I believe he meant embargo of strategic resources.
The rest of what he wrote is nonsense though.
also Elsie Mitchell and five kids. Charles Jones too.
FWIW, I just finished the memoir of a US officer who served in the Occupation. He quotes another officer as saying “We’re too soft on these damn gooks anyway” in reference to the Japanese in 1952.
There are a lot of other folk’s posts telling you how wrong you are on your “facts” in this post. I am amazed at how far off your “facts” are. You did take US history at some time, yes? Not a personal attack on you, I am truly curious.
While you did not address the attack the next day in the Philippines, we lost many soldiers that Monday as well as a few civilians, on Bataan, as well as other sites on the Philippines islands. At the time, The Philippines was a U.S. commonwealth, not a territory like Hawaii was. For my family, the attack on the Philippines is more importaint then the attack on Pearl Harbor, as we lost more family members in the Philippines.
Now, before I attempt to answer your question, I need a definition of terms. We need to have the same definition of terms if we are to speak with each other intelligently. How can we communicate clearly, if my definition of any word we will use is significantly different from your definition of the same word? That being said, what do you mean by " the blockade of Japan", “personal”, " civilian", and “our shores”. Oh heck, lets add “retaliation” to the list of definitions that I would like from you.
Thanks for your reply, 48.
There is an interesting discussion to be had contrasting “Hawaii was already American” and “fighting Japanese expansionism”. Especially considering that in 1941, there were more Hawaiian civlians of Japanese ancestry, than with American roots. (In other words, Hawaii was mainly gook.)
From the Royal Navy practice of carrying plenty of fresh citrus to prevent scurvy among the sailors. Gotta love that Vitamin C. It’s not really a term with a derogatory origin, though I guess it can be used today to stereotype.
“Expansionism” into what? British, French and Dutch colonialism. AKA expansionism already well in place.
Gook “expansion” into what is alrady gook?
If they were born in Hawaii after its annexation, then they had American roots too because they were born as US citizens. That doesn’t change that they were Japanese-Hawaiians as well. Are Cajuns considered to be not of American origin? How about Eskimos of Alaska? Are they American? How about the Pennsylvania Dutch? Many of them have been in the Mid-Atlantic states region before there even was a “United States”. Saying that they are not American because they are not of British origin is absurd.
So you take this opportunity on being corrected as to the status of Hawaii in 1941 not as an opportunity to learn something but rather an opportunity to refer to the population of Hawaii as gooks. Classy.
There’s this rather large country in Asia called China that Japan had been at war with since 1937 and had militantly been expanding into since the prior century; Formosa was taken by Japan in 1895, Korea in 1910, Manchuria in 1931. You’ll kindly note British, French, and Dutch colonialism had fuck all to do with any of this. It was Japan’s war in China that was the cause of the embargos from America, leading eventually to the embargo on the sale of oil to Japan, which meant Japan had to quit China or go to war for oil. It’s only here that the Dutch come in, as the Dutch East Indies was the only source of oil nearby that they could hope to take by force. The name of the French colony that Japan expanded into in 1940 should give you some clue as to the reason they occupied it, they occupied French Indochina in 1940 after the central government in France had fallen to the Nazis in Europe. Why? Here’s the first sentence in the wiki article:
In other words, they occupied it to prevent the US from easily sending arms to China, which now had to go through British Burma, a much less hospitable route lacking the amenities of things like railroads.
According to the OED, “gook” first appeared in 1935 and referred to “anyone who speaks Spanish, particularly a Filipino.” Japanese didn’t fill the bill.
The term had migrated to include Koreans by 1947 and Japanese in 1951.
So the simple and obvious answer was that it wasn’t used to refer to Japanese in WWII because Japanese weren’t gooks. It would have been like calling Native Americans “limeys.”
An interesting side note is that ironically, there were relatively few mainland-style detention camps for ethnic Japanese in Hawaii. While almost all ethnic Japanese on the West Coast were rounded up, out of almost 158,000 in Hawaii, only 1200-1800 were interned. From that link:
**
The vast majority of Japanese Americans and their immigrant parents in Hawaii were not interned because the government had already declared martial law in Hawaii and this allowed it to significantly reduce the supposed risk of espionage and sabotage by residents of Japanese ancestry. Also, Japanese Americans comprised over 35% of the territory’s population, with 157,905 of Hawaii’s 423,330 inhabitants at the time of the 1940 census, making them the largest ethnic group at that time; detaining so many people would have been enormously challenging in terms of logistics. Additionally, the whole of Hawaiian society was dependent on their productivity. According to intelligence reports at the time, "the Japanese, through a concentration of effort in select industries, had achieved a virtual stranglehold on several key sectors of the economy in Hawaii,” and they "had access to virtually all jobs in the economy, including high-status, high-paying jobs (e.g., professional and managerial jobs).” To imprison such a large percentage of the islands’ work force would have crippled the Hawaiian economy. Thus, the unfounded fear of Japanese Americans turning against the United States was overcome by the fear of economic loss.**
The OED is definitely wrong on the date of first appearance there, it’s much older than 1935. The original word “goo-goo” was from the Philippine–American War of 1899-1902; the derivative “gook” sometime thereafter but certainly before 1935, it is referenced as being used in 1912 in the occupation of Nicaragua.
Your comments are beginning to sound like those of a bigot.
Implying Japanese expansionism into places like the Philippines isn’t expansionism because they’re all “gooks” is plainly racist. The Japanese and Filipinos are as different from each other as Norwegians and Egyptians (and almost as far apart, geographically.) While it sounds like you need to really acquaint yourself with the facts, which you are plainly unfamiliar with, I would seriously suggest that sounding like a racist is not appropriate behaviour for someone who wishes to be a decent and enlightened adult in the 21st century.
Except that in 1941 no one considered “Jap” to be offensive, and not everyone does so now. It’s like “Brit.”
Perhaps (do you have a cite?).
But my point still stands: the word had nothing to do with the Japanese until after WWII, so it wasn’t used during WWII.
OK, at this stage then there isn’t a point in engaging with you.
Some people used that term without offense, but plenty of others did. It’s only recently that it has become impolite to allow one’s racism to show in public.
Don’t they? We know it wasn’t before the war, in Texas they named a road “Jap Road” in honour of a Japanese man, they changed it when the war made it an obvious pejorative term; “murdering Jap”, "slap the ‘dirty little’ Jap", “You’re a sap, Mr. Jap” and so on.
On other Asian nations, at the time they were depicted positively as due to Japan’s ideas of Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere they were our allies. The Chinese were known to Americans as allies, garnering sympathy since 1931 when Japan invaded Manchuria. Life magazine even ran a story on how to tell Japanese from Chinese, it’s interesting to note the language used.
“Innocent victims in cities all over the country are many of the 75,000 U.S. Chinese, whose homeland is our stanch ally. … LIFE here adduces a rule-of-thumb from the anthropometric conformations that distinguish friendly Chinese from enemy alien Japs.”*
“Chinese wear rational calm of tolerant realists. Japs, like General Tojo, show humorless intensity of ruthless mystics.”*
I only used the term “gook” because it is the topic of this thread. Americans used Goooks to refer to Philipinos as well, irrespective of any factual ethnic distinction, and my alleged bigotry is not at fault for that. If you want to call me a bigot, there is a Pit forum eagerly awaiting your observations.
The Japanese were mindful of civilian casualties, because the number of Honolulu’s civilians, then as now, consisted of more people of Japanese ancestry than White. Furthermore, the great majority of the 68 civilian deaths were from friendly fire, namely improperly fused anti-aircraft fire that fell in residential Honolulu.
And please don’t tell me I have my facts wrong when I report that Burma, Malaya, the East Indies and New Guinea were already occupied by “expansionist” powers, perfectly justified in America’s eyes, who thought calling them Gooks was just fine and not at all bigoted. And Philipinos did not exactly have fond memories of the terror inflicted on them by American “expansionism” at the turn of the century.
Well a moment ago you claimed “not a single civilian death.” I suppose you think all the bombs on Honolulu were from friendly fire. That will be news to Honolulu.
It’s in the OP.
Yes, the only thing you have managed to not be factually wrong about in this thread is when you, personally, choose to call people gooks.