Hacker News Reader

Comment by NoImmatureAdHom | Hacker News Reader

I hear you. I think that you're maybe half-right about why it's not discussed. The reason I bring it up is the other half...it's not discussed because it runs counter to the narrative that sells in today's market.

In a situation where you have no data (hostilities just started), this incident being one of the first things that happen is, in fact, quite striking. And, critically, these people weren't spies or saboteurs. They were rando civilians who, without premeditation or contact with enemy government, decided on the spot to help the enemy. If you were a commander in that war you would rightly find it terrifying. It is, we might say, a bad look.

View on HN

It is not "counter to the narrative." It isn't like people only think that internment was unacceptable because there were literally zero cases of ethnically japanese people doing something to aid anybody who was a japanese resident. It also isn't like people think that internment was done just for the sake of fucking over japanese people. The narrative is that the perceived threat of ethnically japanese americans was massively inflated in the minds of decision makers because of racial prejudice and that the legal system failed to protect the rights of the people who were harmed by this awful decision making.

Japanese Americans (including citizens) were first ordered not to leave the protected areas and then while that order was still active were told that if they stayed in the protected areas (which included huge portions of the west coast) that they'd be interred. They had their property stolen and were forced into terrible conditions (often sleeping in literally barns in the beginning) by virtue of racial prejudice.

Italian and German Americans faced no such situations, despite the ridiculous "oh we have no data so maybe they are threats" argument applying equally well to them.

No. There is no justification to use the bad actions of a handful of a minority as a justification to, without trial, steal the property, destroy the pets, and forcibly remove to a space with inadequate shelter, healthcare, and food, the entire minority populace. That’s exactly the “wow you suck at math vs wow girls suck at math” bigotry taken to a violent conclusion, and should be acknowledged as totally and completely unjustified.

You're making a normative claim ("this is wrong"), and I'm making a descriptive claim ("this is what people back then might have been thinking based on the evidence").

In fact, we make the exact same normative claim in the end (that internment was wrong).

It is not evidence. A handful of a population doing a bad thing isn’t evidence to punish the entire population. That can only exist in the framework of bigotry. Full stop.

Japanese Americans also willingly enlisted into the U.S. military to fight the Japanese. They reportedly fought harder, fiercer, and put on riskier missions. But this wasn’t used as counter evidence against internment. Because again, internment is based on unreasonable, reactionary bigotry, and literally nothing else.

Japanese Americans were typically assigned to Europe and Africa because of fears they would sabotage the Pacific war effort.

Black Americans were commonly assigned as cooks, orderlies, and other roles outside the normal military structure. It's why Black American veterans were largely excluded from the GI Bills after the war.

Folks really don't grok how overtly racist the US could be within living memory let alone further back. Too bad US schools don't teach it adequately and are poised to suppress that history even further of late.

Yeah, people really have a blind spot to how racist the world was and still is. I certainly got a fair bit of this information in my history curriculum.

With teaching, there is always the question of what the priorities are, and what the emphasis is in terms of message.

Out of curiosity, what do you think the lesson students should take away from the Japanese internment is?

Here is the section on it from a standard US history textbook that was posted elsewhere in the thread:

https://www.mrginn.com/uploads/8/5/4/6/85468970/chapter35.pd...

The lesson? A similar lesson to slavery, the Shoah, the Trail of Tears, etc.

"It wasn't bad because it happened to Black folks or Jews or American Indian tribes. 'Never again' shouldn't mean, 'Never again exactly how it was done last time.' It was horrible because they were human beings. It was horrible because folks went out of their way to stop viewing them as human beings. And here are some reasons why people back then (and today) justified these acts, so that when similar conditions arise again—because while history does not repeat, it certainly rhymes—we can learn to recognize and hopefully prevent these atrocities before they start next time!"

That's the lesson I'd love to have taught. That no is perfect. History is the diary of a madman. Learning not just facts but also the motivations/context of historical events, so as a society we can potentially help avoid future problems and move along with less needless suffering.

I think I agree that that's a noble aspiration. I'm not so sure that our modern culture which is so focused on passing judgment as well suited to learning such a lesson with our modern approaches. If you want to understand how the mistakes of History are made, you have to be able to put yourself in the shoes of the people that made the mistakes and understand their biases and blind spots. I feel that one failing is a tendency to set ourselves apart from them and simply condemn opposed to understand and learn. It's not enough to Simply know the Nazis were bad. If you want to avoid their mistakes you have to understand how and why they thought that they were good. If you simply think they were monsters while you are not, you deny the opportunity for introspection on how you could be or become monstrous yourself. Simply judging is insufficient for learning

Judgement is required.

Learning that Nazis aren't cartoon villains does negate the necessity of choosing to highlight they were horrifically bad in the historical timeline.

Simply judging is indeed insufficient for learning but it is also a necessary component. Otherwise you get folks who even today assert that "slavery wasn't that bad," "the Civil War wasn't about slavery or racism," "I think nationalism is a good thing," and "our race and culture are under attack due to immigration and white genocide."

I don't think you understand what I mean. This page describes the difference between "normative" and "descriptive": https://www.miamioh.edu/hcwe/hwac/teaching-support/disciplin...

I'm not making the claim that the conclusion that WWII U.S. governments came to was right (in a moral sense), or correct (in that it was going to reduce the probability of sabotage given their knowledge at the time), I'm making the claim that knowing about Ni'ihau makes their actions make more sense. It is an important piece of context. It allows you to better-understand their state of mind and the state of the world while they were making these decisions.

History has always been the diary of a madman.

But not all cultures fall victim to the madness, typically not when they learn and acknowledge the sins of the past.

Not holding those living today for the sins of the father, but also not shying away from pointing out the sins of the father.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com