Talk:Japanese American Internment/Archive 2

message: This is the first attempt to balance out some of the views here.  I've moved the "concentration camp" language further down in Criticisms and reworded:
: These camps are sometimes referred to as concentration camps, but the use of this loaded term should not be construed to mean they were on the same severity as Nazi Germany's extermination camps during that the war.
Better to illustrate than to tell people what to think. More edits to come. Fuzheado 07:49, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolving Jiang-VV (and others) Concerns 

message: I removed the following paragraph (formerly para 2), as it is grossly inaccurate.  
:This action is often referred to as internment; however, very few Japanese were actually imprisoned. Indeed, only 112,000 people were relocated for the duration of the war.  The government of the United States officially apologized for this action in the 1980s and paid reparations.
The 1940 U.S. census reports a total of 254,918 Asian Americans of all ethnicities.  That means that nearly half of all Asian Americans were detained.  Nowhere near 10% of any other ethnic group was detained, in Crystal City or elsewhere.  
It is true that "very few Japanese" were detained only if one nonsensically includes Japanese nationals residing in Japan.  Likewise, government relocation (civil or otherwise) of "only" 100,000 people is a major undertaking.  I could go on, but I think this covers the issue.  
--ishu 02:13, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the "only" is ridiculous; I was not responsible for it.  As for the rest, I don't know what you're saying, but it doesn't sound like it justifies deleting this.  All were excluded, many were relocated, but few were interned.  See discussion above. -- VV 06:35, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: All were excluded; most were relocated; few were 'interned'.  This goes to the definition of 'interned'.  More later--ishu 02:57, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: "Few Interned"

message: This claim:
:Many, including those born in America, had been educated in Japan, where they were heavily indoctrinated with Emperor worship.
is misleading on several counts.   (1) The sentence implies that "many" of the U.S.-born Japanese Americans were educated in Japan.  This is false.  Most were educated in American schools, though a small number were sent to Japan for education.  (2) This statement implies that a sizeable proportion were suspect due to their education in Japan.  The 1/3 of JAs born in Japan were immigrants by definition, were more culturally distinct, less likely to speak English, and were suspect due to their Japanese citizenship (somewhat unfairly, since they were legally barred from naturalizing as U.S. citizens).  Without some supporting references, I don't think that we can single out the education as a primary reason why their loyalty was suspect apart from these other factors.  (3) The term 'indoctrinated' suggests that receiving an education in Japan led most students to "worship" the Emperor more or less mindlessly.  Whether or not this was true,  it would be fair to say that fear of emperor worship was one of several factors that led people to doubt the loyalty of Japanese Americans.  I'd support a referenced, or at least expanded, discussion of the fears of Japanese Americans.  
--ishu 04:22, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) This is a reason to reword, not erase, and anyhow "most" does not exclude "many".  The kibei were a significant minority.  (2) The fact that they were educated (and thus raised) in Japan is an excellent reason to doubt their loyalty, but, as the article noted, just one of many.  (3) If you want to expand on it do so, but I see no reason to exclude this sentence.  I'll restore it with somewhat weaker language. -- VV 06:35, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that they were educated and raised in Japan is a possible reason to doubt their loyalty.  See my edit. --ishu 03:08, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Educated in Japan" &#61; "indoctrinated with emperor worship"

message: Paragraph 3 in the History section reads:
:In 25 January 1942 the Secretary of War reported that "on the Pacific coast not a single ship had sailed from our Pacific ports without being subsequently attacked". Due to this espionage was suspected.
This link describes the submarine shelling, and notes that only one other such attack occurred.  Another link claims that there were only two later "successful submarine attacks against shipping off the  West Coast."  Finally, a 1964 U.S. Army document, Guarding the United States and its Outposts notes that "apprehensions were fanned in the first few days of war by a series of false reports of Japanese ships and planes on the very doorsteps of the Pacific states." (p. 82)
Specfically, Guarding the U.S. directly refutes Secretary of War Stimson's comment of 25 January 1942 (referenced in current revision) as follows:  
:[T]here had been no Japanese submarine or surface vessels anywhere near the west coast during the preceding month, and careful investigation subsequently indicated that all claims of hostile shore-to-ship and ship-to-shore communication lacked any foundation whatsoever. (p. 120; see end note 16)
While this does not contradict the MAGIC decrypts directly, it is clearly inconsistent with the existence of a "vast spy network."  
In light of these references, the section on espionage and justification for the internment really needs to be revised.  
--ishu 05:52, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Espionage:  "not a single ship...without being attacked"