The proprietor of AR, Jared Taylor, from what I've seen, tends to describe reality accurately (not to say that I agree with his philosophy), and shies away from antisemitism and out and out racism. The ADL, lacking explicit evidence of bigotry, calls him a genteel racist.

I don't know enough about the topic to argue about the specifics. But upon seeing statistics like those in the AR article, especially those regarding Japanese loyalty, the usual coverage of the issue seems inadequate to say the least. Basically, this is a call to check the sources of the AR article and integrate them if they prove valid.

Dwight Murphy isn't radical by any means but American Renaissance is a little wacky... --History Student 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion points

Happy New Year, everyone!
I'm attempting to summarize the points made by Critic and Student over the past few months. My hope is that we can focus on the discussion points and actually check off a few as confirmed or refuted, and also focus on finding evidence for the claims.

It would help things greatly if Student and Critic would indicate whether the following is a fair summary of their own points about the Internment itself and not about each other's take on it. The idea is to provide documentation for one's own position, and then let readers and other editors review the documentation and claims. But first I thought it would be helpful to identify the various claims.

First, Critic at Arms. Please note that this is my interpretation of Critic's points as described on 25 November:

1. From a military standpoint, the internment was counter-productive, since scarce military and civilian resources were required to execute and enforce the exclusion, relocation, and detention.

   Accurate interpretation. Critic-at-Arms 9 January 2007

2. The internment was successful in disrupting Japanese American communities in the Pacific Coast states, consistent with nativist sentiments in that region.

   Accurate interpretation. Critic-at-Arms 9 January 2007

3. Evidence for the modern justification for internment comes from a book that is suspect for two main reasons:
   • Assuming that Lowman is the author, his work is suspect because (a) Lowman "was raised in a community with an active anti-Nikkei element;" (b) Lowman served in WWII against the Japanese; and (c) Lowman worked in the National Security Agency, an organization whose history of disinformation casts doubt on Lowman's intentions.

   Accurate interpretation. Critic-at-Arms 9 January 2007

   • Lowman's authorship--and thus the accuracy and representativeness of the documentary evidence (including the MAGIC excerpts) and conclusions cannot be verified. The book is attributed to David Lowman, and was published posthumously by a publishing company with a minimal record of widely-respected publications.

   Accurate interpretation, with the note that it's entirely possible that Athena Press "took what they were offered" in both cases. There is insufficient information to form a judgement on the issue, so I simply consider it suspicious rather than proof positive. Critic-at-Arms 9 January 2007

4. Circumstantial evidence (mainly non-action by the U.S. government after WWII against the Japanese Americans) contradicts claims of "widespread" action for Japan or against U.S. interests.

   Accurate interpretation. Critic-at-Arms 9 January 2007

Next, History Student. History Student seems to have several general concerns, dating back to editor's original contributions. In a nutshell (i.e., probably oversimplified):

1. The CWRIC and general consensus disregarded or were ignorant of an actual, documented military necessity.
2. This "historical revisionism" has successfully been disseminated by people active in the reparations movement to become conventional wisdom--and institutionalized history through academics and government policies.
3. The medal "upgrades" are one (circumstantial) example of this conventional wisdom.
4. A full review of the military intelligence available contradicts the conventional wisdom about the Internment.
5. David Lowman's book MAGIC and the associated internmentarchives.com web site present such a review of the military intelligence.
6. The severity of the Internment has been overstated by the same reparations advocates and academics, and this, too, has become part of conventional wisdom.

I reviewed the discussion going back to October 26 to try to summarize Student's comments since then. Please remember that it's hard to follow because HS and Critic frequently insert responses inside of the other's comments, and the indentation isn't too organized to begin with. What follows are some key quotations from Student that emphasize major points.

• They did have the choice to do work or do nothing. They were never forced to work. Thousands sat around and did nothing for four years and then begged the government not to close the Relocation Centers when the war was ending. [14]
• All it took to leave the relocation center was a loyalty oath to the United States and the means to support one's self. That hardly fits the definition of "incarceration".
• Incidentally, Endo was moot. The exclusion orders were lifted before the decision was released. Then the evacuees started demanding the Relocation Centers stay open. Thousands left the Relocation Centers and started new lives outside the evacuation zones. The purpose of the Relocation Centers was assist those who could not or would not "support themselves hundreds of miles from home". That's a far cry from "incarcerated in a concentration camp". --History Student 19:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[15]

There are several substantive points on which Critic and Student disagree.

1. MAGIC and the role of Japanese American MIS translators: Critic states that US Army records show a role. Student counters that there were no Japanese Americans at MAGIC for security reasons. Surely this dispute can be documented by someone?

   I'm working on it. Courtesy of a divorce, several moves, and the intervening years since school, my textbook mentioning this is long gone. References to lectures in college would be original research. Critic-at-Arms 9 January 2007

2. DeWitt's access to MAGIC and his role in the wholesale inclusion of Japanese Americans:
   • Student states: DeWitt was opposed to evacuating U.S. citizens and so informed his Army superiors. He also contended that any evacuation should include German and Italian aliens along with Japanese. DeWitt was overruled by the true policy-makers in Washington, Stimson and Mcloy, whose authority from FDR was to do what they thought necessary on the basis of military considerations only. --History Student 01:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC) Later, Student states: DeWitt was only a bit player in the evacuation scenario. --History Student 18:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
   • I am guessing that Critic believes that, on the one hand, DeWitt was part of the "military campaign" to uproot the Japanese Americans, and on the other hand that DeWitt did not have access to MAGIC, and so was not privy to evidence supporting or disputing the military necessity.

   Accurate interpretation Critic-at-Arms 9 January 2007

3. The accuracy of the article by James McNaughton on the Nisei translators. Critic presents it as evidence that the Nisei worked on MAGIC. Student dismisses McNaughton as "false," based on an earlier work by Carl Boyd (presumably Hitler's Japanese Confidant).

To repeat: It would help things greatly if Student and Critic could pipe up and indicate whether this is a fair summary of their points about the Internment itself and not about each other's take on it.

If we can get that out of the way, then everyone can focus on clarifying these points, and adding to them as necessary. Of course, if I'm way off base, then I think I'll just lay low for a while. This is about the best I can do. --Ishu 20:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you, Ishu. The article has gone downhill since the last time we spoke. Much of what was well written has been changed by the pro-reperations folks and example being the sentance regarding the use of the term "concentration camp".

1. Please remember that it's hard to follow because HS and Critic frequently insert responses inside of the other's comments, and the indentation isn't too organized to begin with.

Answer: Critic has a habit of busting up my comments with his own. I agree it is difficult to read. I would prefer the format I am using now - italics and an answer.

Counter: Italics are hard to read on the War-of-1812-surplus computers I'm sometimes using. I try to put a date slug on each time. Critic-at-Arms 9 January 2007

2. MAGIC and the role of Japanese American MIS translators: Critic states that US Army records show a role.

Answer: What critic is providing is a 1994 piece from McNaughton written before he even started his book, and it contains no citations just "recommended reading". It's more of an Op-Ed if anything.

Counter: We are discussing MAGIC without an explanation each time, expecting our readers to share a frame of reference. McNaughton was doing the same, with his frames of reference including Nisei involvement in such things as the Yamamoto shootdown and Berlin diplomatic intercepts. Critic-at-Arms 9 January 2007

3.Critic presents it as evidence that the Nisei worked on MAGIC.

Answer: There is no evidence in the McNaughton piece that mentions Nisei were anywhere near MAGIC. McNaughton provides no citations for his claim. If Nisei were involved, I would speculate they were listening in on radio communication coming out of Rabul thereby assisting the P-38s in locating the position of Yamamoto's plane. This had nothing to do with MAGIC. If this is the case lets see the evidence.

The "evidence" is McNaughton's comment without clarification that the Nisei played key roles in activities which were rooted in MAGIC and could not have taken place without MAGIC. Critic-at-Arms 9 January 2007

4. To repeat: It would help things greatly if Student and Critic could pipe up and indicate whether this is a fair summary of their points about the Internment itself and not about each other's take on it.

Answer: This is a fair yet simplified summary of my points.

5. If we can get that out of the way, then everyone can focus on clarifying these points, and adding to them as necessary.

Answer: Clarifying these points is important but of more importance is reverting the article back to the content of six months or so ago before the pro-reparations activists mucked it up again.

Counter: HS has failed to prove the validity of his point of view, thus can't back up his assumption that anything which disagrees with it is "mucking it up." Critic-at-Arms 9 January 2007

Here's a good example of what I mean...

It's over a month since we last heard from HistoryStudent. Is there anyone else willing to venture answers to my points, or is it now safe to clean up the article? Critic-at-Arms 18 December 2006

Critic is the only person frequenting the discussion board and until higher caliber people start participating I'm going to spend less time contributing. --History Student 23:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Anybody can revert the article at any time--in theory. I'm trying to make sure that whatever is in the article now or in the future gets referenced and that we establish whether referenced claims are disputed by referenced counterclaims.

Critic: If you could comment on my summary before addressing Student's points, that would help us all to vet the references and support for each set of claims. --Ishu 04:38, 9 January 2007

Anybody can revert the article at any time--in theory.

Answer: Perhaps in theory, but that is not my experience from last July. --History Student 21:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Prove your points, answer the questions. Do those simple things and it will be obvious to all where the truth lies. When you dodge and weave, it only makes all of us believe that you have nothing to back up your point of view. Critic-at-Arms 9 January 2007

I'm trying to make sure that whatever is in the article now or in the future gets referenced and that we establish whether referenced claims are disputed by referenced counterclaims.

Answer: Suffice to say critics claims are not referenced. No where is the Boyd book does it mention Nisei, much less Nisei association with MAGIC or the downing of Yamamoto's plane.

Counter: I don't remember the "judicial recognition" that the Boyd book is the end-all authority on the issue. While respected, Boyd never claimed to be omniscient. Critic-at-Arms 9 January 2007

On the other hand "Japan's Longest Day" does mention the invaluable work of Nisei translators.

"Imperial Army Headquarters, Ichigaya, Tokyo....

"Anami left his Ministry to try to get some sleep, but the ministry itself remained awake. SEVERAL ENGLISH SPEAKING JAPANESE BORN IN AMERICA WERE BUSY IN THE INFORMATION DEPARTMENT MONITORING ALLIED BROADCASTS AND TRANSLATING THEM INTO JAPANESE. Into their midst swept a cyclone call Colonel Tomomi Oyadomori, who had fought and seen many of his fellow officers die at Guadalcanal. The sight of these NISEI TRANSLATORS tearlessly receiving word of continued Japanese defeat was too much for Colonal Oyadomori.

"Are you satisfied?" He cried, "that Japan is losing the war? Does it make you happy? He drew his sword. "I ought to kill the lot of you!"

No one made any reply. No one knew what to reply.

"You're traitors, all of you!" Oyadomori shouted. Then, still shouting, still brandishing his sword, he left the NISEI translators to their unprofitable tasks...." (emphasis mine)

Japan's Longest Day, Kodansha International, p.76 --History Student 21:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see anything in there to explain why the Nisei were there in the first place. Thousands of Nisei were trapped in Japan when America entered the war, and only a handful were able to get out. Thousands of Caucasian Americans, Filipinos, Portuguese, British, Indians, New Zealanders, French and Australians were likewise trapped, and many also translated Allied broadcasts for the Japanese, that being the only work they could get to avoid starvation (the Japanese government, like today's BCIS, decided what jobs they would issue a work permit for -- you did what they decided, or they prohibited you from working at all).

Iva Toguri (a Methodist and registered Republican who didn't speak Japanese) was one of those. Her supervisors at Radio Tokyo were an Australian, a Filipino and a Caucasian AMERICAN. As a Caucasian American, I resent HS' implication that, since some of my ethnic group translated broadcasts for the Japanese, all Caucasian Americans are thus tainted and should have been interned during WWII.

Fortunately, not all are so rigid -- the WWII Veterans Committee awarded the 2006 Edward J. Herlihy Award Citizenship Award to Iva -- once convicted for being "Tokyo Rose." According to the citation: "The Edward J. Herlihy Citizenship Award is given each year to an individual who exemplifies the ideals of American citizenship and the World War II generation. It is fitting that the award presented 60 years following the Allied victory in World War II be given to a woman who, through all of that time, has wanted nothing more than to be recognized as a loyal and patriotic American." Critic-at-Arms 9 January 2007

Critic, in the interests of a legible and cohesive discussion board attempt to post at the bottom rather then interjecting at the source and not leaving a signature. --History Student 02:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I do leave signatures, HS, only occasionally forgetting to do so. Critic-at-Arms 9 January 2007

Critic: Please do try to comment below others' contributions. For example, your concurrence of my summary was largely repeats of "accurate interpretation," and now there are seven interjections in my posting. It's just harder for occasional (and new) readers to know who said what when if there are multiple interjections. We'd all like to bring people into this discussion, but they won't participate if it's too hard to follow. This is especially true when there is a lot of sharp back-and-forth disagreement as we have here. Even if you have to preface quotes with "Ishu says 'Please do try to comment...'" instead of italics, that would be an improvement. I'm just trying to improve this process for all editors, not just the regulars. --Ishu 16:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see anything in there to explain why the Nisei were there in the first place.

Answer: That's because you suffer from a bad case of rationalization, Critic. The fact is the Nisei were there, assisting the enemy in a war against their own country. So was Iva Toguri.

They weren't here [16]. They weren't here either. [17]

They were traitors and they all should have gone the way of Lord Haw Haw and Axis Sally.

As a Caucasian American, I resent HS' implication that, since some of my ethnic group translated broadcasts for the Japanese, all Caucasian Americans are thus tainted and should have been interned during WWII.

Answer: This is more sick, twisted logic stating that a few white propagandist traitors are of the same security risk as the ethnic Japanese colonies on the West Coast in 1942. P.S. Except for a few traitors, all Caucasian Americans were interned during WWII, 462 of them starved to death at the Santo Tomas internment camp in Manila - a real concentration camp.

Besides you're evading my original point regarding McNaughton. I provided to you a real citation. I know it's hard for you to howl accusations of "racism" because the scholars are Japanese so you had to resort to a different weak argument.

Show me where Carl Boyd's book makes any mention of Nisei, their role in MAGIC and their role in shooting down Yamamoto? What page nunber?

Of course you can't because you've never read the book and McNaughton's implication is shoddy scholarship, he can't prove it, doesn't cite it and it's a load of crap. --History Student 16:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Answer: That's because you suffer from a bad case of rationalization, Critic. The fact is the Nisei were there, assisting the enemy in a war against their own country. So was Iva Toguri.

This statement moves you down the list from "activist" to "bigot idiot." Better men than you will ever be -- the men that she was supposedly "assisting" the enemy against -- not only cleared Iva of any taint of "traitor," they honored her for her patriotism and service.

I will not bother with you any further. You are beyond any possibility of educating, no amount of proof will make the slightest dent in your prejudices. I've known people like you before. On one side, they wear white hoods, on the other, they mindlessly follow Louis Farrakhan. For you, this isn't a matter of history or a search for the truth, it's a matter of your personal religious beliefs. This does, of course, explain your refusal to answer questions.

I look forward to the day when I meet you professionally. Further comment from you is not desired and will not be entertained. Critic-at-Arms10 January 2007

Answer: Hey Critic, did Ishu's comments sink in? Please don't bust up other people's comments with your own.

Better men than you will ever be -- the men that she was supposedly "assisting" the enemy against -- not only cleared Iva of any taint of "traitor," they honored her for her patriotism and service.

Answer: Ford pardoned Toguri. Ike pardoned Tom Kawakita. Innocent people don't need pardons.

Now Toguri has been put on some kind of pedestal as if she's the Rosa Parks of the Japanese American Reparations Movement. It's pathetic.

This statement moves you down the list from "activist" to "bigot idiot."

Answer: Looks like somebody is getting frustrated because they're losing the debate. Hurling accusations of racism is always the last gasp for you people.

This does, of course, explain your refusal to answer questions.

Answer: I won't hold my breath for a page number from Boyd's book either. Goodbye critic.

Next.... --History Student 03:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-miscegenation laws

The article claims, in Key Government Actions, "Other laws prevented nearly all marriages between Caucasians and Asians, though Nikkei were able to marry non-Caucasians" but [18] implies 18 of the 48 states had no such laws,(not even considering territories ) and some of the laws may have been limited to banning marriage between caucasians and negros while others banned whites marrying persons of any other race, and the extreme was banning any interracial marriages. The key Wikipedia article is Anti-miscegenation laws which is very skimpy, only listing a few states. For just for comparison, was marriage between Japanese and other races legal in Japan at the time? Edison 23:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know why you think the Japanese marriage laws are relevant. But since California did have such laws at the time, and since a large number (majority?) of Japanese Americans lived in California, I don't see how the 18 "free" states are relevant. Remember, folks couldn't easily hop on a plane to a "free" state and bring back their out-of-state marriage license. Never mind go all the way to Japan--whether or not Japan permitted such marriages. Of course, some people did go out-of-state, but it just wasn't practical for many. The anti-miscegenation laws are basically a side-issue for this article, and are most relevant as an indication of anti-Japanese sentiment at the time. --Ishu

Marriage laws of other countries are highly relevant to keep the coverage NPOV. Going to another state to get married where it is legal is a very old concept. See Gretna Green for a U.K. precedent. In the U.S., a black woman and white man from Virginia, went to Washington DC to get married in the 1950's, then were tried in Virginia for violating the antimiscegenation law, leading to the U.S. Supreme court Loving v. Virginia eliminating such laws in the 1960's. Saburo Kurusu, the Japanese ambassador who belatedly informed the U.S that Japan was going to war, married a caucasian, Alice, in New York in 1914,[19] and later lived with her in Chicago, then moved to Japan in 1919. He was posted to Chile, Peru, Greece, Italy,Germany and Belgium. The couple moved back to the U.S. in November 1941. Were they in violation of the applicable laws in U.S. states where they lived, and of the other countries? Was their marriage legal in Japan? The article is critical of the U.S. for having such laws, and it seems NPOV to place the U.S. laws of the time in perspective to the laws of that era in other countries.Human rights in Japan and Ethnic issues in Japan state that even today there is widespread discrimination against non-Japanese, who total only 1% of the population, while non-Asians are less than 0.3% of the population. Ethnic issues in Japan says "Japanese citizens are recorded in koseki (family registry) and juminhyo (resident registry) systems, while foreigners are only recorded in a separate alien registration system. A non-Japanese person cannot be directly added to a koseki, which is the main record of familial relations. As a result, based on official records, the Japanese spouse of a foreigner may appear to be a single head of household, and children may appear as illegitimate." So again, what difficulties did persons in the 1940s in Japan have if they sought an interracial marriage? And another issue, towards balanced NPOV coverage of the internment of Japanese Americans: How were caucasians residents of Japan treated in Japan during world war 2? Madame Kurusu does not appear to have been abused, but how did non-Axis Europeans and American permanent residents fare? Were they free to go about their business, or were they locked up? Not to say an abuse in one place justifies an abuse elsewhere, because that would be Collective punishment. But U.S. actions should be compared to worldwide standards for the article to be NPOV. Edison 20:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, the ambassador should have been protected by diplomatic immunity from any marriage laws in various countries.

The article makes one mention of marriage laws in a section that pertains to anti-Asian sentiment. There is a significant effort to assess the contribution of anti-Japanese sentiment (generally) against the official rationale for the Internment. As far as I am concerned, that effort satisfies NPOV. I'd be interested to know the view of other editors on this point.

It may be true that U.S. government officials considered the treatment of Americans and other foreigners in Japan when establishing the Internment. If we can document such considerations, then such would be relevant to this article. Otherwise, I think that discussion belongs elsewhere. --Ishu 22:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the 1930US census- the most recent one released to the public- I see that of the Japanese in California, the married ones were almost always married to other Japanese. In New York and Illinois, there were far fewer, but the Japanese men who were married were very commonly married to caucasians. Few were married to Japanese. I believe those states had the antimiscegenation laws at the time. Edison 06:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Records show that some American officials worried that the internment might cause problems for Americans in Japan -- and they were right. Planned repatriation of Americans was in fact spiked due to the treatment of Issei in the camps. The primary problem faced by Americans and British Commonwealth citizens who were trapped in Japan was an inability to obtain work permits, except in jobs "approved" (assigned) by the government. No work meant no housing, and no food except that which came on relief ships, specifically sent for the refugees. Critic-at-Arms 19 January 2007

Work permits? U.S reporters in Japan were imprisoned immediately after Pearl Harbor and harshly interrogated, with demands to confess to "treason against the Japanese war cabinet" for having criticized it in dispatches before the onset of hostilities, per New York Times stories after the reporters were exchanged for Japanese diplomatic internees: [20] New York Times, July 27,1942, page 4: "Captives slugged to talk for Tokyo; Strong arm squads used in effort to make writers tell of good treatment; Luncheon farce related; Americans beaten for refusal to broadcast propaganda to their home country. also [21] "Writertells of torture Japanese used on captives, New York Times, July 27. 1942, page 1. Tells of "systematic terror and torture" by Japanese government against interned westerners. "imprisonment and torture of American and British newspaper correspondents, businessmen and missionaries." Westerners were imprisoned, beaten, and threatened with execution.It is clear that Jaoanese in the U.S were treated far better than were American civilians in Japan. What apologies and reparations payments have been made to date? Zero? Edison 06:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

<-----undenting

If Edison or another editor can provide some reference that shows any consideration of reciprocal treatment by Japan or the US as a result of the other's treatment of its people, then that would be a relevant addition to the article--provided that the Internment is a specific factor. For example, did Japan treat its prisoners more harshly than it would have otherwise because of the detention of its nationals in the US? Or, was anyone in the US government more motivated to detain civilian Japanese ethnics because of harsh treatment of US citizens by the Japanese government/military? If we can't document something like that, we will simply be making parallel comparisons of two otherwise separate events. We have rewritten the article to avoid comparisons to the Nazi Concentration Camps, for example because there that comparison, at best, is a topic unto itself. Other parallel comparisons only send the article spinning off on a side issue. A separate article on the treatment of Americans in Japan during WWII is a legitimate discussion, but this is not the place for it unless some meaningful relationship can be documented. --Ishu 18:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it seems that each government's excesses and absurdities was independently planned, rather than as a reaction to the other. They only direct tie I've found is in the break-off of negotiations for the swap of Americans for Issei. In fact, the Spanish diplomats who acted as intermediaries were tasked only with protection of the Issei. The internment was a propaganda coup for the Japanese press, but those reports were the only times that the Japanese government showed any concern over the mistreatment of the Nisei or Sansei (who, as Americans, were enemy aliens). Critic-at-Arms 20 January 2007

Leaving aside problems of proving a negative, I'd prefer to see references for claims made--including yours. I've discussed the contextual basis for including the anti-miscegenation laws above. If anyone can substatiate a link between the Japanese treatment of Americans and the Internment, then we can put it in. Plain and simple. --Ishu 18:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Years of Infamy details the abandonment of repatriation negotiations that I mentioned above, and has photos of some of the related correspondence. Critic-at-Arms 23 January 2007

Just provide some page refs and details and that could put this issue to rest. Unless Edison or another editor produces contradictory references. --Ishu 18:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole antimiscegenation law question can be better addressed elsewhere, and perhaps some family law attorney or someone working from the perspective of todays gay marriage issue in the US will polish that article. I just do not want to see the US castigated in any POV way for treatment of interracial marriage in 1941 without knowing if such laws were common in Europe and Japan at the time in comparable developed countries. It is not a huge factor in the story of the internment, but the tone of the section caught my eye as a bit POV. There is still no reference for the statement about prohibition of marriages between Japanese and caucasians, and the scope of the prohibition is vague. Edison 18:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Starting over with the indents --

Excerpted from the decision Perez v. Sharp, California, 1948

". . .Civil Code, section 69, implements Civil Code, section 60, which provides: "All marriages of white persons with negroes, Mongolians, members of the Malay race, or mulattoes are illegal and void." This section originally appeared in the Civil Code in 1872, but at that time it prohibited marriages only between white persons and Negroes or mulattoes. It {Page 32 Cal.2d 713} succeeded a statute prohibiting such marriages and authorizing the imposition of certain criminal penalties upon persons contracting or solemnizing them. (Stats. 1850, ch. 140, p. 424.) Since 1872, Civil Code, section 60, has been twice amended, first to prohibit marriages between white persons and Mongolians (Stats. 1901, p. 335) and subsequently to prohibit marriages between white persons and members of the Malay race. (Stats. 1933, p. 561.)

". . .The Legislature's classification in section 60 is based on the system suggested by Blumenbach early in the nineteenth century. (Roldan v. Los Angeles County, 129 Cal.App. 267, 273 [18 P.2d 706].) Blumenbach classified man into five races: Caucasian (white), Mongolian (yellow), Ethiopian (black), American Indian (red), and Malayan (brown)."

There's some specifics for you.

I would also add that anything any other country does or thinks DOESN'T MATTER. This is OUR country (whatever country you happen to be in)! If you like, I can dig up the National Socialist laws prohibiting interracial marriage, but what does the Third Reich legal system matter to the United States? Critic-at-Arms 29 January 2007

Reference on the repatriation issue for Ishu: ". . .extremely delicate negotiations had been carried on by the State Department to accelerate the fullest possible repatriation of US Citizens and to enable foon, clothing and medical supplies to be speeded to Americans in enemy hands . . .with the follow-up report from the Spanish Embassy concerning the stockade, the 200 men being held therein, and the extraordinaty Army seizure of a camp full of civilian detainees, Tokyo called an abrupt halt to prisoner-exchange negotiations. The cutoff proved permanent." "Years of Infamy" pp.173 Critic-at-Arms 29 January 2007

When you say "There's some specifics for you" you have only addressed the antimiscegenation laws in California. If that is the intent of the section of this article under discussion, then I propose a change from "Other laws prevented nearly all marriages between Caucasians and Asians, though Nikkei were able to marry non-Caucasians" to Other California laws prevented nearly all marriages between Caucasians and Asians, though Nikkei were able to marry non-Caucasians" and add a citation to the Perez vs Sharp ruling. The article now is vague as to whether it is talking about California, where most of the Japanese immigrants and citizens were, and where intermarriage with Caucasians was rare, or other states where intermarriage was common but a tenth or less the as many of Japanese origin lived, such as New York or Illinois, and where the status of the laws is unclear.Edison 16:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Do your own research. I have better things to do than sort through a few dozen decisions from various state and Federal courts, looking for the handful of pertinent words that each might provide, just for your edification. Seek and ye shall find. And what "ye" shall find is that these laws were not only on the state level across the country, but also on the Federal level until CRA '64. Critic-at-Arms 2 February 2007

I am very glad you have better things to do than research to support statements made in this article. I doubt your claim of a federal marriage law. Unsupported claims may be removed by any editor.Edison 03:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Echoes of the past . . .are you just History Student, hiding under another name? If so, then you are the last person who should be talking about "unsupported claims." If you aren't HS, and you actually want to know (instead of just argue), then do a search on Westlaw, Lexis or the other legal-precedent engines. Look through the references that you get. A number of them are "iffy" -- does American military law (prior to UCMJ) qualify as "Federal" in your view? Immigration law, which denied spousal status to non-"white" applicants who were married to whites? How about laws from 1865 - 1900? USSC decisions not to overturn convictions on related violations? If you really want to go over this, let's talk Dred Scott (1857)!  ;) Also note that I'm discussing this HERE, trying to reach a consensus on the issue, rather than playing the revert-war game. Critic-at-Arms 3 February 2007

Oh, BTW, the reason I'm familiar with this particular issue is because my former wife's "white" grandmother was married to a non-"white," and had to fight the battle. Critic-at-Arms 2 February 2007

There are a number of sources out there that indicate that anti-miscegenation statutes existed in most of the country except for parts of the Northeast. There are also a huge number of sources out there that describe the "racial purity" rhetoric behind anti-miscegenation statutes, and explain why many of them prohibited marriage between whites and minorities but not between different minority races. However, I'm not aware of any sources that do a state-by-state survey of anti-miscegenation law. Looking only to state and federal court opinions would not provide the required information, because most of those state anti-miscegenation laws were never litigated -- particularly after the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that it wasn't going to overturn them. Thus, the only way to get the kind of support that Edison demands would be to perform a state-by-state survey of 19th and early 20th century anti-miscegenation statutes -- which is a totally unreasonable to demand, because that kind of survey, involving statutes that old, would be difficult to accomplish without spending a solid month looking through moldering print volumes in a well-stocked law library. So, what about the following wording: "Other laws in many states -- including California, where most Nikkei lived -- prohibited marriages between Caucasians and Asians. However, these laws often allowed Nikkei to able to marry non-Caucasians because such marriages were not believed to dilute the "racial purity" of Caucasians." --Lawt 18:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Starting over with the indents AGAIN! --

I think it would be more accurate (and neutral) to say "Other laws in various states -- including California, where most Nikkei lived -- prohibited marriages between Caucasians and members of other ethnic groups, including Asians. However, Nikkei were often able to marry non-Caucasians, and a number of them did. Many of those non-Nikkei husbands and wives voluntarily went into the camps when their families were interned." Critic-at-Arms 10 February 2007

Sounds great to me. --Lawt 23:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert changes

I reverted the section deletions by anonymous editor. Please discuss such large deletions on the talk page, or at least provide an edit summary. --Ishu 04:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There were a few items removed by 69.237.203.77 on 2007-01-18 that did not get restored that I added back. As a check see the different between my last edit & the one on 2007-01-17 14:58 by FrancoGG, then compare revert of 69.237.203.77 by Ishu on 18 January 2007-01-18 03:35 with the same edit by FrancoGG. It looks like the revert of 69.237.203.77 may have only gone one edit back when it should have gone back two. Thanks -- 12.106.111.10 00:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have rolled back 12 POV edit's by 69.210.27.81 listed here. Static Universe ^talk|edits 19:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese-Americans

'''My name is Brittany Reynolds and I'd like to add this.'''

World War 2 and the Life of Japanese-Americans There are many fears and prejudices in the world: World War 2, for example. The Japanese-Americans faced many hardships, yet they remained loyal to us. Today, I will try to find out why. Since the bombing of Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941, America has been changed forever. During this time, suspicions arose that anyone of Japanese descent-even the children-were spies. The following articles are about Miss Clara Estelle Breed. She was a children’s librarian and opposed to the thought of sending children to concentration camps. Miss Breed sent many letters to the children, though only one was found intact. She kept over 250 of the children’s letters intact. In some letters, high school girls thought that they were being of use to the government. In others, they wrote, “If we were put here for our protection, why are the guns pointed inward instead of outward?” Another says, “I’m tired of Japan, mother. Let’s go back home to America.” The letters often described what life was like in internment camps. The houses in the internment camps weren’t substandard. They consisted of four walls, a flat, tin roof, a door, and maybe a floorboard. Their only furniture was what they could make and/or salvage from a woodpile. The public facilities were better. They at least had a proper structure. The only races they saw besides the guards were Japanese-Americans and Caucasians. Maybe they thought it was their duty, maybe it was because of the $20,000 after the war. Who’s to say? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.25.242.151 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Some points to consider. First, the Japanese Americans were mostly Americans of Japanese ancestry. They were some of the "us" that they remained loyal to. Second, there were a number of non-Nikkei in the camps, mostly men and women who were married to Japanese Americans. Many of these were Hispanic, others were Asian, Polynesian or African-Americans. I don't understand your conclusion, but I'd point out that the $20,000 didn't come for over 50 years after the Internment began. 68.178.65.194 22:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page clean up

I cleaned up this page. Someone had duplicated the page while adding comments. If I have mistakenly deleted a comment, you can find it on the last version before the clean-up. Please feel free to move it to the appropriate section on this page. --Ishu 07:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WPMILHIST Assessment

There is obviously a lot of controversy over this subject. I'm not sure exactly which elements the tag at the top refers to, but it does nevertheless meet the B-class criteria for the most part, as far as I'm concerned. I am neither supporting nor rejecting the accusation that there may be factual issues, but overall, it's a thorough and well-put together piece. LordAmeth 20:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted edits by anonymous editor

I reverted ten edits by an unregistered editor. The substantive edits are described below.

• Also not usually noted was that German, Italian and other nationalities were also placed in areas away from "vital military zones". The executive order 9066 also noted that ethnic Japanese could first voluntarily leave west coast areas and find employment in other areas of the country not considered vital to the national interest. Many Nekkei and Issei attended college, worked on farms and owned business, away from these excluded zones.

This copy is too specific for the lead section, and redundant with discussions below. Please review the talk archives, as we have had extensive discussions about the lead section. We can open a new discussion about the lead section, but we are trying to keep it as simple and straightforward as possible. With that in mind, it's not carved in stone, either.

• The evil connotation of the term, "concentration camp", would only be noted after the liberation of the Nazi death camps in 1945. Also noted the Nazis did not allow outside employment or educational opportunities for their camp detenees.

This language, as worded, is borderline POV, but also redundant with other copy in the article.

• It is also of note that these assmebly centers were used to house GI's after the internees had been relocated to the more permanent camps.

We can add this statement if it can be referenced and validated. The current copy intentionally avoids almost all discussion of the conditions of the facilities for the time being until we can arrive at NPOV language.

• Habeus corpus was also suspended during this period of martial law.

My only objection to this statement is style, since I thought suspension of habeas corpus is implied by a state of martial law. If anyone feels strongly about this statement, we can put it back. A citation would be nice, too.

I apologize for the bad edit summary, which was created by a JS tool that I'm still learning. The main policy issue is citations, particularly on this article. I'll manually revert such edits in the future. Responses by anyone concerned are encouraged. --Ishu 18:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)