Talk:Japanese American Internment/Archive 1

Japanese vs. Japanese American

Maveric149 writes: 19:50 . . Maveric149 (Talk) (Moving back to Japanese internment in the United States; Anon YOU did not write this article and that is where the history is; There were also Japanese nationals who were interned)

I'm a wiki newbie, and I thought that nobody writes the articles. I changed the listing to <Japanese American Internment>. IMHO, while there were Japanese nationals interned, the largest majority (2/3) were U.S. citizens. Plus, while, strictly speaking, the remainder were Japanese nationals, it was not legal for them to naturalize, and more than a few desired (and attempted) to do so prior to WWII. In this sense, it is fair and reasonable to call them Japanese Americans, whether or not they were citizens.

I just believe it is a misnomer to say "Japanese internment" since it implies that most were Japanese nationals. It's not like the "Taliban internment," in which the Taliban/al Qaeda partisans --regardless of whether they were "combatants"--were apprehended/captured elsewhere and then detained. <Legally> the Japanese nationals were "Japanese" and not "American" but--to repeat-it is fair and reasonable to call them <Japanese Americans>.

It's not clear from your comment, but it seems that you favor listing "in the United States" as part of the entry. If so, then something like "Japanese American Internment in the United States" sounds redundant. I agree.

One could debate this ad nauseum, which neither of us would like to do. I'd like to get a sense of your take on this issue, though.

And yes, I registered so that we can facilitate a discussion here. --Ishu

Ishu, pages can be moved using the "Move this page" command on the left hand side of your screen. You can sign your name with 4 "~".

I agree with Ishu that the word "American" should somehow make its way into the title. True, some of those interned with Japanese nationals, but are to imply that the American nationals who were interned were not Americans? It doesn't hurt to use the liberal definition of labelling any immigrant as American, citizen or not. Other encyclopedias, such as Encarta, define Japanese American as anyone of Japanese ancestry who is either a resident or citizen of the US. Citizenship is not necessary to be "American" I would say... --Jiang 21:30 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hm. What is an American? A citizen of the US is most definitely and unambiguously an American but I see your point about government blockage. However, I'm sure there were still many thousands of Japanese residents of the US who didn't really care about naturalization (many students would have fallen under this category). Who is Japanese? Now a Japanese American, no matter what your defintion, is still Japanese, right? So "Japanese" is a more inclusive term and covers all persons of Japanese ancestry ; not just the ones who were American (whatever that is). And the exclusion zones did not make these types of distinctions - they applied to all persons of Japanese ancestry. --mav 21:43 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Is a Japanese American "Japanese"? American Heritage says yes [1]. Encarta uses "Japanese American" [2] --Jiang 21:50 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree that citizenship is the most unambiguous definition. I do not agree that we _must_ use the most unambiguous definition. Implicitly, the definition I'd use is that the unmodified term <Japanese>, in its common usage, implies Japanese _nationals_.

I believe that if we were to ask someone to define <Japanese>, most people would say it means "people _from_ Japan" which is what _I_ am saying regardless. The Nisei, by definition, are certainly Americans by any criteria, and most--2/3--of those interned were Nisei--American Americans to be un-PC about it. My point is that the most _inclusive_ term is <Japanese American>, especially since we seem to agree that defining <American> is not as unambiguous as we might like it to be, and <Japanese> is at least as ambiguous, and in my view, misleading.

Given that most of the Japanese immigrants (a) had come for economic reasons--many had no land or inheritance in Japan due to primogeniture, (b) had established themselves in the U.S. with farms, businesses, etc., and (c) had U.S.-citizen children, it is reasonable to believe that at least a sizeable minority of the 40,000 Japanese nationals would have chosen to be citizens if they had been given the choice--just as immigrants of other ethnicities have since the dawn of the union. It is highly unlikely that any sizeable minority was composed of students or any other indifferent group.

That many Japanese immigrants stayed after the war and naturalized after the 1955 McCarran-Walter Act may be neither here nor there (Japan was a mess), but may also be an indication of the immigrants' prior preference, having established their lives in the U.S.

To Mav's last point, the "exclusion zones" applied to "all" persons of Japanese ancestry. Mav looks at it from the point that they didn't distinguish between who was a Japanese national and who was an U.S. citizen of Japanese ancestry. From a historical perspective, the key point is that the exclusion order applied to "Americans" (citizens, by Mav's definition) as well as "aliens."

While people of German and Italian ancestry also were interned, there is no historical event of "German Internment in the United States" because the judicial error--massive violation of the Bill of Rights--did not occur with German Americans--however we define them.

The Japanese American Internment is a unique (we hope) event in history and American Justice. I belive it is proper to describe it as a _Japanese American_ event because the American-ness of the detainees (regardless of citizenship status) is the core of the issue and is indisputable, both for the immigrants and the native-born.ishu 23:40 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Just saw Mav's message to ANON re: moving pages w/o attribution. I am really sorry! Now that I have an account, I can move pages the right way with all the attributions. However, I'm not in a hurry to move this page, at least until we continue this dialogue and see where it goes. ishu 00:03 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If this debate goes on, I recommend Japanese American and Japanese internment in the United States to include both the East Asian American's and Caucasian American's POV. Yeah, that looks verbose, doesn't it? In any case, I am against of ignoring the fact that many Americans of Japanese ancestry (a.k.a. Japanese American) were interned.

--Menchi 22:21 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

p.s. The divider (----) is for separate unrelated discussions, not replies or Qs of the same discussion. I think it was Jiang, not mav, who encourage your move.

Sounds too wordy...According to google, the phrase "Japanese internment" results in 14,900 pages and "Japanese American internment" results in 12,200. The LOC, PBS, DOJ [3] [4] [5] use "Japanese American internment." Whereas, the sites that use "Japanese internment" are relatively obscure [6]. (Check closely, most prominent sites on that search still use "Japanese-American".) Apparently, the government has no problem with using the phrase "Japanese American" --Jiang 08:04 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

OK - I withdraw my objection. So since "American" is now going to be in the title can we get rid of "in the United States"? I like short titles. :-) --mav

Mav, since you have administrator rights, would you do the honors? This is a neat place. Thanks for the contributions, all! ishu 11:21 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Sure. Is Japanese American internment a good title? --mav

Personally, I'm in favor of capitalizing the 'i' in 'internment', because this entry refers to a unique event such as the Nanjing Massacre, Scopes Trial, and Haymarket Riot, and should be treated as a proper noun.

If anyone feels strongly about the lower-case 'i', I won't quarrel over capitalization, since there are entries such as Tiananmen Square protest of 1989. I didn't find any guidance in the Manual of Style. Jiang, Menchi, anyone, Bueller, do you have insights to add on this point? ishu 17:09 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I should have began with "Yes, that is just the title I was thinking of." Sorry. ishu 20:42 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved it according to Ishu's proposal. Googling "japanese american internment" turned up many sites with the "i" capitalized. --Jiang

---

The Second-Generation

I read or heard a few days ago -- from where I couldn't remember -- that a high percentage of the interned were Nisei. Any stat on that? --Menchi 06:27, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)

IIRC it was 2/3 but that percentage, of course, went down as more Sansei were born in camp. --mav 08:08, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Renaming this page

I moved this page back from Japanese American relocation. You should confer on this page before making any drastic move like that and change all the double redirects after you move. --Jiang 00:14, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Why? Maybe I don't understand the move policy. I have heard "Be bold in updating pages". The double redirects may be a problem, but not a reason to move it back to a misleading entry title. -- VV 05:35, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

What's wrong with the current title? On google: "Japanese American relocation" - 3490 sites; "Japanese American Internment" - 16200 sites. The US government's various websites use "Japanese American Internment". --Jiang 06:06, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The "google test" should not be the final word, particularly in reference to a widespread myth. "Walt Disney frozen" - 22600 sites; "Walt Disney cremated" - 891 sites. The event was most generally an exclusion, and as a corollary a relocation of people from the exclusion zone. One could write an article about internment, but it should be about the handful who were interned. Wikipedia should not propagate myths.

The government at the time called them relocation camps and centers, not internment camps/centers. It was the WRA, not the WIA. It was an exclusion order, not an internment order. If the government today is using ahistorical and inaccurate terminology, we should not copy them. -- VV 11:19, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"Internment" is not limited to prisons. These people were confined and forbidden to venture back to the coast. How is this not internment?

Encarta, Britannica, and Columbia Enclyclopedias all use "internment". Of course the US government would want to tone down the severity of its own actions. Why trust the government in 1941 rather than the government of today? That doesnt make sense. --Jiang 22:03, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Not being allowed to return home may be something, but it is not "internment". One cannot be "interned" in 80% of the United States. By this logic, Roman Polanski is "interned" in the entire world minus the US. And we don't have to trust anyone, the facts are available.

There is also an NPOV angle on this. Many dispute it was internment; no one disputes it was relocation. Therefore the latter term should be used. -- VV 23:26, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

VV - history uses the them "internment", thus that is what we use. Anything else would be revisionism. --mav

Should certain elements of this article be restored? [7] --Jiang 22:52, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I checked for each paragraph and found that very little was deleted by VV other than redundancies. The added material does need to be NPOVed - it almost sounds like it is making excuses for internment. --mav

"Making excuses"? There was a reason for the exclusion, which deserves to be told. The previous versions dismissively claim it was just "racial bias", which is absurd but oddly did not seem to bother anyone till me. And yes I took care to not delete information. -- VV 23:26, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Internment vs. Relocation

I've chosen to start a new section distinct from renaming this page.

Several dictionary definitions refer to confinement during wartime, but vary as to the nature of the confinement. The dictionary definitions share an emphasis on wartime confinement, and one specifically refers to foreign troops. Since Japanese Americans had already been classified as 4-C "Enemy Aliens" and since this was the basis for EO9066 and everything that derived from it, from the standpoint of the U.S. government and military, internment is not an unreasonable term.

But the key question of internment, from the perspective of these definitions, hinges on whether the Japanese Americans were confined, i.e. whether they were required to report to the camps.

While in a literal sense it was true that they were "free to settle anywhere outside the exclusion area," as a practical matter, that was a severe hardship. Travel on short notice to another area was uncommon and difficult in those years. EO9066 was signed on Feb 19, 1942; on March 2, Public Proclamation No. 1 was issued, defining the Military Areas that would form the exclusion zone. The first exclusion order was written three weeks later, on March 24; the last exclusion order was written June 6.[See this collection of exclusion orders.] Less than four months elapsed between the authorization for exclusion and the last order, which is not a lot of time for people to uproot, make arrangements for their businesses and belongings, and find another place to go if they were to do so "voluntarily."

Although the Japanese Americans were not required to report to the camps, the term relocation doesn't fit well either because it implies a voluntary sense that I don't think is appropriate. Relocation' implies that there were many options for the Japanese Americans, that they simply had to "relocate" from where they were.

I am not aware of any WCCA/WRA-sponsored trains to New York, Chicago, etc. to assist the Japanese Americans in leaving the exclusion zone. I haven't heard of any WRA programs to find alternate locations outside the exclusion area--at least not at the beginning. Of course, the WRA did transport them thousands of miles to Wyoming and Arkansas. Wouldn't it have been less expensive to pay for a train without the necessity of providing housing,etc.? Unless security was more important, and then it's less of a "choice."

Since the WCCA was responsible for the exclusion, how it accommodated the removal should guide what we call this action. If there were real options for the Japanese Americans that were facilitated by the WCCA, then relocation is a fair term. However, the more compulsory and controlled it was, the more appropriate is internment as a name.

The exclusion orders started out fairly vague, such as No. 7 of April 20, though later orders, such as No. 92 of May 23 were more specific. All of them are clearly compulsory, and specify a short time frame from the issuance to execution of the orders. We could split hairs and argue that those affected by the later orders could have read the writing on the wall, and "voluntarily" "evacuated" after seeing what was happening to Japanese Americans in other parts of the exclusion zone. But even so, I'd argue that we'd have two groups, the "early" internees and the "later" relocatees.

FWIW, the official government term of the time, 'evacuation' is clearly inappropriate, as it implies that evacuation is for the benefit of the evacuees. --ishu 23:40, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This 1943 WRA document states:

all further voluntary evacuation was halted by the Western Defense Command on March 29 and plans were initiated by WRA for establishing relocation centers with sufficient capacity and facilities to handle the entire evacuated population for as long as might be necessary. ["Relocation of Japanese-Americans." War Relocation Authority Publication dated May 1943]

That sounds like internment to me. No choice involved, and no time to make a "voluntary" "evacuation." Changing references to internment. --ishu 03:04, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have been too busy the last week to give your various comments the attention they deserve, but I will try to address these points now.

1. Yes, of course the exclusion was not voluntary; I didn't realize there was any confusion on this point. But how on Earth does that make it an internment? Paying my electric bill is not voluntary, but it's not internment. I am just at a loss for what else to say to this logic. Initially Japanese were supposed to on their initiative leave the exclusion zone and find accommodations outside it, such as in hotels and the like. Soon it became clear this was not adequate, and registration, transportation, and alternative housing followed.

2. Your concern about connotations of words seems rather selective. Relocation does not to me imply that other options existed (but in any case other options did exist). Evacuation does not necessarily mean for the benefit of the evacuees; please vacate the premises does not necessarily mean for your own good. But internment — that clearly refers to imprisonment, not in any subtle shade of meaning but quite directly. And imprisonment it was not. There is no doubt which term is the most problematic. Maybe a more neutral word can be found, but I think exclusion, evacuation, and relocation are all head and shoulders over internment.

3. Your question, Wouldn't it have been less expensive to pay for a train without the necessity of providing housing,etc.? Yes, it would have! It would have been much easier to dump thousands of Japanese, homeless and lost, on the streets in some alien midwestern locale. And if one believes that the US is some sort of "racist" boogeyman, one will never understand why this was not done. But of course it is obvious to those without this belief. Simple decency dictates that one should do something to alleviate the circumstances created by the government-mandated evacuation. Hence the camps.

One of the cruel ironies of this whole story is that if the US had not done the right thing by providing houses for the displaced Japanese population, the smear of internment could never have been made.

4. Yes, moving away would have been a hardship for many, so again hence the camps. However, the government did provide grants, scholarships, and other such opportunities for residents to move away, which perhaps I should add to the text sometime. This is noteworthy because it goes against the (already demonstrably false) notion that the US was trying to keep them all bottled up in desert prisons. And how else could this be internment?

In fact, the camps, in providing free housing, free health care, etc., were an attractive alternative to living on the outside. But your logic seems to imply that the nicer the camps were, the more like prisons they were, since leaving would be an even less attractive option. I think it should be clear what's wrong with this way of thinking.

On an unrelated note, it might be good for the sake of sanity to remove all the discussion on this page up through the end of July. I'd do it myself but I don't know what the Wikipedia conventions are (e.g., should a linked subpage be created to hold it, or can it just be left in the page history?). -- VV 05:18, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Involuntary + Relocation + Confinement = Internment

Overall response to Verily

Nothing in Verily's response addresses the definitions of internment referenced above. It is not clear whether Verily objects to them. The key question of internment, from the perspective of these definitions, hinges on whether the Japanese Americans were confined, not whether the camps were prisons, as asserted repeatedly by Verily.

My central point is that the WCCA orders meet generally accepted definitions of internment, which do not require that the internees be held in facilities that are labeled as, or otherwise qualify as prisons. In sum: involuntary + relocation + confinement = internment.

Verily's (1): "...exclusion was not voluntary; I didn't realize there was any confusion on this point..... Paying my electric bill is not voluntary, but it's not internment."

Verily has introduced confusion regarding the involuntary nature of the internment, by adding language such as:

the creation of temporary relocation camps in the nation's interior to house those with nowhere else to go. edit of 23:13, 1 Oct, emphasis added

few Japanese were actually imprisoned, with most being free to settle anywhere outside the Exclusion Area. edit of 06:47 9 Oct, emphasis added

The question is not whether the exclusion was voluntary. The issue is whether being in the camps was voluntary, which it was not, in any meaningful sense. What Verily and others wish to call "relocation" was an involuntary relocation to confinement facilities, consistent with the definition of internment, especially during wartime for people considered to be "enemy aliens."

The exclusion areas were defined on March 2, and voluntary evacuation was prohibited 27 days later on March 29 (see original comments). The Japanese Americans were offered no meaningful alternatives to the WRA facilities. So they were confined to the WCCA/WRA facilities, involuntarily. Most were not free to go anywhere else, inside or outside the exclusion area, so there was no "nowhere else to go." And they were considered to be enemy aliens. Verily's example of an electric bill is simply off-point, as one does not receive electric service involuntarily (in all seriousness, c.f. Ted Kaczynski).

Verily's (2): Relocation does not to me imply that other options existed (but in any case other options did exist)....please vacate the premises does not necessarily mean for your own good....But internment — that clearly refers to imprisonment...quite directly....There is no doubt which term is the most problematic. Maybe a more neutral word can be found...

Other options did not exist, except during 27 days in March 1942, and later, after the Japanese Americans were already confined. WRA facilities--prisons or not--were "confinement facilities" whose "residents" were not voluntarily there. The definitions of internment referenced above do not necessitate imprisonment, and certainly not "quite directly." Offering extra choices later doesn't change the involuntary nature of the original "relocation." Verily's counter-example of vacate is not on point (vacate<>evacuate).

On alternative terms and connotations: One cannot be "excluded" into a particular area (see Verily's earlier Roman Polanski reference). Relocation and evacuation do not in any way connote confinement, only movement "away from" a particular area. Internment includes the connotation of confinement, yet is distinct from imprisonment. Internment is problematic only if one (mistakenly) requires imprisonment.

If someone were to demonstrate that in the Assembly Centers a large-scale effort was made to provide non-confined options for "relocation," the term relocation might seem more appropriate.

Verily's (3): Simple decency dictates that one should do something to alleviate the circumstances created by the government-mandated evacuation. Hence the camps....[I]f the US had not done the right thing by providing houses for the displaced Japanese population... the smear of internment could never have been made.

Surely Verily does not mean that the camps were the only humane way to implement the exclusion order. There are many ways to have "alleviate[d] the circumstances created by the government-mandated evacuation." The government chose only one option: one that involved involuntary confinement, i.e., internment. Offering extra choices later doesn't change the involuntary nature of the original "relocation."

Since some believe that military necessity justified the exclusion, why not also justify the involuntary confinement on military necessity? I believe that's exactly what McCloy and Bendetsen did. I just disagree that it was necessary to intern all 112,000 (+/-) people in order to do it.

Internment is a "smear" only if it were true that the Japanese Americans "chose" to be in the WRA camps. They did not voluntarily select the WRA camps from a smorgasbord of choices. It wasn't voluntary, there was no selection, no smorgasbord, no choices. Only the barracks and horse stalls, as "provided" by the WCCA. The WRA camps were not prisons, but U.S. prisons--in the name of "simple decency"--are required to provide a minimal standard of housing, so no clarity is gained by showing (correctly) that the WRA provided it.

Verily's (4): ...government did provide...opportunities for residents to move away, which perhaps I should add to the text sometime. This...goes against the...notion that the US was trying to keep them all bottled up in desert prisons.... In fact, the camps, in providing free housing, free health care, etc., were an attractive alternative to living on the outside.

Verily puts words in my logic. All I have claimed is that the WCCA orders meet generally accepted definitions of internment, which do not require that the internees be held in prisons. Anyway, prisons provide free housing and health care, so no clarity is gained by showing (correctly) that the WRA provided them. Shelters for evacuees from disaster, etc., also provide free housing and health care, but without guards, barbed wire, etc. However, evacuees are free to leave shelters, and generally are not required to utilize them in the first place.

FWIW, again Verily claims that there were more "attractive alternatives" as though any alternatives were offered, except during 27 days in March 1942, and later, after the Japanese Americans were already confined. No evidence has been shown that the release-sponsorship programs were made known to the internees during early stages of the relocation. Prior to implementation of alternative programs, involuntary + relocation + confinement = internment. Offering extra choices later doesn't change the involuntary nature of the original "relocation."

--ishu 04:32, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There is much to respond to here; it seems your key assertion is that this is "internment" since there was some interim "confinement" in the sense that those Japanese who had not left by a certain date were forced to go to a camp, and could only later employ other options. This means the "internment" refers only to a short period of time — but the article is presumably about the entire multi-year experience, not this small early segment. The whole war-long event was a relocation.

I don't have much else to say about the rest. Yes I know vacate<>evacuate duh, but the words have a very tight connection to this native speaker. The question about the extent of guards and barbed wire seems to be an unresolved issue, as the Bendetsen testimony I gave indicated, so it should not be assumed. Other comments seem to be misunderstandings. My point about free housing and health care were not arguments that this makes it unlike prison, but rather that the fact that residents might lack good alternatives is because the camps were an attractive enough place (due to gov't expense) that people didn't want to leave; I thought my text was pretty clear on this point. Finally, justification is a separate issue.

I may be wrong, but your distinction between internment and imprisonment seems to be that the latter has to be in a place called prisons, which I find problematic. In any event, I maintain my original point. Relocation, exclusion all describe the situation neutrally, whatever weak connotations you may feel those words have. Internment is POV and inflammatory and implies something about the whole experience that isn't true. -- VV 06:15, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Verily is correct here:

this is "internment" since there was some interim "confinement" in the sense that those Japanese who had not left by a certain date were forced to go to a camp, and could only later employ other options.

but off the mark right after:

This means the "internment" refers only to a short period of time — but the article is presumably about the entire multi-year experience, not this small early segment.

First off, a year is not a "short" time (or "small early segment") to lose one's civil rights. Next, in a facile sense, it seems wrong to say they were interned in the WRA facilities, and then, later, they were merely "relocated," (even though they were in the same WRA facilities). But the main reason to retain the label of internment for the whole event is because that's how it started out. The JAs were not "relocated" to the WRA facilities, except in a revisionist sense. They were there as a result of internment. Everything else should be considered in light of that.

Truly humane policies were enacted, especially after the WRA recognized how little of a threat was posed by most Japanese Americans. But they were humane policies enacted within the context of a forcible confinement, though the confinement was eventually lifted in a literal sense.

As long as the Japanese American Internment is contrasted with other examples of detention, confinement, and internment (and we have a stub to begin this distinction), I do not understand why Verily sees use of the term internment as an inflammatory smear.

--ishu 06:59, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

First of all, the first quote is flagrantly out of context, as it is missing the crucial prefix "it seems your key assertion is that", and instead attributes that view to me. Second, "how it started" is ridiculous; it started with an exclusion order. Or, if you don't believe that, would you call it the "Japanese American train ride"?

Also, what's your source that for "a year" they were stuck in the camp, unaware of the option they had to leave (this is the basis of your claim, right?, that they weren't at first aware that they could leave)? This is crazy. If they couldn't immediately leave the day after they got there, it would probably only be because of administrative backlog. They were free to go anywhere outside the exclusion zone. You have never provided any evidence to the contrary, only noting they were forced to the Assembly Areas if they had not complied with the exclusion by a certain date. -- VV 02:38, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)