During WWII, when North America was fighting against Germany and Japan, pre-war immigrants of those countries were either deported or more often sent to concentration camp. This has now been found to be an error, and the they have been financially compensated.
However, what I would put forward is that it won’t be long before muslims in North America face deportation and concentration camp en masse.
A few more attempted or realized terrorists attacks and those WWII camps that we are now so ashamed of will come back.
Why?
-Popular demagogues targeting muslims and convincing lots of people
-Increasing level of deshumanization of Arabs (see level of reporting of Americans/Iraqis dead versus the number of casualties)
-No political or economical power held by muslims (and embryonic organizations) that could enable them to defend themselves
-Higher potential of danger (terrorists whole purpose is to strike in the country of their enemy)
-Us vs Them mentality spreading (Christians vs Muslims)
-…
Anyone can convince me of why this is not inevitable? Did we really learn our lesson in WWII and did we construct the proper legal mechanism to prevent this? If not, does this mean that concentration camps were not such a “bad” thing after all? Are we so much better then our 40’s ancestors?
Won’t happen. If it does, I’m personally signing up to join the revolution.
Really, society has (thankfully) progressed to a point where you can’t do much without half the country leaping down your throat. No matter how bad the fundie Christians get, most of the people in this country would be shocked at a policy like this (though Sam Stone may get off to it tonight).
I think you’re absolutely right. And the legalities currently in place do nothing but help this situation to arise.
When you can be denied every fundamental right given to you in the constitution if suspected for terrorism by the Patriot Act, thats it. All it takes is some police officer thinking being a Muslim makes you likely to be a terrorist (you’d be surprised how many people in power think like this) and you’re in jail without a lawyer or phone call and then put on trial behind closed doors.
I wish it was an exagerration, since I am Arabic (although atheist), but I’m certainly not counting on peoples sensibilities remaining with them and its alarming how easily I could “disappear” if someone high up didn’t like me, completely legally.
Now, that was unfair; Sam Stone holds some rather adamant political views but If I´d get to know something about his character is that he stands for certain moral values that are completely incompatible with the scenery of the OP.
You must have missed the part where he was calling the slaughter of 450-600 civilians and children in Fallujah a victory for America because we killed more of them then they did of us.
I think we’ve definitely passed the time when something like this could be done openly, with no justification other than that of religion or ethnicity. There are too many otherwise cooperative citizens who would, like Zagadka, feel justified in using violent resistance at that point. (And that’s part of it - an announcement like that would be a POINT, a single certain indicator, the truth of which is indisputable, that things have suddenly gone way too far.)
On the other hand, if things were done more slowly and with justifications not explicitly about race or religion, the outcome would probably be different. Most people, I think, want to believe that the government isn’t trying to do anything particularly nefarious, because, well, that’s a very scary thought. If something has the effect of targeting Muslims, but is proposed and justified in other terms, people wouldn’t be as certain. You may be willing to quit your job and join La Résistance if masses of people are obviously getting sent to concentration camps, but if it’s just some eco-vegan-anarchist bloggers and your local free leftist weekly talking about some guys getting deported and saying something about surveillance and arguing over whether organizations are terrorist or not… well, there’s not going to be the same sort of urgency there, you know?
You bring up some good points. In fact, America was fairly passive in accepting the Patriot Act and other manuevers to allow the government to do similar things on a limited basis.
I’d like to pray that enough people would notice, though. We also have the advantage of NGOs like AI and HRW, as well as a number of rather massive legal groups that serve as watchdogs - there are a number of them for Arabic citizens specifically. I would like to think that someone would notice… if not, well, it is too late. On the other hand, people haven’t done very much despite some forces mobilizing to try to institute a draft, so who knows. Americans tend to not notice things until too late.
Can’t happen on any scale larger than Camp X-ray, and even that’s iffy.
The basic problem is the media today: the entire country would know about it within a day, and there’d be a massive tide of public opinion against it that would scare off any administration trying it. Yes, there’s lots of people who’d support it, but there’s also lots who wouldn’t, and the speed of today’s media guarantees that they’d be heard before it got off the ground.
Remember, there was no such thing as TV in World War II. News was spread in newspapers and newsreels. When we were doing it to the Japanese, it was possible to ignore any sentiment against it as extremely local and poorly organized. Today, there’d be massive demonstrations in every city.
I don’t see how anything large scale could be done covertly. Look at the public furor over just a couple of American citizens caught in the “unlawful combatant” category. It’d be too easy for opponents of such an action to quickly create a media image of the administration herding Jews into trains for the death camps.
Simple fact is, most Americans thought there was nothing wrong about it. This is still well in the era before civil rights was even a buzzword.
We can’t just shrug off the lack of protest about it. In California, it was a HUGELY visible deal, especially in San Francisco. Entire communities vanished, blocks of stores closed. There was not much protest.
It would take a fairly large shock to American society. I think in the aftermath of a nuclear attack on American soil, especially if it wasn’t immediately clear who was responsible, the government might be able to get away with this.
For those of you who trust the media to make a fuss, remember how complacent and unwilling to question authority most media outlets were in the immediate aftermath 9/11. If the disaster were great enough, the urge to avoid rocking the boat would become overwhelming, and most people would accept almost any government action done in the name of security.
Zagadka: Why don’t you bite me? I do not support concentration camps for anyone, and I didn’t ‘cheer’ the deaths of anyone. If you’ve got a problem with me, take it to the pit. I’m getting mighty sick of this crap.
At least TRY to stay on topic instead of just flaming people.
I seem to remember a lot of replaying of the two towers being hit. At the very least, the media didn’t try to pin the blame on anyone, though they did carry the Taliban denouncement rather quickly.
With the Internet and the proliferation of a world full of news on demand, I don’t think they could really get away with it. I mean, a certain subsect of Americans would buy into it and turn a blind eye, but I think there are enough people who would be outraged to prevent it from being permanent. Like it was said, we barely tolerate X-Ray… in any case, I seriously doubt that the NGOs and UN would let it happen. We live in a different age now.
Meh, you can’t start bragging about killing a few hundred kids without expecting people to dislike you - though maybe some people are happier than others to wink and look the other way about it. I’m not, though.
Well, here is a chance to prove me wrong! Show me where Sam bragged about killing a few hundred kids, and you may have a point. If you do not, then it is just another lie from you. Now, I did a search, and I cannot find where Sam bragged about killing a few hundred kids. Maybe it was over in MPSIMS?
Zagadka: *Hey, I’m the one trying to stay on topic here.
Meh, you can’t start bragging about killing a few hundred kids without expecting people to dislike you […]*
Be that as it may, expressing your dislike for Sam’s comments about Iraqi deaths, in a thread devoted to discussing the question of whether North American Muslims might conceivably be subjected to mass deportations or concentration camps, can’t really be described as “staying on topic”.
I sympathize with some of the things you say, Z, but in this case it seems to me that your impulse to launch a zinger about something you were angry about distracted you from the issue at hand. I agree that Sam’s angry reaction isn’t helping matters any, but it’s hard not to get angry when you’re accused like that.
O_o How many posts have you made on topic in this thread, Mr. Pot?
“Look at the war in Fallujah so far. Less than ten U.S. soldiers killed so far (I think the number is five or six), vs at least 450 dead insurgents. They don’t have a chance.”
Neverminding that “450 dead insurgents” is 550 dead civilians, and 150-250 of those are children. Waving the flag over the borderline atrocity that is Fallujah is ignorant and asinine, especially when one begins bragging about how few soldiers have died in the carpetbombing and aerial strafing of civilians, not to mention (as he does later) bragging about how efficient the seige is, in that “they can’t sneak out of the city, and they can’t sneak in supplies,” which I presume he means the convoys of blood, food, and water sent in to the refugees in the city that were turned back by US troops.
You’re going to leap all over me for “reading too much into it,” but seriously, if you are that absurdly ignorant about what is going on in an event, it is better to just not mention it instead of looking like an ass. I mean, if you don’t know what is going on in Fallujah, you aren’t quite fit to be talking about much of anything else going on in Iraq. Viewing every person in the city as an “insurgent” is stupid.
Next time someone starts bragging about mercilessly slaughtering a few hundred civilians in a city, think before you start flaming people.
Mind if we actually talk about the topic now, or do you want to continue threadjacking?
You’re right, there wasn’t much opposition to it, but my point remains. Today, there’s plenty of opposition to the administration’s policies, it is after the civil rights movements, and the modern media allows for much quicker, and effective, anti-administration organization. Yes, people knew about it in the forties, but it was much more distant back then.
Put it another way: think of the effect on lots of Americans of a 20 seconds clip on the news of Palestinians dancing for joy after 9/11. Now think of the effect on Americans of a 20 second newsclip of U.S. soldiers herding Arab-looking people onto buses and trains in American cities. What the 1940s had for the go-either-way middle was a comfortable distance from events; that no longer exists.
Perhaps it could happen here. But I don’t believe it could happen quietly or easily, and I think it would be electoral death for whatever administration tried it.
