Talk:Internment of Japanese Americans/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

incarceration

just an fyi -- reparations activists have moved on from "internment" to "incarceration" —Preceding unsigned comment added by TuleLakers (talk • contribs) 01:33, 7 October 2006

Please sign your comments. --Gar2chan 10:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

And, since this apparently doesn't meet with your approval, please describe why the term "incarceration" doesn't apply. Critic-at-Arms 15 October 2006

Critic: Please assume good faith. Gar2chan just asked for a signature. TuleLakers gave an FYI. Nobody's disagreeing with anything. --ishu 15:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to Gar2chan, I was addressing the person who didn't sign, but apparently finds some fault with the use of the term "incarceration." Something which seems to elude many people, 65 years after the event, is the destruction of lives which was done by our government, on the whim of a handful of people. While I am not Nikkei, I know many of them and find the internment reprehensible -- yet here we are, today, arguing over terminology, while some attempt to justify the unjustifiable. Critic-at-Arms 17 October 2006

Critic: Please assume good faith. TuleLakers (the unsigned party) gave an FYI without issuing an opinion as to which term he/she preferred. You are the only one finding fault with anyone in this topic. --ishu 04:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay. TuleLakers, please explain why you consider it noteworthy that some people prefer the word "incarceration" over "internment." Throughout the last several decades, the words "imprisonment," "incarceration," "internment," "explusion," and so on have been used more-or-less interchangeably to describe the government's actions regarding the Nikkei from 1941 - 1945. The only protests that I've heard to the use of these phrases has come from people who feel that the "reparations activists" are not justified in their position. If you believe the phrase to be incorrectly used, please explain your basis for this belief. --Critic-at-Arms 23 October 2006

During the war, more than 33,000 evacuees voluntarily left the relocation centers to accept outside employment. An additional 4,300 left to attend colleges. All it took to leave the relocation center was a loyalty oath to the United States and the means to support one's self. That hardly fits the definition of "incarceration".

You also use the term "Nikkei", but the vast majority of Japanese Americans were kids many holding dual citizenship with Japan and their parents were enemy aliens. --History Student 15:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You are apparently asserting that nearly all of the adult Nikkei had left the camps for jobs during the war (remember, as you pointed out, "the vast majority" of the 110,000 internees were CHILDREN). This makes no sense. Such a figure would also include temporary workers, who had to return to the internment camps once their employment ended (and counting some of them more than once), and those who left the camps between the end of mandatory internment and VJ Day.

Permanent parole required a sponsor willing to take responsibility for the internee and any family members who would accompany him or her. Try finding that TODAY, much less under wartime conditions, immediately following an economic depression. You would turn to your family and friends . . .but your family and friends are also behind barbed wire! Even with a sponsor, you had to have a JOB and a PLACE TO LIVE. Even without the phrase of which you're so fond ("enemy alien"), this would be nearly impossible today, much less in 1943. And remember that there was no promise that the government wouldn't pull the same stunt again, of letting people leave one Exclusion Zone, then trapping them by arbitrarily creating another.

They also had to convince a review board that they posed to threat to to the public at large.

What part of armed guards are keeping you behind barbed wire, and will shoot you if you get too close to the wire, doesn't fit the definition of "incarceration?" Sure, by doing certain things, arbitrarily defined by the government, the Nikkei could leave. By doing certain things, arbitrarily definied by the government, a convicted murderer gets to leave prison too. And guess what? They are the SAME THINGS. So perhaps he's not incarcerated either . . ?

Also, by your reasoning, there should have been no barbed wire at all at most of the camps, since the Nikkei sent there were not in the Exclusion Zones.

You keep harping on the loyalty oaths. You seem to have no clue what the issue really was. For the Issei to renounce their citizenship WHILE FACING IMMINENT DEPORTATION TO JAPAN would have been to make themselves into targets for BOTH governments. As stateless persons they would have no protections. For the Nisei and Sansei, the wording of the loyalty oath made it a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question, forcing them to admit to a previous allegience to Japan. This would open them up to charges of being undeclared agents loyal to an enemy power, yet provided no promise of any sort of protection. Sure, you and I can both believe that the wording was simply careless (BTW, I DO believe that), but I don't think that either of us would have been all that trusting of the government under those circumstances. So why would the Nikkei have been any more trusting than you would have been? These objections were brought up, but the government refused to modify the questions! Wouldn't YOU wonder why?

Now you have a problem with the word "Nikkei"? Go look it up! Here, I've made it easy. Critic-at-Arms 27 October 2006

Those "enemy aliens" had kids in the United States (the vast majority of Nisei did not hold duel citizenship), which gives them much more reason to remain loyal, if that was ever really in question.

My grandfather held a job while interned (my other grandfather fought on the European front). He was an American citizen, like all my grandparents, with English as their native language. He had to return to the camp after work before nighttime. Your paragraph makes it sound like everyone had the possibility or choice to do outside work and that they remained outside the camp at that time. falsedef 20:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That's wrong. Over 90% of Japanese-Americans over age 17 were also citizens of Japan (dual citizens)under Japanese law.

Uh . . .History Student . . ? Where in history have the laws of one sovereign nation applied to another sovereign nation . . ? Japan could call them anything they liked, but they were AMERICAN citizens. Critic-at-Arms 10 November 2006

Thousands had been educated in Japan. Some having returned to the U.S. holding reserve rank in the Japanese armed forces. The Issei were enemy aliens after Pearl Harbor.

They did have the choice to do work or do nothing. They were never forced to work. Thousands sat around and did nothing for four years

Sorry, HS, this is not true, unless you are counting the aged, infirm, young children, and those who were prohibited from working by the administrators. "Sitting around and doing nothing" is not how the Japanese are built. Haven't you ever heard of "Karoshi"? Critic-at-Arms 10 November 2006

and then begged the government not to close the Relocation Centers when the war was ending.

Make up your mind. You say that nearly all of the adults left the camps during the war, then you say that they begged for the camps to be kept open. WHICH IS IT? Critic-at-Arms 10 November 2006

They also had the choice of leaving the centers provided they would declare an oath of loyalty and had the means to support themselves. It's all in Ex Parte Endo. I suggest you read it. --History Student 23:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You make it sound so simple. I'll bet you $500 that you couldn't duplicate that "simple" trick under the same conditions, as close as we can come to duplicating them. Critic-at-Arms 10 November 2006

Stop posting at the top level of the thread for you arguments. Most work was done inside the camp (including work for the war effort, such as making nets). You do realize the camp did not run on its own? Anyways, not everyone had a choice to do outside work, which is what we were discussing. Stop setting up straw man arguments.

Actually, you're wrong. Most Nisei did not have dual citizenship as in 1924 (the same year as America's exclusion laws) Japanese citizenship laws changed for Nisei. Since most Nisei were children, the 1924 law held that those born after were would not be granted automatic citzenship. The 1924 law is why you only cited ages 17 and up, which is quite misleading and devious. Three fourths of Nisei were NOT dual citizens at the time of WWII. Since the previous laws before 1924 provided automatic citizenship, older Nisei had never shown any disloyalty by gaining such recognition (by Japan, in Japan, not by America).

Thousands begged to keep the Relocation centers open? Your comments are out of line and downright disgusting. There is no court case or documentation for that. Camps were kept open due to the loss of property and jobs (compensation for property loss was not dealt with until 1948). Ex Pate Endo is a case of a woman trying to be set free from internment, exactly the opposite of what you're saying. They did not have the ability to request clearance to leave until the Endo case. The process wasn't something that could be done quickly. How can most have any means of supporting themselves if they're hundreds of miles from their hometowns? falsedef 09:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm right. Nisei born before December 1, 1924 could nullify their Japanee citizenship by submitting formal notification to the Japanese Home Minister. Those born afterwards would lose their Japanese citizenship within two weeks of birth unless their parents registered them with the Japanese Consulate.

Thus, after 1924, older Nisei could renounce their Japanese citizenship while the parents of those born after 1924 needed only to do nothing, and their children would have no legal ties with Japan.

However by 1933, only 8% of Nisei born before 1924 had renounced their Japanese citizenship, and by then, also, some 40% of Nisei born after 1924 had been registered at the Japanese Consulate so as to acquire Japanese citizenship.

Gee, HS, that's THREE TO ONE AGAINST. Critic-at-Arms 10 November 2006

Oops, sorry, three to TWO against. My error. Critic-at-Arms 11 November 2006

Of the some 110,000 persons of Japanese ancestry who were evacuated, approx 60% of the ADULTS were Japanese nationals, enemy aliens subject to detention in wartime under long-standing law dating back to 1798 and still on the books today.

You've just shot yourself in the foot again, HS. Elsewhere you note that the "vast majority" of adult Nikkei were Nisei. Critic-at-Arms 10 November 2006

Most of the U.S. citizens among the evacuees were minor children. And well over half of those over age 17 were dual citizens (Japanese and American). Of the entire 110,000 evacuated, only some 28,000 were U.S. citizens over the age of 21.

Further, in 1938, it was announced that children of dual citizens (Sansei) were eligiable for registration as Japanese subjects.

Eligibility means NOTHING, HS, the children of dual citizens born abroad may be registered as US citizens as well. BTW, Sansei means "third generation," it has nothing to do with dual citizenship. Critic-at-Arms 10 November 2006

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 Exclusion Zones were in effect until the beginning of 1945. The announcement was made that the camps would close in the spring of 1945 (this was later pushed back), which was not enough time to find work, places to live, etc. So, yeah, if the choice is between starvation and staying in the camp -- MINUS BARBED WIRE AND MACHINEGUNS -- I think that any reasonable person would want the camps to stay open a while, in the same way returning veterans stayed in camps built in various parks throughout Southern California, such as Rodger Young Village. Critic-at-Arms 10 November 2006

Your comments on Endo are wrong, also. (Endo provides a good history of the evacuation. This is my point.)

The Court did not hold that the detention of one whom the government had not yet conceeded to be loyal, is unlawful. In other words, under the existing circumstances, detention of persons of questionable loyalty is OK until their loyalty has been determined. Then they can go.

Incidentally, Endo was moot. The exclusion orders were lifted before the decision was released. Then the evacuees started demanding the Relocation Centers stay open.

Thousands left the Relocation Centers and started new lives outside the evacuation zones. The purpose of the Relocation Centers was assist those who could not or would not "support themselves hundreds of miles from home". That's a far cry from "incarcerated in a concentration camp". --History Student 19:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"Thousands begged to keep the Relocation centers open? Your comments are out of line and downright disgusting. There is no court case or documentation for that."

Wrong again. (P.S. I said thousands sat around and did nothing...)

"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...

Nice shootin' Tex! You've hit your own foot again! ". . .too old to start over . . ." Critic-at-Arms 10 November 2006

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. --History Student 18:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, stuff like "help in finding gainful employment" -- how DARE they ask for such a thing! Critic-at-Arms 10 November 2006

"You keep harping on the loyalty oaths. You seem to have no clue what the issue really was. For the Issei to renounce their citizenship WHILE FACING IMMINENT DEPORTATION TO JAPAN would have been to make themselves into targets for BOTH governments. As stateless persons they would have no protections."

According to the 1940 census there were 84,658 Issei in the U.S. and Hawaii at that time. In 1960 there were 101,656. An INS report "Persons Naturalized by Former Allegiance" indicates that between 1952 and 1960 only 32% of Japanese-born persons in the U.S.in 1960 had become naturalized. Of course we also don't know how many of the 1940 group survived and how many additional Issei (war brides?)emigrated between war's end and 1960. Nevertheless, if only 32% bothered to naturalize between 1952 and 1960 wouldn't that seem to indicate lack of a burning desire among Issei to become U.S. citizens? Why would the urge have been any greater in 1940?

"Yeah, stuff like "help in finding gainful employment" -- how DARE they ask for such a thing!"

So you're saying the U.S. Government did not provide help in finding gainful employment and settling ethnic Japanese east of the militarized zones? Is that what you're saying?

"So, yeah, if the choice is between starvation and staying in the camp -- MINUS BARBED WIRE AND MACHINEGUNS --"

You mean three strand cattle wire that was routinely crossed. Machine guns? That's another attempt at providing a worst case scenario.

Japanese American Evacuation O.H. 649 Harry Nakamura Interviewed by John McFarlane on May 2, 1971 California State University Fullerton Oral History Program Japanese American Project

McFarlane: Were you conscious of the enclosure, the barbed wire and the guards, there at the camp?

Nakamura: Well, our camp didn't have that barbed wire. We were able to go to the Colorado River and hiking to the mountains. The only guard I know of that they had was at the main gate. So other than that I don't think it was very strict.

McFarlane: Then you didn't see the guards, they weren't very apparent; they weren't driving around watching you?

Nakamura: Oh, no.

"So, yeah, if the choice is between starvation and staying in the camp I think that any reasonable person would want the camps to stay open a while..."

Okay, so let me get this straight. Now you're saying they wanted to stay in the CONCENTRATION CAMPS to KEEP FROM STARVING!

That's real good. Thank you for making my point. --History Student 20:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

HS, you've had no point to make. You throw out numbers that contradict each other, then ignore this minor little detail. You can't defend your opinion with fact, so you ignore any fact which intrudes on your viewpoint.

The OFFICIAL RECORD shows that a number of people were shot for approaching the fences which you say were "routinely crossed." James Wakasa, for instance. You say that is was a 3-strand barbed-wire fence, so please explain the 6- and 8-foot posts still in the ground at places like Topaz and Poston, which is the only camp near the Colorado River. Explain the guard towers, and why anyone would put them up but only put up 3-strand barbed-wire. Explain the photos which show the boxwire fences and the limit wires 10 feet inside them.

And please pick ONE set of numbers and stay with them. Did 33,000 adult Nikkei leave the camps during the war? If so, then who was left to "be shoved out the gate"? Critic-at-Arms 12 November 2006

To me, concentration camps seem to be the right terminology: the United States Government rounded up people for no reason other than their race. They did so out of revenge, as they did not round up many, if any, Italians or Germans. These people were rounded up and put into these "internment camps", and not allowed to leave until the end of the war. Their should definitely be a negative connotation to the term concentration camp; even though America's where no where near as bad as Germany's, they were still dreadfully wrong, a travesty. The Japanese internment was one of the greatest atrocities committed by America during World War II. (America DID commit atrocities, though many would like to believe otherwise and look to our country as perfect - All countries, no matter how good, commit atrocities, especially in times of war. Examples of past American wrongs: the lack of rights to women, who weren't even allowed to vote until the 1920's, and the lack of rights to African-Americans, who weren't allowed many basic rights until the 1960's civil rights era. 24.253.216.168 19:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with using the term "concentration camps", but I think you're mistaken on one point. In fact, America rounded up over 11,000 German resident aliens and their American born children. The Italian-Americans fought for and won an apology from the US government regarding internment, which is now a matter of public record. 69.151.233.215 01:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Italian and German Peoples

Can somebody get some more info on that or get a more concentrated section about that, I know there were many German and Italian peoples involved in internment camps.

Those internments would probably be better handled in a separate article. -Will Beback 04:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Between 1941 and 1948, the U.S. government rounded up anddetained 15,000 German-American civilians, disrupting thousands of homes.(Photos courtesy of the Traces Museum.) A traveling museum, dubbed the Buseum 2, will visit the Monticello Library Monday, Nov. 6. A traveling exhibit scheduled to visit Monticello next week tells thestory of a dark chapter in America's history, of a time when thousands of American citizens were forcibly captured and contained by agents of their own country.

http://www.germanworldalliance.org/news/Monticello.html

Johann

David Lowman, his book and related website

I find it interesting that the anti-internment website so revered by HistoryStudent is sponsored by Athena Press, a publisher with only two products.

One is the also-highly-touted book by David Lowman. The other is a book by that paragon of human rights, Generalfeldmarschall Erwin Rommel, "one of Hitler's favorite generals" and a man who once had unarmed black POWs killed to make a propaganda film. Rommel's other endearing actions included the order that non-white POWs be given 800 calories per day, while white POWs' rations were 1200 calories per day.

I can't help but wonder if there is some significance in their selection of a Nazi and a pro-internment bureaucrat as their "stable" of authors . . ?

According to his official bio, Lowman was in the Army during WWII, in the South Pacific. Since he died in 1999, we must assume that he was in his 20s or 30s during the war. Since the bio doesn't claim that he was involved in any way with MAGIC during that time, and considering his age, we have to assume that what he knew of the whole project came later. As a native of Washington (the state) and a veteran of the war against Japan, his impartiality must be questioned, but this may be the source of his outspoken support of the internment and opposition to CRA '88.

He then went into the National Security Agency, those wonderful people who tapped your phone in the 1990s (in direct violation of American law and of the Presidential order which created the agency in the first place).

Going back to the bio, after he retired from Spook Central, he was a "consultant on the declassification of World War II intelligence documents." Wow. He's an expert on declassification. I didn't see anything in the bio which indicated any expertise in ANALYSIS.

So, we've got a guy with an iffy background when it comes to Nikkei, who went to a hush-hush secret agency which is best known for keeping things secret, yet his claim to fame is in making information public . . ? He's an expert in declassification, with an agency whose very EXISTENCE was classified for decades . . .what's wrong with this picture???

Can anyone say "Disinformation Expert" . . ? I knew you could!

And his book isn't published until he's beyond the reach of any court order to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth . . .so, how do we know that what he put in the book bears any relation to that truth, and isn't just the result of years of carefully-crafted falsification by someone who hated the Japanese and anyone of Japanese descent? Critic-at-Arms 27 October 2006

Critic: Please be civil. Let's just address the documents presented and their content. If you have references that address the claims presented, the most constructive thing you can do is to present your sources so that we can vet them all together with Student's sources. Student is derisive, to be sure, but has shown a willingness to work with other editors. The internmentarchives.com site has some commentary I disagree with, but the documents present claims that I have not been able to confirm or refute. Confirmation or refutation is the task for editors on this page, and we should focus on that. --ishu 13:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I am being civil, but I refuse to let them force me to accept an unproven standard. They have been raising Lowman as their expert, thus Lowman's background is very much a valid issue for consideration. I have looked at that background and -- using only what his supporters have said to PROMOTE him -- found so many red flags it looks like a bullfighters' convention.

Disinformation is one of the primary jobs of any intelligence agency and its officers, and Lowman was awarded for his work with the NSA, eventually becoming a high-level, awarded employee. Thus, we can't ignore his necessary expertise in the techniques of disinformation, which are largely independent of the issue being discussed. Pick an issue to be "treated," it doesn't matter what, and you open the same toolbox. As a decades-long member of a group which is has been the constant target of a disinformation campaign since before any of us were born, it isn't hard to see the same kind of false neutrality in Lowman and the things which he reportedly wrote.

One thing which is glaringly absent is the "follow-through." Where are the convictions? We have the records of secret trials of the handful of National Socialist agents caught in the US, tried in secret, and executed -- even Paul Harvey commented on them on his radio shows. Where are the records of the trials and executions of those in the "hundreds of spy rings" which Lowman claimed were uncovered by MAGIC? Where are the holes left behind when they fell off the IRS and Social Security files? MAGIC itself was public knowledge at least as far back as the 1960s. The MAGIC team bragged about having a copy in the clear of the last part of the declaration well before the Japanese Ambassador had it . . .yet they weren't bragging about all of those Japanese American spy rings that they caught! What about all of the people who would have been involved in capturing, detaining, feeding, guarding, prosecuting, defending, judging, shooting and burying them -- where were they during the Congressional debate? BTW, Lowman wasn't one of them, he was in the South Pacific at the time. There are plenty of deep-left-wing and deep-right-wing bigot groups who would have delightedly put those stories in their neo-Nazi papers at the time, and on their websites now, but . . .the silence even from that quarter is deafening. The "proof" comes from a publisher with an unlisted phone number and a residential address, whose only other offering is a book by a Nazi Field Marshal. Of course, most publishers started small, and I am perfectly willing to believe that they took what they could get in order to get started, but at first glance it seems pretty suspicious. Critic-at-Arms 28 October 2006

So any person who writes or publishes a biography or history of WW2 Germany is now a facist? Guess that includes John Toland and William Manchester, too. I don't find your ramblings to be very convincing and doubt other people do either. --History Student 23:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Funny, HS, that you should bring up fascism. I said nothing of the kind. I merely pointed out some of the glaring obstacles between that stand between Lowman and objectivity, and noted that his publisher's only other offering was a textbook written by Hitler's "favorite general" (not a "biography" or "history"). I never said anything in the TWO WHOLE SENTENCES about the publisher that is not verifiable and accurate -- I even offered a possible explanation in their favor. YOU are the one who decided that I was calling them fascists, when I questioned their choice of books to publish. Interestingly, one of the tactics of the Fascists was to put words in the mouths of their opponents, then attack them for what they "said."

. . .but we all noticed that you don't actually have any REBUTTAL to offer of what I've written, just an inaccurate rant on a tangent. Come on, I've just shown that your "expert" isn't as golden as you want us to believe, don't you have ANYTHING to say in his defense? Don't you have any answer to my other points? You sound like those conspiracy nuts who claim that the Apollo landings were hoaxes, made on some soundstage somewhere -- you're certain of your "facts," but none of the thousands of other things (the infrastructure) that would go along with them are present.

Come on, HS, answer my actual POINTS. You believe that what was done to 120,000 men, women and children was justified, and you used Lowman's book as your proof that they were a threat, engaged in activities so heinous that national security demanded that old people had to be taken straight from surgical theaters to the horse stables, that 4-year-olds had to be taken from orphanages and put behind barbed wire. I've raised reasonable questions about your "proof" and it's source. Such questions are a legitimate part of debate, so you now have three options. You must either counter the points I've raised, admit that you can't, or close your eyes, plug your ears, and hum REAL LOUD. Which will it be? Critic-at-Arms 10 November 2006

Critic: Please be civil. Let's just address the documents presented and their content. If you have references that address the claims presented, the most constructive thing you can do is to present your sources so that we can vet them all together with Student's sources. Impugning the author is not the same thing as discussing the content. If you believe that the documents involve some misrepresentation, please discuss those concerns here. Whether the misrepresentation is due to Lowman's beliefs is less important than determining the validity of what he's actually written/compiled. --ishu 02:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Ishu, when someone is put up as an expert, it is the responsibility of those promoting him to prove that he is what they say he is. I know, when I have appeared as an expert witness in court and before elected officials, the first things which must be answered are my qualifications, then about my personal point of view (if that might have any effect on my testimony). ANY question about the expert's character as it may affect his "testimony" is appropriate, and must be answered in court. Is the truth any less important here?

I don't have to provide anything but questions, when countering an unproven assertion. Lowman's assertions are unproven, yet HS demands that we accept them as the baseline.

Lowman's background is fair game, as he A), was raised in an area with a noted historical anti-Nikkei social element active at the time he lived there, B), he served in the South Pacific in the war against Japan, C), he was a highly-placed member of an agency which practices "disinformation" as a key tool, and D), the book was not published until after Lowman was beyond the reach of any questioner who might get him under oath. Any one of these things would be enough to call his honesty into question. The combination is an overwhelming level of "reasonable doubt" about his motives and thus his honesty.

Additionally, as I have pointed out, there is a complete lack of any of the "ripples" which would have come if Lowman's assertions were right. Neither Lowman nor HS could claim that the records are still classified -- not after this information has appeared in a book -- yet those records just are not there . . .or they would be touted as proof of Lowman's otherwise-unproven claims. With so many minute details presented by HS and Lowman, where is the infrastructure which would have made these things possible in the first place? There are enough bigots who hate the Nikkei that if these things existed, they would be widely advertised. After all, ANYONE can set up a website, so there would be dozens of them.

Instead, what we have is one website, sponsored by people who want to sell the book from which the website content springs, and whose only other product was written by a National Socialist Field Marshal with a documented history of bigotry.

Until the pro-internment side is able to answer these issues, they are running very short on support for their beliefs.

Regarding "civility," HS put words in my mouth, then attacked me for those words which I NEVER SAID -- without comment from you. It is no less "civil" of me to point this out, and point out that he is unable to answer the factual issues which I raised, thus resorts to ad hominem insult to mask that failure. I want him to answer the questions, or admit that he can't. Critic-at-Arms 11 November 2006

"I find it interesting that the anti-internment website so revered by HistoryStudent is sponsored by Athena Press, a publisher with only two products."

The publisher is not publishing to make a living or make a name for himself.

How do you know this, HS? Please give me the name of the person that you spoke with who represents Athena Press. I'm planning to visit them in the near future and clarify the whole issue of the publisher, so it would help if I can ask the person that you got this from.

"...Generalfeldmarschall Erwin Rommel, "one of Hitler's favorite generals"..."

Check out this link: [1]

This comment especially: "He is also noted for possibly having taken part in a plot to assassinate Hitler, for which he was forced to commit suicide before the war's end."

I much prefer this one, from the same page: '"No evidence was found that directly linked Rommel to the plot, nor that he had been contacted by any of the plot ringleaders."'

Or this one: '"After the war, however, his wife maintained that Rommel had been against the plot."'

Or perhaps: '"Tempering this favourable view of Rommel are the facts that he did loyally serve Hitler and the Nazi government if not throughout his life at least until 1944, that he never publicly disagreed with any Nazi actions or goals during his lifetime, and several examples of racially prejudiced policies enacted under his command. Some examples of Rommel’s racial attitude are his 1942 order that non-white Allied prisoners of war in Axis captivity be fed only 800 calories a day, while white prisoners would be fed 1,200 calories and his killing of unarmed black prisoners of war in 1940 in order to film propaganda newsreel footage recreating his victories in France."'

So, we've got a man who is RUMORED to have POSSIBLY taken place in a plot, but not only is there no evidence that he was even directly aware of it, his own wife said that he OPPOSED the plot! Now, put yourself in her place. She was the widow of a very high-ranking officer who had served a conquered land -- one facing famine -- who is offered a chance to curry favor with the forces occupying her homeland. And she says NO, her husband was FAITHFUL to the conquered leader! Why would she do that, if it were not true?

This is also a man who clearly believed in the whole "Master Race / Lesser Races" thing.

"And his book isn't published until he's beyond the reach of any court order to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth . . ."

Well, most students of this history know that there was no oath sworn to tell the truth during the commission hearings, however the raw documents that make up two-thirds of Lowan's book speak volumes regarding this history.

So where are all the documents and records which would back up the stuff in the book? And please tell us what proof you have that A), the quoted documents exist, B), that they were accurately and completely contexted in the book, and C), that there were not other documents, NOT quoted, which would have changed the conclusions that you reached?

All you have to prove Lowman is Lowman's book . . .which wasn't published until after his death. His book was not given as an exhibit or testimony in any hearings. For that matter, I've yet to see proof that Lowman testified during those hearings, nor a transcript of his testimony, so there may be other questions to be asked about that one point.

"There are enough bigots who hate the Nikkei..."

I don't hate the Nikkei. I just believe a section of the community that claims to represent the Nikkei are liars and unwilling to confront the 100% truth.

If your (and Lowman's) assertions are correct, WHERE IS THE ANCILLARY EVIDENCE? Where are the records to back them up? There were several truckloads of records from the FBI alone following the Waco thing, yet you don't have the records of anything involved in the trials of spies, the verdicts issued, accounting for the costs of the trials, incarceration and disposition? Much less the personnel records, Quartermaster records of equipment issued and returned, etc. Where did these things take place?

Or did they have all of this MAGIC evidence and do nothing with it except decide to put every "Jap" on the West Coast behind barbed wire? DeWitt wasn't on the MAGIC list (MIS was a Class II activity, not under DeWitt's authority), but his boss was -- and his boss saw no reason to order the internment of the Nikkei in Hawaii, despite the minor little detail that Oahu was the single most critical chokepoint in the military effort against Japan.

If you really are any kind of student of history, you know that there are ALWAYS "ripples" from any event. Stop dodging the issue, show us the ripples or admit that you can't.

"Regarding "civility," HS put words in my mouth, then attacked me for those words which I NEVER SAID..."

No kidding? Examples please? --History Student 19:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

So any person who writes or publishes a biography or history of WW2 Germany is now a facist? I never said or implied anything which this statement would answer, and in fact the first time in all these months of discussion that the word "facist" (or "fascist," which is the correct spelling) appears is in the statement that you made. You held this up as a straw man, and now you're upset that I've called you on it. Critic-at-Arms 12 November 2006

Heated discussion in my absence...

I concur with Critic that Lowman's reliability as a source is an important issue to be resolved. MAGIC's contribution to the internment seem relevant at first glance, but HS seems to place a fair amount of emphasis on the justification MAGIC provided for internment - or so Lowman argues, from what I can gather (I admit I have not procured his book). If MAGIC was as integral to the internment as Lowman (and by extension, HS) argue, shouldn't we try to find other sources which corroborate this viewpoint? I suggest that we get in touch with the "watchers" of the MAGIC article, to get their input on the intersection between MAGIC and internment. Unless significant objection is raised, I will leave an invitation to discussion on the MAGIC page in one week.

That sounds like a great idea. I'd like to make it clear that my argument is not whether MAGIC existed nor what it did -- my argument is that I don't trust Lowman as a source of "transcripts" nor his conclusions. Critic-at-Arms 22 November 2006

(sigh...)

I just took a closer look at the article on MAGIC. I'm not sure how much help we'll get from that direction; there's a single comment on the Talk page. The section on internment on the MAGIC page was added by a user who seems to have gone inactive in 2004. Oh well.Ogthor 09:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

A note in particular to Critic: although nothing productive is accomplished when HS fails to address your points, and thereby avoids the process of debate, arguments which focus on the very fact of HS's failure to contribute in the manner you expect are similiarly unproductive. In short, don't let him draw you in. Remember you are arguing in front of an audience. If you make good points against HS's arguments that he fails to address adequately, the community will see that and will react appropriately. Avoid the temptation to think of this as a one-on-one battle.

That's exactly what this has become. In that corner, HS, in this corner, me, and Ishu as referee while everyone else watches from outside the ring without saying anything. He drops in, swings a time or two, then fades back hoping that people will think that he's winning -- and that nobody will follow up. Critic-at-Arms 22 November 2006

A note to History Student: Failure to address points made against you may lead to decision against you. If you need clarification for which points remain unaddressed, all you need do is ask.Ogthor 07:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could put History Student's pic on milk cartons . . ? I can't believe he hasn't even looked in here for nearly 3 weeks, knowing that his primary source is in question.

More likely, he has looked and has no answers to offer. Critic-at-Arms 1 December 2006

Clarification of Points

I will be happy to clarify my points.

First, from a military standpoint, the internment was counter-productive. It tied up resources desperately needed for military purposes elsewhere during a period of crisis, including military manpower, transportation facilities, construction materials, logistics infrastructure, medical supplies and personnel, communications equipment, provisions for 110,000 internees and 6,500 "keepers," and (for the first year) removed thousands of farmers from the land during a time of forced rationing, leaving tons of food to spoil in the fields.

Second, from a political standpoint, the internment was wildly successful. It destroyed the Nikkei communities of the west coast, in a systematic campaign which could have been taught at West Point -- where, perhaps coincidentally, DeWitt had been commanding officer. The aforementioned agricultural land was taken over by non-Nikkei, as well as homes and other possessions. There are only two similar programs in American history: the first being the war against and eventual subjugation of the American Indians, and the war on the Mormons, which ran from the Exterminating Order of 1838 to Johnston's Army in 1857. In each case, the issue was not the true threat posed, but instead the desires to take the resources and destroy the political power of each group. Also, in each case, the victims were labeled (and treated) as subhuman. Only the Mormons were able to survive as a cohesive group, and this due to a mass migration to empty land hundreds of miles from outsiders.

Third, the modern justification for internment comes from a book which was ostensibly written by David Lowman, who was raised in a community with an active anti-Nikkei element, who then served against the Japanese in the Pacific before coming home and becoming a high-ranking, awarded official with an agency which has brought "disinformation" to a fine art and which has repeatedly violated the Presidential order which created that agency in the first place. His job in this super-secret agency is to make classified material public, and he claimed to have handled the raw transcripts from the MAGIC project, which was tasked with breaking the codes used in intercepted Japanese communications. Lowman's book on MAGIC was not published for another two decades, waiting until after his death, making it impossible to depose him under oath or to verify that what was published is actually what he wrote. Lowman's book claims that the internment was justified due to widespread espionage and other anti-American activity by the Nikkei, and that these things are proven by MAGIC intercepts.

Fourth, History Student has made a number of wild statements in defense of this book and its related website, to bolster his viewpoint that the internment was justified (or perhaps they are the source of his viewpoint). He has thrown out unsupported statistics which contradict each other, and which he makes no attempt to explain or defend.

Fifth, History Student made the bold statement that "The publisher is not publishing to make a living or make a name for himself." This statement must be backed up -- who at Athena Press said this? What is History Student's connection to Athena Press?

Sixth, there is an apparent complete lack of follow-up action taken in regard to the anti-American activities supposedly proven by the MAGIC intercepts, as if a boulder fell into a pond without making ripples. There should be truckloads of records of arrests, trials, and the logistics support that these would require, yet there are none to be found.

THOSE are my points. Critic-at-Arms 25 November 2006

Carr

More about Ralph Carr should be added. The fact that he defied interring and allowed 20% of the Japanese being moved to be taken to Colorado (freely) needs to be added. At least a paragraph. --Plankton5005 07:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Internment folks gone?

It's over a month since we last heard from HistoryStudent. Is there anyone else willing to venture answers to my points, or is it now safe to clean up the article? Critic-at-Arms 18 December 2006

Critic, you are not worthy of receiving an answer from anyone with half the knowledge I have regarding this history. That's putting it politely. Give it up --History Student 00:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that most of what you know isn't true, so answer the questions or ADMIT THAT YOU CAN'T. You've had 7 weeks to come up with answers, wasn't that enough? Critic-at-Arms 30 December 2006

I'm not going to address your blatant absurdities, Critic. Readers can judge your participation for what it is. --History Student 01:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I was somewhat undecided on the merits of the internment due to a lack of knowledge - but reading this article ( http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/10/what_really_hap.php ) from American Renaissance ( a White Nationalist rag I don't read regularly), which cites numerous interesting statistics where the Wikipedia article has a 'Citation needed' in every sentence. The article in its entirety is quite embarassing, due to the frequency of the citation needed flag. Some of the sentences in the Wikipedia articles seem rather glib without citations, such as:

"Most of those who refused, however, tempered that refusal with statements of willingness to fight if they were restored their rights as American citizens. How, they asked, could any government dare ask them to fight for freedoms for others, freedoms which that same government had taken away from them?"

The 'sizable number' stems from that 6% who agreed to serve - sizable is disingenuous and superfluous (as the proportion of Japanese-Americans has already been stated, no need for adjectives). I edited it accordingly.

The A.R. article cited above quotes a figure of 19,000 Japanese Americans expressing intent to return to Japan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.105.83.212 (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm still very much around, Critic. I can only imagine what your definition of "clean up the article" is. --History Student 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"Clean up" means clean up grammar, structure, etc. to make it more cohesive and readable. There have been a number of snap edits which duplicate or confuse information. If you're still going to be arguing with everything, there's no point in doing a cleanup now. Critic-at-Arms 30 December 2006

Yea, sure it does. --History Student 01:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

As for your attempt to link those of us who appreciate historical truth with the crackpots at "American Renaissance", the article you linked

Nice shootin' Tex! Got yourself in the foot again. I didn't link any articles. Critic-at-Arms 30 December 2006

was written by Dr. Dwight Murphy at Wichita State University. As stated:

This article is adapted by AR staff from original research by Dwight D. Murphey, professor of business law at Wichita State University. His findings first appeared in The Dispossession of the American Indian—and Other Key Issues in American History, Scott-Townsend Publishers, 1995.

Nice try....

--History Student 00:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I see the pro-reparations activists have been busy mucking up the article, including the reference to concentration camps under "facilities". Looks like Ishu has been too busy to visit often, too. --History Student 00:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Two points: First, I don't agree with calling them "concentration camps." Second senior Roosevelt Administration officials -- FDR, for instance -- referred to them as "concentration camps" in official correspondence and notes. Their frame of reference at the time were the concentration camps in South Africa during the Boer War, not the National Socialist camps. I believe that the term "internment camps" is the most accurate, in light of the revised meaning of "concentration camp" following WWII. Critic-at-Arms 30 December 2006

No, internment and relocation are entirely different. --History Student 01:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

As are relocation and imprisonment.

Critic-at-Arms 30 December 2006

Just read this newest pro-reparations myth under "Key Disputes".

General DeWitt, who ordered the internment, was not on the severely limited distribution list for intelligence developed from MAGIC. Ironically, Nisei members of the Military Intelligence Service were assigned to analysis and translation of the raw intercepts.

This is blatantly false. No ethnic Japanese set foot anywhere near the MAGIC program for security reasons. --History Student 18:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to your proof of this assertion. Your assertion disagrees with Army records. Critic-at-Arms 30 December 2006

What army records? --History Student 01:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

United States Army records. Which Army did you think I meant? Critic-at-Arms 30 December 2006

Nisei in the MIS were in the field translating captured documents or listening in on Army battlefield communications that had nothing to do with breaking the MAGIC code or analysing raw MAGIC intercepts.

This is another example why Wikipedia has no credibility. --History Student 18:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

We're still waiting for you to back up your earlier statements regarding Lowman and Athena Press. You should be careful not to add too many more to the list until you start answering some that you've dodged, your debt builds every time you dodge the questions. Critic-at-Arms 18 December 2006

Your crackpot comments regarding Lowman and Athena are not worth a reply. --History Student 01:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

That's your way of saying that you made assertions that you can't defend. YOU are the one who said -- and this is a direct quote, copied from above -- "The publisher is not publishing to make a living or make a name for himself." Really, HS, I couldn't have made up anything so incredible, but you refuse to elaborate or provide any attribution, but this comment is not backed up by anything that I've been able to find anywhere. So, you either pulled that idea out of thin air, or you have a connection to Athena Press that has remained hidden. Either way, you're dodging and weaving, we all know it, and I enjoy watching it. Critic-at-Arms 6 January 2007

Hey, I'm not out to convince the unconvincable. Your right to believe what you want doesn't give you the right to be taken seriously, and I don't take you seriously therfore I am not going to spend time debating you. --History Student 23:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE ASSOCIATED WITH ATHENA PRESS AND HERE TO PROMOTE SALES OF YOUR PRODUCT. You base your comments on their website and their primary product, you make comments which imply a familiarity with the company and its motives, and you refuse to clarify those comments nor your level of involvement.

Critic-at-Arms 30 December 2006

Well the right to believe what you want doesn't give you the right to be taken seriously. --History Student 18:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

DeWitt was only a bit player in the evacuation scenario. --History Student 18:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, after all, he was just the Commanding General in charge of the West Coast and Arizona, who wrote and signed the orders. Perhaps Colonel Bendetsen was secretly a full General (thus outranking DeWitt's mere three stars). Critic-at-Arms 30 December 2006

Read below, Critic. --History Student 01:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this "bit part" that DeWitt played is why the Nikkei were uprooted from their homes "dangeously near" water sources and military installations and planted 100 feet from an Army airfield and a canal providing drinking water to Los Angeles . . ? Critic-at-Arms 30 December 2006

In fact, DeWitt was opposed to evacuating U.S. citizens and so informed his Army superiors. He also contended that any evacuation should include German and Italian aliens along with Japanese. DeWitt was overruled by the true policy-makers in Washington, Stimson and Mcloy, whose authority from FDR was to do what they thought necessary on the basis of military considerations only. --History Student 01:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That was VERY skillful, HS, I almost missed that part where you commented on German and Italian ALIENS while somehow failing to mention that A), over 2/3 of the Nikkei were "NON-aliens," and B), that DeWitt didn't even suggest that German or Italian "non-aliens" be rounded up and shipped off to the wilderness. Critic-at-Arms 30 December 2006

To argue there must be some kind of proportionality between Germans and Japanese because they both happen to be the enemy without acknowledging the extent of the security threat from ethnic Germans compared to ethnic Japanese is screwy logic plain and simple. --History Student 18:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right, but not for the reason that you think. Germans can far more easily blend in with the general American population than can Nikkei, thus were a greater espionage and sabotage threat. German-Americans had openly joined the NSDAP and paraded in support of the Third Reich (and still do, for that matter). When the war started, many of the members of the NSDAP/German American Bund were arrested, but not even all of them, much less all of the "alien and non-alien" Germans. Bartlett and Lay noted that some American officers fighting the Germans had had ties to the GAB, yet were cleared to work with one of America's greatest secret weapons, the Norden Bombsight. So, no to argue that the Germans and Japanese should have been treated the same is laughable -- if anyone should have been rounded up wholesale, it should have been German Americans. The point is that NOBODY should have been rounded up! Critic-at-Arms 6 January 2007

They didn't bomb Pearl Harbor though, did they.. --History Student 23:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't wait for you to produce the "Army Records" indicating Nissei were involved in MAGIC. We are all waiting... --History Student 01:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This poses one problem -- you won't believe anything that I can post here. Where and when can we meet in person? I'm serious, let's get together and hash this out. For that matter, how about spending a week touring a couple of camp sites and interviewing survivors? I'll be doing that in a couple of months, and you're welcome to come along. Critic-at-Arms 6 January 2007

Fine, next time I'm heading for the East Coast, I'll let you know and we can drop in at Vint Hill.

In the meantime, http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/topics/apam/Nisei.htm says:

" . . .the most exciting new insights into the Pacific War in recent years have been as a direct result of historians exploiting revelations in the field of Allied intelligence. Historians have now begun to reconstruct the complex picture of theater intelligence activities and organizations and delve into the role of they played in the campaigns. Initial memoirs such as W.J. Holmes' Double-Edged Secrets (1979) and Ronald Lewin's The American Magic (1982) are being overtaken by careful historical studies such as Ed Drea's MacArthur's Ultra (1992).3

"Reconstructing the story of the Nisei linguists promises to add to these insights and lend both breadth and depth to our understanding of the theater intelligence architecture that supported all commanders in the area. Since much intelligence information had to pass through the hands of interpreters or translators at some point, the Nisei linguists participated in virtually all aspects . . .

"What do we learn by tracing the Nisei involvement in intelligence? . . .It involved not just the big intelligence coups such as shooting down Admiral Yamamoto, but also the grinding day to day work, interrogating prisoners, translating intercepts, evaluating and translating captured documents. And it involved not just the Pacific War, but the war in Europe, such as intercepting the cables of the Japanese ambassador in Berlin."

I can't wait for your explanation of how Nisei could have been doing all of this MAGIC-intercept work but not "setting foot anywhere near the MAGIC program." The death of Yamamoto, for instance, is seen as one of the greatest victories of MAGIC. It is mentioned almost in passing as a Nisei MIS kudo, because this was a presentation for military historians, who already knew the details of the shootdown -- and that the MIS Nisei were the ones who did the workups from the direct intercepts.

But hey, the author is just a military-intelligence professional, and his PhD from Johns Hopkins is meaningless when it conflicts with HistoryStudent's "facts." Critic-at-Arms 30 December 2006

No where in your link does it mention any Nissei involvment with the MAGIC program. --History Student 18:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If you say so, HS. Yamamoto was shot down due to "Nisei involvement in intelligence" and is credited as a triumph for MAGIC, but no, he didn't get down to the level that you seem to require ("See Kenji analyze. Analyze, Kenji, analyze").

The inference that Nisei translators had something to do with the shootdown of Yamamoto's plane is nonsense.

Then please explain why this "nonsense" is given credence in the Army's own historical website . . ? Critic-at-Arms 6 January 2007

And cite the source McNaugton provides for this? In fact, does McNaughton provide any citations for his "paper" from 1994? No, he doesn't. Nisei (a very small percentage) were involved in battlefield intelligence. To state that they were involved in MAGIC is you jumping to conclusions you want to believe but are far from the truth. --History Student 23:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That message was not translated by a Nisei, who were kept away from Naval decoding efforts, but by a Marine Corps Lt. Colonel named Alva Lasswell who was described by David Kahn in his monumental book, "The Codebreakers," as "a translator of more than ordinary compotence...(who had) studied Japanese as a language officer in Tokyo from 1935 to 1938..." --History Student 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, how do you explain "intercepting the cables of the Japanese ambassador" -- DIRECTLY a reference to MAGIC -- as being included with "Nisei involvement in intelligence"?

Critic-at-Arms 31 December 2006

And from what source does McNaughton cite this "revelation"? --History Student 23:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If you had actually read "Hitler's Japanrse Confidant" by Carl Boyd, considered the best source on the subject, then you would know that is false. Have you read it? --History Student 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll let you be the one to tell the Army and Dr McNaughton that they're lying to us. Critic-at-Arms 6 January 2007

No you haven't read it. Thought so... --History Student 23:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As for McNaughton, you must mean this guy: [2]

Read where it says, "Dr. McNaughton said he was assigned to write Loyal Linguists, mandated by Congress on the initiative of Senator Daniel K. Akaka, in 1994 when he was Command Historian at the Defense Language Institute at the Presidio of Monterey, California."

So here we have another example of politicans passing laws to re-write history. McNaughton obviously knows on which side his bread is buttered. --History Student 18:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice try. Are we to assume that, when you have been assigned to write a paper, your teacher tells you what to write . . ? Where did you say you were a "student," HS? Critic-at-Arms 30 December 2006

Akaka isn't McNaughton's "teacher". That's a pretty crappy analogy. More precisely he is McNaughton's "employer".

No, the Army was his employer. McNaughton was assigned the job on the basis of his position as a historian in the organization of which the linguists were a part. I find it rather distasteful that you automatically assume that he lied, while providing no proof that any undue influence was used. Critic-at-Arms 6 January 2007

He failed to cite any sources in a piece you quoting from 1994, long before he started the research for his "book". --History Student 23:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself...McNaughton several years ago as a result of a Congressional efforts by Senator Akaka, headed a review of the records of Nisei who won the DSC in WWII for possible upgrade to Congressional Medal of Honor, the assumption being that they were not given higher awards because of racial discrimination. McNaughton wrote in his report that there was no evidence in the WWII award process of any denials of higher medals due to racial discrimination.

I have no argument with his report. I have stated elsewhere that I oppose the idea of reconvening review boards. Critic-at-Arms 6 January 2007

Of course you don't. It's exactly what you and Dan Akaka want to hear. McNaughton knows that. He knows who send the paycheck every month. --History Student 23:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, during the Clinton administration, McNaughton's findings were ignored in Washington and some 21 WWII Nisei were upgraded from DSC to the Congressional Medal anyway. Notably, Akaka's law specifically prohibited any upgrade review of any Caucasians who had received the DSC. The Nisei upgrades were labelled by some (understandably) as the "Åffirmative Action" medals. --History Student 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

And since your bringing up McNaughton here's another quote from him:

"What did we find? ....in the Army awards process we found NO evidence that award recommendations were rejected or downgraded on the basis of race." Command Historian, James C. McNaughton in the board's final report on September 30,1998

Make up your mind -- you can't portray McNaughton as a pawn of the politicians in one paragraph, then as your unassailable expert in the next. Critic-at-Arms 31 December 2006

Why not? Besides I'm not portraying one way or the other. I just provide the historical facts. --History Student 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No, HS, you provide those facts which suit your viewpoint, and ignore all others. You fill the empty space with hyperbole. You duck any and all questions.

Ha! Ha! Right, I am accused of the hyperbole. You provide only facts and no hot air. LOL! Too funny. --History Student 23:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

However, to answer your question, a reasonable person doesn't accuse his own witness of unreliability. If, as you say, McNaughton was a Senator's pawn when he wrote "Loyal Linguists," then why would he stand up against a PRESIDENT? Critic-at-Arms 6 January 2007

If you can't beat 'em. join 'em? Why not send Dr. McNaughton a letter and ask him. I am curious, too. --History Student 23:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Despite these findings, 22 Japanese-Americans were upgraded from DSCs to MOHs anyway. In so doing, the judgement of WWII combat award officers whose original decisions that DSCs (not MOHs) were appropriate at a time when the facts were fresh and corroborating witnesses alive and on hand to verify them, were politically overruled. --History Student 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You show your complete and utter ignorance of the process of military awards. With the exception of the MOPH and the various longevity or period-or-service ribbons, military decorations are awarded on the basis of testimony from witnesses and the PERCEPTION held by the review board.

Oh, so now you're expert on this, too. Show us what you pasted this time. --History Student 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I figure you're not an expert until you sit on at least twenty award or promotion review boards. I've only been on 14 or 15 (I lost track, it's been awhile). And you seem to have completely missed my comment that I don't approve of re-convening review boards. Critic-at-Arms 6 January 2007

Sure you have. --History Student 23:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Something which is seen as MOH-worthy in the field is usually downgraded to a Star, unless there are enough heavy hitters to carry the citation through the process. For instance, a USAF sergeant saved a C-130 in Viet Nam by starting the engines and flying it away from a base which was being shelled, with fuel streaming from perforated wing tanks. His doing so kept the only runway open, permitting resupply of the base, if the plane had been destroyed in place, the base would have been strangled and eventually overrun. He was awarded the MOH for his utter disregard of his own life in taking action which saved hundreds of men -- an action which he could not have been expected to take (they don't teach sergeants to fly cargo planes). The citation was downgraded twice (by well-meaning officers who felt that the MOH was unattainable), and each time the Marine commander whose men were saved demanded that it be reinstated as a MOH candidate. As such, if it had not been selected, the best that the sergeant could have gotten would have been the Silver Star.

So . . .did the sergeant deserve the Medal of Honor? Or "just" the Air Force Cross? Silver Star? An afternoon off with pay? The officers who make the awards have to sift through all of it and make their decisions.

Remember also that the MOH is awarded for "extreme bravery" -- which is determined in relation to the actions of others. The Nisei had a significantly higher casualty rate than other Army units, thus the behavior of Nisei which would have been "extreme bravery" in other units were not "extreme" in relation to other Nisei. The baseline was higher. Let's think of it in terms of points. The MOH isn't awarded for 100 "bravery points," it's awarded for 50 EXTRA "bravery points." That USAF sergeant got the MOH because he was not trained as a pilot, thus compounding the risk to his life. A pilot who did that would have been awarded the Silver Star, because he would not have been taking so much of a risk (he knows how to fly planes). Likewise the Nisei were already performing to a particular standard (say, 80 "bravery points"), while average soldiers were performing to 45 "bravery points" (based on casualty rates). A Nisei would have to be at the 130-point level to get the MOH, while a member of other units might see the MOH if he broke 95 points -- a mere 15 points above the Nisei norm.

I am GREATLY simplifying this for the sake of illustration, BTW. It shows that it's not necessary for there to have been racial discrimination (nor even AWARENESS) for MOH-worthy performance to be downgraded. If an officer who had served with the 442nd were asked if a particular private's actions were "extreme," that officer would think of dozens of equally-brave soldiers, and find the question harder to answer.

So, the question becomes one of whether the MOH is warranted. I think that in this case, it was an attempt by Slick Willie to curry favor with a group that his party had put behind barbed wire 55 years earlier. Rarely are citation boards reconvened, and I think it's a bad idea.

Critic-at-Arms 31 December 2006

It was affirmative action at its worst based on race. Your diatribe is a bad case of rationalization - looks like you cut it from the 442nd web site or something. --History Student 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny how anything which disagrees with your prejudice is "diatribe," and anything that you can't answer is "not worthy of attention." Classic socialist argument technique. It's nice to see that the old traditions are not yet dead. Critic-at-Arms 3 January 2007

You may recall this sordid occurance after Sen, Akaka submitted legislation that resulted in Bill Clinton handing out medals and upgrades like candy canes to Japanese Americans against the advice of Dr. McNaighton, many years and miles away from the battlefield in complete defiance of American military tradition.

This being above and beyond the fact that McNaughton's piece you provided never says Nisei were involved with MAGIC.

It's quite humerous reading your absurd posts and then demanding others prove they are not true. A real joke... --History Student 18:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what a bone in arm would have to do with it. I've never demanded that anyone prove something to not be true -- I've demanded that YOU provide proof that what you say IS true, and you have consistently ducked, dodged and ignored my every call. You are doing this again. Rather than answering my DIRECT questions, you're dragging us off on a tangent, hoping that you can miss fast enough to win.

But then, you are UNABLE to answer the questions, address the issues raised, or even explain your own conflicting "statistics," so you claim that my questions are unworthy of your attention. However, the rest in here see what you say, what you do, and what you try to hide. THEY are the ones that you have to convince, not me, and you're not doing it. Critic-at-Arms 31 December 2006

Yada..yada...yada...you make absurd claims and then demand others prove they're not true. You have no credibility and I am tiring of responding to your wacky posts. Perhaps I'll return in another month of ishu returns or at least someone a little more logical and less zealous. --History Student 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never asked anyone to prove that something isn't true, despite your repeated claims that I have done so. But here's a simple one for you.

Please provide any record of follow-up activities involving the information which you believe was developed by MAGIC. After all, if the USDOJ would throw the most expensive criminal trial they'd ever done at "Tokyo Rose," they certainly wouldn't have just released thousands of traitorous American citizens without trials and long prison terms.

In other words, a rock in a pond makes ripples. Show us the ripples, and you put the burden of researching and explaining them back onto me. I can show you hundreds of pages of logistics records surrounding the secret trials of a mere handful of German spies and German-American agents, some of whom were executed. Where are the logistics records of all those Japanese spies and Japanese American agents? Where are the USDOJ records of trials, testimony, verdicts?

This is the biggest problem with the claims made in Lowman's book -- a complete lack of corroborating evidence. Critic-at-Arms 1 January 2007

This from the unsigned above, who cited AR. It's fine by me if you think AR is generally crackpot, but the article in question cites specific facts which I would include in the Wikipedia article, had I an academic library at my disposal to check the sources (I don't at the current time, but will within a month). The AR article is not at all radical (and on that note may be said to be somewhat uncharacteristic of AR) - it states supposed facts to argue that there is a case to be made for the internment, that it's not quite the strawman that is almost always presented. The Wikipedia article, on the other hand, is in shambles due to its lack of sources; that said, there is a little convergence of facts cited between the Wiki and AR article. If the AR sources are verified, the AR article would be a very good link. And FWIW: I'm not a white nationalist, and the Institute for Historical Review is far inferior to AR, if only because the former denies the holocaust. The proprietor of AR, Jared Taylor, from what I've seen, tends to describe reality accurately (not to say that I agree with his philosophy), and shies away from antisemitism and out and out racism. The ADL, lacking explicit evidence of bigotry, calls him a genteel racist.

I don't know enough about the topic to argue about the specifics. But upon seeing statistics like those in the AR article, especially those regarding Japanese loyalty, the usual coverage of the issue seems inadequate to say the least. Basically, this is a call to check the sources of the AR article and integrate them if they prove valid.

Dwight Murphy isn't radical by any means but American Renaissance is a little wacky... --History Student 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion points

Happy New Year, everyone!
I'm attempting to summarize the points made by Critic and Student over the past few months. My hope is that we can focus on the discussion points and actually check off a few as confirmed or refuted, and also focus on finding evidence for the claims.

It would help things greatly if Student and Critic would indicate whether the following is a fair summary of their own points about the Internment itself and not about each other's take on it. The idea is to provide documentation for one's own position, and then let readers and other editors review the documentation and claims. But first I thought it would be helpful to identify the various claims.

First, Critic at Arms. Please note that this is my interpretation of Critic's points as described on 25 November:

1. From a military standpoint, the internment was counter-productive, since scarce military and civilian resources were required to execute and enforce the exclusion, relocation, and detention.

   Accurate interpretation. Critic-at-Arms 9 January 2007

2. The internment was successful in disrupting Japanese American communities in the Pacific Coast states, consistent with nativist sentiments in that region.

   Accurate interpretation. Critic-at-Arms 9 January 2007

3. Evidence for the modern justification for internment comes from a book that is suspect for two main reasons:
   • Assuming that Lowman is the author, his work is suspect because (a) Lowman "was raised in a community with an active anti-Nikkei element;" (b) Lowman served in WWII against the Japanese; and (c) Lowman worked in the National Security Agency, an organization whose history of disinformation casts doubt on Lowman's intentions.

   Accurate interpretation. Critic-at-Arms 9 January 2007

   • Lowman's authorship--and thus the accuracy and representativeness of the documentary evidence (including the MAGIC excerpts) and conclusions cannot be verified. The book is attributed to David Lowman, and was published posthumously by a publishing company with a minimal record of widely-respected publications.

   Accurate interpretation, with the note that it's entirely possible that Athena Press "took what they were offered" in both cases. There is insufficient information to form a judgement on the issue, so I simply consider it suspicious rather than proof positive. Critic-at-Arms 9 January 2007

4. Circumstantial evidence (mainly non-action by the U.S. government after WWII against the Japanese Americans) contradicts claims of "widespread" action for Japan or against U.S. interests.

   Accurate interpretation. Critic-at-Arms 9 January 2007

Next, History Student. History Student seems to have several general concerns, dating back to editor's original contributions. In a nutshell (i.e., probably oversimplified):

1. The CWRIC and general consensus disregarded or were ignorant of an actual, documented military necessity.
2. This "historical revisionism" has successfully been disseminated by people active in the reparations movement to become conventional wisdom--and institutionalized history through academics and government policies.
3. The medal "upgrades" are one (circumstantial) example of this conventional wisdom.
4. A full review of the military intelligence available contradicts the conventional wisdom about the Internment.
5. David Lowman's book MAGIC and the associated internmentarchives.com web site present such a review of the military intelligence.
6. The severity of the Internment has been overstated by the same reparations advocates and academics, and this, too, has become part of conventional wisdom.

I reviewed the discussion going back to October 26 to try to summarize Student's comments since then. Please remember that it's hard to follow because HS and Critic frequently insert responses inside of the other's comments, and the indentation isn't too organized to begin with. What follows are some key quotations from Student that emphasize major points.

• They did have the choice to do work or do nothing. They were never forced to work. Thousands sat around and did nothing for four years and then begged the government not to close the Relocation Centers when the war was ending. [3]
• All it took to leave the relocation center was a loyalty oath to the United States and the means to support one's self. That hardly fits the definition of "incarceration".
• Incidentally, Endo was moot. The exclusion orders were lifted before the decision was released. Then the evacuees started demanding the Relocation Centers stay open. Thousands left the Relocation Centers and started new lives outside the evacuation zones. The purpose of the Relocation Centers was assist those who could not or would not "support themselves hundreds of miles from home". That's a far cry from "incarcerated in a concentration camp". --History Student 19:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[4]

There are several substantive points on which Critic and Student disagree.

1. MAGIC and the role of Japanese American MIS translators: Critic states that US Army records show a role. Student counters that there were no Japanese Americans at MAGIC for security reasons. Surely this dispute can be documented by someone?

   I'm working on it. Courtesy of a divorce, several moves, and the intervening years since school, my textbook mentioning this is long gone. References to lectures in college would be original research. Critic-at-Arms 9 January 2007

2. DeWitt's access to MAGIC and his role in the wholesale inclusion of Japanese Americans:
   • Student states: DeWitt was opposed to evacuating U.S. citizens and so informed his Army superiors. He also contended that any evacuation should include German and Italian aliens along with Japanese. DeWitt was overruled by the true policy-makers in Washington, Stimson and Mcloy, whose authority from FDR was to do what they thought necessary on the basis of military considerations only. --History Student 01:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC) Later, Student states: DeWitt was only a bit player in the evacuation scenario. --History Student 18:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
   • I am guessing that Critic believes that, on the one hand, DeWitt was part of the "military campaign" to uproot the Japanese Americans, and on the other hand that DeWitt did not have access to MAGIC, and so was not privy to evidence supporting or disputing the military necessity.

   Accurate interpretation Critic-at-Arms 9 January 2007

3. The accuracy of the article by James McNaughton on the Nisei translators. Critic presents it as evidence that the Nisei worked on MAGIC. Student dismisses McNaughton as "false," based on an earlier work by Carl Boyd (presumably Hitler's Japanese Confidant).

To repeat: It would help things greatly if Student and Critic could pipe up and indicate whether this is a fair summary of their points about the Internment itself and not about each other's take on it.

If we can get that out of the way, then everyone can focus on clarifying these points, and adding to them as necessary. Of course, if I'm way off base, then I think I'll just lay low for a while. This is about the best I can do. --Ishu 20:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you, Ishu. The article has gone downhill since the last time we spoke. Much of what was well written has been changed by the pro-reperations folks and example being the sentance regarding the use of the term "concentration camp".

1. Please remember that it's hard to follow because HS and Critic frequently insert responses inside of the other's comments, and the indentation isn't too organized to begin with.

Answer: Critic has a habit of busting up my comments with his own. I agree it is difficult to read. I would prefer the format I am using now - italics and an answer.

Counter: Italics are hard to read on the War-of-1812-surplus computers I'm sometimes using. I try to put a date slug on each time. Critic-at-Arms 9 January 2007

2. MAGIC and the role of Japanese American MIS translators: Critic states that US Army records show a role.

Answer: What critic is providing is a 1994 piece from McNaughton written before he even started his book, and it contains no citations just "recommended reading". It's more of an Op-Ed if anything.

Counter: We are discussing MAGIC without an explanation each time, expecting our readers to share a frame of reference. McNaughton was doing the same, with his frames of reference including Nisei involvement in such things as the Yamamoto shootdown and Berlin diplomatic intercepts. Critic-at-Arms 9 January 2007

3.Critic presents it as evidence that the Nisei worked on MAGIC.

Answer: There is no evidence in the McNaughton piece that mentions Nisei were anywhere near MAGIC. McNaughton provides no citations for his claim. If Nisei were involved, I would speculate they were listening in on radio communication coming out of Rabul thereby assisting the P-38s in locating the position of Yamamoto's plane. This had nothing to do with MAGIC. If this is the case lets see the evidence.

The "evidence" is McNaughton's comment without clarification that the Nisei played key roles in activities which were rooted in MAGIC and could not have taken place without MAGIC. Critic-at-Arms 9 January 2007

4. To repeat: It would help things greatly if Student and Critic could pipe up and indicate whether this is a fair summary of their points about the Internment itself and not about each other's take on it.

Answer: This is a fair yet simplified summary of my points.

5. If we can get that out of the way, then everyone can focus on clarifying these points, and adding to them as necessary.

Answer: Clarifying these points is important but of more importance is reverting the article back to the content of six months or so ago before the pro-reparations activists mucked it up again.

Counter: HS has failed to prove the validity of his point of view, thus can't back up his assumption that anything which disagrees with it is "mucking it up." Critic-at-Arms 9 January 2007

Here's a good example of what I mean...

It's over a month since we last heard from HistoryStudent. Is there anyone else willing to venture answers to my points, or is it now safe to clean up the article? Critic-at-Arms 18 December 2006

Critic is the only person frequenting the discussion board and until higher caliber people start participating I'm going to spend less time contributing. --History Student 23:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Anybody can revert the article at any time--in theory. I'm trying to make sure that whatever is in the article now or in the future gets referenced and that we establish whether referenced claims are disputed by referenced counterclaims.

Critic: If you could comment on my summary before addressing Student's points, that would help us all to vet the references and support for each set of claims. --Ishu 04:38, 9 January 2007

Anybody can revert the article at any time--in theory.

Answer: Perhaps in theory, but that is not my experience from last July. --History Student 21:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Prove your points, answer the questions. Do those simple things and it will be obvious to all where the truth lies. When you dodge and weave, it only makes all of us believe that you have nothing to back up your point of view. Critic-at-Arms 9 January 2007

I'm trying to make sure that whatever is in the article now or in the future gets referenced and that we establish whether referenced claims are disputed by referenced counterclaims.

Answer: Suffice to say critics claims are not referenced. No where is the Boyd book does it mention Nisei, much less Nisei association with MAGIC or the downing of Yamamoto's plane.

Counter: I don't remember the "judicial recognition" that the Boyd book is the end-all authority on the issue. While respected, Boyd never claimed to be omniscient. Critic-at-Arms 9 January 2007

On the other hand "Japan's Longest Day" does mention the invaluable work of Nisei translators.

"Imperial Army Headquarters, Ichigaya, Tokyo....

"Anami left his Ministry to try to get some sleep, but the ministry itself remained awake. SEVERAL ENGLISH SPEAKING JAPANESE BORN IN AMERICA WERE BUSY IN THE INFORMATION DEPARTMENT MONITORING ALLIED BROADCASTS AND TRANSLATING THEM INTO JAPANESE. Into their midst swept a cyclone call Colonel Tomomi Oyadomori, who had fought and seen many of his fellow officers die at Guadalcanal. The sight of these NISEI TRANSLATORS tearlessly receiving word of continued Japanese defeat was too much for Colonal Oyadomori.

"Are you satisfied?" He cried, "that Japan is losing the war? Does it make you happy? He drew his sword. "I ought to kill the lot of you!"

No one made any reply. No one knew what to reply.

"You're traitors, all of you!" Oyadomori shouted. Then, still shouting, still brandishing his sword, he left the NISEI translators to their unprofitable tasks...." (emphasis mine)

Japan's Longest Day, Kodansha International, p.76 --History Student 21:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see anything in there to explain why the Nisei were there in the first place. Thousands of Nisei were trapped in Japan when America entered the war, and only a handful were able to get out. Thousands of Caucasian Americans, Filipinos, Portuguese, British, Indians, New Zealanders, French and Australians were likewise trapped, and many also translated Allied broadcasts for the Japanese, that being the only work they could get to avoid starvation (the Japanese government, like today's BCIS, decided what jobs they would issue a work permit for -- you did what they decided, or they prohibited you from working at all).

Iva Toguri (a Methodist and registered Republican who didn't speak Japanese) was one of those. Her supervisors at Radio Tokyo were an Australian, a Filipino and a Caucasian AMERICAN. As a Caucasian American, I resent HS' implication that, since some of my ethnic group translated broadcasts for the Japanese, all Caucasian Americans are thus tainted and should have been interned during WWII.

Fortunately, not all are so rigid -- the WWII Veterans Committee awarded the 2006 Edward J. Herlihy Award Citizenship Award to Iva -- once convicted for being "Tokyo Rose." According to the citation: "The Edward J. Herlihy Citizenship Award is given each year to an individual who exemplifies the ideals of American citizenship and the World War II generation. It is fitting that the award presented 60 years following the Allied victory in World War II be given to a woman who, through all of that time, has wanted nothing more than to be recognized as a loyal and patriotic American." Critic-at-Arms 9 January 2007

Critic, in the interests of a legible and cohesive discussion board attempt to post at the bottom rather then interjecting at the source and not leaving a signature. --History Student 02:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I do leave signatures, HS, only occasionally forgetting to do so. Critic-at-Arms 9 January 2007

Critic: Please do try to comment below others' contributions. For example, your concurrence of my summary was largely repeats of "accurate interpretation," and now there are seven interjections in my posting. It's just harder for occasional (and new) readers to know who said what when if there are multiple interjections. We'd all like to bring people into this discussion, but they won't participate if it's too hard to follow. This is especially true when there is a lot of sharp back-and-forth disagreement as we have here. Even if you have to preface quotes with "Ishu says 'Please do try to comment...'" instead of italics, that would be an improvement. I'm just trying to improve this process for all editors, not just the regulars. --Ishu 16:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see anything in there to explain why the Nisei were there in the first place.

Answer: That's because you suffer from a bad case of rationalization, Critic. The fact is the Nisei were there, assisting the enemy in a war against their own country. So was Iva Toguri.

They weren't here [5]. They weren't here either. [6]

They were traitors and they all should have gone the way of Lord Haw Haw and Axis Sally.

As a Caucasian American, I resent HS' implication that, since some of my ethnic group translated broadcasts for the Japanese, all Caucasian Americans are thus tainted and should have been interned during WWII.

Answer: This is more sick, twisted logic stating that a few white propagandist traitors are of the same security risk as the ethnic Japanese colonies on the West Coast in 1942. P.S. Except for a few traitors, all Caucasian Americans were interned during WWII, 462 of them starved to death at the Santo Tomas internment camp in Manila - a real concentration camp.

Besides you're evading my original point regarding McNaughton. I provided to you a real citation. I know it's hard for you to howl accusations of "racism" because the scholars are Japanese so you had to resort to a different weak argument.

Show me where Carl Boyd's book makes any mention of Nisei, their role in MAGIC and their role in shooting down Yamamoto? What page nunber?

Of course you can't because you've never read the book and McNaughton's implication is shoddy scholarship, he can't prove it, doesn't cite it and it's a load of crap. --History Student 16:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Answer: That's because you suffer from a bad case of rationalization, Critic. The fact is the Nisei were there, assisting the enemy in a war against their own country. So was Iva Toguri.

This statement moves you down the list from "activist" to "bigot idiot." Better men than you will ever be -- the men that she was supposedly "assisting" the enemy against -- not only cleared Iva of any taint of "traitor," they honored her for her patriotism and service.

I will not bother with you any further. You are beyond any possibility of educating, no amount of proof will make the slightest dent in your prejudices. I've known people like you before. On one side, they wear white hoods, on the other, they mindlessly follow Louis Farrakhan. For you, this isn't a matter of history or a search for the truth, it's a matter of your personal religious beliefs. This does, of course, explain your refusal to answer questions.

I look forward to the day when I meet you professionally. Further comment from you is not desired and will not be entertained. Critic-at-Arms10 January 2007

Answer: Hey Critic, did Ishu's comments sink in? Please don't bust up other people's comments with your own.

Better men than you will ever be -- the men that she was supposedly "assisting" the enemy against -- not only cleared Iva of any taint of "traitor," they honored her for her patriotism and service.

Answer: Ford pardoned Toguri. Ike pardoned Tom Kawakita. Innocent people don't need pardons.

Now Toguri has been put on some kind of pedestal as if she's the Rosa Parks of the Japanese American Reparations Movement. It's pathetic.

This statement moves you down the list from "activist" to "bigot idiot."

Answer: Looks like somebody is getting frustrated because they're losing the debate. Hurling accusations of racism is always the last gasp for you people.

This does, of course, explain your refusal to answer questions.

Answer: I won't hold my breath for a page number from Boyd's book either. Goodbye critic.

Next.... --History Student 03:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-miscegenation laws

The article claims, in Key Government Actions, "Other laws prevented nearly all marriages between Caucasians and Asians, though Nikkei were able to marry non-Caucasians" but [7] implies 18 of the 48 states had no such laws,(not even considering territories ) and some of the laws may have been limited to banning marriage between caucasians and negros while others banned whites marrying persons of any other race, and the extreme was banning any interracial marriages. The key Wikipedia article is Anti-miscegenation laws which is very skimpy, only listing a few states. For just for comparison, was marriage between Japanese and other races legal in Japan at the time? Edison 23:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know why you think the Japanese marriage laws are relevant. But since California did have such laws at the time, and since a large number (majority?) of Japanese Americans lived in California, I don't see how the 18 "free" states are relevant. Remember, folks couldn't easily hop on a plane to a "free" state and bring back their out-of-state marriage license. Never mind go all the way to Japan--whether or not Japan permitted such marriages. Of course, some people did go out-of-state, but it just wasn't practical for many. The anti-miscegenation laws are basically a side-issue for this article, and are most relevant as an indication of anti-Japanese sentiment at the time. --Ishu

Marriage laws of other countries are highly relevant to keep the coverage NPOV. Going to another state to get married where it is legal is a very old concept. See Gretna Green for a U.K. precedent. In the U.S., a black woman and white man from Virginia, went to Washington DC to get married in the 1950's, then were tried in Virginia for violating the antimiscegenation law, leading to the U.S. Supreme court Loving v. Virginia eliminating such laws in the 1960's. Saburo Kurusu, the Japanese ambassador who belatedly informed the U.S that Japan was going to war, married a caucasian, Alice, in New York in 1914,[8] and later lived with her in Chicago, then moved to Japan in 1919. He was posted to Chile, Peru, Greece, Italy,Germany and Belgium. The couple moved back to the U.S. in November 1941. Were they in violation of the applicable laws in U.S. states where they lived, and of the other countries? Was their marriage legal in Japan? The article is critical of the U.S. for having such laws, and it seems NPOV to place the U.S. laws of the time in perspective to the laws of that era in other countries.Human rights in Japan and Ethnic issues in Japan state that even today there is widespread discrimination against non-Japanese, who total only 1% of the population, while non-Asians are less than 0.3% of the population. Ethnic issues in Japan says "Japanese citizens are recorded in koseki (family registry) and juminhyo (resident registry) systems, while foreigners are only recorded in a separate alien registration system. A non-Japanese person cannot be directly added to a koseki, which is the main record of familial relations. As a result, based on official records, the Japanese spouse of a foreigner may appear to be a single head of household, and children may appear as illegitimate." So again, what difficulties did persons in the 1940s in Japan have if they sought an interracial marriage? And another issue, towards balanced NPOV coverage of the internment of Japanese Americans: How were caucasians residents of Japan treated in Japan during world war 2? Madame Kurusu does not appear to have been abused, but how did non-Axis Europeans and American permanent residents fare? Were they free to go about their business, or were they locked up? Not to say an abuse in one place justifies an abuse elsewhere, because that would be Collective punishment. But U.S. actions should be compared to worldwide standards for the article to be NPOV. Edison 20:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, the ambassador should have been protected by diplomatic immunity from any marriage laws in various countries.

The article makes one mention of marriage laws in a section that pertains to anti-Asian sentiment. There is a significant effort to assess the contribution of anti-Japanese sentiment (generally) against the official rationale for the Internment. As far as I am concerned, that effort satisfies NPOV. I'd be interested to know the view of other editors on this point.

It may be true that U.S. government officials considered the treatment of Americans and other foreigners in Japan when establishing the Internment. If we can document such considerations, then such would be relevant to this article. Otherwise, I think that discussion belongs elsewhere. --Ishu 22:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the 1930US census- the most recent one released to the public- I see that of the Japanese in California, the married ones were almost always married to other Japanese. In New York and Illinois, there were far fewer, but the Japanese men who were married were very commonly married to caucasians. Few were married to Japanese. I believe those states had the antimiscegenation laws at the time. Edison 06:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Records show that some American officials worried that the internment might cause problems for Americans in Japan -- and they were right. Planned repatriation of Americans was in fact spiked due to the treatment of Issei in the camps. The primary problem faced by Americans and British Commonwealth citizens who were trapped in Japan was an inability to obtain work permits, except in jobs "approved" (assigned) by the government. No work meant no housing, and no food except that which came on relief ships, specifically sent for the refugees. Critic-at-Arms 19 January 2007

Work permits? U.S reporters in Japan were imprisoned immediately after Pearl Harbor and harshly interrogated, with demands to confess to "treason against the Japanese war cabinet" for having criticized it in dispatches before the onset of hostilities, per New York Times stories after the reporters were exchanged for Japanese diplomatic internees: [9] New York Times, July 27,1942, page 4: "Captives slugged to talk for Tokyo; Strong arm squads used in effort to make writers tell of good treatment; Luncheon farce related; Americans beaten for refusal to broadcast propaganda to their home country. also [10] "Writertells of torture Japanese used on captives, New York Times, July 27. 1942, page 1. Tells of "systematic terror and torture" by Japanese government against interned westerners. "imprisonment and torture of American and British newspaper correspondents, businessmen and missionaries." Westerners were imprisoned, beaten, and threatened with execution.It is clear that Jaoanese in the U.S were treated far better than were American civilians in Japan. What apologies and reparations payments have been made to date? Zero? Edison 06:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

<-----undenting

If Edison or another editor can provide some reference that shows any consideration of reciprocal treatment by Japan or the US as a result of the other's treatment of its people, then that would be a relevant addition to the article--provided that the Internment is a specific factor. For example, did Japan treat its prisoners more harshly than it would have otherwise because of the detention of its nationals in the US? Or, was anyone in the US government more motivated to detain civilian Japanese ethnics because of harsh treatment of US citizens by the Japanese government/military? If we can't document something like that, we will simply be making parallel comparisons of two otherwise separate events. We have rewritten the article to avoid comparisons to the Nazi Concentration Camps, for example because there that comparison, at best, is a topic unto itself. Other parallel comparisons only send the article spinning off on a side issue. A separate article on the treatment of Americans in Japan during WWII is a legitimate discussion, but this is not the place for it unless some meaningful relationship can be documented. --Ishu 18:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it seems that each government's excesses and absurdities was independently planned, rather than as a reaction to the other. They only direct tie I've found is in the break-off of negotiations for the swap of Americans for Issei. In fact, the Spanish diplomats who acted as intermediaries were tasked only with protection of the Issei. The internment was a propaganda coup for the Japanese press, but those reports were the only times that the Japanese government showed any concern over the mistreatment of the Nisei or Sansei (who, as Americans, were enemy aliens). Critic-at-Arms 20 January 2007

Leaving aside problems of proving a negative, I'd prefer to see references for claims made--including yours. I've discussed the contextual basis for including the anti-miscegenation laws above. If anyone can substatiate a link between the Japanese treatment of Americans and the Internment, then we can put it in. Plain and simple. --Ishu 18:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Years of Infamy details the abandonment of repatriation negotiations that I mentioned above, and has photos of some of the related correspondence. Critic-at-Arms 23 January 2007

Just provide some page refs and details and that could put this issue to rest. Unless Edison or another editor produces contradictory references. --Ishu 18:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole antimiscegenation law question can be better addressed elsewhere, and perhaps some family law attorney or someone working from the perspective of todays gay marriage issue in the US will polish that article. I just do not want to see the US castigated in any POV way for treatment of interracial marriage in 1941 without knowing if such laws were common in Europe and Japan at the time in comparable developed countries. It is not a huge factor in the story of the internment, but the tone of the section caught my eye as a bit POV. There is still no reference for the statement about prohibition of marriages between Japanese and caucasians, and the scope of the prohibition is vague. Edison 18:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Starting over with the indents --

Excerpted from the decision Perez v. Sharp, California, 1948

". . .Civil Code, section 69, implements Civil Code, section 60, which provides: "All marriages of white persons with negroes, Mongolians, members of the Malay race, or mulattoes are illegal and void." This section originally appeared in the Civil Code in 1872, but at that time it prohibited marriages only between white persons and Negroes or mulattoes. It {Page 32 Cal.2d 713} succeeded a statute prohibiting such marriages and authorizing the imposition of certain criminal penalties upon persons contracting or solemnizing them. (Stats. 1850, ch. 140, p. 424.) Since 1872, Civil Code, section 60, has been twice amended, first to prohibit marriages between white persons and Mongolians (Stats. 1901, p. 335) and subsequently to prohibit marriages between white persons and members of the Malay race. (Stats. 1933, p. 561.)

". . .The Legislature's classification in section 60 is based on the system suggested by Blumenbach early in the nineteenth century. (Roldan v. Los Angeles County, 129 Cal.App. 267, 273 [18 P.2d 706].) Blumenbach classified man into five races: Caucasian (white), Mongolian (yellow), Ethiopian (black), American Indian (red), and Malayan (brown)."

There's some specifics for you.

I would also add that anything any other country does or thinks DOESN'T MATTER. This is OUR country (whatever country you happen to be in)! If you like, I can dig up the National Socialist laws prohibiting interracial marriage, but what does the Third Reich legal system matter to the United States? Critic-at-Arms 29 January 2007

Reference on the repatriation issue for Ishu: ". . .extremely delicate negotiations had been carried on by the State Department to accelerate the fullest possible repatriation of US Citizens and to enable foon, clothing and medical supplies to be speeded to Americans in enemy hands . . .with the follow-up report from the Spanish Embassy concerning the stockade, the 200 men being held therein, and the extraordinaty Army seizure of a camp full of civilian detainees, Tokyo called an abrupt halt to prisoner-exchange negotiations. The cutoff proved permanent." "Years of Infamy" pp.173 Critic-at-Arms 29 January 2007

When you say "There's some specifics for you" you have only addressed the antimiscegenation laws in California. If that is the intent of the section of this article under discussion, then I propose a change from "Other laws prevented nearly all marriages between Caucasians and Asians, though Nikkei were able to marry non-Caucasians" to Other California laws prevented nearly all marriages between Caucasians and Asians, though Nikkei were able to marry non-Caucasians" and add a citation to the Perez vs Sharp ruling. The article now is vague as to whether it is talking about California, where most of the Japanese immigrants and citizens were, and where intermarriage with Caucasians was rare, or other states where intermarriage was common but a tenth or less the as many of Japanese origin lived, such as New York or Illinois, and where the status of the laws is unclear.Edison 16:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Do your own research. I have better things to do than sort through a few dozen decisions from various state and Federal courts, looking for the handful of pertinent words that each might provide, just for your edification. Seek and ye shall find. And what "ye" shall find is that these laws were not only on the state level across the country, but also on the Federal level until CRA '64. Critic-at-Arms 2 February 2007

I am very glad you have better things to do than research to support statements made in this article. I doubt your claim of a federal marriage law. Unsupported claims may be removed by any editor.Edison 03:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Echoes of the past . . .are you just History Student, hiding under another name? If so, then you are the last person who should be talking about "unsupported claims." If you aren't HS, and you actually want to know (instead of just argue), then do a search on Westlaw, Lexis or the other legal-precedent engines. Look through the references that you get. A number of them are "iffy" -- does American military law (prior to UCMJ) qualify as "Federal" in your view? Immigration law, which denied spousal status to non-"white" applicants who were married to whites? How about laws from 1865 - 1900? USSC decisions not to overturn convictions on related violations? If you really want to go over this, let's talk Dred Scott (1857)!  ;) Also note that I'm discussing this HERE, trying to reach a consensus on the issue, rather than playing the revert-war game. Critic-at-Arms 3 February 2007

Oh, BTW, the reason I'm familiar with this particular issue is because my former wife's "white" grandmother was married to a non-"white," and had to fight the battle. Critic-at-Arms 2 February 2007

There are a number of sources out there that indicate that anti-miscegenation statutes existed in most of the country except for parts of the Northeast. There are also a huge number of sources out there that describe the "racial purity" rhetoric behind anti-miscegenation statutes, and explain why many of them prohibited marriage between whites and minorities but not between different minority races. However, I'm not aware of any sources that do a state-by-state survey of anti-miscegenation law. Looking only to state and federal court opinions would not provide the required information, because most of those state anti-miscegenation laws were never litigated -- particularly after the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that it wasn't going to overturn them. Thus, the only way to get the kind of support that Edison demands would be to perform a state-by-state survey of 19th and early 20th century anti-miscegenation statutes -- which is a totally unreasonable to demand, because that kind of survey, involving statutes that old, would be difficult to accomplish without spending a solid month looking through moldering print volumes in a well-stocked law library. So, what about the following wording: "Other laws in many states -- including California, where most Nikkei lived -- prohibited marriages between Caucasians and Asians. However, these laws often allowed Nikkei to able to marry non-Caucasians because such marriages were not believed to dilute the "racial purity" of Caucasians." --Lawt 18:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Starting over with the indents AGAIN! --

I think it would be more accurate (and neutral) to say "Other laws in various states -- including California, where most Nikkei lived -- prohibited marriages between Caucasians and members of other ethnic groups, including Asians. However, Nikkei were often able to marry non-Caucasians, and a number of them did. Many of those non-Nikkei husbands and wives voluntarily went into the camps when their families were interned." Critic-at-Arms 10 February 2007

Sounds great to me. --Lawt 23:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert changes

I reverted the section deletions by anonymous editor. Please discuss such large deletions on the talk page, or at least provide an edit summary. --Ishu 04:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There were a few items removed by 69.237.203.77 on 2007-01-18 that did not get restored that I added back. As a check see the different between my last edit & the one on 2007-01-17 14:58 by FrancoGG, then compare revert of 69.237.203.77 by Ishu on 18 January 2007-01-18 03:35 with the same edit by FrancoGG. It looks like the revert of 69.237.203.77 may have only gone one edit back when it should have gone back two. Thanks -- 12.106.111.10 00:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have rolled back 12 POV edit's by 69.210.27.81 listed here. Static Universe ^talk|edits 19:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Japanese-Americans

'''My name is Brittany Reynolds and I'd like to add this.'''

World War 2 and the Life of Japanese-Americans There are many fears and prejudices in the world: World War 2, for example. The Japanese-Americans faced many hardships, yet they remained loyal to us. Today, I will try to find out why. Since the bombing of Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941, America has been changed forever. During this time, suspicions arose that anyone of Japanese descent-even the children-were spies. The following articles are about Miss Clara Estelle Breed. She was a children’s librarian and opposed to the thought of sending children to concentration camps. Miss Breed sent many letters to the children, though only one was found intact. She kept over 250 of the children’s letters intact. In some letters, high school girls thought that they were being of use to the government. In others, they wrote, “If we were put here for our protection, why are the guns pointed inward instead of outward?” Another says, “I’m tired of Japan, mother. Let’s go back home to America.” The letters often described what life was like in internment camps. The houses in the internment camps weren’t substandard. They consisted of four walls, a flat, tin roof, a door, and maybe a floorboard. Their only furniture was what they could make and/or salvage from a woodpile. The public facilities were better. They at least had a proper structure. The only races they saw besides the guards were Japanese-Americans and Caucasians. Maybe they thought it was their duty, maybe it was because of the $20,000 after the war. Who’s to say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.242.151 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 16 February 2007

Some points to consider. First, the Japanese Americans were mostly Americans of Japanese ancestry. They were some of the "us" that they remained loyal to. Second, there were a number of non-Nikkei in the camps, mostly men and women who were married to Japanese Americans. Many of these were Hispanic, others were Asian, Polynesian or African-Americans. I don't understand your conclusion, but I'd point out that the $20,000 didn't come for over 50 years after the Internment began. 68.178.65.194 22:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)