3 ms·

What they did is the literal definition of bigotry. They rounded up as many Japanese-Americans as they could and put them in prisons under heavy guard without a

What they did is the literal definition of bigotry. They rounded up as many Japanese-Americans as they could and put them in prisons under heavy guard without any cause other than other people that look like them attacked a military base. It was objectively wrong then, and it is wrong through all of time.

atlantic 3y ago
[flagged]
- ok_dad 3y ago
  They were not fucking immigrants! These were people who had lived in the USA their whole lives, with several generations of American citizens in these families. Anyone arguing Japanese internment was just for securing America is the same type of person who would round up trans people or musings Muslims today the same way.
  - atlantic 3y ago
    You don't magically stop being an immigrant after a few years. Often it takes several generations to integrate. And particularly so if you form cultural enclaves and remain attached to your country of origin, as tends to be the case with the Japanese.
ok_dad 3y ago
I believe they actually rounded them up to steal their farms in California. Japanese farms were the most productive back then, and they held almost all the best farms. During the war, they had their land and things stolen by politically connected neighbors. http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist9/harvest.html#:~:text=The%20World%20War%20II%20evacuation,%2DJapanese”%20owners%20and%20lessees http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist9/harvest.html#:~:text=The%20Wor....
pbhjpbhj 3y ago
>other than other people that look like them You yourself are describing the people rounded up as Japanese (yes, with a qualifier). They were people more likely to have loyalty to an enemy state, weren't they? It was certainly a blunt tool; and not an issue I've looked at in detail; but do you expect FDR to have done nothing? Interesting for me to consider whether UK was right to round up Germans for WWII, rather difficult when that includes the Royal Family, but they did imprison something like 10% of "Germans" living in the UK (I don't know if they were British, just visiting, naturalised, or what).
- cpuguy83 3y ago
  Is it ok to imprison people without cause? No, the answer you are looking for is no.
  - pbhjpbhj 3y ago
    Right, that got us a long way. Is it OK to have less than 100% certainty before you detain someone? Would you detain one innocent person if it meant keeping 1000 murderers off the street? If either of those is "yes" then we're just looking at where the line is. Would you accept imprisonment if you knew it was keeping 1000 murderers off the street? Do people who support Nazism deserve to get punched? Even if they're innocent of any crimes (a very oft heard sentiment from people who would otherwise say they value the rule of law)? Nothing about war is OK, but sometimes we have to compromise on what we'd like to happen. I think it's interesting to try and be honest with oneself and ask where the line is. Would I automatically lock up adults who described themselves as associated with an enemy country, when at war, probably not; but I wouldn't give them every freedom either. Indeed during times of war it is normal to curtail general freedoms. Would I consider it unjustifiable to lock up people who appear to be associated with an enemy country, also probably not. I guess I consider that sometimes it is acceptable, morally, to lock innocent people up ... no justice system could [barring future technology that can provide certainty on past events] ever lock anyone up without such a consideration. I'm interested if you or others have anything to try and develop my thinking in this area. Thanks.

atlantic 3y ago

[flagged]

ok_dad 3y ago
They were not fucking immigrants! These were people who had lived in the USA their whole lives, with several generations of American citizens in these families. Anyone arguing Japanese internment was just for securing America is the same type of person who would round up trans people or musings Muslims today the same way.
- atlantic 3y ago
  You don't magically stop being an immigrant after a few years. Often it takes several generations to integrate. And particularly so if you form cultural enclaves and remain attached to your country of origin, as tends to be the case with the Japanese.

ok_dad 3y ago

I believe they actually rounded them up to steal their farms in California. Japanese farms were the most productive back then, and they held almost all the best farms. During the war, they had their land and things stolen by politically connected neighbors. http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist9/harvest.html#:~:text=The%20World%20War%20II%20evacuation,%2DJapanese”%20owners%20and%20lessees http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist9/harvest.html#:~:text=The%20Wor....

pbhjpbhj 3y ago

>other than other people that look like them You yourself are describing the people rounded up as Japanese (yes, with a qualifier). They were people more likely to have loyalty to an enemy state, weren't they? It was certainly a blunt tool; and not an issue I've looked at in detail; but do you expect FDR to have done nothing? Interesting for me to consider whether UK was right to round up Germans for WWII, rather difficult when that includes the Royal Family, but they did imprison something like 10% of "Germans" living in the UK (I don't know if they were British, just visiting, naturalised, or what).

cpuguy83 3y ago
Is it ok to imprison people without cause? No, the answer you are looking for is no.
- pbhjpbhj 3y ago
  Right, that got us a long way. Is it OK to have less than 100% certainty before you detain someone? Would you detain one innocent person if it meant keeping 1000 murderers off the street? If either of those is "yes" then we're just looking at where the line is. Would you accept imprisonment if you knew it was keeping 1000 murderers off the street? Do people who support Nazism deserve to get punched? Even if they're innocent of any crimes (a very oft heard sentiment from people who would otherwise say they value the rule of law)? Nothing about war is OK, but sometimes we have to compromise on what we'd like to happen. I think it's interesting to try and be honest with oneself and ask where the line is. Would I automatically lock up adults who described themselves as associated with an enemy country, when at war, probably not; but I wouldn't give them every freedom either. Indeed during times of war it is normal to curtail general freedoms. Would I consider it unjustifiable to lock up people who appear to be associated with an enemy country, also probably not. I guess I consider that sometimes it is acceptable, morally, to lock innocent people up ... no justice system could [barring future technology that can provide certainty on past events] ever lock anyone up without such a consideration. I'm interested if you or others have anything to try and develop my thinking in this area. Thanks.