Talk:442nd Infantry Regiment (United States)

Model Minority

Considering this part of article:

This anti-Japanese sentiment, and anti-Asian sentiment in general, persisted through the 1950s. It faded in the 1960s as the model minority stereotype came into prominence in the United States.

Living through the 1960's, 1970s, and 1980s in the midwest and as the child of WW II era parents, I question how much the sentiment ever faded. To the extent it has faded at all I believe it is more a product of aging (those with the strongest sentiment dying out, and being replaced by youth). I think there should be some more discussion of this hypothesis.--Pmeisel 02:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Consider how much anti-Japanese sentiment there was in the 80s. The statement is an erroneous simplification. -- Jun-Dai 21:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

how about this as an alternative phrasing: This anti-Japanese sentiment, and anti-Asian sentiment in general, persisted through the 1950s. As the model minority {stereotype, view} of Asians came into prominence, starting in the 1960s, this has generally lessoned. -- Thunderbolt16 02:49, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest Anti-Japanese sentiment remained strong throughout the 1950s and early 1960s. As with most ethnic prejudices it has faded somewhat in recent decades but still remains in some areas and groups. This is more consistent with my observations and experience. I recall for instance that when Honda built facilities in central Ohio during the late 1980s and early 1990s that not only were Japanese not welcome in many places, but that some construction workers refused to work on their jobs. I think anti-Japanese prejudice among unionized autoworkers, surviving WW II vets, and many of their children remains strong today.--Pmeisel 14:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think we're getting closer to a good phrasing here. I think it's drastically wrong to say it the way it is quoted initially above — faded as the model minority stereotype came into prominence — because I don't think those two trends are explicitly linked. Nor is a broader discussion of anti-Asian prejudice appropriate here (e.g. the anger representing insecurity of autoworkers). That said, I think the model minority discussion is somehow pertinent to the 442nd. Try: Anti-Japanese sentiment remained strong into the 1960s, but faded along with other once-common prejudices, even while remaining strong in certain circles. Converseley, the story of the 442nd provided a leading example of what was to become the controversial model minority stereotype. Anybody like that (or parts)? --Dhartung | Talk 06:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that is an improvement and would support that change. Pmeisel 20:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Prominent Members

Should Eni Fa'aua'a Hunkin Faleomavaega, Jr. be included under prominent members? According to his House Democrats . gov profile he was a member of the 100 Battalion 442nd Infantry Reserve Unit, Ft. DeRussy, Hawaii (1982-1989). — J3ff 10:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why not, although it would be worth making the distinction between members during WWII and members afterwards. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't see this as "notable" service. The WWII vets should be listed, of course. --Dhartung | Talk 22:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Casualty rate

In point of fact, a casualty rate of 314% is not impossible, since that represents killed and wounded, of which some of the latter would return to action, while others would be replaced. That said, there is a controversy over these figures -- not just the 314% combat casualty rate, but also the 9,486 Purple Heart total on which it is based (9000 purple hearts for 3000 original soldiers = 300% -- but you can get a purple heart and not be counted as a casualty, viz. the controversy over John Kerry's field wounds). The formal casualty rate seems to be closer to 98% instead (3285 KIA/WIA vs. 3500 men originally fielded). See [1]. There are two things we should address, then -- the actual numbers need to be corrected, and the controversy needs to be mentioned. The link I've given shows the numbers for the casaulty rate, but the Purple Heart question may take some offline research; all I can find online is basically unattributed recirculation of the 9,486 number. The critics of the Smithsonian exhibit claim that's too high by a factor of three. --Dhartung | Talk 22:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. jdb ❋ (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

POV problem

As a result of the stellar record of the Japanese Americans serving in the 442nd and in the Military Intelligence Service (US Pacific Theater forces in WWII) greatly helped change the minds of anti-Japanese American critics in the US and resulted in easing of restrictions and the eventual release of the 120,000 strong community well before the end of WWII.

One notable US national effect of the service of the 442nd was to help convince Congress to end their opposition towards Hawaii's statehood petition. Twice before 1959, residents of Hawaii asked to be admitted to the US as the 49th State, but each time Congress was fearful of having a co-equal State that had a majority non-White population. The exemplary record of the Japanese Americans serving in the 442nd and the loyalty showed by the rest of Hawaii's population during WWII overcame Congress' fears and allowed Hawaii to be admitted as the 50th US State (Alaska with a tiny, mostly White population was admitted as the 49th State in order to counterbalance Hawaii's majority non-White majority.

).

In post-WWII American popular slang, the phrase: "going for broke" was adopted from the 442nd's unit motto:"Go for Broke" which was derived from the Hawaiian pidgin phrase used by craps shooters risking all their money in one roll of the dice.

I've removed the above text, which was added by an anonymous editor. It sounds like it was cut-and-pasted from one of the 442nd history pages. While I'm sure much of it has a basis in fact, the style is too puffery for an encyclopedia. It's one thing to talk generally about racism; it's another to lay claim to specific causes of political events. I'd like to see some sources for those claims. Also, I highly doubt that the phrase "go for broke" was unknown before WW2 and the 442nd. It's perfectly grammatical regular English, not pidgin. --Dhartung | Talk 17:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

CA State Route 23

Seems to be some difference of opinion on for whom a portion of this road was dedicated. I offer this citation: from www.cahighways.org. Beanbatch 17:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The relevant text from the CA legislative site (which fortunately begins in 1993!):

This measure would, in honor of the Nisei soldiers of World War II who served in units of the United States Armed Forces comprising the 100/442/MIS triad, designate specified segments of State Highway Routes 23 and 99 as the 442nd Regimental Combat Team Memorial Highway, the 100th Infantry Battalion Memorial Highway, and the Military Intelligence Service Memorial Highway, respectively....

Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California, the Senate thereof concurring, That, in honor of the Nisei Soldiers of World War II who served in units of the United States Armed Forces comprising the 100/442/MIS triad, the segments of State Highway Routes 23 and 99 described herein are hereby officially designated as follows:

(a) State Highway Route 23, from Highway 101 to Highway 118, as the Military Intelligence Service Memorial Highway.

(b) State Highway Route 99, between the Cities of Fresno and Madera, as the 100th Infantry Battalion Memorial Highway.

(c) State Highway Route 99, between the Cities of Salida and Manteca, as the 442nd Regimental Combat Team Memorial Highway; and be it further

Resolved, That each of the signs carrying those designations also include, in the lower right-hand corner, the following notations:

"A unit of the 100/422/MIS triad"

I'm correcting the text accordingly. --Dhartung | Talk 22:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The Questionaire

The WRA issued a questionaire concerning loyalty to all interned Japanese before being allowed to serve... does anybody know where to find this document? It needs to be reprinted here on wikipedia. Sweetfreek 07:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the exact whereabouts of an actual copy of the questionnaire, but it must be archived somewhere. To see the text of what was on the questionnaire, you can visit here (http://www.landmarkcases.org/korematsu/questionnaire_loyalty.html). The controversial questions were 27 and 28...

27. If the opportunity presents itself and you are found qualified, would you be willing to volunteer for the Army Auxiliary Corps or the WAAC?

28. Will you swear unqualified allegiance to the United States of America and forswear any form of allegiance or obedience to the Japanese emperor, or any other foreign power, government, or organization?

Answering "no" to any of those questions made the government question the loyalty of the respondee, even if they had legitimate reasons for saying "no" (for example, a man who was the sole provider for his family, or a Issei with Japanese citizenship who was never allowed to apply for American citizenship). Those who answered "no-no" were especially in danger of being ostracized and flagged as traitors (look up the book "No No Boy" by John Okada).

Despite the barriers though, many Japanese Americans, especially the Nisei of the 442nd, answered "yes - yes" to the questions, though the fact that their loyalty was being questioned in the first place was a huge affront by the US government.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gar2chan (talk • contribs) 08:08, 10 March 2006.

Medals of Honor

The article is missing information on the 20 some Medal of Honor recipients that President Clinton awarded. They were awarded through an extensive reexamination of war records after it was claimed racism prevented some from attaining the award.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.247.68.137 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 8 March 2006.

In addition to these, I've heard (from person communications with members of my community who were interned) that many left the answer to the second question blank because it presumed that Japanese American nissei had allegiance toward the Japanese Emperor in the first place. Kenzilla — Preceding undated comment added 16:10, August 21, 2006 (UTC)

French version

Gosh - it all looks quite exciting! Is there anything there worth translating and copying over? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

________________________

As a "Sansei", 3rd generation, I've made this French version to let them know what was goin' on, with all my feelings. After WWII, We gotta change our name for safety, to avoid being slapped after all that wartime propaganda: "slap ther jap". Now it's all over. My children and grand hildren go on their normal life in Montreal, QC, Canada. If needed, I'd re-write (not translate) the wanted parts. Just let me know.

Executive Order 9066: Japanese Relocation Order (1942)

Executive Order No.9066. The President Executive Order authorizing the Secretary of War to Prescribe Military Areas

"[...] Whereas the successful prosecution of the war requires every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage to national-defense material, national-defense premises, and national-defense utilities as defined in Section 4, Act of April 20th, 1918, 40 Stat. 533, as amended by the Act of november 30th , 1940, 54 Stat. 1220, and the Act of August 21st, 1941, 55 Stat. 655 (U.S.C., Title 50, Sec. 104);

Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy,

I hereby authorize and direct the Secretary of War, and the Military Commanders whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any designated Commander deems such action necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion.

The Secretary of War is hereby authorized to provide for residents of any such area who are excluded therefrom, such transportation, food, shelter, and other accommodations as may be necessary, in the judgment of the Secretary of War or the said Military Commander, and until other arrangements are made, to accomplish the purpose of this order. The designation of military areas in any region or locality shall supersede designations of prohibited around restricted areas by the Attorney General under the Proclamations of December 7th and 8th 1941, and shall supersede the responsibility and authority of the Attorney General under the said Proclamations in respect of such prohibited and restricted areas.

I hereby further authorize and direct the Secretary of War and the said Military Commanders to take such other steps as he or the appropriate Military Commander may I deem advisable to enforce compliance with the restrictions applicable to each Military area herein above authorized to be designated, including the use of Federal troops and other Federal Agencies, with authority to accept assistance of state and local agencies.

I hereby further authorize and direct all Executive Departments, independent establishments and other Federal Agencies, to assist the Secretary of War or the said Military Commanders in carrying out this Executive Order, including the furnishing of medical aid, hospitalization, food, clothing, transportation, use of land, shelter, and other supplies, equipment, utilities, facilities, and services.This order shall not be construed as modifying or limiting in any way the authority heretofore granted under Executive Order No. 8972, dated December 12th 1941, nor shall it be construed as limiting or modifying the duty and responsibility of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with respect to the investigation of alleged acts of sabotage or the duty and responsibility of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice under the Proclamations of December 7th and 8th 1941, prescribing regulations for the conduct and control of alien enemies, except as such duty and responsibility is superseded by the designation of military areas hereunder."

Franklin D. Roosevelt The White House, February 19th 1942

Takima — Preceding undated comment added 11:01, March 29, 2006 (UTC)

Spencer Tracy meets karate

Is a mention of Bad Day at Black Rock in place?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.250.143.131 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 22 March 2006.

Merge tags

The article on the 100th Battalion duplicates information already in this article. Anything about the battalions current service can be put in here. Cyane 17:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur--the battalion is actually now designated "100th Battalion, 442d Infantry." It is not a merging, but a naming to reflect the heirtage of all four battalions it represents. This is a descendant of the other, but not the same thing.--131.238.92.62 13:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The 100th existed long before the 442nd, was only part of the 442nd for the last nine months of the War in Europe, then until the 442nd was deactivated a year after the end of the war, since which time the One-Puka-Puka has continued to exist. The 442nd owed its very existence to the 100th, not the other way around, and was made part of the 442nd only because the RCT was a larger unit. Even the RCT motto -- "Go for Broke!" -- came from the pidgin spoken by Hawaiian Nisei who had formed the 100th. We don't merge the article on the Marine Corps into the article for the Navy, and the two services are far more intimately related in every way than the 100th and the 442nd ever were. My neighbors who served in the One-Puka-Puka identify themselves that way, only identifying themselves with the 442nd when others bring up the issue. I don't see anything in the Wikipedia rules that says that being less famous than a younger brother is grounds for merging the two articles, despite similarities in appearance. --Critic-at-Arms

Surely the 100th is notable enough to deserve its own article? The articles will overlap, sure enough, but there is no pressing reason to merge them. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

According to Robert Asahina's book, the 442nd only had three battalion, not four as mentioned just above. The "1st" battalion was actually the 100th Battalion that was allowed to keep its name by General Mark Clark due to its outstanding service prior to being incorporated into the 442nd. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Crost book

  I added Lyn Crost's book to the bibliography which can be used to cite sections of the article. It is AFAIK the only book-length treatment of Japanese American soldiers in WWII. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Article tags

I tagged this article with the citations missing and refimprove tags because it has just two citations and they aren't even formatted properly. This article needs a lot more references/inline citations (see WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY). As for external links, they should be used instead as inline citations that would appear under references unless they are used to supplement what's already in the article (see WP:EL and WP:MOS). -- Gmatsuda (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)  

Crest

  I moved the following here, since I have no idea if it is accurate:   Note: 442nd World War II crest. The one above is post war   http://www.442ndrct.com/442DI.gif

Clarityfiend (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)  

Non-Japanese?

  The intro says it was composed mostly of Japanese Americans. Any figures on how many and what other ethnic backgrounds were represented? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)  

I don't have exact figures or statistics, but one of the 442nd's most famous members was Young-Oak Kim, a Korean American. He was born in LA and drafted into the US Army, went to Infantry Officer Candidate School, and later was assigned to the 100th, whom he served with until the end of WWII. --Gar2chan (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It might be important to separate out the officer/non-comm/"enlisted" ranks. 143.232.210.38 (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

  At that time, Koreans were Japanese citizens, as the one who won a gold medal at the 1936 Olympic Game in Berlin for Japan. -- Takima (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)  

Maybe true, but we are not talking about Japanese citizens here, as Kim and the others were American citizens —— the whole point of the problem the Japanese Americans faced during World War II. Kim actually had Nisei friends that he visited at the Jerome Relocation Center on his way after graduating from officer's candidate school prior to reporting to the 100th Battalion. When the battalion commander offered to transfer Kim out as "Koreans and Japanese hate each other," Kim replied, "You're wrong. They're Americans. I'm American and we're going to fight for America." This is from page 32-33 of Asahina's book. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

PBS

  It may be useful. http://www.pbs.org/thewar/at_war_democracy_japanese_american.htm -- Takima (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)  

Italians and Germans

  The article seems to be contradicted by other Wik articles that deal with internment. Even the one on Japanese-American internment mentions the (much lesser) internment of European Axis-heritage Americans. Kdammers (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)  

Concern regarding propriety of the "Multiple Issues" tag

I feel that the multiple issues tag on the top of this article is relatively heavy-handed and inappropriate. I find it problematic to slap such a tag on top of an article, claiming that it needs better referencing without any effort to specify which statements require references. In response, I have added some references to the article already. Use of tags such as this often serve as efforts to discredit articles that have a good deal of validity. I would like to see this issue remedied. --Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 13:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)  

The Articleissues template simply is a cleaner, easier way to add multiple tags to articles with more than one issue, like this one. It is not inappropriate or heavy-handed unless you feel like interpreting it that way. Fact is, this article is missing a boatload of inline citations and I shouldn't have to go through the entire article to point out where they all should be...like I said, it is missing a ton. And keep in mind that there are policies here on Wikipedia regarding verifiability and on the use of inline citations. This article doesn't meet the standards set forth in those policies yet. Tags are generally intended to be used to help point out where an article needs improvement. That was the intent. If you feel that they discredit the article, then I guess these tags should never be used. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far to say that "they should never be used," but I would say that they should be used sparingly. I do think it appropriate to tag specific areas of concern with the "citation needed" tag, as this approach allows other editors to work at either providing citations as needed, to argue (on the talk page) for why they are not needed, or to delete the unsourced (and/or unsourcable) statements. Blanket tagging should be used with articles that have little or no citations at all, especially those without reference sections. I use them on such articles regularly myself.Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 18:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and thank you for the help with formatting the citations I have added. Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 18:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to add...thanks for adding the citations you did. And yes, I went in and formatted all the citations correctly. :-) As for use of the tags, I disagree. For articles such as this one where so many citations are missing, it is silly to require anyone to add the cn or fact templates at the end of every sentence that needs a citation. If you read WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY carefully, it should become pretty clear what needs to be backed up with a verfiable inline citation and what does not. Moreover, in a controversial topic such as this one (there are those who dispute the record of the 100th/442nd just like there are those who deny that the Japanese American internment was unjust), it is better to provide as much verification as possible. Check out the Manzanar article, which is a Featured article, for an example of what I mean. Some may think it has too many citations, but I would disagree, and not just because I'm the primary contributor. That article is a solid piece of scholarship because it has been painstakingly researched. This one could be as well. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Almost forgot...you can find the correct format for citations here. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW: One thing...for articles that do not have a References section and/or are entirely devoid of citations, that's where the "unreferenced" tag comes in. "Citations missing" is for articles that have some citations, but not nearly enough. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

First Insignia

Not to be lost on history, the first insignia should be included if not even used officially. 143.232.210.38 (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Also where is the hexagon with arm holding the torch insignia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.232.210.38 (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In hindsight...

They fought for nothing but to allow their women to be screwed by the nearest white American man. Wonderful!