Is That Legal?

By "tracking" ethnicity and loyalty, I was merely referring to the dual loyalties felt by many Americans for the land of their ancestors and the U.S. In the case of ethnic Japanese (many of whom held dual citizenship), that loyalty was severely tested in WW II. Some went over to Japan, others staunchly held to America. Others wavered. Sorry for the sloppy use of "tracking"-- "correlate" sounds overly precise.

In the case of Middle Eastern immigrants and citizens and Muslims today, the same issue arises.

would you differentiate between recent immigrants and subsequent generations? would you control for things like income level, education, and the like? what about religion, or type of employment? what about gender?

an even bigger question -- how would you define "loyalty"?

While we're at it, Jews ought to be monitored: Israel is pretty important to them. Some of them have been accused of disloyalty, and we all know there's no smoke without.... well, smoke, anyway.

More to the point: WHY? Is this a diagnostic tool? Will it result in educational programs or security screening adjustments or law enforcement rubrics?

The "Niihau episode" (as Malkin relates it; I don't have time to fact check her today, though it's probably worth doing) involved a grand total of Three Japanese and did not persuade the Roosevelt administration to carry out mass internments in Hawai'i.

Is he asking the factual question whether there is a correlation between where a US resident/citizen was born and whether that person has feelings of "loyalty" towards other nations? Or is he asking whether we should treat people differently based on any such correlation found to exist?

To ask the first question is in some ways interesting, although the risk of focusing on anecdotes, rather than statistical significance, seems high. It also is somewhat biased in the question it asks: there are many other qualities for which we could "correlate" loyalty. If most abortion clinic bombers are Christian, should we ask whether being Christian "tracks" being a terrorist?

But of course, the real question becomes what do you do with evidence of tracking if you find it? Should we spy on all Serbian_Americans if there is a small statistically significant correleation between Serbian ethnicity and loyalty to Serbia? Seems dicey to say the least.

Let's take up serious arguments. Consider "isolationism" in the Midwest. Was the anti-war attitude there in the 1930s not reflective of German ethnicity? See Samuel Lubell's classic _The Future of American Politics_. This is an old and obvious theme in the history of American politics. Crises such as Pearl Harbor and 9/11 bring the issue to the fore and require us to think how to deal with them rationally, how to protect ourselves and not destroy the way of life we are fighting to defend.

Loyalty to America requires, I would argue, a commitment to Israel, as the only principled Middle Eastern democracy. So there is no conflict there.

Obviously relocation plans test our capabilities: Hawaii was under martial law, which partly mitigated the need for relocation, which would have utterly disrupted the local economy. Perhaps that should have sufficed for the west coast, as well. I don't doubt that racist sentiments played their role in the relocation, but that doesn't make it any less appropriate a policy, when one considers the strategic situation facing the U.S.

If there was one domestic suicide shortly after Pearl Harbor, what about suicide bombers later on? But perhaps I'm anticipating the future.

"Loyalty to America requires, I would argue, a commitment to Israel, as the only principled Middle Eastern democracy. So there is no conflict there."

Do you think that such a "commitment" says anything about someone's antisemitism, or absence thereof, and one's position toward American Jews (anti-Zionists included; they are no less subject to anti-Jewish hate)? Is an American antisemite who supports Israel for strategic reasons a "loyal American".

By definition an anti-Semite cannot be a loyal American, as allegiance to America is allegiance to a set of principles incompatible with anti-Semitism, racism, or any other such class conceptions of humanity.

In this case, how should I interpret this:
I don't doubt that racist sentiments played their role in the relocation, but that doesn't make it any less appropriate a policy, when one considers the strategic situation facing the U.S.?

I hasten to make it clear that I am not an American, and my reading comprehension in English may be chaotic, but if "racist sentiments" are incompatible with the "set of principles" any loyal American should subscribe to, how can such a policy still be appropriate to prevent "disloyalty" to the USofA?

Mr. Ho: WW II Japanese strategy appealed to nationalist sentiments, including those of ethnic Japanese. Racism is not the preserve of white people.

Ken - I'm still not sure how you're defining "loyalty." what does loyalty towards one country have to do with whether or not one is "committed" to any other? If anything, your assertion seems completely counterintuitive. Even assuming, arguendo, that Israel is the only "principled middle eastern democracy," there's a strong argument that the U.S.' political and financial support of the country has done the U.S. more harm than good in the long term.

Mr. Masugi, this does not answer my question: if racism is incompatible with America's principles (I take it you would agree that the "Minutemen", the Neo-Confederates, et al., are all "disloyal Americans", which is okay by me), how can the internment, which you aknowledge to have been inspired, at least partly, by racism, still be justified?

I may be wrong, but you seem to assume that I think that "racism is the preserve of white people". This, however, has nothing to do with what is being discussed here, which is a policy of the United States of America, a country that has never been governed by Japanese or representants of Japan.

Jenny-- You're confusing national self-interest with a principled argument about the U.S. and Israel having similar souls. Obviously, the U.S. and Israel can differ over matters of policy. This (e.g., Pollard) has nothing to do with their mutual agreement on political principles. The WW II question is to whom would ethnic Japanese in the U.S. be loyal-- the land of their ancestors or the U.S.?

Mr. Ho: The justification would be self-defense. BTW, if the U.S. policy were that racist, why were Japanese in Salt Lake City and Spokane unmolested, and leave policies (such as benefited my relatives) established to permit those in the centers to move to Chicago? Of course that needn't justify for the initial disruption, but WW II disrupted many lives even worse. That grim perspective deserves some respect as we reexamine this policy.

Interesting.

Mr. Ho deftly catches Mr. Masugi offering an invalid, obviously contradictory argument, and Mr. Masugi tries to change the subject by offering the red herring that "the justification would be self-defense."

Well done, Mr. Ho.

In other words, if the U.S. is faced with a racist enemy, are we obliged to overlook the pull those racist sentiments might have: I.e., to overlook the force of racism? There's no contradiction here at all, just prudent policy. That's what was going on in WW II. You recall, btw, that this was a period where racial segregation was regarded as routine in many parts of the country. Of course that was unjust, but protecting the nation in time of war is not a policy intended to fix every extant injustice.

ken -- i still don't understand how you're defining loyalty. "mutual agreement on political principles" doesn't seem to enter into it, nor does whether or not two countries have the same "souls" -- what is a country's soul, by the way?

i still don't see how loyalty to the US would have anything to do with one's position on israel, or any other country for that matter.

In other words, if the U.S. is faced with a racist enemy, are we obliged to overlook the pull those racist sentiments might have: I.e., to overlook the force of racism? There's no contradiction here at all, just prudent policy. That's what was going on in WW II. You recall, btw, that this was a period where racial segregation was regarded as routine in many parts of the country. Of course that was unjust, but protecting the nation in time of war is not a policy intended to fix every extant injustice.

Ken, "prudent" does not mean simply "cautious"; it means "wisely and judiciously cautious."

I will give you that American policy toward its American citizens of Japanese ancestry was cautious. Could you explain, though, how the policy was wisely and judiciously so? How was it "prudent policy?"

In other words, if the U.S. is faced with a racist enemy, are we obliged to overlook the pull those racist sentiments might have: I.e., to overlook the force of racism? There's no contradiction here at all, just prudent policy. That's what was going on in WW II. You recall, btw, that this was a period where racial segregation was regarded as routine in many parts of the country. Of course that was unjust, but protecting the nation in time of war is not a policy intended to fix every extant injustice.

Sorry for the inadvertent double post. Eric, I did not mean prudent as cautious. I meant prudent as, given the circumstances, defensible if not proper policy. Obviously, I think many aspects of the relocation can be questioned--for example, its duration. But it strikes me as reasonable supposition circa 1941 that those of Japanese ancestry on the west coast might have become actively disloyal to the U.S. Given the inability to screen the loyal from the disloyal save for the most blatant cases (what is the loyalty SAT?), temporarily removing the population residing on the Pacific coast was a horrific but defensible measure. Wars are like that.

If, as you said, allegiance to America and its principles is "incompatible with racism," then relocation by your own definition was necessarily incompatible with America and its principles, since racism, as you also noted, certainly played a role in relocation. But apparently you reject this obvious conclusion stemming from your premises.

Evaluated syllogistically, your argument simply is invalid.

Mr. Masugi also says that loyalty to America requires commitment to Middle Eastern democracy (support of Israel), yet democracy in practice is obviously incompatible with racism, which itself is incompatible with America and its underlying principles.

Not very consistent.

Internment, a process in which "racist sentiments played their role," was "defensible, if not proper" against a "racist enemy."

Not very consistent, either.

Michael Walzer once said that sometimes in war otherwise good people have to do bad things. But was internment, motivated in part (or in large part, perhaps) by racism, the MOST JUDICIOUS POLICY available in an allegedly democratic country (well, a somewhat democratically elected republic)?

Even for the sake of principle, the United States, particularly its military leaders,should have paid special attention to NOT following after the racism of the enemy. Two wrongs don't make a right--just two wrongs.

America was not "following" the racism of the Japanese-- we were trying to defeat it. That regime difference between a nation founded on the principle of equality and another serving Japanese militarism makes all the difference in the world.

Mr. Masugi,

Principle means nothing without practice.

A nation that claims to be based on the principle of equality but does not demonstrate it in practice simply is not a nation truly based on equality. Talk is cheap; the proof is in the pudding. This is simply the obvious extension of Aristotle's ethics: good people do good things, and that's what makes them good people. A democratic country, likewise, that rejects democratic principles is not really a democratic country.

Anyway, to get back to the original point, which you have yet to address: the invalid argument you apparently still cling to. You claim that allegiance to America and its principles is "incompatible with racism" and yet conclude that internment, a process in which "racist sentiments played their role," was nevertheless "defensible." The conclusion simply does not make sense in light of your premises.

It would, however, make more sense if you changed your original premise that allegiance to America and its principles is "incompatible with racism" and replaced it with (the more honest?) "racist practices like internment are sometimes justifiable, especially when used in self-defense."

I would not agree with this statement either, simply because there were obvious alternatives to internment, but at least it would better match your conclusion. Right now what you have, I am afraid, is a poorly constructed argument supported by poor evidence.

Mr. Bowman, you're really more of a Platonist than an Aristotelian, as you see no room for daylight between principles and practice. Aristotle certainly did. That's why Plato in being utterly impractical teaches us so much about proper practice.

Can't nations declare themselves to be imperfect, and thus have a standard by which to criticze themselves?

By having such high ideals, nations do not surrender their right of self-defense. Racism is not the only violation of the principle of human equality, a principle, I remind you, of limited government and constitutionalism primarily (and not one directed against racism). It is because we are constitutionalists that we oppose racism.

Once again, Mr. Masugi, you really miss the point (my guess, on purpose), engaging in mind-reading and making straw men. Are you an academic or a spin doctor (or something else?). From a cursory look at the weblog at Claremont, I suppose it is more of the latter. Too bad.

You clearly have little interest in setting forth a valid argument, as you apparently cannot admit the obvious--that you have not set forth one. A classic sophist!

Goodbye

Shut up, he explained. You said nothing of substance in your last post. All I'm asking you to see is that nations based on high principle do not render themselves defenseless before those who would attempt to exploit those principles. That is a simple argument but one whose implications people such as yourself fear to confront: Living by principle does not obliged one to enslave oneself to one who fails to respect those principles.

You clearly want to change the subject because you are unable to extricate yourself from your own poor reasoning.

I'll try again--patience, after all, is a virtue:

You claim that allegiance to America and its principles is "incompatible with racism" and yet conclude that internment, a process in which "racist sentiments played their role," was nevertheless "defensible." The conclusion simply does not make sense in light of your premises.

It would, however, make more sense if you changed your original premise that allegiance to America and its principles is "incompatible with racism" and replaced it with (the more honest?) "racist practices like internment are sometimes justifiable, especially when used in self-defense."

What's it going to be?

If you answer, I'll happily answer your red herring. First things first.

Can't nations declare themselves to be imperfect, and thus have a standard by which to criticze themselves?

But of course, the real question becomes what do you do with evidence of tracking if you find it? Should we spy on all Serbian_Americans if there is a small statistically significant correleation between Serbian ethnicity and loyalty to Serbia? Seems dicey to say the least.