“Second, there are ten other barbed-wire enclosed center in the U.S., into which, in 1942, the government put 110,000 persons of Japanese descent (out of a total population in the continental U.S. of 127,000). Two-thirds of them were citizens, born in the U.S.; one-third aliens, forbidden by law to be citizens. No charges were brought against them.”
“The Japanese–without meaning any disrespect to the little brown man-- does not commend himself to the average American farmer family as a desirable neighbor. He isn’t overly clean. He is accused of being unmoral. It is claimed the Japanese have no marriage tie as we know the institution. Women, if scarce, may be held pretty much in common.” And much, much more.
Presuming that this is intended as humor, it nonetheless reflects some all-too evident sloppy thinking on these issues:
Let us reflect on this for a moment, for its instructional value.
As I recall the John Doe No. 2 was described by various post-facto recollections as being a ‘swarthy’ or darker skinned fellow with dark hair. Stocky.
Now, let us think about this for a moment.
(a) We first can ask if there is not an element of ‘conformance’ to expectations in such accounts. Recalling initial reactions expected ‘Islamist’ or ‘Middle Eastern’ terrorism, behavioural science suggests there will be false memories in re seeing someone one expects to be there. That is Middle Eastern Terrorist is expected, ergo recalled.
(By the way, to my understanding the FBI documents not turned over were materials not deemed relevant. Duplicative materials, leads which did not stand up to scrutiny etc. I don’t recall any reliable sourcing saying there was anything new in re JD2. I would very much like a substantive cite to that claim.)
(b) Presuming there was a JD no. 2 who matched the description, there is nothing in that description (nor in the pictures I recall seeing from artists reconstruction attempts) which would conclude “Middle Eastern.”
Here is the reason I decided to reply. It would be appear that a sloppy process of thinking goes on in regards to this issue. The description and artists sketches easily match anyone of a Mediterranean basis origin. Italian, Spanish, Greek perhaps, perhaps Latin American.
Further, as I have pointed out ad nauseum here, even within the Arab world --not all of whom are Muslims mind you-- there is a wide range of phenotypes such that someone like the Algerian pilot arrested (and released) in London could be my brother (me a WASP, if one with dark hair). Especially true for North Africans, although people from the northern end of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and even Iran also don’t have what is the common stereotype for what “Middle Easterners” look like.
So, here we find the frailty of sloppy, poorly informed, illogical thinking. Skipping over a number of factors to reach a predetermined, assumed conclusion.
Which is precisely why profiling fails, which is precisely why rounding people up on the basis of presumed religion would fail etc.
Sorry for the delayed replies. Been in bed sick with a nasty cold. Anyway I’ll be as brief as I can to all this. I need some sleep!
quote:
Originally posted by filmyak Many people from the Middle East are being stripped of many of their rights here, for the sake of our national security.
Cite, please? As far as I know, no American citizen has been stripped of his/her rights. On the other hand, I believe our government is completely within its rights to detain and question aliens it believes might pose a danger.
I am no legal expert, but I thought people who were here legally – even if they weren’t citizens – had simialar rights to full citizens? And I am not talking about the Guantanamo situation, I am speaking of people of Middle Eastern descent who are being imprisoned on the mainland for questioning. I’ve heard recent interviews on NPR but do not have the details (hard to write things down while driving through a Los Angeles mountain pass). One man claimed to have been held by the FBI in a prison for six months without access to a lawyer, and without having been charged with any crime.
I have to assume that this happened to several people (the radio interview claimed it had), and again I assume some of them were probably guilty – but not all of them. So if some of the people claiming their rights were abused were actually innocent, are we as a society able to understand that as necessary in the modern world? Or should we be repelled by those actions?
As I already noted, the Japanese detentions did not stop any hostile actions (although it may have created some hostile feelings).
And I have to ask, how do we know it didn’t stop any hostile actions? Maybe it did! Maybe this inhumane act actually saved thousands of lives? Is there any way to really know the answer to this?
quote:
Originally posted by tomndebb
The frightened lady on the airplane cannot be compelled to put away her fears. The airline folks were idiots. At most, they should have rechecked the individual for weapons, then found him a new seat away from the complainer.
I disagree. I think we all have these fears now, just like it’s near impossible to be in a skyscraper without images of airplanes crashing into their sides popping into the minds of most Americans. From the woman’s description, the man was acting very suspiciously, and I am totally for airlines being cautious to the point of being ridiculous in the current world climate.
Originally posted by filmyak
My point there was that America was jailing people from a country that was at war with us and was attacking (or attempting to attack) American civilians.
BS. Actually, many if not most of the internees were American citizens and not citizens of Japan.
I didn’t say they weren’t American citizens. I am an American citizen, but I was not born in the U.S. I am saying they had a cultural/biological tie to our national enemy, much like the American soldier who fought for the Germans in Band of Brothers.
IT took over five months for the racists in California to get the ear of the president to sign Executive Order 9066. It took several more weeks before it was begun to be implemented. During that time, there were no acts of sabotage by that group. No one in military intelligence ever pointed to anyone in that group as a genuine threat during that period. No one in that group was found to have suspicious ties to Japan after they were questioned after transportation.
And nothing about the way that it was handled indicates that it would not have been better handled the way that Hoover handled the European detainees–individually.
Barring some genuine evidence, I am willing to conclude that EO 9066 did nothing except harm a significant population within the U.S. for no purpose. Given the singular lack of evidence I do not find “maybe it did” to be a very persuasive argument.
As to the woman on the plane, I would have to know what activity was deemed “suspicious.” If he was suspicious looking because he kept looking at maps and airline schedules and kept avoiding contact with the people surrounding him in the waiting area, that is suspicious behavior for which he might justifiably been questioned.
If his “suspicious” behavior was having swarthy skin, then both her actions and that of the airline are unconscionable. Your reference mentioned a “suspicious Middle Eastern man” with no statement of why he was suspicious. My guess, based on several similar events and a lack of detail from your story, was that he was guilty of “flying while swarthy” and that no one was protected by his being harrassed.
This is one of the standard connections between “national security” in WWII and the internment. The war actions of the Japanese government and the Japanese people in Japan are somehow shoehorned into the discussion as justification for interning those of Japanese descent in the USA
It is as if all those of German descent in Milwaukee had been rounded up and interned because the Germans, in pursuing a war, killed a bunch a Americans with a “sneak attack” in North Africa. I realise the comparison isn’t exact but you get the idea.
Actually, all US citizens are in danger of losing their rights because of the USA PATRIOT Act, as I will detail:
Section 802: Domestic Terrorism is so broadly defined in this section of the USA PATRIOT Act that anti-abortion protesters, globalization activists, and political dissenters are included in the definition as perpetrators of “acts dangerous to human lifw that are a violation of criminal laws [and that] appear to be intended…to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” If you attended a anti-war march, according to this extremely vague definition of “domestic terrorism” you could be percieved as a terrorist, regardless of race. Though the government’s target right now may be terrorists, I’m not too frightened. However, this section is up for review in a year; if Congress decides that it is still necessary, and as time passes and this becomes the norm, anyone using their First Amendment right to political association is in jeopardy of being labelled a terrorist.
Section 213: We all know search and seizures of private property is illegal unless police/government officials show evidence of “probably cause” to a member of the judicial branch (usually a judge). This section, however, permits “sneak and peek” searches without warrants; police can actually enter your house, rifle through your things, and leave without telling you any of this happened. The government, even the lowest ranking FBI agent, can now access your private records without a court order, which is in direct opposition to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978. If the government deems it neccessary, it can use its tracking program CARNIVORE to access all your phone calls and listen in on them, and trace your internet log-ins, webpage visits, and e-mail correspondence. Again, they do not need a court oder or warrant for this, which is in direct violation of our Fourth Amendment right.
These are just a sample, and they pertain to citizens of the United States. The sections about non-natives are a travesty to civil liberties and a disgrace to our foreign policy. Not to mention that Bush is now allowed to hold secret military trials in which he, or his designee, is the rule-maker, investigator, accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury, sentencing court, reviewing court, jailer and executioner. All the traditional safeguards of against injustice - the right to presumption of innocence, an independent judiciary, trial by jury, unaminous verdicts, public proceedings, due process, and appeals to higher courts - are thrown out the window as of November 13, 2001 when the act was passed.
Do a search for Center for Constitutional Rights and you can find more info about the USA PATRIOT Act. You can also find a copy of it online rather easily; I’m on a weird school computer and it won’t let me access more than one page at a time.
I suspect that the point was “better the U.S. simply go under than become a racist based nation” on the lines of certain mid-20th century non-democratic regimes.
tomndeb has it exactly msmith537. My admittedly hyperbolic point was that if the United States were to make as an official policy of government the internment of a certain class of citizens based on race, or even just create a set of policies that considered that set of citizens “guilty until proven inocent”, then that, IMHO, will cause the United States to lose the moral high ground. In other words if that really and truly were the only way to preserve the existence of the U.S. ( and of course I don’t believe this would ever be the case, hence the hyperbole ), better the U.S. as a national entity ( not the people of the nation ) be ‘martyred’ and remain ( comparatively ) unblemished as a symbol of freedom, than stoop to such tactics. Let me emphasize once again that I do not expect such a thing to happen and if it ever did, my own sense of outrage and betrayal aside, I’m sure the U.S. would keep on chugging just fine.
Just my own opinion, based on my own moral precepts. I don’t necessarily expect or require anyone to share it.
filmyak ( is your username supposed to be literally “film yak” - I kind of like it, if so ) - As for your replies, I’ll just stick with tomndeb. If this airline incident was truly over deeply suspicious behavior, that’s one thing. If it was nothing more than a slightly nervous looking man ( afraid of flying, perhaps? ) with dark skin, then that is something else entirely and not, IMHO, acceptable.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, however, the Germans and Italians and Bulgarians and others were picked up individually.
Injustices did occur. Sometimes they were detained because spiteful neighbors lodged false charges against them. Sometimes they had expressed a desire not to be drafted to fight their former countrymen. Individuals were detained on because they were misidentified as other people who were suspected.
They were not, however, rounded up en masse and shipped off to the Wyoming or Arizona deserts for simply having German or Italian surnames.
There were already racist laws on the books, and enforced, against Japanese in the United States prior the US entry into
WWII. The same cannot be said regarding Germans and Italians in the US at the time. The big difference is that the Issei and Nissei aren’t White; therefore, they got punished.
Correction (typing from memory always invokes the dangers of errors in the text):
It took two months to talk FDR into designating the removal zones on February 19, another month to authorize the actual concentration camps (March 18), and another few weeks to begin shipping people to them (Colorado began accepting detainees in April) for a total of five months.
My understanding is that nationalities other than Japanese were handled on an individual basis. For example, Enrico Fermi was an Italian citizen and therefore technically an “enemy alien” while he was working on the atomic bomb.
In addition. Suppose we grant (contrary to the facts) that Germans and Italians who were American citizens were interned, forced to sell their property at a loss and so on. Wouldn’t that merely mean that they also had a legitimate complaint against the US? Mistreatment of one nationality surely doesn’t justify the mistreatment of another, or do you and the retired major think it does?
) - As for your replies, I’ll just stick with tomndeb. If this airline incident was truly over deeply suspicious behavior, that’s one thing. If it was nothing more than a slightly nervous looking man ( afraid of flying, perhaps? ) with dark skin, then that is something else entirely and not, IMHO, acceptable.