Talk:Internment of Japanese Americans/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Clarifications and Additions

I'd like to preface this by stating that I am relying on memory for much of my comments. My primary source is "American Concentration Camps, vol.2", edited by Roger Daniels, published 1989 by Garland Publishing, which I used recently as primary source material for a research project. I no longer have this book in my possession.

• In the introduction, the article states that "President Franklin Roosevelt authorized the internment with United States Executive Order 9066, which allowed local military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones", from which "any or all persons may be excluded.""

This sentence obscures the fact that internment of non-citizens (specifically, those from Japan, Germany, and Italy) was authorized much earlier by Roosevelt in Presidential Proclamation Nos. 2525, 2526, and 2527. The article mentions these Proclamations later, but does not explain their significance. Executive Order 9066 was significant because 1) it extended the power of internment to include citizens, and 2) it transfered all responsibility and authority for such action to the War Department.

• In the History section: "Authorities also feared sabotage of both military and civilian facilities inside the United States. Military officials expressed concerns that California's water systems were highly vulnerable, and there were concerns about the possibility of arson — brush fires in particular.

"Administration and military leaders also doubted the loyalty of ethnic Japanese..."

This use of weasel words is significant because it conceals the division within the Roosevelt administration concerning the possibility of internment. Directly citing these "authorities" and "military officials" would be excellent; qualifying them as principally within the War Deapartment would be a step in the right direction.

In addition, citing or quoting the Munson Report would be helpful here, as it displays evidence that Japanese Americans as a group were not a threat in terms of sabotage or espionage. The Munson report is also significant because it was evidence of Japanese loyalty which Roosevelt personally had possession of before signing Executive Order 9066 (specifically, Roosevelt had the Munson Report no later than November 8, 1941). The Munson Report is quoted later in the "Criticisms, then and now" section of the article, but I think should be referenced in the "History" section as well.

Source: C. B. Munson to John Franklin Carter, 7 November 1941, American Concentration Camps: July, 1940 – December 31, 1941, vol.1, Roger Daniels, ed. (New York: Garland, 1989).

• In the Hawaii section: "The vast majority of Japanese Americans and their immigrant parents in Hawaii were not interned because the Government had already declared martial law in Hawaii and this allowed it to significantly reduce the risk of espionage and sabotage by residents of Japanese ancestry. Also, since these individuals comprised over 35% of the territory's economy, it was not prudent to remove them. They were laborers in the sugar cane and pineapple fields and canneries, and also merchants, restaurant owners, etc. In fact, scholarly research has shown that government and military officials realized that removing and interning all people of Japanese ancestry from Hawaii would completely destroy the territory's economy. This was a major factor in their decision that no mass removal and internment program was needed."

There were also significant logistical challenges to interning Japanese Americans in Hawaii which contributed to the eventual failure to intern there. Debate occured within the administration concerning possible internment, with discussion stuck on whether to intern Japanese Hawaiians somewhere on the island or whether to ship them to the mainland and intern them somewhere in the continental U.S.. Both options presented difficulties; internment on the islands would have required stationing guards at a facility of little strategic value, whereas shipping over 100,000 people from Hawaii to the mainland would have required a significant allocation of naval resources. Roosevelt repeatedly expressed a desire to intern Japanese Hawaiians, but General Emmons (in command of defenses on the Hawaiian islands at the time) opposed such action due to logistical difficulties. These difficulties continued to be an obstacle even up to the Battle of Midway, indicating that even if military necessity was perceived as warranting internment, by the time it was possible to actually do so the perceived necessity may have largely vanished. Clearly if there was stronger evidence of an imminent Japanese invasion of the Hawaiian islands, logistical difficulties would not have stood in the way of military operations, but the importance of logistics should be mentioned as a factor in the ultimate outcome in the consideration of whether to intern Japanese Hawaiians.

Source: Greg Robinson, By Order of the President: FDR and the Internment of Japanese Americans (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001).

• Also, this article lacks any discussion of factors which led Roosevelt to decide to issue Executive Order 9066. Much of the historical analysis of this topic which I have researched has tended to paint the internment largely as a project designed and lobbied for by the War Department, which Roosevelt acquiesced to; this perspective ignores the rivalry between the War Department and the Department of Justice over internment between December 7 1941 and February 19 1942. I believe a mention of this rivalry is appropriate because it clearly shows Roosevelt as having access to information which might suggest mass internment as unnecessary.

• Finally, there was some discussion on this page implying that Japanese American internment could be regarded as a sort of sacrifice, comparable to the sacrifice made by American servicemen. I agree with Gmatsuda that this is an inapropriate comparison: although there were attempts made at the time to paint internment as a patriotic sacrifice, and indeed sentiments expressed by Japanese Americans (especially by the JACL) which supported this viewpoint, internment was a significant violation of civil rights which was almost certainly unconstitutional. In contrast, involuntary military service was specifically authorized by law. In addition, the comparison ignores the stigma attached to Japanese Americans as a result of the internment, as opposed to the aura of heroism afforded to those who served in the military.

--Ogthor 20:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

History Section

207.207.79.202 added the following: "The roots of the internment may run back to the turn of the 20th century, the Russo-Japanese War and the rise of Japanese Ultra Nationalism during the Showa Era. Tensions between Americans and a the large influx of newly arrived Asians in California had begun to increase in the 1880s when a series of laws were passed. They were initially the result of union pressure on the government to keep American's wages high because immigrants would work for half the price."

That replaced the following (don't know who wrote it): "The roots of the internment run back to the turn of the 20th century. Tensions between Caucasian and Japanese immigrants in California had begun to increase in the 1890s, then a series of laws were passed, aimed at discouraging Japanese immigration, prohibiting land ownership by Japanese and even denying entry to Japanese women seeking to join their husbands in America."

I wrote it. My interested in the Japanese American internment is relatively recent, so I came into it from the whole issue of how Asians were treated in California from 1860 - 1960. 68.178.65.194 03:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the new paragraph is better than what it replaced? Did Japanese Ultra Nationalism _REALLY_ have an impact worth mentioning here, or is this just someone's point of view? Same goes for union pressure...my memory of labor history is failing me at the moment, but this makes it appear that racism was a secondary factor in the enactment of the anti-Asian/anti-Japanese laws of the time. I would think that a more accurate statement would be more general about economic greed rather than pointing specifically at unions. Thoughts? Gmatsuda 21:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The roots of the internment run back to the turn of the 20th century. Tensions between Caucasian and Japanese immigrants in California had begun to increase in the 1890s, then a series of laws were passed, aimed at discouraging Japanese immigration, prohibiting land ownership by Japanese and even denying entry to Japanese women seeking to join their husbands in America.

Divinity

Should the Japanese conception of the divine emperor be mentioned here? It is often mentioned in debates about whether the internment was legit.

Justforasecond 14:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, as long as you mention that this was not a universal belief. About half of the Issei had abandoned that belief, and few of the Nisei held it, as evidenced by their having become members of other religious faiths. 68.178.65.194 03:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Justforasecond 03:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't understand the context in which bringing up the concept of a divine emperor is important? If we look at the work of Yuji Ichioka the Issei had a very tenuous relation with Japan. The Japanese govn't was speculative of their emigrants and exercised little influence to the benefit of their subjects overseas. In terms of legitimating internment the Japanese govn't was not trusting of the Issei and their children and made no attempts to recruit them as spies, munson report, roger daniels, et al. Spies were detained but were Japanese nationals, and were there to mostly gather information on the Japanese Americans. In terms of appropriate context to bring this up, I think if and when an expansion of the loyalty questionnaire and resistance is created the idea of a divine emperor sheds light on question 28. Dezertfx21 09:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You sound knowledgeable enough on the subject. Can you draft a paragraph or two to address this divinity question, providing citations per your comments below? That would be a contribution to the article. --ishu 12:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a relevant factor. While those who believed the Emperor to be divine were a distinct minority, this belief was in fact held by some, and this was used as part of the justification for the internment. Critic-at-Arms 17 October 2006

References & Citations

I have browsed some of the documents on internmentarchives.com. While it is chock full of primary documents, this presents original research issues, since thesea are primary sources. A bigger problem is that many of the descriptions of the documents don't match well with the content. Pictures, such as those of demonstrations at Tule Lake, are a particular problem since the descriptions of the pictures provide very little verifiable context, yet are also riddled with generalizing statements such as:

There were thousands of individuals loyal to Japan at Tule Lake after the segregation of disloyals. These photos show, among other things, military drills and ceremonies. That thousands had petitioned the government to be returned to Japan to fight against the U.S. makes one wonder what would have happened had they been allowed to run loose on the West Coast during a time when we were taking tens of thousands of casualties in the Philippines, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. These folks were certified fanatics.[1]

It is not possible to tell--from the site and its contents--whether the demonstrations in the pictures were a one-time occurrence or representative of more frequent and widespread events. In general, the article and this discussion need to vet the claims and counter-claims of the frequently-cited works on the page and Talk. These primary sources should be brought in when they back-up or contradict a specific claim in the references. Comments, anyone? --ishu 04:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ish, this is not original research. Those comments exist on another site. We can include them here, just attribute them to the internmentarchives site. Justforasecond 05:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for being unclear. I agree that using comments from the site itself is not OR. But the way that these documents were used in our discussions here treads close to the line of OR. I'd like to set expectations in this Talk section by vetting our sources (individually and collaboratively) and discussing how we expect to use them. The comments on the site are not always consistent with the documents, so I don't deem the site reliable for its analysis. That leaves the documents themselves, and we're on our way to OR. I didn't fill in all the blanks before, so I hope this gives a more complete picture of my intention. --ishu 05:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, some of the comments there seem a little suspicious and I favor vetting them. The "banzai" salute looks like an ordinary stretching exercise to me. However, I will admit that the images are shocking. These are not merely Americans angry at detention, they are organized in formations, marching and wearing a "uniform" (headband) meant to show their support for the Japanese military. I don't guess these actions are typically the result of detention -- they seem more like the sort of thing that was already stewing before detention. I had heard about Tule Lake and citizenship renunciations but the images really bring it home.

What is your opinion on the divinity of the emperor? Should it be discussed? Justforasecond 06:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, wearing headbands during exercises doesn't seem all that insidious to me. Headbands are a traditional Japanese headgear. That means that it could be anything on the scale from just calesthenics to the beginning of a riot, and we can't tell. 68.178.65.194 01:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of Tule Lake and renunciation, let me note that we need to vet numerical claims extremely carefully. For example, when a source states that x-thousand people renounced their citizenship, does this figure include children who were part of a family unit that was slated for "repatriation" to Japan? If the number discussed is the population at Tule Lake, or the waiting list, then I have no problem. However, if the figure is used to estimate the number of disloyals, then that is a misleading use of the number. Another example is military service. An earlier revision of this same page stated that 94% of the Japanese Americans "refused to serve" in the military. When I checked the source, it stated clearly that 6% of draft age men volunteered for service. This is an example of what I mean by using the primary sources to validate claims (including those in secondary sources preferred for Wiki). Make sense?--ishu 03:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Ish, without the citations I can't say for sure, but some of what you say makes sense -- the 94% refusing sounds pretty misleading. But the children issue gets sorta complicated. When we say there were 100 thousand (or whatever) relocated, well of course that has to include children because they were with their parents. Take a family with 2.5 kids and more than half of 'em are children. So we can't on the one hand include the kids in the count and make the internship sound bigger, and on the other hand not include the kids and make the citizenship renunciations sound like they were fewer than they were. The kids didn't have a choice in either matter. Justforasecond 03:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the children issue is complicated. It all depends upon the specific claim that's being made. For example, let's look at the renunciation/repatriation issue, assuming there were 25,000 total people and 12,000 children. If we're trying to point out that there was "disloyalty" then it's highly misleading to say there were 25,000 (or 20% of the detainees) vs. 13,000 (or about 11% of detainees). If we're just stating how many people were in this process, then it's not misleading to use the larger figure. Again, we must vet carefully, and, I think in most cases, we should trace claims back to the primary sources whenever possible. In other words, we may have to use two references for numerical claims, given the polemical nature of the secondary sources on both Pro- and con- sides. To adhere to WP:OR, I guess we have to reference the secondary source for the actual claim, then reference the primary source for the fact-checking. I know this sounds cumbersome, but I'm open to alternatives. --ishu 15:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

To complicate it even further, are they claiming that everyone who asked to go to Japan "renounced their citizenship"? Remember that Issei were denied citizenship, and many of those asked for repatriation. 68.178.65.194 01:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Offensive action against the Nikkei

I added Template:not verified to the article. Also, an anonymous user added numerous claims to the page. I reverted these edits because I think that any additions to the article should adhere to strict citation requirements. Unless others protest here, I will continue to revert similar edits, and I encourage all editors to protect this article from any edits that are not properly and thoroughly cited. To a "passerby" editor, these edits aren't different from what's already in the article, but I don't want it to get worse. --ishu 07:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Since I'm the one you edited out, let me note that I'm only "anonymous" because the server at work won't let me log in (it blocks passwords and traps cookies). I'm better known as Critic-at-Arms. And yes, I object to your edits in a couple of places. For instance, you wiped out the notation that Reagan was once the California governor. Since California was the home to most of the internees, it is certainly pertinent that a former California governor would, as President, condemn what had happened to his fellow Californians. You also wiped out my description of the tactics used as being consistent with an attack on the Nikkei. DeWitt certainly understood this, it's taught at every military school in the world, and explaining it to non-military-science people helps them understand the orders in their context. 68.178.65.194 01:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I edited the lead section to keep it brief--as I noted in my comment. You appropriately moved the Reagan-California reference to the main body of the article, where it is pertinent. As for the "military dictum of the 'Three Fs'," your intent is now clear: to insinuate that the internment was "an attack on the Nikkei." While it is fair to note that the internment was viewed as an integral part of the war effort, it is biased and contrary to historical accounts to suggest any institutional motivation to "Finish 'em" with respect to the internees.

If you're not logged in, you're not "anonymous;" you are anonymous, regardless of why you're not logged in. --ishu 16:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Critic-at-Arms again. Okay, I'm anonymous, but I'm not anonymous (hey, that makes as much sense as most of the comments here)!

No, I'm not "insinuating" anything. I am stating clearly that the actions taken against the Nikkei were consistent with offensive action, as taught at the USMA and Air War College. They were inconsistent with their stated aim, that being to increase military security, because that end could have been met by other, more traditional means -- and with a lot less disruption and resource allocation. Given the above, you are encouraged to draw your own conclusion. 64.122.31.130 01:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Encouraging readers to "draw their own conclusions" is an insinuation. An "offensive action" as "taught" in military schools is an "attack" in civilian parlance--besides, attack is your word. It is fair to note that the internment was viewed as an integral part of the war effort. It is one thing to state that the internment was a disproportionate response (i.e., the stated aims could have been met with a less severe plan). It is biased to deduce--absent clear references--that the internment was an "attack" or "offensive action," except in a strictly metaphorical sense. The language I removed, and your comments above sound literal, not metaphorical. There is no doubt that the architects and executors of the internment were military people. But none of this makes the internment a military action even "consistent with" an offensive action. It may well have been part of military action subjectively to individuals such as DeWitt, McCloy, etc. Institutionally, however, it is a gross misinterpretation even to suggest, much less to "clearly state" that the internment was an "offensive action" or military maneuver. If you want to make this link, it should require clear citations showing this sentiment, and also clearly differentiate between individuals and institutions, and metaphor versus literal meanings. --ishu 05:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to make it as clear as I can. While all attack is offensive action, not all offensive action is attack -- the word "attack" has specific meaning in military science, and it is one type of offensive action (blockade is another, a third is denial of resources, aka "scorched earth"). Offensive action is any action taken to change the opponent's status quo, defensive action is any action taken to maintain your status quo. A rattlesnake striking at you is offensive, a rattlesnake shaking his tail so that you will leave him alone is defensive.

In the case of the internment, this was a campaign, a series of offensive actions, taken against the Nikkei community as a whole. Their leaders were removed, they were cut off from their resources, forced at gunpoint to leave their homes and abandon their belongings, imprisoned, and some even killed. What in there is NOT consistent with the definition of "offensive action"? The Nikkei status quo was completely destroyed, and has never recovered.

Now, look from the other side of the issue. A military commander, whose task was the defense of the West Coast, diverted resources, men and materiel from that defense to the job of locating, building and staffing internment camps. He took farmers off their land in a time when food was being rationed. He sent trains across the country carrying women and children, at a time when troop and munitions movements to the East were considered so vital that even the railroad unions were persuaded to ignore the duty-hours limitations which they had fought 75 years to impose. And he did these things when the experience in Hawaii was showing them not only unnecessary, but counterproductive -- unless the goal was the destruction of the Nikkei community, politically and economically, in which case these things were exactly the right thing to do to achieve that goal.

So what it comes down to is that the general commanding the Armed Forces on the West Coast, a man whose career had been centered on military science for decades, must be assumed to know what the effect of his orders would AND WOULD NOT be, while knowing what the military needs of the country were. Thus, I can only conclude that his primary goal was political. His public statements ("a Jap is a Jap," etc) bolster this conclusion, but even if he had never made them, what he did and the way that he did it is inconsistent with any conclusion other than that this was offensive action against the Nikkei. Critic-at-Arms 01:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Multiple exclusion zones

The problems with the whole "military necessity" issue are A), DeWitt's bigoted statements regarding the Nikkei as a whole, B), the fact that the claimed objective could have been met just as well (if not better) through other plainly available and more reasonable means, and C), the timeline of events fits an offensive model (the Nikkei as enemy) rather than a defensive model (military security). Note that an initial Exclusion Zone was published, and the Nikkei encouraged to move outside it, then the Zone was expanded to cover the areas where most of the Nikkei had gone. This had the effect of draining their resources with the first move, then trapping them with the second Exclusion Zone, which did not appreciably increase any military security. If the objective was to destroy the economic, social and political power of the Nikkei, this is how to do it, but if the objective were military security, this was no more effective a method than many others which would not have included internment or forced relocation. 64.122.31.130 00:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have evidence of their being two exclusion zones? The article only mentions one ("Military Exclusion Zone 1"). Justforasecond 00:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

See http://www.jainternment.org/images/map1.gif -- note that the first zone included nearly all of the open farmland of the West Coast and Arizona, then a month and a half later, expanded to include the parts of California in which those Nikkei who could move were gathering. Note also that the expansion occured AFTER the no-move order, so once it was announced, the Nikkei were trapped in place. As I've said, if the objective was to destroy the economic, social and political strength of the Nikkei, it could not have been done any better. However, look at the map and you realize that, in 1942, there was very little within the exclusion zones of greater military importance than what was outside. 68.178.65.194 01:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The decision in Hirabayashi agrees:

Among the military areas so designated by Public Proclamation No. 1 was Military Area No. 1, which embraced, besides the southern part of Arizona, all the coastal region of the three Pacific Coast states, including the City of Seattle, Washington, where appellant resided. Military Area No. 2. designated by the same proclamation, included those parts of the coastal states and of Arizona not placed within Military Area No. 1.[2]

It describes only the "coastal region" of the states, while all of California was eventually declared to be an exclusion zone. The open question is whether exclusion applied only to Military Area 1, or to both areas 1 and 2. --ishu 14:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It applied to both. I have spoken to a number of Nisei whose families moved out of the first zone, then were rounded up from the second. Critic-at-Arms 20:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to believe you, but we need to cite sources to state it in the article. Unfortunately, your discussions with affected persons would constitute original research, which is not appropriate per Wikipedia policy. If you have a reference, it would help if you could provide reference information, preferably including page numbers, and relevant quotations. If you review this talk page, you will find that we have a tremendous need for solid citations for many statements in this article. Your help would be appreciated. --ishu 22:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The map shows the two zones and the dates of each being put in place. I cited the location of the map. What more do you need?

One real problem that I have with the "original research" issue is that, somewhere, sometime, someone DID original research. As a newsman, I have done a LOT of it, and every once in a while I come across someone using my work as their citation for a Wikipedia article. It seems ridiculous that I can't refer to an interview which I've done, but someone else here can refer to the column that I wrote which referred to that same interview! You will notice that I make very few edits these days, and generally spend my time in the discussions, simply because I have better things to do than spend time making edits which are blown away because someone doesn't like what I've said. 64.122.31.130 01:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Does seem a little backwards, doesn't it? Unfortunately those are the rules. If you're still a "newsman" and can get this info published, we can include it here. Justforasecond 02:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Amusingly, in one article, someone quoted me incorrectly, and when I supplied the complete and accurate quote, my revision was spiked and the erroneous quote replaced! You just can't win sometimes. Critic-at-Arms 05:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for having skipped a step in my thought process. I'm operating with an extra-high level of skepticism on sources, looking for at least two independent sources that agree. After reviewing the reference to the "Niihau incident" and the content at internmentarchives, I'm highly reluctant to go with one source for anything on this page. That's how we got into the mess the article is in now ("some say a, while others say b...) weaseling around. Or worse, revert wars, like you seem to be alluding to. I don't think it'll be so hard to find another source, but I'd like to find one. Dual-referenced statements stand up better in revert wars. And I agree with J4sec that if it's published, it doesn't matter whether it's you or not. That'd be no different than if I cited you. --ishu 03:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, this should be in the history section. Most of the land that was added is mountainous middles of nowheres and all of it is California. I could see how it would be simpler to just say "the exclusion zone includes all of california" instead of that wiggly line that defined Zone 1, but it also seems a little suspect. Justforasecond 18:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not as middle of nowhere as you seem to think. 64.122.31.130 01:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

For anyone not familiar with the area, this is included in Zone 2. Justforasecond 02:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And so are every ski resort in California, Palm Springs, Lake Tahoe, the high-valley farmlands, the gold mining areas, the eastern San Joaquin Valley, Yosemite, the eastern portion of the Los angeles Basin and the current homes of a couple of million people . . .sure Death Valley is there, it's about 2% of the second zone, and I've never been there except to fly over it, despite having lived half of my life within Zone 2. Critic-at-Arms 05:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The ski resorts are there precisely because it is the middle of nowhere. Large tracks of mountainous land with no development. Most of these resorts were not open in the 40's. Heavenly Ski Resort, the largest resort in Tahoe was purcahsed for $5,700 in 1955[3]. Anyone who's been to Yosemite can testify to the lack of development and density of mountains. If death valley isn't enough, the exclusion zone is also where the Donner party became famous. Justforasecond 15:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The ski resorts are there precisely because it is where the MOUNTAINS are. It has nothing to do with being "the middle of nowhere." And, as I mentioned, there are a lot of people living there, and a lot of farming going on. But we're getting away from the point, that being that many Nikkei moved into Zone 2, trying to stay close to their homes, and were trapped there. BTW, the Donner Party became stranded in Nevada, but who's counting? Critic-at-Arms 06:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Tell it to the Donners. Donner Lake: a freshwater lake that is much smaller than nearby Lake Tahoe....It is located in the town of Truckee in northeastern California. The map you provide also puts Sacramento about 100 miles North of where it really is. Many of the other cities are in the wrong places too. Justforasecond 16:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. Boyhood memories of the Donner Trail hike had me thinking that we had crossed into California AFTER leaving the Deadfall Camp where the majority of the group had stopped prior to the rescue party leaving for help. Maybe senility is setting in.

Yes, the map is very generalized. Zone 2 is somewhat larger than it appears to be. However, the question was for proof that there WAS a Zone 2, and that was sufficient. 68.178.65.194 02:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Doubt

The article states in its header that "[Japanese] from the West Coast during World War II to hastily constructed housing facilities called "War Relocation Camps" in remote portions of the nation's interior." Does that mean that Japanese in the East Coast had no problem? That most Japanese who lived in the US had their homes in the West Coast? That there weren't any Japanese in the US outside the West Coast? The current wording is confusing in my opinion. MJGR 11:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It does not mean any of these things. The first sentence is as clear as it needs to be for the lead section: It states who, what, when, and where. Select Japanese Americans from elsewhere in the country were detained. This can be addressed in the article, but is not now. Most Japanese Americans lived in the west and Hawaii, but some lived elsewhere. These facts are not relevant to the lead section. --ishu 03:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

About 95% of the Nikkei in the States were on the West Coast. The Nikkei elsewhere were not interned, though a few were detained during late 1941 - early 1942 for investigation. 68.178.65.194 01:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It should also be noted that some japanese moved east of military zones 1 and 2 and were therefore not subject to internment. These families however were not part of the voluntary evacuations that took place. The irony of course is that in some places such as Minidoka Idaho "free" Japanese Americans witnessed the internment from the opposite side of the fence.Dezertfx21 05:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference between "nikkei" and "nissei"? Does "ni" mean two or "nippon"?

Nikkei = of Japanese origin or ancestry (ni as "Nippon"). Nisei = children of Japanese ancestry, one specific generation (ni as "two"). Issei are Japanese-born, Nisei are the first generation born outside of Japan, Sansei are the children of Nisei. Critic-at-Arms 01:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ban on Immigration

The original passage was more accurate. SOME immigration was allowed, but there was a specific ban on women immigrating from Japan, which included wives. This is the only time in the history of controlled US immigration that wives of citizens or legal immigrants have been banned on a wholesale basis, due to race or national origin. The reason given in the rulemaking was to encourage Nikkei (including Nisei) to leave the US, because (at the time) there were laws prohibiting Asians from marrying outside their race. Thus, I believe that it deserves special attention in the article. Critic-at-Arms, 4 SEP 06

Greetings, Critic. Are you referring to the Immigration Act of 1924? I assumed that this passage did. If you are referring to a different act, then it is noteworthy, though it would be helpful to specify the act name and date. --ishu 00:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I will have to dig out my citations on this one.

Commment on EXTERNAL LINKS and SEE ALSO section

EXTERNAL LINKS: This section needs to be cleaned up. There are many databases available to the public and to those affiliated with educational institutions or any place that purchases subscriptions to large electronic research databases. As such I would like someone to test out the following link: [http://jarda.cdlib.org/] That is a link to the Japanese American Relocation Digital Archives, and is supported through the California Digital Library. I feel this resource will adequately replace most of the links already present since the archive brings together all the major holdings on JA Relocation in the country.

SEE ALSO: Conversely this section needs some beefing up. I know that the objective of the wiki media project is to bring together information through a synthetic process, however I still believe the greatest asset this program can offer is to act as a bibliographical source. Hence the SEE ALSO section should be re-titled "further reading" or "related works" and should include PUBLISHED WORKS, including the books the contributors themselves referenced. Since the standard practice is to create links to other references within wikipedia itself in the text i feel that topics such as Gentlemen's Agreement and Chinese Exclusion should be removed.

For example the works widely accepted as the preeminent text on the subject of Relocation might be mentioned in the discussion but are no where found in the main article. Michi Weglyn is an exception to this and I appreciate her work being mentioned in the main article, however it should be moved down to the bottom.Dezertfx21 06:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of Nikkei

I would suggest that the use of Nikkei not be used synonymously with Japanese American. This is for two reasons. For this article it is important to create a clear distinction between the citizen NISEI and their non-citizen parents, ISSEI. Secondly Nikkei refers to anyone not born in Japan of Japanese decent. Hence it is important to distinguish between Japanese Americans and other Japanese residing outside of Japan. I say this because South American Japanese were sent to camps in the United States, Crystal City Interment Camp is famous for housing Peruvian Japanese along with German and Italian internees. Also for those not familiar with the term Nikkei, it might be confusing since it also is the name of the index on the Tokyo Stock Exchange. Hence i propose stating the exact group, Issei, Nisei, since the way they are affected by internment differs and we otherwise rely on Japanese American to refer to the group as a whole, or JA as short hand.Dezertfx21 06:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Nikkei is the correct term to use in describing immigrants who are of Japanese ancestry and their descendants. It spans all generations. No other word does this. It is no more difficult to understand the word "Nikkei" than to understand "JA" -- and the Nikkei that I know use that word, which is where I learned it. It is also more correct, especially since (at the time) Issei were NOT Americans. All of the South Americans you mentioned are also Nikkei, and the internment was of all Nikkei as a class. I somehow doubt that anyone will think that a stock exchange was rounded up and put into camps in the desert, so we're reasonably safe from confusion over the term.

You need to sign your name when you post so we know who you are. I still recommend for the clarity of the article that Nikkei not be used due to the comments that I have read on the discussion board. This is not an issue of correctness; it is an issue of getting the facts as clear as possible. Nikkei is an ambiguous encompassing of many groups and does not lend itself well to specificity. Additionally if you want to get all logic-matter-of-factual about this, Issei were not Nikkei, (good pointing out) which proves problematic, hence I once again ask that only Japanese and its compounding, Japanese American, Japanese Peruvian, etc be used.Dezertfx21 13:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the three generations (Issei, Nisei and Sansei) were affected in different ways, but we must already differentiate between them in areas where it matters, so, again, using Nikkei makes the most sense when referring to groups larger than a single generation. Critic-at-Arms 8 SEP 06

The U.S. government made scant distinctions among the immigrant and natural-born Japanese Americans. (e.g., "Instructions to all persons of Japanese Ancestry...") In effect, the gov't treated them as Nikkei, or an undifferentiated "Japanese people." This suspicion-by-ethnicity treatment is significant and consequential. While I agree that the distinctions between Issei and Nisei should be made, it would be helpful if Dezertfx21 could be more specific as to why it is so important to make the distinction clearer than it already is.

At the same time, we've seen on this discussion page (and also please review recent archives) how some editors view this broad-brush detention as justified (and even benevolent), while others feel that the non-selective detention is the core of the civil rights violations. Since the term Nikkei can be translated to mean "Japanese people" ("persons of Japanese Ancestry"), the article must avoid the same logic trap used by the government in the first place.

Long story short: I don't have a problem with use of Nikkei, but if it is to be used, it must be used carefully, and with an explanation as to its meaning. --ishu 22:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say just keep it out. It isn't a well-known term (I thought it was a syn. for Nissei) Justforasecond 22:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that Nikkei is the only completely accurate description encompassing all of those who were interned. Many were Japanese, but not all. Many were Americans, but not all. Many were Japanese who considered themselves Americans, and some were Japanese who later BECAME Americans. Thus, "Japanese American" is useful but inaccurate, as is "Americans of Japanese descent." Some were Issei, some Nisei, some Sansei. THEY refer to themselves as Nikkei, and this term fits them all. Unless someone has another term which is equally accurate, I don't see how there is really any room for discussion. Critic-at-Arms 19:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

WRA Relocation Camps

I added copy from a document on the National Park Service site. As it is a publication of the US government, I believe it to be in the public domain. --ishu 03:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• I would like to begin serious restructuring of the article. Significant information is left out of this article as well as lack of depth and over emphasis on the unimportant is rampant in this article. Also was that link accessible to those not on a proxy server regarding the data base?
  • The tone of the article creates an air of sympathy for the government. The opening of the article goes to some length to separate JA internment from Nazi concentration camps which seemingly behaves as a way of lessening the impact of internment. It is clear that JA internment was in no way on the same level as the Holocaust, but it is not the purpose of this article to judge one atrocity by the other or address a synthesis of two historic events that we can only speculate will occur on the part of the reader. It is important that we tell the story of internment as succinctly as possible, and avoid hedging reader’s opinions. However to garner empathy for those that experienced Internment there is a balancing that needs to occur in the text.
    • Resistance is totally ignored by this article. There is no mention of the Manzanar Riot, or fair play committee, draft resistors, or No No boys.
    • Compliance is also not well addressed by the article. There is no mention of the JACL and its role in pacifying their own people, calling for cooperation with the internment process. This is important to acknowledge given the long held interpretation that Japanese willingly went into camps which if vital for understanding one of the biggest lessons dealing with military necessity.Dezertfx21 14:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this article needs to be greatly reduced and instead act as general starting point for articles that need to be created that discuss aspects during internment at greater length. Dezertfx21 14:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

For openers, thanks for stating your intentions on the talk page before starting major edits. I've got some comments that I hope will be taken in good faith:

1. Please feel free to create articles on No-No boys, the Manzanar riot, and any other topics you feel are relevant. It would add to the coverage of this event, and I and other editors would be happy to support you.
2. I have no problem with boldness. However, when you suggest a "serious restructuring," could you clarify whether you wish to reorganize the existing copy or to expand within the current structure? "Expansion" could include addition of headings, for example, while reorganization would move some copy while deleting other copy.

   If you seek to reorganize, a first step would be to (please) browse through some of the archives for this talk page, including the most recent (or at least the digest of Archive5). You'll see that we recently obtained a thin consensus on the current structure after a protracted edit war. It is a compromise, but one that can be expanded to address many of your concerns.

   Please understand that the recent restructuring was almost strictly a reorganization of existing copy, so that we could have a framework to build upon. The idea was to change the structure while avoiding disputes about content that might interfere with the reorganization itself.

3. Any new copy in this article should be subject to strict citation requirements. The citation of the existing copy is woeful, and needs to be upgraded, but new copy should be held to higher standards so that we don't have to go back and re verify the new stuff. Speaking only for myself, I'd prefer to have copy that's going to stick around, and--most importantly--be relatively immune to edit wars.

Finally, please appreciate where the article is today versus at the beginning of each of the last three years. We've had edit wars in the past, by people who felt that the existing copy is biased against the government. As I said, I'd prefer to reduce the chance of them in the future. At the risk of sounding contradictory, do be bold, but please be cautious. --ishu 15:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Ish -- you're doing a good job with the article. It's been very educational. It's ironic, but researching H.S. claims (which weren't ALL bad) was very fun. I tried to locate "farewell to manzanar" but couldn't get a copy. I still don't quite have a handle on the whole episode , just when I'm thinking these are the equivalent of German concentration camps I'll come across a detail like the camp inmates could have guests and leave the camps from time to time.

Anyhow, I came to say I'm gonna detatch for a while. I haven't edited or researched in months anyway, but feel free to drop me a message on my talk page if you want any input. Justforasecond 21:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ok so after reading through the article again and skimming most of the talk page (you guys really went at it) I feel the only way this article will ever approach a standard on par with any copy edited selection is to rebuild it from the ground up. Although the skeletal structure of the article is sufficient the information within these topics are skewed at best. There is a lot of information to discuss on this topic and hence why i recommended this act as a starting point to thread together the multitude of subtopics. This recommendation aside I feel many of the problems regarding citation stems from the mostly hear-say nature of the information contributed. (There really isn't that much out there on the subject that doesn't cite heavily from a select core of texts.) Compound this with the relatively recent shift by all those involved to openly discuss it, the academic community has only begun (a third phase of sorts) writing the internments history. The first solid phase was based largely on the legal proceedings, and government documents which lead to the redress and reparations movement. The second phase, which i feel we are at the tail end of, is the collection of oral histories. This was a great feat accomplished by those such as Art Hansen at CSUF. Naturally scholars have been simultaneously analyzing these sources but for the most part the book has only been cracked on this topic. As such a professorship was just endowed this year at UCLA devoted to JA internment, reflecting the current demand to fully explore this period in all its complexities. I am glad to see that this article evolved reflecting progress made elsewhere. So I think we need to work within the confines of what is currently written on the topic. That said I think there is a concern about bias. If we look at what is in print and the critiques offered by those who have done far more research than anyone most likely to contribute to this article I feel it is safe to echo these opinions. However these claims cannot be made without formal citation (MLA CHICAGO APA). As the in text citation style, Chicago or otherwise, is rarely followed on wiki, might I suggest that those contributing simply cite as best they can, Page #’s especially, so that the group can fairly come to consensus. I notice that the discussions are very lopsided, some individuals reflecting familiarity with certain aspects and the associated writings, which is rebuked by personal anecdotes and nitpicky semantics. This is not to say that I am always on the side of book pounding fact folk, and feel above all else this article reflect in its tone as a contribution to the fight for social justice. Contemporarily speaking it should not be mired in controversy over military necessity, and should instead tell the story of how innocent people were denied their civil liberties, and how this occurred not through interpersonal racism or bigotry but formal, or structural racism. In short I agree that a new copy be made. Dezertfx21 11:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's been a week or so since fox left the post above, so I'm not sure whether the intentions are still burning. But here's my response anyway.

• "rebuild it from the ground up": The only way I would support this suggestion is if you were to create a sub-page and work on the re-build completely independently from the current article. Assuming there were consensus for the rewrite, we could promote it to the main article. I just took the article through this process myself. While I don't mean to sound ego-invested in that (or any other process), you can't do a unilateral wholesale rewrite.
• "hear-say nature" and "core texts:" I agree with the core-texts argument; I'm not sure what you mean about hear-say, though. However, the article can't ignore the criticisms of Malkin et al. They won't go away. To the extent that you disagree with them, you must find the evidence that discusses that disagreement. Eric Mueller, for example.
• "work within confines of current writings": I agree. As I have tried to do, many of the factual issues can be addressed by referring to the Supreme Court decisions, which have the benefit of being both of the period, but also analytical, and authoratitive.
• "mired in controversy over military necessity": The trade-off between military necessity and civil rights is the crux of this issue. That's one reason why Malkin sold so many books. The institutionalized racism claim is compelling only if the evidence of military necessity doesn't square with the remedy that was used. You seem to want to believe that the racism claims are a given. Whether or not you agree with her, Malkin has shown that the case is not taken as a given by a large enough slice of the population that it should be discussed in this article. Whatever you may think about the court's decision in Korematsu, Justice Black understood the trade-off. The controversy is a mire, and it can't be glossed over to talk only about institutionalized racism.

I do not support a major restructuring of the article along the lines you discuss. I leave it to other editors to articulate a consensus one way or another. --ishu 04:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No mention of No No Boys

Where is the mention of No no boys in this article? It is alluded to in the loyalty qusetionaire section however the phrase never appears in the main article. Draft dodgers are also a topic that should be added to the main text.Dezertfx21 13:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but it's also necessary to cover the Loyalty Questions in depth, and mention that many No-Nos said that they would answer Yes-Yes if not for their families' being in internment camps. Critic-at-Arms 19:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And where do you have a source for that comment that isn't 60 years after the fact? --History Student 21:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You have unwittingly put your finger on one of the big problems of researching this whole issue. The Issei almost never discussed this issue except with other Issei, and most Nisei didn't talk about it for decades. Our earliest reports of much of what happened came from people who were children in the camps, such as George Takei and Jeanne Watsuki, who didn't write about it until much later.

The former internees have followed the classic psychological patterns of victims of such crime as rape and torture. As such, it took decades before anything more than oblique references were made outside the community of victims, so there just isn't a lot of analysis dating back to the 1940s. Another part of the problem is that it was the government which had done these things, and the mainstream American populace was generally in favor of the internment, so who outside the community were they supposed to talk to? They all knew what had happened regarding the No-Nos, and nobody else cared, so why talk about it at all in the first place?

Now that enough time has passed and these things are being discussed outside the Nikkei community, naysayers such as yourself condemn them for not talking earlier. They can't win for losing! Critic-at-Arms 15 October 2006

"Many Nisei men felt they could not answer yes to that question until their civil rights were restored, and only with the proviso that they would not be placed in a segregated unit. Unable to qualify their answers in this way, they could only answer no to Question 27 as well as 28." (Yoshiko Uchida, Desert Exile, 1982) Critic-at-Arms 18 October 2006

Citations needed

This section will contain requests for citations of specific claims. When citation requests are resolved and edits are made, the relevant copy should be moved to the archive.

Apology quote in lead section

The second-to-last sentence of the lead section begins:

The official apology said that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership"

I can't find a reference to the actual text of the bill or the apology. Most references attribute this language to the CWRIC report (Personal Justice Denied). Can anyone provide a reference to the act or apology? --ishu 02:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I found a reference to the Senate bill S.1009. I have changed the reference in the article and added the appropriate link. --ishu 04:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Military necessity

The entire first paragraph needs citations:

Critics of the exclusion argue that the military justification was unfounded, citing the absence of any subsequent convictions of Japanese Americans for espionage, as well as the fact that the Army resorted to falsifying evidence in order to bolster its case before the Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States. In response, pro-internment author Michelle Malkin has argued that the absence of any esponiage convictions is immaterial because the government may have possessed unspecified secret evidence of espionage that it was not able to introduce in court; however, her argument has not met with much success among professional historians.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

The falsification claim has been raised on this Talk page, notably the (admittedly wordy) copy proposed by a strong critic of the current article, which reads:

The "newly discovered evidence" that commission "researcher" Aiko Herzig "found" that was used in the Coram Nobis cases of the 1980's is a Ringle memo the pro-reparations lawyers submit to the court as exhibit "D" MINUS THE FEBRUARY 14, 1942 ONI COVER MEMO FROM RINGLE'S BOSS, H.E. KEISKER STATING "IT DOES NOT REPRESENT THE FINAL AND OFFICAL OPINION OF THE OFFICE OF NAVAL INTELLIGENCE ON THE SUBJECT." The memo was also carbon copied for MID and two sections of the FBI. Thus, the memo was an unofficial document haveing no status whatsoever was not concealed, but on the contrary given wide distribution, did not represent the stated position of the ONI nor anyone else of any status in the military, and WAS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH AN OFFICIAL ONI INTELLIGENCE REPORT AUTHORED BY LT. COMMANDER HIMSELF LESS THAN TWO WEEKS LATER. Thus the lawyers representing the Japanese American reparations movment submitted evidence in a federal court under false pre-tense.

The Malkin claim is difficult to deal with as is because it requires proving a negative (no convictions); the stronger claim would be to show declassified evidence that the government had at the time.

Frankly, I think both claims should be struck from the article, and replaced with an assessment of the information available to the decsion-makers at the time (e.g., how much of what parts of MAGIC was available to Roosevelt). This assessment should also include alternatives that were considered and rejected, and alternatives that may not have been considered. Bonus points for evidence against specific individuals. --ishu 02:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are links to the actual docs mentioned above that were deliberately manipulated by the Japanese American activist lawyers during the Coram Nobis Korematsu case.

Unofficial Ringle Memo: [4] Ignored Keisker cover sheet: [5] Official Ringle Memo: [6] --History Student 22:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Michelle's claim doesn't hold up, because after the war the records of the secret trials and hearings of National Socialist spies were eventually made public, including those who were executed. Unless, of course, you have evidence that espionage and treason by Nikkei were so bad that every instance must remain hidden to this day. And it seems that the burden is once again on your side of the issue to provide credible and neutral historians who agree with Michelle. Critic-at-Arms, 15 OCT 06

Naughton on MAGIC

I removed the following statement because the link does not point to an acutal page or document:

James C. Naughton, Command Historian of the US Army, had this to say, "The hints contained in MAGIC, if decisionmakers paid them any heed at all, were not by themselves sufficient to justify the mass evacuation and incarceration of over 100,000 civilians..."[7]U.S. Army Center of Military History

We can move it back if the editor will supply a better citation. --ishu 03:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Just as a clarification, do you mean James McNaughton? [[8]] --History Student 18:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

On 3:3 Conditions of Camps

I know that it is not looked fondly upon to introduce new sources for citations, but I have a source for the first paragraph under 3:3 'Conditions of Camps.' The docu-drama Unfinished Business: The Japanese-American Internment Cases. BUT I do not feel that I have the status to be making this addition my self, let alone do I have the knowledge of how to make the change anyways.LEKS 16:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations for new copy

I reverted some edits to the article--especially because they appeared in the lead section.

There is a consensus among recent editors on this article regarding new copy.

• Any new copy in this article should be subject to strict citation requirements. The citation of the existing copy is woeful, and needs to be upgraded, but new copy should be held to higher standards so that we don't have to go back and re verify the new stuff.
• This consensus is an offshoot of a protracted edit war that occurred in June and July of 2006.
• In order to understand what occurred and why the strict standards, (please) browse through this talk page, including some of the recent archives. (Due to the high "noise" content in archive 5, a digest of that archive has been created.)

A review of the edit history of this article will show that I have been adding citations and requesting citations as busily as I can. Without intending to sound dictatorial, I think this should be the main focus of editing for the short term.

I'd appreciate concurrences from some of the other editors. Thanks for your understanding and cooperation. --ishu 23:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was

Survey: Is there consensus for current structure and philosophy? (ATTENTION page watchers!)

I've made a lot of edits this month, and basically, nobody else has been editing this article. I'm not complaining--I am not trying to be the Little Red Hen. However, I would like to do a pulse-check of anybody out there to record a consensus for the article as it stands. Just to be clear, there's lots to be done, and the current structure might be improved upon. However, i feel the article is vulnerable to rewrite (as it has been in the past). If we can demonstrate some moderate consensus on the current revision, it might help to guide any future discussion.

I'm talking to all you page-watchers out there!

So, our straw poll question is: "Do you think the article is going in the right direction, or do you think it's on the wrong track?" By "right direction," I mean several things:

• Is the current structure adequate for the content in the article now, while also leaving room for additional sections in the near future?
• Do you agree with the short-term philosophy restricting new material to high standards of verifiability until the existing copy is fully verified? I deem this standard necessary in response to the June/July 2006 edit war.

--ishu 20:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work. I haven't reviewed the article in a while (or for that matter, worked on it ever...), but will do so shortly. But in the meantime, I strongly concur with your second point - no matter what article, information should always adhere to strict verifiability and high standards. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I think I should clarify what I mean by restricting new material to high standards of verifiability. I have stated elsewhere on this page my intention to revert any edit that is not verified. I would like to establish a consensus for this guideline. I think you will agree that this is a stringent standard that is not often used on WP. If you are somewhat familiar with the edit history on the page, I hope you will agree that it is a desirable guideline. --ishu 22:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with the history of the page, but I don't think we need to say that any edit without citation should be reverted - for instance, a spelling error would be an edit without citation. What we do need to say is that we need to aggressively remove any statements that are either dubious or not cited properly. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is better now than it was but still needs work. There are outright historical falsehoods and lack of citations. Other areas require clarification. --History Student 22:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

As I noted below, the citations need lots of work. But can you comment on the structure of the article? Are the current topics reasonable? Does the structure allow for the logical addition of new topics? --ishu 06:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The article definitely still needs some work, but I think the current structure is good enough for use in continued development of the article, and that your second point is also very, very, very (emphasis) important to avoid any more edit wars / biased, pro-internment vandalism. Thanks for all the time you've spent on this, Ishu. --Gar2chan 08:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Biased pro-internment vandalism? That comment is revealing in itself. The philosophy of ensuring credible sources is a good one but the article does not currently reflect that. I have yet to finish going through it, but notice the only "professional historians" mentioned are all pro-reparations. Eric Muller is on the payrole of the "Civil Liberties Public Education Fund", he isn't a historian he's a law professor. Why no quotes from professional historians such as Roger McGrath, Dwight Murphy or John Stephan? --History Student 16:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I also notice a pro-reparations quote from John McNaughton but no mention of his involvement or funding [9]for his other work.

Not to mention this quote by Chief Army Historian David Trask that does not appear in the article...

"The report Personal Justice Denied strikes me as essentially in the form of a legal brief rather than a history. Historical information in this brief serves a specific purpose--------to present the case against the government in the most favorable light. Such an approach means that factual information is selected to serve the interest of the client. It means also that the facts are ordered and interpreted so as to provide the best support for the client. All is calculated to support the conclusion that the government denied personal justice to those interned during World War II. Facts and arguments that might tend to support a contrary conclusion are either excluded or rejected." Dr David Trask, Chief Army Historian.

This is an excellent quote in that it reflects the progress of this article to some extent also. There is no desire to document the 100% truth and anyone who attempts to is branded a "racist" by the Japanese American reparations activists and their supporters. But, Ishu the article is better than it was in July. I know you are trying. --History Student 17:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Corrections / Clarifications

1. Twelve days later, this power was used to declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast, including all of California and most of Oregon and Washington.[4]

Answer: The militarized zone also included the southern third of Arizona along the Mexican border. The sentence gives the impression mandatory evacuation of ethnic Japanese began 12 days after February 19, 1942. The first mandatory evacuation started March 25, 1942. Up until then it was voluntary evacuation. Although thousands of ethnic Japanese did voluntarily evacuate, many more could not or would not.

Response: You're overlooking the minor little detail that relocation is expensive and requires disposition of property -- take or sell. Many of the Nikkei found that their bank accounts were frozen, and they were unable to sell property except for pennies on the dollar. In some cases, especially land deals, there were contractual prohibitions on voluntarily leaving. Moreover, where to go? Where to find a home to rent, a job to pay the bills? This is why so many were caught in the second Exclusion Zone -- they went only as far as necessary, hoping to settle close enough that their good reputations would work for them, while others simply were too poor to go far, and followed friends or family to the new towns which DeWitt then placed in the second Zone. Critic-at-Arms 15 October 2006

2.Some compensation for property losses was paid in 1948, but most internees were unable to fully recover their losses.

Answer: What kind of source is this? Some website designer at the Truman Library? That's not a source. The "damages totaling $131 million" figure is mesleading because the reparations activists are reffering to income that would have been generated had the evacuation not occured - not loss of property. Japanese had months to apply for government relief for lost property as a result of the evacuation. Less than ten applications were denied.

Response: Much of what was lost was irreplaceable. Think about what YOU have which can't be brought back -- photo albums, vital records, heirlooms, and so on -- and now decide whether you should bring them in your "all you can carry" . . .or should you bring warm clothing for your children, to face the icy winds of Utah and Wyoming? In many cases, the personal disaster was the equivalent of having the home burn down with all possessions, leaving you only with what you're wearing now. Ever dealt with an insurance company after something like that? Just how much value do you think that they will put on Grandma's tea set, when you can buy one just like it for $5.00 at Wal-Mart? How much will they pay for the clothes that you wore to your wedding, or your oldest daughter's first baby shoes? Will you consider that "full recovery" of your losses? Critic-at-Arms 15 October 2006

3. The American camps were only meant to isolate the Japanese, in contrast to the Nazi concentration camps which existed to eliminate their captives.

Answer: This sentence convolutes the difference between an Aushwitz and a Dachau. Some Nazi camps were death camps and others were meant to hold enemies of the Nazi regime. Depends on the camp and the year.

Response: A veteran hair-splitter such as yourself can surely see that the differentiation does not include ALL National Socialist camps . . ? Critic-at-Arms 15 October 2006

4. Most historians now use the term internment camp for several reasons. Many definitions of internment refer to detention of "enemy aliens" or "prisoners of war"[9]; while the Japanese Americans were not prisoners of war, they were considered to be enemy aliens for several purposes, notably the draft. So internment implies a sense of detention, which is not true of relocation. Finally, the term concentration camp is inappropriate due to its highly negative association with the Nazi concentration camps.

Answer: This is pretty good, especially the last sentence. As a clarification permanent resident aliens (Issei) became enemy aliens afer the declaration of war against Japan. Japanese Americans (Nisei)were never enemy aliens as they were American citizens by birthright although many held dual citizenship with Japan.

Response: This is, of course, why De-Witt's order specifically included "non-aliens." Critic-at-Arms 15 October 2006

5. There were twenty-seven U.S. Department of Justice Camps, eight of which (in Texas, Idaho, North Dakota, New Mexico, and Montana) held Japanese Americans.

Answer: They held enemy aliens deemed a security risk, also Germans, Italians, Romanians, Hungarians...

6. The camps were guarded by Border Patrol agents rather than military police and were intended for non-citizens including Buddhist ministers, Japanese language instructors, newspaper workers, and other community leaders.

Answer: They key is "deemed a secutity risk". Enemy aliens deemed not to be a security risk were sent to relocation centers and some even moved east out of the centers, such as Kiyoaki Murata, author of "An Enemy Among Friends" and editor of The Japan Times.

Response: Eventually. Remember, they were arrested between 7 DEC 41 and 11 DEC 41. They were sent from arrest to internment, many months later. And a number of the arrestees were Nisei -- thus citizens. Critic-at-Arms 15 October 2006

7. Approximately 1,800 were Japanese Peruvians. The United States intended to use them in potential hostage exchanges with Japan.

Answer: This is pure reparations propaganda which is why there is no source cited.

Response: For once, I agree. This wording makes an assumption which has never been proven. Critic-at-Arms 15 October 2006

Currently Japanese Latin Americans are attempting to get reparations from the Americans government. On the face of it why would the American government need to import Japanese Peruvians for "hostage exchange" when they had a country full of Issei? Ridiculous and this sentence should be deleted. P.S. Latin American Germans and Italians were sent to the United States, too. Here are some facts:

With regard to the Latin American Axis nationals, it is generally acknowledged by those who have bothered to check the record that only approx 8,500 Axis nationals (Germans, Italians, and Japanese)were arrested and interned by 16 Latin American countries during WWII. In accordance with treaty obligations, the U.S. was obligated to accept Axis nationals for internment in the U.S. from those Latin American countries which were unable to establish costly internment programs.

Accordngly, at least twelve Latin American countries deported a total of only 3,000 Axis nationals consisting of just under 2,300 Japanese (500 of whom who had already applied for expatriation to Japan at the Spanish Embassy in Peru) and just over 700 Germans and Italians.

Hence, the U.S. was only involved in the internment of 3,000, not 31,000 Latin American Axis nationals. Charges of violation of the wartime civil rights of such persons (enemy aliens)by the U.S. is far fetched. Indeed, such persons were specifically excluded from P.L.100-383 which authorized payment to Japanese enemy aliens and Japanese Americans evacuated from the West Coast or interned by the U.S. during the war.

Here is a link. The link is provided to let you know the movement exists, not to endorse what the movement espouses. [10] --History Student 17:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

8. Eisenhower realized that anti-Japanese racism was not confined to California.

Answer: Racism? In this day and age the terms "racism" is thrown around so much as it has become devoid of any true meaning. Anger and hostility towards the enemy after the country had suffered a sneak attack from the enemy is not "racism". Fact is the vast majority of ethnic Japanese ADULTS were enemy aliens. This sentence needs a re-write.

Response: Fact is that many thousand of the Nikkei adults who were interned were AMERICAN CITIZENS, not enemy aliens. They were interned SOLELY on the basis of being Nikkei. And then there were all those thousands of Nisei and Sansei children, including orphans under the age of 10, who were likewise sent to camps, again solely for being Nikkei. If you don't think that this is "racism," I look forward to your definition of the term. Critic-at-Arms 15 October 2006

9.The roots of the internment run back to the turn of the 20th century

Answer: This is a leftover from the old article. Cite a source for that one.

10. During the period of 1939–1941, the FBI compiled the Custodial Detention index ("CDI") on citizens, "enemy" aliens and foreign nationals who might be dangerous based principally on census records. These definitions of "enemy aliens" did not include those of German and Italian descent.

Answer: Cite a source for that one. German Americans on the east coast and throughout the country were arrested, interned, and in some cases deported. Almost 11,000 German Americans were interned in the U.S. during World War II. Many German Americans sat, worked, played and went to school in the same camps as their Japanese American counterparts.

Response: Europeans were interned on a case-by-case basis, generally (as you point out) following arrest for their pro-Axis activities. Those few children interned were sent with their parents. With tens of millions of "German Americans" and "Italian Americans," the number of those interned is statistically insignificant. OVER 90% OF NIKKEI IN THE UNITED STATES WERE INTERNED. Arrests in the first days following the Oahu attacks included all of the leaders of the Nikkei communities, arrests of European Americans were leaders in pro-Axis activities. Come on, somewhere in here even YOU have to see the difference in the situations! Critic-at-Arms 15 October 2006

Furthermore even before the first person was interned, 600,000 Italian Americans and 300,000 German Americans were deprived of their civil liberties when they (all persons, male and female, age 14 and older) were required to register as "Alien Enemies." This registration entailed photographing, fingerprinting and the issuance of identification cards which the Alien Enemies had to have on their possession at all times. In addition they were forbidden to fly; to leave their neighborhoods; to possess cameras, short-wave radio receivers, and firearms. Finally, these persons were required to report any change of employment or address to the Department of Justice.

Response: Wow. 900,000 people had to register -- but why are you saying that they were AMERICANS? They WERE foreign nationals. If you could show that the 35,000,000 or so Americans of German descent and 15,000,000 or so Americans of Italian descent had to register, then your comment would have some value in the discussion. Critic-at-Arms 15 October 2006

11. Further attacks, such as the fairly minor shelling of a California oil refinery in 1942, ostensibly by a Japanese submarine, redoubled these suspicions.

Answer: This sentence seeks to belittle the many sinkings and shellings that occured from California to British Columbia. You want a breakdown of attacks?

12. Civilian and military officials had concerns about the loyalty of the ethnic Japanese on the West Coast and considered them to be a security risk, although these concerns often grew more out of racial hatred than actual risk.

Answer: More race card racebaiting. Cite a source for this one. How about the loyalty of ethnic Japanese in the Philippines, an American Commonwealth at the time? No mention of MAGIC thus far in the article either.

Response: When you can show me DeWitt's order for "aliens and non-aliens of German descent" to report to internment camps, then you can legitimately ask this question. Critic-at-Arms 15 October 2006

13. Lieutenant General John L. DeWitt, who administered the internment program, repeatedly told newspapers that "A Jap's a Jap" and testified to Congress, "I don't want any of them [persons of Japanese ancestry] here. They are a dangerous element. There is no way to determine their loyalty...It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen, he is still a Japanese. American citizenship does not necessarily determine loyalty...But we must worry about the Japanese all the time until he is wiped off the map."

Answer: DeWitt's report was entirely for public consumption and in fact justified many of the fears that existed in the general populace. The comment was also for the consumption of the Empire of Japan, for the Americans had to justify the mass evacuation of 120,000 people without letting the enemy no their diplomatic and military codes had been compromised.

Response: Are you REALLY saying that MAGIC intercepts indicated that the only way to ensure the safety of the West Coast was to lock up 10-year-old schoolgirls in Wyoming? Critic-at-Arms 15 October 2006

The plan worked flawlessly. The Empire of Japan immediately used the evacuation for propoganda purposes (like today's reparations movment), but knowledge of Japan's codes being broken was never revieled.

Unfortunatley, DeWitt's comments are now bandied about and taken entirely out of historical context.

Response: Mostly by the anti-reparations people. Everyone else knows what DeWitt was saying, and understands the historical context. Critic-at-Arms 15 October 2006

14. American citizens of German and Italian ancestry were excluded from the classification of "enemy race", which was due largely to political concerns. The German and Italian communities represented a significant voting block, and those ethnic groups had become more assimilated into American culture.[citation needed] The Japanese people represented only a small minority, making internment feasible. Those of German and Italian ancestry were actually praised by President Roosevelt for their "loyalty" as to relieve any anxiety that those groups might also be interned.[citation needed]

Answer: This is reparations propagands. See above where I discuss the government crackdown on Germans and Italians in America long before Pearl Harbor.

That's all I can handle for now. I'll review more later. --207.207.80.138 23:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC) That's me. --History Student 23:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Student: Welcome back! I genuinely appreciate your comments on this page. I've put some quick responses to your questions below, but they mostly agree that citations are lacking and rewrites are appropriate. I hope you can see the large number of citation requests througout the article that I've put in. I'm glad somebody's willing to help vet the claims. Obviously, statements that can't be substatiated should be rewritten or removed.

1. Timeline of evacuation: We can clarify this statement in the article and/or reword the sentence, and/or add a clarifying phrase or sentence.

2. "Damages" citation. Please note that the reference is used only to substantiate that "some compensation" was paid. I agree that the source is inadequate for anything beyond that simple statement. I tried to find a reference to the 1948 claims act, but couldn't find one. If you or anyone else has a better cite we can swap it out. The key is that claims were paid in 1948. That's it for the lead section. Other facts can go in the body of the article.

3. Nazi camps sentence: I'm not a fan of that sentence, so let's please change it. My only request is that we limit the reference in the lead section to one or two sentences only. We can elaborate further in the body, maybe under "Key Disputes/Severity".

4. "Most historians...:" I'm glad you agree that something is better.

5 to 7. DOJ Camps: Obviously this section requires expansion... with citations, of course. This entire section was copied from reference 10. We can and should expand and cite further.

8. Eisenhower: Let's rewrite per my comments above.

9. Roots of internment: A lot of the copy was carried over from the previous version. We can rewrite.

10. CDI: Let's do get a citation. The citationneeded tag is there to request one.

11. Shelling refinery: Actually, you already provided a pretty good timeline (it's now been moved to the archive). Let's rewrite that statement to fit the timeline.

12. Racebaiting: Can we just agree that we need a citation for this statement or remove it if we can't find a citation?

13. DeWitt (Jap's a Jap) and context: I'd be interested to see some references on this point to provide the context.

14. Citation requests have been attached to these claims. I only put in two because the first two sentences are basically a single claim. The third sentence I consider to be factually correct. The fourth sentence also has a citation request.

Let's get to work, everybody! --ishu 04:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Lowman discusses this in his book "MAGIC".

The statment was in the congressional record before DeWitt ever mentioned it.

"Once a Jap, always a Jap! You can't any more regenerate a Jap than you can reverse the laws of nature!"

-John Elliot Rankin (D)

Mississippi Congressman 1921-1953

Why not use my suggestion above and cite Lowman's book and the Congressional Record? I see a lot of "citations need" links for pro-reparations comments. --History Student 17:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have Lowman's book. If you can provide some context for his discussion and more specific citations, that would help. Does Lowman make the observation about Rankin's remark, or is his point about DeWitt's strategic obfuscation? Also, any additional information you can provide on Rankin's comment would help, such as what year and date. Page numbers are always helpful. --ishu 05:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"Once a Jap, always a Jap! You can't any more regenerate a Jap than you can reverse the laws of nature!"

-John Elliot Rankin (D) Mississippi Congressman 1921-1953

Congressional Record, December 15, 1941 --History Student 15:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Strategic Obfuscation? You should read Lowman's book and you will find the tone is far from "stategic obfuscation". The attempts by the Japanese American Reparations Movement activists to explain away any history that conflicts with their version of events is a better example of "strategic obfuscation". A good example is where the article discusses the fact that more Japanese Americans served on the Imperial Japanese Forces than in the American Forces. This is conveniently explained away as, "well they had no choice". But back to DeWitt....

DeWitt, up to his final recommendation to the War Department on 13 Feb. 1942, (prior to FDR's E.O.9066) was consistent in his opposition to the detention of American citizens. His final recommendation to the War Department was that "citizen evacuees would either ACCEPT INTERNMENT VOLUNTARILY OR RELOCATE THEMSELVES with such assistance as state and federal agencies might offer." (Emphasis mine)

In his final recommentation, DeWitt also called for the inclusion of ALL enemy aliens (German and Italians as well as Japanese) in any evacuation decided.

The evacuation decision was made in the War Department and instructions to DeWitt for instrumentation thereof differed markedly from DeWitt's final recommendation in a number of respects. But the fact is that from early on to his final recommendation prior to the Evacuation Decision made in Washington, DeWitt was consistent in his opposition to the detainment of American citizens of Japanese descent. As a good soldier, however, he bowed to the orders of his superiors and carried out their instructions to the best of his ability.

A review of Chapter V, "Japanese Evacuation From the West Coast" of Conn, Englemman, and Fairchild's "Guarding the United States and its Outposts." [Center of Military History, U.S.Army] is suggested. --History Student 15:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

For some reason my reply to Ishu continues to mysteriosuly disapear with no documentation in the "history" link. Why is that? --207.207.80.138 17:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC) --History Student 17:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've got no time to review it, but here's a direct link to Guarding the United States and its Outposts. --ishu 00:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow! That's great. I didn't know the book was online and will compare to my hardbound copy. --History Student 18:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

120,000

• Some 120,000 U.S. residents of German and Italian descent across the country were also arrested and interned as security risks, but no compensation was ever paid to them.

Wehere do we get the figure of 120,000? It isn't in the cited references. Here's a better reference, but it mentions much smaller numbers, "WWII Violations of German American Civil Liberties by the US Government". A U.S. Senator sponsored a bill to study the issue and he said in a speech:

• Approximately 11,000 ethnic Germans, 3,200 ethnic Italians, and scores of Bulgarians, Hungarians, Romanians or other European Americans living in America were taken from their homes and placed in internment camps [11]

It appears that we are off by an order of magnititude. -Will Beback 19:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)