Padròn, Scianmarello 1

Padròn, Scianmarello 1 Nicholas Scianmarello - USA Jorge Padròn Canada Mr. Blackmon IB Contemporary History Period 2 4 December 2006 Internment of Japanese-Americans and Japanese-Canadians I. Historical Background A. United States: Racism and bias always existed in the United States population toward those of Japanese ancestry. It must be noted that there was an estimated 127,000 Japanese in the United States prior to the war, of which most lived in the West Coast States (Morgan). Mikiso Hane in Wartime Internment explains that anti-japanese sentiment was common, even before Pearl Harbor, and especially after Japan s aggressive expansion in China. Fears of the Japanese existed as early as 1907, when Richmond Pearson Hobson wrote JAPAN MAY SEIZE THE PACIFIC COAST (Okihiro Press). Hane explains that it was a mix of traditional anti-immigrant racist sentiment and the anger at Japanese imperialism. The rapid Japanese expansion in the Orient, which competed with the United States own influence in the region did not aid the situation of Japanese immigrants. Indeed, the United States closed its doors to Japanese immigration in the Immigration Act of 1924 (Hane). Other precedents existed to interment, such as the 1922 United States Supreme Court decisions to uphold the decisions that members of the Mongolian race or the Malay race cannot be naturalized (La Viollette). In addition, industrialist, who at first welcomed the cheap labor began looking at their Japanese work force with animosity, when they began to demand equal pay, in what Morgan called the second stage of Americanization. Morgan adds that at this stage immigrant groups are isolated in ghettos with all the negative connotations of that life style. In this environment, it is not surprising that after the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, white Americans and the government were in favor or inclined toward harassment, deportation, or isolation of Japanese immigrants and Americans of Japanese descent. Action took the form of interment. B. Canada: The Japanese had suffered the sting of racism ever since the first Japanese, a sailor named Manzo Nagano, stepped ashore in 1877 at New Westminster. The early British Columbia settlers were highly conscious of their British origins and, deeply concerned over the racial origins of the new immigrants, became obsessed with excluding undesirables. Laws were passed to keep the Japanese from working in the mines, to prevent them from voting and to prohibit them from working on any project funded by the province. (thecanadianencyclopedia.com) Then came the stunning news of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. On December 25 the Japanese forced the surrender of the British garrison at Hong Kong, including two battalions of Canadians. With these shocking events, the fears of a Japanese invasion, fanned by sensationalist press, spread along the Pacific Coast. The RCMP arrested suspected Japanese operatives, impounded 1200 fishing boats and shut down Japanese newspapers and schools. (thecanadianencyclopedia.com)

Padròn, Scianmarello 2 By the eve of Pearl Harbor, nearly 23,000 people of Japanese descent made their home in Canada, principally in British Columbia. Three-quarters of that number were naturalized or native-born citizens. The Nikkei, or Canadians of Japanese descent, were foresters and fishermen, miners and merchants. Except for the industrialists who profited from cheap Asian labor, much of white British Columbia regarded the Nikkei with suspicion, if not rabid hostility. (lib.washington.edu) II. Decision to Intern: 1941-1942 A. United States 1. National Security Argument: There was an espionage network at Honolulu with 200 members and more extensive networks for the Japanese Army Intelligence and Japanese Navy (Roucek). In addition, reports were produced that Japanese saboteurs were residing in important business and military sectors, and places of strategic importance, such as oil wells and fields (Roucek). The February 19, 1942 Executive Order 9066 (Starn) decision to authorize the U.S. Army to relocate Japanese from such strategic areas can be supported in the name of National Security. With this, the Army relocated a large portion, 125,000, Japanese to internment camps under the control of a War Relocation Board (Roucek). 2. Political Reasons: Professor Floyd A. Cave of San Francisco State college admits that that the relocation policy was affected by economic and patriotic pressure groups, self-seeking politicians, scare mongers of the radio and press, and war hysteria on the part of the people (Roucek). Under such conditions, action against the Japanese would have been seen in favorable eyes by the majority of the U.S. It is understandable then, that President Roosevelt would have been inclined to act against Japanese. Whether it was a factor in his decision to give the Army the authority to intern, is unknown, but the motive existed. 3. Why Did the Courts Uphold Internment? The Japanese internment was challenged in the Toyosaburo Korematsu versus the United States in 1944. United States Supreme Court decided to uphold the policy of interment because it was seen it was for the public good and so acceptable. The court decision was that not all such restrictions are unconstitutional...pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions; racial antagonism never can and the internment was viewed by the court as the pressing public necessity and not as racism (Toyosaburo Korematsu versus the United States). B. Canada: From the army point of view, I cannot see that Japanese Canadians constitute the slightest menace to national security declared Major General Ken Stuart. Nevertheless, British Columbia politicians were in a constant rage, speaking of the Japanese, as Canadian diplomat Escott Reid said, in the way that the Nazis would have spoken about Jewish Germans. When they spoke I felt in that room the physical presence of evil. (thecanadianencyclopedia.com) On January 14, 1942 the Prime Minister s Cabinet appeased to the demands of a British Columbia delegation originally formed on the issue of internment in their entirety. "For reasons of national security," Japanese Canadians, although citizens, were to be

Padròn, Scianmarello 3 prohibited from fishing for the duration of the war. Their vessels were to be sold to non- Japanese. Shortwave radios were denied to all Japanese aliens, and sales of gasoline and dynamite to any Japanese Canadian were to be strictly controlled. Most importantly, all male enemy aliens of military age were to be removed from the coastal defense zone before April 1, 1942 under an Order-in-Council that gave the Minister of Justice complete power over enemy aliens in Canada and the right to detain any resident of Canada without trial on the grounds of national security. Although broad and unprecedented, the new powers were not intended to be used against German and Italian aliens. As in the United States, their sole purpose was to effect the removal from the Pacific Coast of all male Japanese aliens of military age and "between 800 and 1,000 Canadian citizens" of Japanese ancestry.(japanesecanadianhistory.ca) III. Life in the Camps 1942-1945 A. United States 1. The Camps and their Impact on Families The best known Japanese Internment camps were Amache, CO, Gila River, AR, Heart Mountain, WY, Jerome, AR, Manzanar, CA, Minidoka, ID, Poston, AZ, Rohwer, AR, Topaz, UT, Tula Lake, CA (http://www.fatherryan.org/hcompsci/camp.htm). These camps were on average a square mile in area and had military guards and barb wire fences to keep the evacuees in (Meller). Those who were forced to evacuate were given as little as 48 hours to do so. The camps were composed of barrack-like houses twenty by twenty-five which housed several families and with communal areas for all the basic necessities (Yasushiro). In addition, all interned Japanese of age 17 were asked a series of questions, in a loyalty test, which if answered no to numbers 27 and 28 mean that they would be sent to the Tula Lake relocation facility. (http://www.historyonthenet.com/ww2/japan_internment_camps.htm) However, the camps usually did not disperse families, but kept them together, usually living in the same barracks (lib.washington.edu), except if an individual was deemed a greater threat and so sent to the Tula Lake facility. Because of their location the camps were hot during both day and night, and no furnishing was given to protect against this (Hane). The interned dug whole into the cellars to find protection from the heat, as Hane explained. The temperature in the camps reached as high as 128 ºF according to Yasushiro. In addition the medical stations were ill supplied with doctors doing what they could with minimum supplies to help those who fell sick (Hane). The camps are said to have had long-term health consequences, such as psychological anguish and increased chance cardiovascular disease according to Gwendolyn M. Jensen, in "The Experience of Injustice: Health Consequences of the Japanese American Internment" (Children of the Camps). This may be attributed to the strict rationing of food stuffs that Roucek mentioned that was common in the interment camps. In addition many Japanese American citizens lost their citizenship and where unable to regain it at the end of the war, because of Public Law 405, which FDR signed during the war (Kashima).

Padròn, Scianmarello 4 2. Was There Resistance in the Camps Agitation sometimes occurred in the camps and agitators or those who presented resistance where sent to the Tula Lake relocation facility (http://www.historyonthenet.com/ WW2/japan_internment_camps.htm). In December 7, 1942, martial law was imposed at the Manzanar Japanese relocation center, because violence in the camp lead to the death of a Japanese internee and nine others were injured (Roucek). In the Jerome facility in Arkansas, Roucek notes that there was great unrest. In some camps there were shootings by the military when evacuees allegedly attempted to escape (Meller). As with all groups who are incarcerate, isolated, or interned tensions in the Interments camps were high. B. Canada: While this forced resettlement mirrored the wartime policy of the American government, in Canada there were some important differences. Unlike the United States, where families were generally kept together, Canada initially sent its male evacuees to road camps in the B.C. interior, to sugar beet projects on the Prairies, or to internment in a POW camp in Ontario, while women and children were moved to six inland B.C. towns created or revived to house the relocated populace. (lib.washington.edu) By March 9, 1942, all adult male Japanese aliens had been ordered to report to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to learn the date of their removal to road camps. By th March 16 the first of a steady stream of shocked and angry Japanese families from the fishing villages and pulp towns along the Pacific coast stumbled into the Livestock Building at Hastings Park in Vancouver. (japanesecanadianhistory.ca) Expropriated in the first week of March, it had been converted from animal to human shelter in only seven days. The facilities were crude. In the former Women's Building and the livestock barns, rows of bunks had been erected, each equipped with a straw mattress, three army blankets and a small bolster. Each bunk was separated from its neighbor by only three feet of concrete floor, which still reeked of the animals that had recently been kept there. Toilets were open troughs and forty-eight showers had been hastily installed: ten in the building housing men and boys over thirteen years of age, the rest in the Livestock Building for the women and children held there. Eating facilities were equally crude an army field kitchen hastily erected in the former poultry section of the Livestock Building. Designed to produce mass meals for able-bodied men, that kitchen could not provide the dietary needs of babies and the aged, especially the aged of a different culture. (japanesecanadianhistory.ca) Living conditions were so poor everywhere that the citizens of wartime Japan even sent supplemental food shipments through the Red Cross. During the period of detention, the Canadian government spent one-third the per capita amount expended by the U.S. on Japanese American evacuees. (lib.washington.edu) The camps were in a spectacular setting but the conditions for the evacuees were primitive. They were not concentration camps or even surrounded with barbed wire as were the camps in the US, but conditions were primitive and crowded at first, with no electricity or running water. (thecanadianencyclopedia.com) The Japanese did not resist the internment. Their culture emphasized duty and obligations as part of gaman (forbearance). (thecanadianencyclopedia.com)

Padròn, Scianmarello 5 IV. Release to Freedom A. United States: Japanese began exiting the camps as early as 1943, but these were those who could find employment outside the camps (Hane). Roucek notes that in 1943 this occurred at a rate of 75 people per day that left the War Relocation Authority s centers with FBI clearance. However, the release of the majority of the Japanese occurred in 1945, after the exclusion order was lifted (Smith). Some returned to their old areas of habitation, while others stayed in the areas surrounding the camps (Smith). The land owned by the Japanese internee s was mostly sold off and was unattainable by them after the war, because of the increase in price (Smith). Furthermore, there was a serious housing deficit for the returning internees, which forced many families to live in cramped conditions or share living quarters (Smith). Furthermore, some areas were left restricted to Japanese by the landowners themselves, though such legal actions where revoked by the Supreme Court after the war (Smith). Each different group had different ideas on what to do after the war. In Poston the pole showed that 63% of Nisei, those born in the United States, were planning to leave Poston to only 18% of Issei, those who immigrated to the United States (Yasushiro). In addition this represented two different kinds of employment, as Issei were predominantly agricultural workers and Nisei professionals. Another factor of resettlement was keeping the family, which is an important part of Japanese culture, intact (Yasushiro). This strained reemployment programs. For most resettlement after being released meant starting over, as land had to be acquired again and business had to be built, since they had lost all land because of the internment (Yasushiro). B. Canada: Not until 1949, four years after Japan had surrendered, were the majority of Nikkei allowed to return to British Columbia. By then most had chosen to begin life anew elsewhere in Canada; their property had long before been confiscated and sold at a fraction of its worth. (lib.washington.edu) V. Search for Redress 1946-1990s A. United States 1. Japanese American Claims Act 1948 The first movement toward redress in the United States was the Evacuation Claims Act of 1948, with which Japanese internees had to present their loses due to the relocation in eighteen months time and were compensated only 10% of their lost property (The Slow Return). In total only $38 million of the estimated $400 million in losses where compensated by this act (Taniguchi). 2. Japanese American Citizen s League The Japanese American Citizen s League is an organization that seeks to maintain the civil rights of Japanese American s and search for redress for their losses (A More Perfect Union). It was founded in 1924, and has always sought for and maintained the equality of Japanese Americans (JACL). 3. Commission on the Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (1980) and the Redress Commission: Personal Justice Denied 1983

Padròn, Scianmarello 6 The Commission on the Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (CWRIC) was created by Congress in 1980 to review the decisions and actions dealing with the internment of Japanese Americans, the treatment of and policies toward internees and possible remedies (Personal Justice Denied). The CWRIC heard the testimony of over 750 witnesses, which included internees, government officials of WWII among others (Digital History). The report which came out in 1983 concluded that the Executive Order 9066 was based on war hysteria, and prejudice (The Slow Return). The results of the report were seen as a vital step toward recognition of the injustices done toward Japanese Americans during the internment. 4. Civil Liberties Act of 1988 This later lead to President Reagan signing the Civil Liberties Act, which sought to provide the compensation of $20,000 for the surviving internees (The Slow Return). This was $1.65 billion given to 82,000 internees (Malkin). Furthermore, the Act was an official recognition by the government of having acted unjustly, and also offered an apology for those actions (Children of the Camps). The act also provided for a public education fund to inform the public about internment (Children of the Camps). B. Canada: A. National Association of Japanese Canadians B. A Call for Justice 1982 C. Redress Settlement 1988 One of the government's first overtures towards redress was to compensate the Japanese Canadians for their losses during the war. The Japanese Canadian Committee for Democracy (JCCD), which later became the National Association of Japanese Canadians, objected to the terms of the Bird Commission. Compensation was limited to property losses only. This was too restrictive and did not deal with issues of civil rights, sale of property without consent, and damages incurred from loss earnings, disruption to education, and psychological trauma. In 1950, the Justice Henry Bird recommended $1.2 million compensation to individuals - from which their legal fees had to be deducted. This represented $52 a person. Many felt compelled to accept the offer; others did not even file claims. The outcome of this commission quelled any further protest for the next 20 years. (amachi.biz) "Canadians of every background are supporting the National Association of Japanese Canadians' demand for redress as a necessary journey into the interior of our national conscience Acknowledgment of an imperfect past is a prerequisite for a future in which people live together in mutual respect, and self-righteous racism does not take us by surprise again. Bruce McLeod, former Moderator of the United Church of Canada, 1988. The 1980's marked a period of rejuvenation for the fight for redress. The Japanese Canadian community initiated a process that would see them deal with internal community struggles of leadership, the mobilization of the community around a compensation package, and getting the government to the table. Towards the end, they

Padròn, Scianmarello 7 would gain the support of many Canadians from all walks of life, from across Canada. (amachi.biz) The campaign for redress was bolstered by a number of events. In 1980, the US Congress conducted hearings into the internment of Japanese Americans. One year before the Canadian agreement, the U.S. offered an apology and individual compensation package to the internees. Both events drew media attention to the cause and highlighted the case for Japanese Canadians. The all-party Committee report Equality Now!, released in 1984, raised the public consciousness to the issue of redress. This initiated a government response. The NAJC spent countless hours negotiating with the government. The discussions spanned five years with two different government parties in power and five successive Ministers of State for Multiculturalism. (amachi.biz) On September 22, 1988 The Japanese Canadian Redress Agreement was signed. In the House of Commons, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney acknowledged the government's wrongful actions; pledged to ensure that the events would never recur and recognized the loyalty of the Japanese Canadians to Canada. As a symbolic redress for those injustices the government offered individual and community compensation to the Japanese Canadians. To the Canadian people, and on behalf of Japanese Canadians, the government committed to create a national organization that would foster racial harmony and help to eliminate racism. The Canadian Race Relation Foundation opened its doors in 1997. (amachi.biz) VI. Could It Happen Again? A. United States: The United States Government has in the past suspended Habeas Corpus, during times of war: Civil War and World War II for the Japanese. With this precedent it can be repeated if ever deemed necessary. No safe guards exist to prevent it from happening again. Furthermore, the fear created by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2991, make such as event more likely, though toward Arab Americans rather than Japanese Americans. Similar bias and violence toward Arab Americans as toward Japanese Americans in WWII has already been displayed by the American population (Can it Happen Again). However, it must be noted that interment on the scale of WWII is very unlikely. Still, interment of individuals without evidence for extended periods of time is currently legal as a measure on the war on terror. Furthermore, the Patriot Act expands these powers for the Executive branch. It must be noted that though the Civil Liberties Act condemned ethnicity based internment, it did not forbid it (Village Voice). Recently, arguments for racial profiling for security in sensitive or crucial areas, such as airports, have arisen in prominence. B. Canada: In 1942, the Canadian government enacted the War Measures Act. Orders in Council decreed by Cabinet gave sweeping powers to the RCMP and military to search, arrest and curfew. Civil Liberties were cast aside for national security. (amachi.biz) To prevent history from repeating itself, the National Association of Japanese Canadians (NAJC) lobbied for amendments to the War Measures Act and in 1987, the government replaced it with the Emergencies Act. The new Act outlined criteria for what is considered a national emergency; provided Parliamentary oversight of Cabinet Orders in Council; and prohibited the detention of individuals on the basis of race and other grounds, e.g. religion,

Padròn, Scianmarello 8 etc. It attempted to balance the protection of civil liberties with the right to respond to emergencies. (amachi.biz) Nevertheless, even though the Emergencies Act contains provisions to apply the Charter of Rights and Freedoms during the exercise of emergency powers "in the same way as it does other government action"; this alone is not an unequivocal guarantee of Charter rights. Critics' fear that in upholding the Emergencies Act the federal government can use certain provisions of the Constitution ("Peace, Order and Good Government") and the Charter ( 33) to override fundamental Charter Rights. The greatest fear lies in the fact that the Charter needs to be amended to ensure that human rights cannot be eroded, even in times of emergency. It was racism and wartime hysteria, which allowed the government to intern Japanese Canadian citizens. (amachi.biz) The War Measures Act was simply the mechanism used to carry out the government's orders. Thus, the Emergency Act alone may not be enough to secure the rights of vulnerable groups. (amachi.biz)

Padròn, Scianmarello 9 Works Cited "A More Perfect Union." Japanese Americans and the US Constitution. 3 Dec 2006 <http://americanhistory.si.edu/perfectunion/resources/links.html>. "Children of the Camps." PBS. 3 Dec 2006 <http://www.pbs.org/childofcamp/history>. "From Racism to Redress: The Canadian Experience." 2 Dec 2006 <http://www.amachi.biz/divers-files/en/pub/fash/epubfashracredjap.pdf>. Hane, Mikiso. "Wartime Internment." The Journal of American History3 Dec 2006 <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8723%28199009%2977%3a2%3c569%3awi%3e2.0.co%3b2-v>. "Internment Camps." 3 Dec 2006 <http://www.fatherryan.org/hcompsci/camp.htm>. "Japanese Canadian Internment." University of Washington. 2 Dec 2006 <http://www.lib.washington.edu/subject/canada/internment/intro.html>. "Japanese Internment: Banished and Beyond Tears." The Canadian Encyclopedia. 2 Dec 2006 <http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?pgnm=archivedfeatures&param s=a241>. "Japanese Internment Camps in the USA." World War Two. 4 Dec 2006 <http://www.historyonthenet.com/ww2/japan_internment_camps.htm>. Kashima, Tetsuden. "Japanese American Internnes Return, 1945 to 1955: Readjustment and Social Amnesia." Phylon (1960-), Vol. 41, No. 2. (2nd Qtr., 1980), pp. 107-1153 Dec 2006 <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8906%28198032%2941%3a2%3c107%3ajairit%3e2.0.co%3b2-d>. La Violette, Forest E.. "The American-Born Japanese and the World Crisis." The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, Vol. 7, No. 4. (Nov., 1941)517-527. 3 Dec

Padròn, Scianmarello 10 2006 <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0315-4890%28194111%297%3a4%3c517%3atajatw%3e2.0.co%3b2-s>. Malkin, Michelle. "Reparations for internment were just a curtsy to political correctness." San Francisco Chronicle. 3 Dec 2006 <http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/09/05/ingki8i2da1.dtl>. Meller, Anica. "The Internment and Relocation of Japanese-Americans." 4 Dec 2006 <http://www.iusb.edu/~journal/2002/meller/meller.html>. Morgan, Cecil. "Relocating the Japanese-Americans--A Progress Report." Journal of Educational Sociology, Vol. 18, No. 6. (Feb., 1945)323-330. 3 Dec 2006 <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0885-3525%28194502%2918%3a6%3c323%3artjtpr%3e2.0.co%3b2-u>. Okihiro, Gary Y.. "The Press, Japanese Americans, and the Concentration Camps." Phylon(1960-), Vol. 44, No. 1. (1st Qtr., 1983)66-83. 3 Dec 2006 <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8906%28198331%2944%3a1%3c66%3atpjaat%3e2.0.co%3b2-t>. "Personal Justice Denied." Digital History. 3 Dec 2006 <http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/japanese_internment/personal_justice _denied.cfm>. Roucek, Joseph S.. "Americans Japanese, Pearl Harbor and World War II." The Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 12, No. 4. (Autumn, 1943)633-649. 3 Dec 2006 <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2984%28194323%2912%3a4%3c633%3aajphaw%3e2.0.co%3b2-k>.

Padròn, Scianmarello 11 "Slow Return." Letters from the Japanese American Internment. Smithsonian Education. 3 Dec 2006 <http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/lesson_plans/japanese_internment/slow _return.html>. Smith, Elmer R.. "Resettlement of Japanese Americans." Far Eastern Survey, Vol. 18, No. 10. (May 18, 1949)117-118. 3 Dec 2006 <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0362-8949%2819490518%2918%3a10%3c117%3aroja%3e2.0.co%3b2-0>. Starn, Orin. "Engineering Interment: Anthropologists and the War Relocation Authority." American Ethnologist, Vol. 13, No. 4 (Nov., 1986)700-720. 3 Dec 2006 <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0094-0496%28198611%2913%3a4%3c700%3aeiaatw%3e2.0.co%3b2-x>. Sunahara, Ann Gomer. "The Politics of Racism." 2 Dec 2006 <http://www.japanesecanadianhistory.ca/>. Taniguchi, Nancy J.. "JAPANESE IMMIGRANTS IN UTAH." 3 Dec 2006 <http://www.media.utah.edu/uhe/j/japanese.html>. "TOYOSABURO KOREMATSU v. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 214 (1944)." Find Law Resources. 4 Dec 2006 <http://web.mit.edu/course/17/17.245/oldfiles/www/korematsu.htm>. Village Voice, "Japanese Americans look at 9/11 and remember 60 years ago and Japanese internment during WWII." Refuse and Resist. 4 Dec 2006 <http://www.refuseandresist.org/detentions/art.php?aid=531>. Yatsushiro, Toshio. "The Japanese-American Looks at Resettlement." The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 2 (Summer, 1944)188-2001. 3 Dec 2006

Padròn, Scianmarello 12 <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0033-362s%28194422%298%3a2%3c188%3atjlar%3e2.0.co%3b2-o>.