Photos

[Mario]

http://dangerousminds.net/comments/ansel_adams_photos_of_a_japanese_internment_camp1

[WJHopwood]

Post by Mario
http://dangerousminds.net/comments/ansel_adams_photos_of_a_japanese_internment_camp1

ANSEL ADAMS' PHOTOS OF A JAPANESE INTERNMENT
CAMP ARE BEAUTIFUL, YET DISTURBING

Disturbing? The photos with this link are not disturbing. They
are enlightening. In fact they tend to contradict just about
everything the article which went along with them had to ssy
about the WWII Japanese relocation.. But that's par for the
course on the current conventional wisdom which pretends to
be history on much of that episode in WWII.,

Was Manzanar really "an atrocity" administered to alleged
American citizens of Japanese ancestry for no good reason by the
wartime U.S. government? Was Manzanar the hell-hole the
article describes? Certainly not as shown in the Ansel Adams
photos nor to the Seattle Times which wrote this on Sunday,
December 5, 1993: :
"...Manzanar became like any small American village in the
1940s. Boys joined the Boy Scouts, women confided to their
hairdressers at the beauty parlor, neighbors gossiped about the
family up the block, kids went to Abbott and Costello movies, and
couples jitterbugged at high school dances to the music of Glenn
Miller played by an all-Japanese swing band....."

The author of the linked article here doesn't know the difference
between "relocation" and "internment." Or that no American
citizens were interned--only enemy aliens. Or that there were not
120,000 "Japanese Americans" relocated away from West Coast
military zones. The actual number was 110,000 and two-thirds of
the adults among them were enemy alien Japanese nationals who
were not being interned, at all but relocated for well-documented
security reasons..

Nor does the author of this linked article seem to know or won't
admit that Japanese not living in the military zones (over 8,000 of
them were not disturbed at all. Or that there were another 10,000
Japanese nationals who were arrested on security charges and
actually WERE interned but not in the same place nor by the same
government agency as those who were merely relocated to places,
which, for many of them, had far better living conditions than those
from whence they came.

WJH

[The Horny Goat]

Post by WJHopwood

Post by Mario
http://dangerousminds.net/comments/ansel_adams_photos_of_a_japanese_internment_camp1

ANSEL ADAMS' PHOTOS OF A JAPANESE INTERNMENT
CAMP ARE BEAUTIFUL, YET DISTURBING
Disturbing? The photos with this link are not disturbing. They
are enlightening. In fact they tend to contradict just about
everything the article which went along with them had to ssy
about the WWII Japanese relocation.. But that's par for the
course on the current conventional wisdom which pretends to
be history on much of that episode in WWII.,

During my vacation last August I visited the Canadian Nisei memorial
museum in New Denver, BC. What shocked me most were the photos of
internees' automobiles (most of which were less than 5 years old -
not surprisingly since 1930-35 was not exactly a good time for the
auto industry and while the Depression wasn't over in 1935 it was less
bad than it had been) lined up in the Pacific National Exhibition
parking lot with the roller coaster and other attractions I remember
from childhood in the background.

My point being that it was the mundane-ness (not a word but you know
what I mean) of the seizure of personal property that most shocked me.
The museum had re-creations of what an internment cabin looked like
but it was not appreciably worse than Depression-era housing for the
non-rich. Other than the fact that New Denver has considerably harsher
winters than Vancouver and Victoria where most of the internees were
taken from.

[WJHopwood]

Post by The Horny Goat
During my vacation last August I visited the Canadian Nisei memorial
museum in New Denver, BC. What shocked me most were the photos of
internees' automobiles (most of which were less than 5 years old .....-

Much the same occurred in the U.S. At Manzanar, California, and
the other relocation centers. For instance, many of the Japanese being
relocated drove to the centers in their own cars even though the
Government had made provisions at Government expense for the
storage of cars and other property which could not be brought with them.
Such storage was under the supervision of the Federal Reserve
Bank of San Francisco. which inventoried and receipted for such property.
Cars driven to the relocation centers were also placed in Federal Reserve
custody. Altogether a total of 1905 cars were in Federal Reserve custody
during the war, 1469 were later voluntarily sold by their owners to the U.S.
Army, 319 were disposed of according to the instructions of the owners
and the 117 left remained under
the Bank custody. {Source of figures--U.S. CWRIC Report).
After the war Congress passed the Evacuation Claims Act to
reimburse those evacuated for their losses. Over 26,500 claims were settled
under the Act. Over $37 million was paid out by the Government. The Act
was extended several times in a Government effort to`encompass all losses
which could be substantiated up to a limit of $100,000 each. Only 15 cases
remained unsettled and were taken to the Federal Claims court out of the
more than 26,000 claims which had been filed.

Post by The Horny Goat
My point being that it was the mundane-ness (not a word but you know
what I mean) of the seizure of personal property that most shocked me.

In the U.S., despite many erroneous stories one now hears or reads about,
the Government did not "seize" personal property from the Issei and Nisei.
It is well-documented that during the rush and confusion of the initial stages
of the evacuation, many of those being evacuated had to sell things they
couldn't or didn't want to take with them to the relocation centers and were
taken advantage of by unscrupulous buyers. The post-war Evacuation Claims
Act mentioned above was set up in an effort to compensate for such losses.

WJH

[Don Phillipson]

Post by The Horny Goat
During my vacation last August I visited the Canadian Nisei memorial
museum in New Denver, BC. . . .
My point being that it was the mundane-ness (not a word but you know
what I mean) of the seizure of personal property that most shocked me.
The museum had re-creations of what an internment cabin looked like
but it was not appreciably worse than Depression-era housing for the
non-rich. Other than the fact that New Denver has considerably harsher
winters than Vancouver and Victoria where most of the internees were
taken from.

Expropriation of Jap-Canadian property was indeed a public
scandal, and later covered up.

The practical point about Jap-Canadians is that they were given
several weeks' notice to relocate more than 50(?) miles from
the Pacific coast. The people who were arrested and "relocated"
(interned) were only those who had ignored or been unable to
comply with the order to relocate.

I knew in 1960 a Japanese Canadian woman aged perhaps 10 or
15 when her family voluntarily relocated in early 1941 from the West
Coast to a small town in Ontario. They were socially scorned in
wartime but not otherwise penalized. This experience did not
impede my friend's completing high school and making a successful
career as a bookstore manager in London, Ontario.

[WJHopwood]

Post by Don Phillipson
The practical point about Jap-Canadians is that they were given
several weeks' notice to relocate more than 50(?) miles from
the Pacific coas

So, in essence, were the residents of Japanese ancestry living
along the U.S. West Coast. During the several week period after
FDR issued Executive Order 9066 the Japanese were given an
opportunity to relocate voluntarily but it was soon evident that
with so many people involved who had no place to go that such
a plan was was not going to work

Despite the problems affecting those who were told to move
voluntarily, close to 7000 either apparently managed to do so.
or some were already living outside of the military exclusion
zones and were joined by some who voluntarily relocated. ,
Do the arithmetic. Only 110,000 were relocated. Another
10,000 were arrested and "interned" on security charges.
That accounts for 120,000. But according to the 1940 U.S.
census, there were 126,947 ethnic Japanese living on the U.S.
mainland. So what happened to the other 6,947 ?
. .

Post by Don Phillipson
The people who were arrested and "relocated" (interned)
were only those > who had ignored or been unable to
comply with the order to relocate.

That being the case, the Canadian procedure was markedly
different than in the U.S. where no one was arrested for NOT
having "voluntarily" relocated. Those who were arrested and
"interned" in the U,S. were enemy aliens only, and most had
been on an FBI "watch list" of suspected potential dangerous
enemy aliens prior to Pearl Harbor. Each internee was given
an individual hearing before being internment.

Although ONLY enemy aliens could be interned, American
citizens who had dual citizenship, (Japanese and American
as did many of the American-born of Japanese descent) who
renounced their American citizenship, then become enemy
aliens subject to internment. During the war,over 5000
American-born Japanese with Japanese citizenship
renounced their U.S.citizenship and in doing so became
enemy aliens. This particular group also requested expatriation
to Japan to join the already some 6500 U.S.-born Japanese
already in Japan who had joined Japan's armed forces or to
supported Japan's war effort in a civilian capacity.

As for "relocation" and "internment," to understand what
happened, to whom it happened, and why, one must
understand the difference in WWII between "internment"
and "relocation." From a historical standpoint it is
unfortunate that the current conventional wisdom so often
equates these two very different wartime events that many
people today are ignorant of the vast differences between
them.

WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by WJHopwood

Post by Don Phillipson
The practical point about Jap-Canadians is that they were given
several weeks' notice to relocate more than 50(?) miles from
the Pacific coas

So, in essence, were the residents of Japanese ancestry living
along the U.S. West Coast. During the several week period after
FDR issued Executive Order 9066 the Japanese were given an
opportunity to relocate voluntarily but it was soon evident that
with so many people involved who had no place to go that such
a plan was was not going to work

"It's a a national emergency, no time to lose, but, well, take your time,
people."

Post by WJHopwood
That being the case, the Canadian procedure was markedly
different than in the U.S. where no one was arrested for NOT
having "voluntarily" relocated.

No, they were just thrown in concentration camps.

Mike

[WJHopwood]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

.......in the U.S. where no one was arrested for NOT
having "voluntarily" relocated.

No, they were just thrown in concentration camps.

This is from the 1982 report of the U.S.
Congressional Commission on Wartime Relocation and
Internment of Civilians (CWRIC).
"....with full realization of the atrocities committed by
the Nazis in the death camps of Europe ....to use the
phrase 'Concentration Camps' summons uo images and
ideas which are inaccurate and unfair....."

Although neither Internment camps nor relocation centers
were luxurious, the restrictions on inhabitants of the
relocation camps were really no worse than those
imposed on members of the U.S.armed forces assigned
to a military base and less restrictive than at many military
bases.

U.S. Department of Justice internment camps for enemy
aliens were administered in accordance with international
law and were much stricter than the relocation centers for
evacuees run by the War Relocation Authority. After WWII
neither type of camp could be fairly described by the phrase
"concentration camp" as commonly used in the WWII context.

I believe typical of many is how enemy alien Katsuro Miho;
who had been sent to the DOJ internment camp at Missoula,
Montana, described his experience. it was, he said: "a
vacation at Government Expense."
Another, former enemy alien, Kazuyuki Yamamoto, a
veteran of lthe Crystal City and Santa Fe DOJ internment
camps also described his experience: "....we were treated
well,very well."
[Above quotes taken from "Our House Divided," by Tomi
Kaizawa Knaeflrer--1991 Unicersity of Hawaii Preas]

WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by WJHopwood

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

.......in the U.S. where no one was arrested for NOT
having "voluntarily" relocated.

No, they were just thrown in concentration camps.

Internment of Civilians (CWRIC).
"....with full realization of the atrocities committed by
the Nazis in the death camps of Europe ....to use the
phrase 'Concentration Camps' summons uo images and
ideas which are inaccurate and unfair....."

Lottsa "historical" revionists like you get uncomfortable using the
terms that were in use "at the time". Since FDR, Eisenhower, et al., used
the term, it seems neither inaccurate, nor unfair.

Post by WJHopwood
Although neither Internment camps nor relocation centers
were luxurious, the restrictions on inhabitants of the
relocation camps were really no worse than those
imposed on members of the U.S.armed forces assigned
to a military base and less restrictive than at many military
bases.

Really? So, how much were these people paid? Is it your contention that
CHILDREN are confined to military bases, Mr Hopwood? How much leave
did they get, Mr Hopwood? Did they accrue time towards discharge?
Veteran's benefits?

Mike

[WJHopwood]

Post by WJHopwood
Internment of Civilians (CWRIC).
"....with full realization of the atrocities committed by
the Nazis in the death camps of Europe ....to use the
phrase 'Concentration Camps' summons uo images and
ideas which are inaccurate and unfair....."

..... Since FDR, Eisenhower, et al., used the term, it seems
neither inaccurate, nor unfair.

But it's not who said it but when the term "concentration camp"
was used and in connection with which facility that is the key. .
I previously quoted part of the CWRIC statement. but did not
quote and do so now where CWRIC had also specified that it
was "AFTER WWII (when) THAT PHRASE CAME TO HAVE A
VERY DIFFERENT MEANING (my emphasis].
Accordingly, I think it doubtful that AFTER THE WAR
Eisenhower,or any other knowledgeable person who was aware
of the truly benign wartime living conditions experienced by
those who occupied the U.S. internment and relocation facilities,
used the "concentration camp" term to describe the U.S.
internment or relocation camps.

.....So, how much were these people paid?

At Relocation Centers--Food, shelter, medical treatment,
education expenses (nursery schools-, elementary and high
schools, adult education). recreation expenses, library, etc.
there were no charges.
Pay for work connected with the operation of the centers:
$12 per month for unskilled labor (=$167 today), $16 per month
for skilled labor(=$222 today), and $19 per month for professional
employees (=$264. today).
Unemployment compensation was paid up to $5 per month
(=$70 today) for those who couldn't work or who could work but
were not needed.

WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by WJHopwood

Post by WJHopwood
Internment of Civilians (CWRIC).
"....with full realization of the atrocities committed by
the Nazis in the death camps of Europe ....to use the
phrase 'Concentration Camps' summons uo images and
ideas which are inaccurate and unfair....."

..... Since FDR, Eisenhower, et al., used the term, it seems
neither inaccurate, nor unfair.

But it's not who said it but when the term "concentration camp"

No, not really. At no point in their history was the term "concentration
camp" used to designate anything but a place to put undesirables. Indeed,
before WWII, the term was notorious due to the concentration camps of the
US war in the Philippines and the second Boer War. Yet, still, the
term was used, and by the people consigning others to said camps.

Usually you decry what you call "revisionism"; it seems it doesn't bother
you when it is you who is being the revisionist.

Mike

[Stephen Graham]

Post by WJHopwood
Although neither Internment camps nor relocation centers
were luxurious

A gilded cage is still a cage.

If there is to be the greatest possible accommodation of the liberties
of the citizen with this war measure, any such implied power must be
narrowly confined to the precise purpose of the evacuation program.

A citizen who is concededly loyal presents no problem of espionage or
sabotage. Loyalty is a matter of the heart and mind not of race, creed,
or color. He who is loyal is by definition not a spy or a saboteur. When
the power to detain is derived from the power to protect the war effort
against espionage and sabotage, detention which has no relationship to
that objective is unauthorized.

Nor may the power to detain an admittedly loyal citizen or to grant him
a conditional release be implied as a useful or convenient step in the
evacuation program, whatever authority might be implied in case of those
whose loyalty was not conceded or established.

[p***@gmail.com]

Post by Stephen Graham
A gilded cage is still a cage.

Yes. And at military camps, the armed guards are not facing inward.

[John Szalay]

Post by Mario
http://dangerousminds.net/comments/ansel_adams_photos_of_a_japanese_int
ernment_camp1

LIFE archive images of Tule internment camp

Tule Lake
Date taken: March 1944
Photographer: Carl Mydans

link to the set

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/95a8f04866b3cb21.html


FWIW;
I walked through both the camp at Dachau in the early 1950s
and the internment camp on Sand island in Honolulu harbor
before it was demolished,
I saw huge differences, and both were wrong, also for different
reasons........