« Why I will Not Vote For Bush #2a: The War on Terror | Main | What's for Dessert? Mmmmm...October Surprise! »

September 07, 2004

Comments

I still think, given her views, that it would be deliciously ironic if she were immediately arrested (or at least, severely harrassed) due to suspicions engendered by her ethnic background. A little "tough love" seems appropriate here...

Oh, and can we please please please kill the notion that "there are two sides to every issue"? [Not that you've perpetuated it, mind.] I think that "axiom" is one of the most important factors in turning modern political discourse into its current trainwreck, and I want it killed dead now.

I'm not sure why this woman is still garnering attention at all.
Coulter's little "In defense of McCarthy" didn't get as much attention.
Coulter is still regularly on tv because she is willing to play the partisan angry clown to the hilt and "news" channels may have numbers to back up that that type of "entertainment" gets ratings.
Maybe they realize Coulter's schtick is getting old and Malkin is being slowly phased in as a replacement.

Second Anarch's motion to kill the idea there are sides to every issue. Yes, there are two sides (or more) to many issues but frequently there is only one credible side.

The sad thing about this nasty bit of racism by Malkin is that for many Americans, her side may be the only one heard by many Americans on the history of Japanese-American internment in WWII. While Muller, Robinson, Neiwert, etc. have done a masterful job of debunking Malkin's vile revisionism, they're not getting the exposure on the cable TV shows.

Malkin is.

While Muller, Robinson, Neiwert, etc. have done a masterful job of debunking Malkin's vile revisionism, they're not getting the exposure on the cable TV shows.

They're not cute and telegenic. And therein lies another destroyer of political discourse.

He said/she said plays so well to the "I need an angle to make it interesting" reporters. That's why it took so long for the press to begin debunking the Swift Boal vets. It sold ad space. When the story was running out of steam the new angle was "SBVT stories full of conflicts and mistruths."

But before then they let the Kerry campaign be the only counterpoint to the lying and deliberately misleading ads. As if the official record were a Kerry campaign document.

"They're not cute and telegenic. And therein lies another destroyer of political discourse."

I don't know. Vox Day looks pretty sharp for a conservative dude - the AEI should hire him on the basis of the haircut alone.

Anarch, my wife tells me I'm cute.

If that's a photo of you at the top of your site, Mr. Muller, your wife is right. ;-)

It's not even cute or telegenic. That helps Malkin, no doubt, but plenty of pundits--Robert Novak springs glaringly to mind--are neither. It's that they're not pundits, they're just boring old historians and who wants to listen to them? Even if they'd actually be much more interesting and better looking than pundits we have to sit through every week and actually know what they are talking about!.

It's entirely self-fulfilling--just like the way they measure a story's importance SOLELY by the criteria of how many of them are already talking about it.

Wouldn't it be a little more fun to pile on Ms. Malkin while she's actually in blogshot? Hmmm? I don't know anything at all about this particular squabble, but I do know that Malkin's being substantially more civil than a few posting here.

Kudos to von for leaving a trackback.

All (and echoing Slartibartfast):

I think it's better to focus on the substance (or lack thereof) of Malkin's arguments, rather than her looks or telegenic qualities. One may be "as telegenic as Lucifer" (to update an old Psalm), but the first thing to do is respond to his or her arguments.

In addition, and for the record: I will not abide ad hominem attacks against individuals who seek to defend Malkin's thesis, or seek to answer the two questions that I pose on this thread.

Apologies to all if my comment was taken as an ad hominem snark. It was meant to be complement to the pooch (and a joke).

Wouldn't it be a little more fun to pile on Ms. Malkin while she's actually in blogshot?

It would indeed. Too bad she turned her comments off as soon as her book came out.

I never knew she had comments. There's always email, Phil. That, and waiting to see if she responds to the trackback. Hey, you could address the subject on your own blog, and leave another trackback.

Plus, there's the aforementioned factual dissection technique, as opposed to the Malkin-is-a-racist technique.

Well, we're not attacking Malkin for being cute, we're attacking the press for giving her half baked opus more coverage than the work of serious historians because she's cute. And most of the debate has been about how good looking Eric Muller is, not Malkin, and it's been totally lighthearted. And why is Edward apologizing for a funny little allusion to a picture of a puppy on Muller's website? Now I'm just confused.

I haven't attacked the substance of her claim, because Muller, Day, et. al. are doing an excellent job and a better job than I would do. Von is right: you do not deserve an equal hearing because you make an argument, if it is not an accurate argument, if you are defending one of the worst violations of U.S. citizens rights by the government in our recent history, and if you are arguing for milder violations of people's civil rights right now. You do not deserve a polite or deferential response. You deserve civility and rational argument instead of name calling, but Malkin's gotten plenty of that already.

From my point of view, saying that Arab and Muslim Americans to be detained and deported and strip searched because of their race and their race alone, and that Japanese Americans were interned for good reason, is actually a WHOLE lot less civil than saying that Michelle Malkin wrote a terrible book and it does not deserve the media attention it has gotten.

Slarti:

Look, I don't think charges of racism should be thrown around lightly or inaccurately. But it is racist to advocate and defend mistreating whole sections of the public based on their race, and to make factually inaccurate and dishonest arguments about why it is justified.

She wants this in lesson plans? The seriousness with which conservabloggers treat Michelle is perhaps the best sign that they as a group have skyrocketed over the shark.

Ed, et al. -- I just want to make sure that if Malkin or someone who would like to defend her does show up, they feel welcome & are able to get their point across.

feel free to delete my comment von. I agree with your rationale.

e

ok, now I'm even more confused. Did Edward make another comment I'm not seeing?

Marguerite --

I didn't mean to come down harshly (or, really, at all) on anyone. And Ed's flirtation with Eric Muller's dog -- while, frankly, a bit disturbing -- ain't a problem. (It is a good lookin' dog, after all.) ;-)

von

But it is racist to advocate and defend mistreating whole sections of the public based on their race, and to make factually inaccurate and dishonest arguments about why it is justified.

Wait...did Malkin say something about Chinese, Koreans, Thais or other Asian nationalities that I'm unaware of? If so, I take it all back.

your kitten's a lot cooler, though.

And Ed's flirtation with Eric Muller's dog -- while, frankly, a bit disturbing --

Well, they're trying to prevent me from going at it with box turtles any more...

sorry...that doesn't exactly help class up the joint, does it? Do, please, delete this one. I've apparently gone off my meds. ;0

If you are referring to the 1940s, "race" and "nationality" are usually used synonomously in these discussions, so restricting it to Japanese people does not help much--it's not like there is such a thing as the Asian race. Anyway, there were two countries we were at war with, that there was any plausible basis for believing could sink our ships, raid the coast, etc. One was Asian; another was European. The Asians were put into camps. The Europeans were left alone.

If you are referring to today--no, as far as I can tell she is calling for discrimination against people of Egyptian, Pakistani, Saudi Arabian, Indian, Syrian, Jordanian, Iranian, Iraqi, Lebanese, Algerian, Tunisian, Afghani, etc. etc. descent. I guess "Middle Eastern" and "South Asian" are not listed as races on our census form, but as I said, there is no biological basis for what is a race and what isn't, and race and national origin are used interchangeably in these discussions and are an equally illegitmate basis for discriminating.

Von asked what is really the most important question, though, and it shouldn't be lost:
"Merely saying that you do not advocate Arab internment is not enough; tell us why."

If you are referring to the 1940s

Actually, I'm keeping it in the right here and now.

"race" and "nationality" are usually used synonomously[And inaccurately, I might add] in these discussions

it's not like there is such a thing as the Asian race

Ah, but Mongoloid is so un-PC. But point taken.

I see your other points. Accusations of racism, directed at Malkin, are made not because of the WWII discussion, but because of extrapolation of our policy then to current policy, as applies to The Enemy. Well, you can't have it all ways. Malkin may be wrong, but she's not advocating (as far as I can say) profiling against any particular race. Just against a particular culture, or religion. If the accusation is of cultural discrimination, or religious discrimination, let's use proper nomenclature. OTOH if it's actual racism you claim she's advocating, I'll certainly surrender this line of discussion once you show me.

And with that, I'm way deeper into this conversation than I ever intended.

Slarti
I beleive it is still called racist when you go after a particular population group within a race.
I'm assuming by your above comment that you're trying to make a comment otherwise.

Spic, Wop, Paki, Dago, Mick, kike, towelhead, chink, nip, etc . . .

"The Asians were put into camps. The Europeans were left alone."

Not I believe 100% accurate - some Germans and Italians were encamped (many fewer, under better conditions, ...)

The 1990 Census
The 1990 Census provides the richest source of race data. You may extract 1990 census data from the Summary Tape Files using our American FactFinder.
Use Summary Tape File 1, Table P7. This table provides counts for the following Asian and Pacific Islander population groups:

Asian
Chinese
Filipino
Japanese
Asian Indian
Korean
Vietnamese
Cambodian
Hmong
Laotian
Thai
Other Asian Pacific Islander
Polynesian
Hawaiian
Samoan
Tongan
Other Polynesian
Micronesian
Guamanian
Other Micronesian
Pacific Islander, not specified


http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race/api.html

She says, repeatedly, "profiling, profiling, profiling." I understand her to mean profiling based on appearance. If you can find a contradictory cite please let me know.

You can't tell someone's religion, let alone their culture, by looking at them. It's based on the shared physical characteristics of people with certain national origins. If you agree with me that there's no such a thing as race, biologically speaking, what is racism but discrimination based on the shared physical characteristics of people with certain national origins?

Being a little concerned about the Census folks defining racial types, I actually read the website and discovered that it's not claimed to be a racial distinction, but rather a geographical and cultural one. I'm still a little confused as to why the census was brought into the fray, though.

Slarti
The census defines "Asian" as a single "race" and then defines all those groups as "population groups" WITHIN that race.

So if I call all the Hmong "idiots", I guess I can count on you standing beside me and swearing that my comment is not racist because I didn't say all Asians are idiots. Comforting.

Slartibartfast: Wait...did Malkin say something about Chinese, Koreans, Thais or other Asian nationalities that I'm unaware of? If so, I take it all back.

Race has a history of being distinguished in much finer granularity than you imply. "Asian" is no more the limit on racial specificity than is "European" (though I fully acknowledging the linguistic problems associated with talking about race under any circumstance). Japan, like many island nations, is a fairly heterogeneous society, with people of non-Japanese descent considered by many to be "gaijin" or "outsiders". In this case, race, nationality, and culture are to a large degree coincident.

If there's no such thing as race, marguerite, then the word "racism" is meaningless. I hate to be tedious, but "racist" as a label just doesn't do very much when there's no race.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Latino_(U.S._Census)

or this:

"Racism is a form of persecution based on beliefs, practices, and institutions that negatively discriminate against people based solely on their perceived or ascribed race."

Perceived or ascribed...Hmmm

Slarti
Is there such a thing as time?

So, you're saying race is in the eye of the beholder?

I'm going to keep that in mind when filling out my next employment application. I can't wait to see the look in the collective eyes of the HR department.

Slartibartfast: If there's no such thing as race, marguerite, then the word "racism" is meaningless. I hate to be tedious, but "racist" as a label just doesn't do very much when there's no race.

I suppose there were never any "witch hunts" because there is no such thing as a "witch".

Slarti--That's funny, because you agreed with me five minutes ago about that.

There is no such thing as "race" biologically. There are plenty of dumb people who think there is, and who discriminate on that basis, and we call them "racist". In fact, in your own country (and mine, despite the suspiciously French name), people have been enslaved, imprisoned and murdered on that basis as well as made second class citizens, and so while there is no meaningful biological definition of the black and white races, they have become very real social categories.

As you know very well. You're a smart guy.

So stop it with these semantic arguments. They're not worth either of our time, and I don't know why you think defending Malkin is worth your time.

Gromit's answer is better than mine. (Though it sounds like witch-talk to me.)

Slarti--That's funny, because you agreed with me five minutes ago about that.

Antecedent?

And who says I'm defending Malkin? I thought I was on record that discussions about Malkin's work ought to be addressed to her, and that I hadn't read it. I thought we were discussing the nature of ad hominem attacks, here. I'm not saying there's no racism, I'm saying that labeling profiling as racism isn't making a useful distinction. Which, coincidentally, is the exact same argument that some of Malkin's critics are making.

Slarti
I'm not sure whether you read my post correctly or whether you can't differentiate between "race" and "racism".
The "perceived or ascribed" was a part of a definition of racism.

Malkin goes well beyond profiling.

Malkin goes well beyond profiling.

Do tell. Please.

Instead of me telling why don't you go to www.amazon.com and read about it yourself.

"I thought I was on record that discussions about Malkin's work ought to be addressed to her..."

Is that a policy you feel about all issues: that discussion should only be addressed to the author? No public debate?
Why are you here then?

Actually, I don't think that all profiling is racist either. I thought it was justified after 9/11 as an emergency measure. In the long run, though, there are better means of anti-terror enforcement, and better means of profiling based on citizenship, membership in extremist religious organizations, age, and above all behavior, than race. Better in the sense of "more effective", better in the sense of "more moral and more consistent with the Constitution" and better in the sense of "less likely to alienate a community whose support is important to us in this war".

Despite this, we are still doing plenty of racial profiling. Norman Mineta tries to limit it at airports, but it still happens there, and it happens more in other areas.

My understanding--and I'm not a lawyer or an expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is: The DOJ has instructed law enforcement officials not to use racial profiling in ordinary law enforcement, but there is an exception for law enforcement related to terrorism and national security. (There's a disclaimer telling you not to violate the Constitution, but that's sort of meaningless and toothless.) And there are many examples of racial profiling in practice. The best one is probably the treatment of immigrants from Muslim countries--and the Constitution does not prevent Ashcroft from deporting all of them if he wants to. He hasn't done that, but he has required them to register and questioned and detained them and in some cases they were mistreated in detention and thousands who were found to have no ties to terrorism have been deported on the basis of flimsy immigration violations that were not even their fault. I read somewhere--actually it might have been this site; a fair amount of this is based on stuff I've read on this site--anyway, I read that the DOJ has deported more Arab and Muslim immigrants in these sweeps than were deported in the Palmer raids.

In this context, calling for more "profiling, profiling profiling!" for its own sake seems racist to me. Especially when accompanied by a defense of methods that are much, much, much more severe than some extra questioning at the airport--the severity of what you are willing to do to people based on their physical appearance or nationality is also pretty relevant to me in deciding whether you are racist. Malkin says she does not support internment of Muslims or Arab-Americans, but like von and Muller I found that unconvincing. She does not make it clear why she does not support it. And of course, plenty of things that are not as bad as internment, but are much worse than some extra time at the airport, have already happened. Malkin is certainly trying to justify those, and asking for more of it. So I don't think it's mere name calling to charge her with racism. And if not racist, she is certainly an apologist for racism.

Are we not discussing something, here? Things that you or I think might be true, that Malkin didn't write? Yes, I did say that I thought comments regarding her work ought to be addressed to her. But seeing as you're addressing them to me, I thought you might want to explain yourself.

Guess not.

My puppy thought this whole dialogue was really flattering.
Slartibarast, this is from page 154 of her book:
"For the duration of this war--and it admittedly may not end in our lifetime--it is of questionable wisdom to continue allowing Muslims to serve in the U.S. military in combat roles in the Middle East and to have access to classified information, except under extraordinary circumstances and after thorough background checks. Muslim chaplians in the military and prisons should be subjected to the strictest scrutiny. The government should not hesitate to bring charges against Muslims it suspects of disloyalty, even if those charges sometimes have to be dropped for lack of unclassified evidence."

My last comment was directed at carsick, it should be noted.

Marguerite, I personally am not convinced that profiling is going to be all that effective, unless it turns out that, for instance, 95% of people who mean us harm turn out to have something in common that the rest of us don't. Having seen no statistics, and indeed having seen no arguments either way that aren't largely appeals to emotion, I'm waiting and seeing.
Story of my life, I know.

I haven't read Malkin's book, though, so what she has to say there I can't speak to one way or another. Just out of curiosity, how many of you have?

My puppy thought this whole dialogue was really flattering.

Give him/her a biscuit with our compliments!

First, I ought to note that I was pretty sure Mr. Muller had read the book.

That said, Eric, presenting a quote without noting just why you think it's wrong, and without noting why Malkin thinks it was worth saying; that just doesn't do much in the way of convincing me that you're right and she's wrong. Or vice versa, even.

I think it might be a good idea to be careful to distinguish between "profiling" and "racial profiling".

Gromit, I thought we'd been around that block more than a few times. What sort of racial profiling are you talking about: along conventional, historical guidelines (which marguerite says don't really exist, and I'm not going to argue that) or along some subjective lines? If it's subjective, what distinguishes racial profiling from any other kind?

I wasn't trying to convince you of anything. I was just responding to your "do tell" comment by quoting a passage that goes beyond profiling.

As it happens, though, it's interesting that the proposal to bar all U.S. Muslim soldiers from combat in the Mideast and to bar Muslims from access to classified information isn't "profiling" at all (which is what the last 15 pages of her book are supposed to be about). "Profiling" is about using a criterion such as race or ethnicity as one factor in a multi-factor assessment of a person's likely suspiciousness. What she's proposing is just a blanket ban. It's not profiling at all.

That said, Eric, presenting a quote without noting just why you think it's wrong, and without noting why Malkin thinks it was worth saying; that just doesn't do much in the way of convincing me that you're right and she's wrong. Or vice versa, even.

Some comments stand by themselves.

What if Malkin had substituted 'black' or 'Jew' instead of 'Muslim' in the quote provided by Prof. Muller? Would you still suggest nothing's amiss until Prof. Muller explained his belief as to why its wrong?

If someone were to present a quote from, say, David Duke advocating a return to segregation--would you really think he might have a valid point until someone provided an argument against segregation?

Who knows? Perhaps you would.

In the balance of the chapter that's purportedly on profiling in the war on terror, Malkin supports special courts for accused terrorists (pages 156-160)--which of course have nothing to do with profiling--and she supports greater secrecy for antiterrorism-related information (pages 160-63)--which of course has nothing to do with profiling.

JadeGold, I don't give a [bleep]* about your feud with Slartibartfast, but find somewhere besides my blog to ** indulge in it. It happens again, you're out of here.

Moe

*Profanity deleted. If my readers can't swear, I shouldn't permit myself to.

**Stupid highlight function.

"Malkin goes well beyond profiling"

"Do tell"

Do we need to read her book to understand the defense of it Malkin gives on political news shows?

Her talking point - at least the one that gets discussed on the talk shows - is that Japanese interntment as America executed it during WWII was the right thing to do.

Perhaps Slarti you need to read the book to see how that is "well beyond profiling".

Eric (Prof. Muller)--am I right in believing that those bans are blatantly unconstitutional under the free exercise clause?

However, it does appear that she's talking about religion as much as race, so I was wrong about that--though I assume she also wants racial profiling where there's no way of verifying someone's religion. I mean, those tricksy Muslims could just lie about it! Unless they all have to register, or something.

Banning Muslim soldiers from the Middle East is also very, very stupid policy. Why don't we ban Arabic-speaking soldiers while we're at it? Even if they're white they might have been indoctrinated!

I admit, I haven't read the book. I absolutely refuse to buy it. I also didn't want to get on a library waiting list because it would encourage them to buy additional copies. I have read a whole lot of excerpts, articles critiquing it, and defenses by Malkin. I suppose there's the "sneak into a Barnes & Noble" technique.

Slartibartfast: Gromit, I thought we'd been around that block more than a few times. What sort of racial profiling are you talking about: along conventional, historical guidelines (which marguerite says don't really exist, and I'm not going to argue that) or along some subjective lines? If it's subjective, what distinguishes racial profiling from any other kind?

Slartibartfast, marguerite specifically said that race as a biological phenomenon doesn't exist. She did not make any such claims about race as a historical phenomenon, that I can see.

Race is a sloppy term, and as such any discussion about race will be imprecise. However the racial component (indicated by the title of Malkin's book) is pretty important to the substance of this discussion. If you disagree that the profiling in question is racially based then feel free to argue that, but I think it is important to be very clear about just what sort of profiling you think is going on.

I absolutely refuse to buy it.

That does present a quandary, marguerite. I've not indulged in books written by pundits as a rule, purely based on the notion that they've got both an axe to grind and money to make through appeal to populist belief in some part of the political spectrum. Neither of which I support.

Which kind of makes it hard to tell what the whole hubbub is about.

Well, Gromit, profiling based on any reasonably current notion of race seems to not apply. I'd call it cultural. I rather doubt that any profiling criterion that has a chance of being effective might advance the idea that perhaps Muslims of Middle Eastern appearance (whatever that is) shouldn't be allowed in sensitive areas in the armed services, but black and asian Muslims are just fine.

Screwed up tenses, I know. But I'm too lazy to fix it.

Well, Gromit, profiling based on any reasonably current notion of race seems to not apply.

Can you elaborate on this?

I just did, Gromit. Any profiling criterion that crosses racial divides can't be said to be racial in nature.

By which I mean, can you elaborate further than you clearly did...

Ok, let me generalize that a bit more, but use perhaps words:

I postulate this: that any policy of any sort that completely disregards race in its implementation cannot be racist. It's orthogonal to racism, if you will.

Note to Moe: preview IS my friend, except when it erases my name, email and URL from the message.

Gromit
Perhaps "fashion profiling" is in order. Interning people for their choice of accoutrements.

Somehow I don't think that's quite what Malkin has been thinking about though considering the title of her book.
In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror

I postulate this: that any policy of any sort that completely disregards race in its implementation cannot be racist. It's orthogonal to racism, if you will.

I agree. WWII internment policies, however, did not disregard race. English-speaking, culturally-assimilated Americans were put into those prisons because of their Japanese ancestry. Profiling based on physical traits associated with a race or ethnicity is likewise racially motivated, even if targets turned out to be of other races. Profiling based on religion would not, on its own, be racial profiling, but would be religious profiling, and would be similarly odious.

WWII internment policies, however, did not disregard race.

Are we back to WWII, now? Fine. I actually don't know the answer to this, but:

How many people of the Mongoloid type do you suppose were interned that were not of Japanese ancestry and/or nationality? How many Caucasian citizens of Japan were passed over for internment?

Here's the question: if the group you're profiling for are ALL of a specific racial type, but there are many who are of that same racial type in the population that aren't being profiled, how can that profiling criterion be considered to be racial?

Hypothetical--
Let's say, back in the days of the poll tax, you could vote if
--you were black could pay the poll tax
--you were white could pay the poll tax
--you were white and could not pay the poll tax

You could not vote if
--you were black and could not pay the poll tax.

Was that racist?

I think you'll agree that it was. Do you see the analogy for WW2?

You were not interned if your ancestors were from:
--an Asian country we were not at war with
--a European country we were not at war with
--a European country we were at war with

You were interned if your ancestors were from:
--an Asian country we were at war with

Now, I don't think we even need to go through this analogy, because there is no legal or moral distinction I see between profiling based on national origin or ethnicity, and profiling based on race.

I think there is actually relatively little substantive difference in what we think, though, just semantic differences and what I see as a reflexive desire on your part to defend someone on the same side of the political spectrum as you (and which you probably see as a reflexive desire on my part to attack someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum). So I'm stopping. I'm glad you don't seem to agree with any of Malkin's arguments.

Do you see the analogy for WW2?

Tempted to make a comment about black people attacking Pearl Harbor here, but what I really want to say is going to have to wait until after dinner.

I'm not promising that it'll be worth waiting for, because that's a question that's...very interesting.

Gromit
I think Slarti is trying to pick at folks who disagree with Malkin while also not defending her.
He's finding it harder to do I see.

His next come back would be (if he's not tired of his circular argument yet) that ethnicity is not race therefore rounding up Japanese is not racial profiling but ethnic profiling.
Either way, he's aginst it because:

"I rather doubt that any profiling criterion that has a chance of being effective might advance the idea that perhaps Muslims of Middle Eastern appearance (whatever that is) shouldn't be allowed in sensitive areas in the armed services, but black and asian Muslims are just fine."

Thanks for the mind-reading session, carsick. I'd like to take this opportunity to caution you not to quit your day job and pursue professional telepathy, though.

Black people attacking Pearl Harbor? Are you trying to annoy me on purpose?

Main Entry: anal·o·gy
Pronunciation: &-'na-l&-jE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : SIMILARITY b : comparison based on such resemblance

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

Deep breath, everyone. This is an argument among friends.

"This is an argument among friends." E.g., no one saying, Democrats don't care about foreigners (or the equivalent from the left).

Here's the question: if the group you're profiling for are ALL of a specific racial type, but there are many who are of that same racial type in the population that aren't being profiled, how can that profiling criterion be considered to be racial?

Well, the chosen filters couldn't have been exclusively based on race -- obviously one criterion was whether the group had ties to one of the nations that had declared war on us. However, since German-Americans were not interred, there must have been other criteria. Racial profiling can reasonably be offered as a possible second filter, no? I.e. the intersection of [people from countries we're at war with] and [people who are asian (or non-european) ].

Just to be persnickety (again), a few German-Americans were interred, ditto Italians-Americans (at least I believe they were citizens, not sure if immigrants count as x-A). Some of them had sons in the armed forces, which led to some angry letters to superior officers and to congressmen.

Malkin, thy name is mud.

rilkefan,

Thanks for the clarification. I remember now having seen your earlier comment (as well as Muller's, quoted in the original post), but it must not have oozed its way into the part of my brain that's responsible for attaching qualifiers and attenuations to my statements.

Rilkefan: The difference of course is those few German/Italian folks who were detained had histories of working in pro-Nazi/-fascist organizations.

There was no general roundup of German- or Italian-American citizens solely based on their ethnicity.

Moe: Is that ok? Just checking.

Ok, I'm back. I've had a few hours to think about it, and I'm declaring defeat; I've gone as far as I can with this.

Marguerite, no, I wasn't trying to annoy you; my apologies if it had that effect. Just pointing out that as analogies go, it wasn't a very close one. Still, it was good enough. You've given me a great deal to mull over, and I thank you for that.

"Moe: Is that ok? Just checking."

Lose the sneer. If you continuing to post here means that I would have to play the "I don't know what's acceptable" game with you, guess what? You won't continue to post here. There are clear rules: follow 'em.

And, no, this is not subject to debate or discussion.

Moe: I'm incapable of sneering. War injury severed the facial muscles permitting me to sneer. I can, however, grimace with assistance.

The Germans and Italians who were subject to internment were aliens. When they had dependent U.S. citizen children, those children typically went with them (unless other arrangements could be made). But there was no program targeting US citizens of German or Italian ancestry as such.

On the other hand, the program against the Japanese applied to people of Japanese ancestry, alien and citizen alike. That is, it directly targeted citizens.

If you were a young Japanese American adult and your name was Lou Kawamoto, you sat behind barbed wire. If you were a young German American adult and your name was Lou Gehrig, you played baseball.

Eric, thanks for the clarification. I was confused because Italian-Americans have sued for recognition - but I take it they weren't citizens at the time.

A quote from a quick google:

For much of 1942, most of the 600,000 Italians were not allowed to travel five miles from their homes without police permission. That restriction kept a San Francisco man, Giuseppe DiMaggio, from visiting a wharf restaurant owned by his son, Joe, the baseball legend.

Eric, thanks for the clarification. I was confused because Italian-Americans have sued for recognition - but I take it they weren't citizens at the time.

A quote from a quick google:

For much of 1942, most of the 600,000 Italians were not allowed to travel five miles from their homes without police permission. That restriction kept a San Francisco man, Giuseppe DiMaggio, from visiting a wharf restaurant owned by his son, Joe, the baseball legend.

sorry for the double post - powers-that-be, the site is running at a barely-useable pace out here in Palo Alto...

Though Eric has pointed out the difference, I believe that this notion that somehow the racism of the internment was alleviated by the internment of Italian and Germany aliens (who were sometimes accompanied by family members who _were_ citizens) is one of the pernicious notions that has been floated to defend the internment. The following set of conditions and who they applied to makes it clear who was being targeted
Given individual loyalty hearings?
Jpn-Amer citizens-no
Jpn aliens-no
Italian America citizens-yes
German American citizens yes
Italian and German aliens yes

movement were restricted to 5 miles from the house?
Jpn-Amer citizens-yes
Jpn aliens-yes
Italian America citizens-no
German American citizens no
Italian and German aliens yes w/ multiple exceptions

Were their funds frozen?
Jpn-Amer citizens-no
Jpn aliens-yes
Italian America citizens-no
German American citizens no
Italian and German aliens yes on an individual basis

Did the curfew (Public Proclamation 3) apply to them?
Jpn-Amer citizens-yes
Jpn aliens-yes
Italian America citizens-no
German American citizens no
Italian and German aliens yes w/exceptions

This poster is targeted at people of jpnese ancestry. There is no comparable Italian or German poster
http://www.sfmuseum.net/hist9/evacorder.html

General DeWitt said Japanese would be evicted first before eviction of the other two groups (based on Public Proclamation 1) would begin. In the end, because of complaints from the Justice dept, the War dept and DeWitt's own staff, the jpnese were the only group evacuated en masse

DeWitt exempted the aliens over 70 years old from Italian and German groups but not from Japanese.

DeWitt said that any request for exemption to the curfew (either 5 mile limit or work on night shift (both of which quite common for non-Anglo workers) for enemy aliens or Japanese-Americans was useless, but exemptions for Italian and German aliens was 'a separate matter'

Italian and German aliens were exempted from restrictions if they had "parents, wives, children, sisters and brothers... in the [US] armed forces" Japanese were not.

Finally, and most tellingly, all orphans and foster children with Japanese blood were ordered to be interned. This led to Father Hugh T. Lavery of the Catholic Maryknoll Center in Los Angeles to protest Bendetsen's confirmation as Under Secretary of Army in 1949, who said "Colonel Bendetsen showed himself to be a little Hitler. I mentioned that we had an orphanage with children of Japanese ancestry, and that some of these children were half Japanese, others one-fourth or less. I asked which children should we send... Bendetsen said: "I am determined that if they have one drop of Japanese blood in them, they must go to camp."

I should also note that the definition of alien is rather different between Japanese vs. Germans and Italians. Japanese (like Chinese and Filipinos) were prevented from becoming US citizens in 1924 and all immigration was stopped by the Asian Exclusion act (except for picture brides). On the other hand, Germans and Italians could (and obviously did) naturalize through that time. Thus the population of Japanese had all lived in the US for at least 18 years and many for much longer. the 1910 census recorded 57,000+ Japanese Americans living in Cal, Or, and Wash. I'm not sure what the calculation would be, but it suggests a good number of those listed as 'enemy aliens' may have lived in the US for more than 30 years.

Along with a bunch of useful data, liberal japonicus writes, "Though Eric has pointed out the difference, I believe that this notion that somehow the racism of the internment was alleviated by the internment of Italian and Germany aliens (who were sometimes accompanied by family members who _were_ citizens) is one of the pernicious notions that has been floated to defend the internment."
I posted above on this issue in the interest of accuracy (even if I wasn't accurate myself, oops), having heard a segment in the last month on public radio about someone doing a documentary on his/her Italian grand(?)parents, who were interned. Here at least your belief is entirely unwarranted.

My apologies, I didn't mean to suggest that it was you specifically. This is a common trope in the criticism to those who attempt to rebut Malkin. Unfortunately, this "it wasn't just the Japanese" seems to be the prod that encourages some to research the GA/IA internment question, which is unfortunate, because it deserves more research, but not as a way to divert attention. The quick google you cite, while basically true, ignores the fact that Italian and German aliens could get an exemption for work and family, so I wonder if the 'restriction' of Joe DiMaggio's father not being able to go to his son's restaurant more an 'example setting' for everyone else rather than a true restriction.

Jacobs and Fallon, who write about the German internment, take the bulk of their figures from Baker. This is not to say that everything Baker writes was wrong, but her whole motivation is to rebut the entire notion of a Japanese internment that one has to wonder.
A link to Baker's book
http://www.pnorthwestbooks.com/docs/relocation.html
A Mother Jones article discussing Baker
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1998/09/ito.html
links attacking the Mother Jones article
http://vikingphoenix.com/news/stn/1999/stn99003.htm
Jacobs and Fallon's letter citing their reliance on Baker
http://www.foitimes.com/internment/rebuttal.htm

Unfortunately, comments like '600,000 Italians were restricted' leads to posts like this
http://www.mindspring.com/~schlafly/blog/2004-09.htm#2004-09-04+10:01:13+93
"On Eric L. Muller's blog, liberal japonicus writes:
Roger, you wrote: "It is axiomatic that if the alleged victim testifies that no crime occurred, and there is no other witness or physical evidence, then the defendant should go free"

Why was that axiom suspended for Japanese-American citizens [in the WWII internment program]?
The Japanese-Americans were not being punished; they were being temporarily relocated for the good of the country and for themselves.

I'll tell you what bugs me about the Japanese-American whining. During WWII, my father was drafted and shipped off to war. He had no choice. So were his brothers and friends. My mother was put to work in an ammunition factory. My grandparents needed ration stamps to buy food and necessities. They were all American citizens.

Millions of Americans suffered far worse during WWII. They were killed in battle, or crippled, or had their lives ruined. Most Americans suffered hardships (as did most of the rest of the world). And yet I have never heard any of them complain about it!

The only complaints I hear are from Japanese-Americans and their liberal sympathizers. From what I have read, the Japanese-Americans were treated quite well, and have been compensated 4 times. Why aren't they willing to accept this minor sacrifice, when others accepted much greater sacrifices to help win WWII?"

Hey the German citizens had it rough during WWII too but no one seems to talk about their sacrifice do they?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad