I found this story in my morning read and had to share...
In a split decision, the Supreme Court recently ruled that people labeled as “enemy combatants” confined at the military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, must be given limited access to federal courts. Before I talk about the ethical issues involved, it’s helpful to review another major detention situation.
In 1941, a surprise attack by the Japanese government at Pearl Harbor brought our country into war and engulfed the nation in fear and hatred. In response, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, asserting special war powers, issued an Executive Order requiring all persons of Japanese ancestry living on the Pacific Coast of the United States to be forcibly confined in hastily constructed “War Relocation Camps.”
Ultimately, about 110,000 men, women, and children of all backgrounds were indiscriminately imprisoned in facilities that often lacked plumbing and heating. The Order applied to all residents who were at least 1/16th Japanese. Detainees were confined without the benefit of any process to determine whether they were actually a threat to national security.
Three years later, though the war was still raging, a Supreme Court ruling induced the President to release all the detainees. They were each given $25 and a train ticket home.
In 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed legislation that apologized for the internment, stating that the action was based on “race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.” Surviving detainees were awarded $1.2 billion dollars in reparations. In 1992, President George H. W. Bush issued another formal apology from the U.S. government and added $400 million in reparations.
There are parallels to that Executive Order and our reaction after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Looking back, who was right – President Roosevelt or Presidents Reagan and Bush?
Is there anything we can learn from this chapter of our history?
Two points that were not mentioned:
One, the Japanese-Americans were forced to sell or abandon their property. They were literally stripped of everything, including their Constitutional rights. When they were released and allowed to return home, most had nothing to go back to.
Two, Executive Order 1066 was literally state-mandated racism. It was no better than the German persecution of the Jews. Interestingly enough, the Jewish community did not speak out against this action.
Was FDR correct? Only if you consider the taking of property for political and economic reasons to be correct. There had already been much animosity against the Japanese-American community for the inroads they had made into the agricultural industry. Many people were actually upset that the Japanese-Americans were able to turn the desert land of the camps into flourishing gardens. FDR caved in to the demands of corrupt politicians and businessmen by taking advantage of the wartime hysteria. Why were no German or Italian-American citizens rounded up into camps? And don’t tell me it was because Japan was the only country to attack American soil. Don’t forget there were German U-boats off the Northeast coastline.
Is there anything we can learn from this? Yes, but sadly, we most likely will not. The issue of reparations split the Japanese-American community. Some said the only way America would recognize its fault was to have it cost them money. Others said it was dishonorable to accept payment. Still others wished to just forget the incident that scarred their lives. I thought the reparation money should have been directed into required teaching of this event in all American schools so it would never be repeated. So here we are, 20 years later, and we apparently have learned nothing. We scream that China should not host the Olympics because of their treatment of Tibetans, but in the next breath support the immoral imprisonment and racist treatment of Muslims in America. We are the greatest nation on Earth; it’s time we started acting like it instead of some two-bit dictatorship. But, as with WWII, the leaders who so desperately need to come forward are conspicuous by their absence.
The government establishing the former campsites as historical landmarks is a welcome step toward educating the public. However, as they were purposely located in remote areas, they do not get many visitors. And can you guess who actually visits? You got it…Japanese-Americans! Kind of like preaching to the choir.