Interestingly, one of the guys interned at Rower or Jerome purchased land in the area and began farming in Arkansas.
Because there were way too many of them, and they were much better intergrated into American society. Also they were white. And some were interned; only they tended to be actual immigrants from Germany or members of the German-American Bund. Ditto for Italian-Americans. Anybody with a drop of Japanese blook on the West Coast was liable to interned regardless of citizenship status or wether they or their parents were born in the US.
They actually were, albeit on a much smaller scale. How much of the difference was due to racism, and how much due to the fact that the numbers of Italian/Germans in the US made imprisoning them all impossible is probably un-knowable.
But the gov’t did have the same (irrational) fears of espionage from German/Italian Americans as they did of Japanese Americans.
German-Americans are the largest ethnic group in the US, and were I think even larger in the 1940s. They were also able to blend in more than Italians or Japanese, although small amounts of internment occurred with the first two groups.
The Governor of Hawaii (white guy) successfully petitioned to not have internment in Hawaii, especially because of the economic repercussions of removing a huge part of the population. Googling suggests 2000 were interned, and there were 200,000 people of Japanese ancestry (about 1/3?).
Somebody had scalped a few square inches of skin off a Japanese kid.
They really, really hated the Japanese.
And the skin was “yellow”? Because most Japanese or other East Asians don’t really have a specific skin tone.
I would just like to mention that the California governor, Earl Warren, that most beloved of Liberals, was the most active proponent of these camps. Edgar J. Hoover, most hated by Liberals, held emphatically that they were unconstitutional.
Why was the skin yellow? Jaundice?
Do you eat **all **the bullcookies your dad feeds you? Good Lord. :rolleyes:
One of my favorite political cartoons on the subject of Japanese internment from the era was as follows: A white shop owner it what was formerly Japanese owned green grocery saying to a customer, “Nah, the owner isn’t coming back. He got killed in Italy.”
1: Nowhere in my OP did I state that internment was done FOR the Japanese Americans protection.
2; Comparing the Internment with Hitler’s policies is comparing Apples with Oranges.
I simply was wondering if the internment policy MIGHT have saved some lives. After all fences not only keep people in, they also keep people out.
I was hoping for rational logical replies.
You stated that it may have been benificial.
Out of all the posts in this thread, you can’t find a rational logical reply to respond to? You aren’t looking very hard.
In the words of an insane wise janitor: putting rape victims in solitary confinement would eventually reduce the number of serial rape victims to zero.
What kind of rational logical replies were you looking for when you asked us for our input, and to tell you if your logic was sound? And then you proceed to insult the responding posters logic and input?
And what are you 99 years old…“American negros”…! You do seem to show signs of being on a dead end track.
So if x 000 people died in the interment camps because of the bad conditions, but y0 people were saved from mob violence, that would make the whole thing okay in your logic?
For the whole of history, people have persecuted those who were “other”, and once the majority decided to put those “others” away behind fences, it meant things got worse for them. It only got better for the others if they had a chance to integrate so that people could know them, and if they had a chance to fight for their rights, leading to a change in public consciousness that “mob violence is a bad thing, mkay? and police shouldn’t idly stand by and watch, but stop it.”
You haven’t answered why, according to your logic, blacks or muslims shouldn’t be put in camps today to protect them from mob violence.
Actually, arguments using your logic are still being made regarding handicapped children: because society dislikes handicapped children, it’s better to abort them before birth, or, once born, put them into special homes so they don’t have to deal with the repulsion of the public. (Charming scenes where passerbys tell the mother of a child that she should have aborted it because it’s costing the society money.)
Human right groups and handicapped advocates argue that instead of trying to get rid of handicapped people this way, the public needs to change their terrible attitude.
Underlines mine: I’d say the second follows from the first.
Ordering the internment of every American with German blood would have been akin to ordering the internment of every Argentinian with Italian blood - simply undoable. How many Congressmen, Cabinet members or Senators were of Japanese ancestry? Probably not even one. How many had German ancestry? A very large amount. Americans of Japanese ancestry were a relatively-easy-to-see minority and restricted in their location and occupations; Germans were not.
I wondered at the level of incredulity to my post, rising to the level of person insult, until I realized that it had been taken to support the premise that internment was indeed for the protection of Japanese-Americans. I only gave an account of actual, isolated mob violence. I realize now that the rest of my post was ignored, as was the “ish” in “yellowish” describing the skin: not like cartoon Chinese yellow, but to emphasize that is was from an Asian victim.
So, in your efforts to refute my assertion that it’s human nature to ignore the obvious (no California schoolboy was involved in the attack on Pearl Harbor) and vent their indignation on soft targets, you ignore the obvious (the bulk of my post that referenced historical racism California) and vent your indignation on me? Your post is my cite.
Also, regarding the kind of language that nikonikosuru uses above: I don’t say things like that to other posters myself, out of habit of not using in IRL: maybe people dismiss the possibility of violence because they’ve been sheltered from it. We wish everyone could grow up like that, but on the off-chance you meet someone IRL who hasn’t, you might want to be nicer.
My reply will have to be in this manor: to all the posters who interperted my post as condoning the internment, please read the OP, I simply was stating that out the the bad some good MAY have happened.
To the posters who compared the internment with Hitler’s concentration camps, I feel that is comparing APPLES with ORANGES.
To the posters who feel as though I didn’t address the responses in a proper manor, I can only offer my apologies, my inadequacies with the finer tweaks of this board, such as adding quotes and cities prevents me from doing the same. I also have other duties that I must get done during the day so I do not always have the tyme to reply to ever individual post though I try my best.
I’ve spent the last year and a half living in Asia (Korea and Japan, to be specific), and if I had to pick a skin color for Asians, I’d say most of them are white. The ones who spend a lot of time working outside end up with an Arizona tan though.
Yes, and the Korean I slept next to for 20 years had freckles. If we’re going to demand exact Pantone Matching System standards, we only “white” people I’ve ever seen were Japanese geishas.
Yet another conversation killed by the offenderatti.