On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 08:45:19 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 07:29:47 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


It's this kind of thinking that resulted in over 110,000
Japanese-Americans being "relocated" at the beginning of Wo rldWarII.

When you are at war, you have to cover your bases.

Cover your bases? By interning American citizens?

They had their reasons back then. They were concerned about espionage.
When viewed through the filter of time, it looks like an indefensible
action. But at the time, it was a reasonable thing to do considering
the circumstances.

Dave

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 09:05:08 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


They had their reasons back then. They were concerned about espionage.
When viewed through the filter of time, it looks like an indefensible
action. But at the time, it was a reasonable thing to do considering the
circumstances.

Of course, the idea was to learn from history, not judge history. We are
a good people, who have occasionally done bad things. Japanese internment
was a bad thing.

They had their reasons back then. They were concerned about espionage.
When viewed through the filter of time, it looks like an indefensible
action. But at the time, it was a reasonable thing to do considering the
circumstances.

At the time, it was very similar to the way one of our enemies was treating a
portion of the population that particular government distrusted. Round em up
and imprison them all, sell off their property to the highest bidder belonging
to an approved race. There is no comparison between how
Germany ultimately dealt with a few million of the Jews and how the US and
Canada treated our Japanese citizens- most of those who went to concentration
camp in North America were ultimately released. In fact, all except those who
died from one (nonviolent) cause or another while in camp.

Did you know that some of he interred were second or latter generation
Americans? Many had never been to Japan, were not fluent in Japanese, and were
certainly no more of a threat than the
millions of German American and Italian American families that were descended
from other Axis peoples. The German and Italian families had an advantage. they
didn't "look funny".

On 08 Nov 2004 17:21:25 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

They had their reasons back then. They were concerned about espionage.
When viewed through the filter of time, it looks like an indefensible
action. But at the time, it was a reasonable thing to do considering the
circumstances.

At the time, it was very similar to the way one of our enemies was treating a
portion of the population that particular government distrusted. Round em up
and imprison them all, sell off their property to the highest bidder belonging
to an approved race. There is no comparison between how
Germany ultimately dealt with a few million of the Jews and how the US and
Canada treated our Japanese citizens- most of those who went to concentration
camp in North America were ultimately released. In fact, all except those who
died from one (nonviolent) cause or another while in camp.

Ok...... I'm not sure what your point is here, other than to draw a
distinction between our policy of internment, and the Germans' desire
for genocide.


Did you know that some of he interred were second or latter generation
Americans? Many had never been to Japan, were not fluent in Japanese, and were
certainly no more of a threat than the
millions of German American and Italian American families that were descended
from other Axis peoples. The German and Italian families had an advantage. they
didn't "look funny".

Well, I wasn't alive then, so I can't make a first hand testimony as
to the reasons why. Suffice to say that someone in the government
thought the threat was real enough to warrant that sort of treatment.

Dave

Ok...... I'm not sure what your point is here, other than to draw a
distinction between our policy of internment, and the Germans' desire
for genocide.

The point was to illustrate a similarity between two governments, at war with
one another, which agreed in at least the most basic sense that certain racial
or ethnic groups needed to be imprisoned for the sake of public welfare.

On 08 Nov 2004 18:11:54 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Ok...... I'm not sure what your point is here, other than to draw a
distinction between our policy of internment, and the Germans' desire
for genocide.

The point was to illustrate a similarity between two governments, at war with
one another, which agreed in at least the most basic sense that certain racial
or ethnic groups needed to be imprisoned for the sake of public welfare.

We believed that the Jap-Am's were a threat to national security. The
Germans believed that the Jews were an inferior race. We temporarily
"secured" the Jap-Am's. The Germans exterminated the Jews.

The comparison is not even close.


Dave

We believed that the Jap-Am's were a threat to national security.

The "Jap-Ams"? Pardon me, your unwashed slip is showing.

When we took these "threats to national security" off to prison camps, there
were no trials, no individual investigations, no requirements for evidence, no
background checks, no objective steps taken *at all* to
determine who was- or even might be- a threat to national security and who was
not. If you were 50% or more Japanese, had a Japanese name, and "looked
Oriental", your ass was grass. Once in prison, there was no due process
available- not even a chance to appeal your innocence or prove you were not,
and had never been, a threat to security.

It was like locking up a female dog in heat.
Who knows what trouble the poor beast would get into if let out?

While interred, the rents and taxes on personal and business properties
continued to accrue. The Japanese lost houses, farms, businesses, etc to
repossession and public auction. Did you know that it was acutally *illegal* in
many areas for a non-Japanese friend or non-Japanese relative to try to keep
the payments and taxes current on properties owned by the Japanese prisoners?

While it didn't do diddly squat for national security, the shameful internment
of American citizens and legal immigrants based solely on racial
characteristics proved to be a very effective means for profiteering through
property forfeitures.

Did you know that when the Japanese were hauled off to UnAmerica, many of their
young men joined the army and were
combined into a special "Jap" Regiment?
The Japanese soldiers fought bravely in Italy, but were never sent to the
Pacific theater for fear they might "revert" and turn their guns on US
soldiers. (Funny there was no similar fear when US soldiers of German ancestry
were sent to Europe in the same war).

I am at a total loss to understand how anybody can defend Japanese imprisonment
during WWII as a noble idea. It is one of the most shameful chapters in the
history of a nation that
proclaims "liberty, and justice, for all."

The
Germans believed that the Jews were an inferior race. We temporarily
"secured" the Jap-Am's. The Germans exterminated the Jews.

The comparison is not even close.


The basic fact that the Jewish "race" and the Japanese race were
both interred by their governments during the Second World War is not a close
comparison--------it's an *exact* comparison. The Japanese were let out again,
but sadly there were millions of Jews who butchered so there is no comparison
between the fates of the two groups *after* they were imprisoned.

When you are at war, you have to cover your bases.

Cover your bases? By interning American citizens?

Dave Hall wrote:
They had their reasons back then. They were concerned about espionage.
When viewed through the filter of time, it looks like an indefensible
action.

No, the internment of the Nisei is not "indefensible." It has the
defense you offered: sabotage & espionage.


... But at the time, it was a reasonable thing to do considering
the circumstances.

It was reasonable only if you consider that American citizens have no
rights that the gov't need respect. Clearly, you (and a lot of people)
believe that the convenience of the gov't should override any & all
basic citizen's rights.

I disagree with that philosophy.

DSK

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 15:25:08 -0500, DSK wrote:

When you are at war, you have to cover your bases.

Cover your bases? By interning American citizens?

Dave Hall wrote:
They had their reasons back then. They were concerned about espionage.
When viewed through the filter of time, it looks like an indefensible
action.

No, the internment of the Nisei is not "indefensible." It has the
defense you offered: sabotage & espionage.

I said indefensible when viewed through the filter of time, namely
now. The reasons for it at the time were pretty much clear cut.

... But at the time, it was a reasonable thing to do considering
the circumstances.

It was reasonable only if you consider that American citizens have no
rights that the gov't need respect.

American citizens willingly curtailed many of their "rights" during
WWII, for the sake of the greater good.

Clearly, you (and a lot of people)
believe that the convenience of the gov't should override any & all
basic citizen's rights.

Only if the situation clearly requires it.

I disagree with that philosophy.

That is certainly your right. But remember how many generations before
you abdicated their rights so that you could still have yours.

Dave

DSK

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


American citizens willingly curtailed many of their "rights" during
WWII, for the sake of the greater good.


You placed the word "rights" in quotation marks. One reason for using
quotation marks is to indicate that you don't believe the word indicates
something real. Is that what you believe?