Talk:Japanese American Internment/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Further discussion

Removed text:

Surviving photographs of the camps which depict such facilities are probably from Tule Lake.

Sorry, but photos showing the guard stations at Manzanar clearly show the Sierra Nevada in the background. --mav

Removed text:

However, Congressional testimony given in 1984 by Colonel Karl Bendetson, who managed the evacuation, paints a very different picture of the other camps. He states that the "assembly centers" (where people were held before dispersion to camps) were in fact guarded "to protect the evacuees", but of the "relocation centers" he says "there was not a guard at all at any of them", with the exception of Tule Lake.

This is absurd. In 1942 guards killed two internees at Manzanar. They must have had great gun sights to see the internees from Modoc County 500 or so miles to the north. I've also visited Manzanar twice and have seen both the guard station on the outside perimeter and the internal perimeter police staion. This link also has photos of sentry posts and watch towers in relocation centers outside of Tule Lake. We needn't include such bad disinformation. --mav

Well, Bendetsen (typed his name wrong above) testified as stated, but I can't exclude the possibility he was wrong. However, there were riots and the like in the camps which caused forces to be temporarily brought in. In fact, he says,

When I returned on temporary duty, to my amazement, I learned that in every one of the ten centers there were grave problems. It seems that during the intervening months in each of the ten centers many militant activists had surfaced. Agitation was rife. There were fires; there were pitched battles. WRA had to provide heavy guard forces. All was in turmoil.

I believe the places with the big pro-Japan riots were Poston, Manzanar, and Tule Lake (before it was turned into an internment camp). Although I don't know about the incident you mention, certainly if guards killed two residents, it was probably in the context of something similar to a riot.

Since we're trading links, there is a discussion of Manzanar here, which portrays it in a more positive light. I don't know about the guard stations (though there were of course police); perhaps some were built for temporary use or used by the police. I'll have to recheck sources for more details. -- VV 05:35, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The killings were in the context of a riot, yes. Your link is interesting; according to the POV of the author, Japanese Americans should be grateful that they were interned. I think you are reading confused sources; security was in fact high from the start of internment (otherwise what is the point?) to the end of 1943. After that point security became lax as the outcome of the war became more and more obvious.

In Manzanar, for example, security was lessoned greatly and selected internees were even allowed to fish in the Sierra Nevada unsupervised for the last year and a half of the war. But let's not pretend that conditions were always so lax. Oh and the guard quarters and guard station were one of the few permanent (well-built) structures at Manzanar - the guard station is still there and so is the cement/stone foundation of the guard quarters (the rest of the building was sold in the late 1940s). --mav

What is the point? I think you've missed it. The point is that there was an exclusion zone Japanese were excluded from. People not in the zone were unaffected. The camps were free housing for people who were required to leave but had nowhere to go. Any Japanese, including in the camps, were free to go to Vermont or Texas or wherever, just not in the exclusion zone.

How are my sources confused? Bendetsen was the guy who ran the operation. Maybe he understated the matter, and security was high at certain times and places. But the basic fact is that people were free to go to most of the country, and so the camps were not prisons.

"... should be grateful that they were interned." This statement is almost too ridiculous to reply to. All the writer was saying there is that a spontaneous community grew and thrived there, that the Japanese had plenty of opportunities, and that the camp was not Buchenwald on American soil, as many propagandists would like us to think. -- VV 11:19, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Forcing people, most of whom were American citizens by birth, to abandon their homes, jobs and businesses is perfectly fine then. Thanks for clarifying. And the guy that ran the operation is probably the most POV person you could choose as a source; it is in his best interests to paint the most rosy picture possible of the internment. --mav

It seems to me like you've abandoned intellectual honesty. No one said it was "perfectly fine", as you must know. Killing tens of millions is not perfectly fine either, but many believe the War to defeat the Axis was justified anyhow. Bendetsen may have been biased, but your previous accusation was that he was "confused". And I think he is much less POV than those slated to receive $20,000. -- VV 23:26, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes - the people who received the mistreatment will tend to have more emotional harm and therefore a stronger POV than the people responsible for causing that harm. If the US government had been intellectually honest in the 1940s then it would have created a German exclusion zone on the east coast and would have evacuated Hawaii of all Japanese. There were known cases of German spies on the east coast and known cases of Japanese spies on Hawaii (at least before the attack on Pearl), but ethnic cleansing can only go so far since Japanese were vital to Hawaii's economic strength and ditto for the German's on the east coast (although German culture and language were suppressed). --mav

I take note that VerilyVerily (presumably a Jesus quote from some particular Protestant translations) -- in the paragraph about Japanese property being protected--makes no mention of real estate-- or the fact that most were forced to relinquish or sell these assets, on account that they would be unable to pay for rent on them. While a lot of this is good work--VV might be clear that his quasi-apologist take on things is not-- by any stretch of imagination-- NPOV. 戴&#30505sv 11:12, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)PS-- and the "conditions in camps" section is blank. LOL. PPS:Also "internment" shouldnt be capilized.-SV

I should note: the difference between "making excuses" and "slander" is broad-- and is "perhaps" enough of a POV split to warrant some arbitration here-- meaning partisans=hands off for a while. That said, its not unhealthy to have this kind of debate, as the only problems with the article now are that it has that apologist tone, which is unnecessary-- we're an encyclopedia-- we didnt actually do this stuff.-戴&#30505sv 12:11, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes, no doubt many more details could be added. I considered adding that even pianos were shipped to the camps free of charge to underscore the point, but decided that was excessive detail. The article says that property was protected but losses was still suffered, which I think covers your case. And I do think my revision is NPOV: Events like this come about as part of a historical process. The decisions made were not "out of the blue" (nor just "racial bias"), but in response to other events. One cannot understand it without understanding the why, and that means sympathetically examining the contexts and motives of the decision-makers. I would, e.g., feel the same way about explaining why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

As for POV, I was frankly appalled that the "racial bias" charge sat unquestioned for so long. And yet my changes seem to have created a stir. As for partisans hands off, yes, I feel similarly, which is why I have not touched the article (other than reverting your duplication) since the discussion started. However, no counter to my last set of arguments re relocation vs internment has appeared (apart from mav's attempt to change the subject and present his "economic" theory). I don't know how arbitration might work, but I feel my case is strong.

The blank section is deliberate; it's reserved for further work, which I might myself undertake. My name is not a Jesus anything. I appreciate your comments. -- VV 23:36, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, but this article as it is written now is POV. Shouldn't the first paragraph of the article be a place where one simply describes the situation? Why is it felt that the justification for the internment needs to begin in the first paragraph? Would it not be better to first lay out what is known to have heppened fully, and then let the various sides take their turns at justifying their interpretations of the historical record? RayKiddy 00:58, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Giving reader advice

Re: Jiang's deletion of advice against using "concentration camp". I don't think such advice is unreasonable or unprecedented. For instance, look under "determinant". In fact, more generally, Wikipedia has lots of advice, such as "Precautions" under sodium. Should we change all/any of these? Sv's partisan hands off proposal might be good here. P.s. I also object to the change to "tolerable"; mild torture is "tolerable", so that almost fails to say anything. -- VV 00:30, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

We only need to say that it could be confused with extermination camps. This fact can imply that it is best to avoid the term. Including this implication as part of the text is redundant.

We state that "fuck is invariably considered offensive in polite situations" instead of "it is best to avoid using fuck in polite situations" See the difference? The precautions under sodium deal with the properties of the substance itself. I don't agree with including the statement "This metal should be handled carefully at all times." Including such a precaution, espcecially in a history article, is inappropriate. determinant is a math article. Math and history are very different.

Whether the facilities were "tolerable", "livable", etc. are all up to personal opinion (of the people who lived in them). I will change it back to "livable". --Jiang 05:05, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Okay, the avoidance is a minor point, and you're probably right that the stated risk of confusion should be enough to deter reckless usage, so I'm happy with the change, just not sure about the principle. Math is indeed not history, but advice is still advice (and as a mathematician I'm not sure about that advice). But the point is that there seemed to me lots of precedent, though maybe it is something we should try to move away from. But excess words may not really help at all, e.g., in Tarot under Additional Resources, which has lots of opinion — "excellent", "best avoided", "worth tracking down" — and I don't think it would help to make that "considered excellent", "regarded as best avoided", etc. You've been around Wikipedia longer than me, so maybe your sense of this is better than mine, but I don't see a firm line, and where advising against clearly confusing usage lies is not clear.

Yes, any appraisal of the facilities will necessarily be subjective, and I don't know what can be done. My reason for saying "livable" was to express the great difference from the Nazi camps to which they are so unfortunately frequently compared. I have been to Auschwitz and the facilities were horrible (and I'm not referring to Birkenau), but one might still call them "tolerable". -- VV 07:23, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Resolving Jiang-VV (and others) Concerns

This is the first attempt to balance out some of the views here. I've moved the "concentration camp" language further down in Criticisms and reworded:

These camps are sometimes referred to as concentration camps, but the use of this loaded term should not be construed to mean they were on the same severity as Nazi Germany's extermination camps during that the war.

Better to illustrate than to tell people what to think. More edits to come. Fuzheado 07:49, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Factual Edits

"Few Interned"

I removed the following paragraph (formerly para 2), as it is grossly inaccurate.

This action is often referred to as internment; however, very few Japanese were actually imprisoned. Indeed, only 112,000 people were relocated for the duration of the war. The government of the United States officially apologized for this action in the 1980s and paid reparations.

The 1940 U.S. census reports a total of 254,918 Asian Americans of all ethnicities. That means that nearly half of all Asian Americans were detained. Nowhere near 10% of any other ethnic group was detained, in Crystal City or elsewhere.

It is true that "very few Japanese" were detained only if one nonsensically includes Japanese nationals residing in Japan. Likewise, government relocation (civil or otherwise) of "only" 100,000 people is a major undertaking. I could go on, but I think this covers the issue. --ishu 02:13, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree that the "only" is ridiculous; I was not responsible for it. As for the rest, I don't know what you're saying, but it doesn't sound like it justifies deleting this. All were excluded, many were relocated, but few were interned. See discussion above. -- VV 06:35, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

All were excluded; most were relocated; few were 'interned'. This goes to the definition of 'interned'. More later--ishu 02:57, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"94% refused to serve"

To support a restoration of this claim:

94% of miltary-aged men said they would not serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.

I'd have to see at least one source, credible or otherwise. Most figures I've seen are like this one from the Smithsonian: 6,700 responded negatively to the loyalty questions. --ishu 02:35, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Dwight D. Murphey, The Journal of social, political, and economic studies, Spring 1993, p.109: "Colonel Frederick Wiener testified in 1984 that 'they asked first of the persons of military age whether they would serve in the Armed Forces of the United States; 94 percent of them gave negative answers.'" Restoring.... -- VV 06:35, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I found this link to a source (critical of the Internment) that references a a 1946 WRA document and a 1953 military document, stating that only 6% of military-aged men in the relocation centers volunteered for military service, not that 94% refused to serve.

This is not, in my view, a semantic distinction, since we're talking about the charge of disloyalty.

Either way, the military service issue is a dubious justification for EO9066, since it occurred after the Japanese Americans already had been "relocated"--as authorized by EO9066. Further, Japanese Americans--including U.S. citizens--were classified as 4-C enemy aliens in January, after which thousands of these same military-age men were discharged from active military service. Having been kicked out of the military on guilt-by-racial-grouping only a few months before, it's hardly surprising that they declined to volunteer. Finally, does anyone know what proportion of all military-aged men volunteered? I'd believe it was higher than 6%, but considerably shy of 100%. --ishu 23:15, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

My only source is the one I gave. I don't know what its relationship to the 6% figure is; it depends, I suppose, on what the options are (they might have been asked, "Are you volunteering or refusing to volunteer?"). I tend to agree that 94% is a high estimate for disloyalty. If you have a better figure for giving a sense of this you should drop it in. The key point is that Japanese did not have undivided loyalties to the US, a fact which should be obvious to anyone but seems to be routinely denied. I'll have to recheck my sources for the other details you mention. -- VV 05:34, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Verily’s original paragraph read as follows:

The loyalties of the vast population of ethnic Japanese were also doubted.... 19,000 Japanese applied to be returned to Japan during the war. 94% of miltary-aged men said they would not serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.

The key point is that Verily strings together several misleading claims to demonstrate "disloyalty" among the Japanese Americans. I showed that one figure (94%) was wrong. Now Verily chages the subject (key point = "divided loyalties").

The meaning of the numbers is plain, if one simply reads the link (at #11). The best interpretation of these data is that 6% volunteered when asked, and the remainder volunteered later or were drafted. In any case, it is weak evidence of disloyalty, especially in light of the context I provide earlier.

Verily asks me to provide data for something neither I nor any reputable historian believes was widespread: Disloyalty among Japanese Americans. Verily only provides misleading, after the fact examples of disloyalty.

Assuming that some Japanese Americans were involved in espionage activities, many, if not most Japanese Americans still had nothing to do with any subversive or disloyal activities, "a fact which should be obvious to anyone, but seems to be routinely denied" by Verily. Whether or not Verily is aware of this whole-part distinction, Verily's comments repeatedly show an inability to articulate this distinction. While entirely human, it is clearly POV, contrary to Verily's earlier protestations. --ishu 04:15, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I misstated above: The best interpretation of these data is that 6% volunteered when asked, and the remainder volunteered later, were drafted, or refused to serve, as the no-no boys did.

Also, Verily's only reference to this was testimony 40 years after the fact. I'm not calling Col. Weiner a liar, but decades-old recollections are not always reliable sources for numbers. --ishu 06:09, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You did not show the figure was wrong, you cited another figure which may or may not be related. I gave a credible source for mine, and we can talk about issues with it. I suggested finding a better, sharper statistic because I am trying to be agreeable and find a consensus, as per Wikipedia culture. You seem to want to be confrontational, and now you've resorted to personal insults, absurd ones at that. I am not changing the subject. The population having divided loyalties = some loyal, some disloyal, many with mixed feelings. Are you even listening to me and trying to understand what I'm saying, or are you looking for cheap ways to attack me?

No reputable historian believes there was widespread disloyalty? This is silly, but what does "widespread" even mean? Fewer than a hundred spies? A thousand? I think the evidence suggests that there was enough disloyalty for the authorities to be concerned, and enough to be noteworthy. Whether most were disloyal is not at issue, and I never claimed all were. I don't see my figures as being "after the fact", but does it matter when relevant information was collected? -- VV 06:29, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Virtually all historians agree that the authorities were concerned about disloyalty. But that's not the same thing as there being evidence of actual disloyalty. And it certainly doesn't begin to justify mass internment based on the suspicion of mere disloyalty. Not all disloyal people will commit espionage.

Perhaps Verily and I are not communicating well. For example:

Col. Wiener provided numbers speaking to disloyalty in testimony. I referenced data that exactly paralleled his number (94%), but provided considerably more context: only 6% in the camps volunteered. Col. Wiener's testimony was more critical: "refused to serve," implying much more "disloyalty." Verily changes the subject, responding:

The key point is that Japanese did not have undivided loyalties to the US, a fact which should be obvious to anyone but seems to be routinely denied.

which, in the context of Verily's other edits, such as

The loyalties of the vast population of ethnic Japanese were also doubted

can easily be construed to mean that "the" (i.e., most) Japanese Americans were not 100% loyal to the U.S. I apologize for any hurt feelings.

Many reptuable historians agree that there was widespread ambivalence about the U.S. among the Japanese Americans. But Verily is preoccupied with providing evidence of disloyalty and espionage which is a completely different matter.

When information is collected is definitely relevant. There's a difference between someone's verbal recollection of what happened 40 years ago and a 35-year-old document that provides context and detail. Four decades is after-the-fact.

--ishu 07:45, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There is almost nothing here but the accusation I already responded to that I "changed the subject", which I did not. Maybe your later comment meant to lighten that by saying that was perhaps a misconstrual; anyway, hurt feelings or no, I think civility and a constructive attitude is called for. As for ambivalence vs. loyalty, ambivalence among 120,000 people will translate to some fully disloyal and some fully loyal, unless your claim is that this means every single person was ambivalent. Yes, recollection is imperfect, and that maybe should be taken into account, but it has nothing to do with the supposed "after the fact"-ness of it. -- VV 02:57, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

More on "after-the-fact"

Verily repeatedly cites actions that occurred after exclusion as evidence of disloyalty (e.g., demonstrations in the camps). Where is the evidence of disloyalty before exclusion? How many pro-Japan demonstrations occurred before Pearl Harbor? Or in January 1942, before EO9066? And why not intern only the pro-Japan demonstrators? This information is more relevant for judging the authorities' motiviation and decision context than what happened in the camps (i.e., after the fact). The MAGIC decrypts are the most convincing evidence, mainly because they pre-date EO9066. It might help if Verily could provide additional detail about their contents.

Whole-part distinction

Here are some examples from Verily that gloss over or utterly disregard the whole-part distinction between Japanese Americans and "disloyal" Japanese Americans.

The loyalties of the vast population of ethnic Japanese were also justifiably doubted. (article contribution)

The key point is that Japanese did not have undivided loyalties to the US, a fact which should be obvious to anyone but seems to be routinely denied. (Talk)

Many, including those born in America, had been educated in Japan (article contribution)

The fact that they were educated (and thus raised) in Japan is an excellent reason to doubt their loyalty, (Talk)

Verily has referred to big pro-Japan riots and pro-Japan riots occured in many camps, particularly Tule Lake. No effort is made to give a sense of proportion, i.e., that most of the 20,000 internees at Tule Lake, the 10,000 internees at Manzanar, the 20,000 at Poston, ... did not participate in these actions. No effort is made to give a sense of the relative size of the riots except to say they're "big" (for example, did sigificant minorities, say 20%, participate?).

On the 19,000 population at Tule Lake being misleading because of the inclusion of children: I actually think it's not misleading for that very reason.

--ishu 04:26, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Re: After the fact. This is a non-point. Facts not collected until after the fact can provide evidence of disloyalty during the fact. If 94% were disloyal in 1943 (hypthetically, if you wish), doesn't that suggest a lot of disloyalty in 1942? We have to work with what information we have to reconstruct the past. Anyway, this is just one statistic, which was in fact collected pretty early in the war. As for before Pearl Harbor, that's a non sequitur since there was no war with Japan then. As for just "interning" pro-Japan demonstrators, good spies don't usually advertise. Re: part/whole. You merely quote me back to me, and I see nothing wrong with what I wrote. As for "doubting", yes you can doubt all of a group's members if it comes to your attention that some are disloyal (but you don't know who). Argh, you just don't seem to have any points here. -- VV 02:57, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

An obvious point

I missed this plainly obvious point: Verily's assertion that 94% of military age men said they "would not serve" is contradicted by the actual numbers who did serve. I don't have a population for military-age men, but the number that served had to have been greater than 6%. If we want to get into it, we can extrapolate up from that, but this step is wholly unnecessary. --ishu 12:11, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"Educated in Japan" = "indoctrinated with emperor worship"

This claim:

Many, including those born in America, had been educated in Japan, where they were heavily indoctrinated with Emperor worship.

is misleading on several counts. (1) The sentence implies that "many" of the U.S.-born Japanese Americans were educated in Japan. This is false. Most were educated in American schools, though a small number were sent to Japan for education. (2) This statement implies that a sizeable proportion were suspect due to their education in Japan. The 1/3 of JAs born in Japan were immigrants by definition, were more culturally distinct, less likely to speak English, and were suspect due to their Japanese citizenship (somewhat unfairly, since they were legally barred from naturalizing as U.S. citizens). Without some supporting references, I don't think that we can single out the education as a primary reason why their loyalty was suspect apart from these other factors. (3) The term 'indoctrinated' suggests that receiving an education in Japan led most students to "worship" the Emperor more or less mindlessly. Whether or not this was true, it would be fair to say that fear of emperor worship was one of several factors that led people to doubt the loyalty of Japanese Americans. I'd support a referenced, or at least expanded, discussion of the fears of Japanese Americans. --ishu 04:22, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

(1) This is a reason to reword, not erase, and anyhow "most" does not exclude "many". The kibei were a significant minority. (2) The fact that they were educated (and thus raised) in Japan is an excellent reason to doubt their loyalty, but, as the article noted, just one of many. (3) If you want to expand on it do so, but I see no reason to exclude this sentence. I'll restore it with somewhat weaker language. -- VV 06:35, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The fact that they were educated and raised in Japan is a possible reason to doubt their loyalty. See my edit. --ishu 03:08, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

19,000 applied to be returned

The statement

19,000 Japanese applied to be returned to Japan during the war.

is misleading because many of the 19,000 were children of families--and U.S. citizens. Some of them also applied because they were disillusioned with the U.S. treatment vis-a-vis the relocation-internment-whatever. Other than acts of espionage, sabotage, etc.--alleged or actual, one must be careful about what evidence is used to justify the exclusion. --ishu 03:08, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I actually think it's not misleading for that very reason. The figure of 110,000 Japanese (or whatever) is going to be the standard by which all these figures are evaluated, and that too includes children. Thus, any estimate of what amount actually advertised their disloyalty should be similarly inclusive, to get a sense of proportion. I don't understand why being a US citizen makes it better. Also, the disillusionment argument doesn't carry much weight with me; turning one's back on one's (supposed) country should not be done lightly, however inconvenient wartime measures are (and this seems much less so than, say, being drafted). -- VV 05:34, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This one is simple: The 112,000 is a census, and represents the number of people affected by the "relocation"/internment. Verily wishes to count the number of disloyals. It's ridiculous to assume that the children in Tule Lake could be considered to be "disloyal." That's why it's misleading to include them in the 19,000 number. If the head-of-household applied for the entire family to be "repatriated" (as it was called), every family member was counted toward the repatriation figure, regardless of whether those family members actually hated America, wished to go to Japan, or were in any sense "disloyal."

Also simple: Natural-born U.S. citizens cannot be "returned" to another country. That's why citizenship matters here.

--ishu 04:15, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Re the latter. Japan, as the US was well aware, recognized all ethnic Japanese as citizens. So far as I know, this race-based policy is still in effect (why Alberto Fujimori could go "home"). So Japan did take them back, although as I understand some of the returnees were distrusted and thrown in labor camps. Re the former, I thought I explained this: we need a sense of proportion. What percentage were disloyal? If the 19,000 represented the decisions of only 4,000 HoHs, one might falsely estimate 4,000/120,000, or about 3%. This is clearly an understimate. (I suppose if we knew the total HoHs, we could provide a more exact percentage.) Counting the whole family also makes sense since they're likely to follow the HoH anyway. -- VV 03:04, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Espionage: "not a single ship...without being attacked"

Paragraph 3 in the History section reads:

In 25 January 1942 the Secretary of War reported that "on the Pacific coast not a single ship had sailed from our Pacific ports without being subsequently attacked". Due to this espionage was suspected.

This link describes the submarine shelling, and notes that only one other such attack occurred. Another link claims that there were only two later "successful submarine attacks against shipping off the West Coast." Finally, a 1964 U.S. Army document, Guarding the United States and its Outposts notes that "apprehensions were fanned in the first few days of war by a series of false reports of Japanese ships and planes on the very doorsteps of the Pacific states." (p. 82)

Specfically, Guarding the U.S. directly refutes Secretary of War Stimson's comment of 25 January 1942 (referenced in current revision) as follows:

[T]here had been no Japanese submarine or surface vessels anywhere near the west coast during the preceding month, and careful investigation subsequently indicated that all claims of hostile shore-to-ship and ship-to-shore communication lacked any foundation whatsoever. (p. 120; see end note 16)

While this does not contradict the MAGIC decrypts directly, it is clearly inconsistent with the existence of a "vast spy network."

In light of these references, the section on espionage and justification for the internment really needs to be revised. --ishu 05:52, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

I am curious about this. It is said that some people were allowed to move out of the camps, if there was somewhere outside the exclusion zone that they could go to. Someone opined: "Estimates for the number who did move out vary from around 30,000 to 50,000." Where did this information come from? It would be interesting, if it could be verified? If it cannot be verified, it sounds apologist. Also, I am curious, how free were people outside the exclusion zone? Could they go anywhere outside the zone or would they have to be "supervised"? RayKiddy 02:53, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

At the very least, the phrase, "most being free to settle anywhere outside the Exclusion Area" should be changed to "most being permitted to settle..." Fuzheado 03:18, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Why is "Internment" capitalized? RickK 03:37, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

See previous discussion above. --Jiang

In short, like American Revolution and Custer's Last Stand, it's a particular event in history. --ishu 05:45, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Japanese American losses "considerably less than..." whose?

Does anyone have any examples of other civilians in the continental U.S. whose losses were greater than the Japanese Americans'?

Others respond that the war required terrible sacrifices by the whole nation, and that the Japanese American losses were considerably less than what many others suffered.

--ishu 03:00, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Why are you counting only civilians, and not, say, draftees? (And yes there was rationing, government spending, etc., as well as loss of loved ones.) -- VV 05:35, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I took the phrase ishu mentioned out. What an insulting argument to put in this article, saying since some citizens sacrificed their lives overseas, that it somehow justifies the blatantly racist treatment of other American citizens. Fuzheado

I don't agree with this claim it was "blatantly racist", and I don't understand the justification claim (this was not used as a reason for the exclusion). If you don't like the sentence you should try to rewrite it in a way you find agreeable, instead of just striking it. -- VV 06:37, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Verily's response is simply illogical, yet actually helps to prove the point that the Japanese Americans had a fundamentally different experience. Consider:

• Induction into the military: Some "all other Americans" (AOA's); some Japanese Americans (JA's).
• Rationing: All AOA's; all JA's
• Loss of loved ones: Many AOA's; many JA's
• Mass relocation and confinement of civilians in the continental U.S.: Very small proportion of AOA's; very high proportion of JA's

and just for good measure:

• Mass relocation and confinement of civilians in the exclusion zone: Very small proportion of AOA's; very high proportion of JA's

Japanese Americans were not exempt from any sacrifices presented to the rest of America. Only Japanese Americans--as a group--were subject to the "sacrifice" of internment. (And yes, German Americans and Italian Americans were subject to curfew and other restrictions, including internment at Crystal City for select members. These ethnic grous also sacrificed more than AOA's, but considerably less--as a group--than the Japanese Americans.)

--ishu 23:54, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Enough with the charges of illogicality. You seem to have yourself missed the part/whole distinction you alluded to above. To say "many others" does not mean "all other Americans". -- VV 03:08, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)