Are You Now or Have You Ever Been Japanese American?

In the spring of 1943, a year after locking Japanese Americans up on the theory that you couldn't tell the loyal from the disloyal, the government changed its mind and undertook to do just that -- sift the loyal from the disloyal.  In what would prove something of a dry run for the loyalty oaths of the so-called McCarthy Era, the government made all Japanese American adults fill out a four-page questionnaire and an attestation of loyalty.

How does a system like this actually work?  What's it like for the people who are put through it?

That's what the story in this episode of Scapegoat Cities is about.  It tells the story of Mary Manbo, a young woman pushed by the loyalty questionnaire to her breaking point. 

If you're curious to dig beneath the abstractions of constitutional doctrine and understand the lives of those it touches, you might enjoy Scapegoat Cities in general and this episode in particular.

 

Comments

[Mark]

So why aren't we tearing down the statues of Franklin Roosevelt?

[Eric Muller]

Umm, let's see. Social Security? Defeating Japan and Nazi Germany? The FDIC? Civilian Conservation Corps? The federal minimum wage?

[anon]

I see ... support of programs that you support excuses interning Japanese citizens of the US? It is refreshing to hear a political zealot admit that he can excuse almost anything, so long as that something was done by someone "on his side." Yet, so many today are willing to throw under the bus one of the most enlightened groups of governing bodies (the "founders"), despite their undeniable accomplishments for the betterment of their people, because of their (spotty) participation is the slave trade.

The moralistic haters of today really can't claim coherence as a virtue.

[Eric Muller]

I don't post here too often, so I don't often have occasion to say it, but it's my policy not to engage with anonymous commenters.

[anon]

That's a good policy, Eric. That way, you can marginalize ideas that call into question your assertions by reason of the inability to attack the identity of the person expressing those questions.

After all, if one can't personally attack (and perhaps seek to punish) those who disagree with one's opinionated and often extreme political views, what is the point of intellectual inquiry?

As to FDR, why not just admit that you either are willing to overlook the internment (that seems inconsistent, but there you are) or decry his participation in it? Why reply with such a snide and evasive answer?

[Mark]

What about Roosevelt's failure to support anti-lynching laws because he didn't want to lose support of Southern Democratic senators?

[anon]

Mark

This observation will hold true for many of the Democrats that today's crew of legal academics revere. Take a look at the roster of Democrats who opposed the civil rights legislation, and marvel at the fact that this crew will defend them because they weren't republicans!

Party regulars (and by this, I mean, in this context, zealots on the extreme end of one side of the political "spectrum") - many of whom post regularly on this site - refuse to see the hypocritical nature of their vehement, self righteous stances. They engage in virtue signaling with reckless abandon, comforting themselves that they are on the "right side" of the issues about which they choose to obsess.

When confronted with the fact that they seem to unquestionably support - either expressly or impliedly - actors who are as bad or worse than those they invariably excoriate, they retreat into the haughty retort that they are being attacked unfairly.

Case in point: why can't this author simply agree that FDR was terribly wrong with respect the internment he wants us never to forget? Why point to FDR's other good accomplishments as an evasion? This is sort of offensive, no?

Dogma and dogmatism are stubborn things.

Like not responding to ideas, because one can't attack the one asserting them personally.

[Eric Muller]

Of course you're right, Mark, that FDR did terrible things, as did (to varying degrees) probably every president ever. But I was responding to your opening question, which was why we are not tearing down statues of FDR like we are of, say Robert E. Lee. I was saying that I think the reason is that we remember and honor FDR for the vast number of positive contributions he made to the country. For what do we remember Lee other than being the military leader of an armed insurrection one of whose central purposes was to protect the institution of slavery?

If we wanted to continue to honor only those historical figures who did nothing but good in their lives, we would honor nobody.

If it were up to me, I would favor adding a line to every sizable memorial honoring FDR that notes that he authorized the unjust incarceration without charges of 120,000 people on account of their ancestry. I'm sure there are others who would wish to add mention of some other moral failure.

But tear the memorials down? That seems quite unwarranted.

[anon]

Calls for tearing down monuments are not limited to Robert E. Lee.

See, e.g., thefederalist

.com

/2017/08/17/heres-list-monuments-liberals-want-tear-far/

Listing, among others, calls to tear down the Jefferson Memorial (Al Sharpton, on PBS), Mount Rushmore, all the memorials to "confederates" in the US Capitol, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, these are the "liberals" guardians of our democracy, proving how much better they are than every body else.

[anon]

I'm not sure if FDR is mentioned in the blog referenced above. I did see references to "a general" and the Congress.

To be clear, I have no objection to exploring this horrific atrocity. Concentration camps based on race were wrong in every sense of the word, especially while we were fighting the Nazis in Europe!

But, let's put the responsibility where it belongs. FDR did this; Truman is the only person in history to use nuclear weapons (again, on the Japanese); JFK and Johnson caused the tragedy in Vietnam far more than Nixon did (as PBS is brilliantly showing). Let's ask which Democratic senators voted for the Iraq War, shall we?

The partisans on this site are so biased and it sometimes shows and it is infuriating.

[Deep State Special Legal Counsel]

We repeated history. Just like 1943, we panicked immediately after 9/11. Warrantless library searches, Muslim round ups, and John Ashcroft seeking "authority" to listen in on attorney-client conversations. Because we are a democracy, at least we can bounce back and change course...