...I don't see any evidence from Mr.Hopwood about the genesis of
assimilation of the Japanese
There doesn't seem to have been any, even after >some 60,000 of
them migrated to Hawaii between
1885 and 1898.
So there was no evidence of the genesis of Japanese assimilation forty
years before the beginning of immigration to the US? Is that whole
argument irrelevant, then?
Strictly speaking immigration to the US began in 1898 when Hawaii
became a US territory. Before that immigration to Hawaii was between
two foreign countries, and was primarily to provide labor for the
(American) owners' growing plantations--labor from China, the
Philippines, Japan, and Portugal.
Link to Mr. Hopwood's source: http://tinyurl.com/aobsxll
ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF CHRISTIAN CIVILIZATION IN HAWAII
1820-1920
This is a symposium memorializing the 100th anniversary of American
missionaries' arrival in Hawaii. The articles, about 70 pages in the
original format, are in eleven sections in the ebook version I have
cited. Many Catholic and Protestant groups are included; the articles
celebrate the history and describe the programs and experiences of the
various religious groups and agencies participating in the observance
and most were written by staff members of the various groups. Most
authors were associated with specific denominations or agencies.
Mr Okumura is identified as the Director of the Moiliili Settlement, a
service agency apparently still active in Oahu; his article is split
between section nine and section ten.
the author, Utaro Okumura, had these comments
about the Japanese accomodation to life on the
outside,
(Bear in mind--these observations were
Mr. Hopwood quotes much of the article intact; he correctly notes that
many of the early immigrants to Hawaii intended to return to Japan at
the end of their contracts, but many remained in Hawaii. "Every one of
them came here on a 3 year contract." as Mr. Okumura wrote.
"....To accumulate this they sacrificed all standards, or
ethics of everyday life...it was a community without
social control or social order...they had transplanted to
Hawaii the worst features of the native customs and
manners and habits of the lower classes. On any
festival, or holiday, or celebration, they would hoist their
country's flag and revel in noisy shouting of 'banzai'...."
Mr. Okumura's description is lacking in specifics and the tone and
content of his article differ substantially from the others in the
symposium. Of all the authors he seems to be the only one discussing
not his organization but his view of his fellow Japanese.
[In that time and place it was probably rare to find a Japanese person
discussing the acts or character of other Japanese for a non-Japanese
readership.]
Gary Okimoto, in his book "Cane Fires: The Anti-Japanese Movement in
Hawaii, 1865-1945" [ISBN 0877229457], 1991, has a quite different view
from that of Mr. Okumura. Discussing the World War I inflation and
contemporary labor problems in Hawaii, he writes [pp 65-66]
[Start]
". . . about 29,000 issei or nisei (second generation) Japanese
registered with the Selective Service System, out of a total Of 71,280
registrants in Hawaii. The Japanese had generally been excluded from
the National Guard, but the practice was modified during World War I
when "friendly aliens" were permitted to volunteer. (Japan had joined
Britain and the United States in declaring war on Germany.) In August
1917, 838 Japanese formed Company D of Hawaii's National Guard,
leading the Pacific Commercial Advertiser to comment: "It is going to
be a good company.... In fact, with the enthusiasm displayed by the
Japanese and their desire to give a practical demonstration of their
loyalty to the American flag, it is safe to say that it is going to be
one of the largest companies of the Guard in numbers and one of the
crack organizations in point of efficiency."'
[End]
Mr. Hopwood asked us to "[b]ear in mind--these observations [Mr.
Okumura's article] were written 21 years before the Pearl Harbor
attack,' which is reasonable. But by that time Mr. Okumura had
already observed changes for the better, as Mr. Hopwood himself noted.
And more telling, several years before Mr. Okumura wrote, both issei
and nisei were obviously demonstrating their loyalty to the United
States.
"The blame is on the Japanese themselves,"
continues the article, > The author [my elision - dk]. . .
points out [my elision - dk] the resident Japanese
had begun to assimilate better
but that two distinct factions had developed. The author
One faction believed that Nisei children should be educated as
Americans.
The other IS
THAT OF THE MAJORITY (emphasis mine) -that the
children born in no matter what countries should be
educated as subjects of Japan (that) it is an act of disloyalty
to Japan to turn out thoroughly Americanized...."
It is of course true, and obvious, that there were two factions. One
issue is that many of the anti-Japanese agitators, judging from their
activities, thought that the pro-Japanese faction outnumbered the
"Americanism" group and were a serious threat to the US. The actual
size of the two factions is a related issue.
It would be reasonable to expect the relative size of the factions to
tip increasingly toward American values and interests with the Nisei,
as has always been the case with second generation children of
immigrants even including the English settlers and their African
slaves (with their acculturation delayed by the "peculiar institution"
of slavery). Yet this seems never to have been acknowledged by those
who distrusted the Japanese.
At this early date in the history of Japanese immigration, 1920, it
may not have occurred to the agitators that second generation children
of immigrants consistently have become educated and acculturated, from
the earliest German and French to the most recent Irish, Slavic,
Italian, and others in the 19th century (and continuing to the Middle
Eastern and Asian immigrants since 1954.
If the Japanese did not withdraw from
society voluntarily then the naturalization
and land ownership issues [ . . .] must have been instrumental in
promoting their segregation,
Well, well, now you agree with me. I had clearly
pointed out that they were forced into segregation
by circumstances not the least of which were the
naturalization and land ownership issues.
Well, actually you didn't say they were forced into segregation, you
said naturalization and land issues "exacerbated their segregation".
It's good to see that you now admit some measure of the burden lay
with the anti-Japanese who were the force behind those circumstances,
not only with the immigrants themselves.
But no, I continue to disagree with your failure to recognize that, as
I have written elsewhere, the Japanese seemed to be acculturating like
other immigrant groups until the land laws and the inaptly so-called
picture brides agitation from around 1906 destroyed their chance of
becoming self-sufficient farmers and merchants.
There was also similar
prejudices against the Chinese caused not so much
by their race as by the cheap labor they represented i
in competition for work against immigrants from Europe.
Of course, but you do know, I hope, that the Chinese "threat" ended in
1882, before many Japanese were in the US. A 1925 publication says
that by 1880 Chinese were 15% of California's population--the Japanese
never approached that, The Chinese issue is a confirming example of
anti-Asian sympathies, but it played no direct part in the
anti-Japanese agitation beyond being anti-Asian.
And early Americans to the area also resented the
white immigrant ex-convict hoodlums from Australia of
which there was a significant number.
Significant, as in -- how many, compared to the thousands of Japanese?
My great
grandfather [my elision - dk] left letters still in my family describing the
violent lifestyle and the vigilante groups
Good point; the Vigilantes were a notorious group in and around San
Francisco that took the law into their own hands with occasional
lynchings and other nefarious activities. Oddly enough, they seem to
have played nicely with the anti-Japanese groups.
But the ones I describe were also Japanese subjects by
choice. According to ONI,Countersubversion Section,
Actually they were not subjects by choice, but by the law of their
parents' native country. The Nisei overwhelmingly were Americanized
by any reasonable standard.
"Out of a total Japanese population of 320,000 (aliens and
citizens) in the U.S. and its possessions,
The 1940 US Census reported a nationwide Japanese population of
126,947 in the 48 states, of whom 112,541 were in the western states.
Hawaii is not listed since it was not yet a state. There were
apparently no similar reports for the US territories, but 20 years
later, after statehood, the Japanese ethnic population of Hawaii in
1960 was 203,455.
There was also the, "very strong"
attachment to Japan on the part of many of them because
of family, inheritance, education, reserve military affiliations,
and other connections which affected their decisions not to
renounce their Japanese citizenship.
The criteria for "very strong" seem rather hazy, and "many" is an
undefined proportion. Any clarification available?
But out of an estimated 172,000
unidentified dual citizens, surely the size of the pro-Japan
faction had to be large enough to cause considerable
concern.
"Surely" is rather weak evidence, especially when based on speculation
about what led to the "considerable concern."
the Japanese, German, and
Italians
They were easier to spot as individuals for one thing.
But for whatever reason, just because the military thought
it feasible to handle the Japanese one way and the
Germans and Italians another, so what?
As Mr. Hopwood appears to be a staunch conservative I would expect him
to want his government to abide by the Constitutional requirement of
equal treatment before the law.
That was their
responsibility and they had the prerogatives which went
with it to do what they thought best in the cirumstances.
That appears to be at odds with
"In Ex parte Milligan (1866), the Supreme Court ruled that a
prisoner's ability to challenge his or her detention could only be
suspended for a brief and finite period of time, and only if the
situation compelled it. The Court also ruled that military tribunals
generally lack jurisdiction over civilians who are not connected with
or engaged in armed conflict. Assessing the rights of an Indiana
citizen accused of plotting against Union forces during the Civil War,
the basic rules defined in Milligan are quite relevant today."
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_exparte.html"
. . . and in line with an increasing intrusion of military reasoning
and influence into American civilian life.
Are you kidding? All we needed in the days after Pearl
Harboer was a "Fiscal Cliff"-style debate in Congress
over dual citizenship.
No, I'm not kidding. If I understand correctly Congress in fact
considered taking such action even before Pearl Harbor. The War
Department pushed Congress to pass legislation that would have forced
all dual citizens to renounce their non-US citizenship or be stripped
of their US citizenship. Once again that nasty issue of
constitutionality prevented them from passing the two bills in
question.
Re the question of the motivation for the dual citizenship
How can anyone be equally
loyal to two countries when those two countries are at
war with each other?
That question is loaded with the assumption that the Nisei
automatically fell on the side of loyalty to Japan, an assumption that
has yet to be proven valid.
As for the actual renunciations of citizenship, the
primary reason for those renunciations was Nisei
resentment and protest against documents
asking them to denounce all fealty to Japan **when
they had none**
The questions you refer to were written primarily
with the Japanese nationals in mind
I rather doubt the accuracy of that statement, because the questions
were obviously aimed at the Nisei since the Issei had no dual
citizenship to renounce, right?
In fact, there were two specific questions:
Question 27: Are you willing to serve in the armed forces of the
United States on combat duty, wherever ordered?
Question 28: Will you swear unqualified allegiance to the United
States of America and faithfully defend the United States from any and
all attacks by foreign and domestic forces, and forswear any form of
allegiance or disobedience to the Japanese Emperor, or any other
foreign government, power, or organization (Williams and Coleman 1992:
63)?
If an Issei said "yes" to No. 28 he would lose his only - Japanese -
citizenship. If a Nisei said "yes" to No. 28 he would be tacitly
admitting that he acknowledged allegiance to Japan, which he was being
asked to renounce.
After a number of Issei and Nisei refused to answer to questions or
answered "no" question 28 was changed--for Issei only-- to "Will you
swear to abide by the laws of the United States and to take no action
which would in anyway interfere with the war effort of the United
States (Williams and Coleman 1992: 63)?" It was not changed for the
Nisei.
The authors of Personal Justice Denied, in the section "Before Pearl
Harbor," summarized the genesis and effects of the anti-Japanese
agitation that the immigrants had lived with for over four decades.
It clearly links the racial stereotypes that were widely accepted by
the white population as true throughout the immigration period, ca.
1895 - 1924, and the following years up to and during the relocation
itself. It was only after the end of the war and the release of the
camp residents that the stereotypes turned positive, in large part due
to the Nisei record during the war.
About the relocation itself, PJD says "This was done out of fear--fear
of sabotage, of espionage, of fifth column activity. There was no
evidence that any individual American citizen was actively disloyal to
his country."
This is stereotyping at work; the fact there is not a problem serves
as evidence of a coverup or other illicit activity.
Further, "It is the bitter history of an original mistake, a failure
of America's faith in its citizens' devotion to their country's cause
and their right to liberty, when there was no evidence or proof of
wrongdoing. It is a history which deeply seared and scarred the lives
of Japanese Americans."
On the West Coast, the war "rekindled the fears and prejudices of long
years of anti-Asian agitation carried on by organized interest groups.
Decades of discrimination against immigrants from Japan and public
hostility toward Americans of Japanese descent fueled outraged shock
at the Pearl Harbor attack "
PDJ: "The hostile reception and treatment of Japanese immigrants on
the West Coast are the historical prelude to the exclusion and
evacuation. Federal immigration and naturalization laws, frequently
sponsored and backed by westerners, demonstrate this public hostility
to Asians, particularly the Japanese. Laws which prohibited the
ownership of land by Japanese resident aliens and imposed segregation
in the schools tell the same story in the western states. Public
perceptions and misconceptions about the Japanese in this country were
affected by myths and stereotypes--the fear of "the yellow peril" and
antagonistic misunderstanding of the cultural patterns of the Japanese
in America. Resentment of effective economic competition also inflamed
public feeling and, combined with differences of language and culture,
left the small minority of Japanese Americans on the West Coast
comparatively isolated--a ready target at a time of fear and anxiety."
It's nice to know Mr. Hopwood is a Casablanca fan. So we do have
something in common. ;-)
--
Don Kirkman
***@charter.net