Japanese-American World War Two internment camp revealed

First topic message reminder :



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

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

so the view of ONE speaks for all does it??

where does that leave your argument ...(that you are so fond of )  

such as your answer to raggs quote

     "is that your bases to make all culpable?
Seriously?
There were many Germans spies captured in the US, it did not make them intern all American Germans"


if the actions of one does not make all culpable then the disagreement of one does not invalidate the view of many....

(love it when your own argument bites you in the ass)

The point is a congresman stood against this policy because he knew it was racist.
You said it was alright for the time but he certainly did not treat them that way.

Unlike other politicians of the time, Colorado Governor  Ralph L. Carr welcomed the Japanese-American internees into his state, embracing  them as citizens who deserved dignified and just treatment during their incarceration.  Governor Carr served from 1939-1943, but his relatively short tenure produced heaps of documents that testify to his compassion for and genuine interest in the Japanese families conscripted to his state.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/the_lone_politician_who_stood_against_japanese_internment.html#ixzz3r1IIerOm


Like I say even for the time it was wrong and went against the very princples of the American declaration of Independence. no matter if a majority viewed held this as right.

not the deepest thinker are you

firstly you are using the same argument as raggs to support your view....yet decrying her use of it.... (thats bad debating)

and if the majority accept something then its "right" within that society at that time......regardless....thats called democracy....

Lord Foul wrote:no Matter what you argue the simple fact is that you cannot properly subject the actions of history to the values of the present...if you do you can only understand them in the context of TODAY and not in the context of when they actually occured


and that my dear boy is a valid and accepted principle of historians today....

and if you do so you actually MISS the real horrors of what went on...


if you view this a purely a piece of american racist shit

you miss the quite scary fact that in some ways the americans were in danger of attaining the same mental processes as the nazis...........

I am afraid tou are very wrong Victor, because you forgot not only the American Declaration of Independence but the fact as seen people stood against this.
So even for the time it was wrong and seen as wrong by people.
Just as was the case with Nazism, there was people who stood against the Nazis, even though they also had a majority to gain power.
The Americans were very much racist as a majority at this time, of that there is no denying the fact, which just further adds to the point

The attack on Pearl Harbour was a terrible shock for the US wasn't it? They simply weren't prepared for it at all. I can understand the hysteria which followed, particularly as Yanks are a bit histrionic at the best of times.

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


The point is a congresman stood against this policy because he knew it was racist.
You said it was alright for the time but he certainly did not treat them that way.

Unlike other politicians of the time, Colorado Governor  Ralph L. Carr welcomed the Japanese-American internees into his state, embracing  them as citizens who deserved dignified and just treatment during their incarceration.  Governor Carr served from 1939-1943, but his relatively short tenure produced heaps of documents that testify to his compassion for and genuine interest in the Japanese families conscripted to his state.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/the_lone_politician_who_stood_against_japanese_internment.html#ixzz3r1IIerOm


Like I say even for the time it was wrong and went against the very princples of the American declaration of Independence. no matter if a majority viewed held this as right.

not the deepest thinker are you

firstly you are using the same argument as raggs to support your  view....yet decrying her use of it.... (thats bad debating)

and if the majority accept something then its "right" within that society at that time......regardless....thats called democracy....

lol coming from you that is set in prejudiced mode when you think I will take that as a compliment.

So to you the extermination of the Jews was right because of a majority then?

The attack on Poland was made by a majority Goverment, so to you it was right.

That is just absurd and you know it is.

I think this best sums it up:


Majority Rule
Democracy is defined in Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary as:

Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them either directly or through their elected agents;... a state of society characterized by nominal equality of rights and privileges.

What is left out of the dictionary definition of democracy is what constitutes "the people." In practice, democracy is governed by its most popularly understood principle: majority rule. Namely, the side with the most votes wins, whether it is an election, a legislative bill, a contract proposal to a union, or a shareholder motion in a corporation. The majority (or in some cases plurality) vote decides. Thus, when it is said that "the people have spoken" or the "people's will should be respected," the people are generally expressed through its majority.

Democracy Requires Minority Rights
Yet majority rule can not be the only expression of "supreme power" in a democracy. If so, as Tocqueville notes above, the majority would too easily tyrannize the minority. Thus, while it is clear that democracy must guarantee the expression of the popular will through majority rule, it is equally clear that it must guarantee that the majority will not abuse use its power to violate the basic and inalienable rights of the minority. For one, a defining characteristic of democracy must be the people's right to change the majority through elections. This right is the people's "supreme authority." The minority, therefore, must have the right to seek to become the majority and possess all the rights necessary to compete fairly in elections—speech, assembly, association, petition—since otherwise the majority would make itself permanent and become a dictatorship. For the majority, ensuring the minority's rights becomes a matter of self-interest, since it must utilize the same rights when it is in minority to seek to become a majority again. This holds equally true in a multiparty parliamentary democracy, where no party has a majority, since a government must still be formed in coalition by a majority of parliament members.

The Constant Threat
The American founders—Anti-Federalists and Federalists alike—considered rule by majority a troubling conundrum. In theory, majority rule was necessary for expressing the popular will and the basis for establishing the republic. The alternative—consensus or rule by everyone's agreement—cannot be imposed upon a free people. And minority rule is antithetical to democracy. But the founders worried that the majority could abuse its powers to oppress a minority just as easily as a king. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both warn in their letters about the dangers of the tyranny of the legislature and of the executive. Madison, alluding to slavery, went further, writing, "It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part."

A half century after the United States was established, Alexis de Tocqueville saw the majority's tyranny over political and social minorities as "a constant threat" to American democracy in his pre–Civil War travels. While visiting the state of Pennsylvania, when he asked why no free blacks had come to vote in a local election he was observing, he was told that "while free blacks had the legal right to vote, they feared the consequences of exercising it." Thus, he wrote, "the majority not only makes the laws, but can break them as well."

Minority Rights I: Individual Rights vs. Majority Tyranny
Democracy therefore requires minority rights equally as it does majority rule. Indeed, as democracy is conceived today, the minority's rights must be protected no matter how singular or alienated that minority is from the majority society; otherwise, the majority's rights lose their meaning. In the United States, basic individual liberties are protected through the Bill of Rights, which were drafted by James Madison and adopted in the form of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. These enumerate the rights that may not be violated by the government, safeguarding—in theory, at least—the rights of any minority against majority tyranny. Today, these rights are considered the essential element of any liberal democracy.

The British political philosopher John Stuart Mill took this principle further. In his essay On Liberty he wrote, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others." Mill's "no harm principle" aims to prevent government from becoming a vehicle for the "tyranny of the majority," which he viewed as not just a political but also a social tyranny that stifled minority voices and imposed a regimentation of thought and values. Mill's views became the basis for much of liberal political philosophy since, whether it is free market or economic liberalism or social liberalism.

How do majority rule and the protection of minority rights function in practice? Clearly, the two can easily collide when the assertion of Madisonian rights and Millian liberalism confront an unmovable democratic majority. In politics, the regularity of elections and the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances (see "Constitutional Limits") are the means for ensuring debate over the people's interests and views.

Minority Rights II: Protecting Minority Groups in Society
Madisonian and Millian principles safeguard individual and political minorities. But the danger of majority tyranny lies not just in the infringements of individual rights or the marginalization of a political minority, but in the oppression of minority groups in society based simply on criteria such as skin color, ethnicity or nationality, religion, or sexual orientation. Judicial checks on majority tyranny were supposed to expand political and civil rights over time; however, the American courts were themselves often a part of majority tyranny, as numerous Supreme Court cases attest. The 19th-century Dred Scott and Plessy v. Fergusondecisions ruled that African Americans were socially inferior and thus not guaranteed equal protection of the laws (see descriptions of these two cases on the African American History web page).


http://democracyweb.org/node/36

Shady wrote:It's quite mind numbing to watch people like Cachulin & Ben simplify war & make it look like a board game.

Their naivety is typical of people with computer war game mentality.

Press the button on the handset,the enemy disintegrates & they go onto the next level.

Dummies.

Actually, the ultimate in dumb simplicity is to say "We're fighting the Japanese, so we must lock up anybody with Japanese ancestry." That's stupid and wrong, and the people who were doing it knew they weren't doing the right thing.

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

not the deepest thinker are you

firstly you are using the same argument as raggs to support your  view....yet decrying her use of it.... (thats bad debating)

and if the majority accept something then its "right" within that society at that time......regardless....thats called democracy....

lol coming from you that is set in prejudiced mode when you think I will take that as a compliment.

So to you the extermination of the Jews was right because of a majority then?

The attack on Poland was made by a majority Goverment, so to you it was right.

That is just absurd and you know it is.

no didge that your simplistic interpretation on it...

those things were not "right" by me... and I have never claimed they were

if you cant see the difference between "understanding " something and condoning it then I suggest you seek the help of a good dictionary, and use the corect definition in this context

you undoubtedly know your history..as far as events are concerned

you have bugger all understanding of the forces that drove those events...

you lack insight into events

whats worse of course is that you also, for all your psychology, lack insight into people as individuals

every one thinks what they do is "right"

very very few criminals and even fewer psycho nut job dictators consider they are "wrong" OR even if they do they have internalised and can cope with the cognitive dissonance involved in doing something you disagree with.

|It is simplistic but true that most, if not all people will NOT do something THEY consider "bad" unless they have resolved the conflict thus caused or have some sort of deficit that lets them know act "A" is bad, but only in an intellectual way....ie they know abstractly that killing is bad and agaisnt the law.....but their personal view is ambivalent on the subject....

hitler would NOT have done what he did...IF he thought he was wrong
but he not only thought he was right...HE knew it, beyond all doubt.
he didnt start WWII "just for fun"...because he fancied playing war....

he did it because he had in his view good reason, and THAT is why the war lasted so long.....HE felt he had "just cause"

now of course we knew with as much certainty, that he was wrong and therefore we too had "just cause"

try reading "mein kampf"...its worth it to gain an insight into what was a twisted devious and utterly mad mind, but bt reading it ...wherein he makes his justifications you can "understand" how from his perspective he had to do what he did

yes yes we KNOW he was wrong....but WHY did he do it, when it was so clearly wrong???

and unless you understand THAT you utterly fail to understand the past in context....


read the following passage...the prelude to the first declaration of human rights....


THEN explain WHY it is worded thus....


unless you understand the point about hitler...you will NOT undersatnd properly the import of this document

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot, Paris
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.


from http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


lol coming from you that is set in prejudiced mode when you think I will take that as a compliment.

So to you the extermination of the Jews was right because of a majority then?

The attack on Poland was made by a majority Goverment, so to you it was right.

That is just absurd and you know it is.

no didge that your simplistic interpretation on it...

those things were not "right" by me...  and I have never claimed they were  

if you cant see the difference between "understanding " something and condoning it then I suggest you seek the help of a good dictionary, and use the corect definition in this context

you undoubtedly know your history..as far as events are concerned

you have bugger all understanding of the forces that drove those events...

you lack insight into events

whats worse of course is that you also, for all your psychology, lack insight into people as individuals

every one thinks what they do is "right"

very very few criminals and even fewer psycho nut job dictators consider they are "wrong" OR even if they do they have internalised and can cope with the cognitive dissonance involved in doing something you disagree with.

|It is simplistic but true that most, if not all people will NOT do something THEY consider "bad" unless they have resolved the conflict thus caused or have some sort of deficit that lets them know act "A" is bad, but only in an intellectual way....ie they know abstractly that killing is bad and agaisnt the law.....but their personal view is ambivalent on the subject....

hitler would NOT have done what he did...IF he thought he was wrong
but he not only thought he was right...HE knew it, beyond all doubt.
he didnt start WWII "just for fun"...because he fancied playing war....

he did it because he had in his view good reason, and THAT is why the war lasted so long.....HE felt he had "just cause"

now of course we knew with as much certainty, that he was wrong and therefore we too had "just cause"

try reading "mein kampf"...its worth it to gain an insight into what was a twisted devious and utterly mad mind, but bt reading it ...wherein he makes his justifications  you can "understand" how from his perspective he had to do what he did

yes yes we KNOW he was wrong....but WHY did he do it, when it was so clearly wrong???

and unless you understand THAT you utterly fail to understand the past in context....


read the following passage...the prelude to the first declaration of human rights....


THEN explain WHY it is worded thus....


unless you understand the point about hitler...you will NOT undersatnd properly the import of this document

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot, Paris
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.


from http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html

All bullshit

Majority Rule
Democracy is defined in Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary as:

Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them either directly or through their elected agents;... a state of society characterized by nominal equality of rights and privileges.

What is left out of the dictionary definition of democracy is what constitutes "the people." In practice, democracy is governed by its most popularly understood principle: majority rule. Namely, the side with the most votes wins, whether it is an election, a legislative bill, a contract proposal to a union, or a shareholder motion in a corporation. The majority (or in some cases plurality) vote decides. Thus, when it is said that "the people have spoken" or the "people's will should be respected," the people are generally expressed through its majority.

Democracy Requires Minority Rights
Yet majority rule can not be the only expression of "supreme power" in a democracy. If so, as Tocqueville notes above, the majority would too easily tyrannize the minority. Thus, while it is clear that democracy must guarantee the expression of the popular will through majority rule, it is equally clear that it must guarantee that the majority will not abuse use its power to violate the basic and inalienable rights of the minority. For one, a defining characteristic of democracy must be the people's right to change the majority through elections. This right is the people's "supreme authority." The minority, therefore, must have the right to seek to become the majority and possess all the rights necessary to compete fairly in elections—speech, assembly, association, petition—since otherwise the majority would make itself permanent and become a dictatorship. For the majority, ensuring the minority's rights becomes a matter of self-interest, since it must utilize the same rights when it is in minority to seek to become a majority again. This holds equally true in a multiparty parliamentary democracy, where no party has a majority, since a government must still be formed in coalition by a majority of parliament members.

The Constant Threat
The American founders—Anti-Federalists and Federalists alike—considered rule by majority a troubling conundrum. In theory, majority rule was necessary for expressing the popular will and the basis for establishing the republic. The alternative—consensus or rule by everyone's agreement—cannot be imposed upon a free people. And minority rule is antithetical to democracy. But the founders worried that the majority could abuse its powers to oppress a minority just as easily as a king. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both warn in their letters about the dangers of the tyranny of the legislature and of the executive. Madison, alluding to slavery, went further, writing, "It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part."

A half century after the United States was established, Alexis de Tocqueville saw the majority's tyranny over political and social minorities as "a constant threat" to American democracy in his pre–Civil War travels. While visiting the state of Pennsylvania, when he asked why no free blacks had come to vote in a local election he was observing, he was told that "while free blacks had the legal right to vote, they feared the consequences of exercising it." Thus, he wrote, "the majority not only makes the laws, but can break them as well."

Minority Rights I: Individual Rights vs. Majority Tyranny
Democracy therefore requires minority rights equally as it does majority rule. Indeed, as democracy is conceived today, the minority's rights must be protected no matter how singular or alienated that minority is from the majority society; otherwise, the majority's rights lose their meaning. In the United States, basic individual liberties are protected through the Bill of Rights, which were drafted by James Madison and adopted in the form of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. These enumerate the rights that may not be violated by the government, safeguarding—in theory, at least—the rights of any minority against majority tyranny. Today, these rights are considered the essential element of any liberal democracy.

The British political philosopher John Stuart Mill took this principle further. In his essay On Liberty he wrote, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others." Mill's "no harm principle" aims to prevent government from becoming a vehicle for the "tyranny of the majority," which he viewed as not just a political but also a social tyranny that stifled minority voices and imposed a regimentation of thought and values. Mill's views became the basis for much of liberal political philosophy since, whether it is free market or economic liberalism or social liberalism.

How do majority rule and the protection of minority rights function in practice? Clearly, the two can easily collide when the assertion of Madisonian rights and Millian liberalism confront an unmovable democratic majority. In politics, the regularity of elections and the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances (see "Constitutional Limits") are the means for ensuring debate over the people's interests and views.

Minority Rights II: Protecting Minority Groups in Society
Madisonian and Millian principles safeguard individual and political minorities. But the danger of majority tyranny lies not just in the infringements of individual rights or the marginalization of a political minority, but in the oppression of minority groups in society based simply on criteria such as skin color, ethnicity or nationality, religion, or sexual orientation. Judicial checks on majority tyranny were supposed to expand political and civil rights over time; however, the American courts were themselves often a part of majority tyranny, as numerous Supreme Court cases attest. The 19th-century Dred Scott and Plessy v. Fergusondecisions ruled that African Americans were socially inferior and thus not guaranteed equal protection of the laws (see descriptions of these two cases on the African American History web page).


http://democracyweb.org/node/36

Now as seen Victor if these views were way even before World War two it was in mindset and even called for the protection of minority rights, which you have failed to understand fromt the very beginning.

I know far more about history than you could ever hope to achieve in ten life times Victor and just because you have resoundly been wrong on this debate, does not mean I respect you any less.
A majority view does not make a view right, as that is like saying its is right for homosexuals to be executed in places like Saudi. Just because a group of people in one nation have a majority view, does not make the view right or acceptable when it denies the well being and equality of people the major fundemental factor you have failed to grasp throughout.

What is right is based on the golden rule, of treating others of how you would want to treat them yourself and being as it has been a fundemental aspect of American law to attempt to uphold the rights of minorities, shows that this process of placing the American Japanese in interment camps was fundementally wrong even at the time of WW2. It went against the very principles of the American constitution and was based on viewing all ethnic Japanese as the enemy, when they were fundementally American citizens.

It is like I said to rags, that these people would not have left their home in the majority if not for seeking a better life, of which many did return to after the war and did not even riot or hold a grudge. Which speaks more of their character than anything else.

Now you seem to think that a majority view held by a people at the time makes something acceptable and right. Well again you are wrong as it may have been acceptable for the German people to invade Poland, with the view it was land lost, but it was not acceptable to the maority of the rest of Europe who went to war over this. So whilst something maybe a majority within a country it is not an acceptable majority collectivelly in other nations.

So please spare me about reading Mein kampf being as I studied just about everything there was to know about Nazism and where again you seem to hold a nationalistic belief on a nation to making it right for that nation. You fail to take into account a world view.
So again not only was the interment against the very fundemental principles of US constitutions, but it was very much a view not to have a Tyranny Democracy , because people also viewed the rights of the minority. So  a majority view even if at a time does not make a right view and never will. Any view that oppresses people when  it goes against the constituional rights of people is fundementally wrong and not right

Didge wrote:Now as seen Victor if these views were way even before World War two it was in mindset and even called for the protection of minority rights, which you have failed to understand fromt the very beginning.

I know far more about history than you could ever hope to achieve in ten life times Victor and just because you have resoundly been wrong on this debate, does not mean I respect you any less.
A majority view does not make a view right, as that is like saying its is right for homosexuals to be executed in places like Saudi. Just because a group of people in one nation have a majority view, does not make the view right or acceptable when it denies the well being and equality of people the major fundemental factor you have failed to grasp throughout.

What is right is based on the golden rule, of treating others of how you would want to treat them yourself and being as it has been a fundemental aspect of American law to attempt to uphold the rights of minorities, shows that this process of placing the American Japanese in interment camps was fundementally wrong even at the time of WW2. It went against the very principles of the American constitution and was based on viewing all ethnic Japanese as the enemy, when they were fundementally American citizens.

It is like I said to rags, that these people would not have left their home in the majority if not for seeking a better life, of which many did return to after the war and did not even riot or hold a grudge. Which speaks more of their character than anything else.

Now you seem to think that a majority view held by a people at the time makes something acceptable and right. Well again you are wrong as it may have been acceptable for the German people to invade Poland, with the view it was land lost, but it was not acceptable to the maority of the rest of Europe who went to war over this. So whilst something maybe a majority within a country it is not an acceptable majority collectivelly in other nations.

So please spare me about reading Mein kampf being as I studied just about everything there was to know about Nazism and where again you seem to hold a nationalistic belief on a nation to making it right for that nation. You fail to take into account a world view.
So again not only was the interment against the very fundemental principles of US constitutions, but it was very much a view not to have a Tyranny Democracy , because people also viewed the rights of the minority. So  a majority view even if at a time does not make a right view and never will. Any view that oppresses people when  it goes against the constituional rights of people is fundementally wrong and not right

Please provide evidence to prove that you know far more about history than Lord Foul does.

Shady wrote:

Didge wrote:Now as seen Victor if these views were way even before World War two it was in mindset and even called for the protection of minority rights, which you have failed to understand fromt the very beginning.

I know far more about history than you could ever hope to achieve in ten life times Victor and just because you have resoundly been wrong on this debate, does not mean I respect you any less.
A majority view does not make a view right, as that is like saying its is right for homosexuals to be executed in places like Saudi. Just because a group of people in one nation have a majority view, does not make the view right or acceptable when it denies the well being and equality of people the major fundemental factor you have failed to grasp throughout.

What is right is based on the golden rule, of treating others of how you would want to treat them yourself and being as it has been a fundemental aspect of American law to attempt to uphold the rights of minorities, shows that this process of placing the American Japanese in interment camps was fundementally wrong even at the time of WW2. It went against the very principles of the American constitution and was based on viewing all ethnic Japanese as the enemy, when they were fundementally American citizens.

It is like I said to rags, that these people would not have left their home in the majority if not for seeking a better life, of which many did return to after the war and did not even riot or hold a grudge. Which speaks more of their character than anything else.

Now you seem to think that a majority view held by a people at the time makes something acceptable and right. Well again you are wrong as it may have been acceptable for the German people to invade Poland, with the view it was land lost, but it was not acceptable to the maority of the rest of Europe who went to war over this. So whilst something maybe a majority within a country it is not an acceptable majority collectivelly in other nations.

So please spare me about reading Mein kampf being as I studied just about everything there was to know about Nazism and where again you seem to hold a nationalistic belief on a nation to making it right for that nation. You fail to take into account a world view.
So again not only was the interment against the very fundemental principles of US constitutions, but it was very much a view not to have a Tyranny Democracy , because people also viewed the rights of the minority. So  a majority view even if at a time does not make a right view and never will. Any view that oppresses people when  it goes against the constituional rights of people is fundementally wrong and not right

Please provide evidence to prove that you know far more about history than Lord Foul does.

Sure start a thread and we can put it to the test.

What era would you like?

Or are you just being an inane idiot again?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Shady wrote:It's quite mind numbing to watch people like Cachulin & Ben simplify war & make it look like a board game.

Their naivety is typical of people with computer war game mentality.

Press the button on the handset,the enemy disintegrates & they go onto the next level.

Dummies.

Actually, the ultimate i
n dumb simplicity is to say "We're fighting the Japanese, so we must lock up anybody with Japanese ancestry." That's stupid and wrong, and the people who were doing it knew they weren't doing the right thing.

In times of war it's necessary to eliminate risk. That's how you stay alive & win wars. It's a simple battle strategy that's been used for centuries by those planning & fighting wars. What you & Cachulin are advocating is arm chair warfare where you have no responsibility or possibility of being hurt. It's quite a common facture of arm chair experts.

Didge wrote:Now as seen Victor if these views were way even before World War two it was in mindset and even called for the protection of minority rights, which you have failed to understand fromt the very beginning.

I know far more about history than you could ever hope to achieve in ten life times Vicgtor and just because you have resoundly been wrong on this debate, does not mean I respect you any less.

sometimes didgwe you are just an arrogant tit....you knowq history....you know little of the forces behind it...you are not a "people person"

A majority view does not make a view right, as that is like saying its is right for homosexuals to be executed in places like Saudi.

It is to the Saudis

Just because a group of people in one nation have a majority view, does not make the view right opr acceptable when it denies the well being and equality of people the major fundemntal factor you have failed to grasp throughout

it does in that society, if the majority is powerful enough

What is right is based on the golden rule, of treating others of how you would want to treat them yourself and being as it has been a fundemental aspect of American law to attempt to uphold the rights of minorities, shows that this process of placing the American Japanese in interment camps was fundementally wrong even at the time of WW2. It went against the very principles of the American constitution and was based on viewing all as the enemy, when they were fundementally American citiens.

again ONLY if the world view of the majority subscribe to "the golden rule"

It is like I said to rags, that these people would not have left their home in the majority if not for seeking a better life, of which many did return to after the war and did not even riot or hold a grudge. Which speaks more of their character than anything else.

Now you seem to think that a majority view held by a people at the time makes something acceptable and right.

NO and this is the biggest and most fundamental mistake you are making, and if you cant see WHY its a mistake then I'm affraid the argument is over
but for you edification.....I dont think its right .....THEY however do/did

Well again you are wrong as it may have been acceptable for the German people to invade Poland, with the view it was land lost, but it was not acceptable to the maority of the rest of Europe who went to war over this. So whilst something maybe a majority within a country it is not an acceptable majority collectivelly in other nations.

and by not understanding the first part of that and why, you increase the chances of it happening again....(also the grim fact is that the second part is bull shit too.....there would have been no war against germany IF we had not have happened to have had a treaty with the poles...the reality is no-one would have given a toss about poland if not for that....

So please spare me about reading Mein kampf being as I studied just about everything there was to know about Nazism and where again you seem to hold a nationalistic belief on a nation to making it right for that nation. You fail to take into account a world view.

no I dont....thats your imagination again...and waffle.....
If you have read mien kampf you must surely see how hitler reasoned and why.....

So again not only was the interment against the very fundemental principles of US constitutions, but it was very much a view not to have a Tyranny Democracy , because people also viewed the rights of the minority. So  a majority view even if at a time does not make a right view and never will. Any view that oppresses people when  it goes against the constituional rights of people is fundementally wrong and not right

only if ....and I mean ONLY, you are either standing outside the event looking in OR can immunise yourself on the inside to the general current of opinion

in otherwords, aside from a few inside the event (and those few dont of necessity make it wrong inside the event even though history proves then right in the end), you cannot place your (hind sight) values into those events, without distorting the picture.


the difference

YOU see an event that was wrong full stop


I see an event that we today think utterly wrong
I also see WHY even though it went against all principles and valuse of the time, they nevertheless went ahead and did it

Didge wrote:

Shady wrote:

Please provide evidence to prove that you know far more about history than Lord Foul does.

Sure start a thread and we can put it to the test.

What era would you like?

Or are you just being an inane idiot again?

Unlike you,I have no interest in point scoring as all I am interested in is debate.

Are you sexually inadequate?

Shady wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Actually, the ultimate i
n dumb simplicity is to say "We're fighting the Japanese, so we must lock up anybody with Japanese ancestry." That's stupid and wrong, and the people who were doing it knew they weren't doing the right thing.

In times of war it's necessary to eliminate risk. That's how you stay alive & win wars. It's a simple battle strategy that's been used for centuries by those planning & fighting wars. What you & Cachulin are advocating is arm chair warfare where you have no responsibility or possibility of being hurt. It's quite a common facture of arm chair experts.

How are American citizens a risk when many had been there for a couple of generations?
has it not occured to you that many had sought a life different to Japan?
Again how do you explain the honours awarded to the US 442nd Regiment in combat?
What you are saying is that people who look like the enemy should be treated like the enemy
That is racist babble, as again what you are saying is they are not citizens, even if they have led lawful lives.

Shady wrote:

Didge wrote:


Sure start a thread and we can put it to the test.

What era would you like?

Or are you just being an inane idiot again?

Unlike you,I have no interest in point scoring as all I am interested in is debate.

Are you sexually inadequate?

Is that why you constantly stir up trouble as you are doing now?

Hence you immature point on sex.

Its just shows how utterly immature you really are
Now here is a teaser for you.


I can think of at least 3 ancient societies that held comparative equal rights for women. Can you name them?

Didge wrote:

Shady wrote:

Please provide evidence to prove that you know far more about history than Lord Foul does.

Sure start a thread and we can put it to the test.

What era would you like?

Or are you just being an inane idiot again?

hes being a bit asinine didge

even if we did, I have acess to exactly the same references as you (naturally) and could easily research anything posed...
which rather nakes it a moot point....

not exactly in a "closed book" exam environment are we?????

and whats worse, is we are not talking about history per se.....but about the interpretation of historical events...

and specifically the fact that however much you argue, viewing past history (and indeed current events in different cultures) will inevitably produce a warped view of events if you place it only in the context of you own personal present views, and subsequently will lead to a faulty analysis of those events...

PROOF of which is evident in the current mess in the middle east....

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


Sure start a thread and we can put it to the test.

What era would you like?

Or are you just being an inane idiot again?

hes being a bit asinine didge

even if we did, I have acess to exactly the same references as you (naturally) and could easily research anything posed...
which rather nakes it a moot point....

not exactly in a "closed book" exam environment are we?????

and whats worse, is we are not talking about history per se.....but about the interpretation of historical events...

and specifically the fact that however much you argue, viewing past history (and indeed current events in different cultures) will inevitably produce a warped view of events if you place it only in the context of you own personal present views, and subsequently will lead to a faulty analysis of those events...

PROOF of which is evident in the current mess in the middle east....

Yes that is true and will accept that as I am sure there are parts of history you know better than I and visa versa.

Mind you the teaser I gave, I think you will be able to answer.

Thinking about it there could be 4 but the later one I think of is losely based, but they held many rights.

Hence near comparative rights would be better to say I guess.

As to the Middle east the problems are old, and more so a fear of progression, its like how the west was with change happenning, people resisted change. Though change is inevitable.

Didge wrote:

Shady wrote:

Unlike you,I have no interest in point scoring as all I am interested in is debate.

Are you sexually inadequate?

Is that why you constantly stir up trouble as you are doing now?

Hence you immature point on sex.

Its just shows how utterly immature you really are
Now here is a teaser for you.


I can think of at least 3 ancient societies that held comparative equal rights for women. Can you name them?

the ancient spanish "visigothic kingdoms " between 418 and 712

ancient hindu society

bit near to class as ancient but ...

original Sikh law from Guru Nanak (1469-1539)

possibly the vikings

comparitively speaking old welsh law

ancient egypt

and to an extent early mosaic law...at least in civil matters....

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


Is that why you constantly stir up trouble as you are doing now?

Hence you immature point on sex.

Its just shows how utterly immature you really are
Now here is a teaser for you.


I can think of at least 3 ancient societies that held comparative equal rights for women. Can you name them?

the ancient spanish "visigothic kingdoms " between 418 and 712

ancient hindu society

bit near to class as ancient but ...

original Sikh law from Guru Nanak (1469-1539)

possibly the vikings

comparitively speaking old welsh law

ancient egypt

and to an extent early mosaic law...at least in civil matters....

My fourth was the Vikings, as they did have many rights but not on who to marry in many cases

I had Egyptian also, with Celts and Spartans

Sikh I agree but is not something I would not class as ancient mind, though am sure we would differ on that

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:


the ancient spanish "visigothic kingdoms " between 418 and 712

ancient hindu society

bit near to class as ancient but ...

original Sikh law from Guru Nanak (1469-1539)

possibly the vikings

comparitively speaking old welsh law

ancient egypt

and to an extent early mosaic law...at least in civil matters....

My fourth was the Vikings, as they did have many rights but not on who to marry in many cases

I had Egyptian also, with Celts and Spartans

Sikh I agree but is not something I would not class as ancient mind, though am sure we would differ on that

not really ...I did say "a bit close to class as ancient...but"

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


My fourth was the Vikings, as they did have many rights but not on who to marry in many cases

I had Egyptian also, with Celts and Spartans

Sikh I agree but is not something I would not class as ancient mind, though am sure we would differ on that

not really ...I did say "a bit close to class as ancient...but"

I saw, and admit I did not think of the Visigoths to be honest.

returning to the point about placing todays values on past events

did you know that same principle is embedded in law??

IF you are today, convicted of a crime you did 50 years ago

you CANNOT be given a greater punishment than you would have attracted THEN
indeed as I understand it in order to avoid confusion they actually look back for similar crime in order to determine the sentence....

there is a double lock on this as well


IF you commited a crime 50 years ago and it is no longer a crime...you cannot be prosecuted


The same for cultural differences

if someone has married under vatican rules an (what we would regard as ) an underage girl
comes to this country

whilst he cant bring his wife here to live as man and wife he cannot be prosecuted either.....

I understand all that Victor, but again there is one other fundemental aspect which has been mentioned many times but not taken on board.
That if many were held through mistrust, this did not stop them recruiting American born ethnic Japanese. Granted they were asked to sign a declaration that they would swear alliegence to the US and not the Emperor of Japan, but it clearly shows they were willing to allow them to fight. In fact a quarter refused to sign not from disloyalty but from being made to declare their loyality when they already were loyal and had been whilst serving in national guard etc.
Now you can hardly keep ethnic Japanese interned and then on the other side of the coin have them fight, as it makes a complete contradiction of the internment. Many saw the interment as racist and openly stated so and still went on to fight for the US.
So what ever way you look at this the US had a contradictive policy with the American Japanese, where they could have just made the civillians sign such a declaration if all that was what was needed to make the Americans feel at ease, even though such a thing is abhorant in itself to ask.

Didge wrote:I understand all that Victor, but again there is one other fundemental aspect which has been mentioned many times but not taken on board.
That if many were held through mistrust, this did not stop them recruiting American born ethnic Japanese. Granted they were asked to sign a declaration that they would swear alliegence to the US and not the Emperor of Japan, but it clearly shows they were willing to allow them to fight. In fact a quarter refused to sign not from disloyalty but from being made to declare their loyality when they already were loyal and had been whilst serving in national guard etc.
Now you can hardly keep ethnic Japanese interned and then on the other side of the coin have them fight, as it makes a complete contradiction of the internment. Many saw the interment as racist and openly stated so and still went on to fight for the US.
So what ever way you look at this the US had a contradictive policy with the American Japanese, where they could have just made the civillians sign such a declaration if all that was what was needed to make the Americans feel at ease, even though such a thing is abhorant in itself to ask.

right enough didge...but since when has ANY govt been consistant or non contradictory...

just becasue its logical and right doesnt mean its going to motivate govt