« At Last! | Main | Larry Craig »

August 27, 2007

Comments

Publius, I usually agree with your posts, but that bit about the Tancredo wing was poor form. Unrelated to the post, with no evidence presented or justification--if you're going to accuse somebody of racism (and, to be sure, Tancredo is a very good candidate) than you should back it up more

I'll remove Kaus from that, but I do stand by the Tancredo/Malkin part. I just don't think the immigration vehemence can be understood without taking race into account. Yes, many and most people have more substantive views. But I think it's race for them.

I'll agree with that second sentence, but it's a far stretch from "immigration, considered as an issue, has a large racial component for Tancredo" to "Tancredo would not support Gonzales' nomination because he is Mexican".

Did Malkin or Tancredo have anything to say about the nomination of Miguel Estrada?

Given that Tancredo has taken pains attack Martinez to the extent of pointing out that Mel Martinez' mother doesn't speak English, and was early in calling for Gonzo's resignation (march 21), I think there is good reason for putting Tancredo's name with that of Malkin's.

The only mentions of Estrada I found on Malkin's site were from readers. One bit from a letter to Bush, in a long list of Bush's sins:

You failed to offer strong support for some of your best judicial nominees, Miguel Estrada comes to mind. You have failed to protect our borders due to some apparent misguided idea that you can win the Hispanic vote by allowing terrorists to infiltrate our country.

And another in a comment:

Besides, Bush has promised to appoint a Hispanic to the Supreme court. His two top options were Miguel Estrada (a conservative) and his chief of staff Alberto Gonzalez (a liberal who basically wrote Bush’s amicus curaie brief to the Supreme Court advocating de facto racial quotas/preferences in the Grutter/Grantz v. Michigan case AND who helped draft Bush’s amnesty for illegal immigrant plans).

Bottom line: Gonzalez is a lock for the court, with Estrada being fillibustered and kept off the D.C. appelate court. Bush wants credit for a Hispanic Supreme Court justice, and the Dems will approve the liberal Gonzalez easily.

On MM: I don’t know about Miguel Estrada but she was a supporter of Janice Rogers Brown. So I guess she is only racist against Hispanics.

She opposed Harriet Miers so I guess she is sexist as well.

I really don’t think you have grounds for labeling her racist for opposing Gonzales. She has continually vented at the cronyism and incompetence of the administration. She had plenty to say about:
Michael Brown (She was one of the first people to call for his firing.)
Norman Mineta
Julie Myers (She supported Pete Nunez. She also supported him over Chertoff for DHS.) Maybe she didn’t catch that he is Hispanic.)

So maybe she’s sexist and racist but only against Hispanics she thinks might be a Supreme Court nominee and Caucasians.

I didn't mean for this to go off on a race tangent, but on MM, I'd add Muslims to the mix too. The level of vitriol she directs at both Latinos and Muslims suggests something far deeper is going on.

I'd add Muslims to the mix too

Well, and Japanese of course. We know how she feels about them.

Is Michelle Malkin as racist about Japanese as she is about Muslims, OCSteve?

OCSteve -- let's cut to the chase b/c it's an important point. Do you think Malkin's positions on immigration/detention are purely substance-based? In other words, are you saying that you don't detect any race-baiting or racial animus in her writings?

That's the crux of our dispute, I think. I realize I'm burden-shifting, but still -- is she a good faith actress in your opinion?

I don't think that's the crux of the dispute. There's a difference between saying that Malkin's opposition to immigration is (at least partly) racist and saying that her opposition to Gonzales was racist.

Wow. Malkin has seven people working for her and two of them are legal immigrants from Mexico. And both of them agree with her that illegals should follow the law.

Next time, publius, at least get basic facts correct before you try to 'mind read' and spew your hate speech.

publius; Do you think Malkin's positions on immigration/detention are purely substance-based?

I don’t know if I can say anyone’s position on anything is “purely substance-based”.

I agree that you are burden-shifting a bit. I mean as far as I can tell, your entire post boils down to “conservatives opposed Gonzales because they did not want a Latino on the Supreme Court”. You repeat twice that the overwhelming majority of the opposition was substantive, but then come back to the “real reason”.

As you cited MM by name and I am somewhat familiar with her, I responded to that. She has given this administration a ton of flack over cronyism and incompetence. This criticism has centered primarily on white men and two white women. She supported a Latino for the DHS position and was supportive of a black female for the Supreme Court. So your claims of racism leave me scratching my head a bit.

Is she only racist when it comes to Latinos? That doesn’t make sense as she supported a Latino to run DHS. So why is she racist for not supporting Gonzales? That does lead me to believe that there is some substance to her positions. When she thought that one Latino was the best qualified for the job she supported him for an important position. When she thought that another Latino was an incompetent crony she did not.

Then you responded “I didn't mean for this to go off on a race tangent”. But I understood race to be the entire point of the post, not a tangent. Did I misunderstand?

So if Gonzales made it to the Supreme Court – what? He was going to move the court in an open borders direction? What does the court have to do with national immigration policy? I don’t even understand this aspect.

I don’t recall any specific “race-baiting or racial animus in her writings” but if you have some examples I’ll check them out. Against illegal immigration doesn’t automatically equal racist.

Jes: Is Michelle Malkin as racist about Japanese as she is about Muslims, OCSteve?

I’m not sure how to answer that as Muslim isn’t a race. I don’t think she is racist against Japanese either – she just happened to write a book defending WWII internment. But that got her branded a racist in many corners.

Maybe a better question would be: “Is MM as opposed to Muslim extremists as many on the left (and right) are to Christian extremists?” Then I would answer “yes”.

That wasn't my point though. My point was that most thought he was too liberal. Thus the "overwhelming majority" language.

But whatever, that part has obviously been distracting and I probably shouldn't have included it.

I don't back down one inch from saying that Malkin and Tancredo race-bait and are, frankly, racist. But your point about how the immigration-racism doesn't necessarily cross over to gonzales is well-taken.

I think it's true, but I admittedly don't have a link from people saying, "I oppose him b/c he's 'Mexican.'"

OCSteve, internment camps aren't just for extremists. And if rounding up Americans and putting them in camps because of their Japanese ancestry isn't racist, what is?

publius : That wasn't my point though. My point was that most thought he was too liberal. Thus the "overwhelming majority" language

Ah. Thanks for clarifying. I did in fact misunderstand you then, as I read race to be the primary reason for opposition, rather than political ideology. I’ll concur with your point as I now understand it – of course conservatives/Republicans didn’t want him on the court because he is seen as too liberal.

On the rest – if you do ever have a link to Malkin’s writing that clearly demonstrates racism I’ll check it out and reevaluate my opinion of her. I know that the charge is made all the time - I just haven’t seen it for myself. But I certainly haven’t read everything she has written either.

"I don't back down one inch from saying that Malkin and Tancredo race-bait and are, frankly, racist."

I see you don't bother to post anything Malkin or Tancredo has said or written that backs up your claim, publius.

Bigotry. Pure and simple bigotry.

OCSteve: I’m not sure how to answer that as Muslim isn’t a race.

Yet if you troubled yourself to go look, you'd find plenty of people being racist against Muslims. I use the "racist" rather than "sectarian" advisedly: it's people who claim that (for example) publicly praying as a Muslim and talking in Arabic constitutes suspicious behavior. Malkin expressed this feeling eloquently, but others have inarticulately indicated their support for this view.

KCinDC: And if rounding up Americans and putting them in camps because of their Japanese ancestry isn't racist, what is?

I haven’t read the book, but as I understand it her point is that the actions weren’t based on racism. I think she tries to clarify the situation as it was at the time and make readers aware of all the factors. For instance, citizens of German and Italian descent faced the same relocation orders, half the people in the camps where of European descent. Actual Japanese/German/Italian-American citizens had to relocate out of the military zones, but they could go where they wanted to otherwise. Japanese/German/Italian citizens (no “–American”) were actual “enemy aliens” and had the option of returning home or being interned for the duration.

She wrote a book showing that the events were based not on racism, but on the national origin of individuals. German-Americans faced the exact same thing as Japanese-Americans. For that she’s labeled a racist. I think most can agree that it wasn’t one of our prouder moments, but I also think that it’s unfair that you can’t write about the topic in a way that challenges the accepted version of events without being branded a racist.

Anyway – I think I’ve derailed this thread enough.

She wrote a book showing that the events were based not on racism, but on the national origin of individuals.

This is not true.

German-Americans faced the exact same thing as Japanese-Americans

Neither is this.

If you want a good understanding of why both of these statements are untrue, Eric Muller did a phenomenal job of showing the racist impetus behind Japanese internment and its uniqueness vis a vis other ethnic groups in WWII, starting and continuing in six more parts. David Neiwert has a post which links to all of them, as well as some other historians' shredding of Malkin's, um . . . scholarship? No, what's the word? Ah, "typing."

In fact, this">http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&hl=en&c2coff=1&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=In+Defense+of+Internment&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=dneiwert.blogspot.com&as_rights=&safe=off">this set of search results from Neiwert's blog is a good resource for demonstrating how and why Malkin is full of beans on the Japanese internment issue.

I can't educate you on her anti-Muslim bigotry as easily, but the guys at Sadly, No! are pretty good at it if you care to give them a try.

Ah, no OCSteve, German-Americans did not face "the exact same thing as Japanese-Americans." During WWII, my mother was a German national, living in Los Angeles with my dad, a naturalized American of German origin. Although my mom had two brothers in the German Army (and one of them was a member of the Nazi party), she was not interned in the good ol' USA. However, she was severely limited in her travels. When she and my dad went on vacation to Montana, she had to "check in" at various FBI offices along the route from here to Kalispell and back. Even though she was an enemy alien, she was air raid warden for her block, even before she became a naturalized American citizen in 1943. Having grown up with Japanese American friends, several of whom were born in internment camps, I can say with some assurance that German-Americans and Japanese-Americans were definitely treated differently.

Ignore my f-ed up HTML, above: here is the Neiwert post that summarizes and links to Muller's and others' takedowns of Malkin.

I think she tries to clarify the situation as it was at the time and make readers aware of all the factors.

Is the photo of Mohammed Atta on the cover supposed to clarify the situation during WW2 also?

There's nothing "unfair" about holding someone responsible when they attempt to justify the rounding up of Americans into camps on the basis of ancestry and then extend it to apply to the War on Terror.

As I said – I haven’t read the book (or the refutations of the book). My comment was what I understand the book to be based on excerpts and reviews. If she wasn’t convincing in her arguments OK. Can she write about it without being branded a racist?

On the German question.

But really, I’m done.

"For instance, citizens of German and Italian descent faced the same relocation orders, half the people in the camps where of European descent."

Could you provide some links that you believe source these claims, OCSteve, please? Clarifying precisely what you mean by "the same relocation orders" and "the camps" would also be very helpful.

I believe you are very significantly misinformed here, but I'd like to be as clear as possible about exactly what you mean and believe, and why, before moving ahead in (only friendly!) conversation. Thanks in advance!

I hadn't seen your brief comment, OCSteve, when I posted the above, but I'm quite unclear what specific facts at your link you believe support your assertion that "citizens of German and Italian descent faced the same relocation orders, half the people in the camps where of European descent"; could you give some specific quotes, please? Thanks!

Key fact: number of Japanese-Americans interned in camps in the U.S.: ~120,000. Needless to say, there were vastly more than "11,000 persons of German ancestry" living in the U.S. at the time, and the two numbers alone (the figure for those of German ancestry also includes everyone in South America, resulting in 4,050 Latin Americans being included, according to your own cite, bringing the "German ancestry" figure down to fewer than 7,000) differ by a factor of ten, not even taking into account that -- again, using your own cite that "[a]pproximately 60 million Americans claim German ancestry." (Notably, those German-Americans interned weren't numbered in the millions, or even the hundreds of thousands, or even the tens of thousands; this is significantly different than the experience of Japanese-Americans, and the more than 100,000 who spent the entire war behind barbed wire. German-Americanss and Italian-Americans, and other European-Americans were treated as individuals; Japanese-Americans were not. This is, of course, in general accord to the differentiation in American history and law by which Japanese and Chinese immigrants were treated in dramatically different fashion than were Europeans, despite the prevalance of prejudice against Southern and Eastern Europeans, and the Irish. It would have been a remarkable break in American custom and prejudice if we'd suddenly started treating Japanese-Americans similarly to German-Americans in 1941. Agreement/disagreement?)

Gary: To recap, I think MM first got the racist label for writing that book. My comments reflect what I believe her arguments in the book represent from reading reviews and interview transcripts, etc. I haven’t read the book. I think she should be able to challenge the conventional wisdom on the topic though without being branded a racist.

On internment of peoples of European descent I do have some knowledge of that from German friends and their older relatives. So when I read that she argues the same thing happened to Europeans, I tend to credit that because I’ve heard it before, from Germans who were interned. The link I gave above is a good one I think. Arthur Jacobs was a US citizen born of German parents. He and his parents were interned at Crystal City, TX.

For example:


• 56% of all internees (14,426 of 25,655) were Europeans and European Americans--Germans, Italians, Hungarians, Romanians, Bulgarians, even several Czechs and Poles. For more details see Persons Received by the INS.[Source: Letter from Assistant Commissioner, W.F. Kelly, Immigration and Naturalization Service, to Mr. A. Vulliet, World Alliance of Young Men's Christian Associations, dated August 9, 1948] The cited Kelly letter notes that the number of internees include those from outside the continental United States. We have interpreted this to mean that the numbers include those from Hawaii and Alaska but not the interned Europeans citizens and legal residents from the Latin American republics who were relocated to the U.S. at the request of Washington. [Source: Memorandum from J.M. Cabot to Special Division, Department of State, Division of the American Republics, Expressing concern with U.S. Embassy meddling in the internal affairs of other republics, November 24, 1943, declassified June 21, 1990]
• 64% of all those arrested by the FBI between December 7, 1941 and June 30, 1945 (10,755 of 16, 811) were European And European Americans. The arrested Europeans included seaman of foreign ships in U.S. ports. These seamen were arrested as early as April 1941. [Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Justice, Reference Document 100-2-4014, entitled Apprehensions, December 7, 1941 to June 30, 1945, unclassified on 8/17/90. Freedom of Information and Privacy Act request number 319,228]
• The arrest of Germans, German Americans, Italians and Italian Americans began on December 7, 1941--four days before the U.S. was at war with Germany and Italy. [Source: ibid.]European and European Americans were kept interned until July 1948--more than three years after the war in Europe had ended.
• Congress has enacted laws in: 1948: P.L. 80-886; 1951: P.L. 82-116; 1952: P.L. 82-545; 1956: P.L. 84-673; 1960: P.L. 86-782; 1972: P.L. 92-603; 1978: P.L. 95-382; 1988: P.L. 100-383; and 1992: P.L. 102-371; providing financial compensation only to former Japanese American internees.
• Personal Justice Denied [GPO, Washington, D.C. 1982] the official government position on the subject issued by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians: (a) did not include the testimony from German American, Italian American and other European American former internees; (b) omitted the testimony of Edward J. Ennis and James Rowe, former officials of the Department of Justice who were responsible for the internment process, who confirmed that Japanese were not arrested in mass, or because of race, and were given hearings; and (c) omitted the documents in its own collected Papers of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilian which referred to the denial of civil liberties to German and other European Americans.
• Former internment camps, which became historic landmarks under P.L. 102-248, are to be officially identified as having only interned Japanese Americans.
• Information on internment available from the National Archives and Records Administration in World War II Home Front addresses only the internment of Japanese Americans.
• The exhibition on internment by the Smithsonian Institution, A More Perfect Union: Japanese-Americans and the U.S. Constitution, focuses only on the internment of Japanese Americans.

Although being Muslim is not “being a race”. There is no doubt that Islam has been racialized, especially after 9-11.

This phenomena happened to Jews during the 1400’s and Christianity’s attempt to “Purify” the faith. Many Jews who had converted to Christianity were put under suspicion, because they could never really become Christian…Jewishness was in their blood, I guess.

Oops.

"-- again, using your own cite that '[a]pproximately 60 million Americans claim German ancestry'" should be "-- again, using your own cite -- that '[a]pproximately 60 million Americans claim German ancestry.'"

I was saying that I was using OCSteve's cite, not that he'd specifically cited that number. Change, or leave out, one punctuation mark, and you utterly change the meaning of the sentence. (Often!)

Can't someone write an innocent book challenging the accepted version of the Holocaust and suggesting that maybe we should be doing something similar now without being accused of antisemitism?

I’m not sure what this represents:
“56% of all internees (14,426 of 25,655)”

I don’t know if that is at a certain date or the definition of “internees” means something more specific than the broad definition we are used to. I’ll try to run that down when I can. Obviously the 25,655 is much lower than the totals I think we're both familiar with.

So when I read that she argues the same thing happened to Europeans, I tend to credit that because I’ve heard it before, from Germans who were interned.

I would not, given

a) the difference in enforcement (almost ALL Japanese and Japanese Americans were taken off the West Coast; almost all German and German Americans were NOT taken off the East or West Coasts),

b) the courts deferred to the military in judging who was to be interred...and the military commander said that ethnicity was inherently suspect. (The exact quote was "A Jap is a Jap is a Jap.")

Nothing wrong with challenging accepted wisdom--usually, however, you tend to do it with information that has not been debunked for years previously.

I’m not sure what this represents: “56% of all internees (14,426 of 25,655)”

I don’t know if that is at a certain date or the definition of “internees” means something more specific than the broad definition we are used to. I’ll try to run that down when I can. Obviously the 25,655 is much lower than the totals I think we're both familiar with.

These were the European and European American internees--citizens and non-citizen aliens in Crystal City, Texas, which were under different adminstration (different evacuation zones)

I'm not interested in discussing Malkin, for the record, OCSteve; I'm just interested in keeping the historical record on internment clear.

"...I tend to credit that because I’ve heard it before, from Germans who were interned."

Unfortunately, belief-by-anecdote is a demonstrably faulty methodolgy. Both in general, and in this specific case.

Were some Germans interned? Yes, a few thousand. Were some German-Americans involuntarily interned? Yes, some hundreds.

"56% of all internees (14,426 of 25,655) were Europeans and European Americans--Germans, Italians, Hungarians, Romanians, Bulgarians, even several Czechs and Poles."

OCSteve, this is a statement that defines "all internees" as not including Japanese-American internees. See here:

[...] This policy of exclusion, removal and detention was executed against 120,000 people without individual review, and exclusion was continued virtually without regard for their demonstrated loyalty to the United States.
The figure you cite here is of alien non-citizens. It doesn't include American citizens, which is the topic under discussion.

Ditto that the FBI wasn't rounding up Japanese-Americans for internment, save in rare circumstances; that was handled by the Army.

These are, when used by anyone familiar with the facts, dishonest statements by omission. In your case, I know you're simply, as I said, significantly misinformed.

Thanks muchly for the reply! Um, have we clarified sufficiently that your statement was, um, not a remotely accurate description of the actual facts of how Japanese-Americans and German-Americans were generally treated in the U.S. during WWII, and that you were bamboozled by selective use of "facts"?

Because the facts are extremely clear, and highly documented, and widely known, on the vastly disparate treatment.

Whereas you're using a guy who lies by omission, and obviously has a huge axe to grind in trying to prove a non-existent equivalence.

That it wasn't easy being German or German-American in the U.S. during WWII is undeniable, but this no more demonstrates equivalence than does factually observing that the British used concentration camps in wartime long before Germany did: it's true, but any implication that the two situations were remotely identical is a huge lie; so is the claim that German-Americans were treated equivalently to Japanese-Americans.

Really, truly. Look into it further; you won't have any problem finding the truth if you look for it.

Steve, I really urge you to read the stuff at Neiwert's linked post. Questioning qua questioning does not make one a racist, of course. Questioning in such a way that one ignores decades of prior scholarship showing that white West Coasters were itching for a chance to get rid of their Asian citizens, and jumped all over the pretext of the war, is.

Plus, you have to ask yourself what the purpose of questioning the CW in the first place is.

To expand on gwangung's clarification, those OCSteve's numbers come from this page, which was linked from OCSteve's cite. These are totals of "persons received by the INS" and would appear not to include U.S. citizens. The author of the referring page is either very sloppy, really confused, or has an agenda.

Questioning in such a way that one ignores decades of prior scholarship showing that white West Coasters were itching for a chance to get rid of their Asian citizens, and jumped all over the pretext of the war, is.

Ah, yes don't forget that. I think a lot of folks tend to gloss over that or forget it.

But for other folks, the recycling of the same images, same rhetoric and even same phrasing over the many decades just makes it obvious. And we forget that it's not so obvious for everyone to see.

Questioning in such a way that one ignores decades of prior scholarship showing that white West Coasters were itching for a chance to get rid of their Asian citizens, and jumped all over the pretext of the war, is.

Ah, yes don't forget that. I think a lot of folks tend to gloss over that or forget it.

But for other folks, the recycling of the same images, same rhetoric and even same phrasing over the many decades just makes it obvious. And we forget that it's not so obvious for everyone to see.

"or has an agenda."

They both have a 100% clear agenda: to "prove" the false claim that German-Americans and other Europeans were treated as badly as Japanese-Americans were, and that this has been overlooked and/or perhaps covered up -- but that the lack of general recognition of these "facts" is a GREAT INJUSTICE!!!!!

It's useful to be able to quickly recognize the signs of a crank. Passion in their slant is usually not below the surface. Selective use of facts and weasel wording is mandatory.

Self-interest, rather than pure kookiness, is even more common than simple kookery.

"or has an agenda."

They both have a 100% clear agenda: to "prove" the false claim that German-Americans and other Europeans were treated as badly as Japanese-Americans were, and that this has been overlooked and/or perhaps covered up -- but that the lack of general recognition of these "facts" is a GREAT INJUSTICE!!!!!

It's useful to be able to quickly recognize the signs of a crank. Passion in their slant is usually not below the surface. Selective use of facts and weasel wording is mandatory.

Self-interest, rather than pure kookiness, is even more common than simple kookery.

"or has an agenda."

They both have a 100% clear agenda: to "prove" the false claim that German-Americans and other Europeans were treated as badly as Japanese-Americans were, and that this has been overlooked and/or perhaps covered up -- but that the lack of general recognition of these "facts" is a GREAT INJUSTICE!!!!!

It's useful to be able to quickly recognize the signs of a crank. Passion in their slant is usually not below the surface. Selective use of facts and weasel wording is mandatory.

Self-interest, rather than pure kookiness, is even more common than simple kookery.

Crap. I got nothing but error pages -- which isn't uncommon with this blog -- but in this case, obviously it posted. Most sorrowful am I. Now backwards only, talk will I. Penance in. Woe.

She wrote a book showing that the events were based not on racism, but on the national origin of individuals. German-Americans faced the exact same thing as Japanese-Americans.

OCSteve,
This is a subject that is a bit close to home, but I have to say that Malkin in no way showed that events were not based on racism. The book utilizes dubious sources, and cherry-picks facts and comments to imply that military officials believed that there was a threat to the US, when they believed nothing of the kind. Eric Muller and Greg Robinson did a detailed dissection of Malkin's tract.

It seems to me that if someone is racist, that world view is not something that is occasionally invoked and specific actions can be walled off from that worldview. It should be no surprise that Gonzalez was someone who Malkin would seize on as a display of independence.

Gary: Um, have we clarified sufficiently that your statement was, um, not a remotely accurate description of the actual facts of how Japanese-Americans and German-Americans were generally treated in the U.S. during WWII, and that you were bamboozled by selective use of "facts"?

Let’s say you (all) made progress. Certainly I’m convinced that bringing up a book I haven’t read is a mistake. ;) Again, it wasn’t my statement(s) but what I surmised her arguments were in the book. Based on my familiarity with the European internment issue I gave that argument some credibility.

Jacobs may have “a huge axe to grind” and he may be a crank, but he sources all his claims. He has been fighting for recognition of the issue for years. I haven’t seen where he has been substantially refuted. When I have time to check some of his sources maybe I’ll discover it is just as you say.

I’m not going to claim there was no racism involved. Certainly the event was seized by others for very racist reasons (west coast farmers, officials in the mountain states, etc.). But I think that the case can be made that the original government basis was not racist in nature. What it evolved into is another case. So if she argues that the entire thing was free of racism then I would disagree with her.

Anyway, I win the prize for thread derailment – at least for today.

Well, it probably would have just turned into a parallel general Gonzales thread anyway.

Gotta love Foxnews.com, only thing about Gonzales on the front page (or at least the screen you get without scrolling down), is "Bush: Gonzales 'Dragged Through Mud'". Though they do have the Sen. Craig arrest up there.

OCSteve: Jacobs may have “a huge axe to grind” and he may be a crank, but he sources all his claims. He has been fighting for recognition of the issue for years. I haven’t seen where he has been substantially refuted. When I have time to check some of his sources maybe I’ll discover it is just as you say.

As far as investigating the source of his numbers, you only need to click through to the document he's citing. It's quite brief, and even if it's not entirely clear what it documents, it is clear that it does not document anything close to the totality of persons of Japanese ancestry who were interned during the second world war. There were at least 18,700 interned at Tule Lake alone.

OCS, I think the internment of many Japanese Americans was precisely racist: people, individual human beings, including children, were taken from their homes and put in prison camps on no basis other than their race. It was not based on an analysis of whether a particular individual was dangerous.

Mitsuye Endo had to pursue her habeas case all the way to the http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=323&page=283>Supreme Court. This from Justice Murphy's concurring opinion: I am of the view that detention in Relocation Centers of persons of Japanese ancestry regardless of loyalty is not only unauthorized by Congress or the Executive but is another example of the unconstitutional resort to racism inherent in the entire evacuation program. As stated more fully in my dissenting opinion in Fred Toyosaburo Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 65 S.Ct. 193, racial discrimination of this nature bears no reasonable relation to military necessity and is utterly foreign to the ideals and traditions of the American people.

And here is a longer bit from Justice Murphy's dissent in Korematsu:

Justification for the exclusion is sought, instead, mainly upon questionable racial and sociological grounds not ordinarily within the realm of expert military judgment, supplemented by certain semi-military conclusions drawn from an unwarranted use of circumstantial evidence. Individuals of Japanese ancestry are condemned because they are said to be "a large, unassimilated, tightly knit racial group, bound to an enemy nation by strong ties of race, culture, custom and religion." They are claimed to be given to "emperor worshipping ceremonies" and to "dual citizenship." Japanese language schools and allegedly pro-Japanese organizations are cited as evidence of possible group disloyalty, together with facts as to certain persons being educated and residing at length in Japan. It is intimated that many of these individuals deliberately resided "adjacent to strategic points," thus enabling them "to carry into execution a tremendous program of sabotage on a mass scale should any considerable number of them have been inclined to do so." The need for protective custody is also asserted. The report refers without identity to "numerous incidents of violence" as well as to other admittedly unverified or cumulative incidents. From this, plus certain other events not shown to have been connected with the Japanese Americans, it is concluded that the "situation was fraught with danger to the Japanese population itself" and that the general public "was ready to take matters into its own hands." Finally, it is intimated, though not directly charged or proved, that persons of Japanese ancestry were responsible for three minor isolated shellings and bombings of the Pacific Coast area, as well as for unidentified radio transmissions and night signalling.

The main reasons relied upon by those responsible for the forced evacuation, therefore, do not prove a reasonable relation between the group characteristics of Japanese Americans and the dangers of invasion, sabotage and espionage. The reasons appear, instead, to be largely an accumulation of much of the misinformation, half-truths and insinuations that for years have been directed against Japanese Americans by people with racial and economic prejudices -- the same people who have been among the foremost advocates of the evacuation. A military judgment based upon such racial and sociological considerations is not entitled to the great weight ordinarily given the judgments based upon strictly military considerations. Especially is this so when every charge relative to race, religion, culture, geographical location, and legal and economic status has been substantially discredited by independent studies made by experts in these matters.

The military necessity which is essential to the validity of the evacuation order thus resolves itself into a few intimations that certain individuals actively aided the enemy, from which it is inferred that the entire group of Japanese Americans could not be trusted to be or remain loyal to the United States. No one denies, of course, that there were some disloyal persons of Japanese descent on the Pacific Coast who did all in their power to aid their ancestral land. Similar disloyal activities have been engaged in by many persons of German, Italian and even more pioneer stock in our country. But to infer that examples of individual disloyalty prove group disloyalty and justify discriminatory action against the entire group is to deny that under our system of law individual guilt is the sole basis for deprivation of rights. Moreover, this inference, which is at the very heart of the evacuation orders, has been used in support of the abhorrent and despicable treatment of minority groups by the dictatorial tyrannies which this nation is now pledged to destroy. To give constitutional sanction to that inference in this case, however well-intentioned may have been the military command on the Pacific Coast, is to adopt one of the cruelest of the rationales used by our enemies to destroy the dignity of the individual and to encourage and open the door to discriminatory actions against other minority groups in the passions of tomorrow.

No adequate reason is given for the failure to treat these Japanese Americans on an individual basis by holding investigations and hearings to separate the loyal from the disloyal, as was done in the case of persons of German and Italian ancestry. See House Report No. 2124 (77th Cong., 2d Sess.) 247-52. It is asserted merely that the loyalties of this group "were unknown and time was of the essence." 14 Yet nearly four months elapsed after Pearl Harbor before the first exclusion order was issued; nearly eight months went by until the last order was issued; and the last of these "subversive" persons was not actually removed until almost eleven months had elapsed. Leisure and deliberation seem to have been more of the essence than speed. And the fact that conditions were not such as to warrant a declaration of martial law adds strength to the belief that the factors of time and military necessity were not as urgent as they have been represented to be.


Internment vs. relocation. When Jacobs notes the number of internees, he is talking about that, not the number of relocatees. There is is difference in the two program. Some 11,229 Japanese Americans were interned...some 110,000 were relocated. The 11,229 interned Japanese Americans does not include some 6,000 Japanese Americans who renounced their citizenship.

Relocated? To concentration camps? Over 11,000 people were sent to Manzanar alone.

"relocation" : internment :: "enhanced interrogation techniques" : torture

aka Umsiedlung nach Osten or verschärfte Vernehmung resp.

First, those who were relocated could leave the camps; thousands did and moved to areas outside of the Military District; approximately 4,400 went to colleges and universities; hundreds enlisted in the U.S. Military. To compare relocation to concentration camps is a stretch.

Second, before the relocation order was issued, i.e., when the handwriting was on the wall, thousands of German Americans relcoated to places outside of the Military Zone.

RE: CharleyCarp's statement: "No adequate reason is given for the failure to treat these Japanese Americans on an individual basis by holding investigations and hearings to separate the loyal from the disloyal, as was done in the case of persons of German and Italian ancestry."

The facts of the matter are that all Japanese Americans who were arrested and interned [not relocated]were afforded hearings; as were the German Americans and Italian Americans who were arrested and interned. As a matter of fact, some Japanese Americans had two hearings.

To compare relocation to concentration camps is a stretch.

When Roosevelt himself called them concentration camps?Don't think so.

Also, do note that Japanese Americans who tried to move out of the military zones previous to the camps were turned back. And please pay attention to the timing of the court cases, administration of the infamous loyalty questions, the formation of the 442nd and 100th, etc. You're playing fast and loose here.

RE: CharleyCarp's statement: "No adequate reason . . .

I wouldn't call it CharleyCarp's statement. I'd call it Mr. Justice Murphy's statement. Made after hearing the government's best case, and Justice Black's opinion, for what was done.

Art, I'm sure there are semantic games enough to play, and administrative and factual distinctions enough to draw, to keep up a troll-like assault forever. I'm not interested.

I don't doubt that there were injustices in the treatment of German Americans. I don't think playing games to minimize the scale of the injustice done to Japanese Americans does anything to raise awareness about them.

What a bunch of idiots. The facts are there that Germans were arrested and interned. I was interned after arrest in my Cincinnati Woodward High school aged 17, interned with 2,000 Japanese and 2,000 Germans and 1 Italian in Crystal City Texas. I was not released until after The US Senate hearing on Ellis Island in July 1947 by Senator Langer of ND.
In January 3, 1947, The NY Times reported that the case of Hermann Schleuter was decided by the Federal Circuit Court Of Appeals in NY, that Schleuter was properly denied habeas corpus by Judge Rifkind the trial judge, and that further, Schleuter could not argue that his Internment hearing was improper as he was denied the right of counsel, by the simple fact that Schleuter was NOT ENTITLED TO A HEARING IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Those under Relocation orders could gain freedom by moving away from EXCLUSION zones. Many Japanese elected to go to the Twin cities and work in gainful employment.
Not a single German could leave internment.
Assistant Attorney General James Rowe admitted that "over 60,000 mostly Germans were arrested right after Pearl harbor", hearings granted at 90 sites, but "ATTORNEYS NOT PERMITTED" as it was "EASIER" that way.
Japanese were each compensated $20,000. My family lost its home and contents first to looters and then foreclosure. Compensation ZERO.
I would never accept such compensation as it is an insult to the loss of almost five years of freedom. Go to www.foitimes.com for the facts not the casual toss off of those totally ignorant, and refusing to face facts.
I bet I was confined longer than any Japanese in any internment camp in the USA MArch 23, 1943 to September 8, 1947 EBERHARD

Mr. Fuhr: I assume that this is your full story here. Thank you for posting about your first hand experiences.

*sigh* Thanks a lot, OCSteve (;-)).

Let me highlight this from CC's most recent comment:

I don't doubt that there were injustices in the treatment of German Americans. I don't think playing games to minimize the scale of the injustice done to Japanese Americans does anything to raise awareness about them.

That statement speaks for me, and I would assume, most of those here with, um, the actual historical record on their side.

So, anyone want to talk about the AG resignation?

No one is playing games, at least not from this end... there is a difference. The trouble is with "you" it is most difficult to accept the truth.

I will repeat, there were 11,229 Japanese Americans interned; they like German Americans received hearings.

And perhaps you are not aware there have been no less than nine laws enacted on behalf of the Japanese Americans, for both internees and relocatees. Not one law has been enacted on behalf of the German Americans who suffered the same harms as did the 11,229 Japanese Americans who were interned.

The problem with this issue is that most repeat hearsay...rarely, if ever will you say anyone post a message of the result of a court decision affecting German Americans.

Think about it!

I hate to support accusations of racism because there are so many of them but in WWII the treatment of Americans of German and Japanese ancestry was different because of kind of racist perceptions, but ultimately positive perceptions of Germans. To wit:

Beer is good, cheese is good.

Americans of German background are responsible for providing us with beer and cheese.

Therefore, we should not put them in internment camps.

If there had been PlayStation in WWII, the Americans of Japanese descent would not have been put into camps.

Sorry, Matt, this is the internment thread now. AG AG discussion is in the other thread, the one with the Etta James theme song.

What a bunch of idiots.

No one who begins their first comment this way should expect a respectful hearing, and certainly doesn't merit a respectful response.

Myself: So, anyone want to talk about the AG resignation?

Apparently not.

Double sigh.

I will repeat, there were 11,229 Japanese Americans interned

Keep lying...sure way to gain respect around here.

I think YOU find it difficult to accept the truth. What? You don't think some of us here don't KNOW internees personally?

the one with the Etta James theme song.

How appropriate - this one has given me the the blues.

Sorry to keep the thread off track a bit longer, but it is important to note how revisionism operates here, thru the use of false equivalences, renaming and then presenting the statistics as proof that the standard story is a lie. Failing to note, for example, that 1st generation Japanese immigrants were not permitted by law to naturalize and then excluding them from the total figures of those affected or creating a distinction between "relocatees" and "internees" are perfect examples and litter Malkin's work.

To me, the fundamentally racist nature of the internment is revealed not in the statistics, but in the underlying mindset as is revealed in the fact that orphans with as little as 1/8th Japanese ancestry were subject to the exclusion order and went to internment camps.

But Mischlinge had such a nice ring to it...

Sorry, I am going to keep the discussion "off track" a little longer regarding WWII internment. However, actually I do not believe it is really off track. Guantanamo has the same legal issues as the internment camps of WWII. Over 400 civilian merchant seaman were interned months before the US declaration of war. (see http://www.lancs.ac.uk/staff/ecagrs/asama%20maru.htm)

In addition, the father of our current rendition program has roots in the kidnapping of Latin Americans who were merely the ethnicity of the enemy. They were interned in the US and then traded to Axis countries for American civilians caught behind enemy lines.

Everthing being done by the Department of Justice today has been modeled after WWII policies, except the policies are on steroids now. The policies of internment were driven by the fact that legal residents, aliens, and even US citizens were of the ethnicity of the enemy. Japanese Americans numbered about 150,000, German Americans 300,000 and Italian Americans 600,000. It was impractical to intern those numbers. Certainly, if you read the congressional hearing during that period you will have a better understanding of the reasons for the en masse incarceration of Japanese Americans. Certainly, I too would argue the reasons were not valid, but neither were they for European Americans. The Department of Justice is interested in keeping hidden the issues of "selective" internment. By acting like "en masse" internment was a race issue they can cover up the thousands of abuses of "selective" internment. We all should be concerned about the hidden story of European American internment even today. Obviously, this is a program that the justice department is not that interested in denouncing.

Matttbastard: Thanks a lot, OCSteve

Yeah I know. Believe me I didn’t intend to get into this again. But as it kept going anyway and I’ve had time now to read the rebuttals recommended by Phil and others, and seeing as I started it, I’ll comment once more at least to mention what I’ve learned and where I’ve changed my mind.

I’m going to agree that semantics are playing a part, and that MM at least (according to her critics, who seem credible) omitted pretty much anything that did not fit her narrative. Based on that - I won’t likely find her thoughts on this credible in the future. So let’s dispense with her.

Jacobs and Fuhr are a little harder to dismiss though. I’m not sure how discussing what happened to one group (mostly obscured by history) minimizes what happened to another by the nature of discussing it. In the end I do think that one group suffered more. Both groups had A happen to them, but one group had A & B happened to them, and B impacted a lot more people and is where the racial component enters into it.

As I now understand it:
Internment – This was incarceration pure and simple. The government had a reason for incarcerating individuals (even if the reason was completely suspect and inadequate). It was based on individuals and lists of suspects; there was no mass ethnic component to it. Both Japanese and Europeans were interned. People are technically correct when they claim that slightly more Europeans than Japanese were interned. Slightly more Europeans were incarcerated based on individual suspicion and never had any hope of just moving out of an exclusion zone. I can understand why this group may feel that they were treated worse, but it’s important to remember that this group included both Japanese and Europeans, and it lacked an ethnic component. To add to the confusion, the term “internment” has evolved as the shorthand term for the entire sorry episode (including relocation).

Relocation – As it was originally intended, that is all it was meant to be. The relocation camps were intended to be staging areas, waypoints to help displaced persons along their way. In reality, once state officials hosting the camps demanded that the camps be guarded and the occupants restricted “for their own good” there was little difference from internment. This wasn’t decided on an individual basis but on the basis of ethnicity. I would maintain that internment was not racist, but relocation was and impacted a lot more people.

So both groups had members interned on an individual basis, but only the Japanese also faced relocation as an ethnic group. Relocation was not intended to be incarceration, but that is what happened in reality to most people relocated. Some Japanese (with means) did manage to relocate. Most ended up stuck in the camps. According to her critics, MM focused only on internment and glossed over what happened with relocation in reality.

I think that Jacobs and others working with him have a valid point that what they went through has been obscured by history. European internment isn’t even a footnote for many people who know anything at all about the issue. So keep working to bring your story to light Mr. Fuhr.

Nell: I’ll give Mr. Fuhr a little more leeway as by my math he would be around 81 years old. Besides, how often does someone who lived through history 60+ years ago bother to respond to a discussion of that history on a blog post?

CC: I would think that Jacobs and Eberhard Fuhr and their associates would be poster boys for your current work. Why not think about using their stories to support your current efforts?

Just to add to what psd said earlier. I do not know the criteria used to decide which German or German-Americans to inter. I do know that it was not the comprehensive sweep given to Japanese-Americans. My grandfather and grandmother were both German citizens living in Altus Oklahoma during WWII. I do not know what reporting measures might have been required but I know they continued living on their farm for the duration of the war while their three sons served in the military, two in the US Army, my father in the US Navy.

OCSteve -- thanks for laying that out. I had a feeling through the earlier discussion that parties were talking past each other due to some fuzziness on "internment" vs. "relocation" and was going to ask for terms to be defined for the sake of clarity ... much appreciated.

What's irritating to me is the unspoken assumption that asking justice for Japanese Americans is tantamount to denying justice to German and Italian Americans. While the issues are linked, I think there are additional issues for Japanese Americans that are not present for the other two groups. (And asking Japanese Americans to represent German and Italian Americans as well is a bit much, no? Japanese Americans know their own case the best....)

There are many reasons why the population in general, and even bloggers, know so little regarding the arrest and internment of German Americans. Let me just describe two:

1. Researchers, many, skim the surface and rarely dive below to get the pearls.

2. The arrest files of the Federal Bureau of Investigation are labeled, for the most part..."Japanese 1941."

Many of the files include the names and addresses of not only Japanese Americans, but German Americans and Italian Americans, aliens and citizens alike.

Think about this! You have a name you would like to have checked out?

There seems a disconnect between accepting reality and to regurgitate endlessly that Japanese were interned. Everybody knows that. General Dewitt wanted to relocate every German and Italian as well as Japanese, because his orders stated that "ANY AND ALL" were subject, especially as he wanted to escape the criticism that had been heaped on the commanders in Hawaii.
Dewiit was persuaded to relocate primarily Japanese, as thet nation and not Germany, had attacked the US. and that, as 30% of the armed forces were of German extraction, and further that German workers were crucial to WAR PRODUCTION it was judicious to rethink the matter.
Accordingly he issued orders to prcess for release as many as possible after relocation, as long as they could assure that they had jobs and living quarters outside the Exclusion Zones.
The Japanese certainly did suffer a lot, but do not minimize what was done to us either, as we WERE ALL LEGAL IMMIGRANT RESIDENTS IN THE USA.
There is no record of any civil disobedience, demonstration, nor assistance to the German Government, rather there was total compliance,even purchase of war bonds etc.
In 1940, well before the war, we were required to register as resident alien, all over 14 years old, male or female. That totaled 300,000. I still have my internal passport complete with pcture and fingerprint.
The DOJ admits arresting 60,000. per James Rowe. When extrapolated as being mostly heads of households being arrested that means about 240,000 people were affected in their families.At jobs, work places, neighbors, friends, or wherever FBI agents interrogated people .
IN SHORT< VIRTUALLY EVERY LEGAL GERMAN IMMIGRANT HAD BEEN ARRESTED resulting in those thus interned after incvestigations.
Yet today, the historian of the US Holocaust Museum is quoted by Special Assistant Attorney General Hertling, in a letter to Senator Leahy, that our internment is "grossly exagerrated".
That is a HATE CRIME if stated in Germany about the Holocaust. My almost five years of internment is not grossly exagerrated except to those that did not live it.
Just acknowledge the truth-- All of it-- not just what you wish to believe. EBERHARD

mmm. pie.

Wikipedia has 11k German-Americans interned, 110k Japanese-Americans. Can we agree that both facts above are shameful?

Eberhard: I don’t believe that anyone here wants to minimize what you and people like you went through. You’ll find this a most responsive group on these kinds of issues.

It was a tragedy, a failure of our system. The fact that so many like you remained in the US and contributed as productive citizens after this happened to you is a tribute to you, and not this country.

You have been wronged in ways most of us will (hopefully) never know.

I’m not sure what you would like us here to do to rectify the situation. I’ll admit to feeling some responsibility seeing as I introduced the topic and linked to the website. So what can we constructively do to help?

Eberhard: Suggestion. You are facing an uphill battle to change 60+ years worth of history. No offense intended, but that is what I get from the website. My advice (worth every penny as always) is to make your cause current.

The way to do that is to tie your experiences in with what is going on today. Write an essay connecting what happened to you to what is happening in Gitmo right now.

I’ll send it to my Senators and Representatives. I’m sure that others here will as well. I’ll highlight it for a month on a blog that I have posting privileges to, but only if the owner (of Japanese descent) agrees.

Such an essay could be jumped on by many blogs. You’d be surprised what can happen…

So – you do the essay and I’ll do my utmost to promote it – to convince people here to send it to their Congressmen etc.

You will have to establish your bone-fides. I’m happy now but to promote this to other people I’ll need more.

What do you think?

Can we all agree that regardless of who suffered more, it was a shameful episode in American history and thus writing a book defending it and suggesting its application to the current war (or "war") is an activity that should be condemned?

KCinDC - I don't think anyone's disagreeing with you there.

No dissent on a shameful episode. On writing a book defending it, well, I did at first think that was possible: now not so much. Consider me schooled by the hive mind.

They got to me too OCSteve, now I'm a loony lefty!

Shh, Ugh, we're still working on him. He's not quite finished, and we don't want to spook him.

B*stards. ;)

;)


OMFG Steve, they'll make you think that WWII would never have happened if it weren't for the shamefulness of Amerikkka!

Get a grip, man. Watch yourself.

;)

;)

More smiles if that wasn’t enough. I laughed. I’d have a beer or six with you leftie reprobates…

You too DaveC. I think we just need to coordinate on strategy and we’d have them all on the ropes. Damned hippies…

;)

Shh, Ugh, we're still working on him. He's not quite fiinished, and we don't want to spook him.

Why do you think I keep accusing him of being a tool of the right-wing? I figure if I keep on reassuring him he's still completely conservative, he'll hold still long enough for the hive mind to finish the job...

...but sh! don't tell him!

B*stards

Hey, the powers-that-be have been letting my pseudonym slide for quite some time now. Don't be give them any funny ideas, OCSteve.

God, you're such a sh*t disturber lately.

;-)

Don't be give

Honestly - English truly is my first language (and on that note, bedtime.)

Hey waittasec Steve,

I was a hippie.

Well at least a "freak". There were no hippies in the 70's.

But I wasn't a "dirty hippie" or a "clean freak".

My Peppermint Soap days are long past.

Now it's Ivory Soap for me - white and 100% pure!

For OC Steve: Send me your postal address and I will send you a signed copy of my book...The Prison Called Hohenasperg: An American boy betrayed by his Government during World War II.

No strings attached...

Art: A very kind offer. But in researching this for myself I ended up ordering 3 books from Amazon – yours was one of them. ;) I’d rather see you get the royalties…

I’m sorry but I did not connect "Art" with "Arthur D. Jacobs" earlier. My apologies. I have to say that it is a bit wild for me to have people who experienced history respond to my blog comments on the topic. That may take some getting used to. Also the fact that 70/80-somethings know so much about the web, referer logs, etc. (No offense, I think it is great.)

So – any thoughts about doing some writing comparing your experiences to what is going on today? I promise to promote it and use whatever credibility I have here and elsewhere to promote it.

I think that your voice and the voice of those who suffered what you did should be heard today. It may never amount to much, but with blogs you never know…

Thank you for responding in any case.

OCSteve: Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Perhaps I cannot donate a copy to your favorite library through you.... I appreciate your efforts, and your fortrightness... By the way, I was on the internet, before the internet was cool... do you remember "Gopher." I have been ever grateful that I stayed with it...

The trouble with "our" experiences with those of "today," is that we were neither combatants nor terrorists--and contrary to popular belief most of "us" were not bundists. And to that I might add...the issue, as far as I am concerned... is present-day discrimination...and denial of equal protection under the law to those who were victims of internment in the US during WWII. And in addition, today's actions against citizens and permanent resident aliens is child's play as far as I am concerned. To be sure this does not make today's action justifiable in all instances.

To be sure I seek neither an apology nor money.. I just want folks to tell the truth....

Art: Well I have a brand new county library opening here soon – I’m sure they would love to have a copy. I’ll send you an email on that.

I just want folks to tell the truth....

I’m not sure that anyone here denies the truth as you know it. I’ll agree that your situation has been obscured by history. But at least here, I think you will find that the regulars handle the truth quite well. They are good folks. Please continue to share your experiences and opinions. If I or anyone else has something wrong please let us know.

Thanks again for responding.

Great!

The trouble with "our" experiences with those of "today," is that we were neither combatants nor terrorists

There's plenty of that going around today as well, believe it or not.

Faith in the claims of a government that's afraid to hold fair trials with real lawyers is frequently misplaced.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad