Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Creepy; drive by the site of a Japanese internment camp every day.

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by vart, Oct 11, 2012.

  1. mixflip


    Mar 4, 2009
    Its sad that Japanese Americans were put in camps but German Americans were not.
  2. Ruggles


    Jun 13, 2005
    The ones wearing lederhosen were, and rightfully so IMO.

  3. napp32


    Dec 19, 2009
    Wow, I was alive when that happened; but I had no idea about the Japanese Internet Camps. No wonder they are so far ahead of the rest of the world in technology fields. :upeyes:
  4. devildog2067


    Apr 20, 2005
    Your version isn't what happened either.

    Entirely untrue. Over 60% of those interned were American citizens.

    No one was interned for "renouncing their US citizenship." There were not 5,600 people who renounced their US citizenship when American went to war with Japan. There were 5,600 American citizens who renounced their citizenship on July 1, 1944, after FDR signed a law making it possible to do so.

    Of the ~5600 who did so, 96% were from a single camp (Tule Lake) and they had been detained there for over two years.

    No one renounced their citizenship on the day after the Japanese bombed Pearl. A bunch of Americans renounced their citizenship after their country had locked them up without cause for two years. When those people were rounded up, they were still citizens.

    There is a nugget of truth there. And it is indeed wrong to say that "all" Japanese Americans were relocated, it was primarily those on the West coast.

    In other words: "Leave your home and all your belongings with an hours' notice; if you don't have family on the East Coast or in the Midwest you must go to the camps."

    Painting that as a choice is ludicrous.

    And go... where?

    Oh, that's right, nearly 4000 of them went right into the Army to go fight Nazis in Europe.

    But there weren't very many other places for them to go.
  5. Dragoon44

    Dragoon44 Unfair Facist Lifetime Member

    Apr 30, 2005
    Interred or relocated? as I stated the internment camps were not for the purpose of interring American citizens just because they were Japanese ancestry.

    Did Japanese Americans end up interred? yes, those that would not take the loyalty oath were.

    They certainly did not decide July 31, 1944 they wanted to renounce their citizenship. getting the legal means to renounce their citizenship during war time was along process. A process that would never have begun if the desire to do so was not there in the first place.

    And why were those Japanese Americans detained at Tula? was it because they refused to take the loyalty oath?
    (Not saying requiring they take a loyalty oath was right but that is the what was required.

    Some others ended up detained because they did not leave the exclusionary zones and were forcibly removed.

    They did not have to have family. they were free to relocate on their own. As I have maintained throughout this thread I still believe that was wrong. But the fact remains the SCOTUS upheld the Relocation order as Constitutional. It is pretty Unlikely that the SCOTUS would do so today.

    The ability to relocate was entirely dependent on the individual(S) means to be able to do so. For those without the means it certainly limited their options to virtually no choice.

    But the choice remained even if the means did not. The real point was it was not the same as being rounded up and forced into "Prison camps". Which is what I was responding to.

    And that is the rub isn't it? for those without the means the relocation camps were the only real choice.
  6. pipedreams

    pipedreams Member

    Feb 19, 2011
    S. E. Iowa

    Apparently you haven't read the complete thread.

    "A total of 11,507 Germans and German-Americans were interned during the war, accounting for 36% of the total internments under the Justice Department's Enemy Alien Control Program, but far less than the 110,000 Japanese-Americans interned. Such internments began with the detention of 1,260 Germans shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Of the 254 persons evicted from coastal areas, the majority were German. In addition, over 4,500 ethnic Germans were brought to the U.S. from Latin America and similarly detained."
  7. Paul7


    Dec 16, 2004
    East of Eden
    This needs to be seen in context of Pearl Harbor.
  8. Lt Scott 14

    Lt Scott 14

    Mar 14, 2006
    N.W. Indiana
    Never saw any pictures of piano wires hanging from hooks, ala SS Nazis in Japanese Inter Camps. Don't believe they were brutally tortured, starved or medically tested to prolong an agoning prison life. The construction was fast/shoddy at best.

    They had a hard time, no doubt being relocated. Would lynch mobs killing them while they slept, or burning down their houses/business's solve anything?
    The US didn't need any more spying, or murder to deal with here.

    The Pearl Harbor attacks, loss in the Phillipines, Pacific Islands all showed brutal war tactics used by the Japanese. Don't forget their war in China, not pretty.
    Overall they survived, ask the Jews about their camps. Makes me sick to see how man can treat other men.
  9. raven11


    Jan 27, 2009
    Just because the Jews died under the Nazis regime does not make what what the United States Goverment did to American citzens acceptable

    None of which was done by Japanese Americans, that is basically saying that all the German Americans reguardless of when they immgrated here were responsible for all of the crimes of the Nazis

    Your argument is because one country committed war crimes the entire race is guilty - and that is not racist in any way how...
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2012
  10. FLIPPER 348

    FLIPPER 348 Happy Member

    Oct 7, 2000
    Bend Oregon
  11. devildog2067


    Apr 20, 2005
    The irony of this series of statements is too rich to believe.

    The loyal Japanese-descended American citizens who were locked up, their property lost, their liberty stolen--was it "acceptable" to them?

    Would it be "acceptable" to you?
  12. devildog2067


    Apr 20, 2005
    You cannot have it both ways. You say that "relocation" camps were were for American citizens and internment camps for non-citizens.

    Yet 95%+ of those who renounced their US citizenship came from one camp.

    They were locked up there for 2+ years before they became non-US citizens.

    So was it an internment camp or a relocation camp before they renounced their citizenship?
  13. Detectorist


    Jul 16, 2008
    Internment camp and relocation camps were the same, period. The terms were and are used interchangeably.

    It's never acceptable to lock up a bunch of citizens and non citizens due to nothing other than mass hysteria and racism.

    I love it when folks come on here crying 'it's unconstitutional' regarding gun rights but think that relocating a bunch of folks due to their slanted eyes is acceptable.

    Also forced to relocate were Japanese Americans with something like 1/16 Japanese blood.

    As I mentioned before, we had a lot more problems with the Italian shipbuilders on the East coast than with Japanese Americans.
  14. Dragoon44

    Dragoon44 Unfair Facist Lifetime Member

    Apr 30, 2005
    Does not change the fact that some were internment camps and others were relocation camps. And the internment camps pre dated the relocation camps.

    The internment camps were opened first to house resident enemy aliens not american citizens. As I stated, later Japanese Americans DID get placed in internment camps for various reasons.

    Yes and here is why,

    It appears that the nature of the Tule camp changed in 1943.
  15. Dragoon44

    Dragoon44 Unfair Facist Lifetime Member

    Apr 30, 2005
    No they were not the same, one you were interred and not free to leave in the other you could leave and relocate elsewhere if you chose to and IIRC some 30% of Japanese Americans who initially went to relocation camps left and resettled elsewhere before the end of the war.

    I would agree with the Citizens not being locked up. I would not agree about the non citizens. detention of enemy Aliens has been a part of international law for a long, long, time.
  16. tsmo1066

    tsmo1066 Happy Smiley

    Aug 31, 2004
    Houston, TX
    And I can't say I blame them one bit.

    How many people on GT can honestly say they would do otherwise? Many folks here on GT proudly proclaim that if the government ever came to take away their guns, it would be "go time" and they would go to war against the government to defend their 2nd amendment rights, but those same posters can't understand why many American citizens of Japanese ancestry chose to renounce their citizenship after having themselves, their spouses and their children hauled off to camps and locked up for years without having ever having commited a crime???
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2012
  17. Averageman


    Oct 22, 2011
    You might want to research that a bit Allied Servicemen were regularly starved, beaten and subjected to medical experiments.
    Some of the recon for the attack on Pearl Harbor was conducted by Japanese Civilians.
    We negotiated right up until hours before they attacked Pearl Harbor.
    In the context of the times, they did the right thing.
    The Germans faced trials at Nurenberg, most of the Japanese that tortured and submitted our GI's to medical "Testing" walked.,_1930–1945
    Pretty much that should show you how much we feared Japan invading our west coast.
    In the context of the times they handled it the best way they could.

    That guy would have loved to be swinging that sword in on the beaches of California.
  18. devildog2067


    Apr 20, 2005
    That guy is not an American citizen.
  19. NOLA_glock

    NOLA_glock Shrug Life

    Jun 5, 2008
    Now in DFW!
    I still don't get how that relates to the AMERICANS who were put into camps. Those links seem to all be about Japanese spies. Or is it some kind of logical next step to turn your suspicion from your enemy to your own citizens who may look like him, or have similar names? I don't buy that it was the best we could do.
  20. devildog2067


    Apr 20, 2005
    Denying American citizens of the rights they are guaranteed under the Constitution is not and can never be the "right" thing.

    You can argue necessary, you can argue justified, but you cannot argue "right."