4 ms·

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

by 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).
    - SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
      It is not evidence. A handful of a population doing a bad thing isn’t evidence to punish the entire population. That can only exist in the framework of bigotry. Full stop. Japanese Americans also willingly enlisted into the U.S. military to fight the Japanese. They reportedly fought harder, fiercer, and put on riskier missions. But this wasn’t used as counter evidence against internment. Because again, internment is based on unreasonable, reactionary bigotry, and literally nothing else.
      - ttfkam 3y ago
        Japanese Americans were typically assigned to Europe and Africa because of fears they would sabotage the Pacific war effort. Black Americans were commonly assigned as cooks, orderlies, and other roles outside the normal military structure. It's why Black American veterans were largely excluded from the GI Bills after the war. Folks really don't grok how overtly racist the US could be within living memory let alone further back. Too bad US schools don't teach it adequately and are poised to suppress that history even further of late.
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Yeah, people really have a blind spot to how racist the world was and still is. I certainly got a fair bit of this information in my history curriculum. With teaching, there is always the question of what the priorities are, and what the emphasis is in terms of message. Out of curiosity, what do you think the lesson students should take away from the Japanese internment is? Here is the section on it from a standard US history textbook that was posted elsewhere in the thread: https://www.mrginn.com/uploads/8/5/4/6/85468970/chapter35.pdf https://www.mrginn.com/uploads/8/5/4/6/85468970/chapter35.pd...
        ttfkam 3y ago
        The lesson? A similar lesson to slavery, the Shoah, the Trail of Tears, etc. "It wasn't bad because it happened to Black folks or Jews or American Indian tribes. 'Never again' shouldn't mean, 'Never again exactly how it was done last time.' It was horrible because they were human beings. It was horrible because folks went out of their way to stop viewing them as human beings. And here are some reasons why people back then (and today) justified these acts, so that when similar conditions arise again—because while history does not repeat, it certainly rhymes—we can learn to recognize and hopefully prevent these atrocities before they start next time!" That's the lesson I'd love to have taught. That no is perfect. History is the diary of a madman. Learning not just facts but also the motivations/context of historical events, so as a society we can potentially help avoid future problems and move along with less needless suffering.
- UncleMeat 3y ago
  It is not "counter to the narrative." It isn't like people only think that internment was unacceptable because there were literally zero cases of ethnically japanese people doing something to aid anybody who was a japanese resident. It also isn't like people think that internment was done just for the sake of fucking over japanese people. The narrative is that the perceived threat of ethnically japanese americans was massively inflated in the minds of decision makers because of racial prejudice and that the legal system failed to protect the rights of the people who were harmed by this awful decision making. Japanese Americans (including citizens) were first ordered not to leave the protected areas and then while that order was still active were told that if they stayed in the protected areas (which included huge portions of the west coast) that they'd be interred. They had their property stolen and were forced into terrible conditions (often sleeping in literally barns in the beginning) by virtue of racial prejudice. Italian and German Americans faced no such situations, despite the ridiculous "oh we have no data so maybe they are threats" argument applying equally well to them.
rufus_foreman 3y ago
36% of the people interned under the alien control program were German Americans.
- NoImmatureAdHom 3y ago
  Interesting, do you have a cite? It doesn't look like Japanese internment was under the auspices of the Alien Control program, because [0] refers to, "By the end of the war, over 31,000 suspected enemy aliens and their families, including a few Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany, had been interned at Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) internment camps and military facilities throughout the United States." Whereas I think >100,000 Japanese were incarcerated. 0: https://www.archives.gov/research/immigration/enemy-aliens/ww2 https://www.archives.gov/research/immigration/enemy-aliens/w...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > It doesn't look like Japanese internment was under the auspices of the Alien Control program The internment of Americans of Japanese descent was under the auspices of the War Relocation Authority: unlike the internment of citizens of Germany, Italy, and other enemy states, which was based on status as enemy aliens (hence “Alien Control Program”), not ancestry. The somewhat sloppy common reference to the former as “Japanese" internment makes the two different programs seem more similar than they were.
- thegaulofthem 3y ago
  In Charleston, SC we have a number of local groups that were German-American social clubs that were forced to abandon their native culture and affiliations to appease the mob. You’ll never hear anything of it, there is no care to apologize by dignitaries here that you expect to see during AAPI month for the Japanese. I wonder why Japanese Americans get this kind of outpouring of support we see in the thread in a way that German Americans would never get, having been shit on for not one but two world wars. That you’re being currently downvoted for mentioning this fact is itself concerning.
dragonwriter 3y ago
Yeah, the Niihau incident and the shelling of a Santa Barbara oil facility by a Japanese sub with a witness (falsely, in retrospect) reporting seeing the sub turning south toward LA and signalling someone on shore after the attack [0], and the subsequent incident where what was later identified to have been a rogue weather balloon triggered war nerves and resulted in substantial anti-aircraft fire on phantom Japanese aircraft over LA [1] were all part of the context of the internment, but while, like the more deliberate propaganda directed by the Nazis against the Jews, they are important if you want to understand the mechanics of how the actions they preceded were seen as justified at the time, they are so distant from anything that might actually remotely justify the action (and, unlike the Nazi propaganda, aren’t themselves an organized part of the action) that there is a very good reason they aren’t highlighted in most discussion of the ethics of the action. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Ellwood https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Ellwood [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Los_Angeles https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Los_Angeles
- NoImmatureAdHom 3y ago
  This is a really thoughtful comment, thank you. I agree with everything you've said with one exception, and I appreciate the additional context I didn't know about. I would say that it is very reasonable to argue that "...they are so distant from anything that might actually remotely justify the action...", but that does not imply that "...there is a very good reason they aren’t highlighted..." is the actual reason Ni'ihau isn't highlighted. I'm still pretty convinced it's because it's inconvenient, awkward, uncomfortable...not because those events and the context they were part of made a bad justification for trampling the rights of 125,000 people. As I think about it more, the thing I'm stuck on is more like...Ni'ihau and the stuff you mention, and the context that makes for, all make the people involved seem more reasonable, less kind of...crazily racist and afraid...a little less cartoonishly evil. And a lot of people these days don't like that. They want an "other", an enemy that is simple and easy to hate. Clear right and wrong. Red and Blue, D and R, Tory and Labour. And I think that's childish and wrong and bad in almost all circumstances. Pointing out Ni'ihau amidst the self-flagellation about Japanese internment in WWII makes that sort of person look at something he doesn't want to look at, but that he looks at it is good for him and for the rest of us.
mixmastamyk 3y ago
You can pretend it didn’t have any effect on the decision if you want. Or that Europeans were similarly aggressive against the US. Doesn’t change the fact that it was the wrong choice. They are are two different subjects.

by ttfkam 3y ago

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).
  - SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
    It is not evidence. A handful of a population doing a bad thing isn’t evidence to punish the entire population. That can only exist in the framework of bigotry. Full stop. Japanese Americans also willingly enlisted into the U.S. military to fight the Japanese. They reportedly fought harder, fiercer, and put on riskier missions. But this wasn’t used as counter evidence against internment. Because again, internment is based on unreasonable, reactionary bigotry, and literally nothing else.
    - ttfkam 3y ago
      Japanese Americans were typically assigned to Europe and Africa because of fears they would sabotage the Pacific war effort. Black Americans were commonly assigned as cooks, orderlies, and other roles outside the normal military structure. It's why Black American veterans were largely excluded from the GI Bills after the war. Folks really don't grok how overtly racist the US could be within living memory let alone further back. Too bad US schools don't teach it adequately and are poised to suppress that history even further of late.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Yeah, people really have a blind spot to how racist the world was and still is. I certainly got a fair bit of this information in my history curriculum. With teaching, there is always the question of what the priorities are, and what the emphasis is in terms of message. Out of curiosity, what do you think the lesson students should take away from the Japanese internment is? Here is the section on it from a standard US history textbook that was posted elsewhere in the thread: https://www.mrginn.com/uploads/8/5/4/6/85468970/chapter35.pdf https://www.mrginn.com/uploads/8/5/4/6/85468970/chapter35.pd...
        ttfkam 3y ago
        The lesson? A similar lesson to slavery, the Shoah, the Trail of Tears, etc. "It wasn't bad because it happened to Black folks or Jews or American Indian tribes. 'Never again' shouldn't mean, 'Never again exactly how it was done last time.' It was horrible because they were human beings. It was horrible because folks went out of their way to stop viewing them as human beings. And here are some reasons why people back then (and today) justified these acts, so that when similar conditions arise again—because while history does not repeat, it certainly rhymes—we can learn to recognize and hopefully prevent these atrocities before they start next time!" That's the lesson I'd love to have taught. That no is perfect. History is the diary of a madman. Learning not just facts but also the motivations/context of historical events, so as a society we can potentially help avoid future problems and move along with less needless suffering.
UncleMeat 3y ago
It is not "counter to the narrative." It isn't like people only think that internment was unacceptable because there were literally zero cases of ethnically japanese people doing something to aid anybody who was a japanese resident. It also isn't like people think that internment was done just for the sake of fucking over japanese people. The narrative is that the perceived threat of ethnically japanese americans was massively inflated in the minds of decision makers because of racial prejudice and that the legal system failed to protect the rights of the people who were harmed by this awful decision making. Japanese Americans (including citizens) were first ordered not to leave the protected areas and then while that order was still active were told that if they stayed in the protected areas (which included huge portions of the west coast) that they'd be interred. They had their property stolen and were forced into terrible conditions (often sleeping in literally barns in the beginning) by virtue of racial prejudice. Italian and German Americans faced no such situations, despite the ridiculous "oh we have no data so maybe they are threats" argument applying equally well to them.

rufus_foreman 3y ago

36% of the people interned under the alien control program were German Americans.

NoImmatureAdHom 3y ago
Interesting, do you have a cite? It doesn't look like Japanese internment was under the auspices of the Alien Control program, because [0] refers to, "By the end of the war, over 31,000 suspected enemy aliens and their families, including a few Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany, had been interned at Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) internment camps and military facilities throughout the United States." Whereas I think >100,000 Japanese were incarcerated. 0: https://www.archives.gov/research/immigration/enemy-aliens/ww2 https://www.archives.gov/research/immigration/enemy-aliens/w...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > It doesn't look like Japanese internment was under the auspices of the Alien Control program The internment of Americans of Japanese descent was under the auspices of the War Relocation Authority: unlike the internment of citizens of Germany, Italy, and other enemy states, which was based on status as enemy aliens (hence “Alien Control Program”), not ancestry. The somewhat sloppy common reference to the former as “Japanese" internment makes the two different programs seem more similar than they were.
thegaulofthem 3y ago
In Charleston, SC we have a number of local groups that were German-American social clubs that were forced to abandon their native culture and affiliations to appease the mob. You’ll never hear anything of it, there is no care to apologize by dignitaries here that you expect to see during AAPI month for the Japanese. I wonder why Japanese Americans get this kind of outpouring of support we see in the thread in a way that German Americans would never get, having been shit on for not one but two world wars. That you’re being currently downvoted for mentioning this fact is itself concerning.

dragonwriter 3y ago

Yeah, the Niihau incident and the shelling of a Santa Barbara oil facility by a Japanese sub with a witness (falsely, in retrospect) reporting seeing the sub turning south toward LA and signalling someone on shore after the attack [0], and the subsequent incident where what was later identified to have been a rogue weather balloon triggered war nerves and resulted in substantial anti-aircraft fire on phantom Japanese aircraft over LA [1] were all part of the context of the internment, but while, like the more deliberate propaganda directed by the Nazis against the Jews, they are important if you want to understand the mechanics of how the actions they preceded were seen as justified at the time, they are so distant from anything that might actually remotely justify the action (and, unlike the Nazi propaganda, aren’t themselves an organized part of the action) that there is a very good reason they aren’t highlighted in most discussion of the ethics of the action. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Ellwood https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Ellwood [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Los_Angeles https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Los_Angeles

NoImmatureAdHom 3y ago
This is a really thoughtful comment, thank you. I agree with everything you've said with one exception, and I appreciate the additional context I didn't know about. I would say that it is very reasonable to argue that "...they are so distant from anything that might actually remotely justify the action...", but that does not imply that "...there is a very good reason they aren’t highlighted..." is the actual reason Ni'ihau isn't highlighted. I'm still pretty convinced it's because it's inconvenient, awkward, uncomfortable...not because those events and the context they were part of made a bad justification for trampling the rights of 125,000 people. As I think about it more, the thing I'm stuck on is more like...Ni'ihau and the stuff you mention, and the context that makes for, all make the people involved seem more reasonable, less kind of...crazily racist and afraid...a little less cartoonishly evil. And a lot of people these days don't like that. They want an "other", an enemy that is simple and easy to hate. Clear right and wrong. Red and Blue, D and R, Tory and Labour. And I think that's childish and wrong and bad in almost all circumstances. Pointing out Ni'ihau amidst the self-flagellation about Japanese internment in WWII makes that sort of person look at something he doesn't want to look at, but that he looks at it is good for him and for the rest of us.

mixmastamyk 3y ago

You can pretend it didn’t have any effect on the decision if you want. Or that Europeans were similarly aggressive against the US. Doesn’t change the fact that it was the wrong choice. They are are two different subjects.