It's been a bit...
Since I've been over here, but I wanted to jot down a few political thoughts, so since I've gotten burned a bit on LJ, this is where I head for that.
I'm a radical middle-of-the-roader. Let me restate that. I'm a centrist. Let me clarify. I do not think either party has a lock on the truth and I don't think either party is going to be the salvation of FITB. There, do we have that?
Now, that being said, I hear a lot of folx complaining about the fact that the Dems are getting shut out of the political process. That's probably true, but part of it's their own damned fault. Dems are seen, rightly or wrongly, as anti-American, anti-military, anti-white-middle-classers, anti-anyone who's not on the handout bandwagon. Whether such a thing even exists is debatable, but perception shapes reality.
I don't vote a Dem ticket because I'm tired of being sneered at for being...oh...strapped enough to shop at Wal-mart, dumb enough to join the military (I got off active duty after 9/11 and joined the NG knowing I'd end up deployed), deluded enough to belong to a church that's older than most of the civilized world and conservative enough to make a Baptist blink. I'm tired of being told that I'm not part of FITB minority, and that I don't matter.
I don't vote a Republican ticket because I don't like the fear-mongering. I don't like my government trying to pass off gross violations of civil liberties as "necessary." I don't like being told that anyone down on their luck is just lazy or stupid, or whatever. I don't like being told that one of our Constitutional duties, to examine what our government does in our name, is siding with the terrorists, and that if I don't agree with everything the government does I'm un-American.
Please note that both these generalizations are gross stereotypes and not indicative of the true feelings of most of the Dems or Republicans in the real world.
Yes, helping other people out is a good goal, especially if they're in a position where they can't help themselves, and I'm all for a hand up. I'm all for making sure that schools in bad neighborhoods get the money they need and that parents who have at-risk kids get assistance. I think a lot of it should come from churches, and from private charities, though.
I think that people should be encouraged to assimilate into American culture, including discouraging ethnic enclaves that allow people to stay insulated and comfortable in a Little Havana or a Koreatown or wherever. And yes, that means that I think upper-middle class neighborhoods need a bit of a kick in the butt, too. There's more out there than your Mercedes-drivin' tennis-club buddies, Buffy, and they might have something to teach you.
Where in the world was I going here? Um. Right...AH!
One of the things that I disagree with my darling husband on is the amount of civil liberty I am willing to give up in order to be safe. I'm not willing to give up too much more than we've already given up, and in fact, I'd like to see some of the stupidity that started after 9/11 rolled back. I am not, in any way, shape or form, a fan of the Patriot Act. I'm not a fan of the TSA and I'm not a fan of the warrantless wiretapping. I don't care if I don't have anything to hide! I don't, btw. I'm just not thrilled with idea of being nibbled to death by ducks.
So, a night or so ago, we started talking about the internment camps for Japanese during WWII. I tend towards hyperbole when I get my dander up, and the internment of American citizens tends to get my dander up. So, publically, I'll apologize to John for inflating the numbers from around 120,000 to "millions." Um. Right. That was Not Cool. Sorry about that, honey.
Anyway, here are some of the "facts" from Wikipedia. (God, what did we do before the Wiki?)
Japanese American Internment refers to the forcible relocation of approximately 120,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans, 62 percent of whom were United States citizens, from the West Coast during World War II to hastily constructed housing facilities called "War Relocation Camps" in remote portions of the nation's interior. The American camps were only meant to isolate the Japanese, in contrast to the Nazi concentration camps which existed to eliminate their captives.
So, out of the 120,000 people relocated, over half of them were American citizens. Repeat after me. WTF?
Okay, so maybe there was a good reason. After all, that 40% might have had spies and sabateurs loyal to Japan, right? Er. Maybe not.
Critics of the exclusion argue that the military justification was unfounded, citing the absence of any subsequent convictions of Japanese Americans for espionage, as well as the fact that the Army resorted to falsifying evidence in order to bolster its case before the Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States. In response, pro-internment author Michelle Malkin has argued that the absence of any esponiage convictions is immaterial because the government may have possessed unspecified secret evidence of espionage that it was not able to introduce in court; however, her argument has not met with much success among professional historians.[citation needed]
Lieutenant Commander Kenneth Ringle, a naval intelligence officer tasked with evaluating the loyalty of the Japanese American population, estimated in a 1941 report to his superiors that "more than 90% of the Nisei [second generation] and 75% of the original immigrants were completely loyal to the United States." A 1941 report prepared on President Roosevelt's orders by Curtis B. Munson, special representative of the State Department, concluded that most Japanese nationals and "90 to 98 percent" of Japanese American citizens were loyal. He wrote: "There is no Japanese 'problem' on the Coast ... There is far more danger from Communists and people of the Bridges type on the Coast than there is from Japanese."
All in all, I'd have to say the interment was damaging to the United States.I mean, even J. Edgar Hoover didn't think it was a great idea.
FBI director J. Edgar Hoover opposed the internment of Japanese Americans. Refuting General DeWitt's reports of disloyalty on the part of Japanese Americans, Hoover sent a memo to Attorney General Francis Biddle in which he wrote about Japanese-American disloyalty, "Every complaint in this regard has been investigated, but in no case has any information been obtained which would substantiate the allegation."
So, I'm not feeling it, and I think that it's a pretty clear case of abridgement of civil liberties and fundamental rights guaranteed to citizen amounting to...um...not so much.
Some present-day supporters of the internment have argued that some Japanese Americans were indeed disloyal, as seen by the approximately 20,000 Japanese Americans in Japan at the start of the war who joined the Japanese war effort, hundreds joining the Japanese Army. Additionally, two Japanese Americans on Niihau freed a captured Japanese pilot and assisted him in his machine-gun attack on Native Hawaiians there.[3]
Critics of this viewpoint note that it seems unlikely that Japanese Americans in Japan had any choice other than to be conscripted into the Japanese army, given (1) that it was near-impossible for them to return to the U.S. from Japan, and (2) that the United States had already classified all people of Japanese ancestry as "enemy aliens."
Some present-day supporters of the internment also cite the disloyalty of Tomoya Kawakita, an American citizen who worked as an interpreter and a POW guard for the Japanese army, and who actively participated in the torture (and at least one death) of American soldiers, including survivors of the Bataan Death March. Kawakita was imprisoned in Alcatraz Island for his treason.
Despite all this, it must be noted that the FBI had no documented proof of espionage or sabotage by any Japanese American or Japanese national in the United States, except for a small group of ineffective Japanese nationals who were arrested long before Pearl Harbor and were deported (the Tachibana ring).
I'd have to agree with the idea of the 20,000 Japanese Americans in Japan not being able to come home, and even if they could...why on God's green earth would they? They'd be stripped of their rights!So, let's say, for the sake of argument, that there were 1200 sabateurs found. I'm still not thinking that a 1% return on the internment justifies it. I just don't.
And like I said, I think it damaged a whole lot more than the Japanese-Americans who were stuck in the camps. I think it damaged a whole lot more.
Some Japanese Americans did question their loyalty to the United States after the government removed them and their families from their homes and held them in internment camps, although such cases were isolated incidents and did not reflect the larger sentiment of the Japanese-American people, who remained loyal to the United States. Several pro-Japan groups formed inside the camps, and riots occurred for various reasons in many camps, most notably Tule Lake, which caused the WRA to move "troublemaker" internees to Tule Lake (see below). When the government asked whether internees wished to renounce their U.S. citizenship, 5,589 of them did so. Of those who renounced their citizenship, 1,327 were repatriated to Japan, although many of these deportees were not accepted by the Japanese Government.
So, even after being moved into these "relocation" camps, only 5, 589 (or 4.6575%) of the internees denounced their US citizenship, and of those, less than 1500 were accepted by the Japanese goverment. Evidently, Japanese with dual citizenship were asked to denounce their Japanese citizenship, but since they no longer had US citizenship, denouncing Japanese citizenship would have left them with no citizenship at all. That's a catch-22, by my definition. I might be wrong.
Drat. I've wandered off the path again. Right now, I have no clue where I'm heading with this.
Ah. Okay. Here we go.
This is to both parties:
Quit it. Quit pandering to the whackos on the far ends of the spectrum and figure out that most of us are stuck here in the middle. I don't like either of you demoninzing and lying and everything else you're doing. Knock it off.
Thank you.
7 Comments:
Yeah, think extremists tend to be the squeaky wheels that get the attention. Unfortunately.
Very good article. I gotta love a woman with her OWN opinion.
I think one major problem with current politics is that the readily available sensational media encourages some of us to accept the other party's definition of their opponent. I assure you the Democratic party, for example is not " anti-American, anti-military, anti-white-middle-classers, anti-anyone who's not on the handout bandwagon." as I'm sure you must realize - but Karl Rove has managed to paint them that way.
The Democrats have not been as successful in demonizing the Republicans, as they have come late to the fray - but they seem to be learning fast. One of their problems is the "Liberal" label -which many of them accept, and which includes a measure of tolerance for you opponent's views. The fundies and wingnuts don't labor under such a handicap.
It was, of course, a Democrat-dominated administration that acted so unfairly against the Japanese-Americans in 1941 - I see the same thing coming against Muslim-Americans.
Tychecat- I mentioned that perception shapes reality, and sadly, the Dems have allowed themselves to be perceived for far too long as a lot of the things that I mentioned.
Tolerance is a great and wonderful thing, but when it gets you shut out of whatever chance you have at the political process, you might want to start playing the game by the rules on the books at the moment. Once you get into power, you can change the rules.
One fo the reasons that the Dems freak my family out so much is because it seems like they hate the "traditional" American family. You know, the middle-class couple with their 2.5 kids and the swingset in the backyard who go to the local church and join the Rotary Club.
They don't, I'm sure. I'm sure that they think we're just as deserving of help as the next guy and that our values are just as important as the local Latino population, but they're not making sure *WE* know that, whereas the Republicans are.
Washington is a pretty good example. They're a traditionally liberal state, but there are something like six military posts in the state. That doesn't happen in the state's not fighting for them. However, that doesn't get enough play.
I just want both sides to knock off the stupidity and get back to at least shouting distance of the center.
Kiddo, this is one of the few cases where I think you are just wrong. Middle of the road, or sitting on the fence?
Maybe, just maybe, you can maintain that illusion for a while longer... If I have my druthers you can take it to the grave.
BTW Michelle Malkin wrote a book: http://books.google.com/books?id=nvsIQNwYvSwC&dq=michelle+malkin+book&pg=PA379&ots=W0UQtUaMIQ&sig=IHXDCgtmrklyWkT0JcPYd6ig5HI&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dmichelle%2Bmalkin%2Bbook%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=3
that is a contrary view. might be worth your time?
No, I'm a middle-of-the-roader. I am fically conservative, and rather liberal socially. As for the internment of American citizens without due process and without evidence of wrongdoing? It's illegal and wrong.
There are some things that the Constitution promises us, and one of those things is due process and safeguards against illegal search and seizure.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
If it can happen to the Japanese in WWII, it can happen again.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Being thrown in to internment facilities, and being give pennies on the dollar for property and business it wrong and against the Constitution. I can't see where there's any room to quibble here. The men, women and children put in those camps were given no trials. Their crime was being Japanese or American citizens of Japanese descent.
The property was not taken for public use, so that part isn't applicable.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
This is why I have a problem with the way Jose Padilla has been treated.
I believe in protecting our country, but I will be damned if I sit by and cheerily let my civil liberties be dismantled in the name of "safety."
One of our founding fathers said it best:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
And before anyone says that I want the terrorists to win because I happen to think that there are boundaries the government should think long and hard about crossing...
I don't want to wake up some day in an Islamic caliphate.
One of the reasons that I am damned and determined to try and keep chattering away about civil liberties is because we are better that than other societies.
You can take that mealy-mouthed crap about all societies having equal value and light it on fire, because I believe we are better.
We are better than governments who spy on and control their people. We are better than governments who sanction the use of illegal means to gain information. We are better that that, dammit and I never, ever want to see that bright light extinguished, not now, not ever.
We have to find a way to walk the fine line between the darknesses on both sides, between damning ourselves and damning the rest of the world.
Here is my take on the internment issue, so take it only as seriously as you want.
There is a very, very good argument to be made that the whole basis for the second world war was/is RACISM. To say that either the Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan were not racist is merely to ignore the facts.
America was racist also. All of America was racist....from the White House to the Out House, America was Racist. Jim Crow was the law of the land. Segregation by race was expected, orderly and not very controversial.
In fact, the entire world, throughout the whole of human history, racism has played a major role in interpersonal dynamics. Many of the people who signed the Declaration of Independance had slaves. Slavery was quite legal until 1863. The whole idea of anything OTHER than slavery is quite a new phenomenon on the world stage.
I include subsets of racism under the racism definition. This includes tribalism, feudalism, xenophobia and a number of other -ism's that you and I can both think of.
The current GWOT is a variation of a racial war. Note that America has not been attacked by Indonesian Muslims. Indonesia has the worlds largest population of Muslims, and the relationship between that country and the rest of the world is benign. So this really isn't a religious war.
But America HAS been attacked by Arabs and Persians. The West as a whole is being attacked by these. I do not see the GWOT as a war on religion, but only as much religion as is specific to certain geographic areas.
Racism is a fact. We have to deal with it. Certainly our enemies do. We may rightfully decry racism, past present and future. But we cannot pretend that it doesn't exist.
Our enemies think racially, our leadership must think in the same manner OR WE LOSE. Remember Sun Tzu's admonition: "Know your enemy".
We can pray for a future society free of racism/tribalism/xenophobia. But for the moment that is where we are. That is where we have been, and I doubt that the whole world will become un-racist any time soon.
I do not advocate that, as a national policy, we respond to racism with racism. Rather, we have to acknowledge that our enemies are racists and respond to them as if they are racists. This may appear as racism also. But we cannot and (as best as I can tell) DO NOT behave racially.
Yeah well, I like you toooo much to argue. I hope you're on the right track. Nothing would please me more.
I think the link I posted is broken, if yer inclined you might make the effort to look her book up.
Post a Comment
<< Home