Talk:Japanese American internment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Japanese American internment article.
Article policies
To-do list for Japanese American internment: edit · history · watch · refresh
  1. 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:
  2. Expansion of the sections for the DOJ facilities, WCCA facilities, and WRA facilities.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
  • /References A page where references can be listed and linked for use in drafting the article


Contents


[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 Nikkei 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.

I disagree, as in briefs submitted by the appellant and amici curiae in Korematsu v. United States the term "concentration camp" was used.

  • 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)

[edit] NPOV

An anonymous user tagged the article with WP:NPOV without comment (not counting the edit summary). All are encouraged to discuss these concerns here. --Ishu 17:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the WP:NPOV tag since there was no comment or explanation as to why this was added. sgsilver 02:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concentration camp

The article says "While the term concentration camp was used by some government officials at the time, it is inappropriate due to its highly negative association with the Nazi concentration camps." This is clearly a POV claim. Yes, the association with Nazi concentration camps is undeniably negative, but why is that association inappropriate? I would argue, on the contrary, that it's entirely appropriate to make the comparison. In both cases, paranoid bigotry led to groups of people being denied their basic rights as citizens on the basis of race, and in both cases this was done by gathering those of the undesirable races together in heavily guarded prison camps. 71.203.209.0 14:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The comparison above is grossly simplistic. In one case, the detainees had access to due process of law, were provided basic needs of life, and--with limitations--were permitted to exit the detention facilities. In the other case, detainees were subject to summary execution, forced labor, systematic humiliation and mutilation, starvation, disease, etc. The term concentration camp is, for better or worse, strongly associated with the latter case. Given that, to apply the same term to both situations implies parallels that are inappropriate. Please also review the talk archives and you will see that some editors have protested the use of internment camp. In any event, the most commonly used term used in reference to this event is internment camp. --Ishu 16:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Note that in the actual Nazi camps, "concentration camp" and "death camp" were not the same thing. Only certain camps were actually used for execution of the prisoners. And the prisoners in the US camps did not have access to due process of law. The very concept of these camps (summary and indefinite imprisonment on an arbitrary basis) is antithetical to due process. 71.203.209.0 07:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Anon oversimplifies again. It is true that the Japanese Americans were detained without due process of law. However, detainees pursued redress in the courts, with at least four heard by the Supreme Court. The ultimate outcome of these cases (upholding the internment) is important, but so is the fact that they were allowed at all--a set of events unparalleled in Nazi Germany. However, even if we accept the flimsy argument that there's a meaningful distinction between the Nazi "death camps" and mere "concentration camps," (1) the most humane of these camps still featured a host of horrors that are unmatched in the U.S. camps; (2) untold thousands of Nazi prisoners were "shot dead" by guards and soldiers; (3) the pogroms outside of the extermination are of a scale and nature that is fundamentally different from the Internment. If we're going to make the comparison, we need to make a full comparison. --Ishu 11:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Anon does have a point in that the existing statement is not NPOV. Rewording it so that it makes clear that "internment camp" is the common term and "concentration camp" is not used because of whatever reasons (sourced, naturally), would remove the inherent POV that's there now. howcheng {chat} 19:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
OK. Let's start our discussion with some definitions. One, from the Columbia Encyclopedia, specifically references the Nazi camps and the Japanese concentration camps in Manchuria. or Another, from the American Heritage Dictionary, is more general. The article already states that internment camp is the most common term. Perhaps we can change the language to something like this:
While the term concentration camp was used by some government officials at the time, the term internment camp is often used to make a clear distinction between the U.S. camps and the Nazi concentration camps."
--Ishu 22:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Another problem that plagues both the current text and Ishu's proposed revision is that they incorrectly claim that the term "concentration camp" is no longer used. It's true that "internment camp" is the more common phrase, but some institutions (most notably the Japanese American National Museum) and writers deliberately use the term "concentration camp." See Mother Jones article from 1998 regarding the terminology debate. --Lawt 03:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
<------------undenting

The introductory clause "While the term concentration camp was used by some government officials at the time" is intended to acknowledge that concentration camp was actually used at the time it occurred. It's not clear to me how my proposed revision claims the term is no longer used. --Ishu 04:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, to be more precise, the current phrasing implies that the term concentration camp is no longer used, both in its particular wording and in its omission of any present examples of sources that call the camps concentration camps. --Lawt 05:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm open to any compromise that will compare and contrast to provide the appropriate distinctions--and more importantly, to avoid the inevitable disputes both from the anti-redress camp and from Holocaust historians. --Ishu 16:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe most of the 442nd was recruited from the Japanese-American population living in Hawai'i and not the West Coast internees.

Of course the Japanese American National Musuem is going to refer to the Relocation Centers as "concentration camps". They're agenda based ethnic activists, not historians. These people want to mislead the American people into using the term "concentration camp" because they know it will generate an emotional knee-jerk reaction due to the term's association with the Nazis.

And that's just what the Japanese American Reperations activists want you to think, the American government was no better than the Nazis. Boo-Hoo!

Here's what the Supreme Court said regarding the use of the term "concentration camp".

"It is said that we are dealing with the case of imprisonment of a citizen in a concentration camp soley because of his ancestory, without evidence or inquiry concerning his loyalty and good disposition towards the United States. Our task would be simple, our duty clear, were this a case involving the imprisonment of a loyal citizen in a concentration camp because of racial prejudice.

Regardless of the true nature of the assembly and relocation centers - AND WE DEEM IT UNJUSTIFIABLE TO CALL THEM CONCENTRATION CAMPS WITH ALL THE UGLY CONNOTATIONS THAT TERM IMPLIES - we are dealing with nothing but an exclusion order. To cast this case in outlines of racial prejudice, without reference to the real military dangers which were presented, merely confuses the issue. KOREMATSU WAS NOT EXCLUDED FROM THE MILITARY AREA BECAUSE OF HIS RACE. HE WAS EXCLUDED BECAUSE WE ARE AT WAR WITH THE JAPANESE EMPIRE."

Supreme Court Decision, Korematsu vs. USA (323 US 214-248) October 1944

(Emphasis mine)

Yes Ishu, the historically correct terms is Relocation Center. The internment camps were a completely different program having nothing to do with the WRA. We've talked circles about this before, but I hope you realize graying the details between the internment program and the relocation program by referring to the relocation as "internment" is only going to confuse people. --History Student 20:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

In both cases, paranoid bigotry led to groups of people being denied their basic rights as citizens on the basis of race, and in both cases this was done by gathering those of the undesirable races together in heavily guarded prison camps.

Actually MAGIC intelligence indicating Fifth Column activity amongst the West Coast Japanese community led to the evacuation of ethnic Japanese from the West Coast Military Zones with the option of renewing their lives in eastern areas of the country or sitting out the war at taxpayer expense in the Relocation Centers where there was no food rationing, free room and board, the choice to not work - the subequent result being the highest birth rates of any wartime American community.

Some "concentration camp" that turned out to be.

The only time the army was called in to the Relocation Centers was when the pro-Japan fanatics were rioting. The "heavily guarded, barb wire, watchtower" comments are all Japanese American myths.... --History Student 20:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Korematsu vs. United States today is remembered as an unjust ruling, even though it's never been overturned. I don't think quoting from that decision is in your best interests. howcheng {chat} 20:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

HowCheng, try posting at the bottom so we can keep a little order on the page.

Korematsu is remembered by who as unjust? You? You're right it has never been overturned and is still the law of the land. That means it's not bad law - it's good law! Of course this drives the Japanese American revisionists crazy. Many Americans do not see it as an unjust ruling.

In a crushing blow to the JACL and the NCJAR (National Council on Japanese American Redress, fanatic group) the Supreme Court Justices on October 31, 1988, without comment, let stand the findings of an appellate court that effectively put an end to courts actions for additional money (they wanted $27 BILLION in reparations for alleged "racism"!).

It also left the Korematsu and Hirabayashi decisions in place. The Supreme Court had the opportunity to reverse the decisions as late as 1988 and they did not. Know why? Because it's a good ruling and the time may come when Americans will need to utilize it once again.

So I disagree with you, HowCHeng. People should read the Korematsu decision quote from the Korematsu decision and acknowledge it is still the law of the land to this very day in the good old USA. --History Student 23:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Remembered by who? How about Judge Marilyn Hall Patel who granted the writ of coram nobis to Korematsu. The ruling has never been overturned because it has a limited scope and so it hasn't ever been challenged. Regardless, per WP:NAME we should striving to use the most common term. I agree that "concentration camp" is too harsh, but "War Relcoation Center" (the official name) isn't commonly known. Most every article in MSM I've seen refers to the whole thing as "internment" and the camps as "internment camps". Regardless of whatever views you may have about the whole thing, we should be able to come to an agreement on what to call them. howcheng {chat} 23:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Marilyn Hall Patel? You must be referring to the Coram Nobis cases of the 1980s. Sorry Howcheng but lower courts cannot overrule higher courts. As mentioned above the Supreme Court had the opportunity to overturn Korematsu and Hirabayashi October 31, 1988 when the fanatical NCJAR wanted their $27 billion.

You may recall the lower court in San Francisco at the Korematsu Coram Nobis hearings accepted this so-called "newly discovered evidence" ploy. Operating on the theory that the Supreme Court would not have arrived at its 1944 decision if this evidence had been available, the federal judge in San Francisco vacated Korematsu's conviction.

Akio Herzig-Yoshinaga's "newly discovered evidence" refers to a January 26, 1942 memo written by Lt. Commander K.D. Ringle, deputy intelligence officer for 11th Naval District. You may remember Aiko was the principal "researcher" for the CWIRC.

So the "newly discovered evidence" that Aiko "found" that was used in the Coram Nobis cases of the 1980's is this Ringle memo the 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 unoffical 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.

The lower court in San Francisco at the Korematsu hearings accepted this so-called "newly discovered evidence" ploy. Operating on the theory that the Supreme Court would not have arrived at its 1944 decision if this evidence had been available, the federal judge in San Francisco vacated Korematsu's conviction.

Korematsu's attorney's, who were by now aware of MAGIC, seized the opportunity to request that a statement be written into the decision that there was no credible evidence that resident Japanese were involved in espionage.

Having no evidence to the contrary, Judge Patel agreed to the request.

That's the story on the Ringle memo, and the "newly discovered evidence" the court received in the Corum Nobis cases. In the annals of legal history it was a total farce.

Howchew, you seem interested in studying the legalise of the Korematsu Coram Nobis case. What's it called when lawyers submit evidence in a court of law under false pretense? --History Student 00:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Relocation Camp is the historically accurate term, regardless of how familiar the public is with it. Perhaps it would be more familiar if the American people hadn't been brainwashed over this history for the last twenty years. Internment when discussing the evacuation is not historically accurate. "Concentration camp" is just fanatical. --History Student 00:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)--History Student 00:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say Patel overruled the SCOTUS, which as you state, is not possible. I only stated that she was among many who believe that the originally ruling was in error. I am not going to debate J-A history with you, as it's been a long time since I've studied it in college under Prof. Ichioka @ UCLA -- I'm just sticking to the name discussion. Again, per WP:NAME we don't always go with the "official" name, just what's most common. You will note, however, that all the camp articles (except Manzanar) can be found at "XXX War Relocation Center" (Poston War Relocation Center, for example). howcheng {chat} 03:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Patel believed the original ruling was in error because the pro-reperations lawyers manipulated the evidence introduced into her courtroom.

Ichioka was better than most, but he has been put on a pedistal by Japanese American activists. Ichioka was a "social activist" and had an agenda that didn't include seeking out and documenting the 100% truth. At least he held some history credentials and wasn't entirely and "ethnic studies" prof.

Ignoring the official name and going by "what's common" is bad policy. This is how myths are created and we all know Japanese American history as documented over the last twenty years is full of myths. --History Student 14:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The Feds (and FDR) called them "concentration camps." But you know SOOOO much more than them . . .
"The only time the army was called in to the Relocation Centers was when the pro-Japan fanatics were rioting. The "heavily guarded, barb wire, watchtower" comments are all Japanese American myths...." You're really trolling now, HS. But, to humor you, if there were no barbed wire and watchtowers, who killed James Wakasa, and why . . ? The barbed wire is still there at several of the camps, as are the concrete footings for watchtowers -- did they put all that stuff up after the war? And how do you explain the appearance of these things in photographs and film shot during the internment (not to mention official Army reports, written by those troops you say weren't there)? Special effects? Critic-at-Arms 04:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other detention camps

"This data was..." I apologize for being picky, but "data" is plural. It's the plural of "datum."[1] Dick Kimball (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes strictly true, but normal English usage seems to be to treat data as being short for "the set of data". David Underdown (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1944 Supreme court ruling

The opening paragraph states that "In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion, removal, and detention, arguing that it is permissible to curtail the civil rights of a racial group when there is a "pressing public necessity."" However, later in the article, under the heading "the internment ends", it is stated: "In December, 1944, the Supreme Court ruled the detainment of loyal citizens unconstitutional." These two statements seem to be at odds. Unless there were two separate rulings by the supreme court. So, does anyone know which of the two is true? Lorangriel 14:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Lorangriel, you bring up a mini-example of what is wrong with this article as a whole. The content ranges from convoluted to inaccurate to half-truths to outright lies.

Perhaps the paragraphs are attempting to discuss the Kormematsu and Endo cases.

In Korematsu, (October 1944) the Supreme Court ruled that the evacuation was constitutional and nothing more than an exclusion order. The Supreme Court didn't make a ruling on "detention". In this respect, the opening paragraph is historically inaccurate.

In Endo, (December 1944) the Supreme Court did not hold 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 constitutional until their loyalty has been determined. Then they can go.

Incidentally, Endo was moot. The exclusion orders were lifted before the decision was released. The lifting of the orders coupled with 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?

So again, the paragraph stating, "Supreme Court ruled the detainment of loyal citizens unconstitutional" is historically inaccurate. The detainment of loyal citizens is constitutional until it has been determined they are loyal. --History Student 18:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am going to read the published opinions of the supreme court and see if I can see a way to fix this article a little bit. There seem to be a lot of strong opinions floating around, from what I see on the main page and on the discussion page, and the article could use a fresh pair of eyes. Lorangriel 20:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this history is controversial, just as it was back in 1942. These days, those who defend the evacuation as necessary are usually labeled "racists". The military, Congress, Supreme Court, President Roosevelt, American people...all just a bunch of "hysterical racists". My opinions are strong, but at least I can back them up with historical facts.

The desire to seek out and document the whole truth as been trumped by the desire to pervert the truth in order to support one's ideology. It's been a real mess over the last 25 years and will take time to correct. --History Student 21:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you can back your opinions up with distortion of the facts. It was racist hysteria that motivated the "internment": the baseless paranoia that anyone of Japanese ancestry would be loyal to the Japanese Empire, even if they were born American citizens and had never even seen Japan. And regardless of Supreme Court's decision (one that's now rightly ranked with Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson as one of the most infamous in its history), indefinitely imprisoning American citizens on entirely arbitrary grounds is a blatant defiance of the Constitution.
As for your crack about the residents of the camps not wanting to leave? You seem to be ignoring (willfully?) the fact that the prisoners were essentially being dumped to live on the streets without any of their possessions that had been stolen without compensation when they were sent to the camps. — Red XIV (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a load of nonsense. Where are your facts to back up your knee-jerk emotional diatribe?

If it was as you say, "racist hysteria" and "baseless paranoia" why were ethnic Japanese living outside the militarized zones not affected at all?

Nobody's ranking Korematsu with Dred Scott except the Japanese-American reperations movement and their political cronies. It's good law to this day.

They weren't prisoners, they weren't imprisoned, the government cared for their property and paid out claims in the 1948 Evacuation Claims Act to the tune of $48 million (1948) dolllars. How many other Americans who suffered during the war got such a deal?

But you bring up a good point regarding the Relcation Centers. Their purpose was to avoid people "being dumped in the street" after being evacuated from the military zones.

Here are some quotes regarding 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..."

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.'"

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

Ever hear of a "concentration camp" where the "prisoners" didn't want to leave? --History Student 16:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see that our token ignorant bigot is still here. Yes, HS, the concentration camps in Europe also had their freed inmates who stayed in the camps -- once the jailers were gone -- because (like so many of the Nikkei) they had no other place to go and their prewar lives had been destroyed. Their homes and livelihoods were gone, but they at least had shelter in the camps. As you noted, the alternative was being "dumped in the streets" after being forced to leave their homes. Some of the "evacuated" Jews left the camps directly for Israel in 1946, over a year after the National Socialists were defeated, and Dachau was used for "refugee" housing into the 1950s.
I do admire they way you keep your mantra that "they weren't prisoners, they weren't imprisoned . . ." So, please explain the death of James Wakasa, killed by a guard at Topaz. If he wasn't a prisoner, why was he shot for approaching the barbed wire? If they weren't imprisoned, why the barbed wire and locked gates in the first place? Why the machineguns facing into the compound? Why were the "evacuees" not permitted to leave without official permission, even from the camps which were outside the Exclusion Zones? Why were they subject to removal to other camps on a moment's notice? I DO look forward to your explanations. Critic-at-Arms 04:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Critic! I see you still haven't evolved past hurling accusations of racism and comparing the evacuation to Nazi Germany. No surprise, though. Regarding your other comments, let's look at the historical facts.

"James" Hatsuaki Wakasa was not an American citizen, he was a Japanese national, an ENEMY-ALIEN, and he was still allowed to reside in a relocation center and not a DOJ internment camp.

He was shot and killed by a military police guard while attempting to leave camp without a pass. He had made two previous attempts to leave the center without a pass and was warned by the guards on each occasion. He was shot while making his third attempt to cross the barb wire enclosure between sentry stations. This occured on April 11, 1943. You may recall their were numerous riots and disturbances at Topaz by fanatical pro-Japan militants at this time which is why the guards were there in first place. Wakasa was a known troublemaker.

Read all about it here: [2]

You can also read how events at Topaz up to that time were spiraling out of control because fanatical pro-Japan militants were attempting to take over the camp - which is why the guards were brought in in the first place to quell the disturbances. It's on the same page as the link above.

If evacuees could provide for themselves outside the military zones and swear an oath of allegiance to the United States they could leave the centers. Suffice to say the government didn't want a bunch of Hatsuaki Wakasa's running around the country. Thousands did so and the WRA had offices in every major city east of the military zones to assist evacuees in finding work and getting on with their lives.

The barb wire was three-strand cattle wire used as perimeter fencing. Guards were only used when the pro-Japan fanatics were causing trouble in the centers. The disturbances and shooting of Wakasa were in part the reason the WRA turned part of Tule Lake into a Segregation Center for the fanatics.

It's amazing what hisorical facts can provide rather than knee-jerk emotional comments, Critic. Coming from you however, I'll not hold my breath. --History Student 17:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

HS, you remind me of Lucy when she was teaching Linus. She taught him about how butterflies come up from Brazil, then when told the "butterfly" is a potato chip, she wonders how a potato chip got all the way up here from Brazil. That's the way you handle being proven wrong. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you aren't entitled to your own "hisorical" facts. You change your "facts" with the changing of the tide, demanding that we pay no attention to last week's pravda, it's been replaced by this week's pravda.
Make up your mind. You earlier said that there was no barbed wire, and when this was disproved, you then say it was "only" 3-strand cattle wire. But even this "fact" (offered without proof) makes one wonder how all that high wire fencing got there. It also makes me wonder what kind of military planner would put up 3-foot fence around "ENEMY ALIENS" who were such a hazard that they had to be shot for trying to leave. And, with only 3-wire fence around these dangerous 2-year-old spies and saboteurs, why put 6-foot fence at the front gate? Oh, I'm sorry, I'm committing heresy by actually looking at military matters from the standpoint of someone with a military-science education. I look forward to YOUR explanation. But you never answered the dozen or so questions from months ago, even those which contradicted your other "facts," so I'm not going to hold my breath that you will actually provide an answer to these facts.
Make up your mind. First, they weren't surrounded by armed guards and towers, then "guards were only used when the pro-Japan fanatics were causing trouble in the centers." Where are the records to back this up? And, sorry, your website is NOT a reliable source.
Make up your mind. Either they were prisoners or not. Prisoners need permission to leave their prison. If they weren't prisoners, they would need no such permission, and nobody would shoot them for trying to leave.
Please explain why a 63-year-old "ENEMY ALIEN" had to be shot for supposedly trying to go out into empty desert, 15 miles from the nearest town, while hundreds of thousands of German and Italian enemy aliens of all ages were not removed from the areas surrounding such places as the Philadelphia Navy Yard, the Grumman Aircraft plant, or the District of Columbia? BTW, Wakasa was on the west side of the camp, while Delta is east. Maybe he was just a saboteur-spy with no sense of direction, who was so blind that he couldn't see the lights of the town . . ?
Sorry, History Student, you just come off like the kind of brave guy who blew out the brains of a young Mormon child, saying "Nits make lice." You are just as unthinking and unwilling to consider the possibility that you're wrong. I'm glad that I WAS willing to look at the big picture, and went from believing that the internment was justified to seeing that even the promoters clearly didn't believe it, based on their own actions and writings (it's amazing what you can find in the National Archives). Critic-at-Arms 19:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Critic, I'll ignore your personal attacks and just refute you incorrect facts, which is about one paragraph of your response.

There was no high wire fencing at the relocation centers, it was three strand cattle wire used as perimeter fencing and was routinely crossed. Please provide a link to a relocation center that shows high wire fencing. It doesn't exist. But if you want some proof, let's hear what a Nisei had to say:

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.

Critic, perhaps the three strand cattle wire should have been used to ensure that what you call "two year old spies" didn't wind up wondering around in the desert, as that was the purpose of the fencing. Or perhaps you believe it would have been better to seperate the "two year old spies" from their parents. Some humanitarian you are.

Critic, the fact is thousands left the centers that were set up initally to to provide housing evacuated people. The government could have dumped them at the border of the military zones to fend for themselves. Are convicts allowed to answer a few questions regarding their loyalty, provide proof of a means of support and leave San Quentin? Of course not. The evacuees were not prisoners, but the government and military knew amongst their community some should be prisoners and they needed to be seperated from those who were loyal. Of course the Japanese community in America at the time didn't provide much assistance in this regard...

Critic, did you read the report on Wakasa? It's self explanatory as to why he got shot. He should have been sent to a real internment camp and not a relocation center.

Why weren't Italian and German enemy aliens not moved off the east coast? Hundreds of thousands? First off, you numbers are way off, but thousands of Italian and German enemy aliens were sent to internment camps where they lived side by side with Japanese enemy aliens. Of course they didn't get an apology or $20,000 because their ethnic grievence lobby wasn't as powerful as the Japanese.

Those Italian and German enemy aliens who were not not interned, if any, off the east coast were not for the same reason Japanese were not- - IT WAS OUTSIDE THE WEST COAST MILITARY ZONES. As for the Grumman aircraft plant, I don't recall reading any info on Germans in the MAGIC intercepts or the German or Italian navy bombing Pearl Harbor. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Critic you are the poster boy for the passive understanding of history and proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. --History Student 16:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

One last note, Critc. It is laughable that you say internment archives is an "unreliable source" when it is composed almost entirely of raw, primary historical documentation. You don't want to believe what it says so you call it an "unreliable source". Another great example of an open-minded search for the 100% truth you are. Ha! ha! --History Student 16:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] peripherally related deletion discussion

There presently is a discussion about a high school that is trying to preserve the history of their local camp. Please put your two cents in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Granada Undivided High School. Thanks, Chris 04:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll check it out and comment. What are the chances the history will be fair, partial and accurate? --History Student 17:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ironic

  • Despite the fears that Japanese-Americans were "spys" in 1942 there was a Japanese Spy in the US-the non-Japanese Velvalee Dickinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.149 (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact ethnic Japanese in the United States were spying for the enemy is fact, not fear. Dickinson wasn't the only white person spying for Japan, there were others - most of them worked for or had close relationships with the Japanese, including Dickinson herself.

P.S. It's spelled "spies", not "spys". --History Student 19:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If it was truly a "fact", then it could be proven in each alleged instance by due process. It was NEVER a fact that ethnicity itself proved anything. The fact that no citizens of German ancestry were interned on the basis of their ethnicity proves the racist basis of the treatment of Japanese American citizens. The German secret services were even more active than the Japanese in attempting to recruit help from among German Americans. Yet the US government never blinked in putting the fate of the country in the hands of two German America military commanders. Tmangray (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Valid fears

I love the Japanese, but I must say that many of the fears of Japanese immigrants helping the Japanese war effort were valid. Michelle Malkin's book opens with a description of an incident in Hawaii illustrating this. --Uncle Ed 03:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Malkin is not a historian, her book was not peer-reviewed, she's noted for opposition to many kinds of immigrants (she seriously believes Mexican illegals are full of people who want to take the Southwest back for Mexico), and less relevantly she's Filipino. I only mention that because Filipinos have been treated like dirt by the Japanese and in my experience they resent that a bit. Anyway worse than her is one of the links used in this article. The "Internment Archives" website states it believes that "For the last 25 years our country has been subjected to an Orwellian construct of that event's history and millions in government money have been spent to propagate this incorrect account of the evacuation, largely for the benefit of a particular racial group who wished to obtain money and power."
That being said I imagine some Japanese may have been pro-Japan. Although the main justification I've heard from people who were actually there is that anti-Japanese hostility meant they were safer in camps. If the main issue had been "valid fears" they would've done a selective internment of mostly Issei.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, the people who try to justify the internment as a "safety measure" for the Nikkei as the same ones screaming about "revisionism." The safety issue wasn't mentioned anywhere until long after the war. Critic-at-Arms (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Title

This title is confusing. It's linked to from the front page, and I immediately assumed it meant Japanese interment camps for Americans, not American interment camps for Japanese(-Americans). Maybe I've just been watching too much Ken Burns lately, but I think a hyphen would go along way here. -- 146.115.58.152 21:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to hyphenating the title, though that could be the amount of KB I've been watching too.... Has anyone else had any trouble with this, or would they care to voice an opinion? Geeman 03:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, part of the problem is the excessive effort to be "values neutral". Or maybe a misguided or even sneaky effort.
Some people even assert that the Nazi Holocaust and the US internment of Japanese immigrants are morally equivalent. I remember my frustration, talking with a college professor who insisting on calling Manzanar a "concentration camp", even though he knew full well that nearly everyone applies the connotation of "death camp" to that term.
The survival rate for Manzanar was not materially different for that of the general U.S. population. Likening US internment camps for its Japanese citizens to a Nazi extermination camp doesn't seem to serve our readers well. --Uncle Ed 14:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
It's been a long time since I took Asian American history, but I remember historically there being a big fuss about whether to hyphenate "Japanese-American" vs "Japanese American". Since all related articles are without hyphen (Japanese American, Category:Japanese Americans, etc) it stands to reason that there should be no hyphen here as well. I personally don't care myself, but I would argue for consistency. howcheng {chat} 16:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
My understanding of the hyphen issue is that "Japanese-American" would put "Japanese" and "American" on equal footing, or balanced. "Japanese-American diplomatic relations" would be the relations between the countries with neither country being more important. But "Japanese American" makes "Japanese" an adjective and "American" a noun, meaning the person is an American with Japanese characteristics. That's the theory anyway. I prefer "American with Japanese ancestry." Readin (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Style manuals call for no hyphen. Also my Webster's 11th tells me that Japanese is an adjective that can mean "a person of Japanese descent"; therefore, "Japanese American" means an American of Japanese descent. I've made the fixes in the article, except for one article title which may or may not have the hyphen in the original. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More on the title

I propose retitling this article as Internment experience of Japanese Americans. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wat up

i need some information on japanese american internment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.22.108.3 (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Which citizenship?

Were the internees asked to renounce their Japanese or their American citizenship? This section seems contradictory: Jpatokal (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Several pro-Japan groups formed inside the camps, and demonstrations[38] and riots occurred for various reasons in many camps, most notably Tule Lake, which caused the WRA to move "troublemaker" internees to Tule Lake. When the government asked whether internees wished to renounce their U.S. citizenship, 5,589 of them did so. Of those who renounced their citizenship, 1,327 were repatriated to Japan, although many of these deportees were not accepted by the Japanese Government.[citation needed] However, the American Civil Liberties Union successfully challenged most of these renunciations as invalid because of the conditions under which the government obtained them. These conditions were described as "coercion, duress, and mass compulsion" by Marvin Opler, a WRA official who had observed some of the renunciation hearings and supported the restoration of citizenship to the expatriated Japanese Americans.[citation needed] It is interesting to note that many of the deportees were Issei (first generation Japanese; immigrants) who often had difficulty with English and often did not understand the questions they were asked.[citation needed] Even among those Issei who had a clear understanding, Question 28 posed an awkward dilemma: Japanese immigrants were denied US citizenship at the time, so when asked to renounce their Japanese citizenship, answering "Yes" would have made them stateless persons. Faced with possible deportation to Japan, the Issei largely refused to renounce their only citizenship.

[edit] No Germans/Italians were interned for ethnicity?

"In glaringh contrast to the japanese americans?" Japanese were interned in accordance to geography, so you could also make the claim they were not tragetted for their ethnicity, hence this is completely meaningless rhetoric that seems intended to make the internment of the japanese more "unfair" than that of German/Italian americans. Frankly, it's quite racist. 66.190.29.150 (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It WAS more unfair. No CITIZENS of German or Italian ancestry were interned based on their ethnicity. Geography is irrelevant. If it were relevant, how do we explain putting two German Americans in charge of the Allied war effort in both theaters? Why weren't Italian Americans and German Americans on the East Coast interned? Racism was the reason. It preceded WWII on the west coast by many decades. Tmangray 05:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Unlike Germans or Italians, it was possible to tell someone was Oriental by looking at them, hence the Chinese-Americans wearing buttons that read "I am Chinese". Another factor to be considered, though, is that Japan actually launched attacks directly on the United States. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Not a factor at all. These were citizens, not foreign nationals or spies. Germany declared war on the US before the US declared war on Germany. Yet there were no qualms at all in putting the fate of the US in the hands of people named Nimitz and Eisenhower. Tmangray 06:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
No question there was a major racist factor. However, the fact remains that Japan directly attacked the

U.S. and Germany did not. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

There was also an opportunist factor. Propert y taken from the interred Japanese-Americans sometimes found its way into the possession of politicians. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Another thing to consider is isolationism. While there had been overt prejudice against German-Americans and Italian-Americans in WWI, this was a generation later, and (as you implicitly indicate) those groups were assimilated and were in positions of trusted authority. The U.S. was reluctant to go to war in Europe, which is why we did nothing substantial for 2 1/2 years after Germany invaded Poland. This was "somebody else's war". However, the Japanese attacks on the U.S. forced us into the war. So the resentment against Japanese was running high not just for the attacks but for having sucked us into the war. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about the Japanese, but American citizens. The reasons you cite "work" in relation to Japanese nationals and spies, but not as to citizens. C'mon, we're grownups; racism was/is a fact of life, and it came into play bigtime given the chance to, using the very rationalizations you cite. Tmangray 07:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Racism or ethnicism was at the core of it, yes. It's similar to the suspicions that many Americans (presumably white Christian Americans) have developed or augmented toward Muslims since 9/11/01, including those Muslims who are American citizens. Because they are "different", there is suspicion that their loyalties are with Islam rather than the United States and Christianity. The difference is that (in general) they aren't being trucked to internment camps. But there is a commonality - the sense that "the Muslims" attacked "us", just as "the Japanese" collectively, including, by implication, Japanese-Americans attacked "us" in 1941. The Germans never attacked us directly, plus they were white and Christian (in theory), so they were relatively "not so different" from "us". There was plenty of anti-German sentiment in WWI here, but not so much in the 1940s, relatively. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
There are similarities and also significant differences between the Moslem American and Japanese American situations, about which I'd be happy to engage further, but I think we're straying too far into a discussion about the subject rather than the editing. Tmangray 17:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

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.

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.

That said, The Tolan committee looked very closely at the need to evacuate Germans and Italians from the West Coast combat zones, also.

It was learned that the vast majority of the German enemy aliens were Jewish Germans who had escaped Hitler's oppression starting in the early 1930's. The Italians were by and large illiterate farmers who had never gotten around to applying for citizenship.

After careful thought and discussion it was decided these people were not a threat to the West Coast combat zones to the extent the ethnic Japanese were a threat.

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 poor logic. --History Student (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No, we're talking about Japanese enemy aliens who were not citizens. Approximately two-thirds of the ADULTS among those evacuated were Japanese nationals--enemy aliens. The vast majority of evacuated Japanese-Americans (U.S. citizens) were children at the time. Their average age was only 15 years. In addition, over 90% of Japanese-Americans over age 17 were also citizens of Japan (dual citizens)under Japanese law. Thousands had been educated in Japan. Some having returned to the U.S. holding reserve rank in the Japanese armed forces.

At no point was the government interested in "locking up" or "trucking into interment camps" the evacuated Japanese. From the beginning if the evacuation should occur the plan was to relocate them to areas in the interior with suitable farmland where the majority being in agriculture could continue producing for the war effort. From the begining religious, social service and even the JACL demanded that if the evacuation should occur the Japanese shouldn't just be "kicked out" of the combat zones.

The government should be responsible for feeding, housing, providing employment and medical care for the evacuated people - and assiting them in re-establishing themselves in the interior - in as humane an environment as could be provided. That is just what the government did with the Relocation Centers. --History Student (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we're all grownups, so here are more facts that prove the ethnic Japanese on the West Coast were a security threat and the evacuation was not based on "racism".

1.Office of Naval Intelligence memorandum for the Chief of Naval Operations, Feb 12, 1941,"Japanese Espionage Organization in the United States," which suggests that the information therein be brought to the attention of the President and stating that the Japanese government had decided to strengthen its intelligence network by, among other moves to employ "Nisei Japanese and Japanese resident nationals" using extreme caution in doing so.

2. The Tachibana case (March 1941) about which Peter Irons' wrote in his "Justice at War": "...There was no question that Tachibana headed an espionage ring on the West Coast that enlisted a number of Japanese Americans, both aliens and citizens (sic), nor that the government knew the identities of its members..."

3. Military Intelligence Div. 336.8, Honolulu, 14 October 1941. "Japanese Ex-Service Men's Organization" which reports on two Japanese ex-military member groups active in the U.S. with 7200 members, stating in part: "...these two organizations have pledged to do sabotage (railroads and harbors)in the states mentioned (California, Washington, Oregon, and Utah) in time of emergency. Similar organizations are in Hawaii. Sixty-nine local units of these two organizations are said to be carrying on activities."

4. U.S.Army MID Information Bulletin No.6 of Jan.21, 1942,titled "Japanese Espionage," forwarded to Ass't SecWar John J. McCloy by Brig. General Mark J. Clark,then Deputy Chief of Staff, U.S.Army, which, among its conclusions states: "Their espionage net containing Japanese aliens, first and second generation Japanese and other nationals is now thoroughly organized and working underground."

Not to mention the MAGIC intercepts, the Nihau incident and the thousands of nisei at Tule Lake marching around demanding to be sent back to Japan to fight for the emporer. --History Student (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You are deliberately confusing immigrant German nationals with US citizens, and omitting that the US citizens of German ancestry who were detained were accused of specific acts of spying. No US citizens of German ancestry were detained simply for being of German ancestry. Tmangray (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
They were aliens, not US citizens. Tmangray (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
But what about the East Coast? German subs were far more active there than the Japanese were off the West Coast. Tmangray (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
It's actually a strongly logical argument to support the charge of racism, which in any case, preceded the war on the West Coast. The war provided an excuse to disposess a non white minority. Tmangray (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
If so, then those cases could be prosecuted as evidence is alleged to have existed. No evidence at all existed that ethnicity itself was a crime. Look even President Ronald Reagan acknowledged the wrongness of the internment of US citizens. Tmangray (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
More reports existed about the recruitment activities of the Gestapo and other German agencies among German Americans. Not one US citizen of German ancestry was interned simply for being of German descent. Tmangray (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Assuming the demonstration at Tule Lake actually occurred as you claim, it seems understandable given the outrageousness of citizens being interned simply for being of Japanese ancestry. Rage in such a circumstance is very reasonable. If your country treats you as a foreigner and a criminal, what the hell? Others reacted by joining the US Army. Tmangray (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Tmangray, in the interest of clarity, post your respones at the bottom of the thread rather than at the bottom of each comment. It makes the thread much easier to follow. Don't bust up my posts with your comments.

"You are deliberately confusing immigrant German nationals with US citizens, and omitting that the US citizens of German ancestry who were detained were accused of specific acts of spying. No US citizens of German ancestry were detained simply for being of German ancestry."

That's entirely wrong. Thousands of German American kids were interned with their parents just as Japanese American kids were interned with their parents. You can read about it heres. [3]

You also fail to acknowledge Japanese issei were not US citizens either. They were Japanese nationals, enemy aliens. The majority of their nisei kids were dual citizens.

But what about the East Coast? German subs were far more active there than the Japanese were off the West Coast.

Neither Germany nor Italy had a navy that could sufficiently project enough power to invade the East Coast of the United States. Japan had developed such a force that had succeeded in developing the largest empire in the history of mankind in a matter of months. One reason for the lack of preparedness that led to Pearl Harbor was the belief Japan could not project forces so far to the east. Besides, the east coast was never declared a combat zone like the west coast.

It's actually a strongly logical argument to support the charge of racism, which in any case, preceded the war on the West Coast. The war provided an excuse to disposess a non white minority.

Nonsense. I don't know of anyone who has studied the issue and concluded that the so-called "internment" was justified who denies that there was racial prejudice against resident Japanese aliens and Japanese Americans at the time of Pearl Harbor.

But the fact that racism existed doesn't mean that racism was the reason for the "internment. On the contrary, had "racism" been the reason for the "internment" why was it that the thousands of ethnic Japanese not living in the West Coast military areas were not bothered at all?

If so, then those cases could be prosecuted as evidence is alleged to have existed. No evidence at all existed that ethnicity itself was a crime. Look even President Ronald Reagan acknowledged the wrongness of the internment of US citizens.

A military comabat zone does not operate under the same conditions has peacetime civil society. Why would the government want to reveal intelligence in a civil court that would be beneficial to the enemy? There was no need to prosecute individual cases when evacuation quickly and efficently dealt with the security threat without revealing sensitive intelligence. After the evacuation, espionage by ethnic Japanese completely stopped. Plenty of evidence exists that the Japanese on the west coast at the time were a security threat. I provided much of it above.

Reagan didn't try too hard to acknowledge anything. He sat on the bill for years and reluctantly signed it in 1988 (an election year) against the advice of his own Department of Justice. There is an excellent scholarly piece by Professor Tim Maga desribing the intense lobbying effort directed at President Reagan by Japanese American ethnic activist lobbiests and their political allies. It was a full court press. It was ugly and it's a perfect example of why politicians should not be in the business of legislating revisionist history.

More reports existed about the recruitment activities of the Gestapo and other German agencies among German Americans. Not one US citizen of German ancestry was interned simply for being of German descent.

Besides the fact this comment is entirely wrong why not provide some evidence "more reports" existed.

Assuming the demonstration at Tule Lake actually occurred as you claim, it seems understandable given the outrageousness of citizens being interned simply for being of Japanese ancestry. Rage in such a circumstance is very reasonable. If your country treats you as a foreigner and a criminal, what the hell? Others reacted by joining the US Army.

Assuming? That's laughable! Check out these pics! What do you think Tule Lake Segregation Center existed in the first place? [4]

As for the canard that their treatment was justification for being traitors, that didn't make them any less of the threat, did it? --History Student (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Because the virulent form of racism against the Japanese and Asians preceding the war was generally mostly in the far west. Hawaii was exceptional, and sure enough, no Japanese Americans there were interned just for being of Japanese ancestry. Tmangray (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
That explains the evacuation of Japense nationals, not US citizens. Tmangray (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The same exact thing occurred with the internment of the US citizens of Japanese ancestry. Intense lobbying by virulent racists such as the general quoted in the article created political pressure to deny civil rights to US citizens without due process. Tmangray (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Some folks are still flogging the dead horse that the U.S. Government was in the right to imprison anyone who was of Japanese extraction. The following is "original research" and also unverified, but food for thought as to the real motivation for the internment... a note from my Oregon-native father from some years ago: "A few miles north of Salem, Oregon, there is a former lake bed that is quite fertile. This area, Lake Labish, was farmed successfully by Japanese-Americans, most of whom had been there for many years. Some from the younger generations were students at Willamette University. I knew several of them. The Japanese-Americans were all "relocated" to concentration camps in western deserts. Their Oregon farmland was effectively stolen from them. One state senator in the area got most of the Lake Labish land. Some years alter, this senator died of a slow and painful cancer illness. My father's comment was 'Perhaps there is justice after all.'" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey baseball bugs, maybe you're familiar with this story.

We lived in a cluster of homes five miles north of Salem, Oregon in a rural area called Hayesville. Ron ** and his family lived across the road from us, a road called Milton road. He moved into the neighborhood in the 1930s. Hayesville was very near the main railroad line between San Diego and Seattle.

Lake Labish is located about five miles north of Hayesville. Mr. ** told me that shortly after the war started, an Army officer came to his home to ask a favor. The government was picking up radio signals from the Lake Labish area after trains passed through. The officer said they did not have the man power to investigate where the radio signals were coming from. He ask Mr. ** if he would assemble some people to go to the Japanese village in Lake Labish at night and watch for any strange activity when trains passed though.

Mr. ** said that he got some of his neighbors: Mr. **, Mr. **, and Mr. ** (all men we knew when we were kids), they went to Lake Labish, found a spot in the fir trees over looking the Japanese village, and began to watch.

After a train passed though an old Japanese man came out from one of the small houses, went to a well, pulled up a package from the well, and took it back to his cabin. Mr. ** reported the incident to the officer in Salem. Some time later the officer came back to Mr. **'s house and told him that the Army found a radio tied to a rope in the well. The Army suspected that the old Japanese man was transmitting information about the trains to a submarine.

P.S. baseball bugs, the government didn't confiscate any Japanese owned land. In fact, a federal Alien Custodian of Property was put into place to ensure alien property was protected. This was a top priority before the evacuation even occured.

As for your "concentration camp" comment, at no point was the government interested in "locking up" the evacuated Japanese. From the beginning if the evacuation should occur the plan was to relocate them to areas in the interior with suitable farmland where the majority being in agriculture could continue producing for the war effort. From the begining religious, social service and even the JACL demanded that if the evacuation should occur the Japanese shouldn't just be "kicked out" of the combat zones.

The government should be responsible for feeding, housing, providing employment and medical care for the evacuated people - and assiting them in re-establishing themselves in the interior - in as humane an environment as could be provided. That is just what the government did with the Relocation Centers.--History Student (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Because the virulent form of racism against the Japanese and Asians preceding the war was generally mostly in the far west. Hawaii was exceptional, and sure enough, no Japanese Americans there were interned just for being of Japanese ancestry.

According to the 1940 census, ethnic Japanese made up 40% of the population of Hawaii. In California, the population was 1.6%. Military authorities had considered moving all ethnic Japanese to Molokai or the West Coast but moving 40% of the population was logistically and indeed financially impossible. That said, there was an internment camp in Hawaii at Sand Harbor. More importantly, Hawaii was under military martial law at the time.

If the the authorities could have evacuated all ethnic Japanese from Hawaii they would have. They could not so they did not.

As an aside, Japan had a battle plan in place for the invasion of Hawaii that intended to utilize ethnic Japanese during the occupation. The plan was scrapped after Japan's defeat at Midway. --History Student (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That explains the evacuation of Japense nationals, not US citizens.

The vast majority of evacuated Japanese-Americans (U.S. citizens) were children at the time. Their average age was only 15 years. In addition, over 90% of Japanese-Americans over age 17 were also citizens of Japan (dual citizens)under Japanese law. Thousands had been educated in Japan. Some having returned to the U.S. holding reserve rank in the Japanese armed forces.--History Student (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The same exact thing occurred with the internment of the US citizens of Japanese ancestry. Intense lobbying by virulent racists such as the general quoted in the article created political pressure to deny civil rights to US citizens without due process.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. DeWitt was no racist. He was an honorable man with a tuff job who has been vilified by the Japanese American Reperations Movement in an attempt to cover up their own unsavory conduct before and during the war.

As Conn clearly shows, 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.

And as I said above that you obviously ignored, a military comabat zone during wartime doesn't abide by the same rules as peacetime civil society so your comments regarding civil rights and due process are moot.--History Student (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What I gather from your various stories is that since they couldn't figure out which Japanese natives and Japanese-Americans were OK and which were enemies, they had to lock them all up, "for their own protection", of course. And white Americans who stole their property were simply getting "the spoils of war", and that's show biz. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually ethnic Japanese were evacuated from the combat zones because plenty of evidence existed that many were assisting the enemy and were a security threat. The government didn't know who they all were and time was of the essence so the military made the right decision and evacuated all of them. Hey, war is hell.

From the outset the WRA's principal objective was to resettle evacuees and get them out of the camps as soon as possible for locations anywhere in the U.S. but in the military zones from which they had been evacuated. Anyone (alien or citizen)could apply to leave the relocation centers and would be approved if he or she met the following criteria: (1) had a job offer or other means of support waiting on the outside, (2) agreed to keep the WRA informed of any changes of jobs or addresses, (3)had a clean record both at the center and with the FBI as well as no record of disloyalty to the U.S. with a military intelligence agency, and (4)there existed reasonable evidence that the person's presence would be acceptable to the community in which he proposed to make his or her new home.

Ironically, the announcement of the resettlement program in September of 1942 brought howls of protest from the evacuees "who saw it as an attempt on the part of the government to evade responsibility of caring for them by turning them into a hostile Caucasian world." ["Democracy on Trial,"-Page Smith, award-winning historian and professor at UC/Santa Cruz.]

The WRA persisted in encouraging (practically begging) the evacuees to apply to leave the centers. Counselers were dispatched to assure them of good treatment on the outside, monetary incentives to leave were offered, WRA resettlement field offices were set up in Chicago, Cleveland, Minneapolis, Des Moines, Milwaukee, New York, and other cities to pave the way for employment of the evacuees. But still many evacuees, particularly the Issei, resisted leaving the camps. In a letter dated February 10, 1981(a copy of which I have), former WRA head,Dillon Myer, responded to a researcher's question in the following words: "The WRA did its very best to get people to leave the camps, and of course many thousands did leave...but many of the older aliens refused to leave... because they felt more secure in the camps."

So, the government didn't "lock them all up", but the government evacuated all of them from the military combat zones because it was known that many within the community were a threat and they had to get off the coast combat zones immediately.

If people who lost land or belongings got shafted by unscrupulous people, it wasn't the U.S. government.

In early March of 1942 the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco was given responsibility for handling evacuee property. On March 11 of that year "an Alien Property Custodian was appointed ...and on March 15 the Farm Security Administration assumed responsibility for assisting with (evacuee) farm problems." [Personal Justice Denied" Report of The Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians.]

Of course in the fog of war losses occurred in some cases and that's why the Evacuation Claims Act was passed when the war was over. Those that had losses could have filed claims under he 1948 Evacation Claims Act which was amended several times throughout the 1950s. Claims up to $100,000 were eligible for hearings and when all was concluded there were only 15 appeals to the settlements offered by the government out of more than 26,000 claims filed. How much fairer could that have been?

Did other Americans who lost everything as a result of the war get such a deal?

No other group in the United States got that kind of special treatment for war losses, and there were plenty of losses other than those by the Japanese.--History Student (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Which other group lost everything solely because the government decided that all members of their racial group were to be imprisoned? Seems to me that the "special treatment" box was opened by FDR -- an action which you have repeatedly supported.
I notice you're tossing out that old canard again, about the Issei being "enemy aliens" because they weren't US citizens. There is something rather hypocritical when you condemn people for not becoming citizens, when you know that they were prevented from becoming citizens. 208.110.159.78 (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And why were they prevented from becoming citizens? Because Japan sent Japanese nationals overseas in droves, including to the United States in violation of the First and Second Gentlmen's Agreements, a treaty between Japan and the United States that Japan openly and willfully ignored. The issei were illegal aliens. The United States government then gave them permanent resident status (even though they were illegal aliens)and after Pearl Harbor their status changed to enemy aliens.

According to the U.S.Census, in 1940 there were approx 84,000 Issei in the U.S. and Hawaii, the bulk of them were under 50 years of age. By 1960 there were approx 101,000, no doubt including some war brides. According to INS publication "Persons Naturalized by Former Allegiance" only 32,168 Japanese-born became naturalized U.S.citizens between 1952-1960. That's only 32%. To suggest that issei were falling over themselves to become American citizens is a myth.

As for old canards, all ethnic Japanese in America didn't "lose everything" and they weren't "imprisoned". --History Student (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Question for you History Student. If the Japanese Americans were placed in the internment camps due to "plenty of evidence... that many were assisting the enemy..." how come no Japanese American was ever convicted of espionage on American soil? In addition to this, why would there be a need to imprison Japanese Americans who had as little as 1/16th Japanese blood? In other words, my grandchildren would be put in an internment camp if it happened today. Is that fair? it's been almost 100 years since ancestors of mine lived in America.

My grandmother was born on US soil to fully blooded Japanese immigrants who had their citizenship when the internment camps started went to Poston, AZ. There were guards with guns, there were barbed wire fences. To deny these facts is simply ludicrous. They were provided ramshackle housing and had to make their own furniture out of scrap lumber. The holes in the walls had to be fixed and the drafts plugged up to stop the scorpions from getting inside, and to prevent too large of a buildup of sand after the sand storms. [1] The US government wronged an entire race, and your twisting of facts, and blatant bigotism absolutely astounds me. 69.92.233.142 (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note the sentence at the top of this page that states "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." Those editors who are working to improve the article would certainly pray for your adherence to this notice. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that the comment is pertinent, considering HS' statement that "they weren't 'imprisoned'" and his consistent and extreme defense of the internment, often at the expense of honesty and truth. He has claimed that there were no fences or guard towers at the camps, that guards weren't armed, that people could easily leave the camps, and other things which are known to be incorrect. He holds up one statement (out of context) as proof of his position, then condemns other statements by the same person as being "political correctness." He points to the Niihau incident as proof that all Nikkei were a threat and needed to be interned, while ignoring the fact that 160,000 other Nikkei in Hawaii (including Japanese natives) never were involved in anti-American activity, despite not being interned.
History Student reminds me of Baghdad Bob, and if a Japanese American walked to Alameda from a boat in the middle of San Francisco Bay, I would expect HS to use that as "proof" that Nikkei can't swim. Critic-at-Arms (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Navbox

Hi. I was over editing at Heart Mountain War Relocation Center, and it occurred to me that a navbox template might be nice. Here's a shot at what I came up with: User:CosmicPenguin/Sandbox/IntermentTemplate. Suggestions and flames welcome. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 04:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

this was real bad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.157.19 (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved paragraph / essay

The following was posted on the main page - I moved it here since it seems to be mainly redundant, but it may contain useful information (properly sourced, of course):

The Japanese Internment took place between the years of 1941 and 1949. At the time most of the Japanese population was concentrated in the United States on the West Coast of Canada. The Japanese first immigrated to U.S. to work on the railroad in 1900. By 1921 the Japanese population numbered nearly 16,000 people and had possessed nearly half of the fishing licenses in the United States and British Columbia. In 1941, 23,000 Japanese were living throughout the U.S. and Canada. On December 7, 1941 Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. After the attack, their government took all Japanese owned boats, radios, and cameras. After the public pressured the government, and they took action and the government moved all Japanese from a 100-mile wide security strip along the U.S and British Columbia coast. Later, the government gave a further statement that declared that all people of Japanese origin were considered aliens until the end of World War II. In the first year of the war, the 21,000 Japanese who were affected by the war regulations, were sent to various states across the U.S. The government assured the states that the Japanese would stay in agriculture and would be removed after the war, at the state’s request. The remaining 12,000 Japanese were taken to Interior Housing Centers in the middle of the western part of the U.S. These housing centers consisted of four abandoned mining towns and two completely new communities. During the internment the U.S. Government claimed all the Japanese's land and possessions and sold them for a factor of the original cost. A good example of the Government's discrimination towards the Japanese is when the Government sold most of the Japanese owned property and land, without the Japanese's consent. Although Japan was one of the countries opposing the Allied powers, the Japanese were the only race that was interned. The internment was an act of discrimination, because the Italians and the Germans as well as the Austrians were pretty much left alone. At the same time as 12,000 Japanese were being placed in abandoned mining towns and later deported, Austrians, Italians, and Germans were walking freely around the United States with out being asked for much more than identification. Another strong argument raised by the Japanese Internment is why the U.S. Government Interned the Japanese Americans. Other people support this opinion, but think that the Germans, Austrians, and Italians should have been treated the same way. A different opinion is that the internment shouldn't have happened at all, and that the Japanese were discriminated against throughout the war. For example, in 1907, the Government had restricted the number of Japanese immigrants to a mere 400 a year. Many people believe that the Japanese skin color was a factor in the internment. During the war German, Italian, and Austrian Americans were left alone, while the Japanese were sent to prison Camps, and abandoned mining towns to live in, and being deported back to Japan for no reason, other that their home land was waging war against the Allied powers. Japan was one of the Axis powers, but it was not the only one. Three other countries were aiding them in the war and none of their U.S. citizens were bothered, interned, or deported. Many people believe that the U.S. Government treated the Japanese badly because of their skin color and ethnic origin. In conclusion, a majority of people feels that the Government acted upon the Japanese Americans unfairly using segregation, discrimination and prejudice, to separate them from the rest of Canada. Many people have observed that even before the war, the Government treated the Japanese unfairly, by not granting them citizenship even tough they were born there. This is only one side of the story and only one of the many positions that should be looked upon. Many other sides, perspectives, and aspects should also be looked at before making judgment on what happened, how it happened and why the Japanese Internment happened. The U.S. Government might have acted fairly upon the Japanese considering the situation, but as said before there are many other sides, perspectives and aspects to the Japanese Internment. This situation has been discussed in the past and will continue to be talked about in the future. The Japanese Internment is a big part of the United States past, and history and will remain like that forever. Mujahaden Williams

This is about as accurate as one of History Student's diatribes -- which is to say, there is so little actual truth in there as to make it worthless. Critic-at-Arms (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Ha! Is that the best rebuttal you can provide? Give it up! --History Student (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"There are several informal ways to de-escalate conflicts and defuse disputes. Wikipedia collaboration occurs between geographically isolated people in cyberspace. Nonetheless, sometimes editors get angry and feel a natural urge to fire off an immediate retort. The urge is accompanied by a rapid heart rate, dilated pupils, and other physiological changes associated with the body's release of adrenaline (epinephrine). This is part of the fight-or-flight response. It may have helped early humans to escape from angry mastodons, but it isn't constructive at an online encyclopedia." There's more at WP:NAM (and some good pix of what mastodons may have looked like). Cheers and good vibes to all! Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Obviously this is what happened to HS, above, who didn't even notice that I was condemning a large passage which opposed his position. Inaccuracy on either side is unacceptable. Critic-at-Arms (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assembly Centers list

I have added information on how the internees were housed at the centers, and removed several erroneous references (which were actually places mentioned in photo captions as points where they boarded buses to go to the assembly centers).

I also added Owens Valley, CA and Parker Dam, AZ. No more exact location was noted in the NPS list. Critic-at-Arms (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] former Japanese spies apply for pensions

While researching the subject of Japanese epionage many years ago I came across a article about former japanese spies who were in the the U.S. and Hawaii during the war and were returned to Japan after the war applying for pensions from the Japanese government. Does anybody know anything about this? There were also spies in South and central American countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard Freeman (talk • contribs) 23:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] making it clear that most were children

About 3/5 to 2/3 of those interned/relocated were children brought along with their parents on the recomendation of social workers to prevent the breaking up of families and leaving them without a means of support. Among these children were almost all of the U.S. citizens. I do not believe this is made clear in your article. signing for this and previous post concerning pensions for spies I do not have tildes on my keyboard ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard Freeman (talk • contribs) 23:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, no part of your claim is true. That's why it isn't "made clear" in the article. 166.70.191.224 (talk) 04:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two sides

When people discuss this issue there are usually two sides. One side supports the claim of some Japanese Americans that this was a horrible evil crime against japanese Americans and was not necessary. They try to point out racist motivation and the desire of some to steal the property of Japanese Americans. They try to make it worse than it actually was.

The other side tries to point out that it was necessary in order to prevent espionage and sabotage in support of Japan. They try to show that it was not as bad as some say it was and that it was a necessary part of the war effort. If one stands on pure principle then the former group is correct however we were at war.

I think the question here is, was the supreme court correct when it ruled that the internment/relocation was a war time necessity.

Can a persons liberty be restrained in war? I believe about 11 million men were drafted. They were almost entirely adult males. This should answer the question. Certainly when drafted ones liberty is restricted and a large number of these men were put in harms way and were forced to endure horrible conditions and many died as a result of being drafted. The draft was a much greater evil than the internment/ relocation. Just the numbers establish this. Those drafted lost jobs, businesses and property same as the Japanese Americans.

The answer is simple ,in the time of war sometimes it is necessary to force people to do what is necessary to perserve the country. Remember the draft was enacted before we actually entered the war. Our leaders thought it necessary to prepare for the worst. War was a possibility and our government acted. Invasion of the west coast,espionage and sabotage were also a possibility and our government acted. The draft wasn,t perfect many got out of serving. The internment/relocation wasn't perfect either. The only excuse we can offer is that we were not prepared, we were caught by suprise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard Freeman (talk • contribs) 22:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A few things for those who disagree with Roosevelts decision and the U.S. governments actions to think about, but first ask them to put themselves in the place of a soldier,sailor or marine leaving a West coast port to fight in the Pacific. Would you have the guts to embark on a troop ship from LA harbor if you knew what our leaders knew: They knew that just before the war the Japanese consulate had passed out radios capable of communicating with japanese submarines patroling off our west coast. That 9 japanese submarines were in the area. That the mexican navy had reported japanese submarines meeting with fishing boats. The brodcasts were monitored coming from the large Japanese community on Terminal island in LA harbor. That a Japanese Submarine had surfaced and shelled the oil refinery south of LA with its deck gun. That German submarines had crossed the alantic and were conducting a very successful attack on our East coast.(which was a greater setback to our war effort than Pearl harbor that resulted in the sinking of 320 ships in american waters.) That being confined to the hold when a troop ship is torpedoed is a horrible way to die trapped in a dark hold with hundreds of others as the ship sinks. Just one man with a radio behind enemy lines can sink allot of ships as the austrailian coast watchers proved. Roosevelt had a obligation to those millions of men drafted. T--Howard Freeman (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)o win the war as quickly and return them to a life of freedom with as few deaths as possible.

I think you have some good points to make; my feeling is that is a bit biased but I haven't taken time to really look at it in detail. And I also tend to view the internments in the light of the draft at the time. Perhaps the internments were a mistake, they undoubtedly caused hardship, and there was probably some racial motivation to them, but considering the crisis facing the country and the relatively good and safe conditions of the camps, it wasn't the horrible evil crime it's usually portrayed as. However the arguments you make aren't really specific enough to be helpful for editing the article, nor are they backed up with verifiable sources. You obviously have strong interest in the subject so instead of posting arguments here, why not take the time to go through the actual article and find specific instances of wording that are biased or selective use of facts that leads to bias. When you find them you can either correct them directly (with the risk that someone will revert your modification) or bring them up for discussion here. But the suggested changes need to be specific.
For what you posted above to be included in the article, you'll need to make changes so that you're not guilty of original research. In particular, you'll need to find a credible or notable source that has made those arguments. You'll also want to provide some verifiable sources for the facts you present. (Did a Japanese submarine really shell an oil refinery in California?).
Right now you can get the impression from reading the article that the camps were the product of unmitigated racism. But the article wouldn't be complete without statements by wartime leaders explaining the need for the camps, now would it be complete without reporting the 1980 congressional investigation findings. Were there other explanations equally notable and verifiable? Please provide them. Readin (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
My IQ dropped 6 poins after reading this.98.199.206.122 (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeLouis (talk • contribs)

I am having trouble understanding how this works. After reading the article I would like to make a few talking points. So I hope this is the right way. Many make charges of racism when dicussing this issue however one must remember that the U.S.was helping China and the Chinese are of the same race as the Japanese. It is more a issue of country of origin. Are the terms country of origin and ethnicity the same? Someone also posted saying that there were no convictions of japanese for spying without considering the fact that the internment/relocation might have prevented such actions. Perhaps it worked. Another point I would like to make is that ethnic Germans helped the German army when they invaded the low countries and Norway and ethnic Japanese helped the Japanese army when it invaded the Philipines and Solomon islands. For the Japanese their nationality and religion are linked ,the emperor was seen as a God like figure. This would make it especially hard for them to give up their country and religion at the same time. The idea that all Japanese living in the U.S. gave up all loyality to Japan and the emperor on Dec.7 1941 is impossible to believe. There would almost certainly would have been espionage and perhaps sabotage if not for the internment and relocation. The justice department had only a few Japanese speaking people and did not have capability of investigating and tracking down security risks and the U.S. had a war to win, that at the time wasn't going all that well. Is war a just excuse for cutting back on civil rights? internment/relocation.

Comments on article: Since this site is said to be a encyclopedia it is important to be fair as young students who have not yet formed a opinion on this issuse may come here for information. Yet in the very first sentence you shade the issue in a way that puts the U.S. in a bad light. That is stating that 62% were american citizens without including the percentage that were children and why they were taken along. Almost all the U.S. citizens were children. Now a young student may understand why citizens of Japan were interned as enemy aliens but May see the internment of U.S.citizens as a bad thing. Internment of enemy aliens was common practice for all countries at war. Canada did it but did not take the entire families and thoes taken were subjected to very cold and harsh treatment. WE took the families on the advice of social workers to avoid breaking them up and leaving them without support. No good deed goes unpunished.

There are many other areas in the article that have a similar leaning. I hope they will be corrected. --Howard Freeman (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC) always remember to get another source if your doing a project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.13.253 (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


there seems to be allot of applying todays conditions and thinking to the time of the internment/relocation. For example some have posted about the poor living conditions at the camps. They seem to think they were so horrible. I grew up in rural america at that time and remember it very well. We had an out house for many years after the war. We had well water that was pumped at the kitchen sink and horse drawn wagons. Many homes did not have electricity. Apartment buildings often had only one bathroom per floor that all shared. The idea that every child should have their own bedroom was unheard of much less their own bathroom. The young people of today would have been considered wealthy. If the living conditions at the camps seem horrible to you they do not seem all that bad to me. From what I have read they were better than many americans had at the time. Remember the depression? All the japanese interned/relocated were not rich property owners. Most were poor did not speak english and lived in slum fishing communities. A pre war survey showed more than 100 people using one toilet. Terminal island in LA harbor had a large Japanese shanty town community with open sewers. Once relocated many older Japanese did not want to leave the camps perhaps life was better. inside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard Freeman (talk • contribs) 16:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you need to figure out how to post properly. For starters, put your stuff at the bottom of the page, don't indent your paragraphs, and put four tildas at then end of your post. Readin (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out in previous posts I feel the article is bias in favor of the Japanese/japanese Americans point of view from the very first lines. ( 62% said to be American citizens with no mention of the % of children who were citizens by being born in the U.S. ) I do not want to edit the article myself and mention this in hope that someone more skilled than I in this sort of thing will correct this. I study WW II in total but in my extensive reading I have read quite a bit about the internment relocation and found most of it favored the Japanese side. In our small rural library we have a book called Americas Concentration Camps.( can't remember author )inside it is stamped " provided by japanese American Citizens League of San Francisco" It is a extremely one sided attack on the U.S. and President Roosevelt. They use denial and withholding facts that do not support their position. They Apply todays conditions , definitions, legal decisions and morality to wartime 1941. They take statment and actions of individuals, newspapers etc. and indicate they were government policy. One horrible distortion after another. Most of what I post is common knowledge however I am elderly and diabled and it is difficult for me to get out, so if there is anybody out there interested please help by providing sources. I also must share this computer with others so --Howard Freeman (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not bias on this supject. Just correcting some revisionist new false history that is slanted in vavor of the Japanese /Japanese American side. I feel that many see the Japanese as a minority group and therefore nothing bad can be said about them even if it is true and this has given them the opportunity to rewrite history in their favor. I am for correct history with all the facts on the table.--Howard Freeman (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


Sorry, Howard, but your information is largely false. Let's start with your claim that the children were interned "on the advice of social workers" -- actually, they were interned because the stated, written policy was to round up everyone with "one drop of Japanese blood." This included orphaned infants and children in non-Japanese foster homes. There were no "social workers" involved in the process, and in fact even the ACLU signed off on the internment.
Second, you're wrong when you say that "almost all the U.S.citizens were children." A large percentage of Nisei (American-born, thus US citizens) were young adults, and many of these had their own "Sansei" children. There were even a few ADULTS who were Sansei (American-born with American-born parents).
The "Japanese radio broadcasts from Terminal Island" bit was found to be as false as the "arrows cut in canefields" bit following the December 7th attack. The only spy broadcasts from US territory came from Germans -- yet there was no suggestion made to round up all persons of German ancestry.
Yes, dying in the hold of a troop ship is a horrible way to die. So is being shot by your own governnment, a fate which befell several people in the camps. It's horrible to die because you were taken out of a hospital immediately after surgery and sent to live in a horse stable -- this happened to several people too. It's horrible to have your family taken out of Los Angeles and sent to a prison camp in a swamp, then watch your 16-year-old daughter die there . . .her only "crime" being that she had Japanese grandparents!
As far as living conditions in the camps, you simply have no idea what you are talking about. There is no comparison to your rural childhood, unless you grew up in a tarpaper shack, had to eat in a mess hall, weren't allowed to own a radio or camera, and were subject to being SHOT if you came close to the barbed wire fence surrounding your home. Can you blame the people who lived under these conditions for being something less than enthusiastic about this?
And it is true that most of the Japanese Americans were not rich, but what does that have to do with it? Does that make it any more right for the government to force them out of their homes and jobs, with nothing more than they can carry?
You most certainly ARE biased on the subject, or you wouldn't believe the things behind some of your comments. The only "revisionism" has been a constant attempt to prove the internment justified, to back up Karl Bendetsen's absurd statement that the complete lack of sabotage was "a disturbing and confirming indication that such action will be taken." 166.70.191.224 (talk) 04:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Radio messages from the japanese community on terminal island, arrows cut in the crop fields pointing toward Pearl harbor, that sounds as fantastic as sheets in patterns hung on the close line of a Honolulo beach front home indicating what ships were in pearl harbor, except that the sheets on the line thing was testified to in a post war interview given by Takeo Yoshikawa the great Japanese spy. Isnt is the nature of spies to strive to go undected ? The Japanese are more open about there spying then the Americans who defend them. Even Japanese Americans were more open about it prior to the 1960's, your reference list should include older publications.--76.5.31.20 (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This talk page is only for discussion of improvements to this article. It does not exsit to discuss Japanese American internment. There are doubtless other forums where such discussions can take place. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

fubgfgggvgyviygvy hhgbhu hboubo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.169.149.42 (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In my posts I have made several suggestions on how to improve the article and why it should be changed. I sign my own name and stand behind all I have posted. I have lived through it. I suggest others try researching espionage not the internment/relocation if you want the true story of Japanese spying. Also read older puplications written before the revisionists and political correctness. Also research living conditions back then. You will be suprised how much thing have improved in just 65 years. so long.--76.5.31.20 (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] japanese internment

There is a discrepancy regarding the number of Japanese Americans interned. The Japanese American internment article states that 110,000 were relocated and the article on Executive Order 9066 says 920,000. 66.118.223.37 (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The 920,000 figure was vandalism. Thanks for pointing it out. howcheng {chat} 21:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Improperly categorized

JCDenton2052 has improperly categorized this as a "War crime", notwithstanding the fact that it does not match the guidelines for the related topic. Looks like excessive POV-editing, which is not helped by his frequent edits of user pages accusing other editors of vandalism. Tedickey (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Your claim that I frequently edit user pages accusing others of vandalism is not supported by reality. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories Human rights abuses and war crimes

There are several sources that indicate the internment of Japanese Americans was a violation of human rights. For example, in 1979, Mike Lowry (D-WA) introduced the Japanese American Human Rights Violation Redress Act (H.R. 5977) that would eventually lead to the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians.[2] Other sources also label it a human rights violation.[3] As for war crimes, see the Fourth Geneva Convention.

"Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria."[4] (bold mine). JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid not - you're taking pieces of sentences out of context, providing a meaning which is not found in the "cited" text. Please stick to facts, leave your opinion out of the discussion. Tedickey (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
GCIV is in the context of an international conflict, which World War II was. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Came here fro mthe AN/I thread. I'm convinced by JCDenton's citations that the Nissei camps were Human Rights Violations. He hasn't supported the War Crimes category yet though. ThuranX (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree on that (given the qualification that the Human Rights Violations are subject to modern-day guidelines - it's more debatable in terms of guidelines at the time) Tedickey (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, what if we agree to categorize this in human rights abuses but drop war crimes? JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
That (war crimes) was what I was objecting to. Tedickey (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
An interesting question. Look at the factors involved. 1), the United States, a signatory of the Geneva Conventions, was in a state of declared war against a hostile enemy. 2), noncombatant, civilian nationals of that enemy were resident in the United States. 3), those nationals, their children and grandchildren were interned on the basis of ancestry (race) rather than on the basis of actual nationality, citizenship status, nor individual action in support of enemies of the United States. That looks to me like a completion under the law of violation of the Convention -- thus, war crimes.
If you look at the Wikipedia section on GCIV, you find prohibitions against causing physical suffering (I think shipping them off to tarpaper shacks in deserts and blizzards would qualify) and punishment for crimes not committed by the punished (incarceration of the wives of men arrested on suspicion of anti-American activity, for instance).
The only question is whether we can consider it a war crime based on a protocol which was not signed until after the end of the internment. The precedent here is that various National Socialists, mostly members of the German government, were tried and even executed for war crimes which GCIV was written to outlaw. The legal justification for those convictions is that, while not specifically codified at the time of the crime, the nature of the offense was such as to clearly be criminal to a neutral, prudent and reasonable person. Again, the internment seems to meet this criteria, and in fact the US government specifically admitted that this was true in the finding that reparations for camp survivors was appropriate.
Given all of the above, and as much as it pains me to say so, I have to conclude that my country did, in fact, commit war crimes against the Issei.
It would have been different, if it had been simple exclusion. However, DeWitt and Bendetsen imposed a prohibition on travel, keeping the Nikkei from leaving the exclusion zones, then incarcerated them in camps which were mostly outside of the exclusion zones. Critic-at-Arms (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
People, it is not up to Wikipedia to decide whether these were war crimes and/or human rights violations. At this point, categorization of this article into either of those categories is premature, since there is no discussion of this in the article itself. Find external sources which classify the internment as a human rights violation and mention it in the article, then apply the category. howcheng {chat} 23:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
"Reliable" sources, of course (for any political topic it's trivial to shop around for supporting opinions). Tedickey (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] glossing over the threat

the section about niihau and the tachibana spy ring are very short in comparison to the "rebuttals". pretty unbalanced! japanese-americans were machine gunning other americans and we're supposed to believe there was no threat at all? and the "threat/rebuttal" section fails to mention the 5000+ camp residents at tule lake that pledged allegience to the emperor, and all in all the camps are presented as awful. camps had ice cream, beauty salons, movie nights, you could have visitors and could even leave the camp if you had a sponsor. also the fact that only west-coasters (and < 1% of hawaiin japanese) were relocated is consistently removed from the intro. japanese elsewhere were not relocated and the VAST majority of the relocatees were japanese citizens or their young children.

the whole episode was a great injustice, but that's war for you. millions died in WWII, its important to keep that in perspective compared to the relocations and not compare the camps to non-wartime life. and remember that this took place in the 40s, though the camps may seem beat up, most construction in the 40s was very low quality compared to today.

a little about the spies http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/politics/pearl-harbor-day-2757.html

71.112.10.248 (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would love to see more on the nature of the camps and available facilities, or on the Tule Lake incident which is indeed included but which you seem not to understand. Really though, your edits are very imbalanced and look more like you've got a passionate interest in minimizing or excusing the internment (not relocation, internment).
We work towards neutrality at Wikipedia, not agenda. If you're going to labor to excuse or justify the internment of Japanese Americans, I think you may want to take your interest in the subject elsewhere. It's pretty apparent what you're trying to do, when you change the "1200 to 1800 interned" to "less than 1% interned". This is not constructive.
Also note that citations are not just adornment, they exist as sourcing for facts; so when you change the facts and leave the sourcing, you're misrepresenting the source. DBaba (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Please do not make this personal Daba. You are reverting wholesale without working to improve the article through consensus. 1200 out of 150,000 is less than 1%. If it was 1800 I apologize and I've changed it to less than 2%. A percentage is far easier to understand than two numbers that readers have to mentally compare in the intro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.10.248 (talk) 05:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Baba says Wikipedia works towards neutrality, then in the same sentence he says anyone who believes the ethnic Japanese were actually a threat to the West Coast (which they were) should go elsewhere. Talk about an agenda! The internment was not the evacuation/relocation either. Where are you getting your facts, Baba? --History Student (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

For the anon at 71.112, I disagree that a percentage is easier to understand. By using a percentage of 1% or 2%, you obscure the reality of just how many people were affected. A percentage would only be useful if the readers already knew just how many ethnic Japanese reside in Hawaii; because this info is largely unknown, to present the data as a percentage may serve as a tricky way of deluding the reader.
"Relocation" is just not an accurate term. They were interned, not merely relocated. Their freedom was clearly infringed upon beyond just being relocated, so I find that term to be misleading.
For History Student, I did not say that people who feel such and such a way should go elsewhere. I said that people who are here for political mischief should go elsewhere. My point was that I'm taking a neutral stance, not the opposite stance. To argue that "the ethnic Japanese were actually a threat", as you are doing, presents the same "POV" problem. Cheers, DBaba (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"Political mischief"? What's that? This isn't supposed to be about about politics but HISTORY, right? Politicians have legislated what Americans are expected to believe through the "Civil Rights Act of 1988". They should spend more time legislating new roads and bridges then telling the American people what to think. After all, they make reasons for political reasons, not historical reasons. This entire episode was a farce.

You're not taking a neutral stance and this article is so POV it's pathetic. How much space is devoted to military necessity for the evacuation as opposed to accusations of "racism, wartime hysteria and lack of political will"? This article is the Cliff Notes version of this history supplied by the Japanese American reperations movement. That's a shame. --History Student (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Having just read the first page of this article it significantly degenerated since the last time I read it. Here are a few facts that should be included. I'd include them myself, but the pro-reperations activists will just delete them.

According to the U.S. Census, Japanese population in the continental United States is as follows:

1880 - 148 1890 - 2,039 1900 - 24,326 1910 - 72,157 1920 - 111,010

However the actual population in 1920 was 150,000 - 100,000 in California and 50,000 in other states.

The Second Gentleman's Agreement stated that if Japan continued to violate the agreement and continue sending illegal aliens to the United States, the agreement would be replaced with an exclusion law. Japan did continue to violate the agreement and the exclusion law was enacted in 1924. Japanese coming to the United States were illegal aliens. Rather than deport them en masse (as Australia did) the Americans were quite lenient in allowing them resident alien status. After war was declared on Japan, resident alien status became enemy alien status. These people weren't "Japanese Americans". They were Japanese living in America. --History Student (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"These Japanese retailers have been the principal outlet for the Japanese wholesalers, since over a period of years it is well-known that the Japanese invariably give business preference to others of their own race."

"In small acreages planted primarily for local markets the Japanese grower has an advantage over the white grower that has pretty well driven the white grower out of small-scale production in many parts of Los Angeles County. These farms will average around ten acres and the Japanese farmer can and does use his wife and children for practically all his labor requirements giving him a production cost substantially below that of a small white farmer."

"I have talked to many many wholesale growers of vegetables for the local market who have either gone out of business in the past ten years or greatly reduced their operations due to Japanese competition of a type with which they could not meet and are willing to to plant increased acreage especially for the local market if they have any assurance they would not have to meet the competition of the Japanese family.

"A comprehensive system of associations set up for these small Japanese farmers has enabled them to regulate market supplies and reduce prices at will, to the point that the competing white farmer has been forced out of production."

-Associated Produce Dealers and Brokers, Homer Harris testifying before the Tolan Commission

Yes there was resentment by some of the Americans and much of this resentment had been festering for decades due to Japanese collusive business practices and the fact Japanese farmers were willing to live like serfs, thus driving down the standard of living for white farmers who were not willing to live like serfs. I don't see this mentioned in the article. --History Student (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's an interesting book I doubt any of you have read. This excerpt is especially revealing. Why not add it to the article?

"Back in Tokyo, Hori concentrated on American strategy in the Pacific. Hori considered the decision by President Franklin Roosevelt to intern Japanese-Americans was a blow to the network that Japanese military attaches in Washington had cultivated. Contrary to the contention that Japanese Americans were all loyal to the United States, Hori says there were some who gathered information for Japan prior to the Pearl Harbor attack. The internment of Japanese Americans thus cut Japanese access to information on American industrial capacity and troop movements, according to Hori."

Eizo Hori, "Dai-honei Sanbo no Joho Senki," (Records of Intelligence War by a Staff Officer at the Imperial General Headquarters), Bunshun Bunko, 1996, 348 pages --History Student (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the paragraph on General DeWitt (the favorite whipping boy of the reperations activists), as Conn clearly shows, 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.

Also, rather than using the "Japs a Jap" comment only, why not use (or at least provide a link) to the entire piece so readers can understand its context? --History Student (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The article says the "internment" SIC was popular among many white farmers, but there is no mention it was also unpopular amongst many white farmers and agribusiness interests. Why not add these quotes from the Tolan COmmission?

"We are alarmed at the attention which is being paid to thoughtless public clamor for the whole evacuation of Japanese aliens and Japanese-American citizens from thier present locations, without due regard being given to the value of thier productive activity where now engaged."

-Lowell Beerry, Best Fertilizer Co.

"The partnership own outright 700 acres of land in Salinas and has approximately 5,000 acres under lese all together in Arizona and California...Unless we use oriental help we cannot farm these lands economically and efficently.

If we are unable to use Japanese in our labor camps, could we be allowed the use of our key Japanese-American formen..."

-T.M. Bunn, Salinas Valley Vegetable Exchange

"This area has been developed by Italian and Japanese gardners, mostly Japanese, especcially brussels sprouts and broccoli. Our company thinks this is the best area in which broccoli can be grown in the United States.And this has been a very successful crop grown by the Japanese, and it would be very hard for us to replace this crop without the help of the Japanese."

-Barclay Henderson, B.E. Maling Inc, Produce Canning and Quick Freezing

"It is the writer's belief that these aliens, supervised as they are by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or as they may be by additional administrative or legislative provisions, are certainly no detriment to the public security when they are digging in the soil in agricultural areas. On the contrary they are producing food, and food is something we need in abundance and without needless interruption."

--Floyd Oles, Washington Produce Shipper's Association

Now I understand these quotes don't fit the racist tone that the Japanese American activists demand, but still facts are facts. The facts are a large percentage of white Americans in the public and private sector opposed evacuation because the Japanese were superior at intensive truck farming and these crops would be needed for the war effort. In the private sector much opposition came from those in the agriculture business, including produce shippers, packing houses, fertilizer companies and white Americans who had leased farmland to the Japanese.

Another agriculture related problem, especially in California is that the predominately Filipino and Mexican field workers refused to work for Japanese farmers and nobody was willing to work their crops. --History Student (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

all looks like good info to me
  • most japanese were illegal immigrants, citizens were unhappy about their wages being lowered by illegals, who used child labor.
  • big business wanted the japanese to continue working, as a source of cheap labor and products.
  • the plan was to forcibly relocate illegal aliens, not citizens. (i'd guess children of illegals would have to go)
  • japanese military utilized japanese population as a spy network, disappointed when they were relocated.
also sounds like there were reparations for real losses in '48, then a couple more rounds later on? what were the later reparations for
daba, i was here a long time ago and thought HS was annoying, but the more i read i realized we've been fed a bill of goods on the "internment". i do feel sorry for the people that went, but the way it is portrayed in this article and the media is incorrect. illegal immigrants getting ice cream and movie night, hair salons, spending time with their families, going on fishing trips, having visitors and the right to leave if they could get a job, well, none of this is reported. you'll also never see images of the tule lake prisoners wearing kamikaze bandanas on TV, only HS finds that stuff. 71.112.10.248 (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Annoying? Me? Well if that's what it takes then good! Nobody cares about this history and they passively read what's in the media (funded mostly by taxpayer dollars courtesy of the Civil Rights Bill of 1988) and they take it as the truth.

To answer your question, the apology and $20,000 was for "violation of civil rights". I lived in Japan in the 1980s when the Americans were running around looking for Japanese who had renounced their citizenship 40 years earlier so they could receive an apology and a check. The Japanese media had a field day! Only in America... --History Student (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

the silence sounds like we've reached a consensus, time to get some real history in this article 71.112.10.248 (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
You certainly shouldn't take my silence as consent. I'm British, so I've no particular horse in this race, but I'm yet to be convinced by the arguments presented by History Student. David Underdown (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
what are you not convinced of in particular? (and why) and btw, i don't have a "horse in this race" other than getting an honest article out there. 71.112.10.248 (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


Yes, well I'm not out to convince those who choose not to be regardless of the evidence presented. --History Student (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is an interesting quote from the Tolan Commission on National Defense Migration made by Representative Carl Curtis of Nebraska March 7, 1942. Why not add it to the article?

Mr. Curtis: May I say something right here. I don't believe anything will be gained by assuming that everyone who has to be evacuated is disloyal. These military decisions must be made upon the basis of the best judgement of those military authorities who are in charge. The rest of us will have to comply. It will be tuff, it will be cruel and there will be hardships.

Sherman had an old idea of what was war, but that was a long time ago and it is old-fashioned. But that is going to fall upon every American.

I live in a little town of 1,700 people. One of the car dealers there sells automobiles. He did sell automobiles, radios, washing machines and tires. His Government at Washington says, "You can't sell any of those things. You can't even buy them.

It so happens that that family has two sons in the armed forces and a third one about to go. Well, now, they are not sitting down at their supper table and talking about their liberties and their precious rights to do business and their precious things being taken away. It is one of those things that all of us are just going to have to take on the chin and like it.

(Rep. Curtis made this comment to Japanese American members of the United Citizens Federation. It is amazing from reading the National Defense Migration testimony that the arguments made by the Japanese American Reperations Movement today is nothing more than the same old positions used by similar groups in 1942. Their positions are no less impressive today.) --History Student (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Under "Internment Ends" (SIC) the follwing line is used: In December 1944 (Ex parte Endo), the Supreme Court ruled the detainment of loyal citizens unconstitutional... This is a half truth.

The decision did not hold that the detention per se was unlawful, but that detention of a concededly loyal citizen was unlawful. After a citizen's loyalty had been affirmatively decided, the citizen could no longer be held.

In other words, under the existing circumstances, detention of persons of questionable loyalty is legal until their loyalty has been determined. Then they can go. As another clarification, the reason Endo was not allowed permanent leave in the first place is because she did not apply for permanent leave.

Incidentally, Endo was moot. The exclusion orders were lifted before the decision was released. The lifting of the orders coupled with 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 paragraph regarding the Endo case needs to be rewritten. --History Student (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

why didn't they want to leave? do you have a quote/link for that? 71.112.10.248 (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


"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...

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.

The WRA persisted in encouraging (practically begging) the evacuees to apply to leave the centers. Counselers were dispatched to assure them of good treatment on the outside, monetary incentives to leave were offered, WRA resettlement field offices were set up in Chicago, Cleveland, Minneapolis, Des Moines, Milwaukee, New York, and other cities to pave the way for employment of the evacuees. But still many evacuees, particularly the Issei, resisted leaving the camps. In a letter dated February 10, 1981 former WRA head,Dillon Myer, responded to a researcher's question in the following words: "The WRA did its very best to get people to leave the camps, and of course many thousands did leave...but many of the older aliens refused to leave... because they felt more secure in the camps." --History Student (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)