Article: Internment of Japanese-Americans

[overkill9]

In other words, no you can't find an example of someone of Japanese extraction charged with Treason.

I can't believe you just resorted to word games with me when I clearly answered the core of your questioning. Bring better arguments next time. Even people thoroughly engaged in the other side of the debate can see you just weaseled your way out after making assumptions and challenging me on faulty ground.

Edit:

Don't change your quotation to cut out the last part in an attempt to weasel out and put things in wrong context. Such obvious manipulation of statements is a really low, even compared to others who at least stick by what they initially said.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I can't believe you just resorted to word games with me when I clearly answered the core of your questioning.

My question was if you can point to a single person of Japanese extraction had been charged with Treason prior to 1945. I don't need to go and edit my post, because that's what was asked, and that is the central point of contention. You wished to debate the matter in terms of facts, so again, without getting angry about it, can you point to a single instance of a person of a person of Japanese Extraction being charged with treason? I'm not even asking for a conviction. Surely such a "treasonous people" would have produced a single case of treason.

 

[overkill9]

My question was if you can point to a single person of Japanese extraction had been charged with Treason prior to 1945. I don't need to go and edit my post, because that's what was asked, and that is the central point of contention. You wished to debate the matter in terms of facts, so again, without getting angry about it, can you point to a single instance of a person of a person of Japanese Extraction being charged with treason? I'm not even asking for a conviction. Surely such a "treasonous people" would have produced a single case of treason.

Really now, did you even read the case? The wife of the guy who helped try to kill his neighbor with the downed pilot was put in jail while playing "I felt sorry for the guy I am just an innocent housewife" line while telling a different story in japanese - such insipid two-faced attitude. Obviously the dead man was dead, and was not charged, but even the softest of judges would not waste time convicting such traitor. Do you seriously intend to say charges filed by the US court, whose veracity you protest against screaming 'it's all racist and therefore a kangaroo court', is something you now would use as a leverage to try to support your argument, while you deny its very validity? How low can you get? Do you have any idea how insipid you sound right now asking the same question that was already answered in its core idea, while you try to play word games hinging on whether a court whose very veracity you deny have or have not charged a women and dead man whose actions were clearly treasonous? What else do you call helping a pilot who just participated in an attack on the very islands you live in, by assisting in taking your neighbor your hostage and than comitting suicide to avoid being tried so you can sit here and try to say because no one was formally charged, while of course your core intention is not about facts but using them in sophistry to twist it as if it makes a slightest difference in the treasonous actions clearly taken by these people?
You are really not moving yourself forward or your arguments. I also find it interesting you are hanging on charges filed by the very court you are arguing against to base your arguments on. NOW you point to US courts for justification for your arguments?

Your point is pointless and moot, as I have answered. Do you have any other proper arguments, or are you going to resort to word game to ask same questions whose core contention was refuted?

Quality of opposition is going down the hill and it's not pretty.

Edit:

Please don't repeat your disgrace moaning about 'facts' when you clearly ignored the facts of actions of these people and is now hoping legalistic excuses and procedures which is only as good as the judge on the podium, not to mention the very system you deny, can be used as an excuse to justify something you are hiding behind excuses of legalism. It's called muddling the issue with trying to confuse the argument with obvious conclusion that actually has nothing at all to do with the real 'core contention', and when it is not fully proven in a case involving people who specifically manipulate the legal and civil system and sentiments in the same vein as you are doing making this pointless word game, they try to claim it refutes the core assertion of the opposition. Anyone can see exactly what you are doing.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Really now, did you even read the case? The wife of the guy who helped try to kill his neighbor with the downed pilot was put in jail while playing "I felt sorry for the guy I am just an innocent housewife" line while telling a different story in japanese - such insipid two-faced attitude. Obviously the dead man was dead, and was not charged, but even the softest of judges would not waste time convicting such traitor. Do you seriously intend to say charges filed by the US court, whose veracity you protest against screaming 'it's all racist and therefore a kangaroo court', is something you now would use as a leverage to try to support your argument, while you deny its very validity?

You have asked for a debate based on facts, and now I ask you to demonstrate the factual basis on which you claim I have screamed this?

Second, considering that Treason is a legal matter, shouldn't our response to it be based on an understanding of the law?

 

[Tee Kay]

taillesskangaru: I think you need to revisit my first post, ending specifically with saying exactly opposite of complete and utter generalization you think I am making. Some of them are truly patriotic and loyal, and certainly deserves to be called americans.

So you're not ignorant; you just choose to be a bigot. Okay.

Considering you struggled to find examples of even a few treasonous Japanese Americans, and there are tens of thousands of examples of very loyal Japanese Americans, I think the facts are clearly settled in favour of a general attitude of loyalty.

If you already made up your mind about a singular argument way above all else, than it is no longer a proper academic paper but personal and subjective rant that only cherry picks its 'evidence'.

Do you have any other proper arguments, or are you going to resort to word game to ask same questions whose core contention was refuted?

Oh the hypocrisy.

 

[overkill9]

You have asked for a debate based on facts, and now I ask you to demonstrate the factual basis on which you claim I have screamed this?

Second, considering that Treason is a legal matter, shouldn't our response to it be based on an understanding of the law?

Wrong. Treason is not only a legal matter - like any crime, it is a social, and cultural aspect upon which an individual has decided to turn his back on the group to which he supposedly swore loyalty to, in other words, lies and false decisions and a loss of social integrity. Like any society, legal matter is an expression of fundamental and societal issues, and acts as a tool of any nation, one of many forms of reference to follow.

You sound really insipid right now trying make excuses while you clearly just being mouthy and using cheap tricks to cover your lack of argument. You mean the law and institution which up to this point you have challenged the very veracity of? Or do you think you are being clever trying to purposefully route the conversation to portray the slight flaws and inherent limit of mechanics of any legal systems as a portrayal of failure of the said system as a whole, while being obviously ignorant about the true nature of legal part of the system, not to mention burning yourself basing the foundation of your question on the very legal system which by its nature represents only the small fraction of the system as a whole? Now you are being just as insipid and mouthy as the wife of the said traitor, purposefully concentrating on one thing asking why why why in hopes that obvious contradiction of your basis for argument is overlooked and forgotten. Bring a new argument.

As I said, the core intention of your questioning has been answered, and I have given numerous answers to why your pathetic attempts at legalistic excuses is nothing more than an exercise in sophistry, with your cheap attempt at routing the argument to your supposed advantage without understanding that your lack of knowledge of the system as a whole and legal system's partial role in it has rendered your little trick of trying to 'expose' a fault in the legal system an actual liability to your own position Not to mention the glaring obvious flaw of insisting upon legal excuses for an event from a legal system you denounced in the first place, then pathetically tried to falsely portray it role in a misdirection, with your flawed belief that lack of formal anything can be used in a cheap trick to paint the whole event in a negative light, which is obviously sophistry without substance - anyone else can see it. It is always nice to see an amateur deluding itself with thinking they are being clever.

By the way, I am sure the president whom your screen name follows after would have happily listen to your mouthy attitude while breaking your leg at the basement of KCIA. Maybe you should consider trying to justify legalism to his legacy, your insipid attitude (really no other way to describe your pitiful flight to a country that allows you to try and be cheap and mouthy like this, a sad excuse for a korean) makes you sound perfect to be one of his yes men cronies.

Do yourself a favor and find some backbone and dignity. You don't have the former and you lost much of latter while you embarrassed yourself in this conversation.

Edit: taillesskangaru, I have listed the reason for why one needs to double check on your so-called 'loyal' japanese americans. I suggest you don't ensnare yourself in other's cheap arguments that use faulty knowledge of legalism, or try to tell me official and formal findings represent the group - you know the issue goes deeper than that. Neither you nor anyone here has refuted the central assertion of my argument, and I find it interesting everyone keeps avoiding answering them in favor of cheap tricks like the one illustrated above you.

Moderator Action: Infracted for flaming. There are too many posts like this one in this thread. Please keep the discussion civil and try to avoid insulting each other.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[ParkCungHee]

I'm sorry, but considering that we know longer need to actually use the definition of treason to call something treason, I'm going to have to insist that you no longer proceed on this treasonous line of argument.

 

[Tee Kay]

Neither you nor anyone here has refuted the central assertion of my argument

What exactly is the central assertion of your argument?

As far as I can gather, it seems to be: "the Japanese segregated themselves from American society" - which is false, but I'll play along - "and a few Japanese gave some assistance to a pilot who crash landed on an island, therefore as a group everyone of Japanese-descent deserved to be condemned as a traitorous subhuman race, and anyone who disagree with me is delusional." This line of thinking makes as much sense as "many Koreans collaborated with the Japanese colonial government, which proves that Koreans have no national identity" or "the Jews segregated themselves from the rest of German society, so you can't blame the Germans for putting them in concentration camps" It's pure bigotry and victim-blaming mixed with historical distortion and blatant lies.

If you've stopped at "some Japanese-Americans were disloyal to the United States and this contributed to the mistrust", I would have agreed; I'd still argue that the Internment was wrong, that racism and prejudice played as much, if not more, of a part in the decision that led to Internment, but I would have been able to accept yours as a valid argument. Instead, you falsify history, and, when challenged, simply repeat what you said before and resort to insults instead of addressing the issues and the counter-evidence.

 

[overkill9]

I'm sorry, but considering that we know longer need to actually use the definition of treason to call something treason, I'm going to have to insist that you no longer proceed on this treasonous line of argument.

I insist you get some debate experience before resorting to word games. You haven't answered why you would hang on to the very institution you seek to oppose and avoided all my arguments in favor of what is so far the weakest opposition argument in this matter. I am going to have to insist you learn the more significant definition of things before trying to hide behind the legality which you deny yourself. You have demonstrated yourself to be nothing more than convenient hypocrite, and even people on the other side isn't finding your flimsy and weak disposition to be anything other than a meaningless cheap words.

taillesskangaru:

Your answer is primary example of how you only listen to things which is then twisted in your head for satisfying your own arugment. Where did I one-sidedly say japanese are subhumans? You are putting words in other people's statements. The core of my argument has been stated to death, yet you insist you don't see it - which means either you are ignoring it, or twisting it in your head to convince yourself it sounds different than how I stated it.

I will state it as plainly as possible: Japanese actions from the war to present have been nothing more than us. vs. them attitude that always relied on exclusivity, separation of identity, and loyalty ultimately to itself at the expense of all others, far in excess of any other groups. That is what makes this unique - although many persisted in being somewhat alien to this place, they eventually adopted and swore primary loyalty instead of whatever other nations they came from. Where were german or italians who insisted on being as exclusive and separate as japanese, or demanding they are to be owed an apology after the war? It's never us vs. them in the truest sense. Meanwhile, japanese persists on their line that they are some kind of special victims, whose treatments they largely brought upon themselves instead of working to destroy their own ignorance and bias first, and upon which US would be obliged to return the gesture. They were not forcefully brought here, they made their choice without realizing just how much they need to reform themselves before being accepted into another society, which does not count them any more special than others. If their barrier stemming from significantly different appearance is a hinderance, they should have taken that into account before moving here, fully prepared to make the same sacrifices that germans, irish, jews, russians, and other people who was wildly different at the time but was gradually accepted into the american society, not as distinct group on their own but as part of a greater whole that while knowing the difference that different national groups have, considers them as something to be assimilated and made gradual part of society instead of sticking to itself and considering itself any more special than others, while understanding that loyalty in its core supercedes the superficial difference in background. If you cannot accept this definition, than there is no country on earth that will accept you besides the 'homeland' you love so much, which may or may not even want a loud mouthed and what they consider 'tainted' and 'disloyal' because your parents ran to another country. You should try to get back instead of sitting here and reaping the rewards of a society you neither belong to nor accept. It is this inability and refusal to lower themselves from their delusional high horse and know that their superficial difference should not hold any loyalty aside than merely acknowledging the past, while putting loyalty to the country they supposedly serve is the only loyalty one should possess if one calls itself a citizen of a nation.

Please tell me if any nation can fully accept such two-faced, selfish and ignorant people who want their cake without paying or wanting to join in the family celebration when they are nothing but outsiders rejecting that very same family. Such child like hypocrisy deserves punishment and response.

 

[Lord Baal]

Can we just ban this dick already?

 

[Tee Kay]

I will state it as plainly as possible: Japanese actions from the war to present have been nothing more than us. vs. them attitude that always relied on exclusivity, separation of identity, and loyalty ultimately to itself at the expense of all others, far in excess of any other groups.

Prove it.

Where were german or italians who insisted on being as exclusive and separate as japanese, or demanding they are to be owed an apology after the war?

Germans and Italians weren't denied naturalisation. They weren't subjected to segregation laws. They weren't uprooted from their homes and interned and refused compensation for lost wages and property.

They were not forcefully brought here, they made their choice without realizing just how much they need to reform themselves before being accepted into another society, which does not count them any more special than others.

Japanese-Americans were actively discriminated against. Many did not speak a word of Japanese and lived and worked as White Americans and yet they were still discriminated against because of their race. They were not treated like others in their society. The Japanese immigrants did not consider themselves "special"; the local White Americans did. You are confusing enforced segregation and voluntary segregation.

If their barrier stemming from significantly different appearance is a hinderance, they should have taken that into account before moving here

Maybe they should have. It's still wrong.

 

[overkill9]

Prove it.



Germans and Italians weren't denied naturalisation. They weren't subjected to segregation laws. They weren't uprooted from their homes and interned and refused compensation for lost wages and property.




Japanese-Americans were actively discriminated against. Many did not speak a word of Japanese and lived and worked as White Americans and yet they were still discriminated against because of their race. They were not treated like others in their society. The Japanese immigrants did not consider themselves "special"; the local White Americans did. You are confusing enforced segregation and voluntary segregation.



Maybe they should have. It's still wrong.

Ever heard of japan town? No? I guess you need to do more research. When was the last time you heard officially recognized 'german town' or that relied 99% on germans only? Not to mention, as I have said before, they relied heavily on creating their own little communities across agricultures in the state of california that is run by japanese, all the while shunning blacks and hispanics because of racism and bigotry. I suggest you be more proactive and prove your own criticisms wrong, or at least try to get some first hand experience; otherwise your screaming prove it sounds like "I can't deny any of what you say but if I am not spoon fed them I don't have the willingness to even look at the other side of the argument". That is a definite bias to which you just pretty much admitted.

Also, irish were discriminated even more heavily earlier on, at the beginning denied heavily, also faced official and unofficial segregation and they are getting along just fine. Crazy mick, etc. Only the need for persecution fantasies and reason to complain does one specific nationality generate so much squealing and moaning, reliant upon the facts of different skin and face features which is not a problem specific to them alone. The way they think they hold some kind of special entitlement to re compensation is abetted by someone like you whose incomplete knowledge and eagerness to place the entire blame of racism upon one specific group, rather than try to acknowledge racism exists on both sides of the issue. I want you to answer me who really is being racist, with your one-sided opinions.

Their race played a factor in slightly increased opposition, but none more than other significantly different than other marginalized nationalities, irish among them most recognized. The fact is, japanese reaction in terms of refusing to define themselves away from us. vs. them played a self-fulfilling prophecy which played a far more significant role. Case in point: Fillipinos or Vietnamese do not necessarily have the same problems to the degree japanese do, and their major influx has been only in the last 30 years. This quashes your argument and proves my point.

Of course, people as naturally biased towards proving the 'guilt' of one group in terms of racism turn a blind eye or hush hardships of others. The difficulties provided by the significant difference in physical appearance pales in the face of japanese's own bias, racism, xenophobia, and ignorance, which you seem oblivious to or too busy denying them because you are too biased to acknowledge the truth. The lion's share of burden of assimilation is on the japanese who came here voluntarily, and the internment is the natural reaction to those who are so exclusive and haven't managed to cast away their past loyalties, no matter how much they try to hide behind it not being overt and not giving 'legal' causes, using such pathetically underhanded attitude to advance their own interest.

Do more research before challenging someone to prove their point, it only sets you up to be taken down by more knowledgeable people. Your arguments stinks of bias, need to prove one group guilty of all the ills while portraying the other side as innocent immaculate victims free of any significant guilt. Truly, to paraphrase Churchill: In the future, racists will call themselves anti-racists.

As I have stated before, no I am not a native-born american and not even of european ancestry. Good luck figuring out how preach such trite and overused ideas of 'racism only by one side' when your talk clearly indicates you are one of their kind. As someone who does not have personal stake in either side, I find your eagerness to talk trash about dominant ethnicity as nothing more than an exercise in self-comfort and self-justification suitable for 10 something that just stepped out of biased history class.

You haven't learned a thing or answered my assertions about the overall attitude prevalent in japanese back then, only screeching 'prove it' as if someone will be idiotic enough to let such damaging evidence against them be documented. Racism and xenophobia of the japanese is well known, and those in america is no exception.

Also, I had a good laugh at your, to use the right word, ignorant and naive statement that many japanese do not consider themselves special. Please, get some more first-hand experience, then talk.

 

[Tee Kay]

When was the last time you heard officially recognized 'german town'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Germany,_Manhattan

Not to mention, as I have said before, they relied heavily on creating their own little communities across agricultures in the state of california that is run by japanese, all the while shunning blacks and hispanics because of racism and bigotry.

Two wrongs doesn't make a right.

And weren't you just claiming that Japanese didn't integrate? Integration in early 20th century America meant adopting general population attitudes towards blacks and hispanics, ie racism. You see this not only among Japanese immigrants but also Polish, Russia, German, and Italian immigrants, even Syrians and Palestinians.

at least try to get some first hand experience

I personally know quite a few Japanese people and they are no different from any other people.

Fillipinos or Vietnamese do not necessarily have the same problems to the degree japanese do, and their major influx has been only in the last 30 years.

Indeed; thankfully in the last 30-40 years we as a global community have matured and as a consequences we have fewer bigots of your type and became more tolerant of diversity and different cultures and races, and so immigrants of all stripes faced less discrimination than before. We as a global community have stopped judging people by their race or, oh, damn entire nationalities as traitorous or two-faced.

Your arguments stinks of bias, need to prove one group guilty of all the ills while portraying the other side as innocent immaculate victims free of any significant guilt.

Back at you.

==================

So, at the end of the day, we have the opposing arguments:

overkill9, who claims, to quote: "Japanese actions from the war to present have been nothing more than us. vs. them attitude that always relied on exclusivity, separation of identity, and loyalty ultimately to itself at the expense of all others, far in excess of any other groups." Therefore, internment was completely natural and justified, since the Japanese as a group are a two-faced, traitorous, xenophobic race. To support this claim, overkill cites the Niihau Incident, during which a few Japanese on the island gave assistance to a downed Japanese pilot after Pearl Harbor. When prodded for further evidence, he would only say that the evidence are "well known".

The other side, consisting of everyone else in this thread, criticises the lack of evidence, the off-hand treatment of American racism against the Japanese, the fact that tens of thousands of Japanese Americans lived among other Americans and integrated despite the racism and fought for the United States during the war, and the treatment of all people of Japanese-descent as a monolithic group with the same "treasonous" attitude and psychology, and the dubious morality and legality of collective punishment.

I report, you decide. TK signing out.

 

[Plotinus]

Moderator Action: This thread is going nowhere constructive. Closed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889