Japanese-American World War Two internment camp revealed

A distant memory from World War Two is the internment camp in Colorado, USA, which held over 7,000 Japanese-American citizens during the war.The prisoners were sent to the Amache Japanese-American Relocation Center in Colorado, near the state border with Kansas. Today the center is abandoned and overgrown, but the original makeshift homes, school, and community hall can still be discovered on the site.
A single watchtower has been rebuilt, but during the war several watchtowers operated around the perimeter of the site to watch over the prisoners.

It is a scary reminder that just 70 years ago American citizens of Japanese origin became prisoners in their own country. It was after the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour that America joined the war. Many became increasingly suspicious of people of Japanese origin living in the U.S., fearing that they could be spying or collaborating undercover with the Japanese.

Among the Japanese detained were a cartoonist for Walt Disney and a US Army soldier who had already received the Medal of Honor during the war. The center was opened in 1942 and remained open until the war ended in 1945. It wasn’t the only camp created to house Japanese-Americans – more centers existed in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Idaho, Utah, as well as in other states.

It was President Roosevelt who ordered that any Japanese-Americans should be removed to the camps. Around half of the prisoners were children. In Colorado, the camp was located next to a housing complex for poor Mexican-American farm workers, The Seattle Times reports. The Japanese tried to make the best of it and even started their own newspaper, which featured the drawings of the Walt Disney cartoonist imprisoned there. They farmed the land, held seasonal parties and also formed a football team, while their sons of age were deployed into the US Army to fight for the Allies.

The Colorado camp is now listed on the US National Register of Historic Places and the Amache Preservation Society documents and preserves the site and the prisoners’ cemetery that still remains in the camp. Around 121 prisoners who died while in captivity are buried there. A monument has now been built at the site to commemorate all of those Japanese-Americans who were sent into military service during the war.


https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/japanese-american-world-war-two-internment-camp-revealed.html

Nowhere worse than here, in California.  They were all over the Bay Area: Sacramento, Marysville, Stockton, San Jose, Turlock, Merced, Salinas, Tulare, Fresno, Pinedale, Manzanar, and others.  They called them relocation centers, isolation centers, assembly centers or temporary camps.

People did not understand the nature of the conflict.  They did not recognize that Japan was competing for hegemony in the Pacific.  They were convinced that Japan had designs on the Pacific Coast of the US.  The Coastal canon emplacements are still here in Marin County, in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area....tours provided by the National Park Service.

That still does not excuse the camps
Even worse is men from these camps formed the US 442 Regiment, one of the mot highly decorated American units in world war 2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_Infantry_Regiment_%28United_States%29

Didge wrote:That still does not excuse the camps
Even worse is men from these camps formed the US 442 Regiment, one of the mot highly decorated American units in world war 2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_Infantry_Regiment_%28United_States%29

It's not offered as excuse, but explanation.  I admit, there is a fine line between the two.  

I remember in law school studying Kormatsu v. United States, the US Supreme Court case that decided the constitutionality of the internment camps.  All the excuses were explored, and debunked there.

Again no need for an explanation for them. It would be like having Muslims internment camps because of the war on terror. In the case of the Japanese it was a racist policy based off a view they wouold be traitors and in the end many were heroes for the US in combat

You can't blame them really after what the Japanese did to Pearl Harbour.

Raggamuffin wrote:You can't blame them really after what the Japanese did to Pearl Harbour.

That was not done by Japanese Americans, hence why it was racially wrong

They could have been collaborators.

Didge wrote:Again no need for an explanation for them. It would be like having Muslims internment camps because of the war on terror. In the case of the Japanese it was a racist policy based off a view they wouold be traitors and in the end many were heroes for the US in combat

If there's no need for explanation, why do you post this thread?  Of course there's need for discussion, and that implies some explanation, exploration and inquiry.

You are right when you say that there's a difference between Japanese and Japanese-Americans.  But it's the same thing going on today with the general feelings about Muslims, and Muslim-Americans.  The sons of Japanese-Americans went on to form one of the greatest fighting Regiments in Europe, against Hitler...the 442nd Infantry Regiment.

Wiki wrote:The 442nd Regiment was the most decorated unit for its size and length of service in the history of American warfare. The 4,000 men who initially made up the unit in April 1943 had to be replaced nearly 2.5 times. In total, about 14,000 men served, earning 9,486 Purple Hearts. The unit was awarded eight Presidential Unit Citations (5 earned in one month). Twenty-one of its members were awarded Medals of Honor. Its motto was "Go for Broke".

The 442nd consisted of sons of parents who were in Japanese internment camps.

Raggamuffin wrote:They could have been collaborators.

Is it just to imprison someone for what they could be?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:They could have been collaborators.

Is it just to imprison someone for what they could be?

If there's a possibility that lives might be lost, I don't see why not. There was a war on you know.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Again no need for an explanation for them. It would be like having Muslims internment camps because of the war on terror. In the case of the Japanese it was a racist policy based off a view they wouold be traitors and in the end many were heroes for the US in combat

If there's no need for explanation, why do you post this thread?  Of course there's need for discussion, and that implies some explanation, exploration and inquiry.

You are right when you say that there's a difference between Japanese and Japanese-Americans.  But it's the same thing going on today with the general feelings about Muslims, and Muslim-Americans.  The sons of Japanese-Americans went on to form one of the greatest fighting Regiments in Europe, against Hitler...the 442nd Infantry Regiment.

Wiki wrote:The 442nd Regiment was the most decorated unit for its size and length of service in the history of American warfare. The 4,000 men who initially made up the unit in April 1943 had to be replaced nearly 2.5 times. In total, about 14,000 men served, earning 9,486 Purple Hearts. The unit was awarded eight Presidential Unit Citations (5 earned in one month). Twenty-one of its members were awarded Medals of Honor. Its motto was "Go for Broke".

The 442nd consisted of sons of parents who were in Japanese internment camps.

Why did I post this?
Simple to show the wrongs done to these American citizens
Yes I just posted earlier about the 442nd Quill

Raggamuffin wrote:They could have been collaborators.

Which is worst form of reason to place American citizens in camps
Remember you are not seeing them as Americans when they were Americans and are thus seeing them racially as Japanese. That is wrong on every level

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If there's no need for explanation, why do you post this thread?  Of course there's need for discussion, and that implies some explanation, exploration and inquiry.

You are right when you say that there's a difference between Japanese and Japanese-Americans.  But it's the same thing going on today with the general feelings about Muslims, and Muslim-Americans.  The sons of Japanese-Americans went on to form one of the greatest fighting Regiments in Europe, against Hitler...the 442nd Infantry Regiment.



The 442nd consisted of sons of parents who were in Japanese internment camps.

Why did I post this?
Simple to show the wrongs done to these American citizens
Yes I just posted earlier about the 442nd Quill

In other words...to explain.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:They could have been collaborators.

Which is worst form of reason to place American citizens in camps
Remember you are not seeing them as Americans when they were Americans and are thus seeing them racially as Japanese. That is wrong on every level

Fifth columnists?

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


Why did I post this?
Simple to show the wrongs done to these American citizens
Yes I just posted earlier about the 442nd Quill

In other words...to explain.

Or more like show the injustice and racism against these Americans

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Which is worst form of reason to place American citizens in camps
Remember you are not seeing them as Americans when they were Americans and are thus seeing them racially as Japanese. That is wrong on every level

Fifth columnists?

Still no justification for your racism here.
They were Americans and thus denied being treated equally as Americans and to top this off as seen they made up the 442nd Regiment one of the most highly decorated in WW2, which further proves your point wrong

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Fifth columnists?

Still no justification for your racism here.
They were Americans and thus denied being treated equally as Americans and to top this off as seen they made up the 442nd Regiment one of the most highly decorated in WW2, which further proves your point wrong

Meh.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:They could have been collaborators.

Is it just to imprison someone for what they could be?

This is the proper answer...but it's one that only an American would recognize.

You don't imprison anyone on beliefs and whims...least of all, racial characteristics. You do so only on conviction, after trial based on proper evidence and due process of law. But you have to have a Constitution in order to recognize this.

Makes you think about Guantanamo, innit?

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

In other words...to explain.

Or more like show the injustice and racism against these Americans

Semantics.

You're looking to mix it up this AM, innit? Well, football is coming on in half-an-hour, so I can only play for a bit.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


Or more like show the injustice and racism against these Americans

Semantics.  

You're looking to mix it up this AM, innit?    Well, football is coming on in half-an-hour, so I can only play for a bit.

lol you were the one that gave a poor explanation

Enjoy the football

Original Quill wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:They could have been collaborators.

Is it just to imprison someone for what they could be?

This is the proper answer...but it's one that only an American would recognize.

You don't imprison anyone on beliefs and whims...least of all, racial characteristics.  You do so only on conviction, after trial based on proper evidence and due process of law.  But you have to have a Constitution in order to recognize this.

Makes you think about Guantanamo, innit?

Yeah, it's the response of someone who sees everyone as having the same basic human rights, rather than the attitude of someone who sees herself as a guardian of a supposedly superior tribe culture.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

This is the proper answer...but it's one that only an American would recognize.

You don't imprison anyone on beliefs and whims...least of all, racial characteristics.  You do so only on conviction, after trial based on proper evidence and due process of law.  But you have to have a Constitution in order to recognize this.

Makes you think about Guantanamo, innit?

Yeah, it's the response of someone who sees everyone as having the same basic human rights, rather than the attitude of someone who sees herself as a guardian of a supposedly superior tribe culture.

It's nothing to do with culture, it's to do with there being a war on, the Yanks having been caught out once at Pearl Harbour because they didn't notice a massive attack coming, and having a load of people who may well have more loyalty to their country of origin than America.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

This is the proper answer...but it's one that only an American would recognize.

You don't imprison anyone on beliefs and whims...least of all, racial characteristics.  You do so only on conviction, after trial based on proper evidence and due process of law.  But you have to have a Constitution in order to recognize this.

Makes you think about Guantanamo, innit?

Yeah, it's the response of someone who sees everyone as having the same basic human rights, rather than the attitude of someone who sees herself as a guardian of a supposedly superior tribe culture.

It's nothing to do with culture, it's to do with there being a war on, the Yanks having been caught out once at Pearl Harbour because they didn't notice a massive attack coming, and having a load of people who may well have more loyalty to their country of origin than America.

So if we were at war with Britain, you'd support locking up British Americans on a question of where their loyalties lie?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's nothing to do with culture, it's to do with there being a war on, the Yanks having been caught out once at Pearl Harbour because they didn't notice a massive attack coming, and having a load of people who may well have more loyalty to their country of origin than America.

So if we were at war with Britain, you'd support locking up British Americans on a question of where their loyalties lie?

Sure. Why not?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

So if we were at war with Britain, you'd support locking up British Americans on a question of where their loyalties lie?

Sure. Why not?

Because it would be blatant racial discrmination.
Again they are American citizens, which you are denying them that right.
No surprise there mind

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's nothing to do with culture, it's to do with there being a war on, the Yanks having been caught out once at Pearl Harbour because they didn't notice a massive attack coming, and having a load of people who may well have more loyalty to their country of origin than America.

So if we were at war with Britain, you'd support locking up British Americans on a question of where their loyalties lie?

Sure. Why not?

So you're okay with locking up people over their nation of origin, that really says a lot.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sure. Why not?

So you're okay with locking up people over their nation of origin, that really says a lot.

What does your support for terrorism say about you?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sure. Why not?

Because it would be blatant racial discrmination.
Again they are American citizens, which you are denying them that right.
No surprise there mind

British isn't a race. You said there was no such thing as race anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

So you're okay with locking up people over their nation of origin, that really says a lot.

What does your support for terrorism say about you?

Deflection alert.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sure. Why not?

So you're okay with locking up people over their nation of origin, that really says a lot.

What does your support for terrorism say about you?

See the other thread for my full answer on this, but I don't and never have supported terrorism.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Because it would be blatant racial discrmination.
Again they are American citizens, which you are denying them that right.
No surprise there mind

British isn't a race. You said there was no such thing as race anyway.

There is such a thing called social constructs called races, and treated people different as races, or did this escape you?
Its blatant racial discrmination based off no justification but prejudice.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

British isn't a race. You said there was no such thing as race anyway.

There is such a thing called social constructs called races, and treated people different as races, or did this escape you?
Its blatant racial discrmination based off no justification but prejudice.

So you think that British people are a race. I'll remember that next time someone slates the Brits. If I'm still here that is.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


There is such a thing called social constructs called races, and treated people different as races, or did this escape you?
Its blatant racial discrmination based off no justification but prejudice.

So you think that British people are a race. I'll remember that next time someone slates the Brits. If I'm still here that is.

Oh dear someone so utterly shown up in a debate makes up things people did not state.
Again biologically races do not exist, but races exist in the form of social constructs to identify people.
So you can remember all you like how again you cannot debate and back racism as you did here

Here is what the dissent of Justices Roberts, Murphy and Jackson (author) said:

Justice Jackson dissent wrote:Korematsu was born on our soil, of parents born in Japan. The Constitution makes him a citizen of the United States by nativity, and a citizen of California by residence. No claim is made that he is not loyal to this country. There is no suggestion that, apart from the matter involved here, he is not law-abiding and well disposed. Korematsu, however, has been convicted of an act not commonly a crime. It consists merely of being present in the state whereof he is a citizen, near the place where he was born, and where all his life he has lived.

I mean can you imagine on the point Ben made?
That would be in excess of over 40 million people of British descent who would have to be interned based on the racist views of Rags

precautionary principle

NOW the lefties (in SOME cases rightly) are fanatical about H&S and one of the prime tennets of H&S is " the precautionary principle". It even underlays considerations in planning applications and such like.

YET when it comes to the safety of the nation and its citizens, becasue it clashes with their "love of anyone but their own" they throw it, not merely out of the windo, but clear across the country

quantum logic .....

Lord Foul wrote:precautionary principle

NOW the lefties (in SOME cases rightly) are fanatical about H&S  and one of the prime tennets of H&S is " the precautionary principle". It even underlays considerations in planning applications and such like.

YET when it comes to the safety of the nation and its citizens, becasue it clashes with their "love of anyone but their own" they throw it, not merely out of the windo, but clear across the country

quantum logic .....

Another one who backs racial discrmination based off no sound reason but claims a precaution which has no validity. What you are basing your view on is distrust of your own citzens, who in this case many of which went on to be a part of one of the most decorated regiments in US history.
That was gratitude for you denying them equal rights.
So to base discrmination based off no sound reason is nonsense

question...was there a perceived threat? (it matters not that , with hindsight the threat was non existant)

clearly there was

Lord Foul wrote:question...was there a perceived threat? (it matters not that , with hindsight the threat was non existant)

clearly there was

No there was not a clear threat and you need to show that there was?
What you are backing this off is a mistrust of US citizens, because of their ethnic roots.
Its hogwash what you are saying and you know it, but then you already hold the same poor prejudiced views on British loyalty

DOH...learn to read

do you know the meaning of "perceived"???

I didnt say "clear threat", or even extant threat...

I said "PERCEIVED"

in otherwords...someon...in a position to do so perceived a potential threat that could be safely neiutralised by internment so they did....

given it was "WAR" and such "sensibilities" as "racism" are not considered often in such circumstances, whilst with hindsight we can say it was wrong at the time I can understand WHY it was done...

moreover...the attitudes of the time were different to now...they had not been poisoned by years of lefty waffle

Lord Foul wrote:DOH...learn to read

do you know the meaning of "perceived"???

I didnt say "clear threat", or even extant threat...

I said "PERCEIVED"

in otherwords...someon...in a position to do so perceived a potential threat that could be safely neiutralised by internment   so they did....

given it was "WAR" and such "sensibilities" as "racism" are not considered often in such circumstances, whilst with hindsight we can say it was wrong at the time I can understand WHY it was done...

moreover...the attitudes of the time were different to now...they had not been poisoned by years of lefty waffle

Do learn to understand your reasoning is complete bollocks
Even perceived is based on mistrust of their own citizens, where American Germans or Italians civillians were not interned in the numbers that Japanese Americans were, which further proves this was far more racial than meets the eye, based on them being Asian
So your view to perceived threat is sheer racist on every level
And you are so boring when you constantly crap on about lefties
I fail to see how your prejudiced views are in anyway better, as they seek to divide people and not integrate.
This being a glowing example

Lord Foul wrote:precautionary principle

NOW the lefties (in SOME cases rightly) are fanatical about H&S  and one of the prime tennets of H&S is " the precautionary principle". It even underlays considerations in planning applications and such like.

YET when it comes to the safety of the nation and its citizens, becasue it clashes with their "love of anyone but their own" they throw it, not merely out of the windo, but clear across the country

quantum logic .....

Congratulations, that's another thing you have in common with Dick Cheney:

"If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis ... It's about our response."

Do learn to understand that the REAL world does not conform to your twisted view of "what it should be" and learn to recognise that not only are historical EVENTS relevant but historical VIEWPOINTS

you constantly make the schoolboy error of imputing the values of NOW onto the actions of a different time

this does NOT work and at best provides a distorted view of past events, a virtual "rewriting" of history, at worst it results in a total dislocation of cause and effect in the historical context.

were they wrong to do it...by OUR standards, in OUR time frame...yes, Is our time frame relevant to the events of then....NO

so stop making this "personal...as in "my prejudiced view", or I will begin to beleive that you merely wish to close down any debate that "disgrees with you"

It's not really a question of whether it was right or wrong, it's a question of whether it was understandable or not, given the circumstances. I think it was.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:precautionary principle

NOW the lefties (in SOME cases rightly) are fanatical about H&S  and one of the prime tennets of H&S is " the precautionary principle". It even underlays considerations in planning applications and such like.

YET when it comes to the safety of the nation and its citizens, becasue it clashes with their "love of anyone but their own" they throw it, not merely out of the windo, but clear across the country

quantum logic .....

Congratulations, that's another thing you have in common with Dick Cheney:

"If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis ... It's about our response."

as opposed to????

if theres a 99% chance of the same we should stick our heads in the sand and hope ??? perhaps....

of course i know you would be happy with a terrorist nuke going off in washington....lets face it it would be 100,000$ of technology used to cause 50c of damage.....(thats me being "racist" to and "bullying" you guys )

now your dick is wrong....if theres a perceived 1% chance then they should be doing everything to either confim it or dispose of the notion....IF its confirmed then its no longer a mere 1% chance and action ...whatever reponse...is perhaps appropriate.

but the POINT is .as I pointed out, above and you are guilty of the same mistake....you CANNOT put OUR present day values onto the actions of THEN....

you dismal conform or suffer lefties hadnt got your goddamned hands on things at that time.....

Raggamuffin wrote:It's not really a question of whether it was right or wrong, it's a question of whether it was understandable or not, given the circumstances. I think it was.

exactly my point ragga....

looking back it was highly illogical and the wrong thing to do....

at the time however.........

Lord Foul wrote:Do learn to understand that the REAL world does not conform to your twisted view of "what it should be" and learn to recognise that not only are historical EVENTS relevant but historical VIEWPOINTS

you constantly make the schoolboy error of imputing the values of NOW onto the actions of a different time

this does NOT work and at best provides a distorted view of past events, a virtual "rewriting" of history, at worst it results in a total dislocation of cause and effect in the historical context.

were they wrong to do it...by OUR standards, in OUR time frame...yes, Is our time frame relevant to the events of then....NO

so stop making this "personal...as in "my prejudiced view", or I will begin to beleive that you merely wish to close down any debate that "disgrees with you"

Let's not pretend that this happened in Ancient Greece or something. There are people who are still alive that this happened to, since half of the interred were young children (or did you not know that?).

The values of today are reactions to the values of yesteryear. People at that time knew it was wrong and worked to make sure it didn't happen again and that history remembered it.

Lord Foul wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:precautionary principle

NOW the lefties (in SOME cases rightly) are fanatical about H&S  and one of the prime tennets of H&S is " the precautionary principle". It even underlays considerations in planning applications and such like.

YET when it comes to the safety of the nation and its citizens, becasue it clashes with their "love of anyone but their own" they throw it, not merely out of the windo, but clear across the country

quantum logic .....

Congratulations, that's another thing you have in common with Dick Cheney:

"If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis ... It's about our response."

as opposed to????

if theres a 99% chance of the same we should stick our heads in the sand and hope ???  perhaps....

of course i know you would be happy with a terrorist nuke going off in washington....lets face it it would be 100,000$ of technology used to cause 50c of damage.....(thats me being "racist" to and "bullying" you guys   )

now your dick is wrong....if theres a perceived 1% chance then they should be doing everything to either confim it or dispose of the notion....IF its confirmed then its no longer a mere 1% chance and action ...whatever reponse...is perhaps appropriate.

but the POINT is .as I pointed out, above and you are guilty of the same mistake....you CANNOT put OUR present day values onto the actions of THEN....

you dismal conform or suffer lefties hadnt got your goddamned hands on things at that time.....

You just say the most vile things without even thinking about them. Yeah, I'd love for terrorists to nuke D.C. Maybe then they could bomb London and we could throw a big gay terrorist orgy here in Leftyville, slaughter some babies while we're at it and drink their blood

Lord Foul wrote:Do learn to understand that the REAL world does not conform to your twisted view of "what it should be" and learn to recognise that not only are historical EVENTS relevant but historical VIEWPOINTS

you constantly make the schoolboy error of imputing the values of NOW onto the actions of a different time

this does NOT work and at best provides a distorted view of past events, a virtual "rewriting" of history, at worst it results in a total dislocation of cause and effect in the historical context.

were they wrong to do it...by OUR standards, in OUR time frame...yes, Is our time frame relevant to the events of then....NO

so stop making this "personal...as in "my prejudiced view", or I will begin to beleive that you merely wish to close down any debate that "disgrees with you"

Again what a load of inane drivel based again on a pretence that people will betray based solely off their ethnicity. It is the real world where people like you hold unfounded prejudiced beleifs. Again far more Japanese civillians where interrned that German or Italian, clearly showing the racial prejudice here. Not only that the fact that the 442nd produced more medals than other US regiments in history puts paid to your daft reasoning , which is built again from the most ignorant prejudice beliefs
Its not personal, you do hold some very backward prejudiced beliefs that again are based on mistrust where there has been nothing to substanciate such mistrust.
It was the Japanese that attacked on Pearl harbour, not American Japanese
They were wrong to do so for the time, there is no denying this and its not speaking in hindsight as again many American German and Italians did not suffer the same fate