NationStates Jolt Archive

Can someone explain to me why the US interned people of Japanese ancestry during world war II, but didn't apply the same widespread policy to those of German, Italian, Bulgarian, Hungarian and Romanian extraction?



EDIT: added word 'widespread'.

Can someone explain to me why the US interned people of Japanese ancestry during world war II, but didn't apply the same policy to those of German, Italian, Bulgarian, Hungarian and Romanian extraction?

Racism.

Actually they did. There were camps that interned people of German decent.

Many Americans seem to have a lot of stereotypes about the Japanese. They view them as crazy guys who like to crash fighters into things and watch tentacle rape hentai all day and talk on superadvanced cellphones.

Actually they did. There were camps that interned people of German decent.

Yes, but they were Foreign nationals or individuals who were seen to be particularly suspicious, not just for their ancestry, unlike the Japanese.


I'll edit my first post and add the word 'widespread' to it.

Many Americans seem to have a lot of stereotypes about the Japanese. They view them as crazy guys who like to crash fighters into things and watch tentacle rape hentai all day and talk on superadvanced cellphones.

Be that as it may, none of these particular stereotypes would have existed in the American mind in 1941/42.

What would you consider widespread? Just did a quick search, but here http://www.foitimes.com/internment/gasummary.htm
it gives the number 11,000 people. Is that widespread enough?

What would you consider widespread? Just did a quick search, but here http://www.foitimes.com/internment/gasummary.htm
it gives the number 11,000 people. Is that widespread enough?

Given the much larger percentage of people of German ancestry in the US than Japanese we still see that a disparity exists between that figure and the 110,000 Japanese interned. So it seems like a different agenda was being followed with respect to the Japanese.

That's probably why then. People of German decent were (and probably still are) more common in the population than Japanese. That makes them more of an unknown, and more irrationally feared.
Then there's the fact that it was the Japanese who actually succeeded in a serious attack on US soil. That's something the Germans didn't do. That made the Japanese seem more of a threat, and so more drastic measures were deemed necesary.
This is all just a guess on my part. I've got nothing to back me up.

The folks in the U.S. of Japanese descent might have actually been better off being interned than left for the public to deal with them...a racist and vengeful public looking for a scapegoat would have had no problem lynching thousaands of Japanese in America. In internment camps, they were free from the general public and were released gradually back into the public. Toward the end of the war, the only Japanese left in camps were ones who still swore loyalty to the Japanese Emperor over the U.S.

That said, I don't think the U.S. was ENTIRELY right in this matter. They all but robbed the Japanese folks blind, taking all their property and leaving them just $25 or something like that.

That's probably why then. People of German decent were (and probably still are) more common in the population than Japanese. That makes them more of an unknown, and more irrationally feared.

The same could be said for those of Romanian, Hungarian and Bulgarian ancestry, which indicates that this is not a complete explanation.

The folks in the U.S. of Japanese descent might have actually been better off being interned than left for the public to deal with them...a racist and vengeful public looking for a scapegoat would have had no problem lynching thousaands of Japanese in America.

Do we have evidence of this happening to those who weren't interned?

The same could be said for those of Romanian, Hungarian and Bulgarian ancestry, which indicates that this is not a complete explanation.
Than maybe it's even broader. Germans, Romanians, Hungarians, and Bugarians are all Europeans. Most of the US population at the time had their family roots in Europe. That breeds familiarity.
And there's still the fact that the Japanese are the ones who struck so effectively against the USA. That made the Japanese seem more of a threat, and more extreme measures were deemed necesary.

Bump for the nightcrawlers.

They put them in camps because the US were fighting for freedom, eguality, democrazy and the American way. Which means all that don't comply end up in a not so nice place. And even sometimes if they do comply. Just ask the Cherokee.

It was probably a leftover from rascism against Asians. In the 1880s, Chinese immigrants were banned from entering the country. Things improved for Asians, but only a bit until the 1940s.
However, they weren't all interrned. Just those on the West Coast. Even then, those on the West Coast merely had to move inland. Most didn't have the means to, so they were sent to internment camps. The only thing about them was that it was like a birthday party compared to Dacchau, or the labor camps that the Japanese made for POWs.

The only thing about them was that it was like a birthday party compared to Dacchau, or the labor camps that the Japanese made for POWs.
I'm sure that makes the former inmates feel alot better!!!!

WWI saw very widespread abuse and internment of Americans of German ancestry. Several were even lynched.

Can someone explain to me why the US interned people of Japanese ancestry during world war II, but didn't apply the same widespread policy to those of German, Italian, Bulgarian, Hungarian and Romanian extraction?I heard one reason was to grab the land of the Nisai, who held lots of agricultural land. And yes, racism unquestionably played a large role. But I don't know much about this part of history.

The folks in the U.S. of Japanese descent might have actually been better off being interned than left for the public to deal with them...a racist and vengeful public looking for a scapegoat would have had no problem lynching thousaands of Japanese in America.I have my doubts. In any event that was decidedly not the purpose of the internment camps; they were designed to keep ethnic Japanese in, not others out.

One also must consider that, on the whole, a lot of the Japanese would have been more recent immigrants than, say, Germans. The majority in any community would have been European, so it would probably have been easier for European peoples to blend in with the rest of the population. So the Japanese, particularly along the West Coast, would have been a much more apparent "threat"... that and it hadn't been too long since the Asian immigrants were considered a threat to good, hardworking white folk. In the Canadian province of British Columbia, for example, there were some politicians who made their careers out of hating and trying to keep out these foreigners. ( By the way, Canada also interned the Japanese and stole their property. There's no need to only mention the US in this discussion.)