Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

[LinekersLegs]

I fundamentally disagree. You are of course entitled to that view but I think the logic of stopping a fifth column vastly outweighed the danger of allowing one at the time, and the protection of the entire country took precedence over the rights of the few in that scenario.

As said, where I profoundly disagree with the process was how long they did it for; once the threat was obviously non-existent, it should have been stopped.

I don’t think either of us are going to change our minds either so I’ll go out for a walk in the California sun.

 

[Tubey]

Basically, if I'm understanding correctly, you're ok with a nation levying a blanket accusation of espionage on a group of people with no evidence aside from their country of origin and think that taking the action of locking those people away in concentration camps is an acceptable course of action?

I'm sorry but that's morally reprehensible. I have nothing else to say about this.

Internment camp* - as in the goal of these places wasn't to work people to death or gas them.

But yes, in a time of emergency and crisis, where the alternative of not doing it could result in something much worse. And the piss isn't taken about doing it for alterior reasons.

You can find that as morally reprehensible as you want, but morals are ideals that are great when the reality allows them to be applied. Hence why we're currently in lockdown - "morally" we all have the human right to liberty, but there's an understanding that it can be denied to you when the situation calls for it. Not only during a lockdown, but see immigration detention centres for details.

The world isn't black and white.

 

[tsubaki]

We actually tried a risk assessment system before war broke out proper but we ran out of time to do it properly, so we had to go with the blunt approach.

You have to look at it in the parameters of the time period.

It is those parameters that make the decision ridiculous though; that was a time when ridiculous decisions were being made by the British government on an almost hourly basis. You have things like asking for work on the Mosquito to stop, refusing to let Londoners use Tube platforms to shelter from the Blitz, Singapore, Norway, the amount of effort put in to getting rid of Hore-Belisha, the frankly astonishingly bad state of tank development, the treatment of Dowding, the treatment of Hobart and a vast array of other mistakes against which interning Jewish refugees because they might have been Nazi agents is by no means the worst.

 

[PhilM]

We actually tried a risk assessment system before war broke out proper but we ran out of time to do it properly, so we had to go with the blunt approach.

You have to look at it in the parameters of the time period.

Like, when the US interned many Japanese-Americans at the outbreak of war, but there was no such response to Italian or German Americans?

The logic behind that was not of national security but something far more sinister, which I suspect also influenced our own internment rationale.

 

[Tubey]

Like, when the US interned many Japanese-Americans at the outbreak of war, but there was no such response to Italian or German Americans?

The logic behind that was not of national security but something far more sinister, which I suspect also influenced our own internment rationale.

No, it was because there was a specific risk of an invasion of the west coast and a large native population of Japanese Americans lived in that locale. There wasn't the same situation on the east coast and Germany/Italy were not the threat to the homeland.

It was a specific request from Western Defence Command directly because of the risk of a large subversive element and the sincere belief that an invasion was possible.

 

[PhilM]

No, it was because there was a specific risk of an invasion of the west coast and a large native population of Japanese Americans lived in that locale. There wasn't the same situation on the east coast and Germany/Italy were not the threat to the homeland.

It was a specific request from Western Defence Command directly because of the risk of a large subversive element and the sincere belief that an invasion was possible.

While there wasn't a direct thread to the homeland, there was a significant (if not arguably a greater risk) of subterfuge on the east coast and within industry.

You also have acts of sabotage on the eastern coast by the Germans as early as '42, with also the U-Boats sinking numerous ships within or near US waters.

Yet, two other members of the Tripartite Pact did not receive the same treatment - in fact, no where near. There are also a few other questionable parts:

Why did Hawaii, closer to Japan and at a significantly greater risk of invasion, have a significantly lower rate of internment than on the mainland? Hmmm...

Why did it take three years for internment to be rescinded even though the risk of invasion had passed by June '42 after the Btl. of Coral Sea and Midway?

The United States labelled a huge group of people as a threat simply because of their ethnicity, whereas other ethnic groups were treated completely differently.

There's a word which beings with R, and that's the main reason.

 

[Tubey]

While there wasn't a direct thread to the homeland, there was a significant (if not arguably a greater risk) of subterfuge on the east coast and within industry.

Yet, two other members of the Tripartite Pact did not receive the same treatment - in fact, no where near. There are also a few other questionable parts:

Why did Hawaii, closer to Japan and at a significantly greater risk of invasion, have a significantly lower rate of internment than on the mainland? Hmmm...

Why did it take three years for internment to be rescinded even though the risk of invasion had passed by June '42 after the Btl. of Coral Sea and Midway?

The United States labelled a huge group of people as a threat simply because of their ethnicity, whereas other ethnic groups were treated completely differently.

There's a word which beings with R, and that's the main reason.

To answer in stages.

GREEN: They did actually but just not on the west coast, because again nowhere else was there such a large, obvious possible fifth column that could be extracted. Germans and Italians did get interred but just not to the same degree.

RED: Simply because of logistics. Martial law applied instead and the US basically treated it as a write off if an invasion occurred. It wasn't a state at the time; Hawaii joined the Union in 1959.

BLUE: As said repeatedly now, it was because of racism. I don't defend the way it was done; I'm simply defending the logic of the actual action. There's no reason whatsoever for the internment to persist past Midway in 1942.

PURPLE: That was the net result, but they were treated that way initially because the country of their heritage was an invasion risk and had just bombed Pearl Harbour, and they didn't know their arse from their elbow. Unless you really think Roosevelt signed that order because he hated the Japanese and was a massive racist, then it doesn't hold water.

 

[TheBigIguana]

Like, when the US interned many Japanese-Americans at the outbreak of war, but there was no such response to Italian or German Americans?

The logic behind that was not of national security but something far more sinister, which I suspect also influenced our own internment rationale.

People give America way too much credit sometimes.

 

[RaleighBlue]

To answer in stages.

GREEN: They did actually but just not on the west coast, because again nowhere else was there such a large, obvious possible fifth column that could be extracted. Germans and Italians did get interred but just not to the same degree.

RED: Simply because of logistics. Martial law applied instead and the US basically treated it as a write off if an invasion occurred. It wasn't a state at the time; Hawaii joined the Union in 1959.

BLUE: As said repeatedly now, it was because of racism. I don't defend the way it was done; I'm simply defending the logic of the actual action. There's no reason whatsoever for the internment to persist past Midway in 1942.

PURPLE: That was the net result, but they were treated that way initially because the country of their heritage was an invasion risk and had just bombed Pearl Harbour, and they didn't know their arse from their elbow. Unless you really think Roosevelt signed that order because he hated the Japanese and was a massive racist, then it doesn't hold water.

Point of order.

Can an action be racist without racist intent? I believe it can.

 

[TheBigIguana]

To answer in stages.

GREEN: They did actually but just not on the west coast, because again nowhere else was there such a large, obvious possible fifth column that could be extracted. Germans and Italians did get interred but just not to the same degree.

RED: Simply because of logistics. Martial law applied instead and the US basically treated it as a write off if an invasion occurred. It wasn't a state at the time; Hawaii joined the Union in 1959.

BLUE: As said repeatedly now, it was because of racism. I don't defend the way it was done; I'm simply defending the logic of the actual action. There's no reason whatsoever for the internment to persist past Midway in 1942.

PURPLE: That was the net result, but they were treated that way initially because the country of their heritage was an invasion risk and had just bombed Pearl Harbour, and they didn't know their arse from their elbow. Unless you really think Roosevelt signed that order because he hated the Japanese and was a massive racist, then it doesn't hold water.

If this is the entirety of the reason, as in no actual direct evidence of some kind of scheming exists, it's either racist or xenophobic. Take your pick.

In America, racism is so ingrained in the culture that it isn't always a case of people actively saying in their head "I hate so and so." It's mostly just lifelong biases that seep in because it is all around, all the time.

 

[Tubey]

Point of order.

Can an action be racist without racist intent? I believe it can.

I think something that didn't initially have racist intent can lead to racism, yeah.

To give the "just show dogs being butchered for meat instead of calling it the 'Chinese Virus'" example, the net result of that is depicting all Chinese people as dog eaters and enforcing a stereotype, whereas the action itself was initially meant to just highlight the danger of wet markets.

So yes, in this example, the internment of a perceived fifth column can be done for sound logical reasons, but then when you persist with it just because you don't like the race of those interred then of course that is simply racism.

 

[LinekersLegs]

While there wasn't a direct thread to the homeland, there was a significant (if not arguably a greater risk) of subterfuge on the east coast and within industry.

You also have acts of sabotage on the eastern coast by the Germans as early as '42, with also the U-Boats sinking numerous ships within or near US waters.

Yet, two other members of the Tripartite Pact did not receive the same treatment - in fact, no where near. There are also a few other questionable parts:

Why did Hawaii, closer to Japan and at a significantly greater risk of invasion, have a significantly lower rate of internment than on the mainland? Hmmm...

Why did it take three years for internment to be rescinded even though the risk of invasion had passed by June '42 after the Btl. of Coral Sea and Midway?

The United States labelled a huge group of people as a threat simply because of their ethnicity, whereas other ethnic groups were treated completely differently.

There's a word which beings with R, and that's the main reason.

California agribusiness jealous of the productivity of the family farms and wanting the land themselves played a big part - the initial call for Japanese internment came mere hours after the Pearl Harbor bombing, from the Salinas Valley Vegetable Grower-Shipper Association.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1992/02/02/bitter-harvest/c8389b23-884d-43bd-ad34-bf7b11077135/?utm_term=.67ad5cc184c2

 

[ilikecheese]

Point of order.

Can an action be racist without racist intent? I believe it can.

Absolutely. Ignorance is usually the driving force of racist actions.

 

[Tubey]

If this is the entirety of the reason, as in no actual direct evidence of some kind of scheming exists, it's either racist or xenophobic. Take your pick.

In America, racism is so ingrained in the culture that it isn't always a case of people actively saying in their head "I hate so and so." It's mostly just lifelong biases that seep in because it is all around, all the time.

It's neither; it's taking an action in the interests of national security to negate risk.

You forget the era this took place in - just a year earlier, France had fallen rapidly to blitzkreig and speculation was rife that a German fifth column had played a large part to facilitate it. You continue to put modern sensibilities on an issue that existed in a very peculiar setting - for them it was a very real and modern concern.

 

[ilikecheese]

I'd like to take a moment to mourn the death of ~2400 Americans due to coronavirus today.

Thanks for the inaction Don.