Talk:Internment of Japanese Americans

Good job everyone!

It looks like after a lot of debate, and some contentious editors who would test anyone's patience, you all have ended up with a pretty good article. Good job everyone! Lipsticked Pig (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really. A lot of POV still in this article and it's light on evidence of fifth column activity. Better than it was a few years ago but still biased. Why not add some information on the Japanse Civilian Spy Service?

The "Civilian Spy Service" was a paramilitary espionage organization which co-ordinated and supplemented the work of the Army and Navy Intelligence departments of the Tokyo General Staffs. Its directorate, which worked out of the Imperial Palace through the fronts of charitable and cultural organizations, was mostly staffed by retired military intelligence officers. Its agents worked in the diplomatic corps of the Foreign Ministry and the marketing staffs of cartels engaged in foreign trade. Its network blanketed Asia and extended into all major cities of the West. Founded by Emperor Meiji's Imerial Household Minister Count Tanaka Mitsuaki, the spy service was directed throughout most of Hirohito's reign by retired Lieutenant General Banzai Rihachiro."

-Bergamini, p. 1086

"In the two decades since the Meiji era, "Spider" Tanaka had watched the spy service grow until by 1931 it had cast its net over all Asia as far south as Australia, as far west as Iran. By 1941 it would be world-wide, with operatives in every major city of North and South America as well as Europe. When war with the West broke out, President Roosevelt would appraise its fifth-column so highly that he would allow the forcible relocation of of all Americans of Japanese parentage on the West Coast to detention camps inland. In the Philippines when the Japanese army arrived in 1941, U.S. colonials would be surprised to find that Filipino carpenters and masons of Japanese birth stepped immediately into high positions of authority in the Japanese occupation governments. In Baguio (where the author and his family were captured), a chain of command within the Japanese community would spring into being or be activated even before the arrival of the first Japanese occupation forces."

-Bergamini, p.433 --History Student (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's "light on evidence of fifth column activity" because the evidence doesn't exist. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

MAGIC/Lowman debunkers

Much reading needs to be done prior to accept the debunking of Lowman on the word references that may be no more credible than Lowman. This is not good academic rigor. More of what Mr. Lowman said may be found by reading the official transcript (and documents it references) of Mr. Lowman's testimony before congress RE: S. HRG. 98-1304, found at: http://home.comcast.net/~eo9066/1984/IA182.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.204.109 (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC) I attempted to add only the link to Lowman's testimony, but it was twice removed. UtahRaptor (or any helpful editor), there was no opinion nor personal statement in the last two attempted posts of a simple link to Lowman's testimony. Please explain the reason for removal. Anybody? 70.177.204.109 (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed it because it was a personal statement which suggests your preferred view (you are clearly admonishing the reader, whom you call "you", to find the truth in your preferred text), and because it is cited to a personal website. There is nothing encyclopedic in the contribution, only personal statement and self-published material. If you have a book citation stating that Lowman's views deserve reconsideration or are unfairly attacked, you should incorporate that, with proper citation to material you aren't self-publishing . It may seem like I'm just throwing up obstacles, if you're new to Wikipedia, but that's really how it works. Cheers, DBaba (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"Comparisons" section

That's a rather interesting essay, but slanted. Not sure it's even topical Tedickey (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. It also seems superfluous, and may serve to relativize or trivialize the events. If there are sources making such a comparison, they seem not to be included among the various citations... I'm going to blank this, and see what everyone else has to say. Cheers, DBaba (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The Volga Germans were obviously singled out as a potential "fifth column" and their deportation had a preventive character. It took place in 1941, before the German advance to Stalingrad, and so can be attributed to war hysteria of the moment. In the United States similar measures were taken against Japanese-Americans.[1]

The Soviet textbooks said nothing about the mass deportation, whose American parallel was the internment of the Japanese Americans during World War II.[2]

Ethnic minority harassment during World War II occurred both in the United States and the Soviet Union practically simultaneously. A comparison of the two historical situations, as they are depicted in literature, may be conductive to a better understanding of the character of the respective political regimes.[3]

In 1937-8, 180,000 Koreans around Vladivostok were deported into Central Asia in fear of a war with Japan. But during World War II eight entire Soviet nationalities were identified by the regime as potential German collaborators. Over 80 percent of the 1.5 million ethnic German Soviet citizens were forcibly deported eastward during 1941 and 1942. They were to live in varying but often dreadful conditions for about 14 years, a far more callous version of US relocation camps for Japanese Americans.[4]

In the case of the Volga Germans, to whose territory Hitler's armies never penetrated, the justification was that there was a danger that they might collaborate. There is perhaps a similarity between this case and the Japanese-Americans, though the latter were treated more humanely.[5]

Tobby72 (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Very compelling. I still don't like the heading, "Comparison". I think it would more properly be headed "Other deportations of ethnic minorities during WWII", or something to that effect. Although these sources are excellent for the material you want to include (and which I now want to include, with you), I still see the text as it stood as constituting synthesis, as per Wiki policy. The original citations ought to demonstrate comparison with Japanese internment, which they all seem not to do. This means the text of the paragraph itself is based on synthesis rather than the reliable sources supporting the gist of your point here on the talk page.

Since I'm being a pain, maybe I can help you rework the para with the sources you've furnished here. I hope I'm clearly articulating my point here: that the citations must note comparisons to Japanese internment, and the paragraph must be built off citations making these comparisons. Even if the Volga Germans were penned into a camp called Manzanar, we can't make the obvious connection until someone else does, and we cite them doing so. It's also a lot of text and citation so I hope I'm not overlooking anything. Thanks Tobby72 for your excellent response. Cheers, DBaba (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this material would be better at Internment?   Will Beback  talk  22:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

"Concentration camp" wording in lead section

I reverted this edit to the lead section, which added the words "concentration camps" and an internal link to Franklin D. Roosevelt. I notice that the use or non-use of "concentration camps" has been discussed several times in the talk archives. I have no particular recommendation on this issue, but think the wording should be discussed before making changes, as it is likely to be controversial. Cnilep (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Land-grab motivation

A gardener who is the son of a couple who met at one of the Arizona internment camps, says that part of the motivation for internment was to acquire rich farmland that was owned by Japanese families. Currently the article lacks any reference to this land-grab motivation.

Does anyone have a reference to the land-grab motivation? A reference is needed to add this significant information.

In case it's relevant, he says that two Japanese families in north San Diego county, with financial help from their relatives in Japan, were able to buy back farmlands. These families may be the ones who can attest to the land grab (whether intentional or not).

The gardener also said that many Japanese who were interned do not want to talk to outsiders about internment because they regard their lack of complaining as proof of their patriotism (allegiance to the United States) and their U.S. citizenship. With many of them dying out, this may be the time to ask for information, such as the unmentioned land-grab motivation.

I'm not knowledgeable about this subject, yet I recognize that it parallels a key motivation of the Nazis to put Jews in concentration camps, namely to take/acquire/steal real estate, jewelry, and other valuable property from Jews. VoteFair (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Alien and Sedition acts? Come on!

The article as it is has the following

To this day, some believe that the legality of the internment has been firmly established as exactly the type of scenario spelled out in the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Among other things, the Alien Enemies Act (which was one of four laws included in the Alien and Sedition Acts) allowed for the United States government, during time of war, to apprehend and detain indefinitely foreign nationals, first-generation citizens, or any others deemed a threat by the government. As no expiration date was set, and the law has never been overruled, it was still in effect during World War II, and still is to this day. Therefore, some continue to claim that the civil rights violations were, in fact, not violations at all, having been deemed acceptable as a national security measure during time of war by Congress, signed into law by President John Adams, and upheld by the Supreme Court. However, the majority of the detainees were American-born, thus exempt under law from the Alien and Sedition Acts except if found to directly be a threat due to their actions or associations. This exemption was the basis for drafting Nisei to fight in Europe, as the Laws of Land Warfare prohibit signatory nations (including the United States) from compelling persons to act against their homelands or the allies of their homelands in time of war.

Whoever wrote this has truly taken the sapiens out of homo sapiens. The Alien Enemies Act has never been formally tested in court since the expiration of the Alien and Sedition Acts- for the simple reason that any court today would find it unconstitutional in a heartbeat (and many justices have made statements to that effect.) Sure, it has not been formally repealed. But neither have any number of other absurd laws (like, for example, a certain Baltimore law which makes it illegal to throw bales of hay from a second-story window within the city limits) which no one has felt like repealing for the simple reason that no one has ever felt like enforcing them. It is an embarrassment to Wikipedia that an article as important as this has continued to contain text as insane as this for well over a year. And it is an embarrassment to me to be a member of the same species (let alone the same online community) as whoever wrote it. Unless someone can source this, it's gone. Szfski (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Solicitor General's Mistakes in Handling the Internment

From the US Department of Justice:

http://blogs.usdoj.gov/blog/archives/1346

"Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States uprooted more than 100,000 people of Japanese descent, most of them American citizens, and confined them in internment camps. The Solicitor General was largely responsible for the defense of those policies.

By the time the cases of Gordon Hirabayashi and Fred Korematsu reached the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General had learned of a key intelligence report that undermined the rationale behind the internment. The Ringle Report, from the Office of Naval Intelligence, found that only a small percentage of Japanese Americans posed a potential security threat, and that the most dangerous were already known or in custody. But the Solicitor General did not inform the Court of the report, despite warnings from Department of Justice attorneys that failing to alert the Court “might approximate the suppression of evidence.” Instead, he argued that it was impossible to segregate loyal Japanese Americans from disloyal ones. Nor did he inform the Court that a key set of allegations used to justify the internment, that Japanese Americans were using radio transmitters to communicate with enemy submarines off the West Coast, had been discredited by the FBI and FCC. And to make matters worse, he relied on gross generalizations about Japanese Americans, such as that they were disloyal and motivated by “racial solidarity.”

The Supreme Court upheld Hirabayashi’s and Korematsu’s convictions. And it took nearly a half century for courts to overturn these decisions. One court decision in the 1980s that did so highlighted the role played by the Solicitor General, emphasizing that the Supreme Court gave “special credence” to the Solicitor General’s representations. The court thought it unlikely that the Supreme Court would have ruled the same way had the Solicitor General exhibited complete candor. Yet those decisions still stand today as a reminder of the mistakes of that era."

This information ought to be incorporated into the article. -Gar2chan (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)