4 ms·

It seems obviously wrong to incarcerate citizens on the basis of ethnicity. That said, an important part of the discussion that usually isn't discussed at all i

It seems obviously wrong to incarcerate citizens on the basis of ethnicity. That said, an important part of the discussion that usually isn't discussed at all is the Ni'ihau incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niihau_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niihau_incident TLDR: The first thing that happened in WWII for the United States was the attack on Pearl Harbor. The second thing is a Japanese pilot crash-landed on Ni'ihau on his way home from bombing Pearl, and a Japanese immigrant and a couple Japanese-Americans decided to take his side and help him (treason, of course). In the end a couple people were shot. Edit: I'll add some discussion from below to the top-level comment, I think it improves it. In a situation where you have no data (hostilities just started), this incident being one of the first things that happen is, in fact, quite striking. And, critically, these people weren't spies or saboteurs. They were rando civilians who, without premeditation or contact with enemy government, decided on the spot to help the enemy. If you were a commander in that war you would rightly find it terrifying. It is, we might say, a bad look. I bring it up in response to the story because it's an obvious part of the narrative about Japanese internment camps in the U.S. in WWII that is suppressed because it is inconvenient and uncomfortable. That doesn't mean we should ignore it, though. Obviously, this event makes the actions the U.S. government took look more justifiable. The fact that it happened so quickly after hostilities started is also striking. The idea that Japanese immigrants and Japanese-Americans are more likely to turn against their adopted country than, say, German or Italian immigrants seems more plausible in this light, and that helps understand the decisions made by people in power (in addition to stuff you already know, like Japanese is a very different language to English and culture to American, far more different than either German or Italian, and Japanese people and other East Asians are much more easily visually distinguished, etc.). And, I will reiterate, in my mind it doesn't justify interning tens of thousands of citizens on the basis of ethnicity. It seems obviously wrong to me, either you're a citizen and you get the same rights as everyone else, or you're not. Discriminating on the basis of ethnicity is...racism? Not quite, but I suppose that's the word people use. It is a stain on the country's history.

capableweb 3y ago
> pilot crash-landed on Ni'ihau on his way home from bombing Pearl, and a Japanese immigrant and a couple Japanese-Americans decided to take his side and help him (treason, of course) Why is that treason "of course"? Seemingly, they were unaware of the events and just tried to help a fellow human being. That should never be treason. Also, since you bring it up as a response to the story, are you justifying interment camps for specific ethnicity based on one event? Otherwise your comment seems borderline off-topic.
- NoImmatureAdHom 3y ago
  If you read the Wikipedia article the situation will become clear. I bring it up in response to the story because it's an obvious part of the narrative about Japanese internment camps in the U.S. in WWII that is suppressed because it is inconvenient and uncomfortable. That doesn't mean we should ignore it, though. Obviously, this event makes the actions the U.S. government took look more justifiable. The fact that it happened so quickly after hostilities started is also striking. The idea that Japanese immigrants and Japanese-Americans are more likely to turn against their adopted country than, say, German or Italian immigrants seems more plausible in this light, and that helps understand the decisions made by people in power (in addition to stuff you already know, like Japanese is a very different language to English and culture to American, far more different than either German or Italian, and Japanese people and other East Asians are much more easily visually distinguished, etc.). And, I will reiterate, in my mind it doesn't justify interning tens of thousands of citizens on the basis of ethnicity. It seems obviously wrong to me, either you're a citizen and you get the same rights as everyone else, or you're not. Discriminating on the basis of ethnicity is...racism? Not quite, but I suppose that's the word people use. It is a stain on the country's history. On reflection, I think what really grinds my gears is that shaping the public consciousness with lies and half-truths is so effective...
  - opwieurposiu 3y ago
    You also have to keep in mind the mood of nation after this attack. The USA lost it's invincibility. At that point in time was by no means assured that the allies would win the war. In fact, we were losing it.
UncleMeat 3y ago
I do not see how that is an important part of the discussion at all.
ttfkam 3y ago
There's a reason it isn't discussed. A small handful of people aided a Japanese pilot once during wartime, so that's an important part of the discussion as to the forced relocation and detention of—checks notes—125,284 people following the mass theft of most of their possessions? Naw. Y'all act like there weren't any German or Italian spies and saboteurs in the US during WW2.
- NoImmatureAdHom 3y ago
  I hear you. I think that you're maybe half-right about why it's not discussed. The reason I bring it up is the other half...it's not discussed because it runs counter to the narrative that sells in today's market. In a situation where you have no data (hostilities just started), this incident being one of the first things that happen is, in fact, quite striking. And, critically, these people weren't spies or saboteurs. They were rando civilians who, without premeditation or contact with enemy government, decided on the spot to help the enemy. If you were a commander in that war you would rightly find it terrifying. It is, we might say, a bad look.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
    No. There is no justification to use the bad actions of a handful of a minority as a justification to, without trial, steal the property, destroy the pets, and forcibly remove to a space with inadequate shelter, healthcare, and food, the entire minority populace. That’s exactly the “wow you suck at math vs wow girls suck at math” bigotry taken to a violent conclusion, and should be acknowledged as totally and completely unjustified.
    - NoImmatureAdHom 3y ago
      You're making a normative claim ("this is wrong"), and I'm making a descriptive claim ("this is what people back then might have been thinking based on the evidence"). In fact, we make the exact same normative claim in the end (that internment was wrong).
      - 3y ago
marcellus23 3y ago
> Discriminating on the basis of ethnicity is...racism? Not quite That's actually the definition of racism. It's extremely clear-cut. Why do you think the word doesn't apply?
- NoImmatureAdHom 3y ago
  Ethnicities aren't races, so it seems awkward.
  - marcellus23 3y ago
    I think most people would consider them to be pretty overlapping in most uses. But it sort of doesn't matter, the definition of a word is distinct from its etymology: > noun > prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized
    - NoImmatureAdHom 3y ago
      Haha, yeah I know people use it that way (as I noted). In that particular sentence it seemed wrong because the prima facie contradiction is, well, right in your face.
bigbillheck 3y ago
> It seems obviously wrong to incarcerate citizens on the basis of ethnicity. That said A new variety of 'I'm not racist, but'.
jnwatson 3y ago
Still, if one had to plan to land and start a small insurrection, I don't think you could come up with a better place to do it. Niihau is extremely isolated, to the point it is difficult to get there even today. The impact of American culture to residents was probably close to zero.

capableweb 3y ago

> pilot crash-landed on Ni'ihau on his way home from bombing Pearl, and a Japanese immigrant and a couple Japanese-Americans decided to take his side and help him (treason, of course) Why is that treason "of course"? Seemingly, they were unaware of the events and just tried to help a fellow human being. That should never be treason. Also, since you bring it up as a response to the story, are you justifying interment camps for specific ethnicity based on one event? Otherwise your comment seems borderline off-topic.

NoImmatureAdHom 3y ago
If you read the Wikipedia article the situation will become clear. I bring it up in response to the story because it's an obvious part of the narrative about Japanese internment camps in the U.S. in WWII that is suppressed because it is inconvenient and uncomfortable. That doesn't mean we should ignore it, though. Obviously, this event makes the actions the U.S. government took look more justifiable. The fact that it happened so quickly after hostilities started is also striking. The idea that Japanese immigrants and Japanese-Americans are more likely to turn against their adopted country than, say, German or Italian immigrants seems more plausible in this light, and that helps understand the decisions made by people in power (in addition to stuff you already know, like Japanese is a very different language to English and culture to American, far more different than either German or Italian, and Japanese people and other East Asians are much more easily visually distinguished, etc.). And, I will reiterate, in my mind it doesn't justify interning tens of thousands of citizens on the basis of ethnicity. It seems obviously wrong to me, either you're a citizen and you get the same rights as everyone else, or you're not. Discriminating on the basis of ethnicity is...racism? Not quite, but I suppose that's the word people use. It is a stain on the country's history. On reflection, I think what really grinds my gears is that shaping the public consciousness with lies and half-truths is so effective...
- opwieurposiu 3y ago
  You also have to keep in mind the mood of nation after this attack. The USA lost it's invincibility. At that point in time was by no means assured that the allies would win the war. In fact, we were losing it.

UncleMeat 3y ago

I do not see how that is an important part of the discussion at all.

ttfkam 3y ago

There's a reason it isn't discussed. A small handful of people aided a Japanese pilot once during wartime, so that's an important part of the discussion as to the forced relocation and detention of—checks notes—125,284 people following the mass theft of most of their possessions? Naw. Y'all act like there weren't any German or Italian spies and saboteurs in the US during WW2.

NoImmatureAdHom 3y ago
I hear you. I think that you're maybe half-right about why it's not discussed. The reason I bring it up is the other half...it's not discussed because it runs counter to the narrative that sells in today's market. In a situation where you have no data (hostilities just started), this incident being one of the first things that happen is, in fact, quite striking. And, critically, these people weren't spies or saboteurs. They were rando civilians who, without premeditation or contact with enemy government, decided on the spot to help the enemy. If you were a commander in that war you would rightly find it terrifying. It is, we might say, a bad look.
- SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
  No. There is no justification to use the bad actions of a handful of a minority as a justification to, without trial, steal the property, destroy the pets, and forcibly remove to a space with inadequate shelter, healthcare, and food, the entire minority populace. That’s exactly the “wow you suck at math vs wow girls suck at math” bigotry taken to a violent conclusion, and should be acknowledged as totally and completely unjustified.
  - NoImmatureAdHom 3y ago
    You're making a normative claim ("this is wrong"), and I'm making a descriptive claim ("this is what people back then might have been thinking based on the evidence"). In fact, we make the exact same normative claim in the end (that internment was wrong).
    - 3y ago

marcellus23 3y ago

> Discriminating on the basis of ethnicity is...racism? Not quite That's actually the definition of racism. It's extremely clear-cut. Why do you think the word doesn't apply?

NoImmatureAdHom 3y ago
Ethnicities aren't races, so it seems awkward.
- marcellus23 3y ago
  I think most people would consider them to be pretty overlapping in most uses. But it sort of doesn't matter, the definition of a word is distinct from its etymology: > noun > prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized
  - NoImmatureAdHom 3y ago
    Haha, yeah I know people use it that way (as I noted). In that particular sentence it seemed wrong because the prima facie contradiction is, well, right in your face.

bigbillheck 3y ago

> It seems obviously wrong to incarcerate citizens on the basis of ethnicity. That said A new variety of 'I'm not racist, but'.

jnwatson 3y ago

Still, if one had to plan to land and start a small insurrection, I don't think you could come up with a better place to do it. Niihau is extremely isolated, to the point it is difficult to get there even today. The impact of American culture to residents was probably close to zero.