1. Based upon these governmental organizations’ explanation of terminology, which more
inclusive, acceptable term(s) should our class use instead of the euphemistic
expressions used by the War Relocation Authority (WRA) during the time period:
a. Instead of “assembly centers”or “relocation centers”:
b. Instead of “evacuation” or “relocation”:
c. Instead of “evacuee”:
d. Also: How should we generally refer to the American immigrants originally from
Japan? (to distinguish them from people living in Japan)
2. Consider the explanation about the term “concentration camps”.
a. What are your thoughts about President Roosevelt, the Attorney General, and
other politicians’ usage of the term “concentration camps” during WWII?
b. What is your opinion on using the term “concentration camps” to refer to these
camps in the United States?

Source text:
Terminology
The Board of the Civil Liberties Public Education Fund (CLPEF) which funded this project has set forth some guidelines with regard to the use of terminology describing the internment experience.
The CLPEF urges the general public to discontinue the use of euphemisms such as “evacuation” and “relocation”. Words such as “assembly centers” and “relocation centers” were coined by the War Relocation Authority to disguise the true nature of the event. The CLPEF suggests the following: “imprisonment, incarceration, internment, detention, confine¬ ment or lockup” instead of “evacuation” or “relocation”. Instead of “assembly centers”, the term “temporary detention centers” and rather than “relocation centers” the more accurate terms would be “internment camps, detention camps, prison camps or concentration camps”. Rather than “evacuee”, “detainee, internee, inmate or prisoner” are more accurate.
The Board recommends, as a starting point, to use accurate terms, keeping in mind that “continued use of these misnomers distort history. . . The choice of terms must reflect the fact that the inmates were not free to walk out without getting shot.” (Due Process, Americans of Japanese ancestry and the United States Constitution, NJAHS, 1995, p 48).
In this guide book, we have followed the Board’s recommendations to reflect what Manzanar was during the World War II period and have avoided the use of euphemistic termi¬ nology. The position of the National Park Service and the Manzanar Committee follow below.
National Park Service Statement
A lot has been made of the use of the terms “concentration camp” and “internment camp.” I have recommended that the NPS not use the term “concentration camp” in its inter¬ pretation because the term has become inextri¬ cably associated with Nazi death camps of World War II. The term “concentration camp” probably comes from the “reconcentrado” camps Spain’s General Weyler established about 1896 in an effort to separate rural popu¬ lace in Cuba from Cuban guerrillas, a program somewhat similar to the strategic hamlet pro¬ gram the U.S. established in Vietnam for the
same purpose. Translated into English, “reconcentrado” became “concentration.” Actually, there is substantial historical evidence of use of the term for the War Relocation Camps during World War II. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt called them “concentration camps” in 1944, the Attorney General of the United Stated referred to them as “concentration camps” in 1942, and a wide range of politicians calling for the establishment of such camps in 1942 called them “concentration camps.” At that time, of course, the nature and extent of the Nazi program to exterminate Jewish people and other opponents of the Nazi regime were not well known in the West.
Gordon Chappel, Regional Historian National Park Service, Pacific West Field Area San Francisco, CA
Manzanar Committee Statement
In 1971, the Manzanar Committee, in its application to the California Department of Parks and Recreation to designate Manzanar as a State Historical Fandmark, used both terms, “relocation center” and “concentration camp” in the proposed plaque wording.
After a year of discussion and negotiation, the final wording on the plaque including both descriptions was approved by the State Commission.
The Manzanar Committee has never com¬ pared the WRA camps to those in Nazi Germany, at any time.