Is That Legal?

Shame, Mr. Masugi, shame!

The context makes clear these are Japanese Americans. Moreover, as I say in my response to Muller at http://www.claremont.org/localliberty/archives/003965.html#comments

Readers may make further comments. This is my latest post there, which Muller responds to, though he does not address the quotation from the book. Whatever else he says is compromised by that quotation, which he is obliged to explain. (I can't figure out why he is so sensitive about the term "heroes," which I did not place in quotes, since, as he says, he did not use it.)

Professor Muller: I will say for the record, that your book presents the strains within the Japanese-American community on the draft. It is certainly not veteran-bashing. (One uncle of mine was a resister and spent time in jail, another served overseas in the 100th.)

Moreover, I didn't say you did not regard the soldiers as heroes. But I think you mischaracterize your own book. Who are the "true heroes"? In the last paragraph of your book, after recounting the monument to the Nisei soldiers, you say: "There will never be a monument to the Japanese American draft resisters of World War II in our nation's capital, or for that matter, anywhere else. Yet these young men were patriots; in their willingness to risk the condemnation of their community, they showed courage. They were the nails that stuck up. True to the prediction of their Japanese forebears, they got hammered. Perhaps now, fifty-five years later, we can begin to hear in that hammering the construction of a new American identity."

You suggest that the draft resisters ("patriots") are worthy of a monument. It is the draft resisters (and not those who served)who are involved in creating this "new American identity."

If I have any regrets about my book review, it is failing to make more of the above passage.

umm,
Ken, is there anything the least bit problematic about the passage you mention? One might disagree with it, I guess, but surely it's not a very radical view, or especially not an offensive one. It also certainly doesn't imply that those who opposed the draft were morally superior to those who fought. So, I wonder what you think would happen if you'd highlighted this point. Are your readers such fools that they think that anyone who opposed the draft could not be a sort of moral hero?

Mr. Masugi,

Can you provide evidence from the book that Prof Muller regards those who resisted the draft as more heroic than those who fought? In other words, where does Prof Mullere write (or even suggest) that there are (at least) two classifications of heroes: ordinary heroes and "true" heroes?

The burden of proof is on you, since you made the claim that Prof Muller "regards the Japanese who resisted the draft as the true heroes of the relocation centers, not those who entered the army to fight fascists."

Mr.Bowman, please see the quotation from his book.

Professor Muller, the more I think about it, I think you owe me the apology: "true heroes" does not mean the other heroes were actually scoundrels. It's clear you have some uneasiness with the term heroes at all. So I will allow that this is not part of your vocabulary.

Moreover, it is you who elevate the resisters as I maintain in my post above. Your book explores the different ethnic Japanese responses to the resisters and the war veterans; you note the hatred of the veterans, many years later, for a resolution of apology to the resisters (p. 186). Your implicit endorsement of a monument for the resisters and your closing comment about the "new American identity" make it clear his heart, while torn, is more with the resisters.

Eric and I exchanged emails over this, but he said nothing in this cordial exchange to cause me to question my conclusion about his view of the relative merits of the two groups of Japanese Americans, especially as regards the creation of the "new American identity." Of course he does not scoff at the soldiers. But he does raise the question of which group of Japanese Americans is more "American," in his understanding of what an American is. Guess whom he sides with?

Ken, I have a comment, and then a question for you.

The comment: you still have not identified a single place, anywhere in my writings on Japanese Americans, in which I compare the heroism of those who complied with the draft and those who resisted it. Instead, in all of the places where I write about this, I do the opposite: I refuse to compare them, or to fall into the 60-year-old trap that one must place one above the other. Your statement that I "regard the resisters (and not the veterans) as the true heroes" is entirely false, and your refusal to retract it reflects very poorly on you.

Now, the question: As I wrote you by email, in my book I argue that vocal and visible protest of government orders are more distinctive facets of American popular culture than of Japanese popular culture. (I do not suggest that protest is absent from Japanese tradition, or that compliance is absent from American tradition; I simply maintain that as a comparative matter, vocal public protest has a stronger American lineage than Japanese.)

Do you see this as true?

If you think it false, would you share with us prominent examples of the protest tradition in Japanese culture that match the Boston Tea Party, "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death," the National Woman's Party, lunch counter protests and civil rights sit-ins, the Stonewall riots, the Wounded Knee protest, etc. etc. etc.

Again, I don't mean to be a caricaturist here; I concede that the American protest tradition is checkered and complex, and that there are undoubtedly prominent examples of dissent in Japanese history. What I'm asking is whether, as a general matter, you can maintain that protest is as prominent a feature of Japanese popular history as it is of American popular history.

Ken,

You are trying to change the terms of the debate instead of addressing the question you yourself raised. You originally said "true heroes," and now you are trying to change the debate, so now it is now about who is truly American. Classic red herring. Answer the original question already, please.

If your problem was with Prof Muller's suggestions about which group of Japanese Americans is more "American,", then why in the world didn't you SAY that in your post on the Claremont blog, instead of the inaccurate and more inflammatory "true heroes" statement? Putting words in another's mouth is sloppy scholarship.

Once again, please show me evidence from the book that Prof Muller regards those who resisted the draft as more heroic than those who fought? In other words, where does Prof Muller write (or even suggest) that there are (at least) two classifications of heroes: ordinary heroes and "true" heroes?

Mr. Masugi:

This is shameful.

Muller regards the Japanese who resisted the draft as the true heroes of the relocation centers, not those who entered the army to fight fascists.

Your wording here very clearly implies that Professor Muller believes the draft resisters were heroes and the Japanese-Americans who fought in the army were not.

I will admit that I have no read Prof. Muller's book, but the passages he quotes make it pretty clear that he says nothing of the kind. What's more, you yourself now acknowledge that that is not what Prof. Muller was saying; you are merely trying to weasel out of the indisputable meaning of your own words. Why not act like an adult and apologize?

Eric,

I'm on your side of this debate, 99%. The missing 1% is the comparative protest issue: I think the US "tradition" is somewhat inflated and certainly more recent than deep; I think Japanese political protest needs to be evaluated in light of a very different political system; I think Japan does have a history of public protest which is worth considering. Conflict, open conflict, is as much a part of the Japanese tradition, though there have been concerted efforts to gloss over and suppress that.

I'm nominating Ken Matsugi for the Ari Fleisher Award for 2005. To enter, you must first make an inflamatory statement, and then attempt to diflect all criticism by attacking the questioner's morals, ethics or scholarship. To finish, act as if YOU were the one wronged.

Bah. If Matsugi could actually write coherently, he might have had a point in there somewhere.

Mr. Bowman finally makes a useful comment: the term "red herring." This focus on "hero" is frankly beside the point: The quotation from his book clearly establishes the notion that the no-no boys are somehow above the soldiers, and, as he relates in his post above, they are closer to the American political tradition. I think in the popular understanding of "hero" that makes them more heroic. Moreover, how should one understand the title of his book: Free to Die for Their Country? A bit cynical, no?

Mr. Bowman finally makes a useful comment: the term "red herring."

Now watch as Ken Masugi fervently tries to produce one!

This focus on "hero" is frankly beside the point:

Let's check out that point that "hero" is supposedly beside again. At your blog you said "Muller regards the Japanese who resisted the draft as the true heroes of the relocation centers, not those who entered the army to fight fascists." It might be worth noticing that hero is a pretty important word in this passage. Indeed, the baseless acusation you decided to make was that Muller regarded resisters as heroes and "not those who entered the army..."

Do you see how we might think that, in fact, the claim you made is not a red herring at all, but--well--the entire point?

The quotation from his book clearly establishes the notion that the no-no boys are somehow above the soldiers,

No, in fact, it does not do this either. This makes the second false claim you have made about Muller's book (which I have actually bothered to read).

and, as he relates in his post above, they are closer to the American political tradition.

This is a point Muller actually did make. Finally, you got one! Unfortunately Muller has not claimed that makes them "better" or more "heroic" than those who chose to fight. So, while this is a true statement, it doesn't have any bearing on the question at hand (which, to recap, is why you have grosely misrepresented Muller's work, by claiming he doesn't consider the internees who fought in World War II to be "true heroes.")

I think in the popular understanding of "hero" that makes them more heroic.

Well, if you think that any action which is more "American" than some other action, is by that fact more "heroic" I guess this might follow. Muller hasn't claimed that, and I don't know on what authority you believe more "American" to mean more "heroic."

Moreover, how should one understand the title of his book: Free to Die for Their Country? A bit cynical, no?

If only that had something to do with the point at hand...

Mr. Masugi,

I am surprised yet delighted you decided to come back for more. Your illogic, incoherent rambling, inability to answer a simple question, and overall cowardice notwithstanding, your presence here has been entertaining. Good to hear that you can take a rhetorical beating and still keep ticking.

Perhaps next time you offer an argument you provide some evidence and some cogent reasoning, OK? :-)

John Beaty wrote:

"I'm nominating Ken Matsugi for the Ari Fleisher Award for 2005. To enter, you must first make an inflamatory statement, and then attempt to deflect all criticism by attacking the questioner's morals, ethics or scholarship. To finish, act as if YOU were the one wronged."

I am unfamiliar with the Ari Fleischer award, but if it exists, sure. I'll second.

The question is, WHICH ONE of Masugi's arguments is most deserving? He has offered up at least two gems that I know of.

Perhaps we should ask Masugi himself. Maybe he has a favorite! :-)

Mr. Masugi,

If you don't understand the difference between irony and cynicism (and the difference between unwarranted disdain and earned scrutiny), then there is little point in debating subtleties with you.

The passage you cite does not "clearly" establish the case you claim: it is a tendentious reading suitable only for brandishing a slander of disloyalty.

Sorry to be absent from this for so long; I was travelling.

Eric's argument about the no-no boys being more American and the soldiers more Japanese really does miss the point about their behavior. My no-no boy uncle did not resist the draft because he was acting in the American tradition of protest; he resisted because his Japan-born mother told him he was not going to fight against her country. His decision to go to jail had nothing to do with the spirit of 1776--by the way, Eric, is the Confederacy closer to the American tradition than the Union?-- it had to do with obeying mom. He would just as soon have gotten out of a boring camp routine for something else.

Those who went ahead with military service had a range of motives. But surely some of them were affirming their American citizenship in the best and most available way they knew how: by fighting for their country.

Remember that Mike Masaoka, the Japanese-American community leader (if one such person could be so labelled), was willing to help organize Japanese-American suicide squads to fight in the Pacific.

It's great to be back, if anyone out there is paying attention.

Oddly enough, yes. You're generalizing from a single case and ignoring the testimony of dozens (hundreds? I don't know the actual numbers offhand) of others. Lousy historical reasoning.

And you're ignoring, again, the clear meaning of Eric's writing. Crappy debate style.

There, that was easy.

There's nothing "heroic" about dodging the draft. You might all sorts of more or less honorable excuses for doing -after all the draft itself provided for exceptions on grounds of conscience. But if you happened to qualkify for one of them, there wasn't anything heroic about claiming the status you were entitled to. But if you weren't entitled to one of those exemptions and refused to obey the law anyway, you were committing a criminal act, betraying your country in the time of its greatest peril.

Pretending that cowards and traitors, amongst others, were heroic by virtue of breaking their country's laws is dispicable.