Anybody read Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas? I'm about halfway through it now and I find it very interesting. Druid you're from Kansas right lol. No, but it really is a thought-provoking read, something I think everyone should try and muscle their way through.

*I know this isn't about the War on Terror but it deals with politics so I thought it would be relevant.

is it dry?

Found an ebook copy of it,
My opinion is the guy is full of himself.
The theme of his book is conservatives vote conservative only because they don't know better. Sorry but the guy is an idiot, this is the same self righteous self serving attitude sweeping through the Democratic party right now.
With that said I would have to agree with some of his points, many conservatives are conservatives without understanding why or if it's in their best interest but the same goes for Liberals.
I can say this because I'm a libertarian, to me both parties are full of shit in their own very distinct ways.

libertarian = One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

I found his remarks about Kansas ans specifically Wichita pretty laughable.
The idea he went to what was suppose to be a busy street and no one was around?? LMAO
Per capita, wichita is the air capital of the world. Withn this small city we have Boeing ( which is now Mid-western Aircraft ) Airbus, Bombardier, Cessna and Beech/Raytheon. Plus all the small companies that support the industry.
A few years ago we suffered the largest downturn in aircraft history but despite that Wichita is still growing above the national average.
Yet he refers to it as a ghost town??? Don't think so.

I especially got a laugh out of his spin job on why the poorest county in the US, which isn't even in Kansas would back Bush by an 80% majority, when according to him it obviously wasn't in their best interest. Very nice side step on the the whole issue the Dem's brought nothing to the table or the huge mistake making their front man Kerry, who didn't couldn't even decide what side of the issues he was on much less what changes he would make to improve things. Kerry's platform amounted to little more than "I'm not Bush"

There are several mistakes in his book. The 1st one that comes to mind is his suggestion that the poor MISTAKINGLY voted for bush agaisnt their true best interest. Actually the truth is the increased precentage of people voting for bush was in line with steps up the income ladder,. Exit pools showed the poorest group was almost a perfect 50-50 split, but then then increasing in Bush's favor as personal income went up.

I too thuoght he was rather full of himself Druid, and I took many of his anecdotes with a grain of salt to say the least. His focus on Kansas was meaningless to me because I know absolutely nothing about Kansas other than it's flat. However, some of the ideas that he presents hold true, at least here in Georgia anyways from talking to different people from around our state during debate tournaments and the like. It all boils down to under education in my mind.

I think the general point is that way more people are voting for the wrong reasons and they don't understand that, not so much that they are simply mistaken. 50/50 for the poor may seem disjointed, but should that 50% really be voting Republican, probably not, based on Frank's reasoning. What got me most of all is just the fact that people would vote on social issues at all; social standards are very hard to adjust, Roe v. Wade being an excellent example.

Protesting about issues like abortion is pointless unless the Supreme Court takes radical action; furthermore, appointing enough conservative justices to the court to overturn a decision like Roe is extremely unlikely. This doesn't even take into account the historical implications and ramifications of any such landmark reversal - the integrity of the court would suffer if there were not some egregious violation of the constitution to justify it (i.e. segregation, slavery, etc.)

The organized religious organizations who protest abortion don't care about what's practical, or what's constitutional, or what the other side is willing to concede. To them the issue is very black and white. Just look around: when it comes to the issue of abortion, they are the minority voice (moral majority is a nice spin). But that doesn't stop them.

If what they need is radical action from the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, then that's what they will push for. Do you think they care what their opponents think? How many times have we heard good ole' Pat Robertson tell us that killing the unborn is a sin, that this is God's battle being waged on earth. His followers won't be stopped by the Constitution, since they are held to a higher law.

It has nothing to do with the Consitution.

Sometimes we get too comfortable. We think, "Surely the US won't lock up people in camps without due process, or a time table, or, hell, even a transparent process at all. Surely a land that loves freedom, such as ours, would repel anything which threatens personal freedom and first amendment rights." Unfortunately, history has shown otherwise.

JA Internment
Read First Sentence, Section 2

We can't take these things for granted.

Japanese-American Interment is a great example of revisionist history.
Look through the page you linked to, not a single mention about German or Italians. I think most people would be surprised to find out Japanese actually made up the minority of people deemed Enemy Aliens.
Germain 300,000
Italian 600,000
Japanese 115,000

Now guess the reason why there is little or no mention of German and Italian interment. Simple, the Germans and Italians didn't sue for reparations.
Another point often missing is the fact for those who WERE U.S. citizen, were given the opportunity to give up their citizenship, if they did they many were allowed to go back to Japan.
You would think a site dedicated to how wrong interment was would also mention other groups also effected, but it doesn't. I find that very strange.
Add to that, the numbers people cite when they talk about interment sound worse than they really were. Not sure the percentage but a large amount where never locked up as most people would image when they think of interment, almost a quarter where simply relocated and prohibited from entering the pacific coast states.
Two years ago on another forum was a discussion about possible interment of Arab-Americans. A Canadian blasted America for trampling citizen's rights because of interment during WW2. I was amazed that he didn't know Canada did the same thing during that time.

I don't really know if interment was the right decision or if it was even necessary but I do know it wasn't a simply case of prejudice as some revisionist make it out to be. The revisionist tend to overlook that several intercepted and later decoded messages from the Japanesse miltary mention information recieved from spies inside of America or the fact every ship that sailed from pacific ports was attacked, this numbers was almost cut in half after interment.

intresting....

would that have anything to do with our military actions around that time? like did they pull there fleet away from our shipping lanes, or did we take out a few more jap subs during that time? did our patrols increase at all?

just wondering if it was a postive effect of internment or our military...or a combined effort? intresting...

To a certain extent, internment can serve as a measure of protection. I mean, look at all the prejudice against "Japs" that was present during WWII. Many may have been killed by racist citizens who were upset about the attack on Pearl Harbor.

I feel the same way as Druid. Internment has its pros and cons, so I am really not sure how I view it.

i dont know....a lot of people are scared of arab americans...perticular the ones that look like the terrorists on cnn....
people are afraid of that they dont understand...and people have not forgotten 9-11. alot of people the wounds are as fresh as they were when it happened.
if we get hit like we did on 9-11 i think you will see dramatic flow of hate crimes. as it is now i see towel heads (refering to the wrap on the head, not being really racist) being put through more "security" then they need to be. (harassment at border checks and privite security like factory and plant security (swat wanna-be) officers.
but when you think of terrorists who do you picture? McVeigh or Osama? Really you cant trust anyone, white black purle...it dont matter anyone could be a terrorist. look at the school bombing in russia (last year?) one of them was a woman. (she killed kids, and some of them didnt fit the profile for a terrorist that russia hard to worry about.

There's nothing wrong with a website devoted specifically to Japanese internment, just as there is nothing wrong with a website devoted specifically to Jewish victims of the Holocaust, though we all know that Russians, Gypsies, Communists, and other undesirables suffered just as badly. So I can't see how this is deemed revisionism or even strange. I think you're playing word games. I could go one step further--you would think a website dedicated to revealing the injustice capable of human beings would also mention other groups affected, like Sargon's brutal oppresion of the Sumerians, or Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC. So really, I don't think a Japanese website devoted to Japanese internment is that inappropriate.



Well bravo for the Germans and Italians who didn't sue, but that's beside the point. They really should have. It's like saying that the only reason the blacks were able to repeal the oppressive poll tax and Jim Crow laws was because they were the only minority group having the guts to publicly fight them when, in reality, the Jim Crow laws affected lots of minorities. Given that the Irish, the Chinese, etc., didn't make such an organized stir against these laws, does that make them [the laws] any more pallatable?? So what if the Japanese were the only ones to sue, what's at stake here is the actions of the government. The internment of the Italians and Germans is equally disgusting.



Actually no, this point was not passed over, at least not in my high school. There's a movie about a young man who returned to Japan to fight the Americans because of his anger and disillusionment (the movie takes the slant that he made the wrong choice).

In any case, how can the exchange of US citizenship and extradition to Japan for an "avoidance of internment" fair? Follow my logic:

1) These are US citizens, and so they are, by law, entitled to the fair and equal treatment, application of laws, rights, etc., as any other citizen of this country, regardless of his race, age, etc.

2) Executive Order 9066 explicitly reveals that its purpose is to to expedite the American prosecution of war. What's implied is why the war was being prosecuted in the first place: to protect American defense facilities and, a fortiori, American citizens.

3) Here Roosevelt's logic is bizarre--to protect American citizens, he will force American citizens to choose between two equally repulsive alternatives: A) relinquish their Constitutional rights and be forced to live in "relocation centers," whereby they are divested of most of their assets, or renounce theiry citenship to the US and relocate to Japan.

Alternative A is what happened to 110,000 Japanese-American citizens (I don't know where you got your numbers, but I used Encarta and a site for the Asian American Studies department at UCLA), it is patently unfair and even, dare I say it, un-American. Alternative B is just absurd. The administration might as well have offered to relocate them to Nigeria or Turkey. People assume that sticking a Japanese-American in Japan is a smooth operation. Many of them, especially the younger generations, didn't even speak Japanese. Nice. And what about the fact that, like most Americans, Japanese-Americans were pro-war and against Japanese imperialism?




I strongly disagree with your numbers, and I've already cited where I got mine. True, many of them were not 'locked up' behind barbed wire fences, although that is our strongest impression. Many were forced to live in closed communities where they were "simply reloacted and prohibited from entering pacific coast states." Oh, gee, that's it? Well now that you put it that way, they've got nothing to complain about! Let's just take all the Iraqis living in Los Angeles, Iraqi-American citizens that is, and disperse them throughout Texas, just to make it harder for any would-be saboteurs to operate. Nothing too serious, certainly not any barbed-wire camps. We're civilized, after all.



Beside the point. I met a German who was blasting our Guantanamo camps, and he knew nothing about what his own country had perpetrated in the forties, and you know what? It really doesn't matter. Either way the camps are unacceptable. I ask you, what if the Canadian had known about the disgracful actions of his own country? Does that alone make his assertion any more or less valid? no.



I have no idea where you got the idea that the every ship from the Pacific port was attacked. Every ship? Cut in half? Again, I strongly doubt your claim, but I might open up if you can cite some kind of reliable source which can conclude not only that the attacks were decreased after the relocation (which i doubt), but also that THE TWO INCIDENTS WERE VERITABLY CONNECTED (I really doubt). The Japanese had spies. Hell, everyone has spies. That doesn't mean, "Let's go lock up Americans if they are the same ethnicity as the nations we are fighting." The Russians had famous spies in the fifties who were not Russian, but Jewish--and they were motivated not by any social or ethnic or even political factors. They were motivated by money. Hey, who isn't these days?

I agree with you, however, that prejudice was not the only motivation, but it was a VERY LARGE ONE. The internment of the Germans? Prejudice. And the Italians? Prejudice. Like you said, the Japanese were not the only ones to suffer such indignity.



To a great extent, rounding up all the blacks and locking them up in Alaska would reduce hate crimes in New York by 100%. I mean, look at all the prejudice they suffer now, some have even been killed by racists citizens. Ridiculous.

Look, my last point, Druid, is your mentioning that the numbers aren't as bad as they really were. And though I doubt even this, you may be right. We have a culture which tends to exaggerate the dramatic. In light of this, however, I also offer this: Even if Roosevelt had done this to just one citizen, it would be just as wrong. We live in a country of precedents, and that's what makes this place so great. But it is also what makes our precedents so important, because what applies to one man applies to all men--we are, after all, equal under the gaze of the Law.

"An injustice somewhere is a threat to justice anywhere." MLK from Gandhi.

Quotes, btw, can be used to distort anything and support any position. But sometimes they are poignant.

--hc

Come on, don't alter the context so drastically. I am talking about a time of war and abnormal civil unrest. I am also talking about something temporary, not something permanent. I have read enough about the Japanese internment camps to know that living there was a much less than pleasant experience; I was merely making the point that during those times, had the camps been more habitable, they may have been somewhat protective for the people there.

That's a far different scenario than just arbitrarily rounding up blacks and shipping them off to Alaska to reduce normal crime levels. However, if a legitimate race war broke out, then it may not be a bad idea to somehow separate the two groups. In that situation, internment would probably not be ideal, but relocation of one or both may be better than allowing a race war to be fought. Freedom is to be held in the highest respect, of course, but it is the purpose of the State to pass laws to ensure the security of the people.

I think at the time of WWII, internment was probably the best they could do, although it may have been possible to improve the living conditions quite a bit. I will not say that the Japanese were not wronged, but I will also not say that their internment was 100% bad. It may very well have saved many more lives than it cost. (Sounds kind of like the argument for dropping the atomic bomb(s).... Too bad they were dropped in heavily civilian-populated areas, otherwise it may not have been so problematic)

Japanese-Americans ARE the people. And I think we can agree that Roosevelt didn't have them interned for their own protection. The ultimate purpose of the State is not to "pass laws to ensure the security of the people." As stated in the preamble, the purpose of the government is "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." What Roosevelt did failed in all these respects, and don't come back telling me how moving the Japanese somehow reduced espionage or discouraged anti-American sentiments.

It's not just that they were relocated, they lost most of their shit too--homes, clothes, sentimental posessions, PS2s, you name it. Somehow, I don't think it's the government's business to round up American citizens, trample their rights, and relocate them to separate but less than equal facilities in the name of justice, freedom, and... racial harmony(?). Please.

It's funny how, on the one hand, Japanese-Americans could not be trusted to live as loyal US citizens (or whatever other BS excuse that could be furnished), yet somehow it was ok to arm their children, train them, and then send them to fight Nazis: the 442nd Regimental Combat Team was one of the most highly decorated and honored American units to ever serve, exemplifying true love for one's country--even if that country is fucking your family over hardcore.

Smells like consummate hypocrisy to me.

--

Very true. I'm not arguing that the specifics of the Japanese-American internment were good; nor am I arguing that the government's motives in that case were pure, but I am saying that it may have saved lives. Note the use of the subjunctive.

I am sure the government had their reasons for doing what they did. I doubt that it was primarily prejudice in the case of the Germans and Italians (due to the fact that they are also "Western" and more understandable to the average American), although it may have been for the Japanese (as an "Eastern" people, whose customs are far different than those of the average American).

That would be here
http://www.answers.com/topic/japanese-american-internment
"In January 25, 1942 the Secretary of War Darshan 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."

As for the reduction after interment, this was information linked to in a discussion several months ago on another forum. I've no clue how to find the inforamtion again.

I don't think I said your numbers where off but in fact they are.
The terms interment and relocation are often used interchangeably when the are two different things. Only enemy aliens were interned, this number also include "voluntary internees" spouses and children of people who denounced their citizenship.
You have to keep in mind at the time many people supported relocation and interment because there was a real fear of a Japanense invasion along the west coast. This is why Japanese where only relocated from the west coast. At the time it was considered an commonly called the "West Coast war zone".

Another aspect especially concerning foreign born was how they were brought up in a system that required loyalty to the Emperor.

So there will be no misunderstanding, let me say internment was a bad thing, no matter which way it's looked at.
It absolutely was immoral and probably was largely based on prejudice.
BUT, and it a big one.
Often in times of war, things happen that otherwise never would of.
Take war itself, all through our lives we have been taught that life is precious, murder inexcusable. Yet, in times of war countries call on their citizen to go kill as many people as they can. You may think this is simpled or beside the point. I don't think so. Take for instance the ability of the government to draft people into the military, wouldn't you agree the draft is in conflict with peoples 1st amendment rights? If not, where in the constitution does it talk about drafting or conscription.
In fact the constitution says exactly the opposite, the Thirteenth Amendment prohibits "involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime"
This is from a speech by Danial Webster "Where is it written in the Constitution , in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it?"
Now you could also say the draft was also wrong but my point is sometimes things are required in times of crisis.

Your point that interment was illegal, is true but only because the way it way done at the time. If it had been done by the Congress it would of been legal as the congress has the constitutional power to suspend habeas corpus, in times of crisis for the public safety.

nice......
i dont think that internment was a bad thing. what would have happened if...(a various number of things) for instance one of our factories were being sabatoged and we cought one and/or one was seen and he/She was japanesse? could the Gov have protected the jap-american people form the civilian population? we were putting everythng we had in fighting back, and for one of the few times we had a lot to lose.
sorry this isnt all eduational and fact filled...

one other thing if i lives in japan and the war happened and i was put in an internment camp (like the ones we had) i could accept the fact of leave or be put up and away till the war ended...i can accept that fact not like we treated them horrible and beat them with shoes...long as i wasnt being stuffed in a oven...*ahem*

Personally I think that the difference between relocation and internment is like the difference between forced exile and prison. Still, I suppose we could safely posit that 110,000 Japanese-Americans were removed from their homes against their will, whether they were relocatd or interned.

Not that I'm really arguing with you guys, I think we can all say, with the exception of Silver, that relocation was a pretty horrible thing, even if it did produce marginal benefits (if they can be called even that).

And Silver, if what you said is true,



then you're a panzy for allowing your country to treat you second-class.

And yes, Druid, war produces crazy things. It's sad.

If only we could settle all our differences with a good, clean scrim.

Yeah, the only wars should be on video games for sure.

Not second class, I have a choice. Looks like most subjects that were put in camps were suspected of esponiage and aliens. most others were asked or told to move to another part of the country. if I was a Jap-American and were at was with Japan again, I seriously would be looking over my shoulder. I wouldnt want to be mistaken as an agent or jap soldier. I would feel the same way if I was german, but unless ue go to war with Scottland I dont have to worry.
and what do yopu think should have happened? We let forieners walk around the country and have access to everything? eh... I myself if I was a fresh off the boat then I would understand why I was put back on the boat and shipped back. Then again I wouldnt be American I would be Japanesse and would have fought for the Empire.

If I had kids I would do what ever that it took to protect them....living in a prision or where ever I had to I would do. No arguement, really its a matter of personal opinion.

My last post was done in a rush as I was heading off to work.
I wanted to clarify a few things.
When I said interment was based on prejudice, I misspoke to an extent that I don't think prejudice was why it happened but prejudice among the general public went a long way to allowing it to happen.
Most people mistakenly think it was a reaction to Pearl Harbor, this is where a lot of the bias came from but the real turning point was when several ships where attacked along the coastline. One of the news stories about an attack on an oil tanker hand people up in arms because the story wasn't specifically about the tanker attack as this was happening fairly often, what enraged people was how the submarine crew turned it's deck guns on the people in life boats after sinking the tanker.
Then in February of 92 there was an attack by a Japanese sub that shelled and oil refinery at Santa Barbara California. This became a turning point, no longer did people think they where safe just because they where on the mainland.
The government and a large part of the general population in California believed the refinery attack was a preamble to a possible or likely Japanese invasion.
Which was understandable if you considered the attack on pearl harbor was to destroy our ability to repel such an invasion. It's hard for us to picture it now but within days of the attack on Pearl Harbor, miles and miles of barbed wire was strung along the coast, coastal cities where under mandatory blackouts.
Rumors where common about small advance forces landing at remote areas along the coast.
If you put yourself in that frame of thought, here is the reality you would have to face just as they did when they made the decision for interment and relocation.
The government's own study said 90-98% of the Japanese-Americans were loyal and could be trusted. The problem was it would only take a handful of saboteurs to cause great damage to the war effort in the event of an invasion.
Here are some of the problems they faced.
1) A small group could bring California to it's knees by simply setting brush fires.
2) Destroying a few dams would leave a quarter of the population without drinking water.
3) Destroying a few bridges would tie up war supplies needed to repel an invasion.
Case in point to how ill prepared we were for an actual attack on the coast, in California there was only 16 fighters assigned to defend the whole state.
NO One thought it would happen until it was way to late.

With what we know now it's easy to make the point Interment was wrong and never should of happened. I myself would say the same thing but only because hindsight is 20/20.
If I put my self in the position of the people who had to make the decision and I mean really in their position, with only the information available at the time and the circumstances involved, I would of supported interment and relocation.

I agree that most of the prejudice came from the people, not the government. Roosevelt seemed to be more genuinely concerned with national security than with race politics. Then there are those stories you hear of Japanese homes and shops being vandalized, burned down, etc.

I guess this is another question of power balance: how much power do we give to the government in the name of national defense? If one takes it to the extreme, we get something like Oceania in Orwell's 1984, a police state that hides behind the aegis of nationalism and the defense of the people.

Just a thought.

Wasn't there a story of a Japanese sub that got stranded in Santa Monica?

Wow, this went in a totally different direction than I had hoped. Too bad, I was hoping some christian fundamentalist would speak up.

Sorry Blakjak. Maybe we need to egg them on...

Druid's too smart to stick up for his fellow Kansan on this issue lol. jk Druid