Talk:Internment of Japanese Americans/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Navbox

Hi. I was over editing at Heart Mountain War Relocation Center, and it occurred to me that a navbox template might be nice. Here's a shot at what I came up with: User:CosmicPenguin/Sandbox/IntermentTemplate. Suggestions and flames welcome. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 04:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

this was real bad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.157.19 (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved paragraph / essay

The following was posted on the main page - I moved it here since it seems to be mainly redundant, but it may contain useful information (properly sourced, of course):

The Japanese Internment took place between the years of 1941 and 1949. At the time most of the Japanese population was concentrated in the United States on the West Coast of Canada. The Japanese first immigrated to U.S. to work on the railroad in 1900. By 1921 the Japanese population numbered nearly 16,000 people and had possessed nearly half of the fishing licenses in the United States and British Columbia. In 1941, 23,000 Japanese were living throughout the U.S. and Canada. On December 7, 1941 Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. After the attack, their government took all Japanese owned boats, radios, and cameras. After the public pressured the government, and they took action and the government moved all Japanese from a 100-mile wide security strip along the U.S and British Columbia coast. Later, the government gave a further statement that declared that all people of Japanese origin were considered aliens until the end of World War II. In the first year of the war, the 21,000 Japanese who were affected by the war regulations, were sent to various states across the U.S. The government assured the states that the Japanese would stay in agriculture and would be removed after the war, at the state’s request. The remaining 12,000 Japanese were taken to Interior Housing Centers in the middle of the western part of the U.S. These housing centers consisted of four abandoned mining towns and two completely new communities. During the internment the U.S. Government claimed all the Japanese's land and possessions and sold them for a factor of the original cost. A good example of the Government's discrimination towards the Japanese is when the Government sold most of the Japanese owned property and land, without the Japanese's consent. Although Japan was one of the countries opposing the Allied powers, the Japanese were the only race that was interned. The internment was an act of discrimination, because the Italians and the Germans as well as the Austrians were pretty much left alone. At the same time as 12,000 Japanese were being placed in abandoned mining towns and later deported, Austrians, Italians, and Germans were walking freely around the United States with out being asked for much more than identification. Another strong argument raised by the Japanese Internment is why the U.S. Government Interned the Japanese Americans. Other people support this opinion, but think that the Germans, Austrians, and Italians should have been treated the same way. A different opinion is that the internment shouldn't have happened at all, and that the Japanese were discriminated against throughout the war. For example, in 1907, the Government had restricted the number of Japanese immigrants to a mere 400 a year. Many people believe that the Japanese skin color was a factor in the internment. During the war German, Italian, and Austrian Americans were left alone, while the Japanese were sent to prison Camps, and abandoned mining towns to live in, and being deported back to Japan for no reason, other that their home land was waging war against the Allied powers. Japan was one of the Axis powers, but it was not the only one. Three other countries were aiding them in the war and none of their U.S. citizens were bothered, interned, or deported. Many people believe that the U.S. Government treated the Japanese badly because of their skin color and ethnic origin. In conclusion, a majority of people feels that the Government acted upon the Japanese Americans unfairly using segregation, discrimination and prejudice, to separate them from the rest of Canada. Many people have observed that even before the war, the Government treated the Japanese unfairly, by not granting them citizenship even tough they were born there. This is only one side of the story and only one of the many positions that should be looked upon. Many other sides, perspectives, and aspects should also be looked at before making judgment on what happened, how it happened and why the Japanese Internment happened. The U.S. Government might have acted fairly upon the Japanese considering the situation, but as said before there are many other sides, perspectives and aspects to the Japanese Internment. This situation has been discussed in the past and will continue to be talked about in the future. The Japanese Internment is a big part of the United States past, and history and will remain like that forever.

Mujahaden Williams

This is about as accurate as one of History Student's diatribes -- which is to say, there is so little actual truth in there as to make it worthless. Critic-at-Arms (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Ha! Is that the best rebuttal you can provide? Give it up! --History Student (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"There are several informal ways to de-escalate conflicts and defuse disputes. Wikipedia collaboration occurs between geographically isolated people in cyberspace. Nonetheless, sometimes editors get angry and feel a natural urge to fire off an immediate retort. The urge is accompanied by a rapid heart rate, dilated pupils, and other physiological changes associated with the body's release of adrenaline (epinephrine). This is part of the fight-or-flight response. It may have helped early humans to escape from angry mastodons, but it isn't constructive at an online encyclopedia." There's more at WP:NAM (and some good pix of what mastodons may have looked like). Cheers and good vibes to all! Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously this is what happened to HS, above, who didn't even notice that I was condemning a large passage which opposed his position. Inaccuracy on either side is unacceptable. Critic-at-Arms (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Assembly Centers list

I have added information on how the internees were housed at the centers, and removed several erroneous references (which were actually places mentioned in photo captions as points where they boarded buses to go to the assembly centers).

I also added Owens Valley, CA and Parker Dam, AZ. No more exact location was noted in the NPS list. Critic-at-Arms (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

former Japanese spies apply for pensions

While researching the subject of Japanese epionage many years ago I came across a article about former japanese spies who were in the the U.S. and Hawaii during the war and were returned to Japan after the war applying for pensions from the Japanese government. Does anybody know anything about this? There were also spies in South and central American countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard Freeman (talk • contribs) 23:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

making it clear that most were children

About 3/5 to 2/3 of those interned/relocated were children brought along with their parents on the recomendation of social workers to prevent the breaking up of families and leaving them without a means of support. Among these children were almost all of the U.S. citizens. I do not believe this is made clear in your article. signing for this and previous post concerning pensions for spies I do not have tildes on my keyboard ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard Freeman (talk • contribs) 23:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, no part of your claim is true. That's why it isn't "made clear" in the article. 166.70.191.224 (talk) 04:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Two sides

When people discuss this issue there are usually two sides. One side supports the claim of some Japanese Americans that this was a horrible evil crime against japanese Americans and was not necessary. They try to point out racist motivation and the desire of some to steal the property of Japanese Americans. They try to make it worse than it actually was.

The other side tries to point out that it was necessary in order to prevent espionage and sabotage in support of Japan. They try to show that it was not as bad as some say it was and that it was a necessary part of the war effort. If one stands on pure principle then the former group is correct however we were at war.

I think the question here is, was the supreme court correct when it ruled that the internment/relocation was a war time necessity.

Can a persons liberty be restrained in war? I believe about 11 million men were drafted. They were almost entirely adult males. This should answer the question. Certainly when drafted ones liberty is restricted and a large number of these men were put in harms way and were forced to endure horrible conditions and many died as a result of being drafted. The draft was a much greater evil than the internment/ relocation. Just the numbers establish this. Those drafted lost jobs, businesses and property same as the Japanese Americans.

The answer is simple ,in the time of war sometimes it is necessary to force people to do what is necessary to perserve the country. Remember the draft was enacted before we actually entered the war. Our leaders thought it necessary to prepare for the worst. War was a possibility and our government acted. Invasion of the west coast,espionage and sabotage were also a possibility and our government acted. The draft wasn,t perfect many got out of serving. The internment/relocation wasn't perfect either. The only excuse we can offer is that we were not prepared, we were caught by suprise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard Freeman (talk • contribs) 22:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

My IQ dropped 6 poins after reading this.98.199.206.122 (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeLouis (talk • contribs)

A few things for those who disagree with Roosevelts decision and the U.S. governments actions to think about, but first ask them to put themselves in the place of a soldier,sailor or marine leaving a West coast port to fight in the Pacific. Would you have the guts to embark on a troop ship from LA harbor if you knew what our leaders knew: They knew that just before the war the Japanese consulate had passed out radios capable of communicating with japanese submarines patroling off our west coast. That 9 japanese submarines were in the area. That the mexican navy had reported japanese submarines meeting with fishing boats. The brodcasts were monitored coming from the large Japanese community on Terminal island in LA harbor. That a Japanese Submarine had surfaced and shelled the oil refinery south of LA with its deck gun. That German submarines had crossed the alantic and were conducting a very successful attack on our East coast.(which was a greater setback to our war effort than Pearl harbor that resulted in the sinking of 320 ships in american waters.) That being confined to the hold when a troop ship is torpedoed is a horrible way to die trapped in a dark hold with hundreds of others as the ship sinks. Just one man with a radio behind enemy lines can sink allot of ships as the austrailian coast watchers proved. Roosevelt had a obligation to those millions of men drafted. T--Howard Freeman (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)o win the war as quickly and return them to a life of freedom with as few deaths as possible.

I think you have some good points to make; my feeling is that is a bit biased but I haven't taken time to really look at it in detail. And I also tend to view the internments in the light of the draft at the time. Perhaps the internments were a mistake, they undoubtedly caused hardship, and there was probably some racial motivation to them, but considering the crisis facing the country and the relatively good and safe conditions of the camps, it wasn't the horrible evil crime it's usually portrayed as. However the arguments you make aren't really specific enough to be helpful for editing the article, nor are they backed up with verifiable sources. You obviously have strong interest in the subject so instead of posting arguments here, why not take the time to go through the actual article and find specific instances of wording that are biased or selective use of facts that leads to bias. When you find them you can either correct them directly (with the risk that someone will revert your modification) or bring them up for discussion here. But the suggested changes need to be specific.

For what you posted above to be included in the article, you'll need to make changes so that you're not guilty of original research. In particular, you'll need to find a credible or notable source that has made those arguments. You'll also want to provide some verifiable sources for the facts you present. (Did a Japanese submarine really shell an oil refinery in California?).

Right now you can get the impression from reading the article that the camps were the product of unmitigated racism. But the article wouldn't be complete without statements by wartime leaders explaining the need for the camps, now would it be complete without reporting the 1980 congressional investigation findings. Were there other explanations equally notable and verifiable? Please provide them. Readin (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am having trouble understanding how this works. After reading the article I would like to make a few talking points. So I hope this is the right way. Many make charges of racism when dicussing this issue however one must remember that the U.S.was helping China and the Chinese are of the same race as the Japanese. It is more a issue of country of origin. Are the terms country of origin and ethnicity the same? Someone also posted saying that there were no convictions of japanese for spying without considering the fact that the internment/relocation might have prevented such actions. Perhaps it worked. Another point I would like to make is that ethnic Germans helped the German army when they invaded the low countries and Norway and ethnic Japanese helped the Japanese army when it invaded the Philippines and Solomon islands. For the Japanese their nationality and religion are linked ,the emperor was seen as a God like figure. This would make it especially hard for them to give up their country and religion at the same time. The idea that all Japanese living in the U.S. gave up all loyality to Japan and the emperor on Dec.7 1941 is impossible to believe. There would almost certainly would have been espionage and perhaps sabotage if not for the internment and relocation. The justice department had only a few Japanese speaking people and did not have capability of investigating and tracking down security risks and the U.S. had a war to win, that at the time wasn't going all that well. Is war a just excuse for cutting back on civil rights? internment/relocation.

Comments on article: Since this site is said to be a encyclopedia it is important to be fair as young students who have not yet formed a opinion on this issuse may come here for information. Yet in the very first sentence you shade the issue in a way that puts the U.S. in a bad light. That is stating that 62% were american citizens without including the percentage that were children and why they were taken along. Almost all the U.S. citizens were children. Now a young student may understand why citizens of Japan were interned as enemy aliens but May see the internment of U.S.citizens as a bad thing. Internment of enemy aliens was common practice for all countries at war. Canada did it but did not take the entire families and thoes taken were subjected to very cold and harsh treatment. WE took the families on the advice of social workers to avoid breaking them up and leaving them without support. No good deed goes unpunished.

There are many other areas in the article that have a similar leaning. I hope they will be corrected. --Howard Freeman (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC) always remember to get another source if your doing a project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.13.253 (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

there seems to be allot of applying todays conditions and thinking to the time of the internment/relocation. For example some have posted about the poor living conditions at the camps. They seem to think they were so horrible. I grew up in rural america at that time and remember it very well. We had an out house for many years after the war. We had well water that was pumped at the kitchen sink and horse drawn wagons. Many homes did not have electricity. Apartment buildings often had only one bathroom per floor that all shared. The idea that every child should have their own bedroom was unheard of much less their own bathroom. The young people of today would have been considered wealthy. If the living conditions at the camps seem horrible to you they do not seem all that bad to me. From what I have read they were better than many americans had at the time. Remember the depression? All the japanese interned/relocated were not rich property owners. Most were poor did not speak english and lived in slum fishing communities. A pre war survey showed more than 100 people using one toilet. Terminal island in LA harbor had a large Japanese shanty town community with open sewers. Once relocated many older Japanese did not want to leave the camps perhaps life was better. inside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard Freeman (talk • contribs) 16:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you need to figure out how to post properly. For starters, put your stuff at the bottom of the page, don't indent your paragraphs, and put four tildas at then end of your post. Readin (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out in previous posts I feel the article is bias in favor of the Japanese/japanese Americans point of view from the very first lines. ( 62% said to be American citizens with no mention of the % of children who were citizens by being born in the U.S. ) I do not want to edit the article myself and mention this in hope that someone more skilled than I in this sort of thing will correct this. I study WW II in total but in my extensive reading I have read quite a bit about the internment relocation and found most of it favored the Japanese side. In our small rural library we have a book called Americas Concentration Camps.( can't remember author )inside it is stamped " provided by japanese American Citizens League of San Francisco" It is a extremely one sided attack on the U.S. and President Roosevelt. They use denial and withholding facts that do not support their position. They Apply todays conditions , definitions, legal decisions and morality to wartime 1941. They take statment and actions of individuals, newspapers etc. and indicate they were government policy. One horrible distortion after another. Most of what I post is common knowledge however I am elderly and diabled and it is difficult for me to get out, so if there is anybody out there interested please help by providing sources. I also must share this computer with others so --Howard Freeman (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not bias on this supject. Just correcting some revisionist new false history that is slanted in vavor of the Japanese /Japanese American side. I feel that many see the Japanese as a minority group and therefore nothing bad can be said about them even if it is true and this has given them the opportunity to rewrite history in their favor. I am for correct history with all the facts on the table.--Howard Freeman (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Howard, but your information is largely false. Let's start with your claim that the children were interned "on the advice of social workers" -- actually, they were interned because the stated, written policy was to round up everyone with "one drop of Japanese blood." This included orphaned infants and children in non-Japanese foster homes. There were no "social workers" involved in the process, and in fact even the ACLU signed off on the internment.

Second, you're wrong when you say that "almost all the U.S.citizens were children." A large percentage of Nisei (American-born, thus US citizens) were young adults, and many of these had their own "Sansei" children. There were even a few ADULTS who were Sansei (American-born with American-born parents).

The "Japanese radio broadcasts from Terminal Island" bit was found to be as false as the "arrows cut in canefields" bit following the December 7th attack. The only spy broadcasts from US territory came from Germans -- yet there was no suggestion made to round up all persons of German ancestry.

Yes, dying in the hold of a troop ship is a horrible way to die. So is being shot by your own governnment, a fate which befell several people in the camps. It's horrible to die because you were taken out of a hospital immediately after surgery and sent to live in a horse stable -- this happened to several people too. It's horrible to have your family taken out of Los Angeles and sent to a prison camp in a swamp, then watch your 16-year-old daughter die there . . .her only "crime" being that she had Japanese grandparents!

As far as living conditions in the camps, you simply have no idea what you are talking about. There is no comparison to your rural childhood, unless you grew up in a tarpaper shack, had to eat in a mess hall, weren't allowed to own a radio or camera, and were subject to being SHOT if you came close to the barbed wire fence surrounding your home. Can you blame the people who lived under these conditions for being something less than enthusiastic about this?

And it is true that most of the Japanese Americans were not rich, but what does that have to do with it? Does that make it any more right for the government to force them out of their homes and jobs, with nothing more than they can carry?

You most certainly ARE biased on the subject, or you wouldn't believe the things behind some of your comments. The only "revisionism" has been a constant attempt to prove the internment justified, to back up Karl Bendetsen's absurd statement that the complete lack of sabotage was "a disturbing and confirming indication that such action will be taken." 166.70.191.224 (talk) 04:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Radio messages from the japanese community on terminal island, arrows cut in the crop fields pointing toward Pearl harbor, that sounds as fantastic as sheets in patterns hung on the close line of a Honolulo beach front home indicating what ships were in pearl harbor, except that the sheets on the line thing was testified to in a post war interview given by Takeo Yoshikawa the great Japanese spy. Isnt is the nature of spies to strive to go undected ? The Japanese are more open about there spying then the Americans who defend them. Even Japanese Americans were more open about it prior to the 1960's, your reference list should include older publications.--76.5.31.20 (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This talk page is only for discussion of improvements to this article. It does not exsit to discuss Japanese American internment. There are doubtless other forums where such discussions can take place. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

fubgfgggvgyviygvy hhgbhu hboubo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.169.149.42 (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In my posts I have made several suggestions on how to improve the article and why it should be changed. I sign my own name and stand behind all I have posted. I have lived through it. I suggest others try researching espionage not the internment/relocation if you want the true story of Japanese spying. Also read older puplications written before the revisionists and political correctness. Also research living conditions back then. You will be suprised how much thing have improved in just 65 years. so long.--76.5.31.20 (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

japanese internment

There is a discrepancy regarding the number of Japanese Americans interned. The Japanese American internment article states that 110,000 were relocated and the article on Executive Order 9066 says 920,000. 66.118.223.37 (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The 920,000 figure was vandalism. Thanks for pointing it out. howcheng {chat} 21:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Improperly categorized

JCDenton2052 has improperly categorized this as a "War crime", notwithstanding the fact that it does not match the guidelines for the related topic. Looks like excessive POV-editing, which is not helped by his frequent edits of user pages accusing other editors of vandalism. Tedickey (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Your claim that I frequently edit user pages accusing others of vandalism is not supported by reality. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Categories Human rights abuses and war crimes

There are several sources that indicate the internment of Japanese Americans was a violation of human rights. For example, in 1979, Mike Lowry (D-WA) introduced the Japanese American Human Rights Violation Redress Act (H.R. 5977) that would eventually lead to the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians. Other sources also label it a human rights violation. As for war crimes, see the Fourth Geneva Convention.

"Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria." (bold mine). JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid not - you're taking pieces of sentences out of context, providing a meaning which is not found in the "cited" text. Please stick to facts, leave your opinion out of the discussion. Tedickey (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

GCIV is in the context of an international conflict, which World War II was. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Came here fro mthe AN/I thread. I'm convinced by JCDenton's citations that the Nissei camps were Human Rights Violations. He hasn't supported the War Crimes category yet though. ThuranX (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree on that (given the qualification that the Human Rights Violations are subject to modern-day guidelines - it's more debatable in terms of guidelines at the time) Tedickey (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, what if we agree to categorize this in human rights abuses but drop war crimes? JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That (war crimes) was what I was objecting to. Tedickey (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

An interesting question. Look at the factors involved. 1), the United States, a signatory of the Geneva Conventions, was in a state of declared war against a hostile enemy. 2), noncombatant, civilian nationals of that enemy were resident in the United States. 3), those nationals, their children and grandchildren were interned on the basis of ancestry (race) rather than on the basis of actual nationality, citizenship status, nor individual action in support of enemies of the United States. That looks to me like a completion under the law of violation of the Convention -- thus, war crimes.

If you look at the Wikipedia section on GCIV, you find prohibitions against causing physical suffering (I think shipping them off to tarpaper shacks in deserts and blizzards would qualify) and punishment for crimes not committed by the punished (incarceration of the wives of men arrested on suspicion of anti-American activity, for instance).

The only question is whether we can consider it a war crime based on a protocol which was not signed until after the end of the internment. The precedent here is that various National Socialists, mostly members of the German government, were tried and even executed for war crimes which GCIV was written to outlaw. The legal justification for those convictions is that, while not specifically codified at the time of the crime, the nature of the offense was such as to clearly be criminal to a neutral, prudent and reasonable person. Again, the internment seems to meet this criteria, and in fact the US government specifically admitted that this was true in the finding that reparations for camp survivors was appropriate.

Given all of the above, and as much as it pains me to say so, I have to conclude that my country did, in fact, commit war crimes against the Issei.

It would have been different, if it had been simple exclusion. However, DeWitt and Bendetsen imposed a prohibition on travel, keeping the Nikkei from leaving the exclusion zones, then incarcerated them in camps which were mostly outside of the exclusion zones. Critic-at-Arms (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

People, it is not up to Wikipedia to decide whether these were war crimes and/or human rights violations. At this point, categorization of this article into either of those categories is premature, since there is no discussion of this in the article itself. Find external sources which classify the internment as a human rights violation and mention it in the article, then apply the category. howcheng {chat} 23:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"Reliable" sources, of course (for any political topic it's trivial to shop around for supporting opinions). Tedickey (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

glossing over the threat

the section about niihau and the tachibana spy ring are very short in comparison to the "rebuttals". pretty unbalanced! japanese-americans were machine gunning other americans and we're supposed to believe there was no threat at all? and the "threat/rebuttal" section fails to mention the 5000+ camp residents at tule lake that pledged allegience to the emperor, and all in all the camps are presented as awful. camps had ice cream, beauty salons, movie nights, you could have visitors and could even leave the camp if you had a sponsor. also the fact that only west-coasters (and < 1% of hawaiin japanese) were relocated is consistently removed from the intro. japanese elsewhere were not relocated and the VAST majority of the relocatees were japanese citizens or their young children.

the whole episode was a great injustice, but that's war for you. millions died in WWII, its important to keep that in perspective compared to the relocations and not compare the camps to non-wartime life. and remember that this took place in the 40s, though the camps may seem beat up, most construction in the 40s was very low quality compared to today.

a little about the spies http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/politics/pearl-harbor-day-2757.html

71.112.10.248 (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would love to see more on the nature of the camps and available facilities, or on the Tule Lake incident which is indeed included but which you seem not to understand. Really though, your edits are very imbalanced and look more like you've got a passionate interest in minimizing or excusing the internment (not relocation, internment).

We work towards neutrality at Wikipedia, not agenda. If you're going to labor to excuse or justify the internment of Japanese Americans, I think you may want to take your interest in the subject elsewhere. It's pretty apparent what you're trying to do, when you change the "1200 to 1800 interned" to "less than 1% interned". This is not constructive.

Also note that citations are not just adornment, they exist as sourcing for facts; so when you change the facts and leave the sourcing, you're misrepresenting the source. DBaba (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not make this personal Daba. You are reverting wholesale without working to improve the article through consensus. 1200 out of 150,000 is less than 1%. If it was 1800 I apologize and I've changed it to less than 2%. A percentage is far easier to understand than two numbers that readers have to mentally compare in the intro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.10.248 (talk) 05:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Baba says Wikipedia works towards neutrality, then in the same sentence he says anyone who believes the ethnic Japanese were actually a threat to the West Coast (which they were) should go elsewhere. Talk about an agenda! The internment was not the evacuation/relocation either. Where are you getting your facts, Baba? --History Student (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

For the anon at 71.112, I disagree that a percentage is easier to understand. By using a percentage of 1% or 2%, you obscure the reality of just how many people were affected. A percentage would only be useful if the readers already knew just how many ethnic Japanese reside in Hawaii; because this info is largely unknown, to present the data as a percentage may serve as a tricky way of deluding the reader.

"Relocation" is just not an accurate term. They were interned, not merely relocated. Their freedom was clearly infringed upon beyond just being relocated, so I find that term to be misleading.

For History Student, I did not say that people who feel such and such a way should go elsewhere. I said that people who are here for political mischief should go elsewhere. My point was that I'm taking a neutral stance, not the opposite stance. To argue that "the ethnic Japanese were actually a threat", as you are doing, presents the same "POV" problem. Cheers, DBaba (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"Political mischief"? What's that? This isn't supposed to be about about politics but HISTORY, right? Politicians have legislated what Americans are expected to believe through the "Civil Rights Act of 1988". They should spend more time legislating new roads and bridges then telling the American people what to think. After all, they make reasons for political reasons, not historical reasons. This entire episode was a farce.

You're not taking a neutral stance and this article is so POV it's pathetic. How much space is devoted to military necessity for the evacuation as opposed to accusations of "racism, wartime hysteria and lack of political will"? This article is the Cliff Notes version of this history supplied by the Japanese American reperations movement. That's a shame. --History Student (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Having just read the first page of this article it significantly degenerated since the last time I read it. Here are a few facts that should be included. I'd include them myself, but the pro-reperations activists will just delete them.

According to the U.S. Census, Japanese population in the continental United States is as follows:

1880 - 148 1890 - 2,039 1900 - 24,326 1910 - 72,157 1920 - 111,010

However the actual population in 1920 was 150,000 - 100,000 in California and 50,000 in other states.

The Second Gentleman's Agreement stated that if Japan continued to violate the agreement and continue sending illegal aliens to the United States, the agreement would be replaced with an exclusion law. Japan did continue to violate the agreement and the exclusion law was enacted in 1924. Japanese coming to the United States were illegal aliens. Rather than deport them en masse (as Australia did) the Americans were quite lenient in allowing them resident alien status. After war was declared on Japan, resident alien status became enemy alien status. These people weren't "Japanese Americans". They were Japanese living in America. --History Student (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"These Japanese retailers have been the principal outlet for the Japanese wholesalers, since over a period of years it is well-known that the Japanese invariably give business preference to others of their own race."

"In small acreages planted primarily for local markets the Japanese grower has an advantage over the white grower that has pretty well driven the white grower out of small-scale production in many parts of Los Angeles County. These farms will average around ten acres and the Japanese farmer can and does use his wife and children for practically all his labor requirements giving him a production cost substantially below that of a small white farmer."

"I have talked to many many wholesale growers of vegetables for the local market who have either gone out of business in the past ten years or greatly reduced their operations due to Japanese competition of a type with which they could not meet and are willing to to plant increased acreage especially for the local market if they have any assurance they would not have to meet the competition of the Japanese family.

"A comprehensive system of associations set up for these small Japanese farmers has enabled them to regulate market supplies and reduce prices at will, to the point that the competing white farmer has been forced out of production."

-Associated Produce Dealers and Brokers, Homer Harris testifying before the Tolan Commission

Yes there was resentment by some of the Americans and much of this resentment had been festering for decades due to Japanese collusive business practices and the fact Japanese farmers were willing to live like serfs, thus driving down the standard of living for white farmers who were not willing to live like serfs. I don't see this mentioned in the article. --History Student (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's an interesting book I doubt any of you have read. This excerpt is especially revealing. Why not add it to the article?

"Back in Tokyo, Hori concentrated on American strategy in the Pacific. Hori considered the decision by President Franklin Roosevelt to intern Japanese-Americans was a blow to the network that Japanese military attaches in Washington had cultivated. Contrary to the contention that Japanese Americans were all loyal to the United States, Hori says there were some who gathered information for Japan prior to the Pearl Harbor attack. The internment of Japanese Americans thus cut Japanese access to information on American industrial capacity and troop movements, according to Hori."

Eizo Hori, "Dai-honei Sanbo no Joho Senki," (Records of Intelligence War by a Staff Officer at the Imperial General Headquarters), Bunshun Bunko, 1996, 348 pages --History Student (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the paragraph on General DeWitt (the favorite whipping boy of the reperations activists), as Conn clearly shows, DeWitt, up to his final recommendation to the War Department on 13 Feb. 1942, (prior to FDR's E.O.9066) was consistent in his opposition to the detention of American citizens.

His final recommendation to the War Department was that "citizen evacuees would either ACCEPT INTERNMENT VOLUNTARILY OR RELOCATE THEMSELVES with such assistance as state and federal agencies might offer." (Emphasis mine)

In his final recommentation, DeWitt also called for the inclusion of ALL enemy aliens (German and Italians as well as Japanese) in any evacuation decided.

The evacuation decision was made in the War Department and instructions to DeWitt for instrumentation thereof differed markedly from DeWitt's final recommendation in a number of respects. But the fact is that from early on to his final recommendation prior to the Evacuation Decision made in Washington, DeWitt was consistent in his opposition to the detainment of American citizens of Japanese descent. As a good soldier, however, he bowed to the orders of his superiors and carried out their instructions to the best of his ability.

Also, rather than using the "Japs a Jap" comment only, why not use (or at least provide a link) to the entire piece so readers can understand its context? --History Student (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The article says the "internment" SIC was popular among many white farmers, but there is no mention it was also unpopular amongst many white farmers and agribusiness interests. Why not add these quotes from the Tolan COmmission?

"We are alarmed at the attention which is being paid to thoughtless public clamor for the whole evacuation of Japanese aliens and Japanese-American citizens from thier present locations, without due regard being given to the value of thier productive activity where now engaged."

-Lowell Beerry, Best Fertilizer Co.

"The partnership own outright 700 acres of land in Salinas and has approximately 5,000 acres under lese all together in Arizona and California...Unless we use oriental help we cannot farm these lands economically and efficently.

If we are unable to use Japanese in our labor camps, could we be allowed the use of our key Japanese-American formen..."

-T.M. Bunn, Salinas Valley Vegetable Exchange

"This area has been developed by Italian and Japanese gardners, mostly Japanese, especcially brussels sprouts and broccoli. Our company thinks this is the best area in which broccoli can be grown in the United States.And this has been a very successful crop grown by the Japanese, and it would be very hard for us to replace this crop without the help of the Japanese."

-Barclay Henderson, B.E. Maling Inc, Produce Canning and Quick Freezing

"It is the writer's belief that these aliens, supervised as they are by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or as they may be by additional administrative or legislative provisions, are certainly no detriment to the public security when they are digging in the soil in agricultural areas. On the contrary they are producing food, and food is something we need in abundance and without needless interruption."

--Floyd Oles, Washington Produce Shipper's Association

Now I understand these quotes don't fit the racist tone that the Japanese American activists demand, but still facts are facts. The facts are a large percentage of white Americans in the public and private sector opposed evacuation because the Japanese were superior at intensive truck farming and these crops would be needed for the war effort. In the private sector much opposition came from those in the agriculture business, including produce shippers, packing houses, fertilizer companies and white Americans who had leased farmland to the Japanese.

Another agriculture related problem, especially in California is that the predominately Filipino and Mexican field workers refused to work for Japanese farmers and nobody was willing to work their crops. --History Student (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

all looks like good info to me

• most japanese were illegal immigrants, citizens were unhappy about their wages being lowered by illegals, who used child labor.
• big business wanted the japanese to continue working, as a source of cheap labor and products.
• the plan was to forcibly relocate illegal aliens, not citizens. (i'd guess children of illegals would have to go)
• japanese military utilized japanese population as a spy network, disappointed when they were relocated.

also sounds like there were reparations for real losses in '48, then a couple more rounds later on? what were the later reparations for

daba, i was here a long time ago and thought HS was annoying, but the more i read i realized we've been fed a bill of goods on the "internment". i do feel sorry for the people that went, but the way it is portrayed in this article and the media is incorrect. illegal immigrants getting ice cream and movie night, hair salons, spending time with their families, going on fishing trips, having visitors and the right to leave if they could get a job, well, none of this is reported. you'll also never see images of the tule lake prisoners wearing kamikaze bandanas on TV, only HS finds that stuff. 71.112.10.248 (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Annoying? Me? Well if that's what it takes then good! Nobody cares about this history and they passively read what's in the media (funded mostly by taxpayer dollars courtesy of the Civil Rights Bill of 1988) and they take it as the truth.

To answer your question, the apology and $20,000 was for "violation of civil rights". I lived in Japan in the 1980s when the Americans were running around looking for Japanese who had renounced their citizenship 40 years earlier so they could receive an apology and a check. The Japanese media had a field day! Only in America... --History Student (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

the silence sounds like we've reached a consensus, time to get some real history in this article 71.112.10.248 (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You certainly shouldn't take my silence as consent. I'm British, so I've no particular horse in this race, but I'm yet to be convinced by the arguments presented by History Student. David Underdown (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

what are you not convinced of in particular? (and why) and btw, i don't have a "horse in this race" other than getting an honest article out there. 71.112.10.248 (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well I'm not out to convince those who choose not to be regardless of the evidence presented. --History Student (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is an interesting quote from the Tolan Commission on National Defense Migration made by Representative Carl Curtis of Nebraska March 7, 1942. Why not add it to the article?

Mr. Curtis: May I say something right here. I don't believe anything will be gained by assuming that everyone who has to be evacuated is disloyal. These military decisions must be made upon the basis of the best judgement of those military authorities who are in charge. The rest of us will have to comply. It will be tuff, it will be cruel and there will be hardships.

Sherman had an old idea of what was war, but that was a long time ago and it is old-fashioned. But that is going to fall upon every American.

I live in a little town of 1,700 people. One of the car dealers there sells automobiles. He did sell automobiles, radios, washing machines and tires. His Government at Washington says, "You can't sell any of those things. You can't even buy them.

It so happens that that family has two sons in the armed forces and a third one about to go. Well, now, they are not sitting down at their supper table and talking about their liberties and their precious rights to do business and their precious things being taken away. It is one of those things that all of us are just going to have to take on the chin and like it.

(Rep. Curtis made this comment to Japanese American members of the United Citizens Federation. It is amazing from reading the National Defense Migration testimony that the arguments made by the Japanese American Reperations Movement today is nothing more than the same old positions used by similar groups in 1942. Their positions are no less impressive today.) --History Student (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Under "Internment Ends" (SIC) the follwing line is used: In December 1944 (Ex parte Endo), the Supreme Court ruled the detainment of loyal citizens unconstitutional... This is a half truth.

The decision did not hold that the detention per se was unlawful, but that detention of a concededly loyal citizen was unlawful. After a citizen's loyalty had been affirmatively decided, the citizen could no longer be held.

In other words, under the existing circumstances, detention of persons of questionable loyalty is legal until their loyalty has been determined. Then they can go. As another clarification, the reason Endo was not allowed permanent leave in the first place is because she did not apply for permanent leave.

Incidentally, Endo was moot. The exclusion orders were lifted before the decision was released. The lifting of the orders coupled with the announced closing of the centers was a shock to the residents. They didn't want the centers closed and petitioned the government to keep them open until the end of the war. Ever hear of a "concentration camp" where the residents didn't want to leave?

The paragraph regarding the Endo case needs to be rewritten. --History Student (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

why didn't they want to leave? do you have a quote/link for that? 71.112.10.248 (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Democracy on Trial" by Page Smith, PhD History, UC Santa Clara; Chapter 24 of that book, titled "Closing the Relocation Centers:

P.372 "Among the evacuees the announcement that the centers were to be closed brought another wild emotional upheaval....The outraged reaction was perhaps best expressed by a Nisei girl at Minidoka who exclaimed: 'This is a town. You can't close a town.'.... "Soon there were the now familiar protests and petitions. The centers couldn't be closed. Many of the people remaining in them were Issei men and women too old to start over...

P.373 "One evacuee who had been planning to resettle angrily canceled his plans. He would hang on until he was 'shoved through the gate.' Talk went around about a sit-down strike...

P.383 "A well-to-do evacuee at Heart Mountain expressed the sentiments of those remaining in the centers: 'I guess I'll just have to go..I don't want to go. I sort of like it here. My work is interesting. I have time for golf and fishing....I have no worries. My wife likes it here all right and my daughter has her friends. We're used to it..Oh, I'll go. I have to..But I don't want to.'"

The chapter goes on to tell that delegates from the various centers elected representatives to a conference at Salt Lake City to discuss the closing of the centers and to formulate a series of 21 requests to be made of the U.S. government preceeded by a "Statement of Facts" in which the delegates wanted an agreement from the WRA that their recommendations be met in conjunction with the closing of the centers. No agreement on the complete list was reached with the WRA.

The WRA persisted in encouraging (practically begging) the evacuees to apply to leave the centers. Counselers were dispatched to assure them of good treatment on the outside, monetary incentives to leave were offered, WRA resettlement field offices were set up in Chicago, Cleveland, Minneapolis, Des Moines, Milwaukee, New York, and other cities to pave the way for employment of the evacuees. But still many evacuees, particularly the Issei, resisted leaving the camps. In a letter dated February 10, 1981 former WRA head,Dillon Myer, responded to a researcher's question in the following words: "The WRA did its very best to get people to leave the camps, and of course many thousands did leave...but many of the older aliens refused to leave... because they felt more secure in the camps." --History Student (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Those who didn't want to leave had lost everything that they couldn't carry in two suitcases -- homes, belongings, money and in many cases members of their family -- and had no place to go to start over, especially those over the age of 50. There was also no plan to deal with the orphans, most of whom had been under the age of 6 when they were taken away from their foster homes, but some of whom now were approaching adolescence (a difficult age for child placement at any time, far worse in the postwar period).

In other words, the prevailing opinion was that the government which had destroyed their lives owed them more than to abruptly shove thousands of people back onto the streets of their old hometowns with no way to survive. This was the equivalent of sinking a ship, then machinegunning the lifeboats. Critic-at-Arms (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

My silence has nothing to do with consensus -- I have simply had more important things to do than waste my time arguing with History Student, as he proves the "Big Lie" doctrine. He pastes massive amounts of out-of-context junk from a handful of sources, but won't answer any questions with any meat in them. For him, this appears to be a religious issue -- or, perhaps, financial. I think he's connected to the outfit which sells the book by Lowman. I find it telling that this company's ONLY other offering is a book Erwin Rommel, who killed thousands of Americans (and whom HS has defended in prior discussions). Critic-at-Arms (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That's nice you have more important things to do, critic. In the meantime, quit busting up my posts and learn to post at the bottom of the thread.--History Student (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"Interned Japanese Americans AND Japanese Nationals," not vice-versa

In the opening paragraph, it states, "Of those interned, 62 percent were United States citizens."

So, shouldn't this mean that the opening sentence "...approximately 110,000 Japanese nationals and Japanese Americans..." should read "110,000 Japanese Americans and Japanese nationals" instead of the other way around? Since 62% of all those interned were actually US Citizens, this fact should be stressed before the numerically fewer interned Japanese nationals. Seems to me the opening sentence structure as is suggests those interned were in number more of a foreign nature rather than being overwhelmingly legal US citizens.221.191.87.86 (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent closure of camp

According to this news piece, a camp in the mountains of California has only recently been finally closed. Should this be included in the article? - 207.112.118.243 (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm, that's from The Onion, so no, I don't think so. howcheng {chat} 20:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Could this be worded better? What does it mean?

The Native American councils disputed the amounts negotiated in absentia by US government authorities and later sued finding relief and additional compensation for some items of dispute.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

How about this? Various primary and secondary sources list counts between persons.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the first (the comment about dispute), though you may choose to simplify the comment. The other appears to be a stray fragment leftover from a previous edit (I'd look to see what the original context was). Tedickey (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well maybe we can do better. If I cannot understand the text, we probably have a problem.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It (the comment about dispute) may have been pasted (or lightly-adapted) from some external source. The main issue I would have with the sentence (other than jargon and less-familiar usage such as "in absentia" and "finding relief") is the repeated use of dispute/disputed to provide slightly different meanings of the word. Tedickey (talk) 10:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean? Can we improve it? For some, there was still contention over the location, but for most, their placement in isolated undeveloped areas of the country exacerbated problems of building infrastructure and housing. --Filll (talk | wpc) 00:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The sentence appears (could be clearer) to be referring to the issues faced by the people preparing the camps. The first part of the sentence says they were arguing/disagreeing about the location. The second part of the sentence says that because the camps were put in remote (isolated) areas without existing infrastructure, that there was a lot of extra work to do. The main issue in clarity here is that the category of affected people is not immediately seen from the sentence, following a sentence referring to the detainees. It's the sentence before that which refers to the WCCA, who are the "some" referred to in this sentence. Tedickey (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

New Talk Page? / Archive Old?

It's getting a little difficult to properly read through this one... --Gar2chan (talk) 06:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ungrammatical, unclear sentence

'Knowing that "public opinion would not support the direction of the Justice Department and the FBI, however, and DeWitt was undeterred."' Would make sense if the "and" were replaced by an ellipsis. Is that the intended sense of this? In any case, is there a particular reason to quote rather than paraphrase? - Jmabel | Talk 17:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

area of effect

The article's second paragraph says This power was used to declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast, including all of California and most of Oregon and Washington,. However, the map shown to the right shows only about half of Oregon and Washington being effected, and I couldn't find the information in the reference provided. I propose we reword to say "about half" rather than "most". Readin (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Property

There is exactly one sentence in this article that talks explicitly about what happened to internees' property. Certainly that deserves more attention. There are well-documented stories of forced sales in the brief period before internment, of property that was well taken care of by non-Japanese friends or associates and returned in good condition after the war, and of property where promises of such custody were made but not kept. All three scenarios (and maybe others I'm not thinking of) should be documented here. - Jmabel | Talk 17:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Henry Morgenthau, secretary of the treasury, reacted promptly to Congressman Tolan's appeal for action to protect evacuee property...The Federal Reserve Bank through its branches was enjoined to do all in its power 'to assist evacuees with the problem of liquidation...and protecting them against those seeking to take unfair advantage...to put evacuees in a position to obtain buyers, lessees, and other users of their property on fair terms...' (and) where the evacuee was 'unable to select his own agent...the Federal Reserve will be prepared to act as agent for the evacuee under a power of attorney.

As early as May of 1942, the Federal Reserve had established an "Evacuee Property Department" with 184 employees in five branch offices to assist evacuees with property problems and take the necessary steps to protect the evacuee from unjust losses. --History Student (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely there should be more about property. I've seen several historians note that popular support for internment was based on the economic hardship of farmers; the detainment of rival farmers, who happened to be Japanese, has been suggested as an economic motive underlying support for internment. DBaba (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"popular support" was not a motive for the internment camps. there may have been support for the idea and more after the fact but roosevelt didn't think he was going to get votes in cali by sending people off to camps. i would like to know more about property though. do we have any data on how much property went from japanese-american to non-japanese-american hands during the war? or any info about the pricing? i heard people sold property for 10c on the $ but have no idea if its accurate. btw give history student some credit now and then, he is great at finding info. 71.112.130.129 (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

too wordy

These edicts included persons of part-Japanese ancestry as well. Chinese-Japanese Americans (i.e., those who had Chinese ancestry as well), Korean-Americans[citation needed] considered to have Japanese nationality (since Korea was occupied by Japan during WWII), Japanese-Hawaiians residing in the mainland, those with Japanese-Cherokee ancestry[22] and Japanese Latin Americans (or "Japanese Latinos") from the West Coast of the United States during World War II were subject to restrictions under these programs. Anyone who was at least one-eighth Japanese, even if they had mostly Caucasian ancestry, was eligible.[citation needed]

If I read that right, it says that anyone with any Japanese ancestry was included by the edicts, as well as anyone with Korean ancestry because Korea was considered part of Japan. Is it necessary to include every other ancestry that a person with Japanese ancestry might conceivably have? Readin (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Since there has been no response, I went ahead and modified the text. Readin (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The Japanese immigrant community was increasingly intermarrying with other ethnicities at the time, in part of the long distance and difficulties of arranged marriages with Japanese living in the U.S. during the early 20th century. The large size of WWII-era Japanese empire over Korea, China and present-day Taiwan, and the Japanese farmers' arranged marriage rates with Filipino and Hawaiian peoples was noted to expanded the Japanese-American population. The lower but noticable rate of Japanese intermarriage with American Indians from Oklahoma arrived as migrant laborers in Central Valley of California during the 1920's & 30's, and the suburban town of Torrance, south of L.A. has fairly large Japanese and Cherokee populations lived in such close proximity, you have some local "Japanese" have Cherokee tribal membership. The Japanese of the U.S. west coast and Hawaii aren't only Americanized in spirit, but consisted of a variety of races from their residence in this country. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That's really over the top. Cite a source for that one. --History Student (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

2 different people or the same one?

We have (citations omitted):

Explained one farmer on behalf of the Grower-Shipper Vegetable Association in the Saturday Evening Post:

"It's a question of whether the white man lives on the Pacific Coast or the brown man. They came into this valley to work, and they stayed to take over."

Austin E. Anson, managing secretary of the Salinas Vegetable Grower-Shipper Association, told the Saturday Evening Post in 1942:

"We're charged with wanting to get rid of the Japs for selfish reasons. We do. It's a question of whether the white man lives on the Pacific Coast or the brown men… If all the Japs were removed tomorrow, we had never miss them in two weeks, because the white farmers can take over and produce everything the Jap grows. And we do not want them back when the war ends, either."

Is the "one man" this same Anson? One sentence is identical, and they are both attributed to the Saturday Evening Post. - Jmabel | Talk 17:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That is a good question and one I should like to have answered. Not that it would detract from the nature of the comments, nor their evidence of prevailing racial views and motivations. (MOB)DeadMeat (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i'm an 8th grade student currently learing about WWII... I find it extremely interesting/horrifying! I was wondering exactly what these Japanese-American concentration camps were? Also, I'm curious to know if the Japanesse-Americans put into these camps were treated as the same hostility as the Jews, Homosexual, Jahovah Witnesses, Handicapped and Gypsees were? (sorry for any mis-spelled words.. not trying to offend anyone) Thanks alot, --216.250.42.98 (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Curious Student

well you've probably graduated from 8th grade by now! but just read the article to get an answer to your question. japanese-americans were not killed as were jews, gypsies etc. were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.130.129 (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The Japanese-Americans were not subjected to genocide at any time. However, much as the Jews of europe during WW2, they were forcibly imprisoned, had their homes and money stolen, subjected to public suspicion and negative stereotyping with the encouragement of the government and were secured under armed guard with the threat of dire consequences should they attempt to escape (that means they could be shot). It is a bleak chapter in American history and a mistake the US government itself has acknowledged and desires to never repeat. Democracies may not be perfect and are often slow to change, but eventually, wrongs can be righted. (MOB)DeadMeat (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Unsupported assertion

The "After Pearl Harbor" section contains this statement: Civilian and military officials had concerns about the loyalty of the ethnic Japanese on the West Coast and considered them to be potential security risks, although these concerns often arose more from racial bias than actual risk. The statement has not reliable source supporting. Two examples of bias are giving, but the plural of "anecdote" is not "data". Propose we either find a source or simply allow the examples to stand on their own without opining on them. Readin (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of any comments of disagreement, the text has been modified. Readin (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I do object, although, apparently too late to matter. Therefore, I shall instead make a comment on the process and motivation for removal. I am disappointed at the "balance" this article's keepers are attempting to maintain. Require more than two cited sources and the historical fact that there were no Imperial Japanese saboteurs or spys discovered, or prosecuted from among the internment population before the words "arose more from racial bias than actual risk." be allowed to stand? The documented quotes and Congressional testimony of those executing and administering the internment are quite clear in their bias and hysteria: The Japanese-American internment was a racially motivated act carried out within the broader context of a racially segregated, pre-Civil Rights America. Frankly, if we allow the segregation apologists to continue diluting the nature of the wartime incarceration of American citizens during WW2, we should also allow Nazi apologists to argue that the Jewish internment camps were not a racially motivated program. In fact, I believe that the Nazis frequently used similar reasoning to justify their actions : internal "aliens" of suspect loyalty; loss of economic opportunity to a minority ethnic/racial minority; distinct racial and cultural features which set the "Jew" (or "Jap", both clearly used in the pejorative) apart from other Germans (Americans) and ensured their disloyalty; the criteria for separation and internment being one of racial/ethnic lineage. Prior to WW2 there was a large and well documented Fascist movement in the United States which involved many caucasian Americans of German and Italian origin. Yet, these proven axis sympathizers and their families were not subject to arrest, internment and loss of property and wealth as were Americans of Japanese ancestry. Finally, the US Government itself has declared the wartime internment to have been based on race and apologized for its actions. There should be no debate regarding the nature of the internment, much as there can be no debate as to the internment of the Jews and other "Undesirables" under the fascist governments of Germany and its wartime allies. Allowing an apologist to hide behind a questionable interpretation of the NPOV policy smacks of the most cynical form of semantics. I have not edited the article, nor will I. However, I feel that the direction and content of this article are very nearly revisionist. This is highlighted by arguments for removal of language which are declared NPOV even though documented evidence supports the conclusion. Would the sentence have been found equally objectionable if the conclusion had been made by the author of an article, or a program related to the issue and simply quoted by the contributor? If so, does that imply that the keepers of this article believe a "published" source is free of bias, or personal perspective, or simply that they are being pedantic in their management? (MOB)DeadMeat (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

More evidence of disloyal Japanese Americans. Let's add this to the article.

[1]

258 F.2d 109

NORIO KIYAMA, Appellant, v.

John Foster DULLES, as Secretary of State, Appellee.

MIYOKO KIYAMA, Appellant,

v.

John Foster DULLES, as Secretary of State, Appellee.

No. 15421.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

August 11, 1958.

Rehearing Denied November 4, 1958.

Fred Okrand, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellants.

Laughlin E. Waters, U. S. Atty., Bruce A. Bevan, Jr., Richard A. Lavine, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before FEE and CHAMBERS, Circuit Judges, and CHASE A. CLARK, District Judge. CHASE A. CLARK, District Judge.

Complaint was filed in this case by Appellants (Plaintiffs below) on September 15, 1949. The cases were consolidated for trial and the trial had July 10, 1956 to July 13, 1956.

On August 27, 1956, the trial Judge rendered judgment in each case for the Appellee (Defendant below) and this appeal is from that judgment.

The record of the trial shows that Appellant Norio Kiyama was born on May 3, 1915, at Los Angeles, California, of Japanese parents, thus acquiring nationality of both the United States and of Japan. He was taken to Japan in 1922 and remained there to receive schooling until 1931 when he returned to the United States. He was at that time sixteen years old.

Appellant Miyoko Adachi Kiyama was born at Manhattan Beach, California, on October 21, 1921, of Japanese parents. During 1928 she was taken to Japan and remained there until sometime during 1938.

The appellants Norio Kiyama and Miyoko Kiyama were married in December, 1938. Neither ever registered to vote in an American election.

The record shows they are the parents of two children and that the births of the children in 1939 and 1941 were registered with the Japanese Consulate in order that Japanese citizenship might be obtained for the children.

On April 29, 1942, the Appellants, while residents of California, were evacuated along with other persons of Japanese descent, and were first sent to the Santa Anita Assembly Center of Arcadia, California, where they remained until about October, 1942, at which time they were transferred to the Gila River Relocation Center, Gila River, Arizona. While appellants were at Gila River Relocation Center from October, 1942 to October, 1943, the Center operated, except for the inconvenience resulting from detention, in much the same fashion as a community outside of the Center. Community government was established and in operation. There was full employment. Medical facilities were adequate. Education and recreational facilities were provided. The center was relatively peaceful with few, if any, disturbances.

On February 12, 1943, Appellant Norio Kiyama signed a form entitled "Statement of United States Citizen of Japanese Ancestry". In answer to questions 27 and 28 of this form [T 17-18] Appellant stated that he was unwilling to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States and was unwilling to swear unqualified allegiance to the United States and faithfully defend it from attack by foreign forces. He also indicated that he did not desire employment in any part of the United States.

On March 1, 1943, Appellant Miyoko Kiyama indicated that she desired no employment and would not take employment in any part of the United States. She also stated that she was unwilling to volunteer for the Army Nurse Corps or the Woman's Army Auxiliary Corps and was unwilling to swear unqualified allegiance to the United States of America and to forswear allegiance to the Japanese Emperor.

On June 30, 1943, Appellant Miyoko Kiyama signed a form entitled "Individual Request for Repatriation". In executing this form the appellant requested that she be repatriated to Japan.

On June 31, 1943, Norio Kiyama signed two forms entitled "Individual Request for Repatriation" and "Request for Repatriation — Family Summary". In executing these forms appellant requested that he and his family be repatriated to Japan. On July 28, 1943, Miyoko Kiyama again executed an "Individual Request for Repatriation."

During October, 1943, the appellants were transferred to the Tule Lake Segregation Center. Before being transferred they were given an opportunity to change their `No' answers to questions 27 and 28. The appellants failed to change answers knowing if they did not do so they would be transferred to Tule Lake.

After being transferred to the Tule Lake Segregation Center, Appellant Norio Kiyama became a member of the Hokoku Seinen-dan, a militant pro-Japanese organization. Appellant Miyoko Kiyama became a member of the Hokoku Joshi Seinen-Dan, which was the counterpart of the men's organization.

On April 27, 1944, Norio Kiyama signed a form entitled "Request for Repatriation — Family Summary". On this form appellant indicated a desire that he and the members of his immediate family be repatriated as a family group.

On October 15, 1944, both Norio and Miyoko Kiyama wrote letters to the Attorney General of the United States requesting advice as to what legal steps should be taken to renounce their American citizenship and the citizenship of their family.

On November 10, 1944, Norio and Miyoko Kiyama executed and submitted to the Attorney General a form entitled "Application for Permission to Renounce United States Nationality" in which they requested that their citizenship be renounced. On November 14, 1944, Appellant Norio Kiyama wrote a letter to the Attorney General seeking to add to his application by stating that he had military training while in Japan for three years under the Japanese Army.

On December 7, 1944, a hearing on Norio Kiyama's renunciation of citizenship was held, and at this hearing Appellant stated, among other things, that he desired to renounce his American citizenship; that he signed the application to renounce freely and voluntarily; that before Pearl Harbor his loyalty was to Japan and that his loyalty was still with Japan; that he hoped and believed that Japan would win the war; that "The Spirit of Japan is so strong it will be able to win" and that "I think the Emperor is the highest power and I worship him".

On December 7, 1944, Miyoko Kiyama's renunciation of citizenship hearing was held. At this meeting she stated, among other things, that she signed the application to renounce citizenship freely and voluntarily, that when she returned to this country in 1938 her loyalty was to Japan rather than to the United States; that before December 7, 1941, her loyalty was with Japan; that her loyalty was still with Japan; and that she would like to see Japan win the war.

Norio Kiyama renounced his citizenship at Tule Lake on December 13, 1944, by signing a form entitled "Renunciation of United States Nationality". Appellant Miyoko Kiyama renounced her citizenship on December 12, 1944. On December 23, 1944, these renunciations were approved by the Attorney General as not being contrary to the interests of National Defense.

On December 27, 1944, Norio Kiyama was removed from Tule Lake and interned at the Internment Camp at Santa Fe, New Mexico. Said appellant was designated as one of the leaders in the reign of terror in Tule Lake, referred to in Finding of Fact 35 in Acheson v. Murakami, 9 Cir., 1949, 176 F.2d 953.

On October 19, 1945, Norio Kiyama signed a form letter entitled "Petition for Repatriation" in which he requested that his family be repatriated to Japan. On or about March 1, 1945, Norio Kiyama signed and submitted to the Attorney General a letter in which, among other things, he requested that he be furnished with a Certificate of expatriation.

On September 27, 1945, while still at Santa Fe Internment Camp he signed a form entitled "Application for Repatriation" on which he indicated a desire to be repatriated to Japan unconditionally and whether or not his family accompanied him. On this form he stated, among other things, "I have been always loyal to Japan during the war and I have no intention to change my loyalty to any other country at this time."

On or about December 28 1945, Appellants voluntarily left the United States and returned to Japan. They remained in Japan from sometime during 1946 until sometime during 1950 at which time they returned to the United States on a Certificate of Identity for the purpose of prosecuting this action.

Appellants make the following assignments of error (the same as to each appellant),

1. The trial Court erred in failing to adjudge that the Appellants are citizens of the United States and did not lose their United States citizenship by reason of their renunciations at Tule Lake;

2. The trial Court erred in failing to find, conclude and hold that Appellants' renunciations at Tule Lake were under duress and coercion;

3. The trial Court erred in holding that the burden rested upon the Appellants to prove that their renunciations of the United States nationality was involuntary;

4. The trial Court's findings and conclusions that Appellants' renunciations at Tule Lake were voluntary and not under duress and coercion is not supported by the evidence.

The record as presented here convinces this Court that there is no merit in any of the assignments of error set out by the Appellants. See Tsuyoshi Iwamoto v. Dulles, 9 Cir., 256 F.2d 100.

The acts and utterances of the appellants throughout the entire time mentioned in this proceeding leave no doubt as to where their loyalty was and would be again if tested.

Judgment affirmed. --History Student (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so where does it say anything about espionage or sabotage? Looks like a couple of people whose homeland had imprisoned them, so they wanted to go where they thought it would be better for them. You fail again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.253.223 (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually it looks like you didn't read very carefully. They acknowledged loyalty for Japan before Pearl Harbor. --History Student (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

History Student, in an effort to forward your personal agenda you have quoted a post-war legal ruling involving a married couple which held dual-citizenship until the time of their forced imprisonment under CEO#34. Whatever their motivation, they chose to renounce their US citizenship and seek repatriation with their chosen country (a rather naive and unrealistic goal given their circumstances). While you are clearly inferring by racial association that all the internees were harboring similar nationalistic fervor for Japan you fail to acknowledge the unique quality of this couple's actions and citizenship status. In fact, you are making a "Straw Man" argument with regard to the detainees and the detainment program. Frankly as a citizen of Japan who overtly and legally renounced his concurrently held US citizenship I should not think it unusual that he declared his primary loyalty to Japan. The facts remain that the vast majority of the imprisoned Japanese-Americans declared their continued fealty to the US, did not seek repatriation with their ancestral homeland and did contribute (when allowed) to the defeat of the enemies of the United States of American. You have failed to show any evidence of sabotage, espionage or the bearing of arms against the US by the internees. In fact, the "disloyalty" you proclaim was from a self-declared and legally recognized citizen of the Japanese Empire. Thus, citing this anomalous example you have only succeeded in revealing your personal motivation and revisionist bias while failing to make your case. (MOB)DeadMeat (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're a former American citizen who renounced his citizenship in favor of Japan, I'm not surprised you feel the way you do. Go back and read my posts and find that there was plenty of evidence of espionage and the disloyals never got the opportunity for sabatage but intelligence revealed they were in place to do so. Do a study of the Japanese "Civilian Spy Service".

As for your "legally recognized citizen of the Japanese Empire", so were 90% of Nisei over the age of 17 at the time. They were dual citizens. As the Kawakita case showed, you can't have it both ways. --History Student (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory content

The "Reparations and redress" section contains dates that are contradictory as well as repetitive content. At one point it states that the redress movement started in the 1960's and that the first success was in 1976 but then it says the movement started in 1978. This clearly makes no sense, but I don't know enough about the history to clean it up and make it more understandable. Hopefully someone else can help. Thanks. Tim (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Velavalee Dickinson

What does it mean that Velvalee Dickinson was "a nonethnic Japanese woman"? From the source cited, it does not indicate anywhere that she is of Japanese descent or a Japanese citizen.

Copied from the Wiki article:

Japan's wartime spy program The case of Velvalee Dickinson, a nonethnic Japanese woman who was involved in a Japanese spy ring, contributed to heightening American apprehensions.[27] —Preceding unsigned comment added by JCH321 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like unnecessary words ("a nonethnic Japaneses woman" could probably be deleted without losing useful context) Tedickey (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Opinion polls after the war

The opinions of the US public after the was looks intresting, and should probably be worked in somewhere.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 18:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC) http://www.jstor.org/pss/3023943