stereotyping criminals and crimes

[Hobbs]

I dare you to say that to my mom's boss at her last job... please, just once.
His father was born in the United States, never had any contact with Japan (beyond having a few friends who were of Japanese decent), and by all accounts was a law abiding citizen. He was arrested in the middle of the night, thrown on a train with no windows, and shipped to an internment camp in Utah.
The vast majority of those send to the camps committed no crime aside from having a japanese last name.

Yes the majority of the ones we stuck in internment camps were. Unless you feel we should hold everyone of a specific descent responsible for everything done by others of that descent.

If that's the case lock us all in jail.

I doth believe Hobbs was referring to Japan the country and it's residents and military.

Yes, you are correct Wingates. Shows what happens when people don't listen to context. I clearly stated, "Because of Bataan and other atrocities." What atrocities? say you? Why, the complete violation of international law and the Geneva Convention. I find it odd that you can find the faults in your own country, yet every other act of violation against human rights by our *enemies is overlooked. I would tell her boss that the country of his family's origin committed human rights abuses against prisoners of war. There is nothing wrong with pointing that out.

*Between 1941/45, the United States was at war with Germany and Japan...therefore they are enemies within the context I stated.

[protege]

Let's also not forget that the Japanese weren't innocent victims either. I know/met several veterans who have a deep-rooted hatred for the Japanese b/c of Bataan and other atrocities.

...and many of those same veterans tend to give the Germans a free pass. Never mind that Germany committed some of the *worst* atrocities of the 20th century, yet the mention of Nazis doesn't seem to generate the same hatred. Why is that?

[Hobbs]

...and many of those same veterans tend to give the Germans a free pass. Never mind that Germany committed some of the *worst* atrocities of the 20th century, yet the mention of Nazis doesn't seem to generate the same hatred. Why is that?

Maybe because they suffered first-hand from the Japanese. It's easy to hate your tormentor.

The veterans I've met hate both equally...which veterans are you referring to?

[jackfaire]

I doth believe Hobbs was referring to Japan the country and it's residents and military.

Ah. See the discussion had turned to internment camps we ran stateside and how the people we arrested in the middle of the night.

He replied with his comment and I inferred that meant he was saying it was okay that we interred people of Japanese descent because of the actions of people in Japan.

[AdminAssistant]

...and many of those same veterans tend to give the Germans a free pass. Never mind that Germany committed some of the *worst* atrocities of the 20th century, yet the mention of Nazis doesn't seem to generate the same hatred. Why is that?

And nobody says anything about Russia or Stalin, who could probably trump Hitler on the "mass-murdering fuckhead" list.

[Anthony K. S.]

I doth believe Hobbs was referring to Japan the country and it's residents and military.

If that's the case, then Hobbs's statement doesn't make any sense at all.

The discussion was about Japanese-Americans sent to internment camps during World War II. If Hobbs was only referring to residents and soldiers of Japan, then his comment is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Why would Hobbs even bring it up, if it wasn't to try to justify the internment of Japanese-Americans?


I think that many people fail to make the distinction between the Japanese and Japanese-Americans during World War II. One was the enemy. The other were our own citizens.

There was a letter to the editor in a local newspaper some years back, from a person who acknowledged that the internment of Japanese-Americans was unjust, but then went on to say, "If people think that was so bad, maybe they should try talking to American survivors of Japanese prison camps."

What he appeared to be saying, in effect, was "We treated them a lot better than they treated us."

Which conveniently ignored the fact that the Japanese-Americans interned during World War II were American citizens, and did not necessarily have any particular ties to Japan.

So, although he didn't realize it, what this man was actually saying was, "We treated our own people a lot better than the enemy treated our people."

. . . Which doesn't make for a very compelling argument, does it?

[Fryk]

Ok, this is fuzzy recollection, because I'm too lazy to do research right now. But I seem to recall that the Japanese internment camps came about because there were japanese people (the nationality, not japanese-americans) who were infiltrating Hawaii and trying to wage war by terrorism. I am NOT NOT NOT trying to excuse the camps, which were horrible, just providing a possible impetus.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Not an undue inference either. Although I would like to point out that WW2 is the most extreme example of war we have in modern history. It was total war, as in, ALL of the people in the allied nations vs ALL of the people in the axis nations. If you worked in an aircraft factory, or built tanks you were, like it or not, just as much a part of the war as the people flying the planes and driving the tanks. And when a conflict escalates to total war between two nations, where that is the primary factor delineating loyalty to a given side, people who can potentially be loyal to either side of the conflict is a very real threat overall to whichever nation those people were in.

It doesn't make much sense now, and it sure as hell wasn't 'right'. But that's what we were faced with.

[Anthony K. S.]

Shows what happens when people don't listen to context. I clearly stated, "Because of Bataan and other atrocities." What atrocities? say you?

I find it odd that you can find the faults in your own country, yet every other act of violation against human rights by our *enemies is overlooked.

You are still not making any sense.

Nobody here ever asked, "What atrocities?"

Nobody here ever claimed that the Japanese did not commit atrocities during World War II.

The reason nobody mentioned Bataan or other Japanese war crimes is because they aren't relevant to the issue of Japanese-Americans being interned during the war.

Those crimes were committed by the enemy, the Japanese.

Japanese-Americans were not the enemy. They were our own citizens, who were unjustly perceived as the enemy. There's a difference.

I would tell her boss that the country of his family's origin committed human rights abuses against prisoners of war. There is nothing wrong with pointing that out.

But why would you point it out?

In response to criticism of the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, you would note that the Japanese committed far more terrible crimes.

And they did, yes. No question.

But one has nothing to do with the other, unless you believe that it is somehow justified (or, at the very least, somehow "less wrong") to hold all persons of a particular origin responsible for crimes committed by any persons of that particular origin.

And if that's what you believe . . . I'm not even going to bother to refute it. I'm going to trust that any rational or fair-minded person will see for themselves how wrong it is.

[Hobbs]

Nobody here ever asked, "What atrocities?"

It's called soliloquy

"We treated our own people a lot better than the enemy treated our people."

. . . Which doesn't make for a very compelling argument, does it?

It doesn't? Does to me.


Fryk brings up an interesting point. It was known that Japanese collaborators had helped in the planning and staging of Pearl Harbor. That said, while it was wrong for the US to do so, at the time, the action wasn't particularly surprising. The news of attacks in the Phillipine Islands, Midway Is., Wake Is., China, Malaya and Guam. As Roosevelt put it, "Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area." Quite frankly, though the Japanese had missed our aircraft carriers, they had pretty much crippled our Pacific forces and could have pushed their way to Chicago before being stopped. It would be safe to assume, since they didn't know Japanese battle plans, that such collaborators could be on the western seaboard as well.

My point is that two wrongs don't make a right, but in that same train of thought...the fact that the US had internment camps does not lessen the fact that Japan committed war atrocities. I think it's also key to point out that the US government (under Reagan) apologized for the internment in 1988. When did Japan apologize for Bataan? Last year (in my city, actually). As for the editorial that you mentioned, many Japanese-Americans, though intered (or their families) chose to serve their own country. Also, only 62% were American citizens.

And if that's what you believe . . .

When did I say I believe this? Or speak words to this sort? What makes you think I hold all accountable for the sins of a few? Never. I have defended the Muslim faith against detractors. I have defended my own faith against Smiley...calling us all homophobes etc. I am offended you would even suggest such a thing to me.

[Red Panda]

Ok, this is fuzzy recollection, because I'm too lazy to do research right now. But I seem to recall that the Japanese internment camps came about because there were japanese people (the nationality, not japanese-americans) who were infiltrating Hawaii and trying to wage war by terrorism. I am NOT NOT NOT trying to excuse the camps, which were horrible, just providing a possible impetus.

There was a fear of Japanese spies on the west coast but never any evidence of the Japanese military taking part of any action on American soil other then Pearl Harbor.

[jackfaire]

When did I say I believe this? Or speak words to this sort?

It was implied when your response to a statement that it was wrong for us to intern American citizens because they were of Japanese descent was to state that in Japan there were people committing atrocities.

This implied that we were holding the ones in internment camps responsible for those actions.

[Anthony K. S.]

It doesn't? Does to me.

It does?

You mean, you don't expect a country to treat its own citizens and residents better than a country would treat enemy soldiers captured during wartime?

Um, okay.

Sounds like kind of a strange viewpoint to me, but everyone is entitled to one.


There are standards for treatment of prisoners-of-war, and Japan grossly violated them during World War II. No question.

But when that letter writer stated that Japanese treatment of prisoners-of-war was far worse than American treatment of Japanese-Americans, I personally felt he was comparing apples and oranges.

In my mind, treatment of prisoners-of-war is a completely different issue from treatment of a country's own citizens and residents. If you don't think so, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

It was implied when your response to a statement that it was wrong for us to intern American citizens because they were of Japanese descent was to state that in Japan there were people committing atrocities.

This implied that we were holding the ones in internment camps responsible for those actions.

Yes.

Hobbs, you keep going on and on about Bataan, and I keep coming back to this :

It made no logical sense for you to even mention Bataan or other Japanese war crimes unless you were citing them as justification for the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

Or, if not justification, then at least a mitigating factor.

And the only way you could do that would be to say that all persons of Japanese descent should be viewed as responsible for crimes committed by Japan.

[Hobbs]

No, I was citing them as showing that both the Japanese and Americans committed human rights abuses. You're taking my arguments and twisting them to fit your own. I'm done with y'all. Good day.