Tried to run, and strongly considered killing myself over being taken alive.
They were white.
Not really. I thought it was pretty clear the question was aimed towards the pro gun rights crowd, after I initially answered his question.
Well, you would have made a very serious error in the first case.
It wasn’t clear to me.
I see internment differently than a miscarriage of justice. If the state wrongly convicts someone of a crime, presumably the state is acting rationally. There are systems in place for the convicted to correct the mistake. A citizen should not take up arms just because they are wrongly convicted of a crime. He should use the legal means to overturn his conviction.
With internment, the state is declaring that an arbitrary group of people are a danger and should be locked up. Even if they are not being taken to a death camp, being locked up will likely cause great hardship from the loss of their jobs and most of their property. I would say that the state is not acting justly when it locks up an arbitrary group which has not caused any crime. This makes me think that the citizens would be justified in opposing the government. I’m viewing internment as a tyrannical action which justifies the citizens rising up.
I’ll try harder next time.
Only if I failed to escape.
There’s a difference between “wrongfully convicted of a crime” and “convicted of something which shouldn’t be a crime”.
What if the US Congress had just passed a law declaring “Japanese ancestry” a crime punishable by involuntary internment? Would it be okay then? Are there any laws today you feel people are justified in breaking? Would they be justified in using deadly force to prevent their capture and imprisonment?
Some laws are just wrong and shouldn’t be obeyed. The people who break those laws are not criminals. IMHO. Still iffy on fighting back but I think I’m okay with it. Not sure what the cops should do in that case except refuse to enforce unjust laws.
Throwing out comments about race and conservatives is going to take the thread off-topic. Stick to the self defense and internment-related issues, please.
The internments were race related. We can’t really have a useful conversation on the subject if racism is taboo to mention.
But they ARE criminals. I’d say they were morally justified in disobeying such unjust laws, but that doesn’t make them any less criminals for it.
That’s why a legal system is only an approximation of justice. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right.
Today is MLK day, and his own example on civil disobedience is instructive. He encouraged people to disobey grossly unjust laws but also submitted to the proper civil authorities to be punished for violating those laws. He recognized he was acting in a criminal fashion (though morally justified in doing so) and that demonstrating the unjustness of some laws by submitting to civil authority was one tool for combating them.
Yes, and the power of that tactic is especially useful if:
- You have large numbers of people civilly disobeying.
- The ruling authority is capable of being shamed into changing.
#2 is critical, else it doesn’t work.
You were talking about people today, not people in 1942. But there are lots of gun rights supporters on this MB. If you think some would have done as you said, transport back in time and killed the Japanese, then please name names (in the Pit, of course). Otherwise, your “argument” is nothing more than a rant.
How do you escape suicide?
That was the second choice; you said the first.
If the Federal government today said “these are extraordinary times, the security of the nation is at risk, we have to detain all gun owners for X amount of time” there would be civil war.
The first scenario. That was you being a Japanese citizen in the US.
Agreed.
I doubt internees would have had a chance, but that makes them no less criminals even if they don’t resist.
Mostly I was being pedantic, because I dislike the idea that a ‘good’ person cannot be a criminal for breaking an unjust law. As another example, Jesus Christ (whether or not you believe the story is historically true or not) is a particularly big example of a morally justified person who willingly submitted to civil authority as a criminal, with no expectation of a change in that civil authority.
There are sometimes no happy endings. Internees could have violently resisted, been morally justified while still criminals, and died. Or they could have submitted and suffered either death (for European Jews) or significant personal and financial hardship (Japanese-Americans). They’re morally justified either way, but it still sucks to be them.
The internments were race-related, but we’re not going to be able to have a useful conversation if this becomes another “conservatives are racists!” announcement thread. The core issue here is U.S. citizens using violence against the government in response to an internment policy.
Of course they would be justified. They were being kidnapped. As soon as the government steps outside of its constitutional bounds, it is justified for you to answer in equal and opposite force. Whether or not the courts would vindicate your actions is superfluous to determining if you were acting morally.
Actually, the U.S. government did a good sales job for their internment camps. First, they gave the Japanese the impression that the internment would be for a short time period. Secondly, they emphasized that people were upset over Pearl Harbor so actually they were in danger of being assaulted by the population at large. Third, culturally the Japanese have always been respectful of authority.